ELT Journal Advance Access published August 11, 2014

Teacher-led collaborative modelling

in academic L2 writing courses
Rosemary Wette

Teacher-led collaborative modelling is a type of scaffolded instruction in which

the teacher and learners compose and edit an academic text in a process that

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 10, 2014

involves negotiation and shared responsibility. This study examined observed
episodes of collaborative modelling of summaries, paraphrases, and other text
types in pre-university and university academic writing courses. In interview
statements, teachers pointed out a number of benefits of this instructional
strategy. They included the opportunities it provided for them to support
and respond immediately to learners’ contributions, and the feedback it
gave them about learners’ current levels of ability and confidence. Despite
the heavy cognitive demands it makes on teacher and learners, teacher-
led collaborative modelling appears to be a useful instructional strategy
that supports learning processes by focusing simultaneously on process and
product components of academic writing.

Introduction With English now acknowledged as the international language of

scholarship and research, and with so very many students learning the
language worldwide, Ken Hyland’s comment (2013: 54) that ‘English
seems to becoming less a language than a basic academic skill for many
users’ is unlikely to be an overstatement. In these circumstances, there
is a compelling need for teachers to have a better understanding of
how L2 writing instruction can assist learner writers to prepare for the
demands of academic study. In recent years, genre-based approaches
to teaching writing have become strongly influential as a result of
growing awareness of the importance of both social interaction and
cognitive processes in skill development. However, as a number of
scholars (for example Leki, Cumming, and Silva 2008; Hinkel 2011)
have pointed out, there is as yet surprisingly little research evidence on
what constitutes best practice in L2 writing instruction, and to date no
specific approach or method has been validated through research.

Genre-based Genre pedagogies provide ways of linking micro-units of the L2

approaches writing curriculum such as grammatical structures, functions, and
vocabulary, with the macro-skills of reading and writing. They also
facilitate the kind of text analysis of powerful academic genres1 (for
example essay and research report) and text types2 (for example cause–
effect and problem–solution) that includes attention to context and the

ELT Journal; doi:10.1093/elt/ccu043  Page 1 of 10

© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.
 communicative purpose of the text (Paltridge 2001). While process
approaches accentuate student creativity and awareness of the value
of the thinking processes of individual writers such as brainstorming,
planning, drafting, and revising, instruction that is oriented to
genres and text types places greater emphasis on explicit, teacher-led
instruction and classroom interaction. Recent genre-based guides for
teaching L2 writing (for example Grabe and Kaplan 1997; Hyland
2007) recommend a curriculum that includes model exemplars for
discussion and analysis; a range of socially and cognitively oriented
activities (for example text analysis, guided and independent writing
in groups or individually, and activities to raise students’ awareness of
the reader’s needs) to provide guided and independent practice; tasks
to raise learners’ awareness of the needs of the reader as well as self-
awareness about their own writing processes; and a variety of feedback
options (for example feedback through written checklists and margin
comments, or one-to-one writing conferences).

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 10, 2014

Modelling as The metaphor ‘instruction scaffolding’ describes support from the
instructional teacher or a more capable peer to help a learner achieve more than
scaffolding would have been possible without aid. Assistance can involve modelling,
eliciting, supporting, probing, and suggesting alternatives or extensions
to the learner’s initial attempts. A review of research in this area (van de
Pol, Volman, and Beishuizen 2010) notes that there is broad agreement
about these characteristics of scaffolded instruction: support is tailored to
learners’ current levels of competence, tasks are within their capabilities,
learners are active contributors, there is genuine collaboration between
the teacher and learners, and support is gradually withdrawn as
competence develops. The value of scaffolded instruction, collaborative
learning, and other types of social interaction for promoting learning in
general are now widely acknowledged (Tharp and Gallimore 1988).
Modelling is a type of scaffolding that includes teacher-led analysis
and evaluation of text models, demonstrations of writing processes,
collaborative construction of texts by learners and the teacher, and
composing tasks completed by learners in pairs or groups. Cumming
(1995) presented a typology of three types of modelling:

1 text modelling (analysis of flawed or proficient completed texts);

2 cognitive modelling (demonstrations by the teacher of skilled
composing processes, a strategy that is used in the process approach
to writing instruction);
3 social modelling (negotiated text construction by learners together
with the teacher or peers).

A study of the instructional strategies of four L2 writing teachers

(Riazi, Lessard-Clouston, and Cumming 1996) concluded that text
modelling and social modelling in particular were regularly used.
Studies of academic L2 writing have shown the usefulness of text
models (Macbeth 2010), and of composing or editing tasks completed
collaboratively in pairs or groups (Bhagat and O’Neill 2011); however,
reference to instruction that involves teacher-led collaborative modelling
is rare in the literature.

Page 2 of 10 Rosemary Wette

 A study by Wette (2014) explored all three types of modelling in
the practices of seven L2 writing teachers and found confirmatory
evidence of Cumming’s proposition in that modelling in general
was a regular part of the instructional repertoire of participants. This
study differentiated between two types of social modelling. The first is
‘collaborative modelling’, where teachers work together with the whole
class group. Teachers elicit content, recast students’ contributions,
ask questions, and provide feedback with the aim of composing or
editing a written text (for example a literature review, summary, or
part of an essay). The second is ‘peer modelling’, where students work
independently of the teacher in pairs or groups to construct or revise a
text. Teacher-led collaborative modelling links the initial phase of genre-
based instruction in which the teacher provides explicit instruction, and
holds the main responsibility for text analysis and construction, with
the final phase of independent text construction. It does so by providing
a second phase of activity in which responsibility is shared. This article

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 10, 2014

presents and analyses episodes of collaborative modelling identified in
the wider study of all three types of modelling (ibid.). It does so in order
to contribute to existing knowledge of potentially useful instructional
strategies in the teaching of L2 writing.

The study This study can be described as exploratory in that its aim was to
Participants and obtain new insights into an area about which little is known to date
setting (Dörnyei 2007), namely, the instructional approaches that are regularly
employed by L2 writing teachers. The researcher had no preconceived
notions of what observations and interviews would reveal, and
participating teachers were instructed not to alter their customary
practices in any way. Participants were seven academic L2 writing
teachers responsible for pre-university and credit-bearing university
courses in five different tertiary institutions in three New Zealand
cities. They all had professional TESOL and academic qualifications to
at least MA level and were highly experienced. Five were women and
two were men. Three teachers were originally from England, two were
New Zealanders, and the remaining two were from the United States
and South Africa. Generally accepted methods of establishing expertise,
including qualifications, experience, references from managers and
colleagues, and contributions to the discipline (Tsui 2003), were used to
recruit a purposive sample.
The seven courses in the study were either integrated skills (pre-
university) or academic writing only (undergraduate; Year 1 and Year
2). None was discipline-specific. Course content included composing
processes such as planning and editing, writing using sources, and
analysis and construction of a range of academic text types (for example
comparison, explanation, problem-solution, discussion, and argument
essays). Attention to sentence and paragraph-level writing featured
in all courses, particularly those at pre-university and Year 1 levels.
Classes took place through two 120-minute sessions per day for 5 days
each week (pre-university), or two or three sessions of 90–120 minutes
per week (undergraduate) over a semester of 10–12 weeks’ duration.
Learners were young adults from Polynesia, East Asia, the Middle East,

Teacher-led collaborative modelling of academic writing Page 3 of 10

 and Europe who were studying or intending to study in Arts, Science,
and Business faculties. Their level of proficiency was IELTS 5.5–6.0 for
the pre-university groups, and IELTS 6.0–7.5 for the undergraduates.
There were approximately 20 learners in each class group.

Data collection The primary data source for the study was a set of detailed field notes
and analysis from four to six lesson observations (each lasting 90–120 minutes)
for each teacher. Due to practical constraints, including teachers’
timetables and in-class assessments, observations were not always of
consecutive lessons; however, for each teacher they were completed
within a four-week period. Observational data were supported by
transcripts of five or six half-hour interviews with each teacher (three
hours in total), as well as syllabus documents and teaching materials.
Summaries of instructional episodes, defined as a 15–30-minute-
unit of explicit instruction, were extracted from the observation field
notes. These were then compiled in table format to show the events

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 10, 2014

of each lesson in chronological order. Episodes with characteristics of
collaborative modelling as part of instructional scaffolding to introduce
new academic text types and genres were identified and examined. With
the interview transcripts, patterns and themes related to the interests of
the study were identified, and a coding scheme developed for utterances
on each theme. NVivo 10 software facilitated data retrieval and
comparisons between teachers. Codes relevant to this study related to
instructional options; for example eliciting, guided practice, cooperative
text construction, feedback to and from learners, inductive approaches,
and learner involvement. Coding was checked for researcher bias by an
experienced L2 writing teacher, and differences between coders were
resolved through discussion.

Findings Teacher-led collaborative modelling episodes in the data involved

teachers working together with the class group to cooperatively
negotiate the construction of a particular academic text. In the
lessons observed, sample summaries and paraphrases of sources
for literature reviews; process, narrative, and cause–effect texts; and
essay components were all composed in this way. Six of the seven
teachers in the study used this kind of strategy approximately twice
on average in the lessons observed. The range was from one to three
occurrences, with a total of 13 episodes recorded in the data set. This
number indicates that collaborative modelling was used on a reasonably
regular basis (one to three times over four to six lessons) by most of the
teachers in the study.
A typical collaborative modelling episode comprised three stages.
Figure 1 shows some of the instructional strategies used by teachers in
the study.
In the pre-modelling stage, learners’ prior knowledge of the text type
was activated and their interest aroused through class discussion
and drafting tasks. In each of the episodes observed, the modelling
phase involved learners and the teacher discussing and evaluating
various alternatives for the text they were trying to construct. As it
was composed, the teacher wrote up the text using a computer with

Page 4 of 10 Rosemary Wette

 Pre-modelling
1 The teacher and
learners may discuss:
* features of the text type
using model examples
* composing processes
for the selected text type.
2 Learners may prepare
drafts individually to
help them contribute in
figure1
the modelling stage.
Stages of instruction
3 To prepare for a
using collaborative summarizing task,
learners read the text.
modelling
Modelling Post-modelling
1 The teacher may use a To consolidate or extend
diagram or list of content learning, learners may
(elicited from learners) work individually or in
as a starter stimulus. pairs or groups to:
2 The teacher and * complete another
learners work together to segment of the text (e.g.
construct and edit a text. part of an essay, report,
Contributions and editing or literature review).
suggestions may be
* compose a new
made by any learner or exemplar of the genre or
by the teacher. (Learners
text type that has been
may consult drafts they
modelled.
prepared earlier.)

a board-sized screen display, whiteboard, or document camera. The

first two were more commonly used, since they allowed for editing
of not just the sentence under construction, but also other parts of
the text already completed. Four sample episodes from the study data

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 10, 2014

are presented in Table 1. They have been selected to show the use of
collaborative modelling for four different text types by four different
teachers and class groups.
As can be seen from the table, instruction in these four sample
episodes commenced with pre-modelling phases, followed by
conversations between the teacher and the class group that integrated
teacher-led instruction (for example teacher modelling of composing
processes or analysis of part of a text, giving information, and eliciting)
with interactions that involved all participants (for example asking,
responding, commenting, suggesting, clarifying, correcting, and
revising). In this stage, teachers supported and gave feedback on
learners’ contributions (for example responding, clarifying, assisting,
prompting, and evaluating). They also elicited editing feedback and
suggestions for more suitable alternatives from other learners in
the class in a process of teacher-led but genuinely cooperative text
construction. Post-modelling stages involved some kind of independent
construction (individually or in groups) of a new text exemplar.
In post-lesson interviews, teachers were asked to comment on their
use of this strategy as part of their instructional repertoires. Although
they did not use the term ‘collaborative modelling’, the six teachers
who reported using this type of instruction listed a number of general
benefits. They stated that they believed instruction using modelling:
■■ can help learners to become more aware of the task demands (in
terms of the standard required and the process of achieving the
finished text) of writing academic texts;
■■ can provide the teacher with valuable feedback (through their
willingness to participate, and the quality and frequency of their
suggestions) about learners’ current levels of skill and developmental
needs. It can help the teacher to identify learners who may need
additional support (i.e. those who do not contribute or whose
contributions are weak);
■■ gives the teacher the opportunity to provide immediate support and
feedback to individual learners on their contributions;

Teacher-led collaborative modelling of academic writing Page 5 of 10

 Episode A
Pre-university class 1
Page 6 of 10
Process text
Pre-modelling Learners create a coherent process
stage text from six sentences linked
chronologically but lacking cohesion
markers (e.g. reference markers and
conjunctions) and transition signals.
In pairs, learners compare their
drafts.
Collaborative Learners make suggestions for each
modelling stage of the process text, based on
Rosemary Wette
stage their drafts. Errors are identified and
the class discusses the best options
for content and linkers to create
a cohesive text. A class version
is composed. The text created
by the class is photocopied and
distributed in the next lesson.
Learners compare it with their
drafts.
Post- Learners construct a process text
modelling independently (with support from a
stage diagram) on a different topic.
ta b l e
1
Four sample episodes of instruction using collaborative modelling
Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 10, 2014
Episode B
Pre-university class 2
Summary text
The teacher leads a discussion on
summaries: purposes, features, and
composing stages (read, take notes,
transform, and write). Learners read
and answer comprehension questions
on the text to be summarized.
The teacher elicits the main ideas
of five short paragraphs (one-third
of the complete text). The teacher
elicits options for summarizing the
five paragraphs. Alternatives are
suggested and evaluated by learners
and the teacher. Options for signalling
thought relationships between ideas,
punctuation, cohesion markers,
and transition signals options are
elicited and discussed. A summary is
composed collaboratively.
Learners compose a summary
of the second third of the text in
pairs, and the final third of the text
independently.
Episode C
100 level for-credit class 1
Cause–effect text
The teacher leads a discussion on
cause–effect in an essay on Natural
Disasters. The teacher and class
together prepare outlines for
introductory and concluding
paragraphs of this essay.
The teacher elicits content (e.g.
definitions, causes, effects, statistics,
and examples) for three body
paragraphs and writes this up as
paragraph outlines. The teacher
elicits options for linking content
(e.g. cohesion markers and transition
signals), and metadiscourse strategies
(e.g. hedges and opinion markers).
These are used to expand the
paragraph outlines. Opening and
closing sentences for each paragraph
are constructed.
Learners complete the construction
of one body paragraph in pairs, and
compose the other two body
paragraphs as independent,
out-of-class work.
Episode D
100 level for-credit class 2
Paraphrase text
The teacher leads a discussion on
paraphrases: purposes, features, and
composing stages (read, take notes,
transform, and write); synonyms and
reporting verbs. Learners evaluate
sample summary citations.
The teacher elicits options for
paraphrasing two sample texts.
Suggestions for possible content and
linking devices (e.g. punctuation,
cohesion markers, and transition
signals options) are commented on,
added to, or altered by the teacher
and other learners in discussion.
Paraphrases of the texts are created
collaboratively.
Learners read one of two short
texts and make notes. In pairs, they
paraphrase their texts orally, and
comment on clarity and coherence
in their partner’s paraphrase. Written
paraphrases are then composed
independently.
 ■■ requires learners to actively listen to, learn from, and evaluate peer
contributions. It allows more capable learners opportunities to
support their less capable peers and gives them opportunities to
advance their thinking;
■■ demonstrates, through discussion of learners’ contributions, that
there is no single correct version or way of constructing a text, but
usually a number of acceptable alternatives;
■■ can provide insights into the thinking processes involved in
composing if teachers or highly capable students ‘think aloud’ as
they model or edit parts of the text. It raises learners’ awareness of
the recursive writing processes involved in creating texts such as
summary or paraphrase, or in developing an academic argument;
■■ avoids a singular focus on the features of finished models or
statements about the features of particular text types in general, and
focuses on the process of composing a particular text. In so doing, it
blends process and product approaches to L2 writing instruction;

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 10, 2014

■■ counterbalances instruction in single-genre models by drawing
attention to hybridity in academic texts; for example a cause–effect
essay that includes a number of different text types such as definition,
description, process, and argument (as in Episode C, Table 1);
■■ assists learners to develop skills that they can use in their disciplinary
studies. Post-modelling tasks can provide further practice in different
subject areas;
■■ can have positive effects on learners’ degree of interest and
participation in writing tasks. It can boost the confidence of
individual learners when contributions are evaluated as acceptable,
and of the class group when a quality text is achieved.

However, teachers in the study also made a number of cautionary

statements about the use of collaborative modelling. They noted that it
is cognitively demanding for both teacher and learners, and maintained
that instructional episodes should therefore be quite short (not more
than 20 minutes), even if this meant that construction of a longer
or more complex text was spread over two or more lessons. They
pointed out the importance of appropriate preparation for collaborative
modelling work, and that task requirements needed to be within the
capabilities of all or most learners in the class. They also noted that
it was sometimes difficult to persuade weaker as well as more able
learners to fully participate, particularly in larger or less motivated
groups.

Discussion A number of limitations of this study are acknowledged. The sample

and teaching was small and the study exploratory in nature, therefore its findings
implications are not broadly generalizable. No evaluative information was collected
from learners, and no post-instruction gains in writing proficiency
were measured. However, the teachers’ statements explaining their
regular use of collaborative modelling, and the engagement by
learners that was noted during lesson observations, suggest that it is
a useful instructional tool, and one that can be effectively combined
with text and social modelling to help learners to develop writing
skills.

Teacher-led collaborative modelling of academic writing Page 7 of 10

 Teacher-led collaborative modelling can properly be described as a
type of scaffolded instruction. Tasks are achievable, support is adjusted
to meet developmental needs, there is genuine cooperation and
negotiation between learners and the teacher, and support is withdrawn
when competence develops and learners are able to attempt the task
independently (see van de Pol, Volman, and Beishuizen op.cit.). Study
findings suggest that collaborative modelling can be used to support
learning processes by simplifying the task of composing a particular
text through analysis, demonstration of appropriate composing
strategies, class discussion, tailored assistance, and immediate feedback
on suggestions. It can also help learners to internalize the support
that is offered in these episodes so that knowledge and skill can be
transferred to their own disciplinary writing. In the lessons observed,
collaborative modelling tasks appeared to interest and to engage
learners, and provided a tangible reward for them in the form of the
finished text (which could be used as an achievable text model for

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 10, 2014

further examination).
Despite the clear orientation to genre-based pedagogies of the courses
in this study, the cognitive processes involved in composing and
editing texts were not ignored, and collaborative modelling provided
opportunities for raising awareness of the thinking processes required
for composing particular texts. Modelling episodes also included
discussion of specific vocabulary, grammar, and other language
options.
However, participants noted in interview comments that teacher-led
collaborative modelling can make significant demands on teachers and
learners with regard to mental effort, concentration, and knowledge of
particular academic texts. For example the teacher needs to accurately
assess the current level of ability and learning needs of learners in the
class, so that the selection of text and writing task, type and amount
of assistance offered, and the expected standard of contributions
are appropriate. Since instructional episodes involving collaborative
modelling can be pre-planned only to some extent, the teacher is
obliged to give immediate and satisfactory responses to learners’
contributions, as well as to their queries as to why some alternatives
are more acceptable than others. These demands might well prove
challenging for teachers with heavy teaching loads, for novice or less
confident teachers, or for those teaching large classes and/or classes
of very mixed ability learners. In such circumstances, brief (10–15
minute) modelling episodes to construct portions of a text or a relatively
straightforward text type might be more readily achievable options.
After reflecting on the data collected for the study and my own
experience as a teacher of academic L2 writing, I offer these
suggestions to practitioners who might be interested in exploring
how teacher-led collaborative modelling could be used in their own
classrooms. It seems that this strategy has a greater chance of success if
learners are:
■■ acquainted with the text type they will be composing. Analysis of text
models (expert, achievable, and/or flawed) is a way of introducing

Page 8 of 10 Rosemary Wette

 a new text type, followed by individual preparation of an outline or
draft if appropriate;
■■ familiar with the appropriate composing processes (for example
that writing a summary or summary citation involves reading, note-
taking for main ideas, using notes to create a practice oral summary,
considering synonym and paraphrase options, using notes and the oral
summary to create a written summary). Teachers in the study presented
or elicited from learners sequenced lists of the composing processes for
each text type, and sometimes modelled processes by verbalizing their
own thoughts as they composed a sample portion of the text;
■■ given opportunities to put into practice what they have learnt from
collaborative modelling through guided or independent writing tasks;
■■ made aware through class discussion of the aims, processes, and
benefits of collaborative modelling (for example opportunities
for awareness-raising of composing processes and text features,
confidence-building, and writing practice);

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 10, 2014

■■ encouraged to self-assess their performance in class text construction
tasks, and to track the development of their writing abilities through
learning logs and/or self-assessment questionnaires.

Conclusion The teacher-led collaborative modelling episodes presented in this

article provide evidence of social learning in the L2 writing classroom.
As well as text analysis and attention to cognitive processes, interaction
and collaborative conversations between teachers and learners clearly
have an important part to play in developing skill in academic writing.
The study findings emphasize the importance of active involvement
by learners, and help us to understand how they can be motivated to
involve themselves in cooperative composing tasks. They show how
responsibility for text construction can gradually be passed from teacher
to learner. It appears that collaborative modelling can engage learners
and motivate them to want to successfully complete a writing task.
By facilitating and supporting learning processes, this instructional
strategy can therefore help the teacher to close the gap between the
learning needs of the class and the learning aims of a course.

Final version received May 2014

Notes evaluation’ in D. Belcher and G. Braine (eds.).

1 ‘Genres’ are texts with similar external
characteristics, for example lecture, novel, and
essay.
2 ‘Text types’ are texts with similar linguistic
features regardless of genre, for example
description, cause–effect, problem–solution.
References
Bhagat, D. and P. O’Neill. 2011. ‘Writing design’
in M. Deane and P. O’Neill (eds.). Writing in the
Disciplines. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cumming, A. 1995. ‘Fostering writing expertise
in ESL composition instruction: modeling and
Academic Writing in a Second Language: Essays on
Research and Pedagogy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Dörnyei, Z. 2007. Research Methods in Applied
Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grabe, W. and R. B. Kaplan. 1997. ‘The writing
course’ in K. Bardovi-Harlig and B. Hartford (eds.).
Beyond Methods: Components of Second Language
Teacher Education. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
Hinkel, E. 2011. ‘What research on second
language writing tells us and what it doesn’t’ in
E. Hinkel (ed.). Handbook of Research in Second
Language Teaching and Learning. New York, NY:
Routledge.

Teacher-led collaborative modelling of academic writing Page 9 of 10

Hyland, K. 2007. ‘Genre pedagogy: language,
literacy and L2 writing instruction’. Journal of
Second Language Writing 16/3: 148–64.
Hyland, K. 2013. ‘Writing in the university:
education, knowledge and reputation’. Language
Teaching 46/1: 53–70.
Leki, I., A. Cumming, and T. Silva. 2008. A
Synthesis of Research on Second Language Writing
in English. New York, NY: Routledge.
Macbeth, K. 2010. ‘Deliberate false provisions:
the use and usefulness of models in learning
academic writing’. Journal of Second Language
Writing 19/1: 33–48.
Paltridge, B. 2001. Genre and the Language
Learning Classroom. Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan Press.
Riazi, A., M. Lessard-Clouston, and A. Cumming.
1996. ‘Observing ESL writing instruction: a case
study of four teachers’. Journal of Intensive English
Studies 10/1: 19–30.
Tharp, R. G. and R. Gallimore. 1988. Rousing
Minds to Life: Teaching, Learning and Schooling in
Page 10 of 10 Rosemary Wette
Social Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Tsui, A. B. M. 2003. Understanding Expertise in
Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van de Pol, J., M. Volman, and J. Beishuizen. 2010.
‘Scaffolding in teacher–learner interaction: a
decade of research’. Educational Psychology Review
22/3: 271–96.
Wette, R. 2014. ‘Teachers’ practices in EAP
writing instruction: use of models and modeling’.
System 42: 60–9.
The author
Rosemary Wette is a Senior Lecturer in the School
of Cultures, Languages and Linguistics, University
of Auckland, New Zealand. She has designed and
Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 10, 2014
taught a range of academic writing courses at
undergraduate and postgraduate levels for many
years. Her research interests include teaching
approaches and curricula for EAP courses.
Email: r.wette@auckland.ac.nz