As described in the introduction to the case studies, this book understands the development of disciplinary literacy as a process of qualitative change in learners' ability to control and interpret meaning in discipline-specific texts. In examining learners' development, we have looked not just at their final written products but also at their engagement in discursive practices associated with reading, revising and discussing disciplinary texts. Throughout this analysis, we have drawn on a definition of discourse that emphasizes meaning-making, in line with Blommaert's (2005: 2) characterization of discourse as 'a general mode of semiosis, i.e. meaningful symbolic behavior.' This view sees discourse as 'language-in-action, and investigating it requires attention to both language and to action' (Blommaert, 2005: 2) Through the case studies presented in Part 2, we have attempted to investigate both how learners understand the texts that they read and write and how this understanding plays out in activity.

Throughout Part 2, we saw four very different trajectories. While both Hong and Bader showed marked development in their ability to engage in local discourse practices associated with disciplinary literacy, Weixin and Alima made less progress, even though Alima still managed to earn good grades in the course. Each participant's orientation to and understanding of reading and writing tasks as well as their actual performance in their written assignments shed light both on the intersections between their developing linguistic proficiency and on their ability to connect this knowledge to key common law concepts in their reading and writing. After briefly reviewing how each participant oriented to the tasks of writing memoranda and reading cases, we will consider how participants' understanding of language and law influenced their performance in the course. We will then examine other factors shaping participants' development across the term, and finally consider future directions for teaching and research in ESP and disciplinary writing.