Exploring European Writing Cultures : Country Reports on Genres, Writing Practices and Languages Used in European Higher Education

At European universities, writing is a traditional way of learning, assessment, and independent study, but it is handled in an implicit, tradition-based way that has only recently been contrasted with and supported by a more explicit writing ped-agogy. Still, little systematic knowledge is available about the pedagogical ap-proaches to writing, writing practices, and genres across Europe and much of it is codified in the national languages without correlation to internationally accept-ed terminology and theories. This book explores the writing cultures of Europe, nation by nation, and reports the idiosyncrasies for each respective country. The reports are based on a 17-item topic list used by the authors to collect data be-fore synthesizing the results. Next to writing practices and genres, a high level of emphasis was placed on the structure of educational systems, the languages in use, and the kind of support provided for student writers. Note: This research project has been conducted within the framework of COST Action IS0703 “European Research Network on Learning to Write Effectively”, funded by the European Union. We are also thankful to Christiane Donahue, Eliza Kitis, Charles Bazerman, Helmut Gruber, and David Russell for their cooperation and support in this project.Wissenschaftliches Schreiben an europäischen Hochschulen ist eine herkömmliche Form des Lernens, Prüfens und autonomen Studierens, auch wenn es in einer impliziten, eher auf Tradition denn auf bewusster Didaktik beruhenden Weise eingesetzt wird. Wenig auf systematische Weise erhobenes vergleichendes Wissen gibt es bislang über Schreibpraktiken, Genres und schreibdidaktische Ansätze in Europa und das, was an Wissen existiert ist oft in den nationalen Sprachen verfasst, die nicht mit internationalen Terminologien und Theorien der Schreibwissenschaft verbunden sind. Der vorliegende Band untersucht Schreibkulturen in Europa Land für Land und berichtet was jeweils hervorsticht. Die Berichte basieren auf einer 17-Item Themenliste, nach der die Autorenteams Daten über ihr jeweiliges Land sammelten, bevor sie es zu einem Bericht synthetisierten. Neben Schreibpraktiken und Genres werden dabei die Struktur des jeweiligen Bildungssystems, die verwendeten Sprachen und die besondere Schreibdidaktik hervorgehoben. Anmerkung: Das Projekt wurde im Rahmen der COST Aktion IS0703 “European Research Network on Learning to Write Effectively” durchgeführt, das von der EU finanziert wird. Wir bedanken uns bei Christiane Donahue, Eliza Kitis, Charles Bazerman, Helmut Gruber und David Russell für ihre Unterstützung und Mitwirkung in diesem Projekt.At European universities, writing is a traditional way of learning, assessment, and independent study, but it is handled in an implicit, tradition-based way that has only recently been contrasted with and supported by a more explicit writing ped-agogy. Still, little systematic knowledge is available about the pedagogical ap-proaches to writing, writing practices, and genres across Europe and much of it is codified in the national languages without correlation to internationally accept-ed terminology and theories. This book explores the writing cultures of Europe, nation by nation, and reports the idiosyncrasies for each respective country. The reports are based on a 17-item topic list used by the authors to collect data be-fore synthesizing the results. Next to writing practices and genres, a high level of emphasis was placed on the structure of educational systems, the languages in use, and the kind of support provided for student writers. Note: This research project has been conducted within the framework of COST Action IS0703 “European Research Network on Learning to Write Effectively”, funded by the European Union. We are also thankful to Christiane Donahue, Eliza Kitis, Charles Bazerman, Helmut Gruber, and David Russell for their cooperation and support in this project

Dziennik – perspektywa uczących się języka angielskiego jako obcego

Rozwijanie umiejętności pisania w języku obcym wiąże się z wieloma wyzwaniami. Pisanie postrzegane jest jako czasochłonne, trudne, nudne, ograniczające i niesatysfakcjonujące, co powoduje, że uczniowie mają negatywny stosunek do pisania, zarówno w języku ojczystym, jak i obcym. Prowadzenie dziennika to narzędzie, które pomaga rozwijać umiejętności językowe oraz pisania w języku obcym, wyrabiać regularny nawyk pisania, a jednocześnie daje przestrzeń do wyrażenia siebie. Niniejsze badanie miało na celu ustalenie, jak uczący się języka angielskiego jako obcego postrzegają pisanie dziennika. Uczestnikami badania było 55 studentów pierwszego roku filologii angielskiej, którzy uczestniczyli w kursie kreatywnego pisania. Badanie pokazało, że pisanie dziennika jest dla studentów przyjemne, pomogło im w napisaniu końcowego zadania, czyli autobiografii, i w rozwinięciu umiejętności językowych. Badanie wykazało również, że zaproponowanie uczniom tematów/pytań do ich wpisów dziennikowych może być przydatne w trakcie pisania dziennika, zwłaszcza dla tych osób, które nie mają pomysłów na swoje wpisy. Artykuł kończą rekomendacje dotyczące włączania dzienników do zajęć językowych.Developing writing skills in L2 is challenging. Writing is believed to be time-consuming, difficult, boring, limiting and not rewarding. All of these challenges result in students having a negative attitude towards writing, both in L1 and in L2. Journal writing is a tool which helps students develop their writing and language skills, establish a regular writing habit, while at the same time allowing them space for self-expression. The present study aims at finding out how students perceive journal writing. The participants were 55 first year students of English Studies, who participated in a creative writing course. It was discovered that students view journal writing as pleasant; that it helped them in writing their final assignment; and that it helped them develop their language skills. The study also found that offering students writing prompts may be useful in the course of writing a journal, especially for those students who lack ideas for their entries. Finally, recommendations concerning the use of journals in any language class are provided. The study suggests that if administered properly and understood by the students, journal writing has the potential to help students change their attitude towards writing for the better and improve their writing and language skills

Ticagrelor in patients with diabetes and stable coronary artery disease with a history of previous percutaneous coronary intervention (THEMIS-PCI) : a phase 3, placebo-controlled, randomised trial

Background: Patients with stable coronary artery disease and diabetes with previous percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), particularly those with previous stenting, are at high risk of ischaemic events. These patients are generally treated with aspirin. In this trial, we aimed to investigate if these patients would benefit from treatment with aspirin plus ticagrelor. Methods: The Effect of Ticagrelor on Health Outcomes in diabEtes Mellitus patients Intervention Study (THEMIS) was a phase 3 randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial, done in 1315 sites in 42 countries. Patients were eligible if 50 years or older, with type 2 diabetes, receiving anti-hyperglycaemic drugs for at least 6 months, with stable coronary artery disease, and one of three other mutually non-exclusive criteria: a history of previous PCI or of coronary artery bypass grafting, or documentation of angiographic stenosis of 50% or more in at least one coronary artery. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either ticagrelor or placebo, by use of an interactive voice-response or web-response system. The THEMIS-PCI trial comprised a prespecified subgroup of patients with previous PCI. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (measured in the intention-to-treat population). Findings: Between Feb 17, 2014, and May 24, 2016, 11 154 patients (58% of the overall THEMIS trial) with a history of previous PCI were enrolled in the THEMIS-PCI trial. Median follow-up was 3·3 years (IQR 2·8–3·8). In the previous PCI group, fewer patients receiving ticagrelor had a primary efficacy outcome event than in the placebo group (404 [7·3%] of 5558 vs 480 [8·6%] of 5596; HR 0·85 [95% CI 0·74–0·97], p=0·013). The same effect was not observed in patients without PCI (p=0·76, p interaction=0·16). The proportion of patients with cardiovascular death was similar in both treatment groups (174 [3·1%] with ticagrelor vs 183 (3·3%) with placebo; HR 0·96 [95% CI 0·78–1·18], p=0·68), as well as all-cause death (282 [5·1%] vs 323 [5·8%]; 0·88 [0·75–1·03], p=0·11). TIMI major bleeding occurred in 111 (2·0%) of 5536 patients receiving ticagrelor and 62 (1·1%) of 5564 patients receiving placebo (HR 2·03 [95% CI 1·48–2·76], p<0·0001), and fatal bleeding in 6 (0·1%) of 5536 patients with ticagrelor and 6 (0·1%) of 5564 with placebo (1·13 [0·36–3·50], p=0·83). Intracranial haemorrhage occurred in 33 (0·6%) and 31 (0·6%) patients (1·21 [0·74–1·97], p=0·45). Ticagrelor improved net clinical benefit: 519/5558 (9·3%) versus 617/5596 (11·0%), HR=0·85, 95% CI 0·75–0·95, p=0·005, in contrast to patients without PCI where it did not, p interaction=0·012. Benefit was present irrespective of time from most recent PCI. Interpretation: In patients with diabetes, stable coronary artery disease, and previous PCI, ticagrelor added to aspirin reduced cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke, although with increased major bleeding. In that large, easily identified population, ticagrelor provided a favourable net clinical benefit (more than in patients without history of PCI). This effect shows that long-term therapy with ticagrelor in addition to aspirin should be considered in patients with diabetes and a history of PCI who have tolerated antiplatelet therapy, have high ischaemic risk, and low bleeding risk