PBIS4312-5

NASKAH TUGAS MATA KULIAH

UNIVERSITAS TERBUKA
SEMESTER: 2023/2024 Genap (2024.1)

Fakultas : FKIP/Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan

Kode/Nama MK : PBIS4312/Writing II
Tugas :3

No. Soal
1 1. Make appropriate quotations for the following. Change the capitalization if necessary.
a. Brown (Brown, 2007, p. 176) stated that the concept of social distance emerged as an affective
construct to give explanatory power to the place of culture learning in second language
learning. Social distance refers to the cognitive and affective proximity of two cultures that
come into contact within an individual.
b. The academic study of interaction in ELT classrooms developed when the technology of audio
recording became available in the 1960s. It then became possible to transcribe and study the
fine detail of ELT classroom interaction and its relationship to learning processes (Siegel,
2018, p. 1).
c. An important component of effective writing instruction is good assessment practice: In order
to help students develop as writers in the context of formal schooling, teachers must be able
to identify the sources of difficulty that students experience with academic writing and use this
information to design instruction that will address those difficulties (Beck et al., 2018, p. 68).
d. Commitment is certainly the key to success in teaching, besides competence in the field study
to be taught and coordination with other teachers of the same subjects. Commitment of
teachers to their profession is a significant variable to make teaching- learning efforts fruitful
(Lengkanawati, 2017, p. 230).
e. While students and teachers have always been creative in finding ways to practice their
language skills, the emergence of the Internet and associated technologies has blurred spatial
and temporal boundaries, allowing learners and teachers to explore new activities for their
potential to promote the development of language skills (Wrigglesworth, 2020).

2. Read the following texts carefully. Next, modify the texts into a good paraphrasing.
a. Eventhough collaborative writing within multimedia networked computing spaces has been
available and advocated for more than a decade, many educators are reluctant to use class
time for technology-facilitated collaborative writing, and little research has explored the
potential benefits of these in-class activities on individual writing (Vithanage, 2016, p. 80).
b. Reflecting on the writing style as a group provides students with opportunities to analyze
unique member roles and ways of contribut- ing that may not be evident in the final version of
the text. In addition, the visualization charts can be used to identify how collaboration styles
may change over time within the document or across documents and to reflect on the
strengths and limitations of pattern of collaboration (Krishnan et al., 2019, p. 8).

1 dari 9
 PBIS4312-5

2 1. Make a summary for each of the following paragraphs.

a. Only a small part of the teaching of English is carried out by English teachers; children arrive at
school with a wealth of existing language experience; the goals of English are not simply subject-
specific ones, but are concerned with all aspects of learning and living. English teaches the abilities
that underlie the learning of all other subjects. English lessons are concerned with all aspects of
the individual; thoughts and feelings are inseparable; students’ responses are an essential
element of what is being studied; individual differences are often more significant than universal
truths. Because there is no generally agreed body of subject matter, the boundaries of the subject
are notoriously unclear and cannot be neatly defined (Brindley, 2005, p. 9).
b. Traditionally, university students have received guidance from mentors whenever needs and
problems crop up during their writing processes. Often, such guidance has been situational,
contextual and problem-oriented, organized in face-to-face sessions between mentors and
students on campus. Additionally, multiple e-mails go back and forth between student and mentor,
a time-consuming but yet not always satisfying way to help students. The findings in this project,
drawn from a specific website initiative, suggest that web-based resources may promote the
utilization of resources which are both multimodal and of a wider range (Åberg et al., 2016, p. 40).
c. In language teaching, input refers to the linguistic content of a course. It seems logical to assume
that before we can teach a language, we need to decide what linguistic content to teach. Once
content has been selected, it then needs to be organized into teachable and learnable units as
well as arranged in a rational sequence. The result is a syllabus. We have seen in this book that
there are many different conceptions of a language syllabus. Different approaches and methods
reflect different understandings of the nature of language and different views as to what the
essential building blocks of language proficiency are, such as vocabulary, grammar, functions, or
text-types (i.e., different syllabus types) (Rodgers, 2014, p. 364).

3 1. Write a blibiography using MLA Style based on the following information.

a. b. c. d. e.
Authors: Jack C. Author: Stephen Editors: Anne Burns Authors: Rukayah, Author: Tannaya C
Richards and Bailey and Joseph Siegel Ahmad Tolla, Ramly Wiyono
Theodore S. Rodgers Book title: Academic Book Title of Article: The Title of Thesis:
Book Writing A Handbook for title: International Development of English Learning
title: Approaches and International Students Perspectives on Writing Poetry Process Of Junior High
Methods in Language Place of Publication: Teaching the Four Teaching Materials School Innew Concept
Teaching New York Skills in ELT Based on Audiovisual English Education
Edition: Third Publisher: Routledge Place of Publication: Media of Fifth Grade Centre Yogyakarta
Place of Publication: Year of Publication: Cham Elementary School in Name of University:
Cambridge 2011 Publisher: Springer Bone Regency Universitas Gadjah
Publisher: Cambridge …………………………. Nature Volume: 9 Mada
University Press is …………………………. Year of Publication: Issue: 2 Year of Writing: 2014
Year of Publication: 2018 Journal: Journal of ………………………….
2014 …………………………. Language Teaching ………………………….
…………………………. …………………………. and Research
…………………………. Year of Publication:
2018
Pages: 358
…………………………
…………………………

2 dari 9
 PBIS4312-5

2. Write a blibiography using APA Style based on the following information.

a. b. c. d. e.
Authors: Jack C. Author: Stephen Editors: Anne Burns Authors: Rukayah, Author: Tannaya C
Richards and Bailey and Joseph Siegel Ahmad Tolla, Ramly Wiyono
Theodore S. Rodgers Book title: Academic Book Title of Article: The Title of Thesis:
Book Writing A Handbook for title: International Development of English Learning
title: Approaches and International Students Perspectives on Writing Poetry Process Of Junior High
Methods in Language Place of Publication: Teaching the Four Teaching Materials School Innew Concept
Teaching New York Skills in ELT Based on Audiovisual English Education
Edition: Third Publisher: Routledge Place of Publication: Media of Fifth Grade Centre Yogyakarta
Place of Publication: Year of Publication: Cham Elementary School in Name of University:
Cambridge 2011 Publisher: Springer Bone Regency Universitas Gadjah
Publisher: Cambridge …………………………. Nature Volume: 9 Mada
University Press is …………………………. Year of Publication: Issue: 2 Year of Writing: 2014
Year of Publication: 2018 Journal: Journal of ………………………….
2014 …………………………. Language Teaching ………………………….
…………………………. …………………………. and Research
…………………………. Year of Publication:
2018
Pages: 358
…………………………
…………………………

4 1. Write an essay with an outline consisting of an introduction, a body composed of three paragraphs
with subdivision topics, and a conclusion. Compose your essay by selecting one of the following topics:
a. The influences of English movies subtitles into writing performance
b. The integration of mobile applications in conducting English essay
c. The importance of critical thinking in learning writing composition
d. The complexities in writing English as a foreign language
e. Enhancing digital literacy through reading Computer Assisted Language Learning journal articles

5 1. Read the following journal article. Next, conduct a writing appraisal based on the following items:
a. Presenting the author’s point of view
b. Commenting on another point of views that consist of negative and positive comments
c. Presenting own point of view

Writing Academic English as A Doctoral Student in Sweden: Narrative Perspectives

Virginia Langum and Kirk P.H. Sullivan
Department of Language Studies, Umeå University, SE-901 87, Umeå, Sweden

Introduction
Rigorous competition for early career academic positions demands proof of (in addition to potential
for) research excellence, often in the form of published peer-reviewed articles (Kamler, 2008). Several
researchers have argued that this standard poses an even greater challenge in non-English speaking
countries where academics are often expected to publish in English, rather than their national
language (Flowerdew, 2008;Kwan, 2010; Lillis and Curry, 2010); writing in a non-native language has
been reported to result in anxiety (Wellington, 2010). More recently, Hyland (2016a) has suggested
that the “crude Native vs non-Native polarization” (p. 59) in academic writing for publication needs to
be more nuanced. There is, in his view, an assumption in writing for publication scholarship of
“linguistic injustice” (p. 59), whereby L2 writers are viewed as unfairly disadvantaged in academic for
publication. This assumption deserves further interrogation as it may serve to mask any common
problems faced by all writers in Englis—L1, L2 or otherwise—and to further undermine the capabilities
of L2 writers. In this paper, we contribute to this discussion by bringing a narrative inquiry approach to
3 dari 9
 PBIS4312-5

the voices and experiences of early doctoral students in Sweden in a faculty of humanities. Narrative
inquiry has been used to consider the entire doctoral student experience in the UK (Brown, 2009) and
Australia (Cotterall, 2011). Our aim is to apply such an approach particularly to the writing journey and
self-perceptions of writing in an L2-environment with little or no L1 support. The pressure to publish in
English has a “flow-on effect” on doctoral students (Kwan, 2010). Thus, as doctoral researchers are
just beginning to grasp their projects, they are increasingly expected to publish in English in
international peer-reviewed journals, either as part of their Ph.D.-by-publication or in addition to their
dissertations (Salö, 2010, 2016). In non-English speaking countries, such as Sweden, where this case
study is placed, doctoral students find themselves having to make strategic decisions about whether
to write their theses in English or a national language, and whether to publish articles in English during
their doctoral registration. While it is true that Swedish senior high school students generally have an
English language competence that is among the best in Europe (Erickson, 2004), this does not mean
that English academic writing for publication is not perceived by the doctoral students as a challenging
“practice of a literary elite” (Hyland, 2016a, p. 67). Continuing concerns about how best to support
doctoral researchers who are negotiating this context in the humanities in Sweden have led to many
courses in academic writing, many workshops on specific aspects of academic writing, and doctoral
student online journals that publish work in English. A substantial amount of research focuses on
second language teaching and writing, as well as how researchers in Sweden perceive using a second
language to convey their results (Bolton and Kuteeva, 2012; Kuteeva & McGrath, 2014; Olsson and
Sheridan, 2012). Doctoral students’ routes into academic English also vary: native English speakers
at English-speaking universities (L1- L1), non-native speakers of English at English-speaking
universities (L2-L1), and non-native speakers of English at non- English-speaking universities (L2-L2),
where the ambient, day-to-day language is another language. The relative importance of sources of
learning support, for example, fundamental grammar/style classes and content-focused tutorial
feedback where writing support is secondary, reflect these different circumstances. Furthermore, the
support provided (and required) varies not only between ambient context but also between individuals.

1. Context for the study

Recent reform of higher education in Sweden (Högskoleförordning, 1993: revised, Förordning om
ändring i högskoleförordning, 2006) acknowledges the importance of generic and transferable skills
for the doctorate, specifically referring to writing with authority in dialogue with the academic
community. To support these aims, Sweden is following a European trend toward the introduction of
graduate schools which focus on the development of general academic and professional skills (Park,
2007; Poole, 2012). Where recent scholarship has identified some of the challenges and drawbacks
of exclusive one-on-one supervision (Harrison and Grant, 2015; Manathunga & Goozée, 2007),
doctoral research schools enable other training constellations. This study is situated at such a graduate
school that offers three short courses and frequent workshops focusing on general academic and
professional skills and totalling 10 weeks of credits that can count towards the course element of
doctoral degrees. The courses focus on, for example: career planning and documentation; project
leadership and management, and developing a dissertation. However, writing instruction is neither
consistent nor well-established – there is no dedicated academic writing course at the doctoral level.
In our experiences in Sweden, and we suspect the same is true in other L2-L2 settings where English
is not the ambient language ofeither the society or the academy, much ofthe teaching of academic
writing is driven by English proficiency teaching. Little is known about doctoral researcher
perspectives, including their self-articulated needs and journey into academic writing in English, as
well as their perceptions of the challenges of the native vs. non-native academic writer. We, therefore,
approached early humanities doctoral researchers at a Swedish university to discover the key
characteristics of their route into English academic writing. Our aims contribute to the discussion
around L2 deficit (Hyland 2016a, b; Politzer-Ahles, Holliday, Girolamo, Spychalska, & Berkson, 2016).
The information gleaned from the narratives helps us to better understand the experiences and
4 dari 9
 PBIS4312-5

assumptions of doctoral researchers surrounding the development of their writing skills and
concomitantly, to better tailor graduate academic writing support and pedagogy.

2. Methodology
In order to investigate doctoral researchers’ perceptions oftheir particular writing needs, weemploya
narrative approach to generate detailed descriptions that would not have been possible using
questionnaires. We do not want to restrict or lead the participants as we felt would have been more
likely in questionnaire or interview format. Written narratives allow the doctoral researchers more
freedom and flexibility to construct their thoughts, than structured interviews and questionnaires.
Narrative inquiry also permits the investigation of individual perspectives that both may differ from
those who teach academic writing and that constitute a heterogeneous group. Among others, Guerin,
Kerr and Green (2014), and Trahar (2011, 2014) have used this methodology for similarly stated
purposes. Our use ofnarrative approach also allows us to understand whether doctoral researchers in
English as a foreign language and L2-L2 contexts have individual needs that are, indeed, unique to
these contexts. Furthermore, we investigate whether the doctoral researchers perceive the writing
support provided as being driven by a linguistic deficit perspective or as being focused on the
acquisition of the literacy style of academic writing for publication. Both of these findings will contribute
to improvements in doctoral education. Following the Swedish Research Council’s ethics requirements
(Vetenskapsrådet, 2011), we approached a group of first- year doctoral researchers who were about
to participate in a one-day workshop on academic writing and asked them to write about their journey
into English academic writing: Before next week’s workshop we want you to prepare between 400 and
800 words where you narrate your journey towards writing academic English and the challenges and
possibilities it creates for your research and English language texts.
2.1. Six researchers provided the written stories of their journeys
We conducted a narrative inquiry into the doctoral researchers’ stories. While less common than oral
narratives, the use of written narratives is not unprecedented. Narrative inquiry permits a
contextualization of the pulls and constraints on the doctoral researcher experience: historical,
personal, and institutional (Taylor, 2011). Rather than reducing the narrative to a single meaning, we
focus on the variation in their experiences (Chase, 2005). We used a process ofiterative inductive
analysis (Patton, 2002). That is, wefirst read each narrative without making notes or discussing the
stories with each other. Independently of each other, we re-read and analysed each narrative, picking
out key themes and impressions before meeting a month later to re-read the narratives and discuss
our readings, prior to a final joint reading.

3. The narratives
The six paraphrased narratives here represent researchers (one male and five female) from across
the humanities: linguistics, creative studies, history ofideas, literature, and language teaching and
learning. Four came from Sweden and two from European countries known for highly developed skills
in English but where English is not the primary language. For ethical reasons, wedo not identify these
countries. Although we save critical discussion for after the narratives, we recognize that every
paraphrase is somewhat an act of interpretation (Teubert, 2010). Furthermore, following Barkhuizen
(2011),we acknowledge that we are intimately implicated in our research activities as narrative
researchers (p. 393), and following that, our presentations or paraphrases are fixed versions of
interpretations which have evolved from revisiting the material and yet may evolve further (p. 396).
Participant names have been changed.

3.1. Mats – need to get beyond the basics

Mats has little experience with writing university English, and he has only taken two courses in English
literature and language at university level. One of these was specifically targeted toward academic
writing in English. He feels that he got the “basics” there and some “good practice.” While quite
5 dari 9
 PBIS4312-5

comfortable in spoken English, as many Swedes are, Mats is concerned about his academic writing
style. This is not exclusive to English, however. Mats notes that there has been little or no instruction
in academic Swedish in his education, only academic English. While the technical terms he uses are
in English, he worries about “get(ing) the message across.” He also observes that whenwriting in
English, he always “thinks in Swedish” thus leading to perceived “incoherence.” Furthermore, he
believes that there is a quantifiable difference between English academic texts and Swedish academic
texts. “In an English text I feel there is more focus on structure, rules and consistency.” While he is
writing his thesis in Swedish, Mats feels the need to publish in international academic journals and
therefore English and to engage with the major research contributions to his field. Despite perceived
challenges of writing in English, Mats is optimistic about the end result: “the text might come out
improved in English because I need to use explicit tools and constructions in the writing process.”

3.2. Greta – how to make the foreign familiar

As a more mature Ph.D. student, Greta feels at a disadvantage when it comes to English. She
perceives that English is integrated more fluently and freely in the lives ofyounger Swedes. This feeling
is relatively new to her. Before starting the Ph. D. program she felt her proficiencywas “on an average
Swedish level.” However, after starting the doctoral program, she “got a feeling that (her) English
language skills are an obstacle.” Greta describes her relationship to English in general as somewhat
alienating: “Sometimes I get a vague feeling that theway I expressmyselfin writing or speaking means
something else that I aim.” As far as more specific academic writing in English, Greta worries that
there were different expectations of academic writing in English than in Swedish with which she was
not familiar. Greta has adopted various strategies for making English more familiar, “natural,” and part
of“everyday life,” namely by speaking English at home with her family and by applying for research
leave in an English-speaking university. Ultimately, Greta hopes English “could be an opportunity and
not an obstacle in (her) work.”

3.3. Ella – overcoming exclusion, expanding the field

Ella feels hampered by her “lack of vocabulary” and “nuance and expression.” While writing her
dissertation in Swedish, Ella does intend to write future articles in English. Evenwhen she is writing in
Swedish, she has English in mind. Specifically, she thinks ahead about how differently she might
formulate ideas. She is also a mature student and has had no further instruction in English or English
writing after her school years. Instead, Ella relies on her own reading of English books and articles in
her field, as well as web-based tools and informal exchanges with colleagues and friends. She stated
that certain obstacles in her writing exist “even in Swedish.” She refers here specifically to the
description of teaching methods which have as ofyet not been articulated in scholarly articles. The
goals for Ella to write in English are both broader participation in the research community and the
expansion ofher field, which she feels ought to be “articulated in someway to take place in academic
contexts.”

3.4. Maria – conveying authenticity in translation

Having read advanced level texts for her university and graduate courses and having been exposed
to English-language literature and television from an early age, Maria expresses confidence in her
English literacy, yet she feels “unsure” in her written English. She thinks this comes from relying on
her sense ofwhat “sounds correct” rather than “formal knowledge of grammar.” With academic writing,
she is particularly worried about this lack of formal rules. She writes, “when you work with a text for a
long time and keep rereading it, you can become almost blind to its content and start questioning
ifwhat you are doing is correct. In those instances, it would be good to have knowledge of formal rules
to rely on.” In addition to formal knowledge of the language, Maria also expresses some worries
specific to her research yet easily applicable to other historians working with materials that they must
translate into English. Maria’s source material is in Swedish and from another historical period.
6 dari 9
 PBIS4312-5

Therefore, she finds it challenging to translate these quotations “in away that seems reasonable to an
English-speaking audience.” In particular she wants to recreate a feeling of the literary quality and
historical authenticity of her sources. As she writes, “for direct quotes to makes sense for an English
audience of professional historians, I feel they must be translated to the contemporaneous equivalents
of English words,” lest her sources seem “anachronistic” or “jarring within the context.” She struggles
to find an adequate dictionary and parallel English vocabulary. Ultimately, it was “too time-consuming”
to consider writing her dissertation in English so she plans to rework her Swedish dissertation into
English articles. Maria saw both practical and self-enrichment goals in academic writing in English.
Like the others, she feels that writing in English makes her work accessible to a larger audience.
However, she adds that “it is also a way of challenging yourself which can make the research process
more interesting.”

3.5. Brigitte – different academic writing conventions in english

Brigitte is a foreign European doctoral student studying in Sweden who does not have English as a
first language. Unlike most of her peers, Brigitte took a course on academic writing in English prior to
starting her doctoral education. This course included instruction on conventions, translation aids,
register, structure, and the revision process. However, she does not feel that she gained a “high
proficiency in academic English,” perhaps owing to the fact that she “didn’t really grasp the importance”
of it for her “future life.” Brigitte expresses concern with her “lack of scientific vocabulary” as well as
“lack of knowledge about writing conventions.” Like her peers, Brigitte thinks there was some
difference between academic writing in English and her native language. She explains, that as
opposed to writing in English, “in my native language, writers are supposed to guide the reader
smoothly through the text, which means that in some passages not much is said whilst much is written,
things are repeated, things are summarized, etc.” This perceived difference in academic culture as
well as the “highly visible syntax” of her native language and limited vocabulary and nuance make her
feel hampered in English. However, Brigitte is writing her dissertation in English as she is not allowed
to write in her native language. Rather than having developed more security in the course of her
doctoral education, she is more anxious than ever about her use of English. Foremost, she is unclear
about the standard of English required for international publications and has “heard some researchers
. . . who have talked about international journals declining high quality research papers due to an
insufficient standard of English.” Ultimately, like her peers, Brigitte sees the advantage of writing in
English as far as reaching more people as outweighing the “personal comfort of writing in a mother
tongue.” She also thinks that her success in writing a dissertation in a second language might increase
her employability in the longer term.

3.6. Sophie – finding a voice of one’s own

Sophie is a non-Swedish participant in the study. Like Brigitte, she is from continental Europe and
does not have English as her first language. Also like Brigitte, Sophie has received some training in
academic writing in English. Owing both to her exposure ofacademic writing in English as well as
academic writing in different disciplines, Sophie is “aware of the fact that each discipline has its own
variety of academic English,” even suggesting that “many countries and many universities have their
own variety of academic English.” One difference she articulated was between “shorter and more
direct”“scientific articles” taught by instructors in her native language and writing with “a more essay-
like, meandering quality” taught by her instructors in English literature. The variety of disciplines and
styles has left Sophie feeling that her “writing style is a rather strange hybrid of (attempts at) scholarly
writing and scientific writing,” which makes her “rather insecure.” She identifies a particular scholar
whose writing she would like to emulate in terms of “clarity, directness and activeness” in her “journey”
toward achieving “a self-assured voice that has the flexibility of that of a native speaker, a voice that
is personal yet professional, scholarly yet direct, and captivating yet clear.”

7 dari 9
 PBIS4312-5

4. Discussion Throughout the narratives, the overriding themes of deficit and commonality emerged.
The theme deficit, which was most dominant in the narratives, has two sub-themes: hesitancy and
distance. Hesitancy conveys the doctoral researchers’ insecurity in communicating results and
translating ideas and primary sources into English to the appropriate audience level (Maria). One
student discloses that writing in English gives her “the feeling that I can not expressmy research in a
fair way or at the right level” (Ella). Furthermore, hesitancy relates to the perception ofnot knowing
different expectations ofwriting in English as opposed to Swedish or their native language, perceived
emphases on “structure, rules and consistency” in English as opposed to “genre and narration” in
Swedish (Mats) or in terms of “guiding the reader smoothly through the text” (Brigitte). Additionally, the
idea that academic English entails sections where “not much is said whilst much is written” (Brigitte)
implies a misunderstanding of the “advanced literacy elite” (Hyland, 2016a, p. 67) rather than a
difference in academic writing culture. The sub-theme distance reveals the lack of control and
remoteness the participants feel toward their texts and research when writing in English; for example,
“sometimes I get a vague feeling that the way I expressmyself in writing or speaking (in doctoral
seminars), means something else that I aim” (Greta). For Mats, thinking in Swedish and writing in
English creates the feeling of textual “incoherence.” For Brigitte, that same distance becomes a
positive quality in her research and writing. The less pervasive theme of commonality refers to the
perception that writing in academic English shared the same
attributes and features as academic writing in their native languages, and that their perceived
weaknesses in academic writing in English reflected the same or similar weaknesses in academic
writing in their native languages. One participant worried in general about his style in academic writing,
either Swedish or English (Mats). Furthermore, when ideas and concepts have not been articulated in
existing scholarly articles, this creates challenges in writing in an L1 or an L2 (Ella). These perceptions
further illuminate the need to nuance the assumption and role of L2 deficiency. The challenges of
academic writing in any language appear to be conflated with the challenges of academic writing in
English in some of our narratives. Furthermore, some of the anecdotal assumptions raised by Hyland
(2016a) also appear in our narratives: in particular, the role of gatekeepers who restrict academic
publishing on the basis of language proficiency (Brigitte) even if other studies suggest “increasing
tolerance from Anglophone journal editors” (p. 65). What do these journey narratives reveal about
doctoral researchers’ challenges and needs in communicating their work in English? We know that
some of the supervisors of our participants have not experienced writing a dissertation in English
themselves and have not widely published in English, limiting their possible practical input. The
narratives raise a number of further considerations: why the lack of education in academic writing in
general; what leads to the perceived differences in conventions between academic writing in English
and other languages; and how to reduce cognitive load and anxiety when writing in English? Our
research aim was to evaluate the perceptions of early humanities doctoral researchers in Sweden in
regards to academic writing in English. In sum, it is apparent that doctoral researchers consider
themselves to be at a certain deficit and subscribe to the notion of the privileged position of the native
speaker. This topic is of critical interest and addresses similar questions to those expressed in the
recent article by Hyland (2016a) and discussed further by Politzer-Ahles et al. (2016) and Hyland
(2016b). Although this is a common theme within the narratives, there is also some recognition of
general issues within academic writing, regardless of language, which complicate the idea of linguistic
injustice. The understanding of how students perceive themselves and their writing in relation to this
dichotomy helps us to identify appropriate pedagogical support, which was our other aim in conducting
this research and we now turn to options for instructional support. In response to the perceived deficit,
we agree with Hyland (2016a) regarding the need to shift the attitudes of supervisors and doctoral
researchers away from the deficiency model and instead to focus more on common problems
surrounding writing in any language. At the beginning ofthe doctoral period, we think doctoral colleges
should initiate a discussion about the language deficiency: its existence or otherwise, how it might
impact the writing process and the doctoral students’ perceptions of their route into elite literacy of
8 dari 9
 PBIS4312-5

academic writing. We believe this will support doctoral students on their journey to becoming bi-literate
academic writers. Having established this context, we suggest that doctoral colleges, such as the one
where this study is situated, develop a sequence of writing workshops that cover the entire publication
process. Such a workshop would gather doctoral students working in both their native language and
in English and would be taught by instructors working both in their native language and in English. We
hope this would maintain the focus on literacy of academic writing rather than on language proficiency,
which is often the focus of many existing academic writing courses. This separation of academic writing
instruction by language fosters the perception among doctoral students (and academic staff) that
language deficit is the only critical problem in academic writing for publication. Given the data, we hope
that our recommendations will increase non-native English doctoral students’ confidence in entering
international scholarly publishing.

Reference:
Langum, V., & Sullivan, K. P. H. (2017). Writing academic english as a doctoral student in sweden:
narrative perspectives. Journal of Second Language Writing, 35, 20–25.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.12.004

9 dari 9