Tips for writing an essay
And ' through viability ' is also to be understood in its ambiguity: on the one hand in the sense that having arrived in viability empowers writers to appear more self-confident in their texts, i.e. viability forms a basis for it, on the other hand in the sense that they are there, write my paper by 'the stage of writing in viability through to go and - if necessary - position yourself beyond it. The possible violation of conventions in the text design is not to be seen here (as when writing before a viability requirement) in the absence of restrictions, but rather a confident handling of them. Freedom has to do with authorization, which is partly 'granted' by others, partly through forms of textualization and the corresponding appearance of the writers in their texts can be 'demanded'. This is also clear in the remarks by Bartholomae ( 1985 ) (see Section 2.1.3.4 .).
Context-specific perspectives on writing development
Although the models of writing development discussed so far are primarily focused on educational contexts, they generally attempt to define a more general, cross-domain framework. In the following, those areas will be considered from the development perspective this is particularly relevant for the present study: academic writing and the production of professional short texts.
2.1.3.1For the transition from school to university
At the university - and in school lessons - writing professionalization is playing an increasingly important role. In school lessons , useful text types (see Lehnen 2018 , Struger 2018 , Rheindorf 2018 ) and (pre-) scientific writing (see Schmölzer-Eibinger 2018a , Wetschanow 2018 , Niederdorfer / Ebner / Schmölzer-Eibinger 2018 ) have gained in importance. In various text type descriptions and catalogs of requirements, an attempt is made to define what is to be learned or learned at what level, at what age, and in what educational context.
There is broad consensus that writing development is not yet complete when entering the university (cf. Sturm 2016: 50). Frequent discussion points are the extent to which writing at school can be seen as preparation for writing at the university (cf. e.g. Hoppe 2003, Beste 2003, Kruse 2007, Schindler / Fernandez 2016, Niederdorfer / Ebner / Schmölzer-Eibinger 2018 ) and to what extent students benefit from school Writing are or can be prepared for the specific requirements of academic writing (cf. e.g. Kruse 2003a : 95f or Dittmann et al. 2003 : 157f).
The university is increasingly relocating the introduction to academic writing school, in Austria (since the 2014/15 school year) all students have to write pre-academic papers (VWA), and in Germany too, students are required to confronted with pre-academic writing in Switzerland with the Matura thesis (cf. Schmölzer-Eibinger 2018a: 59 and Schindler 2014: 104).
The line between academic and prior academic writing is not easy to draw (cf. Wetschanow 2018: 81, Niederdorfer / Ebner / Schmölzer-Eibinger 2018: 122–124), and there is a risk that the implementation of pre-academic writing will result in unrealistic expectations of the Boosts the writing skills of first-year students (see Römmer-Nossek et al. 2018: 220). Expectations of school leavers' writing skills are often discussed around the transition from school to university. The transition from school to university is one of the interfaces at which the viability requirements are met (see Knappik 2017, 2018) change decisively, the transition from university to professional life is another such interface (see Lehnen / Schindler 2017: 17).
← 100 | 101 →
Transitions can be challenging, they take energy - and time. The acquisition of competencies for scientific writing (or professional short text production) requires patience and the opportunity to experience yourself as a writer (cf. Kissling 2006: 9f). It is repeatedly stated that first-year students have more or less major problems with academic work and writing (see Römmer-Nossek et al. 2018: 219). Decker / Siebert-Ott ( 2018: 198) argue that these difficulties should "not be traced back to the allegedly inadequate written language skills of the younger generation", especially since there are complaints about this (after Pohl 2007: 25f) can be traced back to the 19th century (and to the ancient tradition of rhetoric), but rather "to the lack of a match between the types of text to be received and produced at the school" (Decker / Siebert-Ott 2018: 198).
Pohl ( 2007: 74) regards writing development in the context of scientific writing as a "language acquisition phenomenon" - also in L1 - and focuses from a development perspective on the role of linguistic means (e.g. procedural expressions) premium essay for scientific writing. However, caution is advised here insofar as language production and text production should not be equated (cf. Jakobs 1997b : 1f). In addition to the linguistic resources - including technical language and the "everyday scientific language" (Ehlich 1999 ) - insights into the goals and processes of scientific work play an important role in writing development. The scientific process and the writing process are closely related (Dalton buffer / Menz2006: 104f).
Scientific writing is closely linked to processes of understanding (cf. Perko 2006: 172), which (should) lead to a position of their own when dealing with the scientific discourse. Thürmer-Rohr ( 2006: 199f) describes this confrontation as a "dialogue with a topic and at the same time with virtual interlocutors who in turn have something to say on the topic" in which writers "make themselves interlocutors in an already existing network, sometimes also a thicket of opinions". Orientation and positioning in this undergrowth are often difficult, especially for inexperienced writers, but entering into this dialogue is a prerequisite for the development of new perspectives and a differentiated approach to a topic (see Thürmer-Rohr 2006: 208f). Entering into the initially seemingly unmanageable dialogue places high demands on the writers, and the staging of this entry in the text all the more. Scientific writing is a demanding task, for which the competencies acquired in school can represent an important prerequisite and basis, but are not yet sufficient (cf. Steinhoff 2010 : 170 and Kissling 2006 : 17). It becomes particularly problematic when - as Stranger ( 2017: 15) attests - the epistemic aspects of writing are neglected in school writing didactics, which are essential for scientific writing (e.g. the writing of longer texts, cf. Philipp 2017: 36). The pre-scientific work is an exception. The learning and development perspective that the pre-scientific ← 101 | 102 → Working and writing characterize, also plays a role in the case studies: In the interviews, school (pre-scientific) writing experiences are repeatedly discussed. As part of their writing biography, they are often remembered and commented on by adults, while school writing experiences have an impact on the self-perception of professional writers.
2.1.3.2Development models of scientific writing
In the following, three selected development models of scientific writing will be discussed about their relevance for the present study. These models each focus on different areas and aspects: Feilke / Steinhoff ( 2003 ) deal with the type of acquisition of academic writing skills, Steinhoff ( 2007 ) identifies phases of typical language use in academic writing development, and Pohl ( 2007 ) deals with discourse positions in the text under the magnifying glass.
File / Steinhoff ( 2003: 119ff) differentiate between two types of employment models in academic writing: the model of habitus adaptation and the model of problem-solving action. While the model of problem-solving action is based more on individual-cognitive requirements, the model of habitus adaptation increasingly takes social factors into account (Feilke / Steinhoff 2003: 120) - which, however, are primarily viewed from a linguistic perspective. If the habitus adjustment is only superficial, this is expressed in a formulaic, meaningless use of certain forms that students consider to be 'scientific' (e.g. exaggerated nominal style).
File / Steinhoff ( 2003 ) contrast the model of - above all imitative, intuitive - habitus adaptation with the model of problem-solving action - accompanied by reflection from the start - in which a conscious, step-by-step establishment of "order" is carried out. File / Steinhoff see the condition for successful learning in the fact that the acquisition “proceeds from the learner himself”. The acquisition takes place individually and on your own. The two models each offer different points of contact for writing didactics: Conscious (problem-solving) action can be verbalized and thus didactically accompany, with imitative appropriation this is significantly more difficult. With intuitive learning about habit, adaptationDidactic intervention can therefore usually begin primarily with awareness-raising - which then, however, is the first step towards problem-solving action.
While the distinction between habitus adaptation and problem-solving action relates to differences in the (cognitive) processing process in writing development, write paper other well-known development models are based on the analysis of text products by writers at different stages of development (including the comparison of texts by experts and less experienced ones Scribes). Important writing development models for academic writing, which are based on comprehensive text analyzes, come from Steinhoff ( 2007 ) and von Pohl ( 2007 ).
