First-year university students' perceptions of themselves as writers of academic texts

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY-NC 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ First-year university students' perceptions of themselves as writers of academic texts © Authors and University of Jyväskylä 2024 Published version Riikonen, Jonna; Kotilainen, Sofia Riikonen, J., & Kotilainen, S. (2024). First-year university students' perceptions of themselves as writers of academic texts. In A. Károly, L. Kokkonen, M. Gerlander, & P. Taalas (Eds.), Driving and embracing change : learning and teaching languages and communication in higher education (pp. 221-240). University of Jyväskylä. JYU Studies, 1. https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978952-86-0238-5 2024 First-year university students’ perceptions of themselves as... 221 FIRST-YEAR UNIVERSITY STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THEMSELVES AS WRITERS OF ACADEMIC TEXTS Jonna Riikonen & Sofia Kotilainen Learning to write academic texts and developing an academic writing identity can be challenging for students transitioning to university because they are not yet familiar with the norms and conventions of the academic and specific disciplinary discourse community.This article qualitatively examines how first-year university students define themselves as writers of academic texts, and how they perceive themselves as mastering the writing skills required in an academic context. For our study, we interviewed 11 first-year students who, before the interview, had participated in the first course as part of their mandatory language and communication studies. We analysed the interview data applying the three aspects of the writer identity model proposed by Clark and Ivanič (1997): the authorial, autobiographical, and discoursal self. We discuss how the challenges in writing experienced by students could be considered in the pedagogical development of these courses and how the transition from upper secondary schools to university could be better supported to prevent uncertainty and confusion associated with writing at the beginning of university studies and support the development of students’ writing identity. Keywords: Academic writing skills; higher education pedagogy; writing identity Yliopistoon siirtyvien opiskelijoiden voi olla haastavaa oppia kirjoittamaan akateemisia tekstejä ja kehittää akateemista kirjoittajaidentiteettiään, koska he eivät vielä tunne akateemisen ja tieteenalakohtaisen diskurssiyhteisön normeja ja konventioita. Tässä artikkelissa tarkastellaan, miten ensimmäisen vuoden yliopisto-opiskelijat määrittelevät itseään akateemisten tekstien kirjoittajina ja miten he kokevat hallitsevansa akateemisessa kontekstissa vaadittavat kirjoitustaidot. Laadullista tutkimustamme varten haastattelimme 11 ensimmäisen vuoden opiskelijaa, jotka olivat ennen haastattelua osallistuneet pakollisten kielija viestintäopintojensa ensimmäiselle kurssille. Analysoimme haastatteluaineistoa soveltaen Clarkin ja Ivaničin (1997) luoman kirjoittajaidentiteettimallin kolmea näkökulmaa: kirjoittajaminä, omaelämäkerrallinen ja diskursiivinen minä. Pohdimme sitä, miten opiskelijoiden kokemat kirjoittamisen haasteet voitaisiin ottaa huomioon kielija viestintäopintojen pedagogisessa kehittämisessä ja miten siirtymää lukiosta yliopistoon voitaisiin tukea paremmin. Tällä tavoin voitaisiin ehkäistä kirjoittamiseen liittyvää epävarmuutta ja hämmennystä yliopisto-opintojen alussa ja tukea opiskelijoiden kirjoittajaidentiteetin vahvistumista. Asiasanat: Akateemisen kirjoittamisen taidot, korkeakoulupedagogiikka, kirjoittajaidentiteetti Riikonen & Kotilainen 222 Introduction Academic writing is an essential part of the activities of academic communities. For students, success at university requires high-level writing skills (Bailey, 2018; Li & Mak, 2022). Teachers use writing as a fundamental assessment tool to determine whether a student has successfully completed a course (Lillis, 2001). Scholars and researchers participate in scientific discussion through a range of texts, which contribute to the advancement of scientific knowledge and understanding. Academic writing can itself be seen as a crucial way of contributing to the development of different disciplines and the solution of various societal problems through research (Kniivilä et al., 2017). Writing is also strongly connected to learning, as students acquire, extend, and deepen their knowledge through the process of reading and writing (Bailey, 2018; Lea & Street, 2006). According to Hocking and Fieldhouse (2011, p. 44), “the learning and production of disciplinary knowledge cannot be separated from the learning and production of writing”. To learn writing, students must first engage with and critically think about the ideas they have read, before learning how to express their own ideas and perspectives clearly instead of merely repeating or summarising information from existing literature (Palonen et al., 2017; Tynjälä, 2001). This process of becoming a fluent and successful academic writer is, therefore, a long one. Since academic writing can also be seen as a social practice (Lillis, 2001; Murray 2015) rather than as a detached and mechanical skill to be mastered, developing academic writing skills also includes internalising certain ways of thinking and communicating (Khumalo & Reddy, 2021). But this socialisation requires time and effort (Torvelainen et al., 2021), especially for new university students transitioning from secondary school to universities, who often perceive academic writing norms and conventions to be confusing (Lillis & Turner, 2001) and see the expectations and requirements regarding academic writing as challenging (Roald et al., 2021; Silva, 2017; van Schalkwyk et al., 2010). As the requirements are different from those of their previous studies, students are forced to rethink both their writing and their writing identity. Examining writing identity is important not just because writing is a vital part of participating in an academic community (Li & Mak, 2022), but also because a strong writing identity has a positive impact on students’ attitudes towards writing (Kallionpää, 2017). Thus, when students start university studies, they become gradually socialised into the norms and practices of academic communication, which are often different from what students are used to in their previous studies (e.g., Jalkanen & Taalas, 2015; Lea & Street, 2006; Wingate & Tribble, 2012). Some scholars argue that upper secondary school often seems to be unable to adequately prepare students for university when it comes to writing (Li & Mak, 2022; Bailey, 2018). Such challenges can affect identity, when, for example, a previous view of oneself as a good writer no longer applies and students need to rethink their writing identity. Academic writing skills have been widely studied in various contexts, focusing on different aspects (e.g., Bailey, 2018; Lea & Street, 2006; Morton et al., 2015), including students’ writing identities in academic contexts (e.g., Read, 2011; Vassilaki, 2017). However, research on writing identity in the Finnish context is limited. Some exceptions are Erra (2020) and Kallionpää (2017), who focused on the writing identities of upper secondary school students, while Vanhatalo (2008) examined the writing identities of Finnish university students. Since students’ perceptions of their academic writing are affected by a multitude of factors, including First-year university students’ perceptions of themselves as... 223 the sociocultural context, it has been emphasised that more research is needed (e.g., Boughey & McKenna, 2016). In the present study, we explore through interviews how first-year university students at a Finnish university identify themselves as writers of academic texts. According to the broad concept of text, texts can be both spoken and written. In this study, however, texts refer specifically to written texts. Our study has a phenomenological orientation and a qualitative research design, and it aims to explore, make visible, and understand personal experiences, perspectives, and meanings that individuals give to certain phenomena (e.g., Fraser & Taylor, 2022). We are specifically interested in how novice academic writing students see themselves as writers in an academic context and also in relation to their previous writing experiences and studies. We draw on the concept of writing identity (Clark & Ivanič, 1997), which is strongly tied to the sociocultural context, and we aim to find out about students’ experiences of writing at university, which is an unfamiliar learning environment for them. The context of our research is the early phase of the restructured, integrated, multilingual, and discipline-specific language and communication studies at the University of Jyväskylä (for more on these studies, see the Introduction of this book by Károly et al., 2024). The goal of these studies is to support students’ socialisation into the academic community and their growth as academic experts (see Jalkanen & Taalas, 2015). The first course they need to take focuses on academic literacy, where the learning objectives encompass the acquisition of basic skills in academic communication. We will begin with a review of our key concept, writing identity, after which we present our research methods and findings. Writing identity Writers’ identities are socially constructed (Clark & Ivanič, 1997), shaped by previous experiences and the way writers position themselves in the act of writing (Ivanič, 1998). Ivanič (1998) emphasises the importance of the sociocultural context in the creation of identity. Highlighting the interactive nature of writing, she also points out that identity can be seen as the readers’ impression of the writer. Similarly, Burgess and Ivanič (2010) claim that writing identity is constructed discursively, and it changes over time in the interaction between a person, others, and their sociocultural context (see also Erra, 2020). According to Clark and Ivanič (1997), writing identity comprises three interrelated elements: the authorial self, the autobiographical self, and the discoursal self. The authors remind us that these three dimensions are inseparable and that acts of writing are “an ongoing struggle over possible identities” (p. 158). The authorial self is the writer’s perception of their own agency and position in relation to other scholars, conveying a sense of authorship and the author’s presence in the text (Burgess & Ivanič, 2010). An author’s perceptions of their skills and their ability to make choices as a writer influence their experience of their authorial self (see Erra, 2020). Perceptions of oneself and one’s skills also influence whether the writer considers themselves an author whose words have significance (Clark & Ivanič, 1997; Ivanič, 1998). If the author feels in control of their writing, their writing identity is positive, but often in the context of academic writing, the author (especially novice students) may feel that they have very little to say and that they would need deeper and broader knowledge to express their thoughts on what they read (Clark & Ivanič, 1997). Riikonen & Kotilainen 224 The autobiographical self is present in all writing (Clark & Ivanič, 1997), implying that an individual’s personal history, experiences and beliefs influence their writing (Burgess & Ivanič, 2010). Typically, the autobiographical self is directly influenced by feedback from the environment, for example from parents or teachers, and by different writing experiences (in and outside of school). In addition, sociocultural factors also have an effect on the autobiographical self (Burgess & Ivanič, 2010; Clark & Ivanič, 1997). Students’ social background affects not just their language use but also their values, beliefs, and thinking, and their access to educational opportunities and resources (Clark & Ivanič, 1997). On the other hand, the role of agency is crucial, and what matters is how an individual allows their experiences to affect them (Ivanič, 1998). The discoursal self refers to the writer’s discourse practices and is thus reflected in the text, for example, in lexical or stylistic choices (Clark & Ivanič, 1997). It is shaped by the author’s values and beliefs (Ivanič, 1998) as well as the social environment. According to Clark and Ivanič (1997), the writer consciously or unconsciously evaluates the characteristics of the social context, including the goal of writing, and the nature of the relationship between the writer and the reader. During the writing process, the writer anticipates what characteristics the reader will value, and at the same time, tries to create an image of themselves as a writer who fulfils the expectations (see also Ivanič, 1998). In an educational context, the goal of writing is determined by the specific task at hand and is influenced by the teacher’s expectations outlined in the assessment criteria. Methods of data collection and analysis Setting, participants and data collection methods For the present study, we interviewed first-year university students at the University of Jyväskylä who, before the interview, had participated in a course as part of the restructured, multilingual, and discipline-specific language and communication studies organised by the Centre for Multilingual Academic Communication. At the time of the interview, the participants were studying in their first year at either the Jyväskylä University School of Business and Economics (5 students) or the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences (6 students). All interviewees had completed upper secondary school and passed the matriculation examination. In addition, some of the students had graduated from a university of applied sciences, a university abroad or a vocational school. Before the interview, the participants had taken part in the first course (Academic Literacies), the primary objective of which is to introduce students to fundamental academic literacy skills and textual practices at the university. The central themes in the course are process-oriented writing of academic texts, including the use of scientific sources, reasoning and argumentation, learning discipline-specific referencing and other textual conventions (see e.g. Gimenez, 2017) and applying them through practice, as well as peer group work. We, the authors of this study, have acted as teachers in these courses. However, we have not taught all the participants ourselves. Those interested in participating in the research registered with the researchers by email. They had the option to stop participating at any time. The participants were given written information about the study and a privacy notice. They gave their consent to the study using an online Webropol form. First-year university students’ perceptions of themselves as... 225 All but one of the interviews were group interviews. One was carried out as an individual interview due to scheduling challenges. All interviews were conducted in Finnish via Zoom. We recorded these focus group interviews online in Zoom (video and audio recording). The risk of interviewing as a data collection method (regardless of its format) is that the participants might present ideas they think the interviewer will value (Pietilä, 2010). To minimise this risk, we reminded the interviewees there were no right or wrong answers to our questions, and that we were interested in their personal experiences, views, and perspectives. Face-to-face interviews have traditionally been considered better than other interview methods because they can give researchers a strong sense of presence (Fraser & Taylor, 2022). However, according to Hokka et al. (2022), it is also possible to achieve an experience of coherent interaction when using online technology, which can contribute to dispelling power relations in an interview situation. Inevitably, what is essential is not the instrument itself but the quality of the interaction between the interviewer and the interviewees (Fraser & Taylor, 2022). An additional advantage of an online interview is that participation does not require physical travel and can be more efficient in terms of time management for everybody involved. Some additional challenges of online interviews are that they make it more difficult to establish trust and personal connection (because of limited nonverbal communication). They have potential distractions and there may be unexpected technical issues. Thus, we determined that both individual and group interviews would produce similar answers and the interview format would not greatly affect the content of the answers. A semi-structured interview was chosen as the data collection method. All participants were asked the same interview questions, but the order of the questions varied slightly. The main questions were addressed to the whole group. The questions were related to writing identity and its development, the distinctive features of academic writing, the process of academic writing in practice, writing as a leisure time activity, collaborative writing, and students’ social background (for the original Finnish questions, see Appendix A). There were four interviews in total, one individual interview and three group interviews (one with four and two with three students). The interviews lasted between 60 and 115 minutes and resulted in a total of 55 pages of transcribed material (font size 10, line spacing 1). In the article we include the English translations of the data extracts, which were translated by a professional translator. The original Finnish versions of the interview extracts can be found in Appendix B (with their English translation). The individual interview format may be seen as more suitable than a group interview for eliciting personal opinions and perceptions (Pietilä, 2010), which was precisely what we aimed for. However, group interviews are also well suited for data collection because a joint discussion may bring up ideas that the participants would not have thought about otherwise. Furthermore, since the participants are in their own environment, often in a familiar setting, they may feel more comfortable, focused, and engaged. According to Eskola and Suoranta (1998), a group interview may actually provide more information than an individual interview. However, in group interviews, some individuals may not feel comfortable to express different viewpoints or share personal experiences. Thus, moderation is crucial to ensure that everyone in the group has an opportunity to contribute and share their views and perspectives and that the discussion is not dominated by the more assertive or outspoken participants. The interviewer also needs to keep the discussion focused on the research topic. In addition, data analysis is more challenging because it is more difficult to identify individual voices, especially Riikonen & Kotilainen 226 when there are overlapping dialogues, as well as to distinguish between shared and different individual experiences. Data analysis We used only gender-neutral Finnish-language first names as the pseudonyms of the students interviewed. The interviews were transcribed, but as we were interested in capturing the essence of the participants’ responses, we opted for less detailed transcription, which did not include pauses and corrections, for example (see Ruusuvuori, 2010). The transcribed data was examined by means of theory-based, deductive content analysis (see Tuomi & Sarajärvi, 2018). Content analysis (both deductive and inductive) involves three main stages: preparation, organisation and reporting of results (Elo et al., 2014). In the organisation phase, we constructed a categorisation matrix (Elo et al., 2014) based on Clark and Ivanič’s (1997) framework of writer identity, which served as the initial coding scheme in the data analysis. It contained the main categories (authorial self, autobiographical self, and discoursal self), as well as the related subcategories to be used in the coding process (see Table 1). Table 1 Our initial coding scheme derived from theory (Clark & Ivanič, 1997) Authorial self Autobiographical self Discoursal self The writer’s sense of personal power in relation to writing Authorship Own voice Presence Previous experiences Writer’s life-history Previous studies Socioeconomic background Social context of writing Participation in discussions in the field of science How the writer represents themselves in the text After the first cycle of coding, we needed to review and modify the predetermined categories in our initial categorisation matrix by merging some of the subcategories, as well as deleting or adding new subcategories under the predetermined themes, which we deemed more relevant in the actual context of our study. The result of this phase was a refined coding scheme, presented in Table 2. In the next coding cycle, we applied this refined codebook to the data. Table 2 Our refined coding scheme Authorial self Autobiographical self Discoursal self Feelings about writing and about oneself as a writer Own voice Controlling the writing process Previous perceptions of oneself as a writer including study history Own and others’ attitudes towards writing University as a social environment for writing Other people (teachers, peers) as part of the social environment As Clark and Ivanič (1997) point out, the different aspects of writing identity are not separate from each other, and therefore it was necessary to make choices about somewhat overlapping experiences and to consider which category an expression primarily belongs to. First-year university students’ perceptions of themselves as... 227 Results and discussion Authorial self The authorial self was examined by looking for the interviewees’ characterisations of their own writing and expertise, as well as their attitude to writing. The authorial self is also connected to one’s own voice and the writing process. Firstly, students defined themselves as writers in different ways. Typically, interviewees characterised themselves as writers in positive terms. They felt they were able to write and were “skilled” or at least “quite good” at it, and they also stated they felt mostly positive about writing. However, the interviewees had also experienced challenges in writing: It had been difficult, and writing could be associated with the thought of oneself as an unskilled writer. Typically, interviewees felt that at university the experience of authorship became more negative than before. They identified challenges for themselves in the new academic environment, saying they were “unaccustomed”, “timid” or “slow”. Academic writing was seen as “difficult” as well as “distressing”. The interviewees felt it was difficult to start writing because they did not know if they were doing it right (see also, Blair, 2017) and if they were using the correct vocabulary (see Nallaya et al., 2022). They were also unsure about reading the academic articles before writing (see also Nallaya et al., 2022): I was worried about how I would be able to write and how I could ever come up with anything to say about the articles. (Silmu) Compared to previous studies, students have been confused by new text genres at the beginning of their university studies (see also Nallaya, Hobson & Ulpen, 2022). In addition, they have had difficulty adopting different referencing techniques compared to the practices used in upper secondary school, while the fear of plagiarism has also increased uncertainty: Well, it’s completely different from what was taught during lower and upper secondary school, and when you are used to making references in a certain way and then the whole formula changes, and there are so many different options on how you can do it. So, it’s still kind of a new thing. (Pouta) Yet, amidst the challenges, the students were confident about the future and their ability to learn academic writing. They were sure that it is possible to learn to write by writing and that skills accumulate during one’s studies: But maybe that’s the kind of thing, that if you want to learn it, you have to just do it. (Ruska) After all, they seemed to have a positive orientation towards development (see also RantalaLehtola & Ruohotie-Lyhty, 2022). The interviewees found it important to have an experience of success in writing: Maybe that certainty only comes when you have experiences of success and then in a way you trust that it’s OK, that it’s going pretty well now. (Lumi) The second aspect of the authorial self was the author’s own voice. Interviewees acknowledged how little room there is in university studies to write texts using one’s own voice or based on, for example, personal experiences or observations. Moreover, they felt that producing Riikonen & Kotilainen 228 academic texts in the university context is more limited than previous writing situations, a feeling which has an impact on the meaningfulness of writing and also on the opportunities to demonstrate creativity (see also Roald et al., 2021): It depends a lot on the subject and maybe also on the type of text you’re writing, I think it’s nicer to write, for example, something like an opinion piece versus something like a really academic and precise text which is maybe a little – not so much fun in my opinion. (Pouta) The interviewees said that they were surprised by how little the author could express their own opinions when writing an academic text. This is a significant difference compared to upper secondary school, where one could write opinion pieces based on one’s own ideas. In fact, the interviewees reflected not only on the importance of and room for their own voice, but also on the impact of their own authority on the meaningfulness of their writing: The more freedom you have, the more creative it is and the more meaningful it is to write, because you can get your own voice heard more. (Valo) The interviewees recognised there are differing degrees of room for personal reflection in different types of tasks. For example, a learning diary, where students explore their own learning experiences and record their reflections and thoughts (see Rautiainen, 2023), was considered a meaningful genre of text because it enables more personal writing. Producing texts that allow for reflection and personal voice was seen as more interesting than, for example, writing traditional exam answers. The production of reflective texts was also thought to encourage a more process-based approach to learning: And you can perhaps bring out more of your own thoughts and maybe learn better if you use a process approach in which you start at the beginning and then in the middle you can work on the course content the whole time and not just aim for the exam. (Ruska) The third theme of the authorial self was writing process. Writing at university is more about producing new knowledge and a student needs to take the time to actually work on their thoughts. Planning the process enough beforehand is also crucial: Of course at university you have to write in a different style and of course it’s also much longer. When it was one page, it was usually the maximum you had to write, but now it can be [several pages], so it’s a bit of a different process, you can no longer do it in a day, but you have to set aside a week for it. I’m still searching for a good process for it. How I structure the schedule and everything else for it. (Naava) The interviewees recognised they were used to writing texts using the so-called one-off approach. In the past, they may not have written in a process-based way and as a result they have not learned how to edit text (see also Erra, 2017). They noted that the inherently short texts written in upper secondary school do not encourage process-based writing, and neither does the assessment, which usually focuses on the finished text: It was always just the end result, which is perhaps related to the matriculation examination. (Paju) The lack of familiarity with writing academic texts was reflected, for example, in difficulties in editing one’s own texts. The challenge was to identify where the text needed editing or how to improve it. Editing was often reduced to correcting typos. Another challenge may have been First-year university students’ perceptions of themselves as... 235 At university, a bridge could perhaps be built by recognising the students’ existing competence and remembering that the textual world of previous studies can be very different from that of the university. Perhaps at the beginning of one’s studies, it could be possible to move into the academic world of texts gradually, through text genres that are not academic but already familiar to the students (see, e.g., Roald et al., 2021). It would be important to tell students about their competence, for example, that in upper secondary school they have practised writing skills which are useful at university as well. The national core curriculum for general upper secondary education, issued by the Finnish National Agency for Education (Opetushallitus, 2019), states that in upper secondary school, students develop their skills to acquire and apply knowledge as well as their problem-solving skills, and the same skills are used and honed further in university as well – it is just that the practices are slightly different. It is also good to keep in mind that technical skills are ultimately only one aspect of writing and that writing also includes scientific thinking, which should be practised from the beginning of one’s studies (see also Torvelainen et al., 2021). A pedagogically important question is how teaching supports the development of students’ thinking skills consistently and from the beginning (see, e.g., Nallaya et al., 2022). Although the initial phase of studies involves uncertainty, previous study experiences seem to strengthen confidence in one’s own competence and ability to survive, and new habits become familiar over time. Secondly, an important factor that reduces uncertainty is the social environment. The support of both teachers and peers is not only important for students, but also necessary. It is reasonable to further strengthen community activities with various pedagogical solutions because there are many benefits for students from peer-to-peer work. Peer work can be more widely useful in the early stages of one’s studies, as peers can support each other in a wide range of problems and issues related to studying and thus also in integrating into the university community (see, e.g., Mickwitz & Suojala, 2020). Peer feedback can, at its best, help students to improve the quality of their texts (see, e.g., Huisman et al., 2019). However, it must be remembered that feedback skills must also be practised systematically during one’s studies (Blair, 2017), and it is important to ensure a safe environment in a way that encourages new writing practices (see, e.g., Jusslin et al., 2021). During their university studies, the students had already gained experience of producing collaborative texts in peer groups from the academic literacies course. Peer group work implemented in various ways can be useful, for example, in mastering the process of writing a text, but especially students in the early stages of their studies could also benefit from teacher feedback on their writing work in progress. This would allow them to see what kind of editing suggestions the teacher makes, and to better understand the variety of possible editing actions – as long as the feedback is sufficiently comprehensible (see, e.g., Lillis & Turner, 2001). In giving feedback, it would be important to take into account not only the form of the text, but also the development of the writer’s scientific thinking and writing identity processes. Thirdly, process-like working emerged as a phenomenon from the interviews. Writing requires thinking and a process-oriented way of working (e.g., Seow, 2002). The students pointed out that in their upper secondary school studies, working on relatively short texts in a process-oriented way did not seem very meaningful, and working on texts in stages was not something they had practised. However, the interviewees had understood that processoriented work was considered the ideal to be pursued in the university context. For all of them, the ideal had not yet been actualised, although more extensive texts inevitably require process-oriented work, and the so-called night-before tactic no longer works. Therefore, Riikonen & Kotilainen 236 teaching could benefit from paying more attention to the process-oriented nature of the work and how to schedule it. In teaching and guidance, it would also be important to provide students with more tools for editing and evaluating the quality of their own texts. Our findings suggest that it is inevitable that in a new environment students will have to reflect on their identity in many ways. It seems that students do not feel that academic writing is beyond their reach (see also Roald et al., 2021) and it can be expected that students’ confidence in their own writing will increase as their studies progress (see Elliott et al., 2019). Still, they see that mastering the norms of writing is challenging and that it requires study. Therefore, it remains necessary to consider how to support students in their socialisation into the academic community and how to address the challenges of students from different backgrounds so that unnecessary accumulation of frustration and confusion could be avoided in the early stages of university studies (see also, e.g., Gourlay, 2009; Jalkanen & Taalas, 2015; Shapiro, 2022). Pedagogically, it could be useful to pay more attention than before to how to support the strengthening of students’ identity at the beginning of their university studies. Making students’ previous study history and existing concepts of writing visible could help them recognise their own identity and the factors that affect it. Limitations and future research Although we have looked at identity through three aspects – authorial self, autobiographical self and discoursal self – it is clear that the different parts of identity cannot be separated from each other but also overlap. As Clark and Ivanič (1997) state, the three aspects are inseparable. For example, the sociocultural environment is present in all aspects of identity, although it is at its strongest when examining the discoursal self, and a writer’s perception of their creativity is influenced by their previous experiences with writing, their own sense of control in relation to writing, as well as the sociocultural environment in which they are writing. As we stated earlier, Clark and Ivanič’s (1997) model of writer identity is intended primarily for the examination of written texts. Therefore, our research has not necessarily been able to reach the different aspects of identity in sufficient depth. However, our material supports the framework’s idea that identity and writing are influenced by the sociocultural environment as well as by the writer’s history. These aspects were strongly present in the reflections of the interviewees. In addition, one challenge of the selected method was that the model was originally developed for written texts. For example, it was not possible to look at the aspect of presence from the interviews, because it is a feature specifically related to written texts. We still feel we were able to apply the model to the analysis of the interview material as well, because it was possible to group the participants’ comments according to the three aspects. The interview, in itself, is an effective method of data collection, as it allowed us to gain a deeper understanding of students’ views. The interviews could have been complemented with an analysis of academic texts written by the students as well. Clark and Ivanič’s (1997) framework helped us expand our understanding of identity and its different aspects, especially in relation to the sociocultural environment. Participation in our study was voluntary and the group of interviewees was small. It is also possible that students who are primarily interested in writing applied for the study. Thus, our results cannot be considered generalisable, but on the other hand, our findings support previous research results well. First-year university students’ perceptions of themselves as... 237 In the future, it could be interesting to study how students’ writing identity, writing and scientific thinking take shape and develop during their university studies. Reflecting on one’s writing identity in previous studies or working life could be fascinating. Moreover, it would be interesting to take an even deeper look at how the university as a sociocultural environment, with its own ideals and limits, is present in writing. References Bailey, R. (2018). Student writing and academic literacy development at university. Journal of Learning and Student Experience, 1, Article 7. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/301021821.pdf Blair, A. (2017). Understanding first-year students’ transition to university: A pilot study with implications for student engagement, assessment, and feedback. Politics, 37(2), 215– 228. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263395716633904 Boughey, C., & McKenna, S. (2016). Academic literacy and the decontextualised learner. Critical Studies in Teaching & Learning (CriSTaL), 4(2), 1–9. https://cristal.ac.za/index.php/cristal/article/view/80 Burgess, A. & Ivanič, R. (2010). Writing and being written: Issues of identity across timescales. Written Communication, 27(2), 228–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088310363447 Clark, R., & Ivanič, R. (1997). The politics of writing. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203351741 Elliott, S., Hendry, H., Ayres, C., Blackman, K., Browning, F., Colebrook, D., Cook, C., Coy, N., Hughes, J., Lilley, N., Newboult, D., Uche, O., Rickell, A., Rura, G.-P., Wilson, H., & White, P. (2019). ‘On the outside I’m smiling but inside I’m crying’: Communication successes and challenges for undergraduate academic writing. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 43(9), 1163–1180. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2018.1455077 Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., Pölkki, T., Utriainen, K., & Kyngäs, H. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: A focus on trustworthiness. SAGE Open, 4(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014522633 Erra, S. (2017). Kirjoittamisen diskurssit lukiolaisten kirjoittamista pohtivissa teksteissä [Discourses of writing in texts reflecting on the writing of high school students]. Sananjalka, 61(61), 165–181. https://doi.org/10.30673/sja.80207 Erra, S. (2020). Minä kirjoittajana, lukio ympäristönä: näkökulmia kirjoittamisen opetukseen [Perspectives on teaching, writing and exploring: Writer identity in general upper secondary school settings] (Doctoral dissertation, University of Jyväskylä). JYX Digital Repository. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-39-8261-4 Eskola, J., & Suoranta, J. (1998). Johdatus laadulliseen tutkimukseen [Introduction to qualitative research]. Vastapaino. Fraser, H., & Taylor, N. (2022). Narrative feminist research interviewing with ‘inconvenient groups’ about sensitive topics: Affect, iteration and assemblages. Qualitative Research, 22(2), 220–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794120976075 Gimenez, J. (2017). Discipline-specific writing for business students: Research, practice and pedagogy. In J. Flowerdew & T. Costley (Eds.), Discipline-specific writing: Theory into practice (pp. 126–143). Routledge. Riikonen & Kotilainen 238 Gourlay, L. (2009). Threshold practices: Becoming a student through academic literacies. London Review of Education, 7(2), 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/14748460903003626 Hocking, D., & Fieldhouse, W. (2011). Implementing academic literacies in practice. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 46(1), 35–47. Hokka, J., Kurtti, E., & Olsson, P. (2022). Zoom-ryhmähaastattelun toimijuuksia rakentamassa: uusmaterialistisia tulkintoja verkkovälitteisestä vuorovaikutuksesta [Constructing agencies in Zoom group interviews: New materialistic interpretations of online interaction]. Elore, 29(1), 114–136. https://doi.org/10.30666/elore.112294 Huisman, B., Saab, N., van den Broek, P., & van Driel, J. (2019). The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students’ academic writing: A meta-analysis. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(6), 863–880. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1545896 Ivanič, R. (1998). Writing and identity. The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/swll.5 Ivanič, R. (2006). Language, learning and identification. In R. Kiely, P. Rea-Dickins, H. Woodfield & G. Clibbon (Eds.), Language, culture and identity in applied linguistics (pp. 7–29). Equinox Publishing. Jalkanen, J. & Taalas, P. (2015). Oppimisen rajapinnoilla yliopiston viestintäja kieliopinnoissa [At the interfaces of learning in university language and communication studies]. In M. Kauppinen, M. Rautiainen & M. Tarnanen (Eds.), Rajaton tulevaisuus: Kohti kokonaisvaltaista oppimista [Unlimited future: Towards holistic learning] (pp. 63–79). Suomen ainedidaktinen tutkimusseura. Jusslin, S., & Widlund A. (2021). Academic writing workshop-ing to support students writing bachelor’s and master’s theses: A more-than-human approach. Teaching in Higher Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.1973409 Kallionpää, O. (2017). Uuden kirjoittamisen opetus. Osallistavaa luovuutta verkossa [Teaching the new writing: engaging creativity online]. Scriptum: Creative Writing Research Journal, 4(1), 1–232. Khumalo, N. P., & Reddy, S. (2021). Cross-disciplinary synergy: First-year students’ experiences of learning academic writing through integrated writing support at a university of technology. The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa, 17(1), a1038. https://doi.org/10.4102/td.v17i1.1038 Kniivilä, S., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Mäntynen, A. (2017). Tiede ja teksti: Tehoa ja taitoa tutkielman kirjoittamiseen [Science and writing: Gaining the energy and skills to write a thesis] (3rd ed.). Gaudeamus. Käyhkö, M. (2013). Hivuttautuen kohti vierasta maailmaa. Työläistyttöjen tie yliopistoon [Moving towards a foreign world: Working-class girls’ path to university]. Naistutkimus, 26(1), 19–31. Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (2006). The “academic literacies” model: Theory and applications. Theory into Practice, 45(4), 368–377. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4504_11 Li, J., & Mak, L. (2022). The effects of using an online collaboration tool on college students’ learning of academic writing skills. System, 105, 102712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102712 Lillis, T. M. (2001). Student writing: Access, regulation, desire. Routledge. First-year university students’ perceptions of themselves as... 239 Lillis, T., & Turner, J. (2001). Student writing in higher education: Contemporary confusion, traditional concerns. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(1), 57–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510020029608 Mickwitz, Å., & Suojala, M. (2020). Learner autonomy, self-regulation skills and selfefficacy beliefs – How can students’ academic writing skills be supported? Language Learning in Higher Education, 10(2), 381–402. https://doi.org/10.1515/cercles-2020-2026 Morton, J., Storch, N., & Thompson, C. (2015). What our students tell us: Perceptions of three multilingual students on their academic writing in first year. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.007 Murray, R. (2015). Writing in social spaces: A social processes approach to academic writing. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315755427 Opetushallitus. (2019). Lukion opetussuunnitelman perusteet [National core curriculum for general upper secondary schools]. Opetushallitus. https://www.oph.fi/sites/default/files/ documents/lukion_opetussuunnitelman_perusteet_2019.pdf Palonen, T., Lehtinen, E., & Hakkarainen K. (2017). Asiantuntijuuden kehittyminen ja tieteen alan jäseneksi kasvaminen [Development of expertise and growing into a scientific discipline]. In M. Murtonen (Ed.), Opettajana yliopistolla: Korkeakoulupedagogiikan perusteet [Being a university teacher: Fundamentals of higher education pedagogy] (pp. 40–62). Vastapaino. Pietilä, I. (2010). Ryhmäja yksilöhaastattelun diskursiivinen analyysi. Kaksi aineistoa erilaisina vuorovaikutuksen kenttinä [Discursive analysis of group and individual interviews. Two materials as different fields of interaction]. In J. Ruusuvuori, P. Nikander & M. Hyvärinen (Eds.), Haastattelun analyysi [Analysing interviews] (pp. 212–241). Vastapaino. Rantala-Lehtola, K., & Ruohotie-Lyhty, M. (2022). Bachelor’s thesis writing as an emotional process. Writing & Pedagogy, 14(1), 49–72. https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.21145 Rautiainen, A. M. (2023). “Ne totuudet on jotenkin sisäisiä silloin”: kokemusten kertominen kirjoittamisen perusopintojen oppimispäiväkirjoissa [“These truths are become somehow internal”: Narrations of experiences in learning diaries in basic studies in writing] (Doctoral dissertation, Jyväskylän yliopisto). JYX Digital Repository. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-39-9722-9 Read, S. (2011). The negotiation of writer identity in engineering faculty-writing consultant collaborations. Journal of Writing Research, 3(2), 93–117. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2011.03.02.2 Roald, G. M., Wallin, P., Hybertsen, I. D., & Stenøien J. M. (2021). Learning from contrasts: First-year students writing themselves into academic literacy. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 45(6), 758–770, https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2020.1813264 Ruusuvuori, J. (2010). Litteroijan muistilista [The transcriber’s checklist]. In J. Ruusuvuori, P. Nikander & M. Hyvärinen (Eds.), Haastattelun analyysi [Analysing interviews] (pp. 424–431). Vastapaino. Seow, A. (2002). The writing process and process writing. In J. C. Richards & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 315–320). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667190.044 Riikonen & Kotilainen 240 Shapiro, S. (2022). Cultivating critical language awareness in the writing classroom. Routledge. Silva, P. (2017). Scaffolding assignments: Analysis of AssignMentor as a tool to support first year students’ academic writing skills. E-Learning and Digital Media, 14(1–2), 86–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753017695652 Torvelainen, P., Tarnanen, M., Aalto, E., Hankala, M., & Kainulainen, J. (2021). Luokanopettajaopiskelijat tekstien tuottajina yhden yliopistovuoden aikana [Pre-service teachers as writers during their first academic year]. In E. Luukka, A. Palomäki, L. Pihkala-Posti & J. Hanska (Eds.), Opetuksen ja oppimisen ytimessä [At the core of teaching and learning] (pp. 119–141). Suomen ainedidaktien tutkimusseura. Tuomi, J., & Sarajärvi, A. (2018). Laadullinen tutkimus ja sisällönanalyysi [Qualitative research and content analysis) (Rev. ed.). Tammi. Tynjälä, P. (2001). Writing, learning and the development of expertise in higher education. In P. Tynjälä, L. Mason & K. Lonka (Eds.), Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 37–56). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0740-5_4 Vanhatalo, P. (2008). Minä! Kirjoittaja! Kirjoittajaidentiteetin haave ja haaste [It’s me! Writer! The dream and challenge of writer identity]. In J. Joensuu, N. Ekström, T. Lahdelma, R. Niemi-Pynttäri (Eds.), Luova laji. Näkökulmia kirjoittamisen tutkimukseen [A creative genre: Perspectives on writing research] (pp. 18–34). Atena. van Schalkwyk, S., Bitzer, E., & van der Walt, C. (2010). Acquiring academic literacy: A case of first-year extended degree programme students. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 27(2), 189–201. https://doi.org/10.2989/SALALS.2009.27.2.6.869 Vassilaki, E. (2017). Reflective writing, reflecting on identities: The construction of writer identity in student teachers’ reflections. Linguistics and Education, 42, 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2017.08.001 Wingate, U., & Tribble C. (2012). The best of both worlds? Towards an English for Academic Purposes/Academic Literacies writing pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education, 37(4), 481–495. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.525630 Authors Jonna Riikonen, University Lecturer, Centre for Multilingual Academic Communication, University of Jyväskylä, ORCID ID: 0009-0007-4706-4131 Jonna Riikonen is a university lecturer of written communication in Finnish in the Centre for Multilingual Academic Communication. Sofia Kotilainen, PhD, Adjunct Professor (Docent), Centre for Multilingual Academic Communication / Centre for Applied Language Studies, University of Jyväskylä, ORCID ID: 0000-0002-4701-6785 Sofia Kotilainen is a project researcher at the Centre for Applied Language Studies (University of Jyväskylä) and a part-time teacher of written communication in Finnish at the Centre for Multilingual Academic Communication. As a historian and linguist, her interests include academic literacies, the use of literacy skills and their impacts on different kind of societies and communities, as well as the history of education and name-giving practices.