Preview this article: Composing in Stages: The Effects of A Collaborative Pedagogy, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/15/1/researchintheteachingofenglish15782-1.gif

Uniformity in style for scientific and technical journals is justified by savings in costs for authors, savings in redactorial costs, and more ready comprehension of text and tables by readers. Uniform style is readily imposed upon journals published within a single organization. Reaching agreements on uniform style becomes more difficult as the span of journals increases to independent journals within on discipline and to journals increases to independent journals within one discipline and to journals in different disciplines. Collaborations within, or sponsored by, the Council of Biology Editors, the Royal Society of Medicine, and the Nordic Publication Committee for Medicine illustrate the possibilities for intradiscipline agreements on style. Collaboration among different disciplines will be more difficult but should be a major aim in scientific publication.

The use of subjective testing as the only method for testing writing ability is questioned in this paper. Even a collaboration between engineers and specialists in English gives highly debatable results. The author of this paper, a well known British educator, has been experimenting with a type of objective testing. He invites readers to take one of his tests and to discuss the results with him.

The purpose of this work is to analyze the persuasion which characterizes therapeutic advice and its collaborative goal. It is observed that this type of advice seems to be more effective when it is not limited to a mere scientific demonstration, but it considers also all the interlocutor’s subjective aspects. The study is supported by examples from a little corpus of transcribed real doctor-patient dialogues, collected and analyzed in a previous research work of the author. The research examines the principal arguments, argumentative figures and silences.

This case study examines how collaboration between a writing centre manager and an educational developer created new opportunities to advance writing pedagogy at a mid-sized Canadian university. Initially born from our university’s response to generative artificial intelligence, our effort both responds to perceived threats to the future of writing studies and attempts to preserve our work through new opportunities. Collaboration between writing centres and faculty development is under-represented in the literature, yet we have found the marginality of the third space to be a productive one from which to grow our campus’ writing community from “under the curriculum” (Hunt, 2006, p. 371). In this paper, we present three examples of collaborations between a writing centre manager and an educational developer—creating a community of practice, facilitating workshops for graduate students, and presenting to our university’s Senate. The outcomes of our reflections offer perspectives on AI and writing pedagogy, highlight the importance of cross-unit partnerships, and illustrate how third space professionals can offer critical writing-related perspectives to institutions where formal writing programs do not exist—ultimately helping make visible the often decentralized work of writing studies professionals in Canada.