Overview

Research article introductions are among the hardest sections for multilingual and early-career scholars to write. The introductions have to establish credibility, position the scholar’s work within the existing body of scholarship, and justify their contribution, all through conventions that are rarely taught explicitly and vary by discipline. I assisted a faculty member in designing a 75-minute seminar that teaches the introduction as a genre with identifiable, learnable moves, for multilingual graduate students and early-career scholars across disciplines.

Audience: Multilingual graduate students and early-career scholars across disciplines.

Format: In-person or hybrid, 8–15 participants.

Duration: 75 minutes.

Technology used: PowerPoint, Canva.

Design rationale

Two theoretical considerations shaped the design:

Genre as a set of tools that can be learned. The seminar is built on Swales' Create a Research Space (CARS) model and teaches academic article introductions as three identifiable moves (establishing territory, establishing a niche, occupying the niche). The rhetorical strategies for signaling a gap or asserting significance are culturally and linguistically situated, so the seminar design deliberately treats multilingual scholars' L1 academic writing strategies as a resource for comparison.

Genre as a multimodal text. Drawing on multiliteracies pedagogy (New London Group, 1996), the seminar extends the same three CARS moves into visual and multimodal territory. Some journals offer the option to include graphical or video abstracts alongside written introductions, and the same rhetorical work (establishing territory, marking a gap, occupying the niche) now happens across channels.

My Approach

The 75-minute seminar helps students move from noticing to drafting in five stages:

1. Surfaced existing strategies first (0:00–0:10). An opening quick-write: "How do you currently open a paper in your field?" treats students’ existing, often L1- or discipline-specific opening strategies as a starting point.

2. Built shared metalanguage (0:10–0:25). A mini-lecture introduces the CARS model's three moves, giving students a common vocabulary for discussing introductions across disciplines. This is critical for a multidisciplinary room where "good writing" means different things in STEM versus the humanities.

3. Guided noticing through paired analysis (0:25–0:40). Students annotate two contrasting sample introductions (STEM and Humanities) using a Move-Step Organizer, comparing conventions they notice in each.

4. Extended the framework beyond text (0:40–0:55). Small groups examine a graphical/video abstract alongside its written introduction, mapping which of the same three moves reappear in visual form.

5. Moved to individualized drafting (0:55–1:15). Students draft their own introduction's three moves using a guided template, with the facilitator circulating for individual consultation. Students then — then exchange drafts with a partner to identify each other's moves before a closing preview of a follow-up individual consultation option.

Materials Developed

• Handout A: Move-Step Organizer: a table pairing each CARS move with its typical language signals (e.g., contrastive language like "however" or "little is known about" for Move 2) and a constructed sample sentence, giving participants concrete linguistic entry points rather than abstract rhetorical advice.

• Handout B: Guided Drafting Template: a scaffolded prompt sequence walking participants through drafting their own three moves, plus a "multimodal check" prompt connecting the written draft back to visual abstract design.

Outcome & Reflection

Delivering this workshop reinforced something I'd only had in theory before: treating rhetorical moves as learnable and language-based, rather than framing "good writing" as instinct, visibly changes how multilingual participants engage.