A writerly trajectory: reflections on published classroom resources for learners of English and students of academic writing

The works submitted for this PhD by Public Works include three books, six book chapters and eight articles from peer-reviewed academic journals. Arising from my practice as a teacher and university lecturer in teaching English as a second/foreign language and academic literacies, the key theme is the production of classroom resources or approaches for promoting language development through the use of literary texts and metaphor, or for enhancing academic literacy in Higher Education. The works place students of English or academic writing, with diverse linguistic needs and cultural backgrounds, at the centre of the learning process. They embody research practices which apply theoretical insights from linguistics, education and literary studies; draw on pertinent data, such as corpora; or utilise action learning to investigate classroom problems and suggest solutions to them in the form of classroom resources or strategies. The works make a significant contribution to knowledge and practice by bringing together insights from different disciplinary paradigms, by focusing on neglected groups of learners or neglected linguistic skills, and by engaging with disciplinary and technological developments in order to devise original teaching resources and procedures. The impact of the works in the public domain is noted through book sales, citations and reviews. Drawing on a wide range of theoretical perspectives, the context statement accompanying the works provides both an account of their origin, writing and reception, and a critique of their limitations. It delineates my trajectory as the writer of the works, exploring the personal, disciplinary and social factors influencing my writing. It identifies the writing practices I have employed, conceptualises how I have developed a sense of audience, and investigates the values informing the works. Through the lens of a classroom practitioner, its key contribution is making more visible the complex, and often conflictual, process of writing classroom resources

Bipropellant droplet burning rates and lifetimes in a combustion gas environment

Liquid rocket propellant droplet burning rate and lifetimes in combustion chambe

An editorial: Introducing the Special Issue of Decolonial Subversions

This Special Issue of Decolonial Subversions on the theme of decolonising the university and the role of linguistic diversity is motivated by a desire to expand critical conversations on the potential of linguistic inclusion in higher education. The Special Issue is multi-/trans-disciplinary, multilingual and multimodal with contributions from authors living and working in Algeria, Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia and South Africa. Contributors are teachers, comedy writers, poets, and university researchers. This diversity enriches the Special Issue as a whole, as authors address the issue of decolonising the university and the role of language in the diversification of knowledge in ways that are sensitive to their own histories, contexts and positionality

Speaking the same language: developing a language-aware feedback culture

Research suggests that feedback as part of assessment is often not delivered effectively. A key aspect of effective feedback delivery is that students need to understand feedback and also feel motivated to act on it. This article explores how educational developers can incorporate a language-aware approach to feedback when working with staff involved in learning and teaching in order to enable staff to make appropriate linguistic choices when providing feedback so that it is more comprehensible and motivational for students. It describes a piece of action research which explored and evaluated two teaching activities used on a PG Cert HE with staff at a post-1992 university, designed to promote critical awareness of the language used when giving feedback. We report on the staff evaluation of the activities devised and piloted, and consider how this project could be taken forward in future

Student-centered pedagogy and real-world research: using documents as sources of data in teaching social science skills and methods

This teaching note describes the design and implementation of an activity in a 90-minute teaching session that was developed to introduce a diverse cohort of first year criminology and sociology students to the use of documents as sources of data. This approach was contextualised in real world research through scaffolded, student-centered tasks focused on archival material and a contemporary estate agents’ brochure so as to investigate changes in the suburbs that surround a university in North London, United Kingdom. In order to contribute to the growing discussion on pedagogic dialogical spaces in teaching research methods, we provide empirical evidence of students’ greater engagement via group work and the opportunity to draw on experiential knowledge in analysing sources. Beyond stimulating students’ engagement with research skills and methods, the data also shows the value of our approach in helping students to develop their analytical skills, particularly through a process of comparison and contrast

Working with grammar as a tool for making meaning

A focus on sentence-level grammar in student writing has often been associated with a top-down prescriptiveness in which ‘peremptory commands’ about correct usage are linked with a negative evaluation of a person’s speech or writing’ (Cameron 2007). Yet, grammar is frequently a concern that pre-occupies both students and the academics assessing their writing. This chapter explores some more transformative ways in which this concern could be addressed by enabling students to investigate the relationship between grammar, their identities and the complex power relationships within the university. It focuses on a small-scale project in which a number of Education Studies students were referred to a writing specialist in order to improve their ‘poor grammar’. Closer examination of the student assignments revealed a complex range of grammatical ‘mistakes’, ranging from grammatical forms frequently considered correct in non-British varieties of English, such as Indian or Nigerian English (Kirkpatrick 2007); non-standard forms of grammar used by students from the local communities in London (Preece 2009) ; and errors which could be attributed to the inter-language of non-native speakers of English (usually international students) still acquiring British standard English (Selinker 1972). Many of the students who were referred felt heavily stigmatised, and in order to redress this, a series of classroom activities were devised. These aimed to foster reflection on different varieties of English and student identities, and provide contrastive analysis and improved strategies for ‘noticing’ of varied grammatical forms and their appropriacy in different contexts. The chapter concludes by suggesting that more dialogic feedback from academic staff regarding grammar will enable students to conceptualise grammar as a tool for making meaning in different contexts

The Definition of Voting Stock and the Computation of Voting Power Under Sections 368(c) and 1504(a): Recent Developments and Tax Lore

Although the concepts of voting stock and voting power are pervasive throughout the Code, until recently, courts, commentators and the Service have devoted minimal energy to demystifying the confusion surrounding the definition of voting stock and even less to expanding upon the methodology of computing voting power. Recent developments, however, may prompt practitioners to take a second look at these terms. While a 1995 decision by the Tax Court adds little to the existing body of authority with respect to the determination of the owner of voting stock, the Service\u27s analysis of the voting power requirement in a 1994 private letter ruling sheds new light on the method of computing voting power. This article reviews and analyzes the current state of the law concerning the voting stock and voting power requirements in two areas of the tax law: section 368(c), which defines the level of stock ownership in a corporation that a taxpayer must possess in order to qualify for many forms of tax-free reorganizations, and section 1504(a), which requires a corporation attempting to form an affiliated group with a subsidiary corporation to own an amount of voting stock in the subsidiary having a specified level of voting power. Part II of this article briefly explains the statutory requirements of both section 368(c) and section 1504(a). Part III reviews the case law and administrative precedents that have shaped the definition of voting stock and attempts to distinguish the ownership requirement of section 368(c) from the direct ownership requirement of section 1504(a). Accordingly, part III of this article also analyzes the Tax Court\u27s most recent decision regarding the meaning of the term direct ownership. Part IV examines the mechanical test developed by the courts and the Service for computing the voting power inherent in the stock of a corporation, explores ways in which taxpayers have attempted to manipulate a corporation\u27s capital structure in order to satisfy the control requirement of section 368(c), and discusses the Service\u27s latest pronouncement regarding the use of this mechanical test in measuring voting power. Finally, this article highlights the remaining ambiguities that continue to create uncertainty for taxpayers with regard to the voting stock definition and the voting power formula