+1(978)310-4246 credencewriters@gmail.com


How you complete this 2-page paper:

Find two samples of professional or academic writing from your major or your field. A scholarly journal article would work, a syllabus from one of your classes, other course materials, or other kinds of writing (NOT WRITTEN BY YOU) that represent a more professional voice, more sophisticated (industry related) subject matter, etc. These should not be very difficult to find.

Provide the titles of these documents in a short introduction to this 2-page analysis.

You don’t need to post the samples.

The main assignment: please write a 2-page, double-spaced analysis of how these authors establish credibility as seen in the writing and use of language and syntax. This should be a focus on the sentence-level writing (syntax, active voice, etc.) as well as the use of language and other conventions authors use to establish their ethos or credibility.

Please refer to this week’s documents I discuss in the weekly lecture: ”

Teaching the Conventions of Academic Discourse

” and the

website from Lumen Learning

. These two sources are found under our

Writing Unit Readings


This is a 2-page analysis incorporating BOTH samples and BOTH sources. You can provide a short introduction for the reader but then discuss the ethos via the writing strategies used in these documents.

Make ~4 specific references (note the reference, cite it in your writing) to the two sources (“Teaching the Conventions . . .” and Lumen Learning).

You do not need a Works Cited page




Teaching the Conventions of
Academic Discourse
> Teresa Thonney
New Voice
A study of scholarly research articles from six disciplines provides insights about academic
writing that composition instructors can use to prepare students to write across
the curriculum.
iven the current emphasis on disciplinary discourses, it’s not surprising that
so little recent attention has been devoted to identifying conventions that are
universal in academic discourse. In this essay, I argue that there are shared features
that unite academic writing, and that by introducing these features to first-year
students we provide them with knowledge they can apply and refine in each new
discipline they encounter.
Some scholars believe that making generalizations about academic writing
is impossible. Just as there is “no autonomous, generalizable skill called ball using
or ball handling that can be learned and then applied to all ball games,” David
Russell argues, there is no “autonomous, generalizable skill or set of skills called
‘writing’ that can be learned and then applied to all genres or activities” (57, 59).
Because there are no “general” skills that students can learn and transfer to all
writing situations, some suggest that students would benefit more from learning
about the ways writing conventions vary across academic disciplines and discourse
communities (Wardle 784).
Others (such as Berkenkotter and Huckin; Freedman) believe that writing
conventions can’t be taught and that trying to teach them “assumes that one can
learn to write academic genres by adhering to a definite rule-set” (Lynch-Biniek).
But linguistic scholars (including Swales; MacDonald; Bazerman; Biber) have demonstrated that patterns and formulas prevail in academic writing, and many have
described the benefits of teaching writing conventions to students (see, for example,
Williams and Colomb). By teaching conventional ways to introduce topics, identify sources, and organize arguments, for instance, we provide “a valuable tool for
clarifying academic mysteries to large numbers of students” (Birkenstein and Graff).
In fact,Wilder and Wolfe found that students who were explicitly taught language
conventions in a literature course wrote better essays and reported comparable or
higher levels of enjoyment in the course than those receiving no instruction in
writing conventions (170).
Te a c h i n g t h e C o n v e n t i o n s o f A c a d e m i c D i s c o u r s e
Copyright © 2011 by the National Council of Teachers of English. All rights reserved.
e347-362-May11-TE.indd 347
4/23/11 10:19 AM
As Hassel and Giordano noted in a recent TETYC article, the need for
explicit instruction in writing conventions is particularly acute at open-admission
two-year colleges, where many students, including those testing into college-level
writing courses, are unfamiliar with rhetorical strategies expected in college writing
(25). Even freshmen at universities, when asked to write college papers, can feel like
they are being asked “to build a house without any tools” (Sommers and Saltz 131).
Studies by Carroll, Herrington and Curtis, and McCarthy reveal considerable
variety in the writing undergraduates do and in the disciplinary approaches they
encounter. Disciplines differ in modes of inquiry, in forms of proof, and in methods of research. These differences manifest themselves in writing, as documented
in corpus-based studies by Swales, MacDonald, Hyland, and others, differences
students will appreciate when they learn to write the genres of their chosen majors.
Despite this variation, some principles appear in all academic writing guides,
no matter the discipline, as Karen Bennett found in her survey of forty-one style
manuals. Some shared features, such as source citation, are, of course, realized differently across disciplines; but Bennett found “remarkable consensus as regards general
principles, methods of textual construction, and the kinds of grammatical and lexical
features to be used” (43). No first-year student is expected to write like discipline
insiders when writing in entry-level courses that are “predisciplinary in both theory
and practice” (Diller and Oates 54). But research indicates students are rewarded
when they produce prose that resembles that of experienced academic writers.
To determine what rhetorical features appear in the prose of experienced
academic writers, I analyzed twenty-four research articles—four articles from each
of six disciplines: psychology, sports medicine, biology, marketing, literature, and
engineering.The articles were randomly selected from the following peer-reviewed
American Journal of Community Psychology
American Journal of Sports Medicine
Journal of Cell Biology
Journal of Marketing Research
PMLA (Publications of the Modern Language Association of America)
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers
My analysis reveals six standard “moves” in academic writing:
> Writers respond to what others have said about their topic.
> Writers state the value of their work and announce the plan for their papers.
> Writers acknowledge that others might disagree with the position they’ve
> Writers adopt a voice of authority.
> Writers use academic and discipline-specific vocabulary.
> Writers emphasize evidence, often in tables, graphs, and images.
TETYC May 2011
e347-362-May11-TE.indd 348
4/23/11 10:19 AM
Introducing first-year composition students to these conventions of academic writing provides them with knowledge they can use now and refine later when writing
in their chosen disciplines.
Let’s start with the standard way academic writers begin—by summarizing
what others have said about their topic.
1. Academic Writers Respond to What Others Have Written about
Their Topic
When academics write, they join a conversation.To show they understand this they
refer to what others have already written about their subject. This feature appears
in every article of the sample. Consider this passage from a report in the sports
medicine sample articles:
In the past decades, major insights have been gained into how intrinsic factors
and extrinsic signals control and guide the development of dendrites and dendritic spines and how patterned neural activity shapes this process (Hering and
Sheng, 2001; . . .Van Aelst and Cline, 2004). Nonetheless, large gaps still exist in
our knowledge about how all these pathways integrate and execute their function
at the molecular level. (Huang, Zang, and Reichardt 527)
By referring to what others have said about a topic, writers accomplish two things:
they show that they are addressing an issue that matters, and they establish that
there is more to be said about it.
Sometimes writers enter the conversation by taking issue with the conclusions of previous researchers, as in this passage from the literature articles:
[Christopher] Lane’s thesis, linking ambivalent national-symbolic identifications
on the part of homosexual writers to specifically colonial rhetorical struc­tures, is
convincing (3); however, I would position Auden’s case dif­ferently, as paradoxical
to this founding paradox of colonial passion. (Christie 1576)
Others have noted that disciplines vary in the way disagreement gets expressed. Linton, Madigan, and Johnson found that in literary criticism, for example,
attacks can get personal, unlike in other disciplines where disagreements are ignored
or limited to criticizing research methods (73–74). But the writers in my sample,
including those representing literature, show respect for previous research. Undergraduates, given their junior status, would be wise to follow suit when disagreeing
with published scholars.
Like published scholars, undergraduates write research-based papers, today
more than ever (Lunsford and Lunsford 793). But they struggle in two notable
ways. First, many students fail to contribute to the conversation. Instead of analyzing, synthesizing, or adding to what others have said, they merely show they have
“done the reading.” Second, in student papers, incorrect or missing source citations
abound. Tinberg and Nadeau’s recent study of first-year students at a community
college reminds us that for students the most in-depth discussion and practice of
Te a c h i n g t h e C o n v e n t i o n s o f A c a d e m i c D i s c o u r s e
e347-362-May11-TE.indd 349
4/23/11 10:19 AM
writing occurs in their required writing course (128). One way we can prepare
students for writing across the curriculum is with assignments that involve summarizing, synthesizing, attributing writers, and commenting on what they have said.
2. Academic Writers State the Value of Their Work and Announce the
Plan for Their Papers
One reason academics refer to what has been written about an issue is to establish
that the issue matters. Another reason is to show that their research addresses an
aspect of the issue still unresolved. All twenty-four writers in our sample explain
that their research is necessary, unique, or otherwise of value, as in this passage from
the marketing articles:
The vast majority of research that has assessed the effect of price promotions on
brand evaluation has studied the effect after product trial, rather than pretrial. . . .
Unlike previous studies . . . , we examine the effects of price promotions pretrial
to isolate their informational impact on brand quality perceptions from the
potentially moderating effect of prior personal experience with the brand.
(Raghubir and Corfman 212)
Scholars must sell their work to editors and reviewers; but students too must “sell”
their work to their professors. By explaining why their topic is important, how
their approach to a topic is unique, or even why they chose to write about a topic,
students set their papers apart from papers that lack purpose.
In addition to stating the value of their work early, academic writers help
readers navigate their texts. All twenty-four titles in our sample announce the specific topic of the article; a few (particularly in the sciences) also convey the research
results. Here is an example from the psychology articles:
Conceptualizing and Measuring Historical Trauma among American Indian
From the biology articles:
Process Outgrowth in Oligodendrocytes is Mediated by CNP, a Novel Microtubule Assembly Myelin Protein
Twenty-three of twenty-four articles also include subheadings that announce the
topic of sections:
Effects of Multiple Ankle Sprains on Postural Sway
Matters of Conscience in Machiavelli and Macbeth
Another way academic writers prepare readers for what is ahead is with an
explicit statement of purpose. Here is an example from the engineering articles:
This paper describes the development of a second generation of piezoelectric
paint and the characterization of sensors made with it. (Hale et al. 1)
In some articles, writers announce their hypothesis:
TETYC May 2011
e347-362-May11-TE.indd 350
4/23/11 10:19 AM
We hypothesized that there would be an increase in ankle repositioning errors
and postural sway in basketball players who had sustained bilateral ankle sprains,
under conditions in which they had to rely more heavily on ankle proprioceptive
input. (Fu and Hui-Chan 1175)
In other articles, the statement of purpose expresses the writer’s opinion:
I . . . precede my discussion of the trope of the castrato with a brief histori­cal
overview of the situation and reception of actual castrati singers. I then show how
Jo­hann Jakob Wilhelm Heinse (1746–1803) and Friedrich Schiller (1759–1805)
used the figure of the castrato as a privileged metaphor for the negotiation of
class conflicts, gender con­cepts, and the nature of art. (Krimmer 1544)
Many students think the main claim in an academic argument must be an assertive,
polemic statement. But corpus-based analyses reveal that most academic writers
state their main claim matter-of-factly (Conrad 119–20). Statements that begin
with “This paper describes,”“We hypothesized,” and “I then show” (from the above
examples) are not argumentative; they hardly seem like opinions.
Most writers in our sample identify the paper’s organization along with the
purpose. Here is an example from the psychology articles:
First, we will provide an overview of previous work conceptualizing historical
psychological distress among American Indians. Second, we will present a summary of qualitative data from elders on two American Indian reservations in the
upper Midwest that was used to develop a measure of historical trauma. Third, we
will describe measures of historical trauma and provide measurement characteristics and frequencies on the basis of a sample of 143 parents. (Whitbeck et al. 120)
From the marketing articles:
The article is organized into four sections . . . that systematically investigate the
effect of package shape on volume perceptions, preference and choice, consumption (perceived and actual), and postconsumption satisfaction. (Raghubir and
Krishna 314)
Some composition instructors want students to avoid statements of purpose
that begin “In this paper” and to avoid “blueprint” statements that announce topics.
But such statements are commonplace in academic journals, and many professors
reward students who make reading easy. In their analysis of 50 graded essays (from
various disciplines), Tedick and Mathison noticed “the general pattern was that
subjects received higher holistic scores on the essays—regardless of prompt type—
that they framed well enough for readers to be able to make predictions about the
content to come” (206).
In addition to providing subheadings and overviews, many writers in the
sample stop within their articles to announce what is next, as in this example from
the marketing articles:
In the next section, we discuss relevant research on visual mental imagery in the
design, marketing, and psychology literature, present a conceptual model of how
Te a c h i n g t h e C o n v e n t i o n s o f A c a d e m i c D i s c o u r s e
e347-362-May11-TE.indd 351
4/23/11 10:19 AM
visual mental imagery influences the customer appeal of the product designed,
and propose a set of hypotheses. (Dahl, Chattopadhyay, and Gorn 19)
Most writers end by summarizing what has been covered and reiterating the value
of their research, as shown in this example from sports medicine:
To our knowledge, this study provides the longest follow-up in the literature
of patients undergoing meniscal repair with the arrow. . . . Indeed, this study
represents the longest follow-up in the literature on any of the available all-inside
meniscal repair devices. (Lee and Diduch 1140–41)
Every article in the sample includes a statement of purpose, preview sentences, review sentences, and sentences that announce the value of the research.
Student research and writing may not be as complicated as that of the scholars in
our sample, but students write for professors who read many papers—quickly. A
wealth of research has shown that when writers signal where they are going and
how they will get there, readers read faster and remember better what they have
read (Meyer 212–16). This is an important principle for students to learn.
3. Academic Writers Acknowledge That Others Might Disagree with the
Position They’ve Taken
Because scholars recognize that others might disagree with their conclusions, they
sprinkle their writing with qualifiers, or hedges, such as “probably,” “possibly,”
“maybe,” and “it seems,” particularly when writing to colleagues.Writers use hedges
to make statements more accurate and to avoid appearing dogmatic. Examples of
hedges are italicized in the following sentences from our sample. First from the
sports medicine articles:
The onset latency to the ADM was not affected, whereas the onset latency to the
FDI was affected, suggesting, the lesion may be located in the palm, distal to the
motor branch to the ADM. (Akuthota et al. 1228)
From the psychology articles:
[Oppressed people] tend to be passive and unable to recognize their own capacity
to transform their social reality; and their existence is often accepted on the basis
of destiny, bad luck or supernatural will. (Balcazar, Garate-Serafini, and Keys 250)
Writers in the sample also anticipate potential critics by recognizing the limitations
of their findings:
More research, varying the factors previously identified, is necessary to establish
the generalizability of our findings to a broader range of product design contexts.
(Dahl, Chattopadhyay, and Gorn 27)
Professors sometimes complain that students fail to back their claims with
sufficient evidence.While this is sometimes true, the problem can be partly due to
students’ failure to qualify assertions. Some students, especially those who are not
native speakers of English, underuse qualifiers (e.g.,“apparently,”“likely,”“possibly”)
TETYC May 2011
e347-362-May11-TE.indd 352
4/23/11 10:19 AM
and overuse words expressing certainty (e.g., “really,” “of course,” “certainly”) in
their writing (Gilquin and Paquot 47).
By teaching students how to distinguish between statements of “fact” and
opinion, how to differentiate between generalities and specifics, and how and when
to moderate claims with hedges, we help them write better arguments in any discipline. Students readily see the difference between “Surveys prove Americans are
changing their attitudes about same-sex marriages” and “Surveys suggest Americans
may be changing their attitudes about same-sex marriage,” and with practice they
learn to moderate sweeping generalities.
4. Academic Writers Adopt a Voice of Authority
Although tentative in their claims, academic writers still write with authority.
Conveying authority is understandably challenging for student writers. David
Bartholomae describes their dilemma: Students “have to speak in the voice and
through the codes of those of us with power and wisdom; and they not only have
to do this, they have to do it before they know what they are doing . . . and before, at least in the terms of our disciplines, they have anything to say” (156). Even
graduate students have difficulty establishing an ethos of authority when writing as
initiates in their field (Blakeslee 133). But students can learn to imitate techniques
of experienced writers.
Using First or Third Person
Writers in a few disciplines, such as engineering, tend to avoid first person in formal writing. A look at two passages from our sample, the first from marketing, the
second from engineering, is revealing:
In this article, we examine the effect of elongation on (1) perceived volume, (2)
perceived consumption, (3) actual consumption, (4) postconsumption satisfaction,
and (5) choice. As described in Figure 1, our model suggests that package shape
directly affects perceived volume and through this, indirectly and inversely affects
perceived consumption. (Raghubir and Krishna 323)
This paper presents a new approach to model the friction layer in brake systems
in the investigation of noise and vibration, especially high-frequency squeal. . . .
The friction layer is modeled as a coupling stiffness between the brake pad and
the rotor as a combination of the elastic stiffness of the friction layer superimposed on the coupling modal stiffness of the brake-pad combination. . . . By
incorporating the earlier results in a two degree of freedom model, the predicted
frequencies were shown to be close to the squeal frequencies obtained from field
tests. (Paliwal et al. 520–21)
The engineering paragraph includes no mention of who completed the research
(“predicted frequencies were shown”). In fact, the paragraph is from a journal
that advises authors: “Papers should be written in the third person in an objective,
formal and impersonal style.”
Te a c h i n g t h e C o n v e n t i o n s o f A c a d e m i c D i s c o u r s e
e347-362-May11-TE.indd 353
4/23/11 10:19 AM
But in the rest of the sample, nineteen of twenty writers use first person.
Writers in medicine, marketing, psychology, biology, and literature all make clear
that they formed hypotheses, collected data, and reached conclusions. From the
sports medicine articles:
We compared the results obtained from the injured ankle with those from the
uninjured ankle. (Santilli et al. 1186)
From the psychology articles:
My colleagues and I interviewed 28 adult Bosnians attending a community
mental health program. (Miller 225)
Compared to the engineers, these writers also use more active voice constructions—another way to convey authority. For engineers, the average number of
occurrences of passive voice within 500-word excerpts is nearly twice the average
for any other discipline in the sample (15.8 occurrences in engineering versus 8.8
occurrences in sports medicine, 4.3 in psychology, 6.0 in marketing, 7.0 in cell
biology, and 3.25 in literature).
The challenge for student writers is knowing how and when to use first
person. Many students needlessly preface statements with “It seems to me” or “I
think” (Gilquin and Paquot 48–49, 55–57). Others, attempting to convey authority,
adopt the voice of moralizing parent. With direction, however, students improve.
They can learn to judge when writing “I think” has purpose and when writing
“I think” is pointless. (McKinney Maddalena provides excellent help for students
concerning when to use first person.)
Writing Concisely
Another way writers create an ethos of authority is by using a high percentage of
meaning-carrying words. In the 1970s, Jean Ure developed a method for determining a text’s lexical density by calculating the percentage of lexical words (445).
Lexical words include nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs—classes of words that
convey meaning and to which we continue to add. Grammatical words include
pronouns, auxiliary verbs, conjunctions, prepositions, articles, and other determiners—classes of words to which we don’t add.Thus, the following sentence includes
seven lexical words (in bold print):
Some scientists believe that stem cells can be used to treat diseases.
While spoken language includes many grammatical words (Ure found the percentage of lexical words in spoken language to be below 40 percent), written texts
tend to be more lexically dense. In Ure’s study (in 1971), the lexical density of a
textbook was 50.2 percent, and the lexical density of a scholarly journal was 52.8
percent (cited in Ventola 159). The lexical density in our sample ranges between
52.8 percent (in sports medicine) and 56.5 percent (in cell biology). In other words,
more words than not are meaning-carrying words.
Writers in our sample pack meaning into sentences:
TETYC May 2011
e347-362-May11-TE.indd 354
4/23/11 10:19 AM
They don’t describe “meniscal healing that was incomplete” but instead write
“incomplete meniscal healing.”
Not “sociologists and geographers who are feminists” but “feminist sociologists and geographers.”
Not “an outdoor site that is exposed” but “exposed outdoor site.”
The average lexical density rate of the sample is 54.4 percent, higher than that of
most types of writing. When we teach students how to revise for conciseness, we
teach them a sure-fire way to improve the quality and authority of their academic
5. Academic Writers Use Academic and Discipline-Specific Vocabulary
One obvious marker of academic writing is academic vocabulary. Several studies
of academic writing have focused on familiar sequences of three or more words
referred to as “lexical bundles.” They include phrases such as the following:
in order to
the presence of
the fact that
in the case of
as a result of
Lexical bundles like these account for 20 percent of the words in academic prose
(Biber et al. 995), and using these phrases is one indicator of proficiency in academic writing. But Viviana Cortes found that students rarely use them in their
writing, and when they do use them it is often not in the way published writers
do. She concludes that students would benefit from explicit instruction in lexical
bundles and their functions (420–21). For example, when an assignment involves
summarizing data from studies, an instructor could show students lexical bundles
commonly used to introduce previous research (such as “studies have shown that”
and “have been shown to”) (Conrad 134). Additional ideas for teaching academic
lexical bundles are found in Graff and Birkenstein’s book They Say / I Say.
Another marker of academic writing is specialized language. Scientists have
long been known for co-opting words and using them in new, specialized ways, as
seen in these phrases from our sports medicine and biology articles:
prolongation of the median motor latency
preactivation of the lower extremity muscles
genomic integrity
But this tendency is not unique to scientists—as additional examples from the
sample illustrate. From the engineering articles:
limits of linearity of piezoelectric paint
From the psychology articles:
estimates of construct loadings
Te a c h i n g t h e C o n v e n t i o n s o f A c a d e m i c D i s c o u r s e
e347-362-May11-TE.indd 355
4/23/11 10:19 AM
From the marketing articles:
expectancy disconfirmation
From the literature articles:
textual and libidinal potentials of coloniality
Technical words like these precisely and concisely convey specialized meanings to
others in the field and denote one’s membership in any academic community. In
fact, Robyn Woodward-Kron has demonstrated that “adopting the specialist language
of the discipline is intrinsic to learning disciplinary knowledge” (246).
One way to make students aware of specialist language and lexical bundles
is to have them look for recurring terms, stylistic conventions, and other patterns
in a corpus of academic writing. There are many free resources for corpus-based
research, including the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA), with
concordancer, available at http://www.americancorpus.org/; and the Michigan Corpus of Upper-Level Student Papers (MICUSP) at http://micusp.elicorpora.info/.
(Information about additional corpus research and analysis resources is provided by
David Lee at http://tiny.cc/corpora.) Students can use text analysis tools to study
the writing of a specific discipline, to learn how the writing styles of disciplines or
genres vary, or to analyze their own writing. Corpus-based research assignments
also provide students with opportunities to conduct primary research. (See Bowker
and Pearson for assignment ideas.)
6. Academic Writers Emphasize Evidence, Often in Tables, Graphs, and
Academic writing is ultimately judged on the basis of its evidence, and academic
writers use various techniques for highlighting data.
Fourteen (58 percent) of the authors in our sample include tables, graphs,
or charts. Given the prominence of data in academic writing, it is important that
students learn how to “read” quantitative data.Yet, as Joanna Wolfe recently argued,
most first-year students do not understand that writers manipulate “statistical expressions in order to make an interesting story out of their data” (459). She calls on
composition instructors to discuss quantitative arguments in their courses:
Our students should be able to quickly discern that the statements “there is a
one-in-fifty chance that a bad event will happen” and “there is a 98 percent
chance that everything will be okay” differ only in rhetorical choice between
two mathematically equivalent figures. And students should have practice making
their own arguments from quantitative data, not only so they can see the many
ways in which such claims can be manipulated, but also so they can see the role
that invention plays in statistical data, experimental results, and other quantitative arguments that are often popularly perceived as nonrhetorical “facts.” (455,
original emphasis)
To illustrate the rhetorical nature of graphs, Wolfe provides four graphical
representations of raw data, each lending itself to a different interpretation of the
TETYC May 2011
e347-362-May11-TE.indd 356
4/23/11 10:19 AM
data (463–64). With examples like those Wolfe offers, we can show students that
quantitative data are as much “language” issues as they are “math” issues (462).
Images (including photos and drawings) are also common in the sample. All
of the writers representing engineering, sports medicine, and biology use images—to
depict experimental subjects, materials, processes, models, and results. Images are
more prominent in the writing of some disciplines than others, but their rhetorical
power is undeniable.
We process both words and images, Gibson and Zillmann explain, but the
“picture-superiority effect of information acquisition” is well documented (357).
Gibson and Zillmann had subjects read news stories accompanied with varying
images or no images at all. The images influenced subjects more than the words,
even when the images weren’t discussed in a text. Particularly powerful are images
that evoke fear. For example, subjects perceived the risk of getting Blowing Rock
disease from ticks to be higher when photos of child victims accompanied the story
than when photos of ticks accompanied the same story (364–65).
Many have already argued the merits of teaching visual rhetoric in composition courses and have suggested multimodal assignment ideas. (See, for example,
Bickmore and Christiansen’s article in a recent issue of TETYC; see also Welch,
Lee, and Shuman.) Multimodal assignments are yet another way to prepare students
for academic work across the curriculum.
Suggestions and Conclusion
Despite the variety—including among writers within single discourse communities—we can give first-year students useful general knowledge about academic
writing. All twenty-four writers in the sample summarize what has been written
about their topics, state the purpose of their writing, establish a reasonable yet
authoritative tone, use the specialized language of their discipline, and emphasize
evidence. When we provide opportunities for practice in these areas in our composition courses, we help students develop skills they will use when writing in
other disciplines. A few techniques may facilitate students’ understanding of the
conventions of academic writing:
> Have students read authentic academic texts from various disciplines. Most of the
reading undergraduates do is from textbooks, newspapers, magazines, and
other secondary sources; but authentic academic texts (such as journal articles
or laboratory reports) illustrate the conventions of academic writing. Providing accessible academic writing is possible no matter what the focus or
pedagogy of a composition course.
> Help students notice how academic writing varies. Learning how academic writing varies is just as important as learning what it has in common. One way
to make students aware of variety is to show them resources for writing in
different disciplines. For example, www.dianahacker.com/resdoc/ includes
documentation guidelines and sample student papers for humanities, history,
social sciences, and sciences. At www.citationmachine.net students can get
help creating citations in MLA, APA, Turabian, or Chicago styles. Discussing
Te a c h i n g t h e C o n v e n t i o n s o f A c a d e m i c D i s c o u r s e
e347-362-May11-TE.indd 357
4/23/11 10:19 AM
why certain moves (such as attributing sources) are realized in different ways
reinforces the importance of audience, purpose, and context. (For discussion of why citation conventions vary, see Hyland; also Linton, Madigan, and
Johnson.) We can’t anticipate all the kinds of writing students will do, but we
can prepare them to expect variety.
> Help students infer and practice academic writing principles—both the universal and
the discipline specific. Having students abstract writing principles by studying
diverse examples promotes understanding (and thus transfer). Ask students
to find patterns, for instance, in how academic authors recognize opposing
views or use hedges. Have them analyze passages documented in different
styles and infer principles underlying all citation systems. To promote understanding of discipline-specific conventions, have students analyze the genres
of their majors using concordance software. (Bowker and Pearson’s text
includes assignment ideas, many appropriate for first-year writing courses.)
Or have students report primary research findings in graphs or in papers with
introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections. (For assignment ideas,
see Stoller et al.) Exercises like these help students notice commonality and
variation in academic writing.
> Help students see that academic writing is dynamic. Citation systems have adapted
to accommodate online sources (changes described by Walker). First person
is increasingly common in science writing (a shift explained by McKinney
Maddalena). The familiar IMRAD format (introduction, methods, results, and
discussion) was rare a century ago. (Sollaci and Pereira discuss this change.)
When students realize that language conventions are not fixed “rules,” they
learn that genres and discourse styles evolve to meet the needs of writers.
Discipline-specific studies have shown us how academic writing varies. But we
also need studies that tell us what academic writing has in common. Such studies
can help us provide first-year students with knowledge they can use now when
writing in predisciplinary courses and build on later when writing the specialized
discourse of their chosen fields. < Works Cited Akuthota,Venu, et al. “The Effect of Long-Distance Bicycling on Ulnar and Median Nerves.” American Journal of Sports Medicine 33 (2005): 1224–30. Print. Balcazar, Fabricio E., Teresa J. Garate-Serafini, and Christopher B. Keys. “The Need for Action When Conducting Intervention Research: The Multiple Roles of Community Psychologists.” American Journal of Community Psychology 33.3–4 (2004): 243–52. Print. Bartholomae, David. “Inventing the University.” When a Writer Can’t Write: Studies in Writer’s Block and Other Composing-Process Problems. Ed. Mike Rose. New York: Guilford, 1985. 134–65. Print. Bazerman, Charles. Shaping Written Knowledge:The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. Madison: University of Wisconsin P, 1988. Print. 358 TETYC May 2011 e347-362-May11-TE.indd 358 4/23/11 10:19 AM Bennett, Karen. “English Academic Style Manuals: A Survey.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 8.1 (2009): 43–54. Print. Berkenkotter, Carol, and Thomas N. Huckin. “Rethinking Genre from a Sociocognitive Perspective.” Written Communication 10 (1993): 475–509. Print. Biber, Douglas, et al. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Essex: Pearson Education, 1999. Print. Bickmore, Lisa, and Ron Christiansen. “‘Who Will Be the Inventors? Why Not Us?’ Multimodal Compositions in the Two-Year College Classroom.” Teaching English in the Two Year College 37.3 (2010): 230–42. Print. Birkenstein, Cathy, and Gerald Graff. “In Teaching Composition, ‘Formulaic’ Is Not a 4-Letter Word.” Chronicle of Higher Education 4 Apr. 2008. Web. 15 Nov. 2010. Blakeslee, Anne M. “Activity, Context, Interaction, and Authority: Learning to Write Scientific Papers In Situ.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication 11.2 (1997): 125–69. Print. Bowker, Lynne, and Jennifer Pearson. Working with Specialized Language: A Practical Guide to Using Corpora. London: Routledge, 2002. Print. Carroll, Lee Ann. Rehearsing New Roles: How College Students Develop as Writers. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 2002. Christie, Stuart. “Disorientations: Canon without Context in Auden’s ‘Sonnets from China.’” PMLA 120.5 (2005): 1576–87. Print. Conrad, Susan. “Myth 6: Corpus-Based Research Is Too Complicated to Be Useful for Writing Teachers.” Reid et al. 115–39. Cortes,Viviana. “Lexical Bundles in Published and Student Disciplinary Writing: Examples from History and Biology.” English for Specific Purposes 23 (2004): 397–423. Print. Dahl, Darren W., Amitava Chattopadhyay, and Gerald J. Gorn. “The Use of Visual Mental Imagery in New Product Design.” Journal of Marketing Research 36.1 (1999): 18–28. Print. Diller, Christopher, and Scott F. Oates. “Infusing Disciplinary Rhetoric into Liberal Education: A Cautionary Tale.” Rhetoric Review 21 (2002): 53–61. Print. Freedman, Aviva. “Show and Tell? The Role of Explicit Teaching in the Learning of New Genres.” Research in the Teaching of English 27 (1993): 222–51. Print. Fu, Amy S. N., and Christina W.Y. Hui-Chan. “Ankle Joint Proprioception and Postural Control in Basketball Players with Bilateral Ankle Sprains. American Journal of Sports Medicine 33 (2005): 1174–82. Print. Gibson, Rhonda, and Dolf Zillmann. “Reading between the Photographs: The Influence of Incidental Pictorial Information on Issue Perception.” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 77.2 (2000): 355–66. Print. Te a c h i n g t h e C o n v e n t i o n s o f A c a d e m i c D i s c o u r s e e347-362-May11-TE.indd 359   359 4/23/11 10:19 AM Gilquin, Gaëtanelle, and Magali Paquot. “Too Chatty: Learner Academic Writing and Register Variation.” English Text Construction 1.1 (2008): 41–61. Print. Graff, Gerald, and Cathy Birkenstein. “They Say / I Say”: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing. 2nd ed. New York: Norton, 2010. Hale, J. M., et al. “Development of Piezoelectric Paint Thick-Film Vibration Sensors.” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part C, Mechanical Engineering Science 219.1 (2005): 1–9. Print. Hassel, Holly, and Joanne Baird Giordano. “Transfer Institutions, Transfer of Knowledge: The Development of Rhetorical Adaptability and Underprepared Writers.” Teaching English in the Two-Year College 37.1 (2009): 24–40. Print. Herrington, Anne, and Marcia Curtis. Persons in Process: Four Stories of Writers and Personal Development in College. Urbana: NCTE, 2000. Print. Huang, Zhen, Keling Zang, and Louis F. Reichardt. “The Origin Recognition Core Complex Regulates Dendrite and Spine Development in Postmitotic Neurons.” Journal of Cell Biology 170.4 (2005): 527–35. Print. Hyland, Ken. Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. Harlow: Longman, 2004. Print. Krimmer, Elisabeth. “‘Eviva il Coltello’? The Catrato Singer in EighteenthCentury German Literature and Culture.” PMLA 120.5 (2005): 1543–59. Print. Lee, Gregory P., and David R. Diduch. “Deteriorating Outcomes after Meniscal Repair Using the Meniscus Arrow in Knees Undergoing Concurrent Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.” American Journal of Sports Medicine 33 (2005): 1138–41. Print. Linton, Patricia, Robert Madigan, and Susan Johnson. “Introducing Students to Disciplinary Genres: The Role of the General Composition Course.” Language and Learning across the Discipline 1.2 (1994): 63–78. Print. Lunsford, Andrea A., and Karen J. Lunsford. “Mistakes Are a Fact of Life: A National Comparative Study.” College Composition and Communication 59.4 (2008): 781–806. Print. Lynch-Biniek, Amy. “Filling in the Blanks: They Say, I Say, and the Persistence of Formalism.” CEA Forum 38.2 (Summer/Fall 2009). Web. 31 Aug. 2010. MacDonald, Susan Peck. Professional Academic Writing in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1994. Print. McCarthy, Lucille. “A Stranger in Strange Lands: A College Student Writing across the Curriculum.” Research in the Teaching of English 21 (1987): 233–65. Print. 360 TETYC May 2011 e347-362-May11-TE.indd 360 4/23/11 10:19 AM McKinney Maddalena, Kate. “‘I Need You to Say “I”’: Why First Person Is Important in College Writing.” Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing. Ed. Charles Lowe and Pavel Zemliansky. Vol. 1. West Lafayette: Parlor, 2010. 180–90. Print. Meyer, Bonnie J. F. “Text Coherence and Readability.” Topics in Language Disorders 23.3 (2003): 204–24. Print. Miller, Kenneth E. “Beyond the Frontstage: Trust, Access, and the Relational Context in Research with Refugee Communities.” American Journal of Community Psychology 33.3–4 (2004): 217–27. Print. Paliwal, M., et al. “Investigation of High-Frequency Squeal in a Disc Brake System Using a Friction Layer-Based Coupling Stiffness.” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part C, Mechanical Engineering Science 219.6 (2005): 513–22. Print. Raghubir, Priya, and Kim Corfman. “When Do Price Promotions Affect Pretrial Brand Evaluations?” Journal of Marketing Research 36.2 (1999): 211–22. Print. Raghubir, Priya, and Aradhna Krishna. “Vital Dimensions in Volume Perception: Can the Eye Fool the Stomach?” Journal of Marketing Research 36.3 (1999): 313–26. Print. Reid, Joy, et al., eds. Writing Myths: Applying Second Language Research to Classroom Teaching. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, 2008. Print. Russell, David R. “Activity Theory and Its Implications for Writing Instruction.” Reconceiving Writing, Rethinking Writing Instruction. Ed. Joseph Petraglia. Mahwah: Erlbaum, 1995. 51–77. Print. Santilli,Valter, et al. “Peroneus Longus Muscle Activation Pattern during Gait Cycle in Athletes Affected by Functional Ankle Instability: A Surface Electromyographic Study.” American Journal of Sports Medicine 33 (2005): 1183–87. Print. Sollaci, Luciana B., and Mauricio G. Pereira. “The Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion (IMRAD) Structure: A Fifty-Year Survey.” Journal of the Medical Library Association 92.3 (2004): 364–71. Print. Sommers, Nancy, and Laura Saltz. “The Novice as Expert: Writing the Freshman Year.” College Composition and Communication 56.1 (2004): 124–49. Print. Stoller, Fredricka L., et al. “Demystifying Disciplinary Writing: A Case Study in the Writing of Chemistry.” Across the Disciplines: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Language, Learning, and Academic Writing 2 (2005). Web. 23 Nov. 2010. Swales, John M. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1990. Print. Tedick, Diane. J., and Maureen A. Mathison. “Holistic Scoring in ESL Writing Assessment: What Does an Analysis of Rhetorical Features Reveal?” Academic Writing in a Second Language: Essays on Research and Pedagogy. Ed. Diane Te a c h i n g t h e C o n v e n t i o n s o f A c a d e m i c D i s c o u r s e e347-362-May11-TE.indd 361   361 4/23/11 10:19 AM Belcher and George Braine. Norwood: Ablex, 1995. 205–30. Print. Tinberg, Howard, and Jean-Paul Nadeau. The Community College Writer: Exceeding Expectations. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 2010. Print. Ure, Jean. “Lexical Density and Register Differentiation.” Applications of Linguistics: Selected Papers of the 2nd International Conference of Applied Linguistics, Cambridge 1969. Ed. G. E. Perren and J. L. Trim. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1971. 443–51. Print. Ventola, Eija. “Packing and Unpacking of Information in Academic Texts.” Academic Writing: Intercultural and Textual Issues. Ed. Eija Ventola and Anna Mauranen. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1996. 153–94. Print. Walker, Janice R. “Everything Changes, or Why MLA Isn’t (Always) Right.” Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing. Ed. Charles Lowe and Pavel Zemliansky. Vol. 2. West Lafayette: Parlor, 2011. 257–69. Print. Wardle, Elizabeth. “‘Mutt Genres’ and the Goal of FYC: Can We Help Students Write the Genres of the University?” College Composition and Communication 60.4 (June 2009): 765–89. Print. Welch, Kristen, Nicholas Lee, and Dustin Shuman. “Teaching Visual Rhetoric in the First-Year Composition Classroom.” Teaching English in the Two-Year College 37.3 (2010): 256–64. Print. Whitbeck, Les B., et al. “Conceptualizing and Measuring Historical Trauma among American Indian People.” American Journal of Community Psychology 33.3–4 (2004): 119–30. Print. Wilder, Laura, and Joanna Wolfe. “Sharing the Tacit Rhetorical Knowledge of the Literary Scholar: The Effects of Making Disciplinary Conventions Explicit in Undergraduate Writing about Literature Courses.” Research in the Teaching of English 44.2 (2009): 170–209. Print. Williams, Joseph M., and Gregory G. Colomb. “The Case for Explicit Teaching: Why What You Don’t Know Won’t Help You.” Research in the Teaching of English 27 (1993): 252–64. Print. Wolfe, Joanna. “Rhetorical Numbers: A Case for Quantitative Writing in the Composition Classroom.” College Composition and Communication 61.3 (2010): 452–75. Print. Woodward-Kron, Robyn. “More Than Just Jargon—The Nature and Role of Specialist Language in Learning Disciplinary Knowledge. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7 (2008): 234–49. Print. Teresa Thonney is currently department lead of the English Department at Columbia Basin College in Pasco, Washington, and can be reached at tthonney@columbiabasin.edu. 362 TETYC May 2011 e347-362-May11-TE.indd 362 4/23/11 10:19 AM Purchase answer to see full attachment

error: Content is protected !!