Umeå University's logo

umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Discourses of writing in educational reserach: a review of literature
Umeå University, Faculty of Arts, Department of language studies.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-5698-2934
2024 (English)In: ARLE IFTE 2024: connections and disruptions: abstract booklet, 2024, p. 72-73Conference paper, Oral presentation with published abstract (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

Writing researchers have frequently used Ivanic’s discourses of writing (DoW) (2004; 2017) framework in studies of writing curricula and instruction. To understand how the framework might be modified for writing research moving forward, we present a systematic review of literature comparing findings from DoW studies situated in differing geopolitical and educational contexts.

Research questions: Which DoWs are most and least represented in research findings situated across varying geographic contexts and education levels?Which DoWs are not included in Ivanic’s framework but are identified in the studies’ findings?

Theoretical framework: The DoW framework is based in an understanding that textwriting is embedded within three domains: cognitions, events, and social contexts (Ivanic, 2004). Based on this understanding, the DoW encompass seven categories that represent ways of thinking about the purposes of writing and how it is represented: skills, creativity, thinking and learning, process, genre, social practices, sociopolitical.

Methods: We compiled a corpus of 56 research publications by using “discourse[s] of writing” to search our university library databases and Google Scholar. We collected studies that:

• Explicitly used Ivanic’s framework as analytic tool to investigate writing curricula and/or instruction (e.g., via deductive and/or abductive coding)

• Were published in English or Scandinavian

We first sorted articles according to Akker’s (2003) five curriculum categories: written, prescribed, planned, enacted, experienced. Next, to analyse which discourses were most prominent in the findings, as well is which (if any) additional discourses were identified, we coded each study’s findings for DoW categories.

Findings: The results show that text-focused discourses are most prominent and sociopolitical discourses are least prominent. Few studies have identified DoWs other than those included in Ivanic’s framework. The framework is useful as analytic tool across the five curriculum categories.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2024. p. 72-73
National Category
Didactics
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-227656OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-227656DiVA, id: diva2:1881169
Conference
ARLE IFTE 2024 conference: Connections and disruptions. Unsettling L1 education: Intersections of place, identity and technology. Melbourne, Australia, June 18-22, 2024
Available from: 2024-07-02 Created: 2024-07-02 Last updated: 2024-07-02Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Authority records

Sturk, Erika

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Sturk, ErikaJeffery, Jill V.
By organisation
Department of language studies
Didactics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 327 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf