Intervention studies in observational learning in writing

Abstract: Chair: Victoria Johansson

This overload may happen particularly in writers’ learning-to-write tasks. Students then construct a viable text and must learn from their writing activity simultaneously (e.g., Rijlaarsdam et al., 2008). In writing instruction, several attempts have been made to stimulate learners to step back and perform reflective activities to distinguish writing from learning. A method explicitly allowing a distinction between the writing and the learning task, supporting reflective activities, and permitting a direct link between writing processes and the resulting writing product is observational learning. When students learn by observation, they do not execute the writing task themselves but instead observe the learning-to-write processes and the emerging texts of (peer) models. Observational learning in writing, with either teachers, adults or students as models-to-be-observed has proven to be effective with students of various ages (e.g., Braaksma et al, 2004; Couzijn, 1999; Graham & Perin, 2007; Raedts, Rijlaarsdam, Van Waes, & Daems, 2008; Van Steendam, et al, 2010; Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2002). Observation of models can also raise observers’ self-efficacy, or personal beliefs about their capabilities to learn or perform behaviours at designated levels (Bandura, 1986, 1997).

The symposium addresses three intervention studies that examine the effects of observational learning in different age groups (primary education and secondary education), with different student populations (normal hearing students and students with hearing impairment), with several text types (argumentative texts, narratives, and descriptive texts) and with different types of models (peer models, teacher models, coping models, and mastery models).

• 
  Monica P. Koster & Huub van den Bergh
  
• 
  Learning to write is a challenging task for young students who have only just mastered the basic skills of handwriting and spelling. In primary education students are facing a double task: writing texts and learning from these writing assignments how to write a text. One way to tackle this double-task problem is by separating the text production task from the learning task. This can be achieved by observational learning: learning by observing the behavior of a model.
  
• 
  In observational learning the learner can focus exclusively on the task at hand, and the process of how to approach this task, without having to perform this task himself. Learning by observing can take many forms, depending on several factors, which are categorized in Figure 1.
  
• 
  
  
• 
  Perspective Model Type Content Phase Aim
  
• 
  Writer Teacher Mastery (part of) Process Before and during writing Prepare student for writing task
  
• 
  Coping
  
• 
  Peer Mastery
  
• 
  Coping
  
• 
  Reader Teacher
  
• 
  Reaction to text produced After writing Feedback on communicative effectiveness of text
  
• 
  Peer
  
• 
  
  
• 
  Fig. 1 Overview of factors involved in observational learning in teaching writing
  
• 
  
  
• 
  In several studies these different types of observational learning have been examined, in various contexts. Fidalgo and Torrance (2014) demonstrated that teacher modeling is a very effective intervention to improve students’ writing, Braaksma (2002) found that students wrote better argumentative texts after observing the writing process of peer models. Couzijn (1995) and Holliway and McCutchen, 2005 showed that students’ writing improved when they experience the effect their text has on a reader. Thus, we can conclude that, overall, observational learning has great potential to improve writing performance.
  
• 
  We combined the different types of observational learning in a two-month strategy-focused program for teaching writing to students grade 4 to 6. This program was tested in a large-scale experiment (N=1186), using a cross-lagged panel design with two conditions and three measurement points. Students wrote narrative, argumentative, and descriptive texts. Results show that, on average, students’ writing performance improved by almost half a grade.
  
• 
  
  
• 
  References
  
• 
  Braaksma, M.A.H. (2002). Observational learning in argumentative writing. Dissertation University of Amsterdam.
  
• 
  Couzijn, M.J. (1995). Observation of writing and reading activities. Effects on learning and transfer. Dissertation University of Amsterdam.
  
• 
  Fidalgo, R, & Torrance, M. (2014). Developing writing skills through cognitive self-regulation instruction. In Fidalgo, R., Harris, K., & Braaksma, M. (Eds.) Design principles for teaching effective writing. Leiden: Brill Editions.
  
• 
  Holliway, D.R. & McCutchen, D. (2004). Audience perspective in young writers’ composing and revising. Reading as the reader. In Rijlaarsdam, G., Allal, L., Chanquoy, P., & Largy, P. (Eds) Studies in Writing: Vol. 13. Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  
• 
  Emily Grenner & Joost van de Weijer & Lena Asker-Árnason & Victoria Johansson & Viktoria Åkerlund & Birgitta S.M. Sahlén
  
• 
  The aim of this intervention study is to investigate if observational learning can improve narrative writing skills in 11-year-olds with and without hearing impairment. Observational learning occurs when people learn new skills from observing others, who act as models (Bandura 1997). Observing peers’ reading and writing is especially important since these processes often are invisible, and children therefore lack models for their own processes. This study was theoretically and methodologically inspired by Rijlaarsdam et al. 2008.
  
• 
  
  
• 
  Participants consisted of Swedish 5th-graders from two schools (School A, n=33; and School B, n= 26) with normal hearing children (NH), and from 3rd to 8:th-grade children with hearing-impairment (HI), from “hearing classes” (n=18). Prior to the intervention, background data e.g., on working memory and linguistic background was collected. In the research design the two schools with NH children (School A and B) functioned as each other's controls. The HI-school followed the School A order.
  
• 
  
  
• 
  All participants first wrote a personal narrative on the computer, using keystroke-logging. Then the intervention followed for School A and HI-school, while School B received ordinary lessons (with no writing instructions). After the first intervention period, all participants wrote a new narrative. Thereafter, the intervention was replicated for School B, while School A and the HI-school had ordinary tutoring. After the second intervention period, all participants wrote new narratives. The intervention consisted of 5 thematically different lessons: Lesson themes were: reader perspective, chronological structure, closing elements, revising of a peer’s text and online revision.
  
• 
  
  
• 
  To evaluate the text quality, all texts (n=231) were holistically rated by three independent, trained evaluators. The results showed an improvement in quality between text 1 and text 2 for School A and the HI-School, while School B had an improvement between text 2 and text 3. This shows that narrative text quality can be improved by a short series of carefully designed intervention lessons using observational learning, which contributes to the discussion about educational methods for teaching writing.
  
• 
  
  
• 
  Further analyses will address quantitative measures of text length, lexicon, syntactic complexity, pausing and editing, as well as a comparison between the NH and HI group.
  
• 
  Martine Braaksma & Gert Rijlaarsdam & Huub van den Bergh
  
• 
  We study whether two innovative learning arrangements could improve students’ writing skills (self-efficacy for writing and argumentative text quality). We focus 1) on the type of written production activities: hypertext writing (HYP) versus linear writing (LIN), and 2) on the learning mode: performance of (hypertext) writing versus observational learning (OBS) of (hypertext) writing.
  
• 
  
  
• 
  We set up an experimental study in which 78 students (eleventh grade, pre-university level) followed a lesson series in argumentative writing in three different conditions. The three versions of the lesson series were similar in many aspects: same text type (argumentative text), theme, documentation materials, instruction time, preparatory lessons etc. Only the type of written production activities and the learning mode differed between the conditions. In the LIN condition students (n= 22) wrote their texts in linear format, in the HYP condition students (n=26) wrote texts in hypertext format, and in the OBS condition students (n=30) did not write (hyper)texts themselves, but instead observed (on video) peer writers writing their texts.
  
• 
  Before and after the lesson series, students wrote argumentative essays in linear form. Three independent raters unware of the experiment rated the text quality of these essays reliably. Furthermore, we assessed as pre- and posttest the students' self-efficacy for writing with a questionnaire.
  
• 
  
  
• 
  Results showed differential effects for both self-efficacy for writing and text quality. For self-efficacy, a relatively strong interaction between the students' initial self-efficacy and the LIN condition was observed. For text quality, an interaction between the students' initial writing skills and the HYP and OBS conditions was observed.
  
• 
  This implies:
  
• 
  1. that for "self-efficacy-strong students", linear writing was more effective than hypertext writing and observational learning; for "self-efficacy-weak students", hypertext writing and observational learning were advantageous.
  
• 
  2. that students with a higher initial writing skill wrote an argumentative text of a higher quality in the posttest when they were in the hypertext-condition or observational learning condition during the intervention than students in the linear writing condition.
  
• 
  
  

In order to take advantage of pupils’ interest and skills in new technology and to use them in favor of literature education, we planned and organized a book trailer project in subject teacher education in the University of Helsinki in fall 2014. Our paper presents and discusses this project.

In our project, teacher students of Finnish language and literature planned and filmed book trailers for 9th grade (15–16 year old) secondary school pupils. Trailers were based on novels that are often read on 9th grade, and the focus of the task was to motivate and enhance reading and promote intense involvement with the book (not to summarize the plot).

In addition to finding and testing out new ways for teaching literature at schools, the project also targeted at improving teacher education in mother tongue and literature. It aimed to give teacher students possibilities to develop their IT skills and to find out new possibilities to use technology in literature pedagogy. Such possibilities have been tried out and developed by Anders (2013) and Maaß (2010), among others.

Before and after the project, students filled in an e-survey about their motivation and ability to use technology in literature education. Preliminary analysis of the results shows that a number of students found the amount of technological support during the process insufficient, and the majority also thought that the project was quite time-consuming. However, the project as a whole was considered as motivating and inspiring.

Final results of these surveys are analyzed and discussed in the paper. They are also tied to theoretical views on shared readership and authorship (Jacobs, 2012) and the idea about affility spaces (Gee, 2003), where shared interests, goals and projects enhance literary skills.

Anders, Petra. 2013. Lyrische Texte im Deutschunterricht. Grundlagen, Methoden, multimediale Praxisvorschläge. Seelze: Klett & Kallmeyer.

Gee, J. P. 2003. What video games have to teach us about literacy and learning. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Jacobs, Gloria E. 2012. Rethinking Common Assumptions About Adolescents’ Motivation to Use Technology In and Out of School. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 56(4), 271–274.

Maaß, Claudia. 2010. "Lyrik live" - Poetry Slam, Poetry Clip, Poesiefilme, in: Deutschmagazin Nr. 05/2010, Oldenbourg, München 2010.

Writing assignments in the context of learning conceptions: A systematic analysis on Finnish writing studies during 21st century

Elina Harjunen & Johanna K. Pentikäinen & Mari Hankala & Merja Kauppinen & Pirjo E Kulju & Sara Routarinne
Abstract: This paper focuses on the forms of writing and writing assignments in language and literature classroom, and aims to present findings from a systematic analysis on Finnish writing studies during 21st century. The data consist of 78 peer-reviewed studies, doctoral dissertations and national surveys on writing in Finnish basic education. The purpose of the systematic review (Harden & Thomas 2010 ) was to investigate how much and what kind of research was conducted in the beginning of the 21st century as this was not previously studied. The results show that Finnish writing studies can be divided in to three main categories: psychological, linguistic, and pedagogical. In the majority of these studies the informants are between 7-10 years, whereas there is a few research from other age groups. In the presentation we discuss findings in the context of learning paradigms and conceptions and analyze their relation to socio-political writing practices and their validity in the multiple present-day writing contexts (Boscolo 2008; Ivanič 2004). In addition to that we will compare our findings to the short history of writing education starting from the national awakening in the end of 19th century where reading was considered as an approved skill in the community but writing remained a privileged capacity (Leino-Kaukiainen 2007).
Keywords: writing assignments, Finnish basic education, systematic review, writing studies
References:

Boscolo, P. (2008). Writing in Primary School. In C. Bazerman (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Writing. History, society, school, individual, text. New York & London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 293–309.

Harden, A. & Thomas, J. (2010). Mixed methods and systematic reviews: Examples and emerging issues. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.) SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research. Second edition. Los Angeles: Sage, 749–774.

Ivanič, R. (2004). Discourses of Writing and Learning to Write. Language and Education 18 (3), 220–245.

Leino-Kaukiainen, P. (2007). Suomalaisten kirjalliset taidot autonomian kaudella. Historiallinen aikakauskirja 105 (4), 420–438.

Supporting Visualization and Revision to Improve Expository Writing in 6th Grade Classes

Inga Harren
Abstract: This paper reports on changes in text-referenced composition by 6th graders who received visualization support while reading and writing as well as guidance from a novel tool offering counseling during the revision process.

Within the German secondary school system, it is common to combine assigned readings from multiple sources with written reports requiring a synthesis of these readings. Such reports afford knowledge integration, as well as the opportunity to develop academic writing skills in synthesis, comparison and evaluation of multiple perspectives. However, for 6th graders, it is often a challenge to choose wording and syntactical structures that result in comprehensive, coherent and well-formulated texts while capturing the essence of the original content without plagiarizing. Even though such academic writing is crucial to success across secondary school subjects (e.g., biology, geography or history), and continues to be important in vocational schools, at university, and beyond, many students continue to struggle with writing throughout their academic career.

During the reading process, the students in the treatment group inserted content elements from their reading into pre-structured visualizations – if necessary with feedback. Based on these visualizations, they wrote their first drafts. Following this, the students got further feedback concerning (1) content and (2) comprehensibility based on functional grammar (Hoffmann, 2014). They received feedback codes, which led to more extensive linguistic support (e.g. with grammatical alternatives and examples).

This report details 10 case studies of students drawn from a larger intervention study of seven mainstream 6th grade German classes at a German comprehensive school (N = 140). The results presented in this paper are based on an examination of linguistic elements in pre- and post-test data, and a review of students’ progress over a nine-week period. Future analyses will situate the results of these students within the larger intervention sample using vocabulary, reading, working memory, and linguistic background data.

Hoffmann, Ludger (2014): Deutsche Grammatik: Grundlagen für Lehrerausbildung, Schule, Deutsch als Zweitsprache und Deutsch als Fremdsprache. [German grammar: Basics for teacher education, school, German as a second language and German as a foreign language]. 2nd Edition. Berlin: ESV.

The symposium engages L1 classroom orality and listening as both L1 subjects specifically, and as the foundation for broader educational competence and communication. New Nordic research begins to shine a light on listening ability, observation and listening strategies as a new point of departure to further development of the subject of orality. The symposium displays theory and different examples of practise of educational listening and speaking and discusses policy documents to support the qualification of the areas, i.e. the teaching of aesthetic performance as “joint in-depth reading processes”, oral interpretations and gesture studies in lower and higher secondary L1-education, and the creation of ethos for the student speaker and of oral professionalism in higher education to support the communicative competence in professional life. The symposium seeks to explore emergent cross-media and cross-cultural classroom interaction through multimodal awareness and sensibility.

• 
  Kent Adelmann
  
• 
  In Key Competences for Lifelong Learning – A European Framework (EU 2007) the first key competence is called “Communication in the mother tongue”, comprising “both oral and written form” and including the skills of “listening, speaking, reading and writing” (EU 2007:4). In a Scandinavian context these communication competences are traditionally referred to as “the big four” (Otnes 1999) and listening is commonly seen as one of the four language arts. But when it comes to the national curriculum in the subject of Swedish the concept of ‘listening’ has a very young tradition (Adelmann 2002) and is still not an acknowledged reception discipline compared to and equal with reading and literature reception.
  
• 
  The text in this paper has three points of departure. The first point of departure concerns a listening background with listening research (mainly) in USA (Wolvin 2010). The theoretical framework and dialogue approach is by the Russian scholar Mikhail M. Bakhtin (1984, 1999), and I will present a language model including all the different forms of expression and reception in the mother tongue (Adelmann 2009). The second part of departure concerns the notion of ‘listening’ in the syllabus in the subject of Swedish for primary, secondary and upper secondary school, and also the syllabus for teacher education in the subject of Swedish. (Adelmann 2012) The third and final part of departure concerns an example from The Netherlands of how scientific research in the field of listening is used and in practice in the area of Healthcare (Adelmann 2014).
  
• 
  Results from the study show that scientific research in the field of listening is overwhelming in the last few decades, but on the one hand, in the Swedish school system, there seems to be no standards for listening and no listening assessment in the syllabus in the subject of Swedish, while on the other hand there are examples from other areas of society, like in Healthcare, where exemplary listening and good practice seems to be an important part in the communication competence.
  
• 
  
  
• 
  Keywords: Listening, language model, educational listening in past and future, research in the field of listening in praxis.
  
• 
  
  
• 
  References
  
• 
  Adelmann, K. (2002) Att lyssna till röster. Ett vidgat lyssnandebegrepp i ett didaktiskt perspektiv [Listening to Voices: An extended notion of listening in an educational perspective]. Dissertation. Malmö: Dissertations from School of Teacher Education, University of Malmo, Sweden. Available:
  
• 
  http://dspace.mah.se/bitstream/handle/2043/6400/adelmann.pdf?sequence=1
  
• 
  Adelmann, K. (2009) Konsten att lyssna. Didaktiskt lyssnande i skola och utbildning [The Art of Listening: Pedagogical listening in school and education]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
  
• 
  Adelmann, K. (2012) “The Art of Listening in an Educational Perspective: Listening reception in the mother tongue.” In: Education Inquiry 2012, Vol. 3, No. 4, December, pp. 513-534. Umeå: Umeå University. Available online (December 2012):
  
• 
  http://www.use.umu.se/digitalAssets/108/108978_the_art_of_eduinq_vol3_no4_dec12_513-534.pdf
  
• 
  Adelmann, K. (2014) “Listening stops on the road to recovery from cancer: Diary notes from a patient perspective”. Paper presented at the first European Listening and Healthcare Conference, October 30-31, 2014, Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Homepage: http://www.elahc.com/. For more information, see
  
• 
  www.goudenoor.nl
  
• 
  Bakhtin, M. (1984 [1929/1963]) Problems of Dostoevsky´s Poetics. Theory and History of Literature 8. C. Emerson (ed. and trans.). Minneapolis, MA: University of Minnesota Press.
  
• 
  Bakhtin, M. (1999 [1986]) Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. C. Emerson and M. Holquist (eds.). V. W. McGee (trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
  
• 
  Eu (2007) Key Competences for Lifelong Learning – A European Framework. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Available: http://www.alfa-trall.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/EU2007-keyCompetencesL3-brochure.pdf
  
• 
  Otnes, H. (1999) ”Lytting – en av de ’fire store’ i norskfaget” [”Listening – one of ‘the big four’ in the subject of Norwegian”]. In: Astrid Roe & Frøydis Hertzberg, (red.), Muntlig norsk [Oral Norwegian]. Oslo: Tano Aschehoug.
  
• 
  Wolvin, A. D. (ed.) (2010) Listening and Human Communication in the 21st Century. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
  
• 
  Tina Höegh
  
• 
  Oral readings and aesthetic performance as classroom activity are well-prepared student performances of aesthetic texts in front of the class (from lower secondary school-age till adults at all levels). The class as an investigating team is focused on listening, observing and imitating sound, meaning and textual form in explicit criteria for response to the performance in a response-dialogue.
  
• 
  To read and interpret written text is a complex process of deduction and inference and therefore a process of production of meaning for the reader in the interaction with the text. The aims of oral readings for the classroom dialogues around aesthetic texts are several: 1) to work with the producing student and the student’s creative and bodily engagement in the production of art and meaning (field of oral Interpretation, performance, and narratology). 2) to model ‘slow reading’ and interpretation strategies in general for readers in the literature study (field of reading research and literature studies). 3) to gain a subject related and focused dialogue in the classroom that expose and make clear the academic language that the students need to develop (field of classroom studies and L2 teaching). 4) as earlier described (Høegh IAIMTE conference 2013 in Paris) and further studied, to make students aware that their experiences with spoken language, sound and meaning-making are their primary skills for their interpretation of the written language. The reader’s general knowledge of cultural conventions and expertise in listening and multimodal observation is a primary source in the process of interpretation (language rhythm, gesture studies and language philosophy).
  
• 
  In my talk I discuss examples of teacher and classroom interaction around oral performance, modelling “reading between the lines”, and how the dialogue conducts narratological studies and scaffolds the reader’s knowledge of cultural communicative signing and doing conventions (Høegh forthcoming a and b). Cultural communication conventions are in all sorts of form communicated in written texts. The dialogues show our vast experience with listening and with oral strategies, experiences that need to be subject related investigations in L1 education and in higher education as objects to read (and look and listen) for.
  
• 
  
  
• 
  Keywords: Oral interpretation, oral experience, performance teaching, interactive response, multimodal observation.
  
• 
  
  
• 
  References:
  
• 
  Aczel, R. 1998. Hearing voices in narrative texts. New Literary History 29(3): 467-500.
  
• 
  Andersen, N.M. 2002. I en verden af fremmede ord. Bachtin som sprogbrugsteoretiker [In a World of Foreign Words. Bakhtin as a Theorist of Language in Use]. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.
  
• 
  Bråten, I. (ed.) 2008. Læseforståelse: Læsning i videnssamfundet – teori og praksis. Århus: Klim
  
• 
  Flewitt, R., Hampel, R., Hauck, M., Lancaster, L. 2009. What are multimodal data and transcription? In The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis, C. Jewitt (ed), 40–53. London: Routledge.
  
• 
  Hühn, Peter; Schmid, Wolf and Schönert, Jörg (Ed.). 2009. Point of View, Perspective, and Focalization: Modeling Mediation in Narrative. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
  
• 
  Gibbons, P. 2009. English Learners, Academic Literacy, and Thinking: Learning in the Challenge Zone. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
  
• 
  Høegh, T. 2012. Mundtlig fortolkning. Kreativ praksis i litteratur- og sprogundervisning. [Oral interpretation. Creative practise in literature and language teaching]. Acta Didactica Norge 6(1) http://adno.no/index.php/adno/article/view/201
  
• 
  Høegh, T. (forthcoming a) Methodological issues in analyzing human communication – the complexities of multimodality. In D. Duncker and B. Perregaard (Eds.) Creativity and Continuity. Perspectives on the Dynamics of Language Conventionalization.
  
• 
  Høegh, T. (forthcoming b) Observation and analysis through textmaking. In D. Duncker and B. Perregaard (Eds.) Creativity and Continuity. Perspectives on the Dynamics of Language Conventionalization.
  
• 
  Le Baron, C. & Streeck, J. 2000. Gestures, knowledge and the world. In Language and gesture, D. McNeill (ed), 118–139. Cambridge, England: University Press.
  
• 
  Page, R. (ed). 2010. New Perspectives on Narrative and Multimodality. New York: Routledge.
  
• 
  Rosenthal, V. 2004. Microgenesis, immediate experience and visual processes in reading. In Seeing, Thinking and Knowing. Meaning and Self-Organisation in Visual Cognition and Thought, A. Carsetti (ed), 221–243. Dordrecht. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  
• 
  Cecilia Olsson Jers
  
• 
  Communicative competence is increasingly in demand in the workplace. If you aren´t able to communicate in a competent manner, you risk not being given the responsibilities you want or perhaps not even finding employment in the first place. This entails a great responsibility on part of the university to ensure that the students are equipped with adequate communication skills for their professional life.
  
• 
  The project, Communication towards profession, aimed to identify in which way oral communicative performance in individual courses corresponds to the communicative competence that is required in professional life (Olsson Jers forthcoming a and b). The overarching research question central to the project is: Which possibilities are students given to change their oral ethos during their education?
  
• 
  The main focus of my project is on Nursing science programme. I particularly investigate communication patterns in nurse trainees. Nursing has become science in 1993 in the Swedish higher education system. This means that national targets are formulated in the governing documents. Based on The Higher Education Ordinance formulations, training can be arranged in different ways at different universities. These formulations trickle or seep down into other documents through reformulations and concretisations. All these documents are intended to support the teachers to support the students in their understanding of literacies nexus in higher education. My point of departure is in socio-culturally oriented research on academic language (e.g. Duff 2010; Lea & Street 1998). For this investigation, however, I also use rhetorical-oriented approach (e.g. McCroskey 1981; Olsson Jers 2010)
  
• 
  In this talk, I will summarize two analyses: textual analysis of policy documents on different levels, and interviews with faculty in nursing education. The results of the analyses indicate that there are difficulties to concretize and verbalize what in support of the oral language in higher education consists. This main-result highlights several questions about orality, listening, reading and writing in higher education today.
  
• 
  
  
• 
  Keywords: Higher Education Ordinance formulations, nurse trainees, oral vocational education.
  
• 
  
  
• 
  References:
  
• 
  Bergman, L & Olsson Jers, C. (2014). Vilken väg tar den kritiska granskningen? Studenter i samtal om en vetenskaplig artikel. I Högre utbildning 4(1), 35-47.
  
• 
  Duff; P. A. (2010). Language socialization into academic discourse communities. In Annual Reviews of Applied Lingustisics. 30, 169-192.
  
• 
  Hoel, T. L. (2010). Skriva på universitet och högskolor: en bok för lärare och studenter. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
  
• 
  Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary Discourse. Social Interactions in Academic writing. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.
  
• 
  Johansen, A. (2002). Talarens troverdighet: tekniske og kulturella betingelser for politisk retorikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
  
• 
  Lea, M. R. & Street, B. V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approcach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157-172.
  
• 
  Lillis, T. M. (Red.). (2005). Defining academic literacies research. Issues of epistemology, ideology and strategy. Journal of Applied Lingustics, 4(1), 5-32).
  
• 
  McCroskey, J. (1981). Ethos and credibility: the construct and its measurement after three decades. In Central states speech journal. 32, 24-34.
  
• 
  Olsson Jers, C. (2010). Klassrummet som muntlig arena: att bygga och etablera ethos. Malmö: Malmö högskola.