Vol. 6. No.

2 A-1 September 2002

Return to Table of Contents Return to Main Page

Second Language Writing and Research: The Writing

Process and Error Analysis in Student Texts
Johanne Myles
Queen's University
<jbm2@post.queensu.ca>

Abstract

Academic writing requires conscious effort and much practice in composing, developing,
and analyzing ideas. Students writing in a second language are also faced with social and
cognitive challenges related to second language acquisition. L1 models of writing
instruction and research on composing processes have been the theoretical basis for using
the process approach in L2 writing pedagogy. However, language proficiency and
competence underlies the ability to write in the L2 in a fundamental way. Therefore, L2
writing instructors should take into account both strategy development and language skill
development when working with students. This paper explores error in writing in relation
to particular aspects of second language acquisition and theories of the writing process in
L1 and L2. It can be argued that a focus on the writing process as a pedagogical tool is
only appropriate for second language learners if attention is given to linguistic
development, and if learners are able to get sufficient and effective feedback with regard
to their errors in writing.

Introduction

The ability to write well is not a naturally acquired skill; it is usually learned or culturally
transmitted as a set of practices in formal instructional settings or other environments.
Writing skills must be practiced and learned through experience. Writing also involves
composing, which implies the ability either to tell or retell pieces of information in the
form of narratives or description, or to transform information into new texts, as in
expository or argumentative writing. Perhaps it is best viewed as a continuum of
activities that range from the more mechanical or formal aspects of "writing down" on the
one end, to the more complex act of composing on the other end (Omaggio Hadley,
1993). It is undoubtedly the act of composing, though, which can create problems for
students, especially for those writing in a second language (L2) in academic contexts.
Formulating new ideas can be difficult because it involves transforming or reworking
information, which is much more complex than writing as telling. By putting together
concepts and solving problems, the writer engages in "a two-way interaction between
continuously developing knowledge and continuously developing text" (Bereiter &
Scardamalia, 1987, p. 12). Indeed, academic writing requires conscious effort and
practice in composing, developing, and analyzing ideas. Compared to students writing in
their native language (L1), however, students writing in their L2 have to also acquire
proficiency in the use of the language as well as writing strategies, techniques and skills.
They might also have to deal with instructors and later, faculty members, who may or
may not get beyond their language problems when evaluating their work. Although a
certain amount of consciousness-raising on the part of the readers may be warranted,
students want to write close to error-free texts and they enter language courses with the
expectations of becoming more proficient writers in the L2. [-1-]

This paper explores error in writing in relation to particular aspects of second language
acquisition and theories of the writing process in L1 and L2. I argue that the process
approach to instruction, with its emphasis on the writing process, meaning making,
invention and multiple drafts (Raimes, 1991), is only appropriate for second language
learners if they are both able to get sufficient feedback with regard to their errors in
writing, and are proficient enough in the language to implement revision strategies.

A brief survey of the nature of L2 writing and L1 models of the writing process illustrates
why it is difficult to apply L1 research to a model for second language writing. Further,
certain social and cognitive factors related to second language acquisition show that
strategies involved in the language learning process also affect L2 writing. With a
discussion of these factors, fundamental questions about error in writing and L2
proficiency are raised. It should then become apparent that the process approach to
writing instruction can only be effective if these two components are taken into
consideration.

Models of L1 and L2 Writing

Most ESL students studying in post-secondary institutions have writing skills. However,
their purposes for writing are sometimes not the kind valued by Western academic
communities. The nature of academic literacy often confuses and disorients students,
"particularly those who bring with them a set of conventions that are at odds with those
of the academic world they are entering" (Kutz, Groden & Zamel, 1993, p. 30). In
addition, the culture-specific nature of schemata--abstract mental structures representing
our knowledge of things, events, and situations--can lead to difficulties when students
write texts in L2. Knowing how to write a "summary" or "analysis" in Mandarin or
Spanish does not necessarily mean that students will be able to do these things in English
(Kern, 2000). As a result, any appropriate instruction must take into consideration the
influence from various educational, social, and cultural experiences that students have in
their native language. These include textual issues, such as rhetorical and cultural
preferences for organizing information and structuring arguments, commonly referred to
as contrastive rhetoric (Cai, 1999; Connor, 1997; Kaplan, 1987; Kobayashi & Rinnert,
1996; Leki, 1993; 1997; Matalene, 1985), knowledge of appropriate genres (Johns, 1995;
Swales, 1990), familiarity with writing topics (Shen, 1989), and distinct cultural and
instructional socialization (Coleman, 1996; Holliday, 1997; Valdes, 1995). In addition to
instructional and cultural factors, L2 writers have varying commands of the target
language, which affect the way structural errors are treated from both social and cognitive
points of view.

Much of the research on L2 writing has been closely dependent on L1 research. Although
L2 writing is strategically, rhetorically, and linguistically different in many ways from L1
writing (Silva, 1993), L1 models have had a significant influence on L2 writing
instruction and the development of a theory of L2 writing. However, a look at two
popular L1 models will give us some insight into the problem of developing a distinct
construct of L2 writing. [-2-]

The Flower and Hayes (1980, 1981) model focuses on what writers do when they
compose. It examines the rhetorical problem in order to determine the potential
difficulties a writer could experience during the composing process. The "problem-
solving activity" is divided into two major components: the rhetorical situation (audience,
topic, assignment), and the writer's own goals (involving the reader, the writer's persona,
the construction of meaning, and the production of the formal text). By comparing skilled
and less-skilled writers, the emphasis here is placed on "students' strategic knowledge and
the ability of students to transform information . . . to meet rhetorically constrained
purposes" (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996, p. 116). However, the social dimension is important
too. Indeed, writing "should not be viewed solely as an individually-oriented, inner-
directed cognitive process, but as much as an acquired response to the discourse
conventions . . . within particular communities" (Swales, 1990, p. 4).

In more recent studies that examine the goals students set for themselves, the strategies
they use to develop their organizing of ideas and the metacognitive awareness they bring
to both these acts, Flower and her colleagues (1990) analyze the academic task of
reading-to-write to establish the interaction of context and cognition in performing a
particular writing task.

One of the problems they note is the transition students are required to make when
entering the academic discourse community (a peculiar, socially constructed convention
in itself), where students need to learn how to operate successfully in an academic
conversation that implies knowledge of the textual conventions, expectations, and
formulaic expressions particular to the discourse. According to the researchers,
"conceptualizing this transition as a social/cognitive act of entering a discourse
emphasizes both the problem-solving effort of a student learning to negotiate a new
situation and the role the situation will play in what is learned" (p. 222). The view that
writing is typically a socially situated, communicative act is later incorporated into
Flower's (1994) socio-cognitive theory of writing. In the social cognitive curriculum
students are taught as apprentices in negotiating an academic community, and in the
process develop strategic knowledge. Writing skills are acquired and used through
negotiated interaction with real audience expectations, such as in peer group responses.
Instruction should, then, afford students the opportunity to participate in transactions with
their own texts and the texts of others (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996). By guiding students
toward a conscious awareness of how an audience will interpret their work, learners then
learn to write with a "readerly" sensitivity (Kern, 2000).

Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987) also propose a model that suggests reasons for
differences in writing ability between skilled and less-skilled writers. The basic difference
is revealed in their two models of writing: the knowledge-telling model, whose basic
structure depends on the processes of retrieving content from memory with regard to
topical and genre cues, and the knowledge-transforming model, which involves more
reflective problem-solving analysis and goal-setting. The latter model is important
because it opens up the idea of multiple processing, which is revealed through writing
tasks that vary in processing complexity. The authors discuss the notion of mental
representation as a writing strategy. From their research with graduate students, they
observe that the students "generated goals for their compositions and engaged in problem
solving involving structure and gist as well as verbatim representations" (p. 354). The
knowledge-transforming or intentional writing model is different from knowledge telling
in that it involves setting of goals that are to be achieved through the composing process,
and the purposeful achievement of those goals. The composing process does not depend
on memories and emotions and on external (teacher) assistance for its direction. In fact,
Bereiter and Scardamalia criticize formal schooling that encourages the more passive
kind of cognition by "continually telling students what to do," rather than encouraging
them "to follow their spontaneous interests and impulses . . . and assume responsibility
for what becomes of their minds" (p. 361). They also argue that the ability to wrestle with
and resolve both content and rhetorical problems calls upon a dialectical process for
reflection. If students rarely practice the kinds of writing tasks that develop knowledge-
transforming skills, they are not likely to be able to perform those skills easily. [-3-]

Both the Flower and Hayes, and the Bereiter and Scardamalia writing process models
have served as the theoretical basis for using the process approach in both L1 and L2
writing instruction. By incorporating pre-writing activities such as collaborative
brainstorming, choice of personally meaningful topics, strategy instruction in the stages
of composing, drafting, revising, and editing, multiple drafts and peer-group editing, the
instruction takes into consideration what writers do as they write. Attention to the writing
process stresses more of a workshop approach to instruction, which fosters classroom
interaction, and engages students in analyzing and commenting on a variety of texts. The
L1 theories also seem to support less teacher intervention and less attention to form.

Despite their implications for classroom instruction, not all the components of these
models are appropriate in an L2 context. The Flower model, in particular, does not
recognize cross-cultural differences and issues related to sociocultural variation in the
functions of the written language (Kern, 2000). Additionally, with native speakers,
"writing ability is more closely linked to fluency in and familiarity with the conventions
of expository discourse" (Kogen 1986, p. 25). L2 writers, however, are in the process of
acquiring these conventions and so they often need more instruction about the language
itself. Limited knowledge of vocabulary, language structure, and content can inhibit a L2
writer's performance. In addition, the models do not account for growing language
proficiency, which is a vital element of L2 writing development.

Similarly, composing, especially in the revision stage, challenges L2 writers. In his

research on how L2 writers revise their work, Silva (1993) observes that learners revise at
a superficial level. They re-read and reflect less on their written text, revise less, and
when they do, the revision is primarily focused on grammatical correction. On the other
hand, L1 writing ability may also transfer to L2. As a result, students who are skilled
writers in their native languages and have surpassed a certain L2 proficiency level can
adequately transfer those skills. Of course, those who have difficulty writing in their
native language may not have a repertoire of strategies to help them in their L2 writing
development (Sasaki & Hirose, 1996). These observations warrant consideration for L2
instruction and course design, especially for those courses in English for Academic
Purposes (EAP) writing that include less-skilled writers or those who have never had the
opportunity to engage in more knowledge-transforming tasks in their native languages.

In sum, social-cognitive theories of writing show us how social contexts for writing
operate together with the cognitive efforts of the writer, just as they do when a person is
acquiring a new language. However, the problem with applying L1 theories and
subsequent models of instruction (such as the process approach) to L2 instruction is that
L2 writing also involves the cognitively demanding task of generating meaningful text in
a second language. As a result, L2 students generally want more teacher involvement and
guidance, especially at the revision stage. Consequently, in order to provide effective
pedagogy, L2 writing instructors need to understand the social and cognitive factors
involved in the process of second language acquisition and error in writing because these
factors have a salient effect on L2 writing development. [-4-]

The Sources of Error in L2 Writing: Social and Cognitive Factors

Social Factors

Both social and cognitive factors affect language learning. Exploration of social factors
gives us some idea of why learners differ in rate of L2 learning, in proficiency type (for
instance, conversational ability versus writing ability), and in ultimate proficiency (Ellis,
1994). Research based on direct (self-report questionnaires) and indirect measures
generally shows that learners with positive attitudes, motivation, and concrete goals will
have these attitudes reinforced if they experience success. Likewise, learners' negative
attitudes may be strengthened by lack of success or by failure (McGroarty, 1996).
Needless to say, although ESL learners may have negative attitudes toward writing for
academic purposes, many of them are financially and professionally committed to
graduating from English-speaking universities, and as a result, have strong reasons for
learning and improving their skills.

There is a direct relationship between learner attitudes and learner motivation. Gardner's
(1985) socio-educational model is designed to account for the role of social factors in
language acquisition. It interrelates four aspects of L2 learning: the social and cultural
milieu (which determines beliefs about language and culture), individual learner
differences (related to motivation and language aptitude), the setting (formal and/or
informal learning contexts), and learning outcomes. Integrative motivation involves a
desire to learn an L2 because individuals need to learn the target language to integrate
into the community. In addition to this interest, the people or the culture represented by
the other language group may also inspire them. On the other hand, instrumental
motivation acknowledges the role that external influences and incentives play in
strengthening the learners' desire to achieve. Learners who are instrumentally motivated
are interested in learning the language for a particular purpose, such as writing a
dissertation or getting a job. According to the theory, if second language learning takes
place in isolation from a community of target language speakers, then it benefits more
from integrative motivation, whereas if it takes place among a community of speakers,
then instrumental orientation becomes the more effective motivational factor. Despite
problems in Gardner's research design, it can be concluded that motivational factors
"probably do not make much difference on their own, but they can create a more positive
context in which language learning is likely to flourish" (Bialystok & Hakuta, 1994, p.
140). (See Lambert, 1975; Schumann, 1978; Giles, Robinson & Smith, 1980; Giles &
Byrne, 1982; and Hamers & Blanc, 1982 for examples of other models that focus on the
social circumstances of learning in relation to second language acquisition).

Learners' attitudes, motivations, and goals can explain why some L2 writers perform
better than others. For example, at the beginning of each of my ESL writing classes, I
often ask students to fill out a personal information form to determine their needs and
interests when planning my course. The answers to questions such as, "Do you enjoy
writing in English?" and "What are your strengths and weaknesses in writing?" are
revealing. Most students will answer that they hate writing in English (and in their native
language, for that matter), and are only taking the course for educational and/or career
purposes. In fact, it seems that many of the students would prefer to be practicing
conversation. Students may enjoy writing e-mail messages to friends around the world,
but challenges, such as difficulties getting started, finding the right words, and developing
topics, abound. However, if students show an overall interest in the target language
(integrative motivation), perceive that there is parental and social support, and have a
desire to achieve their professional goals (instrumental motivation), they can become
more proficient in their ability to write in English, despite the initial lack of self-
motivation. [-5-]

Writing teachers should be aware of how the instrumental motivation of their L2 students
will influence the effectiveness of their lessons. Common purposes for learners writing in
an EAP context include writing a research paper for publication in an English-speaking
journal or writing a business report for a multinational company. These learners may be
less motivated to write stories or poetry, because they perceive that these tasks are not
related to their needs. Even writing a standard research essay may seem like a waste of
time for those who will need to write project reports and memos. If learners perceive
writing tasks to be useless, they may approach them in a careless manner. Consequently,
it is likely that they will be inattentive to errors, monitoring, and rhetorical concerns
(Carson, 2001). However, if students are highly motivated, then any sort of writing task,
expressive or otherwise, are welcomed.

Social factors also influence the quality of contact that learners will experience. Indeed,
we cannot assume that "more contact" with the target language will result in more
acquisition of the L2. Certainly, instructors recommend that students studying English for
academic purposes should read academic texts, attend academic lectures, and even work
with students who are native speakers in order to become more acquainted with the
discourse. However, if they do not engage in the texts, understand the talks, or actively
contribute to the study sessions, these activities will have little effect on student progress.
Interaction is key. A common complaint among ESL students at university is that they
have difficulty meeting native speakers and getting to know them. Students are often
disappointed that they do not have as much interaction with native speakers as they had
expected. In addition, they often associate with other students from their L1 and speak
their native language. Unfortunately, this pattern can slow down L2 development in all
skill areas. The instructor is often responsible for providing incentives or opportunities
for interactions with native speakers. Generally speaking, if L2 learners are motivated to
integrate into the L2, they will develop a higher level of proficiency and positive
attitudes, which can have a positive effect on their writing.

In short, learners may continue to exhibit errors in their writing for the following social
reasons:

1. negative attitudes toward the target language

2. continued lack of progress in the L2
3. a wide social and psychological distance between them and the target culture, and,
4. a lack of integrative and instrumental motivation for learning.

Cognitive Factors

Academic writing is believed to be cognitively complex. Acquisition of academic

vocabulary and discourse style is particularly difficult. According to cognitive theory,
communicating orally or in writing is an active process of skill development and gradual
elimination of errors as the learner internalizes the language. Indeed, acquisition is a
product of the complex interaction of the linguistic environment and the learner's internal
mechanisms. With practice, there is continual restructuring as learners shift these internal
representations in order to achieve increasing degrees of mastery in L2 (McLaughlin,
1988). [-6-]

One model that applies to both speaking and writing in a second language is Anderson's
(1985) model of language production, which can be divided into three stages:
construction, in which the writer plans what he/she is going to write by brainstorming,
using a mind-map or outline; transformation, in which language rules are applied to
transform intended meanings into the form of the message when the writer is composing
or revising; and execution, which corresponds to the physical process of producing the
text. The first two stages have been described as "setting goals and searching memory for
information, then using production systems to generate language in phrases or
constituents" (O'Malley & Chamot, 1990, p. 42). Writers vascillate between these
processes as they actively develop the meaning they wish to express in writing.
Anderson's learning theory supports teaching approaches that combine the development
of language and content knowledge, practice in using this knowledge, and strategy
training to encourage independent learning (Snow, 2001).

In structuring information, the writer uses various types of knowledge, including

discourse knowledge, understanding of audience, and sociolinguistic rules (O'Malley &
Chamot, 1990). Organization at both the sentence and the text level is also important for
effective communication of meaning, and ultimately, for the quality of the written
product (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1987). For instance, coherence problems may be due to
not knowing how to organize text or how to store the relevant information. The
transformation stage involves converting information into meaningful sentences. At this
point, the writer translates or changes his/her plans into a mental representation of the
goals, ideas, and organization developed in the construction stage. Revision is also part of
this stage. As previously mentioned, revision is a cognitively demanding task for L2
learners because it not only involves task definition, evaluation, strategy selection, and
modification of text in the writing plan (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996), but also the ability of
students to analyze and evaluate the feedback they receive on their writing.

Due to the complex process of writing in a second language, learners often find it
difficult to develop all aspects of the stages simultaneously. As a result, they selectively
use only those aspects that are automatic or have already been proceduralized (O'Malley
& Chamot, 1990). In order to enhance or facilitate language production, students can
develop particular learning strategies that isolate component mental processes. O'Malley
and Chamot have differentiated strategies into three categories: metacognitive, such as
planning the organization of written discourse or monitoring (that is, being aware of what
one is doing and responding appropriately to the demands of a task); cognitive, such as
transferring or using known linguistic information to facilitate a new learning task or
using imagery for recalling and using new vocabulary, and social/affective strategies,
which involve cooperating with peers, for example, in peer revision classes.

Learner strategies can be effective, but they need to be internalized so that they can be
utilized in adverse learning situations. For example, if an environment is perceived to be
stressful or threatening, for example, writing as part of a job interview process, or
performing under timed test conditions, learners' affective states can influence cognition.
Emotional influences along with cognitive factors can account for achievement and
performance in L2, to a certain extent. Schumann (1998) argues that affect may influence
cognition through its role in framing a problem and in adopting processing strategies. He
states that we very often use feelings as information: "When faced with a situation about
which we have to make a judgment we often ask ourselves how we feel about it . . . we
may also employ feelings when time constraints and competing tasks limit our cognitive
capacities" (p. 247). This outcome may affect the way second language students perform
when they are under stress. [-7-]
Language transfer is another important cognitive factor related to writing error. Transfer
is defined as the influence resulting from similarities and differences between the target
language and any other language that has been previously acquired (Odlin, 1989). The
study of transfer involves the study of errors (negative transfer), facilitation (positive
transfer), avoidance of target language forms, and their over-use (Ellis, 1994).
Behaviorist accounts claim that transfer is the cause of errors, whereas from a cognitive
perspective, transfer is seen as a resource that the learner actively draws upon in
interlanguage development (Selinker, 1972). In other words, "the L1 can have a direct
effect on interlanguage development by influencing the hypotheses that learners
construct" (Ellis, 1994, p. 342). According to McLaughlin, transfer errors can occur
because:

[L]earners lack the necessary information in the second language or the attentional
capacity to activate the appropriate second-language routine. But such an account says
little about why certain linguistic forms transfer and others do not. (1988, p. 50)

Despite the fact that L1 transfer is no longer viewed as the only predictor or cause of
error at the structural level (since it is difficult to distinguish empirically between
instances of communication and language transfer in research studies), a writer's first
language plays a complex and significant role in L2 acquisition. For example, when
learners write under pressure, they may call upon systematic resources from their native
language for the achievement and synthesis of meaning (Widdowson, 1990). Research
has also shown that language learners sometimes use their native language when
generating ideas and attending to details (Friedlander, 1990). In addition, contrastive
studies, which have focused on characteristics of L1 languages and cultures, have helped
us predict rhetorical error in writing. These studies have been valuable in our
understanding of L2 writing development. However, many feel that these studies have
also led to reductive, essentializing generalizations about ways of writing and cultural
stereotypes about students from certain linguistic backgrounds (Fox, 1994; Leki, 1997;
Spack, 1997). As a result, erroneous predictions about students' learning based on their
L1 language and culture have occurred regardless of social factors, such as "the contexts,
and purpose of their learning to write, or their age, race, class, gender, education, and
prior experience" (Raimes, 1998, p. 143). In addition, learners are influenced by many
global phenomena and are themselves continually changing with new experiences. In
spite of these criticisms, though, an understanding of "difference among epistemological
rhetorical, and pedagogical traditions" (Kern, 2000, p. 176) and the impact of language
transfer can be illuminating for an understanding of why learners make certain structural
and organizational errors. [-8-]

Input and interaction also play important roles in the writing process, especially in
classroom settings. Some studies have indicated that input, along with L1 transfer and
communicative need may work together to shape interlanguage (Ellis, 1994; Selinker,
1972). Research has focused on four broad areas: input frequency, the nature of
comprehensible input, learner output in interaction, and the processes of collaborative
discourse construction. Writers need to receive adequate L2 input in order to form new
hypotheses about syntactic and rhetorical forms in the target language. If students are not
exposed to native-like models of written texts, their errors in writing are more likely to
persist. Errors abound in peer review classes or in computer-mediated exchanges where
learners read and respond to each other's compositions. Indeed, in many of my own
classes, interlanguage talk or discourse is often the primary source of input for many
learners. However, if the interaction, oral or written, allows for adequate negotiation of
meaning, peer responses can be very useful. (See Pellettieri (2000) for what happens
when learners respond to each other on the computer and read texts containing spelling
and grammar errors).

We can see that writing in a second language is a complex process involving the ability to
communicate in L2 (learner output) and the ability to construct a text in order to express
one's ideas effectively in writing. Social and cognitive factors and learner strategies help
us in assessing the underlying reasons why L2 learners exhibit particular writing errors.
For instance, the writing problems experienced by Spanish speakers living in the United
States may be due to a multiplicity of factors, including the effects of transfer and
interference from the Spanish language, and cultural norms (Plata, 1995). Spanish-
speaking writers must undergo the task of cognitively exchanging the style of the Spanish
language for that of English. For this transformation to happen, some students find that
creating another persona, such as replacing their birth name with an English one, can help
them to become more immersed in the target language and culture. In short, because
learners are less familiar and less confident with structural elements of a new language,
rhetorical and cultural conventions and even new uses of writing, writing in an L2 can
have errors and be less effective than writing in L1 (Kern, 2000).

The Sources of Error in L2 Writing

There are several ways to think about error in writing in light of what we know about
second language acquisition and what we know about how texts, context and the writing
process interact with one another. As mentioned, students writing in a second language
generally produce texts that contain varying degrees of grammatical and rhetorical errors.
In fact, depending on proficiency level, the more content-rich and creative the text, the
greater the possibility there is for errors at the morphosyntactic level. These kinds of
errors are especially common among L2 writers who have a lot of ideas, but not enough
language to express what they want to say in a comprehensible way. What we classify as
an error, which is associated with learner competence, may actually be a mistake, or more
specifically in an EAP context, a "derailment" related to learner performance
(Shaughnessy, 1977). These "derailments" occur when students attempt to use the
academic voice and make their sentences more intricate, especially when the task
requires more complex ideas.

From behaviorist and mentalist perspectives of error, which have emphasized the product
(the error itself) to more constructivist views, which focus on underlying process (why
the error is made), researchers have attempted to understand the errors in writers' texts by
hypothesizing their possible sources (Bartholomae, 1980; Hull, 1985). Although reading
an error-filled text can be tiring and disconcerting, errors can help us identify the
cognitive strategies that the learner is using to process information. According to Ellis
(1985), it is through analyzing learner errors that we elevate "the status of errors from
undesirability to that of a guide to the inner working of the language learning process" (p.
53). [-9-]

Whether an error, mistake, or "derailment," awkward discourse can occur for a variety of
reasons, some of which have already been mentioned. First of all, learners may translate
from L1, or they may try out what they assume is a legitimate structure of the target
language, although hindered by insufficient knowledge of correct usage. In the learning
process, they often experience native language interference from developmental stages of
interlanguage or from nonstandard elements in spoken dialects (a common occurrence in
students writing in their native language as well). They also tend to over-generalize the
rules for stylistic features when acquiring new discourse structures. In addition, learners
are often unsure of what they want to express,which would cause them to make mistakes
in any language. Finally, writers in L2 might lack familiarity with new rhetorical
structures and the organization of ideas (Carson, 2001; Connor & Kaplan, 1987; Kutz,
Groden, & Zamel, 1993; Raimes, 1987). L2 writing relates closely to native-language
literacy and particular instructional contexts. Students may not be acquainted with
English rhetoric, which can lead to writing that appears off topic or incoherent to many
native English speakers. Rhetoric and writing are direct outcomes of sociocultural and
political contexts; in other words, they are schematic representations of the writer's
unique experiences within a particular social milieu. For example, Chinese or Indonesian
students may write in accordance with a set of rhetorical norms (such as the "eight-
legged" essay) that differ from those of English (Cai, 1999; Matalene, 1985; Williams,
1989).

Repeating a previous mistake, or backsliding, is a common occurrence in L2 writing.

More important, though, is the issue of fossilization--when "learner interlanguage
competence diverges in more or less permanent ways from the target language grammar"
(Odlin, 1994, p. 13). Fossilized errors can be problematic in writing because the errors
become ingrained, like bad habits, in a learner's repertoire, and they reappear despite
remediation and correction. They can be common among immigrants who have learned
much of the L2 "on the street," where the emphasis is on fluency and not linguistic
correctness. Errors in writing, fossilized or otherwise, can be glaring, especially to the
reader who has had little experience interacting with L2 speakers and texts.

Implications for Teaching: Proficiency, Instruction and Response to Error

Although instructors may think of errors as part of a language learning process related to
linguistic, situational, and psycholinguistic contexts (Carson, 2001), and writing as a skill
developed over time, most L2 learners' writing is judged according to criteria that are
static and product-based. That teachers draw conclusions about intellectual ability on the
basis of structural and grammatical problems has also been well documented (Sternglass,
1997; Zamel, 1998). Variability in writing, which is typical of a learner's interlanguage, is
a concern when addressing proficiency issues. The definition of proficiency has
consequences for L2 students; it affects their ability to complete writing tasks across the
disciplines, cope with the demands of academic English, and receive recognition as well-
informed, critical thinkers. [-10-]

One problem in assessing language performance is that it must address the many factors
related to the contexts in which language is used. According to Bialystok (1998), any
definition of language proficiency is deeply entangled in theoretical attitude. On the one
hand, there is the formalist approach, which attempts to explain language as code.
According to this perspective, "language proficiency is an ultimately unknowable
abstraction that reflects the universal competence of native speakers" (p. 502). On the
other hand, there is the functionalist approach, which explains proficiency in its
relationship to communication in specific contexts. In this respect, it is "the outcome of
social interaction with a linguistic environment" (p. 502). In conversation, often both
parties assume some common knowledge and take advantage of verbal and nonverbal
communication; however, in written discourse, common knowledge cannot be assumed;
therefore, the writer may need to provide more background information in order to
communicate clearly.

Language requires a combination of formal structure, that is, a clear set of standards, and
communicative application, which includes recognition of variations from the rules.
Consequently, a proper definition of language proficiency would "present identifiable
standards against which to describe language skills of users in different contexts"
(Bialystok, 1998, p. 504). A more complete conceptualization of language performance,
then, acknowledges personal characteristics, topical or real-world knowledge, and
affective schemata, among other factors related to the social and cultural context (Brown,
2000).

Alongside the cultural and curricular aspects of standardization, there is variability in the
process of L2 learning. Learners vary in the ultimate level of proficiency they achieve,
with many failing to reach target-language competence. This variation is often the result
of individual learner differences in motivation and aptitude, in addition to the use of an
assortment of strategies, such as inferencing and self-monitoring for obtaining input and
for learning from it (Ellis, 1994; Krashen, 1982). However, instead of setting the standard
as a well-defined, functionally balanced system, and proficiency as the degree of
deviation from this norm, with errors "marked, counted and statistically analyzed," Klein
(1998) advocates acknowledging learner varieties. According to Klein, these are "systems
in their own right, error-free by definition and characterized by particular lexical
repertoire and particular interaction of organizational principles" (p. 538). In fact, it may
be more useful to think about proficiency as a process, one in which learners alternate in
their use of linguistic forms according to the linguistic and situational contexts (Ellis,
1994). From a functionalist perspective, communicative competence in writing should
also take into consideration learner variability and error within particular contexts.
Nevertheless, for L2 writers, the greater the language proficiency (however defined), the
better the writing quality. In fact, both language proficiency and composing abilities can,
or perhaps should be, accounted for in evaluating L2 writing performance and instruction
(Grabe & Kaplan, 1996).
Valuable insights from research in second language acquisition and writing development
can assist in developing instructional techniques linking the two processes--acquiring a
second language and developing writing skills, especially for academic purposes. Both
Flower (1994) and Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987) have stressed the benefits of process
approaches to writing instruction and the need for more knowledge-transforming tasks.
Taking the concept of "knowledge transformation" further, Wells (2000) argues that
writing approached in this way is also an opportunity for knowledge building, "as the
writer both tries to anticipate the likely response of the envisaged audience and carries on
a dialogue with the text being composed" (p. 77). However, if students have not
developed learning strategies to monitor their writing errors, and if they do not receive
enough conceptual feedback at the discourse level, then the positive effects of the
instruction may backfire. Instructional approaches that can be used effectively with L2
writers show us what is at stake for L2 instructors and students alike. [-11-]

First of all, students may be able to communicate more effectively if they are exposed to
models of not only standard paragraphs and essays, but also a variety of genres of
writing, including flyers, magazine articles, letters, and so forth. By examining a variety
of written texts, students' awareness can be raised with regard to the way words,
structures, and genre contribute to purposeful writing. They can also be made aware of
different types of textual organization, which can in turn affect L2 students' composing
processes (Swales, 1990; Raimes, 1991, 1998). Models can also be used for text analysis,
which can help L2 writers see how particular grammatical features are used in authentic
discourse contexts. Depending on the learners' levels of proficiency and writing abilities,
models can seem fairly formulaic, as in the knowledge-telling model of the five-
paragraph essay. However, as the students progress, they need to be aware of a variety of
forms that "serve the writer's purpose instead of the other way around" (Atkinson &
Ramanathan, 1995, p. 548). Cazden (1992) advocates the practice of scripting and
performing texts in order to sensitize students to the many voices in a reading and how
they interact. In this way, models of the target language are reinforced.

In addition to the use of written models, Cumming (1995) also points out the benefits of
cognitive modeling in writing instruction, which involves explicit demonstration of the
strategies experienced writers use when planning, making decisions, and revising texts.
He also advocates that ESL instructors make explicit use of thinking or procedural-
facilitation prompts and student self-evaluation as the optimal mode of assessment. Both
these approaches promote knowledge-transforming models of composing. Self-evaluation
can be encouraged in student portfolios, self-review checklists, and teacher and peer
responses. In addition, verbalizing the writing process step-by-step can be effective, as it
affords both students and teachers the opportunity to consider writing dialogically.
However, convincing students to evaluate their own work requires additional
instructional tools, and it may not be effective for all learners. Granted, Cummings refers
to self-assessment as a component of one-to-one tutoring sessions, which in contrast to
the classroom context, are ideally "more conducive environments for the textual,
cognitive, and social dimensions of error identification to be integrated with individual
students' composing processes and their immediate concerns about language, ideas, and
texts" (p. 393). Unfortunately, many teachers have large classes; nonetheless, the use of
specific prompts for cognitive modeling in different aspects of composing, including
prompts for error identification, has proved to be valuable.

Apprenticeship models of instruction, which developed out of Vygotsky's sociocultural

theories of language and literacy, are also becoming more common. Proficient students
who are also fairly skilled writers can benefit from this approach. They start with what
they already know and can do, but their learning is extended into what Vygotsky termed
the "zone of proximal development" through strategic instruction, collaborative
construction of opportunities and active participation (Lantolf, 2000; Schinke-Llano,
1995). Apprenticeship models enable learners to utilize the new language as a tool in the
process of becoming self-regulatory. Similar to Cumming's suggestions for fostering
writing expertise, "students are supported by a scaffold of prompts and explanations, by
extensive modeling, by in-process support, and by reflection that connects strategic effort
to outcomes" (Flower, 1994, pp. 142-143). Drawing on and revising student knowledge
of genres, reflecting on strategies for approaching a variety of literary tasks, and
cultivating a metalanguage for discussing texts are important components of socio-literate
methods (Johns, 1999). [-12-]

Students come to class both to improve their language proficiency and become more
confident in their writing abilities. Writing practice can also present diagnostic feedback
that helps learners improve their linguistic accuracy at every level of proficiency.
Instruction should provide students with ample amounts of language input and
instruction, as well as writing experience (preferably through the interweaving of writing
and reading, referred to as "intertextuality" (Blanton, 1999), and feedback to fulfill their
goals. Overt classroom instruction through modeling, for instance, is only one part of the
teaching process; providing students with feedback on their writing is the other.
Essentially, we need to consider factors related to language proficiency, second language
acquisition, and writing skill development when giving feedback. Specifically, the
effectiveness of feedback may depend on the level of students' motivation, their current
language level, their cognitive style, the clarity of the feedback given, the way the
feedback is used, and the attitudes of students toward their teacher and the class (Ferris,
1997; Goldstein, 2001; Omaggio Hadley, 1993). Classroom settings, course goals, and
grading procedures and standards are also important (Leki, 1990). Systematically
encouraging learners to reflect on what they want to write and then helping them to make
an appropriate choice of language forms has pedagogic value.

We must be aware of the complexities involved in the revision process and respond to
writing so that students can make modifications with confidence and competence. Ideally,
learners should be encouraged to analyze and evaluate feedback themselves in order for it
to be truly effective. Teacher commentary, student reactions to commentary, and student
revisions interact with each other in a formidable way. How teachers intervene in writing
instruction, and how L2 writers react to the feedback influences the composing process.
Should teachers stress early mastery of the mechanical aspects of writing, or should they
urge their students to pay little attention to correctness, at least until after a first draft has
been written? Again, process models of writing instruction allow students time to reflect
and seek input as they reshape their plans, ideas, and language. In classroom practice, the
focus is on idea development, clarity, and coherence before identification and grammar
correction. Ideally, instruction and response serve to motivate revisions, encourage
learning, induce problem-solving and critical thinking, in addition to further writing
practice (Cumming, 1989; White, 1994; Zamel, 1987). Indeed, the process approach may
be effective, but if writers' linguistic ability sets limits to what they can do conceptually
or affects the writing process itself, then we need a combination of process instruction
and attention to language development.

Focused error correction can be highly desirable, but problematic;. In addition, there are
many contradictory findings. The initial impulse for many teachers when reading L2
student writing is to edit the work, that is, focus on the structural aspects so that the
writing closer resembles target language discourse. Teachers can correct errors; code
errors; locate errors, and indicate the number of errors. To its benefit, attention to errors
"provides the negative evidence students often need to reject or modify their hypotheses
about how the target language is formed or functions" (Larsen-Freeman, 1991, p. 293). [-
13-] However, if this focus on error becomes the totality of the response, then language,
discourse, and text are equated with structure. It is then assumed that the instructor has
the authority to change the student's text and correct it (Rodby, 1992). In addition, some
feel it may not be worth the instructor's time and effort to provide detailed feedback on
sentence level grammar and syntax, since improvement can be gained by writing practice
alone (Robb, Ross, & Shortreed, 1986). Practice alone may improve fluency, but if errors
are not pointed out and corrected, they can become ingrained or fossilized in student
writing, as mentioned earlier. L1 research may advocate for focusing on conception and
organization, and not on mechanical errors, except for a "note reminding the student that
the final copy needs to be edited" (White, 1994, p. 109). However, survey reports in L2
have indicated that students both attend to and appreciate their teachers' pointing out of
grammar problems (Brice, 1995; Cohen, 1987; Ferris, 1995, 1997; Leki, 1991; Radecki
& Swales, 1988). In support of this claim, Fathman and Whalley (1990), from their
research on feedback and revision in an ESL context, concluded that grammar and
content feedback, whether given separately or together, positively affect rewriting.
However, grammatical feedback had more effect on error correction than content
feedback had on the improvement of content. Grammatical and rhetorical feedback
should be attentive to the writers' level of proficiency and degree of readiness (Ferris,
1995, Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1996; Lee, 1997; Leki, 1991). Overly detailed responses
may overwhelm L2 writers and discourage substantive revision, whereas minimal
feedback may result in only surface modifications to the text. Furthermore, learners may
be uncertain about what to do with various suggestions and how to incorporate them into
their own revision processes. More research on the effectiveness of responses on revision
should be examined. (See Sengupta (2000) for research on the effects of explicit teaching
of revision strategies on L2 learners' writing proficiency and perceptions about writing).

Summary and Conclusion

For English L2 writers, the process of writing in an academic environment is challenging.

I used to tell my students that the only way to improve their writing is to keep writing--
thinking that with enough practice in writing and revision (involving problem solving and
reflection), they would eventually acquire the fundamentals, or at least the standard,
required of academic discourse. Although the process approach to instruction,
characterized by practice, collaboration, and the opportunity for revision, may be suitable
for most English L1 writers, it is apparent that many L2 writers do not have the necessary
linguistic ability to reap the benefits of the approach. As Yau (1991) points out:

[A]lthough we should not cripple our students' interest in writing through undue stress or
grammatical correctness, the influence of second language factors on writing
performance is something we have to reckon with and not pretend that concentrating on
the process would automatically resolve the difficulty caused by these factors. (p. 268)

Kern (2000) also mentions that process-oriented teaching does not acknowledge the
influence of sociocultural context on individual processes. He has characterized it as
inattentive to "learners' understanding of links between form and communicative
conventions that will allow them to construct meanings in ways that are appropriate
within the immediate academic context as well as the larger societal context" (p. 182). [-
14-]

Feedback is of utmost importance to the writing process. Without individual attention and
sufficient feedback on errors, improvement will not take place. We must accept the fact
that L2 writing contains errors; it is our responsibility to help learners to develop
strategies for self-correction and regulation. Indeed, L2 writers require and expect
specific overt feedback from teachers not only on content, but also on the form and
structure of writing. If this feedback is not part of the instructional process, then students
will be disadvantaged in improving both writing and language skills.

In order to learn more about L2 writers' use of language in the process of writing, we
need to apply to L2 writing the research methods utilized in exploring the composing
process in L1 writing, such as think-aloud protocols. We also need to understand how
students compose in both their native languages and in English to understand more about
their learning strategies (especially in monitoring errors), the role of translation, and
transfer of skills. Certainly, ethnographic research in L2 writing that examines the writing
process, along with the acquisition of communicative competence, will help to create a
more comprehensive theory of L2 writing.

About the Author

Johanne Myles has been teaching ESL, EAP, and TESL for over 20 years in Canada and
abroad. She is presently working on a Ph.D in Education with a focus on cultural and
curriculum studies at Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. Her research
interests include intercultural communication, second language acquisition and second
language writing. She intends to conduct ethnographic research on the communicative
competence of engineering students who are non-native speakers of English in the
workplace environment when on their internships.

References
Anderson, J. (1985). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: W.H.
Freeman.

Atkinson, D. & Ramanathan, V. (1995). Cultures of writing: An ethnographic comparison

of L1 and L2 university writing/language programs.TESOL Quarterly, 29, 539-568.

Bartholomae, D. (1980). Study of error. College Composition and Communication, 31,

253-269.

Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bialystok, E. (1998). Coming of age in applied linguistics. Language Learning, 48, 497-
518.

Blanton, L. (1999). Classroom instruction and language minority students: On teaching

to"Smarter" readers and writers. In L. Harklau, K. Losey & M. Siegal (Eds.), Generation
1.5 meets college composition (pp. 119-142). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Brice, C. (1995). ESL writers' reactions to teacher commentary: A case study. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 394 312).

Brown, H.D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). White
Plains, NY: Longman.

Cai, G. (1999). Texts in contexts: Understanding Chinese students' English compositions.

In C. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Evaluating writing: The role of teachers' knowledge
about text, learning and culture (pp. 279-297).Urbana, Ill: National Council of Teachers
of English.

Carson, J. (2001). Second language writing and second language acquisition. In T. Silva
and P.Matsuda (Eds.), On second language writing (pp. 191-200). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [-15-]

Cazden, C. (1992). Performing expository texts in the foreign language classroom. In C.

Kramsch & S. McConnell-Ginet (Eds.), Text and context: Cross-disciplinary perspectives
on language study (pp. 67-78). Lexington, MA: D.C.Heath and Company.

Cohen, A. (1987). Student processing of feedback on their compositions. In A. Wendon

and J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 57-69). UK: Prentice
Hall International.

Coleman, H. (Ed.), (1996). Society and the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Connor, U. (1997). Contrastive rhetoric: Implications for teachers of writing in
multicultural classrooms. In C. Severino, J. Guerra and J. Butler (Eds.), Writing in
multicultural settings (pp. 198-208). New York: Modern Language Association of
America.

Connor, U. & Kaplan, R. (Eds.), (1987). Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text.
USA: Addison-Wesley.

Cumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second language proficiency. Language

Learning, 39, 81-141.

Cumming, A. (1995). Fostering writing expertise in ESL composition instruction:

Modeling and evaluation. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a
second language (pp. 375-397). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Co.

Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Institute

of English.

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Fathman, A. & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form
versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed), Second language writing: Research insights for the
classroom (pp. 178-190). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ferris, D. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition

classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 33-53.

Ferris, D. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL

Quarterly, 31, 315-339.

Flower, L. (1994). The construction of negotiated meaning: A social cognitive theory of

writing. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Flower, L. & Hayes, J. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling
constraints. In L. Gregg & E. Steinberg (Eds.),Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31-50).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Flower, L. & Hayes, J. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing.College

Composition and Communication, 32, 365-387.

Flower, L., Stein, V., Ackerman, J., Kantz, M., McCormick, K., & Peck, W., (1990).
Reading-to-write: Exploring a cognitive and social process. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Fox, H. (1994). Listening to the world: Cultural issues in academic writing. Urbana
Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.

Friedlander, A. (1990). Composing in English: Effects of a first language on writing in

English as a second language. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research
insights for the classroom. (pp. 109-125). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gardner, R. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of
attitude and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.

Giles, H., Robinson, P. & Smith, P. (Eds.) (1980). Language: Social psychological
perspectives. Oxford: Pergamon.

Giles, H. & Byrne, J. (1982). An intergroup approach to second language acquisition.

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 3, 17-40. [-16-]

Goldstein, L. (2001). For Kyla: What does the research say about responding to ESL
writers. In T. Silva and P. Matsuda (Eds.), On second language writing (pp. 73-90).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Grabe, W. (2001). Notes toward a theory of second language writing. In T. Silva and P.
Matsuda (Eds.), On second language writing (pp. 39-58). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Grabe, W. & Kaplan, R. (1996). Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic
perspective. New York: Longman.

Hamers, J. & Blanc, M. (1982). Towards a social-psychological model of bilingual

development. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 1, 29-50.

Hedgcock, J. & Lefkowitz, N. (1996). Some input on input: Two analyses of student
response to expert feedback in L2 writing. Modern Language Journal, 80, 287-308.

Holliday, A. (1997). Appropriate methodology and social context Cambridge, England:

Cambridge University Press.

Hull, G. (1985). Research on error and correction. In B. McClelland & T. Donovan

(Eds.), Perspectives on research and scholarship in composition (pp. 162-184). New
York: The Modern Language Association of America.

Johns, A. (1999). Opening our doors: Applying socioliterate approaches (SA) to language
minority classrooms. In L. Harklau, K. Losey & M. Siegal (Eds), Generation 1.5 meets
college composition (pp. 159-171). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Johns, A. (1995). Teaching classroom and authentic genres: Initiating students into
academic cultures and discourses. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in
a second language (pp. 277-291). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Co.

Kaplan, R. (1987). Cultural thought patterns revisited. In U. Connor & R. Kaplan (Eds.),
Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 9-21). Reading, Mass: Addison
Wesley.

Kern, R. (2000). Literacy and language teaching. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.

Klein, W. (1998). The contribution of second language acquisition research. Language

Learning, 48, 527-549.

Kobayashi, H. & Rinnert, C. (1996). Factors affecting composition evaluation in an EFL

context: Cultural rhetorical pattern and reader's background. Language Learning, 46,
397-437.

Kogen, M. (1986). The conventions of expository writing. Journal of Basic Writing, 5,

24-37.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford:

Pergamon Press.

Kutz, E., Groden, S., & Zamel, V. (1993). The discovery of competence: Teaching and
learning with diverse student writers. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.

Lambert, W. (1975). Culture and language as factors in learning and education. In A.

Wolfgang (Ed.), Education of immigrant students (pp. 55-83). Toronto: Ontario Institute
for Studies in Education.

Lantolf, J. (Ed.) (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (1991). Teaching grammar. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching

English as a second or foreign language (2nd ed.) Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Lee, I. (1997). ESL Learners' performance in error correction in writing: Some

implications for teaching. System, 15, 465-477.

Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response. In B. Kroll (Ed.),
Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 57-67). New York:
Cambridge University Press. [-17-]

Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level
writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24, 203-217.
Leki, I. (1993). Twenty-five years of contrastive rhetoric: Text analysis and writing
pedagogies. In S. Silberstein (Ed.), State of the art TESOL essays (pp. 350-370). Virginia:
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.

Leki, I. (1997). Cross-talk: ESL issues and contrastive rhetoric. In C. Severino, J. Guerra,
and J. Butler (Eds.), Writing in multicultural settings (pp. 234-244).New York: Modern
Language Association of America

Matalene, C. (1985). Contrastive rhetoric: An American writing teacher in China.

College English, 47, 789-808.

McGroarty, M. (1996). Language attitudes, motivation, and standards. In S. McKay & N.

Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 3-46). New York:
Cambridge University Press. [-18-]

McLaughlin, B. (1988). Theories of second-language learning. Baltimore: Edward

Arnold.

Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Odlin, T. (1994). Introduction. In T. Odlin (Ed.), Perspectives on pedagogical grammar

(pp. 1-22). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Omaggio Hadley, A. (1993). Teaching language in context. Boston: Heinle & Heinle

O'Malley, J. & Chamot, A. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition.

Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development

of grammatical competence. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based
language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 59-86). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Plata, M. (1995). Success of Hispanic college students on a writing examination. Journal

of Educational Issue of Language Minority Students [on-line serial], 15. Available:
http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/miscpubs/jeilms/vol15/success.htm

Radecki, P. & Swales, J. (1988). ESL student reaction to written comments on their
written work. System, 16, 355-365.

Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled ESL students do as they write: A classroom study of
composing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 229-257.
Raimes, A. (1987). Language proficiency, writing ability and composing strategies: A
study of ESL college student writers. Language Learning, 37, 439-468.

Raimes, A. (1991). Out of the woods: Traditions in the teaching of writing. TESOL
Quarterly, 25, 407-430.

Raimes, A. (1998). Teaching writing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 142-167.

Robb, T., Ross, S. & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on
EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83-93.

Rodby, J. (1992). Appropriating literacy: Writing and reading in English as a second

language. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.

Schinke-Llano, L. (1995). Reenvisioning the second language classroom: A Vygotskian

approach. In F. Eckman, D. Highland, P. Lee, J. Milcham & R. Weber (Eds.), Second
language acquisition theory and pedagogy (pp. 21-28), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates. [-19-]

Schumann, J. (1978). The pidginization process: A model for second language

acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Schumann, J. (1998). The neurobiology of affect in language. Language Learning, 48,

Supplement 1, 527-549.

Sengupta, S. (2000). An investigation into the effects of revision strategy instruction on

L2 secondary school learners. System, 28, 97-113.

Shaughnessy, M. (1977). Errors and expectations. New York: Oxford University Press.

Shen, F. (1998). The classroom and the wider culture: Identity as a key to learning
composition in English. In V. Zamel & R. Spack (Eds.), Negotiating academic literacies:
Teaching and learning across languages and cultures (pp. 123-134). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209-

231.

Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL
research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 657-677.

Snow, M. A. (2001). Content-based and immersion models for second and foreign
language teaching. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign
language (3rd ed.) (pp. 303-318). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Spack, R. (1997). The rhetorical construction of multilingual students. TESOL Quarterly,
31, 765-74.

Sternglass, M. (1997). Time to know them: A longitudinal study of writing and learning
at the college level. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings.

Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Valdes, J. (1995) (Ed.) Culture bound. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wells, G. (2000). Dialogic inquiry in education: Building on the legacy of Vygotsky. In

C. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literary research (pp. 51-
85). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Widdowson, H. (1990). Aspects of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

White, E. (1994). Teaching and assessing writing. (2nd ed.) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers

Williams, J. (1989). Preparing to teach writing. California: Wadsworth Publishing Co.

Yau, M. (1991). The role of language factors in second language writing. In L. Malave &
G. Duquette (Eds), Language, culture and cognition: A collection of studies in first and
second language acquisition (pp. 266-283). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies.
TESOL Quarterly, 17, 165-187.

Zamel, V. (1987). Recent research on writing pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 697-715.

Zamel, V. (1998). Strangers in academia: The experiences of faculty and ESL students
across the curriculum. In V. Zamel & R. Spack (Eds.), Negotiating academic literacies:
Teaching and learning across languages and cultures (pp. 249-264). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

© Copyright rests with authors. Please cite TESL-EJ appropriately.

Editor's Note: Dashed numbers in square brackets indicate the end of
each page for purposes of citation.
Return to Table of Contents Return to Top Return to Main Page

[-20-]

http://www-writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej22/a1.html
Optional:
Reynolds, R.E., Taylor, M.A., Steffensen, M.S. & Anderson, R.C. 1982
Carrell, P. 1983

Week Four: Interacting Variables in L2 Reading Comprehension

1 • The role of passage content in L2 reading
2 • The individual reader: L2 reading and gender
3 • Classroom factors in second language reading comprehension

Readings:
Brantmeier, C. 2001
Brantmeier, C. 2002
Bernhardt, E. Chapter 6
Optional:
Belcher, D. 2001

Week Five: L2 Reading Strategies

1 • Strategy use
2 • Strategy type
3 • Metacognitive reading strategies

Readings:
Barnett, M.A. 1988
Anderson, N.J. 1991
Young, D.J. & Oxford, R. 1997
Optional:
Brantmeier, C. 2002
Anderson, N. 2003

Week Six: Assessing L2 Reading Comprehension

1 • Written recall
2 • Multiple choice, Sentence completion, Cloze passage, etc.
3 • Examinations and testing

Read:
Bernhardt, E. Chapter 7
Wolf, D. 1993
Optional:
Sohamy, E. 1984

http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cbrantme/469
 Vol. 6. No. 1 A-1 June 2002

Return to Table of Contents Return to Main Page

The Contextual Reshaping of Beliefs about L2 Writing:

Three Teachers' Practical Process of Theory Construction
Sima Sengupta
Department of English, Hong Kong Polytechnic University
<egsima@polyu.edu.hk>
Maida Kennedy Xiao
Shanghai
<maida_xiao@yahoo.com>

Abstract

In the last two decades there have been discussions of the theoretical knowledge base for
ESL writing pedagogy. This paper focuses on how teaching experience at a newly
implemented L2 writing center contributed towards personal theory development of ESL
writing for three teachers. By combining the literature on teacher knowledge with ESL
writing, we studied teachers' changing beliefs about ESL writers, readers, texts and
contexts. With data from planned collegial experience-sharing activities and writing
centre feedback we created a story of each teacher's orientation. We then conducted open-
ended interviews to gather responses from the protagonists of the stories. Through
inductive analyses of the data we found that all three have critically examined and
somewhat revised their content and pedagogic content knowledge of ESL writing. Using
these stories we question whether programme and curriculum developers should devise
strategies to help teachers consciously see the theory-practice connection in ESL writing.

Introduction

The impact of experience on teachers' knowledge development is a thorny issue as one

may question whether "ten years' experience is only one year experienced ten times"
(Bowen & Marks, 1994, p. 168). Bowen and Marks (1994, p. 173) suggest that through
critical reflection, self-observation, experimentation and risk-taking every week of
teaching can build teachers' knowledge base. In this process of making every week of
experience into practical knowledge, we can see teacher knowledge development as
spiraling cycles consisting of "innovate-reflect-adjust" moves (see for example, Grodjan,
1991; Pennington, 1995) that essentially indicate a complex interaction between the
teaching context and teaching experience. In this exploratory article, we attempt to
narrate three English teachers' journey through the interactive loop that Schön (1983)
calls reflection-in-action as they take part in a new pedagogic experience of teaching at a
newly implemented L2 writing center. We focus on teachers' images of the four elements
in writing: the writer, the reader, the context and the text. We trace how these images
were enriched, revised and re-conceptualized as a result of the teachers' involvement in a
pilot writing center started in the department of English in the Polytechnic University of
Hong Kong. Through the narrative, we attempt to demonstrate how both the context and
the practitioner's views of it continually change and influence each other especially if
reflection and collegial interaction is built into everyday teaching enabling constant
engagement "in a process of sense-making" (Johnson, 1996, p. 770). [-1-]

At the outset however, we need to clarify certain ideas. First, theory building is not top
priority in the ordinary classroom teacher's agenda (Clarke, 1994). Yet when we look at
theory building, the natural starting place is the teacher whose experience and
understanding of the students, the teaching context, the subject matter and the ever-
changing relationship between these facets form the knowledge base of both the
individual teacher as well as TESOL teaching community. Richards, 1996; Bailey &
Nunan, 1995; Freeman & Johnson, 1999). One potential source of influence on teachers'
developing knowledge base is the nature of the teaching experience. Johnson (2000, p. 5)
calls this the "professional landscape" that shapes teachers' situated action. Although
experience does not necessarily guarantee rethinking and re-conceptualization, we need
to know how and under what circumstances new experiences, in the course of teaching,
shape and refine a teacher's knowledge base.

Intuitively, as teachers ourselves, we know that teachers continually extend their

knowledge base and personal theories all the time. Certainly this is the case in areas such
as second language writing where we are still in search of a coherent, comprehensive
theory (Silva, 1993; Cumming, 1998; Matsuda, 1999). At this stage of theory
development for TESOL, insider perspective or intuitive theory can advance the shaping
of the knowledge base of L2 writing and its pedagogy in many ways (Krischner et al.,
1996). In other words, we can and should consciously make the theory-practice
connection in the ESL context to see how individual theory construction contributes to
the understanding of L2 writing in general and writing teachers' collective knowledge
base in particular. This paper attempts to show how the developing knowledge base of the
teachers in this study was a synthesis of various types of activities, deliberately planned
by the curriculum developers to create an atmosphere of collegial experience-sharing--all
leading to practitioner theory building. These activities consisted of a common core of
reading, discussion of issues arising from the reading versus practice/practical
knowledge, and regular meetings to relate learning experiences of individual teachers
through their involvement with the writing center.

What exactly is knowledge in the context of L2 writing? Research into teacher

knowledge encompasses a variety of models (see for example, Shulman, 1986; Grossman
1990; Calderhead & Shorrock, 1994). Shulman (1986) and Wilson, Shulman and Richert
(1987) often make a distinction between content knowledge and pedagogic content
knowledge. The idea of separate categories of knowledge, however, is problematic
because the boundaries are fuzzy (Borko & Putnam, 1994; Wu & Sengupta, 1998).

The theoretical framework for studying teacher knowledge construction arose from the
literature. Silva (1990) states that the 1940s to mid-1960s was the phase of controlled
composition in ESL writing pedagogy with focus on form (syntactic level), which soon
gave way to the "current traditional paradigm," in which the emphasis was on rhetorical
drills [1 ] (Young, 1978; Silva, 1990). Then in the late 1970s/early 1980s, process-
centered ideas took shape (Raimes, 1985, 1987; Zamel, 1984). The eighties focused on
the social aspects of writing, bringing to the forefront the academic community as the
reader with the gradual rise to prominence of English for academic purposes and later
genre analysis. [-2-]

The differences between approaches lie in the way these views regard the four
components of composing: the writer, the reader, the text and the context (Silva, 1990).
Table 1 summarizes the theoretical framework used for studying the four elements as
conceptualized within the formalist, process theory and social constructionist theories
(see for example, Silva, 1990; Johns, 1990; Nystrand et al., 1993). The reader will notice
that the table is an amalgamation of various camps. For the ease of analysis, there are
many theoretical stances that are subsumed under broad terms based on the major focus
of the theory. Thus, for example, formalists and current traditionalists are put together
because their focus is on the text, though very different aspects of the text.

Table 1: The theoretical framework

Theoretical Reader Writer Text Context
orientation
Formalism/ Receiver of The transmitter of Generally seen Focuses on
Current meaning-- meaning, entirely as an features of
traditional playing a responsible for autonomous "good" text
rhetoric largely passive creating a "good" text embodiment of Meaning is to a
role meaning-- at the great extent
grammatical or univocal
rhetorical level
Process theory Active A kind of rhetorical Gradual and The
interpreter of problem-solver relying recursive individual's act
meaning--as on individual recursive translation of of writing and
readers of process to gradually writers' goals reading is the
others' as well build meaning and thoughts focus
as own text into a evolving Directed by
text individual's
purposive
meaning-
making
Social A member (or As a member (or A sophisticated The social
constructionism aspiring aspiring member) of manipulation of context is
member) of a the community who discourse extremely
interpretative recognizes/knows/uses conventions and powerful--
community the codes and expectations of meaning-
who have conventions the community making is
specific always with
expectations reference to a
context of
many similar
texts

[-3-]

The approaches described above, one could argue, mainly come from the field of
composition. The field of L2 writing is dynamically related to both composition (L1) and
ESL (Matsuda, 1998). Thus, Matsuda (1998) argues that the knowledge of L2 writing is
essential for both ESL teachers and writing teachers in the U.S. higher education. This
observation is particularly appropriate for a context such as Hong Kong (and other South
East Asian contexts) where L2 writing is subsumed under ESL and thus ESL teachers
need to develop a distinct knowledge base of L2 writing that can enable them to place L2
writing within a cross-disciplinary context. Indeed, the required reading for the Writing
Assistance Program (WAP) pilot staff development workshops included papers from L2
writing in general as well as the rich literature that exists on writing center practice so
that teachers could see a global picture of writing. Before examining the impact of the
experience on teachers' knowledge, some background is needed on the program itself.

Background

The Writing Assistance Program was planned for almost two years before the pilot
project was finally approved. The Writing Assistance Program was established with the
aim of providing one-to-one writing assistance to undergraduates at Hong Kong
Polytechnic University, an English-medium tertiary institution. (For a detailed program
description, see Xiao, 2001.) The program provides one-to-one assistance to students on
their writing in the form of half-hour or one-hour writing conferences. Students are
encouraged to seek assistance with any writing assignment or writing-related questions
they have. Typically, the texts students bring in range from application letters and out-of-
class essays to final year theses. Each student after initially registering, books a
convenient time, comes to a session at the designated time with their texts and fills in a
pre-session form which asks for background information and a description of the kind of
help needed. At the end of each session, students are asked to give feedback while
teachers also fill in a feedback sheet indicating what was done, the problems encountered
and a brief overall evaluation. The aim of WAP conferences is not to solve all problems
that face the writer but to assist writers to begin to think critically about their texts.
Systematic documentation protocols are observed which consist of pre-session forms and
post-session feedback forms filled in by students and documentation forms filled in by
teachers as well as a photocopy of the text. Consent for using these documents for
research purposes is sought from all parties.

In developing the program, a number of interrelated issues were addressed. One issue
was the question of how to orient and then support the twelve original staff members,
who were drawn from a larger group of existing English Department teachers, to work as
writing consultants. Only some of the twelve, who were all qualified and experienced
ESL teachers, had a familiarity with the current literature on writing theory and practice--
indeed some had only limited experience with one-to-one conferencing.

The issue of how to offer staff development and hands-on training was addressed very
seriously at WAP. Outside experts were brought in to discuss writing theory and
pedagogy as well as writing center theory and practice. A reading list of relevant
literature was circulated among the teachers (see Appendix B) and formal and informal
seminars and discussions were held to critically examine issues arising from them as well
as those arising from the actual writing conferences. Teachers were encouraged to
maintain teaching journals in order to reflect on their work and interaction with writers.
The pilot's coordinator (the second author of this paper) kept teachers informed on issues
that arose each week as well as administrative matters through weekly e-mails.
Subscription and back issues of the Writing Lab Newsletter and the Writing Centre
Journal were purchased and teachers were encouraged to read them. Meetings were held
throughout the semester pilot to discuss the dynamics of WAP writing conferences and
teachers engaged in many informal conversations about their experiences throughout the
period. These efforts and activities created program synergy as well as an ethos that
valued reflective practice and collegial support. [-4-]

Thus the WAP was piloted within an environment where active knowledge development
was not only possible but also inevitable. Within this backdrop the following stories need
to be interpreted.

Procedures

This narrative starts at the time when the teachers were getting ready for teaching in a
pilot writing center started at their university in Hong Kong. We first examined the ways
in which these three teachers expressed their understanding and assumptions about the
nature of L2 writing in meetings and collegial interactions. From the audio taped data, we
constructed a narrative for each teacher--a narrative of our interpretation of the individual
teacher's views about writing, his or her overall theoretical orientation, and the changes
that are apparent. In total, there were three audio taped meetings and field notes taken at
the meetings from which this narrative was created. The first meeting was held before the
WAP was started. In this meeting, each teacher was asked to read and present one or two
papers in order to enable the whole group to discuss the central issues of each reading.
The second meeting, held after a few weeks, was aimed towards the issues arising from
experience with a visiting U.S. expert. The last meeting was held at the end of the pilot
semester to debrief and develop action plans.
From these sources, three randomly chosen individual narratives were then tabulated on
the theoretical framework in terms of the ways in which these teachers seemed to
perceive reader, writer, text, and context. This interpretation was then crosschecked with
the feedback forms of the sessions the three had conducted at the WAP. The aim of
creating this narrative or case record was not to label instructors as belonging to a
particular camp (although we could not always avoid such labeling), but to record clearly
the ways in which each teacher talked of writing and the ways in which this "talk" had
changed over time.

We then gave each teacher a summary of this narrative and asked for an interpretation of
the narrative and expansion on how they saw their own knowledge development of L2
writing (see Appendix A) [2]. Through this process, we attempted to ensure that the
teachers had some power ultimately to shape their stories. These interviews were taped,
transcribed and the incoming data were fitted into the original narrative.

In the following, we report how individual teachers see their own experiences as a
process of theory building in L2 writing and its pedagogy. Although ultimately the reader
hears our voices in this paper, included in the story are the teachers' voices--sometimes
dissenting, sometimes questioning, and often blurring the distinction between teachers
and researchers. (The three names used are not the instructors' real names.) [-5-]

Teacher 1: Peter

Peter, a Western male, had spent a number of years teaching second languages. He is an
intensely private person who does not take things lightly. He reflects on his work and is
eager to read and discuss issues that pertain to meeting the needs of his students.
Although a native English speaker, Peter obviously recognizes the difficulties both
teachers and students may have and expect in L2 writing. This stems partially from his
background. Since he majored in a second language, he feels that he understands the
pains and pitfalls of using a second language in an academic setting to express complex
ideas.

From listening to Peter in the first meeting, it was clear that Peter was essentially an
expressivist. We came to this conclusion for two reasons. First, in the initial WAP
meeting, Peter questioned assumptions about an ever-present reader and expressed the
opinion that writing is "essentially personal--any kind of writing", indeed "therapeutic".
However, in a later meeting, discussing genre-specific writing, he expressed the belief
that writing probably needs to be seen more globally.

Hand in hand with the expressivist beliefs, we also detected other orientations in his
practice. His feedback to students showed an element of formalism in that he often
focused on accuracy and did not seem to discuss the reader or the context at all initially.
Yet in his later feedback, there were comments on readership and purpose.

He reacted to this labeling of essentially "expressivist" in orientation with his usual

equanimity. He admitted that his own background (in an Ivy League institution) might
have partly shaped his ideas. He believes that stereotypes such as "formalist" or
"expressivist" are essentially flawed since writing is a "broad umbrella." He admitted that
in his feedback, personal expression was often relegated to a less important place, as
basic accuracy seemed to be thwarting students' ability to express themselves. Yet he was
concerned with our pigeonholing him to into the expressivist camp. However, he
contended that his notions have broadened. He felt that through his close contact with the
WAP writers, he has developed a deeper understanding of writing in context. Although he
continues to see writing as "personal," even in an academic setting where creativity,
originality and personal interpretation go a long way in determining the quality of a
piece, he admitted that more and more he realizes the role of the reader in an academic
setting--especially for L2 writers in a ESP situation. He felt that the background reading
and the input from visiting experts had made him more conscious of readership issues.

His discussion of reader at the time of the interview was inextricably linked with the
context where the reader holds the power, and the text has to meet this powerful reader's
expectations. Thus, the writers that come in clinging to their texts had made him see a
"production-oriented" relationship between writer and reader--quite unlike the expository
writing that had meant "writing" to him. In this production line, he said that he had
realized that there are a variety of personalized approaches and a constant tension
between a number of concerns ranging from global meaning to the "nitty-gritty" of
grammatical forms. [-6-]

Initially, he questioned whether genre-specific writing instruction was problematic since

English language teachers do not have the necessary information and background to teach
discipline-specific discourse. But in his interview, he agreed that there has been a gradual
transformation in his thinking. He pointed out the very nature of the encounters he had
experienced as a WAP teacher allowed him to change gradually towards a social-
interactive perspective, because the experiences involved "seeing students writing papers
for a specific community." This product-centered context, he believed, had allowed him
to understand why the writer's focus might be on grammar or lower-level concerns--he
realized that these concerns enable student writers to address reader expectation--
especially when they seek the help of a language teacher. This synergy between reader,
writer, text, and context was becoming apparent in his feedback as well as in the views he
expressed at the last meeting. Below are some of the points he made in this meeting:

Peter: So how do we distinguish between accuracy and fluency in writing?

Colleague 1: I think we are not trying to do that at all--are we?

Colleague 2: Yes we are--we are discussing HOCs and LOCs [higher-order concerns and
lower-order concerns]--so we are making a distinction.

Peter: How are we going to address higher-level concerns if the lower level concerns are
not taken into account first?

In another exchange:
Colleague: . . . But we have to think of the reader and purpose when we think of how to
deal with grammar.

Peter: I think that we have to remember that these students are writing for teachers who
are not looking for anything beyond accurate information.

In the interpretation sheet, the following three major changes were noted in the way Peter
spoke of writing. Although agreeing with these changes, he saw them within the broader
pedagogic landscape, as we will discuss below.

As a result of reflecting on the WAP experience, the change in Peter seems to consist of:

 Seeing the importance of the reader;

 Recognizing a social dimension of writing; and
 Questioning the divide between lower and higher-level concerns as the lower-
level concerns often generate from higher-level meaning-related issues.

So, how has this practitioner built his theory? There are two aspects that are worth
mentioning. One conspicuous element was that in all the discussion of writing, there were
very few instances of talking about writing without any reference to its teaching. In
voicing his own change towards a more social model of writing, the focus of all his
observation is the student writer who has come to the writing center (WAP)--a knowledge
base that is wholly student-centered as the following excerpt indicates: [-7-]

"I think the reading we'd done was useful but I liked the later meetings where we shared
experiences. We all seemed to agree that the challenge was in meeting the needs of each
student coming to us. It was the encounter with individual students that shaped my
feedback and‹maybe--my understanding of the readings. In a way--it all starts with the
students--their writing, their concerns, their expectations . . . "

In addition, in his ever-extending knowledge base, there is much more evidence of

reflective pragmatism in that he adopts a rational combination of different approaches to
suit the specific situation of individual student writers.

Teacher 2: Paula

Paula, a native Cantonese-speaking female teacher, is able to invoke her own experiences
as a second language writer when she talks about her students' writing. Paula readily
admitted that she had found writing effectively and critically in a second language quite
demanding when she was a university student. As a teacher, she is quiet but reflective,
often posing questions that are central to any discussion of writing.

In her comments about writing in the first meeting, Paula expressed the opinion that:

Paula: . . . the most important thing is [that students] be able to talk about their writing.
Colleague: Yes but how would they do that?

Paula: . . . by discussing their difficulties like why they are not sure whether to use "a" or
"the" or no article... Something like that.

In the first meeting, Paula the teacher looked back on her experience as a student, where
she had no access to the processes of other writers and thus did not know "how other
writers process information." She seemed to foresee an encounter in the WAP where the
student writer would get to see how a teacher-evaluator's process worked, and thus
understand the nature of teacher expectation. In the subsequent meetings, Paula's voice
seemed to have changed. Although Paula was quiet in meetings and was not comfortable
expressing her opinions, she said in the last meeting:

Yes I keep thinking about this discussion of LOCs and HOCs--ever since I read that
article and our last meeting with xxx [US expert]. But I think it is not a good
distinction. ...For someone like a student writing an assignment, he is trying to make
himself clear and every concern is to make that--I mean make my meaning clear--they
are all higher level--even whether they are using the wrong or correct tense . . . maybe I
have not understood the ideas yet.

In her feedback, Paula focused on accuracy. She discussed errors and wrote her
comments on errors with no mention of the writing context, such as the purpose of
writing or readers in her written comments. [-8-]

In the interpretation sheet we had written:

Paula is essentially a believer in the process. However, this belief in the importance of the
process is not one where form is ignored but seen as part of the process. So she is the
kind of process proponent that Raimes (1986) recommends--one who takes into account
both form and rhetorical concerns. Although in Paula's case it is form that seemed to be
more important.

Questioning the implied "formalist" labeling that we were assigning her, she disagreed
that to her, personally, form is more important. However, once we explained why we
came to that conclusion--the number of times we found her talking about "correct" and
"grammar" when discussing writing--even when discussing the process, she partially
agreed. She conceded that when the discussion of writing is framed in terms of pedagogy
as the WAP meetings were--it was the student writers and their needs that were
uppermost in her mind--and within that L2 context, she believes, formal accuracy is an
extremely important need. In the interview she mentioned that although she thought that
making the student writer aware of the process was essential--she could better understand
now why students go for lower-order concerns at the level of simplistic grammatical rules
instead of the more complex problems of ideas and their development. In the past she saw
a distinction between content and form and believed that lower-order concerns were the
"easiest" to deal with because there is a "correct" answer. As a result of her experience
with the WAP, she was able to rethink these lower-order needs because hidden behind
these needs she increasingly saw the need to express complex ideas to a reader "who
knows these ideas but still wants to read about them". When asked how her ideas about
writing had changed, she said in the interview:

P: Oh I think I have learnt a lot--I now have a kind of much broader understanding. I
used to be very concerned about accuracy and thought accuracy was the most important
thing-- but now I can explain why it is so important.

S: So are you saying that you still obsess over accuracy?

P: No--not obsessed but I still think that accuracy is the most important aspect of writing
because if my reader does not understand my points or the purpose for saying
something--then as a writer I am failing.

S: You are able to see why accuracy is important?

P: I mean because many students bring assignments--the information is known to their

teachers--so they are trying to show if they have understood the ideas--so their readers
have to see that the ideas are clear--it is not like writing an essay in secondary school.

She seems to have broadened her understanding of the writer and built-into this breadth
is, by her own admission, a concern about the reader. In the first meeting, Paula, as a
result of reading Silva's (1990) chapter, questioned whether the unknown reader was a
necessary construct within L2 pedagogy. Yet by the time of the interview, she felt that
even a non-expert reader is important. She admitted that the reader had become an
important element in formulating her pedagogy. She also expressed doubts as to whether
the focus of writing center [-9-] pedagogy can be the process or if it is inevitably the
product alone. She said that within the writing center experience at the university, where
students have generally come in with first drafts, the product or the text brought in
naturally plays a pivotal role. In this text, the writer is only able to see lower-level
problems. Paula felt that every time students started to talk about writing, these lower-
level concerns were the only ones that they were able to articulate. She believed two
factors explained this focus: First, the writers' educational context constantly emphasizes
sentence-level grammar rather than the text as a whole. Second, as a teacher, she had
started to question the dichotomies such as process and product or content and form. At
the end of the interview, she argued:

I don't know but I think that all these things like LOCs and HOCs and process and
product are sort of unnecessary--they make everything complicated. I think in our context
it is the product that is important--and in WAP--I think our students want us to correct
their grammar--not talk about reader and purpose and organization--so I try to talk
about these things--like organization--by correcting the grammar and telling them how
their teachers can easily understand their ideas if they use the correct tense or the
correct prepositions or articles.
So, how does Paula see the writing center experience changing the way she views
writing? First, she believed that the writing center experience had helped her understand
the L2 writer better and had broadened her notions beyond the writer's writing process to
the writer as a struggling undergraduate, desperately trying to cater to an unknown and
slightly intimidating reader. Her notion of the writer now encompassed a number of
perspectives including the social role played by the disciplinary community. In that sense
there was a move towards a social-interactive view. Second, she felt that she had learned
to understand writing within the context having seen the hindrances in the student writer's
path more clearly (i.e., beyond her own experience as a student) and having understood
how the context shapes the writer's concerns and needs.

The change in her knowledge base is an interesting example of practitioner theory

construction. She now seemed to see a false dichotomy between process and product,
form and ideas, and lower and higher-order concerns. She was, like Peter, moving
towards a context-enriched, student-centered knowledge base arising from the close
encounter with troubled writers who arrived at the WAP seeking help. As a result of the
experience, she felt more empowered to provide students an opportunity to see a real
reader in action and understand "the expectations of a "Western teacher" as well as a
"local" teacher--a distinction that Paula saw as crucial in her discussion of readers.

Teacher 3: Mary

Mary, a Western female, sees education as a process of nurturing individuals to achieve

their full potential. She comes from a counseling background and brought to the WAP an
understanding of how to create a safe and stress-free environment to foster learning. For
Mary, writing has not been something that she has tried to know about. By nature, she is
actively reflective in that she attends staff developmental seminars and questions what
she is told. So the ideas of the reader and the academic discourse community are not new
to her. In the first meeting, she talked about issues of disciplinary writing and importance
of audience awareness: [-10-]

Colleague: But the reader is always the teacher--and we do not really know what the
teacher expects.

Mary: Yes I think I agree--in our context the audience is the teacher who will give
students a grade. But each teacher is looking for specific ideas--written in a particular
way. Also for each assignment the expectation is different--we can infer some of these
expectations from the writing assignment.

With respect to feedback, she commented on purpose and reader expectation from the
very outset. Many of her comments also related to logical organization. It was difficult to
find a consistent pattern in her feedback, unlike that of Peter and Paula.

In the interpretation sheet, we had wrote, "Her approach seems to be an amalgamation

between process and current traditional." Although she agreed that it was a "fair
interpretation," she felt that there were tensions that went beyond such simple
interpretations.

The first of these tensions was between the paradigms. Discussions and seminars
organized by the WAP, according to Mary, helped her see the different paradigms within
which a writing teacher operates and how context and individual needs shape what we
teach and do. The needs based support offered at the WAP, she felt, had made her realize
that as a writing teacher she needed to rethink her broader notions of readership to
incorporate a specific reader for whom the text is being prepared. She saw herself as a
reader, in partnership with the writer, getting a text ready for a third unknown reader.
Often she felt that since she did not know the reader, she had to accept student writers'
assurances that their teacher-reader would understand what they had written. Thus, there
was a constant battle between the reader and the text at the WAP because:

Mary: . . . the "real" reader (the teacher for whom the text is prepared) and the general
informed readership often have different needs. . . . In the WAP sessions the text takes
center stage because it is there -- needing attention--and even a simple lower-level
grammatical error correction--like crossing a "T" or dotting an "I"-- might lead to a
neater text and a better grade. I felt that a discussion of readership with students is
superficial--sometimes I felt I was wasting my time.

S: But did you abandon these discussions?

Mary: No--I continued--but there was this tension--often the feeling that the student did
not get what she wanted.

A dilemma, according to Mary, was to focus on appropriate needs. Student's felt needs
were often lower-order proof reading while the teacher perceived needs were global. She
said at the interview:

Sometimes texts brought in for grammar correction were crying out for discourse-level
rhetorical rethinking about the purpose and focus. I felt I had to point that out--but often
saw that the student writer was much more interested when I was talking about a
common error rather than logic or reader expectation. [-11-]

Mary felt that within a nurturing environment, teachers have a moral obligation to meet
the felt need of the student. Yet, as the teacher, it was her responsibility to take the student
writer beyond the sentence and ultimately beyond the text so that one "is a teacher of
writing and not a proofreader for one [particular text]."

Mary herself saw an extension of her pedagogic content knowledge in that she felt that
she had become a more effective writing teacher as a result of the experience. However,
she pointed out that it would be difficult to attribute the changes in her thinking solely as
the product of a semester long involvement with the WAP pilot, although the WAP did
make her view student concerns, however low-level, more sympathetically. The
involvement with the WAP, the readings, the collegial interaction with colleagues and
visiting experts, she felt, had made her more interested in second language writing and
more aware of the approaches available. Indeed, she believed that working with a variety
of students one-on-one has helped her understand the challenges that teachers of L2
writing face in enabling their student writers to see other facets of writing such as the
process, the reader and the global context. As a practitioner, therefore, she now sees an
emerging theory of writing--a theory that she never attempted to develop earlier, although
she taught writing to all her students as part of general ELT. In response to the question of
whether the WAP experience had changed and influenced her views of writing, she
asserted:

Of course--I have not read so much about writing and never had the opportunity to apply
the readings directly to my teaching. But WAP discussions sort of situated the reading
within the context--a sort of situated learning. None of the ideas were new--but they
seemed new in light of our discussions and arguments. I started to realise how important
reading and collegial supportive environments are for developing all of us--even the most
experienced of teachers.

Discussion and Implications

These brief stories of three L2 teachers in a writing center offer an opportunity to see how
teachers were able to build a knowledge base as a result of their involvement with a
writing assistance program (WAP). One might question whether such refining and
revising of knowledge would have taken place even if the teachers were not part of the
WAP. Indeed, this was a question that was posed at the interviews. Only Mary conceded
that her rethinking might have been influenced by factors beyond the WAP. However, all
three asserted that their involvement with the WAP had extended their knowledge of
teaching writing (pedagogic content) and enabled them to integrate that with new
knowledge of writing (content knowledge) as a result of the readings and discussion
sessions.

This knowledge base was not simply shaped by the encounters with the students coming
to WAP. Without a doubt, the very nature of the WAP encounters with students at
different developmental levels coming in with a variety of texts--ranging from "excellent"
to "Oh no!"--had a profound effect on theory development. However, the collegial
environment that the WAP had created and the ways in which the organizers had provided
a forum for teachers to reflect actively and learn from experience also fostered this
development. We feel such a move has important implications for the classroom; as teams
working with specific groups, we can together build in explicit reflective encounters of
teams based on reading and experience-sharing so that every week of teaching experience
also became a learning experience for a teacher (Bowen & Marks, 1994). [-12-]

Another aspect of knowledge development was the more varied approach that all three
were ready to adopt at the time interviews were conducted at the end of the pilot. This
allowed them to take into account the four elements of writing from a variety of rational
options. Thus, all three questioned certain dichotomies, though in different ways. We had
a peek into how teachers develop "ways of knowing and doing that represent the socially
constructed, perceptual, and interpretative nature of real teaching" (Johnson, 1996, p.
770). Indeed, this ability to focus on different elements of writing at different points
could probably be seen as situated theories (Freeman & Johnson, 1999).

The final theory building was in the way the teachers developed an understanding of ESL
student concerns. As teachers of writing, they had all seen the importance of lower-level
mechanical accuracy but as members of the WAP teaching team, they may have started to
question the narrow focus on these lower-level concerns. The WAP pilot experience may
have helped them see that such concerns often arose from higher-level linguistic needs
that students were unable to articulate.

Further research is necessary to see whether the introduction of teaching initiatives,

especially those in alternative teaching environments, such as writing centers, legitimize
the examination and discussion of theory-practice connection for many teachers who
might otherwise feel it unnecessary. The WAP seemed to be a catalyst in teacher
reflection and development, and these teachers, who had together developed the WAP,
mentioned this reciprocal nature of the context being shaped by their experiences while
inexorably shaping their experiences in the process.

Conclusion

This paper is written with the belief that in order to value teacher theories as more than
"practitioner lore" (North, 1987), we need to see the nature of developing knowledge base
within the context in and by which such theory is shaped. We have tried to show how
three teachers have developed their pedagogic understanding of second language writing
and the kinds of contextual influences that shaped their development. We are, however,
not suggesting that all innovative moves should follow the route we took. We only
suggest that unless collegial and intellectual support is provided to anchor our teaching
experiences as active reflection on action, experience may well become mere repetition
because critical interactive opportunities, which encourage teachers to "innovate-reflect-
adjust", need to be created--they may not just happen.

Notes

1The focus of teaching was on the product in terms of analyzing discourse in word,
sentence and paragraph; classifying discourse into rhetorical patterns, such as,
description, narration, exposition.

2 At this stage, we had started drafting the first draft of the paper. Our plans changed
since then. For example, we could only interview three teachers. [-13-]

About the Authors

Sima Sengupta teaches English language at the Department of English, in the

Polytechnic University of Hong Kong. Her research interests lie in literacy development
at the tertiary level and teacher education. She is currently involved in providing and
researching language support to university teachers.

Maida Kennedy Xiao has taught English in the US, China and Hong Kong. While
teaching at the English Department & English Language Centre in the Polytechnic
University of Hong Kong, she set up and managed the writing programme described in
this paper. Her scholarly interest is in rhetoric, composition and teacher education. She
now resides in Shanghai where she is engaged in teacher training and educational and
ELT consulting.

References

Allison, D. (1994). Comments on Sarah Benecsh's "ESL ideology and the politics of
pragmatism: a reader reacts.TESOL Quarterly 28(3), 618-623.

Bailey, K., & Nunan, D. (Eds.). (1995).Voices from the language classroom. New York:
Cambridge University Press.

Berlin, J.A. (1982). Contemporary composition: The major pedagogical theories. College
English 44(8), 765-779.

Borko, H. & Putnam, R.T. (1995). Expanding a teacher's knowledge base. In T.R. Guskey
and M. Huberman (eds.)Professional Development in Education, (pp. 35-65). New York:
Teachers College.

Bowen, T. & Marks, J. (1994).Inside teaching. Oxford: Heinemann.

Calderhead, J. & Shorrock, S. (1994).The nature and growth of knowledge in teaching.

Paper presented to BERA conference, University of Oxford.

Clarke, C. (1994). The dysfunction of the theory practice discourse. TESOL Quarterly
28(1), 9-26.

Cumming, A. (1998). Theoretical perspectives on writing. In Grabe, W. (Ed.)Annual

Review of Applied Linguistics, (pp. 61-78). USA: Cambridge university press.

Freeman, D. & Johnson, K.E. (1999). Towards a new knowledge-base of second

language teacher education. Plenary paper presented at the conference on Research and
Practice in Language Teacher Education: Voices from the field, 1999. Minneapolis,
University of Minnesota.

Grossman, P.L. (1990).The making of a teacher. New York: Teachers College Press.

Grossman, P.L., Wilson, S.M., & Shulman, L.S. (1989). Teachers of substance: Subject
matter knowledge for teaching. In Reynolds, M.C. (ed.),Knowledge Base for the
Beginning Teachers (pp. 23-36). Oxford: Pergamon.
Grotjahn, R. (1991). The research programme subjective theories: A new approach in
second language research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13,187-214.

Harris, Muriel. (1997). Cultural conflicts in the writing centre: Expectations and
assumptions of ESL students. In Severino, C, Guerra, J., & Butler, J.E. (eds.)Writing in
multicultural settings (pp. 220-233). New York: The Modern Languages Association of
America.

Johns A.M. (1990). L1 composition theories: Implications for developing theories of L2

composition. In Kroll B. (ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the
classroom, (pp.24-36). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Johnson, K.E. (2000). Innovation in TESOL teacher education: A quiet revolution. In K.

Johnson (ed.)Teacher education (pp. 1-10). Virginia: TESOL.

Johnson, K.E. (1996). The role of theory in l2 teacher education. TESOL Quarterly 30(4),
765-772.

Kirschner, M., Spector-Cohen, E. & Wexler, C. (1996). A teacher education workshop on

the construction of efl tests and materials. TESOL Quarterly 30 (1), 85-112. [-14-]

Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994).The post method condition: (E)merging strategies for

second/foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 28 (1), 27--48.

Matsuda, P. (1998). Situating ESL writing in a cross-disciplinary context. Written

Communication 15(1), 99-121.

North, S.M. (1987).The making of knowledge in composition: Portrait of an emerging

field. New Hampshire, Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook Publishers.

Nystrand, M., Greene, S. and Wiemelt, J (1993). Where did composition studies come
from? Written Communication 10(3), 267-333.

Pennington, M.C. (1995). The teacher change cycle. TESOL Quarterly 29(4), 80-106.

Powers, J.K. (1993). Rethinking writing center conferencing strategies for the ESL
writers. Writing Center Journal 13(2), 39-47.

Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled ESL students do as they write: A classroom study of
composing,TESOL Quarterly 30(2), 281-296.

Raimes, A. (1986). Teaching writing: What we know and what we do.(Eric Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 271 030).

Raimes, A. (1987). Language proficiency, writing ability, and composing strategies: A

study of ESL college student writers.Language Learning 37(3), 439-468.
Richards, J.C. (1996). Teachers maxims in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 19(2),
229-258.

Richards, J.C. & Nunan, D. (eds.) (1990).Second language teacher education. Australia:
Cambridge University Press.

Schön, D. A. (1983).The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action.

Aldershot Hants, England: Avebury.

Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.

Educational Researcher 15(2), 4-14.

Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction: developments, issues and

directions in ESL In Kroll B. (Ed.)Second Language Writing: Research insights for the
classroom, (pp.7-23). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Silva, T. (1993). Towards an understanding of the distinct nature of l2 writing: The ESL
research and its implication. TESOL Quarterly 27(4), 657-677.

Thanus, T. (1993). Tutors as teachers: Assisting ESL/EFL students in the writing center.
Writing Center Journal 13(2), 13-26.

Xiao, M. K. (2001). A Writing Center with Hong Kong Characteristics. In Leki, I (ed.)
Aceademic Writing Programs (pp 7-19). Å@Alexandria, Virginia: Teachers of English to
Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)

Wilson, S.M., Shulman, L.S. & Richert, A.E. (1987). '150 different ways' of knowing:
representation of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.)Exploring teachers
thinking, (pp. 104-124). London: Cassell. [-15-]

Wu, Kam-yin and Sengupta, S. (1998). Hong Kong ESL teachers' questions about
English grammar. Language and Education 12 (2), 137-153.

Young, R. (1978). Paradigms and problems: Needed research in rhetorical invention. In

Cooper, C. and Odell, L. (eds.)Research on composing: Points of view, (pp. 29-47).
Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English Publication.

Zamel, V. (1984). In search of the key: research and practice in composition. In

Handscombe, J., Orem, R. and Taylor B. (eds.) On TESOL '83: The question of control,
(pp. 195-207). Washington, D.C.: TESOL.

Appendix A

To: Peter

Re: Interview: details

Dear Peter

I wish to tell you a little about this study and the interview. I am trying to see how the
experience of WAP has made all of us develop a deeper understanding of second
language writing. I have chosen four teachers specifically because from the tapes of the
meetings (I have heard them all) I have made some assumptions about the ways in which
you conceptualized writing and the rethinking that seems to have taken place. I have then
had a quick look at some of the sessions you have taught at WAP. However, this is my
interpretation of you from two sources of data: audio taped data where many other voices
were present and a quick look at your teaching records in the WAP files. I feel that as a
researcher, I have no right to interpret your words and actions without confirming
my interpretation with you.

Therefore, the aim of today's interview (30--40 minutes) is to start with my interpretation
(enclosed)--and then taking that beyond to your interpretation of the ways in which
WAP has added to your knowledge base about writing.

This interview is for a paper I am writing. In this paper, I will not use your name and it
will not be possible to identify you as I will interview a number of people and only
choose four people. The theme of the paper is to argue that teacher knowledge is
constructed through experience and WAP provides an ideal experience for developing
teachers' knowledge of writing. Here is an extract from the paper:

"I focus on teachers' images and understanding of the four elements in writing: the
writer, the reader, the context and the text. I trace whether these images were enriched,
revised and re-conceptualized as a result of the teachers' involvement in a pilot writing
center started in the department of English in the Polytechnic University of Hong Kong.
My purpose within the confines of this paper, as a teacher and writer of this piece, is not
simply to narrate changing images but to examine practitioner theory building in
context--within and beyond the writing center". [-16-]
If you have any concerns about this paper, please feel free to voice them. All I can
say is that there will be no judgment or evaluation in this paper!

I look forward to seeing you at 1:00 on Monday.

Thanks a lot

Sima

Enclosure: My interpretation sheet

I agree to allow this data to be used provided my name and identity is kept confidential.
Signature _______________________ Date________________

Peter:

Initial ideas: Peter seems to be a person who does not take things lightly. Although a
native English speaker, Peter obviously recognizes the difficulties both teachers and
students may have and expect in L2 writing. He sees writing as an intensely personal act
at the broadest level. He sees the therapeutic, thought-provoking nature of personal
writing and feels that within certain contexts the reader is not an issue. In that sense Peter
is an expressivist--seeing personal writing as an act acceptable on its own merit. Within
this view of writing, Peter does not see the student writer as someone who ought to be
constrained by reader concerns at all times and sees unknown teacher/reader in a writing
center as someone who needs to keep in mind the goals that drive students to seek
assistance in the first place.

He seems to see a definite contradiction between focus on form and focus on meaning.
He comments that it would be good to throw form out but it quite unrealistic to expect
teachers to be able to teach everything about structure. In the first two meetings Peter's
approach is pragmatic. He started off with the student in mind and felt that most students
would come with partly composed texts. These students, he felt, may not want help
beyond the immediate needs of the text and thus may not necessarily wish the teacher to
take an approach that covers the process but may expressly wish to focus on the product.

In Peter's mind the discourse community is not a great issue. He feels that he himself
knows little about genres of other disciplines and thus does not feel comfortable about
dealing with genre-related concerns. However, a few meetings later, Peter does mention
conventions--I get the distinct feeling that Peter has started to see the social nature of
writing. But this is a cautious step and not a zealous conversion. I also feel that Peter has
started to re-think the role of the reader as often his sessions bring the reader in. Although
all the sessions Peter taught were those in which students came with a product--Peter
does not ignore the process as his sessions progress. Towards the end of the pilot he often
focuses on meaning even when students come for lower-level proofreading help. The
change in Peter seems to consist of: [-17-]

 Seeing the role of the reader slightly differently as a result of reflecting on

the WAP experience
 Recognizing a social dimension of writing
 Not seeing a great divide between lower and higher-level concerns as the
lower-level concerns often generate from higher-level meaning-related
issues.

Appendix B

WAP Reading List: Given to all teachers and discussed in meetings

1. Brannon, Lil, and C.H. Knoblauch. "A Philosophical Perspective on Writing Centers
and the Teaching Writing." Writing Centers: Theory and Administration. Editor Gary A.
Olson. Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English, 1984. 36-47.

2. Brooks, Jeff. "Minimalist Tutoring Making the Student Do All the Work." The St.
Martin's Sourcebook for Writing Tutors. Editors Christine Murphy and Steve Sherwood.
New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995. 83-87.

3. Carino, Peter. "Early Writing Centers: Toward a History." The Writing Center Journal
15.2 (1995): 103-15.

4. Clark, Irene Lurkis. "Collaboration and Ethics in Writing Center Pedagogy." The St.
Martin's Sourcebook for Writing Tutors. Editors Christina Murphy and Steve Sherwood.
New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995. 88-96.

5. Connonr, Ulla Mary Farmer. "The Teaching of Topical Structure Analysis As a

Revision Strategy for ESL Writers." Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the
Classroom. Editor Barbara Kroll. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990. 126-39.

6. Cumming, Alister, and Sufumi So. "Tutoring Second Language Text Revision: Does
the Approach to Instruction or the Language of Communication Make a Difference?"
Journal of Second Language Writing 5.3 (1996): 197-226.

7. Fathman, Ann K. Elizabeth Whalley. "Teacher Response to Student Writing: Focus on

Form Versus Content." Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom.
Editor Barbara Kroll. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

8. Fitzgerald, Sallyanne H. "Collaborative Learning and Whole Language Theory."

Intersections: Theory-Practice in the Writing Center. Editors Joan A. Mullin and Ray
Wallace. Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English, 1994. 11-18.

9. Fletcher, David C. "On the Issue of Authority." Dynamics of the Writing Conference:
Social and Cognitive Interaction. Editors Thomas Flynn and Mary King. Urbana, Illinois:
National Council of Teachers of English, 1993. 41-50.

10. Flynn, Thomas. "Promoting Higher-Order Thinking Skills in Writing Conferences."

Dynamics of the Writing Conference: Social and Cognitive Interaction. Editors Thomas
Flynn and Mary King. Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English, 1993. 3-
14.

11. Fulwiler, Toby. "Provacative Revision." The St. Martin's Sourcebook for Writing
Tutors. Editors Christina Murphy and Steve Sherwood. New York: St. Martin's Press,
1995. 71-82.
12. Harris, Muriel. "What's Up and What's In: Trends and Traditions in Writing Centers."
Landmark Essays on Writing Centers. Editors Christina Murphy and Joe Law. Davis,
California: Hermagoras Press, 1995. 27-36. [-18-]

13. Hayward, Kathy. "Writing Centres in Self-Access Centres." Modern English Teacher
5.3 (1996): 57-63.

14. Johnson, JoAnn B. "Reevaluation of the Question As a Teaching Tool." Dynamics of

the Writing Conference: Social and Cognitive Interaction. Editors Thomas Flynn and
Mary King. Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English, 1993. 34-40.

15. Murphy, Christina. "Freud in the Writing Center: The Psychoanalytics of Tutoring
Well." The St. Martin's Sourcebook for Writing Tutors. Editors Christina Murphy and
Steve Sherwood. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995. 43-47.

16. ---. "The Writing Center and Social Constructionist Theory." Intersections: Theory-
Practice in the Writing Center. Editors Joan A. Mullin and Ray Wallace. Urbana, Illinois:
National Council of Teachers of English, 1994. 25-38.

17. Neuleib, Janice Witherspoon, and Maurice A. Scharton. "Writing Others, Writing
Ourselves: Ethnography and the Writing Center." Intersections: Theory-Practice in the
Writing Center. Editors Joan A. Mullin and Ray Wallace. Urbana, Illinois: National
Council of Teachers of English, 1994. 54-67.

18. North, Stephen M. "The Idea of a Writing Center." Landmark Essays on Writing
Centers. Editors Christine Murphy and Joe Law. Davis, California: Harmagoras Press,
1995. 71-85.

19. Powers, Judith K. "Rethinking Writing Center Conferencing Strategies for the ESL
Writer." The St. Martin's Sourcebook for Writing Tutors. Editors Christina Murphy and
Steve Sherwood. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995. 96-103.

20. Shamoon, Linda K, and Deborah H. Burns. "A Critique of Pure Tutoring." The
Writing Center Journal 2 (1995): 134-51.

21. Silva, Tony. "Second Language Composition Instruction: Developments, Issues and
Directions in ESL." Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom.
Editor Barbara Kroll. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990. 11-23.

22. Taylor, David. "A Counseling Approach to Writing Conferences." Dynamics of the
Writing Conference. Editors Thomas Flynn and Mary King. Urbana, Illinois: National
Council of Teachers of English, 1993. 24-33.

23. Thonus, Terese. "Tutors As Teachers: Assisting ESL/EFL Students in the Writing
Center." Writing Center Journal 13.2 (Spring1993): 13-26.
24. Wallace, Ray. "Text Linguistics: External Entries into "Our" Community."
Intersections: Theory-Practice in the Writing Center. Editors Joan A. Mullin and Ray
Wallace. Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English, 1994. 68-80.

© Copyright rests with authors. Please cite TESL-EJ appropriately.

Editor's Note: Dashed numbers in square brackets indicate the end of
each page for purposes of citation.
Return to Table of Contents Return to Top Return to Main Page

[-19-]

http://www-writing.berkeley.edu/tesl-ej/ej21/a1.html
 Find
buy back issues | add to the archive | contact an editor | home

JAC 11.2 (1991)

Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom, ed.
Barbara Kroll (New York: Cambridge UP, l990, 246 pages).

Reviewed by Emily Carlson Ware, English Language Center, Old

Dominion University

Many of us have experienced the frustration, even intimidation, engendered by the

presence of non-native speakers in our composition classrooms. Often the greatest
challenge is to identify and then decide how to treat ESL (E2) difficulties--problems
which seem completely different from those of our native (L1) students. Do we dare ask
non-native speakers to write in class? Are we obliged to discourage the use of their own
languages while in the composing stage of an English composition? What kind of written
feedback is appropriate for L2 writers? Should we try to teach them our own patterns of
academic discourse, or is that expecting them to juggle too many tasks at once? These are
the kinds of questions addressed in Second Language Writing by active, well-known
teachers and researchers in the field of English as a Second Language.

Divided into two parts, this anthology presents in its first division, "Philosophical
Underpinnings of Second Language Writing Instruction," a historical overview of the
philosophical bases for current ESL thinking about the process of L2 writing. It becomes
clear that there are both inherent differences from and similarities to first language
composition. There is perhaps no better way to show the scope of Part I than to
summarize the subject material treated in each of the six chapters. Chapter l synthesizes
years of ESL composition instruction history in just a few pages. It is an excellent
summation of past and current theories and their advantages and disadvantages. The next
chapter reviews composition theories for L1 writers and suggests applications to the
development of L2 composition theory. For writing instructors familiar with L1 theory,
this chapter is yeasty and inspires awareness of L1 relationships to the process of L2
writing. The third chapter exposes the number of contradictions which currently exist in
L2 writing process research and invites continued search for answers. The writer of this
chapter cautions L2 researchers, however, not to let L1 studies guide or determine their
investigations of L2 writing processes because the research contexts are completely
different. The fourth chapter brings up an old question about teacher response and
concludes that written comment on student papers has little effect, whether the student is
L1 or L2. As has been concluded many times before, alternative teacher response,
specifically dialogue with the student, may be superior to detached written commentary.
The final two chapters of this section call for more research in both assessment issues and
the relationship between reading and writing. Both writers of these chapters make a
strong point that in the field of ESL writing, there are far fewer answers than questions.
In fact, all of the chapters in this section make a plea for more research, with a resulting
cumulative effect that is similar to singing an old gospel song: the verses are different but
they always conclude with a familiar chorus.

Part II, "Considerations for Writing Instruction," sets out to answer many of the queries
posed in the previous section. Chapter 7, for example, may surprise some who have
always thought that it is poor practice for foreign students to write first in their native
language and then translate into English. We learn from this chapter that translation from
the native language into English appears to help rather than hinder writers "when the
topic-area knowledge is in the first language." Many of us who have struggled with a
non-native speaker of English in the revision process will find the chapter on teaching
topical structure analysis of great interest. This chapter provides a thorough description of
this new linguistically based revision strategy and its application to ESL writing.
Examples add welcome clarification and concreteness. Another fascinating area of
discussion concerns the impact of time on an ESL writer. This chapter reveals that, while
time allowed for the preparation of an essay can yield some syntactic and rhetorical
improvement, there is no statistical significance in the differences between classroom and
home performance. Such findings should reduce the level of guilt that some of us
experience when asking non-native speakers to do in-class writing.

The next chapters delve into two old conflicts: Do students need as much written
feedback as they think they do? Should teacher feedback focus on form or content? There
are no clear answers given, and further research is requested. Chapter l2 admonishes
teachers to be aware of the fact that different topic tasks administered to writers of other
linguistic and cultural backgrounds can elicit responses that are "linguistically
measurable and measurably different." Thus, in a class of mixed students, the teacher is
obligated to design fair and appropriate topics and, in addition, to encourage students to
use appropriate academic forms. Possibly, some of us have not always considered the
effect of a topic on the resulting writing; clearly, this author sees a tight connection.

The final chapter addresses an issue I have encountered repeatedly in my role as a

composition instructor both for native speakers in developmental writing classes and for
non-native speakers in an intensive English program: writers, whether native or non-
native, experience great difficulty in using background texts for their own writing.
Because non-natives usually read less efficiently than do their native counterparts, they
write summaries and paraphrases less skillfully. Consequently, they lean more heavily on
outside texts for their writing, especially at the beginning. Unfortunately, both native and
non-native writers are often unaware of the methods for acknowledging another author.
This chapter suggests that instructors assign written work which encourages non-native
speakers to develop skills in academic writing. Couldn't all students use more practice in
this area? A helpful note near the end of this chapter recommends B. Spatt's Writing from
Sources (1987) as a clear, non-punitive textbook for teaching the protocol of academic
writing.

The very fact that this book is divided between philosophical and practical concerns
makes it apparent that it is intended for a diverse audience. For classroom teachers in the
midst of immediate need, the second half of the book will seem more readable and
concrete. Those who wish to know more about the field of ESL writing and what current
theories are being posited about it will find the first section helpful, too. Graduate
students in TESL who need a framework for future research will find both the suggested
topics for research and the extensive bibliographies following each chapter invaluable.
Teachers of ESL writing, many of whom seldom have the opportunity to confer with ESL
colleagues concerning these questions, will appreciate the bird's-eye view of the field
provided by others who have experienced the conflict between L1 writing theories and
the realities of an L2 writing experience.

Although the language becomes unbearably convoluted and vague in parts of several of
the chapters, the knowledge imparted is valuable. One is struck with the relative novelty
of the study of ESL writing evidenced by the recurring statements that we need more
research in this area or that. Writing instructors who sometimes feel helpless when
approached by a non-native speaker can take heart: help is on the way. Second Language
Writing is an example. We can expect to see more such books as scholars and teachers
take interest in and act upon the challenges set forth in this volume.

comment on what you've

top archive email editor home
read
http://jac.gsu.edu/jac/11.2/reviews/11.htm