1. Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2009). A disciplinary discourse perspective on university science learning: Achieving fluency in a critical constellation of modes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 27–49.
2. Allie, S., Buffler, A., Kaunda, L., & Inglis, M. (1997). Writing-intensive physics laboratory reports: Tasks and assessment. The Physics Teacher, 35, 399–405.
3. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. In The psychology of written composition (pp. 3–30, 179–189, 339–380). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
4. Block, E., & Rollnick, M. (2003). Words used are understandable; the way the information is phrased is impossible to understand. Paper presented at the 11th annual conference of the Southern African Association for Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, Swaziland.
5. Boughey, C. (2000). Multiple metaphors in an understanding of academic literacy. Teachers and Teaching, 6(3), 279–290.