Content uploaded by Estela Inés Moyano
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Estela Inés Moyano on Oct 18, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5007/2175-8026.2016v69n3p157
NEGOTIATION BETWEEN PROFESSIONAL PEERS: CRITICAL STRATEGY
FOR A READING AND WRITING PROGRAM AT THE UNIVERSITY LEVEL
Estela Inés Moyano*
Universidad de Flores
Buenos Aires, AR
Jacqueline Giudice**
Universidad de Flores
Buenos Aires, AR
Abstract
e following paper focuses on the description and exemplication of a strategy which is the core of the Academic
Reading and Writing Program (PROLEA, for its acronym in Spanish) conducted at the Universidad de Flores
(UFLO), in Argentina: the “negotiation between professional peers” or “negotiation between teaching partners”.
e Program’s pedagogic design is based on the Sydney School’s developments in Systemic Functional Linguistics
(SFL). e negotiation between peers comprises the work between a professor on academic and professional
literacies, who is a member of the Program, and the professors of each of the specic subjects involved. In order
to successfully implement the SFL pedagogic proposal at this educational level, the realization of the negotiation
between professional peers is necessary. is negotiation entails a series of agreements between the professors
involved about the teaching of the curricula contents through reading and writing tasks. First in this paper, the
negotiation between peers is characterized, and its function and value in the Program are highlighted; second,
two scenarios of application are presented in order to show this strategy’s contribution as well as its diculties
and the way of resolution of the problems found.
Keywords: Negotiation Between Professional Peers; Reading and Writing Program; Curricular Content
Teaching; Academic Literacy; Argentina.
Esta obra tem licença Creative Commons
* PhD in Linguistics and coordinator of the Reading and Writing Program at the University of Flores, she is also a researcher at the same university. Her email
address is estela.moyano@uo.edu.ar
** Currently completing a Master’s Degree in Discourse Analysis at the University of Buenos Aires, she is a Professor of the Reading and Writing Program at the
University of Flores. Her email address is jgiudice@uo.edu.ar
Introduction
e available strategies for teaching academic
and professional literacies in Latin America are varied
and include courses at the beginning of the university
studies, workshops as part of a degree curriculum,
syllabus topics included by teachers in their specic
subjects, writing centres and literacy programs across
the curriculum (UNLu, 2001; Carlino, 2006; Parodi,
2010; Vázquez et al, 2012; Núñez Cortés 2013; Molina
Natera, 2014). ere is also a long tradition of other
initiatives in dierent countries around the world
(Fullwiller & Young, 1982; McLeod & Soven, 1992,
among others). However, a recent survey (aiss,
2010: 259, 260) has shown that teaching literacy across
the university curriculum is a common practice,
comprising not only teaching academic discourse in
English as a second language or for foreign students
(Hyon, 1996; Hyland & Hamp Lyons, 2002; Con et
al, 2003; Ravelli & Ellis, 2004; Bawarshi & Rei, 2010;
Con & Donahue, 2012) but also in dierent languages,
including Spanish, to native speakers with limited or
158 Estela Inés Moyano and Jacqueline Giudice, Negotiation Between Professional Peers:...
no experience in this register (Bazerman, Bonini &
Figueiredo, 2009; Bazerman, Krut, Lunsford, McLeod,
Null, Rogers & Stansell, 2010; aiss et al, 2012; Lillis et
al, 2015, among many others).
In the frame of the variety of actions in Latin
America, the Universidad de Flores (UFLO) in
Argentina is implementing an Academic Reading and
Writing Program (PROLEA)1 which extends from the
beginning until the end of each degree by assigning a
subject per year to the interdisciplinary work between
the subject matter professors and an academic
and professional literacies professor, a member of
the Program (Moyano, 2004; Moyano & Giudice,
forthcoming). A direct precedent of PROLEA is the
Program to Develop Academic Literacy across the
Curriculum (PRODEAC for its acronym in Spanish), at
the Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento (UNGS)
(Moyano, 2009; 2010; 2011a; 2011b; Moyano & Natale,
2012). PROLEA-UFLO was installed at the request from
the higher authorities of the University, the Rector and
Vice-Rector, who invited Estela Moyano to design an
institutional literacy program. en, between 2012 and
2014 an interdisciplinary research project, which had
among its objectives to survey information concerning
the literacy practices promoted by the teachers on their
classrooms,2 was conducted. e professors in charge of
courses considered the core of the degree were queried
about the assignments they required of their students,
and asked for samples of the literature provided as
readings, of writing materials produced by the students
and of evaluation instructions. e results not only
oered a diagnosis of the diculties to guide literacy
activities, but also this interaction triggered a reection
process among the professors who asked for assistance
to resolve them (Giudice, Godoy & Moyano, 2016).
Consequently, the Program was initiated as a pilot
experience in the Psychology School in 2013. is pilot
was supervised by a linguist and expert in literacy who
aerwards became the Coordinator of the Program,
Estela Moyano, and the actions were performed by
another expert in academic and professional literacies,
Jacqueline Giudice. e Director of the Psychology
degree, Marcelo Godoy, was also involved, and played
the role of negotiating the pilot implementation. Aer
an evaluation of the pilot, in which the institutional
authorities were involved, the Program was installed
across the Faculties at the University in 2015.
PROLEA’s main goal is to teach students how
to approach dierent genres, from the context of
academic studies and the professional context they
will be introduced to once they graduate. Another
goal is not only to assist the specic subjects’ teachers
to implement reading and writing tasks that will
contribute to the overall curricular learning, but also to
enrich their generic and linguistic awareness as most of
them did not have the opportunity to reect upon this
phenomenon during their formal training.
e educational program follows the Sydney
School pedagogic proposal in the frame of Systemic
Functional Linguistics (Martin, 1999; Rose & Martin,
2012), which was adapted to the Argentinian context
(Moyano, 2007).
is modied proposal entails three dierent
stages: Joint Deconstruction (in the Sydney School’s
terms as it will be explain immediately), Joint Designing
and Writing and Joint Editing. e Joint Deconstruction
of texts consists in the whole class analysis of models
which allows students to identify, through detailed
reading, the schematic structure of the text as an
instance of a genre as well as the relevant specic
characteristics of scientic language described in this
theoretical frame (Halliday & Martin, 1993; Martin &
Veel, 1998; Wignell, 2007; Banks, 2008; Hood, 2010; cf.
also in Spanish, Oteiza, 2009; 2010; Oteiza & Pinuer,
2010; Moyano, 2012a; 2013; 2014; 2015). Additionally,
given that it is not possible to perform the Joint Writing
on this educational level except in very specic cases
that involve teaching a specic disciplinary language
resource, the next instance of this proposal consists
in the Joint Editing of texts written by the students,
working towards Individual Editing, as done by expert
writers (Moyano, 2010; 2011a). is stage consists in a
whole class analysis of some of the texts produced by the
students, in order to evaluate the schematic structure
and the language used, making the changes needed to
reach a good enough text within the genre.
e selection of this teaching model is based
essentially on Halliday’s theory of learning (1993; 2004),
159
Ilha do Desterro v. 69, nº3, p. 157-172, Florianópolis, set/dez 2016
which implies that content learning takes place through
learning the language used for its construction, that is
to say, construing a theory of an aspect of the world, i.e.
construing concepts. Learning disciplinary contents,
then, implies using the appropriate linguistic resources:
not only a subject specic lexicon, but also new
grammatical and discourse organizations, which lead to
a genre-based pedagogy (Martin, 1999; Rose & Martin,
2012). In addition, this theory proposes that the learning
process occurs by interaction, the exchange produced
within a context of shared experience (Martin, 1999), in
which the concept of scaolding (Wood, Bruner & Ross,
1978) and of zone of proximal development (Vigotsky,
1998) become relevant. is relates to a visible or explicit
pedagogy, in Bernstein’s own terms (1990), i.e., to be
clear regarding the objectives to be achieved throughout
the teaching process, the procedures to follow and the
assessment criteria.
To carry out this teaching process, the Program
proposes interdisciplinary work between a professor
from the PROLEA team and the professor(s) in charge
of the subject participating in the Program. ese
activities are carried out by implementing a strategy
called “negotiation between professional peers” or
“negotiation between teaching partners” (Moyano,
2009; 2010; Moyano & Natale, 2012, Moyano &
Giudice, forthcoming). is device is critical for the
proper functioning of the pedagogy proposal chosen
to teach academic and professional literacies and it
has a recurrent character: it takes place before starting
the teaching process and remains active throughout its
development in order to make any necessary adjustment.
is paper will describe this strategy and explain its
functions and value, as well as its challenges, and then will
present two cases of negotiation between professional
peers that have been carried out for three years at UFLO
Psychology School as part of the PROLEA.
Negotiation between professional peers or
teaching partners
Before starting working inside the classroom,
meetings between the PROLEA professor and the
professors from the subject that participates on
the program are necessary. e function of these
interdisciplinary meetings is to establish agreement on
the line of work to follow in order to teach students how
to perform the reading and writing tasks. During the
meetings each professor would bring to the discussion
his or her own knowledge and experience. However, it
is important that the PROLEA professor takes the role
of leading the meeting to ensure all objectives are met.
e key points to be worked during the negotiation
process will be described below, along with the role that
each professor has during the teaching process and
the value they add to the Program. Even though some
of these key points have already been presented on a
previous paper (Moyano, 2010), they will be treated
with more detail thanks to the experience gained over
the years of practice.
* e role of academic reading and writing teaching
in the core or a subject matter. e rst item to agree
in the negotiation between professional peers relates to
the importance of counting on a pedagogic sequence
that provides the students guidance about the reading
materials and the texts they need to write on the specic
subject. Carlino (2005) has pointed out that, in most
cases, the writing tasks are linked to the assessment
of the content learning. Based on Halliday’s learning
theory mentioned earlier, the PROLEA proposes that
not only reading but also writing play part on both
understanding and learning the course contents.
Consequently, devoting teaching time to enhance
students’ development of literacy becomes necessary.
Since reading and writing activities are carried out
while teaching the subject contents, one of the points
of the agreement would be that the subject professors,
who select the readings, not only will provide detailed
reading guidelines including questions for the students
to resolve, but also will anticipate the content of the texts
to read (Rose & Martin, 2012). e PROLEA professor
will take part of the classes specially to guide the students
in the writing task. For those instances, the professional
peers will select texts that would serve as writing models.
So, the rst activity will be the Joint Deconstruction of
a text. is task requires identifying genre stages and
phases on the text (Martin & Rose, 2007), carrying out
a detailed reading that allows also the identication of
160 Estela Inés Moyano and Jacqueline Giudice, Negotiation Between Professional Peers:...
linguistic resources of the discipline. In order to make
this happen, the texts should be adequate to the subject
and class level, either written by subject matter experts
or produced by former students. Regarding the writing
task, it is important to guide the writing plan or text
design and to carry out Joint Writing activities every
time a new academic language resource is taught, such
as abstraction, grammatical metaphor, or projection in
academic texts. Having Joint Editing classes to work on
the text produced by the students will allow, on the one
hand, to re-enforce the learning process of the particular
genre and the discourse of the discipline, and on the
other hand, the editing work itself, a key practice for
expert writing that can only be learned through explicit
teaching. is is how reading and writing will integrate
the course development by adding to content learning,
and at the same time, it will contribute by teaching skills
needed not only to have a good academic performance,
but also to perform future professional activities that
will imply reading and writing.
* Planning reading and writing activities across the
subject matter. e activities mentioned earlier need
to be distributed in the available moments throughout
the course duration. Many professors may consider
them as a waste of time against teaching the actual
course contents, which only re-enforces the need to
explain the role of language in any learning process
and work on agreements about this. e negotiation
between peers plays a key part on determining which
would be the most accurate moments to carry out
the Program activities. ese activities need to be
conceived by the subject matter professor as related to
the function of teaching contents. e support obtained
and, consequently, the students’ acceptance of a work
method that seems to be strange to the context depends
on this mutual agreement. Any decision should be
added to both the Program and the course syllabus and
schedule, so they become formal agreements.
* Identifying and characterizing genres to be
produced by the students in the subject matter. e
requirements that the students’ productions need to
meet in the dierent moments for writing production
have to be perfectly dened along the course outline.
is activity is key for the negotiation between
professional peers, and the PROLEA professor plays a
main role here. As pointed out by Martin & Rose (2008),
within a framework of teaching through written genres,
it is the linguist’s responsibility to describe these genres
in all strata of language and context. Even though the
linguist is able to provide assistance, the subject matter
professor is responsible for identifying which genre
within the specic disciplinary culture is relevant for
student production in the context of the course. If the
students are asked to produce macro-genres (Eggins &
Martin, 2003) in which the elemental genres described
by the theory could be identied (Martin & Rose,
2008), investing time to teach these elemental genres
during the rst years of the degree becomes important.
e PROLEA professor has the responsibility to help
the subject matter professor to contextualize the
academic and professional genres, by posing questions
that bring into focus the issues most relevant to the
cultural context. During the lessons, the results of this
contextualization will be presented to the students by the
subject professors, in order to provide legitimacy to this
practice, at the same time as the interdisciplinary work
is brought into light. e contextualization relates to
who produces the genre at stake, to whom it is addressed
and the hierarchical relation between interactants, the
purpose pursued and the social activities they carry
out. is information helps to control the descriptions
made by the PROLEA professors, especially when they
work with professional genres only available within the
real eld of professional activity. In most of these cases,
actual models cannot be obtained (Moyano, 2012b), so
linguists need to rely in the experience of the subject
professors with those genres. e PROLEA professors
will be in charge of leading the Joint Deconstruction
and Join Editing activities with the students.
* Elaboration of guidelines and rubrics. Another
function of the negotiation between professors is to
make agreements about the documents that will be
used for tasks’ assignment and evaluation. Since the
reading and writing guidelines are oen given orally
(Giudice, Godoy & Moyano, 2016), an agreement
about the need of providing detailed written guidelines
to accurately orient students is another step of this
strategy. Following Bernstein (1990), who remarks that
161
Ilha do Desterro v. 69, nº3, p. 157-172, Florianópolis, set/dez 2016
in a visible pedagogy the criteria used for assessment
are explicit, the elaboration of rubrics is very important.
e PROLEA professor is in charge of this work,
considering genre characteristics to be taught in each
class. During negotiation, the course professors will
judge and share the evaluation criteria that will be
used, ensuring also that only the contents taught will
be evaluated. Key points related to the subject matter
content may be added to the rubric. ese documents
(guidelines and rubrics) will be also useful for the Joint
Editing, and as orientation for the Independent Editing
for the last version of each written production.
As mentioned before, the negotiation between
professional peers is recurrent. A single instance
before starting the teaching process in the classroom
should not be expected to be sucient to reach
and maintain agreement. e documents that will
be shared with the students will also emerge from
negotiation. ese documents are the schedule of
reading and writing, guidelines, genre descriptions
and rubrics. To elaborate these documents will require
more than one encounter. Also, in many cases, during
the rst Program implementations on a given subject,
agreement adjustments will be required, as subject
matter professors become used to these innovations.
Negotiation as a way of conict resolution
e practice developed within university studies,
as any other human practice, follows some rituals. It
ts a certain habitus (Bourdieu, 1996; 1999), built by
both professors and students, related to certain ways
of behaving during teaching-learning processes inside
the university classrooms. An academic reading and
writing program such as PROLEA challenges that
habitus, generating some resistance in the participants
involved. For instance, some of the professors of specic
subjects that join the program resist changing the way
of teaching contents, which oen takes the form of
lecture classes. Also they may resist the proposal of
applying a pedagogic device of genre-based literacy, as a
resource for teaching the subject contents and adequate
communicational skills development for both academic
and professional contexts. Furthermore, they may
consider intrusive the presence of an external professor
that may jeopardize their classes. e students feel this
proposal as an additional eort and until they have their
rst satisfying experience they also show resistance.
is is why the negotiation between professional
peers becomes a critical strategy. e way that this
practice is carried out is crucial and requires special
attention from the PROLEA professor. While the
PROLEA professor proactively presents the proposals
and the relevant theoretical base and experiences, s/
he also has to acknowledge the responsibility and
prominence of the subject professors to carry out their
own work. is extremely delicate balance to maintain
is key to the success of a program such as PROLEA.
It is important to clarify that habitus reects
internal dispositions that may accept modications
when the context for the production of inner schemes
changes (Bourdieu, 2006; Tovillas, 2010). is is how
the change of positions and attitudes can be obtained
towards the activities carried out for teaching contents
through genres. is is the essential function of the
strategy called negotiation between professional peers.
To meet the objectives established is key to conform a
solid team, in which every professor has its own role, a
role previously agreed on.
Some authors have pointed out that institutional
support is fundamental to accomplish success in
teaching academic and professional literacies across
the university curriculum (UNLu, 2001; Carlino, 2005;
Bazerman, personal communication, 2007). Some
experiences of implementation of literacy programs of
this type (Moyano, 2010; 2011b; Moyano & Natale, 2012;
Moyano & Godoy, 2015) have proven how accurate this
statement is. Having a successful negotiation process
between the Program Coordinator and the University
authorities increases the odds of maintaining processes
of negotiation between professors. Just as counting on
the support of the subject matter professor becomes
a positive inuence in the students’ acceptance of
work with a genre-base pedagogy, so also the superior
management authorities’ support facilitates a process
in which the negotiation between professional peers
gains importance and reaches better agreements as
time passes. However, the acceptance of the device
162 Estela Inés Moyano and Jacqueline Giudice, Negotiation Between Professional Peers:...
is not always immediate: having it installed properly
and showing results requires several instances, being
accomplished aer a few implementations of the
Program in each subject matter.
e institution authorities’ support, the strategy
used by the Program’s participants, the passing of time
and the repeated implementations will be the factors
that will lead to gradually transforming these new
practices into a new habitus.
Two cases of negotiation between professional
peers: the promotion of evolution in teaching
academic and professional literacies
e purpose of this part of the paper is to exemplify
the negotiation between professional peers and its impact
in learning, with two cases of implementation held at
the degree of Psychology at UFLO. ese narratives can
function as a contribution to the installation of Programs
of this kind in other universities.
Case One
is rst scenario of negotiation between peers
comes from a course from the freshman year for the
Psychology degree. Since the course is required on the
rst half of the year, all its attendees have just begun
their college studies. e students in this course,
therefore, are considered the most vulnerable group
in reading and writing skills and performance needed
to pass the course, particularly since UFLO does not
provide any preparatory course in academic literacy.
is subject matter is 64 hours long.
Initial situation
Even though the professors of this subject had
established enhancing literacy skills as an objective, the
way they approached this task did not have the desired
result. During 2012, the students made two written
productions: an individual examination and a nal
written work in groups. e rst evaluation consisted of
a multiple-choice exam, with the addition of one or two
questions that needed further written development. e
questions aimed at evaluating the reading of the required
texts, which consisted exclusively of popularized science
books written by experts in the discipline. Although
students were advised to read the complete books, only
a selection of chapters was agged as mandatory. e
material was photocopied and compiled into booklets
with chapters from dierent books, dierent styles of
texts written by various authors, omitting publication
information. is way of organizing the reading material
promotes fragment reading, out of context and with no
hierarchical order. e teaching method for each lesson
consisted mainly in a presentation by the professor,
assisted by slideshows as teaching support. ese slides
were handed to the students, despite the resistance of
the head teacher, who admitted that most students were
“tempted to study only from the slideshow, instead of
the actual text” (Giudice, Godoy & Moyano, 2016).
e second writing work required by the end of
the course was made collaboratively in groups, and the
products were evaluated by the subject professors as poor.
During the interview, the subject professors showed
lack of genre and linguistic awareness, as already found
on prior studies (Moyano, 2009). In fact, the teachers
described this activity as “a written work”. In SFL theory,
this expression refers only to the mode of the text,
not to the genre it instantiates. is is to say that this
expression doesn’t allow to identify a genre according
to Martin & Rose (2008), i.e., to assign a purpose and a
schematic structure to it. When the PROLEA professor
asked about the main characteristics of the text, the
subject teachers classied it as a sort of report, the
result of a group investigation in which students were
required to link theoretical concepts with statements
obtained by conducting interviews. e teachers did
not make clear what was expected from those texts, nor
gave any reference to put in context this work within a
specic academic or professional practice. ere was
no description regarding the schematic structure and
language resources, nor models to show to the students.
Work instructions were provided orally and by dierent
professors, a fact that explains the dierent outcomes and
results that the subject professors described as “poor”.
Consequently, they decided to grade the papers with
a “concept grade” instead of an actual grade (Giudice,
Godoy & Moyano, 2016).
163
Ilha do Desterro v. 69, nº3, p. 157-172, Florianópolis, set/dez 2016
e analysis by the PROLEA professor of a sample
of papers written by students conrmed the subject
professors’ impression. Among them, some texts only
presented the interviews and a summary of the dierent
theories based mostly on the slides presented in class,
without reaching the main objective of the work: to
analyze the statements obtained using a theoretical
framework. Introductions were omitted; those texts
which had a conclusion presented basically a personal
opinion on the course experience or about conducting
interviews, but no mention of the phenomenon
observed or its signicance. ey were written in
informal language, far from the academic. References
were either absent or incomplete.
Evolution of the negotiation between profes-
sional peers
* First implementation.
e Program was linked to the subject in 2013,
aer the students sat for mid-term exams and received
the rst guidelines for the nal written work. e
subject matter team of professors was conformed by
two teachers, who were distributed in three shis. In
negotiation between peers, the professors established
the Program’s intervention to assist with the nal
written work.
e PROLEA professor observed a few classes and
met with the faculty members to agree on the genre.
She recommended placing the working guidelines in an
academic context: a workshop for which the students
needed to elaborate a paper on a research and present
it in a few minutes. It was intended to nd a model to
present to the students but none was found, since the
texts already published were too dicult to reach for
the students according to the level of their writing
development (i.e., too far from the zone of proximal
development), and those produced by former students
did not meet the expectations of the subject professors.
Consequently, the teacher partners described in
negotiation the genre and produced the guidelines that
would also serve as a sort of contract for evaluation.
In this contract, there was explicit instruction about
the academic kind of work that had to be done and
the genre was specied: a paper reporting on a brief
research task. e genre was described following Martin
& Rose (2008): the stages were dened (Introduction,
Development, Conclusions), along with a brief
explanation for the dierent minor text units or phases
(mandatory or optional) that were to be incorporated
into each text. e document contained the formal
requirements and due date. Also the guidelines for the
bibliography section were handed in.
e PROLEA professor presented the guidelines
to the students with the presence of the subject
professors. Since the students had already conducted
the interviews on which to base their investigations,
they used the opportunity to try out a possible analysis,
and requested further details to elaborate this analysis.
e subject matter professors were able to intervene in
the discussion to specify the technical aspects, and the
PROLEA professor explained some discourse features
of academic texts. e students also inquired about
how to elaborate the bibliography section accordingly.
is request from the students triggered the subject
professors to review the way in which the readings
were presented to the class and made them decide to
include the due references. However, this was done the
following year.
On this rst implementation, it was not possible to
fulll all the methodology requirements of the genre-
based pedagogy. ere was no text to serve as a model
for Joint Deconstruction, and the subject professors
refused to give time to perform Joint Editing classes.
Strategically, the PROLEA professor oered to assist
students in their text-editing via e-mail, although such
a procedure is not recommended for several reasons
(cf. Moyano, 2010). e students participated willingly,
and their production improved compared to the rst
dras and the texts produced in prior years--results that
the subject professors also noticed. Most students were
able to produce texts adequate to the genre requested.
Introduction, Development and Conclusions were
dierentiated and References were included. However,
the language used was quite informal, and when
academic or scientic language was incorporated it was
a transcription from the reading materials presented in
class. is was pointed out as an issue by the PROLEA
164 Estela Inés Moyano and Jacqueline Giudice, Negotiation Between Professional Peers:...
professor in the negotiation. is situation triggered the
need of having Joint Editing classes to guide the students
through scientic language resources and also the need
to diversify the reading materials containing the specic
language and concepts that students should learn.
* Second implementation
e following year, the negotiation between
professional peers was held at the rst meeting of
the subject matter professor’s team, which indicated
signicant progress. When discussing the reading
materials selection, two were set aside for the PROLEA
professor’s analysis: an article pulled out from a
specialized journal and a paper presented by a subject
matter expert. Another achievement of the negotiation
was that the head professor’s mandate omitting
multiple-choice questions in the exams, and adding
questions requiring students to relate theories and
concepts. A teacher showed concern about the amount
of workload resulting from this methodology change.
However, the head professor based the decision on the
need of testing the students’ full comprehension of the
reading materials along with providing them a chance
to improve their writing skills. Based on prior years’
experience, the head professor also communicated the
decision of not sharing the slideshows used in class
with the students. Another point was the importance of
preparing students for the assessments. e head teacher
asked faculty members to prepare questionnaires
about the reading materials to serve as a study guide.
In addition, the rst PROLEA’s intervention was set,
a class to work on the Deconstruction of answers to
exam questions. A second, and even more important,
intervention was arranged: the Program would
intervene in the preparation of the nal required paper.
It was agreed that the guidelines prepared during the
previous year would be handed in to the students
in advance. e document was reviewed and edited
considering students’ previous performances. e
PROLEA professor insisted in the need to present a
model and also requested conducting classes on Joint
Editing. Despite some teachers’ resistance, arguing lack
of time, the head professor agreed on two meetings for
the Joint Editing, to be added to the schedule.
During the PROLEA intervention, guidelines for
the nal paper were presented. e students worked in
groups to write their papers and sent their dras to the
PROLEA professor. In a new negotiation, she agreed
with the more committed subject professors to perform
two classes of Joint Editing. Before these classes,
some fragments of the students’ texts were selected
to discuss with the group in a Joint Editing. During
these encounters, the joint work was oriented towards
bringing these texts closer to the genre and type of
language requested. However, the interaction was more
active via e-mail than inside the classroom. ere were
cases in which dras were sent over three times. is
caused a high workload to the PROLEA professor, who
once the course ended reminded the subject professors
why this kind of correction was not included in the
Programs methodology (Moyano, 2010). at year,
oral expositions and written reports showed a notable
improvement compared with the production of the
previous course. ere was also an evolution from
the dras to the nal versions in terms of genre and
disciplinary language (Giudice, 2014). e papers
produced served as model for future implementations.
* ird implementation.
As said before, during 2015, UFLO’s Superior
Council made the Program ocial, extending it to
all the University, which showed progress regarding
its acceptance by University authorities, resulting in
acceptance by the rest of the community (Moyano,
2011b).
During the rst meeting of negotiation between
peers, the subject matter professors included on the
subject syllabus a note indicating that the PROLEA
was involved. is made explicit the interdisciplinary
methodology among the students and naturalized it.
e subject professors planned the reading activities
according to the recommendation proposed before:
the mandatory texts selection was more diverse,
reading comprehension activities were designed,
and a questionnaire to provide orientation for the
assessments was also included. e moment in the
course established for the PROLEA intervention was
in time to assist with the nal paper. e guidelines
165
Ilha do Desterro v. 69, nº3, p. 157-172, Florianópolis, set/dez 2016
provided in previous years were revised, and then
expanded adding a list of references to help with
grammar and language issues, proper quotation use,
etc. Another signicant improvement was the addition
of three interventions conducted by PROLEA, to carry
out Joint Deconstruction and Joint Editing activities.
Both working guidelines and the schedule for
PROLEA’s intervention were available to students as
part of the subject syllabus since the rst day of classes.
is established beforehand the requirements to pass the
course. Another relevant change aer the negotiation
between peers is that the paper would be graded,
which elevated the importance of the task. Even though
student’s participation through email dra sending was
optional, it was also claried that for the nal grade
all PROLEA’s consultation about the evolution of the
written productions would be taken into account.
In addition, the head professor presented the
PROLEA to the students. She summarized the
advantages of implementing the Program based on her
own experience, telling how she struggled as a student
to solve diculties at the time with reading and writing
academic texts without any help. She mentioned the
importance of having these kinds of programs as part
of the institutional policies and highlighted that having
PROLEA raised the status of UFLO among other
Universities. is kind of support generated a good work
environment in those shis where PROLEA intervened.
During that semester the basic activities of genre
pedagogy took place: Joint Deconstruction and Joint
Editing. e rst one was conducted when guidelines
and instructions were presented. Preselected text
fragments of generic models were read out loud and
the students received orientation in interaction to nd
alternative ways to organize the text content validated
trough scientic knowledge. e students were led to
identify genre steps and phases of the genre (Martin
& Rose, 2007) and to identify academic language
resources. In this opportunity two or three Joint Editing
classes took place, depending on the group of students.
ese interventions were a key moment on the overall
Program implementation. ey were conducted in the
classroom with the subject professor’s help to clarify
theory concepts. Before the class was over, the students
were asked to review their own writing productions by
applying what was learned and to re-send a new dra.
e PROLEA professor elaborated a new guideline
including what was agreed with the students. During
the next meetings dierent dras were jointly edited,
and there was a nal correction to each individually
via e-mail a week before the due date. is correction
contained precise instruction for Independent Editing.
e use of this methodology was a great
breakthrough compared to prior implementations. is
change was possible thanks to the improvements in the
negotiation between professional peers: the professors
were more aware of the importance of the language
when teaching a discipline. Far from considering this
task “a waste of time”, professors oered their active
participation in these classes to review concepts that
seemed confusing, proposing new formulations and
new readings for the bibliographic materials. Students
were able to conclude their writing process successfully.
ere was a high level of participation, and even those
students who had greater diculties at rst achieved
great progress (Moyano & Giudice, forthcoming).
e nal grade on this paper was remarkably
better than the grades on the mid-term exams,
leaving a positive appreciation of the Program among
the students. Also faculty members made a positive
evaluation of the experience, by pointing out that thanks
to this activity students achieved a comprehensive
understanding of the theories and objects of study.
Likewise, the incorporation of technical language was
better than through standard examination.
Case Two
e second scenario is a freshman subject matter
for the second semester, 64 hours long.
Initial Situation
is course used a textbook produced ad hoc by the
head subject professor as its single bibliographic source.
During an interview in 2012 to carry out the research
mentioned before, the head subject professor made
clear that this book aimed at guiding, summarizing
and explaining in straightforward language all items on
166 Estela Inés Moyano and Jacqueline Giudice, Negotiation Between Professional Peers:...
the course syllabus, which was considered extremely
long by other teachers of the course. Even though this
professor admitted the problem of not having primary
sources, this had no resolution due to lack of time
(Giudice, Godoy & Moyano, 2016).
As assessment, until 2012 the subject professors
assigned two exams and a “written work” to be done
over the course of the semester. is practice shows the
same lack of genre and linguistic awareness noticed in
the initial situation of Case One. Later inquiries helped
to determine that the instructor wanted students to be
able to analyze and interpret a clinical diagnosis using
dierent theories and approaches.
As shown in Giudice, Godoy & Moyano (2016),
professors were unable to provide students with
clear instructions to carry out the required writing
tasks. Although the required genre is very frequent
in professional life, the subject professors neither
contextualized it for the students nor gave them any
description or useful models. e unique guideline was
a list of questions to help orient the analysis. is led
students to produce plain answers to those questions,
as if lling out a questionnaire.
During the interviews the subject’s head professor
was able to understand that the lack of precision
regarding genre has an impact on the students’
productions. is is why these interviews not only
provided ethnographic information, but also triggered
a reection and exchange process that set the ground
for the Program implementation (Giudice, Godoy &
Moyano, 2013; 2016).
Evolution of the negotiation between professional peers
* First intervention
In the second half of 2013, when the pilot of the
Program started, the subject head professor himself
requested support from PROLEA in the course. e
peer negotiation process started with the three subject
matter professors, who, coordinated by the head, take
over one section on dierent shis.
Before starting the semester, during the process of
negotiation, the PROLEA intervention was set to assist
with the nal assessment in three moments throughout
the semester. e PROLEA professor proposed to
determine the genre required for the production. She
advised to integrate what was called “written work” into
a cohesive text, to be produced at dierent stages, but also
to be recognizable as a socially established genre, and
not as just a mere response to dierent questionnaires.
It was quite dicult to have the subject professors aware
of the importance of the genre itself, especially because
they claimed to pay attention only to content.
e PROLEA professor reinforced the importance
of delimiting the work instructions within a real
context of a professional situation in which the students
will participate in the future. It was agreed to consider
the text required as a paper for a conference, in which
the students had to present the analysis of a case from
dierent perspectives.
A model of the genre to deconstruct was also
sought, but none was available. Just as in Case One, the
texts found in specialized journals were too far from
the experience of the students, and the productions by
former students were unsatisfactory. e participants
agreed to elaborate a guideline for the students. In this
document, the genre and its features were explained
according to Martin & Rose (2008): the stages were
delimited (Introduction, Development, Conclusions),
along with a brief explanation for the dierent phases
of each stage. Since the subject professors showed
resistance to quit using the questionnaires, they were
integrated to orient students to do the analysis and
organize the structure of the Development stage.
e guidelines stated also that students should
write the Introduction and the dierent parts of the
Development to meet three deadlines following a
tentative schedule, having the opportunity of being
guided by the subject professors in adjusting the
concepts applied to the analysis. PROLEA would join
this process by oering the students the option of
submitting their dras two weeks before presentation.
e due date for the nal presentation was established.
e PROLEA professor committed to conduct a brief
Joint Editing class a week aer receiving student’s dras
but the lack of xed schedules had a negative impact on
this objective. In fact every intervention of the Program
had to be negotiated with each subject professor with
167
Ilha do Desterro v. 69, nº3, p. 157-172, Florianópolis, set/dez 2016
dierent outcomes. In the rst intervention it was only
possible for two of the three sections to present the
guidelines to the students.
e subject professors proposed the task to the
students and outlined the theoretical framework. e
PROLEA professor described the communicative
situation for the paper and announced the methodology
proposal of the Program. In one of the sections the
professor in charge was not able to participate in
the negotiation and was not aware of the Program
intervention. He found out about the new working
methodology at the same time as his students, even
though he had a positive reaction, and publicly
valued this new way of work as “very interesting”. is
situation generated a slight feeling of discomfort among
the students. is setback shows the importance of
including every professor involved when the negotiation
between professional peers takes place.
Two of the three groups of students sent their dras
by email to the PROLEA professor. ese texts showed
serious issues for genre realization. In fact, they were
merely the transcripts of the answers of the questions
provided to guide the analysis, which in most cases
consisted of quoting the textbook.
A Joint Editing class was conducted, paying
attention to the guidelines. Some of the students’ texts
submitted were edited, turning them into a cohesive text,
demonstrating how to construct one section within the
Development. However, one of the subject professors
admitted that she had already accepted and corrected
the papers, claiming that “the content was ne”. Here it
was necessary to re-negotiate with her and remind her
of the agreements reached and the commitment to keep
them with the students.
In the next instance, the students still showed issues
in adequately understanding the genre. Many fullled
the Development stage by merely elaborating a chart.
e following intervention was devoted to explaining
the proper use of the multimodal function in this kind
of text and to lead them through the Joint Editing.
ese two interventions took place in a very
narrow time frame in two of the three existing sections.
In the section that the students had already showed
their discomfort, they asked “not to be disturbed”
by the Program. en, the head professor decided to
accept this demand. is situation shows again how a
poor negotiation process impacts negatively and how
the most resistant students tend to agree with those
teachers who refuse PROLEA’s proposal.
Leaving this section aside, most students
participated by sending their dras at least once. As it
was not possible to negotiate more Joint Editing classes,
the assistance was provided via email, regardless of
the concerns already mentioned (Moyano, 2010),
hoping that by enhancing writing skills the Program’s
acceptance would be greater in the future.
is way the students were able to produce a case
analysis with a length between 15 to 20 pages. Some
of these texts were close to reaching a professional
level and were selected as genre models for future
implementations. e subject professors mentioned
that the current productions were “more legible” than
those of prior years, and showed their satisfaction with
this progress.
* Second intervention
e following year PROLEA was not renewed,
despite the fact that it was requested by the Psychology
degree Director. When the class period started, the
students requested PROLEA’s intervention again since
they had a good experience in the course mentioned as
Case One.
Halfway through the semester, the head professor
sent via e-mail the guidelines negotiated the prior year
to produce a paper of case analysis. It was not until that
moment that the PROLEA’s teacher could start working,
proposing a new negotiation, but the head professor
allowed each professor to decide by themselves the
actions to follow. Consequently, each subject professor
agreed with the PROLEA partner to dedicate one class
for Deconstruction and two for Joint Editing.
For the Deconstruction class, the genre was
presented, with its stages and phases, by using as example
the models obtained in the prior implementation. e
linguistic realization was successfully accomplished
– with special focus on citations – and multimodal
resources were discussed. Having the chance to observe
with an example how to analyze and apply dierent
168 Estela Inés Moyano and Jacqueline Giudice, Negotiation Between Professional Peers:...
theories and concepts helped the students to discuss
theories and concepts involved, which was also helpful
with their upcoming mid-term exams. is instance
reinforced the idea that Deconstruction implies
teamwork between the PROLEA and the subject matter
professors. is activity was carried out in all the sections
of the course and had positive impact on the students’
texts, compared to the prior year. However, the Joint
Editing classes agreed upon could only be done partially,
and so were complemented with e-mail exchanges.
ere was a remarkable change of attitude from
the professor who did not participate in the Program
the year before. While presenting the PROLEA in
the classroom, he was surprisingly enthusiastic. He
shared his own experience as a doctoral student, and
the challenges he faced at the time of producing the
writings requested as a consequence of not having a
better training in this respect. As analyzed in previous
studies (Moyano, 2009, 2010) and seen in Case One,
when the professor changes attitude it has a positive
impact on students. Unlike the previous year, when that
section was excluded from the Program, this time this
was the only one able to carry out Joint Editing classes,
in which the subject matter professor also participated,
helping to solve conceptual confusions and the use of
technical lexicon accurately. Students were required to
execute the Independent Editing of their text applying
what was worked on in the classroom.
e high level of commitment of that section was
translated as a positive evolution of the students’ papers
(Giudice, 2015). e professor thanked PROLEA’s
intervention in front of the students, pointing out the
notable dierence of the texts’ quality compared to the
prior year’s production without PROLEA’s participation.
* ird intervention
In 2015, when the semester was about to begin,
and considering the prior communication issues,
the Coordinator of PROLEA requested a negotiation
meeting with the subject’s head teacher, the Psychology
degree Director and the Program’s professor. e
Program’s participation was re-negotiated. e head
professor showed his concerns and proposed carrying
out the interventions exclusively via e-mail, due to
lack of time and because the classroom interventions
“irritated” some students. He also said that this attitude
might be due to “fatigue”, since the students had already
had the experience of working with the Program in the
subject mentioned as Case One. He wondered then if it
was necessary “to insist again” on teaching literacy.
e PROLEA’s Coordinator explained both the
epistemological and methodological basis of the
proposal, why genre work is recurrent, since in every
case dierent text types were required, and that it
is not possible to achieve managing disciplinary
language in only one intervention. She explained why
Deconstruction and Joint Editing classes were needed.
e Psychology degree Director also reminded him
that PROLEA had acquired institutional status, with
the objective to develop literacy skills among UFLO’s
students. e subject matter professor who had a good
experience the past year spontaneously defended the
Program. He highlighted its value and originality and
also emphasized the notable improvement in students’
writing productions.
During this negotiation, then, the head professor
accepted a new implementation and agreed to have
one class for model Deconstruction and two for Joint
Editing. E-mail corrections could only be done with the
last dra before the nal work, one week before its due
date. e PROLEA professor requested to establish a
schedule in advance and to add it to the guidelines.
at year all planned activities took place. e
students got the chance to rewrite their dras and
practice Independent Editing from what they had
learned at Joint Editing classes.
Aer this process, the nal works reached their best
level. is conrms the hypothesis that Joint Editing
classes sustained for more than a single semester
allow Independent Editing routines to be established
that tend to improve the use of disciplinary language
resources even when the genres are dierent.
Final Remarks
e present paper presents a strategy called
“negotiation between professional peers” or
“negotiation between teaching partners”, considered
169
Ilha do Desterro v. 69, nº3, p. 157-172, Florianópolis, set/dez 2016
critical for an Academic Reading and Writing
Program that proposes interdisciplinary work across
the university studies, and inside their core subjects.
First, a description of the device was oered, pointing
out all the agreements that the professors involved
needed to establish in order to obtain a good outcome
from modifying traditional teaching practices. e
functions of these agreements were pointed out, along
with their value and also the challenges that emerge
and the need of institutional support.
is strategy should benet the construction
of a solid team, that allows teaching subject contents
through genres, this is to say, in Halliday’s (2004) words,
learning through language as well as learning about
disciplinary language and its proper use for social
purposes. e main objective is to favor the students’
development of academic and professional literacies,
so they can access the new content with better results
along with better social practices through discourse.
Secondly, two experiences of negotiation between
professional peers and its eect on the PROLEA
implementation for each case were presented. In both,
the progress and setbacks are visible, as part of the
device installment process and addressing challenges to
accomplish the Program’s objectives. e paper makes
evident also the value that the negotiation between
peers has for the development of students’ skills and
how this evidence emerged through the evolution of
the quality of their written text as well as their attitude
towards the proposed tasks.
It is of relevance to acknowledge that both PROLEA
and the subject matter professors learn during this
process. e rst group learns new genres and how
they are used in context, gets specialization in the
discourse of dierent disciplines, and learns negotiation
techniques with a theoretical basis. e second group
becomes more aware of the value that the academic
and professional genres have as social practices and
their realization through the discipline’s own language,
which has been called “genre awareness” and “linguistic
awareness” (Moyano, 2009). is awareness will
expand for both those who did not previously have it
and those who had it partially. ey gain also a better
comprehension of the role that literacy plays in content
learning and its value, in a way that modies their
teaching practices, providing students the resources to
be able to carry out independent learning in the future.
Finally, the negotiation between peers contributes
to a new institutional habitus, which allows new
ways of teaching subject contents and academic and
professional literacy skills.
Notes
1. is work has been produced in the frame of a
research Project conducted at and nanced by the
Universidad de Flores (UFLO), directed by Estela I.
Moyano: “Seguimiento y evaluación del impacto de un
programa de lectura y escritura académica a lo largo de
una carrera universitaria”.
2. “Discurso disciplinar y géneros en la enseñanza
universitaria de la psicología y el derecho”, investigation
conducted at and nanced by the University of Flores
(UFLO), directed by Estela I. Moyano.
References
Banks, D. (2008). e Development of Scientic Writing.
Linguistic Features and Historical Context. London:
Equinox.
Bazerman, Ch.; Bonini, A & Figueredo, D. (Eds.). (2009).
Genre in a changing world. Colorado/Indiana: Parlor
Press and WAC Clearinghouse.
Bazerman, Ch.; Krut, R.; Lunsford, K; McLeod, S.; Null,
S.; Rogers, P.; Stansell, A. (Eds.). (2010). Traditions of
Writing Research. New York/London: Routledge.
Bawarshi, A.S. & Rei, M.J. (2010). Genre. An Introduction
to History, eory, Research and Pedagogy. Colorado/
Indiana: Parlor Press and WAC Clearinghouse.
Bernstein, B. (1990). Class, Codes and Control, Vol 4. e
structuring of Pedagogic Discourse. London: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (1996). Cosas Dichas. Barcelona: Gedisa.
Bourdieu, P. (1999). Meditaciones Pascalianas. Barcelona:
Anagrama.
Bourdieu, P. (2006). Argelia 60. Estructuras económicas y
estructuras temporales. Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI.
Carlino, P. (2005). Escribir, leer y aprender en la universidad.
Una introducción a la afabetización académica. Buenos
Aires: FCE.
Carlino, P. (Ed.) (2006). Procesos y Prácticas de
Escritura en la Educación Superior. Signo & Seña
N° 16, 71-118. Buenos Aires: Facultad de Filosofía
y Letras, Universidad de Buenos Aires. http://www.
escrituraylectura.com.ar/posgrado/revistas/SyS16.pdf
170 Estela Inés Moyano and Jacqueline Giudice, Negotiation Between Professional Peers:...
Con, C., Curry, M. J., Goodman, S., Hewings, A., Lillis,
T. M., & Swann, J. (2003). Teaching academic writing: A
toolkit for higher education. New York: Routledge.
Con, C. & Donahue, J.P. (Eds.) (2012). English for
Academic Purposes: Contributions from Systemic
Functional Linguistics and Academic Literacies.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes, Volume 11,
Issue 1, 1-78.
Eggins, S. & Martin, J.R. (2003). El Contexto como
Género: Una Perspectiva Lingüístico-funcional.
Revista Signos, 36(54), 185-205.
Fulwiler, T. & Young, A. (1982). Language connections.
Writing and reading across the curriculum. Illinois:
NCTE.
Giudice, J. (2014). El proceso de apropiación del lenguaje
disciplinar en el inicio de los estudios universitarios:
análisis evolutivo de casos. VI Congreso Internacional
Transformaciones culturales. Debates de la teoría, la
crítica y la lingüística, Bs As, 25 al 29 noviembre.
______. (2015). Incidencia de un programa de
alfabetización académica en la escritura por parte de
los alumnos. XXII Congreso Internacional de Educación
y Aprendizaje,Madrid, España, 9 al 11 de julio.
Giudice, J.; Godoy, M.; Moyano, E.I. (2013). Discurso
y sustentabilidad social: géneros discursivos en la
enseñanza universitaria de la psicología y el derecho.
In Kerman, B. & Michelini, G. (Comp.) Impacto
de la investigación sobre la Sustentabilidad Social y
Ambiental, 109-122. Buenos Aires: Universidad de
Flores.
______. (2016). Prácticas de Lectura y Escritura en el
Marco de la Enseñanza de la Psicología: Avances de
una Investigación Interdisciplinaria. Revista Mexicana
de Investigación Educativa 21 (69), 501-526.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1993). Towards a Language-based
eory of Learning. Linguistics and Education, 5, 93-
116.
______. (2004). ree aspects of Children Language:
Learning Language, Learning through Language
and Learning about Language. In Webster, J.J. (Ed.)
e Language of Early Childhood. Collected Works of
M.A.K. Halliday. Vol 4, 308-326. London: Continuum.
Halliday, M.A.K. & Martin, J.R. (1993). Writing science:
Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh: University of
Pittsburgh Press.
Hood, S. (2010). Appraising Research. Evaluation in
Academic Writing. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hyland, K. & Hamp Lyons, L. (2002) EAP: Issues and
Directions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,
1 (2002), 1-12.
Hyon, S. (1996). Genre in ree Traditions: Implications
for ESL. TESOL Quarterly 30(4), 693-722.
Lillis, .; Harrington, K.; Lea, M. & Mitchell, S.
(2015). Working With Academic Literacies: Case
Studies Towards Transformative Practice. Perspectives
on Writing. Fort Collins, Colorado: e WAC
Clearinghouse and Parlor Press.
Martin, J.R. (1999). Mentoring semogenesis: ‘genre-based’
literacy pedagogy. In Christie, F. (Ed.). Pedagogy and
the Shaping of Consciousness: linguistic and social
processes, 123-155. London: Cassell (Open Linguistics
Series).
Martin J.R. & Rose D. (2007). Working with Discourse.
Meaning Beyond the Clause. 2nd Ed. London:
Continuum.
Martin J.R. & Rose, D. (2008). Genre Relations. Mapping
culture. London: Equinox.
Martin, J.R. & Veel, R. (Eds.). (1998). Reading science.
London: Routledge.
McLeod, S. & Soven, M. (1992). Writing Across the
Curriculum: A Guide to Developing Programs.
Newbury Park, CA: Sags Publications.
Molina Natera, V. (2014) Centros de Escritura: Una Mirada
Retrospectiva para Entender el Presente y Futuro de
estos Programas en el Contexto Latinoamericano.
Revista Legenda 18(18), 9-33. http://erevistas.saber.
ula.ve/index.php/legenda/article/view/5205/5001
Moyano, E.I. (2004). La Escritura Académica: Una
Tarea Interdisciplinaria a lo largo de la Curricula
Universitaria. Revista Texturas 4 (4), 109-120.
______. (2007). Enseñanza de Habilidades Discursivas
en Español en Contexto Pre-universitario: Una
Aproximación desde la LSF. Revista Signos 40(65),
573- 608. http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_
arttext&pid=S0718-09342007000300009&lng=es&nr
m=iso
______. (2009). Negotiating Genre: Lecturer’s Awareness
in Genre Across the Curriculum Project at the
University Level. In Bazerman, Ch., Bonini, A. &
Figueiredo, D. Genre in a Changing World. Perspectives
on Writing, 449-464. Fort Collins, Colorado: e WAC
Clearinghouse and Parlor Press.
______. (2010). Escritura Académica a lo largo de la Carrera:
Un Programa Institucional. Revista Signos, 43(74),
465-488. http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_
issuetoc&pid=0718-093420100005&lng=es&nrm=iso
______. (2011a). Deconstrucción y Edición Conjuntas en
la enseñanza de la escritura: La reexión sobre género
y discurso en la formación académica y profesional”.
In Anais VI Simpósio Internacional de Estudios de
171
Ilha do Desterro v. 69, nº3, p. 157-172, Florianópolis, set/dez 2016
Gêneros Textuais (VI SIGET), Universidade Federal do
Rio Grande do Norte, Lagoa Nova, Natal, 16 al 19 de
agosto de 2011. http://www.cchla.ufrn.br/visiget/pgs/
pt/anais/Artigos/EstelaInesMoyano.pdf
______. (2011b). Academic literacy across the university
curriculum: critical aspects of an institutional program.
Writing Research Across Borders II, George Manson
University, Washington DC/ Northern Virginia. Feb.
17-20.
______. (2012a). Argumentación en Economía:
Negociación de una Interpretación. R.I.L.L. nº 17,
vol 1 y 2. Plantin, C. & Padilla, C. (Eds) Prácticas
argumentativas a través de las disciplinas. http://www.
insil.com.ar/rill2012.asp
______. (2012b). Hacia la caracterización de géneros
profesionales: algunas reexiones teórico-
metodológicas. In Nothstein, S.; Pereira, M.C. &
Valente, E. (Comps) Libro de Actas del Congreso
Regional de la Cátedra UNESCO en Lectura y
Escritura: “Cultura Escrita y Políticas Pedagógicas en las
Sociedades Latinoamericanas Actuales”. Los Polvorines:
Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento, 1567-
1586. http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_
issuetoc&pid=0718-093420100005&lng=es&nrm=iso
______. (2013). Proyección congruente y metafórica en las
discusiones de artículos cientícos de tres disciplinas
en español. En: Vian Jr., O. & Caltabiano, C. (Orgs.)
Língua(gem) e suas múltiplas faces. San Pablo: Mercado
de Letras, 109-133.
______. (2014). La Discusión en Artículos de
Microbiología: Género, Compromiso y Construcción
del Conocimiento”. Revista Onomázein, Número
Especial IX ALSFAL, 161-185. http://www.onomazein.
net/03_Numeros/Nespecial_IXALSFAL/Nespecial_
IXalsfal.html
______. (2015). Patrones de Realización de la Proyección
en la Discusión de Artículos de Investigación
Producidos en Español en Dos Disciplinas. Revista
D.E.L.T.A. 31(1), 143-183. http://www.scielo.
br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-
44502015000100143&lng=en&nrm=iso
Moyano, E.I. & Giudice, J. (forthcoming). Un Programa
de Lectura y Escritura Universitario: Lineamientos
Teóricos, Características y Resultados de Aplicación.
Revista Grafía, 13 (1), enero a junio 2016.
Moyano, E.I. & Godoy, M. (2015). Desafíos de la gestión
académica de un programa de escritura a lo largo de
la carrera. XXII Congreso Internacional de Educación y
Aprendizaje. Madrid, 9 al 11 de julio.
Moyano, E.I. & Natale, L. (2012). Teaching Academic
Literacy across the University Curriculum as
Institutional Policy. e case of the Universidad
Nacional de General Sarmiento (Argentina). In aiss,
Ch,; Bräuer, G.; Carlino, P.; Ganobcsik-Williams, L.
& Sinha, A. Writing Programs Worldwide: Proles
of Academic Writing in Many Places. Perspectives on
Writing, 23-34. Fort Collins, Colorado: e WAC
Clearinghouse and Parlor Press.
Núñez Cortés, J.A. (2013). Una Aproximacion a los
Centros de Escritura en Iberoamérica. Revista
Legenda, 17(17), 64-102. http://erevistas.saber.ula.ve/
index.php/legenda/article/view/4642
Oteiza, T. (2009). Solidaridad Ideológica en el Discurso
de la Historia: Tensión entre Orientaciones
Monoglósicas y Heteroglósicas. Revista Signos 42(70),
219-244. http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_
arttext&pid=S0718-09342009000200004&lng=es&nr
m=iso
Oteiza, T. (2010). Patrones valorativos en el discurso ocial
de Derechos Humanos en Chile: dando valor al pasado
y construyendo memorias históricas en la sociedad.
Discurso y Sociedad 4(1), 151-183. http://www.dissoc.
org/ediciones/v04n01/DS4%281%29Oteiza.pdf
Oteiza, T. & Pinuer, C. (2010). La temporalidad, recurso
estratégico en documentos ociales de derechos
humanos en Chile. Estudios Filológicos 46: 81-
99. http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_
arttext&pid=S0071-17132010000200005&lng=es&nr
m=iso
Parodi, G. (Ed.). (2010). Alfabetización académica y
profesional en el Siglo XXI: Leer y escribir desde las
disciplinas. Santiago de Chile: Ariel.
Ravelli, L.J. & Ellis, R .A. (Eds.). (2004). Analysing Academic
Writing: Contextualised Frameworks. London:
Continuum.
Rose, D. & Martin, J.R. (2012). Learning to Write, Reading
to Learn. Genre, Knowledge and Pedagogy in the Sydney
School. UK: Equinox.
aiss, Ch. (2010) e international WAC/WID mapping
project: objectives, methods, and early results. In
Bazerman, Ch.; Krut, R.; Lunsford, K.; McLeod, S.;
Null, S.; Rogers, P & Stansell, A. Traditions of Writing
Research, 252-264. New York / London: Routledge.
aiss, Ch,; Bräuer, G.; Carlino, P.; Ganobcsik-Williams,
L. & Sinha, A. (Eds.). (2012). Writing Programs
Worldwide: Proles of Academic Writing in Many
Places. Perspectives on Writing. Fort Collins, Colorado:
e WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor Press.
Tovillas, P. (2010). Bourdieu. Una introducción. Buenos
Aires: Quadrata.
UNLu (2001). La Lectura y Escritura como prácticas
académicas universitarias. Departamento de
172 Estela Inés Moyano and Jacqueline Giudice, Negotiation Between Professional Peers:...
Educación Luján, Bs. As., Argentina. http://www.unlu.
edu.ar/~redecom/borrador.htm
Vázquez, A.; Jakob, I.; Novo, M.C. & Pelizza, L. (Comp.).
(2012). Lectura, escritura y aprendizaje disciplinar.
Río IV: UniRío Editora, Universidad Nacional de Río
Cuarto.
Vigotsky, L. (1998). Pensamiento y lenguaje. Buenos Aires:
Fausto.
Wignell, P. (2007). On the Discourse of Social Science.
Australia: Charles Darwin University Press.
Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1978). e Role
of Tutoring in Problem Solving. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry 17, 89–100.
Recebido em: 28/02/2016
Aceito em: 29/07/2016
