Abstract
This paper describes the principal findings of an ethnographic study of 20 first-year bachelor’s students of English at a large Hungarian state university. The research was done over three semesters, and the main aim was to construct a grounded theory explaining how new students become enculturated into written academic discourse in an EFL context. Another point of interest was to investigate the role played in this process by a compulsory academic skills course. The research framework drew on contrasting theoretical constructs of learning: the first was Swales’ (Other floors, other voices: A textography of a small university building. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 1998) description of the academic discourse community (ADC) and the other was Lave and Wenger’s (Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 1991) model of learning through peripheral participation in communities of practice. The theoretical model that was the outcome of the research describes the students’ experience in their first year in three phases. The main features of each phase will be described, and the usefulness of the model for understanding the broad differences between students will be discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This is indicated by the fourth circle in Fig. <InternalRef="Fig1">1</Internalref>, which is unlabelled. This represents the experience and further study necessary to become a full member of the ADC.
References
Abasi, A. R., Akbari, N., & Graves, B. (2006). Discourse appropriation, construction of identities, and the complex issue of plagiarism: ESL students writing in graduate school. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 102–117.
Bartholomae, D. (1983). Writing assignments: Where writing begins. In P. Stock (Ed.), Forum: Essays on theory and practice in writing (pp. 300–311). Upper Montclair: Boynton/Cook.
Bartholomae, D. (1985). Inventing the university. In M. Rose (Ed.), When a writer can’t write: Studies in writer’s block and other composing process problems (pp. 273–285). New York: Guilford.
Bazerman, C. (1981). What written knowledge does: Three examples of academic discourse. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 11, 361–388.
Bizzell, P. (1982). Cognition, convention, and certainty: What we need to know about writing. Pre/Text, 3, 213–243.
Bizzell, P. (1986). What happens when basic writers come to college? College Composition and Communication, 37, 294–301.
Brice-Heath, S. (1982). What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and school. Language in Society, 11, 49–76.
Brice-Heath, S. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Carter, M., Ferzli, M., & Wiebe, E. N. (2007). Writing to learn by learning to write in the disciplines. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 21, 278–302.
Charmaz, K. (1995). Grounded theory. In J. A. Smith, R. Harré, & L. Van Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. 27–49). London: SAGE.
Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: SAGE.
Chin, E. (1994). Redefining “context” in research on writing. Written Communication, 11, 445–482.
Chiseri-Strater, E. (1991). Academic literacies: The public and private discourse of university students. Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook.
Clark, R., & Ivanic, R. (1997). The politics of writing. London: Routledge.
Cooper, M. (1989). Why are we talking about discourse communities? Or, foundationalism rears its ugly head once more. In M. Cooper & M. Holzman (Eds.), Writing as social action (pp. 202–220). Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook.
Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design—Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
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, 493–544.
Elekes, K., Magnuczné, G. A., Szabó, P., & Tóth, I. (1998). A view of teaching careers in Hungary in the late 1990s. novELTy, 5(4), 6–22.
Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1977). Problem-solving strategies and the writing process. College English, 39, 449–461.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1980). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication, 31, 21–32.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365–387.
Flowerdew, J. (2000). Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation, and the nonnative-English-speaking scholar. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 127.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1965). Awareness of dying. Chicago: Aldine.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. London: Longman.
Graves, D. H. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Exeter: Heinemann Educational Books.
GuttenPlag Wiki. (n.d.). Retrieved June 29, 2014 from http://de.guttenplag.wikia.com/wiki/GuttenPlag_Wiki
Hall, R. (2003). Forging a learning community: A pragmatic approach to co-operative learning. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 2, 155–172.
Hayes, D., & Wynward, R. (Eds.). (2002). The McDonaldization of higher education. Westport: Greenwood Press.
Herrington, A. (1985). Writing in academic settings: A study of the contexts for writing in two college chemical engineering courses. Research in the Teaching of English, 19, 331–361.
Herrington, A. (1988). Teaching, writing, learning: A naturalistic study of writing in an undergraduate literature course. In D. Jolliffe (Ed.), Advances in writing research, volume 2: Writing in academic disciplines (pp. 133–166). Norwood: Ablex.
Herrington, A. (1992). Composing one’s self in a discipline: Students’ and teachers’ negotiations. In D. Charney & M. Secor (Eds.), Constructing rhetorical education: From the classroom to the community (pp. 92–115). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2002a). Options of identity in academic writing. ELT Journal, 56, 351–358.
Hyland, K. (2002b). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1091–1112.
Hyland, K. (2011). Writing in the university: Education, knowledge, and reputation. Language Teaching, Plenary Speeches., 46, 53–70. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000036.
Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Johns, A. (1995). Teaching classroom and authentic genres: Initiating students into academic cultures and discourses. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language (pp. 277–292). Norwood: Ablex.
Knights, B. (2005). Intelligence and Interrogation: The identity of the English student. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 4(1), 33–52
Kruse, O. (2003). Getting started: Academic writing in the first year of a university education. In L. Björk, G. Bräuer, L. Rienecker, & P. S. Jörgenson (Eds.), Studies in writing: Vol. 12. Teaching academic writing in European higher education (pp. 19–28). Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lea, M. R. (2004). Academic literacies: A pedagogy for course design. Studies in Higher Education, 29, 739–756.
Leki, I., & Carson, J. (1997). “Completely different worlds”: EAP and the writing experiences of ESL students in university courses. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 39–69.
Li, Y., & Casanave, C. P. (2012). Two first-year students’ strategies for writing from sources: Patchwriting or plagiarism? Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 165–180.
Lillis, T. M. (2001). Student writing: Access, regulation, desire. London: Routledge.
Lukács, K. (2002). Foreign language teaching in present-day Hungary: An EU perspective. novELTy, 9(1), 4–26.
McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview. Newbury Park: SAGE.
Ministry of Education and Culture, Hungary. (2008). Education in Hungary. Past, present, future: An overview. Budapest: Pátria Nyomda. Retrieved from http://www.nefmi.gov.hu/english
Nikolov, M. (1999). The socio-educational and sociolinguistic context of the examination reform. In F. Hajnal, E. Major, & M. Nikolov (Eds.), English language education in Hungary (pp. 7–20). Budapest: The British Council Hungary.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House.
O’Donnell, V. L., & Tobbell, J. (2007). The transition of adult students to higher education: Legitimate peripheral participation in a community of practice? Adult Education Quarterly, 57, 312–328.
Paltridge, B. (2004). Academic writing. Language Teaching, 37, 87–105.
Prior, P. (1991). Contextualizing writing and response in a graduate seminar. Written Communication, 8, 267–310.
Prior, P. (1995). Tracing authoritative and internally persuasive discourses: A case study of response, revision, and disciplinary enculturation. Research in the Teaching of English, 29, 288–325.
Prior, P. (1998). Writing/disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the academy. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. (1998). Other floors, other voices: A textography of a small university building. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tang, R., & John, S. (1999). The ‘I’ in identity: Exploring writer identity in student academic writing through the first person pronoun. English for Specific Purposes, 18, S23–S39.
Vágó, I. (2000). Az idegennyelv-oktatás fő tendenciái a 80-as és 90-es években [The main tendencies in foreign language education in the 80s and 90s]. Educatio, 4, 668–690.
Wenden, A. (1991). Learner strategies for learner autonomy. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.
Wilde, S., Wright, S., Hayward, G., Johnson, J., & Skerrett, R. (2006). Nuffield review higher education focus groups preliminary report. The Nuffield review of 14–19 education and training. Retrieved from http://www.education.ox.ac.uk/research/higher-education/research/nuffield-review-focu-groups/
Womack, P. (1993). What are essays for? English in Education, 27, 42–48.
Wood, G. (2004). Academic original sin: Plagiarism, the Internet and librarians. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 30, 237–242.
Zhu, W. (2004). Writing in business courses: An analysis of assignment types, their characteristics, and required skills. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 111–135.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Prescott, F.J. (2018). In at the Deep End: The Struggles of First-Year Hungarian University Students Adapting to the Requirements of Written Academic Discourse in an EFL Context. In: Chitez, M., Doroholschi, C., Kruse, O., Salski, Ł., Tucan, D. (eds) University Writing in Central and Eastern Europe: Tradition, Transition, and Innovation. Multilingual Education, vol 29. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95198-0_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95198-0_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-95197-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-95198-0
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)