Hi!
We are being introduced to academic writing in our ASTU class. Since the term began, we talked about genre, citation, and summaries. I find the Giltrow textbook useful because it presents and explains this new style of writing in a very understandable manner.
For example, it called academic writing a genre, with the equation:
Genre = Situation + Form
In ASTU class, we discussed how different situations with different aims would give rise to different forms of writing. Relating to our context, the different setting of university – with the goal of research and “production of knowledge” – would require a specific style of writing different from high school. Similar to what Anna H. wrote in the class summary, my previous view of citation was merely giving credit to the researchers to avoid plagiarism. I have never considered academic writing as a genre or “scholarly conversation” before. Hence, after hearing it being put this way, I experienced a “eureka” moment and understood.
Similarly, the musical analogy of “Orchestrating voices” left a strong impression on me. In class, Professor Luger built on this with terms like “conductor”, “full symphony”, “duet” and “solo”. She talked about how the academic article writer is like a “conductor”, with full control of which scholars speak, when, and how.
These eureka moments shed light to academic culture, and are significant in bringing me out of my state of confusion. I did the IB Diploma programme in the last two years of high school. Students were required to complete an “Extended Essay”– a coursework component on a research topic of their choice, and it is like a mini-dissertation. My Extended Essay was a literature review of research articles about my topic from Psychology. Likewise, I had to search and read many research articles.
I struggled with comprehension. I could not identify what the researchers were trying to say easily. The sentences were lengthy – each one consisting of several clauses, and tightly packed with jargon, new concepts, abbreviations, and psychological inventories that I was not familiar with. While I did not look much at the statistical elements, the p-values and tables nevertheless broke the flow of reading. The citations did too. It was very difficult orientating myself around what the results showed (because in Psychology, it is often a comparison between two conditions). I felt stressed, frustrated, and thought that it was my problem for not understanding the articles. I believed my reading ability was diminishing because I was losing the flow.
The writing process was equally difficult. My teacher told us that it is like “building a story” – add levels by finding arguments that support, refute, or from alternative viewpoints, evaluate them, and add “lots of nice discussion”. Hence, I seemed to have an idea of how to write it, yet I just didn’t know how to start and write SOMETHING.
There is much to tell and much to learn from the entire process. Needless to say, I found the experience very challenging and traumatic. And rightfully so! Because I hadn’t been trained yet.
So probably because of my own experience in academic culture, I am able to relate to the ASTU course content more. Seeing academic writing as a “genre”, thinking of it as me contributing to an ongoing “scholarly conversation” through critique or extension of what previous scholars had said, and the musical analogy of “orchestrating voices”…something clicked and I have better understanding. Yet, I am still learning. For example, I currently still find it a challenge scavenging through the lengthy sentences or paragraphs to pinpoint the researcher’s main arguments or identifying their position.
So…what?
Firstly, I think that the use of analogies, metaphors, and narratives like the ones used in the Giltrow text and Professor Luger is an excellent way to explain and teach students new ideas. It is also a great memory strategy. Drawing connections by comparing a new concept to “old” knowledge/something relatable in the student’s life makes it easier for them to understand the new idea. For example, my high school Biology teacher explained the photosynthesis electron transport chain mechanism by telling a story of an energetic classmate tumbling down the stairs. My point is, I think that it this is useful because many students (at least many in Hong Kong where I come from) still use traditional methods such as rote learning. Students should be introduced and encouraged to experiment with creative methods to aid learning. It also makes the learning experience more fun and less tedious.
Lastly, I think that it is important to normalize issues. It is important to talk about challenges one face so that others don’t feel like that it is them who are finding things difficult. And that makes them (at least me before) hesitant to seek help. A few months ago, I wondered whether it was good or bad to normalise. I thought: “Knowing that you are not alone may be somewhat comforting, but that doesn’t change the situation. I still have to face my own situation and do something.” Moreover, people may simply dismiss it as “normal” and leave it as such. However, I now find normalization nice, liberating, and even empowering to know that a person is not alone, because then, people can support each other and find ways to overcome the problems together. We shouldn’t merely stop at the “dismissal” stage, but instead, move forward and find ways to actively solve the challenges. And one of the ways is to seek help.
A long post for today. Until next time!