Academic Writing Is Not About “Smart Words”: How to Build an Argument That Actually Works

“Academic writing becomes stronger not when the words become more impressive, but when the reader can see exactly how one idea leads to the next.”

— Tymur Levitin

A student writes:

Nowadays, it is an undeniable fact that this extremely significant phenomenon has numerous substantial implications for contemporary society.

It sounds academic.

Or at least it tries to.

But what has actually been said?

Very little.

Now compare:

The policy reduced short-term unemployment, but its long-term effect was limited because the increase in employment depended heavily on temporary public spending.

The vocabulary is not particularly exotic.

But something important has happened.

There is a claim.

There is qualification.

There is a causal relationship.

There is something that could be supported, challenged, examined or refined.

That is much closer to academic writing.

The difference is not primarily vocabulary.

It is thinking made visible through language.

---

Academic writing is not ordinary writing with harder words

Many learners develop an understandable but dangerous idea:

If I want my writing to sound academic, I need more sophisticated vocabulary.

So:

important

becomes:

paramount

many

becomes:

a plethora of

use

becomes:

utilize

Sentences grow longer.

Connectors multiply.

The text begins to look formal.

But the argument may remain exactly as weak as before.

Academic writing is not created by replacing ordinary words with impressive ones.

It is created by making relationships between ideas sufficiently precise that another person can inspect your reasoning.

---

A reader needs to see the architecture

Consider this claim:

Social media has a negative effect on students.

That may be your position.

But academic writing immediately creates questions.

In what way?

Which students?

Under what conditions?

Compared with what?

What evidence supports the claim?

Are there important exceptions?

How strong is the effect?

A serious argument has to survive these questions.

That means a claim is only the beginning.

---

The Academic Argument Chain

A useful model is:

Question → Position → Reason → Evidence → Explanation → Counterpoint → Conclusion

I call this the:

Academic Argument Chain

Each stage performs a different function.

And when one link is missing, writing often becomes weaker even if the grammar is excellent.

---

1. Question

What are you actually being asked to answer?

Before constructing an argument, identify the intellectual task.

Are you being asked to:

describe?

explain?

compare?

analyse?

evaluate?

justify?

discuss?

A beautifully written evaluation is useless if the question asked you to explain a mechanism.

A detailed description may contain excellent knowledge and still fail an analytical task.

This is why academic writing begins before the first sentence is written.

It begins with task interpretation.

In Describe, Explain, Compare, Evaluate: What Academic Questions Are Really Asking You to Do, we separate four components:

TASK → CONTENT → SCOPE → CONDITIONS

Before asking:

What should I write?

ask:

What kind of thinking does this question require?

---

2. Position

What exactly are you claiming?

A position is not the same as a topic.

Climate change

is a topic.

Climate change affects migration

is closer to a claim.

But even this may be too broad.

A stronger position could be:

Climate-related environmental pressures can increase migration risk, but their effect depends heavily on economic resources, political conditions and the ability of communities to adapt locally.

Now we have something more useful.

The position is:

specific enough to examine;

qualified enough to avoid false simplicity;

structured enough to develop.

Academic writing does not require certainty where certainty does not exist.

Precision is stronger than exaggeration.

---

A thesis is not a slogan

Students sometimes write:

This essay will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of online education.

That tells us what the text will contain.

It does not yet tell us what the writer thinks the evidence shows.

Compare:

Online education can expand access and flexibility, but its educational value depends less on the medium itself than on course design, interaction and the learner's capacity for independent study.

Now the reader can anticipate an argument.

A thesis should help organize reasoning.

Not merely announce a topic.

---

3. Reason

Why should the reader accept your position?

Suppose your claim is:

Individual feedback can improve learning efficiency.

Why?

A possible reason:

Because feedback can identify the specific point at which a learner's performance breaks down rather than requiring the learner to repeat material indiscriminately.

Now we have movement:

claim → because → reason

But we still do not necessarily have sufficient support.

A reason is not automatically evidence.

---

4. Evidence

What gives the claim support?

Evidence may include, depending on the discipline:

research findings;

primary sources;

data;

observations;

experimental results;

textual evidence;

historical documents;

case material;

mathematical derivation;

relevant examples.

But there is an important distinction:

Having a source in the paragraph is not the same as using evidence.

A citation does not automatically create an argument.

---

A quotation is not self-explanatory

Imagine this structure:

Claim.

Quotation.

Next paragraph.

What is missing?

The reader has been given information, but the relationship between the information and the claim has not necessarily been established.

You need to answer:

Why does this evidence support the point?

What exactly does it show?

How strong is that support?

What does it not prove?

That brings us to the next link.

---

5. Explanation

How does the evidence support the argument?

This is one of the most important and most frequently missing stages.

Consider:

Students who regularly retrieved information from memory performed better on a later test.

That is evidence of some kind.

But the academic writer still has work to do.

What inference follows?

Perhaps:

This result supports the argument that learning activities requiring active retrieval can strengthen later access to knowledge more effectively than activities based only on repeated exposure.

Now the evidence has been connected to the reasoning.

The writer has interpreted it.

---

Evidence without explanation creates a pile of facts

A weak paragraph can contain five sources and still have almost no argument.

Source A says...

Source B says...

Source C found...

Source D argues...

Source E reports...

The paragraph looks researched.

But what does the writer conclude from these sources?

How do they relate?

Do they agree?

Do they measure the same thing?

Does one qualify another?

Which is stronger?

What follows?

Academic writing requires the writer to do more than transport information from sources into a document.

The writer must organize evidence into reasoning.

---

The difference between source accumulation and synthesis

Suppose three sources say:

A: online learning increases flexibility.

B: online learning can reduce spontaneous interaction.

C: outcomes depend strongly on course design.

A source-by-source text gives us:

Paragraph about A.

Paragraph about B.

Paragraph about C.

A synthesis asks:

What do these findings mean together?

Perhaps:

The evidence suggests that online learning should not be evaluated as inherently superior or inferior to classroom learning. Its flexibility may increase access, while reduced spontaneous interaction can create disadvantages unless course design deliberately compensates for it.

Now multiple sources contribute to one analytical conclusion.

That is synthesis.

---

6. Counterpoint

What would a serious objection look like?

Academic argument is rarely strengthened by pretending that no competing interpretation exists.

Suppose your claim is:

Technology improves access to education.

A counterpoint might be:

Access to digital platforms does not guarantee meaningful educational access when learners lack reliable connectivity, suitable devices, digital literacy or sufficient instructional support.

This does not destroy the original argument.

It makes it more precise.

---

A counterargument is not a ritual paragraph beginning with “However”

Students sometimes learn a template:

Argument.

However, there are disadvantages.

In conclusion...

But genuine counterargument has a function.

It asks:

Under what conditions might my claim fail?

What evidence points in another direction?

Is there another plausible explanation?

What limitation should change the strength of my conclusion?

The purpose is not to look balanced.

The purpose is to test the argument.

---

Qualification is a sign of strength

Compare:

Social media causes anxiety.

with:

Some patterns of social-media use may contribute to anxiety in particular groups, although the relationship is influenced by individual, social and contextual factors.

The second claim may look less dramatic.

Academically, it can be much stronger.

Why?

Because it distinguishes:

possibility from certainty;

association from universal causation;

some groups from everyone;

one factor from the whole explanation.

Academic precision often requires words such as:

may

can

suggests

under these conditions

to some extent

primarily

in this context

These are not signs of weakness when uncertainty is real.

They are signs that the writer understands the boundaries of the claim.

---

7. Conclusion

What follows from the argument?

A conclusion should not merely repeat the introduction with different words.

It should answer:

After examining the reasoning and evidence, what can we now responsibly conclude?

A strong conclusion may:

return to the question;

state the resulting judgment;

identify its limits;

show which factor matters most;

clarify conditions;

indicate what the evidence supports and what remains uncertain.

The conclusion is the result of the reasoning.

Not simply the place where the essay stops.

---

The complete Academic Argument Chain

We now have:

QUESTION

What intellectual task must be performed?

↓

POSITION

What do I claim?

↓

REASON

Why?

↓

EVIDENCE

What supports it?

↓

EXPLANATION

How does the evidence support the claim?

↓

COUNTERPOINT

What complicates or challenges it?

↓

CONCLUSION

What can reasonably be concluded?

This architecture can operate across an entire essay.

But it can also operate inside a single paragraph.

---

A paragraph is a small argument

A useful paragraph does not exist because the page needs another block of text.

It has an intellectual job.

A simplified paragraph architecture might be:

Claim → Evidence → Explanation → Link

For example:

Claim

A student's difficulty with an academic task does not necessarily indicate missing subject knowledge.

Evidence or example

A learner may solve the same mathematical problem successfully when it is presented in a stronger language but fail when unfamiliar academic wording is introduced.

Explanation

The change in performance suggests that language may be interfering with access to existing mathematical competence rather than the mathematics itself being absent.

Link

Assessment therefore needs to distinguish subject understanding from the linguistic conditions under which that understanding is demonstrated.

The paragraph moves.

It does not merely contain sentences.

---

Paragraph length is not the main issue

Students often ask:

How many sentences should a paragraph have?

There is no universally useful magic number.

The better question is:

Has this paragraph completed its intellectual function?

A paragraph may need to:

establish a claim;

provide evidence;

interpret evidence;

qualify the claim;

connect it to the larger argument.

When that unit of reasoning is complete, the paragraph can end.

---

“PEEL” and similar formulas can help — and can become a trap

Students may learn structures such as:

Point → Evidence → Explain → Link

These can be useful scaffolds.

But a scaffold is not the building.

If every paragraph mechanically follows the same visible template, complex argument can become artificial.

The deeper principle is not:

always write four specific sentences.

It is:

make the relationship between claim, support and reasoning visible.

Once the learner understands that relationship, paragraph structure can become more flexible.

---

Description is not analysis

This distinction causes enormous difficulty in academic writing.

Description tells us:

what happened

what exists

what a source says

what the data shows

Analysis asks:

what does it mean?

how are the parts related?

why does it matter?

what follows?

what pattern exists?

which explanation is stronger?

A paper can contain accurate information and still remain predominantly descriptive.

---

Example: description versus analysis

Description

Country A increased education spending by 18% between 2015 and 2020. During the same period, secondary-school completion increased by 6%.

Both facts may be relevant.

Analysis

The simultaneous increase in spending and completion rates is consistent with the possibility that greater investment contributed to improved retention, but the figures alone do not establish causation because other policy and demographic changes occurred during the same period.

The second passage performs intellectual work.

It relates.

Interprets.

Limits.

Distinguishes correlation from causation.

That is analysis.

---

Connectors do not create logic

Consider:

Moreover, unemployment increased. Furthermore, exports fell. Nevertheless, the government changed policy. Consequently, public confidence declined.

The connectors make the text look organized.

But are the relationships true?

Does the policy change contrast with falling exports?

Did it cause declining confidence?

We cannot know merely because nevertheless and consequently were inserted.

A connector should name a relationship that the reasoning already supports.

---

Do not start with the connector

Start with the relationship.

Ask:

Is this:

addition?

contrast?

cause?

consequence?

qualification?

example?

concession?

Then select language that expresses that relationship accurately.

The logic should generate the language.

Not the other way around.

---

Academic vocabulary is useful when it increases precision

There is nothing wrong with sophisticated vocabulary.

Sometimes the precise word is technical.

Sometimes the discipline requires it.

Compare:

things change each other

with:

the variables interact

The second may genuinely be more precise.

The problem begins when lexical sophistication becomes a substitute for conceptual precision.

The test is simple:

Does this word allow me to express the relationship more accurately?

If yes, use it.

If it merely makes the sentence sound more impressive, it may be doing very little.

---

Long sentences are not automatically academic

A long sentence can represent a complex relationship elegantly.

It can also hide the fact that the writer does not know what the main claim is.

Academic maturity includes knowing when complexity requires a complex sentence — and when the reader needs a full stop.

Clarity is not the opposite of intelligence.

In serious academic work, clarity often reveals intelligence.

---

The source does not speak for you

Suppose a paper says:

Smith (2024) argues that...

Fine.

But why is Smith here?

Does the source:

support your claim?

provide a definition?

challenge another source?

supply data?

offer a competing model?

show a limitation?

Your reader should understand the function of the source inside your reasoning.

Otherwise citation becomes decoration.

---

Evidence has to match the strength of the claim

A single example cannot normally support:

This always happens.

A small observational study may not justify:

X causes Y in everyone.

Evidence and claim must be proportional.

This gives us another useful principle:

Claim–Evidence Fit

The broader and stronger the claim, the stronger the evidential burden.

Good academic writing therefore asks not only:

Do I have evidence?

but:

How much does this evidence actually allow me to claim?

---

Correlation is not automatically causation

Suppose two variables move together.

That may be important.

But several explanations remain possible:

A influences B.

B influences A.

A third variable influences both.

The relationship is coincidental.

The measurement is incomplete.

Therefore:

X is associated with Y

and

X causes Y

are not interchangeable statements.

Language here is part of reasoning accuracy.

---

“This proves” is often stronger than the evidence permits

Students frequently write:

This proves that...

But academic evidence often supports more limited formulations:

suggests

supports

is consistent with

provides evidence for

indicates

makes X more plausible

The correct formulation depends on the evidence and discipline.

Again, this is not merely style.

It expresses epistemic strength — how strongly we are entitled to believe a conclusion from the available evidence.

---

Different disciplines build arguments differently

There is no single academic essay architecture that fits every field.

History

Evidence may come from primary and secondary sources.

Arguments involve causation, context, significance and interpretation.

Literature

Evidence may be textual.

Analysis may focus on language, structure, form and interpretation.

Biology

Arguments may depend on experimental evidence, mechanisms and established models.

Physics

Reasoning may combine physical principles, mathematical derivation, modeling and empirical evidence.

Mathematics

Proof has standards very different from evidence in history.

Economics

Arguments may involve models, data, assumptions, causal inference and competing explanations.

Therefore academic writing is partly disciplinary thinking expressed through language.

---

Academic writing is Language × Discipline

This matters particularly in our broader Language + Subject architecture.

A learner studying history in English does not simply need:

English + history vocabulary.

They need to know how historical reasoning is performed through English.

A learner studying biology in German needs more than biological nouns.

They need language for:

process;

causation;

comparison;

mechanism;

qualification;

evidence.

Academic writing sits exactly at this intersection.

Language is not merely a wrapper placed around finished thought.

In many academic tasks, language is one of the tools used to construct and display disciplinary reasoning.

---

“I know the answer, but I can't write it”

This is a real educational problem.

In our reference landing You Know the Subject — But Can You Show What You Know in Another Language?, we describe the:

Subject-to-Demonstration Chain

Subject Knowledge → Conceptual Access → Academic Language → Task Interpretation → Response Construction → Demonstration

Academic writing occupies several stages simultaneously.

The learner may:

know the subject;

understand the question;

and still struggle to construct the response in the required academic form.

That is not necessarily a subject-knowledge problem.

But neither should it be dismissed as:

“just English.”

If the learner must study or work academically in English, response construction is part of the real competence they need.

---

A weak essay can hide strong subject knowledge

Imagine a student who can explain a historical argument brilliantly in conversation.

Ask for an academic essay.

The result becomes fragmented.

Evidence appears in the wrong places.

Claims are not connected.

The conclusion does not answer the question.

The student's history knowledge did not suddenly disappear.

A new demand was added:

constructing an inspectable written argument.

That competence has to be taught and practised.

---

A beautiful essay can also hide weak subject knowledge

The reverse is possible.

A student knows:

excellent connectors;

academic phrases;

paragraph templates;

formal vocabulary.

But the claims are superficial.

Evidence is weak.

Conceptual relationships are inaccurate.

The prose sounds impressive.

The subject understanding is thin.

This is why language and subject must be diagnosed separately and together.

---

The Academic Writing Diagnostic Ladder

When an academic text is weak, check the problem in this order:

1. Task

Did the writer answer the intellectual question that was asked?

2. Knowledge

Does the writer understand the relevant subject matter?

3. Position

Is there a clear, defensible central claim?

4. Reasoning

Do the claims actually follow from reasons?

5. Evidence

Is relevant support provided?

6. Explanation

Is the relationship between evidence and claim made explicit?

7. Structure

Can the reader follow the progression of the argument?

8. Language

Is the wording precise enough to represent the intended reasoning?

9. Control

Are claims appropriately qualified, sources handled responsibly and conclusions proportionate to the evidence?

This sequence matters.

Correcting articles and prepositions will not repair a missing argument.

---

Grammar matters — but diagnose its function

Grammar can absolutely damage academic writing.

A misplaced negation can reverse a claim.

A tense can distort chronology.

A pronoun can make reference ambiguous.

A badly constructed conditional can obscure causality.

Grammar therefore matters when it interferes with meaning and precision.

But treating every grammatical error as equally important can consume enormous attention while leaving the intellectual structure untouched.

The question should be:

What does this error do to the argument?

---

Revision should happen at more than one level

Students often revise like this:

spelling;

grammar;

punctuation;

submit.

That is proofreading.

Academic revision should begin higher.

Level 1 — Argument

Did I answer the question?

Level 2 — Reasoning

Does each major claim have a logical function?

Level 3 — Evidence

Is the support relevant and sufficient?

Level 4 — Structure

Does the reader understand why each section follows the previous one?

Level 5 — Language

Is the wording precise?

Level 6 — Surface accuracy

Grammar, spelling, punctuation, formatting.

There is little value in polishing a paragraph that should have been removed.

---

The Reverse Outline Test

After writing a draft, reduce every paragraph to one sentence:

What does this paragraph actually do?

Then list those sentences.

You have created a reverse outline.

Now inspect it.

Does the argument progress?

Are two paragraphs doing the same job?

Is a major reasoning step missing?

Does one paragraph have no clear function?

Does the sequence answer the question?

This is one of the simplest ways to see the architecture hidden underneath prose.

---

The Evidence Interrogation Test

For every important piece of evidence, ask:

What exactly does this evidence show?

Which claim does it support?

Why does it support that claim?

Is there another interpretation?

How strong is the evidence?

What can I not conclude from it?

If you cannot answer these questions, the source may be present in the text without being integrated into the argument.

---

The Counterpoint Test

For every major claim, ask:

What would an intelligent critic say?

Not an imaginary fool.

Not an obviously weak objection.

The strongest plausible challenge.

Then decide:

Does it defeat the claim?

Limit it?

Require qualification?

Apply only under different conditions?

Reveal missing evidence?

A claim that survives serious challenge becomes more credible.

A claim that changes after challenge becomes more precise.

Both outcomes improve the argument.

---

The Plain-Language Test

Take your most complicated paragraph.

Explain it in simple language.

If you cannot explain what you mean without academic vocabulary, there may be a conceptual problem hidden underneath the wording.

Then rebuild the academic version from the clear idea.

This produces a useful order:

understand → formulate simply → specify precisely → express academically

rather than:

search for sophisticated words → hope an argument appears.

---

AI makes this distinction even more important

AI can generate:

smooth prose;

formal vocabulary;

connectors;

citations-shaped structures;

balanced-looking paragraphs.

That means surface academicity is becoming cheaper.

The valuable skill increasingly lies elsewhere:

Can you identify the claim?

Can you test the evidence?

Can you detect unsupported inference?

Can you distinguish description from analysis?

Can you evaluate whether the answer actually addresses the question?

Can you recognize when fluent prose hides weak reasoning?

The easier it becomes to generate academic-looking language, the more important argument literacy becomes.

---

Do not ask AI only to “make this more academic”

That instruction often encourages surface transformation.

Longer words.

Longer sentences.

More formal transitions.

A stronger revision request is conceptual:

What is my central claim?

Which paragraph does not support it?

Where is evidence missing?

Which inference is unsupported?

What counterargument have I ignored?

Where am I describing instead of analysing?

Now the tool is being used to interrogate reasoning rather than decorate prose.

The responsibility for evaluating the result remains with the writer.

---

Academic writing is a form of problem solving

A serious writing task gives you:

a question;

constraints;

knowledge;

evidence;

uncertainty;

possible interpretations.

You have to construct a solution.

This connects academic writing with our broader framework in How to Solve a Problem You've Never Seen Before.

The exact output is different.

But the deeper operations overlap:

orient;

represent;

connect;

generate;

test;

evaluate;

revise;

transfer.

A strong essay is not produced by filling empty space with sentences.

It is designed as a solution to an intellectual problem.

---

Evidence-based writing is also scientific thinking

When a task involves empirical claims, academic writing connects directly with the reasoning developed in How Scientific Thinking Works: From Observation to Explanation.

The Scientific Reasoning Cycle moves through:

Observe → Question → Hypothesize → Model → Predict → Test → Evaluate → Revise → Explain

Writing enters at the point where reasoning must become communicable.

A scientific explanation should make clear:

what was observed;

what model is being used;

what evidence supports it;

what alternative explanations remain;

what conclusion is justified.

The prose is not separate from the science.

It is how the reasoning becomes inspectable by other people.

---

Knowing, understanding and writing are different levels

Our Four-Level Learning Model distinguishes:

Knowledge → Understanding → Ability → Independence

Academic writing makes these differences visible.

Knowledge

I know relevant facts and concepts.

Understanding

I understand their relationships.

Ability

I can construct an argument using them.

Independence

I can interpret a new question, select relevant knowledge, evaluate evidence, construct and revise an argument without someone prescribing every step.

That final level is much more than “good English.”

---

What should a teacher correct first?

Suppose a paragraph contains:

three grammar mistakes;

one awkward phrase;

an unsupported central claim;

irrelevant evidence.

Where should the teaching attention go?

The answer depends on the learning objective.

But if the goal is academic argumentation, fixing every article while ignoring the unsupported claim would be a strange priority.

A useful hierarchy is:

meaning → reasoning → evidence → organization → precision → surface accuracy

Not because grammar is unimportant.

Because correction should serve the actual competence being developed.

---

A practical writing protocol

Before writing:

1. Decode the task

What exactly must I do?

2. Form a provisional position

What do I currently think the answer is?

3. Identify reasons

Why might that position be defensible?

4. Map evidence

What supports, complicates or contradicts it?

5. Build the argument

In what sequence should the reader encounter the reasoning?

During writing:

6. Make each paragraph perform one clear intellectual function

7. Explain evidence rather than merely inserting it

8. Distinguish description from analysis

9. Represent uncertainty accurately

10. Address serious counterpoints

After writing:

11. Reverse-outline the argument

12. Test claim–evidence fit

13. Remove irrelevant material

14. Improve linguistic precision

15. Proofread last

This order protects the most important thing:

the argument itself.

---

One question for every sentence

During revision, ask:

Why is this sentence here?

Possible answers:

It states the claim.

It defines a concept.

It provides evidence.

It explains evidence.

It qualifies the claim.

It introduces a counterpoint.

It connects two stages of reasoning.

It concludes.

If the answer is:

because it sounds academic,

the sentence may not be doing enough.

---

Academic writing should let another mind inspect yours

This may be the deepest principle.

A reader cannot directly see what you understand.

They see the structure you create.

Your claims.

Your definitions.

Your evidence.

Your distinctions.

Your qualifications.

Your reasoning.

Academic writing therefore turns private understanding into a public object that can be:

examined;

challenged;

tested;

revised;

built upon.

That is why clarity matters.

That is why evidence matters.

That is why structure matters.

And that is why academic writing cannot be reduced to vocabulary.

“The purpose of academic writing is not to make simple thinking look complicated. It is to make complex thinking clear enough that another person can examine it.”

— Tymur Levitin

---

Continue Learning

Before building an academic argument, make sure you know what intellectual action the question requires. Describe, Explain, Compare, Evaluate: What Academic Questions Are Really Asking You to Do develops a practical system for interpreting academic task verbs.

If the difficulty appears when you understand a subject but cannot demonstrate that knowledge through the language of study, continue with You Know the Subject — But Can You Show What You Know in Another Language?.

For the deeper distinction between knowing information, understanding it, using it and acting independently, see Knowing vs Understanding: The Four Levels of Real Learning.

For unfamiliar intellectual tasks, How to Solve a Problem You've Never Seen Before develops the Independent Problem-Solving Cycle.

For evidence, models and the transition from observation to defensible explanation, see How Scientific Thinking Works: From Observation to Explanation.

---

Individual Online Learning: Languages, Academic Subjects, and Language + Subject

Levitin Language School provides individual online education for children, teenagers, university students and adults internationally.

Our work covers three distinct but connected educational layers:

Languages · School and Academic Subjects · Language + Subject

This allows us to work with the actual source of a learner's difficulty.

Sometimes the learner needs stronger English.

Sometimes the difficulty is the academic subject itself.

Sometimes the learner understands the subject but needs to learn how to read academic tasks, construct arguments, explain evidence or demonstrate subject knowledge through another language.

The educational task determines the approach — not the other way around.

International and U.S.-focused educational resources are also available through Language Learnings.

Contact — Levitin Language School

Email: notification@levitintymur.com
Phone / WhatsApp: +380 93 291 34 29
WhatsApp: https://wa.me/380932913429
Telegram: https://t.me/START_SCHOOL_TYMUR_LEVITIN
Telegram: @START_SCHOOL_TYMUR_LEVITIN
Website: https://levitintymur.com/

---

About the Author

Tymur Levitin
Founder & Director, Levitin Language School

Educator and author working across language learning, academic education, multilingual learning, learning diagnosis, problem solving and integrated Language + Subject education.

His work examines how learners move from possessing information to understanding relationships, applying knowledge, constructing explanations and arguments, and eventually performing academic and professional tasks independently.

A central part of this work is distinguishing subject knowledge, language competence and the ability to demonstrate thinking through language rather than treating them as one undifferentiated skill.

Levitin Language School: https://levitintymur.com/
Language Learnings — USA: https://languagelearnings.com/
Language Thinking Laboratory: https://languagethinkinglab.blogspot.com/

Author contact: tymurlevitin@levitintymur.com

© Tymur Levitin — Founder & Director, Levitin Language School. All rights reserved.