View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Processes of Writing as Mediational Tool in Higher Education

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Processes of Writing as Mediational Tool in Higher Education
Language: English
Authors: Wittek, Anne Line
Source: Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. 2018 62(3):444-460.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 17
Publication Date: 2018
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Writing Processes, Writing Instruction, Higher Education, Writing Assignments, Content Area Writing, Mediation Theory, Professional Identity, Preservice Teacher Education, Preservice Teachers, Case Studies, Vignettes, College Students
Geographic Terms: Norway
DOI: 10.1080/00313831.2016.1258664
ISSN: 0031-3831
Abstract: This article addresses writing in higher education with the primary aim of conceptualizing writing as a mediational tool. The conceptual framework consists of three concepts: "learning trajectories," "mediation," and "recontextualization." The article describes how writing can work as a mediational tool and suggests possible implications for higher education. An empirical study from the context of initial teacher education in Norway is used for the purpose of illustration. Writing activities can mediate learning in important ways. However, design elements that make students explore, contrast, and compare different meaning potentials and position themselves within disciplinary or professional discourse are crucial when considering the potential of writing as a mediational tool in higher education.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 54
Entry Date: 2018
Accession Number: EJ1174083
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFvU6Qpmpjw40fSIRjBqer-AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDG4h32ZoIbUljH_Q6gIBEICBm9v2nRm-j_nR4d9V1e1GKClXfx4Rpl2R6SLXUv3ZDU8Z8iafJtoe__CYJkql1OEq7gf_xQHv4ZRnmFcjNvRfIM495o11U1qULc-0DM0W1Ut2rIu7ZLbxedJlGm-sDVctqqysT-NNZJlQH1Kujo87-RW-nO4rHey8QfZgPduJc351IAzo-Lt1JRYG0l3b0t0nmwjcTnuP5UqEv_15
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0128702228;55b01jun.18;2018Mar28.12:27;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0128702228-1">Processes of Writing as Mediational Tool in Higher Education </title> <p>This article addresses writing in higher education with the primary aim of conceptualizing writing as a mediational tool. The conceptual framework consists of three concepts: <italic>learning trajectories</italic>, <italic>mediation</italic>, and <italic>recontextualization</italic>. The article describes how writing can work as a mediational tool and suggests possible implications for higher education. An empirical study from the context of initial teacher education in Norway is used for the purpose of illustration. Writing activities can mediate learning in important ways. However, design elements that make students explore, contrast, and compare different meaning potentials and position themselves within disciplinary or professional discourse are crucial when considering the potential of writing as a mediational tool in higher education.</p> <p>Writing activities; mediation; students’ learning trajectories; recontextualization; professional identity formation</p> <p>Written products have been embraced as powerful objects in a scientific research context, beginning when Wilhelm Humboldt designed the foundation of the first research university (Kruse, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref1">27</reflink>] ) and continuing into our present-day concept of universities as places for the production of written knowledge. However, written texts do not merely serve the function of objectifying knowledge in higher education. Writing can also function as a tool for thinking and learning. Writing is typically heralded as an educational tool with great potential to enhance learning (e.g., Burgess & Ivanič, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref2">10</reflink>] ; Carter, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref3">11</reflink>] ; Flower, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref4">18</reflink>] ). Burgess and Ivanič (2010) have gone so far as to say that “writing is an act of identity” (p. 256). They followed up by stating that when we, as teachers in higher education, ask a student to write a particular type of text, using particular media, materials, and resources, as well as particular discoursal and generic features in a particular context, we require that person to identify with other people who write this way and interpret resources in a certain way.</p> <p>This article aims to make a conceptual contribution on the possible role of writing in students’ learning trajectories across nexuses of writing practices. For this purpose, I employ an analytical framework consisting of three concepts from a sociocultural approach to learning. I have borrowed the first concept, trajectories of learning, from the Danish scholar Ole Dreier ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref5">14</reflink>] , [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref6">15</reflink>] ). Trajectories of learning are processes through which students make meaning and position themselves on the basis of participation in and comparison of different social experiences and possible interpretations of concepts and other tools. The concept also allows us as researchers to focus on timescales over which learning trajectories develop. The second concept is mediation, borrowed from the Russian scholar Lev. S. Vygotsky ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref7">46</reflink>] ). I apply the concept for further investigations of how meaning making draws heavily on the opportunities and affordances of culturally developed mediational tools. I also underline how learning trajectories in higher education are heavily supported and formed by professional and disciplinary cultures. I have borrowed the third concept, recontextualization, from the Swedish scholar Per Linell ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref8">33</reflink>] ). Researchers have rarely used this specific combination of concepts in research on writing and learning in higher education, and I argue that the suggested framework can facilitate analysis of possible relationships between writing and learning in a way that adds important nuances to already existing research on the field. I assert that culturally developed tools will always bring along some aspects of meaning, but new contextual meanings are shaped when the tools are applied in new contexts or texts. Writing can require students to explore and play around with a whole range of tools like theories, concepts, cultural and professional norms, and guidelines. When viewing these activities from the chosen theoretical perspective, writing becomes an interesting educational activity in itself because it is a way of using language.</p> <p>The research questions are:</p> <p>How can writing be conceptualized as a mediational tool for learning and thinking in higher education?</p> <p>How can writing work as a mediational tool?</p> <p>What implications can be drawn from research questions 1 and 2 regarding activities of writing in higher education?</p> <p>I use the term writing in a broad sense in the article, referring to students’ processes of producing written assignments throughout the phases of planning a text, discussing it with others, writing and rewriting drafts, and participating in response activities. For the purpose of illustrating how the conceptual argument can be used for analytical purposes, I introduce empirical findings from a Scandinavian study investigating student’s paths and struggles towards a passed paper in Initial Teacher Education and the relationship between learning and writing.</p> <hd id="AN0128702228-2">1. Conceptual Background</hd> <p>New educational programs are implementing “writing for learning,” which educational policy makers have encouraged for several years (Thompson & Wittek, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref9">45</reflink>] ). An article by Emig ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref10">17</reflink>] ) describes in detail how writing uniquely corresponds to certain powerful learning strategies. A well-known model from the cognitive approach to writing is the contribution from Flower and Hayes ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref11">19</reflink>] ), who identified three parts of the cognitive process of writing: planning, translating, and reviewing. They explained that these processes are parts of a larger process, and they are to a high degree influenced by long-term memory on one side, and the present writing task on the other. Flower and Hayes developed their model from studies using “think aloud protocols.”</p> <p>Subsequently, researchers have further developed the model (Blåsjö, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref12">9</reflink>] , [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref13">8</reflink>] ). In their influential contribution The Psychology of Written Composition from 1987, Bereiter and Scardamalia emphasized that different situations of writing demands different writing competencies and skills as well as different processes. They distinguished between knowledge telling and knowledge transforming. Bereiter and Scardamalia ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref14">7</reflink>] ) were important in underlining the contextual importance of writing activities (Blåsjö, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref15">8</reflink>] ), and their research has influenced both research and educational practice regarding writing.</p> <p>Building on their conception, Kellogg ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref16">25</reflink>] ) added a third category, knowledge crafting, which refers to a craftsmanship in writing that can be developed only by being part of a particular writing practice over time. More recent studies have also concluded that writing can serve as a powerful tool for learning (e.g., Dysthe, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref17">16</reflink>] ; Krampetz, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref18">26</reflink>] ; Lerner, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref19">30</reflink>] ). In activities such as producing assignment drafts, giving and getting feedback, and rewriting existing drafts, there is a powerful potential for learning (Linell, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref20">33</reflink>] ) because the possibilities for learning that are socially available in any social space will transcend such activities (Burgess & Ivanič, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref21">10</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Research in the field of writing as a tool for learning has gradually shifted focus from strictly cognitive accounts of learning to the social influences on cognitive activity (Smagorinsky, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref22">41</reflink>] ). According to Lea and Street ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref23">28</reflink>] ), educational research on student writing in higher education can be represented along three main lines. The first is the study skills approach, which assumes that literacy is a set of atomized skills “which students have to learn and which are treated as a kind of pathology” (p. 3). The second is the academic socialization approach, which assumes that students learn what and how to write because the university instructor inducts students into the academic culture of the discipline or profession. The third model, academic literacies, originated from the so-called “new literacy studies” (Barton, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref24">4</reflink>] ; Barton & Hamilton, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref25">5</reflink>] ; Barton, Hamilton, & Ivanič, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref26">6</reflink>] ; Lea & Street, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref27">29</reflink>] ). Because this article is positioned within the last model, I will describe it in more detail below.</p> <p>Several scholars within the new literacy approach have accentuated the close relationship between writing and learning (e.g., Barton, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref28">4</reflink>] ; Barton et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref29">6</reflink>] ; Barton & Hamilton, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref30">5</reflink>] ). Scholars have asserted that student writing and learning are issues of epistemic identities rather than skills or student socialization (Ivanič, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref31">23</reflink>] ; Thompson, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref32">44</reflink>] ). Research within the new literacy approach has demonstrated the power of writing in learning writing and learning literacy subjects as well as the impact of writing on identity formation. For example, Macken-Horarik, Devereux, Trimingham-Jack, and Wilson ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref33">34</reflink>] ) investigated literacies of pre-service teachers and the implications for both mapping and developing students’ literate competencies. They concluded that students integrate sometimes-competing meaning potentials through the production of a text in a particular genre. In another article, Burgess and Ivanič ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref34">10</reflink>] ) suggested a framework for investigating the discoursal construction of writer identity. They denied asocial conceptualizations of literacy as a set of autonomous, decontextualized skills located in the individual, and instead suggested conceptualizations of literacy as social practices (Ivanič, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref35">23</reflink>] ) as a core principle. Ivanič argued for a multi-layered view of language. To capture the view of language as embedded within and inseparable from mental and social aspects, she suggested a model including the concept of layers “to capture this sense of embeddedness, each layer surrounding a smaller one” (p. 222) (Figure 1).</p> <p>Earlier research has focused particularly on writing within literacy education, and has explored cognitive processes related to writing as social practices in a most interesting way. The approach suggested in this article concerns writing as a tool for learning and thinking in subjects beyond literacy education as well as learning and meaning-making at a personal level across the curriculum. The suggested conceptual approach aims at adding nuances to the existing body of research first by grasping how writing can help writers to explore, develop, and organize their thoughts as an ongoing process on the basis of different social experiences and second by underlining possible educational implication for higher education.</p> <hd id="AN0128702228-3">2. The Empirical Study</hd> <p>The analysis that I draw on in this article focuses on two case studies from within a wider research agenda. The broader research contexts was the Swedish-Norwegian research project entitled “The Struggle for the Text.”[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref36">1</reflink>] The results that I draw on here draw solely on the analysis of the Norwegian study and a small part of the overall analysis.[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref37">2</reflink>] Before I introduce the case studies, I will briefly describe the context of the study and the methodology applied.</p> <hd id="AN0128702228-4">2.1. Context</hd> <p>Initial teacher education (ITE) is typically characterized by its multi-disciplinary approaches and theory-practice dimensions. Thus, learning to write as well as learning from writing take place within and across different disciplinary traditions and subjects in both campus and internship schools. Additionally, in ITE, each school subject creates a conceptual context within which teachers work (Grossman & Stodolsky, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref38">22</reflink>] ). The different positions concerning writing will typically form a nexus of writing practices. Thus, ITE students are expected to act within such a nexus of writing practices and communicate with a variety of audiences for a variety of purposes in different school subjects and in different social contexts such as seminars, internships, and peer groups. In their encounters with lecturers and internship supervisors, student teachers must therefore learn how to navigate within and between different disciplinary discourses they often experience as a “battlefield” of academic disciplines and writing cultures (Macken-Horarik et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref39">34</reflink>] ). Students must relate to the distinctive features of each school subject, which creates a conceptual context within which teachers work (Grossman & Stodolsky, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref40">22</reflink>] ).</p> <p>The four-year ITE program under investigation is based at a medium-sized university college in the southern part of Norway and accredits students to teach in lower-secondary school. Years 1-3 include pedagogy (teaching on campus plus internship) (60 credits); Norwegian or mathematics (60 credits); and two other selected subjects (30 credits each). Students in their fourth year can choose either to specialize in an additional subject (60 credits), or to turn that final year into the first year of a Masters program. The core tool for learning and assessment was continuous work throughout the entire program, including an individual portfolio of written texts in different subjects. The guidelines for the ITE program emphasize that all written works produced by the students during the program must be assigned to the individual portfolio established at the outset. According to the guidelines (Guidelines, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref41">20</reflink>] ):</p> <p>A working portfolio is a digital portfolio that includes all the works of a student during ITE. The portfolio serves as documentation of the student’s progression within the subjects taken at the university campus and in internship.  …  The working portfolio needs to be submitted within the actual deadlines, and compulsory supervision on the assignments has to be completed for a student to be allowed to sit an exam. (p. 6)</p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0128702228-5">2.2. Methods</hd> <p>The case study formed part of a large Nordic research project entitled “The Struggle for the Text,” financed by the Swedish Research Council. The Norwegian case study that I draw on here employed a longitudinal, ethnographically inspired research design (Alvesson & Sköldberg, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref42">1</reflink>] ) drawing on several data sources, principally including selected student assignments and interviews with both students and teachers about their experiences of writing in ITE. The aim of the study was to explore in depth how the dynamics of writing activities create mediational tools for developing knowledge of writing, disciplinary knowledge, and professional competence as intertwined sites of learning. The Norwegian study as a whole addresses the following research question: “How do the activities of writing mediate knowledge of writing, disciplinary knowledge, and professional knowledge as intertwined sites of learning?” To approach this question, we divided our research into three phases: identifying student’s perceptions of writing and their experiences of writing as a tool for learning in ITE; identifying and investigating in depth the specific writing activities that students perceived as exemplary instructional practices; and analysing the findings from phases one and two in light of the core concepts above.</p> <p>Each of the 18 students in the sample was interviewed on two occasions. Each participant agreed (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref43">1</reflink>) to attend group interviews in autumn 2012 and spring 2013 (2-5 students per group) and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref44">2</reflink>) to send copies of written assignments from Years 3 and 4 of their studies. Altogether, we conducted 12 interviews with students from different subject areas during the two-year period of the study. In the final semester (spring 2014), we conducted follow-up interviews with three students,[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref45">3</reflink>] who were chosen as representative of the cohort because their perspectives on writing as a tool for learning reflected the dominant views of participants. Additionally, we knew from previous interviews that these students were able and willing to share interesting descriptions and reflections on their experiences. Concentrating on only three students in this phase allowed us to dig deeper into key personal narratives than in the focus groups. We collected 124 submitted assignments from the student informants from the time span of two years. These were assignments written within the following disciplinary courses: pedagogy (<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref46">12</reflink>), social science (<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref47">28</reflink>), religion (<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref48">14</reflink>), natural science (<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref49">25</reflink>), home economics (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref50">3</reflink>), English as a second language (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref51">4</reflink>), physical education (<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref52">11</reflink>), and educational leadership (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref53">4</reflink>). The collected assignments also included cross-disciplinary assignments (<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref54">9</reflink>) and the more extensive Bachelor thesis (<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref55">14</reflink>). All interviews were semi-structured around themes that included self-reflection on writing in different subjects during ITE. They also sought to elicit ideas about future practice and learning trajectories in becoming professional teachers. The questions were essentially the same as in the first and the second interviews, focusing on the themes Past and current experiences with writing, Possible connections between writing and learning, and Forward perspective.</p> <p>At the same time intervals, we also interviewed course teachers, beginning with four individual interviews with those responsible for courses running in 2012 (pedagogy, social science, natural science, and religion). Subsequently, we added two teachers of first-year subjects, pedagogy and mathematics, as they were regularly mentioned by students as especially influential in encouraging learning. This motivated us to record their personal reflections about their teaching approach, in which writing was central. We first interviewed them individually (in spring 2013) and then together in spring 2014, as both claimed to have learned from the other’s teaching approach. In all the interviews with teachers, we concentrated on the following themes: Own relationship with writing, Conception of discipline-oriented writing, Appropriate ways of using writing in ITE, and Possible connections between writing and learning.</p> <p>All interviews were audio-recorded and lasted between 60 and 120 minutes. The informants did not know what questions we were going to ask before they came to the scheduled interview. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed by all three researchers, first individually and then in collaboration. Quoted excerpts were jointly translated by the authors. In the first part of the analysis, we focused on:</p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref56">1</reflink>) categorizing what the students described as their most important experiences of writing as a tool for learning; and</p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref57">2</reflink>) identifying concrete examples of exemplary writing practices highlighted by students.</p> <p>All student informants identified the same qualities of writing activities as important. First, response and sharing of drafts should be part of the writing process; this appears to be considered the most important element. Other important qualities include high teacher expectations and continuous reflection on possible links between theory and practice (see also Solbrekke & Helstad, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref58">42</reflink>] ; Wittek, Tone, & Helstad, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref59">54</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Vignettes, as I apply them in this article, are narratives used for research purposes (Renold, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref60">38</reflink>] ), typically used in research to investigate an informant’s perceptions and views (de Lange & Wittek, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref61">13</reflink>] ). The two presented vignettes tell the stories of 2 of the 18 student informants; Ola and Heidi who where two of the three students we interviewed an extra time spring 2014. Ola and Heidi (pseudonyms), were selected for different reasons. Firstly, because their perspectives on writing as a tool for learning reflected the dominant views of participants. Secondly, because they had appeared as able and willing to share their experiences with us in a rich and reflective manner in previous interviews, and, thirdly, because their personal stories were very different. The two vignettes are constructed on the basis of the interviews and the written assignments they submitted during the two years. Vignettes are typically related to challenges and dilemmas in a specific context, presented in a transparent manner (Marshall & Rossman, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref62">35</reflink>] ). The stories applied here focus particularly on experiences with writing in ITE. However, both Ola and Heidi also refer to situations that took place before ITE and to future, imagined situations (as professional teachers). This narrative approach give room for “lived life,” and draw particularly on how the informants themselves explain their actions and how they explain how actions and events during their life history are linked. Goodsen and Sikes ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref63">21</reflink>] ), define “lifestory” as the stories about events in our lives and the stories we tell about our lives (p. 62). When Ola and Heidi tell their stories, they sometimes refer to episodes or insights that belong to other contexts than ITE. However, the elements they bring in as part of their answers are linked through the constructed narrative.</p> <p>I am mindful that the research design has clear limitations because of its narrow scope. However, this in-depth focus yielded deep insights into what mattered in students’ learning trajectories (and why it mattered). The findings must be seen in the context of a cumulative contribution to the existing body of research (Russel & Guggenheim, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref64">39</reflink>] ), enabling subsequent research to systematically address the conditions in which writing can work as a meditational tool for learning within certain circumstances, and the conditions in which learning is diminished or strengthened.</p> <hd id="AN0128702228-6">3. Two Vignettes</hd> <p>The learning trajectories of Ola and Heidi differed in crucial ways. The two students also differed significantly in how they coped with the extensive demands to produce portfolio texts and in how they talked about their identities as writers. Because of the contrasts in the two vignettes, they serve interesting illustrations for the conceptual argument that follows. In spite of their differing experiences with writing as a mediational tool, they both concluded in similar ways that correspond with the findings from the study as a whole.</p> <hd id="AN0128702228-7">3.1. Ola’s Story</hd> <p>Ola described his first year as a student teacher as being difficult. On his first written assignment (in pedagogy), he earned a D, which was a tremendous disappointment. He expressed that they had written assignments in a completely different way in upper-secondary school. He explained:</p> <p>Now, at the university college, we were supposed not to think and mean anything by ourselves, while that was exactly what was expected from us in upper-secondary school. Now, we were supposed to use references to support everything we wrote, everything should be research-based, and it took time before I understood what they meant by that. (Ola, last interview)</p> <p>Ola gradually unpacked the new rules for academic writing, but it was challenging, as it often is for students in higher education (Ask, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref65">2</reflink>] ). The teacher clearly explained some of the expectations, while he learned the others from reading and writing academic texts and being involved in response activities.</p> <p>Ola had very good results from the teacher program in general, and he chose to transform his fourth year into the first year of a Masters program in applied mathematics. When we asked him to reflect on the previous years and identify what he thought was crucial in his processes of learning, he pointed to the writing activities and collaboration in particular, even though he thought of the first year as tough. He stated that he would never forget the first time he had to stand up in front of the whole cohort and present his assignment draft. He was very nervous because he did not know what was expected from him. However, he said in the first interview, “The teacher didn’t give us a choice” as every student had to stand in front of the whole group, sharing their preliminary drafts.</p> <p>In the pedagogy classes, they worked in small groups with the expectation that they would help one another in all study work. Above all, they should respond to one another’s assignments to be submitted on the personal webpage. Although it was tough in the beginning, he stopped being nervous and gradually understood the academic way of writing and also the purpose of working in the way they did. He explained, “The teacher in pedagogy stated clearly that the profession of teaching puts high demands on the professionals, and that we had to work hard to achieve the competency needed” (last interview). Ola added that he was grateful for the high demands.</p> <p>The last interview including Ola took place half a year into the Masters program in mathematical didactics. He stated in the last interview that processes of writing made him more certain about the issue he was working on. Through writing, he became able to operationalize the concepts he was explaining. Specifically, he stated, “I have to transform my thinking of the syllabus into written sentences about the content in the syllabus.” In his bachelor thesis, Ola focused on how quality in schools is measured in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). In his thesis, he critically discussed the indicators of quality and the validity of the measurements as well as the implications for the Norwegian school system. In presenting his argument, he used a range of sources, both from the syllabus in pedagogy and from other sources from an international body of research. The assessors gave Ola a top score on his thesis (A). He certainly showed his capability for using the content from the literature in his own analytical tool on the current issue. One example of this is how he gave a thorough conceptual discussion on the notion of quality, starting with white papers from the Norwegian government and continuing with references to highly regarded scholars within the field.</p> <p>Ola repeatedly highlighted the teacher in pedagogy as the most important teacher in ITE. First, he argued, it was important that the teacher forced the students to collaborate from the very beginning. Second, he found it important that the teacher in pedagogy underscored how to structure an academic text regarding a fluent language, a logical structure, a clear argument, and so forth. These experiences established the basis for further academic writing. Third, he asserted that it was important that the teacher “forced” the students to write from the very first week, to continue writing, and to respond to one another’s drafts. In the final interview Ola stated “He put high demands on us, and because of that I became a very productive and engaged student. I learned so much from these [writing activities].”</p> <hd id="AN0128702228-8">3.2. Heidi</hd> <p>Heidi completed ITE with average results. She earned a D on her Bachelors thesis, but she was pleased with that result. She struggled throughout the ITE program. Like Ola, she said that the biggest struggle was the change from upper-secondary to the extensive production of assignments at the university college, and the demands regarding academic writing. However, Heidi also experienced struggles in unpacking the genre rules across different disciplines. One example of her struggles related to her first assignment in home economics (fourth year of ITE). The title of her assignments was “Breakfast, Crispbread and Cereals,” but Heidi explained:</p> <p>I could not do it. This was a completely new way of writing. We were now supposed to write like they do within natural science, and I didn’t know how to do that. I asked for help, but the teacher just got irritated about me and said that I should have learned how to write assignments by now. But I could not do it, and started to cry … then she helped me. (Heidi, last interview)</p> <p></p> <p>At the time of our last interview with her, Heidi was set to start her first job as a teacher in secondary school. She expressed that she was proud of eventually being a teacher. However, since she began school, she had struggled with academic work. During junior high school, she was diagnosed with dyslexia. She had always had to work diligently to complete school assignments, and she stated that that situation had not changed. The four years of teacher training were therefore likewise difficult, in particular Term 6, when the students wrote their bachelor theses (an extensive assignment of between 8,000 and 11,000 words). Regardless, Heidi found her own way of coping with her struggles also in this case.</p> <p>Heidi told us in retrospect in the last interview about the strategies she used when struggling with writing her assignments. Her first struggle was how to deal with the limitation of time. She typically needed more time than most of her peers, so she started each assignment early and worked steadily on the task until the deadline. A second strategy was to ask her peers for their responses. Similar to Ola, Heidi underlined the important support from the “culture of sharing” in her cohort. She stated that the pedagogy course in the first year was very important in teaching her to seek out this feedback. She also highlighted one particular experience where the students were asked to write a report from internship. She posted her draft assignment on her open webpage as required by the instructor in pedagogy. Heidi was also part of a Facebook group, only open to her cohort in the teacher program. On this Facebook page, one of her peer students posted a comment about Heidi’s assignment in particular: “Your first draft of the assignment from internship is awesome Heidi, well done!” That gave Heidi a strong feeling of success, it motivated her to go on, and she was less afraid to share her drafts in plenary sessions after that experience.</p> <p>The report from internship was written in collaboration with a peer student. The students had freedom to choose what issues they would focus on, but the assignment was basically a report from their work on designing a lesson plan and teaching students. The subject was social science, and Heidi and her peer made a decision to focus on something they had been working on earlier, namely recourses and different types of industry. They clearly defined their goals for the class, and then they described in detail how they planned the class along with a detailed time schedule. In the last part of the assignment, they reflected on their experiences with the class, starting with a short summary of what they did and why they did so, following up by a critical comment on their own choices: “Before we started, we were conscious that we might have been a bit ambitious with what we expected to be able to reach during the class” (Heidi, last interview). In the following plenary class, the groups were supposed to read and prepare for a response to one other group. This time, Heidi looked forward to her presentation, as she felt she had some important experiences to share with her cohort. Heidi’s third strategy was to be aware of the addressee of the text. She explained in the same interview, “I try to fit the text into the individual teacher. You must try to figure out exactly how the specific teacher prefers us to design our texts and to argue.”</p> <p>In spite of her struggles, Heidi talked about writing as an extremely important tool in her process of learning. She noted that “writing helps you learn - in all ways.” The following excerpt is interesting in light of how hard she worked to cope with the writing demands and in developing strategies for herself:</p> <p>You learn how to write from doing the writing, but you also learn the subject and the ways of reasoning that belong to the discipline. Writing actually makes you good at doing the job, to structure yourself, to put pressure on yourself in issues that you’re not very good at. (Heidi, second Interview)</p> <p>Gradually Heidi developed confidence in herself as a future teacher. She made the decision to become a working teacher in the final semester of ITE. She noted that she would make her pupils write in all classes because “to write is the most important tool for learning, both in the disciplines and across the curriculum.”</p> <hd id="AN0128702228-9">4. Conceptualizing Writing as a Mediational Tool in Higher Education</hd> <p>In this section, I will introduce the core elements of the analytical framework and apply exactly these concepts to analyze in depth how writing mediates learning for Heidi and Ola.</p> <hd id="AN0128702228-10">4.1. Trajectories of Learning</hd> <p>The first component of the analytical framework is based on the concept of trajectories of learning (Dreier, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref66">14</reflink>] ). Trajectories of learning develop continuously as participants engage in social practices according to the timescales over which they develop (Wittek, Askeland, & Aamotsbakken, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref67">52</reflink>] ). The concept draws attention to writing processes in which students may create meaning. In the ITE program, the continuous production of an electronic portfolio formed important glue for the students in linking different experiences across the four-year program and also across different contexts and disciplinary discourses. Unlike more fixed expressions, such as competence or expertise, the concept of trajectories of learning allows for flexible and dynamic conceptualization of what learning and knowledge are about.</p> <p>Both Ola and Heidi stated that their engagement unfolded particularly in actions of producing drafts, re-writing drafts, and giving/receiving responses. Learning trajectories involve continuous motion, and important sources for enhancing this motion are actions of exploring, comparing, and contrasting different experiences in relation to one another (Dreier, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref68">14</reflink>] , [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref69">15</reflink>] ). Ola highlighted the contrasting writing experiences in upper-secondary school with the university college. The instructors told him and his peers that they must substantiate their positions, but they struggled in unpacking the meaning of that requirement. Eventually they understood the requirement, became capable of taking a stance regarding the theme at stake, and argued (in a research-based manner) for their position. The key factor in this process, according to Ola, was active participation and continuous work in a range of writing activities.</p> <p>During the first years of ITE, Ola struggled with unpacking the different rules of genre within the different disciplines. However, in the last interview, Ola commented that he eventually realized that most of the written assignments at the university actually had the same structure: introduction, theory, discussion, and conclusion, with the addition of a section on methods and results for some assignments. He stated that comparing the different demands and ways of writing in different contexts allowed him to become capable of sorting out the requirements at stake in each context. Through his learning trajectory, he discovered that this specific structure acted as a core mediational tool in all the different courses he completed in ITE, even though the university lecturers did not highlight (the classical structure of Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion [IMRAD]) as an ideal for writing explicitly. According to IMRAD, academic writing demands obedience to inherent genre-specific norms, which in this case is the IMRAD structure of introduction, methods, report, and discussion sections (Aveyard, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref70">3</reflink>] ; Wittek et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref71">52</reflink>] ). The problem needs to be defined by the student but formulated according to disciplinary conventions.</p> <p>As Burgess and Ivanič ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref72">10</reflink>] ) claimed, writing plays an important role in how students develop their thinking about themselves as professionals. Different experiences from previous and current practices shape differentiated trajectories of learning for participants in the same cohort of students. Learning trajectories also unfold at an individual, cognitive level (Linell, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref73">33</reflink>] ; Vygotsky, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref74">48</reflink>] ). Learning paths are formed as students compare and contrast possible interpretations. These processes do not unfold regardless of the social contexts; the movement that goes on in students’ trajectories follows the shape of more stable institutional or disciplinary cultures. Having the ability to become a teacher is about coping with the established ways of thinking and acting within the profession of teaching, across and in the disciplines.</p> <p>In addition to preparing students for future professional life experience, all kind of experiences (successes and failures included) have an impact on how their personal identity is formed. Heidi was uncertain of her capability of being a teacher until the very last term at ITE. Her diagnosis of dyslexia was part of her writer-identity, and her experiences with writing were important for how she thought about both her academic skills in general and her opportunities for her future professional life. For Heidi, developing faith in herself as a future teacher relied on the combination of high demands from teachers on the one hand, and the way her peers and teachers believed in her on the other. Her biggest worry throughout the entire ITE-program was whether she would be able to write all the acquired written assignments and pass all the exams (most of them were written). She managed because she developed quite sophisticated and relevant strategies, as exemplified above. In the interviews, she repeatedly stated that she didn’t think she would have managed without the extensive support from her peers and the program design forcing the students into a culture of sharing.</p> <hd id="AN0128702228-11">4.2. Mediation</hd> <p>The second part of the framework is based on the idea that the world comes to us in a mediated form (Vygotsky, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref75">48</reflink>] ; Wertsch, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref76">49</reflink>] ). According to Vygotsky ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref77">46</reflink>] ), a hallmark in human consciousness is that it is associated with the use of tools, in particular psychological tools, or “signs.” Psychological tools are devices for influencing the mind and behavior of oneself or another (Daniels, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref78">12</reflink>] ). Tools mediate and reshape both the activity and the learning and thinking at a personal level (Vygotsky, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref79">48</reflink>] ). People do not act in a direct, unmediated way in the social and physical world. Rather, our contact with the world is indirect or mediated by various types of tools or mediators. Säljö ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref80">43</reflink>] ) explained, “There is no such thing as pure cognition that can be assessed per se” (p. 85). Language has been described as the most important of all human artifacts (Leontèv, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref81">31</reflink>] ; Linell, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref82">33</reflink>] ). However, it is not so much the language itself that mediates, but people using language. Knowing is objectified in culturally developed tools and set into play when groups of people interpret and use those tools (Wittek, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref83">51</reflink>] ).</p> <p>When Ola and Heidi took part in different activities of writing (e.g., planning their assignments, participating in a workshop, or writing an assignment), they constructed knowledge for the current text. They also faced different ideas in internship and in dialogue with internship mentors and pupils. In writing their assignments, they had to interpret the signs, concepts, theories, and values that they read about and were introduced to in lecturers through interaction with other people and with different types of tools available in the context (Linell, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref84">32</reflink>] ). The mediational tools (e.g., instructions, symbols, or theories on didactics in different subjects) are in themselves inscribed with meaning. Linell ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref85">33</reflink>] ) noted, “They are geared precisely toward making it possible for words, or rather: people using those words, to make meaning in situ” (p. 58). This demands a transformation of the tools that they were introduced to from interaction with other people (an interpersonal process) into a cognitive and inward (intrapersonal) process (Vygotsky, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref86">46</reflink>] , p. 57). When producing a written text, the students had to make visible for themselves and their readers how they understood the subject matter and how they positioned themselves within the relevant discourse. In other words, they had to externalize their conceptualization.</p> <p>The processes of writing are designed in this particular program in such a way that students must elaborate and relate a range of different psychological tools, such as concepts and theories, toward one another. They have to make meaning and position themselves to be able to produce the required portfolio assignments. The tools introduced to students during ITE are typically chosen by the university teachers or internship mentors from the clusters of tools within the profession of teaching, often developed through long lines of history. However, Ola and Heidi were required to make meaning in each context to figure out how the tools could be used according to the demands of each assignment and across different subjects and genre demands. Ola described his situated meaning-making as something that was partly pointed out explicitly to him by one particular teacher, and partly as something he had to unpack himself by actively engaging in activities of reading and writing in all the different disciplines involved. In contrast, Heidi explained that one of her writing strategies was to figure out what the specific recipient (teacher) wanted and then design her writing to match the anticipated expectations.</p> <p>In his analysis of the writings of Vygotsky, Wertsch ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref87">50</reflink>] ) identified a distinction between two main categories of mediation. Explicit mediation involves “the intentional introduction of signs into an ongoing flow of activity” (p. 185), while implicit mediation typically contains signs “in the form of natural language that have evolved in the service of communication, and then harnessed in their forms of activity” (p. 185). In the context of teacher education described in an earlier section, implicit mediation can include specific ways of reasoning, procedures for finding the right answer, or accepted ways of arguing within a scientific discipline (Wittek et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref88">54</reflink>] ). The genre specifications for assignments in ITE are partly explicitly mediated to the students by concrete instructions from the teachers, and partly implicitly mediated through active participation in writing and reading activities.</p> <p>When writing an assignment, students have to “try out” possible ways of positioning themselves. In light of this understanding, thinking can be conceptualized as a function that is actively supported and transformed through the use of signs and the explorative investigation of different meaning potentials of concepts and possible relations between concepts. The distinction between spontaneous and scientific concepts can be a useful avenue to elaborate on the role of writing in thinking and cognitive development (Vygotsky, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref89">47</reflink>] , p. 148). Spontaneous concepts originate from everyday experience. These types of concepts are empirical representations and do not offer systematic structures to cognition. Scientific concepts, on the other hand, benefit from the maturity of the discipline and the research-based distinctions it draws on. In students’ cognitive development, the scientific concepts will, according to Vygotsky, develop through the acquisition and mastery of scientific concepts. In other words, cognitive development is social in structure. When they are presented to students, scientific concepts are introduced as distinct networks of concepts bringing about a conceptual structure for reflective awareness and deliberate control of a phenomenon and related aspects. Scientific concepts mediate processes of generalizations more “effectively” than spontaneous concepts. Scientific concepts involve rich networks of concepts: they are generalizations of generalizations, which is exactly what gives scientific concepts such a forceful role in cognitive development. They act as structuring guides or transformative forces in cognitive development as they offer structures for meaning making. Spontaneous and scientific concepts develop in reverse directions (Vygotsky, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref90">47</reflink>] , p. 194), but the two processes are also closely connected. Spontaneous concepts work their slow way upwards; in doing so, they clear a path for the scientific concepts and their downward development. Vygotsky ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref91">47</reflink>] ) explained this development as a process of creating a series of structures necessary for the evolution of a concept’s more primitive elementary aspects, which give the concept “body and vitality” (p. 194). Scientific concepts, in turn, offer structures for the upward development of the student’s spontaneous concepts toward consciousness and thoughtful use.</p> <p>Dynamics and tensions between spontaneous and scientific concepts are specifically interesting for the issue at stake here. Activities of writing offer a practical way of manipulating signs and words and the relationships between them. This process can be illustrated by Ola’s statement: “I have to transform my thinking of the syllabus into written sentences about the content in the syllabus.” Ola’s initial thinking of the syllabus would typically result in actions of reproducing the ideas he had just read, while the transformation he mentioned resulted in actions of exploring, contrasting, and comparing possible interpretations as well as taking a stance. In Ola’s Bachelors thesis (introduced earlier), Ola took a stance regarding the development initiated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development over the last few years has led to a centralization of power, and that PISA is part of this development: “This leads to a narrow approach to how we work with quality in the Norwegian school system,” he stated, “which can lead to an understanding that quality is limited to what we can measure in quantitative terms.” He closed his thesis by arguing:</p> <p>Schooling is supposed to give all children and juveniles the knowledge and skills they need for lifelong learning and to be capable of taking part in a workplace. The main goal of PISA corresponds with this, however, it seems to be difficult to reach this the ambitions through the strong believe in that competences can be standardized.</p> <p></p> <p>Ola’s bachelor thesis was well written, and he built his argument in an independent way at the same time as he underpinned his ideas with research on the field. Such a stance as Ola took in that assignment may be stable over a longer timeline, but it might also be a position that he tried out for one specific assignment or in one particular discussion. However, regardless of the duration of a particular stance, the action of positioning oneself is an important driver in processes of learning.</p> <hd id="AN0128702228-12">4.3. Recontextualization</hd> <p>The final concept of the analytical framework is recontextualization (Linell, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref92">33</reflink>] ). When students formulate and reformulate sentences in their assignments, both content and form are responsive to prior contexts. At the same time, their writings contribute to renewing contexts. In other words, students are transforming different tools from previous situations into proper tools for the situation here and now, resulting in the tools being recontextualized.</p> <p>Ola’s assignments in natural science were written in short sentences, with nearly no references. These assignments were descriptions about how the students proceeded with their experiments in the laboratory and their conclusions, often written as a formula. Ola explained that this was how the teachers in natural science “want it.” In an interview, one of these teachers stated that the first thing he had to do when he got a new group of students was to make them “unlearn the talkative way of writing” that they had learned from classes in pedagogy and social science, and teach them how to report.</p> <p>The concept of recontextualization sheds light on how particular tools mediate meaning-making across contexts, but also reshape the activity in itself and the interaction and meaning-making within it. Leaning on Linell ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref93">32</reflink>] , p. 71), I argue that utterances are doubly contextual. Situated meanings are never constructed from scratch; rather, resources for meaning making have largely been constructed over time, within sociocultural practices. Opportunities and affordances for meaning making are actions already present in linguistic resources and contexts. Ola had good results both in pedagogy and in natural science. He caught what the different teachers wanted in terms of genre specifications and other textual traits, which is part of the learning within each discipline. In an interview, he explicitly commented that this skill of knowing the different ways of writing that come along with different subjects is important for a teacher who will be teaching in several subjects.</p> <p>It must be underlined that students cannot make sense of anything without a language or some other sort of representational system (Linell, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref94">33</reflink>] ), such as the academic culture and textual norms that exist within an initial teacher program or in an upper-secondary school. These social practices draw on established academic and professional practices that have developed through history. The trajectories of learning of Ola and Heidi were socially formed in the sense that the concrete social experiences and processes of comparing possible ways of interpretation were of core importance. However, every utterance brings about a range of meaning potentials, and the current meaning making will always have elements of individual meaning making based on social experiences and identity formation (Wittek, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref95">51</reflink>] ). Ola unpacked the genre specifications in different classes in ITE through writing activities like setting up a first draft, presenting his preliminary ideas to peers, giving and receiving responses, and rewriting drafts. Ola underlined the learning potential in assessing and giving feedback on the assignments of other students. However, there are always several possible ways of using psychological tools, and Ola had to create meaning out of the meaning potentials embedded in them. In an assignment (written in pedagogy in Term 5), Ola wrote in collaboration with two other students on how to deal with bullying. They started with a general definition of bullying. In the next section, they discussed different types of bullying. Based on the Norwegian law of schooling, they then discussed how they could work to prevent the different kinds of bullying as leaders in a classroom, and they closed their assignment by listing a few strategies for this kind of work: dialogues, observations, questionnaires, sociographic surveys, and student interviews. In processes of operationalizing concepts the way Ola and his peers did here, Linell ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref96">33</reflink>] ) argued that “the situated actions select and fill in, ‘completing’ meaning, or more precisely: completing it for current purposes” (p. 58).</p> <p>When Ola and Heidi engaged in different writing activities, they added meaning by organizing the meaning potentials, or affordances, of the tools at play (concepts related to the problem of bullying). Meanings and sense making are thereby always both situated and mediated, but they also include elements of agency. Mediational tools are inherently situated culturally, institutionally, and historically. However, they also give persons possible options for individual agency within a social system (Daniels, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref97">12</reflink>] ). Participation is necessary to create meaning; however, participation does not presuppose a full understanding of any concept. What the person needs to begin is no more than an ability to inhabit the current activity in which reason and the concept operate. When Ola and Heidi were forced to discuss their preliminary drafts as newcomers in higher education, they had to participate in academic activities where accepted or “typical” ways of thinking and acting were set into play alongside a range of disciplinary and professional concepts. In activities of writing, explicit mediation is made possible from instructions given by the teacher. Implicit mediation, on the other hand, is made possible when students participate and explore the meaning potentials of the tools they use, often without having a full understanding of those tools.</p> <p>As participants in communication, we do not share all assumptions about the activity in which we are involved. Ola stated that he really did not know what was expected from him during the first weeks at ITE, but he worked on the tasks as a newcomer by using tools and concepts, even though he entered the activities without a full understanding of the tools. Ola became a successful student in terms of having top marks on the one hand, and (according to his teachers) being an engaged and hardworking student, always prepared to help his peers (something he often was asked to do) on the other. We do not normally communicate from positions of equal opportunity; instead, we must negotiate to determine what rules should be followed here and now. When mediational tools move between activities and situations, they are typically subject to processes of recontextualization. Texts, utterances, and thoughts often travel between texts and contexts, for example between different disciplines in teacher education, as I have illustrated above by using extracts from Ola’s and Heidi’s assignments. Ola struggled with unpacking the differences in genre demands between the different disciplines; however, looking back on his experiences after four years, he realized that most assignments in higher education have the same basic structure. In order to reach that conclusion, he had to recontextualize what was expected from him in each of those textual discourses, and to compare and contrast those experiences with his previous writing experiences from upper-secondary school. Such recontextualizations bring along some aspects of meaning from the “quoted” sources or contexts, but they also bring about new meanings in the new “quoting context” (Linell, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref98">33</reflink>] , p. 248). They also involve a “difference-building process” (p. 73) in which one takes another’s (or one’s own previous) contribution, makes new use of it, and performs some kind of variation on it. This was exactly what Heidi, Ola, and their peers had to do in writing the different assignments to their portfolio. They used their ideas picked up from different program-related contexts, and they applied them for the purpose of the specific assignments and according to the genre norms in the current subject. These kinds of comparing might be demanding and challenging, as Heidi described her experience in not understanding the text conventions in the subject of home economics. But the process of relating the different ways of writing (for example in contrast to pedagogy) is a process that mediates learning in itself.</p> <hd id="AN0128702228-13">5. Conclusion and Educational Implications</hd> <p>The aim of this paper has been to elaborate on writing as a mediational tool in higher education. I used two vignettes of Ola end Heidi as examples from one particular teaching program for the purpose of illustration. Learning, from a sociocultural perspective, will rely very much on the degree to which students recontextualize the tools that they encounter in educational programs. The clusters of tools connected to writing that students “meet” at campus and in internships can be conceptualized as material representations of core values and ideas within the related disciplines and professions. Learning trajectories are thus stages of a progression that align with more stable institutional or professional networks. These networks have been stabilized by clusters of mediating tools. The concept of trajectories of learning emphasizes learning as a continuous motion, and the core argument of this paper is that activities of writing at different stages in educational programs form an important force in creating movement in students’ learning trajectories. Below I summarize the core arguments as one possible answer to the first research question: “How can writing be conceptualized as a mediational tool for learning and thinking in higher education?”</p> <p>Activities of writing are important in higher education because they make students active users of language. The activity of writing demands that the students take a range of culturally developed tools into use. That is why writing is such an important tool for learning and thinking. When students enter higher education as newcomers, they are introduced to concepts, theoretical models, and perspectives that are new to them (Jonsmoen & Greek, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref99">24</reflink>] ). In activities of writing, they must play around with these kinds of psychological tools, explore them, and investigate the relationships between them. In higher education, we often design activities of writing for students. By doing that, we invite newcomers to “the stage” (Daniels, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref100">12</reflink>] , p. 14), but the newcomers are not alone on this stage. Others on stage already have a sense of what the play is about, enough of a sense to make interaction with a newcomer possible. In this case, the word others refers to teachers or other, more experienced, students. When students in higher education are invited to the “stage,” their experiences might form significant opportunities for meaning making and cognitive development. By opportunities, I mean possibilities to investigate the established knowledge within the disciplines and the profession of teaching, but also the relationship between spontaneous and scientific concepts at a personal level. Established ways of thinking and acting are embedded in core tools within a profession or a discipline. However, they have more or less clear limitations for acceptable ways to build up a scientific argument and structure a text (Wittek & Habib, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref101">53</reflink>] ). Students also encounter possibilities for negotiation and agency within the established frames.</p> <p>Activities of writing are particularly interesting in relation to thinking and learning because such activities set a range of tools into play. Different psychological tools, perspectives, and practical solutions must be explored together, and these actions of comparison are of specific importance in processes of meaning making and learning. By comparing and contrasting different tools and ways of using them together, students can position and reposition themselves in the discourses they have to participate in as students and future professionals.</p> <p>Our thoughts and actions are mediated by the affordances and opportunities that are embedded in the linguistic tools that are set into play through activities of writing. Mediation can occur both explicitly and implicitly. Meaning making is heavily connected with reflective and conscious use of signs; however, these processes are invisible to both the teacher and the student. The analytical framework in this paper offers an understanding of reflection and consciousness as something that is beyond the awareness of learners (and teachers). What the students need initially is no more than an ability to inhabit the “stage” or the dialogical activities related to writing an assignment. In these activities, reasons and concepts operate. To enhance learning at a personal level, the tools in play must be recontextualized in ways that function for particular purposes in a specific context.</p> <p>The second research question in the paper is: “How can writing work as a mediational tool?” The answer to this empirical question must be rooted in a particular context, and I will answer it here on the basis of the empirical case introduced above. The design for writing applied in this particular ITE-program set a range of tools into play. The combination of high demands from the teachers, a structure that forces students into what they label as a “culture of sharing” (Solbrekke & Helstad, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref102">42</reflink>] ; Wittek et al., in press), and the portfolio as a glue throughout the entire program makes writing a strong and forceful mediational tool for learning.</p> <p>The third research question is: “What implications can be drawn from research questions 1 and 2 regarding activities of writing in higher education?” My argument is that activities of writing can serve as very important activities in processes of learning in higher education. However, the potential of writing as a mediational tool is fully realized only when the students engage in both individual and collaborative actions of exploring, reflecting, contrasting, and comparing different psychological tools in collaboration with other participants. As Mercer ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref103">36</reflink>] ) argued, we not only use reasoning as an individual weapon to resist other people’s agendas, but “we also use it in dialogues to find the best possible solutions to the problems we jointly encounter” (p. 151). Ola stated clearly that the crucial factor in his processes of learning during the entire period of our study was the dialogue with other voices. The first voices arose from the authors in the syllabus books. The second voices were those of the core groups who engaged in discussions about the syllabus books. Third, he underlined the learning potential in responding to peers’ written assignments. Ola stated that “the role as an assessor makes you take an analytical approach and also to see how the text can be better in all senses. These experiences also make you a better writer.”</p> <p>Activities of writing help students learn because they must use scientific and professional language actively. However, according to the cohort that Ola and Heidi were part of, the potentiality in writing for learning is specifically high if the writing activities occur within a culture of sharing, followed by high expectations and follow-up strategies held by the teachers at the university, and when the assignments require continuous reflection between theoretical ideas and practical use of these ideas. Other empirical studies have supported these findings (e.g., Daniels, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref104">12</reflink>] ; Smagorinsky, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref105">40</reflink>] ; Thompson, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref106">44</reflink>] ). In one article (Thompson & Wittek, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref107">45</reflink>] ), the authors underlined the following key design elements: First, activities of writing should allow opportunities for students to talk about the assignment before and during the process of writing. Second, the activities should introduce elements of “play” or experimentation into the activity of writing, as this allows writers to develop and challenge their own thoughts. Third, the activities should encourage students to interrelate experiences from different contexts and to relate different mediational tools as this enhances sense making and consciousness. In addition to these elements, I will add that activities of writing should be designed in a way that makes students explore and play around with possible relationship between spontaneous and scientific concepts in particular.</p> <p>Learning paths are formed as students compare and contrast possible interpretations (Linell, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref108">33</reflink>] ). These processes do not unfold regardless of social context; on the contrary, the movement in students’ trajectories follows the shape of more stable institutional or disciplinary cultures. The ability to become a teacher is in part about coping with established ways of thinking and acting within the profession of teaching and current disciplines (Newell, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref109">37</reflink>] ). University teachers typically choose the tools introduced to students during ITE because of their status as core tools within the profession of teaching, often developed within a long tradition. However, this kind of knowledge often appears as implicit knowledge, and there is reason to believe that it would help students to unpack the established conventions for academic writing within different disciplines if teachers made such conventions explicit to a larger degree (Wittek et al., in press)</p> <p>The extensive use of activities of writing is nothing new in higher education. The conceptual argument that can be drawn from this paper aligns well with the typical recommendation that time invested in writing as a central activity in educational programs is valuable. I also argue that activities of writing should include the key design elements listed above, something that might challenge (at least some of the) established practices of writing in higher education. Ola and Heidi participated in a writing culture that included several of these key design elements recommended above, and they acknowledged that writing made a significant difference in their trajectories of learning.</p> <hd id="AN0128702228-14">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>I acknowledge the support provided by the Swedish Research Council within the Nordic research project “The struggle for the text” 2012-2016. I thank the teachers and students who so willingly shared their reflections and experiences in several interviews. I also thank Thomas de Lange and the anonymous reviewers for contributing valuable responses to earlier drafts. Finally I would like to thank Mona Blåsjø, Tone Dyrdal Solbrekke and Kristin Helstad for valuable contributions to the development of the article, and Roz Ivanič for generously sharing her expertise with me.</p> <hd id="AN0128702228-15">Disclosure Statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.</p> <ref id="AN0128702228-16"> <title>Footnotes</title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref36" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext>The project was financed by the Swedish Research Council and conducted by Per Olof Erixon. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref37" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext>The study as a whole is reported in Solbrekke and Helstad (2016) and Wittek, Tone, and Helstad (in press). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref45" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext>One student responded in writing when he could not attend the scheduled interview. </bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0128702228-17"> <title>References</title> <blist> <bibtext>Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. ( 2000 ). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research. London : Sage. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Ask, S. ( 2015 ). Tillgång till framgång. Lärare och studenter om stadieövergången till högre utbildning. [Accsess to development: Teachers and students on the transformation from school to higher education] Licentiatavhandling i Nordiska språk: alternativet Svenska med didaktisk inriktning. Växjö universitet. Institutionen för humaniora. 2005. Trondheim : Tapir Akademisk forlag. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Aveyard, H. ( 2007 ). Doing a literature review in health and social care: A practical guide. Maidenhead : Open University Press. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref24" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext>Barton, D. ( 2007 ). Literacy: An introduction to the ecology of written language ( 2nd ed. ). Malden, MA : Blackwell. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref25" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext>Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. ( 1998 ). Local literacies: Reading and writing in one community. London : Routledge. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref26" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext>Barton, D., Hamilton, M., & Ivanič, R. (Eds.). ( 2000 ). Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context. London : Routledge. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref14" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext>Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. ( 1987 ). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref13" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext>Blåsjö, M. ( 2010).Skrivteori och skrivforskning. En forskningsöversikt. [Theory and research on writing: A research review]. Institusjonen för nordiska språk. Stockholm : Stockholms Universitet. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref12" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext>Blåsjö, M. 2004 Studenters skrivande i i två kunskapsbyggande miljöer [Student writing in two different environments of knowledge building]. Stockholm : Almqvist & Wiksell International. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib10" idref="ref2" type="bt">10</bibl> <bibtext>Burgess, A., & Ivanič, R. ( 2010 ). Writing and being written: Issues of identity across timescales. Written Communication,27 ( 2 ), 228 - 255. doi: 10.1177/0741088310363447 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib11" idref="ref3" type="bt">11</bibl> <bibtext>Carter, M. ( 2007 ). Ways of knowing, doing, and writing in the disciplines. College Composition and Communication,58 ( 3 ), 385 - 418. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib12" idref="ref46" type="bt">12</bibl> <bibtext>Daniels, H. ( 2016 ). Vygotsky and dialogic pedagogy. In D. Skidmore & K. Murakami (Eds.), Dialogic pedagogy: The importance of dialogue teaching and learning (pp. 34 - 50 ). Bristol : Multilingual Matters. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib13" idref="ref61" type="bt">13</bibl> <bibtext>de Lange, T., & Wittek, L. ( 2014 ). Divergent paths to parallel ends: Two routes to the doctoral dissertation. Special Edition of the Journal of School Public Relations, 35 ( 3 ), 383 - 401. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib14" idref="ref5" type="bt">14</bibl> <bibtext>Dreier, O. ( 1999 ). Personal trajectories of participation across contexts of social practice. Outlines: Critical Social Studies,1, 5 - 32. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib15" idref="ref6" type="bt">15</bibl> <bibtext>Dreier, O. ( 2008 ). Psychotherapy in everyday life. New York, NY : Cambridge University Press. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib16" idref="ref17" type="bt">16</bibl> <bibtext>Dysthe, O. ( 2002 ). Professors as mediators of academic text cultures: An interview study with advisors and master’s degree students in three disciplines in a Norwegian university. Written Communication, 19 ( 4 ), 493 - 544. doi: 10.1177/0741088022380 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib17" idref="ref10" type="bt">17</bibl> <bibtext>Emig, J. ( 1977 ). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication,28 ( 2 ), 122 - 128. doi: 10.2307/356095 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib18" idref="ref4" type="bt">18</bibl> <bibtext>Flower, L. 1994. The construction of negotiated meaning: A social cognitive theory of writing. Carbondale, IL : Sothern Illinois University Press. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib19" idref="ref11" type="bt">19</bibl> <bibtext>Flower, L. & Hayes, J. R. ( 1981 ). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication,188 ( 32 ), 365 - 387. doi: 10.2307/356600 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib20" idref="ref41" type="bt">20</bibl> <bibtext>Guidelines. ( 2012 ). Anonymous University College, Norway, submitted online and downloaded Sept. 2012. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib21" idref="ref63" type="bt">21</bibl> <bibtext>Goodsen, I., & Sikes, P. ( 2001 ). Life history research in educational settings: Learning from lives. Studies in Education and Change. Buckingham : Open University Press. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib22" idref="ref38" type="bt">22</bibl> <bibtext>Grossman, P., & Stodolsky, S. ( 1995 ). Content as context: The role of school subjects in secondary school teaching. Educational Researcher,24 ( 8 ), 5 - 11. doi: 10.3102/0013189X024008005 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib23" idref="ref31" type="bt">23</bibl> <bibtext>Ivanič, R. ( 2004 ). Discourses of writing and learning to write. Language and Education,18 ( 3 ), 220 - 245. doi: 10.1080/09500780408666877 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib24" idref="ref99" type="bt">24</bibl> <bibtext>Jonsmoen, K. M. & M. Greek 2012. “Hodet blir tungt - og tomt” - om det å skrive seg til profesjonsøvelse [“The head becomes heavy and empty” - on processes of writing towards professional work]. Norsk pedagogisk tidsskrift, 96 ( 1 ), 15 - 26. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib25" idref="ref16" type="bt">25</bibl> <bibtext>Kellogg, R.T. ( 2008 ). Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective. Journal of Writing Research,1, 1 - 26. doi: 10.17239/jowr-2008.01.01.1 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib26" idref="ref18" type="bt">26</bibl> <bibtext>Krampetz, E. M. ( 2005 ). Monograph: International comparative education. Stanford, CA : School of Education, Stanford University. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib27" idref="ref1" type="bt">27</bibl> <bibtext>Kruse, O. ( 2006 ). The origins of writing in the disciplines: Traditions of seminar writing and the Humboldtian ideal of the research university. Written Communication,23 ( 3 ), 331 - 352. doi: 10.1177/0741088306289259 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib28" idref="ref23" type="bt">28</bibl> <bibtext>Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. ( 1998 ). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education,23 ( 2 ), 157 - 172. doi: 10.1080/03075079812331380364 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib29" idref="ref27" type="bt">29</bibl> <bibtext>Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. ( 2006 ). The “academic literacies” model: Theory and applications. Theory into Practice,45 ( 4 ), 368 - 377. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4504_11 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib30" idref="ref19" type="bt">30</bibl> <bibtext>Lerner, N. ( 2007 ). Laboratory lessons for writing and science. Written Communication,24 ( 3 ), 191 - 222. doi: 10.1177/0741088307302765 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib31" idref="ref81" type="bt">31</bibl> <bibtext>Leontèv, A. ( 1974 ). The problem of activity in psychology. Soviet Psychology,27 ( 1 ), 22 - 39. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib32" idref="ref84" type="bt">32</bibl> <bibtext>Linell, P. ( 1998 ). Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspective. Amsterdam : John Benjamins. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib33" idref="ref8" type="bt">33</bibl> <bibtext>Linell, P. ( 2009 ). Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte, NC : Information Age. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib34" idref="ref33" type="bt">34</bibl> <bibtext>Macken-Horarik, M., Devereux, L., Trimingham-Jack, C., & Wilson, K. ( 2006 ). Negotiating the territory of tertiary literacies: A case study of teacher education. Linguistics and Education,17, 240 - 257. doi: 10.1016/j.linged.2006.11.001 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib35" idref="ref62" type="bt">35</bibl> <bibtext>Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. ( 2011 ). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib36" idref="ref103" type="bt">36</bibl> <bibtext>Mercer, N. ( 2013 ). The social brain, language, and goal-directed collective thinking: A social conception of cognition and its implications for understanding how we think, teach, and learn. Educational Psychologist,48 ( 3 ), 148 - 168. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2013.804394 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib37" idref="ref109" type="bt">37</bibl> <bibtext>Newell, G. E. ( 2006 ). Writing to learn: How alternative theories of school writing account for student performance. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 235 - 247 ). New York, NY : Guilford Press. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib38" idref="ref60" type="bt">38</bibl> <bibtext>Renold, E. ( 2002 ). Using vignettes in qualitative research. Building Research Capacity,3, 3 - 5. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib39" idref="ref64" type="bt">39</bibl> <bibtext>Russel, W. N. & Guggenheim, L. ( 2011 ). The evolution of Media Effects Theory: A six-stage model of cumulative research. Communication Theory, 21 ( 2 ), 169 - 196. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2011.01381.x </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib40" idref="ref105" type="bt">40</bibl> <bibtext>Smagorinsky, P. ( 2015 ) Designing the task of teaching novice teachers to design instructional tasks. In I. Thompson (Ed.), Designing tasks in secondary education: Enhancing subject understanding and student engagement (pp. 191 - 207 ). London : Routledge. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib41" idref="ref22" type="bt">41</bibl> <bibtext>Smagorinsky, P. ( 1994 ). Speaking about writing: Reflections on research methodology  ( Sage series in Written Communication, Vol. 8). Thousand Oaks, CA : SAGE. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib42" idref="ref58" type="bt">42</bibl> <bibtext>Solbrekke, T. D., & Helstad, K. ( 2016 ). Student formation in higher education: Teachers approaches matters. Teaching in Higher Education. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1207624">http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1207624</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib43" idref="ref80" type="bt">43</bibl> <bibtext>Säljö, R. ( 1999 ). Learning as the use of tools. In K. A. Littleton. (Ed.), Learning with computers: Analyzing productive interactions (pp. 144 - 161 ). London : Routledge. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib44" idref="ref32" type="bt">44</bibl> <bibtext>Thompson, I. ( 2015 ). Communication, culture, and conceptual learning: Task design in the English classroom. In I. Thompson (Ed.), Designing tasks in secondary education: Enhancing subject understanding and student engagement (pp. 86 - 107 ). London : Routledge. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib45" idref="ref9" type="bt">45</bibl> <bibtext>Thompson, I., & Wittek, L. ( 2016 ). Writing as a tool for learning: Mediation in the dialogical classroom. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction. <ulink href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221065611630068X">http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221065611630068X</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib46" idref="ref7" type="bt">46</bibl> <bibtext>Vygotsky, L. S. ( 1978 ). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib47" idref="ref89" type="bt">47</bibl> <bibtext>Vygotsky, L. S. ( 1986 ). Thought and language. London: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Library of Congress Catalog-in-publication Data. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib48" idref="ref74" type="bt">48</bibl> <bibtext>Vygotsky, L. S. ( 1987 ). Thinking and speech. In L. S. Vygotsky, Collected works (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Plenum Press. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib49" idref="ref76" type="bt">49</bibl> <bibtext>Wertsch, J. V. ( 1998 ). Mind as action. Oxford : Oxford University Press. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib50" idref="ref87" type="bt">50</bibl> <bibtext>Wertsch, J. V. ( 2007 ). Mediation. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 178 - 192 ). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib51" idref="ref83" type="bt">51</bibl> <bibtext>Wittek, L. ( 2013 ). The activity of “writing for learning” in a nursing program. Outlines. Critical Practice Studies,14 ( 1 ), 73 - 94. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib52" idref="ref67" type="bt">52</bibl> <bibtext>Wittek, L., Askeland, B., & Aamotsbakken, B. ( 2015 ). Learning from and about writing: A case study of the learning trajectories of Norwegian student teachers. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 6, 16 - 28. <ulink href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2015.02.001">http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2015.02.001</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib53" idref="ref101" type="bt">53</bibl> <bibtext>Wittek, L., & Habib, L. ( 2014 ). Quality teaching and learning as practice within different disciplinary discourses. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education,25 ( 3 ), 275 - 287. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib54" idref="ref59" type="bt">54</bibl> <bibtext>Wittek, L., Tone, D. S., & Helstad, K. ( in press ). Student teacher’s emerging meaning making about writing for learning. Outlines. </bibtext> </blist> </ref> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 1. A multi-layered view of language.</p> <aug> <p>By Anne Line Wittek</p> </aug>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1174083
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Processes of Writing as Mediational Tool in Higher Education
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wittek%2C+Anne+Line%22">Wittek, Anne Line</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Scandinavian+Journal+of+Educational+Research%22"><i>Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research</i></searchLink>. 2018 62(3):444-460.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 17
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2018
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Processes%22">Writing Processes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Instruction%22">Writing Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Assignments%22">Writing Assignments</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Content+Area+Writing%22">Content Area Writing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mediation+Theory%22">Mediation Theory</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Professional+Identity%22">Professional Identity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preservice+Teacher+Education%22">Preservice Teacher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preservice+Teachers%22">Preservice Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Case+Studies%22">Case Studies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Vignettes%22">Vignettes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Norway%22">Norway</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/00313831.2016.1258664
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0031-3831
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This article addresses writing in higher education with the primary aim of conceptualizing writing as a mediational tool. The conceptual framework consists of three concepts: "learning trajectories," "mediation," and "recontextualization." The article describes how writing can work as a mediational tool and suggests possible implications for higher education. An empirical study from the context of initial teacher education in Norway is used for the purpose of illustration. Writing activities can mediate learning in important ways. However, design elements that make students explore, contrast, and compare different meaning potentials and position themselves within disciplinary or professional discourse are crucial when considering the potential of writing as a mediational tool in higher education.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 54
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2018
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1174083
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1174083
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/00313831.2016.1258664
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
        StartPage: 444
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing Processes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Higher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing Assignments
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Content Area Writing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mediation Theory
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Professional Identity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preservice Teacher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preservice Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Case Studies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Vignettes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Norway
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Processes of Writing as Mediational Tool in Higher Education
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wittek, Anne Line
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2018
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0031-3831
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 62
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research
              Type: main
ResultId 1