Explore the vast range of titles available.

This study examined the influence of Google Gemini, a generative artificial-intelligence (AI) tool, on the lexical appropriateness of Indonesian EFL students’ paragraph writing. Drawing on theories of lexical richness and appropriateness, the study employed an exploratory quasi-experimental design involving three writing conditions: a baseline task, an AI-assisted revision task, and a delayed post-test without AI support. Fourteen second-year English Language Teaching students (A2–B1 CEFR) participated in the study. Lexical appropriateness was measured using Type-Token Ratio (TTR) and Measure of Textual Lexical Diversity (MTLD), and the data were analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVA to examine differences across tasks. The results revealed no statistically significant differences in lexical diversity across the three conditions, suggesting that short-term interaction with Google Gemini did not lead to measurable improvement in lexical appropriateness. Qualitative observations further indicated that limited vocabulary depth and low metalinguistic awareness constrained students’ ability to evaluate and apply AI-generated lexical suggestions. These findings suggest that lexical appropriateness is reflective, and instruction-dependent process, and that AI tools such as Google Gemini function more as a potential scaffolding partner rather than autonomous enhancers of lexical development.

In the writer's craft section we offer simple tips to improve your writing in one of three areas: Energy, Clarity and Persuasiveness. Each entry focuses on a key writing feature or strategy, illustrates how it commonly goes wrong, teaches the grammatical underpinnings necessary to understand it and offers suggestions to wield it effectively.

This study developed a brief training, the Integrative Writing Training (IWT), to introduce students to two types of rhetorical devices (i.e., direct and indirect integration) that can be used to communicate cross-textual connections through writing. The training did not significantly increase the volume of integration included in students’ written responses, composed based on multiple texts, relative to a control group; although improvements were found when students were compared to others receiving a writing-organization focused training. Directions for future research and, particularly, the need to attend to students’ use of rhetorical devices to communicate integration when writing based on multiple texts are discussed.

This study reports on student writing outcomes from a two-year interdisciplinary collaboration between applied linguists (the authors) and an organizational behavior (OB) professor. We used an ethnographic language-focused approach to make explicit the linguistic features of the case analysis genre at an American university in the Middle East. We analyzed 33 student case analyses to examine how effectively students applied two heuristics from our scaffolding materials: the semantic wave heuristic for writing analytical paragraphs that move from abstract to concrete and back to abstract knowledge; and the I know, I see, I conclude heuristic for making explicit the logical connections between disciplinary knowledge and case information to produce conclusions. Students integrated the focal linguistic features with varying degrees of effectiveness. Most students met genre expectations by making abstract claims about the case at the beginning and at the end of their analysis paragraphs, integrating OB knowledge with information about the case, thus creating effective waves between disciplinary and case knowledge. However, our analysis reveals differences in the quality of students’ logical reasoning between high-, mid-, and low-rated texts. We discuss how these differences can inform linguistically responsive disciplinary writing instruction.

Background: Many graduate nursing students face persistent challenges in academic writing. These challenges have been further exacerbated by the development of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, such as large language models (LLMs). This article aims to provide a heuristic guide for nursing faculty and administrators to examine their instructional practices in light of our reshaped technological landscape. Method: This article explores the effect of integrating AI tools in academic writing within the graduate nursing context, highlighting best practices of present scholarship and their application to the instructional contexts of graduate nursing programs. Results: Strategies are offered for educators to use AI writing tools to complement traditional writing instruction, promote ethical AI use, and ensure equitable access to writing support. Conclusion: With effective guidance and well-crafted policies, AI writing tools can help graduate nursing students strengthen their writing skills, achieve academic success, contribute professionally, and drive legislative policy advancements.

This study focused on paragraph writing abilities as it is a fundamental skill for academic and professional success. Improving paragraph writing lays the groundwork for addressing advanced writing tasks and is vital for effective global communication in English. The objective of this study was, therefore, to examine effects of blended instruction on students' paragraph writing performance at Pharma College Hawassa Campus, Ethiopia. A quasi-experimental design was used to attain this objective. A sample of 54 first-year pharmacy department (26 control and 28 experimental) students was taken purposefully. The control group attended conventional, face-to-face approach; whereas experimental group received instruction using blended learning approach via Google Classroom, which incorporated collaborative writing that allowed for peer interaction and scaffolding, extensive online resources for independent learning, face-to-face support, and feedback. Pre-test and post-test paragraph writing were conducted to test effects of blended instruction, and effect size was computed to measure the magnitude of intervention. Furthermore, students' questionnaire was used to collect data on participants' backgrounds and experiences. Results revealed improvements in both groups; however, overall, the experimental group in post-test demonstrated significantly better paragraph writing with a large effect size. Regression analysis highlighted flexibility, collaborative tasks, and instant feedback as key contributors to improvement, whereas impact of authentic materials and face-to-face interactions was comparatively less. Finally, the researchers recommended EFL teachers should benefit from applying blended instruction, which may in turn improve students' paragraph writing performance in English language in the Ethiopian context.

Background Health researchers in the Global South face many barriers to scientific publication, including language limitations, lack of access to mentorship, and minimal training opportunities. Scientific writing workshops offer an affordable and effective method for building research capacity. We aimed to evaluate the design, implementation, and effectiveness of a scientific writing workshop implemented by the University of Global Health Equity in Rwanda and the Duke Global Health Institute for early-career researchers in Rwanda and surrounding regions. Methods We conducted a mixed-methods program evaluation of a contextualized scientific writing workshop co-designed by University of Global Health Equity and Duke Global Health Institute from 2023 to 2025 using curriculum theory and equity principles. We delivered three iterations of the workshop and enrolled students, early-career professionals, and researchers from Global South Countries. We assessed participant perceptions with pre- and post-workshop surveys (Kirkpatrick Level 1). Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests ( p  < 0.05); qualitative responses underwent thematic analysis, and the findings of both were integrated in the discussion section. Results A total of 203 participants attended (129 online, 94 in person). Before the workshop, only 34.2% ( n  = 178) felt comfortable preparing a manuscript. After the workshop, participants reported a better understanding of the elements of a scientific research paper, which increased from 57.2% pre-course to 88.1% post-course. Additionally, the understanding of adapting skills to resource-limited settings rose from 79.7% to 87.6%. Emerging themes from the free-text responses included increased confidence and improved skills. Conclusions This collaborative workshop enhanced the scientific writing skills and confidence among early-career health researchers in Rwanda and surrounding regions. Grounded in equity and contextual relevance, the workshop addresses barriers in scientific publishing and offers a scalable model for research capacity strengthening in resource-limited settings.

This study aimed to analyze lexical and syntactic errors and to compare similarities and differences of types of lexical and syntactic errors found in English narrative paragraphs written by Thai EFL students. The participants in this study included 40 English and 40 non-English major students selected through purposive sampling. The research instrument was a writing test. According to the findings of the research, illustrating the first 5 ranks from the most to the least, the types of errors committed by English major students were found as follows: lexical errors: articles, spelling, prepositions, word choice, and pronouns; syntactic errors: verb tenses, punctuation, conjunctions, run-on sentences, and fragments. Moreover, regarding the errors committed by non-English major students, the results revealed types of lexical errors: spelling, prepositions, articles, word choice, and word form, and types of syntactic errors: verb tenses, punctuation, fragments, capitalization, and singular and plural. To compare the similarities and differences among error types, the findings revealed that there were 8 similar types and 2 different types of lexical errors; there were 26 similar types and 12 different types of syntactic errors. The findings of the study could significantly contribute to the development of pedagogical approaches to teaching English writing for Thai EFL students studying in both English and non-English majors.

This study investigated what features undergraduate EFL learners perceive as affecting the difficulty of model paragraphs. Four hundred and seventy-five Vietnamese undergraduates participated in a partial least squares structural equation model design. They ranked five paragraphs from easiest to most difficult and responded to a 10-point Likert questionnaire regarding 11 features (titles, paragraph length, vocabulary, vocabulary in context, rhetorical organization, paragraph structure, sentence length, punctuation, signal words, interest, background knowledge). The results showed that eight variables (titles, vocabulary, vocabulary in context, sentence length, rhetorical organization, paragraph structure, interest, background knowledge) had a significant direct effect and four variables (vocabulary, sentence length, rhetorical organization, background knowledge) had mediating effects. The model accounted for 0.508 R2 of students’ perceptions, with a moderate to high predictive relevance (Q2 = 0.35). The paper also discusses the results’ implications for those in writing studies and the publishing industry. Suggestions for future study are also presented.

Understanding the critical words in examination questions enables students to structure essay responses that demonstrate their analysis of historical knowledge and understanding to assessors. In order to structure a skill-building program, teachers must be familiar with which set of skills they are aiming to tackle and also ensure that there is a combination of key areas: considering perspectives, breaking down relationships of cause and effect, exploring historical significance, identifying continuity and change, and understanding how to use evidence (primary and secondary). Source Analysis Source analysis tasks are important for students to showcase their understanding of the past by considering primary and secondary sources. Since this makes up a large component of end-of-year exams, students should complete a number of tasks in this space. [...]to this, students will go through the different types of source analysis questions, understanding the difference between high-, mid- and low-level questions.