- Email: [email protected]
Selected bibliography of recent scholarship in second language writing
Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 405–416
Selected bibliography of recent scholarship in second language writing Tony Silva*, Jessie L. Kapper Department of English, Purdue University, 500 Oval Drive, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1356, USA
This bibliography cites and summarizes essays and reports of research on second and foreign language writing and writing instruction that have become available to its compilers during the period from July 1, 2003 to September 30, 2003.
Blanton, L. L., & Kroll, B. (Eds.). (2002). ESL composition tales: Reflections on teaching. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. This collection presents the careers of 10 second language writing scholars and provides a collective history of their experiences. Their individual narratives examine how their theories and pedagogies have changed during their teaching careers. As a result, the collection provides insight into the development of the second language writing field. After a preface by the editors and an introduction by Dana Ferris, chapters include: ‘‘What I certainly didn’t know when I started’’ (Kroll); ‘‘The best of intentions’’ (Erickson); ‘‘Not the end of history’’ (Leki); ‘‘From the working class to the writing class: A second-generation American teaches second language composition’’ (Silva); ‘‘Ask!’’ (Reid); ‘‘A story of experimentation and evolving awareness, Or why I became an advocate for approaching writing through genre’’ (Johns); ‘‘If I had known 12 things . . .’’ (Cumming); ‘‘As I was saying to Leonard Bloomfield: A personalized history of ESL/writing’’ (Blanton); and ‘‘Epilogue: Reinventing giants’’ (Matsuda).
Bloch, J. (2003). Creating materials for teaching evaluation in academic writing: Using letters to the editor in L2 composition courses. English for Specific Purposes, 22(4), 347–364.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1-765-494-3769; fax: þ1-765-494-3780. E-mail address: [email protected] (T. Silva).
1060-3743/$ – see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2003.09.002
406
T. Silva, J.L. Kapper / Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 405–416
After analyzing letters to the editor of the journal Science, the author suggests using material from these types of letters to supplement instruction in more formal academic writing, such as research reports. He notes that analyses of academic writing often overlook the ‘‘personal value and expression’’ that letters contribute to scientific discourse.
Braine, G. (2002). Academic literacy and the nonnative speaker graduate student. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1(1), 59–68. In a meta-analysis of surveys and case studies on the acquisition of academic literacy, the author explores the field’s understanding of academic literacy and suggests topics that still need to be explored. He augments his summary of existing research with personal anecdotes from his own experience as a nonnative English speaker gaining academic literacy.
Breiner-Sanders, K. E., Sender, E., & Terry, R. M. (2002). Preliminary proficiency guidelines — Writing: Revised 2001. Foreign Language Annals, 35(1), 9–15. The authors present a revision of the ACTFL Writing Proficiency Guidelines, which were originally developed in 1986. Their revision reorders proficiency levels to emphasize positive description statements for each level. They identify this revision as a first step in reexamining the document and call for users of the guidelines to discuss what additional refinements should be made.
Brooks-Carson, A. W., & Cohen, A. D. (2000). Direct vs. translated writing: Strategies for bilingual writers. In B. Swierzbin, B. Morris, M. E. Anderson, C. A. Klee, & E. Tarone (Eds.), Social and cognitive factors in second language acquisition (pp. 397–423). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. The researchers examine the effect of translation from a first or second language when composing in another language. They report on their study of 16 bilingual Spanish-English speakers enrolled in French classes at the University of Miami. Students completed background questionnaires, writing tasks, strategies checklists, and follow-up checklists. Based on their analysis of these materials, the researchers conclude that students received higher scores on their writing tasks when they wrote in the target language (French) than when they wrote in their preferred language for instruction (Spanish or English) and then translated their text into French.
Canagarajah, S. (2002). Multilingual writers and the academic community: Towards a critical relationship. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1(1), 29–44.
T. Silva, J.L. Kapper / Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 405–416
407
In a meta-analysis of theory and research on helping students negotiate their vernacular and academic communities, the author attempts to examine how different ESOL pedagogical approaches help students position themselves within these communities. He suggests that, collectively, the existing models of vernacular and academic communities contribute to richer pedagogical practices.
Cheng, Y. (2002). Factors associated with foreign language writing anxiety. Foreign Language Annals, 35(5), 647–656. Using four language anxiety scales and a background questionnaire, the researcher investigated students’ foreign language writing anxiety, focusing on variables such as learner differences, students’ perceptions of their anxieties, and other forms of language anxiety. The study’s results suggest that students’ perceived writing competence is a better predictor for L2 writing anxiety than L2 writing achievement is. The researcher concludes that foreign language instruction should foster students’ perceptions of their competence, in addition to developing their writing skills.
Cornwell, S., & McKay, T. (2000). Establishing a valid, reliable measure of writing apprehension for Japanese students. JALT Journal, 22(1), 114–139. Recognizing that Daly and Miller’s Writing Apprehension Test (DM-WAT) was designed for L1 writing students, the researchers examine the validity of a translated version of the DM-WAT to measure the L2 writing apprehension of Japanese students of English. Their results suggest that the translated, modified version is a valid measure of writing apprehension for their student population.
Cumming, A. (2002). Assessing L2 writing: Alternative constructs and ethical dilemmas. Assessing Writing, 8(2), 73–83. The author notes that despite the prevalence in pedagogical materials of writing as a mode of learning, as an expression of identity, or as a medium for political action, L2 writing tests rarely incorporate these constructs of writing. He theorizes why these constructs are absent from writing tests and discusses these concerns in relation to writing task types for a new TOEFL.
Delgadillo, R. E. (2000). Materiales para la produccio´ n escrita: una propuesta metodolo´ gica para la ensen˜ anza del espan˜ ol como segunda lengua [Materials for written production: A methodological proposal for the teaching of Spanish as a second language]. Estudios de Lingu¨ ´ıstica Aplicada, 32, 103–114.
408
T. Silva, J.L. Kapper / Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 405–416
Developed for writers learning Spanish as a second language and framed within the communicative approach, a model and techniques are presented, which bring together morphosyntactic, discursive, and pragmatic elements of writing and incorporate social and cultural practices as well as the cognitive abilities of students.
Glenwright, P. (2002). Language proficiency assessment for teachers: The effects of benchmarking on writing assessment in Hong Kong schools. Assessing Writing, 8(2), 84–109. In an examination of the language proficiency assessment for teachers (LPAT) in Hong Kong, the author suggests that the assessment reinforces traditional views of language, grammar, and pedagogy, thereby undermining assessment of student writing. Drawing on survey responses and a study of student-teachers’ assessments of EFL compositions, the author describes the Hong Kong context, discusses the LPAT initiative, recounts former writing assessment practices, and examines the impact of the LPAT on writing assessment.
Gosden, H. (2003). ‘Why not give us the full story?’: Functions of referees’ comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(2), 87–101. The researcher describes the challenge faced by novice NNES researchers attempting to revise manuscripts in response to referees’ comments and notes that the confidentiality of the peer review process makes it difficult for novice researchers to learn how to construct effective revisions. He describes and analyzes referees’ comments from 40 peer reviews of short scientific papers in an effort to increase awareness of the motivation behind referees’ comments.
Greene, D. (2000). A design model for beginner-level computer-mediated EFL writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(3), 239–252. The author chronicles the implementation and refinement of a CALL writing course for beginner-level EFL students at a Japanese technical university. Within the framework of the model’s stakeholders, technological considerations, and writing outcomes, the author outlines the theoretical underpinnings of the model and its practical limitations within the context described, noting that theory and practice often collide.
Hatasa, Y. A., & Soeda, E. (2000). Writing strategies revisited: A case of non-cognate L2 writers. In B. Swierzbin, B. Morris, M. E. Anderson, C. A.
T. Silva, J.L. Kapper / Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 405–416
409
Klee, & E. Tarone (Eds.), Social and cognitive factors in second language acquisition (pp. 375–396). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Using a think-aloud method, the researchers examined the composing processes of four highly advanced learners of Japanese as they completed L1 (Australian English) and L2 argumentative writing tasks. They compare their findings with previous studies of L1 and L2 composing processes, noting that unlike prior studies, L2 writing fluency in their study did not result in high quality compositions. Their findings, however, do support previous studies that identify an overall similarity between L1 and L2 composing processes.
Hinkel, E. (2003). Simplicity without elegance: Features of sentences in L1 and L2 academic texts. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 275–301. Based on an analysis of 1083 L1 and L2 academic texts, the author compared the use of syntactic and lexical constructions, predicative adjectives, vague nouns, and verbs by native and non-native speakers of English in U.S. universities. Her findings suggest that advanced ESL writers use simpler syntactic and lexical constructions than first-year NES students. In view of these findings, she includes implications for teaching.
Huie, K., & Yahya, N. (2003). Learning to write in the primary grades: Experiences of English language learners and mainstream students. TESOL Journal, 12(1), 25–38. The authors attempt to illustrate any differences between native English speaking children’s writing and limited English proficiency children’s writing in order to investigate how the local school district could improve writing instruction for L2 learners. They describe differences in organization, support, and voice, and they suggest implications both for their local context and for the more widespread issues of classroom practices and teacher education.
Hyland, K. (2000). ‘‘It might be suggested that . . .’’: Academic hedging and student writing. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 16, 83–97. After discussing the significance of hedging in academic writing, the author identifies reasons why students have problems incorporating hedging into their writing and suggests pedagogical activities to help students learn to use this rhetorical device. The author notes that students often have difficulties with hedging due to the range of meanings hedges convey, the complexity of hedging expressions, cross-cultural differences, and poor
410
T. Silva, J.L. Kapper / Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 405–416
textbook advice. He then calls on teachers to incorporate more writing assignments that allow students to practice using hedges and offers some examples of appropriate assignments.
Khuwaileh, A. A., & Shoumali, A. A. (2000). Writing errors: A study of the writing ability of Arab learners of academic English and Arabic at university. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 13(2), 174–183. In an investigation of the writing skills of Arabic students, the researchers analyzed 300 student writing samples — 150 written in Arabic (L1) and 150 written in English (L2) — composed in classroom settings by secondyear students in a Jordanian university. Based on their analysis, the researchers suggest that poor writing in English correlates with lower writing proficiency in Arabic, demonstrating that not all L2 writers are proficient writers in their native language.
Kim, S.-A. (2001). Characteristics of EFL readers’ summary writing: A study with Korean university students. Foreign Language Annals, 34(6), 569–581. The researcher examined Korean EFL students’ summary writing skills by analyzing summaries that 70 freshman students wrote on one of two texts. Based on a pilot study, one text was identified as more difficult than the other. Thirty-five students summarized each text, and the researcher’s results suggest that text difficulty did affect writers’ behaviors. Furthermore, students extensively used deletion rules in their summaries, but selection and transformation rules were used less frequently, leading the researcher to call for more instruction in these summary techniques.
Kirschner, M., & Wexler, C. (2002). Caravaggio: A design for an interdisciplinary content-based EAP/ESP unit. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1(2), 163–183. The authors describe a content-based unit on the film Caravaggio and use this description to discuss the theoretical and pedagogical concerns faced by EFL instructors. The unit they describe incorporates readings in art history and film and was developed for students in an art history program and a multi-disciplinary arts program at Tel Aviv University.
Kroll, B. (Ed.). (2003). Exploring the dynamics of second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. This collection constructs an overview of the field of second language writing by examining research areas that second language writing scholars
T. Silva, J.L. Kapper / Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 405–416
411
explore. The book’s five sections focus on different themes of exploration, ranging from exploring the field to exploring second language writers and their texts. Contributions include: ‘‘Introduction: Teaching the next generation of second language writers’’ (Kroll); ‘‘Second language writing in the twentieth century: A situated historical perspective’’ (Matsuda); ‘‘Research on second language writing: An overview of what we investigate and how’’ (Polio); ‘‘Experienced ESL/EFL writing instructors’ conceptualizations of their teaching: Curriculum options and implications’’ (Cumming); ‘‘Second language writing up close and personal: Some success stories’’ (Silva, Reichelt, Chikuma, Duval-Couetil, Mo, Ve´ lez-Rendo´ n, & Wood); ‘‘Responding to writing’’ (Ferris); ‘‘Grammar and the ESL writing class’’ (Frodesen & Holten); ‘‘Writing teachers as assessors of writing’’ (Hamp-Lyons); ‘‘Genre and ESL/EFL composition instruction’’ (Johns); ‘‘Changing currents in contrastive rhetoric: Implications for teaching and research’’ (Connor); ‘‘Reading and writing relations: Second language perspectives on research and practice’’ (Grabe); ‘‘Literature in the teaching of second language composition’’ (Vandrick); ‘‘The impact of the computer in second language writing’’ (Pennington); and ‘‘A challenge to second language writing professionals: Is writing overrated?’’ (Leki).
Lee, Y.-J. (2002). A comparison of composing processes and written products in timed-essay tests across paper-and-pencil and computer modes. Assessing Writing, 8(2), 135–157. In a study of six Korean students’ composing processes, the researcher examined differences in the students’ processes depending on the medium — computer or paper — that they used while writing timed-essays in English. The participants, who had high proficiency in English, spent more time pre-writing when composing on paper, but had a longer pause time when composing on computer. Given these findings, the researcher suggests that incorporating computers changes the composing process, and the researcher offers implications for writing assessment.
Liu, J., & Sadler, R. W. (2003). The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional modes of L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(3), 193–227. The researchers examine whether the mode of commenting (Microsoft Word editing versus pen and paper) and the mode of interaction (MOO versus face-to-face) affect the area, the type, and the nature of peer review comments in L2 writing. Based on their findings, they recommend a twostep peer review process that incorporates both traditional and technologyenhanced modes of commenting and interaction.
412
T. Silva, J.L. Kapper / Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 405–416
Melby-Mauer, J. (2003). Using e-mail assignments and online correction in ESL instruction. TESOL Journal, 12(2), 37–38. The author describes an e-mail assignment focused on grammatical error analysis. Students e-mail journal writing assignments to their instructor, who responds to the e-mail, inserting error correction symbols next to errors. The author notes that the exercise could be extended to require students to correct marked errors.
Miller, K. S. (2000). Academic writers on-line: Investigating pausing in the production of text. Language Teaching Research, 4(2), 123–148. The researcher examines the use of recording keystrokes in L1 and L2 writing research. This research method enables researchers to examine pausing, fluency, and revision activity during the writing process. The researcher includes findings from a study of L1 and L2 writers to demonstrate the potential application of the research tool and suggests possible uses of the tool in future research.
Olivares-Cuhat, G. (2002). Learning strategies and achievement in the Spanish writing classroom: A case study. Foreign Language Annals, 35(5), 561–570. Using the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) to estimate students’ learning strategies, as well as grades on two written compositions to estimate students’ writing achievement, the researcher examined the effect of learning strategies on writing achievement. Her findings suggest that L1 (native Spanish speaking) students in an intermediate-advanced college-level Spanish writing class obtained higher grades than their L2 (nonnative Spanish speaking) classmates and were more likely to use affective and memory strategies.
Ruan, Z. (2001). The effects of linguistic preparation on an EFL writing task. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 4, 24–27. The author investigates the effect of linguistic preparation on the development of learners’ interlanguage systems. Based on the study’s findings, the author suggests that explicit language preparation contributes to improving accuracy and fluency in EFL writing tasks.
Schindler, K. (2000). Gemeinsames Schreiben in der Fremdsprache: Muster, kreativita¨ t und das Glu¨ ck des Autors [General writing in a foreign language: Pattern, creativity, and author’s luck]. Glottodidactica, 28, 161–184.
T. Silva, J.L. Kapper / Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 405–416
413
In a study of German and Polish students’ letter writing, the researcher examined the effect of text pattern knowledge on the text production process. Students worked in pairs to write a letter of application for a job at a French corporation. Based on correlations between students’ texts and their pattern knowledge, the researcher suggests implications for giving L2 writing students text patterns for communicative tasks.
Stapleton, P. (2003). Assessing the quality and bias of web-based sources: Implications for academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(3), 229–245. Noting that internet sources are less likely to be peer-reviewed than traditional research sources, the researcher examined L2 learners awareness of web-based sources’ quality and the learners’ actual use of these sources. He found that students’ questionnaire responses indicate that they are aware of potential limitations regarding web-based sources, but their assignments demonstrated a mixed application of this knowledge, suggesting a need for increased instruction in the use of Internet research.
Suh, J.-S. (2002). Effectiveness of CALL writing instruction: The voices of Korean EFL learners. Foreign Language Annals, 35(6), 669–679. The researcher examines Korean students’ reactions to studying EFL via computer-mediated writing instruction. Throughout their writing process while using a CALL program, students kept a journal in which they recorded their reactions to the CALL-based instruction. An analysis of these journal entries suggests that students thought CALL was a helpful tool. The researcher concludes with suggestions for improving CALLbased instruction.
Thonus, T. (2003). Serving generation 1.5 learners in the university writing center. TESOL Journal, 12(1), 17–24. The author suggests that writing centers offer unique support for generation 1.5 learners who might not self-identify as ESL learners or enroll in ESL classes. She notes, however, that writing centers need to adjust their practices in order to best accommodate generation 1.5 students. Therefore, she proposes five pedagogical principles for writing centers that serve this population: Teach metalanguage and sociopragmatic conventions of writing; affirm students’ heritages; balance grammar and rhetorical concerns; offer explicit direction; and avoid appealing to NS intuitions.
Thonus, T. (2002). Tutor and student assessments of academic writing tutorials: What is ‘‘success’’? Assessing Writing, 8(2), 110–134.
414
T. Silva, J.L. Kapper / Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 405–416
Based on an analysis of writing center tutorials — six with native speakers of English and six with nonnative speakers of English — the researcher develops a profile of a successful tutorial. Her model, which includes conversational turn structure, mitigation of tutors’ directiveness, laughter, overlap, and small talk, is supported by data from interviews with the participants. The researcher includes recommendations for tutor training.
Tickoo, A. (2000). How to create a crisis: A study of ESL narrative prose. ITL: Review of Applied Linguistics, 129/130, 169–190. In an examination of 35 student narratives written by Cantonese-speaking ESL learners at a Hong Kong university, the author investigates students’ difficulties meeting the conventions of the narrative genre. The author focuses on narrative complication, highlighting its importance to the overall narrative structure, and suggests implications for teaching.
Turner, C. E., & Upshur, J. A. (2002). Rating scales derived from student samples: Effects of the scale maker and the student sample on scale content and student scores. TESOL Quarterly, 36(1), 49–70. The researchers examine how scale developers and samples used to develop scales affect the resulting scales. The scale developers had a minor effect on ratings, while samples used for scale development had a major effect. Based on their findings, the researchers present implications for empirical research that uses rating scales.
Warschauer, M. (2002). Networking into academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1(1), 45–58. The author examines how three university instructors attempted to integrate online communication into their academic writing courses, noting their underlying assumption that online communication is relevant to gaining proficiency in academic writing. He concludes that technology is a resource that can support a variety of methods and approaches, as the instructors’ varied uses of technology demonstrate.
Weigle, S. C., Boldt, H., & Valsecchi, M. I. (2003). Effects of task and rater background on the evaluation of ESL student writing: A pilot study. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 345–354. The researchers investigate the differences in the evaluation of textresponsible (TR) writing — writing done within a content area — and nontext-responsible (NTR) writing by ESL instructors and instructors in other
T. Silva, J.L. Kapper / Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 405–416
415
disciplines. They conclude that instructors from other disciplines bring their own expectations to the evaluation process, and linguistic features carry more weight in NTR writing tasks than in TR writing tasks.
Williams, J. (2002). Undergraduate second language writers in the writing center. Journal of Basic Writing, 21(2), 73–91. The author reviews second language acquisition research and discusses its implications for working with second language writers in the writing center. Based on her analysis of second language writing research on topics such as writers, learner language, the Interaction Hypothesis, and scaffolding, the author suggests that writing centers are productive places for second language writers to work on their writing and an ideal site for second language writing research.
Yamada, K. (2003). What prevents ESL/EFL writers from avoiding plagiarism?: Analyses of 10 North-American college websites. System, 31(2), 247–258. The author examined 10 North American college websites on plagiarism. Based on this analysis, the author observes that the websites discuss plagiarism much as textbooks and writing manuals do. The author concludes with a call for more exploration of the role of inferential thinking in learning to use multiple sources.
Yamada, K. (2000). Helping novice EFL/ESL academic writers appreciate English textual patterns through summary writing. JALT Journal, 22(1), 196–208. Noting that EFL/ESL students sometimes view textual patterns as limiting rules instead of as tools, the author suggests teaching summarization in an effort to underscore the benefits of textual patterns. She describes a summary writing activity that uses news items from satellite English TV to teach textual patterns, suggesting that this activity provides students an entry point into academic writing.
Yang, L., & Shi, L. (2003). Exploring six MBA students’ summary writing by introspection. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(3), 165–192. Using think-aloud protocols, interviews, and participants’ written drafts, the researchers examined the summary writing processes of six first-year Master of Business Administration students — three Chinese ESL students and three native speakers of English — in a North American university. Their findings suggest that students’ success in summary writing is affected
416
T. Silva, J.L. Kapper / Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 405–416
by their previous writing expertise, the complexity of the assignment, and students’ identification of key strategies for summary writing.
Youngs, B. L., & Green, A. (2001). A successful peer writing assistant program. Foreign Language Annals, 34(6), 550–558. The authors describe and assess a peer writing assistant program implemented at Carnegie Mellon University. After providing a context for the program and describing writing assistants’ training, the authors describe the questionnaire and prose reactions that they collected in order to evaluate the program’s success. Their results suggest that all stakeholders in the program are pleased with the outcomes, and based on these results, they offer suggestions for implementing successful peer writing assistant programs.
Yuan, Y. (2003). The use of chat rooms in an ESL setting. Computers and Composition, 20(2), 194–206. The researcher discusses the effect of adding 1-h online chat sessions to regular classroom interactions in a personalized English program for university professionals. The researcher suggests that the online sessions provided meaningful communication practice, while analysis of transcripts from the online sessions in subsequent face-to-face classes allowed students to notice and repair their errors.
Selected bibliography of recent scholarship in second language writing Tony Silva*, Jessie L. Kapper Department of English, Purdue University, 500 Oval Drive, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1356, USA
This bibliography cites and summarizes essays and reports of research on second and foreign language writing and writing instruction that have become available to its compilers during the period from July 1, 2003 to September 30, 2003.
Blanton, L. L., & Kroll, B. (Eds.). (2002). ESL composition tales: Reflections on teaching. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. This collection presents the careers of 10 second language writing scholars and provides a collective history of their experiences. Their individual narratives examine how their theories and pedagogies have changed during their teaching careers. As a result, the collection provides insight into the development of the second language writing field. After a preface by the editors and an introduction by Dana Ferris, chapters include: ‘‘What I certainly didn’t know when I started’’ (Kroll); ‘‘The best of intentions’’ (Erickson); ‘‘Not the end of history’’ (Leki); ‘‘From the working class to the writing class: A second-generation American teaches second language composition’’ (Silva); ‘‘Ask!’’ (Reid); ‘‘A story of experimentation and evolving awareness, Or why I became an advocate for approaching writing through genre’’ (Johns); ‘‘If I had known 12 things . . .’’ (Cumming); ‘‘As I was saying to Leonard Bloomfield: A personalized history of ESL/writing’’ (Blanton); and ‘‘Epilogue: Reinventing giants’’ (Matsuda).
Bloch, J. (2003). Creating materials for teaching evaluation in academic writing: Using letters to the editor in L2 composition courses. English for Specific Purposes, 22(4), 347–364.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1-765-494-3769; fax: þ1-765-494-3780. E-mail address: [email protected] (T. Silva).
1060-3743/$ – see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2003.09.002
406
T. Silva, J.L. Kapper / Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 405–416
After analyzing letters to the editor of the journal Science, the author suggests using material from these types of letters to supplement instruction in more formal academic writing, such as research reports. He notes that analyses of academic writing often overlook the ‘‘personal value and expression’’ that letters contribute to scientific discourse.
Braine, G. (2002). Academic literacy and the nonnative speaker graduate student. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1(1), 59–68. In a meta-analysis of surveys and case studies on the acquisition of academic literacy, the author explores the field’s understanding of academic literacy and suggests topics that still need to be explored. He augments his summary of existing research with personal anecdotes from his own experience as a nonnative English speaker gaining academic literacy.
Breiner-Sanders, K. E., Sender, E., & Terry, R. M. (2002). Preliminary proficiency guidelines — Writing: Revised 2001. Foreign Language Annals, 35(1), 9–15. The authors present a revision of the ACTFL Writing Proficiency Guidelines, which were originally developed in 1986. Their revision reorders proficiency levels to emphasize positive description statements for each level. They identify this revision as a first step in reexamining the document and call for users of the guidelines to discuss what additional refinements should be made.
Brooks-Carson, A. W., & Cohen, A. D. (2000). Direct vs. translated writing: Strategies for bilingual writers. In B. Swierzbin, B. Morris, M. E. Anderson, C. A. Klee, & E. Tarone (Eds.), Social and cognitive factors in second language acquisition (pp. 397–423). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. The researchers examine the effect of translation from a first or second language when composing in another language. They report on their study of 16 bilingual Spanish-English speakers enrolled in French classes at the University of Miami. Students completed background questionnaires, writing tasks, strategies checklists, and follow-up checklists. Based on their analysis of these materials, the researchers conclude that students received higher scores on their writing tasks when they wrote in the target language (French) than when they wrote in their preferred language for instruction (Spanish or English) and then translated their text into French.
Canagarajah, S. (2002). Multilingual writers and the academic community: Towards a critical relationship. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1(1), 29–44.
T. Silva, J.L. Kapper / Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 405–416
407
In a meta-analysis of theory and research on helping students negotiate their vernacular and academic communities, the author attempts to examine how different ESOL pedagogical approaches help students position themselves within these communities. He suggests that, collectively, the existing models of vernacular and academic communities contribute to richer pedagogical practices.
Cheng, Y. (2002). Factors associated with foreign language writing anxiety. Foreign Language Annals, 35(5), 647–656. Using four language anxiety scales and a background questionnaire, the researcher investigated students’ foreign language writing anxiety, focusing on variables such as learner differences, students’ perceptions of their anxieties, and other forms of language anxiety. The study’s results suggest that students’ perceived writing competence is a better predictor for L2 writing anxiety than L2 writing achievement is. The researcher concludes that foreign language instruction should foster students’ perceptions of their competence, in addition to developing their writing skills.
Cornwell, S., & McKay, T. (2000). Establishing a valid, reliable measure of writing apprehension for Japanese students. JALT Journal, 22(1), 114–139. Recognizing that Daly and Miller’s Writing Apprehension Test (DM-WAT) was designed for L1 writing students, the researchers examine the validity of a translated version of the DM-WAT to measure the L2 writing apprehension of Japanese students of English. Their results suggest that the translated, modified version is a valid measure of writing apprehension for their student population.
Cumming, A. (2002). Assessing L2 writing: Alternative constructs and ethical dilemmas. Assessing Writing, 8(2), 73–83. The author notes that despite the prevalence in pedagogical materials of writing as a mode of learning, as an expression of identity, or as a medium for political action, L2 writing tests rarely incorporate these constructs of writing. He theorizes why these constructs are absent from writing tests and discusses these concerns in relation to writing task types for a new TOEFL.
Delgadillo, R. E. (2000). Materiales para la produccio´ n escrita: una propuesta metodolo´ gica para la ensen˜ anza del espan˜ ol como segunda lengua [Materials for written production: A methodological proposal for the teaching of Spanish as a second language]. Estudios de Lingu¨ ´ıstica Aplicada, 32, 103–114.
408
T. Silva, J.L. Kapper / Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 405–416
Developed for writers learning Spanish as a second language and framed within the communicative approach, a model and techniques are presented, which bring together morphosyntactic, discursive, and pragmatic elements of writing and incorporate social and cultural practices as well as the cognitive abilities of students.
Glenwright, P. (2002). Language proficiency assessment for teachers: The effects of benchmarking on writing assessment in Hong Kong schools. Assessing Writing, 8(2), 84–109. In an examination of the language proficiency assessment for teachers (LPAT) in Hong Kong, the author suggests that the assessment reinforces traditional views of language, grammar, and pedagogy, thereby undermining assessment of student writing. Drawing on survey responses and a study of student-teachers’ assessments of EFL compositions, the author describes the Hong Kong context, discusses the LPAT initiative, recounts former writing assessment practices, and examines the impact of the LPAT on writing assessment.
Gosden, H. (2003). ‘Why not give us the full story?’: Functions of referees’ comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(2), 87–101. The researcher describes the challenge faced by novice NNES researchers attempting to revise manuscripts in response to referees’ comments and notes that the confidentiality of the peer review process makes it difficult for novice researchers to learn how to construct effective revisions. He describes and analyzes referees’ comments from 40 peer reviews of short scientific papers in an effort to increase awareness of the motivation behind referees’ comments.
Greene, D. (2000). A design model for beginner-level computer-mediated EFL writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(3), 239–252. The author chronicles the implementation and refinement of a CALL writing course for beginner-level EFL students at a Japanese technical university. Within the framework of the model’s stakeholders, technological considerations, and writing outcomes, the author outlines the theoretical underpinnings of the model and its practical limitations within the context described, noting that theory and practice often collide.
Hatasa, Y. A., & Soeda, E. (2000). Writing strategies revisited: A case of non-cognate L2 writers. In B. Swierzbin, B. Morris, M. E. Anderson, C. A.
T. Silva, J.L. Kapper / Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 405–416
409
Klee, & E. Tarone (Eds.), Social and cognitive factors in second language acquisition (pp. 375–396). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Using a think-aloud method, the researchers examined the composing processes of four highly advanced learners of Japanese as they completed L1 (Australian English) and L2 argumentative writing tasks. They compare their findings with previous studies of L1 and L2 composing processes, noting that unlike prior studies, L2 writing fluency in their study did not result in high quality compositions. Their findings, however, do support previous studies that identify an overall similarity between L1 and L2 composing processes.
Hinkel, E. (2003). Simplicity without elegance: Features of sentences in L1 and L2 academic texts. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 275–301. Based on an analysis of 1083 L1 and L2 academic texts, the author compared the use of syntactic and lexical constructions, predicative adjectives, vague nouns, and verbs by native and non-native speakers of English in U.S. universities. Her findings suggest that advanced ESL writers use simpler syntactic and lexical constructions than first-year NES students. In view of these findings, she includes implications for teaching.
Huie, K., & Yahya, N. (2003). Learning to write in the primary grades: Experiences of English language learners and mainstream students. TESOL Journal, 12(1), 25–38. The authors attempt to illustrate any differences between native English speaking children’s writing and limited English proficiency children’s writing in order to investigate how the local school district could improve writing instruction for L2 learners. They describe differences in organization, support, and voice, and they suggest implications both for their local context and for the more widespread issues of classroom practices and teacher education.
Hyland, K. (2000). ‘‘It might be suggested that . . .’’: Academic hedging and student writing. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 16, 83–97. After discussing the significance of hedging in academic writing, the author identifies reasons why students have problems incorporating hedging into their writing and suggests pedagogical activities to help students learn to use this rhetorical device. The author notes that students often have difficulties with hedging due to the range of meanings hedges convey, the complexity of hedging expressions, cross-cultural differences, and poor
410
T. Silva, J.L. Kapper / Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 405–416
textbook advice. He then calls on teachers to incorporate more writing assignments that allow students to practice using hedges and offers some examples of appropriate assignments.
Khuwaileh, A. A., & Shoumali, A. A. (2000). Writing errors: A study of the writing ability of Arab learners of academic English and Arabic at university. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 13(2), 174–183. In an investigation of the writing skills of Arabic students, the researchers analyzed 300 student writing samples — 150 written in Arabic (L1) and 150 written in English (L2) — composed in classroom settings by secondyear students in a Jordanian university. Based on their analysis, the researchers suggest that poor writing in English correlates with lower writing proficiency in Arabic, demonstrating that not all L2 writers are proficient writers in their native language.
Kim, S.-A. (2001). Characteristics of EFL readers’ summary writing: A study with Korean university students. Foreign Language Annals, 34(6), 569–581. The researcher examined Korean EFL students’ summary writing skills by analyzing summaries that 70 freshman students wrote on one of two texts. Based on a pilot study, one text was identified as more difficult than the other. Thirty-five students summarized each text, and the researcher’s results suggest that text difficulty did affect writers’ behaviors. Furthermore, students extensively used deletion rules in their summaries, but selection and transformation rules were used less frequently, leading the researcher to call for more instruction in these summary techniques.
Kirschner, M., & Wexler, C. (2002). Caravaggio: A design for an interdisciplinary content-based EAP/ESP unit. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1(2), 163–183. The authors describe a content-based unit on the film Caravaggio and use this description to discuss the theoretical and pedagogical concerns faced by EFL instructors. The unit they describe incorporates readings in art history and film and was developed for students in an art history program and a multi-disciplinary arts program at Tel Aviv University.
Kroll, B. (Ed.). (2003). Exploring the dynamics of second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. This collection constructs an overview of the field of second language writing by examining research areas that second language writing scholars
T. Silva, J.L. Kapper / Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 405–416
411
explore. The book’s five sections focus on different themes of exploration, ranging from exploring the field to exploring second language writers and their texts. Contributions include: ‘‘Introduction: Teaching the next generation of second language writers’’ (Kroll); ‘‘Second language writing in the twentieth century: A situated historical perspective’’ (Matsuda); ‘‘Research on second language writing: An overview of what we investigate and how’’ (Polio); ‘‘Experienced ESL/EFL writing instructors’ conceptualizations of their teaching: Curriculum options and implications’’ (Cumming); ‘‘Second language writing up close and personal: Some success stories’’ (Silva, Reichelt, Chikuma, Duval-Couetil, Mo, Ve´ lez-Rendo´ n, & Wood); ‘‘Responding to writing’’ (Ferris); ‘‘Grammar and the ESL writing class’’ (Frodesen & Holten); ‘‘Writing teachers as assessors of writing’’ (Hamp-Lyons); ‘‘Genre and ESL/EFL composition instruction’’ (Johns); ‘‘Changing currents in contrastive rhetoric: Implications for teaching and research’’ (Connor); ‘‘Reading and writing relations: Second language perspectives on research and practice’’ (Grabe); ‘‘Literature in the teaching of second language composition’’ (Vandrick); ‘‘The impact of the computer in second language writing’’ (Pennington); and ‘‘A challenge to second language writing professionals: Is writing overrated?’’ (Leki).
Lee, Y.-J. (2002). A comparison of composing processes and written products in timed-essay tests across paper-and-pencil and computer modes. Assessing Writing, 8(2), 135–157. In a study of six Korean students’ composing processes, the researcher examined differences in the students’ processes depending on the medium — computer or paper — that they used while writing timed-essays in English. The participants, who had high proficiency in English, spent more time pre-writing when composing on paper, but had a longer pause time when composing on computer. Given these findings, the researcher suggests that incorporating computers changes the composing process, and the researcher offers implications for writing assessment.
Liu, J., & Sadler, R. W. (2003). The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional modes of L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(3), 193–227. The researchers examine whether the mode of commenting (Microsoft Word editing versus pen and paper) and the mode of interaction (MOO versus face-to-face) affect the area, the type, and the nature of peer review comments in L2 writing. Based on their findings, they recommend a twostep peer review process that incorporates both traditional and technologyenhanced modes of commenting and interaction.
412
T. Silva, J.L. Kapper / Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 405–416
Melby-Mauer, J. (2003). Using e-mail assignments and online correction in ESL instruction. TESOL Journal, 12(2), 37–38. The author describes an e-mail assignment focused on grammatical error analysis. Students e-mail journal writing assignments to their instructor, who responds to the e-mail, inserting error correction symbols next to errors. The author notes that the exercise could be extended to require students to correct marked errors.
Miller, K. S. (2000). Academic writers on-line: Investigating pausing in the production of text. Language Teaching Research, 4(2), 123–148. The researcher examines the use of recording keystrokes in L1 and L2 writing research. This research method enables researchers to examine pausing, fluency, and revision activity during the writing process. The researcher includes findings from a study of L1 and L2 writers to demonstrate the potential application of the research tool and suggests possible uses of the tool in future research.
Olivares-Cuhat, G. (2002). Learning strategies and achievement in the Spanish writing classroom: A case study. Foreign Language Annals, 35(5), 561–570. Using the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) to estimate students’ learning strategies, as well as grades on two written compositions to estimate students’ writing achievement, the researcher examined the effect of learning strategies on writing achievement. Her findings suggest that L1 (native Spanish speaking) students in an intermediate-advanced college-level Spanish writing class obtained higher grades than their L2 (nonnative Spanish speaking) classmates and were more likely to use affective and memory strategies.
Ruan, Z. (2001). The effects of linguistic preparation on an EFL writing task. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 4, 24–27. The author investigates the effect of linguistic preparation on the development of learners’ interlanguage systems. Based on the study’s findings, the author suggests that explicit language preparation contributes to improving accuracy and fluency in EFL writing tasks.
Schindler, K. (2000). Gemeinsames Schreiben in der Fremdsprache: Muster, kreativita¨ t und das Glu¨ ck des Autors [General writing in a foreign language: Pattern, creativity, and author’s luck]. Glottodidactica, 28, 161–184.
T. Silva, J.L. Kapper / Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 405–416
413
In a study of German and Polish students’ letter writing, the researcher examined the effect of text pattern knowledge on the text production process. Students worked in pairs to write a letter of application for a job at a French corporation. Based on correlations between students’ texts and their pattern knowledge, the researcher suggests implications for giving L2 writing students text patterns for communicative tasks.
Stapleton, P. (2003). Assessing the quality and bias of web-based sources: Implications for academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(3), 229–245. Noting that internet sources are less likely to be peer-reviewed than traditional research sources, the researcher examined L2 learners awareness of web-based sources’ quality and the learners’ actual use of these sources. He found that students’ questionnaire responses indicate that they are aware of potential limitations regarding web-based sources, but their assignments demonstrated a mixed application of this knowledge, suggesting a need for increased instruction in the use of Internet research.
Suh, J.-S. (2002). Effectiveness of CALL writing instruction: The voices of Korean EFL learners. Foreign Language Annals, 35(6), 669–679. The researcher examines Korean students’ reactions to studying EFL via computer-mediated writing instruction. Throughout their writing process while using a CALL program, students kept a journal in which they recorded their reactions to the CALL-based instruction. An analysis of these journal entries suggests that students thought CALL was a helpful tool. The researcher concludes with suggestions for improving CALLbased instruction.
Thonus, T. (2003). Serving generation 1.5 learners in the university writing center. TESOL Journal, 12(1), 17–24. The author suggests that writing centers offer unique support for generation 1.5 learners who might not self-identify as ESL learners or enroll in ESL classes. She notes, however, that writing centers need to adjust their practices in order to best accommodate generation 1.5 students. Therefore, she proposes five pedagogical principles for writing centers that serve this population: Teach metalanguage and sociopragmatic conventions of writing; affirm students’ heritages; balance grammar and rhetorical concerns; offer explicit direction; and avoid appealing to NS intuitions.
Thonus, T. (2002). Tutor and student assessments of academic writing tutorials: What is ‘‘success’’? Assessing Writing, 8(2), 110–134.
414
T. Silva, J.L. Kapper / Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 405–416
Based on an analysis of writing center tutorials — six with native speakers of English and six with nonnative speakers of English — the researcher develops a profile of a successful tutorial. Her model, which includes conversational turn structure, mitigation of tutors’ directiveness, laughter, overlap, and small talk, is supported by data from interviews with the participants. The researcher includes recommendations for tutor training.
Tickoo, A. (2000). How to create a crisis: A study of ESL narrative prose. ITL: Review of Applied Linguistics, 129/130, 169–190. In an examination of 35 student narratives written by Cantonese-speaking ESL learners at a Hong Kong university, the author investigates students’ difficulties meeting the conventions of the narrative genre. The author focuses on narrative complication, highlighting its importance to the overall narrative structure, and suggests implications for teaching.
Turner, C. E., & Upshur, J. A. (2002). Rating scales derived from student samples: Effects of the scale maker and the student sample on scale content and student scores. TESOL Quarterly, 36(1), 49–70. The researchers examine how scale developers and samples used to develop scales affect the resulting scales. The scale developers had a minor effect on ratings, while samples used for scale development had a major effect. Based on their findings, the researchers present implications for empirical research that uses rating scales.
Warschauer, M. (2002). Networking into academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1(1), 45–58. The author examines how three university instructors attempted to integrate online communication into their academic writing courses, noting their underlying assumption that online communication is relevant to gaining proficiency in academic writing. He concludes that technology is a resource that can support a variety of methods and approaches, as the instructors’ varied uses of technology demonstrate.
Weigle, S. C., Boldt, H., & Valsecchi, M. I. (2003). Effects of task and rater background on the evaluation of ESL student writing: A pilot study. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 345–354. The researchers investigate the differences in the evaluation of textresponsible (TR) writing — writing done within a content area — and nontext-responsible (NTR) writing by ESL instructors and instructors in other
T. Silva, J.L. Kapper / Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 405–416
415
disciplines. They conclude that instructors from other disciplines bring their own expectations to the evaluation process, and linguistic features carry more weight in NTR writing tasks than in TR writing tasks.
Williams, J. (2002). Undergraduate second language writers in the writing center. Journal of Basic Writing, 21(2), 73–91. The author reviews second language acquisition research and discusses its implications for working with second language writers in the writing center. Based on her analysis of second language writing research on topics such as writers, learner language, the Interaction Hypothesis, and scaffolding, the author suggests that writing centers are productive places for second language writers to work on their writing and an ideal site for second language writing research.
Yamada, K. (2003). What prevents ESL/EFL writers from avoiding plagiarism?: Analyses of 10 North-American college websites. System, 31(2), 247–258. The author examined 10 North American college websites on plagiarism. Based on this analysis, the author observes that the websites discuss plagiarism much as textbooks and writing manuals do. The author concludes with a call for more exploration of the role of inferential thinking in learning to use multiple sources.
Yamada, K. (2000). Helping novice EFL/ESL academic writers appreciate English textual patterns through summary writing. JALT Journal, 22(1), 196–208. Noting that EFL/ESL students sometimes view textual patterns as limiting rules instead of as tools, the author suggests teaching summarization in an effort to underscore the benefits of textual patterns. She describes a summary writing activity that uses news items from satellite English TV to teach textual patterns, suggesting that this activity provides students an entry point into academic writing.
Yang, L., & Shi, L. (2003). Exploring six MBA students’ summary writing by introspection. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(3), 165–192. Using think-aloud protocols, interviews, and participants’ written drafts, the researchers examined the summary writing processes of six first-year Master of Business Administration students — three Chinese ESL students and three native speakers of English — in a North American university. Their findings suggest that students’ success in summary writing is affected
416
T. Silva, J.L. Kapper / Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 405–416
by their previous writing expertise, the complexity of the assignment, and students’ identification of key strategies for summary writing.
Youngs, B. L., & Green, A. (2001). A successful peer writing assistant program. Foreign Language Annals, 34(6), 550–558. The authors describe and assess a peer writing assistant program implemented at Carnegie Mellon University. After providing a context for the program and describing writing assistants’ training, the authors describe the questionnaire and prose reactions that they collected in order to evaluate the program’s success. Their results suggest that all stakeholders in the program are pleased with the outcomes, and based on these results, they offer suggestions for implementing successful peer writing assistant programs.
Yuan, Y. (2003). The use of chat rooms in an ESL setting. Computers and Composition, 20(2), 194–206. The researcher discusses the effect of adding 1-h online chat sessions to regular classroom interactions in a personalized English program for university professionals. The researcher suggests that the online sessions provided meaningful communication practice, while analysis of transcripts from the online sessions in subsequent face-to-face classes allowed students to notice and repair their errors.