UTS site search

Rosalie Goldsmith

Lecturer, Institute for Interactive Media and Learning
English, Education, Applied Linguistics, MA
+61 2 9514 1654


Shum, S.B., Sándor, Á., Goldsmith, R., Wang, X., Bass, R. & Mcwilliams, M. 2016, 'Reflecting on reflective writing analytics: Assessment challenges and iterative evaluation of a prototype tool', ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, pp. 213-222.
View/Download from: UTS OPUS or Publisher's site
© 2016 ACM.When used effectively, reflective writing tasks can deepen learners' understanding of key concepts, help them critically appraise their developing professional identity, and build qualities for lifelong learning. As such, reflecting writing is attracting substantial interest from universities concerned with experiential learning, reflective practice, and developing a holistic conception of the learner. However, reflective writing is for many students a novel genre to compose in, and tutors may be inexperienced in its assessment. While these conditions set a challenging context for automated solutions, natural language processing may also help address the challenge of providing real time, formative feedback on draft writing. This paper reports progress in designing a writing analytics application, detailing the methodology by which informally expressed rubrics are modelled as formal rhetorical patterns, a capability delivered by a novel web application. This has been through iterative evaluation on an independently humanannotated corpus, showing improvements from the first to second version. We conclude by discussing the reasons why classifying reflective writing has proven complex, and reflect on the design processes enabling work across disciplinary boundaries to develop the prototype to its current state.
Gardner, A.P., Goldsmith, R. & Vessalas, K. 2016, 'Using practice architectures theory to compare consecutive offerings of the same subject', Australasian Association of Engineering Education annual conference, Southern Cross University, Coffs Harbour.
View/Download from: UTS OPUS
CONTEXT Two consecutive offerings (2015 and 2016) of the same subject, Concrete Technology and Practice, prompted opposite reactions from students. The academics involved in 2015 and/or 2016 sought to explore the similarities and differences between these consecutive offerings in reflecting on the learning and teaching practices in their classroom. PURPOSE Practice architectures theory provides a framework for examining and understanding the differences between these consecutive offerings of ostensibly the same subject. This paper also provides an example of how a theoretical framework can be used to examine teaching practices – even our own by practitioners who are also acting as researchers in this context. APPROACH Evidence used in comparing the 2015 and 2016 offerings of this subject is drawn from focus group discussions with students and observations of each of the researcher/practitioners involved. Additional data includes the end of semester Student Feedback Survey results including written responses to open-ended questions. RESULTS Differences in aspects of the cultural-discursive, material-economic and socio-political arrangements of the 2015 and 2016 offerings of Concrete Technology and Practice became apparent from the analysis. CONCLUSIONS Using the theory of practice architectures gave us insights into the inter-relationships between the different arrangements inherent in teaching and learning practices. It also highlighted the resilience of 'taken for granted' practices.
Goldsmith, R. & Willey, K. 2015, 'Activity theory analysis of the visibility of writing practicesin the engineering curriculum', Research in Engineering Education Symposium, Dublin, Ireland.
View/Download from: UTS OPUS
Goldsmith, R.J. & Willey, K. 2014, 'Invisible writing practices in the engineering curriculum', Proceedings of the AAEE2014 Conference Wellington, New Zealand, Australasian Association of Engineering Education, Wellington, NZ.
View/Download from: UTS OPUS
Goldsmith, R., Willey, K. & Boud, D.J. 2012, 'How can writing develop students' deep approaches to learning in the engineering curriculum?', Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference for the Australasian Association for Engineering Education - The Profession of Engineering Education: Advancing Teaching, Research and Careers, 23rd Annual Conference for the Australasian Association for Engineering Education - The Profession of Engineering Education: Advancing Teaching, Research and Careers, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 1-8.
View/Download from: UTS OPUS
BACKGROUND Recent national and international research has identified a number of gaps in the development of engineering graduate capabilities: one is the real-world problem-solving ability, which is linked to a lack of integration of theoretical and practical knowledge (ASEE 2009; King,2008; Royal Academy of Engineering, 2006; Sheppard, Macatanga, Colby & Sullivan 2009; Male, Bush & Chapman 2009; Walther & Radcliffe 2007). Another is written (and spoken) communication (King, 2008; Male, Bush & Chapman 2011). There is strong evidence to indicate that these gaps occur in part as a result of a predominance of engineering curricula in universities which emphasise knowledge acquisition, and the prevailing assessment tasks that focus learning on atomised pieces of knowledge. Such an approach encourages surface learning approaches, resulting in graduates who may lack the integrated knowledge required for engineering practice and who have limited communication capabilities. PURPOSE There is, however, a body of research that suggests deep approaches to learning in the disciplines can be achieved through particular kinds of writing that provide the opportunity to explore concepts which link theory and practice, thus developing both writing ability and integrated understanding. This paper presents the preliminary phase of a study to investigate the strategic use of discursive writing to foster both a deeper approach to learning and enhanced written communication skills in the engineering curriculum. The study focuses on discursive writing as a means of providing students with the opportunity to explore the theories and concepts that they are learning, in order to integrate knowledge from different parts of the curriculum and to link the theories to engineering practice. DESIGN/METHOD In order to investigate how writing is currently practised and assessed in Australian engineering curricula, a preliminary analysis of written assessment tasks in a unit of study in the mechani...
Newton, S. & Goldsmith, R. 2011, 'An analysis of stakeholder preferences for threshold learning outcomes in construction management in Australia', Association of Researchers in Construction Management, ARCOM 2011 - Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference, pp. 127-136.
As a precursor to a new national regulatory and quality agency for higher education in Australia, the Australian Teaching and Learning Council (ALTC) has been commissioned to work with clusters of discipline communities to begin to specify how Threshold Learning Outcomes (TLOs) particular to each discipline might be used as a basis for academic standards. In 2010, a series of 14 workshops and follow-up questionnaires was convened to examine the preferences of key stakeholder groups for particular TLOs. A thematic analysis of the workshops identified six broad classifications: Judgement, Communication, Self-Development, Knowledge, Innovation and Work-Integrated Learning. Draft TLO statements for each have now been developed. An analysis of the stakeholder preferences reveals significant differences and interesting similarities in the preferences being expressed. These differences are examined in terms of TLO and source classifications. Results confirm that Judgement is generally a low preference for Industry and Students. There is also a strong case for curriculum review around Innovation. There is consistently high preference expressed for the development of graduates as individuals. Overall, the strong message from this data is that Industry is uncomfortable with learning outcomes being expressed in other than a traditional competency statement form. A critical requirement is to come not only to a shared expression of the TLOs, but also a shared understanding of them.
Goldsmith, R., Reidsema, C., Beck, H. & Campbell, D. 2010, 'Perspectives on teaching and learning engineering design across four universities', ConnectEd: 2nd International conference on design education, ConnectEd 2010, University of New South Wales, University of New South Wales.
View/Download from: UTS OPUS
Goldsmith, R., Reidsema, C. & Campbell, D. 2010, 'Best practice or business as usual? Whose interests are served by the engineering science paradigm?', Proceedings of the 2010 AeeE Conference, Sydney, Australasian Association of Engineering Education 2010 Conference, FEIT, UTS, UTS, Sydney, pp. 1-9.
View/Download from: UTS OPUS
Reidsema, C., Goldsmith, R. & Mort, P. 2010, 'WRITING TO LEARN: REFLECTIVE PRACTICE IN ENGINEERING DESIGN', American Society for Engineering Education Global Colloquium 2010, ASEE Global Symposium Singapore 2010, American society for engineering education, Singapore.

Journal articles

Goldsmith, R. & Willey, K. 2016, 'It's not my job to teach writing: Activity theory analysis of [invisible] writing practices in the engineering curriculum', Journal of Academic Language and Learning, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. A118-A129.
View/Download from: UTS OPUS
Although writing is still the main form of assessment at university, the prac-tice of writing continues to be marginalised, particularly in technical disci-plines such as engineering, notwithstanding decades of reports identifying gaps in graduate communication abilities in these fields, and diverse inter-ventions to address these gaps. The assumption underlying many of the re-ports and interventions is that engineering students neither value nor are in-terested in writing, but actually many engineering students are not provided with the opportunity to develop or practise disciplinary writing in the sub-jects they study, despite being required to write in a range of genres as part of their assessment. This implies that writing practices are neither seen as developmental nor as intrinsic to the engineering curriculum. This demands the question: why not? This paper reports on a study investigating percep-tions of writing practices in the engineering curriculum at the level of engi-neering academics. Using activity theory to capture the dynamic interactions of the various participants in engineering subjects, the study analyses the perspectives of engineering subject coordinators about writing practices in their subjects through interviews and documents. Current findings show ten-sions between the value of propositional or technical knowledge and that of writing practices. These findings can be used to develop a discussion with engineering academics to emphasise the developmental nature of writing and to make writing practices more visible in the engineering curriculum.
Williamson, F. & Goldsmith, R.J. 2013, 'PASSwrite: Recalibrating student academic literacies development', Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, vol. 10, no. 2.
View/Download from: UTS OPUS
Goldsmith, R., Reidsema, C., Hadgraft, R.G., Campbell, D. & Levy, D. 2011, 'Designing the Future', Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 17, no. 1.
View/Download from: UTS OPUS
While there have been improvements in Australian engineering education since the 1990s, there are still strong concerns that more progress needs to be made, particularly in the areas of developing graduate competencies and in outcomes-based curricula. This paper comments on the findings from a two-day Australian Learning and Teaching Council funded forum that sought to establish a shared understanding with the thee stakeholders (students, academics and industry) about how to achieve a design-based engineering curriculum. This paper reports on the findings from the first day's activities, and reveals that there is a shared desire for design and project-based curricula that would encourage the development of the "three-dimensional" graduate: one who has technical, personal, and professional and systems-thinking/design-based competence. In addition, the data also reveal industry willingness to engage in the engineering curriculum to enhance authentic learning experiences
Goldsmith, R.J. & Newton, S. 2011, 'What do communication skills mean in the construction discipline?', Journal of Academic Language and Learning, vol. Vol. 5, no. No. 5, pp. 158-168.
View/Download from: UTS OPUS


Goldsmith, R.J. & Williamson, F. Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching 2014, PASSwrite, no. SD12-2389, pp. 1-36.
View/Download from: UTS OPUS
PASSwrite is a strategic and sustainable approach to the development of critical and communicative capabilities among students, particularly underprepared and 'non-traditional' students (students who are mature age, from LSES backgrounds, or working full time). The project brings together the well-established and effective peer-learning model – Peer Assisted Study Sessions (PASS) – with the best practice model of discipline-based academic literacy to create group learning environments in which students engage in critical reading, writing and dialogue related to concepts, language and conventions in their academic discipline.