# data[].attributes.body
(I have 3 regular attenders). My PhD student had given me work to give her feedback on during the course so did not need this second Writing Clinic time. An LLM student didn't have anything to show me at this time. An MSc Marketing student was however extremely grateful of this second Writing Clinic as he is due to submit an essay in a week and had a well formulated first draft he wanted to discuss. I gave him written feedback prior to the Writing Clinic when we then discussed questions he had about my comments. He said this was a very valuable session.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Sherin - the lesson went well and the students (I had about 8 of different taught PG and UG programmes) engaged in the discussions about the why's, what's, when's and how's of citational practice. Some really interesting discussions came up, such as how to use AI ethically (to generate prompts, or refer to relevant studies, etc.). There was no time for the lat activity either, but I was wondering if the activity would've actually kept the same 'engaged' mood the students had before. Overall a good lesson... Should perhaps consider moving forward, maybe as a second lesson, or a lesson extending from session 3 on literature review, where issues of citational practice are normally raised.

# data[].attributes.body
I have three regular attenders, two Master's students and a PhD student. In Session 9 they particularly appreciated the discussion and insights around the points raised in Task 2.1. They enjoyed sharing regarding their own disciplines for Task 2.2. I particularly liked Task 3.2 but the consensus from these students was that it simply confirmed their decision never to use ChatGPT. None of these students wanted to do the Task 4.1 and to be honest there wasn't really the time for this anyway. Overall I liked these materials and I think the students did too.

# data[].attributes.body
This session worked relatively well as the Ss managed to do most of the activities, including those about writing conclusions. It probably helped that some of them had been working on their assignments already, so this could've been my luck day only, but we managed to look at one conclusion written by a student and suggest improvements where necessary. I also managed to work with other students individually and give them feedback on their conclusions... some also brought their introductions from the previous session to ask for feedback.

One element that can be improved is the secion for research-oriented conclusions. Eleven elements seem a lot to digest in one session, so perhaps for next year, it'd be good to use a framework that comprises them more rather than unpacking them one by one...

# data[].attributes.body
Although I only had 4 students (before I'd had at least 15), the session went well and the students managed to do all the tasks prepared, including writing (at least part of) an introduction. It was good that the session had been differentiated for those doing more research/essay oriented introductions. Whilst there's a lot in common between the two, the students engaged well in both analysis and then production of intros.

# data[].attributes.body
I had 4 students but NONE were at the stage where they could work on a conclusion of their own. I showed the academic english online and phrasebank and the helpfultutor webpages on conclusions but I still had to let them go early - not sure what the solution is

# data[].attributes.body
I only had three students this session. They were grateful of the time spent on looking at samples and analysing the components of different introductions. Two were keen to work on their own draft introductions. The third student is a PhD student who is a long way off from writing an introduction, so she asked me for help with writing Annotated Bibliographies - I gave her (and the class) two documents outlining good strategies for ABs and she worked on this. All three will send me their drafts and I will give them feedback.

# data[].attributes.body
The session went well, though the last activity, where they had to develop their own argument was not covered. The Ss engaged well with the video, and it was helpful to provide the script at the end of the material for analysis. The mistake in 2.4 was a good opportunity to let the Ss apply their criticality. I agree with James that providing a sample where claim-reasoning- evidence are developed, that way the students will be able to analyse. Perhaps the video activity could be made an optional task as it shows a whole piece of argumentation rather than blocks that could be analysed in a more scaffolded way.

# data[].attributes.body
Good session as a whole, but for my students it wasn't clear whether the argument flow diagram was representative of an essay or paragraph (i said it could be both). Perhaps an example paragraph could help show what a fleshed out version would look like? We caught a mistake in activity 2.4 (which I've discussed with Luis) whereby the first claim and reason are back to front. It might be good to leave this in but at least make teachers aware of the mistake (in teaching notes).

# data[].attributes.body
In this session, rather than following the suggestion on QMPlus, I organised small groups where they gave feedback on each other's work. This worked well with my group as they were many. They engaged well with their classmates texts, and gave interesting feedback on padlet.

# data[].attributes.body
The session went well, but as predicted, I could only work on the first sections, not having time to do the cohesion/coherence part.

I've noticed there's a reluctance from the students to bring in their own work or to work on their own texts, so perhaps scaffolding exercises where they can practice might be a better strategy to keep them engaged with module.

The last activity, where they had to work on the outline of paragrapsh, thinking about the likely topic sentences and supporting ideas to develop a paragraph worked well.

# data[].attributes.body
We managed to do everything except the paragraph writing section as I have a very small class and they don't seem to have anything they want to write at the moment in terms of assessment. So we focused a bit more on the topic sentences. I first asked them to think about situation 1 and showed them the sample answer. Then I asked them to choose only one of the rest and write the topic sentence. That gave us plenty of time to do the coherence and cohesion activity, which they found useful.

# data[].attributes.body
...for the practice of the framework providing a short text is a great idea

# data[].attributes.body
This was a frustrating session because the students I had didn't really want to work on their own texts - they wanted a sample to work with - so for example they didn't want to do the Task 2.5 and later re writing a summary of the abstract I had to find an article about critical reading for them to summarise that abstract instead - also we didn't seem to have enough time

# data[].attributes.body
The session went well... as usual, there was no time to cover all the activities. The students reacted well to the areas that were covered and engaged - perhaps a more scaffolded process of critical reading could be incoorporated to 'rather than speaking about criticality', they could apply some critical reading strategies. For example, they could read a short text, and use the framework immediately - this would take more time, but other activities can be skipped, or included as additional/optional at the end of the worksheet.

# data[].attributes.body
The session again went well, though most students chose to work on an essay, which resulted in the class not being able to have an overview of different genres (unlike the other session I taught where there were at least 4 different genres).
One thing that can be improved is the organisation of the lesson/material. The section about Essay Questions could go in the end, as it felt like it interrupted the flow of the session.
Also, the section where students focus on feedback by tutors, could go at the beginning to raise awareness of genre organisation, language, etc. It could help save time and serve well to introduce the topic of genres.

# data[].attributes.body
This session worked well - though I ran out of time. The work on the different genres went well, the students worked in groups well and uploaded their presentations to a padlet I created. Little time left, however, for the writing exercise at the end.

# data[].attributes.body
This session worked very well indeed - the students appreciated the guidance on UEfAP and gave good presentations about new aspects they had learned about their chosen genre - most did this individually because most wanted to focus on different genres but I only had 9 students so this was ok

# data[].attributes.body
10 students were registered, 5 showed up, mostly PhD students. The rewriting of one of the sample 3 texts worked very well in groups and yes they took some time to do this but it seemed valuable. The slide with the 'your own strengths and weaknesses' only worked for the weaknesses - they wanted to focus on what they want to improve - this discussion of weaknesses was perhaps the most successful part of the lesson! The jumbled misconceptions seemed a good starting point but as most of my students were PhD students they knew the 'reality' points.

# data[].attributes.body
The session went well. The first activities felt a little bit too guided by the teacher, though this is not a problem in itself. The students did seem engaged. I decided to spend more time re-writing one of the three text samples and guided the writing with the students highlighting elements that make/not make academic writing.  So perhaps, this could be a suggested action for redevelopment, to make some activities optional, or provide suggestions in the TNs that teachers can spend more time re-writing some of the texts available.
Writing in class will probably be a challenge in the rest of the module.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Everyone and welcome to the PAWs team!
As you know, this module was re-designed over the summer and I'm sure there will be work to do on it. So, through this padlet I'd like to collect your views about PAWs for further development of the module when the time comes.
So, each session has a column and I'd like you to leave your impressions on the session: What's your overall view on the session, what worked, what didn't worked, and what suggestions you have for improvement. The more specific you are, the better.
Thanks a lot for your help with this!
Luis

# data[].attributes.body
I had a diverse group of 17 students, including 3 PhDs, 10 MAs, and 4 Undergrads. The group was a mix of domestic and international students hailing from various academic disciplines, including Biological Sciences, Computer Science, Law, Linguistics, Engineering, Business and Management, as well as Politics and Economics.

In general, the session went well, particularly in terms of achievement of the lesson’s learning goals, students’ engagement, and incidental learning. I think that . overall, the class gave students a good introduction to general aspects of academic writing, including common misconceptions.

After teaching this session, I think some strengths of the session are

1. Clear Objectives: The session objectives are well-defined, which provided students with a clear direction for what they were expecting to achieve during the session.

2. Interactive Activities: Including brainstorming, group discussions, and rewriting exercises encouraged active engagement and participation from the students, promoting a dynamic learning experience.

3. Use of Definitions: Providing definitions for key concepts such as audience, genre, and purpose helped students grasp these concepts.

4. Awareness of Misconceptions: Addressing common misconceptions about academic writing was valuable as it helped students understand what is expected and dispel any false assumptions.

Some areas for potential improvement are:

1. Ambiguity in Activity 2.3: The instruction to "choose one of the samples above and rewrite it in a more academic way" could be more specific. It would be helpful to provide clear criteria or guidelines for what constitutes a more academic style.

2. Clarity in Activity 2.5: The table for identifying the audience, genre, and purpose for the three samples could be clearer (e.g., provide more specific guidance or examples).

3. Assessment and Evaluation: We may consider including a clear plan for assessment to enhance the effectiveness of how student learning can be better assessed and evaluated during or after the session.

4. Integration of Student Experiences: The class plan could offer students more opportunities to reflect on their experiences with academic writing and how the session's content applies to their specific disciplines.

5. I think we can provide students with more discussion and thinking time and perhaps fewer tasks.