As a visiting scholar from Kazakhstan, I have encountered significant differences between the academic writing approaches used in my home country and those I am currently studying in the U.S. Academic writing plays a crucial role in knowledge construction, and my experience has led me to reflect on various approaches to learning to write effectively.

One of the most influential frameworks I have come across is the Pedagogy of Multiliteracies, introduced by Bill Cope and Mary Kalantzis. Their approach shifts the focus from traditional grammar-based instruction to a more dynamic, design-oriented model of writing. This framework views writing as an active process of meaning-making rather than simply following fixed grammatical structures. Writing is conceptualized as a mental effort distinct from speaking, where we construct meaning independently and with greater precision. Unlike speech, which is spontaneous and often accompanied by gestures, writing requires careful planning, organization, and revision.

In Kazakhstan, academic writing instruction has traditionally emphasized grammatical accuracy, citation rules, and formal structure, often focusing on memorization and adherence to rigid writing templates. While this approach provides clarity, it can sometimes limit creativity and engagement in the writing process. For example, in my previous studies, a standard research paper followed a strict format with limited flexibility, leaving little room for personal voice or argument development.

However, in my academic writing course in the U.S., I have noticed a shift toward genre-based and process-oriented approaches. Writing here is seen as iterative, emphasizing drafting, feedback, and revision rather than just producing a polished final product. Instructors encourage peer review, multimodal composition, and rhetorical awareness, which allows for greater depth in argumentation. One key technique I have found particularly helpful is collaborative writing, where students engage in discussions before drafting their papers, mirroring the interactive nature of spoken language.

Cope and Kalantzis suggest that writing is not just about following grammatical rules but about constructing knowledge through different forms of representation. This aligns with their emphasis on three types of grammars—traditional, functional, and critical. Traditional grammar focuses on sentence correctness, functional grammar emphasizes meaning within context, and critical grammar explores the social and cultural dimensions of writing. Integrating these perspectives allows students to move beyond mechanical Аcorrectness to deeper engagement with ideas.

Figure 1 Steps in writing process

Reflecting on my own learning process, I see the value in combining both structured and flexible approaches. While foundational knowledge of academic conventions remains important, embracing the iterative and multimodal nature of writing has enriched my ability to express complex ideas. My experience highlights the need for a balanced approach—one that respects established academic norms while encouraging creativity, collaboration, and adaptive thinking in writing education.