SLWIS Newsletter - September 2014 (Plain Text Version)
|
||||||
|
In this issue: |
SCHOLARSHIP ON L2 WRITING IN 2013: THE YEAR IN REVIEW
*Please note: Due to the length of the following article, it has not been copyedited by TESOL. Introduction At TESOL 2014 in Portland, Oregon, USA, Tony Silva, Suneeta Thomas, Hyojung Park, and Cong Zhang gave a presentation designed to help attendees who are interested in second language (L2) writing keep up with the research in this area of study. This article, an overview of scholarship on L2 writing in 2013, is a result of that presentation. This follows in the tradition of the presentation of reviews of L2 writing scholarship done in 2010 (Silva, McMartin-Miller, Jayne, & Pelaez-Morales), 2011 (Silva, Pelaez-Morales, McMartin-Miller, & Lin), 2012 (Silva, Lin, & Thomas), all published in SLW News. Data for this presentation come from a database of scholarship on L2 writing assembled over the past 30 years. This database is the result of a regular review of relevant databases such as Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA), Dissertation Abstracts International (DAI), and Worldcat (an online database that provides access to the collections of 72,000 libraries in 170 countries and territories), as well as a perusal of more than 50 journals that, to a greater or lesser extent, typically publish articles on L2 writing. The types of publications primarily include journal articles, books (authored and edited), book chapters, dissertations, and ERIC documents. To analyze data, we reviewed the materials and categorized them by topic or focus, including feedback, language, writing strategies, academic writing challenges, L2 writing research, assessment, technology, student populations, pedagogy, identity, corpus-based research, genre, and attitudes. The Studies Feedback Feedback (written corrective, peer/self, and other types) continues to be a concern in second language writing. Bitchener presents a reflective piece on the language learning potential of written corrective feedback (WCF) by taking into account what has already been published in literature on the subject and discussing ways in which the field can move forward. Polio observes how different SLA approaches can inform WCF and increase its effectiveness within certain contexts. Min presents a case study of an English as a foreign language (EFL) teacher’s perceptions and practices of WCF. Wen enumerates various methods to elicit effective teacher written feedback. Ferris, Liu, Sinha, & Senna, in their assessment of WCF, observe that language and grammar rules hindered students in their self-composing process. Guénette & Lyster find that pre-service teachers use more direct feedback instead of indirect feedback and suggest ways in which they can tackle challenges in their feedback practice. Sun reports on a study on German L2 case acquisition and finds focused WCF to be very beneficial, though it did not affect the students’ attitudes towards writing. Shintani & Ellis discuss the benefits of metalinguistic explanation (ME) as a possible feedback tool that enables L2 explicit knowledge development. Zarei & Rahnama extend the discussion on WCF by discussing the effects of corrective feedback modes, student’s perceptions towards such modes, and how these affect their writing abilities. Cote conducts a study on anonymous electronic peer-reviews and provides insights into student attitudes towards such reviews and the degree of corrections and feedback provided by students, as well as the degree of peer feedback incorporated by such students. Similarly, through use of technology, Woo, Chu, & Li show how wikis can be used for effective peer-feedback on collaborative writing among primary school students. Che discusses the advantages of bilingual literacy and bicultural understanding in improving informal peer learning interactions. Similarly, Wigglesworth & Storch observe how students working in pairs are able to help each other learn through negotiation in language. Rahimi’s study further illustrates how training students in giving feedback cannot only strengthen their peer-reviewing skills, but also improve the quality of their own writing. Hanaoka & Izumi discuss the degree to which noticing is incorporated in solving covert and overt problems in feedback uptake. Lázaro Ibarroladiscovers how both reformulation and self-correction feedback strategies strengthen error reduction, noting, however, that these strategies need to be designed effectively to function well in a classroom setting. Mawlawi Diab’s book summarizes three studies that research peer feedback and its positive effects on L2 writing. Andrade and Evans’ book discloses ways in which L2 writing teachers should respond to students of varied proficiency levels and how to teach them self-regulating strategies. Hyland explores pedagogical implications of feedback by studying teacher perceptions and motivations behind feedback in disciplinary contexts. Busse’s study also sheds light on students’ perceptions, attitudes, and the effect of feedback on L2 German writing. Lee, Cheung, Wong, & Lee observe how blended learning feedback motivates student performance as opposed to traditional teacher feedback alone, while Chan explores how the combination of e-feedback and face-to-face interaction can enhance L2 writing. Hussein & Al Ashri recount the employment of strategies such as peer response and writing conferences that increased self-efficacy and improvement in student L2 writing. Eckstein’s report provides descriptions of the implementation of a writing conference program, student and teacher attitudes towards it, and insights into student and teacher preferences with regard to feedback processes. Case, Williams, & Xu observe the complexity of individualized feedback required for different groups of learners while Elashri addresses the effectiveness of direct teacher feedback in L2 writing. Mull & Conrad go a step further, using a corpus based approach to guide feedback. Recognizing it as a tool for self-learning, the authors suggest the use of concordancers to facilitate student grammar error correction. Finally, Erlam, Ellis, & Batstone compare two types of oral feedback and find that explicit feedback is incorporated more quickly, but does not encourage self-corrections like graduated feedback does. Language As the title suggests, the “language” category describes studies conducted on different aspects of language in L2 writing research. Some of the common themes include linguistic features, coherence, integrated reading and writing tasks, vocabulary, and lexical diversity. With regard to linguistic features, there are total of 19 studies that look at this sub-category from a variety of angles. Some of the studies focusing on linguistic features examine the use of grammatical metaphor, transfer, subordination, meta-cognitive knowledge, and code-switching. Two studies look specifically at the use of grammatical metaphor: Liardét examines intermediate or incomplete deployment of grammatical metaphor in Chinese EFL writing, and Ryshina-Pankova & Byrnes assess how knowledge is created in L2 German writing through the use of grammatical metaphor. In addition, three studies look at the issue of transfer in second language writing. Grujicic-Alatriste responds to DePalma & Ringer’s earlier article on theorizing adaptive transfer and raises questions about the scope and relevance of the framework in relation to writing and pedagogy. DePalma & Ringer subsequently open up a dialogue in their article in response to Grujicic-Alatriste. Sun analyzes the causes of negative transfer in sentences by Chinese EFL writers. With regard to integrated reading and writing tasks, Grabe & Zhang provide pointers for developing such skills in learners of English for Academic Purposes. Gebril & Plakans survey the use of discourse features and conclude that features such as cohesion, organization, and content are employed by higher level students, whereas certain basic discourse features are repetitively used by lower level students. Elola & Mikulski observe revision behaviors in the English and Spanish writing of L2 Spanish-heritage-language learners. Their findings suggest possibilities of cross-linguistic transfer, as the revision patterns of these learners were similar in both English and Spanish. Parkinson evaluates the use of that-complement clauses by students in the report genre and concludes that this reflects students’ growing sense of academic language use in writing. Additionally, Nesbitt Perez investigates the use of subordinate clauses in L2 writing texts and how these clauses can help measure writing complexity. Kim explores the concept and benefits of textual typology in text-level language learning for Korean students learning French. On a different note, Sebba broadens the definition of written code-switching by studying multilingual texts and proposes an avenue for multimodal inquiry that includes visual and spatial aspects, apart from the linguistic aspect. Mei sheds light on expressions of certainty by analyzing the different types of statements made in undergraduate essays. Meier, in his study of primary students, suggests ways in which content learning can be successfully combined with the employment of mechanics at this crucial age for L2 language learning. Finally, Kim operationalizes meta-cognitive knowledge by exploring its components, various methods of assessing it, and the relationship between L2 proficiency, writing performance, and meta-cognitive knowledge. On a more general note, Taguchi, Crawford, & Wetzel examine linguistic features that mark differences between more and less proficient essays. Similarly, Guo, Crossley, & McNamara suggest that linguistic features can predict essay scores on integrated and independent writing tasks on the TOEFL iBT. Chalak & Norouzi conduct a contrastive study of Iranian and American academic writing by observing the verb tense and rhetorical moves in published journal article abstracts. Elahi & Badeleh carry out a comparative analysis on differences between transitional markers used by English and Persian academic writers in their published articles. With regard to discourse features, two studies focused specifically on coherence and the use of cohesive devices. Ye investigates the differences between Chinese rhetorical coherence devices and English coherence devices and how they can be used to help Chinese English as a Second Language (ESL) students alter their use of coherence in English writing. Yang’s study observes the use of two cohesive devices, textual conjunctives and topic-fronting devices, in Chinese foreign language writing. Regarding lexical diversity and vocabulary, Ma explains how two undergraduate students in the right learning context and with appropriate assessment, can do away with memorization of vocabulary and learn from a more natural approach. Similarly, Staples, Egbert, Biber, & McClair investigate formulaic bundles in the TOEFL iBT and find that low proficient writers tend to use more formulaic bundles from TOEFL prompts. Sadeghi & Dilmaghani explore the relationship between lexical diversity and narrative, descriptive, and argumentative genres in the writing of Iranian students. Their results show that lexical diversity and quality of writing increases in argumentative writing. Three studies specifically focused on error analysis. While Pierce opens the floor for debate in relation to standaridization and error correction in today’s varied college composition classrooms, Akbar Khansir & Shahhoseiny provide an error analysis of articles, passive and active voice, and tenses among EFL pre-university students. Thewissen employs a corpus-based approach (error-tagging) to map out possible L2 accuracy developmental patterns in L2 learner writing. Strategies Learning strategies were also a popular topic in the L2 writing literature. Diverse learning strategies are examined in a number of studies. Lindgren & Stevenson describe the use of interactional resources in pen-friend letters in Swedish and English. Two studies done by Broer and Laman, respectively, elaborate on strategies that teachers can use to help ESL students in their writing. Cowan & Sandefur discuss research-based literacy strategies while Petric & Harwood look at the citation strategies of an L2 post-graduate student. Geist talks about problem-solving strategies and individual differences. Various different genres and classroom tools are used to examine learners’ strategies: two studies by Denne-Bolton and Abednia, Hovassapian, Teimournezhad, & Ghanbari, respectively, focus on dialogue journals. Plakans & Gebril use multiple texts in an integrated writing assessment. Studies conducted by Gorbani, Ganjeraj, & Alavi and Wolfersberger reported on strategies involving the use of reading to assist writing; Adoniou combines drawing and writing. Four studies done by Storch; Aminloo; Lin; and Storch & Aldosari, respectively, discuss learning strategies in collaborative writing, while Abbasian & Mohammadi look at the dictogloss as integrating form and meaning in their research. Wu describes the effects of essay prompts on native (NS) and non-native speakers’ (NNS) writing. A few studies put emphasis on socio-cultural and socio-cognitive aspects of learning strategies. Kang & Pyun explore socio-cultural contexts and writing strategies of learners of Korean while Chandrasegaran and Matuchniak, respectively, suggest a socio-cognitive approach to teaching writing. Olkkonen looks at the speed of performance in cognitive and linguistic tasks and second (L2) and foreign language (FL) reading and writing. A few studies, including Haghverdi, Biria, & Khalaji; Ong; Ong & Zhang, and Panahi discuss the effects of various planning conditions in their research. Academic writing challenges This section presents particular challenges L2 learners face while writing in an academic context. Tang studies the challenges faced by non-native English speaking (NNES) academics in writing and publishing in English. Hanauer & Englander also unveil challenges faced by NNES scientists publishing in English and provide educational resources to help ameliorate the situation. In a similar vein, Cheng explores power relations between a NNES and native English speaking (NES) peers as they collaborate in writing and how NNES students employ coping strategies and use disciplinary knowledge to navigate through power relations during collaboration. Matarese critically assesses the services writing-support professionals provide to their clients through translation, editing, and writing services and how these services can be better implemented to suit client needs. Matsuda, Saenkhum, & Accardi examine teacher perceptions of student needs and whether they make accommodations in classrooms to meet such needs. Doran discusses how Confucianism played a role in the communication between a South Korean graduate student and his advisor. Green reports on the academic writing processes of three undergraduate students and finds that this involves intertextual as well as interpersonal interactions. McKinley discusses ways in which Japanese students can develop critical consciousness in EFL academic writing. Sarkhoush looks into the relationships between student self-efficacy, writing apprehension, writing performance, and attitudes, and concludes that self-efficacy and attitudes as well as self-efficacy and writing performance are positively correlated while writing apprehension and performance are negatively correlated. Hassan highlights the challenges Arab ESL students face in the college writing classroom, including perceptions of cultural criticism and the dire need to establish bridge programs to help these students. Severino presents a personal narrative on the challenges of translation in a foreign language course. Finally, Matuchniak advocates for a cognitive strategies approach to writing instruction to help 12th grade ELL students succeed in writing as they transition into college. To help students and scholars publish in their fields, Curry & Lillis provide a guide to writing for publication. Two experimental studies were conducted to investigate students’ practices of writing for publication. Simpson examines a Brazilian doctoral students’ writing for publication by using system theory, and Tseng discloses how L2 students join academic discourse communities through research writing. Issues of plagiarism and textual borrowing are still drawing much attention from L2 writing scholars. Publications on these issues cover a wide range of participants (undergraduates, postgraduate students, and ESL instructors), regions (UK, Australia, Mainland China, and Hong Kong), and research methods (text analysis, discourse-based interviews, and think-aloud protocols). Among the publications on this topic, Pecorari’s book provides teachers with knowledge of how to promote good use of sources and avoid plagiarism.. Shaw & Pecorari introduce articles on textual borrowing and plagiarism in a special issue of the Journal of English for Academic Purposes. Hirvela & Du discuss a case study of two Mainland Chinese students that explored how students’ understanding of the purpose and function of paraphrasing influenced students’ practice in paraphrasing. Li examines three ESL students’ practices in source-based academic writing in Hong Kong using activity theory, and McCulloch investigates the use of source materials by two L2 students in London by analyzing the reading to write process. Thompson, Morton, & Storch explore how L2 students from different disciplines in an Australian university selected and used sources in their research-based assignments, and Davis reports on the development of source use by three Chinese students in the UK in a two-year case study. In contrast to the foregoing studies that look at students’ use of sources, Lei & Hu research Chinese university English lecturers’ knowledge and perceptions of unacknowledged copying and unattributed paraphrasing. L2 writing research With more than 20 publications offering descriptions of the field and its different aspects, L2 writing research continues to be an important theme. Many authors shared their views of second language writing as a field. Pelaez-Morales identifies three different lines of scholarship, namely ESL, EFL, and FL writing, and how the three have developed historically, with specific attention given to EFL and FL writing development in academic literature. While Byrnes advocates the need to incorporate writing as meaning-making in L2 writing pedagogy, Ortega analyzes the aspects on which second language acquisition and second language writing have clashed. Reflecting how the field has developed over the years, the Journal of Second Language Writing published a disciplinary dialogues section where recognized scholars in the field shared their perspectives. A major theme in this discussion was the nature of the term “second language writing.” Atkinson prefaces the dialogue by encouraging L2 writing scholars to indulge in debate and public discussion. This is followed by Hyland’s recognition of second language writing as an avenue that reduces the differences between L2 learners and, subsequently, how the L2 writing field becomes “both a field of study and an arena of practice” (p. 427). Ferris provides a behind-the-scenes perspective by highlighting the institutional politics that govern and inhibit the flexibility of ESL specialist composition teachers in the university setting. Kubota advocates the need to “dislimit” rather than “delimit” the field of L2 writing by broadening its focus on multilingualism in writing, critically understanding the hegemony of English, recognizing possibilities of multimodality in L2 writing, and being consciously aware of power relations prevalent between NS and NNS writers of English (pp. 430-431). Silva succinctly provides an overview of the L2 writing field in 100 bullet-pointed statements whereas Lee addresses the divide between actual practice and conducted research, context sensitivity of pedagogical approaches, and the drive for alternative research practices in L2 writing research. Belcher argues for the need to develop a wider perspective on the L2 writing construct by recognizing “the “who” of L2 writing—L2 writers” rather than “what” L2 writing is (p. 439). Canagarajah elaborates on the multimodal nature of L2 writing and proposes a view of L2 writing as a translingual phenomenon. Kobayashi & Rinnert discuss how bidirectional transfer can encourage L2 writing learning. De Larios suggests ways in which the field of second language acquisition can complement the field of L2 writing, while Zhang highlights the characteristics of the L2 writing field. Matsuda concludes by summarizing the contribution of the abovementioned scholars and argues that although the term L2 writing tends to be slippery in definition, it has not “outlived its usefulness” (p. 450). There were also several studies regarding specific aspects of L2 writing research. Williams argues that writing can be seen as tool for second language learning development, focusing on how the written form requires precision and enhances cognitive processes while a learner produces and revisits a text. Hubert’s study investigates whether speaking and writing skills develop at similar rates in a Spanish language classroom. On a related note, Walls discloses how different learners attend to language while negotiating interaction and collaborative writing. Moheb & Bagheri claim that certain types of multiple intelligences are related to writing strategies in female Iranian EFL learners, while male Iranian EFL learners showed no such relationship. Xu, Chang, Zhang, & Perfetti, in their study of Chinese foreign language learners, discover how students with prior orthographic knowledge are able to use reading, writing, and animation to develop their Chinese character producing proficiencies. Finally, Neff-van Aertselaer analyzes how students can develop argumentative strategies that can be contextualized within the Common European Framework descriptors. Assessment Assessment continues to be a significant theme in L2 writing research. Sub-themes include the portfolio as a means of assessment, rater performance, rater values, factors influencing scores, assessment of particular genres, automated writing evaluation, and different types of measures. Fahim & Jalili examine the effect of writing portfolios on developing Iranian EFL learners’ ability to edit their own papers. Lam discusses the relationship between self-, peer, and tutor assessment and text revision in EFL writing portfolios. Panou investigates evaluators’ uniformity in the application of assessment criteria; Esfandiari & Myford look at the differences in severity of three different types of assessors—self-assessors, peer-assessors, and teacher assessors—in rating EFL writing produced by Iranian students; Hall & Sheyholislami, adopting appraisal theory, analyze raters’ comments on the same writings to examine rater values. Thakkar explores the relationship between English language learners’ language proficiency and standardized test scores. Cho, Rijmen, & Novák investigate the effects of prompt characteristics of TOEFL iBT integrated writing tasks on scores. Sawaki, Quinlan, & Lee study factor structures affecting examinees’ performance on an integrated writing task, and Knoch & Sitajalabhorn promote a more focused definition for integrated writing tasks. Yi questions how narrative writing is assessed and what the nature and purpose of teaching narrative writing as a subject in the EFL context is, while Zhao researches how authorial voice in argumentative writing can be measured using a reliable rubric. Wang, Shang, & Briody look at the impact of automated writing evaluation on students’ writing performance. Hasselgreen advocates adapting the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) to assess young learners’ writing. Jiang uses T-units to assess L2 Chinese writing. Lee & Coniam advocate for an integration of assessment for learning (AFL) and assessment of learning (AOL) in the examination-driven system in Hong Kong. Plakans describes how a writing scale is developed and used in an intensive English program at a large U.S. Midwestern University, and Latif discusses the definition and the validity of the measurement of writing fluency. Campbell, Espin, & McMaster examine the validity and reliability of curriculum-based measures in writing for English learners. Technology Technology is currently one of the most important themes in L2 writing research. The technologies researched in these studies include wikis, blogs, E-portfolios, online bulletin boards, online instructional conversation (IC), Google, online writing labs, computers, laptops, and mobile-based email. Some publications discuss writing using digital tools in general (Hafner; Pu; Warschauer, Zheng, & Park). Other studies explore the use of different digital tools in engaging students and improve their writing—collaborative writing with wikis (Li; Li & Zhu), using writing blogs to promote students’ writing autonomy (Foroutan, Noordin, & Hamzah) and improve writing skills (Vurdien), E-portfolios (Alawdat), mobile-based email (Alzu’bi & Sabha), online instructional conversation (Lee), online bulletin boards (Ferriman), and digital storytelling (Castaneda). Other studies look at the incorporation of technology into other aspects of L2 writing. For instance, Dzekoe explores the use of computer-based multimodal composing activities (CBMCA) to help L2 writers with self-revision. Morales Sousa researches the application of assistive technology (AT) in helping blind and visually disabled students in their writing. Ling & Bridgeman look at the effect of writing on a laptop or a desk computer on students’ writing performance on the TOEFL iBT writing test. Geluso researches native English speakers’ perceptions of Google-informed writing. Sánchez examines the resources on online writing labs for L2 writers. Baecher, Schieble, Rosalia, & Rorimer report on the use of blogs to promote the collaboration between adolescent English teacher candidates and TESOL teacher candidates to strengthen instruction for English language learners. These studies shed light on the integration of technology into L2 writing research in this digital age. Student populations Many studies deal with issues related to bilingual writers in diverse settings. Abu-Rabia, Shakkour, & Siegel focus on reverse transfer from L2 (English) to L1 (Arabic) in reading and writing, while Bohmer looks at biliterate skills in German and Turkish and Russian and Turkish writers. Al-Jarrah & Al-Ahmad describe English writing instruction in school in Jordan and the internal and external factors that affect learners. Bauer & Picciotto focus on a more common setting, describing challenges that ESL learners face in first-year-composition classes in the United States. Several other studies have been conducted with bilingual writers. Lawrick looks at ESL writers not as a homogeneous group, but as a group that has diverse backgrounds. Slocum observes the dynamics of ESL support and the status of learners’ L1 in successful writing. El Amrani advocates for the status of French as a privileged language in Morocco and the quality of written French texts of college students, while Anderson, Vanderhoff, & Donovick explore the disadvantages that bilingual writers have in L2 writing in comparison with monolingual writers. Walls conducts research on the dynamics among three different groups in a Spanish classroom: heritage language learners, L2 learners, and others, and Bunch & Willet focus on the role of content-focused writing assignments for ESL learners in middle school and their navigation of challenges. Two additional studies place emphasis on bilingual writers: Ortmeier-Hooper identifies ELLs and various issues they have in the secondary classroom, and Shakour describes Arab novelists’ work written in Hebrew in Israel. A few studies addressed issues of multilingual writers. Canagarajah focuses on learners’ use of negotiation strategies when writing in multiple languages, and looks at them as trans-lingual, not simply multilingual. Kobayashi & Rinnert conduct a longitudinal case study of how a multilingual writer of English, Japanese and Chinese develops her composition skills. Finally, Tullock & Fernandez-Villanueva scrutinize how multilingual writers of German, Spanish and Catalan utilize their lexical resources when writing in their fourth language, English. Not much research has been done with Generation 1.5 writers. Doolan and di Gennro, respectively, compared college writing of Generation 1.5 and L2 students. Pedagogy While considering the needs of L2 learners and helping them develop their L2 proficiency guides much of L2 writing research, pedagogical implications and methods go hand in hand in making this process easier. In relation to pedagogy, several studies focus on teacher development and discuss strategies by which classroom teaching can be improved. With regard to teacher development, Goldman discovers that teachers require adequate training when it comes to teaching long-term English learners in secondary schools. It is suggested that such training should focus specifically on the development of reflective teaching, incorporating specific writing practices for long-term learners, and understanding the multifarious nature of teaching L2 writing to such learners. Ferris and Hedgcock provide practical and theoretical tools that teachers can apply to facilitate writing in the L2 composition classroom. Olson calls for a wider perspective on teaching multilingual writers, suggesting a strengths-based approach. In addition, two sources focus on Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) pedagogy. While Hodgson-Drysdale conducts a case study on how SFL pedagogy can inform teaching writing, Schulze similarly conducts a case study on a teacher-researcher and three learners that shows ways in which SFL pedagogy can augment the meaning-making ability of students. With regard to strategies, Stillar suggests using creative strategies to develop students’ critical consciousness in the EFL classroom. He does this by urging his students to write journal entries from the perspective of an outsider who is part of an ostracised minority in the community, thus making his students socially aware and making L2 writing enjoyable. And by employing Makiguchi’s philosophy, Goulah presents ways in which value-creating pedagogy can be implemented in a classroom in the United States. You &You investigate challenges NNES students face in English medium content instruction provided by American teachers. Liu observes how a blended learning environment in a university EFL writing course positively correlated with student motivation, student-teacher interaction, reduced communication anxiety, and augmented autonomous learning. Haase discloses how the use of sheltered instruction facilitates Spanish L2 learning. Harman’s study reveals how a teacher’s explicit instructional focus can encourage young students to exploit lexical patterns and become creative in L2 writing; similarly, Zhang points out the need for explicit instruction for students’ synthesis writing. Bouthillier & Dicks examine the improvement of French immersion students in an opinion text and ascertain that explicit instruction using models has a positive effect on L2 writing. Finally, Lee suggests that another strategy that teachers can employ for teaching writing is the use of reading response e-journals. By taking advantage of technology, Lee was able to motivate her students to share their experiences with each other in reading and writing journal entries. Identity The L2 writer’s identity has been an increasingly popular topic for researchers in the field of second language writing. Simpson presents a multilingual learner’s interaction on a class blog and her developing identity position online. Chen discusses collective and personal identities of multilingual writers in social networking communities while Zhao, Fei, & Lin look at collective and individual identities of learners in biographical narrative writing. Park takes this work a step further, using a specific tool called “chapter prompts” in cultural and linguistic autobiography and discusses learners’ identity development. Yi conducted qualitative research on an ESL learner’s multiple identities in academic writing while Liu & Tannacito discussed broader issues on the L2 learners’ identity investment in an ideally imagined community. While a number of studies have focused on the learner’s identity, teachers’ identities are discussed in by Lee, who scrutinizes EFL teachers’ multi-faceted identities in the process of becoming writing teachers. Corpus-based studies Results from the examination of different corpora shed light on the teaching and researching of English writing and understanding L2 writers’ genre knowledge and language development. Belcher & Nelson’s book introduces ways of incorporating corpus-based approaches into the research on intercultural rhetoric. Gardner & Nesi analyze BAWE (British Academic Written English) corpus texts and classify the diverse genres of students’ writing. Nathan looks at the moves of business case reports by analyzing writing from a corpus built at a UK university and from the BAWE corpus. Other corpus-based studies compared distinct features in the writing of L1 and L2 participants. For instance, O’Donnell, Romer, & Ellis investigate the knowledge of formulas in first and second language writing. Leedham & Cai compare Chinese and British students’ writing in UK universities and report on the differences in the use of linking adverbials by the two groups of students. Cho & Yoon compare corporate earning calls written by Korean and native English-speaking participants; low-level genre awareness of earning calls was observed in the Korean participants’ writing. Genre-based approaches Interestingly, all of the studies in the genre category focus on pedagogical aspects of genre as opposed to genre theory. Troyan explores a genre-based approach to teaching writing to fourth graders in a Spanish classroom and finds the approach effective. Bangeni examines how students’ prior genre knowledge, acquired from writing their social science argumentative essays in undergraduate classes, caused them to struggle in their construction of audience in a written case analysis in a marketing course at the postgraduate level at a South African university. Gebhard, Chen, Graham, & Gunawan explain how systemic functional linguistics and genre-based pedagogy are integrated into curriculum design. Hafner, Miller, & Ng report on how teachers can help students address a wider range of audiences in their scientific writing by referencing the course they designed for scientific writing in Hong Kong. Racelis & Matsuda introduce a successful classroom practice combining process and genre approaches to teaching L2 writing. Learning attitude In terms of learners’ attitudes, Gholaminejad, Moinzadeh, Youhanaee, & Ghobadirad explore Iranian writers’ different attitudes towards writing in English and Persian while Fernández Dobao & Blum elaborate learners’ attitudes towards collaborative writing in a Spanish classroom. Polat & Mahalingappa’s study focuses on pre- and in-service teachers’ attitudes in content area classes, and Cho observes governmental and social attitudes towards English in Korea.
Tony Silva is a professor of English and the director of ESL Writing Program in the Department of English at Purdue University.
Cong Zhang is a PhD student in the English department at Purdue University. She is teaching first year composition for International students at Purdue. Her research interests include second language writing, teaching English as a second/foreign language and World Englishes. Hyojung Park is a PhD student in the SLS/ESL program and teaches first-year composition at Purdue University. |
|||||