The analysis of 45 written reflections on the rhetorical working process from a postgraduate course in research communication reveals the postgraduate students to reflect on actio and pronuntiatio in standardised ways and to a lesser extent than on the other canons. This applies both to the physical and the digital iterations of the course. The students often link actio and pronuntiatio to elocutio and memoria and view oral presentations from a speaker-centered rather than audience-centered perspective. Not surprisingly, the students note that their body language becomes limited in the digital classroom and that they, therefore, must utilise their voices more. Depending on the students’ understanding of actio and pronuntiatio, utilising these can become a barrier or a breakthrough for successful research communication. These results prompt further discussion of actio’s and pronuntiatio’s potential for teaching research communication in the physical and the digital spaces.

Undersökningen av 45 skriftliga reflektioner över actio och pronuntiatio från en forskarutbildningskurs i forskningskommunikation visar att de forskarstuderade reflekterar över actio och pronuntiatio i mindre omfattning och på ett mindre personligt sätt än över de övriga faserna i partes. Detta gäller både då kursen gavs i det fysiska och i det digitala klass­rummet. De forskarstuderande nyanserar till viss del sin förståelse för actio och pronuntiatio genom att koppla dem till elocutio och memoria. Många utgår från egna behov som talare snarare än publikens behov som lyssnare. De forskarstuderande noterar att kroppsspråkets möjligheter digitalt begränsas och att rösten måste kompensera för det, vilket är ­förväntat. Beroende på de forskarstuderandes förståelse för actio och pronuntiatio kan dessa ge uttrycksfrihet eller utgöra ett hinder i forskningskommunikation. Resultaten fordrar vidare diskussion om actios och pronuntiatios potential för forskningskommunikation i det fysiska och det digitala rummet.

With the aim to develop good teaching practices with regard to language development and literary competence the chapter demonstrates how sequences of pictures – in this case two sets of illustrations by Russian illustrator Igor Oleynnikov – were used in two different but related ways in the teaching of literature and language: to create a better understanding of how literature works, and to stimulate creativity. In a first workshop, the focus was on a Russian version of “Snow White,” called “The Dead Tsarevna and Seven Bogatyrs.” The task, assigned to groups of four, was to arrange the randomly presented illustrations in such a way that the sequence made narrative sense. The second workshop was devoted to Oleynnikov’s illustrations to “Judges.” The workshops were carried out with two different cohorts of students, one in secondary, and one tertiary education. In the chapter it is shown that each of the interpretive, collaborative, and creative stages represents a learning opportunity that engages the students’ linguistic and literary competence, as well as their aesthetic sensibilities and metacognitive faculties.

To compile empirical research published in Swedish about instructor feedback on student written and oral production in Swedish higher education, we have conducted a systematic survey of recent publications (2010-2020) in seven Swedish academic peer-reviewed journals with educational foci. The results of this survey were surprising: during the last ten years, only two studies in Swedish investigating instructor feedback on student writing were published. We found no studies on instructor feedback on student oral production. Moreover, these studies defined the concept of feedback vaguely and used it inconsistently. Not only is the fact that there are so few studies in Swedish on feedback in higher education remarkable, but the inconsistent use of the concept also makes theoretical and pedagogical development difficult. Based on these findings and, to a degree, contrary to the current policies encouraging international publication, we argue that more research publication should also be encouraged in Swedish on Swedish higher education for higher education practitioners.

I detta nummer av Högre utbildning fokuseras huvudsakligen på hur studenter kan engageras i forskning samt lärares skriftliga reflektioner om sin egen undervisning.

In this study, we aim to investigate how students on a cross-disciplinary postgraduate course in research communication describe the formative peer feedback they have received on their oral presentations and what impact they report it has had on their performance. The study is based on a qualitative analysis of 36 transcribed video recordings from the course. Our findings show that the students, through their reflections and revisions, clearly demonstrate to have appropriated and, in some cases, also transformed the course content: they were able to select parts of the feedback relevant to their development and redefine some of the concepts to suit rhetorical situations. Surprisingly, feedback on deficits in student presentations resulted both in reflection and revision, while affirmatory feedback resulted, if at all, in reflection only. These results may help develop effective educational tools for assessment of oral performances in higher education.

I denna artikels blickpunkt finns forskarstuderande från olika discipliner som möts i en kurs om att presentera forskning och forskningsresultat muntligt för olika typer av åhörare. Författarens intresse är att undersöka hur dessa möten gestaltas och vilken betydelse respons har för de forskarstuderandes kunskapsbygge om forskningskommunikation. Ett väntat resultat var att de forskarstuderande skulle utmanas i synen på muntlig forskningskommunikation. Ett mer oväntat resultat var att humor fram­träder som en del av kunskapsbygget kring responsgivning av forskningskommunikation. Ett annat överraskande resultat var den betydelse andra forskarstuderandes erfarenheter fick för det egna ethosbyggandet. I två övergripande tema, Kommunikations­mönster utmanas och Meningsfulla möten, presenteras dessa och andra resultatet. Artikeln avslutas med en diskussion om betydelsen av tvär­vetenskapliga möten när forskar­studerande bygger muntliga ethos.

The focus of this article is the interaction between doctoral students from different disciplines who meet in a PhD course concerned with the oral presentation of research in both academic and popular contexts. The author investigates how the meetings unfold with special attention to the way knowledge building about science communication is developed through peer response. One predictable result was that the graduate students would develop a more nuanced view of verbal research communication. A more unexpected result was that humour emerged as part of the knowledge-building around feedback on research communication. Another surprising result was the importance of other doctoral students’ experiences as a factor in establishing individual ethos. The results of the analysis are presented under two headings: “challenging communication patterns” and “meaningful meetings”. The article concludes with a discussion of the knowledge building around oral communication that happens through dialogue and collaborative reflection.

I Sverige författar Universitetskanslersämbetet (tidigare Högskoleverket) på uppdrag av regeringen kunskapsmål i den så kallade högskoleförordningen (1993:100). Dessa kunskapsmål reglerar vad som ska uppnås för examen i högre utbildning. Högskoleförordningen är styrande för vad som sedan skrivs fram av olika lärosäten i utbildnings- och kursplaner. Det som intresserar mig i ett projekt kallat Kommunikation mot profession är hur kunskapsmål om studentens muntliga färdighet och förmåga skrivs fram i dessa utbildningsdokument. Det övergripande syftet med forskningsprojektet är att identifiera på vilket sätt muntliga kommunikativa förmågor i utbildning korresponderar med den kommunikativa kompetens som efterfrågas i professionell verksamhet. Jag har textgranskat utbildningsdokument i hierarkisk ordning – högskoleförordning, utbildningsplaner, kursplaner och kursguider för sjuksköterskeutbildningen på ett lärosäte – samt granskat 111 självvärderingar från olika professionsutbildningar som görs i samband med den kvalitetsvärdering som pågår av svensk högre utbildning år 2011-2014. Den forskningsfråga jag besvarar genom textgranskningen är ”Vilka möjligheter ges studenter att förändra sitt ethos i utbildning?”. Ett resultat är att det verkar finnas svårigheter att variera skrivningar som gäller kunskapsmålet om muntlig framställning vilket jag menar kan försvåra lärarens iscensättning av undervisning i muntlighet. På denna framläggning vill jag diskutera möjligheter och svårigheter att iscensätta undervisning i muntlighet utifrån de kunskapsmål som formuleras i styrande dokument.

On one hand, when scientific language is used in a popular context, the effect can be that researchers are incomprehensible. On the other hand, the use of a laymen language in scientific contexts often discredits the researcher. This paradox is acknowledged in the Swedish Higher Education Ordinance, which specifies that PhD-students must be able to present their research to different audiences upon the completion of their education, both academic and non-academic audiences. For the last four years I have been the course co-ordinator for a PhD-course “Presenting research for different audiences,” in which the participants are examined through two oral presentations to different imaginary audiences, that of academic peers and that of interested laymen. To make the students aware of the importance of language choices in this context, I ask them to write word-for-word scripts for both presentations. At the beginning, the main reason was to help me to better understand the various research fields and topics chosen and to give me insight into both the process and the product before the examination. This teacher-centered pedagogical approach has, however, proved to be a learning situation conductive of language development in the PhD-students; through these word-for-word scripts, the rhetorical function of language is made prominent in an unexpected way. My current research project Narratives in research communication: the story as an academic argument draws on the empirical material collected for four years in form of word-for-word scripts, both for the scientific and popular presentations for each student in the course. The aim of the project is to make visible and explore the narratives of scientific argument. I found that the student’s awareness of the different audiences is more prominent in their language choices if they are asked to compose word-for-word scripts than otherwise. In this talk, I focus on the educational situations thatarise when PhD-students compile word-for-word scripts instead of the more traditional scripts based on keywords. References Baur, Martin W. (2008). Survey research and the public understanding of science. I Trench, Brian (red.). Handbook of public communication of science and technology. London, UK: Routledge. ss. 111-130. Baur. Martin W. 2009). The evolution of public understanding of science – discourse and comparative evidence. I Science, technology and society. 14 (2). ss. 221-240. Garrett, Peter (2010). Attitudes to language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Irwin, Alan & Wynne, Brian (red.) (1996). Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Jørgensen, Charlotte, Kock, Christian & Rørbech, Lone (2011). Retorik der flytter stemmer: hvordan man overbeviser i offentlig debat. Ödåkra: Retorikförlaget Olsson Jers, Cecilia (2010). Klassrummet som muntlig arena: att bygga och etablera ethos. Diss. Lund : Lunds universitet. Olsson Jers, Cecilia (2011-2013) Kommunikation mot profession. Muntlighet som en del av den kommunikativa kompetensen i utbildning: http://www.mah.se/Forskning/Sok-pagaende-forskning/Kommunikation-mot-profession-Muntlighet-som-en-del-av-den-kommunikativa-kompetensen-i-utbildning/ Weber, James R. och Schell Word, Charlotte (2001). The Communication Process as Evaluative Context: What Do Nonscientist Hear When Scientists Speak. I BioScience June 2001, 15 (6).