This reading is protected under the copyright law

of the United States.

The copyright law of the United States (Title 17

U.S. Code) governs the making of photocopies
or other reproductions of copyrighted material.
Copying, displaying and distributing copyrighted
works, may infringe the owner's copyright. Any
use of computer or duplicating facilities by
students, faculty or staff for infringing use of
copyrighted works is subject to appropriate
disciplinary action as well as those civil
remedies and criminal penalties provided by
federal law.
 Journal of Further and Higher Education

ISSN: 0309-877X (Print) 1469-9486 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjfh20

Exploring barriers and solutions to academic

writing: Perspectives from students, higher
education and further education tutors

Imose Itua, Margaret Coffey, David Merryweather, Lin Norton & Angela
Foxcroft

To cite this article: Imose Itua, Margaret Coffey, David Merryweather, Lin Norton & Angela
Foxcroft (2014) Exploring barriers and solutions to academic writing: Perspectives from students,
higher education and further education tutors, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 38:3,
305-326, DOI: 10.1080/0309877X.2012.726966

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2012.726966

Published online: 12 Nov 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2511

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjfh20
Journal of Further and Higher Education, 2014
Vol. 38, No. 3, 305–326, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2012.726966

Exploring barriers and solutions to academic writing: Perspectives

from students, higher education and further education tutors
Imose Ituaa*, Margaret Coffeyb, David Merryweatherc, Lin Nortonc and Angela
Foxcroftd
a
Edge Hill University, Liverpool, UK; bCollege of Health and Social Care, Salford
University, Manchester, UK; cLiverpool Hope University, Liverpool, UK; dThe
University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

Staff and student perceptions of what constitutes good academic writing in

both further and higher education often differ. This is reflected in written
assignments which frequently fall below the expected standard. In seeking
to develop the writing skills of students and propose potential solutions to
writing difficulties, a study was conducted in a university and a nearby fur-
ther education college in the north west of England to explore barriers and
solutions to AW difficulties. This paper reports the findings generated
using unmoderated focus groups with second-year university health stud-
ies students (n=70) and moderated focus groups with further education
college teachers (n=3) and health studies lecturers in a university (n=6).
Findings indicated that staff and students’ perceptions of what consti-
tutes AW differed. The barriers to academic writing that were identified
included lack of time and confidence; lack of extended writing at FE
level; lack of reading and understanding of academic texts or journals;
referencing; and academic jargon.
Keywords: academic writing; solutions; barriers; higher education; fur-
ther education

Introduction
Since the Dearing Report (National Committee of Inquiry into Higher
Education 1997), the widening participation agenda has seen a greater diver-
sification of students who take A-levels or who enter higher education (HE
– undergraduate studies) through a range of other routes. This diversification
in the population of undergraduate students has presented universities with
new challenges, including the range of perspectives, uses and understandings
of language that students bring with them (Lillis and Turner 2001). The
result has been a number of challenges in academic writing (AW) which
have recently received attention from the national press in the UK (Frean,
Yobbo, and Duncan 2007; Thompson 2008; Atwood 2008). The press,

*Corresponding author. Email: ituai@edgehill.ac.uk

Ó 2012 UCU
306 I. Itua et al.

amongst others, have focused on the transition between further education

(FE – post-16 education; equivalent to US community college) and HE as a
way to gain a better understanding of the problems surrounding AW and to
bridge the apparent gap between both sectors.
The genesis of AW can be found in the seventeenth century, and stems
from a western historical–cultural model where writing is expected to be
smooth and present a clear transition between ideas and arguments, with
careful and complete referencing of other writers’ work (Lillis and Turner
2001). In this model, knowledge and meaning are created in the mind and
transferred to the minds of others by means of plain, clear and distinct lan-
guage. Structure and definition are given priority. Lillis and Turner (2001)
describe a second model where language and the construction of knowledge
coexist in such a way that counter-arguments are produced by creating a
tight structure, logical coherence and offsetting of criticism. Whilst both of
these models form the backbone of tutor expectations of student writing,
they are not without criticism. For example, Lea and Street (1998, 158)
point out that ‘it is important to realise that meanings [of what constitutes
good AW] are contested amongst the different parties involved: institutions,
staff and students’. In addition, Lillis and Turner (2001) assert that the val-
ues which informed academic writing 300 years ago, in Newton’s time, were
a product of that time – that is, they were socio-culturally situated and
subject to change – and moreover their ideologies, namely universality and
essentialism, are currently strongly contested.
Given this theoretical background to AW, it is clear that the ability of stu-
dents to present information and ideas through their writing has an integral
role in both academic and professional success (Applebee et al., cited in
Hammann 2005). Hammann (2005, 15) asserts that ‘writing is an important
means through which students begin to think more like teachers, mathemati-
cians, or scientists, and less like students learning course concepts primarily
for assessment purposes’. Similarly, Lea and Street (1998) highlight how
both understanding and creating knowledge takes place through language,
which includes the formulation and presentation of thoughts, and Toor
(2010) explains that ‘bad writing’ is often a result of ‘bad habits’ that are
connected to ‘bad thinking’, as noted by Orwell (1946). In terms of transfer-
ability, Graham and Perin (2007, 3) assert that writing proficiency ‘is a basic
requirement for participation in civic life and in the global economy’.
In this paper, academic writing is conceptualised as more than simply use
of literacy skills such as grammar, punctuation and spelling. The literature
shows barriers to successful and appropriate AW falling broadly into two cat-
egories: (1) barriers formed by students’ prior educational experience and
associated epistemological beliefs (Entwistle, McCune, and Hounsell 2002;
Kember 2001); and (2) barriers inherent within AW that have been explored
by theorists focusing on academic literacies (Lea and Street 1998; 2006).
Concerns that students are arriving at university unprepared have been widely
 Journal of Further and Higher Education 307

highlighted (see for example Thomson 2008). This has been blamed on two
major developments in education, namely the ‘[l]eague table generation who
are basically spoon-fed students with limited self-learning skills’ (National
Audit Office 2002, 15) and ‘pass at all costs’ practices. Such unfortunate
developments have been largely attributed to government policies requiring
the effectiveness of schools and FE Colleges in the UK to be judged accord-
ing to student pass rates, thus producing a learning environment which puts
pressure on teachers to ‘teach to the test’. A critique of the British secondary
education and examination system found that the involvement of high stakes
for both students and teachers actually stifled students’ writing development
(Warshauer-Freedman 1995). The researcher found that writing became pres-
sured, rushed and teacher-directed due to time constraints and the require-
ment to meet exam criteria, with responsibility for the subject matter being
removed from the students. This research took place at the inception of the
National Curriculum and the current GCSE/A-level system, a time which
saw the birth of the ‘league table generation’. It is argued by Wrigley (2003,
105) that this may have resulted in a form of teaching in which learning is:

a form of alienated labour… pupils are given a task which may appear mean-
ingless to them, told how long to do it, then rewarded with a token … the
product is handed over to the teacher as assessor, not shared with peers or
presented to a real audience.

Moreover, students often believe that they are required to reproduce what
they are taught without critical reflection – that teaching is the process of
knowledge transmission, whilst learning is the absorption of that knowledge,
with judgements about learning being based on the student’s ability to repro-
duce material verbatim (Kember 2001). In his research, Kember found that
students who commence HE with a didactic/reproductive belief can find the
process difficult and even traumatic, since university assignments require
more than reproduction of material. The formation of this belief is said to
be influenced in an inter-related way by the students’ learning approaches,
their conception of knowledge and the teacher’s beliefs about teaching
(Sheppard and Gilbert 1991).
Lea and Street (1998, 2006) discuss the barriers inherent within AW
broadly defined under the term ‘health literacies’, or social practices which
see student writing as an identity and way of knowing rather than an issue
of skill or socialisation. These ways of knowing will involve a number of
different disciplines, fields and genres, which students will need to switch
between as necessary. In terms of identity, students are also required to
understand when impersonal and passive forms of writing are acceptable.
This form of writing requires students to engage with the ‘processes of
meaning-making and contestation around meaning’ rather than with straight-
forward study skills (Lea and Street 1998, 157).
308 I. Itua et al.

Elton (2010, 151) highlights that ‘student writing is an academic disci-

pline’ which is rarely taught by those with expertise in academic writing.
He asserts that AW often relies on ‘tacit knowledge’ and is something that
cannot be taught by transmission. Similarly, Lea and Street (1998, 159)
found that whilst academic staff could ‘describe what constitutes successful
academic writing, difficulties arose when they attempted to make explicit
what a well-developed argument looks like in a written assignment’.
Difficulties with AW are therefore not confined to undergraduate students
and have been reported in several studies of academics (Murray, Thow,
Moore, and Murphy 2008; Moore 2003; Murray 2002).
Failure in AW has been known to impact on student progress throughout
university, often resulting in drop-out and underachievement, frequently dur-
ing the first major assessment period (Lowe and Cook 2003). In most cases,
the reason for drop-out or underachievement is the failure to make a suc-
cessful transition from FE to HE, particularly in the epistemological beliefs
developed. The scale of the specific AW problem faced by students as they
transit from FE to HE is as yet unknown, but it is likely to be strongly
affected by epistemological beliefs – as well as habits developed in informal
spoken language, which uses a greater proportion of grammatical words
rather than noun phrases which group ideas together into complex bundles
as used in academic writing, making academic text more difficult to read
(Borg and Deane 2011).
It is important for staff to engage in ‘reflective practice’ to consider how
effective their teaching practices are (see for example Payne 2002) and
establish ways to improve what they are doing. In this respect, the issue of
poor performance in AW was raised at a staff reflective away day, and as a
result this study was designed to capture evidence of the barriers and
solutions to AW amongst our students.

Aims and objectives

This study aimed to identify staff (both HE and FE) and student perceptions
of the barriers to successful AW and develop context-specific solutions to
these.

Methods
The study used a qualitative approach involving a mixture of moderated and
unmoderated focus groups. Unmoderated focus groups were conducted with
second-year health studies undergraduates who were divided into small
groups (n=7 people per group with a total of 10 groups), and moderated
focus groups were conducted with health studies staff (one focus group of
six people) at the university and FE staff (one focus group of three people)
at the college to discuss and record their feelings about AW and identify
 Journal of Further and Higher Education 309

potential solutions to any challenges faced, as outlined in the results section.

The questions used in the focus groups were generated during a break-out
session on AW at a staff reflective away day, and modified after an extensive
review of the literature.

Recruitment
Following ethical approval from the university, students and HE and FE
staff were pre-informed, by means of a written e-mail, of the intention to
conduct a research study (for students this was carried out during class
time), and asked for their voluntary participation and written consent. The
purpose of the research was explained as per the aims stated above, and
confidentiality, anonymity and the right to withdraw or not to take part in
the research assured to all participants. All students participated in the focus
groups. Students were given key questions to reflect on and then comment
on when they were ready, either by audio-tape or in writing, as was
convenient.

Methodological approach
Qualitative approaches are useful to explore the richness and significance of
people’s context-dependent experiences; in the generation of new theories;
and in the early stages of problem analysis and project design (Griffiths
1999). Focus groups are increasingly used to elicit the beliefs, attitudes, or
views of a range of populations (Barbour and Kitzinger 1999), and have a
number of advantages. Focus groups allow the participants to highlight
issues that are important to them; can potentially negate the inherent power
relations between the researcher and the researched; can allow the true
voices of participants to be heard (Cully, Hudson, and Rapport 2007); and
can produce a breadth of information and allow researchers to increase their
sample sizes. The interaction within them produces data and insights that
would be less accessible by other means and enables people to form opin-
ions in context whilst gaining from the experience of being participants
(Peek and Fothergill 2009). This study utilised unmoderated (no moderator
present) and moderated (facilitated by a moderator or interviewer) focus
groups. Unmoderated focus groups were used for students to facilitate dee-
per exploration and expression of views and opinions, and to eliminate mod-
erator bias. A previous study by Fern (1982) found no significant
differences between moderated and unmoderated focus groups in the number
and quality of ideas developed by participants. This would intimate that the
quality of the data generated in this study is likely to be very similar
throughout. Also, it is noted that there was an imbalance in number of par-
ticipants between student focus groups and staff focus groups, and between
the two staff focus groups. The aim was not to gain a representative sample
310 I. Itua et al.

but to obtain staff and students’ views on AW difficulties and possible solu-
tions. It is acknowledged that if 70 HE and FE staff had been interviewed,
the barriers and solutions suggested might have been different – a possible
limitation of this study. The questions posed to the three groups were on the
same themes, but were modified slightly for the student group to capture
their perceptions of AW, which were likely to differ from those of FE and
HE staff.

Results
Tape-recorded focus groups were transcribed and analysed to draw out key
themes using thematic content analysis, where themes are grouped relating
to each of the questions as outlined below.

Student focus groups

What do you understand AW to be, and how important do you feel it is?
Most of the groups (6/10) identified AW in terms of forms of assessment
associated specifically with university, such as ‘essays, lit reviews and
research’ and ‘reports, journals, research proposals, projects, essays’. This
was in turn related to the need for such writing to be ‘based on evidence’,
with a number of groups (6/10) indicating that AW should be ‘based on
studies, peer reviews’, ‘mainly based on research’ and, again, ‘based on
evidence in terms of references, and not just opinion-based’. Others
described AW as ‘intellectual writing’ involving ‘critical thinking’.
The importance of AW was associated with developing ‘understanding of
specific subjects’, ‘aid[ing] learning’ by encouraging students to read around
topics and helping to develop writing skills by improving grammar. One
group did see AW as helping with learning, but added that it also ‘constrains
you to write in a particular way’.

Has your understanding of AW changed since you left FE? If so, how?
Nearly all the groups (9/10) agreed that their understanding of AW had
changed significantly since leaving FE. Several highlighted what they
regarded to be the key differences between writing at FE and HE levels,
pointing particularly to the lack of requirement to provide references at
A-level – for example, ‘[r]eferencing is required more at university but you
didn’t need it at school’. It was felt that writing at HE level was ‘not as sim-
ple as it was in FE’ and that it had to be more ‘in-depth’, ‘analytical’,
‘structured’, ‘complex’, ‘critical’ and ‘concise’. Writing at FE level was
understood as being ‘more descriptive’, whereas in HE a greater emphasis
was placed on ‘evidence and analysis’. Further, one group noted that ‘FE
didn’t mind us using websites, but now we have to use more government
websites, trusted sites and journal articles’.
 Journal of Further and Higher Education 311

Are there any issues that make AW difficult for you? If so, what are these?
Three main issues emerged from group discussions: ‘referencing’, ‘academic
jargon’ and ‘writing structure’.
The primary issue for the students lay with referencing: all groups identi-
fied this as a problematic aspect of AW. Concerns ranged from putting ‘oth-
ers’ work into your own words’ and being able to demonstrate that ‘the data
that you find is backed up [by] research’ to simply not knowing how to ref-
erence correctly. The latter was in turn associated with ‘different reference
styles for different subjects’, ‘too many obstacles as you have to reference
everything’, not knowing ‘how many [references] to use’, and a general dif-
ficulty with ‘getting it right’ – as one group asserted:

REFERENCING! No matter how many times we are given lectures, hand-outs

or guides to referencing, it is so difficult to apply when writing an essay or
report.

Additionally, two groups noted how students with learning disabilities could
find this particularly difficult (although this exceeds the parameters of the
present study, it is nevertheless an important issue that may require further
investigation).
A further theme identified by groups related to ‘complicated vocabulary
and subject jargon’ which ‘make AW difficult’. This appeared to be experi-
enced as a barrier to learning, with several groups expressing frustration at
what they regarded as unnecessary language – ‘sometimes there’s no need for
it’ – whilst others viewed it as slowing down their learning: ‘[a] new way of
writing takes time and understanding, especially with complex words’. Inter-
estingly, this highlights what Lea and Street (2006) talk about in their aca-
demic literacies concept: learning the appropriate discourse is an integral part
of learning to think like a psychologist, or a geographer, or a health scientist.
A small number of groups expressed some concern over the structure of
AW, which was recognised as being ‘a lot more complex in structure’. It
was suggested that perhaps more could be done to advise students how to
develop their skills. One group noted: ‘we were given examples of what a
good essay was, but didn’t understand why it was good’.
This ties in with current concerns about feedback across the sector raised
by the National Student Survey (2005–2011), which notes that students do
not always understand what the feedback means (e.g. Weaver 2006).

In what ways do you feel that FE prepared you for writing academically at
HE and could this preparation have been improved?
Responses to this question were mixed, reflecting very different experiences
of AW at FE. For some groups, FE was viewed as not having provided ade-
quate preparation for HE:
312 I. Itua et al.

FE did not prepare us. The writing style was completely different at FE.

Others asserted that FE provided a basis for understanding AW which had

acted as a ‘stepping stone’ to HE and had prepared them quite well by intro-
ducing ‘academic words’ and helping to improve writing skills; that refer-
encing techniques had been used at college; and that FE had encouraged
them to think about providing evidence for their ideas.
Regarding potential improvements at FE, some felt that writing should be
linked more clearly to expectations at HE. Specific issues included a greater
emphasis on referencing across the FE curriculum, more support regarding
how to undertake research and less reliance on the use of websites. Further
reference was made to the actual writing itself, for example:

[FE institutions] need to teach how essays are going to be written differently
in HE.

One group went as far as to suggest that Access courses (post-16 prepara-
tion for entrance to university) and A-levels should be made more difficult,
as ‘people need to realise how difficult it is to write at HE’.

In what ways do you feel [your] first year has prepared you for AW in your
second and third years, and do you feel this preparation could have been
improved?
Students’ views on their first year’s effectiveness in preparing them for their
second year were generally quite positive. Some focused on referencing,
suggesting that ‘lessons on referencing and writing’, the introduction of
Harvard referencing and encouragement to ‘us[e] journals’ had acted as
good preparation. Others noted that ‘advice to attend the Writing Centre
[…] contributed to improved writing skills’. One group commented that
lectures and tutorials made clear the expectations around AW, particularly
around structure, whilst further reference was made to the guidance provided
on ‘how to research’ and the ‘importance of proof-reading’.
Students felt that second-year preparation could be improved by provid-
ing general essay feedback sessions; more lessons on AW; more essays,
which would help ‘improve understanding of AW in practice’; more
opportunities to submit drafts; more homework; a chance to use essays from
previous years to help develop writing skills; more support for general
reading; more information on how to research; and tougher marking, so that
students knew what to expect.
Additionally, practical measures relating to facilitating the transition from
the first to the second year were identified. These included more advice pro-
vided at the end of the first year regarding the expectations of the second
year, and provision of a brief resume of referencing techniques at the begin-
ning of the second year.
 Journal of Further and Higher Education 313

Students reported that whilst first-year guidance had been helpful, in the
second year they felt that they had been ‘left to get on with it’ and had
‘been thrown in at the deep end’ – although one group noted that students
could take more responsibility themselves, saying ‘those that took [the first
year] seriously are well prepared’.

At this point in time what do you feel could be done to improve your AW
skills?
Responses to this question were quite sparse; nevertheless, a few observa-
tions were made which are worthy of comment.
Some groups mentioned that greater use of the Writing Centre and/or the
provision of additional classes or AW-focused tutorials would help further
develop the necessary skills, with one group suggesting that it should be
‘compulsory to take [the] first assignment to the Writing Centre’. A related
suggestion was that there should be further opportunities for practicing essay
writing, to help with critical analysis skills. Further suggestions included
refresher lessons on referencing and AW at the beginning of the second year,
a ‘different library tour to focus more on journals’ and greater emphasis on
the use of academic literature to develop critical writing skills.

Findings from HE and FE staff

How would you define AW?
Whilst there was some discussion about expectations of AW from different
disciplines, generally HE staff agreed that the components of AW were:
good grammar; logic; structured paragraphs; information flow; not ‘flowery’
or too chatty; avoidance of ‘I’ or ‘we’; and that the text makes sense:

the easiest way to describe it is to write like you were writing a letter to the
Queen … so it’s got to be very formal English; and make good use of
vocabulary.

FE staff found AW more difficult to define:

it’s a difficult thing to start with. Well basically, any academic writing must
meet the purpose, like it must address the question that’s being asked...

How important do you think AW is?

There was general consensus amongst HE staff that AW was ‘very’ impor-
tant, though this varied by year of study, with third year students needing to
demonstrate greater breadth and depth of reading. It was felt that it would
be difficult to gain a first without having very good quality AW:

… it’s a funny question isn’t it because it will depend on the level … I would
certainly see academic writing much more important in [the] third year …
314 I. Itua et al.

What kind of challenges do you think students are facing?

HE staff felt that students do not generally do ‘open pieces of writing’ at
school and that a lot of coursework can involve filling in boxes with very/
fairly short, 50-word or ‘tick box’ answers, although there was recognition
that this might be different in other disciplines where students are encour-
aged to read more widely (such as history). This is fundamentally different
to university, and HE staff felt that students may feel quite ‘alone’ when
carrying out their first piece of writing:

To have to actually do a piece of work on their own probably because when

they’re in secondary school, it’s normally take down these notes or whatever, so
I suppose the first big challenge they have is actually doing work independently.

This was also reflected in the comments/findings of the FE staff. They also
felt, however, that some of the issues related to students’ lack of understand-
ing in respect of the meaning of words, which meant that answering ques-
tions was difficult, especially in respect of extended pieces of writing: ‘...
they’re fine on the shorter questions … but they don’t get much extended
writing’.
HE staff felt that in school, students were not encouraged to read round
the topic but taught to rely on hand-outs which provide all the answers,
leaving them unprepared to understand issues and form their own opinions:

I had an experience with my daughter… she did an A-level in psychology

and she was saying, ‘Oh we’re doing conformities’ and I said, ‘Oh, I’ve got
some interesting books on that’ and she was very clear, she just said, ‘Oh I
don’t need those, it’s all on the hand-out here…

FE staff felt that ‘technology’ was one of the key contributors to students’
difficulties in respect of understanding, evaluating and answering questions.
This was exacerbated by the fact that they did not seem to read books, but
instead relied heavily on information sources such as Wikipedia:

[Technology] doesn’t help with their extended writing because they want
everything now and they get frustrated when it doesn’t [click fingers], it’s not
all instant with them.

HE staff similarly felt that students were using websites (described as the
‘internet phenomenon’) rather than reading good sources (i.e. textbooks/jour-
nals) to inform their writing. This was seen to be a result of the way
students study for A-levels, using Google/Wikipedia extensively to generate
a range of easy-to-read information. This resulted in a number of problems,
such as not engaging with the literature, a reluctance to spend time using
the library and unscientific/layman’s terminology being used:
 Journal of Further and Higher Education 315

See I think they think they know what they’re expected to do, but … their
expectation is not our expectation.

FE staff also felt that the step from GCSE to A-level was too great, that
students need to be ‘entertained’, that modularisation of courses was a cause
for concern and that students had poor levels of concentration – this was
partly attributed to technology making it easy to access information quickly:
Yeah, they want all-singing and dancing and they sort of have lost the skills
to sit down and listen, to read and it is, it’s all this technology …

FE staff also felt that students (in general) were lazy:

some kids work really, really hard and they’re very, very conscientious, but I
think the sort of generation because of the way technology is and because fami-
lies are more child-centred now, people have [fewer] kids, people put all their
energies into – without being disrespectful, like, their little darlings, you know...

Barriers to academic writing

Time pressures
‘Lack of time’ was considered a barrier to AW by HE staff. For example,
the fact that students frequently had jobs (sometimes up to 40 hours per
week) resulted in them having insufficient time to match tutors’ expecta-
tions. It was noted that a recent survey found that almost all students
worked in excess of 20 hours per week, leaving them only approximately
10 hours of study time.

I think a lot of students either miscalculate the amount of time that’s really… I
mean I only say this on the basis that the number of interviews I’ve done for
plagiarism … nearly every students says ‘I ran out of time, I got really close to
the deadline and I took a lot of shortcuts and this is what I ended up with’.

There was a feeling that lack of time resulted in students taking ‘shortcuts’
that led to plagiarism cases, and that because students did not have the time
to understand and paraphrase text, they resorted to copying and pasting
information:

… I think the shortcut goes right back to not understanding because you
haven’t got time and so you couldn’t even write it in your own words at third
year and I think, I’m with you, I think oh gosh, fancy getting to this stage
and thinking it was alright to, you know.

HE staff also felt that lack of time was a barrier to academic reading, with
the fact that students know they can access information ‘instantly’ resulting
in them budgeting less time to complete work. This budgeting of time was
regarded as starting in sixth form, at which stage a large number of students
are already holding down part-time jobs.
316 I. Itua et al.

Yeah, I mean, if you can type it into Google and it comes straight up, then
everything’s quite instant isn’t it? And … when I was at university… you had
to go to the library and … it took you time to actually find it.

Lack of reading
HE staff felt that ‘academic reading’ was essential to developing AW skills,
perceiving that students were not good readers and were generally doing a
very limited amount of reading. To combat this, a range of strategies were
being used by tutors to foster academic reading in their student groups,
including asking students to read accessible material before seminars and to
read during seminars. There was a feeling that students had to be almost
‘forced’ to read; whilst this was worthwhile, the process was seen as very
time-consuming:

I’ve never really read a journal article, cause they are hard to read...

It was felt that if students found it difficult to understand a journal article on

the first read, the majority of them would reject that article in favour of an
easier-to-read text. This could result in research skills not translating into
writing competency, with students able to source the information but unable,
or lacking the time, to develop an understanding of it. HE tutors felt that it
would be better for students to read and understand a few texts, rather than
sourcing but not understanding many. The value of including a large number
of references was also questioned, with a suggestion that students might
include a lot of sources without necessarily engaging with those sources and
understanding them:

I’ve found myself writing a lot … ‘Your academic writing needs some further
work, I think this will come naturally if you do more background reading’.
But with some people you know I’ve written ‘Your academic writing needs
more work, I can see you’ve done the reading but you haven’t been able to
translate it’ …

Referencing
The HE focus group discussed the demands of referencing and pointed out
that because referencing is a very easy thing to comment on when work is
being marked, this may in fact over-emphasise its importance – and how
many marks are being allocated for it – when in fact the ‘spirit of referenc-
ing’ is more important:

… because referencing is a very easy thing to comment on when you’re writ-

ing... it seems that there’s all these comments on referencing, so referencing
must be the main thing, whereas in fact it’s probably worth about seven marks
or something …
 Journal of Further and Higher Education 317

Preparation for university by the A-level or school system

The general consensus from HE staff was that the first year of a degree
course consists of preparation for university. Whilst one tutor asserted that it
was important to assume ‘no prior knowledge’, another found that there was
a real mix of students, with extremely variable experience. This variability
posed challenges in terms of teaching, with some students already well able
to write academically and others not.
FE staff reported that it was difficult to pay particular attention to
students’ AW for several reasons, such as time limitations, pressure on staff
to get students through the course and the need to keep pupils engaged:

I just try and get them through the course...I’m not trying to make them better
essay writers, I am actually personally just trying to get them through what
they need to do to actually pass my course.

FE staff thought it was hard enough to help students to pass, especially

given the nature of the subject they teach:

Yeah and sometimes their attitudes aren’t the best … I’ll be honest, I’ve never
once thought ‘I need to do this because they’ll benefit at university’.

In addition, the FE teachers pointed out that ‘key skills’ had been scrapped as
a separately taught element within schools: ‘…we don’t need knowledge, do
we? ... because we can just get it “just like that”… but the skills, we need’.
FE teachers felt that in terms of having the time to prepare their students
for university, the exam boards lay at the heart of lack of emphasis/develop-
ment in respect of AW: one commented, ‘I would say that if the exam board
put it in what they want as a requirement then we’d have to have time
allocated, surely’.

Strategies to improve AW
Engaging students in academic reading
HE staff considered that given the link between reading and writing, finding
ways of engaging – or even forcing students to read and paraphrase – would
be beneficial:

... it might be quite good to actually give them something, I don’t know, force
them to read it and force them to then say it in their own words.

There was consensus that providing appropriate academic resources for first-
year students as a starting point for developing their AW was a good idea:
‘… this is your starting point, you can go and look up these papers to help
you with whatever it is that you have to do…’
318 I. Itua et al.

Improving writing skills

HE staff discussed the potential benefits of teaching students grammar, spell-
ing and paraphrasing – although some concerns were expressed regarding
how qualified tutors would have to be to do this and the length of time it
would take, given the pressures of the curriculum more generally:

… we almost need a unit of grammar because grammar is, I think grammar’s

still not very heavily taught in the English curriculum in the UK and I think
that just simple things that make you think academic writing’s not very good,
like ‘bear’ and ‘bare’ or …

HE staff further discussed tools such as writing packs, reading packs,

writing workshops or diagnostic tools designed to explore writing and learn-
ing skills earlier on in the course. It was also felt that sticking to a limited
number of texts in the first year would be helpful:

So maybe … we need to think more carefully when students come in perhaps

about them being at different levels and actually having different development
needs …

… I think as well, and this is another thing that I’ve learnt is that especially
in first year, we tend to stick to two textbooks…

HE staff also thought it beneficial to use comprehension-type exercises to

develop students’ ability to understand journal articles, which could be done
during lectures:

… we do reading exercises, almost like comprehension exercises … so

they’ve got a structured list of questions, what does this mean, what did they
find out here, so you know … if you’ve got a 10-page journal article, we’ll
break it down so that, you know, groups of three read two pages each …

Further, it was felt that spending time breaking down early assignments into
‘bite-sized pieces’, as well as giving students more time to develop their
work in depth, would help to develop both AW and students’ confidence
more generally:

… we spend like the whole of the first term building up to one practical
report … And to be honest it seems to work, you know and they do produce
some remarkably good 1500-word assignments…

Having a ‘skills week’ at the start of the second year

HE staff thought that a skills week would be useful at the beginning of the
second year, to refresh students’ knowledge of the skills acquired in first
year and also emphasise the importance of AW in achieving higher grades:
 Journal of Further and Higher Education 319

… And I think maybe we just need to make it really clear to students what
we expect of them at each level … and how important academic writing
actually is in the pecking order.

Discussion
This qualitative study was conducted in order to inform the development of
context-specific writing solutions for first-year undergraduate students in
health studies, through the process of identifying staff and student percep-
tions of barriers and solutions to successful AW. An understanding of
student beliefs about AW is important for university teachers, to enable them
to produce graduates ‘with strong writing skills who write and communicate
effectively in their learning communities’ (Hammann 2005, 17).
The main findings of this study are:

• There was difficulty in defining academic writing.

• Staff and students; views of what constituted academic writing
differed.
• The barriers and solutions identified by both staff and students differed,
perhaps as a relection of differences in the perception of what consti-
tutes academic writing.

Students perceived AW to be about evidence-based essays, literature

reviews, reports, journals, research proposals and projects. For students, the
emphasis was on the ‘evidence-based’ aspect. This is a clear expectation in
the subject discipline of health studies. However, HE staff perceived AW as
concerned with good grammar and vocabulary, logic, structured paragraphs,
fluent, formal English, sense, and the requirement to be ‘concise and… fac-
tually loaded’. For HE staff, the emphasis was on ‘structure and grammar’.
For FE staff, more stress was placed on the use of ‘key words’, explaining
that AW should be detailed and should use concepts and subject-specific
words. This highlights the contested nature of definitions of AW (Lea and
Street 1998), which are socio-culturally situated (Lillis and Turner 2001). It
also highlights the conflict between competing priorities which exists even
for lecturers, as explained by Murray (2002). Hammann (2005) discusses
the important role that teachers play in influencing students’ beliefs about
AW, either positively or negatively – a role which will no doubt be
hampered by the lack of clarity regarding what constitutes AW.
Students identified referencing, the use of academic jargon and difficulties
in structuring work as major barriers to AW. Lack of reading and understand-
ing of (complex) text was a barrier identified by HE and FE staff, along with
the lack of extended writing practice (FE), emphasis on short writing tasks
and the challenge/fear of open pieces of writing (HE). These barriers would
seem to apply to tutors as well (see Murray 2002; Moore 2003) and might be
320 I. Itua et al.

related to a lack of confidence/competence and obstacles encountered when

starting the writing process. The barrier posed by the complexity of academic
text – which is quite different from ordinary writing, as identified in Borg
and Deane’s recent research (2011) – would seem to be an issue that must be
addressed. FE staff identified that students lacked the ability to concentrate
and wanted to be entertained, a barrier commensurate with students’ claims
of finding academic content ‘boring’ or ‘hard to read’. In addition, HE staff
thought that lack of time (work–study balance) and not understanding what
was expected were barriers to AW. FE staff felt that technology prevented
students from developing AW skills, with Wikipedia and Google playing a
detrimental role in a ‘fast culture’. In respect of lack of time, a recent report
in the Guardian highlighted how student debt is leading more final-year stu-
dents to take on part-time jobs during term time and to work longer hours,
which is likely to have a detrimental effect on students’ university experience
(Williams and Vasagar, 2010). Given the new and significant rise in tuition
fees, the scale of this problem seems set to increase.
The emphasis on smaller pieces of writing at A-level has been found to
be a reflection of the pressure that schools are under to be successful in
respect of exam results, which are published in league tables (Thomson
2008). Ballinger (2003) found that A-level students are not expected to
study autonomously, with much of their critical and analytical skills being
developed solely in order to answer exam questions (see also Warshauer-
Freedman 1995). As the most common first piece of assessment at univer-
sity is an extended essay, and the assessment period is a major drop-out
point for first-year students (Lowe and Cook 2003), this is concerning.
Moreover, as Kember (2001) points out, the didactic/reproductive epistemo-
logical belief system from which many new undergraduates come, and into
which they have been socialised over their preceding 13 years, is generally
different to the belief system which underpins critical analysis – a core
requirement in university assignments. The fact that students do not seem to
be concerned about larger pieces of writing, whilst HE and FE tutors are,
could potentially indicate a mismatch between students’ and tutors’ under-
standings of what is needed for a university essay, a finding that was estab-
lished many years ago by Norton (1990). Undoubtedly, these differing
perceptions of what constitutes AW stem from the contested nature of its
definition highlighted above.
Despite the assumption that academics are automatically motivated and
able to write (see Moore 2003), this does not always appear to be the case
(see for example Murray 2002;Murray Thow, Moore, and Murphy. 2008).
The situation may be caused by lack of time, motivation, confidence, experi-
ence or expertise, often hampered by a lack of guidance or resources for for-
mal teaching in academic writing (Murray 2002). This inevitably means that
university teachers do not always feel competent to advise or teach their
students about how to write academically.
 Journal of Further and Higher Education 321

Several solutions were proposed by the students in the focus groups, who
indicated that there should be more taught sessions on academic writing and
essay writing, more opportunities to submit drafts, more feedback, the chance
to use essays from previous years, more support for reading and more infor-
mation on researching to help them to understand academic writing in prac-
tice. These suggestions echo Beaumont, O’Doherty, and Shannon’s (2008)
findings of similar concerns and experiences among first-year university stu-
dents. In addition, students in the current study felt that some sort of
refresher session at the beginning of the second year would be useful and that
the Writing Centre should be used more productively, although a recent paper
by Barkas (2011) questions the effectiveness of study skills centres, arguing
instead that writing skills are better taught in a specific disciplinary context.
These solutions seem to reflect the environment of the secondary school
teaching system, which Warshauer-Freedman (1995) found inadvertently
began to divest students of their responsibility for the subject matter when
writing. The craving for more direct help with academic writing and more
interaction with tutors is well documented (Boscolo, Arfé, and Quarisa
2007; Brown, et al. 2008; Hendricks and Quinn 2000; Kember 2001; Krause
2001; Norton et al. 2005; Read, Francis, and Robson 2001), although Brown
et al. (2008) and Norton et al. (2005) both found the uptake of AW support
offered was less than satisfactory. However, a study reported by Jessen and
Elander (2009) showed that a workshop intervention with FE students did
help them to understand HE assessment criteria better and ‘develop more
sophisticated beliefs about essay writing’ (376). Workshop interventions
may be part of the answer, but many academics believe that encouraging
students to read more is the key (see for example Mateos et al. 2011). Not-
withstanding this, as Murray (2002) noted, reading alone will not help writ-
ers to become productive, and development in AW is a process that usually
takes several months rather than being achieved in one-off workshops,
depending on each writer’s goal. The literature would suggest that whilst
increasing resources in the development of formal academic writing skills
teaching would be valuable (Murray 2002), other factors, such as motivat-
ing, improving confidence, providing behaviour change strategies (Murray
et al. 2008) and addressing the confusion felt as students attempt to write to
each tutor’s specification (Lillis and Turner 2001), may be necessary.
Several solutions were suggested by the HE and FE tutors. These
included giving clearer guidance on what is meant by AW and tutors’ expec-
tations at the outset (at each level); avoiding assuming a priori what the
problems of AW are; recognising the constraints placed on FE; paying
greater attention to students’ understanding of academic texts; engaging
students in developing their own AW; considering how the number of com-
ments on ‘referencing’ may skew students’ perceptions of what is important,
negatively impacting on understanding, and seeking a better balance
between ‘skills’ and ‘knowledge’.
322 I. Itua et al.

Conclusions and recommendations

A number of factors should be considered when looking at the conclusions.
Firstly, the study was carried out in a single university and associated FE
college. Secondly, the students involved in the research were all health stud-
ies students, so their concerns may not apply to students in other disciplines.
Thirdly, the method of investigation chosen had, in itself, some limitations.
With the caveats just described, the authors would suggest that the find-
ings of this study clearly highlight a range of barriers to AW that health
studies students are experiencing, predominantly in relation to referencing,
finding academic text boring or difficult to understand, having a lack of time
to engage with AW and the different expectations in school/college and
university. Interestingly, the barriers and solutions suggested by HE and FE
tutors were quite different from those suggested by the students, focusing on
clearer guidance about AW and expectations at the outset of each level,
greater awareness of the constraints on FE staff and empowering students to
develop their own AW skills, potentially by reducing the number of sources
that students were expected to engage with in order to encourage greater
depth and synthesis. This shows how the issue of supporting academic writ-
ing at any level is not addressed by any single solution.
Overall, the findings from this study support the literature, which high-
lights how differences in epistemological beliefs between secondary school
and higher education may negatively impact on the transition process.
Whilst it would appear that changes to the way in which students are taught
in secondary school would reduce the number of barriers to AW identified
in this study, the suggested recommendations must be situated within the
context of this research. Therefore, it is imperative to recognise the pressures
that FE teachers are under to achieve exam success, the degree of ‘responsi-
bility’ for student learning that FE teachers seem to have, and the difference
in epistemological beliefs between FE and HE. At the same time, the
increasing financial pressures that students will undoubtedly face must be
recognised, along with the impact this will potentially have on the amount
of time available for independent study. Two main recommendations/impli-
cations are therefore put forward:

(1) Students need clearer guidance on what constitutes AW and encourage-

ment to engage with writing support services, where available.
(2) Given the power of tutors to influence students’ beliefs in respect of
AW, coupled with the challenges to AW that tutors themselves report
(Murray et al. 2008), it would appear that the students’ issues cannot be
addressed separately from the issue of tutors’ own AW experience.

There is thus a need for staff development, specifically in clarifying what

constitutes academic writing and in developing their own academic writing
skills – which, in turn, raises its own challenges (Elvidge 2004).
 Journal of Further and Higher Education 323

Acknowledgements
The research was funded by the Higher Education Academy’s National Teaching
Fellowship Scheme project ‘Flying Start: Practices, Communities and Policies to Ease
the Transition to University Writing and Assessment’: www.hope.ac.uk/flyingstart
The authors would like to thank all the students and staff who contributed to the
research, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions on an earlier
manuscript.

Notes on contributors
Dr Imose Itua is an academic currently with two United Kingdom institutions. She
holds a PhD in Physiology obtained from the University of Manchester, a BSc
(Hons) degree in Medical Biology obtained from Brunel University and a
Postgraduate Certificate of Education in Adult, Further and Higher Education. She
has years of experience lecturing in the HE sector in the UK. She is interested in
medical and public health research, her main research interest being cardiovascular
health and health improvement in developing countries. She is equally intrested in
pedagogical research and has written a number of reports in this area. She has also
published a few articles in the areas of medicine and health and looks forward to
expanding this portfolio.

Margaret Coffey is a senior lecturer in Public Health at the University of Salford,

whose research interests focus on health, including health at work (with a focus on
stress), student well-being and health in the community (with a focus on
inequalities).

David Merryweather is a lecturer in Health at Liverpool Hope University with

specific interests in young people, health and risk.

Lin Norton is a professor emeritus of pedagogical research at Liverpool Hope

University where she continues to actively research and write about pedagogy in
higher education.

Angela Foxcroft currently works at the University of Liverpool.

References
Agar, M., and J. MacDonald. 1995. Focus groups and ethnography. Human
Organization 54, no. 1: 78–86.
Attwood, R. 2008. Plea for input in development of 14–19 diplomas. Times Higher
Education, October 16. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?section-
code=26&storycode=403956
Ballinger, G. 2003. Bridging the gap between A-level and degree: Some
observations on managing the transitional stage in the study of English
literature. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 2, no. 1: 99–109.
Barbour, R., and J. Kitzinger. 1999. Developing focus group research: Politics,
theory & practice. London: Sage Publications.
Barkas, L.A. 2011. ‘Teaching’ or ‘support’? The poisoned chalice of the role of
Students’ Skills Centres. Journal of Further & Higher Education 35, no. 2:
265–86.
324 I. Itua et al.

Becher, T. 1989. Academic tribes and territories: The culture of disciplines.

Buckingham, UK: SRHE.
Borg, E., and M. Deane. 2011. Measuring outcomes of individualised writing
instruction: A multi-layered approach to capturing changes in students’ texts.
Teaching in Higher Education 16, no. 3: 319–31.
Boscolo, P.B., B. Arfé, and M. Quarisa. 2007. Improving quality of students’
academic writing: An intervention study. Studies in Higher Education 32, no. 4:
419–38.
Brown, C.A., R. Dickson, A. Humphreys, V. Mcquillan, and E. Smears. 2008.
Promoting academic writing/referencing skills: Outcome of an undergraduate
e-learning project. British Journal of Educational Technology 39, no. 1: 140–56.
Cully, L., N. Hudson, and F. Rapport. 2007. Using focus groups with minority eth-
nic communities: Researching infertility in British South Asian communities.
Qualitative Health Research 17, no. 1: 102–12.
Elton, L. 2010. Academic writing and tacit knowledge. Teaching in Higher
Education 152: 151–60.
Elvidge, E.M. 2004. Exploring academic development in higher education: Issues
of engagement. Cambridge: Jill Rogers Associates.
Entwistle, N., V. McCune, and J. Hounsell. 2002. Approaches to studying and
perceptions of university teaching–learning environments: Concepts, measures
and preliminary findings. http://www.etl.tla.ed.ac.uk/docs/etlreport1.pdf.
Fern, E.F. 1982. The use of focus groups for idea generation: The effects of group
size, acquaintanceship, and moderator on response quantity and quality. Journal
of Marketing Research 19: 1–13.
Frean, A., Y. Yobbo, and I. Duncan. 2007. A-level students unable to write essays.
Times Online, August 15. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/educa-
tion/article2260498.ece.
Graham, S., and D. Perin. 2007. Writing next: Effective strategies to improve
writing of adolescents in middle and high schools. A report to Carnegie Corpo-
ration of New York.http://carnegie.org/fileadmin/Media/Publications/PDF/writ-
ingnext.pdf.
Griffiths, A. 1999. Organizational interventions – Facing the limits of the natural
science paradigm. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health 25, no.
6: 589–96.
Hammann, L. 2005. Self-regulation in academic writing talks. International Journal
of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 17, no. 1: 15–26.
Hendricks, M., and L. Quinn. 2000. Teaching referencing as an introduction to
epistemological empowerment. Teaching in Higher Education 5, no. 4: 447–57.
Jessen, A., and J. Elander. 2009. Development and evaluation of an intervention to
improve further education students’ understanding of higher education assess-
ment criteria: Three studies. Journal of Further and Higher Education 33, no.
4: 359–80.
Kember, D. 2001. Beliefs about knowledge and the process of teaching and
learning as a factor in adjusting to study in higher education. Studies in Higher
Education 26, no. 2: 205–21.
Krause, K. 2001. The university essay writing experience. A pathway for academic
integration during transition. Higher Education Research & Development 20, no.
2: 147–68.
Lea, M., and B. Street. 1998. Student writing in higher education: An academic
literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education 23, no. 2: 157–73.
 Journal of Further and Higher Education 325

Lea, M., and B. Street. 2006. The ‘academic literacies’ model: Theory and
applications. Theory into Practice 45, no. 4: 368–77.
Lillis, T., and J. Turner. 2001. Student writing in higher education: Contempo-
rary confusion, traditional concerns. Teaching in Higher Education 6, no. 1:
57–68.
Lowe, H., and A. Cook. 2003. Mind the gap: Are students prepared for higher
education? Journal of Further and Higher Education 27, no. 1: 53–76.
Mateos, M., I. Cuevas, E. Martín, A. Martín, G. Echeita, and M. Luna. 2011.
Reading to write an argumentation: The role of epistemological reading and
writing beliefs. Journal of Research in Reading 34, no. 3: 281–97.
Moore, S. 2003. Writers’ retreats for academics: Exploring and increasing the
motivation to write. Journal of Further and Higher Education 27, no. 3:
333–42.
Murray, R. 2002. Writing development for lecturers moving from further to higher
education: A case study. Journal of Further and Higher Education 26, no. 3:
229–39.
Murray, R., M. Thow, S. Moore, and M. Murphy. 2008. The writing consultation:
Developing academic writing practices. Journal of Further and Higher
Education 32, no. 2: 119–28.
National Audit Office. 2002. Improving student achievement in English higher
education. Report by the controller and auditor general, HC 486. London: The
Stationery Office.
National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (NCIHE). 1997, July. Higher
Education in the learning society, Report of the National Committee. [The Dear-
ing report]. Norwich: HMSO. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe/.
National Student Survey (NSS, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011). http://
www.hefce.ac.uk/learning/nss/.
Norton, L. 1990. Essay writing: What really counts? Higher Education 20, no. 4:
411–42.
Norton, L., K. Harrington, J. Elander, S. Sinfield, J. Lusher, P. Reddy, O. Aiyegbay-
o, and E. Pitt. 2005. Supporting students to improve their essay writing through
assessment criteria focused workshops. In Improving student learning 12, ed.
C. Rust, 159–74. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.
Orwell, G. 1946. Politics and the English language. https://www.mtholyoke.edu/
acad/intrel/orwell46.htm.
Payne, M. 2002. Social work theories and reflective practice. In Social work:
Themes, issues & critical debates (2nd ed.), ed. L. Dominelli, M. Payne and
R. Adams. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave/Open University.
Peek, L., and A. Fothergill. 2009. Using focus groups: Lessons from studying day-
care centers, 9/11, and Hurricane Katrina. Qualitative Research 9, no. 1: 31–59.
Read, B., B. Francis, and J. Robson. 2001. Playing safe’: Undergraduate essay writ-
ing and the presentation of the student ‘voice. British Journal of Sociology of
Education 22, no. 3: 387–99.
Reed, J., and V.R. Payton. 1997. Focus groups: Issues of analysis and interpretation.
Journal of Advanced Nursing 26, no. 4: 765–71.
Sheppard, C., and J. Gilbert. 1991. Course design, teaching method and student
epistemology. Higher Education 22: 229–49.
Thomson, A. 2008. Why we can’t turn our backs on the league-table generation.
Times Higher Education, January 10. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/
story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=400071.
326 I. Itua et al.

Toor, R. 2010. Bad writing and bad thinking. The Chronicle of Higher Education,
April 15. http://chronicle.com/article/Bad-WritingBad-Thinking/65031/.
Warshauer-Freedman, S. 1995. Exam-based reform stifles student writing in the
UK. Education Leadership 52, no. 6: 26–9.
Weaver, M. 2006. Do students value feedback? Student perceptions of tutors’
written responses. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 31, no. 3:
379–94.
Williams, R., and J. Vasagar. 2010. University tuition fees hike ‘will deter most
poorer students’ – poll. The Guardian, November 18. http://www.guardian.co.
uk/education/2010/nov/18/ipsos-mori-poll-tuition-fees-cuts.
Wrigley, T. 2003. Is ‘school effectiveness’ anti-democratic? British Journal of
Educational Studies 51, no. 2: 89–112.