Volume 1, Number 1 (1992)
Ideology in Composition:
L1 and ESL
TERRY SANTOS
Humboldt State University
This article looks at the
ideological view of writing in L1 composition and attempts to answer the
question of why a similar view has not been propounded in ESL writing. The
claim is that the difference can be attributed to: 1) the different
affiliations of L1 and L2 composition, that is, L1 with literature and L2
with applied linguistics, 2) the scientific model for L2 research, 3)
ESL's primarily pragmatic aims, and 4) the conservatizing effect of EFL.
The article concludes by considering whether L2 composition might move in
the direction of L1 by developing a similar ideological perspective.
Instructional Routines in
ESL Composition Teaching: A Case Study of Three Teachers
ALISTER CUMMING
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
Findings are reported from
a naturalistic case study aiming to identify common instructional routines
in the classroom performance of three experienced ESL composition
instructors. Six routines were found to account for all of the teaching
practices of the three instructors over the period of their courses.
Analyses showed frequent alternations between these routines, consistency
in the proportions of the routines across the classes documented, little
change in their use over the duration of courses, as well as much
embedding of the routines within one another. These experienced ESL
composition instructors appeared to alternate and embed their uses of
these routines to allocate equivalent but varied attention to divergent
teaching functions, for example, responding to individual learning while
managing class activities. Sequential and conceptual models of these
processes are outlined, suggesting that the instruction observed
systematically focused on student task performance rather than the
presentation of content as in conventional instruction. Implications are
cited for future studies of second language composition teaching and
curriculum innovations as well as advancing the scope of research on
second language composition in educational settings.
Becoming Biliterate:
First Language Influences
JOAN G. CARSON
Georgia State University
Since schooling is an
important determinant of specific literacy capabilities, it is reasonable
to assume that a student's educational background will have an effect on
the development of literacy skills. However, in addition to learning the
forms and functions of literacy in school, students also learn how to
learn literacy skills. As a result, readers and writers develop a sense
from their first language educational experiences both of what being
literate means, as well as of what becoming literate entails. This paper
will explore ways in which first language literacy learning strategies can
be understood as either enhancing or complicating acquisition of second
language literacy skills. Three aspects of literacy development for
Japanese and Chinese elementary and secondary school students will be
discussed: (1) the social context of schooling; (2) the cognitive
considerations of the written code; and (3) the pedagogical practices most
often used in teaching reading and writing. Implications for second
language writing classrooms will be considered.
Cognitive Strategies and
Second Language Writers: A Re-evaluation of Sentence Combining
KAREN E. JOHNSON
Pennsylvania State University
Despite scant empirical
evidence and questionable theoretical support, sentence-combining
continues to be one of the most widely used instructional alternatives to
formal grammar instruction in second language writing instruction. This
study explored the cognitive strategies that second language writers
engaged in during sentence-combining tasks in order to determine: 1) the
cognitive demands of sentence-combining tasks, 2) if different types of
sentence-combining tasks require different levels of cognitive strategies,
and 3) the extent to which sentence-combining tasks require second
language writers to attend to aspects of cohesion and evaluation. Nine
advanced-level second language writers participated in think-aloud
protocols (Ericsson & Simon, 1980, 1984) as they completed both controlled
and open sentence-combining tasks. The protocols were analyzed according
to the type of cognitive strategies used during sentence-combining tasks.
The results showed that these second language writers engaged in restating
content, constructing meaning, and higher and lower-level planning as they
completed sentence-combining tasks. Between-task comparisons indicated
that open sentence-combining tasks required significantly more
higher-level planning than controlled sentence-combining tasks. Finally,
these second language writers evaluated the appropriateness of their
constructions but did not attend to aspects of cohesion during
sentence-combining tasks. Relevant theoretical and pedagogical
implications for second language writing instruction are discussed.
Volume 1, Number 2
(1992)
A Computer Text Analysis
of Four Cohesion Devices in English Discourse by Native and Nonnative
Writers
JOY REID
University of Wyoming
Nonnative speakers (NNSs)
of English in U.S. colleges and universities often have difficulty writing
adequate academic prose. One research area which has sought to identify
and solve the problems of English as a Second Language (ESL) writing is
contrastive rhetoric: the study of texts written in English by native
speakers (NSs) of different languages to determine syntactic and
rhetorical differences. This study examined 768 essays written in English
by native speakers of Arabic, Chinese, Spanish, and English in order to
determine whether distinctive, quantifiable differences in the use of four
cohesion devices existed between and among the four language backgrounds.
The corpus consisted of four essay prompts: two topic types and two topic
tasks for each topic. The Writer's Workbench (WWB), a computer
text-analysis program originally developed by AT&T Bel1 Laboratories, was
used to analyze the four cohesion variables in the corpus. Results of the
analyses showed frequent co-occurrence of certain cohesion devices that
differed significantly between and among language backgrounds and between
topic types.
University Faculty
Tolerance of NS and NNS Writing Errors: A Comparison
MICHAEL JANOPOULOS
University of Northern Iowa
University faculty
tolerance of NNS writing errors is an issue that has been well researched.
However, the question of how a university faculty's tolerance of NNS
errors compares to its tolerance of similar errors committed by NS writers
is one that has not been systematically addressed. This issue is
significant in light of the growing trend within academia toward setting
more rigorous standards of literacy, especially as more and more
institutions are requiring candidates for graduation to demonstrate
writing competency on a standardized writing exam. This article describes
a study in which university faculty were asked to rate 24 sentences
containing errors commonly committed by NNS writers on a 6-point scale of
tolerance. Half the faculty were told they were rating NNS errors, whereas
the other half rated errors that were identified as NS in origin. Results,
although mixed, indicated that faculty were generally more tolerant of NNS
errors than they were of errors they perceived as being made by NS
students. These results raise the possibility that NNS university students
may not be held to the same classroom standards of writing competence as
their NS counterparts, and so may be placed at a disadvantage when obliged
to take a writing competency exam.
Research Writing and
NNSs: From the Editors
HUGH GOSDEN
Tokyo Institute of Technology
This article focuses on
the varied linguistic and sociopragmatic skills require for effective
international research reporting. In order to understand more clearly the
demands of the immediate audience many English NNS (nonnative speaker)
researchers are writing for, a survey of journal editors in North America
and the U.K. was carried out. This article reports the results of this
survey of particular interest are the language-related criteria which may
most influence consideration of NNS researchers' papers. As a result of
survey findings, implications and suggestions for the teaching of research
writing to NNS researchers are discussed.
Toward a New Contrastive
Rhetoric: Differences Between Arabic and Japanese Rhetorical Instruction
JOANNE D. LIEBMAN
University of Arkansas at Little Rock
Contrastive rhetoric is
being updated to accommodate the new process rhetoric. An expanded
contrastive rhetoric focuses not only on finished written products, but on
the contexts in which writing occurs and on the processes involved in its
production. Two limitations exist in the early theory and research of
contrastive rhetoric. First, contrastive rhetoricians had a narrow view of
rhetoric, considering only the organization of finished texts. Second,
they had a narrow view of Western rhetoric. After discussing these
limitations and pointing out the need for a richer view of the contrasts
between the rhetorics of different cultures, this article reports on a
survey of Japanese and Arabic ESL students to investigate how writing is
taught in different cultures. The survey reveals that rhetorical
instruction does differ in these two cultures: In Japan, instruction
emphasizes the expressive function of writing, whereas in Arab countries,
it emphasizes the transactional function.
Volume 1, Number 3
(1992)
An L2 Writing Group: Task
and Social Dimensions
GAYLE L. NELSON
JOHN M. MURPHY
Georgia State University
Although peer writing
groups are frequently used in ESL writing classes, little research has
been conducted on what actually occurs in these groups. This study
examined two aspects of L2 writing groups: the task dimension and the
social dimension. Using a case-study methodology, we videotaped one L2
writing group for six consecutive weeks. The data collected included (a)
the videotapes, (b) transcripts of the videotapes, (c) student
compositions, (d) student dialogue journals, and (e) student interviews.
Using transcripts of the six videotapes, coders divided the participants'
utterances into thought groups. Using a modified version of Fanselow's
(1987) classroom observation instrument, we then coded their thought
groups using the following categories: study of language, life general
knowledge, life personal knowledge, procedure, and format. Two trained
raters independently coded the transcripts. An inter-coder reliability of
.91 was determined by comparing their ratings. Results indicated that the
percentage of utterances relating to study of language ranged from 70% to
80% and increased slightly across the six sessions. These findings suggest
that students stayed on task by discussing each other's texts. To examine
the group's social dimension (i.e., group dynamics), all data were
examined. The literature on writing groups tends to idealize writing group
interactions as writers constructively helping each other. This present
analysis suggests otherwise. For example, one student was characterized by
the group as the attacker because of her sharp, negative comments. Due, in
part, to the attacker's critical comments, another student expressed
dissatisfaction with the writing group.
Interpersonal Involvement
in Discourse: Gender Variation in L2 Writers' Complimenting Strategies
DONNA M. JOHNSON
University of Arizona
This article reports on
the use of complimenting as an involvement strategy in peer-review texts.
The analysis explores how L2 writers vary their complimenting style
according to gender of addressee. The data base is a set of 35 peer-review
papers written by advanced L2 women writers. Four complimenting strategies
that have been found to contribute to a female-female style are analyzed:
positive evaluation, intensifiers, personal referencing, and a framing
strategy. For each strategy, a comparison is made between texts addressed
to women and texts addressed to men. In addition, the audience
accommodation strategies of the L2 writers are compared to those of L1
writers. Results reveal that although L2 writers used some aspects of the
L1 writers' female-female complimenting style, they did not vary their
language use according to gender of addressee to the degree or in the same
ways that the L1 writers did. Implications for second language acquisition
and for writing effectiveness are discussed.
Coaching Student Writers
to Be Effective Peer Evaluators
JANE STANLEY
International University of Japan
Peer evaluation is used
widely in the ESL classroom, although many teachers express reservations
about the efficacy of this type of group work. Some of these complaints
focus on students' tendencies to respond to surface problems at the
expense of more substantive questions of meaning and to offer unhelpful or
unconstructive advice to their classmates. Consideration of these
complaints leads to questions about the way students are prepared to
participate as peer evaluators. Students in this study are prepared for
peer evaluation in a fairly lengthy coaching procedure, which includes
role-playing and analyzing evaluation sessions, discovering "rules" for
effective communication, and studying the genre of student writing. The
subsequent peer-evaluation sessions are analyzed for evidence of the
effectiveness of the coaching. Drafts are also analyzed for evidence of
revision in response to peer evaluators' advice. As a backdrop to this
coached group, another group of students is prepared for group work in a
shorter, and more typical, procedure of watching a demonstration
peer-evaluation session and then discussing it. These students'
peer-evaluation sessions and drafts are also analyzed. The participants in
this study who receive coaching demonstrate a greater level of student
engagement in the task of evaluation, more productive communication about
writing, and clearer guidelines for the revision of drafts.
ESL Student Response
Stances in a Peer-Review Task
KATE MANGELSDORF
University of Texas-El Paso
ANN SCHLUMBERGER
Pima College
Peer reviews are commonly
used in ESL composition classes to enable students to help each other
improve their writing. However, little research has been conducted
concerning how students actually respond to each other during review
sessions and what these responses suggest about their assumptions
concerning peer reviews and composition. In this exploratory study, we
asked 60 ESL freshman composition students to respond in writing to an
essay written the previous semester by another ESL student. We then
examined the stances the students took toward the writer of the text, the
characteristics of these stances, and what these stances suggest about the
students' assumptions concerning written classroom discourse. We discerned
three stances in the students' reviews: an "interpretive" stance, in which
students imposed their own ideas about the topic onto the text; a
"prescriptive" stance, in which students expected the text to follow a
prescribed form; and a "collaborative" stance, in which students tried to
see the text through the author's eyes. A majority of the students assumed
a prescriptive stance, suggesting that they believed that correct form was
more important than the communication of meaning. We conclude by
discussing how our students' responses to their peers' texts can reflect
characteristics of the collaborative stance.
Collaborative Oral/Aural
Revision in Foreign Language Writing Instruction
JOHN HEDGCOCK
University of Houston
NATALIE LEFKOWITZ
Michigan State University
Although L1 and L2 writing
research has demonstrated the positive effects of revision, few empirical
studies have investigated the effects of a collaborative revision-based
method in the foreign-language (FL) context. This investigation tests the
hypothesis that a multistep, oral revision process carried out in the FL
is measurably facilitative in developing basic composition skills and
written fluency among adult learners. The study involves two groups of
college-level learners of French (L1 = English) who were given two essay
assignments, each requiring three separate drafts. In the control group,
the instructor alone supplied written feedback; in the experimental group,
revision took place in small groups, with participants reading their own
papers aloud to their group partners, who responded orally according to a
written protocol. Analysis of the final versions of the two essays
collected from both groups showed that essays produced by the experimental
group received significantly higher component and overall scores than
those produced by the control group (p <.05). The findings suggest that
systematic, collaborative revision produces in learners an awareness of
the rhetorical structure of their own writing and an ability to
self-correct surface errors, thereby helping them overcome inhibitions
related to the formal aspects of writing.
|