Journal of English for Academic Purposes 22 (2016) 19e31

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of English for Academic Purposes

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jeap

Learning to argue in EAP: Evaluating a curriculum innovation

from the inside
Hania Salter-Dvorak
Graduate School of Education, Exeter University, St Luke's Campus, Exeter EX1 2LU, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Following Stenhouse's view that evaluation should serve 'curriculum betterment' (1975),
Received 8 February 2015 this article reports on an action research project which evaluated a pedagogic model for
Received in revised form 20 December 2015 EAP at a UK university: the 'oral presentation sandwich' was a curriculum innovation
Accepted 31 December 2015
aimed at developing L2 students' argumentation through a process writing approach. The
Available online 29 January 2016
innovation introduced an oral presentation between the first and second drafts. The
evaluation drew on Crabbe's construct of quality in ELT which views learning opportunities
Keywords:
from theoretical, cultural, and management perspectives (2003). Data from student
Academic writing
Argumentation
questionnaires, a student focus group, interviews with lecturers, notes from staff meetings,
Redrafting and an ethnographic case study of one student's experience of the model were triangu-
Pedagogic models lated and the learning opportunities it presented were examined. Findings reveal that the
Learning opportunities students' take-up of learning opportunities did not match those intended in the design,
Evaluation suggesting a lack of congruence between students' and lecturers' value systems: first,
while lecturers viewed the oral presentation as a vehicle for developing argumentation,
students viewed it as a performance-based assessment; second, while lecturers focussed
on argumentation in feedback on drafts, students focussed on accuracy in their revisions. I
propose changes to the model, and discuss implications for teaching argumentation,
developing EAP and course design.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Teacher: yes?
Student: yeah…………..ah maybe…..eh …….I should say about the…
I just said about the parents’ social class (laughs) but even I cannot
understand ……yeah…ehm..you asked me about the evidence..why
they came from the working class, so eh this part is quite relate with
this because I try …..to explain about the…(laughs) …long day

E-mail address: H.M.Salter-Dvorak@exeter.ac.uk.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.12.005
1475-1585/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
20 H. Salter-Dvorak / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 22 (2016) 19e31

Teacher: (laughs) yeah

The excerpt above is taken from a short tutorial on a credit-bearing EAP course at a UK university. The teacher is giving
formative feedback on a student's draft, which carries a mark and is thus high stakes. The student's response, characterised by
pauses and shifts of topic, suggests a mental juggling act which eventually breaks down into laughter, a situation familiar to
many a teacher trying to lead a student to develop the role of evidence in their argumentation. Sung-Wook is one of 180
students taking the course; 11 groups of 16 are taught by six teachers. The teacher has 5 min per student in which to discuss
her written feedback on the draft. Sung-Wook will then develop the argument in an oral presentation, and, in response to
lecturer feedback and questions from peers, write a final draft. This model, known as the oral presentation sandwich (OPS), is
a curriculum innovation which was introduced at the university. By focussing on the textual practices needed to produce
academic writing (AW) which is linguistically correct and culturally appropriate, (critical reading, drafting, editing), the EAP
courses aim to build up the ‘powers of informed and independent reasoning’ required of graduates (Nesi & Gardner, 2012:89).
Here, learning to argue is key. The innovation aimed to address a specific problem which the EAP team had identified:
students' revisions of drafts typically failed to develop argumentation, but focussed on local rather than global features.
In what follows, I tell the story of how the EAP team conceived, piloted and evaluated the OPS through an action research
project (my role comprised project leader, EAP subject leader and teacher). The intention was to develop evidence-based
practice, as well as reflection at team level. Through documentation of the processes and discussion of the findings, we
came to appreciate the force of Broadfoot's warning that curriculum innovations cannot be assumed to ‘work in the way
intended’ (2002:288). In the following section, I contextualise the OPS by reviewing the literature on language programme
evaluation, the role of argumentation in AW, and pedagogical models devised to develop this.

2. Literature review

2.1. Evaluating pedagogic models for EAP

Building on Broadfoot above, the success of any curriculum innovation depends on the interplay of contextual factors
which can only be identified through systematic evaluation of its application. Language programme evaluation, initially
concerned with measurement of outcomes through psychometric approaches by outsiders, has gradually shifted to ‘scrutiny
of classroom practices’ from the inside (Kiely & Rea-Dickins, 2005:57). Here Stenhouse's vision of evaluation as a tool for
developing curriculum and pedagogical practice has been seminal: ‘Evaluation should, as it were lead to development and be
integrated with it. Then, the conceptual distinction between development and evaluation is destroyed and the two merge as
research.’ (1975:122).
However, as Crabbe (2003) and Kiely and Rea-Dickins (2005) note, in ELT, insider evaluation remains relatively rare.
Crabbe (2003) sets out a useful framework for this context, which draws on Lave and Wenger's notion of ‘community of
practice’ (1991), foregrounding quality and learning opportunities: the curriculum, viewed as a series of learning opportu-
nities which will lead to specific outcomes, is ‘brought to life by the teachers and students and is governed by their beliefs and
values’, (2003:10). Course designers need to ensure that learning opportunities are, first, made available through specific
activities such as collaborative learning, scaffolding and feedback, and, second, that they match students' perceived needs.
The quality of any programme, then, depends on not only a valid design but also on implementation and successful outcomes.
Accordingly, Crabbe puts forward three levels of enquiry for English language program evaluation: theoretical (learning
opportunities), cultural (values and roles) and management (operationalising/achieving quality).
Crabbe's framework fits well with the social constructivist view of EAP adopted in this paper, which sees students as
novices undergoing socialisation into the culturally appropriate texts of their host academic communities, a process requiring
considerable adaptation (Salter-Dvorak, 2014). As Nesi and Gardner point out, university students are required not only to
develop knowledge through writing, but also to display this ‘in accordance with the expectations of the discipline’ (2012:26).
A key notion here is that of genre, defined by Hyland as ‘a term for grouping texts together, representing how writers typically
respond to recurring situations’ (2008:544), and by Nesi and Gardner as ‘not the written texts themselves, but conventional
ways of doing things realised through the written texts’ (2012:24). Genres, pragmatists in EAP argue, need to be made explicit
in writing pedagogies (Swales, 1990; Hyland, 2008; Nesi & Gardner, 2012). As novice writers cannot see AW being done
(Salter-Dvorak, 2014) socialisation into ‘conventional ways of doing things’ is dependent on appropriate feedback. In EAP,
learner-centred approaches from the process writing movement have led to increased use of formative feedback (which feeds
forward to future revisions) prior to summative feedback (which justifies the marker's assessment of the level achieved).
These approaches draw on sociocultural theory, which views cognition as a social phenomenon (Vygotsky, 1978), in which
scaffolding (Wood et al., 1976, cited in Weissberg, 2006:247) and interaction between teachers, writers and peers can enable
novice writers to progress from ‘current to potential performance’ (Hyland, 2008:559). It is the quality of the feedback, then,
that is key in enabling socialisation into genres.
As the EAP courses described above cater for large numbers, assignments need to be organised well in advance and
marked to tight deadlines. While discourses of good practice advocate piloting and evaluation of assessment models, the
reality is that, due to logistical constraints, assignments in this context are often selected for reasons of expediency. A key
challenge facing EAP teachers, then, is that of devising pedagogical models which optimise the role of formative feedback to
enable written texts which are both linguistically correct and culturally appropriate, as outlined below.
 H. Salter-Dvorak / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 22 (2016) 19e31 21

2.2. Academic writing for L1 and L2 students

AW is a complex business for all students. Research findings from the cognitivist tradition on L1 writing show conclusively
that the processing load is heavy: if the student is writing for ‘knowledge transformation’ rather than ‘knowledge telling’, s/he
is shaping the content through the act of writing (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987: 9e12). The writer needs to attend not only to
‘the meaning of individual ideas and pieces of information’, but also to ‘how the text develops and how ideas and information
inter-relate’ (Basturkmen & von Randow, 2014:14). This focus on ‘meaning, coherence and argumentation’ (ibid) involves a
mental juggling act of retaining, synthesising, and formulating abstract ideas in the short-term memory, while simulta-
neously encoding them into clear and accurate language. For the L2 writer, the challenge is magnified, creating a ‘double
burden’ of language and content (Salter-Dvorak, 2015). Developing content often entails adopting new thinking patterns, as
contrastive rhetoric research shows (Connor, 1996), while the coding into language is difficult and time-consuming. Those
overly concerned with accuracy risk becoming trapped in what Raimes famously referred to as ‘the prison of the sentence’
(1983:261), thereby losing sight of overall meaning and coherence.
We also know that significant differences exist between novice and skilled writers. Skilled writers revise more than
novices (Wallace & Hayes, 1991), and make more global revisions e.g. ‘deleting, adding, moving or changing information
across larger sections of text’ (Butler & Britt, 2011:73), rather than local revisions at sentence level (Sommers, 1980; Wallace &
Hayes, 1991). A key distinction is between redrafting and revision, as summarised below: Table 1.

Table 1
Redrafting versus revision.

Activity Revise Redraft

focus on Language / accuracy Content / meaning
Plan same new
changes made local global

Skilled writers interviewed by Sommers viewed writing as a vehicle to discover meaning, echoing Bereiter and Scarda-
malia's ‘knowledge transforming’ model. Redrafting involved identifying ‘dissonance’ in the text, then re-ordering the plan
and making additions in order to provide a ‘design’ or ‘pattern’ for the argument (p 385). The fundamental difference,
Sommers suggests, is that, while skilled writers redraft to discover meaning, novice writers assume that ‘the meaning to be
communicated is already there’ (1980:382).
As mentioned above, in both L1 and L2 writing research, a well-established principle is that, for novice writers, successful
revision is critically dependent on appropriate teacher formative feedback on first drafts, which can enable development by
providing learning opportunities. Weissberg argues, ‘scaffolded dialogue tailored to a particular student writer constitutes an
unparalleled opportunity to provide instruction’ (2006:260). However, there are complexities involved in the provision of
feedback: as Ivanic, Clark and Rimmershaw point out, it conveys messages on interpersonal, institutional and epistemological
levels (2000). While criticism needs to be mitigated, indirectness can lead to misunderstanding (Hyland & Hyland, 2006);
students need ‘specific strategies for revising the texts’ (Zamel, 1985:86).
A further complexity revolves around whether feedback should prioritise form or content. While typically, the focus is on
form, e.g. Ferris (2006), some argue that, without focus on meaning, writing will not develop, e.g. Zamel (1985). This is
particularly pertinent to AW across disciplines, which requires critical thinking and the ability to construct arguments (Nesi &
Gardner, 2006, 2012; Davies, 2008; Wingate, 2012) as elaborated below.

2.3. Argumentation in academic writing

Recently, corpus studies of assessed undergraduate student writing have shown that, while argumentation is all-
pervasive, it can take many forms (see for example Wolfe, 2011). Nesi and Gardner's corpus comprising 20 disciplines
(2012) identified 13 genre families which were then grouped according to five ‘broader social and educational purposes’. Of
these families, the essay was the most prevalent; here, the purpose is to display ‘powers of independent reasoning’ through
argumentation (p. 35). Toulmin (1958, in Nesi & Gardner, 2012:91) divides arguments into ‘grounds, claim and warrant,
where the claim (or argument) is based on certain grounds (or evidence) and supported by a warrant (or generally held
theory)’. While subject tutors interviewed by the authors articulated their expectations through ‘common values’ relating to
the importance of ‘clearly stated argument’ (2006:113), Nesi and Gardner (2012) found that deployment of evidence could be
achieved through different patterns. They identify six different essay genres which span different disciplines, e.g. exposition
essay (thesis, evidence, restate thesis) or discussion essay (issue, alternative arguments, final position).
It is hardly surprising, then, that argumentation in AW is ‘conceptually unstable’ (Mitchell & Riddle, 2000:17) and hence
notoriously difficult to define; it can refer to ‘individual claims or the whole text’ (Wingate, 2012:146), and involves ‘the ability
to make sound inferences and to examine them dispassionately’ (Davies, 2008:328). This in turn requires ‘high level cognitive
and rhetorical skills’ (Mitchell & Riddle, 2000:13) such as audience awareness. Thompson for example, demonstrates (2001)
22 H. Salter-Dvorak / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 22 (2016) 19e31

how coherence in argumentation includes discussing the argument critically from different perspectives which may be held
by the reader.
Evidence exists that student academic writers have limited understandings of argumentation and criticality
(Thompson, 2001; Butler & Britt, 2011; Wolfe, 2011), which often do not match those of faculty (Lea & Street, 2000).
Wingate's survey of first year undergraduates and their lecturers in a UK university found that, while lecturers saw
criticality as being ‘the purposeful selection and use of sources’ (2012: 151), students understood it to mean expressing
disagreement with sources. One perceived argument as being ‘when you strongly believe in a view and state why you
believe so’ (2012:148). Less than half mentioned the need for evidence, let alone the need to evaluate or analyse sources,
a point which was mirrored in the lecturers' summative feedback on lack of structure, evidence and criticality. As is also
well documented in the literature, faculty conceptualisations of what constitutes good AW are tacit and implicit; they are
often not aware of the processes involved or their implications for students (Lea & Street, 2000; Mitchell & Riddle, 2000;
Davies, 2008; Salter-Dvorak, 2015).
Perhaps the strongest sense of the complexity here is conveyed by Mitchell and Riddle's project report on teaching
argumentation in UK universities, which provides a holistic picture of how faculty notions, student expectations and
pedagogical models operate within institutional constraints. Following the production and trialling of materials, the project
leaders realised that staff workshops were necessary to gain consensus on the ‘nature and functioning of argument’
(2000:21). Argument emerged as only ‘part of a ‘family’ of cognitive and rhetorical modes that included hypothesis making,
problem solution chaining and explanation (p. 23).
Recently, the drive for transparency in HE has resulted in AW researchers calling for argumentation to be made explicit
through ‘deliberate educational practices’ (Davies, 2008:327) which provide schema building (Bacha, 2010; Horowitz, 1986;
Wingate, 2012). Disagreement exists, however, on whether argumentation pedagogies should be discipline specific, reflecting
the fact that knowledge and argument are constructed within disciplines, (Mitchell & Riddle, 2000; Wingate, 2012; Nesi &
Gardner, 2012) or whether the skills involved are transferable and can be taught generically (Davies, 2008; Bacha, 2010).
In what follows, I review four recent pedagogical models for developing argumentation.
First, Mitchell and Riddle report on an ‘add on’ module for undergraduates which aimed to develop ‘understanding in
argument and ability to write it’ as well as ‘a critical perspective on the functioning of argumentation within academic
discourses and institutions’ (2000:17). The authors found that, rather than improving their performance of argument, stu-
dents valued the opportunity to reflect on their position in the ‘academic institutional context’ (p. 18). Following evaluation of
materials which used Toulmin's (1958) language for teaching argumentation, (claim, evidence, warrant) they devised a
simple ‘triangle model’ based on the words ‘since, then and because’ which signalled the moves of making, supporting and
justifying claims. The authors argue that the use of ‘everyday language terms’ here renders the concept accessible to all
concerned. They conclude, however, that while ‘meta-awareness’ is valuable, ‘argument practice’ (p.19, their italics) can take
place only within disciplines.
Second, focussing on L2 students, Davies (2008) analyses what it is that actually constitutes good critical thinking in L2
argumentative writing by distinguishing between grammatical and logical clarity; while a sentence may be grammatically
clear, it may lack inferential links, e.g. stating premises which are essential for the argument being made. Davies' solution lies
in specific teaching of deductive inference patterns based on a six step procedure, which includes models for articulating
inferences, and leads to constructing and draughting argumentative papers. He also demonstrates how argumentation steps
can be made clear through computer-assisted argument mapping, using flowcharts to represent premises, grounds for
premises and conclusions. Davies reports positive student feedback on a pilot study of this approach.
Third, Bacha (2010) provides a five-step approach designed for her generic classes of pre-university students, which in-
troduces different argumentation patterns. Aiming to transcend the sentence, the approach involves deconstructing exam-
ples of published authors and students' argumentative texts, in order to model common patterns and detect logical fallacies,
followed by constructing texts jointly and independently. Particular emphasis is laid on providing evidence by citing sources
appropriately (p. 234). Bacha argues that students' first and second drafts reveal the success of this approach, although the
role played by formative feedback is not discussed.
Fourth, for a discipline specific undergraduate context, Wingate (2012) proposes an explicit essay writing framework,
arguing that the writer's position lies at the core of argumentation, and needs to be supported by three stages: analysis and
evaluation of sources, writer's development of a position, and coherent presentation of the position (p 146). She provides a
figure to demonstrate that it is the structure of an essay (introduction, main body and conclusion) which enables successful
argumentation. She also argues for a commonly understood terminology to be used in lecturer feedback and writing
guidelines, which should relate specifically to these three stages. Like Bacha, Wingate advocates the use of examples of
student writing with features made explicit, emphasising the importance of showing rather than telling.
The approaches above all underscore the importance of meaning in AW. Their privileging of simple language and
figures demonstrate a commitment to transparency, thereby echoing calls to make genres explicit to students. They are
also firmly grounded in the classroom. However, I suggest that there are shortcomings here: first, there is a lack of focus
on the redrafting process and the role of learning opportunities provided by formative teacher feedback (only Wingate
discusses summative feedback). Second, there is lack of evidence as to how these approaches actually worked (only
Mitchell and Riddle discuss evaluation, while Davies limits himself to student feedback). As Wingate stresses, any
pedagogical model would need to be ‘tested and evaluated’ to see whether it improves not only understanding but also
performance (p 154). Like the researchers above, I am interested in developing a pedagogical model for argumentation.
 H. Salter-Dvorak / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 22 (2016) 19e31 23

Here, I would foreground the role of learning opportunities which encourage redrafting informed by formative feedback,
as elaborated below.

3. The context

The innovation in question concerns a writing assessment model which combines formative and summative feedback
by allocating equal weighting to first and second drafts. The model is employed on EAP credit-bearing modules at a UK
university whose widely diverse student population comprises 37 nationalities from a range of ages, disciplines and
study modes. The year-long modules are offered at three levels (level one, equivalent to IELTS 5.5, two, 6.0 and three, 6.5)
to around 400 L2 students annually.1 Students without recent IELTS scores are tested and placed on entry.
Due to institutional constraints, (logistics of scheduling credit-bearing modules) the courses are generic rather than
discipline specific. We have addressed this by presenting topics and texts on institutions and life in the UK, an approach
often lauded by subject lecturers at the university, who see that it provides the multicultural student body with inter-
cultural learning opportunities. Fully acknowledging that differences exist between disciplines, we adopt Horowitz's
‘academic information processing’ model which involves first, selection of data relevant to an issue; second, reorganising
it in response to a given question; third, ‘encoding the data into academic English’ (1986:456) following conventions for
academic referencing. Assessment is based on the learner-centred dialogic approach grounded in sociocultural theory
described in Sec. 2; we provide direct written comments on the students' drafts, intended as clear ‘feedforward’. In order
to ensure parity, we regularly standardise our assessment in terms of marks and feedback given.

3.1. The assessment model

The EAP modules in semester one are assessed 50% by examination and 50% by coursework, which consists of three
equally-weighted assignments. The original design was as follows: Table 2.

Table 2
The original model.

Week Assignment Activity

1 1 Students receive a pack of texts in preparation for a discussion essay during the first class; they paraphrase a short paragraph for
assignment 1.
2e4 Texts are read at home and discussed in class, forming a basis for selecting evidence for the essay topic.
Students prepare notes for an in-class essay in which they are expected to cite and reference the texts.
5 2 Draft 1 is written in 2 hours in class from notes only.
7 2 Draft 1 is returned; students receive a separate mark and written formative teacher feedback on language and content followed by a
short tutorial.
8e9 3 Draft 2 is written at home in line with feedback.
11 3 Draft 2 is returned with mark and summative teacher feedback.

Our marking criteria reflect Basturkmen and von Randow's view of content as encompassing ‘meaning of individual ideas’
as well as ‘how ideas and information inter-relate’ (2014:14). There are band descriptors for content (50%: use of sources,
coherence, and argumentation) and language (50%: accuracy, range of expression and style). These headings are mapped onto
the feedback forms in order to provide learners with a schema of the elements of AW.

3.2. The problem: language versus content

We have noticed that our students' revisions typically focus on the local rather the global, exemplifying revision confined
to ‘the prison of the sentence’ (Raimes, 1983:261) rather than redrafting. Particularly apparent is the fact that second drafts
often lack a line of argument; however, students are able to pass the assignment due to the equal weighting for language and
content.

3.3. The innovation: oral presentation sandwich

The revised model attempts to promote global revisions, especially argumentation, by replacing assignment one with an
oral presentation (OP) between drafts 1 and 2. Table 3.

1
While it is possible to progress through the levels over three years, the majority of students take EAP for only one year.
24 H. Salter-Dvorak / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 22 (2016) 19e31

Table 3
The revised model.

Week 4 Draft 1 (D1) Written in class

Week 6 Draft 1 Returned with separate mark and written formative teacher feedback on language and content (especially
argumentation) followed by a short tutorial; students briefed to focus on developing argumentation in the OP.
Week 7 Oral presentation on Assessed on language and content: written formative teacher feedback focussing on content only (especially
draft in class argumentation) given immediately following event; peer formative feedback provided by questions and
discussion.
Week 9 Draft 2 (D2) Written at home
Week 11 Draft 2 Returned with mark and written summative teacher feedback on language and content.

Drawing on the sociocultural principle that dialogue is key in shaping learners' ideas during the writing process, the
model provides another turn for developing D1 through the OP. The intention here is that the student, scaffolded by the
teacher's feedback, will use the OP as a vehicle for making improvements relating to argumentation. The first learning
opportunity, then, is provided by the focus on argumentation in teacher feedback on D1, and the additional processing
time enabled by the extra turn. Following the OP, the second learning opportunity is provided by formative feedback
from peer questions and discussion; here, multiple perspectives may stimulate further development of argumentation in
students' revisions.

3.4. The OPS evaluation

Following discussion of the OPS in the EAP team, it was agreed that we would pilot it for a year. However, as Broadfoot
warns: ‘it cannot be assumed that any model will work in the way intended’ (2002: 288). As designer of the OPS and EAP
leader, I was curious how its implementation would work; here, Crabbe's three levels of enquiry for quality (2003) can be
applied directly to the evaluation questions as follows: Table 4.

Table 4

Evaluation questions Level of enquiry

1 How do students perceive and experience the OPS and what is their level of investment in this? cultural
2 To what extent does the OPS provide learning opportunities to develop argumentation? theoretical
3 How do teachers perceive and experience the OPS? cultural/management
4 How can the above lead to curriculum development? cultural/theoretical/management

The evaluation was planned as an action-research project which would lead to both curriculum and professional devel-
opment (Kiely & Rea-Dickins, 2005:35).2 The outcomes of such research, Stenhouse argues, should be published and made
available to ‘a community of critical discourse’, as well as leading to discussions in small communities (1975:161). It was
precisely such discussions that the evaluation aimed to promote in the EAP team. The findings were intended to make specific
statements about the innovation contextualised to the situation, which, while not necessarily generalizable, may provide
insights for similar contexts.

3.4.1. Design, data collection and analysis

The evaluation was an ethnographically oriented project which focussed on the experiences of participants in the
level two group, with a view to exploring the nature of their practices and values. We chose this group (equivalent to
IELTS 6.0), as it typically constituted the largest group in the cohort. In order to obtain a number of perspectives on the
OPS, I adopted mixed methods, presenting diverse data sets from all stakeholders (quantitative and qualitative), which
were triangulated: the numerical data provide an overall picture of attitudes and practices of students, while the case
studies enable insights into the experiences and textual developments of individuals. Data collection involved five
phases: Table 5.

Table 5
Data collection.

Phase Data set

1 Case studies of two students which traced the OPS through participant observation, audio recordings of tutorials and student OPs, triangulated
with written teacher feedback and textual analysis of D1, the OP and D2.
2 A focus group discussion with self-selected students from one level two class (audio - recorded) following submission of D2.
3 Paper questionnaires filled in by 168 students in level two on the day they received marks and summative feedback for D2.
4 Telephone interviews with teachers (notes taken).
5 Discussions in EAP team meetings (notes taken).

2
I was allocated 2 h per week of CPD funding for one semester at the university where the research took place.
 H. Salter-Dvorak / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 22 (2016) 19e31 25

Recommendations on good practice in Applied Linguistics set out by BAAL (2006) were adhered to in terms of
informed consent, guaranteed anonymity of participants, and confidentiality. Fully acknowledging that as a researcher, I
was an active participant in the process, and therefore influenced it, particular contextual sensitivity was needed
regarding my roles as EAP leader, teacher and researcher: first, the interviews with teachers could be seen as face-
threatening, possibly revealing data that could then be used for appraisal purposes. I therefore conducted these in-
terviews by phone and made notes rather than recording. Second, while case studies were drawn from the two level two
groups that I taught, I decided that, for the focus group, I would reduce the risk of the student-teacher relationship
conditioning respondents' answers by interviewing the level two class of a colleague.

4. Findings and discussion

4.1. How do students perceive and experience the OPS and what is their level of investment in this?

4.1.1. The attitudinal data

The picture which emerges from the attitudinal data is a generally positive one. The following graph summarises re-
sponses to questions 3e7 (below) on the questionnaire. Fig. 1.

Fig. 1. Attitudinal responses to the OPS.

3. Doing an oral presentation helped me to organise the ideas more clearly.

4. Doing an oral presentation helped me to improve the final draft in general terms.
5. Listening to my colleagues' oral presentations was interesting.
6. Listening to my colleagues' oral presentations helped me to improve my final draft.
7. Doing the same topic for three assignments was interesting.

4.1.2. Total hours spent on 3 assignments

The assignment brief advised students to spend 24 h in total on the three assignments. As shown below, a minority report
following these guidelines; 70% spent only half the time (12 h) or less. Nevertheless, the pass rate of the cohort was high (92%;
average mark:58%). Fig. 2.

Fig. 2. Total hours spent on assignments.

4.1.3. Focus group findings

The figures above, based on self-report, are fragile, and provide little evidence that the OPS has impacted positively on
student performance. What they do highlight, however, is that while the majority view the OPS in a positive light, they report
spending less time on it than advised in the assignment brief. This finding is corroborated by the focus group, in which
students re-iterated a positive view of the model. However, when asked how they had approached D2, and how much time it
took, they seemed to display a surprising air of ease:
26 H. Salter-Dvorak / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 22 (2016) 19e31

‘I guess it took less than an hour.. just I needed to correct language mistakes and then I changed introduction a little’
(student A)
This suggests a concern with ‘fixing the language’ and fits in with the findings above on hours spent on the OPS. It also
reflects the literature on novice writers' revision: our students see that the meaning is ‘already there’ and simply needs to be
communicated more clearly rather than reconsidered (Sommers, 1980). When asked what they understood by argumenta-
tion, the group, who had responded readily, were reduced to silence, suggesting a lack of schematic framework in this area,
also echoing the literature (Butler and Britt, 2011; Thompson, 2001; Wingate, 2012).
What emerged most clearly was that the OP provided much-needed practice for their university courses. Student A
explained:
‘I have two more OPs this semester so I need to practise this’
While generally they had found the presentation time-consuming to prepare, they agreed that having the content
available from which to structure it was useful. The OP involved considerable micro-level planning and rehearsal, developing
skills of timing, language for transitioning between sections, and pronunciation intrinsic to this genre:
‘You have to.. you know have aims and then say “I will move to the next part’
(student B)
‘Many words in English are difficult to say and we have to practise with our friends’
(student C)
The figures and group discussion then, reveal some clear patterns on how students generally approach the OPS and their
attitudes towards this pedagogical model. It seems that the key learning opportunity which emerges relates to the skills
needed for successful delivery of OPs, a performance-based focus which arguably reflects their priorities, as well as their
perception of language as the main focus of EAP. However, there is minimal evidence on how the OP actually feeds into the
writing of D2. In order to address this question, I now turn to a case study report.

4.2. To what extent does the OPS provide learning opportunities to develop argumentation?

4.2.1. How did the OPS work for SungeWook? A case study
The following subjective account describes my experience of tutoring Sung-Wook, a conscientious learner in my level two
class for whom the OPS model worked successfully, as the table below shows: Table 6.

Table 6
Sung-Wook's marks.

Draft 1 Oral presentation Draft 2

Marks 53% 60% 59%
Hours spent 8 10 10.5

Sung-Wook, from South Korea, has a BA in Politics and is currently preparing for an MA in Journalism on a graduate
foundation course, of which the EAP module is a component. His IELTS score is 6.0 (5.5. for writing). Like many of his col-
leagues, Sung-Wook had written only IELTS essays (250 words) in English before coming to England. The essay discussed
below is his fifth at the university. He describes his feelings about writing:
‘sometimes I feel inconvenient to write English, especially when..ehm..I cannot write.. what I want to say, and then it make
me crazy..ehm..very difficult and I cannot stand that kind of situation, but ..it happen many, many times’
(Sung-Wook, interview 1)

4.2.2. Draft 1
The level two students were set the essay title: ‘Although ethnic minorities in Britain have a right to education, their success
rate is low’. Discuss. Sung-Wook's D1 begins with the idea of a vicious circle:
‘Therefore this essay I am going to show the vicious circle which causes the Ethnic minorities low success rate in Education
field and society.’
The excerpt from the tutorial relates to the section below.
‘Eventually, David and Caroline found a significant reasons from the pupils’ background and that is “social class is strongly
associated with achievement regardless of gender and ethnic background. Whatever the pupils' gender of ethnic origin, those
from the higher social class backgrounds do better on average.” The social class background is the most important and
effectable part of pupils study. Hence, this caused that ethnic minorities couldn't get good result in their studying’
 H. Salter-Dvorak / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 22 (2016) 19e31 27

Sung-Wook has provided a clear claim in sentence 1 (underlined). The next three sentences argue:

1. Social class is an important factor in academic success.

2. Ethnic minorities are not successful.

However, as he fails to provide a link between these two points, the final sentence reads as a non-sequitur; my (very direct)
written feedback points out:
‘Serious flaw! You do not present any evidence here about ethnic minorities’ social class'.

4.2.3. Our interaction on D1

The extract below is taken from our 5-min tutorial on D1; Sung-Wook and I are looking at his draft and going through my
written feedback. In the transcription, one full stop represents a 1-s pause, and capitals indicate emphatic stress.

18 Teacher: okay, so here you say they're all from low social classes-that's a
19 SERIOUS FLAW (pointing to written feedback) D'you know this word flaw?
20 SeW: ….no
21 Teacher: flaw means mistake … ..why do you think that all ethnic minorities come from low social classes?
22 SeW: err, I thought….according to the Swan report?
23 Teacher: oh yeah..yeah?
24 SeW: many ethnic minority students' achievement rate lower than others and also 25 the report said the most important
thing, the most important thing for the student
26 achievement was their parents' social background
27 Teacher: hmmmm
28 SeW: many of them, their parents are working class
29 Teacher: yeah, ok but you must SAY that in your essay…if you say that it will be
30 fantastic, but you can't jump from one, one, to this conclusion without giving
31 that……that's VITAL information to put in your essay….
32 SeW: yeah…..
33 Teacher:…..yes?
34 SeW: Yeah,……………….ah, maybe,….. eh ….. I should say about the …..I
35 just said about the parents’ social class…..(laughs) but even I cannot
36 understand…..Yeah, ehm, you asked me about the evidence e why they
37 came from the working class, so eh, this part…..is quite relate with
38 this, because I I try….. to explain about the… (laughs) long day
39 Teacher: (laughs) yeah
40 S-W: Parents’ social class and the parents invest about.. to.. the their
41 children’s education is most important fact about education and
42 achievement, so I need more word about to make clear this time I will
43 change this

My initial question is interrupted by Sung-Wook's facial expression which leads me to explain the word ‘flaw’ in an
attempt to scaffold his schema of argumentation (Wingate, 2012). Although our exchange is not symmetrical in terms of
power, and the onus lies on me to manage it successfully, the interaction is co-constructed: Sung-Wook negotiates meaning in
lines 22-6, and appears to grasp my point on the social class issue in lines 40-3; clearly, he has needed the processing time for
knowledge transformation here (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987). When viewed in terms of Crabbe's levels of enquiry for
evaluation (2.1), the excerpt shows that, from a theoretical perspective, the feedback has been specific enough to guide Sung-
Wook's responses. From a cultural perspective, his statement ‘I will change this’ evidences his commitment to investment of
time. From the teacher's management perspective, the event is stressful for us both due to the extremely short time available
to discuss complex topics in limited language. The excerpt exemplifies, as Hyland and Hyland put it, the ‘fragile intimacy of
the teacher student relationship’ in which the learner struggles to ‘manage meaning in a foreign language’ (2006:207). It is
not clear to me throughout whether Sung-Wook has understood the concept but is unable to explain it clearly, or whether the
lack of clarity in his language reflects lack of understanding. This leads to feelings which oscillate between frustration and a
will to see the positive in Sung-Wook's writing, but it must not show on my face, or he will be demotivated.

4.2.4. The oral presentation

In my following class, Sung-Wook delivered the OP with an excited nervousness; he had clearly prepared it carefully, with
an audience in mind. His was the only OP to raise a laugh by asking a rhetorical question about ethnic minorities' low success
rate in British education:
‘So what is the reason? Because they are more stupid than the others?’
28 H. Salter-Dvorak / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 22 (2016) 19e31

Sung-Wook's discourse competence in transforming the essay into a different communicative event was further
demonstrated by a figure which he produced of the vicious circle. Noticeable though, was the fact that he had re-worked the
content, so that the points of the essay do not map clearly onto the OP. Following the presentations, however, Sung-Wook's
colleagues offered no questions; they seemed either to be looking at their notes in anticipation of their turn, or to lose interest
once they had presented, in contrast to their self-reports that 80% had found colleagues' OPs interesting (4.1.1). Perhaps the
effort of delivering the OP (the first for some students) eclipsed all else; however, as we were coming under time pressure, I
had no choice but to close the class with plenary feedback.

4.2.5. Sung-Wook's view of the OPS

Reflecting on the usefulness of the OPS, Sung-Wook identifies first, OP practice as a learning opportunity, re-iterating the
focus group's view:
‘I know my friends on master course have OPs to do and this make me very nervous … …I need many hours to make sure
what I am going to say’
He also mentions that he was able to observe a good model of OP structure:
‘Yin gave me clear idea, clear structure of oral presentation’
Second, in terms of argumentation, he has had to examine the content carefully in order to boil it down for a coherent OP,
as evidenced by the vicious circle diagram;
‘when I wrote diagram of vicious circle it helped me clearly to understand my idea’
This, he says, helped with clarity of argument in D2, reflecting suggestions in the literature that figures can help with
modelling argumentation (Wingate, 2012; Mitchell & Riddle, 2000; Davies, 2008). It seems, then, that the OPS provided
Sung-Wook with OP practice, as well as further clarity for argumentation, motivating him to improve D2. What it has not
provided, however, is development of ideas based on peer feedback, as was intended in the conception of the OPS.

4.2.6. Draft 2
Sung-Wook's D2 is considerably longer (1106 words from 624), and shows many changes/additions. Revisions are listed in
the table below, indicating whether they respond to feedback on D1, the OP, or neither. Table 7.

Table 7
Developments in draft 2.

Change Line Nature of In response to feedback

change on:
Tentative language 8 Tone D1
Sentence explaining aims revised 10 coherence D1
e11
New paragraphs 11, 20 coherence D1
Statement that no evidence exists on differing ability between white and ethnic minority students 13 argumentation OP
added. e14
Reformulation of introduction to include quotation on social class 17 argumentation D1
e20
Poorer educational performance explicitly linked to social class 18 argumentation D1
e22
Sentence added to explain school failure 22 argumentation D1
e24
Unemployment of parents re-iterated 28 argumentation D1
e32
Above linked to low marks 33 argumentation D1
e37
Sentence added signalling complexity of issue 38 argumentation neither
e41
Evidence added from sources 41 argumentation D1
e62
Reference corrected 48 referencing D1
Connor source linked to Lee 52 use of sources neither
Section added new source 58 argumentation D1
e72
Paragraph added on racial discrimination 65 argumentation neither
e72
Vicious circle explained in text 78 coherence D1 and OP
e89
Conclusion revised 93 argumentation D1
e95
 H. Salter-Dvorak / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 22 (2016) 19e31 29

4.2.7. Discussion
Sung-Wook's changes relate more to the global rather than the local. Most are initiated by formative feedback on D1, few
by feedback on the OP, and some by neither. D2 shows stronger control of the topic through propositions, caveats, and use of
tentative language. The vicious circle is developed, so that it supports the thesis. Most clearly, the argumentation is enriched
and developed, though it remains neither entirely convincing nor clearly expressed. In spite of his limited language, then,
Sung-Wook has responded to the feedback, and attempted to ‘change this to make it clear’ as promised. D2, a redrafting rather
than a revision, evidencing knowledge transformation (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987), is clearly the result of considerable
processing on his part:
‘It's not perfect, but much better than first, first draft’
As Stake states: ‘people can find in case reports certain insights into the human condition, even while being well aware of the
atypicality of the case’ (2005: 456). I suggest that Sung-Wook's case is both typical and atypical. It is typical in that it brings to
light the complexity of the roles played by both participants in the dialogic process: the writer undergoes the disempowering
experience of learning to ‘do’ AW in another language, while the teacher juggles the roles of counsellor and examiner. It is
atypical in that he displays the behaviour of expert writers, focussing mainly on the global, and invests time to address the
‘dissonance’ in the essay (Sommers, 1980). Accordingly, he has made progress in terms of content in D2, proving that this can be
done, even though the tutorial can appear unclear. The extra turn has benefited him; unlike many of his colleagues, he has taken
up the first learning opportunity and used the presentation as a vehicle for developing argumentation. Possibly, as a graduate,
his schema of argumentation is stronger than that of his undergraduate colleagues. His take-up of the second learning op-
portunity, though, is less predictable. While the intention that peer questions and discussion would develop argumentation has
not been realised, he reports that watching his colleagues' OPs has helped him with structure and delivery.

4.3. How do teachers perceive and experience the OPS?

4.3.1. Main findings

The following table summarises the main findings from telephone interviews with all eight teachers, and discussions in
team meetings, demonstrating how these relate to Crabbe's three levels of enquiry: Table 8.

Table 8
Teachers' perceptions in relation to Crabbe's levels of enquiry for evaluation.

Finding Relating to
Students need to perceive the importance of argumentation. theoretical/cultural
There is considerable disparity in the way teachers view and present argumentation: some present it through reading tasks, theoretical/cultural/
some through brainstorming essay titles, while others do not make it explicit. management
Although students appear to understand the feedback on D1 during the tutorial, they rarely respond to it in D2. cultural/theoretical
Time management of the OP was problematic; many students arrived late due to last minute preparation. management
Listening to numerous OPs on the same topic was tedious. management
Students generally appeared to be only partially engaged in colleagues' OPs; discussion and questions were minimal. theoretical/cultural
D2 in many cases related more to D1 than to the OP, and thus did not seem to have benefitted from the OP. theoretical
Materials need to be produced to make argumentation explicit to students. theoretical

These findings suggest that, while teachers perceive the importance of argumentation in AW, there is variation in terms of
classroom practice, so that learning opportunities will vary across classes. A, who has a background in Philosophy, seemed
confident with teaching argumentation:
‘I teach them what a premise is and then draw an actual line of argument through the text’
The majority, however, pointed out that, given the limited amount of time, other elements of writing needed to be pri-
oritised, as encapsulated by the following statements:
‘the trouble is, many of them still don't know how to reference properly’
(B)
‘If students plagiarise unwittingly, then they'll fail, even if the argumentation is good’
(A)
The teachers' accounts, when related to Crabbe's three levels of enquiry, suggest first, that argumentation seems either
to elude many students, or to lack validity in their eyes (cultural); second, in terms of practicality, there is insufficient
time for discussion or lecturer feedback on the OP (management); third, in terms of learning opportunities provided by
the OPS model, the variation in pedagogical approach for argumentation is a matter for concern (theoretical).

4.3.2. Discussion
As Crabbe argues: ‘the curriculum is brought to life by the teachers and students and governed by their beliefs’. (p 10). I
suggest that, while both students and teachers appear to be in favour of the OPS, the findings reveal a gulf between their
30 H. Salter-Dvorak / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 22 (2016) 19e31

perceptions regarding its rationale, reflecting conflicting values. The table below summarises the findings and provides ex-
planations in italics: Table 9

Table 9
Conflicting student teacher values relating to the OPS.

1 Students are in favour of the OPS

It is time effective, providing practice in OPs and two opportunities to improve language on the same topic.
2 Teachers are in favour of the OPS
It provides an opportunity to develop argumentation, as well as OP practice.
3 Most students do not spend the requisite number of hours on OPS
This is because they are revising rather than redrafting; it is focus on content rather than language that is time consuming.
4 The model has worked well for Sung-Wook.
This is because he focussed on content (especially argumentation) and spent the requisite time on re-draughting.

The findings, then, substantiate the initial problem: students focus more on revision than redrafting. Returning to Crabbe's
framework, I suggest that the OPS design rests on a number of assumptions which are problematic from theoretical, cultural, and
management perspectives. First, in theoretical terms, while the reading pack and essay question provide appropriate material for
developing a schema for argumentation (Bacha, 2010; Butler & Britt, 2011; Wolfe, 2011; Wingate, 2012), it is clear that teachers are
not equally confident in deploying these to provide a sufficiently scaffolded learning opportunity. As the literature demonstrates,
argumentation is highly complex (Mitchell and Riddle; 2000; Wingate, 2012), yet in the everyday business of our EAP modules, it
has become reified in the abstract, its definition tacitly assumed. It may therefore be helpful, rather than referring to argumen-
tation generally, to begin by focussing attention specifically on the provision of evidence to support claims in AW, (Bacha, 2010),
and to design materials for this. Second, in cultural terms, the assumption that the OP will act as a vehicle for developing argu-
mentation is not supported by the evidence; rather, students approach the OP from a performance perspective, focussing on skills
integral to this genre. While they may understand the written and spoken formative feedback on D1, the task of structuring and
delivering an OP on the material provides a learning opportunity which reflects their immediate needs and eclipses that of
developing argumentation (as demonstrated by both the focus group data and the lack of discussion in Sung-Wook's class).
Additionally, the fact that there is minimal time for discussion or peer questions suggests that the OP is not viable from a man-
agement perspective. Third, the assumption that students will be able to develop argumentation in their D2 is problematic
theoretically, as they may lack strategies for this (Butler & Britt, 2011; Wolfe, 2011). Fourth, from a cultural perspective, the
assumption that they will be willing to invest the recommended time on this is not supported by the evidence; as Sung-Wook's
case shows, producing and revising texts in an L2 is extremely time consuming. I suggest that here, the investment of time on
developing argumentation is not perceived to be worth the return; maybe our students have elected to meet the challenges of
studying in an L2 by investing this time elsewhere on their degree. Clearly, then, they have not taken up the learning opportunities
which were intended by the OPS; instead of focussing on argumentation at global level, they have focussed on preparing and
delivering presentations, and made local revisions, in line with their perceived priorities. However, as the marking criteria were
broader than argumentation alone, the majority of students passed the module.

4.4. How can the above lead to curriculum development?

While the OPS presents a deliberate attempt to develop argumentation, it falls short in alignment between assessment
and pedagogical practice. The learning opportunities are not sufficiently made available, as Crabbe stipulates, and they do not
match students' priorities. The OPS, then, needs to be rethought to include more focussed learning opportunities. First,
materials will need to be designed on providing evidence in AW; drawing on Sung-Wook's experience, and suggestions by
Mitchell and Riddle (2000), Wingate (2012) and Davies (2008). Second, students need specific guidance on how to make
global revisions to drafts; here the time allocated to the 5-min tutorials could be used for a group revision tutorial; a scaf-
folded dialogue could then be enabled by a written form in which students enter their subsequent revisions and hand in with
D2. Third, the OP can be retained as it is clearly useful. However, as the processing demands for structuring a new text and
developing argumentation simultaneously are too high, it should follow rather than precede D2, thereby enabling focus on
the former. Fourth, workshops need to be organised for teachers to share ideas on materials and pedagogy. The following
table presents the recommendations and their relation to Crabbe's levels of enquiry.Table 10

Table 10

Recommendations Level of enquiry

1 Materials need to be designed which make providing evidence explicit to learners theoretical
2 Following feedback on D1, the individual tutorial should be replaced with a class tutorial on revision of argumentation in theoretical
preparation for D2.
3 A form needs to be produced for students to record changes to D2 in order to extend the dialogue with teachers at the cultural
individual level
4 Workshops for teachers are needed on new materials and revision tutorial. theoretical
5 The OP should come after D2. management
 H. Salter-Dvorak / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 22 (2016) 19e31 31

5. Conclusion

The small scale project described above has implications which are relevant to academia in terms of teaching argu-
mentation, developing EAP, and designing courses. First, as Mitchell and Riddle argue, the teaching and learning of high level
cognitive and rhetorical skills is complex; while EAP courses can introduce a schema for providing evidence for claims made
in AW, pedagogy for argumentation needs to be addressed at institutional level, so that resources for curriculum and staff
development can be targeted to meet needs at disciplinary level. Second, in line with Stenhouse's vision (1975), the evaluation
enabled the EAP team to problematise its provision as never before, creating awareness of a complexity which was formerly
tacit, and enabling recommendations which were shaped through critical reflection on practice. Third, the findings illustrate
the danger of assuming that learning opportunities have predictable outcomes; rather, it is students who shape these ac-
cording to their perceived priorities. Arguably, then, evaluations need to be a regular full-scale feature of provision rather than
small-scale one-off projects such as this one. In order to continue to attract L2 students, universities need to invest in re-
sources for developing an evolving level of provision.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank all the participants who took part in this study, as well as the anonymous reviewers for their very
constructive comments.

References

BAAL guidelines for research, 2006, Available on: http://www.baal.org.uk/about_goodpractice_full.pdf. Accessed October 2008.
Bacha, N. (2010). Teaching the academic argument in a university EFL environment. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(3), 327e340.
Basturkmen, H., & von Randow, J. (2014). Guiding the reader (or not) to re-create coherence: observations on postgraduate student writing in an academic
argumentative writing task. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 16, 14e22.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Broadfoot, P. (2002). Editorial. Beware the consequences of assessment! Assessment in Education, 9(3), 285e288.
Butler, J. A., & Britt, M. A. (2011). Investigating instruction for improving revision of argumentative essays. Written Communication, 28(1), 70e96.
Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crabbe, D. (2003). The quality of learning opportunities. TESOL Quarterly, 37(1), 10e34.
Davies, W. M. (2008). ‘Not quite right’ helping students to make better arguments. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(3), 327e340.
Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short-and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland, & F.
Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: contexts and isssues (pp. 81e104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Horowitz, D. (1986). What professors actually require: academic tasks for the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 445e461.
Hyland, K. (2008). Genre and academic writing in the disciplines. Language Teaching, 41(4), 543e562.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Interpersonal aspects of response: Constructing and interpreting written teacher feedback. In K. Hyland, & F. Hyland (Eds.),
Feedback in second language writing:contexts and issues (pp. 206e224). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ivanic, R., Clark, R., & Rimmershaw, R. (2000). “What am I supposed to make of this?” The messages conveyed to students by tutors' written comments. In
M. Lea, & B. Stierer (Eds.), Student writing in higher education: New contexts (pp. 47e65). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Kiely, R., & Rea-Dickins, P. (2005). Program Evaluation in Language Education. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lea, M., & Street, B. (2000). ‘Student writing and staff feedback in higher education: an academic literacies approach’. In M. Lea, & B. Stierer (Eds.), Student
writing in higher education: new contexts (pp. 32e46). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Mitchell, S., & Riddle, M. (2000). Improving the quality of argument in higher education. School of Education: Middlesex University.
Nesi, H., & Gardner, S. (2006). Variation in disciplinary culture: university tutors' views on assessed writing tasks. In R. Kiely, P. Rea-Dickins, H. Woodfield, &
G. Clibbon (Eds.), Language, culture and identity in applied linguistics (pp. 99e117). London: BAAL/Equinox.
Nesi, H., & Gardner, S. (2012). Genres across the Disciplines: student writing in higher education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Raimes, A. (1983). Anguish as a second language? Remedies for composition teachers. In A. Freeman, I. Pringle, & J. Yalden (Eds.), Learning to write: First
language/Second language (pp. 258e272). London: Longman.
Salter-Dvorak, H. (2014). ‘I’ve never done a dissertation before, please help me’: accommodating L2 students into anglophone academia through course
design. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(19), 847e859.
Salter-Dvorak, H. (2015). What do EAP practitioners know about academic assessment in situ? two disciplines, two practices, two outcomes. In M.
Kavanagh, & L. Robinson (Eds.), The Janus Moment in EAP: Revisiting the Past and Building the Future (pp. 55e62). Reading: Garnet Education.
Sommers, N. (1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers. College Composition and Communication, 31(4), 378e388.
Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed., pp. 443e466). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. London: Hienemann.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58e78.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wallace, D. L., & Hayes, J. R. (1991). Redefining revision for freshmen. Research in the Teaching of English., 25,(1), 54e66.
Weissberg, R. (2006). Scaffolded feedback: tutorial conversations with advanced L2 writers. In K. Hyland, & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language
writing: contexts and issues (pp. 246e265). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wingate, U. (2012). Argument! Helping students understand what essay writing is about. Journal of English for Academic Purposes., 11, 145e154.
Wolfe, R. C. (2011). Argumentation across the curriculum. Written Communication, 28(2), 193e219.
Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(1), 79e101.

Hania Salter-Dvorak is an educational sociolinguist who teaches on the M.Ed TESOL and supervises doctoral students at Exeter University.
Her research centres on the development of academic literacy of L2 graduate students, particularly in relation to how they experience lecturer feedback
and assessment on academic writing, the role of proofreading, and norms relating to communication in academic settings. By examining processes relating to
identity, power relations and language in their experience, she is interested to identify ways in which universities can accommodate these students through
appropriate course design and community building.