Second Conference of the European Association
for the Teaching of Academic Writing (EATAW)
in co-operation with
The European Writing Centres Association (EWCA)
23-25 June 2003
Tutoring and Teaching
Academic Writing
Central European University
Budapest, Hungary
Organising Committee:
Robin Bellers, John Harbord, Noemi Kuzmenko, Eszter Timar
Bojana Petric, David Ridout, Tom Rooney
Conference Sponsors:
Central European University
US Regional English Language Office
The British Council
The Goethe Institut
Longman Publishers
Elsevier Publishers
Macmillan Publishers
Cambridge University Press
Table of Contents
About EATAW ............................................................................................................................................................. 2
General information ..................................................................................................................................................... 3
Conference schedule .................................................................................................................................................... 4
Keynote abstracts ........................................................................................................................................................ 13
Abstracts for concurrent sessions (in alphabetical order) .................................................................................... 15
E-mail addresses of participants ............................................................................................................................... 50
Individual Conference Programme .......................................................................................................................... 55
2
About the Conference
Welcome to the second joint conference of the European Association for the Teaching of Academic Writing
and the European Writing Centers Association. Both organisations seek to create a forum for the discussion
of teaching and research on academic writing across languages, to support the development of the teaching of
academic writing, and to develop a supporting network of writing centres and writing programme
administrators operating both within and outside Europe. The conference aims to:

connect teachers, researchers and institutions from all over Europe and beyond

contribute to the creation of a network exchanging experiences and ‘best practice’ examples from teaching
and tutoring methods and strategies, as well as of theoretical and organisational frameworks

provide a venue for teachers and researchers to interact and exchange ideas on developments in the fields
of composition teaching and writing centre tutoring
About EATAW
The European Association for the Teaching of Academic Writing, founded June 1999, is a free membership
association for teachers of academic writing. EATAW organises a biennial conference in Europe and
maintains a webpage and a listserv for members. The aim of the organisation is to create a forum for the
exchange of research and teaching strategies for academic writing in higher education, and for the exchange of
knowledge of writing programme and writing centre implementation and administration. On the web page
you will find information about relevant conferences, new books on teaching academic writing advertised, and
you may find colleagues with whom you share interests on the webpage members’ list.
Most EATAW members are teachers, researchers and students of the subject of teaching of academic writing
but anyone otherwise involved in or interested in teaching academic writing can be a member. At present
2003, EATAW has nearly 300 members, about 240 in Europe, and an even split between US and other
overseas members. You can become a member by joining the EATAW CONF listserv. To do so, send an email to:
eataw-conf@listserv.hum.ku.dk
You can also join from our web page:
http://www.eataw.org
Four board members and a chair are elected for two years at the EATAW conference. The board initiates the
next biennial conference, actively supports the conference organisers, and maintains the EATAW web-page
and listserv. Board members are usually expected to attend the conference following the period for which they
are elected so as to assist the organisers. The closing session on Wednesday will partly be devoted to the
election of a new board who will co-operate with the organisers of the 2005 conference. If you would like to
be a member of the board and can commit yourself to this work, and to being present at the next conference,
please speak to one of the organisers during the conference. If only enough volunteers are received to fill the
five board places, these will be automatically elected, otherwise a vote will be held.
We hope to fix the location of the 2005 conference at or soon after the meeting in Budapest. If you would like
to host the next conference, we hope to hear from you. Full details of how to apply to host the 2005
conference will be posted on EATAW CONF shortly after the Budapest conference.
About the European Writing Center Association
EWCA aims to support writing center activities across Europe and to cultivate cross-cultural dialogue among
Writing Centers in European universities as well as at American Colleges and Universities functioning within
European contexts. EWCA is a regional affiliate of the International Writing Centers Association and
supports the efforts of EATAW. EWCA held its first international gathering in March 2000 in Bulgaria,
focused on the relation of Writing Centers to Writing Across the Curriculum programs. This was sponsored
by the American University in Bulgaria. In June of 2002 EWCA held an international workshop on Peer-Tutor
Training in Halkidiki, Greece, with attendants from institutions of higher education in Greece, Turkey,
Bulgaria, Sweden, and the US, sponsored by the American College of Thessaloniki. Other international
gatherings have been linked with the EATAW conferences in Groningen in 2001 and now Budapest in 2003.
You can visit EWCA’s website at http://www.europeanwc.org.
3
General Conference Information
All plenary sessions, including the opening and closing sessions, will be held in the Budapest room on the
ground floor near the reception. The concurrent presentations and workshop sessions will be held in other
rooms, most of which (Prague I, II and III, and Warsaw) are on the ground floor. The New York I and II and
Moscow rooms, however, are on the first floor. It is a good idea to spend a few minutes on Sunday or early on
Monday morning finding your way around so that you are not late for concurrent sessions.
The breaks between sessions are ten minutes. This should be enough for you to find your way in leisurely
fashion from one room to the next. Please do try not to arrive late for sessions. All sessions will start
punctually, and it is distracting for presenters when a host of latecomers arrive during the first five minutes of
their presentation.
All sessions will be chaired by a member of the EATAW board or of the organising committee. The chair will
start the session punctually, introduce the speaker, ensure that the speaker finishes on time by warning
(holding up a sign) how many minutes are left, and manage questions so that the session finishes punctually.
Where discussion continues after the question time, we kindly ask participants to vacate the room promptly
and continue their discussion in the corridor or on the way to their next chosen session as the presenter who
is using the room for the next slot will certainly want to come in beforehand so as to prepare for their session.
All conference organisers will be wearing yellow badges to make us easier to identify. If you have a question,
you can ask any one of us. There will also be an EATAW conference information desk in the reception area
where you can find out any information about the conference. For information about the building and
location of rooms, or for general problems (transport, first aid, etc) you should go to the conference centre
office on the ground floor. For questions about accommodation, please go to the reception.
Meals
Breakfast is served in the restaurant and Prague room from 7.00 till 8.45am, and is included in the price of
your room at the conference centre. On Wednesday, breakfast will be in the restaurant and Warsaw room.
Those who are not staying at the conference centre should have breakfast before arriving.
Coffee — served in the lobby and coffee lounge.
Sandwich lunch — served in the lobby and coffee lounge.
Reception dinner Monday evening — served in the Budapest room.
All these are covered by the conference fee and are open to all participants.
On Wednesday, there will be a choice between a light sandwich lunch (no charge) in the lobby and a hot meal
from the conference centre cafeteria.. The price of the hot meal is not included in the conference fee.
The Boat Trip
On Tuesday afternoon we will break early at 4.15pm so as to leave time for participants to see a little of the
city. At 6pm, there will be a one hour boat trip on the Danube, starting from Vigado ter in the heart of Pest.
We will be offering two alternatives for getting to Vigado ter on Tuesday: either you can take a taxi from the
conference centre (about 35 minutes – cost about $15 per taxi), or we will lead groups by public transport
(about one hour – cost for a day pass about $4, also valid for the return journey and around town while you
are there). If you wish to go on the boat trip and have not yet booked, please let us know on Sunday evening
or Monday morning when you register, and also specify whether you would like to take a taxi or public
transport. We will not be able to provide a day travel pass unless you book in advance. After the boat trip you
are free to explore Budapest and dine out on your own. The last bus (44A) back to the conference centre from
Örs Vezer tere leaves about 11.30.
Internet Access
Free internet access is available in the conference reception near the lobby. As there are only a small number
of machines, however, we ask you to limit your use to 10 minutes during coffee breaks and 15 minutes at
other times so as not to force others to wait. Internet access will also be available in the evenings.
4
Day 1 – Monday 23 June
Conference Programme
Time
9.30 10.00
10.00 11.00
11.00 11.30
11.30 12.05
Event
Location Abs.
Opening Session: Sorin Antohi, Professor of History, CEU
Budapest
-
Keynote Address: Ann Johns, University of San Diego
Preparing Students to Write for Academic Disciplines: Issues & Dilemmas
Budapest
p.13
Coffee Break
Lobby
Concurrent Presentations (A)
A1
Van Waes, Opdenacker & Mariet Raedts University of Antwerp, Belgium
Implementing an Open Process Approach to a Multilingual, Online Writing Center
N York I
p.47
A2
Linda H.F. Lin, Hong Kong Polytechnic University
A Collaborative Approach to Teaching Academic Writing
N York II
p.30
A3
Robin Bellers & Lawrence Smith, CEU, Budapest; Charles University, Prague
Justifying Research through the Literature Review
Moscow
p.16
A4
Susana Tuero, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Argentina
What Errors Do Students Correct When Revising Their Own Writing?
Warsaw
p.45
A5
Neomy Storch, University of Melbourne, Australia
The Nature of Collaboration and Second Language Learning
Prague I
p.42
A6
Lucy Rai, The Open University, UK
Affective Responses to Feedback in Student Writing
Prague II
p.37
A7
Gerd Bräuer, University of Education, Freiburg, Germany
Training of Writing Tutors in Higher Education
Prague III
p.17
12.15 12.50
Concurrent Presentations (B)
B1
Svitlana Markelova, Ivan Franko University L'viv, Ukraine
Integrating Academic Writing into Teaching ESP in Ukraine
N York I
p.31
B2
Paul Smith, Poland
Arguing for Argument
N York II
p.41
B3
Sara Hauptman, Achva College of Education, Israel
Using Rubrics for Improving the Connection between the Process and the Product of
Academic Writing
Moscow
p.24
B4
Joanna Tapper, University of Melbourne, Australia
Communication Across the Curriculum: from Tertiary Literacy to Graduate Outcomes
Warsaw
p.43
B5
Paula Gillespie & Harvey Kail, Marquette University; Maine University, USA
Peer Tutoring Theory and Practice: A Dialogue
Prague I
p.23
B6
Ingrid Stassen & Vincent Boeschoten, University of Nijmegen, Netherlands
Developing Writing Skills in a Writing Center
Prague II
p.42
B7
Joan McCormack, University of Reading, UK
Is plagiarism an inevitable part of the process of learning how to write an academic
essay?
Prague III
p.31
5
Day 1 – Monday 23 June
Conference Programme
Time
13.00 14.15
14.15 14.50
Event
Location Abs.
Lunch
Lobby
Concurrent Presentations (C)
C1
Douglas Babington, Queen’s University, Canada
Renegade Rhetoric and Cultural Diversity
N York I
p.15
C2
Chad Thompson, Civic Education Project, Tajikistan
Academic Peerage: Student Writing & the politics of knowledge in Central Asia
N York II
p.43
C3
Roslyn Petelin, University of Queensland, Australia
Editing Academic Writers Electronically
Moscow
p.37
C4
Thea van der Geest & Gert Brinkman, University of Twente, Netherlands
Assessment of Academic and Technical Writing competencies
Warsaw
p.22
C5
Theresa Lillis & Mary Jane Curry, Centre for Language and
Communications, Open University, UK
Learning from the Writing Practices of Academics in Multilingual Contexts
Prague I
p.30
C6
Dilek Tokay, Sabanci University, Istanbul, Turkey
Writing Center's liaison with high schools to promote the motto: Verba Volant;
scripta manent
Prague II
p.44
C7
Kirsten Schindler, Bielefeld University, Germany
Collaborative Writing: A Method for Researching and Supporting Audience
Awareness
Prague III
p.40
15.00 16.15
Concurrent Workshop Sessions (D)
D1
Margo Blythman & Susan Orr, London College Of Printing; London College N York I
of Fashion, UK; University of Toledo, USA
Visual Practices and the Teaching of Writing to Art and Design Students
p.16
D2
Suzan Oniz & Gaye Tolunguc, Middle East Technical University, Turkey
Preparing for Academic Writing: Aims and Tasks
N York II
p.35
D3
Katrin Lehnen, Gerd Bräuer & Stefanie Haacke Aachen University;
University of Education, Freiburg; University of Bielefeld, Germany
Peer Feedback and Peer-Tutoring
Moscow
p.29
D4
Jenny Moon, University of Exeter, UK
How to Help Students and Staff with Reflective Writing in Learning Journals,
Professional Development and Other Activities
Warsaw
p.34
D5
Dorothy Zemach & Tatyana Yakhontova, University of Oregon, USA
Perspectives on Plagiarism from Ukraine and the U.S.
Prague I
p.48
D6
John Hilsdon & Maureen Evans, University of Plymouth, UK
University of Plymouth Student Assignment Initiative
Prague II
p.25
D7
Smiljka Gee, University of Surrey, UK
Task-based academic writing instruction: an SLA perspective
Prague III
p.22
6
Day 1 – Monday 23 June
Conference Programme
Time
16.15 16.45
16.45 17.20
Location Abs.
Event
Coffee Break – Sponsored by Elsevier
Lobby
Concurrent Presentations (E)
E1
Richard Bailey, University of Northumbria, UK
Holistic activities for developing academic writing skills in the classroom
N York I
p.15
E2
Lotte Rienecker, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Thesis Writers' Block: Text Work that Unblocks
N York II
p.38
E3
Halyna Kaluzhna, Ivan Franko National University of L'viv, Ukraine
Teaching Writing in the Computer Lab: Choices to be Made
Moscow
p.26
E4
Lisa Ganobcsik-Williams, University of Warwick, UK
Is this Freshman Composition?: Teaching General Studies Writing in Europe
Warsaw
p.21
E5
Anastasia Logotheti, American College of Greece
Beyond ‘Mere Exercise:’ Challenging Students through Undergraduate Research
Projects
Prague I
p.31
E6
Karen Nicholls, University of London, UK
Conversion of a Techno-Sceptic?
Prague II
p.35
E7
Therese Buchmeier, Institute of International Education, Hungary
Criterion. ScoreItNow: Using Technology to Build Better Language Teaching
Tools
Prague III
p.17
17.30 18.05
Concurrent Presentations (F)
F1
Mary Scott, University of London, UK
But how do you write research?
N York I
p.40
F2
Judit Szerdahelyi, Western Kentucky University, USA
Bridging the Gap Between the "Creative" and the Academic
N York II
p.43
F3
Harriet Edwards, Royal College of Art, UK
Motivation, Motivation - Ways into writing through student models on the intranet
Moscow
p.19
F4
Martha A. Townsend, University of Missouri, USA
Building Successful Academic Writing Programs: A Dialogue On Contributing
Factors
Warsaw
p.45
F5
Caroline Chanock, La Trobe University, Australia
From One-to-one Teaching to Curriculum Design: Dropping 're' from remediation
Prague I
p.18
F6
Nancy Sommers, Harvard University, USA
The Harvard Study of Undergraduate Writing
Prague II
p.42
F7
Antonia Chandrasegaran & Kristen Schaetzel, National Institute of
Education, Singapore
Socio-rhetorical Approach to Teaching Paragraph Writing
Prague III
p.18
7
Day 2 – Tuesday 24 June
Conference Programme
Time
Event
Location Abs.
9.00 10.30
Plenary Workshop: Otto Kruse, University of Erfurt
Budapest
p.13
10.40 11.15
Concurrent Presentations (G)
G1
Penny Jane Burke & Monika Hermerschmidt, University of London
Reflexive pedagogies: un/available spaces in teaching academic writing
N York I
p.17
G2
Irina Kolesnikova, Herzen State Pedagogical University, St. Petersburg, Russia
Teaching Academic Writing to PRESETT Students in Russia
N York II
p.29
G3
Lynn Errey, Oxford Brookes University, UK
Blended Learning: Creating Space and Time for Reflection through Computer
Technologies
Moscow
p.20
G4
John Bean & Theodora Rutar Shuman, Seattle University, USA
Teaching Proposal Writing to Engineering Students: A Writing Center/Engineering
Collaboration
Warsaw
p.15
G5
Caroline Greenman, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium
Training Doctoral Writing and Speaking: The form and nature of coached results
Prague I
p.24
G6
Peter Fallon, American University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
Connecting Group & Individual to Writing Internationally for Academic Purposes
Prague II
p.21
G7
Tracy Santa, United States Air Force University, USA
European Writers/American Institutions: Eastern European Graduate Assistants in
American Universities
Prague III
p.39
Coffee Break
Lobby
11.15 11.45
11.45 12.20
How Writing Shapes the Writer
Concurrent Presentations (H)
H1
H2
Emmy Misser, Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada
Genre Practice in a Canadian Writing Center
N York II
p.33
H3
Robin Goodfellow & Mary Lea, Open University, UK
Supporting Academic Writing in a Global Online Learning Environment
Moscow
p.23
H4
Carol Peterson Haviland, California State University, USA
Writing Center and Classroom Faculty: Working Together on Intellectual Property
Warsaw
p.25
H5
Stephen Newton, William Paterson University, USA
The Center in the Classroom: Teaching Tutoring for Everyday Practice
Prague I
p.34
H6
Carol Irene Thomson, University of Natal, South Africa
Against All Odds? Academic Writing Development in a De-centralised, Open Learning
context
Prague II
p.44
H7
Joachim Grabowski, Heidelberg University of Education, Germany
Writing for Oral Presentation: Fostering Professionalism
Prague III
p.23
8
Day 2 – Tuesday 24 June
Conference Programme
Location Abs.
Time
Event
12.30 13.05
Concurrent Presentations (I)
I1
Helen Fraser, University of Adelaide, Australia
Teaching Academic Writing Using Two Texts
N York I
p.21
I2
Brian Turner & Judith Kearns, University of Winnipeg, Canada
Imagined Conversations: Teaching Purposeful Summary
N York II
p.45
I3
Barbara Kolan, Bar Ilan University, Achva College of Education, Israel
Making Collaborative Writing Work
Moscow
p.29
I4
Yvette Meinema, University of Groningen, Netherlands
How to Equip Students for Interdisciplinary and International Writing Contexts
Warsaw
p.32
I5
Wendy Shilton, University of Prince Edward Island, Canada
Teaching Students Teaching Writing: A Course to Build WAC Bridges
Prague I
p.41
I6
Gabriela Ruhmann, Schreibzentrum der Ruhr-Universität Bochum,
Germany
An economical and effective way of training and employing writing tutors
Prague II
p.38
I7
David Foster, Drake University, USA
Institutional Time and Students' Writing Practices: A Cross-National Perspective
Prague III
p.21
Lunch
Lobby
13.05 14.15
14.15 14.50
Concurrent Presentations (J)
J1
Margaret Percy, University of Florence, Italy
Self Disclosure in the Academy - the Pretence of Objectivity
N York I
p.36
J2
Joan Turner, Goldsmiths College, University of London, UK
Repositioning language and support in writing tutorials
N York II
p.46
J3
Arna Peretz, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev , Israel
Teaching Scientific/Academic Writing: A Place for New Technologies
Moscow
p.36
J4
Joy de Jong, University of Utrecht, Netherlands
Talking about Writing: Interaction between Student Writers and Supervisors
Warsaw
p.18
J5
Mariet Raedts, Limburg University Center, Belgium
Self-efficacy Beliefs, Writing Apprehension, Task Knowledge and the Quality of
Texts
Prague I
p.37
J6
Maxine Rodburg, Harvard University, USA
Theories and Workshops: Writing Teachers as Writing Students
Prague II
p.38
J7
Diane Pecorari, University of Stockholm, Sweden
Good and original: The role of plagiarism and patchwriting in the work of secondlanguage academic writers
Prague III
p.36
9
Day 2 – Tuesday 24 June
Conference Programme
Location Abs.
Time
Event
15.00 16.15
Concurrent Workshop Sessions (K)
K1
Carmen Dell'Aversano, Princeton University, USA/Pisa University, Italy
Fixing Bad Writing Before It Happens: Some Useful Exercises
Prague III
p.19
K2
David Read, Filozofski Fakultet, University of Nis, Serbia
It's NOT Copying!: Using Collocations in Academic Writing
N York II
p.38
K3
Hadara Perpignan, Bar Ilan University, University of Haifa, Israel
The Teacher-Student Written Feedback Dialogue: Learning Each Other's
Language
Moscow
p.36
K4
Jacqueline van Kruiningen & Femke Kramer, University of Groningen,
Netherlands
Bottom Up Faculty Development and Top Down Perpetuation in a
Communication-In-The-Disciplines Program
Warsaw
p.29
K5
Angeniet Kam, University of Groningen, Netherlands
Writing Apart Together in Dutch Higher Education: Exploring Ideas About a
Writing Assessment Procedure
Prague I
p.27
K6
Marjolein van der Werff & Nynke Borst, University of Groningen,
Netherlands
The Slippery Slope Between Tutoring and Teaching
Prague II
p.47
10
Day 3 – Wednesday 25 June
Conference Programme
Time
Event
Location Abs.
8.30 9.00
EATAW Meeting & Elections
Budapest
9.00 9.55
Plenary Session - Clare Furneaux, School of Linguistics and
Applied Language Studies, University of Reading, UK
Budapest
p.13
Learning support needs and solutions in university academic writing contexts
10.00 11.15
Concurrent Workshop Sessions (L)
L1
Ann Johns, San Diego State University, USA
Author Stance and Evaluation in Text: a Workshop
Prague II
p.26
L2
Anne Pallant, University of Reading, UK
Developing Critical Analysis and Argument in Extended Academic Writing
N York II
p.35
L3
Susan Katz, University of Pécs, Hungary; University of San Francisco, USA
Peer Response in the EFL Academic Writing Classroom: A Critical Analysis
Moscow
p.27
L4
Trudy Zuckermann, Achva Academic College of Education, Israel
Academic Writing in English for Non-Native Teachers' College Students: What Do
We Expect to Achieve and How Can This Best Be Done?
Prague I
p.48
11.15 11.45
11.45 12.20
Coffee Break
Concurrent Presentations (M)
M1
Peter Stray Jorgensen, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
A Linguistic Heuristic for Diagnosing Problems in Student Academic Writing
N York I
p.26
M2
Loreta Vaicekauskiene, Vilnius University, Lithuania
The Price of the Freedom to Write: Lithuanian Experience
N York II
p.46
M3
John Harbord, Central European University, Budapest, Hungary
Minimalist tutoring - an exportable model?
Moscow
p.24
M4
Sally Mitchell, Queen Mary, University of London, UK
Working in Partnership to Develop Writing: a Case Study
Prague I
p.33
M5
Ágnes Magnuczné Godó, Miskolc University, Hungary
Cross-cultural perspectives in academic writing instruction
Prague II
p.32
11
Day 3 – Wednesday 25 June
Conference Programme
Location Abs.
Time
Event
12.30 13.05
Concurrent Presentations (N)
N1
Judith Kearns & Brian Turner, University of Winnipeg, Canada
Accommodating Student Writers: Classroom Uses of Popular and Scholarly
Discourse
N York I
p.28
N2
Wilhelm Henry Meyer, University of Natal, South Africa
Reflections on Developing Writing Skills for ESL Students in the Discipline
Classroom
N York II
p.33
N3
Linda Meggs, University of Prince Edward Island, Canada
Inauthentic Voices: A Case of [Mis]appropriated Identity
Moscow
p.32
N4
Alan Evison, Queen Mary, University of London, UK
From Project to Mainstream? Writing in the Disciplines at Queen Mary
Prague I
p.20
N5
Steve Marshall and Simon Avery Williams, University College London, UK
Combining Genre and Process: Academic Writing at University College London
Prague II
p.32
N6
Tatyana Yakhontova, Ivan Franko University of L'viv, Ukraine
Developing English Academic Writing Materials: Theoretical Assumptions and
Methodological Principles
Prague III
p.47
13.05 14.15
14.15 15.15
Lunch
Lobby
Plenary panel: Writers from Central Europe
Budapest
p.14
Budapest
-
Sorin Antohi, (Romania) Professor of History, CEU
Alexander Astrov, (Stateless) Professor of International Relations, CEU
Peter Medgyes, (Hungary) Hungarian Ministry of Education and Eotvos
Lorand University, Budapest
Bojana Petric, (Serbia) Teacher of Academic Writing, CEU
15.15 –
15.45
Closing Session
15.45 16.15
EWCA Meeting
Prague I
12
Abstracts
Abstracts – Keynote Sessions
Ann Johns (San Diego State University)
Preparing Students to Write for Academic Disciplines: Issues and Dilemmas
Monday 10.00 – Budapest Room
Academic English is a remarkably ambiguous term. Though there may be general characteristics of academic
literacies, e.g., hedging, "objectivity," effective argumentation, when we are given the task of preparing students
to read, or write, for their disciplines, we find remarkable complexity in the values, texts, and tasks involved. In
this presentation, I will argue that our main task as literacy experts is to prepare students to be rhetorically and
linguistically flexible researchers rather than experts in identified genres or linguistic features. Specific examples
of how this preparation can take place will be provided.
Professor Johns' participation at the conference is in part funded thanks to the kind support of the United
States Regional English Language Office.
Otto Kruse (University of Applied Sciences, Erfurt)
How Writing Shapes the Writer
Tuesday 9.00 – Budapest Room
The teaching and tutoring of writing is meant to instruct students how to write better texts. This goal, however,
is not the only and probably not the most important one as many interventions in writing pedagogics try to
change the writer instead of the text. But how, when and why do writers change? To understand the impact of
pedagogical interventions on the writer one should look at the role writing itself plays in the development of
the writer. It will be argued that writing changes the writer in a slow, smooth and gradual way that may be called
"shaping". This is a self-induced and self-managed process and writing pedagogy has to understand its nature in
order to help students navigate their intellectual development successfully. Three interrelated areas where
shaping may take place will be focused: Shaping the mind, shaping identity and shaping the relationships with
the discourse communities. I will discuss how these fields are effected by writing and how writing pedagogics
can address them differentially in order to build up academic literacy. The contribution will be interactive and
will allow the participants to articulate their own personal and professional experience.
Professor Kruse's participation at the conference is funded thanks to the kind support of the Goethe Institut.
Clare Furneaux (School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, University of
Reading, UK)
Learning support needs and solutions in university academic writing contexts
Wednesday 9.00 – Budapest Room
Students enter university programmes from a range of backgrounds and find themselves studying under
different conditions, either on campus or at a distance. This variety and the contrast with previous learning
experiences mean that they often struggle to understand the requirements of the academy and present work of
a lower standard than they are capable of with suitable guidance and scaffolding. In addition, an increasing
number are studying in a second language, which adds further linguistic and cross-cultural dimensions to the
challenges faced by these students. In this presentation, I will explore underlying issues in preparing students
for academic writing: for example, what does the academy expect of them and how can these expectations be
made explicit/comprehensible to students? I will also discuss principles for supporting students in their
learning by helping them become more questioning, autonomous learners. The focus here will be on postgraduate study in an English-medium context, both on campus and at a distance, although many of the
13
Abstracts
principles will also apply to learners in other contexts. I will draw on the opinions and experiences of students
and academic staff in discussing the roles of self-access materials, of study skills training and of subject-specific
and language tutors. Of course, students also need guidance/advice in exploiting these resources. They are not,
therefore, in themselves a solution to the problem, but rather resources that students must learn to access
appropriately as part of on-going learner development.
Clare Furneaux's participation at the conference is in part funded thanks to the British Council.
Plenary Panel – Writers from Central Europe
Wednesday 2.15 – Budapest Room
The panel will discuss the state of academic writing in Central and Eastern Europe, the teaching of academic
writing and the cultural differences and similarities of academic writing in difference languages.
Peter Medgyes (Hungary)
Peter currently works as Deputy State Secretary in the Hungarian Ministry of Education. During his long
teaching and academic career, he wrote numerous professional books and articles, including The Non-native
Teacher (1994), Changing Perspectives in Teacher Education (1996; co-edited with Angi Malderez), The
Language Teacher (1997), Criss Cross (1998-99), and Laughing Matters (2002). He has on several occasions
acted as consultant to Central European University on issues of teaching writing.
Sorin Antohi (Romania)
Sorin holds degrees in English, French, and History from the University of Iasi, Romania, and the Ecole des
Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris. He is a CEU university professor of History, and founding director
of Pasts, Inc. Center for Historical Studies. He writes mainly in Romanian, English, and French; he has
(co)translated from/into Romanian into/from English, French, Italian, Spanish, German; his works have
appeared in many languages, and includes eight books, five (co)edited volumes, and many articles.
Alexander Astrov (Stateless)
Alex Astrov is lecturer in International Relations and European Studies at CEU, where he previously completed
his MA in History. He has published extensively in both English and Russian, his mother tongue. He is
currently completeing his PhD at the London School of Economics. His research interests include
International Relations theory, international political theory, and classical political theory, mainly the Scottish
Enlightenment and British Idealism.
Bojana Petric (Serbia)
Bojana has been teaching academic writing at Central European University in Budapest since 1999. She
previously taught ELT methodology at Novi Sad University in Yugoslavia. Currently she is working on her
doctoral dissertation in the Language Pedagogy PhD Program at Eotvos Lorand University in Budapest. She
has published in Serbian and in English, most recently in Novelty, the Writing Center Journal and System.
14
Abstracts
Abstracts – Concurrent Sessions
Listed in alphabetical order by presenter surname. (P) = Presentation (W) = Workshop
Douglas BABINGTON, Queen’s University, CANADA
Renegade Rhetoric and Cultural Diversity (P)
Monday 14.15 – New York I
The Writing Centre at Queen's University has reached out in recent years to work with a wide range of
students, including aboriginal adults in the James Bay region of Ontario and international students at our
European campus at Herstmonceux Castle in England. Such diversity of cultural and academic backgrounds
requires a methodology informed by "renegade rhetoric." As described by T.R. Johnson (CCC June 2001),
renegade rhetoric sensitizes students to "the openings, cracks and fissures in every discursive act," rather than
promoting a central ideal of academic discourse . George D. Gopen and Judith A. Swan - in their analysis of
scientific writing - assert that "there can be no fixed algorithm for good writing" (American Scientist, Vol. 78).
Like Johnson, they endorse "skillful violators" of the discursive ideal: "Our best stylists … must fulfill
expectations most of the time, causing the violations to be perceived as exceptional moments, worthy of note."
This 30-minute presentation will begin by emphasizing that the renegades are among us: academic writers break
the rules, with varying degrees of effectiveness. For example, while agreeing in principle that excessive
embedding between subjects and verbs is a bad thing, many of them do it anyway - motivated by scholarly
hyper-cautiousness. The presentation will then demonstrate classroom and tutorial techniques that employ
renegade rhetoric in order to build both the confidence and virtuosity of a culturally diverse body of student
writers.
Richard BAILEY, University of Northumbria, UK
Holistic activities for developing academic writing skills in the classroom (P)
Monday 16.45 – New York I
In EGAP contexts there is a need to socialise novice writers into the broader conventions of textual
organisation as a preparation for more genre specific applications at a later stage in their apprenticeship as
writers of formal English in general, and members of specific academic discourse communities in particular.
This is arguably a vital stage in the transition from general to specific academic writing skill practice and tuition;
an area rarely addressed in depth in published materials or common core academic writing programmes.
Research has revealed that in many cases text type and genre can be conflated and the former is integral to
genre specific forms of writing. This session will focus on ways in which student writers in higher education
settings can be sensitised to the organisation of complete texts and the implicit conventions and assumptions
between reader and writer. Writing practice is integrated with textual analysis using primary data. The
methodology is task-based and devised holistically to engage learners in reading, discussion and investigation as
a preliminary to written production.
John BEAN and Theodora Rutar SHUMAN, Seattle University, USA
Teaching Proposal Writing to Engineering Students: A Writing Center/Engineering
Collaboration (P)
Tuesday 10.40 – Warsaw
This presentation describes collaboration between Writing Center personnel and engineering faculty to teach
proposal writing to senior engineering students at Seattle University. Working in five-person teams on a senior
design project, students write proposals as well as final technical reports. The collaborative efforts to be
described in this presentation include the following: (1) the design of a scoring rubric for the proposals; (2) the
15
Abstracts
development of explanatory handouts; (3) in-class sessions to help engineering teams brainstorm ideas for their
proposals; (4) the assigning of undergraduate consultants trained by Writing Center staff to work individually
with each team to respond to drafts and guide revision; and (5) norming sessions to help engineering faculty
staff-grade the proposals using the scoring rubric. My presentation will explain these activities and provide
participants with representative handouts. The Writing Center/engineering collaboration draws on research or
theory concerning the rhetorical function of proposals, the processes of team writing, strategies for tutoring,
construction of critical thinking tasks, design of scoring rubrics, and processes for staff-grading. Our main
conclusions are these: Students learn more efficiently when they receive clear assignments with accompanying
scoring rubrics and when they are guided through sequentially designed tasks leading to the final product.
Robin BELLERS & Lawrence SMITH, Central European University, Budapest, HUNGARY;
CERGE, Charles University, Prague, CZECH. REPUBLIC
Justifying Research through the Literature Review (P)
Monday 11.30 – Moscow
Literature reviews come in all shapes and sizes (Ridley 2000), sometimes according to different cultures,
disciplines, university departments and even individual tutors. As Swales and Lindemann (in Johns 2002) note,
faculty often complain about the quality of literature review sections in student papers. One major reason for
this is that many students have a very vague notion of the main aims of the literature review – to place
themselves within the current literature of the field being researched and to justify the research carried out by
clearly expressing in what way the paper contributes to the existing body of literature by indicating a gap,
counterclaiming/question raising or extending previous research (Swales 1984, Dudley-Evans 1986). This
presentation will look at how we address this problem based on thesis writing courses undertaken at CEU
(Central European University), Budapest and at CERGE (Center for Economic Research and Graduate
Education) at Charles University, Prague using a genre-process based approach (Swales 1990, Tribble 1996,
Badger and White 2000). The main aim of this session is to suggest practical ways which can help students write
the justification of their research through the literature review.
Margo BLYTHMAN and Susan ORR London College of Printing, UK; London College of
Fashion, UK; University of Toledo, USA
Visual Practices and the Teaching of Writing to Art and Design Students (W)
Monday 15.00 – New York I
We offer a writing across the curriculum workshop that compares students’ visual design attitudes and practice
with those in writing. This is based on research carried out in the UK and US, giving voice to a range of art and
design students. We explore briefly the theoretical and pedagogical issues in the relationship between visual
practices and the teaching of writing, then ask participants to consider cross-cultural assumptions that may
impede or be used to encourage the use of visual pedagogies for writers in multi-lingual/global contexts. We
cover six key themes in the 2001 study: the role of peers, 2D vs.3D (page vs. object), personal relationship with
text/object, audience, visual/textual process and teacher intervention in promoting effective writing/design
processes-products. In the second half of the workshop, participants explore cultural constraints while
developing pedagogies that use the visual to teach writing (e.g., by exploring visually and comparing how they
compose a piece of text). By examining this relationship of text and visual design, we offer insights, pedagogies-and questions for further research--to those working with students in writing and non-writing intensive
disciplines. This workshop is a further development of the research that we reported on at the 2001 EATAW
conference at Groningen.
16
Abstracts
Gerd BRÄUER, University of Education, Freiburg, GERMANY
Training of Writing Tutors in Higher Education (P)
Monday 11.30 – Prague III
This paper will introduce an approach to the training of tutors for the newly established writing centre at the
University of Education in Freiburg, Germany. The paper starts with a detailed explanation of the program
design, that is deeply rooted in the traditions of US writing pedagogy. A description of the main differences in
comparison with peer tutoring approaches in the US will be used to point out some unique features of the
Freiburg model: Its main goal is to train pre- and in-service teachers to become writing experts who not only
tutor their peers in academic writing but explore issues of writing pedagogy that help bridge the gap between
different communities of writers in college, grade school, vocational training, and continuing education. The
paper will, therefore, provide insight into possibilities for the writing tutors to specialize their training in regard
to the different needs of the writers’ communities mentioned above. Since the training program is designed for
a teachers college, special attention is paid to prepare individuals to initiate a growing variety of texts that goes
far beyond the traditional grade school writing curriculum and links to writing in the professions and in higher
education. This paper will close with a brief description of how participants of the Freiburg training program
are made interested in supporting grade school writing projects, fostering writing in the disciplines, preparing
student peer tutors, and in starting school writing centres.
Therese BUCHMEIER, Institute of International Education, HUNGARY
Criterion. ScoreItNow: Using Technology to Build Better Language Teaching Tools (P)
Monday 16.45 – Prague II
Combining teaching and assessment, the Educational Testing Service has introduced two innovative classroom
software tools in the last year especially focusing on academic writing. Criterion Online, an online writing
assessment and teaching management tool, designed for use in language labs, provides nearly instant evaluation
and feedback to students on selected topics, as well as logging individual students’ results and progress over the
duration of a course. ScoreItNow is an online writing assessment tool designed for individuals, also using the erater technology (automated scoring system); here individuals get immediate score feedback on their essay
responses, and receive general suggestions for improving their skills.
Penny Jane BURKE and Monika HERMERSCHMIDT, University of London, UK
Reflexive pedagogies: un/available spaces in teaching academic writing (P)
Tuesday 10.40 – New York I
This paper is grounded in the work we do as practitioners and our theoretical approach to writing as a social
practice (Lea and Street, 2000). The paper explores possibilities and constraints in academic writing workshops
and problematises the academic conventions, discourses and practices that are constructed in Western
universities as universal and superior (Lather, 1991, Usher, 1997). Students, when making their own choices on
how they want to write, need to consider issues of knowledge production and representation, power and their
multiple positionings as students, writers and contributors to an academic field.
We challenge simplistic assumptions that connect academic writing to technical ‘skills’ rather than complex
processes tied to meaning making and knowledge production (Lillis, 2001). We aim to open up dialogic spaces
to articulate our concerns about methodologies and pedagogies in academic writing and to voice the
possibilities that have emerged from our practices, discussions and the process of writing this paper. The
debates the paper will generate might open up institutional spaces for students to problematise and challenge
privileged discourses and knowledges. We hope to contribute to the creation of new possibilities for student
writers.
17
Abstracts
Antonia CHANDRASEGARAN and Kristen SCHAETZEL, National Institute of Education,
SINGAPORE
Socio-rhetorical Approach to Teaching Paragraph Writing (P)
Monday 17.30 – Prague III
A conventional method of teaching paragraph construction is to have students identify the topic sentence or
topic idea in, first, model paragraphs, and then, paragraphs they themselves have written. Two limitations of
this method are:
1. Students tend to think of topic idea purely as an area of topic knowledge rather than as a paragraph-level
rhetorical intention to use topic knowledge/ to create a desired effect on the reader.
2. Student thinking is not directed to the relation between a paragraph and the macro thesis of the text under
construction.
This paper offers a method of teaching paragraph writing that aims at raising student awareness of the process
of setting paragraph and macro rhetorical goals and using these goals to justify meaning selection. Based on
cognitive and genre perspectives of writing, the method includes the use of a computer assisted instructional
package designed to guide students through the process of forming goals and identifying paragraph-thesis links.
Samples of student work will be shown to illustrate varying degrees of success of this instructional method.
Caroline CHANOCK, La Trobe University, AUSTRALIA
From One-to-one Teaching to Curriculum Design: Dropping 're' from remediation (P)
Monday 17.30 – Prague I
One-to-one consultations with academic skills advisers are widely regarded as a safety net for students needing
remediation. In these consultations, however, we learn that many problems are caused by the nature of the
courses rather than deficiencies in the students. The culture of enquiry in a BA has its own assumptions,
purposes, methods and values. At university, the emphasis shifts from learning knowledge to learning how
knowledge is made. Students need timely, explicit mediation of this shift, and its implications for their practices
of reading, writing, argument and attribution. This paper discusses what one-to-one teaching - illuminated by
the literature examining discipline-specific discourses as cultural products - has taught me about students’
common misunderstandings, and how I have fed these insights back to the teaching staff in my Arts Faculty.
By providing discipline teachers with easily-adapted materials, I have been able to introduce a focus on the
nature of academic discourse into the curriculum in a range of disciplines. In this way, every student - not just
the more clue-conscious - participates in explicit discussion of, and practice in, the discourses they must deal
with in the BA
Joy de JONG, University of Utrecht, NETHERLANDS
Talking about Writing: Interaction between Student Writers and Supervisors (P)
Tuesday 14.15 – Warsaw
In January 2001 we started a Ph.D. project on academic writing, in order to develop interventions for
preventing or diminishing student problems in writing a Master thesis. In literature on (problems with)
(teaching of) academic writing, we repeatedly found two factors causing problems. The great diversity among
supervisors concerning 'what makes a Master thesis a good one' ,and, secondly, the obscurity of the task for the
students. Consequently, where writing a Master Thesis is a more or less individual task, the interaction between
a student writer and his or her supervisor/tutor/examiner seems to be crucial to a successful (efficient) writing
process. In these interactional events, student questions should be answered sufficiently, misconceptions should
be eliminated and mystification clarified. Empirical studies and surveys suggest that this is not academic reality.
In order to discover what is right and wrong in the (oral) interaction between student writers and supervisors,
18
Abstracts
we audio taped a number of 'supervision tutorials' within different academic disciplines. I would like to show
some of the misunderstandings and vagueness we saw, give explanations and discuss some suggestions as to
how to improve the effectiveness of the communication.
Carmen DELL'AVERSANO, Princeton University, USA / Pisa University, ITALY
Fixing Bad Writing Before It Happens: Some Useful Exercises (W)
Tuesday 15.00 – Prague III
The workshop will present a number of exercises developed in the Pisa Academic Writing Program to deal with
some particularly widespread and serious causes of bad student writing, including:
1. interpretation that is not based on evidence;
2. summary instead of interpretation;
3. poor structure.
The framework of the activities, and indeed of the whole pedagogy of the Pisa Program, is a constructivist
approach to thinking and writing which models knowledge as an active and personal relationship between a
unique human subject and an object that has the potential of responding to an infinite variety of practical and
methodological preoccupations. During the workshop each exercise will be the focus of a group activity; this
will make it possible for the professional audience of the presentation to empathize with student reactions and
to model the learning process that the exercises facilitate. Accordingly, about two thirds of the workshop time
will be taken up by group work on the exercises. The final part of the meeting will be devoted to a discussion of
the relationship between each exercise, the constructivist framework it derives from, and the writing fault it is
meant to correct. The exercises work as a kind of intellectual chiropractic, by correcting bad thinking habits that
commonly cause bad writing: analyzing how each exercise modifies the students' way of thinking in such a way
as to correct a specific fault should help workshop participants in using the same methodological framework
for designing their own exercises to deal with faults not covered in the workshop.
Harriet EDWARDS, Royal College of Art, UK
Motivation, Motivation - Ways into writing through student models on the intranet (P)
Monday 17.30 – Moscow
This talk will focus on two motivational effects emerging from the pilot of an intranet project devised by a
writing support tutor (in collaboration with subject specific staff) at the Royal College of Art, London. The
college thrives upon the diversity of postgraduate art/ design students from around 30 countries -students who
bring a dynamic, rigorous thinking to their studio practice, but not always to their writing practice. Some
students lack familiarity, fluency and therefore confidence in academic discourses; they may associate them with
a distant authority (Lewis 1995, Wood 2000, Lea and Stierer, 2000) and procrastinate or retreat into the
conservative. Awareness of discrepancies has led to the intranet project. Based on recent successful student
dissertations, it consists of a variety of tasks/ commentaries around student extracts. Positive responses from
oral/ written feedback show that the extracts can help to diminish the sense of alienation experienced: student
voices speak to the student readership on shared cutting edge themes.· The medium of the instruction itself is
motivating, for example in its familiarity to students and its non-linear nature. Finally, the concomitant shift in
the role of the support tutor will be commented on.
19
Abstracts
Lynn ERREY, Oxford Brookes University, UK
Blended Learning: Creating Space and Time for Reflection through Computer
Technologies (P)
Tuesday 10.40 – Moscow
Developments in learning and writing theory have taught us much about working with students’ reflective
processes and preferred learning styles, while facilitating acquisition of literacy and research skills This
presentation discusses at least three challenges in putting these theories into practice, and how blended learning,
with use of computers as part of the teaching/learning dialogue, can play a useful part. The challenges: 1:
individual tutorials and in class peer feedback are costly in resources, with a constant battle between teacher
input time, and student time to process, reflect upon and respond to feedback. 2: teacher support to academic
literacy needs to be offset with opportunities for students to develop autonomous research skills. 3: written
communication in the modern world is changing, as are many students’ perceived learning styles. Students need
not only need to master different written genres, but also increasingly to work in different delivery modes,
including electronic: email, web-searches and word-processed submission of writing. The paper will evaluate the
drawbacks and benefits of incorporating blended learning into a writing class, moving from face to face
teaching to greater incorporation of web-based reading , of email as a reflective tutorial tool, of, and as a tool
for peer interaction.
Alan EVISON, Queen Mary, University of London, UK
From Project to Mainstream? Writing in the Disciplines at Queen Mary (P)
Wednesday 12.30 – Prague I
I will address the theme of ‘Writing across the curriculum structures in universities’ and will focus on
organisational and political issues. Using Queen Mary’s Writing in the Disciplines (WiD) initiative as a case
study, I will challenge current practices and discourses in relation to writing in the academy. Drawing together
insights from ‘academic literacies’ research in the UK and Writing in the Disciplines/Writing across the
Curriculum approaches in the U.S.A., I will argue that universities in Britain need to give greater visibility to
writing in the mainstream curriculum. This will entail a reassessment of learning outcomes and a willingness on
the part of disciplinary teachers to see writing as central to thinking and to the learning process. The benefits of
this change of emphasis will be not just better student writing, but also better learning of disciplinary
knowledge. Through a narrative account of the Queen Mary initiative, I will identify barriers to our progress
and opportunities we have exploited. I will conclude that a WiD approach has proved extremely fruitful in
raising the profile of writing in the institution and in fostering partnerships between disciplinary experts and
‘writing specialists’. However, for WiD to become embedded, it requires a commitment from senior
management which has not yet been forthcoming.
Peter FALLON, American University of Sharjah, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
Connecting Group and Individual to Writing Internationally for Academic Purposes (P)
Tuesday 10.40 – Prague II
University students outside primarily English-speaking countries are increasingly required to write in English
for academic purposes at levels expected of their native English-speaking peers -- as more American-model
universities are established and accredited overseas. Such universities expect performance according to
established conventions for this kind of writing -- thus presenting many incoming students with linguistic
challenges and cultural adjustment for which they have not always been prepared adequately in their earlier
English education. Such challenges in turn place demands for fresh approaches on both instructors and
individuals anxious to succeed in academia through the medium of English. This paper traces how the situation
is addressed in the (required) undergraduate writing program at the American University of Sharjah, UAE,
20
Abstracts
where the theoretical and practical approaches of scholars like Ruth Spack have been successfully applied to
teaching writing for academic purposes across cultures. The findings described have implications for instructortutor awareness training, and also may be generalizable to college-level EFL situations in Europe and elsewhere
-- under presently expanding conditions of academic communication using English.
David FOSTER, Drake University, USA
Institutional Time and Students' Writing Practices: A Cross-National Perspective (P)
Tuesday 12.30 – Prague III
Students' writing practices are strongly influenced by time patterns embedded in institutional settings. These
patterns have the power to shape both how students write and how they view themselves as writers. This
presentation offers a cross-national comparison of the impact of time patterns on the writing practices and
authorship attitudes of students in two institutions, one German and one American.. Evidence for this
presentation comes from case studies of undergraduate student writers in a German and an American
university. The data suggests a distinct cross-national difference in the way American and German students
construct their roles and writing practices in relation to institutional time. The American students, viewing time
as a limiting force in a deadline-driven environment, learned how to plan narrowly-focused writing tasks and to
write in intensive, short bursts of text production.. In contrast, the German students, as they developed their
seminar papers, learned to use time through self-directed, goal-driven planning, and to practice cumulative,
recursive writing and revising. The presentation will suggest pedagogical strategies using positive features of
both systems.
Helen FRASER, University of Adelaide, AUSTRALIA
Teaching Academic Writing Using Two Texts (P)
Tuesday 12.30 – New York I
This paper covers an analysis of paired texts (one problematic text from a student with a language background
other than English, one successful from a student with English as a first language) written as part of an answer
to an examination question in Year 2 Medicine. The successful text included: • effective use of the data to
create multiple mechanisms linked with strong lexical cohesion and ideational connections • mix of clause types
using material processes as lexicalised verbs (eg " cause", "produce") in hypotactic elaboration expanding on
hypotheses • nominal groups generated from the symptoms and mechanisms used in Thematic positions,
creating compact explanations.
The unsuccessful text included: • a lack of complexity in causal relations and restatement of given information
in paratactical clauses - a "more spoken" style • overuse of pronouns as Subjects with mental processes in
projecting clauses, • nominal groups largely representing signs /symptoms or hypotheses often used with
relational processes but not expanded on causally, with limited explanatory power. The paper covers the
methodology of discussion of these texts with the student, using grammatical terms more familiar to him and
discussion of adaptation of the methodology to classroom teaching.
Lisa GANOBCSIK-WILLIAMS, University of Warwick, UK
Is this Freshman Composition?: Teaching General Studies Writing in Europe (P)
Monday 16.45 – Warsaw
General Studies Writing courses were introduced in US universities in the late nineteenth century, and have
evolved into a type of provision now popularly known as 'Freshman Composition' (Russell 1991). As Coordinator of Academic Writing at a UK university, it is my experience that UK/European teachers, scholars,
and program administrators in the emerging field of academic writing are interested in how well this American
21
Abstracts
model functions both in terms of pedagogy and institutional structure. As providers of writing instruction, we
clearly have a stake in considering how General Studies Writing might be adopted or adapted in a European
setting. This presentation will examine current scholarly debates about the effectiveness of General Studies
Writing (Crowley 1998), and will then offer a case study of a general writing course being developed at the
University of Warwick that differs significantly from the American model. The presentation will raise important
questions about the place of General Studies Writing in European universities, thus entering into a dialogue
with points raised about General Studies Writing and Writing in the Disciplines at the first conference of
EATAW/EWCA (Dysthe 2001).
Smiljka GEE, University of Surrey, UK
Task-based academic writing instruction: an SLA perspective (W)
Monday 15.00 – Prague III
In this workshop we shall approach academic writing instruction from the learner perspective and thus shift
focus from the traditional framework based on the trinity of the reader, writer and text. Thus we shall
concentrate on the learner and acquisitional aspects of writing. This orientation which draws on the intersection
between second language writing and second language acquisition has started to make inroads in the literature
and research (see Carson, 2001 in Silva and Matsuda).We shall be drawing on the SLA concepts of
'consciousness-raising' and 'noticing' and the main principles of task-based language learning. In the workshop
we shall be exploring issues that arise from the workshop and the participants' own experience and work
towards addressing them. The aim will be to provide a set of recommendations for designing and implementing
task-based writing programmes within the SLA framework. The workshop is divided into four parts:
1.
2.
3.
4.
An overview of task-based learning and 'consciousness-raising' and 'noticing';
An overview of key principles of task design and task evaluation;
Hands-on experience of writing task design and evaluation;
Discussion and recommendations.
We shall be using brainstorming and group activities. An important aspect of this workshop will be to draw on
the participants' own experience and ideas. The outcome of the workshop will be for the participants to be able
to design writing tasks and activities for their own teaching context and also to explore ways of integrating these
into their writing programmes.
Thea van der GEEST and Gert BRINKMAN, University of Twente, NETHERLANDS
Assessment of Academic and Technical Writing competencies (P)
Monday 14.15 – Warsaw
The Department of Communication Studies of the University of Twente (Netherlands) provides courses
Academic Writing for the engineering and social sciences programs of the university. Over the past decade we
have responded to the demand for writing courses integrated in program courses in both Engineering and
Social Sciences programs, by developing three instructional formats, which are inspired by Writing Across the
Curriculum and Writing-Intensive Courses approaches. Within the formats learning is based on Process based
and Collaborative Writing approaches to teaching Technical and Academic Writing. The three formats (linked
to courses, integrated in courses and integrated at program level) each pose their own opportunities and
challenges for assessment at student, course and program level. In this presentation we will first outline what
we mean by students' writing competence, which directs what should be assessed at the student, course and
program level. Then we will describe the three instructional formats we developed and their strengths and
weaknesses when it comes to assessing students' (academic) writing competence. Assessment of
communication competence in these formats is constrained by their characteristics with regard to student
motivation, individual and group work, and situated learning. Finally we will identify organizational issues for
concern when planning student, course and program assessment in an integrated or WAC approach.
22
Abstracts
Paula GILLESPIE and Harvey KAIL, Marquette University; University of Maine, USA
Peer Tutoring Theory and Practice: A Dialogue (P)
Monday 12.15 – Prague I
Peer tutoring programs are common in American universities and have begun to appear abroad in unique
forms, tailored to institutional expectations for writing. What elements of the American models might prove
powerful for assistance of academic writing in Europe? Our presentation will discuss key elements of two
representative tutor programs in the U.S., noting the variations between them. Drawing from and resisting the
theories and practices developed in Gillespie and Lerner's Allyn and Bacon Guide to Peer Tutoring, in Kenneth
A. Bruffee's A Short Course in Writing and in the numerous articles in writing center, rhetoric and composition
journals, we will argue that training students to help each other become better academic writers benefits not
only the students who might be struggling to learn the diverse and demanding conventions of their specialized
discourse community, but also the tutors, themselves, both as writers and as critical readers within the academy
We will conclude by asking what European models of peer tutoring might look like and how peer tutoring
might fit together with other approaches, such as writing across the curriculum
Robin GOODFELLOW and Mary LEA, The Open University, UK
Supporting Academic Writing in a Global Online Learning Environment (P)
Tuesday 11.45 – Moscow
This paper will report on a project to research and support postgraduate, student writers in an online, globallydelivered course for teacher practitioners in post-compulsory education. Research carried out with those
students who were non-native speakers of English indicates that intercultural and linguistic issues are implicated
in their writing in complex ways, (Goodfellow et al 2001). Where writing includes both traditional assignments
and the writing that students are required to do online - in order to contribute to online discussions - an
additional level of complexity has been added, (cf. Lea 2001; Goodfellow et al forthcoming). In response to
these issues, a specialist website has been developed for all students on the course- not only those who do not
have English as their first language - in order to help them negotiate the different writing demands being made
upon them during their study. In this presentation we will also illustrate how this website, the 'eWrite Site'
attempts to provide student support, and examine the use that students have made of the site.
Joachim GRABOWSKI, Heidelberg University of Education, GERMANY
Writing for Oral Presentation: Fostering Professionalism (P)
Tuesday 11.45 – Prague III
A hitherto widely neglected field of academic writing is writing for (oral) presentation, i.e. the written
preparation of read or spoken papers, overhead transparencies, or PowerPoint slides. Academic disciplines and
cultures show different degrees of standardization (or norms) regarding professional presentation formats. I will
first highlight some typical problems and difficulties that occur with the use of the respective presentation
media and presentation styles. Then, I will discuss and compare the suitability of the diverse presentation media
with respect to selected criteria including (a) type of topic and discipline, (b) time management, (c) economical
aspects, (c) direction of audience attention, (d) flexibility of formulation, and (e) constrained psychological
resources. On the basis of these analyses, I will argue in favour of professional skills that comprise of the very
knowledge of the characteristics and demands of the various presentation styles, the appropriate selection of
presentation media, and, particularly, the right strategy of text production that will best support the subsequent
oral presentation.
23
Abstracts
Caroline GREENMAN, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, BELGIUM
Training Doctoral Writing and Speaking: The form and nature of coached results (P)
Tuesday 10.40 – Prague I
Doctoral students at KU Leuven science faculties are offered intensive accredited Academic Writing and related
skills tutoring. Collaborative learning, peer work and coaching are conducted in three parts: induction, transfer
and exposition. Part one incorporates a handbook and reflective diagnostic learning tasks designed and
interactively coached by teacher and peers. Part two orchestrates a transfer of the acquired skills to an agreed
learner application. Part three provides a conference platform through which KUL and Cevu (Collaborative
European Virtual University) students present part two results. The above mentioned classroom phases are
supported virtually. The form, content and function of the electronic proceedings of our May 2003 conference
will provide the focus of our presentation. At this early stage we can report that when reviewing a peer review
of doctoral abstracts produced during part two of the programme, we observed that students from different
countries with different levels of English, had independently identified about 80% of peer errors such as
language or degree of claim type. This enables the teacher to focus on core issues and endorses a degree of peer
review as a vital stage in the academic skills collaborative learning cycle.
John HARBORD, Language Teaching Center, Central European University, HUNGARY
Minimalist tutoring - an exportable model? (P)
Wednesday 11.45 – Moscow
The unofficial guiding model for writing tutoring across the US is the minimalist/peer approach outlined by
Bruffee (1984) and Brooks (1991). While there has been some criticism of this model for its non-directiveness
(Shamoon & Burns 1995, Clark & Healy 1996), its underpinning is generally assumed sound. For newly-created
writing centres in Europe and elsewhere who do not want to reinvent the wheel, it is only natural to turn to US
writing centres for a tutoring model. The export of an approach designed for one educational context into
another may, however, cause more problems than it resolves. In this presentation, I will argue that the
minimalist/peer approach, derived from the context of generalist undergraduate first-language education in the
US, embedded most typically in English literature departments, is unlikely to meet the needs of students within
European education systems. Rejecting the US model, I will propose an alternative framework that sees the
ability to teach as a strength, not a weakness, and which, where possible, seeks to marry teaching and tutoring,
not to divorce them. Though I will make specific reference to an international, graduate educational context,
my findings are, I hope, applicable to other contexts.
Sara HAUPTMAN, Achva College of Education, Israel (Co-writer: Rivka TAMIR)
Using Rubrics for Improving the Connection between the Process and the Product of
Academic Writing (P)
Monday 12.15 – Moscow
Our proposal for feedback strategy is related to one of the main issues of academic writing: establishing and
improving the connection between the process and the product of writing from sources (Flower, 1987;
Sternberg, 1998; Spatt, 2000). In our session we shall present two rubrics developed in our research, which
serve as feedback tools in our Academic Writing courses for freshman students. Our first rubric evaluates the
quality and quantity of the notes written by the student (Benton, 1993; Slote & Lonka, 1998) in the stage of
processing sources of information. Using the 20 parameters of this rubric, the student can assess and improve
notes which indicate analyzing and encoding information of one source in relation to the other(s) and employ
generalization and elaboration, which lead directly to the logical structure and to the integration of information
of the written product. Using our second rubric, which supplies data regarding the merit of the written product,
the student can understand the effectiveness of the notetaking strategy used in the previous text processing
24
Abstracts
stage. Using those rubrics several times helps the student improve the relation between the process, the
product, and the connection between them. Therefore we consider these rubrics to be of great use for
Academic Writing tutors.
Carol Peterson HAVILAND, California State University, USA
Writing Center and Classroom Faculty: Working Together on Intellectual Property (P)
Tuesday 11.45 – Warsaw
One of the most interesting features in the recent history of United States writing centers is a shift in the way
directors see their writing center roles. Rather than viewing their work either as the best "dead end" university
jobs they can find or as stepping stones to something better, many have come to see their directorships and
their writing centers as central to their universities’ teaching and research programs. A major reason for this
move has been the substantial collaborative research initiatives many directors have launched. This session will
describe one of those research projects: a study of the ways faculty members understand intellectual property in
their disciplines and thus they ways they teach their students to conduct and report research and to cite sources.
This three-part study first examines the ways faculty members describe their own academic writing processes
and particularly their collaborative practices. It then studies the ways these faculty members explain research
writing to their students. Finally, it aggregates these data to help writing center and other composition faculty
better explain the concepts of text ownership and citation conventions to students learning academic discourse.
In addition to enriching writing center directors’ own conceptions of academic discourse, studies like these
offer at least three other gains. They engage writing center faculty in substantive research projects with their
colleagues across the disciplines, they create closer links between writing center tutorials and classroom
teaching, and they showcase the learning communities that writing center faculty, tutors, and students have
built. The session will begin with a report of this study and the ways it has reshaped one writing center’s work,
and then it will create space for participants to discuss other ways their writing centers have tied tutoring,
classroom teaching, and faculty research together. Of particular interest to the U.S. presenter will be European
directors’ experiences with the multiple languages students bring to their universities.
John HILSDON and Maureen EVANS, University of Plymouth, UK
University of Plymouth Student Assignment Initiative (W)
Monday 15.00 – Prague II
Our experience shows that academic writing is the area of study giving most concern to staff and students.
Providing examples of annotated and graded students’ work is one way to help develop undergraduate writing
skills. This workshop draws upon a project based on notions of discourse and genre awareness. Our intended
approach is to encourage the examination and analysis of authentic examples of students’ written work. These
examples will be available in an online format for use by individuals or groups, working alone or with tutors.
The theme "Collaboration with University Faculty in the Development of Writing" is essential to this project.
Our experience shows that some colleagues are reluctant to make examples of students’ work available. This
workshop will provide opportunities to explore issues of concern, such as plagiarism. It will also present for
discussion our framework for analysis of student writing and how this may be used. Traditional views suggest
that learning from example is effective; however, there is little research to date on how students and staff may
make use of models. Our recommendations and conclusions will focus on this area.
25
Abstracts
Ann JOHNS, San Diego State University, USA
Author Stance and Evaluation in Text (W)
Wednesday 10.00 – Prague II
A major issue in recent theoretical and research studies of written expository text relates to author’s stance, i.e.,
the attitude of the author toward the topic discussed. as realized linguistically. Revealed in this stance, of course,
are the values of the author’s discourse community and the relationship of that community to the entity
discussed, the author’s personal authority (A student? An expert?), the author’s own sense of self and his/her
relationship to the audience. According to Hunston and Thompson (2000, p. 6), there are three general
functions that evaluation serves in texts:
1. To express the writer’s opinion, thus reflecting the values of that person and his/her community;
2. To construct and maintain relations between the writers and the reader,
3. To organize the discourse.
After the workshop leader has presented the theory and examples of its realization in texts, the participants will
work in groups to examine expert and student texts for evidence of the various types of evaluation practices.
Also discussed will be the implications of the use of evaluative terms and phrases in novice student work.
Peter Stray JORGENSEN, University of Copenhagen, DENMARK
A Linguistic Heuristic for Diagnosing Problems in Student Academic Writing (P)
Wednesday 11.45 – New York I
I present a linguistic heuristic for diagnosing the "scientificality" in student papers: Which are the observable
linguistic symptoms that reveal academic or non-academic writing (e.g. "wrong" speech acts, lack of scientific
metalanguage, sources as subjects "in nearly every sentence", unmotivated shifts in style, etc. etc.). The heuristic
is meant to be one angle in a teachers’ textbook on advising/tutoring student papers. In establishing this
heuristic, I draw on textbooks and research on academic writing (Swales & Feak (1994), Hyland (2000), Groom
(2000), MacDonald (1994), Williams (1990), among others). In none of these texts on academic writing (and
language), I have found neither a similar approach nor an exhaustive overview over the characteristics of
academic language for pedagogical purposes. So here is an on-its-way contribution. Data comes from students’
research papers and theses in writing centre consultations. Firstly, I analyse examples from students’ papers and
contrast them with the demands of science and genre criteria for the research paper (Rienecker & Jorgensen,
2000, 2003). Secondly, I present the heuristic and suggest how it can be put to use in teaching academic writing.
Lastly, I invite the audience to discuss, supplement and suggest how the heuristic may be improved and
employed in teaching and tutoring academic language.
Halyna KALUZHNA, Ivan Franko National University of L'viv, UKRAINE
Teaching Writing in the Computer Lab: Choices to be Made (P)
Monday 16.45 - Moscow
Writing is one of the most difficult skills to be taught, since it requires significant concentration and devotion
both on the part of the learner and the teacher. Recent scientific developments have given educators an
opportunity to make writing tasks more exciting for learners, as well as to create authentic interactive
environment in class with the use of new technologies and the Internet. However, the Internet may become an
odd supplement to the course if a number of factors were not taken into account, such as, technology at hand,
type of courses taught, hours of instruction, and level of learners' language proficiency. The presenter will
describe activities piloted in her ESP classes with Law and History students at a Ukrainian University which
included collaborative e-mail projects and discussion boards. She will comment on how feasible and effective a
specific type of activity can be, taking into account the limited resources at hand, level of learners' language
26
Abstracts
proficiency/computer competency, as well as curriculum requirements. The presenter will conclude by
suggesting some factors to be taken into account while making a choice about the types of computer based
writing activities to be introduced.
Angeniet KAM, University of Groningen, NETHERLANDS
Writing Apart Together in Dutch Higher Education: Exploring Ideas About a Writing
Assessment Procedure (W)
Tuesday 15.00 – Prague I
The teaching of academic writing in Dutch higher education is often organised in writing-to-learn classes.
However, teachers of such classes share the intuition that their students would achieve better results if students
could work more differentiatedly on individual writing skills and strategies. Unfortunately, such a method is not
possible within the classroom based teaching structures which characterise academic writing practice. This
raises the question whether the time is ripe for a writing method that builds on individual writing skills and
strategies, in which students write ‘apart together’. In such a method, students would work individually (apart)
on a writing portfolio within their discipline. Together, students would engage in tutorials in a writing center, in
feedback exchanges and chat sessions through an electronic learning environment, and in self-reflective practice
and peer feedback situations. In this workshop we will focus specifically on the need for and feasibility of an
intensive writing assessment procedure which would precede such an individual approach. Do we already know
enough about individual writing strategies to develop such an assessment? Could assessment tests that have
been developed in the US be adapted for such a writing-apart-together method? What kind of information
would such an assessment have to generate?
Susan KATZ, University of Pécs, HUNGARY; University of San Francisco, USA
Peer Response in the EFL Academic Writing Classroom: A Critical Analysis (W)
Wednesday 10.00 – Moscow
During the spring term of 2003, I am teaching two required undergraduate classes in Writing and Research
Skills (in English) at the University of Pécs in Hungary as part of my Fulbright lectureship. Peer response is a
new approach for these students, who are traditionally-trained English majors. For each genre I am teaching
(personal narrative, expository essay, argumentative essay, and research paper), I am introducing a different type
of peer response (guided partner, guided small group, holistic scoring, and editing groups). This workshop will
describe and assess the usefulness of the different kinds of peer feedback and their role in the development of
academic writing. Issues raised will include: Does introducing peer response to an unfamiliar student population
serve to build community or does it only heighten alienation and competition? What forms of peer response are
most effective? Can EFL students provide adequate peer feedback on English grammar through editing
groups? Current texts on academic writing advocate the process approach for the development of student
writing, including the use of peer response (Leki, Raimes, 2002; Freedman). Yet researchers in the field of
ESL/EFL writing have also raised concerns about the limitations of peer response and caution against its overuse (Scarcella, 1995; Lew, 1999; Wong Fillmore, 2001). This workshop will weigh the strengths and weaknesses
in this particular case study. I expect that peer response will facilitate the creation of a sense of community
within the writing classroom and serve to build confidence in the students. On the other hand, I anticipate that
peer response will be less effective in developing the grammatical skills of the EFL writers. In the workshop, I
will simulate one of the peer response approaches with the participants. After the simulation, we will look at
actual (anonymous) writing samples by my Hungarian students and discuss the effectiveness of the particular
kind of peer response.
27
Abstracts
Judith KEARNS & Brian TURNER, University of Winnipeg, CANADA
Accommodating Student Writers: Classroom Uses of Popular and Scholarly Discourse (P)
Wednesday 12.30 – New York I
At the University of Winnipeg, the Centre for Academic Writing bases its curriculum and pedagogy on
"reflective practice"--the principle that skills instruction in writing should be accompanied by instruction in
theory, analysis, and ethics. If our students are to become more than sophisticated mimics of academic
discourse, they must learn not merely to reproduce its features but to appreciate its virtues--among other things,
its specificity, its care in making claims, its argumentational and evidential transparency, and its intertextual
connectedness with a larger body of research. Recognizing these virtues has become ever more important,
given the increased blurring of lines between the reliable and unreliable that is represented by the Internet.
This presentation will describe several WID assignments and exercises that help students distinguish between
academic and popular writing. Through comparative analysis (in the manner of Fahnestock’s "Accommodating
Science") and guided scholarly critique of popular argument, students come to see features of academic
discourse, such as qualification and nominalization, less as stylistic obstacles than as substantive assets. Without
disparaging the popular or glorifying the academic, this approach emphasizes their contrasting purposes:
whereas the former serves best to provoke, the latter seeks to inform, public debate.
Barbara KOLAN, Bar Ilan University, Achva College of Education, ISRAEL
Making Collaborative Writing Work (P)
Tuesday 12.30 – Moscow
This paper begins by briefly outlining the theoretical underpinnings for collaborative writing pedagogy
established by such classic writers in the field as Kenneth Bruffee(1987, 1995), Andrea Lunsford and Lisa Ede
(1992, 1995), and Ira Shor (1992). The benefits of paired collaborative writing tasks, when structured and
scaffolded, (Topping 1995, 2001) and peer editing (Hillocks 1986) are highlighted. Drawing on my experience
in teaching EFL academic writing, I argue that the effectiveness of paired collaborative writing is supported by
student scores in examinations, by students’ reports of the process, and by other studies showing significantly
greater gains in paired writers than in students who wrote alone. Moreover, samples of students’ academic
writing, in EFL and English Literature courses, illustrate that through paired collaborative writing, students not
only develop organization and editing strategies but also engage in metacognitive behaviours that are
generalized and applied later when they write alone. A variety of writing activities for different academic
purposes and genres is introduced, through two performance-centered tasks: dialogic writing assignments and
innovative computer-assisted peer interaction.
Irina KOLESNIKOVA, Herzen State Pedagogical University, St. Petersburg, RUSSIA
Teaching Academic Writing to PRESETT Students in Russia (P)
Tuesday 10.40 – New York II
Teaching academic writing to PRESETT students is essential as an integral part of a university curriculum.
However, university academic writing courses are often theory-oriented and do not prepare students for
academic writing tasks that they encounter during their studies. Such courses are delivered in a lecture form and
advise the students on general requirements for writing a final paper. The new realities of teaching process
writing have special implications for university academic writing courses in Russia, where the Russian language
is the medium of instruction in teacher training and development courses. The presentation will be devoted to
course design process, its aims and innovative character specific for Foreign Languages Departments of
Russian Pedagogical Universities. The author will focus on the problems both language teachers and students
encounter in the process of the course introduction and implementation: organizational (curriculum, timetable,
28
Abstracts
tutorial structure); linguistic (language of instruction); methodological (tasks and activities). The presenter will
touch upon the difficulties of implementing the course while teaching graduate and post-graduate students.
Jacqueline van KRUININGEN and Femke KRAMER, University of Groningen,
NETHERLANDS
Bottom Up Faculty Development and Top Down Perpetuation in a Communication-In-TheDisciplines Program (W)
Tuesday 15.00 – Warsaw
In this workshop, we want to discuss strategies for the perpetuation of communication-in-the-disciplines
(including academic writing) activities in the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences at the University of
Groningen (Netherlands). These activities were initiated in a project that focuses on faculty development and
faculty dialogue. The specialists that were set to this task find themselves at a turning point in the process: up
till now, most efforts have been put in working with faculty, creating a necessary base for faculty attitude
change. Now, we enter the phase of developing a structured policy for the study programs, which requires a
more top down approach. In the workshop, we will discuss the choices, questions and pitfalls we encounter
when trying to affect these study program policies within the scope of a time limited project. What are the
prerequisites? How to reach beyond the receptive faculty? How to get the process of attitude change going?
How to bring about continuous care for the program? And from a university wide perspective: how to raise the
spirits at a university wide scale in an institution where individualism and decentralisation monopolise the
conversation? The workshop participants will gather and discuss possible answers to these questions through
small group assignments and situational role plays which are based on actual cases from the Groningen project.
The results from this workshop can be meaningfully linked to the work of anyone who is involved with
organisational, political, methodological and content issues concerning WAC-, WID- or Communication in the
Disciplines programs at European universities.
Katrin LEHNEN, Gerd BRÄUER and Stefanie HAACKE Aachen University;
University of Education, Freiburg; University of Bielefeld, GERMANY
Peer Feedback and Peer-Tutoring (W)
Monday 15.00 - Moscow
This workshop will introduce three different formats of introduction and usage of revision-oriented peerfeedback on student’s texts and Peer Tutoring in Germany:
a) a three-hour training session for tutors of introductory lecture classes, b) a one-day workshop for faculty who
want to instruct student’s writing more explicitly, c) a one-semester seminar on discipline-specific writing.
We will start the workshop by asking the participants to write down their ideas about the following question:
Which suppositions must be shared to make text-feedback between peers constructive? The participants will then share
feedback on each other’s writing by using an instruction for careful peer response/text-feedback. Introducing
some understanding on how to give constructive text-feedback is part of the teaching formats of all three
presenters. Based on the concrete experience each participant made in the beginning of the workshop, we will
then discuss potential differences in understanding the pedagogical impact of text-feedback. We will finally
outline our own different formats and usage of conveying the competence to give and take text-feedback (goals,
content, methods as a central instrument of peer tutoring or as a basic writing skill) based on the common
ground that, in Germany in general, the preparation of text-feedback between peers means to provide the basis
for a reflective writing praxis. Handouts with the syllabi of all three approaches, including sample exercises, will
be provided.
29
Abstracts
Theresa LILLIS and Mary Jane CURRY, Centre for Language and Communications, The
Open University, UK
Learning from the Writing Practices of Academics in Multilingual Contexts (P)
Monday 14.15 – Prague I
The individual writer is at the centre of much academic writing teaching: teachers set out to teach individual
students how to construct, revise and edit their texts. However, in real life academic writing contexts,
particularly in multilingual contexts, the production of written academic texts involves many participants in
complex networks of negotiation. In this paper we will draw on a two year research project setting out to
explore the academic writing practices of scholars who write in English as their second, third or fourth
language. The project involves some twenty-five scholars from Slovakia, Hungary and Spain in the disciplines
of psychology and education. The project draws on three theoretical domains: social practices perspectives on
literacy, sociocultural theories of learning and World Englishes. We will focus in particular on one key finding
to emerge from the project, the importance of ‘networks’ and ‘literacy brokers’ in the construction of academic
texts which we will illustrate from interview and text data. We will discuss the potential implications of this
finding for the teaching of academic writing in the medium of English.
Linda H.F. LIN, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, HONG KONG
A Collaborative Approach to Teaching Academic Writing (P)
Monday 11.30 – New York II
This paper describes my initiation and implementation of a different approach in teaching academic writing in
the Centre of Independent Language Learning (CILL) at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. One of the
sub-programs of CILL is the Supplementary English Program, which was primarily set up to help students who
are identified as needing extra help with their English language proficiency. Due to this nature of the program,
teaching of academic writing is not very popular with the students. To cope with this situation, I decided to
incorporate the pedagogy of collaborative writing into the teaching of academic writing. In this teaching mode,
the whole group, usually comprising four to five students, works together to decide what to write. After
finishing individual writing on the topic, all members critique each other’s writing on content, organization and
style. The group then pools their resources to enrich each student’s text. The teacher’s role is to listen, ask
questions and make suggestions. The outcome of this teaching mode has turned out to be unexpectedly
positive. The focus of this paper will be on a discussion of the following three areas:
1. the roles and responsibilities of the teacher and the learners in this teaching mode
2. the learning experience of the learners.
3. the significance of such a teaching mode both academically and psychologically to students
Anastasia LOGOTHETI, American College of Greece, GREECE
Beyond ‘Mere Exercise:’ Challenging Students through Undergraduate Research Projects
(P)
Monday 16.45 – Prague I
Data collected over many years of teaching at Deree College, the undergraduate division of the American
College of Greece, suggests that Greek undergraduates view research projects as “mere exercise.” Considering
the writing of papers as the mechanical repetition of techniques students learnt as freshmen results in
indifference, plagiarism and resentment. Thus, basic pedagogical principles of the American undergraduate
system, which is task-oriented and values productivity, appear meaningless to Greek students. My presentation
will describe techniques I use to challenge, engage and empower undergraduate writers. One assignment
requires that students keep a research journal throughout the semester: by detailing the steps followed in
researching and drafting a paper and by engaging with the process, students acquire a sense of ‘ownership’ of
30
Abstracts
the project. Another method encourages independence of thought: I require that students research and write on
a work included in the course curriculum but not taught in class. Through completion of specific research and
writing tasks, students are guided indirectly but also encouraged to gain control of the material. I will present
both methods in detail, distribute samples of assignments and explain how by enabling undergraduates to
personalize a research project they can find their own voice and fulfill our educational purposes.
Joan MCCORMACK, University of Reading, UK
Is plagiarism an inevitable part of the process of learning how to write an academic essay?
Monday 12.15 – Prague III
Plagiarism is an issue which arises when teaching extended academic writing skills, particularly on EAP courses
in the UK. This is especially the case with students for whom English is not a first language, whose use of
plagiarism is often based on a lack of confidence in expressing ideas in their own words or on culture-based
miscomprehension of the negative view of plagiarism in western writing practices. This paper sets out to
explore students' understanding of what constitutes plagiarism and their reasons for plagiarism. Data was
collected from a group of students attending extended writing classes as part of an English language program at
the University of Reading. Students were from a variety of cultural backgrounds, and a range of language ability
levels is represented. A systematic approach which aimed to teach students avoidance of plagiarism will be
outlined, and the results discussed, as well as the implications of these results.
Ágnes MAGNUCZNÉ GODÓ, Miskolc University, HUNGARY
Cross-cultural perspectives in academic writing instruction (P)
Wednesday 11.45 – Prague II
Having taught academic writing to Hungarian English majors for some years made me realise that there are
certain aspects of Anglo-American rhetoric that Hungarian students find notoriously difficult to acquire, and
that myself and my North American colleagues often have alternative perceptions of our students' writing
quality. In agreement with Clyne (1997), Cmerjkova (1996), Connor & Mayberry (1996), and Duszak (1994),
who observed similar phenomena in the case of German, Czech, Finnish and Polish L2 writers, I claim that
these problems are largely rooted in the differing cultural backgrounds and intellectual traditions determining
Hungarian and American (coursebook) writers' native literacy experiences. The objective of the proposed
presentation is twofold. First, it aims to describe the different intellectual orientations underlying Hungarian
and North American educational practices and illustrate resulting rhetorical patterns and strategies based on the
findings of a study comparing the L1 argumentative writing of Hungarian and North American college
students. Key features include superstructure organisation, assertiveness in formulating claims, attitude to
alternative considerations and applying to individual and shared knowledge systems. Secondly, suggestions will
be made to integrate these findings into instructional practices.
Svitlana MARKELOVA, Ivan Franko National University of L'viv, UKRAINE
Integrating Academic Writing into Teaching ESP in Ukraine (P)
Monday 12.15 – New York I
The presentation considers the experience of integrating academic writing into teaching English for specific
purposes at a Ukrainian university. It has become obvious now that new opportunities in academic sphere
require the skills of academic writing in English. Like students of any other post-totalitarian state Ukrainian
students have never been taught any kind of academic writing, even in their mother tongue. We discuss how to
achieve some shifts in students' approaches to writing activities: from writer-centred to reader-centred writing,
from intuition in composing to its tight structuring, from the idea of the final product to its individual
31
Abstracts
components at the initial stage of writing, from the individual components to the whole text at the final stage.
The results of students' acquiring initial skills of drafting, writing and reviewing are shown.
Steve MARSHALL and Simon Avery WILLIAMS, University College London, UK
Combining Genre and Process: Academic Writing at University College London (P)
Wednesday 12.30 – Prague II
The genre approach, analysing and imitating the forms of specific discourse communities, has a long and
respectable tradition in the research and teaching of EAP writing (eg Swales, 1990; Dudley-Evans, 1994).
Despite this, as in the US (Ferris, 2001), the majority of such EAP writing classes in UK multi-faculty
institutions probably follow the more generalised approach recommended by Spack (1988). University College
London is an example of a multi-faculty institution, where students in Language Centre EAP writing classes are
drawn from various faculties, institutes and schools.
We have found that, in our classes, a task-based learning approach focusing on generic structures is less
effective than a combination of genre and process approaches, including a thematic focus on students’ subject
areas (cf. Vann and Myers, 2001) and a diagnostic focus on students’ individual language. Our experience
suggests that an informed decision to deliver writing classes in this heterogeneous mode overcomes perceived
problems mentioned by Ferris (2001) of teacher knowledge of various subject disciplines and institutional
resources. Instead, the writing class made up of students from a wide range of academic disciplines can have
positive advantages, and mixed teaching strategies are likely to be both pragmatic and effective.
Linda MEGGS, University of Prince Edward Island, CANADA
Inauthentic Voices: A Case of [Mis]appropriated Identity (P)
Wednesday 12.30 – Moscow
This paper will describe an intriguing phenomenon, with important theoretical and practical applications, that
involves the issue of voice in Canadian students' writing. As such compositionists as Peter Elbow and Kathleen
Blake Yancey have stressed, cultivating an "authentic" voice is desirable for all writers. Often the perceived
demands of the academic discourse community will interfere with the authenticity of the voice. Plagiarism, as
Darsie Bowden observes, is a more egregious explanation for an "inauthentic" voice. However, in the
circumstances described in this paper, the voice is merely misappropriated subliminally as a result of exposure
to American media. This paper will describe how this manifests itself in Canadian students' writing, why it
happens, and what writing instructors and writing center personnel can do to help students write more
authentically. In a globalized environment where much information is gleaned from sources such as CNN and
the Internet, students throughout the world must stay rooted in their own context in order to make sure that
their voices are authentic and enfranchised.
Yvette MEINEMA, University of Groningen, NETHERLANDS
How to Equip Students for Interdisciplinary and International Writing Contexts (P)
Tuesday 12.30 – Warsaw
The one-year MA-programme Humanitarian Assistance of the University of Groningen is an interdisciplinary
and international one and therefore accessible for students from different countries and disciplines.
Consequently, students entering the programme have different writing backgrounds and are used to different
conventions. NOHA prepares graduates for work at all levels and positions in all kinds of organisations: for the
students, again, different contexts in which they will encounter various writing conventions. It is therefore
essential to equip graduates with skills to tackle writing in all kinds of genres and within different conventions.
The discipline specialists working for NOHA in Groningen realise this and asked writing specialists to support
32
Abstracts
the educational programme, starting with the module Medicine. A goal of this collaboration was to create good
practice and therefore a basis for further collaboration with discipline specialists within the NOHA programme.
The collaboration resulted in two workshops for students in which genre analyses and peer-review were central
aspects. This presentation will focus on:



the design and pedagogy of the two workshops;
the results and experiences of the participants and the discipline specialists ;
exploring the specific conditions that either impede or stimulate such a collaboration.
Wilhelm Henry MEYER, University of Natal, SOUTH AFRICA
Reflections on Developing Writing Skills for ESL Students in the Discipline Classroom (P)
Wednesday 12.30 – New York II
This paper considers the responsibility of the university teacher who is both a discipline specialist, concerned
with the transmission of subject content, and a writing specialist, to develop ESL students' facility as writers
within the powerful critical discourse of the university. In the first part of the paper I will pay particular
attention to the extent to which the discipline teacher should attempt to bring about change in student writers,
for whom the acceptance of the critical university discourse represents a paradigm shift that they may be
unwilling to make. Secondly, using student interviews, samples of student writing and research into writing, I
will discuss the problems that the students encounter adapting their writing skills to the demands of the
unfamiliar discourse of the university. In this section I will focus the difficulty ESL students' face having to
read, analyze and synthesize information from a number of multi-voiced academic texts in their second
language. This paper has relevance for the writing specialist assisting academic staff in setting up integrated,
writing intensive courses within the discipline context.
Emmy MISSER, Wilfrid Laurier University, CANADA
Genre Practice in a Canadian Writing Center (P)
Tuesday 11.45 – New York II
I will focus on how the directive approach to the writing centre tutorial can be used to teach the genre of
academic writing. Informed by the work of Irene Clark, John Swales, and Ann Johns, this approach to genre
complements the classroom emphasis on analysis and independent thinking and clarifies to students how
independent knowledge making is conveyed through the conventions of academic writing. Through samples of
student writing, I will illustrate the improvement that can occur to the articulation of independent thought
when students get the opportunity to rewrite their introduction during the tutorial after a short dialogue with
the tutor. I will also discuss the tutorial practice that enables this improvement in writing: The tutor reads the
introduction and then asks questions about issue, research context, and claim to get the student to articulate an
argument in agreement with the genre of academic writing. While the tutor reviews the rest of the paper, the
student rewrites the introduction. In the last part of the tutorial, the tutor works from the revised introduction
to explain what needs to be done structurally and stylistically to make the argument explicit in the body of the
paper.
Sally MITCHELL, Queen Mary, University of London, UK
Working in Partnership to Develop Writing: a Case Study (P)
Wednesday 11.45 – Prague I
This presentation charts the progress of an ongoing collaboration at Queen Mary, University of London
between the 'Writing in the Disciplines' (WID) coordinator and a group of academic staff in the School of
Biological Sciences. The collaboration centres on a compulsory course for second and third year
33
Abstracts
undergraduates in which the aim is for students to integrate knowledge from different specialist branches of
Biology in order to address significant questions within the discipline as a whole. Assessment for this course has
traditionally been through the essay, produced as coursework, and in an end of course exam. Although the
course was praised by external examiners, it was generally disliked by the academic tutors and not taken
seriously by students, whose written work often failed to develop. The involvement of the WiD coordinator
with the course has resulted in a changed pedagogy in which short writing tasks, peer review and opportunities
for rewriting and reflection are used to support and develop students' learning. These changes have generated
considerable discussion amongst the staff group and within the School. The presentation will discuss the
factors which enabled the changes to take place, their limitations in terms of WiD pedagogy, and the potential
for further development.
Jenny MOON, University of Exeter, UK
How to Help Students and Staff with Reflective Writing in Learning Journals, Professional
Development and Other Activities (W)
Monday 15.00 – Warsaw
Reflective learning is becoming more important as an activity in higher education - but do we really know what
it is (or is not), and why we should use it? If we as staff do not know this, how can we help students? The
workshop will involve discussion of these issues and a large portion of the time will involve use of an exercise
that facilitates the exploration of the nature and values of reflective writing. It can be used with staff of
students. We will also discuss the use and value of learning journals and other forms of reflective writing. The
workshop presenter has written two books on reflection and reflective learning and much of the material of this
workshop will be derived from a third book to be published later this year. The previous books were 'Reflection
in Learning and Professional Development' (1999) and 'Learning Journals: a handbook for academics, students
and professional development (1999a) both published by Kogan Page, London. The outcome of the workshop
should be a better understanding of reflective writing and reflective learning and better ability to work with
students.
Stephen NEWTON, William Paterson University, USA
The Center in the Classroom: Teaching Tutoring for Everyday Practice (P)
Tuesday 11.45 – Prague I
This presentation will focus on my experience teaching a graduate course at a state university in the United
States entitled "Teaching Writing as Process." One of the main focuses of this course is integrating Writing
Center techniques into the classroom practice of the students taking the class. Almost all of the students taking
this course are English teachers in northern New Jersey, primarily high school but some middle school,
elementary level, and special education, as well as teachers working with academically challenged students and
teachers in courses other than English. All of these diverse educational environments have provided fertile
ground for the application of the one-on-one techniques that I use for training tutors in the Writing Center
which I direct at William Paterson University. I will be referring to various essays from The St Martin's Sourcebook
for Writing Tutors. In this presentation I will detail these practices, showing the ways that one-on-one Writing
Center practice can inform the everyday teaching of English teachers-- and of language arts teachers in any
language--and the ways that classroom practice can in return help shape Writing Center praxis.
34
Abstracts
Karen NICHOLLS, University of London, UK
Conversion of a Techno-Sceptic? (P)
Monday 16.45 – Prague III
What are the advantages of using computers to support self-study? And can they enhance student selfreflection in the essay-writing process? This presentation will outline the development of an online resource for
students (first language, second language and dyslexic) at Goldsmiths. It will then report on a small-scale
observation to see whether there are changes in the level of students’ reflection when the online feedback is
altered slightly. The resource was originally designed to support self-access for students with urgent questions
about essay writing. Initial use has shown a variety of ways in which the design needed improvement, and the
most recent changes attempt to overcome the final gap between students’ awareness of essay characteristics, to
students’ own essay writing. Observations of students using the site aim to find out whether there is a notable
difference in the extent to which students transfer their knowledge of "what makes a good essay" to their
reflection of "what can make my essays better".
Suzan ONIZ and Gaye TOLUNGUC, Middle East Technical University, TURKEY
Preparing for Academic Writing: Aims and Tasks (W)
Monday 15.00 – New York I
The workshop has been based on a departmental project to develop a writing coursebook for post-beginner
level students at Middle East Technical University, an English-medium university in Ankara, Turkey. This
workshop will focus on the aims regarding the teaching of academic writing. The workshop will be conducted
in three stages: a) A group activity to brainstorm participant preferences concerning academic writing books, b)
A brief presentation of the presenters' context, the textbook project, and the aims developed for teaching
academic writing, c) A hands-on application of three tasks.The contents and teaching methodology of the tasks
are the result of experience amalgamating communicative language teaching with learning strategies, scaffolding
to build confidence to write, and multiple intelligences. The aims have been based on the research conducted
by Grabe and Kaplan (1996) mainly concerning the use of old and new information in sentences, cohesion and
coherence, a taxonomy of writing skills, knowledge bases, and processes; Grabe and Biber (1987) concerning
freshman students' writing skills; Hillocks (1986), Perera (1984), Witte and Cherry (1986) concerning the
features of successful written texts. The corpus findings cited in Biber et al (2000) in their comprehensive work
have been especially decisive in selecting specific language expressions and cohesive devices.
Anne PALLANT, University of Reading, UK
Developing Critical Analysis and Argument in Extended Academic Writing (W)
Wednesday 10.00 – New York II
Many international students from culturally different academic backgrounds are not fully aware of the level of
critical analysis and argument required in academic writing for postgraduate studies in UK universities. The
extended essay class on EAP courses is one of the opportunities that these students have of developing their
skills in this area. However, many students revert to their familiar habits of approaching issues at a descriptive,
or knowledge-telling, level, rather than an analytical, or knowledge-transforming, level. In this workshop we
shall look at how classroom-based activities can be integrated within an EAP syllabus to enhance effective
communication of critical thinking in written language assignments, enabling students to reach an advanced
stage of critical literacy. Postgraduate EAP students with a higher linguistic level may have the required
linguistic skills and maturity to engage in critical thinking tasks, however, less linguistically able students often
have difficulty accessing such tasks. We shall discuss appropriate ways of grading and scaffolding tasks, making
them more comprehensively accessible. There will be an opportunity to evaluate activities, and to reflect on
how they can be adapted for participants' own context. Activities will be situated within a framework of related
theories of critical thinking and academic literacy.
35
Abstracts
Diane PECORARI, University of Stockholm, SWEDEN
Good and original: The role of plagiarism and patchwriting in the work of second-language
academic writers (P)
Tuesday 14.15 – Prague III
Plagiarism is regarded as a heinous crime within the academic community, but numerous accounts in the
literature on first- and second-language writing suggest that some writers plagiarize without intending to
transgress academic conventions. However, because the evidence for this form of source use is almost
exclusively anecdotal, many questions remain, chief among: how widespread is insufficiently attributed source
use? Can evidence be found for the claims that such writing is unintentional? And can lack of intention be
accepted as an explanation for plagiarism in the work of students who have been informed about how the
English-speaking academic community views the act? This paper will report a study of the writing of seventeen
postgraduate students in four academic areas: science, engineering, social science and humanities. Source
reports in the student-generated texts were compared to the original sources in order to describe the
relationship between the two. Interviews were also conducted with the student writers and their supervisors.
The student writing was found to contain textual features which could be described as plagiarism, but the
writers' accounts of their work and the textual analysis strongly suggest absence of intention to plagiarize, thus
providing empirical verification of similar suggestions in the literature.
Arna PERETZ, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev , ISRAEL
Teaching Scientific/Academic Writing: A Place for New Technologies (P)
Tuesday 14.15 – Moscow
Although discourse communities may share certain academic conventions, there is significant variation of
discourses between and within disciplines. This becomes evident when teaching scientific/academic writing to
graduate students, as it soon becomes apparent that differences also exist within sub-fields. Teachers of
academic writing must thus focus on the purpose of the writing, on the audience, and on structure,
appropriateness and style. In this paper I describe the incorporation and role of new technologies in a
scientific/academic writing course at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (BGU), Beer Sheva, Israel. The
Israeli and overseas graduate students in this course are multilingual non-native speakers of English from a
wide range of disciplines. The underlying premise of the course, that writing is interactive and social in nature
and that form and function interact in real-world writing, and its effect on course format will be discussed. The
use and integration of on-line information and communication, including such electronic discourses as email
and PowerPoint, in the academic writing classroom will be described. How technology can contribute to
satisfying students’ demands for personal relevance and to "solving" such problems as multilingual classes,
multi-disciplinary groups, and ‘mixed’ classes of Masters and Ph.D. students, will be explained.
Hadara PERPIGNAN, Bar Ilan University, University of Haifa, ISRAEL
The Teacher-Student Written Feedback Dialogue: Learning Each Other's Language (W)
Tuesday 15.00 – Moscow
Written feedback is the most traditional of teachers' tools for dealing with students' writing - and it is still the
most dominant, in spite of technological developments which have given new meanings to writing and have
provided new modes of writing instruction. One of the issues raised by researchers and practitioners is that of
the many opportunities for misunderstanding built into the dialogue engendered by students' writing and their
teachers' responses (Zamel, 1985; Cohen & Cavalcanti, 1990; Ivani? et al, 2000; Ferris & Roberts, 2001). This
workshop will demonstrate the use of a tool which was devised to promote more understanding among the
participants in this feedback dialogue within an EFL Academic Writing course setting. Although the tool was
originally designed for classroom research (Bailey & Allwright 1991; Allwright, 2002), its pedagogical
36
Abstracts
implications seem to go far beyond the research goals it sought to attain then. Participants in the workshop will
be asked to respond as students to a series of activities, showing their own expectations, judgments, and
understandings of teacher-written feedback. Thus, they will be led experientially to understand some of the
issues involved in the language of feedback, in order to increase its potential for effectiveness in a variety of L1
and L2 instructional settings.
Roslyn PETELIN, University of Queensland, AUSTRALIA
Editing Academic Writers Electronically (P)
Monday 14.15 – Moscow
After initiating postgraduate programs in Writing, Editing, & Publishing at The University of Queensland in
2000, I was contacted, mainly via e-mail, by many potential students inquiring about the presence of flexible
delivery and online materials. Sensing a commercial opportunity within the body of interested students whose
work and family pressures or physical location make it impossible for them to attend weekly classes on campus,
the university provided funds for me to replicate the on-campus environment in whatever ways are possible in
an e-environment. Working with a research assistant who graduated out of the first intake in 2001, I have
prepared a WebCT site for a course with a substantial component on the editing of academic text. The site
contains the course profile; theoretical background readings; recommended texts; a style guide; outlines of
practical research studies and cases; online worksheets; annotated exemplars; evaluated and annotated extension
sites, and, most importantly, a mechanism to allow students to submit academic articles for critique via e-mail,
with the expectation that their work will be returned with suggested changes highlighted and comments
inserted. This paper reports on 1) the possibilities we considered in deciding how best to provide electronic
feedback to students on their academic writing; 2) the responses of campus-based students in a pilot study to
the electronic feedback we provided on their academic writing.
Mariet RAEDTS, Limburg University Center, BELGIUM
Self-efficacy Beliefs, Writing Apprehension, Task Knowledge and the Quality of Texts (P)
Tuesday 14.15 – Prague I
Although most Belgian first year students have never had any instruction in how to summarize, select and
combine the information of different texts, some successfully complete their first paper assignment, whereas
others do not. According to Bandura (1986, 1997) the writing self-efficacy beliefs of the students account to
some extent for the quality differences in their texts; confident students are "likely to feel less apprehensive and
have stronger feelings of self-worth about their writing." (Pajares, in press) Furthermore these writers persist
when they meet obstacles in the writing process. To test Bandura’s assumptions 229 first year students in
Applied Economics wrote a two-page text summarizing the content of 9 different scientific articles after a short
introductory course on plagiarism and on quoting correctly. Before they wrote their texts, students completed a
questionnaire measuring their self-efficacy beliefs, writing apprehension, grade goals and their task knowledge.
The paper discusses the link between text quality on the one hand and the writing self-efficacy beliefs, writing
apprehension, grade goals and the accuracy of the task knowledge of the students on the other. The preliminary
results are be evaluated with a focus on students who have unrealistic ideas about their own competencies.
Lucy RAI, The Open University, UK
Affective Responses to Feedback in Student Writing (P)
Monday 11.30 – Prague II
This paper is based upon research into the experiences of mature undergraduate student social workers. Data
has been drawn from analysis of scripts and interviews with students. This research draws upon a social
practices approach to student writing (Lea & Steirer 2000, Lillis 2001) in examining the affective impact of tutor
37
Abstracts
feedback on student writing. This approach suggests that writing takes place in socially and culturally mediated
contexts and that exchanges between writer and audience are influenced by often hidden meanings and
assumptions. The specific context of social work writing provides a source of texts which expose students
identity through their writing. This takes place through the requirement of self disclosure and reflection upon
personal and practice experiences. Additionally such writing requires of students a particularly unconventional
model of academic writing in terms of the use of self and valued sources of evidence. This paper suggests that
the nature of social work student writing highlights the impact of affective responses to feedback and expected
writing conventions, which has a consequent impact on their processes of writing. Strategies are explored which
take account of the identities of writer and tutor, the complexity of academic conventions and the relevance of
cultural diversity.
Lotte RIENECKER, University of Copenhagen, DENMARK
Thesis Writers' Block: Text Work that Unblocks (P)
Monday 16.45– New York II
Academic writing is often subject to procrastination and blocking, and many students drop out before or during
thesis/dissertation writing ("All-But-Dissertation"-status). Procrastination and blocking has mainly been studied
from psychological/-analytical perspectives. A metastudy on procrastination of academic writing (Boice, 2000)
showed that with time, the procrastinating writer’s propensity for depression and low self-esteem increases,
lowering the chances of academic success. Therefore, quick detection and help is essential. Writing centers
often refer blocked thesis writers to student counseling services for psychotherapy. However, psychological
support alone may prove insufficient if it does not address the characteristic genre-misunderstandings and
absence of text elements (as described by Swales and Feak, 1990, 1994; Booth, Colomb and Williams, 1997,
Rienecker and Stray Jörgensen, 2000) which the drafts of many procrastinating student writers display. Put
plainly: What is wrong with the plan or draft to make the writer procrastinate and block? Our writing centre
consults per year with approx. 40 blocked thesis writers, and we offer a thesis-writers workshop. On the basis
of typical characteristics of blocked and procrastinating writer’s drafts seen from a genre perspective, I will put
forward and discuss our suggestions for the textual approaches that may unblock the writing.
Maxine RODBURG, Harvard University, USA
Theories and Workshops: Writing Teachers as Writing Students (P)
Tuesday 14.15 – Prague II
This presentation describes a seminar at Harvard University, called Strategies for Teaching Writing, in which
the students consisted of college professors and high school teachers. Their disciplines included music, biology,
English, journalism, and political science. Abdicating for one summer their authority as classroom instructors,
they all undertook to study contemporary writing pedagogy while simultaneously participating in a writing
workshop. In this seminar, the exchange of experiences and views resulted in some surprising interactions and
models for change. The daily writing workshops unified the group in even more surprising ways, illuminating
the challenges that students at all levels face when asked, or required, to share written work, and suggesting a
variety of classroom practices.
Gabriela RUHMANN, Schreibzentrum der Ruhr-Universität Bochum, GERMANY
An economical and effective way of training and employing writing tutors (P)
Tuesday 12.30 – Prague II
European universities struggle with a mass of students struggling with writing problems. Where they exist,
writing centres are low budget projects with one or two full-time teachers at best. Committed as these teachers
may be, the broader writing support needed is hard to achieve this way. Training writing tutors, the American
38
Abstracts
solution, is less than straightforward in a European context, however. Universities lack the systematic writing
programmes that exist in the US, and tutors in European universities will be faced with more complex writing
tasks. In addition, cash-strapped European universities are unlikely to be able to pay for writing tutors. In this
presentation I shall outline a way of training and employing tutors for academic writing that copes with these
conditions. This programme, developed at the writing centre of the Ruhr-Universität Bochum and tested at
several German universities, functions as a first aid measure to prevent students from developing severe writing
problems within a system which shows itself quite stolid and reluctant to implement writing programmes. This
programme is a work in progress in the area of 'situated' writing research and writing pedagogy which aims at
improving the writing processes as they occur in unreduced reality. It incorporates extensive experience in
counselling and training students and takes into account contemporary writing research and pedagogy.
Tracy SANTA, United States Air Force University, USA
European Writers/American Institutions: Eastern European Graduate Assistants in
American Universities (P)
Tuesday 10.40 – Prague III
Responding to David Foster and David R. Russell’s call for "well-situated studies both within and across
national systems" (2002), we propose to offer the testimony of four graduates of the American University in
Bulgaria currently studying, teaching, and working as graduate assistants at American universities. Our intention
would be to examine transition and transference from a variety of perspectives. Among questions we would hope
to address:




What cultural factors bear on the cross-national teaching of composition and content-based writing?
To what degree do distinctions between US and European secondary education practices bear on the
applicability of composition and tutoring practice largely derived from Anglo-American models?
How might practice drawn from the American institutional context be modified and applied in
European contexts (i.e. Romania and Bulgaria).
How does the educational experience (secondary and post-secondary) of each of our presenters bear on
their own practice and reflection on practice in US institutional settings.
Presentation panel: Ramona Fruja (Michigan State University), Razvan Sibii (University of Massachusetts),
Aneta Spendjarova (University of North Carolina), Hristomir Stanev (Ohio State University). Tracy Santa,
former faculty member in English and past Director of the Writing Program at the American University in
Bulgaria, will introduce and respond to the panel.
Kirsten SCHINDLER, Bielefeld University, GERMANY
Collaborative Writing: A Method for Researching and Supporting Audience Awareness (P)
Monday 14.15 – Prague III
We commonly write texts which are directed to other persons: our readers. Even though we can not rely on
immediate reactions - as in spoken dialogue - we are nevertheless able to communicate more or less successfully
with them. How do we succeed in doing that? In my presentation, I will present the results of three writing
experiments, that focus on the role of the addressee in the writing process. Writers (students) grouped in pairs
were asked to write different types of texts in collaboration. To produce a single text together, writers in a pair
have to verbalize their thoughts and discuss their ideas and intentions about their text. The interactions in these
collaborative writing groups were taped on video, transcribed and analysed. The data shows that collaborative
writing is a strong research instrument to investigate the role of the addressee in writing. With regard to writing
didactics, it provides an effective method to support audience awareness in writing: since writers have to
formulate their text together, they each adopt the role of the addressee to their writing partners and constantly
change their perspective from writer to reader and vice versa.
39
Abstracts
Mary SCOTT, University of London, UK
But how do you write research? (P)
Monday 17.30 – New York I
In UK universities PhD students are usually required to undertake research and to present an account of it in
the form of a written thesis. There are numerous publications that are designed to help the students meet this
requirement. However, in surveying a selection of these publications I identified a strong tendency to uncouple
writing and research. Emphasis was given either to writing practices and the conventions of academic writing or
to doing research (e.g. formulating a research question, choosing a methodology, collecting data). It was this
inverse correlation between writing and research which prompted a student to ask: ‘But how do you write
research?’ In order to address this question I propose that the doctoral thesis (i.e. written-up research) be
conceived as knowledge-in-the-making. This conception focuses attention not only on epistemological
orientations but also on who is making the knowledge, for what audience it is being made, and on its making as
text. Moving from this theoretical integration of research and writing to how it can inform practice, I present
examples of activities in which students explored excerpts from past PhD theses and arrived at subtler, more
integrated understandings of how to write research.
Wendy SHILTON, University of Prince Edward Island, CANADA
Teaching Students Teaching Writing: A Course to Build WAC Bridges (P)
Tuesday 12.30 – Prague I
One of the most critical roles a coordinator of Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) plays at institutions of
higher education is that of ‘bridge-builder’: establishing strong connections among faculty, students, academic
programs, and writing support services. Normally, WAC programs focus on faculty to promote partnerships
across campus, often overlooking a powerful WAC resource, namely, students. At the University of Prince
Edward Island (UPEI) in Canada, students are encouraged to join faculty in becoming agents of WAC change.
One way they train to do so is through an interdisciplinary senior writing course, Academic Writing As
Learning, which has become an important component of the University’s overall comprehensive writing
project. This course helps to address one of the projects main challenges: the continual need to staff the writing
centre with qualified tutors from across the disciplines. The course is thus open to students majoring in all
areas; it provides instruction in the history and theoretical development of composition and rhetoric as a field;
it has a service-learning component requiring students to serve as peer tutors at the writing centre (thus
bridging the theory/praxis divide while encouraging civic responsibility); and it focuses on student-directed
learning, developing skills at the level of leadership, communication and interpretation, and interpersonal
involvement. For EATAW/EWCA 2003, I propose to discuss how this course has become a crucial factor in
the effort to build WAC bridges toward a vibrant culture of critical literacy at UPEI, relating my topic to the
themes of (a) integrating individual tutorials with classroom teaching, and (b) writing across the curriculum
structures in universities.
Paul SMITH, POLAND
Arguing for Argument (P)
Monday 12.15 – New York II
Argument is accepted by many as the "dominant mode of academic rhetoric." This view is undermined by a.
alternative modes or forms of rhetoric that are "non-adversarial"; b. inadequate teaching of the forms and
implications of using argument, leading to unwelcome digression, weakened conclusions, undermined logic, and
inappropriate register. The second of these problems is most often due to the assumption that students bring
the ability to argue to the academy and do not need to be taught it, having somehow "transubstantiated" it
simply through the fact of being in higher education. This paper has a number of modest aims: i. to repudiate
the notion that alternatives to argumentative rhetoric are desirable in the writing classroom ii. to illustrate the
40
Abstracts
centrality of argument to our thinking through outlining two celebrated expositions from different perspectives:
Lakoff & Johnson, informed by cognitive psychology; and of Stephen Toulmin, informed by investigations into
formal logic a. this should demonstrate that the capacity to argue well has hidden complexities which cannot be
picked up easily by everybody, and so should be supported by instruction, at least in the early phases of higher
education b. to demonstrate possibilities for teaching and exposition of argument.
Nancy SOMMERS, Harvard University, USA
The Harvard Study of Undergraduate Writing (P)
Monday 17.30 – Prague II
This presentation will begin by showing a ten-minute documentary I've made about the Harvard Study of
Writing, featuring students and faculty speaking passionately about the important role of writing in
undergraduate education. In the presentation, I will highlight the main findings of my longitudinal study - how
students learn to write within their disciplines, the paradoxes of writing development, and the important role
the university culture plays in producing, influencing, and supporting students' commitment to writing. The
Study reveals the ways in which students are shaped and defined by what they have written, transforming their
personal interests into intellectual passions, learning to think broadly across disciplines as they write their way
through university and into the world.
Ingrid STASSEN and Vincent Boeschoten, University of Nijmegen, NETHERLANDS
Developing Writing Skills in a Writing Center (P)
Monday 12.15 – Prague II
The University of Nijmegen is currently investigating the viability of running a Writing Center from the
campus. The services a Writing Center could offer are for example individual coaching of students during the
writing process, discipline based workshops for students as well as teachers, support for writing across the
curriculum, and advice on the development of educational programs. A Writing Center could be a helpdesk for
students and teachers and an expertise center for teachers. An on-line writing center would be an indispensable
part of this. World Wide Writing, www.worldwidewriting.com , has recently been developed in Nijmegen and
will be used as the on-line resource in the Writing Center. In World Wide Writing students and teachers can
work together during the writing process. This center offers Writing Assistance with suggestions, advice,
guidance and links and also Genres, including examples. There is a database, Textpert, which provides
comments, and a Writing Market via the digital environment Blackboard, which allows users to communicate
with each other. World Wide Writing enables students to improve their writing skills in five languages, English,
French, German, Spanish and Dutch. In this presentation, I will discuss the results of a series of pilot studies in
which we have been using open questions in an e-chat environment within World Wide Writing. Do students
gain insights into their own writing processes while collaborating together to produce a text and coaching each
other at this way?
Neomy STORCH, University of Melbourne, AUSTRALIA
The Nature of Collaboration and Second Language Learning (P)
Monday 11.30 – Prague I
This paper addresses the nature of collaborative writing and the impact it may have on second language
learning. Although the literature on writing pedagogy and second language acquisition promotes the use of
collaborative writing activities in the language classroom, very little attention has been paid to the type of
relationships learners form when they work collaboratively. This paper reports on a study conducted in a
university ESL writing class. In the study, students were required to work in pairs and co-author a text. In the
following week the students worked on a similar type of composition individually. Using a case study approach,
41
Abstracts
the paper illustrates the two distinct patterns of pair work found (labelled collaborative and
dominant/dominant). The pairs differed in how they approached the task, how they resolved language related
issues as well as in the nature of their questions, explanations and repetitions. Furthermore, an analysis of the
subsequent individual composition showed more evidence of learning in the case of the collaborative than the
dominant/dominant pair. These findings suggest that the relationship a pair or group forms is an important
consideration in research on learner interaction and in writing pedagogy.
Judit SZERDAHELYI, Western Kentucky University, USA
Bridging the Gap Between the "Creative" and the Academic (P)
Monday 17.30 – New York II
The traditional research paper is probably the most dreaded academic genre in the eyes of students who often
consider the research process to be a "wicked tangle of requirements designed to trip up the novice and
condemn her to note card hell" (Ballenger and Payne 2003). No wonder that this painful process results in
writing that is predictable, "dry, flatly written, [and] buried under blizzards of citations" (Malinowitz 2003) to
make up for a lack of audience awareness and communicative purpose. Instead of encouraging the "recording
of researched authority" (Root 2003) and a mere "regurgitation of brute facts" (Connors 1997), writing
instructors should challenge the conventional notions of this "non-genre" (Root 2003) and help students excel
in forms that they could use outside school and after college. In this presentation, I argue (with Ballenger and
Payne) that academic writing should be driven by the "spirit of inquiry" and not the formal requirements of
school research associated with the "note card hell." Exposing students to ethnographic research will result in
more involvement in the research process and more engagement in academic writing. By collapsing the artificial
dichotomy between the creative and the academic, between the personal and the professional, students will
become better writers and better researchers.
Joanna TAPPER, University of Melbourne, AUSTRALIA
Communication Across the Curriculum: from Tertiary Literacy to Graduate Outcomes (P)
Monday 12.15 – Warsaw
This paper addresses the theme "Writing Across the Curriculum structures in universities". In Australian
universities, US models of Writing Across the Curriculum need considerable adaptation if they are to get off the
ground, and often focus on communication skills rather than writing alone. The survival of Writing or
Communication Across the Curriculum programs tends to depend on the ability of the staff involved to
harness curriculum and learning issues that are engaging the attention of their particular institution. The focus
may be on academic (or tertiary) literacy; on the language skills of students from non-English speaking
backgrounds; or on graduate outcomes. The paper will highlight political, methodological and content issues of
a Communication Across the Curriculum Project established at the University of Melbourne, Australia, in 1997.
In the absence of strong policy or support from the University’s central bodies, Project staff have steered their
own course. Different ways of integrating writing and other skills into the curriculum have been tried. During
the last six years, we have moved from team-teaching and staff seminars to stand-alone subjects and curriculum
development, mostly within the framework of working towards developing the skills and attributes outlined in
the University’s statements on graduate outcomes.
Chad THOMPSON, Civic Education Project, TAJIKISTAN
Academic Peerage: Student Writing & the politics of knowledge in Central Asia (P)
Monday 14.15 – New York II
While preparing for a workshop with regional faculty, my translator asked me about the term "peer review."
She understood the term "peer" in its archaic sense, as the member of the English landed aristocracy. As the
42
Abstracts
English gentry are scarce in Tajikistan, she assumed in this context "peer" meant "expert". This moment
encapsulates the entire challenge of teaching academic writing within post-Soviet Central Asia. University
education is presumed to be nothing more than presenting the scientifically unquestionable "truth" to the
students; student writing can be no more than a repetition of such ordained expertise. The notion of having
one's students assess material, develop and defend an argument, and draw their own conclusions is more than
simply a novelty. It is a direct challenge to the entire educational paradigm -- a paradigm in which students have
invested as heavily as their instructors. Academic writing is thus tied up in hotly contested battle concerning the
politics of knowledge within the academic structures of the region. The development of academic writing
within Central Asia demands attention is paid to these epistemological politics, and the rationale for alternate
paradigms of student learning. This presentation will outline my own response to this need, within a course
which challenges the notion of "disciplinary expertise" by utilizing extended texts to bring students and faculty
to an inter-textual appreciation of the form and content of English language academic argumentation.
Carol Irene THOMSON, University of Natal, SOUTH AFRICA
Against All Odds? Academic Writing Development in a De-centralised, Open Learning
context (P)
Tuesday 11.45 – Prague II
In the South African teacher education context, and primarily as a result of the inequities of the apartheid
education system, the majority of school teachers engaging with in-service, post graduate university studies are
ill-equipped to cope with the writing (and reading) demands made of them at this level. Underdeveloped
academic writing competence is perceived by students, tutors and university staff, to be a critical factor
contributing to these low standards of accomplishment. Contextualised within Critical Literacy theory and the
Genre Approach to teaching writing, this paper explores the rationale for, and challenges of, implementing an
academic reading and writing development course in the Bachelor of Education Honours degree. This is a postgraduate degree for in-service teachers offered by the School of Education, Training and Development at the
University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg, Kwa-Zulu Natal. Total student numbers exceed 1000 and 87% of both
the student and tutor body are English second language speakers, and products of the apartheid system. As this
course will be implemented in January 2003, preliminary findings and conclusions will only be collated towards
the middle of June 2003. Our initial hypothesis is that attempting to advance academic writing skills in the
context described above will prove exceptionally difficult and meet with only limited success. However, as a decentralised, distance/open learning context is becoming the dominant pedagogical model for in-service teacher
training, regionally, nationally and globally, it is critical that we begin to grapple with this aspect of student/
teacher performance. Other issues raised in this paper include the appropriacy of academic literacy courses at
post-graduate level, the impact of poor student performance on the social transformation agenda, and the
scope for the devolution of academic writing teaching from student teachers to learners in schools.
Dilek TOKAY, Sabanci University, Istanbul, TURKEY
Writing Center's liaison with high schools to promote the motto: Verba Volant; scripta
manent (P)
Monday 14.15 – Prague II
University Writing Center specialists and faculty aim at strengthening students' writing skills, enabling them to
be better writers with a voice and style. They indulge in activities such as workshops, face-to-face or online
tutorials, and tutor training at undergraduate and graduate level. This work, collaborating with the faculty in the
discipline and across the curricula, is both challenging and time-consuming when the students haven't already
developed an interest in writing, but care for grades. If Writing Centers establish a liaison with high school
educators, they can promote an earlier awareness for the significance of writing in young learners and with
shared knowledge and attitude, teachers can build a threshold in learners, which later makes the job of
university faculty and specialists more rewarding. The focus in this presentation is on interaction with high
school educators to nourish their students with an interest in writing. A model action plan, suggesting video
recorded interviews, student-teacher forums, conferences, contests, questionnaires and needs analysis surveys
43
Abstracts
to emphasize assessment with oral and written composition instead of multiple-choice testing, and strategies for
on-the-job training of teachers, will be presented to the participants of the session with interactive
brainstorming, problem shooting, and discussions on setting priorities.
Martha A. TOWNSEND, University of Missouri, USA
Building Successful Academic Writing Programs: A Dialogue On Contributing Factors (P)
Monday 17.30 – Warsaw
Historian of academic writing in the disciplines David Russell describes writing-across-the-curriculum as "the
most widespread and sustained reform movement in [a long history of U.S.] cross-curricular writing
instruction." And although he is "optimistic" about the ultimate success of situating writing instruction within
the academic disciplines, he qualifies his opinion by noting that it is "very cautious." Unfortunately, the thirtyyear history of writing-across-the-curriculum and writing-in-the-disciplines in U.S. higher education bears
witness to the untimely demise of far too many of these programs. This presentation highlights characteristics
of successful programs gleaned from writing-in-the-academic-disciplines literature. It then describes the
institutional structure of one sample program at a large, public, research-based university in the U.S. The
speaker will briefly illustrate five factors that contribute to the program's longevity: à faculty "ownership" of
writing in the disciplines via a policy-making oversight Campus Writing Board à multiple, overlapping missions
(undergraduate education, graduate education, faculty development, research) à its placement within the
university hierarchy à its assessment plan à its connection with writing instruction in various international sites,
including one in Eastern Europe. Handouts with detailed information will allow the descriptive example to be
short, but still provide participants with sufficient depth. The characteristics gleaned from literature and the
sample program description are intended to serve as a point of departure, so that participants can reflect on
factors that, from their experience, contribute to the success of academic writing programs at their institutions.
Participants will also share strategies for overcoming the impediments to success.
Susana TUERO, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, ARGENTINA
What Errors Do Students Correct When Revising Their Own Writing? (P)
Monday 11.30 – Warsaw
Findings from research studies in the area of writing have changed our understanding of the process. Writing is
no longer viewed as a linear process. Today, the production of text is considered recursive in nature. It involves
thinking, organizing, drafting, and revising. It is interesting to notice that despite high interest in the revision
process in foreign language writing, little research has been done on the editing students do when they revise
their own writing. The purpose of this presentation is to discuss results from a study designed to identify the
types of mistakes that advanced learners of English are likely to identify and correct when revising their own
writing. Participants of this study were university English majors who were taking their first writing course.
Results of this study suggest that advanced students may not be able to correct errors in areas that writing
teachers would predict.
Brian TURNER & Judith KEARNS, University of Winnipeg, CANADA
Imagined Conversations: Teaching Purposeful Summary (P)
Tuesday 12.30 – New York II
Given the intertextual nature of contemporary research, the ability to summarize has become almost
prerequisite to participation in academic conversations, even at the undergraduate level. For the writing teacher,
the task of summarizing has important benefits beyond academic acculturation, insofar as it makes special
demands upon such skills as nominalizing, topicalizing, and sustaining cohesion through dense, agentless
chunks of text. Accordingly, the cognitive processes and practical strategies of and for summarizing have been
44
Abstracts
the subject of much research. Drawing on such research, this presentation will describe an evolving method of
teaching summary from a pragmatic perspective, one that recognizes the time constraints and larger curriculum
obligations of undergraduate courses and that envisions summary not as an end in itself but as a means of
preparing students to orchestrate other voices. More specifically, I will report on classroom experiments that
combine instruction in the Cremmins’ method of summarization with cues that prompt students to imagine
summary as contributing to an academic conversation. This pragmatic approach aims both to free students of
the paralyzing misconception that summary replicates text in a perfect, comprehensive miniature, and to
activate their awareness that ethical academic writing is necessarily a purposeful appropriation of others’ voices.
Joan TURNER, Goldsmiths College, University of London, UK
Repositioning language and support in writing tutorials (P)
Tuesday 14.15 – New York II
Drawing on examples from a case study of one-to-one writing/language support for an L2 PhD student at a
British university, I look at the question of 'support'. What does/should it entail or not entail? Related to this is
the role of editing. Whose is it? Has editing been clearly enough defined? How far does/should a one-to-one
support tutor edit and should this for example include reformulation, re-ordering, detailed proof-reading? Most
writing tutors will associate 'editing skills' with re-drafting, and reorganizing the text to maximum effect for its
context, but does the pedagogical hierarchy between discourse level and sentence level writing skills which has
evolved since the seventies undervalue the role of language work? For example, an apparently 'minor' problem
such as a misalignment between a preposition and the past participle form of the verb with which it collocates (
to which …… embedded) can totally misdirect the anticipation of meaning for the reader, especially when such
a phrase itself is embedded in conceptually complex reasoning. I argue that the use of the terminology 'support',
while pedagogically appropriate for student-centered learning, can be misleading in any higher level academic
context where language proficiency itself is important.
Loreta VAICEKAUSKIENE, Vilnius University, LITHUANIA
The Price of the Freedom to Write: Lithuanian Experience (P)
Wednesday 11.45 – New York II
This presentation will deal with problems in tutoring academic writing while using western practices in the
educational system of Eastern Europe, i.e. giving the students freedom of choice they are not used to. It will
focus on writing process and issues like "inability to independently choose a topic", "postponement of writing
start", "lack of communication with the tutor", "missing the deadlines" etc. The following questions will be put
for discussion:

Do the above mentioned problems have to do with the psychology of writing in general as many
western authors state? (among others, Rienecker, Jørgensen 1999; Harboe 2000; Booth et al. 1995)

Or is it our educational system which gives rise to the problems as shown in the Central European
research (Minett 2001)?
In the case that will be presented, the implementation of the western tutorial practice gave students more
"freedom to write", i.e., it gave an opportunity to freely choose a topic, to control the process of writing, to
initiate communication with the tutor, to independently decide when to write what parts of the paper etc., but
at the same time it brought out a number of difficulties related to the students' attitude towards writing. I claim
that many problems faced by the tutor in this case (like "lack of motivation and independence", "limited
interests", "lack of responsibility" and others) are exacerbated by the educational system which is undergoing
changes, but can still be characterized by an undeveloped tradition of writing. On the basis of questionnaires
and interviews I will show how students and tutors evaluate advantages and disadvantages of this new tutorial
practice and how they can take up the challenges of the freedom of writing.
45
Abstracts
Luuk van WAES, Liesbeth OPDENACKER & Mariet RAEDTS, University of Antwerp, BELGIUM
Implementing an Open Process Approach to a Multilingual, Online Writing Center (P)
Monday 11.30 – New York I
Calliope, the muse of writers, is the name of the online writing center at the University of Antwerp, Belgium. It
is a modular platform that enables students to train their writing skills in different languages (Dutch, English,
French, German and Spanish). Its main focus is on business, technical and academic communication. In the
development of the writing center we were confronted with the problem to combine a rigid process approach
to writing with an optimal adaptivity to the different learning styles of individual users (cf. Vermunt). In the
presentation we will illustrate our solution to the problem by means of examples from the module on meeting
minutes and the results of a scenario pre-test. In Calliope we have opted for a combination of self-guided
learning and guided learning. We have constructed a half-open environment that allows for different types of
learners to create their own learning path. Learning objectives about process and product are set in advance. At
the same time, however, various learning paths are presented to meet those objectives: i.e. a case-oriented
approach versus a subskill-oriented approach (theory & practice). We have combined this adaptivity with a rigid
process approach to writing, i.e. not the end-product but the process leading to it plays a central role. This
approach influences the way in which the various modules are constructed: we focus on metacognitive
reflection at various stages of the writing process and on a genre-specific writing approach.
Marjolein van der WERFF and Nynke BORST, University of Groningen, NETHERLANDS
The Slippery Slope Between Tutoring and Teaching (W)
Tuesday 15.00 – Prague II
The aim of a peer tutoring session is in our view twofold. The tutee's understanding of his writing process
should be extended and the text at hand should be improved. To optimize the learning process, the tutee
should provide topics for discussion and should solve any writing problems in collaboration with the (coaching)
tutor. But, to run the discussion efficiently, the tutor sometimes may want to adjust it. Moreover the tutee
expects the tutor to solve problems and to give clear answers because the tutor is considered a writing expert.
The tutor wants the tutee to leave satisfied, and is therefore willing to come up to these expectations. In an
ideal session there is a balance between the contributions of the tutor and tutee. When is a tutor no longer a
tutor but a substitute for the teacher? In this workshop we give a short overview of our experiences with
training writing tutors for the past three years. The participants will become more acquainted with the dilemma
as described by performing role-laying games based on our practice. Together with the workshop leaders the
participants will, based on their experiences in the role- plays, design a module in which tutors learn to deal
with the slippery slope between tutoring and teaching.
Tatyana YAKHONTOVA, Ivan Franko National University of L'viv, UKRAINE
Developing English Academic Writing Materials: Theoretical Assumptions and
Methodological Principles (P)
Wednesday 12.30 – Prague III
According to Ann Johns, textbooks play an important role of providing "a single window into the values and
practices of a discipline" (1997:46). This primary function of textbooks becomes still more vivid in the teaching
of those courses which are new for this or that educational environment. The preparation of the textbooks for
such courses can thus be viewed as a challenging and pedagogically rewarding task for subject specialists and
teachers. This paper discusses the theoretical assumptions and methodological principles of creating English
academic writing textbooks for the learners who live and study outside the Anglophone milieu. It is argued that
these materials should be designed with due regard for such factors as: 1) the absence of traditions of teaching
academic writing in many national pedagogies; 2) the importance of the explicit teaching of English academic
writing conventions; 3) the necessity of a sharp linguistic focus important for English language "outsiders." The
46
Abstracts
genre-based approach to teaching writing, which focuses on constructing integral texts rather than on
vocabulary or grammar, is also discussed and advocated. The application of these principles is demonstrated by
the example of the recently published textbook English Academic Writing for Students and Researchers designed for
Ukrainian learners.
Dorothy Zemach & Tatyana Yakhontova, University of Oregon, USA; Ivan Franko
University of L'viv, Ukraine
Perspectives on Plagiarism from Ukraine and the U.S. (W)
Wednesday 10.00 – Prague I
Plagiarism may be treated differently in different cultures. For example, in Ukraine it is generally regarded as the
conscious copying from the work of others (done with immoral intentions), rather than simply a failure to give
credit to outside sources. However, in the U.S., even unintentional plagiarism is regarded as a serious problem
for university students, with consequences including failing grades for the paper or course, or even
expulsion.The presenters, from the Ukraine and the U.S., explore the issue of plagiarism in academic contexts
from different cultural perspectives. If "plagiarism" may also be viewed as part of intertextuality; that is, the
recombination of discourses in the process of historical development (Fairclough, 1995: 134), then it may also
be a literary practice through which students attempt to achieve membership in academic discourse
communities (Ivanic, 1998: 197). Workshop participants will study examples of varying degrees of alleged
plagiarism in current academic works and student papers to examine the issue of where outside sources should
be cited for ideas and words. The focus will be on broadening the definition of plagiarism and understanding
different cultural perspectives to allow treatment of this phenomenon not only in ethical but in sociolinguistic
terms.
Trudy ZUCKERMANN, Achva Academic College of Education, ISRAEL
Academic Writing in English for Non-Native Teachers' College Students: What Do We
Expect to Achieve and How Can This Best Be Done? (W)
Wednesday 10.00 – Prague I
Teachers' college students need many different kinds of academic writing. In addition to short academic papers,
longer research papers, answers to essay questions, and analysis of literature, they need to write lesson and unit
plans, minutes for various functions, formal letters, their own CV's in preparation for job recruitment, and
reflective journals. At Achva Academic College of Education in Israel, English department students are
required to do all this in English, a language that is not their mother tongue. In this workshop, I will briefly
describe our present program and the process of evaluating and revising it in preparation for the new academic
year. Then I will lead the members of the workshop through a similar process of evaluation and revision
according to the needs of their own programs. We will explore the following topics:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
How should writing courses be organized within the curriculum?
What outcomes do we expect our students to achieve at each level?
How can individual tutoring be integrated with classroom teaching?
What is the role of the subject matter teacher in teaching writing?
What is the role of the department chairman in supervising the teaching and tutoring of academic
writing?
47
Individual Conference Programme
You may like to use this page to create an overview of which concurrent sessions you plan to attend:
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
9.30 Opening
9.00 Otto Kruse
9.00 Clare Furneaux
10.00 Ann Johns, Budapest Room
Budapest Room
Budapest Room
11.30 Session A
10.40 Session G
10.00 Session L
12.15 Session B
11.45 Session H
11.45 Session M
14.15 Session C
12.30 Session I
12.30 Session N
15.00 Session D
14.15 Session J
14.15 Plenary Panel
Budapest Room
16.45 Session E
15.30 Session K
17.30 Session F
Boat trip 6pm
15.15 Closing session
48