ABSTRACT. Since the turn of the millennium, the internationalisation process that higher education institutions (HEIs) have engaged in worldwide has resulted in an unprecedented expansion of English-medium study programmes. In this regard, the academic writing produced in such contexts reveals that an increasing number of student work, from classroom practices to dissertations and PhD theses, is written in English often as an L2/academic lingua franca. Against this background, the talk will present the ROAD-MAPPING framework (Dafouz and Smit 2016) as an analytical comprehensive tool which can help to (re)frame academic writing in multifaceted ways against English medium education (EME). Drawing on sociolinguistic and ecolinguistic theories of language, academic writing will be discussed as a social practice intersecting with other relevant dimensions at the core of EME realities. Questions such as how is English conceptualized in such settings, who are the agents engaged in the teaching of academic writing or how does internationalization impact on certain teaching practices will be raised and discussed using the ROAD-MAPPING framework.

ABSTRACT. Current discussions about translingualism in writing studies - which calls for literacy educators to resist demanding a single “standard” of English and to understand language difference in writing as a resource - are robust (Garcia, 2009; Canagarajah, 2006; Wei, 2011; Horner, Lu, Royster, & Trimbur, 2011). However, several important critiques press translingual scholars to consider the politics of language (and language difference), particularly as it risks promoting the idea that all language difference is the same (Gilyard, 2016) or that it fetishizes visible language difference (Matsuda, 2014). Some scholars, such as Watson and Shapiro (2018), have begun to account for these critiques by arguing for attention to race in relation to language difference. While this new vein of scholarship highlights significant gaps in the scholarship, we argue that much of the scholarship (including the critiques) remains Americentric, thus limiting its value for US-based international students, as well as teachers and students outside of the US.

This roundtable intends to engage attendees in conversations about the Americentric tendencies of translingual scholarship. Participants will help brainstorm how existing research should be modified to avoid Americentrism. After first providing a brief summary of existing scholarship and highlighting its Americentric tendencies, small groups will discuss the questions below. During the last thirty minutes, we will synthesize discussion as a group.

What might be the politics of language difference in non-US contexts? What does race mean outside of the US? What other power differentials need to be considered by translingual scholars to better account for perspectives/experiences outside the US? What are the implications of a more robust contextualization of language difference for US-based international students and students/teachers outside of the US? What challenges to US-based translingual scholarship would non-US scholars/teachers raise? What complications are implied by these challenges? What academic, institutional, professional risks have not yet been explored or accounted for in US-based translingual scholarship?

ABSTRACT. Proponents of genre-based writing pedagogies often argue that academic writing teachers should focus on familiarizing students with the form and function of specific “target genres.” These scholars also argue that as writing is always context dependent, skills and knowledge gained in one setting cannot readily transfer to others, making the concept of “general writing skills” problematic. This roundtable will interrogate the feasibility of genre-based pedagogies and their attendant notions of transfer in regard to digital composition. We can assume that tomorrow’s digital genres will not be the same as today’s. Likewise, as technology develops, the tools students use will undoubtedly change. As such, is it time to reevaluate the desirability (and feasibility) of teaching general writing skills? What might these trans-contextual skills look like? How might they be taught? Might we need to rehabilitate what Elizabeth Wardle (2009) has criticized as “mutt genres,” those forms which exist only for teaching purposes?

This roundtable will appeal to those interested in genre theory, transfer theory and digital composition. A reevaluation of genre, transfer and genre-based pedagogies is needed because change in communication practices may threaten the validity of current text-based models.

ABSTRACT. In her recent book Mathison (2019) theorizes disciplines as cultures, each with its unique history, language, and way of being (Gee, 2010). In particular, Mathison identifies some of the obstacles to communicating when instructors from the humanities (writing) collaborate with those from the technical sciences (engineering). Though the disciplines assumed they had similar beliefs about and expectations for writing, they ultimately realized they did not. Those in writing had a more rhetorical approach to writing while those in engineering had more scribal approach. In other words, those in writing believed writing to be inscription while those in engineering believed it to be transcription. Clearly, views on the role of writing vary from discipline to discipline.

In this paper, I elaborate on varying disciplinary perspectives of writing by theorizing it as a boundary object. According to Star and Griesemer (1989), a boundary object is something about which all interested parties can identify with in some fashion, yet, do not have consensus about what that object represents. The concept has been most fruitfully examined in medicine, where the ontology of disease varies according to the particular branch and perspective of the medical practitioner and how they act on their specialized knowledge (Graham & Herndl, 2013; Mol, 2002). It follows that writing, too, in its enactment across disciplines, is such an object.

To examine writing as a boundary object, 24 professors from various disciplines were interviewed. They ranged from communication to chemistry, and beyond. Employing semi-structured interviews all instructors were asked to describe their discipline, their particular writing-intensive course, and their goals for assigning writing as a tool for learning. Interviews were analyzed using a constant comparative method. Results show that instructors held unique disciplinary perspectives about writing in their discipline and course, and what constituted quality in their community of practice, which has implications for those in WAC/WID.

ABSTRACT. How do Ph.D. students experience writing for an audience in their discipline compared to writing for an audience beyond their field, e.g., an educated lay audience? Nine Ph.D. students in a graduate seminar wrote an abstract of an article for a journal in their field and, one week later, a summary of an article in their field for a university’s alumni journal. As they wrote, their eye movements and keystrokes were recorded using a new data collection tool (Rinali 2018). After each writing session they were immediately interviewed using micro-phenomenological techniques (Petitmengin 2007) to explore their “felt sense” of writing for each audience. Then they viewed a replay of the biometric recording and commented further on their process.

Micro-phenomenological interviews revealed that participants experienced consistent differences in the “felt sense” of the two. Participants reported greater anxiety, discomfort, and difficulty performing the first genre (for experts), which was for eight of the nine largely relieved for the second genre (for lay readers). However, a comparison of the biometric data across genres for each of the participants revealed that, despite the felt differences, their patterns of writing and revision (length, characters revised, look-back events, pauses, etc.) were remarkably stable across genres for each individual, though these varied greatly among individuals.

Our analysis suggests the biometric continuity may have been a result of their perceiving in an embodied way the two genres as really the same genre, the “classroom exercise,” as in fact it was, while they experienced greater anxiety in one than the other because of the higher stakes of writing for professors in their field. This suggests the possibility that writing teachers and thesis advisors might attend to students’ cognitive framing of genres in terms of lessening anxiety through reframing it as excitement. We tentatively suggest pedagogical options for increasing genre awareness and process awareness in order to lower anxiety.

ABSTRACT. Plagiarism is an often-discussed concern at most colleges and universities. Scholars, including Bazerman, 1981; Hyland, 2003; Swales, 1990; Thaiss & Zawacki, 2006, have noted that plagiarism can be complicated to study because of the diverse ways and contexts in which it occurs in addition to students’ intentions and skill level. Recent studies in international contexts illustrate that while some causes attributed to student plagiarism are more universal, some triggers are culture specific (Hu & Lei, 2015; Wheeler, 2014; Skaar & Hammer, 2013; Ghias, Lakho, Asim, Azam & Saeed, 2014; and Chireshe, 2014). Such is the case at the American University of Beirut, an English-language university situated in Lebanon with the majority of its student population coming from diverse educational systems with different languages of instruction, curricula, and teaching approaches.

We wish to host a roundtable conversation to foster dialogue about plagiarism as a component of intercultural communication among members of international universities. We would pose questions in the hopes of giving voice to different perspectives and experiences— specifically those of instructors in institutions with particular cultural, historical, political, and educational settings—in order to create practical solutions for individual and universal concerns. The questions we would ask include: What are your students’ and instructors’ perceptions regarding plagiarism? How might they differ? How might those perceptions complicate the teaching and learning of plagiarism and writing? What do the identities and cultures of teacher, student, and institution inform us about the teaching of academic writing, and specifically plagiarism? What actions might we as instructors (or our writing programs) take to improve student learning, faculty instruction, and faculty and university response to issues of plagiarism? We believe such a conversation will bring a much needed perspective to discussions about plagiarism in the academy.

ABSTRACT. As part of reforming our curriculum ten years ago, the Writing Across the Curriculum Program and University Writing Center at Appalachian State University prepared to meet the challenges of supporting faculty and students in varied writing contexts. The vertical writing curriculum requires all disciplines to offer courses with a writing-intensive focus from the introductory through the advanced levels. In this roundtable, we will present the scaffolded approach taken by WAC and the UWC as we support faculty in developing pedagogically effective disciplinary writing curricula and students in practicing disciplinary conventions.

We offer a variety of perspectives on this work—from consulting one-on-one with both faculty and students to teaching students directly in the classroom. We ask participants to contribute to an ongoing conversation about shifting administrative emphases from “training” writing teachers and teaching students to write to consulting with faculty across the curriculum and teaching students to enter disciplinary conversations through writing.

Specifically, our roundtable will be framed by the following questions: 1. How is writing support for students institutionalized in various higher education environments and for different purposes? 2. How do genres discipline and get disciplined by the academy? What are the spaces where this disciplining happens? 3. How has a recognition of workplace writing concerns and real-world writers changed the nature of writing instruction?

By facilitating a conversation framed by these questions, we anticipate that participants will leave our roundtable with the following takeaways: 1. A sense of how their local contexts are related to/informed by more global transformations in writing studies 2. An understanding of how local environments shape institutionalized discourses about writing and the kinds of expertise we bring to bear on those discourses 3. A set of questions and ideas regarding the ways in which our shared experiences can be adapted to other local contexts at participants’ home institutions

ABSTRACT. In The Semiperiphery of Academic Writing, Karen Bennett (2014) defines a space of academic practice that she terms the semiperiphery, situated between the two unequal geopolitical spheres of the academic “centre,” on one hand (located primarily in North America and northern and central Europe), and the “periphery,” on the other (located primarily in Asia, Africa, and parts of Latin America). Economic differences between the centre and periphery translate into differences in terms of material resources available to scholars, academic publications they can access, and recognized knowledge they may produce. Bennett notes that universities in the semiperiphery zone perform boundary work between the centre and the periphery, often acting as “conduits for knowledge flows emanating from the centre” to serve institutions and people in more peripheral locations (p. 3). She argues, however, that the semiperiphery is more aptly described as “a place of tension … effervescent with possibilities, allowing dominant attitudes to be challenged and new paradigms to arise in a way that would be unthinkable in centre countries” (p. 7).

Our presentation draws on research into the relationship between writing and academic disciplines, focusing on a space of academic practice in the semiperiphery. Our data are drawn from interviews with eight multilingual faculty members from different disciplines working at a long-established Middle East university that uses English as the medium of instruction. Participants were prompted to reflect on three broad topics: the nature of writing in their academic discipline, their experiences as a multilingual scholar, and their approaches to teaching writing. Analysis of their responses allows us to interrogate Bennett’s concept of semiperiphery in this academic context, with regard to determining disciplinary boundaries, making research “readable” for different audiences in terms of focus and method, and using English and other languages in knowledge production.

ABSTRACT. Academic writing takes place in various contexts, discourse communities and discourses – and often includes writing in an L2 and/or working interdisciplinarily. Writing processes in academic writing can be seen as a “chain” of subsequent writing situations with specific conditions, providing heuristic and rhetorical requirements and challenges. Writers develop strategies and routines to cope with a variety of writing situations.

In my paper presentation I focus on interrelations between requirements, challenges, strategies and routines in specific writing situations: I introduce a new writing process model for multilingual real-life writing processes in academic contexts, which aims to cover patterns and mechanisms on a meta-level, as well as situational and individual differences and their relevance for the deployment of writing strategies and routines.

The model is empirically based on explorative case study research in the FWF-funded project PROSIMS (Strategien und Routinen für Professionelles Schreiben in mehreren Sprachen; Strategies and Routines for Professional Multilingual Writing), located at the Centre for Translation Studies (Vienna University). The 17 case studies with 13 students and 4 researchers cover 111h of screen-capturing-videos. The participants write in German, English, French or/and Hungarian (as L2). The (retrospective) interviews with the participants cover further aspects like language and writing biographies, language repertoires and writing habits. The case studies include a broad variety of writing tasks in academic contexts and analyze individual approaches to writing tasks, writing processes and strategies in their interrelation to writing and language socialization, preparation and experience.

The “thick description” (Geertz 1973) of writing situations in the case studies allows a deeper understanding of the complex actions and interactions during writing. On this base, my model of interaction and interrelations in writing situations approaches real-life writing processes as dynamic systems with a variety of influence factors. In my paper presentation I introduce the model and its empirical ground and further discuss its practical implications for writing support.

ABSTRACT. Out of 30 904 students currently enrolled at the University of Glasgow, 7358 are classed as international (University of Glasgow, Planning and Business Intelligence 2018), reflecting the diversity of Britain’s student population overall. In response to this ongoing trend, researchers and practitioners have stressed the need to improve the way universities accommodate multicultural student bodies, with adjustments being made on the institutional level to ease transition into UK Higher Education. At the University of Glasgow, this manifests itself as an expansion and diversification of the department facilitating student learning development: The Learning Enhancement and Academic Development Service (LEADS). Positioned between university services and specific subject disciplines, LEADS is home to four Effective Learning Advisers (ELA) who provide college specific advice and two ELAs who work with international students from all colleges and subject disciplines. Their work entails the creation and delivery of academic writing classes, one-to-one appointments with students and the development of electronic resources for online learning. Due to the diversity of the international student cohort in terms of educational, cultural and subject backgrounds, a significant proportion of the international ELAs day-to-day job is to explain generic academic writing conventions pertinent to the UK Higher Education context to those coming from other educational cultures. Their role then is that of multicultural and cross-disciplinary communicators. This presentation will outline and reflect on the professional practice of the international ELAs at the University of Glasgow, using practice examples and current academic research to assess the impact of their teaching on the student body they are aiming to support. Its objective is to stimulate discussion around appropriate and effective practices of teaching academic writing to students from a multiplicity of backgrounds and disciplines.

ABSTRACT. The presentation describes a successful experience of curricular overhaul in a large writing program with a traditional academic writing mission. Our global university adopted a new general-education curriculum that focuses on capacities – knowledge, skills, and habits of mind -- and emphasizes working across disciplines to prepare for a complex and diverse world. In response to this mandate, the writing program has revamped its curriculum with modified learning outcomes which reflect the written, oral, and digital/multimedia modes of 21-century globalized communication, along with a sophisticated understanding of intercultural literacy. A brief overview of the new curriculum will highlight the challenges of this transition -- among them, the underlying debate about academic writing priorities and the re-calibration in terms of class time, type, length, and frequency of assignments. The presentation will then focus on the design and pedagogical implementation of writing tasks in classes specialized for multilingual writers that cultivate intercultural communication skills, without sacrificing the core priorities of academic writing pedagogy, such as meaningful, coherent, and linguistically accurate prose. The presenter will identify key principles in planning instruction that can simultaneously address intercultural competences (such as a consideration of context; a sense for diverse audiences; ability to bridge rhetorical traditions; awareness of discourse conventions) and will illustrate them with samples of actual class practice. Our experience has shown that fears of overloading the academic writing curriculum with intercultural literacy goals are unfounded: rather than being a detractor, instruction in intercultural literacy augments the student’s experience, as it is attuned to the complexity of the modern world. This teaching practice presentation will demonstrate that thoughtful reconciling the old and new learning outcomes can allow a philosophical move from curricular compromise to organic blending of pedagogical strategies and techniques, and thus develop a framework for effective synergy between academic writing and intercultural communication.

ABSTRACT. In this roundtable, we invite colleagues to take a close look at the institutional positioning of writing support. Having developed a well-rounded writing curriculum and thriving writing center and coaching programs at TUM, we increasingly feel the need to look beyond these locations to meet our ultimate goal of fostering clarity and precision in communication across the disciplines of our institution. We hope that a look at our program will stimulate discussion.

We do not doubt that language centers, writing centers, and soft skills programs help clients become more skilled writers, but often this help is too little or too late. We therefore find ourselves looking for new ways to cooperate with professors in the various departments of our institution to integrate writing assignments in their curricula, invite us to offer writing workshops within their content courses, include trained student writing fellows in course sessions, and encourage their students to attend thesis workshops and use the writing center facilities as early as possible. Can we find unique and fruitful variations on ‘Writing in the Disciplines’ (WID) and ‘Writing Across the Curriculum’ (WAC) models to suit the needs of European institutions of higher education?

By expanding the usual infrastructure of foreign language teaching to include various forms of writing services--courses, coaching, and an English Writing Center--in one institutional home, our model of writing support allows lecturers to split their work between the three services, an efficient use of resources with many synergy effects. However, it also makes great demands on staff with regard to entry qualifications, flexibility on the job, and types of on-going professional training needed.

How is writing support offered at your institution? What works well and what doesn’t?

ABSTRACT. Although all members of EATAW will have their own thoughts on digitalization and, recently, more publications are devoted to this topic, we miss coherent discourses and feel that other contexts (mainly from the IT disciplines) have taken the lead in these discussions. For future EATAW conferences, we suggest placing a strong emphasis on digitalization and would like to discuss which aspects of it should be stressed most. For a first step, it would be great to initiate an exchange on hot issues in teaching and research related to digitalization and explore ideas for future collaboration.

Christian Rapp and Otto Kruse will give an introduction to the session and explain the idea of it with a short input about some problems connected to the challenges of new digital tools for the teaching of writing and the question of whether and how much writing teachers should take over control and ownership of the new technology or leave it to the IT and E-Learning disciplines.

Kalli Benetos will talk about the need for researchers and educators to put DESIGN and intent before technology in adopting more design-based research approaches to drive technology development and uses, instead of being led by "market forces".

Chris Anson will address the following question: What are the consequences—ethical, developmental, rhetorical, and interpersonal—of having computers “read” and evaluate student writing?

ABSTRACT. Students need to complete writing tasks when they find time and they often only realize the rele-vance of instruction once they are immersed in their own projects outside the classroom. Addi-tionally, students are used to getting information quickly and on a needs basis from the web, where they find support in different modes, such as written instruction, visual support or video-guidance. However, this support is often not linked to their specific tasks or their Universities’ expectations. Video tutorials may be effective in filling this gap across disciplinary borders. A review of the current literature on the use of video tutorials in higher education unearthed few empirical studies and shows contradictory findings. The effectiveness, however, appears to be heavily dependent on the way tutorials are conceptualized and applied. For example, length, specificity, pace, content and its structure, aesthetics, a clear indication of content and goals (e.g. Caspi, Gorsky, & Privman, 2005; Bowles-terry, 2010; Wells, Barry, & Spence 2012) - all seem to contribute to the success or lack thereof. Based on such insight, we have created a video-tutorial-concept and have started creating and using short video tutorials. In our pilot study, we found that students asked more informed, stu-dent-initiated questions in the classroom and achieved a higher standard in their written work. We attribute this to the way in which the students were presented with a task, given the information to solve it on their own and their engagement with the videos. In this roundtable discussion, we will offer a short presentation of our concept and experience, and would like to discuss aspects such as: What is the added value of such resources for stu-dents and lecturers? To what extent can such video tutorials support students’ academic writing across disciplinary borders? Is there a potential of hindering the learning process e.g. by provid-ing too much support?

ABSTRACT. The roundtable directly addresses the theme of academic writing across and beyond the disciplinary discourses and audiences due to the unique composition of the NB!Write Network.NB!Write supports the development and integration of writing into different disciplines, including teacher education, arts and humanities, and STEM. By doing so, it creates room to address the challenges of adapting to new disciplinary discourses and audiences.

We will structure the discussion around the themes of the network’s three working groups: Research, Teaching and Learning, and Sustainability and Impact. The roundtable will address these key questions. How do various national and local policies impact the conditions of writing? How do institutional models support or hinder writing across disciplines and audiences? What can network members learn from the variety of models used by member institutions? How do questions of audience and discipline relate to concerns around community languages versus English?

To shed light on these questions, the members of the roundtable will include representatives from the NB!Write network who work with an array of models. These include independent writing centers, courses within university departments, and embedded support in ECTS courses. The interventions used by network members range from face-to-face tutoring by peers or staff to online feedback and tutoring, peer TAs in the classroom, workshops, bootcamps, retreats, clinics, etc.

Attendees at the roundtable will be exposed to the diversity of writing across, between, and within disciplines in the Nordic and Baltic area. Importantly, they will leave with ideas on how to address these issues in their own contexts.

ABSTRACT. This study took place as part of the Secondary Teacher Training Master´s Degree in Madrid, and the Master in Didactics of the Mother Language and Literature in Universidad del Quindío. Given the excessive focus on theoretical aspects of pedagogy in the Spanish and Colombian teacher-training context, the importance of this research was to provide teachers with actual hands-on practice in the writing of academic essays according to an extended, genre-based model of process methodology -the Didactext model (2015). The study has two main objectives: to train the trainee teachers of the specialty of Spanish Language to improve their own academic writing skills, and thus to enhance their ability to teach academic writing in their own classes. Students were trained to write an academic essay according to a basic process writing model which could then applied in other areas of the curriculum. The study involved 90 students (45 from each country). The training program took place over six sessions, which were focused on accompanying students in their writing process, based on the four phases proposed by the Didactext model. The methodology consisted in comparing an essay written before training with one written after training, so as to observe if there were any appreciable improvements in the teachers´ written output. Among the results we found that, in all cases, the post-training essays were significantly better; for instance, having a clearer structure, using more linguistic markers to show their viewpoint, and displaying wider variety of arguments, a difference in the author’s voice compared to the sources cited, and a more academic register. Finally, after 3 months back in the classroom teachers completed a questionnaire to determine whether they felt their teaching of academic writing had improved as a direct result of the training program. The overall results of the study show that this training program was effective in achieving its two starter objectives.

ABSTRACT. In recent decades, scholars have warned that EFL teachers are facing increasing pressures to adapt to changing multicultural educational realities (Clachar, 2000; Leki, 2001). Our aim in this presentation is to address the difficulties when preparing and assessing high school students for Matura, a national exit exam used in many European countries that marks an important transition point between high school and university, as students adjust to the EFL academic writing criteria. Although there is a growing body of research on the Matura (e.g., Bekar, 2018; Eckes et al., 2005; Swatek & Kasztalska, 2018), few studies have examined its pedagogical and ideological assumptions about and implications for EFL writing beyond local or disciplinary audiences. We compare the writing sections on the English Matura in Poland and Republic of N. Macedonia, contexts we are professionally familiar and affiliated with, by analyzing available educational materials, including curriculum handbooks, coursebooks, and recent exam sheets. Our analysis, among other issues, identifies socio-economic factors that may affect the quality of the Matura and students’ preparedness for the exam. We begin by outlining the most recent changes that the tests have undergone, including attempts to align the Matura with the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). Moreover, we argue that the local test designers’ choices are reflective of international trends in EFL composition, which are dominated by U.S. and U.K. linguacultural norms and by native-speakerism. Finally, we discuss the implications of the Matura for local EFL teachers and for teaching English writing in Europe. In Europe, teachers must meet expectations set by local governments and educational systems, while aligning with global and transnational practices and ideologies. Thus, examining diverse educational contexts through a socioeconomic, political and institutional lens helps us understand the needs of students who try to succeed in academia and beyond.

ABSTRACT. Recent scholarship in US Rhetoric-Composition circles has yielded a violent, oppressive historical view of Academic English, suggesting the embrace of translingualism and critical pedagogies as remedies. Scholars such as Verhsawn Young, Bruce Horner, John Trimbur, and Frankie Condon have called for instructors of academic writing to critique the path that led to an elitist academic standard in the first place, as well as the attendant wielding of privilege needed to maintain that standard.

However, such efforts must be taken up with extreme care: writing classes that invite code meshing and translingual advocacy might raise the status of minority languages, but might also ignore paths to liberty for the students who enroll in our universities to gain facility with the rhetoric(s) of power.

In this roundtable, I will present a brief and current overview of this issue--including voices from disparate sides--after which I will solicit classroom- and program-level efforts that have been met with success and failure. I will ask questions of the participants such as these:

•Do you find the translingualsim conversation happening in the US relevant in your own country or region? •What assignments have you included in academic writing classrooms that welcome nonstandard languages, codes, or dialects? How did students respond? •How do you evaluate the rhetorical effectiveness of nonstandard writing in your students’ essays? •What programmatic changes (beyond your own classroom) that include nonstandard writing have you or your colleagues instigated at your institution?

As presenter, I will solicit both narratives of success and caution from participants with the idea that all attendees can gain from the sharing.

ABSTRACT. Language and Literacies for Intermediate/Senior (grades 7 -12) divisions was a new course included in the 2015 curriculum revisions of the Ontario (Canada) Teacher Education Program. In previous years, only pre-service teachers qualifying to teach in grades 1 - 10 had a required Language and Literacy course. The Ontario Ministry of Education's emphasis on the importance of literacies across all teachable subjects, and in everyday lives was reflected in this curriculum decision. Therefore, 70 secondary pre-service subject specialists were enrolled in two course sections. Each student had a Bachelor's degree in the subject of Biology, Chemistry, English, French, Geography, History, Math, Music, Physical and Health Education, or Visual Arts. The course was scheduled in Year One, term two of a Bachelor of Education graduate program (two years). Students experienced six weeks of practicum in secondary subject classrooms during Term one. Over the past 3 years, as the English teacher educator tasked with developing and implementing a Language and Literacies (I/S) course, I have encountered significant challenges. Moving beyond language across the curriculum, and content-area literacy strategies, my chosen approach has been that of disciplinary literacy. Emphasis was placed on building content knowledge and focusing on language related to specific disciplines, as required for secondary subject teaching. While guiding pre-service teachers through exploring literacies, modelling literacy strategies, and selecting appropriate writing strategies which best support learning of disciplinary content, particular attention has been paid to respecting their "habits of mind" in varied disciplines. Resistance in accepting the relevance of acquiring a literacy stance in teaching subjects beyond English was addressed. Demonstrating respect for the characteristics of each discipline, and providing opportunities to "think like a historian or scientist" have had positive outcomes. Specific teaching strategies and a course implementation process will be shared in the presentation.

ABSTRACT. Preparing tertiary students for their careers is fast becoming a pillar of university and college curricular agendas worldwide. Therefore, as EFL practitioners apprenticing future economists, our role now includes equipping our students with the ability to engage with and produce exemplars of key genres in this discipline. This paper describes an advanced English for Economics course which aims to help students develop such genre competencies through a group Project/Problem-Based Learning (PBL) pedagogy. A PBL pedagogy was selected to encourage active implementation of the four Cs (Communication, Collaboration, Creativity, and Critical Thinking) as well as to maximize the scant 52 hours with the students. The course assignments are: a description of visual economic data, a brief analytical report of based on economic information, and a detailed analytical research report with a recommendation. These assignments require deep engagement with a variety of economic concepts including the language of trends, economic indicators, and foreign investment incentives found in texts such as World Bank Doing Business reports, interactive economics websites (such as: tradingeconomics.com and Google Analytics) and current news reports. With each text type, groups of students located, identified, and extracted information relevant for the task and collaboratively wrote the genre assignment. Such collaborative writing was facilitated by several useful features in Google Docs. The English for Economics course, with its collaborative negotiation of sources and concepts to inform joint writing, prepares the students for their senior BA seminar, in which they write a comprehensive economic policy research paper. Further afield, the course approach mirrors the real life practices of professional economists’ teams.

This talk describes an advanced tertiary English for Economics course to help students engage with and write key genres within a group Project-Based Learning pedagogy, facilitated by collaboration through Google Docs. The course helped prepare the students for their senior BA seminar while mirroring the real-life practices of professional economist teams.

ABSTRACT. “Totally (Un)Wired” is designed for an upper-level composition course driven by this wicked question: “What does it Mean to be Human in our Digital Culture?” My pedagogical focus is on engaging students in first-hand research to raise critical awareness of their digital interactions, and to explore creative ways to express that research to an audience typically resistant to such challenges. The hybrid writing genre developed to undertake “Totally (Un)Wired” is generated from the autoethnographic case study and photo essay genres, and is produced on a web platform. This assignment challenges students to abstain from all digital interactions for a 24-hour period then document the effect living of out of sync has on their existence, and what their world looks like when they are not buried in a screen. From this vantage point, students are poised at an odd intersection to observe their world as part insider/part outsider. Students are placed at another strange intersection when tasked with documenting what they see and experience through photography and detailed commentary as they step into the role of both the researcher and the researched. Data collected from these two interesting vantage points is then analyzed, processed and reflected upon in light of our wicked question. Finally the process of communicating those results through what Cara Finnegan terms “imagetext” can begin, and students are brought back to the digital world to do so. Moving students through different intersections afforded by this hybrid genre generates a great deal of critical thinking about their relationships with digital technologies. Through this presentation I will show examples of student projects, share the teaching materials I have designed to facilitate this hybrid genre of writing, discuss what students learn from the process and invite discussion to address the benefits/challenges of raising critical self-awareness through creative visualized research experiences.

ABSTRACT. Newly developed digital academic genres, from Elsevier “Article of the Future” project to research blogs and project web pages, rely on the use of hyperlinks as a new feature in written academic communication. Hyperlinks allow the initial information to be extended to other information sources, permit different readings of the same original text and create new hybrid digital genres in academic communication. In order to be able to fully explore the affordances of hypertextual communication and the potentials of the new digital genres, EAP students need to acquire new types of rhetorical knowledge and a new type of literacy. Although these skills are certain to become even more important in the future academic communication, they are not typically part of an EAP curriculum. We describe the process of developing skills of hypertextual communication with engineering students at the University of Novi Sad, Serbia who had no previous experience with digital writing in a foreign language. The process starts with the students’ analysis of a hyperlinked text, through the practice phase when they incorporate appropriate hyperlinks in an existing text to the final phase in which they write hyperlinked texts. Throughout this process, the potential affordances of the links and the reasons for introducing them are discussed. More specifically, the students practice the skills of organizing their writing in a form of hyperlinked digital texts, supporting argumentation by incorporating appropriate hyperlinks, identifying reliable sources, exploring the potentials of multimedia in academic communication, and utilizing various hyperlinks to reach diverse potential audience. The students’ self-evaluation at the end of the course suggests that they perceive this as a valuable writing practice. Based on this, the authors propose that instruction in hypertextual communication should be incorporated in EAP courses. This practice may therefore be effective for lecturers interested in digital academic genres.

ABSTRACT. “Digitalization” invites participants to reflect and explore digital stories as used in writing classrooms. These multimodal projects enable students to increase their technical skills (Westman, 2012), articulate decision-making processes, (Porter, 2006), develop the ability to “speak to… reason and emotion” (Mclellan, 2006, p. 71), while incorporating strong research and writing skills (Robin, 2019).

However, despite the assumption of students as “digital natives” (Brown, 2010), integrating writing and digital genres into writing classrooms can yield mixed results. With the hope of inspiring students to experience what Mclellan describes as “deep and lasting power” (2006, p. 69), in reality, educators and students alike may be challenged with process and product.

The speakers’ research and experiences posit that multimodal projects increase student engagement with academic discourse and create meaningful learning experiences through applications of classroom writing; however, it is this intersection between theory and practice that “Digitalization” encourages participants to lean into digital stories’ potential shortcomings and assumed benefits.

Speaker #1, a writing professor of twenty-five years, will speak to IRB-approved research conducted last year at Southern New Hampshire University and review her data collection, analysis, and desire for future study. Speaker #2, a former student who created her first story under the guidance of Speaker #1, and who currently attends graduate school for digital media and writing, will address student perceptions, empowerment opportunities, and student challenges.

“Digitalization” will guide participants’ reflections on their own experiences with multimodal projects as well as future plans; therefore, the group will identify best practices through small- and large-group discussion of the following questions:

How can multimodal projects (re)define learning in and/or out of the classroom? - What gaps occur when creating multimodal projects between expectation and product? - What do educators need to facilitate successful multimodal projects? - What do students need to create successive multimodal projects?