This article explores the integration of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) into the academic writing process. Guided by the principles of the academic literacies model, the authors embedded process writing alongside the use of ChatGPT-generated texts within an academic writing course. As part of the course's second module, students reflected on their reactions to using GenAI. This article shares the benefits and drawbacks of incorporating GenAI into the writing process from the students' perspectives, with a particular focus on how the students saw GenAI influencing their thought processes. We conclude with a discussion of the practical implications of our findings for other academic writing educators. This is the first half of a two-part article; we discuss additional themes resulting from this study's analysis in the companion paper, as well as an emerging framework inspired by the module's design.
This article explores the impacts of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) on undergraduate students' writer identities and skills, with a view to considering how the technology can be integrated into writing instruction. We embedded process writing alongside the use of GenAI in an undergraduate academic writing course and gathered written reflections from the students. We explore how the student participants understood GenAI in relation to their developing writer identity and their understandings of academic integrity. A focus group was conducted with the teaching team which explored their reactions to teaching with GenAI and their views on the potential strengths and drawbacks of the software. Drawing on the student and teacher data, we conclude by sharing recommendations for using GenAI within academic literacies instruction and discussing an emerging framework for critical AI literacy. This is the second half of a two-part article; we encourage readers to also read the companion paper, which shares students' reactions to using GenAI and process writing in the course as well as reflections on the cognitive side of writing.
With the number of international students completing their higher degree by research (HDR) studies in Australian universities steadily rising, how best to support their academic literacy needs remains unclear. Although research exists on undergraduate and postgraduate international students and their needs when studying in their host countries, there appears to be limited literature that focuses on the needs of international students completing HDR or doctoral studies. As the first phase of a qualitative research project aimed at addressing this gap, this paper presents findings from a comprehensive scoping review on the academic literacy needs of international HDR students at Australian universities. In this holistic approach, academic literacies have been defined to not only include the acquisition of academic skills but also ways of knowing and being in a host institution. As for methodology, the review utilised Arksey and O'Malley's framework and the PRISMA extension framework for scoping reviews with findings analysed and interpreted thematically through conceptual models of academic literacy. In-depth analysis of 11 articles revealed two overarching themes of 'Acculturation' and 'Identity', which included the sub-themes of 'academic acculturation' and 'social acculturation; and 'agency need for a culturally informed approach to understanding and meeting the academic literacy needs of international HDR students. Such an approach will involve applying a non-deficit framework that acknowledges and celebrates international students' diverse ways of knowing and being. ' and 'competing identities', respectively. This review highlights the
Academic language and learning services are a critical aspect of most university retention strategies, yet there are gaps within the current literature about the ways in which diverse student cohorts engage with these programs. This article analyses a three-year data set of the engagement by 11,111 students with four different types of services at an Australian university: individual learning adviser appointments, academic skills workshops, Peer Assisted Study Sessions (PASS), and an online writing support service (Studiosity). The data presented demonstrates that in any given year, students tend to pick one type of service and only engage with that service: 74% of students in this study only engaged with one type of service in any given year, and fewer than 1% accessed all four. This choice appears to be influenced by demographic variables, including age and domestic or international status. These findings highlight the importance of providing a range of different academic language and learning services to accommodate diverse student preferences.
This preliminary study examines the use of interactional metadiscourse markers (IMMs) in the discussion sections of education research articles (ERAs) authored by native English speakers (NSEs) publishing in Q1 SSCI-indexed journals and Turkish authors with English as an additional language (EAL) publishing in locally indexed or non-indexed journals. The corpus comprised 30 single-authored ERAs, with 15 from each author group. Analyses of IMMs, conducted both manually and with computer-assisted tools, were guided by ences in the frequency and distribution of IMMs: NSE authors employed more IMMs across all categories, particularly hedges, boosters, self-mentions, and engagement markers, often demonstrating greater variety and rhetorical flexibility. In contrast, Turkish EAL authors displayed a preference for impersonal self-mentions and attitude markers, especially evaluative adjectives, and showed less frequent use of explicit reader engagement features. These findmore dialogic and strategically hedged arguments. These differences suggest varying rhetorical preferences that may be shaped by prior academic literacy emphasizes the need for pedagogical interventions to support broader awarescholars aspiring to publish in high-impact international journals.
