{"title":"准备好接受高等教育了吗?教职员工和学生对跨学科学术素养维度的看法","authors":"S. Wollscheid, Berit Lødding, P. Aamodt","doi":"10.1080/13538322.2021.1830534","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article explores beginner student and staff perspectives of study preparedness across higher education institutions and disciplines in Norway, focusing on writing, reading and academic working skills. Drawing on focus group interviews among academic staff and students, findings show a certain academic unpreparedness by beginner students. Students apparently are not used to working hard or independently enough, struggling to read large text amounts, showing a lack of academic writing and reading skills. For hard-working students, findings show differences between non-selective and selective study programmes. Selective programmes, for example, law, seem to be more structured and aligned with upper-secondary school. Students in these programmes are a positively selected group, expected to be better prepared than their counterparts in open programmes. The article contributes to a combined perspective by students and staff on study preparedness across disciplines and institutions, with implications for further research and quality in higher education.","PeriodicalId":46354,"journal":{"name":"Quality in Higher Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prepared for higher education? Staff and student perceptions of academic literacy dimensions across disciplines\",\"authors\":\"S. Wollscheid, Berit Lødding, P. Aamodt\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13538322.2021.1830534\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This article explores beginner student and staff perspectives of study preparedness across higher education institutions and disciplines in Norway, focusing on writing, reading and academic working skills. Drawing on focus group interviews among academic staff and students, findings show a certain academic unpreparedness by beginner students. Students apparently are not used to working hard or independently enough, struggling to read large text amounts, showing a lack of academic writing and reading skills. For hard-working students, findings show differences between non-selective and selective study programmes. Selective programmes, for example, law, seem to be more structured and aligned with upper-secondary school. Students in these programmes are a positively selected group, expected to be better prepared than their counterparts in open programmes. The article contributes to a combined perspective by students and staff on study preparedness across disciplines and institutions, with implications for further research and quality in higher education.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46354,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quality in Higher Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quality in Higher Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2021.1830534\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality in Higher Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2021.1830534","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
Prepared for higher education? Staff and student perceptions of academic literacy dimensions across disciplines
ABSTRACT This article explores beginner student and staff perspectives of study preparedness across higher education institutions and disciplines in Norway, focusing on writing, reading and academic working skills. Drawing on focus group interviews among academic staff and students, findings show a certain academic unpreparedness by beginner students. Students apparently are not used to working hard or independently enough, struggling to read large text amounts, showing a lack of academic writing and reading skills. For hard-working students, findings show differences between non-selective and selective study programmes. Selective programmes, for example, law, seem to be more structured and aligned with upper-secondary school. Students in these programmes are a positively selected group, expected to be better prepared than their counterparts in open programmes. The article contributes to a combined perspective by students and staff on study preparedness across disciplines and institutions, with implications for further research and quality in higher education.
期刊介绍:
Quality in Higher Education is aimed at those interested in the theory, practice and policies relating to the control, management and improvement of quality in higher education. The journal is receptive to critical, phenomenological as well as positivistic studies. The journal would like to publish more studies that use hermeneutic, semiotic, ethnographic or dialectical research as well as the more traditional studies based on quantitative surveys and in-depth interviews and focus groups. Papers that have empirical research content are particularly welcome. The editor especially wishes to encourage papers on: reported research results, especially where these assess the impact of quality assurance systems, procedures and methodologies; theoretical analyses of quality and quality initiatives in higher education; comparative evaluation and international aspects of practice and policy with a view to identifying transportable methods, systems and good practice; quality assurance and standards monitoring of transnational higher education; the nature and impact and student feedback; improvements in learning and teaching that impact on quality and standards; links between quality assurance and employability; evaluations of the impact of quality procedures at national level, backed up by research evidence.