The proliferation of AI tools for text editing and generation has raised challenging but also interesting questions for writing classes. In this paper, we report on our experiences with an exercise exploring the use of AI in an academic writing class. We first outline our conceptualization of the writing process, breaking down the skills that students need to master the complex task of writing, visualized as a ‘writing pie’. This breakdown allows us to critically assess the capabilities of AI tools against our understanding of writing as a human process. We then share our experiences with an exercise with ChatGPT in an academic writing class, where students evaluate a text with respect to its academic style and suggest improvements. Students then compare their own suggestions to those made by ChatGPT and critically evaluate the output. We include both instructors’ and students’ evaluations to reflect on whether the inclusion of such exercises can aid in achieving the course’s learning outcomes. We share three key takeaways: (1) there is value to having students work with AI; (2) critical evaluation of AI output is key; (3) activities with AI should be evaluated against learning goals.

When students submit written assignments for assessment, they are generally trusted to have completed these honestly, and to have benefitted from the opportunity to learn. Academic integrity breaches are sometimes detected during the assessment process. Some common examples of integrity breaches during students’ academic writing include contract cheating, the unauthorised use of GenAI technology for completing assignments, and using AI tools to disguise existing work so that it appears to be original. None of these are new phenomena. Processes and procedures should be in place for managing suspected academic misconduct cases detected during the assessment process. But what happens when academic misconduct is detected retrospectively, sometimes after a student has moved degree programmes or graduated? This position paper sets out the case for universities and other academic institutions having procedures in place to deal with historic academic misconduct. It provides examples of how institutions can become aware of misconduct, including through whistleblowing and through development of more effective detection software. The authors bring together legal and educational expertise to suggest considerations that individual institutions should make towards future policy development. The discussion considers that students must be supported and prepared for success, but that institutions cannot ignore the reputational risks associated with cases of historic misconduct.

This teaching practice paper shows how students may choose to work with ChatGPT, generative AI and Large Language Models (LLMs) to produce essays and written assessment solutions in a manner that may be considered as either acceptable or as a breach of academic integrity depending on individual and institutional views. Following a brief introduction to how chatbots work, case study examples show how modified prompts can be used to generate writing in alternative styles, how a writing tutor review can be simulated, and how LLMs can be run locally and without Internet access. The paper is intended to inform academic writing tutors, instructors, and assessors what is possible using generative AI for writing as of January 2024. It is not positioned to make a judgement regarding what is acceptable, but rather to illustrate how technically proficient users can accomplish more than is often indicated by writing beginner level prompts for a chatbot. Such techniques are accessible to many students and the Academic Writing Development community will need to consider its response.

The standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG), define, within the standard 1.1, that higher education institutions (HEIs) need to have public internal Quality Assurance (QA) policies that effectively support academic integrity and are battling academic fraud, among other points (ENQA et al., 2015). On a national level (standard 3.6), QA agencies need to assure the integrity of their activities, in that way assuring that the national higher education (HE) systems are reliable, resilient and fit for purpose. When it comes to student involvement in QA, students are becoming increasingly engaged in QA activities as equal partners (ESU, 2020); however, the extent of their involvement in the matters of academic integrity on a national level still varies based on the national legislation and the activities covered by national QA agencies. Some countries, such as Ireland and Croatia, do involve students in discussions about academic integrity, prevention of academic misconduct, and implementation of different methods to preserve academic values within the curricula. In this paper, we have described the differences between the two mentioned national systems in terms of legislation, practices in preserving academic integrity within the Quality Assurance (QA) of higher education, and students’ reflections based on the information available at the webpages of the respective NUSs (Union of Students in Ireland and Croatian Students’ Council). In Ireland, the national QA Agency, Quality and Qualifications Ireland, has formed a National Academic Integrity Network (NAIN), and is directly involved in monitoring academic integrity practices and preventing academic misconduct, with the possibility of persecuting said misconduct. NAIN’s members include students who engage through their NUS - Union of Students in Ireland (USI), and who actively contribute to co-creation of policies and practices related to academic integrity. The student members receive appropriate training and are able to train and organise capacity-building activities for other students. The students also organise different activities on their own, to raise awareness on the need for battling academic misconduct such as contract cheating. In Croatia, the national QA Agency, Agency for Science and Higher Education (ASHE), is monitoring academic integrity through institutional self-assessment reports within internal QA evaluations, while the Law on Students’ Council and Other Students’ Organisations defines the position of students’ ombudspersons at each HEI, independently from the QA system. Students’ ombuds are students who do not receive training, but are able to request institutional reports. They are selected for a period of 1 year by the institutional students’ representation body, and they can help other students in protection of their rights in disciplinary processes. QQI and ASHE were interviewed as part of this research, and the findings indicate that QQI was much more successful in terms of engaging students in academic integrity-related topics, while ASHE does not have a responsibility to independently work on this topic with students, although they periodically participate in activities related to academic integrity. Students involved in QQI’s NAIN Network are independent and they understand the academic integrity policy well. Both the agencies reiterated the importance of students’ involvement in academic integrity and the need for educating students on these topics within their study cycles. Students who are overall most engaged in academic integrity are already active students’ representatives, which means that additional efforts need to be made in order to ensure all students understand this topic.

The “Power Hour of Writing” is an institution-led approach which brings together staff and postgraduate research students in a community that encourages participants to write regularly as part of their academic practice, helping to develop sustainable habits. This research into the “Power Hour of Writing” combines analysis of participant numbers with qualitative analysis of free text responses from online surveys taken at three different time points. Three themes emerged and were evident across all three surveys, independent of their time point: The importance of community; making writing a legitimate part of people’s everyday work; and accountability, which is built into the structure of the “Power Hour Of Writing”. Our research indicates that regular, short timeslots for writing can have a valuable impact on staff and postgraduate researchers. Not only did this intervention help build the community at a time while people were working even more in isolation due to the pandemic, but it also highlighted to participants that protecting time for writing benefits their work.

This study uses both qualitative and quantitative research methods in a mixed-methods approach to investigate whether the principled use of author-devised cover letters (CLs) within doctorate writing groups can result in more useful reviewer feedback comments than would be attained through the use of instructor-devised writing assessment rubrics. In this context, CLs are self-devised written documents that help the reviewers give the author useful and critical written feedback comments. Twenty participants in different discipline-specific writing groups were given explicit instruction about the importance and content of CLs during the peer feedback process. Their perceptions of a useful CL were obtained from post-course questionnaires and analysed qualitatively. In addition, their CLs at various stages of the feedback process were analysed quantitatively for genre, social presence, and evidence of teaching instruction, and compared to the CLs produced by 20 PhD students in similar writing groups who received minimal CL instruction. The study found that author-devised CLs, as opposed to instructor-devised rubrics, can allow the authors the flexibility of providing text-specific background details, requesting reviewer help on specific textual aspects, using social presence to develop a sense of writing community, and provide reflection upon their own writing.

Timed single-draft essays as summative assessment tasks have been argued to be inadequate for both teaching and assessing writing in the context of process writing. This is because single draft essays assess product rather than process. To address this concern, the authors developed, implemented, and evaluated two FL (foreign language) English writing courses that integrate various formative assessment activities for teaching writing. The course-embedded evaluation methodology included three techniques: pre-testing, collecting teacher-student conference reports, and administering a student opinion survey at the end of the semester. Pre-testing and collecting conference reports were both used as techniques for simultaneous teaching and inquiry into this teaching. The student opinion survey evaluated the course design grounded in the new teaching methodology. The findings of the study indicate that consistent use of formative assessment in the English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writing class increases student confidence and motivation to develop their writing skills. Results demonstrate that academic (C1 level) and college (B2 level) writing courses that integrate formative assessment into teaching process writing can be a valuable addition to an array of FL (English) language courses offered by the departments of foreign languages at European universities.

Training audience awareness is a significant but challenging task for teaching academic writing. To integrate the teaching of television studies with writing skills, I designed a BA seminar when working as a lecturer in the English department of a German university in 2015. I present my experience with and my students’ evaluation of training audience awareness as part of this seminar. The evaluations confirmed students’ increased awareness of the importance of incorporating audience-directed elements in writing, but indicated that the task had created obstacles, for example, regarding students’ reading comprehension. I retrospectively analyze my teaching approach and discuss possible reasons for my students’ success and difficulties with the writing assignment, and make suggestions for changes that may have better supported their learning process. I, therewith, aim to foster the integration of teaching writing within, across, and beyond disciplinary audiences in discipline-specific courses.

In a student-centered classroom, learners have to be actively involved both in learning and assessment, which in itself needs to become a learning tool. Therefore, students need to understand and be given the opportunity to apply assessment criteria themselves. Through self-assessment of their writing, they enhance their self-awareness and become autonomous learners capable of self-improvement and meta-cognition (Liang 2014, Nielsen 2012).Self- and peer assessment are helpful tools that have been discussed in the literature, but the reliability of self-assessment is still debated (see for example Birjandi and Tamjid 2012, Matsuno 2009, Poehner 2012). The present study adds to the existing research by offering data that is not based on observation, but stems from a comparison of self- and instructor assessment where both parties used the same specific assessment rubrics. Assigning numerical values to the rubrics allowed for quantitative results. The data was collected in four classes of students in a course called ‘Introduction to Academic Writing’ at Deree - The American College of Greece. The outcome of the study did not confirm expectations with regard to reliability of self-assessment, and recommendations for future rubric-based studies are included. Self-assessment should be used as a formative and diagnostic learning tool, especially for weaker students, to foster development of learner autonomy.

This paper outlines the development of the “Reader Engagement framework”, a tool for helping emerging writers understand what might keep readers reading – or stop readers from reading – a text. The Reader Engagement framework has been under development for the past five years, primarily in the context of undergraduate English proficiency classes at a large university in Flanders. Using the principles of constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz 2014), a preliminary framework was sketched using as data the margin comments of one reader who noted points of engagement or disengagement while reading student texts. Additional rounds of data collection included the engagement perceptions of student-readers, as well as those of teacher-readers from various disciplines. Thus far 1087 readers have been consulted, and the categories in the framework seem to be largely saturated. Though further refinement is necessary, the framework has been found successful as a teaching tool, and as an assessment and feedback tool. It also seems to have potential for offering writers a new way of conceptualising writing.

It is a remark credited to several great writers: the admission, ‘I didn’t have time to write you a short letter, so I wrote you this long one instead’. Spilling your guts is easy; being concise takes time. Short is harder; content-rich, succinct writing requires supreme skill and considered application. This short paper argues the case that small is beautiful when we think about setting university assignment word counts.

Peer review fosters student critical thinking and self-evaluation (Wood and Kurzel 2008). Numerous studies show that peer review is effective in improving student writing (Althauser and Darnall 2001, Bean 2011), and that it benefits the students receiving as well as those giving the feedback (van den Berg, Admiraal and Pilot 2006). However, these issues have not been greatly researched in Greece. Greek culture bestows great authority to the teacher and students are not accustomed to peer feedback.I have embarked on a small-scale, exploratory, classroom-based study conducted at Deree - The American College of Greece where English is the medium of instruction. Data include first and revised drafts of three academic writing assignments, written peer comments, and learner reflections on the peer reviewing experience. To further explore student attitudes toward peer review, I also administered an online questionnaire. Initial quantitative and qualitative analyses reveal (a) in general student reviewers and reviewees alike accept peer review as an appropriate pedagogical activity; (b) students revise their writing taking into account peer feedback and (c) as reviewers, students were not more critical in giving feedback when doing peer review anonymously. Preliminary results are interpreted with an understanding of the limitations of the ongoing study.

This paper presents an intervention that was created in a United Kingdom university Classics department where approximately 60% of undergraduate students came from diverse educational backgrounds to study classical Greco-Roman culture, but had not studied it before at school/college. To equip these more than usually diverse ‘transition’ students with a skills base to aid both their academic progress and future employability, a team-taught mandatory module was designed for first term, first-year undergraduates, which embedded two workshops and an assessment exercise on academic writing with eight workshops on other skills, most of which are both discipline-specific and ‘transferable’. The in-term assessments tested understanding of the skills taught, while a final exercise required students to reflect on their longer learning process over the term, evaluating development in their academic writing in the context of other discipline-specific skills. This module serves as a model for adoption both within academic departments and also at an institutional level for early stage academic writing training in a subject-related context, which can serve as a first step on a longer ladder of skills acquisition over the degree for enhancing both academic success and employability awareness.

A Psychology academic skills module and challenges in its delivery are outlined. Adaptations described include embedding specialist support for the teaching of academic writing and linking content to assessments and careers. Increased student satisfaction and qualitative feedback indicated that changes were beneficial. The need for further evaluation is discussed.

This paper discusses implementation of blog writing as a formative assessment within a final year undergraduate module. Drawing on students’ perceptions and experiences, it proposes that blogging offers a more inclusive writing genre for Higher Education than traditional forms of academic scholarship.

In a Higher Education environment where evidence-based practice and accountability are highly valued, most writing practitioners will be familiar with direct requests or less tangible pressures to demonstrate that their teaching has a positive impact on students’ writing skills. Although such evaluations are not devoid of risk and the need for them is contested, it can be argued that it is better to engage with them, as this can avoid the danger of overly simplistic forms of measurements being imposed. The current paper engages with this question by proposing the conceptual basis for a new measurement tool. Based on Amabile’s Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT), developed to assess creativity, the tool develops the idea of consensual assessment of writing as a methodology that can provide robust data through systematic measurement. At the same time, I argue consensual assessment reflects the evaluation of writing in real life situations more closely than many of the methodologies for writing assessment used in other contexts, primarily large scale tests. As such, it would allow writing practitioners to go beyond ethnographic methods, or self- reporting, in order to obtain greater insight into the ways in which their teaching helps change students’ actual writing, without sacrificing the complexity of writing as social interaction, which is fundamental to an academic literacies approach.

As part of well-planned formative assessment, feedback can help students to understand the demands of a summative assessment task, evaluate their current level of performance, and then find ways to close the gap. As students take a more active role in this process, their feedback can be thought of as becoming ‘feedforward’ since it serves a specific purpose and drives student action. As the value of formative assessment design is becoming emphasised in higher education, summative assessment practices need to be re-evaluated in terms of how well they support learning as opposed to just supporting valid judgements of student performance. However, despite significant discussion of Assessment for Learning and Learning-Oriented Assessment, resubmission practices are largely overlooked even though resubmission can be a key event in whether students are retained.As part of a learning support department’s effort to provide effective feedback on academic writing, students referred for support were offered two types of feedback: one was simple correction, the other was in-depth dialogic feedback which followed “feedback for learning” guidance (Askew and Lodge 2000). Student engagement with the two types of feedback was analysed by looking at the changes students made to their work and feedback from their subject tutor (including the resubmission grade). The tutor’s feedback was also analysed to see if any intentions for the resubmission task could be inferred.Results suggest that corrective feedback is highly efficient in enabling students to pass resubmissions and that more in-depth feedback is much less efficient. This paper highlights some of the ways in which resubmission practices can unknowingly encourage surface approaches, and suggests some ideas for how learning support can better align with subject tutors to enable resubmission to become more learning-oriented.

Writing assignments can be seen as an important component of learning processes. Especially in the fields of engineering and sciences, writing assignments have the potential to consolidate subject-specific skills and to enhance motivation for solving technical problems. This paper introduces readers to a revised course structure that aims to strengthen motivation and mathematical understanding through written peer feedback based on mathematical exercises with written elements. The assignment was developed for the course Computational Fluid Dynamics in Process Engineering, a mathematically-oriented course for Master students of theoretical mechanical engineering and process engineering. Since the learning content was perceived as complex, students seemed to lack motivation in preparing for the course with the provided exercises. This paper suggests – based on the collected data, consisting of answers to mathematical problems, feedback texts, evaluation results, teachers’ observation, and examination results – that the introduced assignment enhances students’ understanding and has a positive impact on students’ motivation to solve the mathematical exercises.

This article provides insight into the role of students’ writing motivation in a writing centre setting. Based on my personal experiences as a peer tutor at a writing centre, the article highlights the importance of the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) for the evaluation of students’ motivational levels. It thus shows that the distinction between the motivational concepts of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation as well as between ‘amotivation’ vs. ‘demotivation’ provides a basis for tutors and instructors who endeavour to foster students’ motivation. Furthermore, the evaluation of different motivational strategies indicates that both peer tutors and instructors can make a valuable contribution to the development of students’ writing motivation by giving informative feedback, setting clear goals, creating relaxed atmosphere and enhancing students’ positive image as writers.

Case-based assignments represent a common form of assessment on academic business programmes (Easton 1982 and Mauffette-Leenders, Erskine and Leenders 1997), with students required to generate amongst other responses, business case reports, case critiques and case analyses (Nathan 2013). Only limited research is available to support academic writing tutors in understanding such case response texts with published studies focusing solely on business case reports (Freedman and Adam 1994, Forman and Rymer 1999a, 1999b and Nathan 2013). In order to aid writing tutors in supporting academic business students, this paper presents a small corpus study of 36 case response non-report texts (ca. 40000 words), generated on a UK MBA programme. These texts represent categories designated case critique, case advisory and case comparison texts, and were written in three business specialisms, Marketing, Human Resource Management, and Finance, respectively. Rhetorical analysis identified variable rhetorical structure dependent on text category, although orientation, analytical and conclusion components were present at high frequency in all text categories. Substantial variability in citation frequencies, modal verb, business lexis, and first person pronoun deployment was also identified between text categories. Awareness of both similarities and differences in case-based writing responses should serve as a useful aid in informing academic writing pedagogy.

that the ability to evaluate research papers critically 'is an important vehicle for promoting acculturation into a scientific discipline'.The article describes the authors' process of designing-and the key features of-an online resource for scaffolding undergraduate science students in critical evaluation.According to the authors, this resource encourages and enables students 'to be purposeful, inquisitive and critical in their reading of scientific papers' in order to inform their own writing and learning throughout the different stages of their degree study.

Critically evaluating research papers is an important vehicle for promoting acculturation into a scientific discipline. As science students progress through their undergraduate studies, their critical abilities are expected to become heightened, and research papers are read and cited in order to support a variety of assignments, such as essays, critical reviews and presentations, progressing to shaping laboratory research projects and dissertation-writing. This article describes the process of designing a modular online resource. The resource is aimed at familiarising students with the structural conventions and argumentative devices used in research papers and supporting them in deep-reading a research paper in life sciences or chemistry. The modules employ audio- and video-recorded extracts from interviews with a key author to provide a context for the origins, motivations and processes behind the writing of a specific paper, plus scaffolded questions to encourage critical evaluation of the paper. Notable features of the project were the employment of a multi-disciplinary team of staff and research postgraduates coupled with the developmental testing of the resource by undergraduates. Lessons learnt from the project are considered, including the resource’s integration within the curriculum and the challenges of writing such interactive resources for different disciplines.

Research in academic writing is a growing field within Applied Linguistics, yielding a wide range of conferences, journal publications and books. However, comparatively little work has been conducted on students’ attitudes towards the production of writing for assessment. This article reports findings from a questionnaire study of Chinese and British students (n=202) across 37 UK universities. The study aims to uncover the extent to which students feel they were prepared for tertiary-level writing, how useful they find assignment-writing, and whether they enjoy this activity. The focus of the article is on the similarities and differences in attitudes towards assessed writing given by the two student groups. Chinese students were selected as a contrast to British students as the former are now the ‘largest single overseas student group’ in the UK with more than 60,000 Chinese people studying in 2008 (The British Council, 2010). Detailed, open-ended responses from the questionnaire were coded and followed up with email and face-to-face interview questions with a subset of students (n=55). The findings indicate that neither student group feel well-prepared for the challenges of tertiary-level writing, and reveal a depth of feeling regarding the enjoyment and perceived utility - or otherwise - of academic writing.

The purpose of this study is to explore if academic writing workshops contribute to students’ learning and performance in assessment. Academic writing workshops provide an opportunity to discuss specific learning areas and promote student engagement. The results of an assessed essay for a group of 65 first-year Mathematics students at Aston University, UK show that academic writing workshops have an association with students’ academic performance. An Independent Samples T-test was conducted to compare the mean performance of the students based on their attendance of academic writing workshops. The analyses reveal that students who attended 2-5 academic writing workhops had a far much better performance (mean: 58.60%) in comparison to students who attended 0-1 workshop (mean: 46.37%). In addition, the analyses show a statistically significant difference in the mean performance of students who attended and of students who did not attend an academic workshop specifically relating to the assessment.

This article uses activity theory to analyse two different portfolio approaches as tools for programmatic assessment of Integrated Content and Language (ICL) programs. The two approaches include a) a model in which students construct portfolios by selecting artifacts from a range of different contexts and provide reflective commentary, and b) a model in which the portfolio consists of major textual artifacts produced across a design project, with no reflective component. Activity theory provides a tool to explore what these models can offer in terms of an assessment of the integration of content and language in disciplinary contexts, where texts serve to mediate the ongoing work of a discipline. By highlighting the work that texts do in context as well as the access to student meta-knowledge afforded by each portfolio, activity theory provides a means to understand the strengths and limitations of both models. Perhaps most importantly, it points to the need for portfolios to include well-designed reflections that can support both student learning and effective programmatic assessment.

In this article we analyse Portuguese postgraduate students’ problems and difficulties when performing written tasks in the context of postgraduate programmes. The data presented are the result of a study based on two different data collection procedures: a) the analysis of students’ written work, organised in a portfolio; b) a questionnaire focussing on the difficulties encountered when performing different tasks involving writing: note-taking; planning a text; writing and editing a text (a literature review); and referencing and quoting according to a reference style (APA). The analysis of students' work revealed problems and difficulties in different areas, namely with selecting information, planning the text, and writing the literature review using academic writing conventions. When asked about the reasons for those problems, students often referred to the difference between the literacy tasks they were used to performing in their undergraduate studies and those that they are requested to develop at the postgraduate level. These differences seem particularly relevant when those tasks are related to assessment practices. At undergraduate level, assessment is often based on examinations while at postgraduate level, it is more dependent on the production of other genres such as literature reviews or essays.

Joan Turner (2004) suggests that for some students language only becomes ‘visible’ as a problem. With the expansion of UK higher education, more students will be discriminated against as their written language becomes visible. Recent scholarship recognises different literacies that students bring to higher education (Lea and Street 2000) and advocates moving away from a skills approach towards one which centres on how writers make meaning. This article endorses this positive progression from the ‘student deficit’ model but argues for an honest assessment of how students who do not already produce Standard Written English (Elbow 2000) can make their writing invisible so that readers are not distracted by ‘surface’ elements of the writing. Using empirical evidence and Pierre Bourdieu’s notion of ‘cultural capital’, it addresses a reluctance or inability to develop pedagogical solutions to a problem which is rooted in a persistently elitist and gate-keeping model of higher education.

In the UK higher education context, central services such as writing centres are coming under management scrutiny and writing developers are being asked to demonstrate the impact of their work. This article discusses one way in which writing centres can evaluate their provision for evidence of effectiveness and to gauge their potential for expansion. Taking as a case study the development of the Coventry Online Writing Lab (COWL) at Coventry University, England, the article reports on the use of the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) technique (Kaplan and Norton, 1992) to examine how extending one writing centre‘s provision through the development of an online component has been considered and justified. The BSC is an evaluation tool that takes into account stakeholders‘ perspectives, internal institutional processes, finance and budgets, and staff development needs, and sees these as integral and important drivers of an organisation‘s results (Grayson, 2004: 1). The article discusses the benefits and limitations of such an approach within this case study and its implications for strategic planning for writing centres and other forms of university writing provision.

Peer assessment has been used increasingly in English writing instruction in the past two decades. This has given rise to research on peer assessment in developing English learners’ writing proficiency. However, few studies have exclusively examined student variables in relation to peer assessment and, in particular, how students’ English language proficiency affects the use of peer assessment in English-medium writing classrooms. The case study research described in this article examined, through the employment of students’ learning diaries, how Chinese university English- learners’ language proficiency affected the use of peer assessment. Ten second-year English majors at a university in Southern China were asked to keep diaries of their experiences of being involved in peer assessment over sixteen weeks. The diary data showed that the students viewed their English language proficiency as a salient variable influencing the focus, the type, the appropriateness, and the impact of peer feedback on learners’ redrafts.

This action research study reports on Kosovan, English as a Foreign Language, undergraduate students’ perceptions of the usefulness and effectiveness of class activities that promote the panning for gold approach (Browne and Keeley 2004) in the process of argumentative writing. The data obtained from a questionnaire, essay evaluation and a focus group, reveal that students show interest in the approach though they do not feel at ease when required to take a decision that calls for systematic evaluation of their thinking in a quest for new answers. It is apparent from the study that, in order for students to think critically and write argumentatively, the panning for gold approach and the principle of inquiry should be integrated across the curriculum or, in a better case scenario, should be an integrated part of daily life. The results have implications for syllabus and classroom practices.