EWCA 2016
Contents
Keynote speakers (in order of appearance)......................................... 2
Presentations (alphabetically) ........................................................... 7
Workshops (alphabetically) ............................................................. 70
Pecha-Kucha (alphabetically) .......................................................... 87
1
EWCA 2016
Keynote speakers
Keynote 1
Valuing Language(s): The Case of European Writing Scholarship
Tiane Donahue
Institute for Writing and Rhetoric at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH, USA
[email protected]
This presentation will explore a particular tool, a wiki that enables
scholars to post their scholarship about higher education writing in
languages other than English, as a frame for questions we should ask as
a field about language, languages, and the future. I will present the wiki,
a multilingual bibliography, describe how it has been constructed to date,
and then discuss the issues it raises: What is the standing today of
scholarship not published in English? Why does language matter to
writing studies? Why are writing center scholars particularly implicated?
What other uses might such a bibliography have for fostering
international dialogue, exchange, and growth? How might it encourage a
translingual agenda?
2
EWCA 2016
Keynote 2
Corrective feedback and writing
collaborative translation tasks
skills
in
NS-NNS
student
Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk
State University of Applied Sciences in Konin, Poland
University of Lodz, Poland
[email protected]
The paper focuses on the effects of online collaborative translation tasks
in American English native (NS)- Polish non-native (NNS) student teams
in written language production of both groups. The purpose of this study
is also to add to the growing body of research on recast and
metalinguistic corrective feedback in the development of FL and NL
writing competence.
The study investigates the process of collaborative text development
within a Trans-Atlantic Pacific Project (TAPP) in terms of two scenarios
involving email contacts between Polish MA students of English and
translation at the University of Lodz and the State University of Applied
Sciences in Konin and students of writing classes, studying technical and
engineering subjects at North Dakota State University. The scenarios
include writing tasks and translation from English into Polish (first
semester) and from Polish into English (second semester) and, following
peer corrective feedback, producing the final versions of the relevant
texts. The study aims at researching the students’ progress in the
interaction to investigate a collaborative model of translation and writing
competence development as well as the effectiveness of a NS-NNS peer
tutoring model in it.
3
EWCA 2016
Keynote 3
Bridging Writing Center Cultures through Conversation and
Professionalizing Peer Tutors
Brandon Hardy
East Carolina University in Greenville, NC, USA
[email protected]
Peer tutors in the U.S. and Europe are beginning new initiatives in the
writing center unrelated to tutoring, helping them to create a
professional identity, develop transferable skills for other workplace
environments, and practice new forms of Peer-to-Peer (P2P)
collaboration to improve international writing center relations. Using
interviews and introspection, current models of P2P tutor collaboration
will be discussed, as well as the benefits and barriers that inhibit these
models. The best practices of these models will be combined and shared
in a way that fosters improved connectivity and interaction among peer
tutors on a global scale, including the benefits and challenges tutors and
administrators might face. Finally, further practical implications of P2P
collaboration will be shared, as well as suggestions for further research
that involves collaboration across different writing center cultures
through meaningful conversation and building community.
4
EWCA 2016
Keynote 4
Online Writing Labs: Fostering Student Success
Joshua Paiz
NYU Shanghai, China
[email protected]
Online Writing Labs, or OWLs, are potentially powerful tools to extend
the reach of the writing center beyond the physical space—meeting
students-writers where they are at and in their time of need. That is,
OWLs can play an important part in facilitating student success. This
paper discusses the OWL life cycle in order to advocate for the continued
growth and development of OWLs in a variety of national/regional
contexts around the globe. First, the theoretical and practical
considerations of starting an OWL will be discussed. This includes issues
like deciding what kind of OWL to launch (e.g., asynchronous resource
collection, synchronous web-based tutoring, etc.) as well as the practical
needs to be considered (e.g., finding talent, deciding on server needs,
etc.). Next, lessons from the fields of Writing Centers and Writing
Program Administration (WPA) will be synthesized in order to highlight
potentially effective ways to advocate for the resources needed to start
and maintain a robust online writing lab. Finally, this paper will conclude
by recommending best practices for OWL content development by
discussing recent findings regarding user-centered design (UxD) and
materials creation for second language (L2) writing at one of the world’s
oldest and largest OWLs, the Purdue OWL.
5
EWCA 2016
Keynote 5
Polish students' views
questionnaire study
on
academic
writing:
Results
of
a
Mirosław Pawlak
Adam Mickiewicz University, Kalisz, Poland
State University of Applied Sciences, Konin, Poland
[email protected]
It has been known for a long time that beliefs about different aspects of
language learning and teaching may not only affect the effectiveness of
specific instructional practices but also determine the degree to which
learners succeed in the second language learning endeavor, either in its
entirety or with respect to specific skills and subsystems. This is the
reason why such beliefs need to be investigated since, on the one hand,
an attempt can be made to modify them to some extent, and, on the
other, awareness in this area can help teachers reduce the negative
consequences of mismatches between how learners believe instruction
should proceed and what actually transpires in the classroom. With this
in mind, the paper reports the findings of a study which investigated the
views of Polish students majoring in English on different aspects of
academic writing, ranging from the act of composing to different facets
of written error correction. The data were collected from 150 participants
by means of a questionnaire containing both Likert-scale and openended questions. The analysis of the responses offered valuable insights
into how the students approach academic writing, the problems they
encounter and the ways in which they would like to be taught.
6
EWCA 2016
Presentations
A Study of Select Undergraduate Students’ Writing
Pius Akhimien
Lagos State University
[email protected]
There has been some concern in the media, over the quality of
graduates’ writings in Nigeria. This paper therefore examines academic
writings of some 400 level students in the Faculty of Arts, Lagos State
University. The choice of 400 level or final year students was predicated
on the fact that they would soon become graduates. The students were
drawn from three departments: English, Philosophy and History. The
study seeks to determine, the students compliance with the rules of
grammar, cohesion and coherence, and other elements of a good
composition writing. The paper further seeks to determine the extent of
influence of the new media (short Message Service-SMS, Email and so
on) on students’ academic writing.
7
EWCA 2016
Comparison of difficulties in writing for academic theses by L1
and L2 speakers
Özlem Alagöz-Bakan
Universität Hamburg
[email protected]
Academic writing is an academic competence that needs to be taught
and learned at university. It is a learning process that could last over
several years (Knorr 2012) and both students, with German as the first
language (L1) and those with German as a second language (L2), need
to acquire. Since academic theses have certain requirements such as the
use of academic language, textual convention etc. to be fulfilled, the
students with German as the first language could not avoid acquiring
such competences in order to get academic success at university, which
is still not known to many. However, students with German as their first
language could still benefit from their language- awareness that allows
them to acquire these competences efficiently. Conversely, students with
German as a second language usually need more support on the
language of the junior level (Knorr et al 2015). It is especially observed
during the peer tutoring that L1 and L2 users have difficulties at different
stages of academic writing competence and hence seek advice with
different concerns. Therefore an awareness of these differences could
provide these groups with better support. The lecture presents in which
way L1 and L2 speakers differ in their concerns and need of advice when
writing an academic thesis. The consultation records and the voice data
of students who seek help from the Writing Center Multilingualism
(Schreibwerkstatt Mehrsprachigkeit) are used as reference for this
purpose.
8
EWCA 2016
Online Forums for ESL/ EAP Classes
Thura Al-jubury
ICEAP-Toronto
[email protected]
There are many different approaches to teaching writing. The traditional
method of assigning homework to students of high levels has been
uninteresting to both students and teachers. Nowadays, technology is
playing an important role in our lives, so why not ingrate it into
teaching? Why not make the learning meaningful and enjoyable? Why
not encourage our students to do their homework and assignments in a
way they desire? In my ESL, EAP, TESL, and University Bridge Program
classes I thought of an interesting and motivating method to encourage
students to do their homework and assignments. An online forum, where
they respond, post, discuss, and debate with their classmates. They are
given a rubric with their participation marks to see how well they did in
the assignment. This method has worked very well and I was asked to
present and talk about it in many educational settings. In this workshop,
teachers will be introduced to an innovative method of assigning
homework for writing and discussion. There will be handouts, rubrics,
and topics all in packages distributed to every attendee. The presenter
will talk about and train the participants in using online forums for their
writing/ discussion classes.
9
EWCA 2016
The writing center as a powerhouse for systemic change of
writing cultures
Gerd Braeuer
University of Education, Freibug
[email protected]
The Freiburg Writing Center is currently heading an EU-sponsored
project (2016-18) to strengthen the role of reflective writing through
electronic portfolios in teacher education in Germany, Austria,
Luxembourg and Italy. The project, PREPARE, aims for the development
of both a political agenda and an educational policy to strengthen the
role of reflective practice as a central means of self-regulation in longterm learning processes. In the presentation it will be shown how
members of the Freiburg Writing Center interact with stakeholders across
the educational pyramid in order to analyze the necessary systemic
change in the collaboration among teacher students, the teaching faculty
at the university, primary/secondary school mentors and school
administrators on different administrative levels all the way up to the
Ministry of Education in the State of Baden-Württemberg. The
presentation will also discuss how this project, from its application
process in 2015 until the final conference in 2018, has changed and
might change the perception of the Freiburg Writing Center within its
home institution and beyond. For that, our experience with the project
PREPARE will be contextualized in the most recent discourse on writing
center work. Research desiderata with regard to writing centers as
systemic change agents within writing cultures will be addressed.
10
EWCA 2016
Failure Narratives in Tutor Session Reports
Nicole Caswell
East Carolina University
[email protected]
Session reports – or other session document forms – are fairly common
in writing centers. The uses and audiences vary depending on local
context, but primarily the reports are for faculty (to document their
students attended the writing center), for students (to remind them what
happened in the session), for future tutors (to let them know what’s
been worked on thus far), and for writing center administrators (for
assessment, monitoring, and first defense for complaints). Tutors
assume that documenting/summarizing individual sessions is part of
their job and the “how-to’s” of writing reports tends to be covered in
tutor training. Malenczyk’s (2013) research on session report as a
community-building tool revealed two narratives: successful sessions
and failed sessions. Traditionally, when students fail, they do not
demonstrate what has been constructed as an ideal text by someone
else -- normally an individual with power and privilege. We see this in
writing assessment where failure has traditionally been conceived as a
way to limit access to individuals -- a well documented gatekeeping
mechanism (Elliot, 2005; Huot, O’Neill, & Moore, 2012; Inoue & Poe,
2012). For writing centers, failure shapes our work by helping students
avoid failure or, as Malenczyk’s research demonstrated, identifying failed
sessions. This presentation builds on Malenczyk’s analysis of session
reports by looking at how tutors conceive of failure, identify failure and
report on failure – especially as participants of the failed session. This
presentation reports on data collected from a survey of tutors and an
analysis of session reports (by the same tutors). Through this research, I
aim to demonstrate (1) that writing centers can look at failure in new,
meaningful ways and (2) that we can improve how we teach tutors to
document sessions.
11
EWCA 2016
Talking Small, Thinking Big: The Influence of External Rapport
and Solidarity on Construction of the Collaborative Writing Center
Experience
Julie Christoph
University of Puget Sound
[email protected]
Kieran O'Neil
University of Puget Sound
[email protected]
Fear of vulnerability during the writing center conferences has been
identified as a primary deterrent for many students in need of writing
assistance on college campuses (Tipper 1999). Additionally, scrutiny of
the established location and dissemination of academic knowledge has
raised concerns over unequal distributions of power and control in the
tutor-tutee relationship (Lunsford 1991). A possible alleviator of fear and
equilibrator of power has been identified in the “Burkean Parlor” model
for writing centers, which promotes rapport-building and collaboration as
critical factors of success in the tutorial experience (Carino 1995).
Empirical studies have shown a strong correlation between rapportbuilding and tutee satisfaction and longevity (Thompson et al. 2009,
Carino and Enders 2001). However, a vast majority of these studies have
examined the influence of rapport within the context of attaining the
tutorial objectives. There consequently is a dearth of knowledge on how
conversation and exchange outside of the writing objectives (e.g.,
“small-talk”, extracurricular identification) influence rapport-building and
the perceived success of the tutorial (i.e., attainment of writing
objectives) (Mackiewicz and Thompson 2013). This empirical study is an
attempt to 1) quantify and characterize instances of rapport construction
and solidarity outside of writing-collaboration through time-stamp
observations of visually-recorded conferences, 2) assess their influence
on the overall “success” of the writing appointment (as measured by
Thonus (2003)), and 3) propose reinterpretations of established
definitions and roles of rapport in the tutorial experience. These findings
will offer a more inclusive understanding of how tutor-tutee rapport
provides an emotional platform for collaborative exchange.
12
EWCA 2016
What’s Your Style? How Attention to Writing Styles Might
Cultivate a Growth Mindset
Julie Christoph
University of Puget Sound
[email protected]
One of the benefits of one-to-one writing conferences is that each
session is adaptable to the individual needs and capabilities of the tutor
and student. But, for new undergraduate peer tutors, the uniqueness of
each writing conference can be daunting: If each session is different,
how can one ever feel prepared? In scholarship and in popular
psychology in the United States, there exists a wealth of material
attempting to identify and categorize different approaches to learning,
including the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, the Kolb Learning Styles
Inventory, and the Fleming and Miller VARK model. In the United States,
many students have encountered assessments related to one or more of
these typologies in the course of their educational journeys—usually in a
clinical context. At best, these typologies help educational institutions to
address individual student needs; at worst, these typologies imply that
learners have one fixed identity from which they cannot or should not
deviate. Tutor training manuals often make a nod toward the need to be
aware of different learning styles, but this advice is rarely connected to
explicit assessment. Learning styles are more commonly assessed
through informal means like those described in Presentations 1 and 2.
But might some fast, informal, internet-quiz-type assessment help peer
tutors facilitate the development of better writers? In this presentation, I
build on 1) observations of 20 writing conferences in which writers
complete peer-appropriate informal writing style assessments and 2)
interviews with the peer tutors about whether using the assessment
made them feel more prepared and effective in the conference. I argue
that although it is not beneficial to promote writing styles as static
aspects of writers’ identities, explicit conversation about writing styles
can help facilitate growth in writing ability.
13
EWCA 2016
The Semantics of Space: Negotiating Epistemic Authority in the
Space of the Peer Tutoring Conference
Julie Christoph
University of Puget Sound
[email protected]
Cody Chun
University of Puget Sound
[email protected]
The practice of advising presupposes “epistemic asymmetry,” or
disparate levels of expertise, between advisor and advisee, in which the
advisor assumes epistemic authority while the advisee defers to the
authority of the advisor (Butler, Potter, Danby, Emmison, and Hepburn
2010). In the classroom, epistemic asymmetry underscores the power
differential between teacher and student (Park 2013). However, in a
peer-learning environment such as the writing center, this epistemic
asymmetry becomes dynamic, resulting in the continual renegotiation of
epistemic authority between participants (Waring 2011). While epistemic
asymmetry has been researched, few studies have investigated the
relationship between epistemic asymmetry and space in the peer
tutoring conference. The active demarcation of space, using objects, the
body, and lines of sight, co-occurs with the negotiation of epistemic
authority (Ewing 2005). Does this co-occurrence suggest that shifts in
epistemic asymmetry manifest themselves in the re-organization of
space at the site of the tutoring conference? Using evidence from 20
video-recorded writing conferences, I map the bodily responses of
conference participants to moments of conflict. By analyzing the ways in
which space is renegotiated as a result, I work toward what I call a
semantics of space, which will enable interpretations of dynamic mental
asymmetries as reflected in asymmetries of space. This semantics will
enable readings of invisible epistemic asymmetries in the visible space of
the tutoring conference and, as such, will allow tutors to better navigate
moments of conflict when they arise.
14
EWCA 2016
Going Dutch. The Rise and Fall and Rise of Writing Centres in The
Netherlands
Joy De Jong
Nijmegen Centre for Academic Writing
[email protected]
The first Dutch writing centres were established in Groningen and
Nijmegen in 2003. In 2008 the University of Tilburg started a writing
centre, but at then the centre in Groningen was forced to close down.
So, in five years we still only had two writing centres in Ducth
universities. However, in 2013 the writing centre seed started to grow on
several grounds. Fertile soil was not only found at the agricultural
university in Wageningen, but also in Leiden and Amsterdam and a few
universities of applied science (professional schools). This year we met
with around 35 colleagues interested in a discussion on writing centres
at a Dutch conference on academic communication skills. Beforehand we
had sent out a questionnaire to the managers of the different writing
centres and we summarized our findings. This all led to the start of a
'sub network group' on writing centres in the Netherlands and Flanders.
In this session we would like to present our findings on the 'state of the
art' of Dutch writing centres. Secondly, we would like to discuss ways to
share experience, knowledge and expertise, giving the fact that we are
all incredibly busy: what are efficient ways of networking?
15
EWCA 2016
Applying Haas' Framework for Teaching and Assessing Reader
Engagement to Dutch NPO-Newsletters
Alexander De Soete
Ghent University
[email protected]
As an undergraduate student of English, the author learned about reader
engagement in the first year English Proficiency classes at Ghent
University. In his spare time, he habitually reads newsletters from
Belgian non-profit organizations. He expected to be engaged in these
texts due to his personal investment in these organizations, having
extensively been involved with both small, local NPO’s as well as larger
multinational ones. Despite this personal engagement, the result was
surprising: reading these texts at times required more effort than initially
expected. In his reader engagement classes, taught by dr. Haas, the
author had learned that “it is the text that is (dis)engaging, not the
topic”. This prompted the research question for this paper: is Haas’
Framework for Teaching and Assessing Reader Engagement (2016)
applicable to Dutch NPO-newsletters? Does it transcend language and
genre? Samples of these newsletters were collected and analyzed with
the reader engagement framework. It was quickly established that the
framework is indeed applicable to different languages and genres,
allowing for more detailed analysis into the applicability of the framework
to ensue. Even though in general the framework applied, the author
found differences in terms of genre convention (e.g. how newsletter
endings differ from endings in the essays the framework was developed
for). Analysis uncovered reader engagement problems which were not
explainable until multiple aspects of Haas’ analytical framework were
combined, resulting in a new category called ‘complex issues’.
Furthermore, patterns were discovered that might help compact the
framework, thus making it less unwieldy.
16
EWCA 2016
Tending to Affect to Ensure Successful Online Writing Sessions
Carmen Denekamp
Qatar University
[email protected]
At the heart of successful one-to-one sessions is affect in several forms.
And deep in the heart and needing release to propel each student writer
in their writing efforts and unique texts is the immense joy of writing.
Action research over two cycles/semesters was used to collect data of
Arab volunteers’ use and requirements of a new online writing center.
These students needed help with their L2 English academic writing. I was
the advisor and researcher. Aspects that made the online service a
success with its clients was a main research question. Many data sources
were used to gain an understanding of the answer to this question. In
my project, I found emotions and feelings proved to be a significant
factor in several forms. They played a part in how Arab participants
reacted and were interrelated with their autonomy and their writing.
Recognition was needed of the place of internalization of meta-affect and
repeated socially mediated interactions (Oxford, 2011; Ushioda, 2014;
Yamashita, 2015). Feelings are important to the Arab culture also, where
there is a preference for feeling over accuracy (Zaharna, 2010). Oral
expression is the norm, not writing - let alone writing in a second
language. Yet privacy can run deep and understanding can be obscure
until a trusting relationship is formed. The online situation can help in
this respect. The voice of the individual learner is not stifled, but allowed
to flourish and lead the way. The advisor-researcher learnt on the job as
experimentation and poignant sharing took place. In this way, students
experienced something new – the innermost release of joy and
satisfaction in writing. This session will share the progress of the
students and the project. Helpful implications for writing advisors can be
gained from this study where affect is placed at the heart of the
situation.
17
EWCA 2016
Peer-Tutoring in the 21st century – are we still peers?
André Deutscher
Schreibzentrum – RUB
[email protected]
Studying across cultures, borders and countries – we live in a world full
diversity and our lives become more diverse every day. Do peer tutors in
this world in fact only meet peers? K. Bruffee decisively influenced the
peer tutor theory. In an extremely condensed form he says peer tutoring
works, because peers are „a group of people who accept, and whose
work is guided by, the same paradigms and the same code of values and
assumptions“ (Bruffee, K.: Collaborative Learning and ‚The Conversation
of mankind’, in College English 46 (1984), p. 642). It was
groundbreaking and fundamental for writing centers, because of its nonhierarchical learning. He constructed it roughly three decades ago and
therefore we have to have a closer look at its validity for writing centers.
The presentation is about the differences between students and tutors.
Beside the equality of both being a student there are indisputably a lot of
distinct differences. For example: As a tutor we have the training and
knowledge, students are looking for. Therefore it is our job to guide the
conversation in the writing consulting. Far from being divided only by our
roles as tutors or students, people coming to the writing center are of
great diversity. There are students within the same agespan and similar
subjects to ours, but we also meet people with completely different
backgrounds regarding culture, language, and character. The first part of
the presentation is about these differences, that were carved out as
results of a workshop at the Peer Tutoring Conference in Hamburg in
2015. The differences were analysed under the aspects of equality and
being at eye sight and are split in different fields (trainee, being experts,
students, writers and humans). A second part includes ideas about the
meaning and handling of these differences. These differences belong to
an important part of the writing centers: the peer tutors. In closing the
name‚ peer tutor’ is at least debatable if not even wrong.
18
EWCA 2016
Writing Mobility: How Romanian Erasmus students cope with
academic writing abroad
Claudia Ioana Doroholschi
West University of Timisoara
[email protected]
Ana Cristina Baniceru
West University of Timisoara
[email protected]
In the context of the growing mobility of students, negotiating multiple
cultural environments, languages and conventions becomes increasingly
important. In many disciplines, academic writing is one of the essential
skills to be mastered by the exchange student, since it is frequently
linked with assessment, as well as with learning and the production of
knowledge, and thus has a determining role in student performance. For
Erasmus students, academic writing can present a compound challenge,
linguistic – since students have to write in a language which is often not
their mother tongue – as well as cultural. In recent years, an increasing
amount of research has been conducted on student experiences and
performance within the Erasmus program and other international
mobility schemes. However, there are relatively few studies which deal
specifically with challenges students encounter in what concerns
academic writing.In the present paper, we present the results of a
qualitative study of outgoing Romanian Erasmus students from the
Faculty of Letters, History and Theology of the West University of
Timisoara, Romania. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with MA
and BA students who went on Erasmus mobilities in the academic year
2015-2016, in an attempt to establish (1) whether they faced any
challenges in coping with writing assignments at their host institution;
(2) if yes, what was the nature of these challenges; and (3) what
strategies or factors contributed to overcoming them. We thus aim to
identify problematic areas, as well as the strategies or forms of support
that seem to help students before/during the mobility, and suggest steps
that could be taken by the sending institution to prepare students for
these challenges, and thus perform better at their host institutions. Even
though the present research focuses on Romanian students, considering
that Erasmus+ is a European student exchange program, it may benefit
non-Romanian writing instructors as well. We hope that the presentation
will offer valuable solutions for all teachers searching to adapt their
courses to the needs of international exchange students.
19
EWCA 2016
Learning
Goal-Oriented
Competencies
Evaluation
of
Students’
Writing
Stephanie Dreyfürst
Writing Center Goethe University
[email protected]
How can we analyze students’ writing as objectively as possible, without
putting too much emphasis on the disciplinary content but also without
ignoring it completely? According to the Writing in the Disciplines (WID)
approach, Writing Fellow programs are supposed to have a positive effect
on students’ writing competencies. During a typical Writing Fellow
course, the students are asked to work on two writing assignments.
Thus, we are able to collect valuable data about the students’ behavior
and the development of their writing skills during that particular
course.When we first launched a Writing Fellow program at two German
universities two years ago, we were faced with the task of developing a
new evaluation approach that takes into account the different
perspectives of its participants. “Because writing fellows programs
involve not just students but also tutors and faculty, evaluation measures
should involve all three groups.” (HARING-SMITH, 1992: 130) To
ascertain the program is having the desired effects on students’ writing,
this subsection of the evaluation takes into account the changes in their
performances and attitudes. The latter are examined by two
questionnaires, one at the beginning of the semester and one at the end.
The questionnaire is partly based on the BILOE (Bielefeld Learning Goal
Oriented Evaluation) approach and encourages students to reflect on
their contribution to their own learning process: The students are asked
to judge if certain activities helped them to achieve the three learning
goals of the course. They evaluate for instance to what degree talking to
the Writing Fellow and re-writing their texts has added to realizing what
academic writing is about.The presentation gives an overview of the
learning goal-oriented approach, the collected data, the evaluation
method, and will put the results up for discussion.
20
EWCA 2016
Comics and inductive inference as means of creative
development of writing skills in a foreign language – a proposal
of didactic solutions
Joanna Duda
University of Łódź
[email protected]
Łukasz Walterowicz
Lingwise Polska
[email protected]
The aim of this presentation is to give a proposal of means of teaching
writing in a foreign language that would combine comics and inductive
inference. It is widely recognized that inductive inference supports
learner’s autonomy, independence and creativity (Kwakernaak, 2009;
Tarsoly and Valijärvi, 2012). A recent study (Walterowicz, 2013) proved
that inductive inference may be a useful tool in teaching writing in a
foreign language. Comic books are an interesting way to introduce the
context to a lesson or a particular task. A combination of these two
elements present a great potential for an efficient and entertaining
method of teaching writing skills in a foreign language. The aim will be
achieved through an exhibition of exemplary tasks supported with
thorough explanation an in-depth analysis based on literature.
21
EWCA 2016
Sharing/Telling Knowledge – Learning to Write Pharmaceutics
Florian Durst
Goethe-University in Frankfurt
[email protected]
While writing assignments are often immanent elements of curricula in
most disciplines in Germany, the STEM fields (science, technology,
engineering and mathematics) have yet to discover their benefits.
Writing in the STEM fields is sometimes seen as the annoying necessity
to communicate – as something that takes away time from more valued
tasks. This notion has resulted in curricula where student testing is
predominantly or solely achieved by multiple choice and oral exams.
However, in career terms writing is far from being irrelevant to the STEM
fields. Quite the contrary, sharing knowledge in the STEM fields requires
a high level of writing proficiency and it is a challenging task to bridge
the gap between factual knowledge centered syllabi and the demands of
the working environment. At Frankfurt’s Goethe-University, students of
the pharmaceutical studies aren’t faced with writing assignments until
their very last semester. Without proper training, these students are
asked to investigate current research concerned with various aspects of
a greater pharmaceutical problem. The students have to produce review
articles reflecting the state of science and technology. The results are
then published in an accompanying booklet to an expert conference
aimed to provide an on-the-job training for practicing pharmacists and
physicians. In my presentation, I will sketch some of the measures the
writing center is trying to implement in order to foster the development
of student writing skills. The presentation will focus on the following
questions:- What are the specific needs related to writing in the STEM
fields?- How can well-proven methods of writing pedagogy be adjusted
to meet these criteria? Since writing in the STEM fields is a relatively
young branch in writing didactics in the German speaking area, I also
hope to fuel a discussion about experiences and methods from other
countries.
22
EWCA 2016
A Creative Writing Center?
Thomas Earles
University of Maryland
[email protected]
What is it about creative writing (fiction, poetry, memoir) that students,
faculty, and tutors find so different from other kinds of writing, and the
Writing Center’s ability to help students with it? This presentation
addresses the perceived rift between creative writing and writing
centers, and the assumptions that writing centers may be better
equipped or more appropriate to help with academic, technical, and
business writing rather than creative writing. The University of Maryland
has one of the largest and most well-established writing centers in the
United States. where undergraduate students can seek help on any
writing assignment, at any stage of the writing process. UMD’s creative
writing program, housed in the English department along with the
Writing Center and the other writing programs, is also particularly
vibrant, yet few students bring their creative writing to our writing
center. I will present findings from a year-long research project,
including a discussion of survey findings from the University of Maryland
writing community and a personal reflection. As a fiction writer, creative
writing instructor, and writing center administrator, I’ll also discuss how
my time in UMD’s (and other college’s) Writing Center has advanced my
own understanding of creative writing in the academic process, and
therefore the role of collaboration (i.e., tutoring) in that process. This
project has included research into creative writing programs and writing
centers at other institutions similar in size or scope to Maryland;
interviews with faculty and students; and a roundtable discussion with
instructors, students, tutors and administrators. We asked if students are
coming for help on creative writing assignments, if teachers are sending
them, and if tutors are helping them. Is this something that is
happening, and if not, is it something that should happen? Should we try
to change it, and if so, how?
23
EWCA 2016
The Heart of WC Leadership: Cross-cultural Reflections on
Collaboration, Struggle, and Success
Brian Fallon
Fashion Institute of Technology
[email protected]
Anja Poloubotko
Leibniz University in Hanover
[email protected]
Writing Center directors and coordinators’ identities evolve over the
course of their careers on a wide range of issues including tutor training,
policies, and professional status; we seek to explore (1.) how writing
center leaders/professionals’ relationships to tutors change over time,
especially in regards to peer tutor needs, expectations, and interests,
and (2.) how that relationship informs leadership styles. Haviland and
Trianosky’s (2006) study of what tutors want from writing center
directors frames an important conversation about the institutional
politics involved in running a writing center. Building from their study,
this presentation offers two case studies of writing center leaders in
different institutional and cultural contexts that examine how leaders
respond to tutoring staff needs, expectations, and perceptions. The
presenters will offer reflections and examples from their own experiences
to highlight shifting relationships between them and their tutors in each
institutional context. These examples will then be analyzed to highlight
the ways that peer and professional tutors influence leadership styles at
these institutions and at different points in a director’s career.
Furthermore, the case studies will offer a rich array of experiences that
exemplify leadership roles and responsibilities in different countries
(Germany and the United States).This study will not only offer insights
into how tutor-director relationships inform leadership styles, but will
also discuss the importance of understanding how director characteristics
must change and adapt over time to meet developing needs of a (peer)
tutor staff. Drawing on Katrin Girgensohn’s claim that collaboration is a
kind of “attitude” crucial for being successful as a Writing Center and WC
director, presenters will contribute additional insight into the complexities
of collaboration in a writing center professional’s decision making and
leadership style across time and institutional spaces.
24
EWCA 2016
Where Do I Begin? A Writing Teacher's Narrative of Transition
and Self-Discovery from America to England
Joseph Franklin
University of Southampton
[email protected]
I recently graduated with a Masters in Composition and Rhetoric from
Miami University, then took a job in England. Moving from the North
American context of writing instruction to the United Kingdom has
offered me innumerable opportunities to reflect on their differences and
similarities. I have tapped into an overwhelming amount of student
need, and an equally overwhelming administrative barrier to developing
proper support for them. My paper will share the story of my transition
from one context to another and how my daily observations,
negotiations, and reflections have impacted my identity as a writing
teacher and administrator. By offering a personal narrative, I will be able
to offer the view of an outsider, which will hopefully allow for a
connection to anyone else who can relate. In the end, I know better now
what it means to be a writing instructor, and I know that I am one.
25
EWCA 2016
Writing center tutors’ assistance with science papers: their genre
knowledge construction and modification
Mayumi Fujioka
Osaka Prefecture University
[email protected]
The conceptualization of genre as social action in specific discourse
communities (e.g., Swales, 1990; Tardy, 2009) beyond text types has
permeated L2 writing studies. This dynamic view of genre, however, can
pose difficulty for teachers because of their need to understand the
intricacies of genres they teach. Focusing on writing tutors, this study
explores how tutors construct the knowledge of genre in their focal
tutoring area. The main data in this study came from interviews with
eight writing center tutors of English writing, who were all graduate
students with different L1 backgrounds at a Japanese university.
Additional data include observations of their tutoring with Japanese
undergraduate students who wrote experimental research papers in
natural sciences. I coded the interview and observation data based on
the framework of four types of genre knowledge (Tardy, 2009): subjectmatter; formal (structural/linguistic); process; and rhetorical (genre’s
purposes and reader expectations). After the descriptive coding, I
constructed interpretational analysis. Results indicate that the tutors’
limited knowledge base in subject-matter specific to scientific
experiments prompted them to relegate such expertise to students
(tutees) and science tutors assisting those writing tutors. Due to fixed
structures of experimental papers and expected elements of information
to be included when writing those papers, formal and process knowledge
were the easiest types of knowledge to develop. However, tutors still
needed to modify their formal knowledge so they could accommodate to
individual professors’ expectations for the assignments. Last, rhetorical
knowledge that tutors constructed reflected the social practice and
audience expectations in natural sciences, including making knowledge
claims by testing hypotheses. Based on the findings, suggestions are
offered for improving tutors’ genre knowledge construction.
26
EWCA 2016
Discovering Your Voice: Teaching English Academic Writing in the
Chinese University
Richard Garrett
University of Wisconsin
[email protected]
Globalization has created an intriguing East-West phenomenon in the
twenty-first century: Western, particularly American, universities rushing
and competing to reap the benefits of the booming Chinese economy, in
the form of courting Chinese students to come to America and
establishing campuses or exchange programs in China. The latter has
generated a new pedagogical trend—American professors teaching
Academic Writing in Chinese university classrooms. One of the most
significant challenges facing both Chinese university students and
American instructors is finding a way for the students to “discover” and
demonstrate their own voice in writing rather than conveying someone
else’s voice. This challenge is inextricably linked with the notions of
critical thinking, analytical writing, and argument so deeply embedded in
Western academic writing yet still somewhat novel and unfamiliar
concepts in Chinese classrooms. This paper will explore the lack of
authorial
“voice”
and
difficulties
with
argumentative
writing
demonstrated by Chinese university students today, in the form of a
reflective essay based on personal experience. As an American English
professor who has taught summer courses in China for the last seven
years, I have closely observed and worked with numerous Chinese
university students who struggle with the difficulties stated above. One
apparent reason for this lack of authorial voice and missing critical
dimension is closely related to background and culture. Students coming
from a Confucian heritage are acutely aware of the notion of “voice” and
“author” and “authority”, but it is the authority and voice of the
(sometimes ancient) famous teaches and authors that often resound in
the heads of many Chinese students, problematizing their efforts to
formulate their own arguments and ideas. Writing faculty must provide
explicit guidelines for these students that make the requirements of
critical writing clear and easily understandable.
27
EWCA 2016
What Does "Discipline" Mean in Writing in the Disciplines?
Anne Gere
University of Michigan
[email protected]
I report on a study of faculty and students in a long-standing WID
program in a large university. The institutional definition of discipline as
specific academic department frequently overlaps but also differs from
epistemological meanings that emphasize identifying problems to be
studied, naming central concepts, organizing theories, and embracing
certain methods. Together these meanings portray “discipline” as a static
entity into which writing serves as the “gateway” to the “disciplinary
assembly line.” Investigation via surveys, focus groups and interviews as
well as analysis of syllabi, showed that this static view of “discipline”
does not adequately account faculty and students approaches to WID
courses. Faculty frequently privilege more generic features of writing,
over discipline-specific ones, arguing that few students will become
professors in the given specialty. Students often fail to take WID courses
in their major area of study, preferring to explore other areas. In
addition, syllabi show that many WID classes give little attention to
variation in genre, instead assigning “essays” and “research papers.”
Dominant meanings assigned to “discipline”, then, do not adequately
describe what happens in WID courses. Accordingly the term “new
disciplinarity” is offered because, as articulated by Marcovich and Shinn,
it connotes dynamism rather that stasis, and because it includes
categories of borderlands, project, temporality, and elasticity. This
language of new disciplinarity affirms the persistence of institutional and
epistemological forms of disciplines and acknowledges the intersections,
subversions and interrogations of disciplines that appear in WID courses.
28
EWCA 2016
(In)dependent writers. A writing centre as a bridge between
teacher- centred secondary school and students' independent
learning at a university.
Barbara Gęsicka
Salesian Grammar School
[email protected]
In Poland many tertiary education teachers voice their complaints about
a drop in an average student's academic skills (Zalewski, 2011) and
point to a gap between teacher dependent learning at secondary schools
and university education that requires much more independent approach
from the student, (Podsędkowski, 2013). Students who strongly depend
on teachers for in- class guidance focus on their school leaving exams
and realistic communication situations are of secondary importance to
them. Starting tertiary education they lack sufficient self- regulation
strategies to engage in independent writing, stream it in a desired
direction and respond to audience's expectations. My presentation
discusses several aspects of starting a writing centre in a secondary
school observed on a research group of students. First I present
techniques involving students in independent development. As a
response to writing being a solitary experience in the school curriculum
(Orr, 1998) and the teacher being a sole audience (Williams, 2005) the
writing centre with its blog proposed forming a discourse community
(Salski, 2011) and shifting the students dependence from the teacher to
the audience consisting of peers. It provided the students with the
environment (topics, peer feedback) that could engage them in exploring
the social aspects of writing (Mott, 2013). The study was carried out to
estimate the students' perception of the audience and purpose of writing
before and after 2 term participation in the writing club activities. My
presentation reports on the changes in students' attitudes after the
intervention stage.
29
EWCA 2016
Evaluating the Efficacy of a Writing Mentoring Programme:
Changes in Text Quality and Writer Development
Thijs Gillioen
UGent
[email protected]
At UGent, a major Belgian university, students of English are expected to
attain a high level of academic writing skills. However, due to the
constraints of university funding, a single teacher was responsible for
teaching 300+ students how to write, resulting in a situation where
students could wait for weeks before getting any feedback on their work.
To combat this issue, a peer writing mentoring programme was
established during the academic year 2013 - 2014. Employing students
as near-peers, this programme aims to aid in students’ development as
writers by providing them with additional opportunities for non-directive
feedback. Through an Action Research-based investigation, this paper
aims to evaluate this programme in its current form, and make
suggestions for improvements in its conduct and practices. It did so by
assessing both the product of students’ texts, and their development as
writers. Students’ pre- and post-mentoring texts were analysed using
Haas’ Framework for Understanding Reader Engagement (2016), thus
looking into the textual manifestation of the effects of writing mentoring.
This unveiled several areas where students are greatly helped by a
mentoring session, and some areas where further improvements could
be made, both by specific training for the mentors, and by more
(focused) sessions with students. Secondly, it analysed students’
reflective writing in order to understand students’ perspective on the
mentoring process and on their development as writers. Since the
concept of writing mentoring (and, by extension, a writing centre) is
alien to Belgian students, their perceptions of the mentoring process
were vital to understanding how they can be assisted more efficiently in
their development as writers. The points of discussion in this paper may
be expanded to be applicable in other mentoring situations, especially
those working in similar low-budget, student-as-peers- contexts.
30
EWCA 2016
Writing and ergonomics – why writing should be considered
physically and psychologically
Lisa Hertweck
Technical University Darmstadt
[email protected]
Polly Oberman
Technical UniversityDarmstadt
[email protected]
Owing to the conditional decline in physically strenuous work and the
growing number of office and computer workplaces, a large number of
school and university students are affected by a lack of physical activity
during their writing phases. The importance of a healthy posture while
writing can be also seen in writing process models. Using Elbow and
other writing didactics, we want to demonstrate how a healthy posture
can positively affect the writing process and show the solutions of our
writing center. A lot of students are working frequently in a static seated
posture – many sit in a hunched over position on their bed with the
laptop on their knees and write their texts in uncomfortable positions.
Possible consequences of this inactivity include muscular-skeletal
disorders and functional underuse of certain muscle groups, which
influence the writing process, with effects including procrastination or
writer´s block. Those who cannot sit, because they are in pain, are not
able to write or to write well. Constant stress additionally leads to the
narrowing of perception and information recording. Also, learning and
memory decrease noticeably. These conditions lead to mental blocks,
blackouts, brooding, memory and concentration problems, constricted or
irrational thinking and escapism. To be able to show the positive effects
of a healthy working climate, the Writing Center has developed solutions
with the University Department for Work Safety. In this context, specific
dynamic office furniture, like office chairs, height-adjustable tables,
`swopper-chairs´, ergonomic keyboards, lecterns and other ergonomic
aids, were placed into the writing center, so students can try out the
furniture and get suggestions for better handling of the physical
influences on writing.
31
EWCA 2016
An auto-ethnographic analysis of tutor responses to feelings of
inequality in writing centre peer-tutoring sessions
John Hogan
Michelle Stevenson
University of Limerick RWC University of Limerick
[email protected]
[email protected]
Brid Dunne
University of Limerick
[email protected]
Niamh Doherty
University of Limerick
[email protected]
Niall Curry
University of Limerick
[email protected]
Pamela Wall
University of Limerick
[email protected]
Much of the existing literature, concerning power relations between tutor
and tutee, is divided between arguments that underline the importance
of an equal status between peers (Harris 1995; Bruffee 1984) and those
which claim that tutors inevitably occupy a position of dominance (Scott
1992; Carino 2003). Scant consideration has been given, however, to
circumstances in which a tutor may feel less than equal to the tutee.
Despite being invested with a level of institutional authority (Trimbur
1987), tutors may feel comparatively inadequate when working with
certain tutees. Focusing on the role of power in the peer-tutoring
session, this paper considers the reasons a tutor might feel unequal and
the ways in which a tutor can respond to this by identifying strategies
that can address feelings of inequality. In order to identify some of those
reasons and responses, a collaborative systematic auto-ethnography has
been conducted, which involves the taking of field notes post-session
over a period of six weeks. Through a deductive qualitative approach,
these field notes were analysed, resulting in qualitative investigation of
perceptions of power inequality and how power functions in the peertutoring session. These results highlight the importance of power
relations in the peer-tutoring session and demonstrate that this power is
not always held by the tutor. The findings of this small study could be
used in the continuing professional development of tutors in writing
centres with a particular focus on equality in the peer-tutoring session
and its impact on the tutee but also on the tutor.
32
EWCA 2016
Passives in Scandinavian academic texts. A contrastive analysis
of Polish and Scandinavian students‘ academic writing.
PaulinaHorbowicz
Adam Mickiewicz University
[email protected]
Mikołaj Sobkowiak
Adam Mickiewicz University
[email protected]
Dominika Skrzypek
Adam Mickiewicz University
[email protected]
Natalia Kołaczek
Adam Mickiewicz University
[email protected]
Academic writing is typically characterized by excessive use of
impersonal constructions and passive voice as a means of achieving a
more objective presentation. Languages differ both in respect of the
types of impersonal and passive constructions they apply and the scope
of their use. While Polish stylistics favours passives and impersonals, the
Mainland Scandinavian languages are known for preferring the use of the
active voice (Skrzypek, forthcoming). Mainland Scandinavian languages
have two means of expressing the passive voice: morphological, the socalled s-passiv and periphrastic bli-passiv. Both have a full inflectional
paradigm in all tenses in Swedish, whereas in Danish and Norwegian the
s-passiv is found only in the present tense (apart from a few
exceptions). They are not fully interchangeable and factors such as
animacy of the subject and aspectual value of the verb influence the
choice of the passive form. In this paper we investigate the use of
passive voice by Polish students of Swedish, Danish and Norwegian in
their academic writing and compare it with that of the native speakers.
The material consists of 30 master’s theses in linguistics, 10 in each
language. In the study we use both quantitative and qualitative analysis
of the data. The preliminary findings indicate that the Polish students use
the passive more frequently, typically to compensate for the impersonal
constructions they would have applied in Polish. They seem to be largely
unaware of the distributional restrictions on both passives in
Scandinavian languages, particularly in Swedish, where both passives
are available in all tenses.
33
EWCA 2016
Writing in EFL – Polish teachers’ perspectives
Katarzyna Hryniuk
Warsaw University
[email protected]
Since the 2008/2009 reforms in Polish education, the number of pupils
learning English has increased to over 90%. However, research results
indicate that in comparison to other language skills and linguistic
systems, developing writing in English is definitely not a priority in
Poland. For example, the European Survey on Language Competences
research (ESLC, 2012) showed that the level of speaking and vocabulary
knowledge of Polish learners were evaluated highly in comparison to
those from other European countries, but the level of writing was
considerably lower.Therefore, the aim of this study is to present the
views and practices of 42 teachers on developing English writing in Polish
primary and secondary schools. For this purpose, we conducted a survey
in which teachers were asked about their experience, training, classroom
practices, their needs as well as issues such as the influence of
globalization on English-language writing. The main results show that
although the teachers admit that there is a growing need to develop this
skill, and see the benefits of improving it, writing is still neglected. The
findings also point to the fact that an advancement is needed in both
writing theory and teachers’ practices, relevant to FL contexts. The study
will have important implications for developing appropriate FL classroom
instruction and guidelines for writing teacher training, which needs to be
focused on much more in Poland.
34
EWCA 2016
Summary writing: Using it to have access to writing skills
Shih-Yin (Stella) Hsu
National Kaohsiung Marine University
[email protected]
This study discussed the application of summary writing to involve 54
first-year college students in reading-writing activities and looks into
ways to facilitate and guide them to promote their summary writing skills
in two semesters. In the first semester, there were no specific
instructions for summary writing to these students. It also examined
whether they could construct a good summary without explicit
instruction. By contrast, in the second semester, these participants were
instructed to recognize some summarization guidelines or rules, for
instance, paraphrasing, condensing, constructing a paragraph with a
main idea, deleting unnecessary information, replacing lists with a
superordinate term, selecting a topic sentence (Brown & Day, 1983). In
addition, an on-line English homework forum system was created, so
these students could upload their summary writing assignments, share
their work, review and offer comments on others’ work. Data were
obtained from students through students’ summary writing assignments,
retrospective interviews and observations. This study indicated that
without explicit instruction, students, in general, in the first semester,
conducted poorly written summaries and primarily employed the copydeletion strategy or deleting or copying near word for word from the
original text (Brown, Day & Jone, 1983).In the second semester,
students have, generally, achieved the clear changes and improvement
in summary writing. Over time, they gradually began to use their own
words, handle rules more effectively, reorganize their summaries, linking
to the main idea and write better. Besides direct explicit instruction, the
on-line English homework forum system, and peer collaboration inspired
and empowered them to have access to summary writing development
and evolution into active and confident English writers. This study may
encourage EFL language educators to have interests in making more
endeavors of such an application in their curriculum for facilitating
students in developing writing skills.
35
EWCA 2016
Conjunctive and Lexical Cohesion in English Writing: A Contrast
of Learner Essays and Native-speaker Essays
Li-szu Huang
NKFUST
[email protected]
Fu-hsing Su
National Chiayi University
[email protected]
This study investigated if EFL learners’ use of cohesive devices in
expository essays varied quantitatively or qualitatively from those in
native speakers’ professional writings. The research data came from two
self-compiled corpora of written English. One consisted of comparisonand-contrast essays produced by undergraduate EFL learners in Taiwan
and the other comprised 18 native-speaker essays of the same text type
retrieved from textbooks for English writing instruction. The data were
analyzed based on Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) taxonomy of lexical and
conjunctive devices of cohesion. Quantitatively, each subtype of the
lexical and conjunctive devices in the two corpora was marked, with its
density in proportion to the total number of words and sentences
obtained respectively. Qualitative analyses were performed to pinpoint
learners’ problematic use of these two types of cohesive device. The
results showed different percentages of the subtypes of lexical devices in
the two corpora. While the learner essays depended more on repetition
and antonym as cohesive ties, the native-speaker essays favored
collocation, synonym, and superordinate. Qualitatively, the native
speakers employed a greater variety of lexical items under the subtypes
of collocation and superordinate, which enabled them to create a
powerful cohesive force. Regarding the use of conjunctions, both corpora
exhibited a higher percentage of additive and adversative devices than
the other subtypes. In particular, both groups of writers favored the
adversative conjunction however, the additive device for example, and
therefore as a causal conjunction. Despite these similarities, some
conjunctions frequently found in the learner corpus were rarely used by
the native speakers. The EFL learners not only maintained a limited
repertoire of devices but also generated unconnected arguments and illused conjunctions.
36
EWCA 2016
Gender-imbalance in a new writing center
Jóhannes Jónsson
University of Iceland
[email protected]
Writing centers tend to attract more female than male students (Nicolas
2003, Tipper 1999). This is indeed the case in the Writing Center of the
Humanities at the University of Iceland (Ritver Hugvísindasviðs, RH). Our
statistics show that 87% of our student clients are women and 13% are
men. This is a significant gender gap in a university where female
students comprise 66,2% of the whole student population, according to
the latest figures. Importantly, these gender differences do not reduce to
other known variables such as field or level of study. Tipper (1999) offers
various explanations as to why male students stay away from writing
centers, but many of them assume that students have certain
expectations about writing center consultations, e.g. that they involve a
non-directive style. With respect to RH, which is situated in a country
without any tradition of writing centers and has only been in operation
for two years, it is unlikely that students have any specific expectations
about our writing center. On the contrary, our experience is that students
coming to RH usually have no idea what takes place in our one-on-one
consultations. Thus, the gender gap may simply be because female
students are less confident about their academic abilities than male
students and therefore more likely to seek the kind of help provided by
writing centers.
37
EWCA 2016
Breaking the fear factor in writing: collaborative, topic-tangential
pre-writing tasks for academic English
David Kirkham
University of Leeds
[email protected]
The teaching of academic writing in a second language (e.g. of university
essays) is often seen as a highly individual task, and one in which any
pre-writing should lead to the final, ‘target’ document (e.g. developing
drafts of the ‘answer’ to the essay). Presented here is a small-scale
action research project which reversed these assumptions. Hence, the
tasks were: a) collaborative and b) not ostensibly directly related to the
final task (termed here ‘topic-tangential pre-writing tasks’ or TPRTs).
Positive feedback from learners suggests such collaborative, topictangential pre-writing is considered: a) motivating and enjoyable,
despite its topic-tangential nature; and b) useful for continued language
work. Specifically, two different TPRTs were used, each on two separate
occasions. Activity 1 invited learners in pairs to respond to a prompt,
tangentially relevant to the destination essay, by writing alternately
between 5 and 9 words (with no requirement for the string of words to
complete a sentence) thus co-creating a text. Activity 2 had learners
work in 3s with each beginning on a separate piece of paper with a
different topic prompt on the head. Learners then wrote a sentence on
their own piece of paper before rotating the paper to another student.
Feedback on these TPRTs indicates that: a) learners felt motivated to
write in the activities despite their topic-tangential nature; b) the
resulting texts allow and invite revision both linguistically for structure
and accuracy, and in terms of content for meaning and coherence. As
such, the texts have both motivational and linguistic value to the
ongoing writing process. This talk offers guidance on and examples of
the TPRTs sketched above, as well as comments from the researcherpresenter on the pedagogical value of these tasks. The talk will therefore
offer both a practical toolkit as well as reflection on the practice of
teaching writing and should prove of interest to any involved in teaching
writing.
38
EWCA 2016
Writing Center (WC) Synchronous Online Feedback: how tutors
and tutees co-construct their roles in (WC) tutorial sessions.
Vassiliki Kourbani
Hellenic American University
[email protected]
Creating a supportive learning environment is crucial for ensuring
students’ improvement of academic skills. Addressing this need, the
Writing Center at the Hellenic American University endeavors to make
the development of writing skills an important part of the writing
experience. The purpose of this study is to explore how Hellenic
American University students evaluate Writing Center synchronous online
tutoring sessions, with a particular focus on the nature of students’
perceptions and the revisions they undertake as a consequence of the
feedback received. Moreover, drawing on socio-cultural theories of
language and literacy (Hewett & Ehmann, 2004; Howard, 2001), this
study examines tutor-tutee critical moments (Abodeeb-Gentile, 2008;
Fairclough, 2001) by linking various features of the interaction during
synchronous communication with the revision process, in order to
discover ways tutors and tutees co-construct their roles within the
multimodal WRC tutorial as a literacy event (Balester et al., 2012; Ritter,
2002; Barton & Hamilton, 2000; Heath, 1982). Results indicated that the
effects of online tutoring were substantially positive. However, there
were instances where e-feedback proved to be ineffective due to NNS
students’ difficulty to understand and consequently apply tutor
comments, thus suggesting the need for further development of quality
e-feedback and the combination of online and onsite visits for optimal
results.
39
EWCA 2016
Beyond writing skills – basic level language promotion for native
speakers at German Universities
Lena Kreppel
Westfälische Hochschule Gelsenkirchen Bocholt Recklinghausen
[email protected]
Angelika Dorawa
Westfälische Hochschule Gelsenkirchen Bocholt Recklinghausen
[email protected]
There is a great heterogeneity in the field of written language skills
referring to University students in Germany. At the Westphalian
University of Applied Sciences (WH), the majority of students come from
the northern Ruhr area – a region with a high proportion of universityremote, low-income families or families with a migrant background.
Moreover, two-thirds of the students matriculated, graduated from
vocational schools. Due to these facts, these students have different
entry requirements and therefore, there is a wide range of written
language competences, concerning not only academic writing but also
basic language skills, which is underlined by the experience and research
at the WH. In response to that, the WH established a successful program
Talente_schreiben (Writing_Talents) – the first program nationwide that
offers structured language promotion for native speakers at a basic level
at a University, which was funded by the Federal Ministry of Education
and Research. Because there was no research about language help for
native speakers in the context of a German university of Applied
Sciences, we started to carry out language assessment, showing great
need of support. We reacted with concrete support programs, such as
integrated courses, workshops and a writing consultation hour, tailored
to the needs of our students. While we also have an offer for subjectspecific programs such as writing in the disciplines, our main focus lies
on basic language skills. The program roughs up the regional educational
discussion, as we are now consulted as experts in our federal state North
Rhine-Westphalia. Furthermore, we are pioneers for other German
Universities such as the Ostfalia University, which adopted our bestpractice program in 2015.The aim of the presentation is to demonstrate
the experience from our German courses, present the approach,
challenges as well as discuss the methodological and didactic
approaches.
40
EWCA 2016
German for business lawyers – A practical example of a German
University of Applied Sciences
Lena Kreppel
Westfälische Hochschule Gelsenkirchen Bocholt Recklinghausen
[email protected]
Angelika Dorawa
Westfälische Hochschule Gelsenkirchen Bocholt Recklinghausen
[email protected]
Writing in the disciplines plays a major role at Universities. On the one
hand, lecturers look at the substance of assignments and on the other
hand, they expect students to meet professional standards of layout and
proofreading. However, integration of writing concepts into the range of
subjects is new to German Universities of Applied Sciences, which are
focused on technical and scientific contexts. The Westphalian University
of Applied Sciences (WH) established a successful program
Talente_schreiben (Writing_Talents) that was funded by the Federal
Ministry of Education and Research to improve written language skills for
first-semester students at the WH. Besides having the main focus on
basic language skills on all language levels, we also concentrate on
subject-specific programs such as writing in the disciplines and are
pioneers in this field in Germany. Since 2013, we started to include
learning-to-write programs since first-semester students of Business Law
studies must complete a writing assignment in the form and writing style
of a legal opinion in order to fulfill their undergraduate degree
requirements. To support our students at its best, our course for
business lawyers focuses not only on the writing skills per se, but also on
teaching both, the content and the particular discourse of the discipline.
Hence, a specialist in German studies and a faculty tutor share the
experience of processing, producing and reflecting a text. Whereas the
German studies specialist refers to the rhetorical context such as
orthography, grammar etc., the tutor acts as a guide on the side
referring to the course content itself. In our presentation, we want to
give an insight of the practice of a business law discipline, the
combination of rhetoric and composition and discuss the methodological
and didactic approaches.
41
EWCA 2016
Science
without
Collaboration:
Underutilize Peer Review
Why
Biology
Students
Kristen Lane
University of Puget Sound
[email protected]
Despite the fact that all students at liberal arts colleges typically receive
some degree of writing instruction, many students do not fully
appreciate the importance of good writing skills in all disciplines. Science
students in particular undervalue writing skills, prioritizing content
knowledge over writing instruction and peer review (Guilford 2001),
even though it is ultimately writing that allows scientific professionals to
explore, understand and communicate their ideas (Yore, Hand & Florence
2004). In spite of the great importance of writing and peer review in
science, writing centers may see fewer science majors than they would
expect. Indeed, my prior research (Lane 2015) showed evidence of a
gap between how helpful science students think peer review is and how
likely they are to actually utilize it for their assignments. Building off my
prior research that showed biology students as those who write most
frequently for their science classes and those who feel most positively
about writing in general, I seek to understand why biology students
neglect to use peer review. In order to look more closely at the reasons
behind such underutilization, I employed replicable, aggregable, datasupported (RAD) research methods to survey students within the biology
department at a liberal arts college. My presentation will examine biology
students’ attitudes towards peer review, inspect possible relationships
between students’ favorability of peer review and their writing center
use, and propose strategies for writing centers to better support science
writers.
42
EWCA 2016
Plain English – a Solution to Legal English Writing
Aleksandra Łuczak
Kozminski University
[email protected]
Writing in plain language means eliminating complex, lengthy, verbose
language from academia, government, law and business. Law students
studying Legal English deal with highly intricate, far from being plain,
legalese texts. The biggest problems they encounter is drafting in plain
English and understanding authentic documents composed in a
traditional way. Therefore, they need to be taught how to comprehend,
paraphrase, simplify, amend, define and redraft legal English texts in
modern, lucid English. Plain English becomes the bridge between
centuries-old tradition and a new philosophy promoting the pragmatic
approach to Legal English. It becomes Lingua Franca of legal English
users that will allow them to become more linguistically efficient lawyers
in the international context. The paper will be an attempt to draw up a
collection of recipes for the Legal English classroom in which students
are trained in the use of Plain English. The features of the Plain English
style will be contrasted with legalese in order to identify the skills which
students of Legal English need to develop if they want to become
successful drafters. Core activities that improve the knowledge of Legal
English and develop the writing skill, including paraphrasing, defining,
summarizing, register transfer, will be presented. The paper will also be
a practical guide for teachers who run or consider running Legal English
classes.
43
EWCA 2016
The workings of a low-budget PR team attached to a writing
mentoring programme
Stefanie Martens
Ugent
[email protected]
In the academic year of 2013-2014 a peer mentoring programme was
started at Ghent University. This programme was started by a member of
staff to facilitate students’ process of becoming better writers. However,
it did not seem to be very well known among the target audience. That is
why in the academic year of 2015-2016, a dedicated PR team was
created to look at how awareness of the existence of the project could be
raised. The purpose of this presentation is to detail the workings of a
low-budget PR team attached to a writing mentoring programme. The
use of low-budget visualisation tools and social media proved essential in
raising awareness of the existence and use of the peer mentoring
programme and to heighten the visibility of the project both on a
physical and a digital plain. To increase the real-life awareness of the
programme, posters were made. In the digital plain of existence, we
turned to social media to make the project more visible to the target
audience. First of all, a website was made. Here, interested parties could
get the vital info they needed to get to know the programme. When
building the website there was the need to be very direct and quick in
communicating with people so a Facebook page was created. Here,
relevant information about writing in general, and about our own
programme was posted. Later on there was a need to be even more
directly connected with our audience so we started a Twitter account.
After the first semester there was an evaluation of the efforts made to
heighten the visibility of the programme. The overall conclusion was that
the visibility of the project had been improved upon, but areas for
further improvement of the PR efforts were also identified.
44
EWCA 2016
Do students communicate through writing or do they think that
they communicate through writing?
Branka Milenkovic
University of Kragujevac
[email protected]
Written discourse at any level of first or second language acquisition
regards a communicative act which is bipolar. On the one hand the writer
intends to communicate an idea as a product of writing and on the other
hand the writer intends to reach the reader so that the ideas would come
to a full reception. According to Brown, communicative competence “is
that aspect of our competence that enables us to convey and interpret
messages and to negotiate meanings interpersonally within specific
contexts.” (Brown 1987: 199) When teaching the writing skill it is
important to teach communicative language so that the students would
be able to grasp concrete linguistic items that would help them to
express their ideas so that they would be interpreted adequately by the
reader. The situation becomes even more complex for the second
language learners as they combat numerous cognitive and psychological
obstacles
to
express
themselves
grammatically
as
well
as
communicatively in writing. Therefore it is essential to raise the students’
metacognitive awareness in terms of acquiring the writing skills. The aim
of this study is to activate the communicative competence in writing
among the English language students at the C2 level (Common European
Framework of Reference). The research is based on the use of
metadiscourse markers entitled interactional resources by Hyland and
Tse (2004) which illuminate the receptive aspect of students’ writing.
Also the analysis of student essays is complemented by a survey
conducted introspectively with the aim to investigate the students’
metacognitive awareness of the use of these markers in their writing.
The results have shown a disproportion between the actual use of these
metacognitive markers in writing and the students’ beliefs in terms of
what they think they use in writing and how they believe they
communicate with the reader.
45
EWCA 2016
Writing Pedagogies and Writing Idiosyncrasy: The Case of the
Writing Center at Webster Vienna Private University
Rafal Morusiewicz
Webster Private University Vie
[email protected]
Lydia Wazir-Staubmann
[email protected]
Ryan Crawford
[email protected]
Drawing up a mission statement for a writing center operating in a specific
socio-political and institutional context is a puzzle involving oftentimes illfitting pieces. A perpetual challenge in this endeavor is meeting questions
about professionalization that might get in the way of that cognitive
openness necessary for fostering individual writers' idiosyncrasies. We aim
to map out issues that we, as a writing center based on the US-educational
model operating as a private university in Vienna, find crucial to develop
while refining our institutional, structural, and pedagogical aims. These
aims are determined by writing center visitors who: are predominantly
undergraduate students for whom English is not the first language, and
present a wide range of writing-related dilemmas (from basic grammar
problems, to argument-building strategies, to research methods and
methodologies). Writing center pedagogies relate to the question posed by
Carino (1995), i.e. “Who works in the writing center and what should they
know?” (p. 18). This is a question about one’s institutional identity within
the university hierarchy. A question that, when posed in this way, also leads
to conflicts. It is, after all, question of money. At its core, our project
revolves around a deep ambivalence about the discrepancy between the
need to foster an individual's writing experience and curricular requirements
already embedded within a writing program in which we are both
instructors and tutors. Is it possible, we ask, to meet the requirements
implicit within each of the above contexts without suffering a principal
loss—without
sacrificing
the
cultivation
of
idiosyncrasy
to
professionalization? Or might the question itself be poorly posed, since any
institutionalization of a writing center (i.e. developing research activity
and/or agency in writing-course curricula) will as Riley (1994) argues,
necessarily lead to its appropriation by already existing educational models
(p. 150)?
46
EWCA 2016
Giving the right support
Gamze Oncul
Middle East Technical University, Northern Cyprus Campus
[email protected]
A first year EAP course in an English-medium university setting designed
with generic academic writing needs in mind is usually thought to be the
most practical solution to avoid the challenges of catering for department
specific writing needs. Nevertheless, its practicality does not necessarily
guarantee its effectiveness, mostly, due to the problems caused by the
disengagement between the disciplinary faculty and EAP instructors.
Mismatching perceptions, unspoken needs, and students’ lack of
motivation and/or not being ready for academic writing instruction add
to the complexity of the situation. This paper aims to present a case
study conducted through semi-structured interviews with the disciplinary
faculty, undergraduate, and graduate students at Middle East Technical
University, Northern Cyprus Campus aiming to identify academic writing
needs on the campus. The findings shed light on the extent to which EAP
courses are giving the right support and help discussions on what else
can be done to support students’ writing in and outside the classroom.
47
EWCA 2016
Behind the Great Firewall: Writing Centers and Chinese Social
Media
Salvatore Papa
Sun Yat-sen University
[email protected]
Zhuofu Li
Sun Yat-sen University
[email protected]
The last couple of years has seen a push for international exchanges
between writing centers with the inaugural International Writing Centers
Week hosted by IWCA to the recent resurrection of #WCchat.
Unsurprisingly, the digital age has provided more accessible means for
bridging the distance between writing centers via social media with
Facebook, Twitter, and personal websites/blogs being the avenue of
choice for writing centers that openly share their digital presence to the
wider writing center audience. However, in the selection of social media
platforms, some sectors of writers and writing centers may be left out
with China serving as the main example. Due to Chinese internet laws,
key websites are currently blocked, including Google, Facebook, Twitter,
YouTube, Pinterest, and Instagram. Closed off from Western-based social
media, China has developed its own platforms for its 300 million+ social
media users (more than even the total number of internet users in the
United States), through which many of its citizens conduct daily life
activities (e.g., communication, payment for services, etc.). Considering
the West’s own preferred selection of platforms, the distance between
Chinese writing centers/writers and the West has yet to be bridged. This
presentation will highlight two dominant social media platforms in China
(Weibo and WeChat) while also discussing the subtle differences to how
Chinese writers interact with one another and whether such interactions
align with the typical usage of social media by writing centers. After
introducing these websites/applications, we will provide a snapshot of
how Chinese writing centers connect to their student writers via WeChat
and offer suggestions and strategies for connecting with Chinese student
populations that study abroad in the audience’s home institutions. By
opening the audience to other forms of social media in China, we hope to
introduce another means for intercultural communication.
48
EWCA 2016
The Treatment of Creativity as a Topic and Goal in German Books
on Research Writing
Ingo Peters
Chulalongkorn University
[email protected]
Many students in Germany undertaking academic writing tasks consult
one of the numerous German-language books on research writing.
Curiously, those works tend to downplay or ignore creativity, compared
to their American counterparts. A hermeneutic and rhetorical study that
examines the structure, content, and style of 19 German books on
research writing with the help of framing theory (Goffman 1974, Nelson
1997, Gitlin 2003, Kuypers 2009, Reese 2010) reveals that, firstly, the
rationale given to the readers for learning how to do a research project is
usually that it enables them to complete difficult tasks and thus to
graduate successfully—the potentially fascinating aspects, the learning
through writing, and the possibility of advancing the field are rarely
mentioned. Secondly, when defining good academic research, US books
stress exploration and invention based on wrestling with questions, while
the German ones mostly emphasize rules, correctness within a fixed
system, and the mastery of techniques. Finally, in the 19 works
academic work primarily comes across as a solitary, linear process neatly
divided into separate phases, not as a holistic, discursive practice that
takes place within the research community. The likely reasons for this
phenomenon highlight several crucial challenges German writing
teachers and consultants are facing: As the rhetoric/composition and
writing consultancy scene in Germany is vibrant but marginalized at
universities and relatively new, there is no tradition of humanitiesinfluenced mandatory composition courses with a creative component,
and most guidebooks on research are not by writing experts but
professors in other fields, who might focus less on the writing process
and the place invention or exploration have in it. Moreover, there is still
widespread belief that creativity cannot be taught, and that students'
fascination with their chosen field of study should be taken for granted,
so that both do not need to be mentioned in primers. Lastly, terminology
might also play a role; the German term for “research (writing)”,
“Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten” or “academic practice,” already appears to
emphasize correctness over discovery.
49
EWCA 2016
From readers to writers: College undergraduates
challenges of scholarly writing in a foreign language
and
the
Victor Ramirez-Ramirez
Universidad Veracruzana
[email protected]
Teaching a reading and writing course in a foreign language poses
different challenges for both learners and teachers: the former need to
develop skills that the latter are supposed to have mastered. This
situation acquires other nuances when an academic reading and writing
course taught, which means it is not only the foreign language that is
being developed but also all the features related to proper scholarly
work, that is, form and content. In this case, different elements
combining knowledge of the language, reading habits, intellectual
interests, access to scientific production, awareness of plagiarism, use of
technologies, among others, play different roles. The aim of this study is
to identify these elements as well as the strategies students use to
complete such a course with success. The participants of this study are
undergraduate students of English enrolled in an academic reading and
writing course at a university in southern Mexico. The data collection
included a survey on their reading and writing habits and the follow up
focused on the analysis of form and content of some of their reading
comprehension and writing production. A few students with varying level
of quality were also interviewed to have a more detailed perspective on
what scholarly works means for them. This is especially interesting
considering that the final product of such a course is the individual
making of a brief scholarly essay. The results of this study will help to
make decisions related to the characteristics of such a course in
particular and offer a view of the different challenges students in Mexico
face when it comes to academic form and content in a foreign language.
50
EWCA 2016
Writing Assistants – The role of a slightly altered Writing Fellow
Programm for the Development of Study Programmes
Brigitte Roemmer-Nossek
University of Vienna
[email protected]
In the summer semester 2015 the University of Vienna Center for
Teaching and Learning ran a first pilot involving four writing fellows and
six courses modelled after the Writing Fellow Programme as introduced
by Dreyfürst, Girgensohn, and Liebetanz (2015). Among other points,
the evaluation yielded that self-assessment of the students’ and rating
by writing assistants matched in 58% of the cases. Within the 42% of
mismatches, in 14% of the cases writing assistants rated the student’s
writing better, in 26% worse. In other words, roughly a quarter of the
students in these seminars thought they were better than writing
assistants perceived them to be. The lack of a realistic self-perception of
>40% of the students in the pilot programme lead to the insight that
particularly those who judge themselves as “too good” will most
probably not use extra-curricular writing services, namely the CTL’s
writing mentoring programme (for Bachelor-students) and the writing
workshops (MA level). The second run of the “Schreibassistenz
Programm” (Writing Assistants Programme), as it is termed for greater
acceptance within a German speaking university, is therefore targeted at
writing or reading intense courses very early in three study programmes.
With regard to students, the strategic aim is to reach a significant share
as early as possible in their academic career in order to facilitate a
realistic self-perception with regard to their writing competencies. With
regard to the teachers involved, there is the expectation that they will
develop their teaching to support students’ writing development,
particularly by giving feedback. In my contribution I will report on the
alterations to the original writing fellow programme, present evaluation
results of this semester, elaborate on current and potentially useful
institutional embedding.
51
EWCA 2016
Becoming an Academic Writer as Symptom and Source of
Epistemological Development
Brigitte Roemmer-Nossek
University of Vienna
[email protected]
In this theoretical contribution I argue that becoming an academic writer
entails a development of epistemological beliefs. Bereiter and
Scardamalia’s (1987) model of writing development proposes two
phases, knowledge telling and knowledge transforming. Kellogg (2008)
proposed a third stage, knowledge crafting, as the ability to consider
author, text, as well as the reader. Kellogg’s proposal is not as firmly
rooted in empirical research as Bereiter and Scardamalia’s work, yet it
provides a viable description of the demands academic writers
(professional writers) are facing: Knowledge of what they want to say,
i.e. their stance or position, how to say it, and of their audience. In
writing research these issues are being addressed as the discourse on
the development of a voice, argumentation, learning about genre,
acquisition of academic language, and the ascertainment that academic
writing is always discursive. However, there seems to be a blind spot:
Writing is always intentional, it is about something and this something is
shaped by disciplinary conventions as well as the authors deeply held
beliefs on the relation between mind and world. A developmental
approach to academic writing should consider the writer’s epistemic
beliefs as s/he is being socialized into academia and growing from a
knowledge recipient into a knowledge producer. Starting with Perry’s
(1968) research on Harvard students, there is a relevant body of
research on epistemological development and -beliefs. In my
contribution I will briefly introduce relevant approaches and relate them
to writing development. I propose that academic writing can be viewed
as demanding as well as fostering epistemological development and
suggest that some of the phenomena regularly criticized in student
writing may be symptoms of the novice academic writer’s
epistemological beliefs.
52
EWCA 2016
Language skills and writing competences – to work hand in hand
for academic success
Anne Rothaermel
Schreibwerkstatt – Ostfalia
[email protected]
Angelika Dorawa
Westfälische Hochschule Gelsenkirchen Bocholt Recklinghausen
[email protected]
While students often feel overwhelmed by the task of writing academic
papers and are unsatisfied with their results, lecturers often complain
not only about the academic style and structure of papers, but also
about the linguistic usage. In addition, they point to significant
shortcomings concerning language skills and gain the impression that
these are not sufficient anymore. Generally, there is a great
heterogeneity in the field of written language skills referring to students
from Universities of Applied Sciences, which is a huge challenge for the
Westphalian University (WH) and the Ostfalia (HaW). Therefore, it is
necessary to address this issue of improving language skills and writing
competences.In response to that, the WH started to establish the
program Talente_schreiben (Writing_Talents) that was funded by the
Federal Ministry of Education and Research to improve written language
skills for first-year students at the WH. Since 2012, the program has
been successfully established with integrated courses, workshops and a
consultation hour. In 2015, the Ostfalia (HaW) was searching for a
suitable project partner to establish a writing center with two integrated
parts: traditional elements such as peer tutors, one-to-one counseling,
workshops etc. and new elements such as written language skills.
Concluding they found the Talente_schreiben program and started a
partnership. The cooperation of our two universities also started in 2015.
The aim of our collaboration is, through adapting existing concepts, the
improvement of language skills and writing competences as well as to
combine them as components of our everyday work. As a result, the
major goal is to reduce the numbers of students, who withdrawal from
their studies without a diploma. In our presentation, we want to give
details about the two programs, present our cooperation and invite you
to discuss with us.
53
EWCA 2016
Understanding the "Why" of Scientific Writing
Brittany Sanok
University of Notre Dame
[email protected]
Ashley Murphy
University of Notre Dame
[email protected]
Students studying in scientific disciplines oftentimes have more
difficulties with writing than students in humanities-oriented disciplines.
Previous research on teaching and tutoring writing in the sciences has
focused largely on addressing how to write scientific papers in order to
fix specific problems found in scientific writing. While addressing "how"
to write well in the discipline is important, there is a lack of emphasis on
explaining "why" writing well in the discipline is important. As a result,
students learn how to focus on stylistic details rather than the global
significance of their writing. We want to first explore how/whether the
global significance of writing is addressed in the sciences. We then want
to understand how addressing global significance would help science
students become better writers. Finally, we will use our research to
inform tutors on how they can help scientific students understand the
importance of their writing. In order to answer these questions, we will
interview student and faculty representatives from various disciplines
within the hard and social sciences. The interviews will consist of a series
of standardized questions that will allow us to assess the general
questions of our research, i.e. how the significance of writing is
addressed in scientific disciplines. We believe that in order to be a
successful writer in any discipline, one must understand the significance
of one’s writing and want to become a better writer. Since the sciences
tend to focus on the process of how research results are obtained,
oftentimes the significance of the paper is overlooked. We hope our
research will allow writing center tutors to help science students
understand the value of their writing.
54
EWCA 2016
Formative peer assessment in academic writing in the university:
challenges and perspectives
Larysa Sanotska
Lviv University
[email protected]
The report is based on the research in process which is aimed to provide
evidence for the interface between assessing and learning, and to
establish effectiveness of peer assessment in reducing subjectivity in
assessing students’ academic essays.In the academic writing course,
which was introduced into the undergraduate curriculum in The English
Department of Lviv University several years ago, various collaborative
activities are being used, including peer assessment. It is preceded by
familiarizing the students with assessment basics, adopting standard test
procedures and defining specific criteria of assessment collectively,
guided by the teacher. While summative assessment of the essays is
provided solely by the teacher, students alongside the teacher read and
score formative compositions of their group mates. Each essay is
assessed by peers and the teacher, and collaboratively performed scoring
not only provides the assessee with unbiased grades, but also
demonstrates the level of ‘essay-writing’ competence of peer- assessors,
which encourages them to improve on their own writing skills. The
strength of this kind of assessment lies in providing both holistic and
analytic scores. However, holistic peer assessment appears to be less
reliable and less valid compared to the one done by the teacher because
it would require more inferences, which not all students can provide
correctly. On the other hand, peer’ analytic scoring gives possibility to
present more valid and reliable results. All things considered, combining
teachers’ assessment with the peer-students’ results of writing can
provide conditions to avoid subjectivity in assessing students’ essays and
ensures more positive impact on teaching and learning to write.
55
EWCA 2016
„Writing Buddies“: Setting up an autonomous creative writing
group – A student project
Anke Schröder
Writing Center Bochum
[email protected]
Natascha Bernhardt
Writing Center Bochum
[email protected]
Kirsten Jüdt
[email protected]
Anne Ruggles Gere defines the status of writing groups as depending on
place and degree of authority. Unlike their non-autonomous and semiautonomous counterparts, autonomous writing groups are based on the
principles of free choice and self-organisation which can result in various
benefits in that “[i]ndividuals feel empowered because they discover new
capacities in themselves as they collaborate“. The aim of our
presentation is to share our experiences of setting up our own
autonomous creative writing group, the “Writing Buddies“, and to
highlight the benefits and challenges of being part of such a group.First,
we will shortly present the concept of our group, as well as our mutual
and individual goals. Second, we will present our positive experiences
with the group, and how we have benefitted from our participation in it.
In particular, we want to highlight how new capacities, e.g. reflecting on
our projects in a more organised way, have proven to be beneficial to our
academic writing and learning skills. Furthermore, we will also address
the challenges and issues arising from the shared responsibilities in a
group that is defined by a flat hierarchy. Thus for instance the process of
defining our goals and finding rules which provide a suitable structure for
each of our members has proven to be a challenging process of (re)negotiation.In the final part of the presentation, we will openly discuss
with the participants their experiences with autonomous (creative)
writing groups. This way, we would like to initiate an exchange of ideas,
particularly focusing on ways of creating an atmosphere in which group
members can gain the most from participating in such a group.
56
EWCA 2016
When There is No “Heart of it All”: The Mobile Writing Center
Leah Schweitzer
High Point University
[email protected]
Given the competitive market and political pressure to prove the value of
a campus-bound education, the need for universities to provide more
personalized academic services to students means that space for such
services is often at a premium. This paper examines how one liberal arts
university’s Writing Center, charged to expand and reach more students,
used iPads, apps and an online scheduling program to transform from a
centrally located tutoring space to a de-centered, mobile service, flying
in the face of most Writing Center research on space. Almost all research
on Writing Centers that discusses space describes that space as part and
parcel to daily operations and client satisfaction; while Jackie Grutsch
McKinney argues in her book Peripheral Visions (2013) that the
conversation about space is part of a master narrative which doesn’t
hold up to the reality of the needs of many who use the Writing Center,
little has been done to consider alternative spaces that meet the needs
of students not included in or considered by the master narrative. This
paper argues for the benefits of making Writing Centers spaceless (or,
“heartless”)—and mobile. Further, this paper makes strides to counter
Mike Kennedy’s argument in “Today’s Learning Spaces” (March 2013)
that facilities can’t keep up with the technology’s physical needs by
suggesting that the technology and the facility can become one and the
same, bringing technology and the Writing Center to the students,
making the heart of the Writing Center wherever the student needs it to
be.
57
EWCA 2016
Development of Audience Awareness – John R. Hayes reloaded
Nadja Sennewald
Goethe-Universitaet Frankfurt
[email protected]
In his 1996 model of the writing process, John R. Hayes described two
ways in which ‘knowledge of audience’ is applied during the composition
process. When writing is addressed to readers the writer personally is
acquainted with, the writer can “draw on a history of personal interaction
to decide what to say and how to say it.” However, if the writer does not
personally know the audience, he or she has to anticipate how the
audience will experience the message – an expert skill that according to
Hayes is rarely found in his data. Data from a qualitative study in
progress suggests that there is more variation in the development of
audience awareness than previously observed. 107 self-reflective texts
by university students of German Literature have been analyzed with the
Grounded Theory Methodology to investigate the development of writing
skills in writing intense courses. Based on data analysis this presentation
suggests different types and levels of audience awareness. Also, a first
analysis will tap into how students learn to apply different perspectives
on their own writing. An aspect to be discussed is if peer feedback might
be the central method to catalyze the development of advanced audience
awareness.
58
EWCA 2016
Perspectives on Content-Based Writing Classes for 2nd Language
Learners
Suzanne Shelton
Independent
[email protected]
Second language writing acquisition has become an important aspect of
global competition especially with the emergence of mega economies
such as China, European Union and Saudi Arabia and as result
multilingualism and the ability to write in the L2 language has become a
strategic interest. This paper reviews research that centered around the
experiences, beliefs, feelings and perspectives of professional teachers
involved with teaching writing and language to L2 learners. The 12
themes included in this paper are: L2 students who take responsibility
for their own learning excel above their peers. Cooperative learning is
used for L2 writing acquisition. Differentiating instruction is part of
student learning needs. Teacher responsibility is multifaceted.
Communication is key to understanding. ELL writing strategies are
essential. Assessments are for improvement. Contextualize uses for L1
and L2.Teacher/Student relationships are important for student learning.
Commitment is holding students accountable. Maximizing curriculum for
ELL is fundamental to student learning. The learning environment is
achieved through teachers motivating students. The themes explored the
teacher’s experiences, attitudes, beliefs and perceptions of teaching
writing for L2 language learners. The study included Arabic speaking
learners (ELLs) among the English-only context. Second language writing
acquisition skills are examined through the lens of an English-only
context that has long been debated as the preferred learning
environment for ELLs. The presentation is concerned with understanding
how teachers form their pedagogical attitudes, beliefs and perceptions
towards the use of a student’s first language (L1) to facilitate the
learning of a student’s second language (L2) within a monolingual
teaching environment for content area instruction. The findings reveal
the views of 17 teachers’ perceptions and how their attitudes and beliefs
have influenced second language writing proficiency and acquisition. The
presentation reviews these findings and results of the preferred
methodology for improving the speed to writing competency for second
59
EWCA 2016
language learners in a classroom setting.
The emphasis and success
factors are focused on teachers supporting the efficacy of L2 writing
acquisition strategies and the variant amounts of L1 used by the teacher
and between the learners to facilitate the learning of L2 writing
competency. In addition, the teacher’s L2 writing effectiveness across
the curriculum and what minimal and maximum impact on their students
when learning L2 writing are impacted by the 12 themes and the pursuit
of their excellence.
60
EWCA 2016
Peer Feedback Workshops: The Story of a Beginning
Michele Simeon
University of Helsinki
[email protected]
At the University of Helsinki Language Centre, we have been grappling
with the question of how to provide academic writing support for the
increasing numbers of international master’s students completing their
degrees in English. Although we have developed academic writing
instruction to include diverse study modes such as peer work and
feedback, the Helsinki Language Centre has continued to support student
writing almost exclusively through course-based teaching. Students
whose academic writing obligations and needs extend beyond the
defined course period have consequently found only limited guidance
available. Encouraged by the success of a course-based peer review
module, we are now piloting a series of informal, teacher-facilitated peer
feedback workshops to nurture our students’ writing development
beyond the classroom. These workshops are targeted at our current and
former writing students, but open to all University of Helsinki students at
any stage of their writing process. Our hope is at once to establish the
practice of informal, peer-based writing support in the Language Centre
and to determine which peer activities hold the greatest potential for our
particular setting. In this presentation, I will share practical details of the
Peer Feedback Workshops, participant responses, views of the teacher
facilitators, as well as the circumstances and inspiration that led to their
development. Looking to the future, I will consider which informal writing
services could be most sustainable and relevant at a university that is
undergoing significant structural and linguistic change as well as drastic
budget cuts.
61
EWCA 2016
The matter of academic integrity: A correlation study at an
English Medium Setting
Ayşegül Solar Şekercİ
Hacettepe University
[email protected]
Dilek Bozu
[email protected]
This proposed study aims to identify the predictors of students’ tendency
towards academic dishonesty. The study was conducted with 279
students at an English medium setting. The data were collected with the
adapted version of Internet-triggered Academic Dishonesty Scale by
Akbulut and et al. (2008) and Reasons of Academic Dishonesty
Questionnaire developed by the researcher. To analyze the data,
hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted since it enables
researchers to determine a correlation between a criterion variable and
the best combination of two or more predictor variables. The criterion
variable was the subscales of academic dishonesty as fabrication,
delinquency, plagiarism and facilitation of academic dishonesty. The
predictors were entered in two steps: Gender, English proficiency, GPA,
the amount of net use were entered in the first step. The second set of
predictors included the five dimensions of reasons scale as ethics and
institutional policy, academic incompetency, group dynamics, language
incompetency and task quality. Analyses were performed by using
IBMSPSS 22. The results indicated that gender, the amount of net use,
GPA, task quality, language related incompetencies and ethics and
institutional policy significantly predicted students’ tendency towards
academic dishonesty considering the subscales as fabrication,
delinquency, plagiarism and facilitation of academic dishonesty.
62
EWCA 2016
Views on writing in different engineering disciplines: Evaluations
and their impact on higher education development
Nadine Stahlberg
Hamburg University of Technology
[email protected]
Surveys among engineering graduates seem to indicate that writing is an
important ability in the professional field of engineers. The cooperative
alumni survey for German universities (KOAB), for instance, led to the
result, that 63% of the alumni participating at Hamburg University of
Technology (TUHH) in 2015 said that the ability to write reports and
similar texts was required from them in their recent jobs to a high or
extremely high degree, another 22% stated that writing abilities were
somewhat needed. This indicates the importance of writing abilities for
engineering professionals. However, what is the situation like in
academia? How important do instructors and students consider writing
and writing abilities in engineering? Externally, whether there is writing is
not apparent, as only 3.4% of all exams at TUHH explicitly are writing
assignments (TUHH 2015). To find out more about what instructors and
students in engineering think about writing we conducted a survey on
writing among instructors and students at TUHH in winter 2015. This
presentation introduces you to the main results of the survey by focusing
particularly on the exploration of different engineering disciplines. We
compare the disciplines electrical engineering, mechanical engineering,
process engineering, industrial engineering and technical instruction.
How do instructors and students of these disciplines evaluate the
importance of developing writing abilities in engineering? What are
teachers aiming at when integrating writing in their course? What do
students have to write? In what way do students feel prepared for
writing their bachelor’s or master’s thesis? Finally, we discuss how
evaluations like this can contribute to the development of higher
education and writing across the curriculum.
63
EWCA 2016
Translation Strategy as an Alternative Approach to ESL Writing—
A Case Study with a Chinese-English Bilingual
Fu-hsing Su
National Chiayi University
[email protected]
Li-szu Huang
NKFUST
[email protected]
In this case study, the researchers observed how a Chinese-English
bilingual benefited from translated writing tasks over a time period of
nine months. The tasks were arranged outside the classroom and
requested the subject to render six texts from Chinese (L1) into English
(L2). The texts comprised newspaper commentaries, magazine feature
articles, and literary work composed by skilled or professional authors.
Each task entailed the stages of rough draft, evaluation, revision, and
final draft. Evaluative comments and semi-controlled exercises were
provided at the due course of time, so were face-to-face tutoring
sessions. Endeavors as such aimed to secure scaffolded writing and
rewriting for her subsequent independent performances. The subject’s
production of different translated versions contributed to the research
data. An in-depth interview was also conducted to elicit her feedback to
this pedagogical practice. The analyses of texts focused on the areas of
content, organization, and style. It is noticed that translated writing
seemed to help the subject assess appropriate wording, identify crosslinguistic equivalents, and balance linguistic choices in her attempt to
maintain clarity of content. As for organization, she demonstrated a
more sophisticated command of syntactic structures and idea
arrangements that were essential to textual cohesion and coherence. In
addition, she gained basic knowledge about the ways to convey subtle
nuances of meaning that characterized different textual styles. Interview
data revealed the subject’s concern with the substantial amount of time
involved. However, she recognized that the translation approach is more
effective for some ESL learners who encounter problems in generating
ideas, making their thoughts contextualized, or maintaining cohesion and
coherence in writing. It is concluded that translation strategy can work
as an effective alternative to ESL writing.
64
EWCA 2016
Foreign language text in academic writing – content development
project for Purdue's OWL
Aleksandra Swatek
Purdue University
[email protected]
Academic writing, especially in the humanities, often includes single
words, phrases, or even long strands of untranslated foreign language
texts. As researchers, we are used to seeing Greek or French in literary
and linguistic scholarship, without considering the many rules that might
underlie certain choices (leave untranslated word, provide parallel
translation, just use English equivalent). MLA Handbook, does not
provide detailed explanation or guidance on such practices. Moreover,
the guidance that is provided only discusses examples from languages
that use Latin alphabet and are widely taught at schools in the US
(French, Italian, Spanish, Russian). There is, however, very little
guidance offered to L2 writers on how and why they might use their first
language in academic writing, especially languages that use non-Latin
alphabets. In this presentation I will discuss my research done on the
use of translation and untranslated texts in academic writing. Further, I
will present the results of my research that will be published on Purdue
OWL’s website. Finally, I will conclude by discussing the impact of the
research in teaching international first year writing course.
65
EWCA 2016
Creating Culturally Appropriate Peer Review Experiences for
Turkish Students
Jennie Toner-Algin
Koc University
[email protected]
Lia McCoskey
Koc University
[email protected]
Building on research that studies student peer review within ESL writing
classroom contexts (Ruegg (2015); Hu & Lam (2009); Zhang (1995);
Carr (2008); Best et al (2015)), our presentation will examine the
cultural appropriateness of peer review in the Turkish University and
propose a model for incorporating peer review into student-teacher
tutorials. Our presentation will be based on a collaborative study that
collects data related to student attitudes toward peer review versus
instructor feedback, and the role that feedback plays in their lives both in
and out of the classroom, therefore highlighting potential issues of
cultural appropriateness. For the study, we distributed surveys to basic
and advanced writing students at Koç University in Istanbul, Turkey.
These surveys asked students to describe their experiences with peer
review, to assess their level of comfort giving and receiving feedback to
a peer, and to determine what type of feedback they feel most
competent giving. As this study is currently in process, we are unable to
offer concrete results at this time. However, we plan to use the
information gathered in the study to assess the cultural appropriateness
of peer review, and to devise a model of writing tutorial that incorporates
simultaneous instructor and peer feedback.
66
EWCA 2016
Autonomous academic writing groups for students: developing a
research-based concept
Dzifa Vode
TH Nuremberg
[email protected]
Erika von Rautenfeld
TH Nuremberg
[email protected]
Doctoral students often form writing groups to support each other in
their writing by meeting regularly, talking about their writing and/or
providing text feedback (Aitchison; Guerin 2014). Although many
undergraduate students are daunted by the complex task of academic
writing and suffer from the loneliness of the process (Dittmann et al.
2013), few use writing groups. Following Bruffee (1999), we assume that
peer groups help students improve their writing skills and develop an
academic identity as their group discussions resemble the knowledgeconstructing conversation among advanced academics. In a research
project at our university, we are investigating student autonomous
academic writing groups, pursuing two goals: First, we are observing
how such groups affect students’ writing skill development. Second, we
are developing a concept to encourage students to form autonomous
academic writing groups and to accompany them in the process. Based
on the results, we are creating material for faculty and writing center
professionals interested in initiating groups. In this talk we focus on the
concept and materials we developed. We are interested in sharing and
discussing the current version of the material.
67
EWCA 2016
Using research on writing at the workplace to strengthen the
writing center
Erika von Rautenfeld
TH Nuremberg
[email protected]
Dzifa Vode
TH Nuremberg
[email protected]
As a writing center at a university of applied sciences, we face skepticism
in our institution about the relevance of writing for our graduates. Both
students and faculty question the value of writing, especially academic
writing, for preparing students for a profession in business, computer
science or social work. In this talk, we show how a research project on
writing at the workplace has helped strengthen the writing center. The
director of the writing center, a professor in the social work program, and
an undergraduate writing tutor carried out a project to determine the
role of writing in the practice of social work and to improve the teaching
of writing in this field. Little is known about writing at the workplace in
Germany (Jakobs 2005) and even less about writing in the field of social
work there. In her BA thesis, the undergraduate writing tutor asked
social workers about their experience with writing at the workplace. She
included questions about genre, context and process in a quantitative
online survey. The results (n=253) show that social workers spend half
their time at work writing and many feel poorly prepared for their writing
tasks. Further, they carry a high degree of responsibility with their
writing and the demands on the text and the process are heterogeneous.
The project initiated a promising process at the department and with
practitioners to improve the teaching of writing. The writing center
showcases the project as evidence for the relevance of writing for
students at a university of applied science.
68
EWCA 2016
Cooperative Writing and Shame
Paul Wilson
University of Lodz
[email protected]
Shame, being a fundamental underlying emotional response to socially
threatening situations, is likely to be a prevalent emotion in the
classroom context, especially in students with low self-esteem as a
consequence of poor scholastic performance. The defensive nature of
shame, which is demonstrated by the motivation to avoid social threats
through the feelings of pain that they are often coupled with in a similar
way in which one learns to avoid physical threats – i.e., through the fear
responses of fight (active opposition), flight (an escape response) and
fright (inhibition of bodily movement and vocalisation) (Dickerson,
Gruenewald and Kemeny, 2004), means that it is a particularly
debilitating emotion for students. Clearly, such defence responses are
inconsistent with the attention, focus and engagement that teachers
seek to encourage in their students. Although there is a paucity of direct
evidence linking cooperative learning with shame, Bertucci et al. (2010)
show that such learning increases social self-esteem, which on the basis
of the close relationship between self-esteem and shame (e.g., Jacoby,
1996), is consistent with the proposal that cooperative writing might
reduce the shame experienced in writing classes at university.
69
EWCA 2016
Workshops
Structured Discussion – Using a Model of the Writing Process to
Exchange Experience and Best Practice
Ursula Canton
Glasgow Caledonian University
[email protected]
Sarah Dargie
Glasgow Caledonian University
[email protected]
One of the reasons why EWCA conferences offer such an inspiring forum
for exchange is the diversity of experience participants bring to it:
writing practitioners teach in contexts that range from US-style writing
centres where peer tutors provide individual support to university-wide
or subject-specific centres where lecturing staff with expertise in writing
and subject lecturers collaborate in embedding writing support into
curricula. Their own background is often as varied as the institutional
contexts in which they work. Similarly writing research can focus on very
different aspects of this highly complex process, the cognitive and motor
skills it involves, its social role as communication, or the many different
textual genres it produces. As a result of this ‘embarrassment of riches’,
it can be difficult to find a shared language to discuss the skills on which
we focus in our teaching, the ways in which we structure teaching and
learning activities, and the contexts in which they are delivered. This
workshop aims at providing a structured framework for such discussions.
It presents a model of the composition process and associated skills.
Developed in order to enhance communication about writing, the model
synthesises
insights
from
multidisciplinary
research
(cognitive
psychology, discourse analysis, genre analysis, composition studies) into
a coherent conceptualisation that is accessible to writing practitioners
from different backgrounds. In the main part of the workshop this model
is then applied to facilitate a structured discussion among participants to
enhance the exchange of experience and best practice gained from the
wealth of different approaches participants bring to the teaching writing.
No preparation is necessary – all participants need is the willingness to
reflect on their own approach to teaching different aspects of the writing
process and to share this analysis.
70
EWCA 2016
How to enhance WCenter directors’ institutional work
Katrin Girgensohn
European University Viadrina
[email protected]
“Institutional work” is a concept in organizational studies that
investigates “purposive action of individuals and organizations aimed at
creating, maintaining and disrupting institutions.” (Lawrence & Suddaby
2006, 215) Thus, this workshop focuses at purposive actions writing
center directors undertake to create and maintain their writing centers.
The workshop is based on an empirical study, consisting of expert
interviews and participant observations in 16 writing centers in the USA,
using grounded theory methodology (Strauss & Corbin 2015) to identify
a theory based in data that explains the institutional work of writing
center directors, which is sometimes “highly visible and dramatic 8…],
but much of it nearly invisible and often mundane, as in the day-to-day
adjustments, adaptations, and compromises of actors attempting to
maintain institutional arrangements” (Lawrence et al. 2009, 1) The
results identify “strategic action fields” (SAF) (Fligstein 2011) in which
writing center directors act and interact. A main result is that successful
writing center directors use the same skills and tools for institutional
work as they do in the pedagogical work within their centers. They have
internalized a stance of collaborative learning for interactions in writing
center consultations, workshops and education that lets them become
“collaborative learning practitioners”. (Panitz 1996, n.p.) The workshop
starts with a brief introduction of the participants and their
organizational contexts. It then introduces the essential SAFs for writing
center work, based on the above mentioned study. Grounded on
examples from the study, it illustrates how directors use collaborative
learning as a tool for institutional work. Participants will split into small
groups, each working on a different strategic action field. They will
identify potential stakeholders for collaboration at their home institutions
and will collaboratively develop strategies for their institutional work.
71
EWCA 2016
The Strategic Hexagon "Everything you always wanted to know
about your text but were afraid to ask"
Katja Günther
Neue Fachlichkeit
[email protected]
Ingrid Scherübl
Neue Fachlichkeit
[email protected]
Writing can be so painful sometimes: it is the art of managing different
and even conflicting objectives simultaneously. Writing is deciding. And
deciding means willingly leaving alternatives out; taking responsibility for
your definite choice of words, sentences, norms, time frame and more.
In this 90 min group coaching session you will be working on the
prerequisites of your actual textproject. Academic writing is construction
of knowledge under given rules and standards. As each text is defined by
the outer and inner limits you give it as author, you will individually
define your six boundaries of the texthexagon. In this clarifying selfcoaching process you are guided to make decicions. Through the
constraints you set up, you take responsibility for what you write. By
means of little hands on experiments, coaching questions and sharing
your insights with peers, you will develop your individual texthexagon to
take with you to your desk, to find clarity in moments of doubt and
insecurity. You are the creator of yout text – so tackle your strategic
hexagon – and dare to ask…
72
EWCA 2016
The C-words and F-words as Building Blocks: A framework for
helping writers understand reader engagement in text
Sarah Haas
UGent
[email protected]
This workshop introduces a framework that helps writers understand
how textual features can keep readers reading a text, or make them
want to stop reading, regardless of how interested they are in the topic
of the text. The framework will be introduced via a story-writing activity,
and then participants will work with the framework and discuss how it
might be useful for teaching and/or tutoring writing. The framework
development started several years ago when I was faced with the task of
reading 300+ essays. I had not been expecting a great deal of difficulty
in quickly getting these texts read and returned to the students: the
essays were short, the general level of English was high, and the ideas
students were working with were interesting. Upon beginning to read,
however, I soon began regarding the task with great dread. The best of
the texts were not engaging me at all, and the worst were a dire
struggle. Given that the language was not problematic, and the ideas in
the text were good, I was puzzled at my disengagement. What was it
that was making me want to put these essays down? A search of
relevant literature yielded no satisfactory results, so I took a grounded
theory approach: starting from scratch, I read the texts, marking points
of disengagement. After marking the moments of problematic
engagement, I analysed and listed the textual features that were causing
me to slow or stop reading. These features were then categorized, and
more texts were read until saturation was reached. The saturated
categories were then arranged alphabetically into the “Building Blocks of
Engaging Text.” This framework, while still being refined, has proven
useful as a tool for teaching writing, teaching peer feedback, assessing
written product, and helping peer tutors mentor other writers.
73
EWCA 2016
Reflecting the limits of our work
Natascha Herkt
Ruhr-Universität Bochum
[email protected]
The work of peer writing tutors, the systemic approach, and the border
to psychological counseling "Peer tutoring occurs in a field of tension
between communication among equals and giving advice to a client.
According to the systemic approach, the peer tutor does not claim
authority or responsibility for the writers’ texts, nonetheless for their
lives. Here, we as tutors explicitly set a clear border. We just deliver new
insights on the individual’s writing process. But it is in line with the
systemic approach, that the talk about the text may extend towards
other matters, that are linked to the writing process. The peer situation
often encourages people to voluntarily share aspects of their private
lives, this can help setting an atmosphere of trust or help reflecting
aspects such as time management or preferred writing environments,
that might be vital to improve the individual’s writing process. But on the
other hand, psychologically relevant problems might be revealed in this
process. It does not lie in our field of competence to diagnose or
pathologize our peers. Even if we assume a certain imbalance of power
between peer and peer tutor, we should not claim this power and cross
the border to psychological counseling. So how should we as tutors
proceed, when we enter realms for which we are not prepared? In this
90 minute workshop a participative setting will be established, wherein
the chances, but also the limits, of the systemic approach in peer writing
tutoring are tested in short role playing exercises and reflection units.
The peer tutors can experience their personal capacity of handling
difficult psychological situations and reflect upon them with help from the
group. Also, the diagnosis of “writer’s block” and other tendencies
towards pathologicalization in our field of work shall be questioned and
discussed.
74
EWCA 2016
Punctuation is powerful
Olena Hundarenko
Kirovohrad State Pedagogical University
[email protected]
Teaching punctuation principles is both challenging and fun experience in
EFL/ESL university classroom environment. The interference of the
mother tongue, as well as certain practices of the punctuation of the
other languages can hinder EFL/ESL learners on the way of mastering
this technical skill. American universities (irrespective of areas of study)
are a bright example how writing is incorporated into general curriculum.
Writing skills imply good punctuation habits. To punctuate well means to
be aware of the language conventions, and to be able to disambiguate
the meaning of the sentences/utterances. Hence, my first American
university experience (Fulbright Program, Monterey Institute of
International Studies, CA, 2012-2013) became a real breakthrough in
understanding the principles of American punctuation, which appeared to
be a phenomenon I had a slight idea about before. The follow-up was an
introduction of a new course on foundations of academic writing, a
publication of the course book with exercises for Ukrainian university
students,
and
setting
up
a
number
of
workshops
for
professionals/academics. Consequently, accumulating both international
and personal professional experience, I can assume that the painstaking
effort to teach academic writing skills (namely punctuation) to ESL/EFL
students is rewarding when learners are aware of the need to improve
their English language knacks and gain the mastery of key technical
skills required both for their academic and professional life. The most
important role of a teacher in the classroom is to show that punctuation
is a powerful instrument applied for both fun and literacy, but its major
purpose is to remove ambiguity and misunderstanding!
75
EWCA 2016
Picturing one's research. A tool for academic writers
Joy De Jong
Nijmegen Centre for Academic Writing
[email protected]
At the Nijmegen Centre for Academic Writing, we have noticed that the
majority of the tutoring sessions are about structure (organisation).
Three aspects of structure are covered frequently: (1) structuring the
writing process, i.e. managing different activities such as prewriting,
outlining, speed writing, revision, getting feedback; (2) structuring the
research i.e., limiting the topic, formulating a clear, relevant central
question, mapping the question within the field of study, and designing a
set of efficient sub-questions and methods; (3) structuring the text i.e.,
telling a coherent story and writing good paragraphs. Assuming that the
EWCA-audience is rather familiar with aspects 1 and 3, I would like to
focus on aspect 2: structuring the research. Usually, academic writing is
about research, whether it is an empirical and/or a literature survey: we
often write about something we didn't know before. This is specifically
true for students working on a Bachelor or Master (or PhD) thesis.
Heinze Oost (1999) developed a model depicting essential criteria for a
good research plan. Ever since then, this model has been elaborated and
appears to be a powerful tool for students in getting a clear picture of
their research. A template with checkpoints derived from the model,
stimulates academic writers to evaluate and elaborate the ‘what’, ‘why’
and ‘how’ of their research or research plan. Interestingly, these what,
how and why are interconnected, which ensures a strong, logically
consistent construct. In this workshop, I want to present the model and
the template and give participants the opportunity to experience how it
works. The workshop will entail: (1) brief explanation of the model, (2)
participants working with the model by picturing their own piece of
research, (3) examples of how students fill out the template, (4)
different ways (pedagogies) to use the model in a tutoring session in the
writing centre or in a writing course or workshop.
76
EWCA 2016
The Emergent Writing Studio at School
Matthew Kim,
Eagle Hill School
[email protected]
Tony O'Connor
Eagle Hill School
[email protected]
Patrick Jacobs
Eagle Hill School
[email protected]
Spencer Helton
Eagle Hill School
[email protected]
Ian Kanev
Eagle Hill School
[email protected]
Rory Csaplar,
Eagle Hill School
[email protected]
An emergent writing studio is one that emphasizes emergent teaching,
or recognizing possibilities and acting improvizationally on those
possibilities as well as creating individual course objectives for each
student in a studio (See Carpenter 2014; Inman 2010; Gresham and
Yancey 2004). In this emergent writing studio, we advocate for
embracing writing studio pedagogy. Writing studio pedagogy is an
approach to teaching and learning that prioritizes learning and writing
experiences in ways that writing center, writing program administration,
and learning theory have not yet developed. Writing studio pedagogy
respects that learning and writing contexts vary from campus to campus
and school to school, and writing studio pedagogy acknowledges the
centralized role of students and teachers as co-facilitators in learning and
writing. The elements that we recommend teachers and students include
in redesigning their classrooms as writing studios are: space; a
theoretical toolbox to guide students and teachers in making and
understanding multimodal texts; conversation; convergent and divergent
thinking; and critical play. In our workshop, facilitators introduce the
emergent writing studio and engage participants in activities that will
afford them opportunities to think through redesigning their classrooms
as emergent writing studios. Participants will have opportunities to
consult with Dr. Kim and his associates on how to redesign their spaces
on small budgets; how to advocate for studio spaces at school to school
administrators; and how to assess student writing that occurs in the
emergent writing studio.
77
EWCA 2016
Using the full potential of multilingualism in the writing process
Ulrike Lange
Ruhr-Universität Bochum
[email protected]
André Deutscher
Schreibzentrum – RUB
[email protected]
Mirela Husich,
Ruhr-Universität Bochum
[email protected]
Do you know that uncomfortable feeling writing in a foreign language,
when you do not know the right word or are not sure about a sentence
construction? Many writers in academia share this experience, either
because they write in a second/foreign language or because they work
with sources in various languages. When working with writers in this
situation the focus quite often lies on the target language. This can
contribute to a feeling of being limited as well in thinking as in
formulating. It can therefore be helpful to activate the resources of all
languages involved in the reading/thinking/planning/writing process. In
this workshop we therefore want to give participants the opportunity to
experiment with various ways to use all languages they know in the
writing process and thus use the full potential of multilingualism. After
an introduction to multilingual writing strategies (Lange 2012 based on
Ortner 2000 and Girgensohn 2007) participants will use writing
prompts/exercises to try out new ways of multilingual writing and will
reflect on their experiences. The aim of the workshop is to give
participants new ideas for integrating multilingualism in the writing
process and being more sensitive to this topic in tutoring and teaching.
78
EWCA 2016
The Art of Bricolage in the International Writing Center
Carolyn Millar
Soka University of
[email protected]
America
Allana Bourne,
Soka University of America
[email protected]
Elena Powell,
Soka University of
[email protected]
America
This session explores the question: Can we refine meaning-making and
narrative forms to facilitate insightful inquiry and add applicable
disciplines through the art of bricolage? In our writing center, we have
developed a unique perspective that utilizes bricolage as the groundwork
to explore and move beyond currently available theories and procedures.
Bricolage views research methods actively to utilize the tools at hand by
constructing multiple approaches best suited to the student’s needs. To
do this, we examine writing pedagogies from sometimes conflicting
theoretical and methodological perspectives. The bricolage approach is
grounded in a critical notion of hermeneutics, which gives consultants an
opportunity to also explore the boundaries of our efforts as tutors to
connect theory, technique, and experience. Our research has focused on
identifying and experimenting with the ever shifting boundaries between
empirical and philosophical inquiry, illustrating their interaction and
inseparability. As bricoleurs, we recognize the limitations of a single
knowledge production method, so we have extensively researched and
embraced the paradigm shifts that have influenced writing center
pedagogy, including product, process, and post process composition
theories. Examining these methods has influenced us to engage in a
bricolage of perspectives that honors and values student writers as
multilinguals and language learners. Improvisation and experimentation
has led us to explore generative methodologies that include:
Appreciative Inquiry, an emergent design that avoids a problem-solving
approach; Reframing critical thinking into appreciative belief and its
79
EWCA 2016
influence on writing tutoring; and Value Creation, the capacity to find
meaning through dialogue with students to expand their vision of what is
possible and value their own potential. Our research on writing center
theories and practices has resulted in the successful convergence of
methods into a “collaborative knowledge cultivation” model, opening
unfamiliar frontiers where the above mentioned interdisciplinary
perspectives intersect and new strategies are investigated.
80
EWCA 2016
Peer tutor, fellow, facilitator, staff member – how to cope with
different roles in the writing center?
Anne Rothaermel
Schreibwerkstatt – Ostfalia
[email protected]
Anne Kirschbaum
Schreibzentrum/Europa-Universität
Viadrina
[email protected]
Marlene Schulze
Schreiblabor/Universität Bonn
[email protected]
Facilitating workshops, writing groups and Writing Fellow programs are
for many writing centers an integral part of their successful everyday
work. As trained peer tutors/academic staff members often facilitate
these programs, we want to exchange our experiences and discuss how
peer tutors, academic staff members and Writing Fellows understand
their roles. In addition after graduating many peer tutors become
academic staff members of writing centers. Therefore we also want to
put an emphasis on the transitions that are involved in this change of
roles when becoming a staff member and how do they cope with it?
Which conflicts appear, and how are they solved? Concerning Writing
Fellow programs, many references in literature show that being a Writing
Fellow holds the challenge of taking a “multi-faceted role” (Hall / Hughes
2011: 28) in relation to the different players and situations that are
involved in the program (Zawacki 2008). However, there are no studies
dealing exclusively with role transitions and conflicts in the field of
Writing Center work, as of yet. Having the situations of Writing Fellows
and peer tutors leading groups or becoming staff members in mind, we
are eager to exchange experiences and to develop useful tips and/or a
guideline that can be helpful for reflecting and dealing with the different
roles involved in writing center work. The aim of this workshop is to
exchange experiences and to discuss different approaches as well as
developing a guideline for peer tutors/academic staff to reflect on the
perception of their role within the everyday writing center tasks.
Therefore we will start our workshop with an introduction, an input and
an individual reflection, which will be the basis, for discussions in small
groups. Each group will create and present a guideline, which will be
discussed at the end.
81
EWCA 2016
Working together
concerning writing
in
groups
of
(Inter)National
Tandem
Alyssa Schmid
Writing center Viadrina
[email protected]
Diana Koppelt,
Writing
center Viadrina
[email protected]
Do you have the urge to share and exchange your experiences in writing
didactics? Are you interested in how colleagues around the world
manage such issues as writing and consulting as well as what they think
about your methods? Do you wish to have access to developing a
database for writing didactics? Do you want to be part of a team outside
your own Writing Center team? Do you need inspiration to get started?
Two writing tutors from the Writing Center of the European University
Viadrina formed a tandem for five months. The tandem used an internet
database to work with, writing texts and diaries, linking videos and
pictures, uploading documents or just leaving notes with the latest
insight gained. As a starting point of the workshop, impressions into
their learning and reflecting process will be presented. This will be
followed by useful literary resources and some helpful theory.
Afterwards, the workshop will get practical. The participants will obtain
the opportunity to get to know one another. First texts, questions or
exercises will be given to ensure a direct start for each tandem. Every
tandem work is planned to be visible for all the other tandems, through
which a community database can be constructed. Moreover, there will be
enough space for ideas, questions and suggestions from all participants
to make the community database a collective experiment.The
community work is designed to provide a regular framework which could
include inspirations for exercises, deadlines, the possibility for Skype or
live meetings and rotating moderation for the community. Furthermore,
working with concepts of group work like “Theme-Centered Interaction”
by Ruth Cohn or “Success teams” by Barbara Sher are possible
approaches for the tandem work. Besides sharing ideas and gaining
input, engaging within the database might lead to new friendships, jobs
and/or project opportunities.
82
EWCA 2016
Different Forms of Feedback - (In) the (he)art of successful
Writing Centers
Marlene Schulze
University Bonn
[email protected]
Dennis Fassing
[email protected];
Anja Poloubotko,
[email protected]
Feedback on writing and the writing process, both verbal and written,
plays a key role in the daily work of a writing center. It is used in (peer)
writing tutoring sessions, workshops, Writing Fellow classes, eLearning
and guided or autonomous writing groups. Our experience working in
writing centers demonstrates that the appropriate form of feedback
depends not only on the particular service offered but also on the
character of the writing center itself (e.g. with a focus on writing process
and/or language) and the target audience (e.g. students who are writing
in a native and non-native language. These variations allow feedback to
be used for different purposes. Central to our workshop are the following
questions: What kind of feedback is best used for what kind of writing
center service? Is it possible to identify certain „quality standards“ of
feedback forms? To fuel the discussion, the hosts of the workshop will
give a short input on theoretical forms of feedback. In a second step,
participants are asked to share and compare the forms of feedback they
know and use at their institutions. In a chaired discussion, similarities
and distinctions between different feedback forms are collected and
grouped in categories. Lastly, small discussion groups will try to identify
distinct features of feedback-forms. The goal of the workshop is to
identify, discuss and visualize different aspects that are crucial for
thinking about feedback qualities in different contexts. In addition, we
hope to contribute to a reflection on how feedback is given in different
writing center contexts and therefore, to a continuous improvement of
that tool.
83
EWCA 2016
The Heart of National Writing Cultures: Sharing and Examining
Meaningful Local Texts
Andrea Scott
Pitzer College
[email protected]
Julie Nelson Christoph
University of Puget Sound
[email protected]
Pam Bromley
Pomona College
[email protected]
Conferences like the EWCA encourage us to exchange research and
practices outside our local contexts. Yet scholarship highlights the
complexity of engaging thoughtfully with writing traditions across
national borders. Chris Anson and Christiane Donahue (2015) have
argued recently that scholars need to bring “an almost anthropological
sensitivity to context and the cultural and national sources of praxis”
when studying other traditions (p. 23). Empirical research on the first
ten years of EATAW presentations reveals writing research marked by
cultural pluralism, cross-institutional collaboration, and multilingualism
(Kearns and Turner 2015). This diversity invites the question: what is
particular about national research cultures and how does this
distinctness need to be contextualized in order to be legible to others?
This 90-minute workshop seeks to extend this pluralistic and
collaborative tradition by inviting EWCA participants to reflect on what is
unique to their national writing cultures and how this uniqueness
manifests itself in scholarship. We’ll begin by reading and discussing
short excerpts of scholarship published in different writing traditions,
teasing out what seems most local and generative about their claims
within a transnational context. We’ll then ask participants to recall an
important piece of writing published in their home countries. Why is this
piece of writing so personally significant? What seems most local about
its assumptions and approach? What might need to be contextualized for
outside readers so they can grasp its importance? The workshop will
provide participants with an opportunity to reflect on the distinctness of
their own research cultures and to encounter research from other
national traditions. How local is our writing research? How universal? And
what does it contribute to transnational conversations about writing?
84
EWCA 2016
Sustainability of Writing Centers in European Contexts: How Old
is Your Writing Center?
Dilek Tokay
EWCA & Sabanci University
[email protected]
Cheryl Glenn
Penn State University
[email protected]
This workshop is based on the data collected via short interviews with
the conference participants of EWCA 2016 in-between sessions. It
focuses on the present issues related to writing as compared with the
findings from “EWCA 2010 Questionnaire” the results of which were
electronically shared on the EWCA Website on April 1,2010. The 66
respondents out of 511 EWCA members on the listserv in 2010 had
answered 23 questions in 10 categories. The same 10 categories
concerning sustainability of writing center theory & practice; facilities/
services offered; growth strategies considering both professional
development and finances will be covered, including “change” factor;
societal, as well as institutional mission; role of multidisciplinary and
across the curriculum practices in 10 group interviews which will be held
by the workshop presenters, Glenn and Tokay at Lodz. Results will be
shared with the participants on screen, discussing how much distance is
covered with achievements, giving equal emphasis to concerns. The
comparison of the present and past responses will add to EWCA’s foci,
possibly extend WAC initiatives at secondary/higher education levels; or
point out the need for assessment plans if institutions had conducted
learning outcome surveys and sought assessment models for
professional accreditation; and deal with learning processes that affect
multiliteracies (Selber, 2004), which include the functional, critical, and
rhetorical skills that are applied in diverse fields and disciplines. We hope
this workshop, expected to be on the closing day, will lead to better
understanding of the scope and quality of Writing Centers to answer the
question: how writing programs and writing centers can best work
together with most mutually supportive practices, incorporating new
technologies and multimodal strategies for effective expression and
communication.
85
EWCA 2016
The Art of successful implementation of Writing Center methods
in a polish academic environment
Michał Żytyniec
Schreibzentrum EUV Viadrina
[email protected]
Pascal Bittner
Schreibzentrum EUV Viadrina
[email protected]
In short: Workshop on writing center practice, including practices at
Viadrina University as a kick-off. In Polish, 90 minutes. Additional Poster
presentation (DIN A0) in English to reach the audience that is excluded
in the workshop session Od 2007 r. Writing Center Uniwersytetu Viadrina
we Frankfurcie nad Odrą nieustannie rozwija swoją ofertę, proponując
warsztaty i seminaria przybliżające studentom wiedzę teoretyczną i
najnowsze techniki służące rozwojowi umiejętności tworzenia tekstów
naukowych. Z racji swojego przygranicznego położenia centrum skupia
zarówno polskich jak i niemieckich studentów.Jako pracownicy
chcielibyśmy podzielić się zdobytymi doświadczeniami z uczestnikami
organizowanego warsztatu, a jednocześnie zadać sobie pytanie o
celowość wdrożenia podobnej oferty w polskim środowisku akademickim.
Tym samym chcielibyśmy otworzyć dyskusję dotyczącą tworzenia modelu
pracy polskich centrów tego typu, a także zbudować sieć kontaktów
międzynarodowych pomocną przy realizacji projektu. Mamy nadzieję, że
nasze zawodowe doświadczenia mogą stać się szansą rozwoju polskiego
szkolnictwa wyższego. Warsztaty kierujemy zarówno do osób
zajmujących się już peer tutoringiem jak i do zainteresowanych tego
typu pracą w przyszłości. Aby stworzyć dogodne warunki do intensywnej
dyskusji na temat możliwości implementacji Schreibzentrów w Polsce,
warsztaty poprowadzimy się w języku polskim. PROWADZĄCY: Michał
Żytyniec pochodzi z Polski, studiuje i pracuje jako peer tutor we
Frankfurcie nad Odrą. Pascal Bittner jest niemieckim studentem,
doświadczonym w pracy peer tutora zarówno we Frankfurcie jak i w
Polsce.
86
EWCA 2016
Pecha-Kucha
Interrupted
Simon Freise
Writing Center Frankfurt (Oder)
[email protected]
Tony needs to „manage his life first” before he moves on writing. Emma
asks her peer tutor for having a drink later. And Fadi feels traumatized
because of his last essay. Seems that there is no chance to go on!
Communiction skills aim at making interaction between individuals more
probable. Peer Tutoring and other pedagogical concepts try to anticipate,
minimize and cope with predictably differing expectations and varying
conduct. Get back to work? In this PechaKucha session I would like to
present disrupted writing processes, confused counseling, and
dysfunctional writing lab methods. Finally I want to stimulate an inchoate
theoretical reflection on the greater topic – interruptions. Experiences
with interruptions, best practices and best fails of Peer Tutors at Viadrina
writing center are taken as a basis for this idea. However, interruptions
do not only picture phenomena that Peer Tutors are supposed to deal
with. My hypothesis is that they constitute the essentials of modern
writing centers: Students have to meet sophisticated demands in the
field of academic writing, therefore university and science themselves
produce failure and interruptions.According to sociologist Zygmunt
Bauman (1991) modern institutions try to eradicate contradictions but
provoke opposition to its purpose and continuing ambivalence at the
same time: Interruptions bring working processes to a stop – as well as
writing centers make them flow again. While those phenomena in
general necessitate writing centers, personal interruptions often seem to
be on the fringes. In my PechaKucha session I would like to depict this
relation as a shape of modern society that Peer Tutors are working in.
87
EWCA 2016
“I wanna do a thing. You wanna help?”: Students as partners in
creating a writing centre from scratch
Sarah Haas
Ugent
[email protected]
Stefanie Martens
Ugent
[email protected]
Frederik Martens
Ugent
[email protected]
Marjolein Schollaert
Ghent University
[email protected]
Thijs Gillioen
Ugent
[email protected]
Maxim Broidioi
Ghent University
[email protected]
Every year, some 300 students enrol in the Bachelor programme for Arts
in Linguistics and Literature: English, at the University of Ghent, during
which they will be expected to produce quality academic texts. To
facilitate students in this type of writing, the “English: Language and
Proficiency” (ETTV) course provides them with a base on academic form
and register. However, due to a shortage of staff to aid students in their
writing process properly, and the lack of a budget for opening a writing
centre, the ETTV course falls somewhat short and students still struggle
to engage fluently in academic writing.To counteract this, a team
consisting of one staff member, and around 30 students set up the
UGent Writing Mentor Programme in 2013, a basic writing centre ran by
staff and students on a voluntary basis. Apart from the necessary good
will and hard work typical of any voluntary venture, the Writing Mentors
were founded on and grounded in the idea that both university staff and
students would share input, responsibility and authority when running
the programme. Together, the team gained a more in-depth
understanding of the writing process, as well as non-directive feedback
giving, and the duties and responsibilities of mentorship. The
volunteering students have subsequently aided countless struggling
students with their writing, and have provided useful feedback on the
ETTV course from students’ perspective. Starting out precariously at the
start, the UGent Writing Mentors have since grown into an organisation
officially recognised by the English department and even have access to
their own office and reception room on university grounds.
88
EWCA 2016
Taking It to the People: The Community Writing Center in Niš
Kelsey Montzka-Boettiger
Writing Center Niš
[email protected]
Aleksandra Jankovic
[email protected]
Nevena Radulovic
[email protected]
Milena Simic
[email protected]
Danilo Ašanin
Writing Center Niš
[email protected]
Stevan Dinic
[email protected]
Writing Center Niš is a community writing center that operates out of the
American Corner, a local branch of the U.S. State Department’s American
Spaces program, in Niš, Serbia. Founded in October in 2014 by Snežana
Djurić—trained in writing center theory at Utica College, New York, it
serves a diverse client population that spans beyond the traditional
clientele of university and high school writing centers. It is staffed
entirely by volunteers, and all consultations are free. Tutors have had to
reach beyond the traditional writing center pedagogical framework in
order to support North’s cornerstone of “better writers, not better
writing.” Synthesizing traditional writing center pedagogy with not only
specific cultural expectations for tutor-tutee relationships, but also the
differing needs and skills of a community writer population remains a
great challenge, but one that promises new research and innovation
within writing center pedagogy. The purpose of this presentation is to
briefly detail the origins, history, and operations of the writing center, as
well as describe the challenges faced by a community writing center
specifically in an academic, educational, and cultural context that is
generally underdeveloped in terms of educational support infrastructure.
The presentation will also address how the described challenges have
been and are being faced in this context. Finally, presenters will discuss
the possibilities present in American Spaces/Corners collaboration as
these spaces have great potential for writing center administrators
interested in engaging with writers beyond the walls of educational
institutions.
89
EWCA 2016
A Quickwrite Technique as a Way of Improving Writing Fluency
Olesya Shatunova
Kanagawa University
[email protected]
Most researchers and ESL educators agree that learning how to write in
a second language is one of the most challenging aspects of second
language learning. As Hyland (2007) states the teaching of writing plays
more central role than a few decades ago because the ability to
communicate ideas and information effectively is dependent on good
writing skills. However, in Japan many high school classes do not provide
enough opportunities for students to write in English. Students have
quite limited experience in writing. Moreover, even if building accuracy
receives some emphasis, promoting fluency in writing is often neglected.
As a result, college students who graduated from a school system which
placed an emphasis on the acquisition of grammar rules and vocabulary
over fluency are very slow when asked to create a text in class. This
paper will share one activity I use to promote writing fluency in my
classrooms – a weekly Quickwrite activity that involves asking a
question, giving students a set amount of time for writing, and either
hearing or reading the responses. Quick Writes differs from traditional
writing as it presents writing as a non-threatening and informal
opportunity for students to express their thoughts (Fisher & Frey, 2008)
freely without focusing on correctness and revision. In the present study
I address the following two research questions: RQ 1. Does practicing
quickwrite help increase EFL college-level students writing fluency in
terms of increasing the amount of writing (words per minute)? RQ 2.
What differences appear in the students writing confidence after
practicing quickwrite technique for fifteen weeks, if any? In addition to
providing some evidence of the effectiveness of the techniques in terms
of increasing the amount of writing (words per minute), the paper
describes how the quick write technique can be modified depending on
teaching circumstances.
90