Academic literacies twenty years on: a community-sourced literature review

In 1998, the paper ‘Student writing in higher education: an academic literacies approach’ by Mary Lea and Brian Street reinvigorated debate concerning ‘what it means to be academically literate’ (1998, p.158). It proposed a new way of examining how students learn at university and introduced the term ‘academic literacies’. Subsequently, a body of literature has emerged reflecting the significant theoretical and practical impact Lea and Street’s paper has had on a range of academic and professional fields. This literature review covers articles selected by colleagues in our professional communities of the Association for Learning Development in Higher Education (ALDinHE), BALEAP the global forum for English for Academic Purposes (EAP) professionals, and the European Association of Teachers of Academic Writing (EATAW). As a community-sourced literature review, this text brings together reviews of wide range of texts and a diverse range of voices reflecting a multiplicity of perspectives and understandings of academic literacies. We have organised the material according to the themes: Modality, Identity, Focus on text, Implications for research, and Implications for practice. We conclude with observations relevant to these themes, which we hope will stimulate further debate, research and professional collaborations between our members and subscribers

The significance of the field of practice ‘Learning Development’ in UK higher education

This thesis analyses Learning Development (LD), a field of practice designed to support students’ learning, and explores what this relatively new field can tell us about certain aspects of higher education in the UK. Theoretical work deriving from Foucault underpins the research. The empirical data is constructed from interviews, observation and reflexive autoethnographic sources, and the analytical thrust employs sociolinguistic tools from critical discourse analysis. The result is a case study of identity, offering unique insights into the field of LD itself and, through the ‘lens’ of LD, an original focus upon the production of relationships and their effects, as policies are enacted, within HE in the UK in the early 21st century. Although previous studies have examined the identities and practices of different university workers in terms of concepts such as ‘tribes’ and ‘territories’, and the impact of neoliberalism, this thesis takes a more relational approach. By combining a problematising theoretical framework with discourse analysis, it sheds light upon the mutual construction of relations between LDs, academics, students and university managers, as HE policy is produced, interpreted and enacted through practice at institutional levels. These insights also contribute to an understanding of the operation of ‘governmentality’ within universities. The LD lens brings into focus: i) the continuing drive towards commodification of all aspects of HE, including approaches to learning, under neoliberal economic and political conditions ii) the lack of preparation on the part of UK universities for some aspects of ‘diversity’ and the failure to fulfil the broad mission to widen participation commonly expressed by successive government policies since the 1990s iii) the persistence of traditional approaches to HE practices (particularly the privileging of ‘essayist’ literacy) iv) the tendency to limit student subject positions in respect of how HE is conceived and delivered The thesis concludes by offering some suggestions for further research and practice that may be useful for Learning Developers (LDs), academics and policy-makers in addressing these issues

Rethinking reflection

This paper reviews the theme of ‘reflection’ in an area of professional education. It draws upon a study involving twelve student nurses. The participants reported experiences of uncertainty, conflict and tension when asked to produce reflective written assignments related to their practice and university studies. These responses are examined and interpreted in relation to the purposes of reflection, and to issues of discourse and power