Review: A Language as Social Semiotic-Based Approach 43 Review of A Language as Social Semiotic–Based Approach to Teaching and Learning in Higher Education


Australia but also more widely) of professional expertise in academic (educational) development and academic language and learning. She argues that this separation (in which, broadly, the former is staff-facing whilst the latter is student-facing) is unhelpful and calls for a reintegration of language and literacy expertise with academic development work in order to ‘promote the development of students’ language and learning simultaneously ’ (2014:1203). Percy’s analysis and her conclusions are convincing to me. If I’m asked at a party what my job is (groan), I’m never quite sure which professional title to adopt – educational developer, writing developer, learning developer, academic developer – and, similarly, as its chronic institutional grumblings attest, the university in which I work is also never quite definitively cured of its anxieties about where the work I do should belong (historically over here, logically perhaps over there?). Conveniently sheltering under the non-pindownable, un-institutional, and non-generic name, ‘Thinking Writing’, the team in which I work has always taken the view that language and learning – and knowing and being and doing – are intimately connected, and that attention to language (writing specifically) is – at least in principle – as much the responsibility of disciplinary academics as is the teaching and learning of disciplinary content; the two, that is, can’t really be separated

Similar works

Full text

oai:CiteSeerX.psu: time updated on 11/1/2017

This paper was published in CiteSeerX.

Having an issue?

Is data on this page outdated, violates copyrights or anything else? Report the problem now and we will take corresponding actions after reviewing your request.