Doctoral education often treats academic writing as a solitary, human-centered activity, guided by conventions that emphasize structure, clarity, and discipline. These frameworks rarely consider how other-than-human entities shape the writing process. This article explores how multispecies assemblages inform doctoral writing, proposing that knowledge production can be understood as an eductive process – an unfolding of latent ideas through relationship with the so-called “natural” world. Drawing on examples from my own work, I share an excerpt from a multispecies duoethnographic project that seeks to recognize and incorporate other-than-human perspectives. I reflect on how these encounters have shaped my scholarly voice and academic identity, challenging dominant assumptions about writing as an isolated human endeavor. Reimagining writing as a relational, evolving practice, I offer reflections for integrating multispecies sensibilities into doctoral training and invite educators, researchers, and students to view academic writing as a collaborative process shaped by entanglements of human and more-than-human life.

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.

Professional writers are among several kinds of practitioner offering writing development to postgraduates and research staff in universities. As ‘third space’ professionals they bring expertise from the commercial world of writing into their academic writing interventions with students and staff. Yet, the difference professional writers’ experience can make for participants’ writing, in comparison to other writing developers, has hardly been examined. This paper begins to explore the contributions Royal Literary Fund Consultant Fellows (RLF CFs), a community of UK-based fiction and non-fiction authors, can make through their writing interventions. It explores these writers’ perceptions of their dual identities – as writers and writing developers – and their perceived benefits of having professional writers work with students and staff. The data reveal the central role writing plays for RLF CFs’ professional identity, which allows them to model a holistic approach to writing together with strategies for managing its affective dimension. Exploring their contribution to Higher Education (HE) writing development, the paper also prepares the ground for future studies into the impact of RLF CF interventions from the participants’ perspective.

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.

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.

This paper gives insights into research conducted within the Writing Centre Exchange Project (WCEP), a research collaboration among three university writing centres in Sweden, Germany and Ireland, which focuses on organisational perspectives on writing centre work. WCEP rests on the theoretical framework of institutional work. Previous research, conducted in US writing centres, developed a model of institutional work in writing centres that includes specific Strategic Action Fields (SAFs) and collaborative learning as a means to interact with stakeholders. By using this model, WCEP has targeted ongoing institutional work intended to establish and sustain missions, goals and activities in and around writing centres. Drawing on participatory action research, WCEP explores the extent to which the institutional work at the three European writing centres correlates with the model. The main findings show that indeed the same strategic action fields are relevant, but furthermore, different subcategories emerge depending on the local context. This paper explores some of the subcategories that differ and draws conclusions for the institutional work of writing centre directors.

This paper highlights a rather overlooked area of academic writing: that of publication by teachers of academic writing. The research focuses on exploring UK teachers’ views of the importance of publishing in terms of its impact on their practice, profession, and institution. Interviews were carried out with nine teachers of academic writing who worked within English for Academic Purposes at UK universities and were actively publishing. Data was collected in the form of their views and accounts of experiences of publishing, and the obstacles they had encountered. The study concludes that publishing by teachers of academic writing is considered a valuable parallel activity to their teaching, understanding and support of students with writing. It also seems that publishing could improve both the teachers’ individual reputation in their institutions and the status of their profession. However, it was also noticeable that many barriers to publishing exist, including lack of time, support and mentoring, as well as a more serious problem of hostility from line managers. Networks, collaborative initiatives and more informal writing opportunities may encourage teachers of academic writing to publish more themselves.

After working in Further Education (FE) and Higher Education (HE) in the United Kingdom for over thirty years, and completing a doctoral thesis on the subject of lecturers’ perceptions of academic writing in HE (French 2014), it became very clear to me that many students and lecturers (although that is a subject of another paper) experience the processes of producing academic writing in very physical and emotional ways. In this paper, I will be discussing how my students often articulated the intensity and emotional nature of their academic writing experiences using words like ‘fear’, ‘frustration’, ‘outrage’, ‘exhaustion’ and ‘yearning’. This emotion and strength of feeling drew me to consider the relationship between the development of a positive writing identity and the affective domain. Subsequently, in my practice as a tutor in HE, I incorporated the affective domain into my work and seek here to stimulate debate with subject lecturers about how important emotions, even negative emotions like confusion and anxiety, can be to the development of a positive academic writing identity for students. The paper argues that, by using the affective domain as a pedagogic springboard, subject lecturers can formulate more collaborative, supportive and emotionally sensitive communities of writing practice.

Writing center directors have to face complex leadership tasks, but often do not have a background in management or administration studies. This study asks how they accomplish this demanding effort. Following a grounded theory approach, 16 writing centers in the USA were visited and expert interviews with the center directors were carried out. In bringing together the emerging concepts of the empirical work with the theoretical framework of the study of institutional work, this article shows that writing center directors transfer the pedagogy of writing centers to their leadership tasks. They use a stance of collaborative learning to deal with the challenges in their everyday work and to institutionalize their writing centers.

English-medium instruction (EMI) in higher education presents challenges at many different levels for educators and students. One of the challenges is disciplinary writing, as students typically study disciplinary content through, and also write in, English as a second or a foreign language. The present, exploratory intervention study uses the redesign of a writing assignment in a Master’s level engineering course at a Swedish university to investigate challenges of disciplinary writing in an EMI context. The study describes how collaboration between content and communication staff helped unpack some of the challenges that students faced. The results show that the students’ texts improved and that the redesign helped them to better adjust to a genre partially new to them. The study also underscores the value for programmes to have a clear plan for writing. The planning is likely to benefit from collaboration between disciplinary and communication faculty, as these participants bring different knowledge to the process.

Improving postgraduate student writing in English is an ongoing concern in the increasingly internationalised UK Higher Education context. Although the importance of feedback for developing academic writing skills is well-established (Hyland and Hyland 2006), there is still much debate about the components of effective feedback. In response to the call for research investigating teachers’ real-world practices in giving feedback in specific contexts (Lee 2014 and 2012), this article presents an initiative to develop students’ abilities to tackle written postgraduate writing (essays and dissertations) through collaborative on-line academic writing courses. The Grounded Theory-inspired study explores student perceptions of the effectiveness of online formative feedback on postgraduate academic writing in order to identify best practices which can contribute to developing skills in providing feedback. The study analyses tutor feedback on student texts and student responses to feedback. We applied categories which emerged from this data and concluded that the students we investigated had responded most positively when a combination of confidence-developing feedback practices were employed. These included both principled corrective language feedback and positive, personalised feedback on academic conventions and practices. This collaboration between academic writing and content specialists continues to provide further opportunities for embedding practices that encourage the development of academic writing skills on one year postgraduate programmes at the University of Edinburgh.

Research-based learning is an approach that lets students conduct research to develop content knowledge. This article gives insights into a seminar that followed this approach. It was a collaboration between the writing center and the linguistics department at European University Viadrina in Germany with the aim to explore new ways of combining the learning of content knowledge and writing. In accordance with the stance of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SOTL), this collaboration was meant to be a pilot to generate experiences and knowledge about this approach and its potential for combining discipline-specific learning and writing.

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.

Use of a wiki tool as a space for collaborative writing may be an effective way to expand the practice of academic writing, where working in groups to produce a collective text is a common occurrence in higher education. Evidence suggests wikis to be flexible tools which may improve collaboration and provide students with new skills. However, some research has shown that collaboration in wikis may be superficial and that their use may lead to increased workload for students and instructors. Because a great deal of academic writing is accomplished in groups, helping students build their collaborative writing skills is an important academic writing endeavor. This article provides evidence revealing both the potential of wikis to foster collaborative writing and important factors to consider before incorporating a wiki into an academic writing course. Scaffolding tasks to build up to cooperative group writing and introducing new ideas regarding text ownership can make wikis an effective space to practice academic writing. Weighing the evidence provided in this article may help instructors determine whether incorporating a wiki in their own context could constitute an additional space for students to develop their academic writing skills.

This article reports on a case study evaluating lecturers' experiences of their own affective writing process using a reflective critical incident analysis. While the cognitive-affective focus of academic writing has been explored previously from a collaborative perspective (Benton et al. 1984), this current study takes the individual writer as the unit of analysis. There are several reasons why lecturers need to write. Foremost among these should be that when they write, they are providing a positive model for students, and are helping to demystify the act of writing. Scholarly writing can be a struggle, and by doing so ourselves, we learn empathy for our students. In reality, many lecturers are facing the need for increasing their publications output. In terms of writing for publication, Murray (2013) has advised that busy academics must develop productive writing processes, and this may mean changing writing behaviours.Affective conditions such as sense of class community, self-efficacy and writing apprehension are known factors affecting writing behaviour and performance. A blended accredited professional development module entitled ‘Writing and Disseminating Research’ is discussed as a way to afford lecturers opportunities to develop writing skills that may also promote positive affective conditions. Data suggests that the pedagogic intervention resulted in greater confidence in terms of participants’ critical writing skills and provided a suitable environment for affective conditions to flourish. Four themes emerged from the analysis of the critical incidents on writing apprehension: self efficacy, the role of external sources on affective writing, peer feedback and class community. Future research would explore the sustainability of the process extending into the lecturers' own practice with their students.

Writing for publication can be a demanding and stressful experience, yet producing research outputs is a core part of academic life. This article aims to explore how 'neophyte' or novice academic writers can be supported in producing scholarly papers. It analyses a variety of causes for the difficulties faced by new writers, with a focus on the types of motivation that can be harnessed to improve success. The article acknowledges that promoting intrinsic motivation can enhance the writing experience, and investigates how this can be achieved using the familiar tool, Microsoft PowerPoint as a scaffold to develop an article. Although many academics exploit PowerPoint to teach, few of us turn this tool into a writing aid that can help to keep the writing process on track by providing a concise outline of the developing argument in an academic paper. The article concentrates on collaborative writing for publication, which is helpful for neophyte writers and busy academics because the burden of production can be shared. Possible reasons for high attrition rates in publication writing are considered, including a lack of schema development, cognitive overload, and reduced motivation to write. The article demonstrates how PowerPoint can be employed as a catalyst to initiate research writing and foster productivity.

The pivotal role of writing centers in improving the quality of academic writing has been well documented by research. Although writing centers are commonplace in many countries, it appears that none existed prior to 2008 between South Africa and the Sahara. This article reports on the writer's assignment to start one in Namibia. The expectations of the challenges in this task, centering on training staff and tutors and acquiring resources, did not resemble the realities experienced, involving infrastructure, matrix management, hierarchy, and bureaucracy. Various paradigms for deconstructing these experiences, such as post-colonialism, culture clash, and ‘contact zone’ theory, all only partially explain the challenges encountered. These experiences in Namibia provide a case study of the politics of collaboration involved in implementing a writing center, and a microcosm of the challenges one might face anywhere. This account is thus 'glocal'; that is, locally derived but with global applications. Eleven specific guidelines can assist anyone contemplating a similar administrative assignment.

At the heart of the redesign of Higher Education qualifications in South Africa lies the issue of increasing evidence of student difficulties in integrating different forms of knowledge. This article proposes that in order to design curricula and pedagogy which better prepare our graduates for legitimate participation in the world of work, we need to understand what that participation might look like. Using a Bernsteinian (Bernstein 1996, 2000) conceptual framework, a research study was conducted which entailed mapping the knowledge integration practices of final year multidisciplinary engineering diploma students in a situated learning environment. The intention of the research was to illuminate the nature of and relationship between the different forms of knowledge evident in actual practice. The concurrent analysis of discursive practices representing complex knowledge integration reveals that in addition to forms of meaning-making associated with traditional engineering disciplines, successful practice is dependent on the ability to draw on a range of oral and written individual ‘repertoires’, as well as those of a collective ‘reservoir’ that stretches beyond the academy: the invisible community of users on the Internet. The complex praxis and concomitant discourses described in this article suggest we need to see integration of knowledge as more than that of language and content, or concept and context, rather as a system of ‘collaboration’ at multiple levels.

This article analyses two examples of embedded academic writing and language provision within Art and Design (A&D) degree programmes in Animation and Fashion Textiles. The provision took the form of interventions to develop the students’ writing as part of their studio practice, specifically to help them generate concepts and develop studio-based design work. As such, the writing in these interventions formed part of a repertoire of strategies or tools for the development of design, and so was not focused on traditional academic writing (in the form of essays). The interventions were the product of close collaboration with specialist lecturers from the degree courses and were co-taught with them. We drew on practices and priorities from the studio disciplines and were informed by broadly Academic Literacies and Critical Pedagogy approaches, as well as ideas from Bakhtin (1981) and Freire (1996) on dialogue, and Medway (1996) on writing in art and design. This article finds that in terms of engagement and confidence with studio-based writing, the interventions had a transformative impact on the students. It also finds that where the interventions were most successful, dialogue played a number of key roles. The paper highlights the value of working on a form of studio-writing that is relatively unexamined; the transformative potential of embedded work like this; and the benefits of dialogue and collaboration inherent in this kind of intervention.

This article claims that working with peer tutors in a writing center can be very valuable for the center’s development, if the director and tutors work together according to crucial principles in writing center pedagogy. Based on the example of the writing center at European University Viadrina, this article shows how the ideas of autonomy and collaboration for both writing support and writing center leadership led to the writing center’s growth.

The difficulties students face when writing academically in an L2 have been widely acknowledged (Dudley-Evans 2002 et al., Paltridge 2001 and Swales 1990). While many higher education institutions in English-speaking countries have started to offer modules that support non-native (and native) students in their academic writing, very little is being done in this respect in developing countries, for example in Latin America (Carlino 2007 and Vargas 2007). In this paper, a project will be presented that aimed at fostering academic literacy in an M.A. course on research methods in a Mexican public university. Different pedagogic strategies, such as a needs analysis, explicit instruction on the target genre (the literature review), collaborative writing, a research journal, peer-reviews and group discussions were combined in order to achieve rapid improvement in this resource-poor environment. Through constant mutual feedback from, and communication with, peers, this transitional discourse community (Bruffee 1999) of twenty-four students moved towards the norms and conventions associated with the respective genre. The strategies employed might be of interest to instructors in academic writing who work under similar difficult conditions and/or time constraints.

The present study identifies the problems that students of the Educational Science Faculty of the Complutense University of Madrid encounter when revising and rewriting texts. This process involves developing and clarifying their thoughts in order to rewrite the text which, in turn, implies not only evaluating and improving the draft but also transforming and constructing knowledge.It is assumed that the revision and rewriting process specifically consists of identifying, diagnosing and rewriting language units or fragments of text which can be improved. This involves applying cognitive operations of information management to rough drafts at different linguistic and textual levels until the final text is collaboratively produced.In conclusion, it is argued that the potential of collaborative revision and rewriting, as well as the need for writer tutoring through guides which monitor the process and encourage reflection, should be highlighted.

The following set of three papers, ‘University Literacies: French Students at a Disciplinary “Threshold”?’ by Isabelle Delcambre and Christiane Donahue, ‘Modeling Multivocality in a U.S.-Mexican Collaboration in Writing across the Curriculum’, by Mya Poe and Jennifer Craig, and ‘Perceptions and Anticipation of Academic Literacy: “Finding Your Own Voice”’, by Claire Woods and Paul Skrebels, represents some of the ongoing practice-oriented research of the ‘Antwerp Group’, so called because the members came together as teacher-researchers with shared interests in student writing in Antwerp in 2006.

Since 2006 the ‘Antwerp Group’ group has explored student writing from various country perspectives to understand what practices and pedagogies are country specific and what issues cut across national borders. The insights of the Antwerp Group helped inform a 2009–2010 collaboration between The Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey in which we combined Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) and English as Foreign Language (EFL) instruction. This paper describes how a theoretical model used by the Antwerp Group helped us identify the multivocality that each collaborating group brought to this new partnership. In the end, theorizing multivocality helped us recognize our diverse perspectives as a resource even as we sought to find a collaborative voice in setting project goals, defining a student survey, and implementing a curricular design for a WAC-EFL writing course.