Pensamiento Educativo. Revista de Investigación Educacional Latinoamericana
2022, 59(2), 1-13
Writing is central to university education and disciplinary specialization, but studies that contrast curricular and formative areas are scarce. This study aims to explore experiences with writing and its teaching among students in six disciplinary areas (Arts, Health Sciences, Social Sciences, Humanities, Pedagogy in Science and Engineering) and three formative stages (entry, transition, and graduation) in a state, metropolitan, and highly selective university in Chile. Using four focus groups, qualitative coding was carried out through emergent categories with software assistance and following criteria for methodological integrity. The students identify the contrast between school and university in terms of writing demands, highlight the lack of formal teaching opportunities, and report self-managed learning of writing by trial and error. In advanced stages of Health Sciences and Engineering, the students question having received training exclusively oriented toward writing in professional contexts, while in Arts, Social Sciences, and Humanities they regret not having been trained to write in work settings. The results show that students have flexible strategies to approach academic writing across the curriculum, but they also reveal an experience of institutional neglect in stages that are critical for student persistence, which underlines the urgent need to implement initiatives to support students throughout their education.
Key words: higher education, writing, literacy, writing teaching
La escritura es central en la formación universitaria y en la especialización disciplinar, pero no son frecuentes los estudios que contrastan ámbitos curriculares y formativos. En esta investigación se caracterizan las experiencias de estudiantes con la escritura y su enseñanza en seis áreas disciplinares (Artes, Ciencias de la salud, Ciencias sociales, Humanidades, Pedagogía en ciencias e Ingenierías) y tres etapas formativas (ingreso, transición y egreso), en una universidad estatal, metropolitana y altamente selectiva de Chile. A partir de cuatro grupos focales, se realizó una codificación cualitativa mediante categorías emergentes con asistencia de software y criterios de integridad metodológica. Los estudiantes identifican el contraste escuela-universidad en las demandas de escritura, señalan la ausencia de instancias formales de enseñanza, y reportan un aprendizaje autogestionado de la escritura por ensayo y error. En etapas avanzadas de Ciencias de la salud e Ingenierías, los estudiantes cuestionan haber recibido una formación exclusivamente orientada a escribir en contextos profesionales, mientras que en Artes, Ciencias sociales y Humanidades lamentan no haberse formado para la escritura en contextos laborales. Los resultados muestran estrategias estudiantiles flexibles para abordar la escritura académica a través del currículum, pero también dan cuenta de una experiencia de abandono institucional en etapas clave para la persistencia estudiantil que abona la necesidad urgente de implementar instancias de acompañamiento a lo largo de la formación.
Palabras clave: educación superior, escritura, literacidad, alfabetización académica, lectura.
Post to:
Federico Navarro
Av. Lib. Bernardo O’Higgins 611, Rancagua, CP 2820000, O’Higgins.
navarro@uoh.cl
ORCID: 0000-0001-9131-3245
© 2022 PEL, http://www.pensamientoeducativo.org - http://www.pel.cl
ISSN:0719-0409 DDI:203.262, Santiago, Chile doi: 10.7764/PEL.59.2.2022.7
Academic writing practices have a situated nature, that is, they respond to and support the ways of doing, thinking, and building knowledge and identities in the disciplines (Brandt, 2009; Street, 2005). They thus involve what people do with writing in the personal, collective, and social networks to which they belong, and the purposes, readers, and types of texts that circulate in each setting.
In the case of university education, students are faced with diverse, complex, and specific writing tasks for the different formative stages and disciplinary areas. Indeed, writing in higher education operates across the curriculum (Bazerman et al., 2016), in specific subjects and courses that use it as a means to learn, communicate, and assess learning (Nesi & Gardner, 2012); across the formative stages, that is, in the entry, transition, and graduation stages of the programs and curricula; and across the subjects, in the pedagogical sequences of activities, learning outcomes, and classroom assessments (Navarro, 2021).
This process has been understood considering the notion of disciplinary enculturation (Prior & Bilbro, 2012) and academic literacy (Carlino, 2013), that is, as a process in which the student gradually becomes familiar with and learns what it means to write in his/her respective community of practice (Wenger, 2001). However, this process also involves asymmetrical power relations, and ideological and identity contrasts between students, teachers, and institutions (Barton & Hamilton, 2000). This means that students not only learn to read and write in the expected ways at university, but also negotiate and accommodate their prior experiences and expectations within the framework of the institutionalized hegemonic literacy practices in which they participate (Zavala, 2011), particularly considering the recent expansion and diversification of university enrollment in Latin America (Chiroleu & Marquina, 2017).
The study of writing in higher education as a situated practice focused on the experiences, perceptions, and perspectives of the subjects who write has become the predominant perspective in the region (Navarro & Colombi, 2022). However, longitudinal studies that follow a case or cohort over time are still uncommon (Ávila Reyes et al., 2021a), as are those that compare cases or cohorts situated at different times (Navarro et al., 2021). These studies offer an insight into the kinds of texts students must write, the conceptions and expectations they display, and the experiences and needs they share at different formative stages in order to understand how they gradually become writers (Bazerman, 2013).
This research describes experiences with writing and its teaching among students in six disciplinary areas (Arts, Health Sciences, Social Sciences, Humanities, Pedagogy in Science and Engineering) and three formative stages (entry, transition, and graduation) in a state, metropolitan, and highly selective university in Chile. Using four focus groups, we carried out qualitative coding through emergent categories with the assistance of software and following criteria for methodological integrity. The aim was to answer the following research questions:
Examining students’ experiences can help us understand the conflicts between institutionalized hegemonic expectations and the recent diversification in university enrollment, along with the dynamics of maturation, and gradual belonging to and familiarity with the different disciplinary fields. In this context, it is relevant to study students regarding their ways of “inhabiting the university” (Martinic & Urzúa Martínez, 2021, p. 164) insofar as they constitute an “instance of production of subjectivities and cultural experiences between the structural and the biographical, the social-historical and the subjective-experiential” (Morandi et al., 2019, p. 2).
Studies on writing in Latin America have multiplied in recent times, many of which are focused on understanding the experiences, perceptions, and perspectives of the subjects who write and are trained in academic contexts (Navarro & Colombi, 2022). These studies conceptualize students as creative writers with agency (Zavala, 2011), who establish relationships and participate in academic, work, and extracurricular activities in higher education (Barragán-Díaz, 2020), while rejecting a perspective of deficit based on purported gaps and shortcomings that have to be remediated by traditional higher education institutions. The studies are usually focused on students with non-traditional trajectories and profiles, such as indigenous people, those from rural environments, individuals from vulnerable social sectors, or first-generation university students.
Velásquez and Córdova (2012) found noteworthy differences between the perspectives on academic writing of students finishing higher education and Biochemistry and Art teachers and concluded that writing is not taught formally in spite of its importance for student trajectories. Concha et al. (2017) also identified contrasts and diverse perspectives on ways of communicating and building knowledge in the History and Sociology communities in Chile and discussed the homogenizing strategies of teaching writing within university courses.
Regarding teaching and learning opportunities, Romero and Álvarez (2019) identified that, despite progressing as writers, students’ experiences of training are inadequate or insufficient for participation in a new literate community (Modern Languages course). Martínez et al. (2019) also found that psychology students at two Mexican public universities point to a lack of effective provision of feedback to enable them to develop as academic readers and writers.
Other studies examine the training needs and desires of students. Based on interviews with Spanish Literature and Language students, Betancur (2021) suggests that they aspire to the construction of a pedagogical connection in which the teacher assists writing, but which enables them to develop their own subjectivity. In two studies with students entering Chilean universities through an inclusive admissions program, Ávila Reyes et al. (2020, 2021b) identified the existence of tensions between academic writing, on the one hand, and extracurricular or pre-university writing, on the other, in a dynamic of dialogue, feedback, and occasional resistance and defiance.
Within longitudinal studies, Avila Reyes et al. (2021a) followed the educational process of 21 students admitted through regular and inclusive pathways in a selective and traditional Chilean university over three years. In this research, they found that students assume structural inequities, such as the lack of quality spaces for study and networks, among others, and resignify them as limitations of a personal nature, while suffering from the lack of feedback and clear guidelines and instructions for writing. Meanwhile, Navarro et al. (2021), looking at the qualitative contrast between university admission and graduation, concluded that student conceptions show a somewhat transactional and epistemic perspective of writing, although it is not explicitly taught, and that learning experiences follow a dynamic of trial-and-error.
This brief review of the research background in Latin America over the last decade shows that higher education institutions still have insufficient initiatives to support students and that there are conflicts between student expectations and experiences regarding institutionalized training and writing opportunities at university. At the same time, it reveals that studies that compare student experiences throughout the formative stages, with simultaneous consideration of areas and courses, are still scarce in the region.
This research is part of a larger project in which qualitative and quantitative evidence, collected from text analysis, focus groups, and surveys (Navarro et al., 2021), was triangulated to map discourse genres and opportunities for teaching writing in order to inform institutional actions at the university where the research was conducted. In particular, focus groups (Hamui-Sutton & Varela-Ruiz, 2013) enable a constructivist and interpretive perspective of knowledge, while allowing the identification of both consensuses and divergent attitudes and negotiations on certain variables in the development of the debate (Clary-Lemon et al., 2021).
In this study, a focus group was carried out with six second-year students (entry stage), two focus groups with groups of six and seven fourth-year students (transition stage), and a focus group with four graduates (graduation stage). All of them included the participation of representatives of each of the knowledge areas of interest (Arts, Health Sciences, Social Sciences, Humanities, Science and Engineering Education) associated with different faculties.
We prepared a script with defined roles for the different members of the research team (facilitator, coordinator, and observer) based on the following conceptual axes and associated sets of questions:
The focus groups were conducted in person on the premises of the university studied in 2017 and 2018, and each lasted approximately 60 minutes, while the transcript was 52,608 words long. To analyze the focus groups, we performed qualitative coding based on emerging categories (Charmaz, 2006) and investigator triangulation (Denzin & Lincoln, 2017). With the assistance of QSR NVivo 11 Pro software, a set of non-exclusive categories and subcategories were proposed and refined through successive exploratory analyses, which served to classify and systematize units of content that were then analyzed in greater depth and interpreted.
We followed criteria of methodological integrity during the research, (Levitt, 2019). The data collection instrument (script and role configuration for the focus group) was adjusted based on advice from external experts and it was tested prior to its implementation. To ensure inter-analyst reliability for the identification of emerging categories, we conducted initial double-blind coding of 50% of the corpus, producing a kappa coefficient of 0.40 (Fleiss et al., 2003), which is considered expected for the analysis of a large number of non-exclusive categories. The researchers subsequently conducted joint coding of 100% of the corpus based on the review of the excerpts and categories that produced disagreements.
Different recruitment mechanisms were outlined to avoid coercion and ensure that the participants took part voluntarily. The participants also signed an informed consent that made these procedures explicit. Regarding the positionality of the researchers involved, they were not teachers, nor did they occupy institutional roles in which they could coerce the students to participate in the study.
The students reported a sharp contrast between their academic and literacy performances in school and at university. Comparisons appear in the specific forms of writing (1) and in the number of texts assigned for reading (2), in addition to accounts of frustrating university experiences that threaten student retention and persistence (3). This is a real cultural, academic, and literacy shock.
Participants explain these contrasts in terms of training gaps in school trajectories regarding subjects and contents (4) or in the institutional profile and general quality of education in secondary education (5); in a highly segregated school and university system, previous trajectories are related to selectivity mechanisms (PSU, or the University Selection Test) and inclusive admission programs (the Academic Excellence Scholarship, BEA, or the Program for Access to Higher Education, PACE), but even for students who are selected by regular means, the characteristics of the university trajectory can be “overwhelming” (6).
Some of the contrasts between experiences in secondary education and when entering university are not found universally across the experiences in higher education, but are situated in disciplinary expectations, such as in the (memory-based) strategies used to approach texts in Health Sciences:
The students agree on identifying writing as a high-demand requirement to participate in their formative and disciplinary fields and to succeed in their university trajectories. The narratives illustrate a real burden of assignments and time constraints to meet the requirements.
This identification of writing as a high demand across the curriculum is not immediate, especially in technical and scientific areas, where students show an initial expectation that writing will have a somewhat secondary role.
The central importance of writing reported by students contrasts starkly with the lack of formal teaching as an experience across the university:
The collective interviews thus demonstrate consistency among the students in the different formative stages regarding the lack of institutionalized teaching of writing, even though it is of key importance to their educational processes. As a consequence, students depend to a large extent on their previous educational experiences in the family (14), school (14, 15), or social sphere (16), and the possibilities of success are linked to individual aspects (17) in which institutions have little participation, and writing remains outside the explicit curriculum.
The students not only state that they have not been able to participate in opportunities for training to learn academic writing, but also that the teaching and institutional expectations, the tasks requested, and the forms of assessment and feedback have criteria that are mostly implicit regarding writing, since they are not given instructions (18, 19), guidelines, or rubrics with significant orientations (20) to guide their work. This kind of opaque writing instruction generates a sense of frustration and isolation in students.
In fact, the students also criticize the relevance and orientation of the writing opportunities they have actually had in their trajectories. Specifically, students from the social and humanities areas (21, 22) state that the writing requested does not relate to the tasks that are carried out when they leave university and in professional environments.
In contrast with students in the humanities and social sciences, students in the health and engineering areas (23, 24) resent the lack of training and opportunities to write academic and persuasive texts.
According to some students, this lack of explicit teaching and support in the use and learning of writing at university is related to incomplete trajectories or educational gaps. That is, the lack of explicit and institutionalized teaching of writing and individual processes based on previous experiences and knowledge or that are external to the university mean that not all students manage to become competent writers in their disciplinary fields.
This neglect often leads students to describe harsh negative conceptions of their own writing abilities in university, specifically on entry: “impostor” (28), “disgusting” (29), “neanderthal” (30), “horrible” (31), “ignorant” (31). These lonely and frustrating experiences with training in writing thus have the counterpart of strong self-stigmatization that places the responsibility on the student’s individual competencies.
In this context of the lack of systematic training for writing and self-stigmatization among students, they demonstrate creative and resilient strategies to cope with academic writing tasks, training to be writers at university, and dealing with the writing challenges they face in the professional world. When asked how they learned to write in university, their responses reflect how difficult the process was.
Learning writing is presented as a self-managed, painful (by failures), and solitary process, based on the individual responsibility of the learner and using implicit or limited strategies such as reading or imitation.
One of the most clearly identified forms of learning is the exploratory and unaccompanied learning practice that the students at all stages of training called “trial and error”.
In this exploratory and solitary educational context, students provide examples of self-managed and creative strategies they use to overcome and survive the literacy requirements of the university. Specifically, students collect examples that have been graded highly (tests, medical case histories) by the teachers in charge, they “infer” patterns or features they can recognize, and “apply” them to their own productions (41); alternatively, they “copy” those previous examples and, on that basis, “add” or adjust whatever they consider necessary (42).
Despite not identifying formal spaces for learning how to write, the students recognize the presence of some teachers and assistants who were essential for their training as writers. These mentors or sponsors of literacy support a process of discursive formation and metalinguistic awareness applied to the disciplinary area (43), or rather the analysis and structuring of texts (44).
The results presented reveal that academic writing learning experiences in a university environment that contrasts with previous formative instances are solitary, exploratory, and frustrating, particularly in the critical period of the first few years of higher education (Gallardo et al., 2019). Despite the central importance of writing throughout academic training and in the various disciplinary areas, the results provide new evidence on the lack of support mechanisms and curricular actions that promote its teaching (Ávila Reyes et al., 2021a; Martínez et al., 2019; Romero & Álvarez, 2019; Velásquez & Córdova, 2012); writing is restricted to a secret rite (Lillis, 2001) or hidden curriculum (Schleppegrell, 2004), with the resulting threat to student persistence. This situation is particularly problematic insofar as the direct teaching of writing can positively impact students’ self-confidence and professional identity (Natale et al., 2016).
In a context in which there is scant institutional and curricular support for learning to write at university, academic cultural capital and the family context can also have a decisive influence on this process. The lack of correspondence between the cultural and literacy practices of the family or the closest community environment and the practices of educational institutions can increase the likelihood of dropout (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977; Ivemark & Ambrose, 2021), particularly in the Latin American higher education system, which has been characterized as reflecting the inequities of society (Ezcurra, 2019; Poy, 2018). This may explain why some students perceive the transition to higher education as an experience of shock (Gallardo et al., 2019; Zittoun, 2008), which is especially apparent in learning to write.
By contrast, it is encouraging to find the use of creative and resilient strategies among students, as reported by other recent research on the subject (Avila Reyes et al., 2020, 2021a). Such strategies are linked particularly to collecting and imitating examples that are assessed positively by teachers and trial and error methods to enable students to cope better with the demands of writing at university. At the same time, the students highlight experiences in which they were supported by literacy sponsors (Brandt, 2009), even though they are uncommon.
As for the contrasts by the educational levels, it is possible to establish certain distinctive features for each of the different stages. During the first stage of higher education, we observed that the main difficulties are related to the challenges of the transition, as well as the influence of previous experiences and poor prior school training to address the demands of writing at university, which frequently leads to self-stigmatization (Ávila Reyes et al., 2020, 2021a). Throughout the intermediate stage, even when students state that they feel they are better writers than when they arrived at university and have a more profound understanding of the writing requirements of their courses, their experience is particularly marked by a feeling of frustration and the notion of writing as a process that is learned “the hard way.” Finally, during the final stage of education, the students highlight the inadequate connection between the writing learned, taught, and practiced in the previous educational levels with the needs of postgraduate environments.
The student experiences shared in this research suggest the need to promote teaching and learning of academic literacy throughout the disciplines and student trajectories, considering the concerns and experiences of writers during their education. Likewise, it is also necessary to promote opportunities for support that allow common challenges to be addressed, along with those that are specific to each stage of initial university education.
Acknowledgments. We would like to offer our thanks for the financing provided by ANID/PIA/Fondos Basales para Centros de Excelencia FB0003 and by FONDECYT 1191069 from ANID.
Ávila Reyes, N., Figueroa, J., Calle-Arango, L., & Morales, S. (2021a). Experiencias con la escritura académica: un estudio longitudinal con estudiantes diversos. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 29(159). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.29.6091
Ávila Reyes, N., Navarro, F., & Tapia Ladino, M. (2020). Identidad, voz y agencia: claves para una enseñanza inclusiva de la escritura en la universidad. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 28(98). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.28.4722
Ávila Reyes, N., Navarro, F., & Tapia Ladino, M. (2021b). “My abilities were pretty mediocre”: Challenging deficit discourses in expanding higher education systems. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000366
Barragán-Díaz, D. M. (2020). La experiencia estudiantil universitaria en América Latina: una revisión de literatura. Revista Colombiana de Educación, 1(78). https://doi.org/10.17227/rce.num78-6708
Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (2000). Literacy practices. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton, & R. Ivanič (Eds.), Situated literacies. Reading and writing in context (pp. 7-15). Routledge.
Bazerman, C. (2013). Understanding the lifelong journey of writing development. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 36(4), 421-441. https://doi.org/10.1174/021037013808200320
Bazerman, C., Little, J., Bethel, L., Chavkin, T., Fouquette, D., & Garufis, J. (2016). Escribir a través del Currículum. Una guía de referencia (F. Navarro, Ed.). UNC.
Betancur, D. (2021). Firmar en nombre propio. Representaciones de jóvenes universitarios sobre la escritura académica. Enunciación, 26(1), 92-105. https://doi.org/10.14483/22486798.17083
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. (1977). La reproducción. Laia.
Brandt, D. (2009). Literacy and learning: Reflections on writing, reading, and society. Jossey-Bass.
Carlino, P. (2013). Alfabetización académica diez años después. Revista Mexicana de Investigación Educativa, 18(57), 355-381. https://www.comie.org.mx/revista/v2018/rmie/index.php/nrmie/article/view/250
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. Sage Publications.
Chiroleu, A., & Marquina, M. (2017). Democratisation or credentialism? Public policies of expansion of higher education in Latin America. Policy Reviews in Higher Education, 1(2), 139-160. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322969.2017.1303787
Clary-Lemon, J., Mueller, D., & Pantelides, K. (2021). Working with people. In Try this. Research methods for writers (pp. 89-108). WAC Clearinghouse.
Concha, S., Miño, P., & Vargas, M. P. (2017). Representaciones sociales sobre el conocimiento y la escritura en el pregrado en dos comunidades discursivas: implicancias para la enseñanza de la escritura en la educación superior. Lenguas Modernas, 50, 109-130. https://estudiosdeadministracion.uchile.cl/index.php/LM/article/view/49254
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2017). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5a ed.). Sage Publications.
Ezcurra, A. M. (2019). Educación superior: una masificación que incluye y desiguala. In A. M. Ezcurra (coord.), Derecho a la educación. Expansión y desigualdad: tendencias y políticas en Argentina y América Latina (pp. 21-52). EDUNTREF.
Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Cho Paik, M. (2003). The Measurement of Interrater Agreement. In Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions (pp. 598-626). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471445428.ch18
Gallardo, G., Goñi, F., Sanhueza, M., & Cruz, M. S. (2019). Transición Secundaria-Educación Superior: Desafíos para los estudiantes, desafíos para las instituciones. Educación Superior Inclusiva. CINDA.
Hamui-Sutton, A., & Varela-Ruiz, M. (2013). La técnica de grupos focales. Investigación en Educación Médica, 2(5), 55-60. http://riem.facmed.unam.mx/index.php/riem/article/view/451
Ivemark, B., & Ambrose, A. (2021). Habitus Adaptation and First-Generation University Students’ Adjustment to Higher Education: A Life Course Perspective. Sociology of Education, 94(3), 191–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/00380407211017060
Levitt, H. M. (2019). Reporting Qualitative Research in Psychology: How to Meet APA Style Journal Article Reporting Standards (revised edition). APA.
Lillis, T. (2001). Student writing. Access, regulation, desire. Routledge.
Martínez, M. E., Hernández, G., & Vélez, M. (2019). Las prácticas de escritura académica de estudiantes de psicología de dos universidades públicas. Revista Electrónica Leer, Escribir y Descubrir, 1(4), 1-11.
https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/led/vol1/iss4/5
Martinic, R., & Urzúa Martínez, S. (2021). Experiencias estudiantiles en el primer año universitario. Una aproximación desde la sociología de la educación francesa. Estudios pedagógicos (Valdivia), 47(2), 161-178.
https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-07052021000200161
Morandi, G., Ungaro, A. M., Arce, D., & Gallo, L. (2019). Los procesos de afiliación académica en el ingreso a la Universidad Pública: la experiencia estudiantil. Actas De Periodismo y Comunicación, 5(2).
https://www.perio.unlp.edu.ar/ojs/index.php/actas/article/view/5760
Natale, L., Stagnaro, D., Pérez, I., & Ríos, L. (2017). El Programa de Desarrollo de Habilidades de Lectura y Escritura a lo largo de la carrera de la Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento, Argentina. In L. Natale & D. Stagnaro (Eds.), Alfabetización académica. Un camino hacia la inclusión en el nivel superior (pp. 161-199). UNGS.
Navarro, F. (2021). Más allá de la alfabetización académica: las funciones de la escritura en educación superior. Revista Electrónica Leer, Escribir y Descubrir, 1(9), 38-56. https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/led/vol1/iss9/4/
Navarro, F., & Colombi, M. C. (2022). Alfabetización académica y estudios del discurso. In C. López Ferrero, I. E. Carranza, & T. Van Dijk (Eds.), Estudios del discurso / The Rouledge Handbook of Spanish Language Discourse Studies (pp. 495-509). Routledge.
Navarro, F., Uribe Gajardo, F., Montes, S., Lovera Falcón, P., Mora Aguirre, B., Sologuren Insúa, E., Álvarez, M., Castro Acuña, C., & Vargas Pérez, S. (2021). Transformados por la escritura: Concepciones de estudiantes universitarios a través del currículum y de las etapas formativas. In N. Ávila Reyes (Ed.), Multilingual Contributions to Writing Research. Toward an Equal Academic Exchange (pp. 261-285). The WAC Clearinghouse. https://doi.org/10.37514/INT-B.2021.1404.2.11
Nesi, H., & Gardner, S. (2012). Genres across the Disciplines. Student Writing in Higher Education. CUP.
Poy, S. (2018). Juventudes desiguales: oportunidades de integración social. Educa.
Prior, P., & Bilbro, R. (2012). Academic Enculturation: Developing Literate Practices and Disciplinary Identities. In M. Castelló & C. Donahue (Eds.), University Writing: Selves and Texts in Academic Societies (pp. 19-31). Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1163/9781780523873_003
Romero, A., & Álvarez, M. (2019). Representaciones sociales de los estudiantes universitarios de grado sobre la escritura académica. Íkala, 24(1), 103-118. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ikala.v24n01a05
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The Language of Schooling. A Functional Linguistics Perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Street, B. (2005). Literacies Across Educational Contexts: Mediating Learning and Teaching. Caslon Pub.
Velásquez, M., & Córdova, A. (2012). Cultura escrita en las licenciaturas en bioquímica y en arte: un acercamiento a través de las representaciones sociales de profesores y estudiantes. Argos, 29(57), 52-79.
Wenger, E. (2001). Comunidades de práctica: aprendizaje, significado e identidad. Paidós. (1998)
Zavala, V. (2011). La escritura académica y la agencia de los sujetos. Cuadernos Comillas, 1, 52-66.
Zittoun, T. (2008). Learning through transitions: The role of institutions. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 23(2), 165-181. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03172743