Writing for success:mentoring as a pedagogical tool – a cross- institutional study

The prominent position given to academic writing across contemporary academia is reflected in the substantive literature and debate devoted to the subject over the past 30 years. However, the massification of higher education, manifested by a shift from elite to mass education, has brought the issue into the public arena, with much debate focusing on the need for ‘modern-day' students to be taught how to write academically (Bjork et al., 2003; Ganobcsik-Williams, 2006). Indeed, Russell (2003) argued that academic writing has become a global ‘problem' in Higher Education because it sits between two contradictory pressures (p.V). On one end of the university ‘experience' increasing numbers of students, many from non-traditional backgrounds, enter higher education bringing with them a range of communication abilities. At the other end, many graduates leave university to work in specialised industries where employers expect them to have high level writing skills (Ashton, 2007; Russell, 2003; Torrence et al., 1999). By drawing attention to the issues around peer mentoring within an academic writing setting in three different higher education Institutions, this paper makes an important contribution to current debates. Based upon a critical analysis of the emergent findings of an empirical study into the role of peer writing mentors in promoting student transition to higher education, the paper adopts an academic literacies approach to discuss the role of writing mentoring in promoting transition and retention by developing students' academic writing. Attention is drawn to the manner in which student expectations of writing mentoring actually align with mentoring practices - particularly in terms of the writing process and critical thinking. Other issues such as the approachability of writing mentors, the practicalities of accessing writing mentoring and the wider learning environment are also discussed.

Guest editorial

Full text: With the rapid development of the aerospace industry, manufacturing technologies have to continuously develop and adjust themselves to ever-growing demands coming from more complex component designs and the use of highly engineered materials. Today there is an increased number of manufacturers contributing to the realization of final products, i.e. avionics, so it is easy to perceive the truly globalized dimension of the aerospace manufacturing business. With this comes the demand for further engineering developments on which the academic/industrial research institutes need to deliver solutions to real aerospace manufacturing problems. This is a challenging task since aerospace manufacturing technologies have to cover a wide range of materials (from composites to advanced Ni/Ti alloys), processes (from forging to non-traditional machining and assembly), and parts’ dimensions/batch sizes (from airframes to turbine blades). In this wide context, this Special Issue includes high quality theoretical and experimental scientific contributions on the following topics related to the aerospace manufacturing technology: (a) machining of advance aerospace alloys; (b) abrasive processes applied to aerospace components; (c) surface treatments to enhance fatigue performance of aerospace components; (d) joining and assembly of aerospace components; (e) laser machining of aerospace alloys; (f) automated/supervised manufacture of aerospace components; (g) quality supervision of aerospace manufacturing routes. The breadth of topics in this Special Issue is perhaps indicative of the complexity and challenges that the research related to aerospace manufacturing technology can offer. We hope that this issue will act as a catalyst for the development of further research, academic and industrial interactions, and publications related to aerospace manufacturing technologies for the benefit of the academic and industrial research communities.

The fallacy of integration:work and non-work in professional services

Many organisations are encouraging their staff to integrate work and non-work, but a qualitative study of young professionals found that many crave greater segregation rather than more integration. Most wished to build boundaries to separate the two and simplify a complex world. Where working practices render traditional boundaries of time and space ineffective, this population seems to create new idiosyncratic boundaries to segregate work from non-work. These idiosyncratic boundaries depended on age, culture and life-stage though for most of this population there was no appreciable gender difference in attitudes to segregating work and non-work. Gender differences only became noticeable for parents. A matrix defining the dimensions to these boundaries is proposed that may advance understanding of how individuals separate their work and personal lives. In turn, this may facilitate the development of policies and practices to integrate work and non-work that meet individual as well as organisational needs.

The UK MPharm (1) - are we over reliant on traditional teaching methods?

Introduction-The design of the UK MPharm curriculum is driven by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB) accreditation process and the EU directive (85/432/EEC).[1] Although the RPSGB is informed about teaching activity in UK Schools of Pharmacy (SOPs), there is no database which aggregates information to provide the whole picture of pharmacy education within the UK. The aim of the teaching, learning and assessment study [2] was to document and map current programmes in the 16 established SOPs. Recent developments in programme delivery have resulted in a focus on deep learning (for example, through problem based learning approaches) and on being more student centred and less didactic through lectures. The specific objectives of this part of the study were (a) to quantify the content and modes of delivery of material as described in course documentation and (b) having categorised the range of teaching methods, ask students to rate how important they perceived each one for their own learning (using a three point Likert scale: very important, fairly important or not important). Material and methods-The study design compared three datasets: (1) quantitative course document review, (2) qualitative staff interview and (3) quantitative student self completion survey. All 16 SOPs provided a set of their undergraduate course documentation for the year 2003/4. The documentation variables were entered into Excel tables. A self-completion questionnaire was administered to all year four undergraduates, using a pragmatic mixture of methods, (n=1847) in 15 SOPs within Great Britain. The survey data were analysed (n=741) using SPSS, excluding non-UK students who may have undertaken part of their studies within a non-UK university. Results and discussion-Interviews showed that individual teachers and course module leaders determine the choice of teaching methods used. Content review of the documentary evidence showed that 51% of the taught element of the course was delivered using lectures, 31% using practicals (includes computer aided learning) and 18% small group or interactive teaching. There was high uniformity across the schools for the first three years; variation in the final year was due to the project. The average number of hours per year across 15 schools (data for one school were not available) was: year 1: 408 hours; year 2: 401 hours; year 3: 387 hours; year 4: 401 hours. The survey showed that students perceived lectures to be the most important method of teaching after dispensing or clinical practicals. Taking the very important rating only: 94% (n=694) dispensing or clinical practicals; 75% (n=558) lectures; 52% (n=386) workshops, 50% (n=369) tutorials, 43% (n=318) directed study. Scientific laboratory practices were rated very important by only 31% (n=227). The study shows that teaching of pharmacy to undergraduates in the UK is still essentially didactic through a high proportion of formal lectures and with high levels of staff-student contact. Schools consider lectures still to be the most cost effective means of delivering the core syllabus to large cohorts of students. However, this does limit the scope for any optionality within teaching, the scope for small group work is reduced as is the opportunity to develop multi-professional learning or practice placements. Although novel teaching and learning techniques such as e-learning have expanded considerably over the past decade, schools of pharmacy have concentrated on lectures as the best way of coping with the huge expansion in student numbers. References [1] Council Directive. Concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of certain activities in the field of pharmacy. Official Journal of the European Communities 1985;85/432/EEC. [2] Wilson K, Jesson J, Langley C, Clarke L, Hatfield K. MPharm Programmes: Where are we now? Report commissioned by the Pharmacy Practice Research Trust., 2005.