An EAL (English as an Additional Language) writer is a writer who has added English to a linguistic repertoire they already have—additional rather than second, because English is not necessarily the second language learned (Cox, 2016). Writers who use English as an additional language to their are a significant part of who we work with and, as such, we want to make sure you know the terminology we use to best understand and support the diverse range of EAL writers who come to the Writing Center. We also want to make sure you have research-informed practices for prioritizing what to address in appointments with EAL writers. This chapter of the handbook discusses these topics, and provides examples of specific tutoring “roles” you can take on, depending on what a given EAL writer needs.
Two commitments shape our work with EAL Writers:
- We do not treat EAL writing as English that needs fixing. Difference is not deficiency.
- We adapt to individual writers, not to a category. Nothing here describes what “EAL writers” as a category need. It describes options you can draw on when a particular writer in front of you needs them.
EAL writing is produced by a writer whose first language is not English, and it spans every level of proficiency in speaking, reading, and writing.
It can differ from writing produced by native English speakers. When it does, the feedback a writer needs may range from sentence-level concerns to differences in cultural knowledge or in how a text is structured. Your job is to adapt to what this particular writer needs while welcoming linguistic diversity — not to move the writing toward one standard.
The strategies elaborated here about best practices for working with writers for whom English is an Additional Language are part of our overall commitment to Linguistic Justice & Diversity.
One important note: never assume that a writer you’re working with is an EAL writer, or that they’re seeking help with language and grammar. Instead, as with any writer, ask about their assignment, concerns, and previous writing experience. Through this line of questioning, you avoid microaggressions, and uncover more about their individual writing identity
Context About EAL Writers at The Writing Center
When a writer registers for an account in WCOnline with us, they are asked to describe themselves when it comes to a range of linguistic identities. Since 2020, about 12% of writers describe themselves as English language learners (and about 21% describe themselves as multilingual).
Linguistic identities overlap and writers place themselves in more than one at a time. A writer who identifies as “multilingual” may or may not want this aspect of their identity to be applied to their appointment. Take your cue from what the writer tells you, not from what you infer.
Language Learner Terminology
Adapted from Cox (2016)
Term | What it means | How we use it |
EAL (English as an Additional Language) | A writer whose first language is not English, at any level of proficiency in speaking, reading, or writing | This is the term we use. It's inclusive of writers who have learned several languages |
ESL (English as a Second Language) | The older, more common term | Avoid. English isn't necessarily the second language learned |
LX (L2, L3, and so on) | Names a specific language as a writer's second, third, and so on | Useful when precision matters |
NES / NNES (Native / Non-Native English Speaker) | Writers who did or didn't learn English in an "inner-circle" Western country | You'll see NES used below as shorthand for the academic norms US universities expect. We don't use either term to label writers. |
A writer's status as an EAL writer is theirs to share, not yours to assign. Let writers name their own linguistic background, and take your cue from what they say they want to work on.
Prioritizing Feedback Using the Hierarchy of Concerns
The hierarchy doesn't change for EAL writers. What changes is your diagnosis. A writer's linguistic background may be the reason a higher-order concern looks weak — an argument that reads as unsupported may be an argument structured according to a different rhetorical tradition, and a thesis that seems missing may be placed where another academic culture places it.
Work from the top down:
- Assignment fulfillment
- Thesis presence
- Strength of argument
- Macro organization
- Micro organization
- Stylistic issues
- Grammar, spelling, punctuation
So before you conclude that a draft has a thesis problem, consider whether you're looking at a rhetorical difference rather than a rhetorical failure. That's where the informant roles below come in.
Address sentence-level concerns when they are keeping higher-order concerns from coming through — when you can't follow the argument because of how the sentences are built. Otherwise they wait.
Three tutoring stances
Every piece of feedback you give positions the writer somewhere in relation to the norms of US academic English. Following Severino (1993), Matsuda & Cox (2011) articulate three tutoring stances we can take in relation to “standard written English”:
- Separatist. The writer's linguistic identity is a legitimate feature of the writing; ideas are shared on the writer's terms. Appropriate when the genre allows it — creative writing, personal narrative, and other contexts where voice is the point.
- Accommodationist. You name the norm, explain it, and give the writer the choice, including a read on what's at stake if they depart from it. This is our default in academic writing.
- Assimilationist. You require the writer to conform: explain a rule and enforce adherence to it. This is not how we approach our work with EAL Writers. It forces conformity and strips the writer's agency.
The table below shows an example of how one might address the same concern—a writer's verb tenses shift in ways that aren't conventional in US academic prose—in three different ways.
Stance | What you do |
Separatist | Recognize that the tense pattern is part of how this writer's voice works, and let it stand. |
Accommodationist | Explain how past, present, and future function in this genre, note how the instructor is likely to read it, and leave the decision with the writer. |
Assimilationist | Explain the rule and tell the writer to bring the draft in line with it. |
The accommodationist and separatist stances both empower writers, and the thing that makes them work is the same: you supply information, and the writer makes the decision. That is what it means to be an informant.
Three “Informant” Roles
An informant is the identity you take on when working with an EAL writer to meet their individual needs while respecting their linguistic background. You'll move among all three roles in a single appointment.
Cultural informant
You explain aspects of US culture — general, academic, or specific to a discipline.
Take this role when a lack of understanding of some aspect of culture is impeding the writer's ability to complete the assignment, and better understanding of it would lead to more successful writing.
Rhetorical informant
You explain rhetorical aspects of writing — the "roles, characteristics, and relationships among reader(s), context, genre, and the writer" (Cox, 2016).
Take this role when the writer doesn't yet have a working understanding of the writing styles and conventions US academia expects, and that's limiting how effectively they can write for this audience.
Linguistic informant
You explain grammar rules and how the language functions. This is lower-order, sentence-level feedback.
Take this role when the writer's ideas are not coming across as a result of their current knowledge of English — and, per the hierarchy, only then.
Being a Helpful Linguistic Informant
Sentence-level work with EAL writers goes wrong in predictable ways. Four practices:
- Be direct. Skip open-ended questions about grammar. "What do you notice about this verb?" turns into a guessing game that wastes the appointment and embarrasses the writer. Name the pattern (Blau, Hall, & Sparks, 2002).
- Be brief. Choose a few sentences or a paragraph, work through the pattern there, and move on. You are not proofreading the draft (Moussu, 2013).
- Connect to higher-order concerns. Any lower-order concern you address should improve a higher-order concern at the same time. If you can't name which one, it probably isn't worth the time you’d spend on this lower-order concern.
- Provide resources. Point writers to resources for the recurring patterns so they can keep working after the appointment (Moussu, 2013).
In Written Feedback specifically you may need to make a few adjustments:
- Do the diagnostic work in the summary letter, not the margins. If you suspect a rhetorical difference rather than an error, say so explicitly — you can't read the writer's reaction, so name your reasoning and invite them to push back. Marginal comments make sentence-level notes easy and higher-order ones hard, which quietly inverts the hierarchy. Decide your top two or three concerns before you start commenting.
- Give the writer the choice in writing. The accommodationist stance depends on the writer deciding. Asynchronously that means stating the option and the stakes, rather than marking the change.
- Ask, don't assume. You may know less about this writer's linguistic background than you would in a live session. Work from the intake form and the draft, and don't infer anything the writer hasn't told you.
Some EAL writers face challenges specific to writing in an additional language, and we adapt our tutoring to their individual needs rather than to a category. We do that by taking on the cultural, rhetorical, and linguistic informant roles, and by working from an accommodationist or separatist stance so that we're informing writers about the norms of US academia rather than requiring them to conform to them.
References
Blau, S., Hall, J., & Sparks, S. (2002). Guilt-free tutoring: Rethinking how we tutor non-native-English-speaking students. Writing Center Journal, 23(1), 23–44.
Bean, J. C. Engaging Ideas: The Professor's Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and Active Learning in the Classroom. Jossey-Bass.
Cox, M. (2016). Identity construction, second language writers, and the writing center. In Tutoring Second Language Writers (pp. 53–77). Utah State University Press.
Matsuda, P. K., & Cox, M. (2011). Reading an ESL writer's text. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 2(1), 4–14.
Moussu, L. (2013). Let's talk! ESL students' needs and writing centre philosophy. TESL Canada Journal, 30(2), 55. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v30i2.1142
Severino, C. (1993). The sociopolitical implications of response to second language and second dialect writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2(3), 181–201.
Adapted from "Empowering Diverse Voices: Valuing EAL Writing in the Writing Center," a professional development workshop by John Kaiser, Ellie Rath, and Lora Tran.
Written Feedback
As we know, receiving feedback is a crucial component of the learning process. Writers use our feedback to make meaningful connections in their work: what works, what doesn’t, and what a reader thinks of their ability to carry out a certain task. This is especially valuable for international students who are in a new academic and professional culture.
Effective EAL Written Feedback Strategies
- Be explicit with the information you are providing the writer. It's about being direct with what you are seeing and how it affects the writing and the reading of the writing, not directive in what the writer needs to do with that information
- Don't just focus on what's not working. Identify areas in students’ work where they are successful and use those areas when you offer suggestions for improvement
- With grammar and patterns of error be as specific as possible: "grammar" is never an acceptable agenda item, and even "comma usage" could be too broad. Instead, think about commas in specific situations, such as introductory phrases
- Use the hyperlink function to refer writers to external resources for additional support. Before linking to a source, always vet it to ensure the information is accurate and appropriate for your writer's academic level (avoid extremely dense scholarship as well as elementary activities). There are some great resources on the page that you can send out to writers as well!
- Remember that writers are here to learn ideas, conventions, and ways of interpreting and presenting information within their discipline. Keep in mind that international students are also in a new academic and professional culture. Keep comments professional, informative, and helpful
- Last but not least--always check WCOnline for your writer's preferred name!
Clarifying Meaning
One of the main goals of writing, especially US American academic writing, is communicating your main argument in clear, concise, and coherent writing. Clarifying meaning is thus an instrumental part of not only one’s writing, but the feedback we give to our writers. This section thus covers two important aspects of clarifying meaning: not simply helping your writer to communicate their argument effectively, but also ensuring that your own feedback is not obscured or compromised.
Helping EAL Writers Clarify Their Meaning
As peer tutors, we often stress focusing on global concerns before moving on to local ones. The most common global concern that will come up in an appointment with an EAL writer will be the overall meaning the writer is trying to convey. It’s important to remember that culture influences the way we write and that affects the way meaning is conveyed. Amy Jo Minett in her article, “’Earth Aches by Midnight’: Helping ESL Writers Clarify Their Intended Meaning*,” discusses different tips and ways to approach this scenario in tutoring appointments.
At The Paragraph Level
A large portion of a tutor’s attention should start at the paragraph level before focusing on local concerns when it comes to clarifying the writer’s meaning.
Minett provides the following ideas:
- Ask writers to find sentence topics (what the sentence is about) in individual sentences and underline them
- Discuss with them the relationship between the underlined topics and the paragraph. Then discuss the paragraph’s relationship to the whole essay (Does it prove the thesis? Does it answer the research question?)
This approach helps the writer determine the ways that the sentence topics build meaning (Minett 63).
At The Sentence Level
Another focal point for clarifying an EAL writer's meaning is through the cohesion of their sentences. Minett explains that the best way to practice clarifying meaning at the sentence level is to do this occasionally to avoid overloading the writer with too many concerns.
That being said, Minett explains another method for approaching this by repeating the unclear sentence back to the writer in question form. Here's an example:
"They ran by 1 hour" They ran for 1 hour?
Addressing the concern this way will help the writer recognize the way the wording of their sentence can effect their meaning directly. Again, while this approach is effective, it is important to remember that corrections such as these should only be made occasionally. It may be tempting to address these each time they come up, but this can be overwhelming and nonproductive when trying to help an EAL writer develop their meaning clarification.
Overall, peer tutors must be willing to push aside their cultural normative practices of standard "academic" writing to assist EAL writers in clarifying their own meaning. Moreover, new perspectives and placing the writing in context with the culture of the writer, betters our abilities to help EAL writers clarify their meaning.
To conclude, a quote from Minett:
"The problem, however, is that if you are accustomed to reading texts developed according to the conventional rhetorical patterns and preferences of academic English, the effects of other ways of structuring essays (be it Spanish, Russian, or Chinese) can cloud your understanding of an ESL writer's meaning."
Clarifying Your Meaning
Clarity is crucial in tutoring. Our feedback—comments, suggestions, questions we ask, etc.—and the information we provide to writers needs to be clearly expressed so that the writers know what the information is and how to apply it to their writing.
These comments can be very effective in getting writers to make substantive revisions. On the other hand, these comments can sometimes be misunderstood by EAL writers if they are unsure how the comments should be interpreted.
One of the biggest considerations to make is whether to give direct or indirect feedback.
Indirect feedback sounds something like this: “Does anything about this sentence stick out to you?” “Are you sure that’s the right word?” “I think there’s a preposition error in here somewhere.” “Can you think of a different way to phrase this?” etc.
While Direct feedback is more pointed: “This sentence is a run-on, let’s fix it.” “This preposition doesn’t go with this verb--it’s always paired with ‘of’.” “The word ‘correlation’ doesn’t actually refer to a relationship between two people, it shows how two things (usually data) are related. You could just say ‘relationship’.” etc.
You will find yourself using both kinds of feedback as a tutor; the key lies in identifying when it is appropriate to use which kind. Generally, we recommend a balance of the two.
Balancing direct and indirect feedback
Consider your writer’s backgrounds with direct and indirect speech acts when constructing your comments. Some cultures value directness in writing and speech, and students from those cultures--particularly if they have had limited experiences in the U.S. educational system--may find hedged comments confusing.
Hedged comments take writers the longest time to decode, while directive comments were not only read and understood the fastest, but they also resulted in the most accurate uptake of revision strategies (Baker & Hansen Bricker, 2010). Use great care in constructing hedged comments, and consider using more direct methods for straightforward revisions (e.g., grammatical forms). If you are hedging, balance that with direct explanation.
Further Resources on Direct vs. Indirect Feedback in EAL Writing:
Questions to consider when giving feedback:
What is the cultural, discursive implication of your comment?
Will the writer expect indirect or direct commentary from you?
Will the writer know what the intent of the indirect comment is?
How can you balance direct and indirect strategies with your feedback?
Grammar, Language, and Style
Providing grammar-based feedback is an important part of our work as peer writing tutors. EAL writers often isolate grammar and language as areas they want to work on—this may stem from confidence levels, experiences with writing, and even experiences with instructors.
But navigating grammar or language and the content can often be a difficult process. We want to help the writers with whom we work, and if there are clear grammar issues, it can become a challenge. This is especially the case when there are many grammar errors and reading becomes challenging.
Overall, the key to approaching grammar, language, and style in EAL writing is identifying when patterns of grammar hinder the reading and comprehension of a paper, as opposed to identifying when stylistic changes to the language are not necessary for comprehension. Feedback can be given on both elements, but language that obscures the argument/meaning of the writing must be given priority.
Be as specific as possible when giving feedback on grammar.
Grammar in the Agenda
Be specific to one pattern of usage per agenda item. Never have “grammar” as an agenda item. But also consider the exigence and context. Not all writing comes with the same expectations for grammar, so make sure that the grammar pattern you’re focusing on makes sense in that context.
Develop a hierarchy of importance
If there are many patterns, it can be difficult to isolate which grammar pattern(s) to focus on, so think about what:
- Interrupts the communication of meaning
- Occurs more frequently throughout
- The writer’s context is, and which grammatical elements will be most important
- What you can effectively work through in the appointment and its modality
Working With the Language
Offer options for how the writer could revise for clarity/effectiveness. This will put the focus on the language use, making for not only a better text but also a better, more aware, writer. For example, if you’re commenting on subject-verb agreement, you could discuss how the writer could change the subject or the verb, exploring the change in meaning that occurs.
Focus on language use, not rules
Ground your feedback in language use and conventions. It’s easy to simply say we do this because it’s the rule. But this avoids the learning opportunity.
- Refer back to the writer’s exigence and context
- Discuss the effect on the reader, the meaning, and their ethos
- Individualize the feedback by using their work to begin a conversation about their grammar usage
- Balance indirect and direct feedback. Don’t just fix or identify the pattern; engage the writer in the grammar revision. As you move through the text, move to more indirect feedback
Additional Considerations
Be modality conscious
Some errors are easier to address in one modality than in another. If you feel that working on a certain grammar point would be easier in another modality, or at another stage in the process, suggest a follow-up appointment.
Avoid articles and prepositions
Feedback on these patterns offers little potential for learning.
Remember your role
You're here to help make better writers, so help the writer:
- Identify errors of the grammatical point
- Understand the grammatical structure in their writing
- Apply that grammatical structure, effectively and appropriately, to their writing. It’s one thing to know it; it’s another to be able to use it
Academic Integrity
Understanding the role academic integrity is a must if students—no matter where they are from—want to succeed at DePaul.
Price (2002) stated that understanding academic integrity:
is not only a phenomenon that can be mastered by new students to academic writing, such policies announce, it must be mastered (p. 89 as cited in Thomas & Sassi, 2011, p. 48).
How to Discuss Academic Integrity
Success in a particular institution means “playing” by their rules, and a major tenant at DePaul (and in many academic circles) is maintaining academic integrity in all of one’s work. However, there are some not-so-obvious factors at play when it comes to fully understanding academic integrity and academic integrity violations that affect all students. Understanding these factors is important for tutors to consider since some of the work we do is focused on addressing and mediating potential academic integrity violations in writers’ work.
This section addresses several factors that complicate discussions on academic integrity and academic integrity violations in relation to English as additional language (EAL) writers and international students, and it addresses what your role as a tutor is in mediating expectations and standards of academic integrity and academic integrity violations in the context of DePaul University as a whole.
Plagiarism Isn’t Always Intentional
Plagiarism is one tenant of academic integrity that is sometimes difficult for EAL and international writers to understand.
Click (2012) pointed out that there are two kinds of plagiarism: textual plagiarism, wherein a writer uses the “language or ideas from a source without appropriate attribution” and prototypical plagiarism, wherein a writer uses someone else’s’ ideas as their own with “the intention to deceive” (p. 45).
Sometimes EAL writers unintentionally plagiarize because they have not been taught citation conventions and are thus unaware of expectations for citing sources in the kinds of academic writing expected at DePaul.
How Cultural Norms and Assumptions Impact Academic Integrity
Differences in cultural norms is one of the biggest contributors that “explains” why some EAL writers commit "more" academic integrity violations than their native English-speaking counterparts. Simpson (2016) stressed the need for everyone involved with EAL writers in higher education to understand and be conscious of cultural differences and how we can help students navigate academic integrity. As peer writing tutors, we are often the contact point for these questions, so it's especially important for us to understand and mediate when needed.
Cultural Norms
In discussing cultural norms, Click (2012) found that it is important to keep in mind that:
- Just because someone is an international student or is an EAL writer, does not mean that they are more likely to commit a form of academic integrity violation
- Cultural variations can and do influence the way international students or EAL writers perceive and approach higher education
- Cultural norms are embedded in social, political, and ideological matrices, and educational norms can help or prevent them from understanding academic integrity
Cultural Attitudes
Students from collectivist cultures, where group work is prioritized, encouraged, and shared, can struggle in navigating our academic environment where helping one another is often not allowed. This difficulty results in many students “resorting” to intentional or unintentional acts of academic integrity violation. Amsberry (2009) noted that differences in “cultural attitudes about text ownership, educational practices that encourage copying as a learning strategy, and linguistic challenges” can make understanding academic integrity and academic integrity violations difficult for EAL and international writers studying in American colleges (p. 37 as cited in Click, 2012, p. 45).
Attitudes and interests complicate perceptions of academic integrity and academic integrity violations:
- The interests of students, staff, and faculty influence students' perceptions of academic integrity and academic integrity violations (East, 2010, p. 71)
- Instructors tend to perceive issues of academic integrity violations as “breach[es] of trust undermining academic traditions” and thus assume malicious intent (East, 2010, p. 74)
- Students prioritize success outside of school and academia, so academic tradition may not seem as important as succeeding in a class since the class is only temporary, and what matters is graduating and getting a job
“[S]tudents who come from cultures where cheating is the norm are more likely to engage, whether intentionally or unintentionally, in the behaviors themselves.”(Simpson, 2016, p. 7)
Teacher-Student Dynamic
In American class settings, it’s both common and encouraged that students challenge professors’ and other scholars’ ideas and beliefs about topics. However, this approach to education is not a global one, and many international and EAL writers have trouble bridging the gap between what they know, and what they’re expected to do in a Western academic setting. Click (2012) pointed out that “students who have spent most of their educational career considering textbooks (and their professors) to be the ultimate authority” on a topic, may struggle with writing assignments that ask them to challenge a text or a belief (p. 48).
When it comes to doing research, cutting and pasting an authors’ words is much easier than trying to rephrase or reinterpret the idea in their own words (Simpson, 2016, p. 9). In some cultures, maintaining eye contact and asking an instructor questions are seen as disrespectful, and being placed in a situation where these behaviors are the norm and expected places students in a strange limbo where they don’t know what to do (Simpson, 2016, p. 8).
Stressors
There are many stressors that influence academic integrity violations in higher education. Many of these can be internal to the student, self-consciousness, or perceptions. However, there are also external factors that can further stress students and complicate their perception of academic integrity.
Fass-Holmes (2017) stated that some of the unique challenges EAL and international students are (p. 647):
- acculturative stress
- cultural barriers
- English language weakness
- mandatory compliance with immigration regulations
- lack of familiarity with US academic integrity standards
- lack of familiarity with US academic teaching methods
These pressures, along with the pressures of being in a new place and having to be independent, effect the ways in which all students do college, and can possibly push students towards committing academic integrity violations.
Internal stressors
How students feel about themselves and their need to succeed strongly influences how they respond to their work. According to Simpson (2016), students indicated feeling:
- Pressure to succeed academically for later employment
- A sense of ill-preparedness for academic success
- Strong competition from peers in the course, department, or college as a whole
Experience-based stressors
While all students face challenges while navigating higher education, EAL learners face those same challenges and more. Furthermore, Simpson (2016) indicated that international and EAL students often:
- Do not possess the experience with writing to be able to effectively compose and "conform to Western standards of writing” (p. 9)
- Are more likely to commit academic integrity violations based on a lack of knowledge of conventions and expectations, not because of an inability to comprehend content (p. 9)
Inconsistent Policies & Definitions
One of the biggest obstacles for all writers—not just international or EAL—when it comes to academic integrity and academic integrity violations is understanding how academic violations are defined. Research has shown that academic integrity definitions are not always clear and can vary between:
- The university as a whole
- A discipline
- A department
- A teacher in a department
- A student
At its most basic, academic integrity violations have been “oversimplified by professors, universities, academic integrity councils, and many others” (Click, 2012, p. 45).
Conflicting Views
The inconsistency in defining what constitutes academic integrity and academic integrity violations from college to college does not mean that there is a need to push for a more universal standard for defining academic integrity violations; doing so would only continue to undermine the intricacies of different cultures and ideologies. It is, however, important to keep these inconsistent and intrinsic definitions of how academic integrity and academic integrity violations are defined in mind, more so since these definitions affect the ways in which all students succeed in higher education. Being aware of and critical of these differences can allow us to more effectively aid EAL and international writers as they navigate academic integrity. Research found that:
“students, faculty, and administrators also have conflicting views on the differences between reasonable and dishonest behaviors and, for this reason, there is an overall indifference towards academic dishonesty” (Simpson, 2016, p. 4, emphasis added).
“rules and norms of one community or group may be distinct from those of another” (Thomas & Sassi, 2016, p. 48).
“concepts of what constitutes academic integrity and academic misconduct can vary” from institution to institution, and these concepts “can change over time” (Bertag et al, 2014, pp. 1150-51).
“there is [no] universal understanding about what [academic integrity violation] means” (East, 2010, p. 80).
Making sense of expectations
Defining and understanding academic integrity violation becomes more complicated when students who are unfamiliar with the concept come into play. EAL writers, and adults returning to college, face many challenges when it comes to (re)familiarizing themselves with a college’s expectations, especially when concepts of academic integrity and academic integrity violations are unfamiliar to them.
- For EAL writers, academic integrity violations are even more complicated since academic integrity is embedded in a very Western ideology where intellectual property “belongs” to a researcher or group of researchers
- For many EAL and international writers, academic integrity may be an entirely new concept, and they may not understand its role in the academic culture or context (Click, 2012, p. 45)
- Students' "lack of familiarity with [American] educational standards for academic integrity” pushes many students, especially international students, to commit unintentional AIV [academic integrity violations] in their works (Fass-Holmes, 2017, p. 649)
Your Role as a Tutor
Academic integrity and academic integrity violations are not just student issues; anyone who is involved in the academic community is responsible for understanding the role academic integrity plays in higher education. It can be easy to say that only the student is responsible for understanding how to uphold academic integrity throughout their academic career, but placing this responsibility on just the student undermines the role others play in this situation as well. As tutors, you are also responsible for understanding the role academic integrity plays here at DePaul. You are not here to police writers and their work via a “‘gotcha!’ pedagogy” (Thomas & Sassi, 2011, p. 48), but you are here to stress why academic integrity is important in the context of DePaul as an institution.
First: Educate Yourself
One of the best ways to help the writers we work with understand DePaul’s stance on academic integrity and academic integrity violations is to educate ourselves on what these policies are, and how they’re enforced. The whole idea of a policy is that everyone involved is on the same page when it comes to (a) understanding an issue, and (b) understanding how to address an issue. Personal interpretations and dismissive attitudes about the policy—from all parties involved—make using the policy as a standard for everyone harder than it should be. This isn’t to say that personal interpretations are “wrong,” but they can get in the way of addressing an issue when it becomes a “big” problem.
- Bretag et al. (2014) concluded that “the purpose of [academic integrity policies] should be to develop shared values with all stakeholders based on a genuine and coherent commitment to academic integrity” (p. 1153).
- In a similar vein, Simpson (2016) stated that “it is important for administrators and faculty to address facets of academic dishonesty with their students and colleagues on a way that incorporates the diverse needs of the entire campus population” (emphasis added, p. 4).
- Knowing what DePaul’s stance on academic integrity violations is, and the consequences is important because it sets the standard for what writers should be doing, and it also helps provide a specific context and definition to what academic integrity and academic integrity violations mean here at DePaul.
Having this foundation is helpful in sessions because it gives us a starting point from which to build.
Your role
All things considered, it’s not our job as tutors to police students’ writing. As a resource, the Writing Center exists to help make writers become better writers, and a part of becoming a better writer at DePaul is understanding DePaul’s stance on academic integrity and academic integrity violations.
- Our job as tutors is to “offer assistance for all members of the community in implementing academic integrity” in their written works (Simpson, 2016, p. 13).
- In the discussion of helping students from all backgrounds and academic experiences, it’s important to be cognizant of the role a resource like the Writing Center plays when mediating the expectations of all the people involved in the discussion of academic integrity and academic integrity violations.
- Understanding the nuances of academic integrity and academic integrity violations in higher education as well as the potential struggles writers of all backgrounds may encounter will better prepare you as a tutor to address issues with academic integrity and academic integrity violations.