This multiple-case study investigates how genre-based instruction, specifically, the Teaching and Learning Cycle (TLC), influences novice English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writers' use of rhetorical moves and their metacognitive awareness in abstract writing. Drawing on Systemic Functional Linguistics, this multiple-case study examined how TLC-based instruction supported students' development in representing research content (field), organizing rhetorical structure (mode), and adopting a more academic stance (tenor). Focal participants included 14 undergraduate EFL students selected from a larger pool of 216 students. Data were collected through pre- and post-intervention abstract writing, immediate retrospective reflections following each abstract writing task, and post-intervention questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. The findings reveal noticeable improvements in students' abilities to articulate details in methodology and results (field), and their use of formulaic expressions to signal rhetorical moves and steps (mode), and a more consistently academic stance in reporting (tenor). Despite these gains, several challenges persisted, including difficulty distinguishing core from peripheral information, limited flexibility in applying rhetorical moves, and patchwriting. Notably, we observed an asynchronous development between students’ growing awareness of discourse conventions and their still-emerging ability to apply them effectively, shaped by limited academic English proficiency and unfamiliarity with the abstract genre. We discuss the challenges of implementing the TCL-based instruction with novice EFL writers and its implications for fostering both rhetorical flexibility and metacognitive engagement in EFL abstract writing instruction.

This study leverages concept-based language instruction (C-BLI) as an innovative pedagogical approach to teaching academic citation practices and broader concepts of intertextuality in academic research writing. Participants were 34 undergraduate students, predominantly multilingual English writers, enrolled in an advanced writing course at a Hispanic-serving US institution. The 4-week C-BLI workshop incorporated visualized conceptual aids to teach author prominence (i.e., integral vs. nonintegral citations) and authorial stance (i.e., reporting verbs). Moving beyond conventional rule-based instruction, the workshop emphasized applications of concepts in instructor-led and collaborative settings, verbalization of evolving understandings, and one-on-one interactions with the instructor. Data include students’ research papers before and after the intervention (with student revision rationales), instructor-led text protocol conferences, in-class activity data (e.g., concept identification, text analysis, and concept visualization), and written reflections. Students reported increased confidence and intentionality with target concepts, and changes in writing include a sharp increase in reporting-verb types, more dynamic use of integral and nonintegral citation structures, and lower reliance on direct quotations. Case studies highlight evolving conceptual understandings of target concepts, growing awareness of intertextuality as a social practice, and increased ability to articulate writing decisions. This study highlights the potential of C-BLI in fostering students’ engagement with citation as a rhetorical and agentive practice, addressing persistent challenges faced by student writers.

Despite increased advocacy for translingual pedagogy, little research has explored how college students in mainstream academic writing classrooms—many of whom are multilingual, first-generation students—perceive this approach. Drawing on artifacts collected throughout one semester including surveys, metacognitive reflections, article annotations, and research papers, this study examines the perception of 38 students at a Hispanic-serving institution on the role of translingual pedagogy in their academic writing experiences. We found that while students reported a strengthened sense of identity and cultural expression, they often expressed significant discomfort and engaged in self-censorship when incorporating their home language(s) into academic writing. These challenges were particularly evident among first-generation, multilingual students who had internalized monolingual norms from an early age, as they had long been discouraged from using their home language(s) in academic settings. For these students, leveraging their full linguistic repertoire was both liberating and fraught with anxiety, as they feared deviating from standard English might compromise their academic legitimacy and disqualify them from participating in the professional world. We underscore the need for a nuanced translingual pedagogical framework that not only embraces linguistic diversity but also addresses the complex barriers students face when bringing their home language(s) and other language varieties into academic spaces.