This is a book review of Change and Stability in Thesis and Dissertation Writing: The Evolution of an Academic Genre by Paltridge and Starfield (2024).

Academic integrity continues to concern educators worldwide. Furthermore, general guidelines for ensuring academic integrity do not seem to encompass all the angles that are required to be taken into consideration when exploring the factors that contribute to multicultural students’ decision to adhere to the norms and values of academic integrity.  This literature review focuses on how academic values can be unified through academic integrity, and specifically explores factors and perspectives of utilising academic integrity to unify academic values when teaching academic writing. The dimensions of academic values explored in this paper are: a) beliefs and attitudes of multicultural undergraduate students and the theory of planned behaviour (TPB), b) the value of academic performance in academic writing classes, c) exploring the development of multicultural students’ authorial voice while maintaining academic integrity, and d) using technology to encourage academic integrity in academic writing classes. Over 56 identified sources were chosen carefully to ensure unbiased approaches to the issues of academic integrity and development of academic writing skills. The authors explored the issues from a variety of perspectives. The gap noticed in the review of literature is the disconnection between academic values and academic integrity. The authors make recommendations for future research.

While there are a number of books that address how to research first language (L1) and second language (L2) writing, there are not many accessible research manuals that guide novice researchers on how to research cognitive processes associated with L1/L2 writing. Researching L1/L2 writing processes and development requires a consideration of a number of variables because writing typically occurs in many different contexts (e.g., in-class, at home), settings (e.g., ESL vs. EFL), modalities (e.g., paper and pen, digital), and conditions (e.g., individual, collaborative). We find the edited volume Research Methods in the Study of L2 Writing Processes by Rosa Manchón and Julio Rocaa (2023) to be insightful for two reasons. First, all the chapters in the volume provide step-by-step directions in researching L1/L2 writing processes, highlight methodological concerns, and offer ideas on addressing those concerns. Second, the volume provides an excellent overview of key considerations in employing diverse research instruments to study writing processes.

This review considers Ethan Mollick's Co-Intelligence: Living and Working with AI and its implications for writing pedagogies.

In this review of Frost, Kiernan, and Malley's collection Translingual Dispositions: Globalized Approaches to the Teaching of Writing, I propose that the collection fills a necessary gap of augmenting translingualism discourse globally and beyond the classroom. The contributors to Frost, Kiernan, and Malley's collection develop the theory of translingualism as an attitude, lived experience, an advocacy issue, and a classroom practice by showing a myriad of application sites for this concept. In so doing, the collection also demonstrates the messy operationalization and embodiment of translingualism in U.S. academic and non-U.S. academic settings.

Richmond’s Academic Literacies Programme (ALP) is a content-based form of instruction for university students which teaches critical reading, research skills, content synthesis, and writing and presentation skills. It is designed to empower all students to research and write effectively throughout their undergraduate studies. This article is a quantitative case study review of a British-American university’s ALP, examining student feedback across academic disciplines on specific taught ALP skills and comparing their improvement from 2014 to 2022. Chi-squared goodness-of-fit tests showed students valued research, critical reading, academic writing, essay structure, understanding academic honesty, using tutor feedback, and referencing skills; however, survey development and recommendation reports were not meeting student needs in their majors and so were removed from the programme. In comparison, in a follow-up review conducted in 2022, the skill of identifying research gaps was not effectively used or applied. However, independent group testing found the usefulness of skills at the lower learning level improved from 2014 to 2022, as did the application of skills at the higher level. This study concludes that ALPs are valuable for all university students beginning higher education research, regardless of first language or degree course.

The title of this editorial is adapted froma lineinthebook review published in this issue of the Journal of Academic Writing (JoAW). The review iswritten by Livingstone,whoargues for the importance of texts that push,“those of us in academia, who have become too fixed in our ways, who are afraid of thinking outside-the-box.”This line reflects a core value of JoAW, as the journal has always endeavoured to serve as a reflexive space for innovation and development for EATAW members and the wider community of researchersand practitionersinterested in academic writing. The various genres JoAWpublishes that go beyond the traditional research article, the formative approach it takes to publishing, and the value it attributes to open-access, practice-oriented researchdemonstratejust some of the waysin which JoAWhasaimedto push boundariesin academic writing research and practice.

This paper centres around the use of Eduflow, a novel online learning management system (LMS) which was introduced in a university-level Academic Writing course in response to the challenges brought about by the mandatory switch from face-to-face to online writing instruction (OWI) over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. In this paper, Eduflow is piloted with a group of second-year university students of English language and literature at Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje. These students chose to fulfil their Academic Writing course requirements by compiling a writing portfolio. The rationale behind the use of this platform was the assumption that it would facilitate the online management of all the stages of the essay writing process: Writing a first draft, doing a peer review of essays created by fellow students, considering the comments received from fellow students, reflecting on one’s own writing by doing a self-review, and finally, submitting the final version. The relentlessness of the pandemic led to the continuous application of this learning management system over the course of two entire academic years, each year with a different group of students. An online survey on the perceived usefulness and effectiveness of Eduflow was administered among the second generation of students who used this platform. As this small-scale analysis demonstrates, despite experiencing some easily resolvable minor technical difficulties, these students generally found Eduflow effective and useful as a supplementary tool for online writing instruction and showed particular appreciation for the collaborative peer review experience.

This review reflects on, 'New Perspectives on Academic Writing: The Thing That Wouldn’t Die', by Bernd Herzogenrath.

The review is written by Livingstone, who argues for the importance of texts that push, "those of us in academia, who have become too fixed in our ways, who are afraid of thinking outside-the-box."This line reflects a core value of JoAW, as the journal has always endeavoured to serve as a reflexive space for innovation and development for EATAW members and the wider community of researchers and practitioners interested in academic writing.The various genres JoAW publishes that go beyond the traditional research article, the formative approach it takes to publishing, and the value it attributes to open-access, practice-oriented research demonstrate just some of the ways in which JoAW has aimed to push boundaries in academic writing research and practice.Reflecting this facet of JoAW, arguably, what best connects the papers that compose this issue is their efforts to offer alternative perspectives on and innovative contributions to research and practice in academic writing.These papers offer perspectives that draw on interdisciplinary research, perspectives that reflect developments in academic writing practices and pedagogies during a time of crisis, perspectives on less studied areas of academic writing, and reflections on the past with projections to the future.The international spread of the contributors undoubtedly has played a key role in the convergence of the differing points of view offered in this issue, with submissions engaging with academic cultures from Australia, Canada, England, Germany, North Macedonia, Scotland, and the USA, contextualised for a European audience.Overall, this issue is composed of four research articles, two dialogues responding to previous JoAW publications, and one book review.In presenting the articles in the issue, this editorial reflects on how they each can help us all to 'think outside-the-box' when informing our academic writing research and practice.

This is a book review of Creating Digital Literacy Spaces for Multilingual Writers by Meghan Bowling-Johnson.

This is a book review of What is Good Academic Writing? Insights into Discipline-Specific Student Writing by Michèle le Roux.

This is a review of Writing Centres in Higher Education: Working in and across the disciplines, edited by Sherran Clarence and Laura Dison.

Collaborating between Writing and STEM: Teaching Disciplinary Genres, Researching Disciplinary Interventions, and Engaging Science Audiences
 This poster describes a multi-pronged effort to build a writing curriculum in Physics and other STEM fields at the George Washington University, USA. These efforts include curricular collaboration, a research study conducted by the Physicists and Writing Scholars, and external funding initiatives.
 This project first began as a curricular collaboration through our Writing in the Disciplines (WID) curriculum, initiated by observations among Physics faculty that undergraduate students lack Physics specific writing skills. Writing faculty responded to this observation by introducing Physics faculty to the idea that writing can and must be taught, that the genres of Physics can be taught by Physics faculty, and that a focus on the writing process can improve student writing. Our curricular goal was to demonstrate to faculty who are unfamiliar with writing studies that writing is a means to learn in Physics (Anderson et al., 2017).
 The first phase of our effort was to persuade Physics faculty that writing contributes to learning in Physics; we describe a collaboration between Physics and Writing faculty that developed assignments and made curricular interventions. This collaboration built upon scholarship in writing studies that argues genre instruction develops capacities and skills for student writing (Swales, 1990; Winsor, 1996). While genre is not a new concept in Writing Studies, for many Physics faculty the idea that they can teach – and have students learn – how to write in disciplinary genres is novel. Collaboration around curricular revisions enabled Writing and Physics faculty to teach students that learning how to write in a new genre is a skill that can be practiced (Ericsson, 2006; Kellogg & Whiteford, 2009). We developed a process for students to follow when faced with types of writing common to Physics, but potentially new to them, such as the abstract (written), lab research notebook (written), article summary (oral), letter to colleague (written), cover letter and resumé (written), elevator pitch (oral), proposal (written and oral), presentation on issues of ethics and equity in STEM (oral), research presentation (oral), poster (written), poster presentation (oral), final research report (written), and Symposium presentation (oral). The collaboration thus created pedagogical exchange between faculty as well as scholarly synergy between the disciplines of Physics and Writing Studies.
 Physics faculty have observed that the curricular collaboration has had measurable results for students. Physics student participation in the campus research day has increased dramatically. We attribute this rise partly to the increased, explicit attention in classroom settings to how to engage with Physics genres of writing, especially abstracts and research posters.
 While the collaboration successfully brought together a small but solid group of Writing and Physics faculty, it also raised questions about how to persuade a broader range of Physics faculty, and other science faculty, that teaching disciplinary genres can improve student writing, and that writing is a means of learning. Given that faculty in STEM disciplines find empirical research persuasive, our next step was to undertake a collaborative research project to measure the impact of the teaching of writing in Physics. The new curricular focus on genre asked students to conceptualize themselves as scientific writers in relation to specific Physics or STEM audiences. The collaborative research therefore investigates if teaching Physics genres improves writing and enables students to conceptualize themselves as emerging scientists engaged in professional communication (Poe et al., 2010; Winsor, 1996). Our longitudinal analysis of student writing in Physics evaluates writing from three sequenced courses, the first before faculty-developed genre assignments, and then after genre assignments. We developed a rubric that evaluates general outcomes – audience, genre, structure, style – and a rubric that evaluates specialized learning outcomes – acknowledgement of past scholarship, working with models, incorporating scholarship, articulation of research questions, working with graphs, and articulation of methods. Preliminary research analysis shows that explicitly teaching Physics genres increases student’s abilities to write successfully in Physics, enabling students to understand how knowledge is communicated persuasively to audiences. Our goal with this research is to show STEM faculty through research by Physicists and Writing Studies scholars that teaching writing socializes students into the discipline of Physics, leading them to identify as professional scientists (Allie et al, 2010; Gere et al., 2019). This increase is exemplified by the large number of students volunteering to present a poster during the University wide research day, giving them experience presenting to an educated audience outside of Physics.
 Thus, a combination of strategies – curricular collaboration and intervention, collaborative research from within the discipline of Physics, and successful external funding – are what demonstrate to scientists that teaching genre and teaching writing are central to science education. Based on this experience, our contribution is that shared pedagogical and research collaborations, and funding, are what make the knowledge of Writing Studies persuasive to scientists.
 We have seen success with these efforts. At George Washington, other STEM faculty have observed successes in the Physics curriculum, and have joined efforts to bring writing more explicitly into their curriculum. This year, we began a Writing in STEM symposium that has grown to include faculty in Chemistry, Systems Engineering, Mathematics, Geography, Mechanical Engineering, and other fields. We have also seen an uptick in STEM courses in the WID curriculum. The Physics and Writing research collaboration has led to a National Science Foundation (NSF) submission on genre, and an NSF award for a study of writing and engineering judgement, being conducted by Writing faculty and Systems Engineering faculty.
 References
 Allie, S., Armien, M.N., Burgoyne, N, Case, J.M., Collier-Reed, B.I, Craig, T.S., Deacon, A, Fraser, D.M.,Geyer, Z, Jacobs, C., Jawitz, J., Kloot, B., Kotta, L., Langdon, G., le Roux, K., Marshall, D, Mogashana,D., Shaw,C., Sheridan, G., & Wolmarans, N. (2009). Learning as acquiring a discursive identity through participation in a community: improving student learning in engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 34(4), 359-367. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043790902989457
 Anderson, P., Anson, C. M., Fish, T., Gonyea, R. M., Marshall, M., Menefee-Libey, W Charles Paine, C., Palucki Blake, L. & Weaver, S. (2017). How writing contributes to learning: new findings from a national study and their local application. Peer Review, 19(1), 4.
 Ericsson, K. A. (2009). The Influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In K. A. Ericsson, R. R. Hoffman, A. Kozbelt & A. M Williams (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp 685–705). Cambridge University Press.
 Gere, A. R., Limlamai, N., Wilson, E., Saylor, K., & Pugh, R. (2019). Writing and conceptual learning in science: an analysis of assignments. Written communication, 36(1), 99–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088318804820
 Kellogg, R., & Whiteford, A. (2009). Training advanced writing skills: the case for deliberate practice. Educational psychologist, 44(4), 250–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903213600
 Poe, M., Lerner, N., & Craig, J. (2010). Learning to communicate in science and engineering: Case studies from MIT. MIT Press.
 Swales, J. (1990). Discourse analysis in professional contexts. Annual review of applied linguistics, 11, 103–114.
 Winsor, D. A.(1996) Writing like an engineer: A rhetorical education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Andrews) is our new Book Reviews Editor, and has launched into the role enthusiastically.We have two book reviews this issue and look forward to expanding JoAW's survey of current Academic Writing literature in future general issues.Mark also brings a new set of connections to the journal, and we hope to increase the breadth of JoAW's engagement with, and coverage of, the field's leading edge.

This is a review of the book Naming What We Know. Threshold Concepts of Writing Students (Classroom Edition) by Linda Adler-Kassner and Elizabeth Wardle (Utah State University Press, 2016).

Year in, year out, scholarly and trade presses alike release new books on academic writing for publication, leading Kristin Solli recently to ask, 'Do we need another book offering advice on academic writing?' (2017: 59). These works typically either focus on writing for publication within a particular field or discipline (e.g. Donovan 2017, Egbert and Sanden 2015, Saver 2011) or present the impression of being more broadly applicable, while still being grounded in the author's (or authors') relatively narrow experiences (e.g. Jalongo and Saracho 2016, Johnson 2011, Rocco and Hatcher 2011). Helen Sword, approaching the situation empirically, assesses authors of both types of works: 'Successful academics who have never been formally trained as writers themselves are often eager to relay the "tricks of the trade" to younger colleagues, without realizing that what worked for them might not necessarily work for everyone ' (2017: 75). Oblivious of the genre to which they belong, the least helpful books of this ilk exist in an imaginary vacuum.

This is a review of the book  Writing Your Master’s Thesis: From A to Zen  by Lynn P. Nygaard.

Although writing centers in Germany are among the oldest and fastest growing outside of North America, scholarship produced within them remains largely unknown outside national borders due to challenges inherent in translingual research. This article helps remedy this gap by rendering accessible debates in ‘writing studies’ (‘Schreibwissenschaft’) in German-speaking countries, where a number of projects are underway to define the field at this moment of its maturation. By focusing on one such initiative in Germany, Stephanie Dreyfürst and Nadja Sennewald’s edited collection Schreiben: Grundlagentexte zur Theorie, Didaktik und Beratung (Writing: Foundational Texts on Theory, Pedagogy, and Consultations) (2014), I use the monograph as a case study for investigating larger scholarly conversations about the state of writing studies in the region. In doing so, I propose a new genre for transnational research—the translingual review. More thickly descriptive than the book review, the translingual review situates the edited or authored monograph within local disciplinary and institutional contexts. This particular translingual review adopts a comparative framework, examining how German-language scholarship extends Anglo-American research in innovative ways, particularly in its uses of writing process research.

Article abstract in English The article discusses the manifestations of linear logic in text structuring for academic book reviews, a genre in which structuring is both the subject of comment and a writing practice. By studying these two facets, the analysis contrasts two cultural contexts (Estonian and French) in two disciplines (history and language sciences) and observes their evolution on the time scale of the last ten years. The study considers whether the book review follows or rebuilds the structure of the commented book, figures out the maximum number of units mentioned, and analyses the vocabulary and comments which show discursive practices. Regarding the Estonian corpora, the structure of the commented book is often followed in the text reviewing the book whereas in French corpora a more synthesized presentation of books is common. Finally, the article analyses the most salient examples that use linear description in order to criticize and in order not to criticize.Le résumé en Français L’article discute les manifestations de la logique linéaire dans l’activité de la structuration de texte et du propos dans le genre du compte rendu de lecture académique, un genre où la structuration fait l’objet de commentaires et se pratique également dans l’exercice même de la rédaction. En exploitant ces deux facettes, l’analyse met en contraste deux contextes culturels – estonien et français – dans deux disciplines (histoire et sciences du langage) dans la perspective de ces dernières dix années. Par des indices comme le nombre maximal des chapitres énumérés, leur suivi ou leur restructuration dans le texte, le lexique ou les commentaires explicitant des pratiques discursives, le sondage montre un suivi plus marqué de la structure de l’ouvrage-objet dans les sous-corpus estoniens alors qu’une présentation plus synthétisée caractérise les corpus français. L’analyse de quelques exemples saillants discute d’une part l’usage de la linéarité pour critiquer et d’autre part pour ne pas critiquer.

Smith, J. and Wrigley, S. (2016) Introducing Teachers’ Writing Groups: Exploring the Theory and Practice. Abingdon: Routledge, pp.150, £95.00, 9781138797420
\n
\n
\nIntroducing Teachers' Writing Groups: Exploring the Theory and Practice, by Jenifer Smith and Simon Wrigley, is co-published by Routledge and the National Association for the Teaching of English (NATE) as the latest offering in a collaborative series. The Association is the professional body in the UK for all teachers of English in primary and post-primary schools and their series with Routledge is intended to promote ‘standards of excellence in the teaching of English’ by disseminating ‘innovative and original ideas that have practical classroom outcomes’, as well as supporting teachers’ own professional development. In this latest addition to the series, Smith and Wrigley address a key underlying question – indeed challenge – for English teachers: how can you teach students to write if, as a teacher, you can’t, or don’t, or won’t, write yourself? The authors introduce us to teachers’ writing groups as one compelling way to meet this challenge; such groups, the book demonstrates, encourage and support teachers as writers. Similarly, writing groups can also be of value in higher education settings for colleagues (Grant 2006, Badenhorst et al. 2013 and Geller and Eodice 2013), and for students (Aitchinson 2009), and it is the application of the book’s theory and practices in these contexts that may prove most useful for readers of the Journal of Academic Writing.

Academic writing courses and subject-matter courses have been taught independently to a large extent at many European universities following a ‘study skills model’ (Lea and Street 1998). An integrated approach, however, both in students’ L1 (or their language of instruction) and in English (if this is not their L1), in accordance with Lea and Street’s ‘academic literacies model’ has a number of advantages. Introducing an academic literacies model, however, is difficult to implement since it requires the joint effort of both subject-domain teachers and language teachers and involves deviating from familiar teaching methods. To implement the changes required, a three-level approach has been developed at Justus Liebig University (JLU), Giessen/Germany, as one of several measures in a university-wide project. In this approach, the university’s writing centre and teaching centre take over the role of ‘motors’ of literacy development in all disciplines. The macro-level of this three-level approach encompasses central services provided by these centres as well as university-wide literacy development policies. The meso-level addresses programme development, and the micro-level, curriculum and syllabus adaptations for individual courses. The article provides insight into the measures to be taken at each of these levels based on a review of prior research on Integrating Content and Language in Higher Education (ICLHE) (Gustafsson 2011, Gustafsson and Jacobs 2013 and Wilkinson and Walsh 2015) and the central role that writing centres and teaching centres can play in this process.

Novice writers and writing instructors in academic and professional settings often pine for guides that will deliver definitive rules which offer certitude. Steven Pinker’s The Sense of Style: The Thinking Person’s Guide to Writing in the 21st Century does so – to a large extent. That The Sense of Style cannot find rules in reason for everything is perhaps its most important – though unintended – message. For as it demonstrates, style remains haunted by the residues of taste and authority. With considerable social and symbolic capital at his command, Pinker can draw on many sources that give him the standing to act as arbiter of style. As an Ivy League professor, he has been involved in writing instruction at MIT and Harvard for several decades. He also chairs the Usage Panel of the American Heritage Dictionary (AHD); is a recognised scholar in cognitive psychology with a focus on language; has edited considerable amounts of science writing; and is a prolific author whose books have a readership beyond the academy. For those who view style primarily as a matter of taste, such authority suffices. In an age, however, where blunt authority is challenged and calls for an evidence base are expanding across the disciplines, others require that style guides also disclose the principles that inform their advice. This Pinker does. In a companion piece on Edge.org he couches his fundamental commitments carefully though, in the interrogative: ‘The question I'm currently asking myself is how our scientific understanding of language can be put into practice to improve the way that we communicate anything, including science? In particular, can you use linguistics, cognitive science, and psycholinguistics to come up with a better style manual’ (Pinker 2014). The tentative form of the question is presumably overridden by the 359-page book, which is a yes of sorts. It is, however, a commitment to quite a different type of science of language than the descriptive quantitative corpus linguistics that has become increasingly influential in the training of academic writing over the last three decades. Alas, as writing instructors and novice writers either fear or hope, science has its limits, also when it comes to style. Which is why Pinker calls upon additional principles to reasoning rooted in theoretical and empirical cognitive linguistics. These include ‘the backing of data from the AHD Usage Panel’; ‘historical analyses from several dictionaries’; and those elusive characters that still haunt the pages of style guides – elegance and grace – and which operate behind the scenes of a suggestion that a specific formulation just ‘sounds better’ (224). With such an assortment of principles, clashes can be expected. At times a stylistic suggestion is justified with historical precedent from centuries ago, at other times the same fact makes it jaded, stuffy and outdated. When writers waver between the conflicting choices enshrined in style manuals, Pinker leads them out of the panic with ‘a pinch of my own judgment’ (263) or advice to respond to sticklers and mavens with quips such as, ‘tell them that Jane Austen and I think it’s fine’ (261).

In her recent article 'Re-integrating Academic Development and Academic Language and Learning: a Call to Reason' (2014), Alisa Percy describes the historically separate trajectories in universities (in Australia but also more widely) of professional expertise in academic (educational) development and academic language and learning. She argues that this separation (in which, broadly, the former is staff-facing whilst the latter is student-facing) is unhelpful and calls for a reintegration of language and literacy expertise with academic development work in order to 'promote the development of students' language and learning simultaneously' (2014:1203). Percy's analysis and her conclusions are convincing to me. If I'm asked at a party what my job is (groan), I'm never quite sure which professional title to adopteducational developer, writing developer, learning developer, academic developerand, similarly, as its chronic institutional grumblings attest, the university in which I work is also never quite definitively cured of its anxieties about where the work I do should belong (historically over here, logically perhaps over there?). Conveniently sheltering under the nonpindownable, un-institutional, and non-generic name, 'Thinking Writing', the team in which I work has always taken the view that language and learningand knowing and being and doingare intimately connected, and that attention to language (writing specifically) isat least in principleas much the responsibility of disciplinary academics as is the teaching and learning of disciplinary content; the two, that is, can't really be separated.

In the humanities and social sciences, the essay still presents the most common form of evaluating students’ learning and familiarity with course contents, readings and academic debates. Fiona English acknowledges the value of this ‘default genre’ (Womack 1993: 43) but problematizes its dominance as it privileges particular ways of knowing and expression to the detriment of others. At times, she argues, it might even deny students opportunities for learning and understanding.

Critical reviews allow access to the critical thinking abilities of their writers, especially with regard to analyzing and synthesizing ideas. In most institutions of higher learning, critical reviews are assigned as coursework, and the general assumption is that students would know how to produce a ‘good’ review, one that meets its readers’ expectations. Is this a fair assumption? If not, which particular skills and strategies do we, as academics, teach them? This study was undertaken to find the answers to these questions and focused on the critical review writing of postgraduates. A mixed methods approach was adopted incorporating questionnaires, interviews and critical reviews of articles written in English by ESL postgraduate students at the Faculty of Languages and Linguistics, University of Malaya. The critical reviews were analyzed from two perspectives (contents and presentation) using a checklist devised by the researchers. The findings revealed that most of the students lacked the skills and strategies for writing effective reviews.