Texte für verschiedene Zielgruppen mehrsprachig verfassen

Currently, European universities find themselves in processes of internationalisation. This internationalisation affects the internationality of the student body as well as teaching staff and researchers, the curricula, the way of organising study programmes and the level of academic writing. Writing pedagogy has to consider diverse parameters of (genre) expectations, writing traditions, scientific cultures, the multilingual background of the different players etc. and has to find ways to make students fit for academic writing in internationalised contexts, that is to help them develop multilingual academic writing skills. The International Writing Centre at Goettingen University has established a programme of workshops and writing tutoring named MultiConText that takes these factors into account. This paper explains this programme, and gives teachers of academic writing impulses on how to put into action a writing pedagogy that responds to the needs of multilingual students who write academically in an internationalised context. To illustrate this, three different tasks which foster multilingual academic writing skills will be presented with recommendations on how to implement them in writing classes.

A Study of the One-to-One Writing Tutoring Effects

This chapter is motivated by the fact that few studies have been made about the effects of one-on-one writing tutoring in English writing centers in Chinese universities. It intends to examine the effects through the evaluation of tutors' performance by students. A sample of 57 students responded to the questionnaires designed based on Kaplan's 7 EFL writing objectives proposed in his theory of contrastive rhetoric with minor revision, and 12 participated the structured in-depth interviews. Results demonstrate that tutors have achieved higher level of satisfaction in objectives of vocabulary and expressions (86%), sentence and grammar(85%), etc., but lower satisfaction level in those of awareness of audience(37%), discourse structure (34%), and rhetoric and writing knowledge (40%). The findings indicate no significant correlation between tutoring duration and students' improvement extent, yet a strong negative association between students' language proficiency and their improvement. Finally, some measures about enhancing tutoring effects are suggested.

Collaborations between Libraries and Writing/Tutoring Services are Diverse and Provide Opportunities to Support Student Success and Information Literacy Outcomes

A Review of: Jackson, H. A. (2017). Collaborating for student success: An e-mail survey of U.S. libraries and writing centers. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 43(4), 281-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2017.04.005 Abstract Objective – To collect information on the existence and characteristics of collaborative partnerships between libraries and writing centers/writing tutoring services. Design – Email survey questionnaire. Setting – Academic libraries, writing centers, and writing tutoring services at two-year, four-year, and graduate/professional institutions across the United States of America. Subjects – 1,460 librarians, writing center staff, and tutoring services staff. Methods – Subjects were invited to participate based on a “. . . random sampling of 33% of each institutional “Size and Setting” group from the 2010 Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education” and the availability of contact information for the library or writing center at the randomly sampled institutions (p. 282). Respondents who identified an existing partnership between the library and writing center/tutoring services answered questions regarding collaboration methods, training, and promotion as well as open-ended questions on goals, assessment, ideal relationship qualities, strengths, and weaknesses. In the absence of a known partnership, questions focused on potential for, and ideal methods of, collaboration. Main Results – The survey had a response rate of 13.5%, based on the 197 responses that met the criteria for inclusion in the results. Of the respondents, 117 identified as librarians, 59 as writing center staff, and 21 as tutoring services staff. Respondents were affiliated with institutions in 43 states and the District of Columbia. 65% of respondents reported that a collaborative relationship between the writing center and library existed at their institution. Of those without a known current partnership, 77% believed there was potential for collaboration. Top existing collaborations included instruction (21%), student orientations (16%), appointments (14%), classroom presentations (14%), and writing tutors embedded in the library (14%). Only 35% identified strategic goals for collaborations. Respondents engaged in partnerships highlighted shared space, referrals, a unified focus on student success, and defined roles as top ideal partnership characteristics. Key partnership strengths included teamwork/relationship, focus on student success, and shared goals/knowledge/resources. Common weaknesses included lack of communication, planning, shared space, patron awareness, funding, staff, and collaboration. Conclusion – Diverse collaborations between libraries and writing centers/writing tutoring services exist. These collaborations may provide opportunities to support student success and information literacy outcomes. Based on survey results, the author suggested that improved communication between partners could mitigate identified weaknesses and assist in achieving partnership ideals. Additionally, increased creation and assessment of strategic partnership goals may strengthen communication and planning. Many respondents were interested in shared library and writing center space, an area which requires further research. Ultimately, the author concluded that more investigation is needed to inform best practices for partnerships.