Jane Mattisson

School of Learning and Environment

Kristianstad University

Abstract: By examining the relationship between the culture of internationalisation and the use of English in university classrooms, my paper demonstrates that the acquisition of one of the most important academic skills, i.e. writing in English, is efficiently achieved with the aid of process writing combined with peer reviewing. International students learn from one another under the guidance of the teacher as they adapt previous knowledge to the demands of the Swedish university classroom. As the lingua franca and the means by which students are most commonly assessed, English has a particularly important role to play in the international classroom. The conventions of academic writing must be learned and practised. With the aid of process writing and peer reviewing, students hone their writing skills at the same time as they improve their critical faculties.  In this way, they are better able to demonstrate their knowledge and improve their results

Keywords: Academic writing in English; process writing; peer reviewing; international students

My paper addresses the relationship between the culture of internationalisation and the use of English in university classrooms. I focus primarily on academic writing in English, arguing that process writing combined with peer reviewing is a particularly effective method in the international classroom. English is the means by which students create and take advantage of the culture of internationalisation and the practices which characterise their group. Approximately one quarter of the world’s population speak and/or write English. Indeed, English is “recognized by more countries as a desirable lingua franca than any other language” (Crystal, 2001:6). As I hope to demonstrate, the kind of English that is spoken and written at college or university has a profound impact on the process of internationalisation, the quality of learning and the educational results achieved.

R.C. Gardner’s socio-educational model acts as a frame for the following discussion as it takes into consideration the cultural/symbolic elements of different ethno-linguistic communities. While the model specifically addresses the situation of the second language learner, it can equally well be applied to all learning in an international, English-speaking environment. Briefly, the model incorporates four interrelated aspects of second-language learning: the social and cultural environment; individual differences among learners; the setting, and learner outcomes (Ellis, 1994).

Students’ beliefs about language and culture are determined by their social and cultural environment. According to Gardner, individual learner differences are determined primarily by motivation and language aptitude. Where motivation is encouraged, and language proficiency is integrated with cultural values, beliefs and attitudes, learning can be increased. The strength of Gardner’s model is that it explains the relationship between setting and proficiency by identifying a number of intervening variables, including attitudes, motivation and self-confidence.

A successful learning context is based on the principle that “[u]nderstanding other ways of seeing things is understanding each other and understanding each other is a highly efficient way of assisting each other in understanding things better” (J. Bowden and F. Marton, 1998:293). International students bring to the classroom a variety of social and academic cultures, different levels of motivation and aptitude, different expectations, a variety of views of what is appropriate behaviour in the classroom, and different opinions about what constitutes “good” learning as well as “good” spoken and written English.

It is important to recognise that language is not only a tool by which knowledge is transmitted but also a creator of knowledge. As Barker and Galasiński demonstrate, language does more than reflect an outside reality, it largely “constructs and constitutes” it (Barker and Galasiński, 2001:1). It is the medium through which our perception of both ourselves and our surrounding world is constructed and communicated (Barker, 2003:88). Knowledge is historically constructed and culturally and socially contextualised in language (Moate, 2010:38-45). There is a constant process of negotiation “between what is own and what is foreign, what is part of one’s identity and what is new and challenging” (Sercu, 2000: 74); this leads to the gradual adoption of an “international identity” (Arnett, 2002; Lamb, 2004; Pavlenko, 2002).

1.  Internationalisation and Culture

Culture is “a way of life based on a signifying order . . . that is passed . . . from one generation to the next” (Danesi and Perron, 1999:23).  It implies a relationship. As Norton argues, culture is “how people understand their relationship to the world, how that relationship is constructed across time and space, and how people understand their possibilities for the future” (Norton, 1997: 410). In order to function in a culture, one must participate in what Danesi and Perron describe as “the signifying order of the founding or conquering tribe (or tribes)’ (Danesi and Perron, 1994:24). The educational system constitutes a special kind of culture in which teachers are the tools of the dominant culture – a culture with which it is necessary to comply.

Internationalisation is an important aspect of the culture of higher education (Montgomery, 2010:3). It is a process that has been set in motion by globalisation as national institutions of higher education reach out to other national institutions in order to reflect new commercial and political orders. Internationalisation has implications for all academic disciplines (Trouillot, 2003) and has not only influenced their thinking but also the content and structure of courses and programmes.

The social and cultural context created by the presence of international students has attracted surprisingly little academic investigation and few studies have been conducted on its nature and implications (Montgomery, 2010:19). The function of English in the international classroom is an extremely important part of this context. Indeed, without a lingua franca, there can be no internationalisation.

Views of what is incorporated in the term ‘internationalisation’ vary considerably (Knight, 1997; Gunn, 2005; Fok, 2007). Stone, for example, observes that defining internationalisation is an invitation to “seduction into a quagmire of potentially unsatisfying responses” (Stone, 334). There are few recommended overarching approaches that aim to promote international perspectives among staff and students (Montgomery, 2010:132). In addition, there seems to be little connection between policy and practice. The United Kingdom, where there is a long tradition of internationalisation, is a case in point. Here, there is only a doubtful link between institutional Internationalisation of the Curriculum rhetoric and its impact on actual practice largely due to the lack of knowledge about how to implement internationalisation. There are, in fact, few foundations for “valid, recognisable categories of good practice” (Spiro and Henderson, 1, in C. Montgomery, 2010:132).

2.  Academic Writing in an International Context

In a world where the majority of research results are published in English, it is important that students master the conventions of academic writing in English. This is a process that is best facilitated by an interactive method that accommodates interaction on two levels: teacher/student and student/student.^[1] The responsibility for the final product is ultimately the student’s alone; it is, however, the teacher’s responsibility to ensure that the production process is as smooth and efficient as possible. ^[2] As teachers, we must provide students with the knowledge and skills necessary to make wise decisions that lead not only to the achievement of a high grade but facilitate the adaptation of knowledge to new situations and demands.

2.1 The special content/structure and language of academic texts

The standard structure of research papers, IMRAD, i.e. introduction, method, results and discussion is a formula not only for writing up but also making the scientific enterprise appear logical. ^[3] The language of a scientific article is designed to give the appearance of precision and objectivity. It is also, however, the language of rhetoric and persuasion. As part of the writing programme, students must learn to avoid strategies that are misleading, such as jargon, so-called straw-men arguments, omissions, overstatements and distortions – strategies that are easily misunderstood by the international student. ^[4] Process writing enables students to experiment with different strategies and test their objectivity while at the same time preserving the persuasive power of the text.

Academic writing constitutes a hierarchy of overlapping processes or levels. At the bottom level, students put pen to paper or their fingers to the keyboard. The second stage incorporates the thinking that enables the text to be written and revised. At the third stage, one must consider the social context of the paper, i.e. its target group, purpose, and suitability for publication. ^[5]At the bottom, keyboarding stage, it is useful for students to keep track of the changes they make and versions they produce. Earlier versions may not only contain important information but also mistakes and problems from which the student can learn. At the second, writing and thinking level, students should be encouraged to make notes about what they are writing and thinking about during the writing process. ^[6] In this way, they become conscious of the reasons for and nature of the decisions they make and can trace progression in their thinking and writing. Such notes are also helpful when discussing with their peer(s).

The social aspects of academic writing, the third stage, include the purpose of writing, which can be divided into those that encourage, e.g. the desire to create new knowledge or gain approval, and those that impair progress, such as problems in getting started (sometimes more prevalent among international students), revising the text, finding one’s voice and feeling inadequate (also more common among international students). Murray and Moore show that factors that facilitate and inhibit writing are strongly influenced by environmental factors such as the time available to write. ^[7] By dividing the writing task into identifiable stages and specifying deadlines for these, students are given sub-goals, their work is marked at regular intervals throughout the writing process, and feedback is obtained from both the teacher and peers. In this way, students are better able to control the environmental factors that influence their work. At the same time, they receive intrinsic rewards such as personal satisfaction as they see that they are making progress. They also receive extrinsic rewards as the teacher and peer(s) are able to point to important steps forward in the research and writing processes.

The IMRAD model is particularly helpful for non-native speakers of English as it provides a structure. It does not, however, alleviate the special problems of writing in a foreign language. While students are aided by automated grammar and style checkers, a good knowledge of grammar is necessary to judge the validity of many of the automated suggestions. The boilerplate proposed by Jane Mattisson and Teri Schamp-Bjerede is a useful alternative. ^[8]It also works best when the process writing method is adopted. Ideally, students writing at higher levels in English should have access to a native speaker, who is more aware of the subtleties and nuances that may not be noticed by non-native speakers. Such help can be given electronically, via e-mail and the Internet, and is easily incorporated into process writing.

3.  Process writing and peer reviewing

Process writing has been defined as a series of “writing activities which move learners from the generation of ideas and the collection of data through to the ‘publication’ of a finished text.” ^[9] It incorporates pre-writing activities (e.g. reading, brainstorming ^[10]and mind mapping ^[11]), using a range of sources, planning the writing in accordance with the model required (e.g. IMRAD), and drafting and revising.^[12] In the model proposed here, students are given set tasks corresponding to the different stages and elements of the text, e.g. thesis statement, introduction, method etc. Progress is monitored throughout by the teacher and peer(s). The deadlines given for each stage ensure that the text is completed on time.

It should nonetheless be noted that while the writing process may appear to be neat and chronological, it is highly dynamic as the writer moves between writing and revision in accordance with the new directions of the thinking process and in response to feedback from both the teacher and peer(s). Process writing is acknowledged to be one of the most effective writing instructions available not only because it enables students to achieve the best results possible given the student’s ability and situation but because it provides a useful knowledge base for future writing tasks.^[13]

Process writing presupposes that writing promotes language development, shapes our knowledge and “is an essential learning tool for any subject.” ^[14]It also facilitates critical thinking by visualising the thinking process, “thereby making reflection and revision easier.” ^[15]Process writing enables the student to move from description to analysis, taking advantage of the input of and support from the teacher and peer(s). At all stages, it is the writer who must decide what advice and critique to accept and what to reject; this is an important part of taking responsibility for one’s work. As a result, the student not only becomes a more proficient and effective writer but also a more competent and confident reader.

Peer reviewing yields similar positive results: as students review their peer’s work, they become more critical of their own. It is important to distinguish between academic and personal criticism; peer reviewing is concerned solely with the former. Students must be encouraged to provide constructive criticism, always beginning and ending with a positive observation. Peer reviewing focuses on four main areas: structure, argument (including conclusions and results), method and language/style.

All too frequently underestimated is the importance of the language of the writer. ^[16]Peers must pay special attention to the adequacy of the language, and the conventions of academic English with respect to style, tone and vocabulary. This is often a more challenging task than critiquing the structure, method and argument of a text, particularly so for international students who may lack confidence.

To ensure that process writing and peer reviewing function efficiently, it is necessary to adopt a suitable model, often a variation of the IMRAD one described earlier. The use of a model is a controversial issue within the field of academic writing. Some researchers such as R.White and V. Arndt, ^[17]for example, claim that what clearly differentiates a process-focused approach from a product-focused one is that the product, i.e. essay, report, or thesis, is not pre-conceived. As a contrasting viewpoint, I hope to show that process writing is in fact perfectly compatible with the use of a model. One of the most useful models within the field of academic writing in English is that proposed by Stephen Bailey. ^[18] A modification of this model, implemented by the writer,  is discussed in the following section.

4.  A model for process writing with peer review

The model proposed here incorporates identification of subject, specification and evaluation of secondary material/data, selection and collection of key issues/data, note-taking, planning, conclusions, re-writing and editing. Linguistic and stylistic features are incorporated at every stage of the writing process, from draft to final version, although it is not until the final stages of writing that language and style become key issues. Above all, language and style must be consistent and appropriate to the task in hand.

The model discussed here assumes that pre-writing activities have been carried out, including mind mapping and brainstorming. Once the title of the text is established and the target group established, students must identify the areas and perspectives to be covered. All terminology must also be defined and the method identified and justified. When these components are complete and have been discussed with the student’s peer(s), the text is submitted to the teacher for comment. At this stage, the teacher is able to raise possible problems related, for example, to the breadth of the topic, availability of secondary sources and potential ethical issues. Here traditions vary enormously from country to country.

With regard to the identification and evaluation of secondary material, students are required to submit titles at an early stage in the writing process. A range of sources is encouraged, including reports, reviews, articles and books. Internet sources are accepted where the academic affiliation of the writer is specified. Students are reminded that it is important to note the date of access of internet sites. They are instructed to keep an alphabetically arranged list of references from the very beginning. This should conform to the citing system specified and be complemented as the text progresses. At this crucial stage in the research process, students should discuss all important choices with their peer(s) before submitting their material to the teacher. Individual tutorials are arranged to discuss secondary material. These are also attended by the student’s peer(s). During the tutorials, the teacher and students discuss not only the relevance of the chosen literature but its purpose i.e. is it designed to inform, persuade, describe or even entertain? Students learn that the answer to this question determines how they should use the chosen material.

As the student reads the secondary literature, notes should be made to identify the key issues and sections for the chosen topic. It may be useful to paraphrase key sections. Where possible, students can take advantage of one another’s sources and compare notes on, or paraphrases of, key issues to check possible differences in interpretation. After approximately three weeks (depending on the scope of the topic and length of text to be produced) of assembling and evaluating secondary sources, students submit to the teacher a short written summary of the range of materials to be included in their text and a justification of their choices. At this point, students are beginning to acquire the conventions of writing in English in their particular discipline, including the level of language and style expected.

At the drafting stage, coherence is emphasised. Are the different elements of the text arranged logically, and do they contain information relevant to the topic? Depending on the level of the student, it may be necessary to revise the importance of topic sentences, the content and length of paragraphs, and transitions between paragraphs and sections. During the drafting stage, the student works closely with his/her peer(s). A deadline is set for submission to the teacher of a draft of the entire text and a brief review of the content of each section. While the teacher’s advice is crucial, it is important to reiterate that it must always be the student’s decision as to what shall be included or excluded. When the draft is complete, attention can be turned to the organisation of the main body and the internal organisation of paragraphs.

The introduction to the text is a vital component of the draft. ^[19] At this point, students generally need a great deal of support from their teacher and peer(s). Process writing places considerable emphasis on a clear and authoritative introduction. The introduction should establish not only the crucial elements of the topic and the theory on which it is based but a clear indication of the writer’s style and approach. It may need to be re-written several times as the writer becomes clearer about his/her approach. Once the introductory text is complete, it may need to be modified again, as the writer’s thoughts and perspectives may change. At this point, students may experience writer’s block. ^[20]Above all, it is the peer’s responsibility, though also the teacher’s, to help overcome this and enable the student to continue writing.

The main body of the text is completed in different stages, each of which is discussed with the student’s peer(s) before it is submitted to the teacher for comment. At this point, much of the editing work can be done electronically, though the student may wish to meet the teacher now and then to discuss specific problems. When most students have completed approximately one third of their text, it is useful to call together the class to discuss common problems. Students must also be reminded about the importance of correct referencing. As they approach their conclusion, an additional meeting can be held at which time students present their findings, discuss how they have used their secondary sources, and reflect on their conclusions. It is useful to remind students that readers may turn to the conclusion first to gain a summary of the main arguments or points.

The fear of writing a conclusion can to some extent be alleviated by encouraging students to return to the starting point, i.e. the title and the introduction. The possibility of incorporating suggestions for further research in the field can also be discussed. The support of the peer is crucial at this stage if the conclusion is to be more than a mere summary of the findings. Issues such as the limitations of the research and possible practical implications and proposals can be usefully discussed at this point.

The final stage, the re-writing and editing are given a prominent position in the process- writing model proposed here. The student’s work has already been submitted several times both to the peer(s) and teacher. In the final stage, the entire text is assessed on the basis of its structure, content, language and style. Writing schedules must leave plenty of time for this process. At this point, the peer should focus on overall coherence as well as linguistic and stylistic appropriateness.

Following is a selection of guidelines for peer review of structure, argument, method and language/style.

Structure

Has the structure been defined and presented in the introduction? Is it logically developed throughout the text? Do the paragraphs deal with one idea at a time, are they logically arranged, and do they vary in length? How effective is the use of headings? Are the introduction and conclusion consistent with each other?

Argument

Is the argument firmly stated and logically developed? Has it been modified in the writing process? Does the conclusion support the main argument as specified in the introduction?

Method

Is the chosen method the most suitable for establishing the veracity of the argument/hypothesis? Has it been adequately explained to ensure the possibility of replication? Have its advantages and disadvantages been clearly stated and taken into consideration in the analysis of the results?

Language/style

Has the writer used grammar and speller checkers? Are they any concord errors? Is there a consistent use of British or American English?

With regard to style, is it sufficiently formal and correct for the target group and discipline? Is it consistent? Does the text contain repetitions and “pet” words and phrases? Is the length of sentences appropriate to the topic? Does the length of the sentences vary to avoid monotony and hold the reader’s attention? Has the writer expressed him-/herself concisely or is there a tendency to verbosity and inclusion of superfluous information? Is there an overuse of the passive form? Is the choice of tense appropriate and consistent? Is there an overuse of personal pronouns? Are contracted forms and jargon used? Are there any abbreviations that are not properly explained?

It is in the areas of language and style that peers are likely to face the greatest difficulty in giving constructive criticism because their knowledge and experience of reading academic texts in English may be limited. As already established, it is advantageous to seek the support of a native speaker, at least at the higher levels. Students may also wish to employ the services of a professional language corrector.

5.  Final Remarks

Because English is the lingua franca in international classrooms and Academia continues to base its evaluation of students’ performance in terms of their written production, attention must be paid to how we teach in English, and particularly, how we teach the special conventions of academic writing in English. This is particularly challenging when it comes to international students as their backgrounds and cultures are often very diverse and usually unfamiliar to the teacher. To return to the quotation cited at the beginning, “[u]nderstanding other ways of seeing things is understanding each other and understanding each other is a highly efficient way of assisting each other in understanding things better” (J. Bowden and F. Marton, 1998:293); nowhere is this more true than in the field of academic writing in English. Process writing accompanied by peer reviewing is an excellent system for enabling students of all nationalities to appreciate what it means to write “good” academic English. Process writing improves motivation; as R.C. Gardner’s socio-educational model demonstrates, when language proficiency is integrated with cultural values, beliefs and attitudes, learning can be significantly increased. The growing presence of international students in our classrooms is very much welcomed by all universities; at the same time, it requires that we adapt our teaching methods to accommodate the new challenges that international students present in a Swedish context. Because process writing can be adapted to all levels, needs and backgrounds it is a particularly useful method in the international classroom and ensures that the best possible results are achieved irrespective of the student’s starting point and knowledge.

6.  References

Arnett, J.J. (2002). “The Psychology of Globalization”. American Psychologist 57, 774-783.
Badger , Richard and Goodith White (2000), “A process genre approach to writing” ELT
Journal 54/2, pp. 153-160.

Bailey, Stephen (2006) Academic Writing. A Handbook  for International Students. London
and New York: Routledge.

Barker, C. and Galasiński D. (2001). Cultural Studies and Discourse Analysis: A Dialogue on Language and Identity. London: Sage Publications.

Barker, C. (2003). Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice. London: Sage Publications.

Björk, Lennart and Christine Räisänen (2003). Academic Writing. A University Writing
Course. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Björk, Lennart Gerd Bräuer, Lotte Reinecker and Peter Stray Jörgensen (2003) eds., Teaching  Academic Writing in European Higher Education. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.

Bowden, J. and F. Marton (1998). The university of learning. Beyond quality and competence. London: Kogan Page.

Cotton, D. and K. Gresty (2006), “Reflecting on the think-aloud method for evaluating e-
learning”. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(1), pp.45-54.

Crystal, D. (2001). “The Future of Englishes.” In Burns, A. and C. Coffin (2000) Analysing English in a Global Context. A Reader. London: Routledge.

Danesi, M and P. Perron (1999). Analyzing Cultures. An Introduction and Handbook. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Eppler, Martin J. (2006), “A comparison between concept maps, mind maps, conceptual diagrams, and visual metaphors as complementary tools for knowledge construction and sharing”, Information Visualization 5/3, pp.202-210.

Fok, W.P. (2007). “Internationalisation of Higher Education in Hong Kong”. International Education Journal 8(1), 184-193.

Gardner, R.C. “The Socio-Educational Model of Second-Language Learning: Assumptions, Findings and Issues”, Language Learning, vol. 38:1, March 1988, pp. 101-126.

Gillespie, Paula and Neal Lerner (2000). The Allyn and Bacon Guide to Peer Tutoring. Needham Heights, M.A.: Allyn and Bacon.

Goldstein, Arnold A. and Peggy G. Carr (1996), “Can Students Benefit from Process Writing?” National Centre for Education Statistics Report NCES-96-845, pp.1-7.

Gunn, S. (2005). Introduction. In Cullingford, C. and S. Gunn (eds). Globalisation, Education and Culture Shock. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Gustavii, Björn (2000). How to Write and Illustrate a Scientific Paper. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Hartley, James (2008) Academic Writing and Publishing. A Practical Handbook. London and New York: Routledge.

Hedge, T. (1993) Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hillocks Jr., George (1986) Research on Written Composition. Urbana: NCRE/ERIC.

Knight, J. (1997). “Internationalisation of Higher Education: A conceptual framework”. In Knight, J. and H.de Wit (eds). Internationalisation of Higher Education in Asia Pacific Countries. Amsterdam: European Association for International Education”.

Lamb, Martin (2004). ”Integrative Motivation in a Globalizing World”. System 32, 3-19.

Mattisson, Jane and Teri Schamp-Bjerede (2012). “The boilerplate: a new look at a familiar device”. Högskolepedagogisk debatt. VFU, Handledning, Skrivprocess, Digitala Verktyg 1, 31-42.

Mattisson, Jane and Teri Schamp-Bjerede (2011). “Reflections on Threshold Concepts as Applied to a New E-Learning Tool: A Pilot Study at HKR Spring 2010”. Lärarlärdom Högskolepedagogisk Konferens 2009-2010. Report 2011:1, pp. 85-97.

Moate, Josephine (2010). “The Integrated Nature of CLIL: A Sociocultural Perspective”. International CLIL Research Journal 1 (3), 38-45.

Montgomery, Catherine (2010). Understanding the International Student Experience. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Murray R. and S. Moore (2006), The Handbook of Academic Writing: A Fresh Approach. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Pavlenko, Aneta (2002). “Postculturalist approaches to the study of social factors in second language learning and use”. In Cook, Vivian (ed.), Portraits of the L2 User. Clevedon: Multingual Matters, 277-302.

Rao, Zhenhui (2007), “Training in brainstorming and developing writing skills”, ELT Journal  61/2, pp.100-106.

Sercu, Lies (2000). Acquiring Intercultural Communicative Competence from Textbooks. The Case of Flemish Adolescents Learning German. Leuven: Leuven University Press.

Spiro, J. and J. Henderson (2007). “Internationalising the curriculum at Brookes: A student perspective”. Presented at the Brookes Student Learning Experience Conference, May. In Catherine Montgomery (2010). Understanding the International Student Experience. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Tribble, C. (1996) Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Trouillot, M.R. (2003). Global Transformations; Anthropology and the Modern World. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Watson, George (1987) Writing a Thesis. A Guide to Long Essays and Dissertations. London and New York: Longman.

White, R. and V. Arndt (1991) Process Writing. Harlow: Longman.

Woods, P. (1999) Successful Writing for Qualitative Researchers. London: Routledge.