In most writing courses in Taiwan, students come to the classroom to learn how to write in a grammatically correct, semantically clear, and structurally solid manner; in response to students' learning expectations, most teachers prepare their materials and design their courses accordingly: a bundle of grammar rules, vocabulary notes, and recurrent emphases on the merits of a well-structured piece of writing. To be sure, these elements are the fundamental skills for all writing learners, especially second language (L2) learners, to get acquainted with. However, writing courses are not meant to cease there, serving merely as a tool for language acquisition or idea communication.

Instead, the writing courses held by the Academic Writing Education Center (AWEC) at National Taiwan University (NTU) seek to offer a more holistic and thought-provoking curriculum for a rapidly increasing number of graduate students with rising needs to write and publish in an academic context. More specifically, writing in this postgraduate context is supposed to be approached with a higher-order thinking and a more comprehensive way of deliberation. Graduate students are expected to treat their writing with a higher degree of caution and motivation. To achieve this, we have to reexamine and redefine our long-standing assumption about the role and operation of writing courses—that is, the conventional pattern of learning-to-write shall be modified and recognized as writing-to-learn.

The concept of writing-to-learn may appear unfamiliar to some writing learners in Taiwan. Actually, the idea is not as new as it may sound. Several L2 researchers (Tynjala, Mason, & Lonka, 2001; Indrisano & Paratore, 2005; Bean, 2011; Manchón, 2011) have studied the strategies of treating and utilizing writing as a potential medium for facilitating students’ bridging to content-area learning. The application of writing-to-learn could be understood as "writing in the content areas" or "writing across the curriculum," as Armbruster, McCarthey, and Cummings (2005, p. 71) put it in their clarification of this somewhat indefinite term. They contend and endeavor to justify that writing is no longer just a tool for language acquisition but a catalyst that renders disciplinary knowledge more reflexible and accessible. Quite a few researchers begin to tap into the potential of utilizing writing as an explorative means. For example, Alan Hirvela (2011) elaborates on the pedagogical application of writing as "a mode of discovery or negotiation to acquire greater knowledge of content, culture, or language" (p. 37). All the remarks above seem to present a promising picture of how much writing, reinforced with proper instruction, can do to help learners advance to a higher order of thinking and a broader horizon of learning.

However, the focal shift from learning-to-write to writing-to-learn entails not only pedagogical awareness but also subject matter knowledge. Joan Sedita (2015), for instance, foregrounds a pedagogical challenge to be aware of:

This WAC circumstance applies exactly to the context of teachers at writing centers. Irene Clark (2008) emphasizes the notable mission for writing centers to instruct and inspire students to not only enhance their grasp of writing as an explorative means but also develop a new perspective on the overall writing process. Robert Barnett and Jacob Blummer (1999) have co-edited a book, a collection of scholarly essays, to describe the role of writing centers as an emergent agent in facilitating writing across the curriculum and incubating writing-oriented programs and pedagogies. In this regard, the courses along with the driving pedagogy behind, offered and fueled by AWEC of NTU, could serve as an example for illustration.

We have courses designed to engage students in utilizing writing as a thinking and production mode. That is, we assume that our graduate students have already been equipped with a decent degree of English writing proficiency. Thus, instead of focusing on the technical part of writing solely, we endeavor more to delve into the structural, logical, and cognitive aspects of writing. More precisely, students in our class are not as much bothered about how to produce a neat piece of writing (as most of them can do that well on their own), as constantly confronted with how to manage an intricate piece of writing in a particular setting or field. In this respect, their concerns go beyond mere semantic expression and consideration to a more comprehensive vantage point of viewing and evaluating all the subtle steps involved in writing and forming knowledge. As is often the case, different fields develop their own patterns of written discourse; students from varied disciplines are spurred to reflex on the rationale behind their writing community and invited to defend or even challenge the established practice. Moreover, we often have students write down their initial thoughts toward a certain issue after a brief brainstorming. These still rough thoughts often serve as the freshest material for representing the depth and width of a student' s present cognition state. Through it, we become familiar with the linguistic and cognitive benchmark of students at this stage. Subsequently, we pose questions, rather than solutions, to identify students' blind spots in their writing samples, whereby they can simultaneously revise their own work and review peers' work. During this process of constant discussion and revision, students would begin to understand that their writing per se acts as the most crucial medium to get their thoughts across in an academic context. Seen in this way, writing turns from a barren land of grammar and sentences into a fertile soil on which they can not only deepen their thoughts and synthesize ideas from others, but also extend its possibilities into discovery learning and critical thinking.

The preliminary picture above is meant to give a glimpse of writing-to-learn practice in class. Hopefully, it helps illustrate the concept and practice of writing-to-learn on the rise: a potential and practical way of teaching that elevates the role of writing in intellectual exploration and academic discourse.

此次演講主要希望能夠讓聽眾了解原始資料的種類、以及如何對於原始資料進行批判性閱讀。

過去歷史學家關心歷史的議題不外乎為政治事件和歷史事件等所謂的「大」議題，而現在歷史學家已經由此類「大」議題跳脫出來，轉而專注於心態歷史、日常生活、物質文化、身體歷史等「小」議題。

近年來，研究者的興趣已經由大到小、由外到內、由表面到本質的研究。這種轉變使得歷史學家發現，如果研究歷史還執著於檔案館內部所收藏的文件與檔案，則研究將有所侷限。因此，在新的研究趨勢下，研究者看待原始資料的心態，應從閱讀(reading)轉變到解碼(decoding)，透過研究者的眼睛將原始資料賦予新意。

講者藉由原始資料並舉以豐富的圖片實例講解，一步步帶領聽眾以不同角度解讀其背後的脈絡。演講中討論包含

談完了原始資料，講者開始討論何謂批判性閱讀(critical reading)？講者列印了中央大學英美文學系何春蕤教授在台大城鄉所的一篇談論文寫作的演講，作為輔助資料。在該篇文章認為：「批判性閱讀並不是用一個固定的批判立場來套用於每一篇文章，而是將自己放在一個和主流不同的抵抗位置上面。因為閱讀過程中自己常常會被主流意見壓迫，被主流價值教訓，所以自己需要不斷想要找出可以自衛的論調，才比較容易發展出批判性思考，這種思考應該是一種不馴的、另闢蹊徑的思考。需要在閱讀過程中思考自己的包袱和問題。」，能夠在此篇閱讀裡找到什麼樣的共振或迴響或啟示或攪擾等等，這就是批判閱讀的主要活動內容。要達到批判閱讀，就必須主動帶著問題和過去積累的知識，去面對閱讀材料。

批判性閱讀並沒有固定的公式可套，最重要的是讀者必須站在一個與資料相對的位置，進行又進又出的閱讀過程，在講者提供的資料中，對於「又進又出的閱讀過程」解釋如下：「進，是進去仔細的閱讀文章內容想要表達什麼；出，是因為讀到某個段落後，自己就必須先從文章內容暫時脫離出來，用一種比較有距離的方式思考整體內容到底表達了什麼？在閱讀過程中，必須不斷去協調、與文章作者的論點抗爭」。