Language is a means of communication that is used to transfer
information, ideas, and feelings from one person to another. It is
used to communicate both in written and spoken form. Considering
the importance of the language, our government has drawn up English
as a foreign language that should be mastered by the students. In
Indonesia, English teaching aims at mastering four basic skills of
language, which include listening, speaking, reading, and writing
skills. Nowadays, based on our newest curriculum that is KTSP, the
students are expected to master those four skills in order to be
able to use English communicatively. The aim of KTSP (Kurikulum
Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan) will not be successfully achieved if the
language teaching does not consider the language components such as
grammatical structure, vocabulary, spelling, and pronunciation.
Therefore, grammar needs to be mastered by the students since it is
the basic rule of language. Based on information obtained from the
English teacher at SMP Satu Atap 2 Batukandik, Nusa Penida, it was
found that many students still had difficulties in mastering
grammar, especially in mastering Simple Present Tense. Simple
Present Tense is important as the basic rule for the students to
make and use sentences to communicate in daily life. Besides that,
the students can identify and make descriptive reports and
procedure texts in which Simple Present Tense is used. In the
interview with the English teacher, it was known class VII B was 1
2 the class which had the lowest ability in using Simple Present
Tense especially in using subject-verb agreement, adverb and usage.
Based on the information given by the English teacher, the students
of this class had low ability in mastering grammar especially
simple present tense when they were in elementary school. They
could not use the subject-verb agreement and usage; it was known
that the ability of the students in using Simple Present Tense was
low. It was found that many students often did not understand why
some sentences used auxiliaries, is, am, and are instead of
auxiliaries do and does. Some students still chose My mother is
work in the supermarket instead of saying My mother works in
supermaket. Moreover, some students were confused in
differentiating which subject used auxiliaries do and which ones
used does. All the problems above arose since the students did not
understand the right rule of Simple Present Tense. Therefore, the
researcher was encouraged to find out the causes of the problems
undergone by the students through interview. The students comments
were as follows: Simple present tense was still difficult, they
felt bored to study grammar, they did not understand what their
teacher had taught about simple present tense and they did not get
enough practice in using simple present tense. And the most
significant reason of this was the way how the teacher taught
Simple Present Tense influenced the students motivation in
learning. From the observation, the researcher found that the
English teacher tended to teach the grammar deductively. The
teacher taught Simple Present Tense by giving a note on the
whiteboard, gave some examples, and then asked the students to take
a note. After that the students were only given limited time to do
some exercises. Here the 3 students easily felt bored of the
teaching methods since there was no interesting and attractive
activity involved in their learning process. Furthermore, the
students also often thought that learning Simple Present Tense was
difficult. This assumption made the students afraid and not
motivated to study. As a result, most of the students were afraid
to ask the points that they did not understand to the teacher. This
situation made the students passive in their learning process. The
students enthusiasm was much related to the technique used by the
teacher in transferring the lesson. The students would become not
interested in learning if the technique used was monotonous. It
made the learning process not effective. Based on this statement,
English teachers should think critically in order to find creative
approach in teaching grammar so that the students will take much
participation during the learning process. One of the creative
approaches in teaching English grammar was games. Arif Saricoban
and Esen Metin (2000:3) stated that through well-planned games,
learners can practice and internalize vocabulary, grammar and
structure extensively. Play and competition that are provided by
games enhance the motivation of the students and reduce their
stress. This will help them to acquire certain essential language
skills. One game that can be applied in classroom is Climbing
Grammar Mountain Game. According to Cindy Gunn and Ann McCallum in
English Teaching Forum (2005:39), Climbing Grammar Mountain Game
helps improve the students understanding of grammatical usage and
helps the students learn from others through peer review, team
work, and group discussion. In relation to this, the researcher was
interested in conducting a study which was focused on improving
ability to use Simple Present Tense using mountain game teaching
approach to 4 students of grade VII B of SMP Satu Atap 2
Batukandik, Nusa Penida. The writer hoped that Climbing Grammar
Mountain Game could improve the ability of the students of grade
VII B of SMP Satu Atap 2 Batukandik, Nusa Penida to use of simple
present tense.
Writing, together with its teaching in both first and second
language contexts, is currently the subject of a considerable
amount of research and other educational endeavour. Papers on
aspects of writing can be found in almost any issue of applied
linguistics or educational journals, and there are currently a
number of journals devoted to the subject.
This is, however, a fairly recent development, with writing and
its teaching only emerging as a scholarly discipline in the 1970s
(Nystrand, Green, & Wiemelt 1993; Raimes 1991). Before that
time writing was seldom seen as something to be taught for its own
sake and in the second language classroom it was most often used as
a way of demonstrating mastery of the structures studied in class
or for dictation.
Despite this huge increase in interest in writing and a
considerable amount of work on models of how people write (see e.g.
Flower & Hayes 1981 and Hayes 1996 for L1 writing and Zimmerman
2000 for L2 writing), there have been relatively few models
developed of the role of instruction in writing in a second
language (Cumming & Riazi 2000; Grabe 2001). This is, at least
in part, due to the multifaceted nature of writing. The term
writing refers both to an act and the result of that act. This
immediately sets up two possible perspectives on acquiring writing:
learning the process of composing and learning the form and
organization of the product. But writing also has a social
dimension and purpose, which can lead to other perspectives
focussing on genre, voice, and audience (Swales 1990; Cope &
Kalantzis 1993; Fairclough 2001; Ivanic 1998). There is overlap
with reading skills in these areas: the reader is required to
decode the formal and social aspects of the text where the writer
is required to encode them.Although proficiency in writing is
somewhat related to overall language proficiency, particularly at
the lower end of the scale (Cumming 1989), improvements in general
language proficiency do not necessarily affect a students
proficiency in writing in their L2. However, as illustrated in the
next section, writing instruction can be effective in raising
proficiency in a number of areas. Recent approaches to instruction
have recognised that, while weak areas can and should be
specifically addressed, writing must always be seen as culturally
and socially situated. Cumming (2002) cautions writing teachers to
be wary of exercises that attempt to break writing down into
component skills as such exercises often eliminate portions of the
task that are important to the personal and cultural significance
of the writing.
This more eclectic and holistic approach recognises that
learners needs are different at various stages in their learning
and that teachers must develop tasks to accommodate this. Grabe and
Kaplan (1996) give a detailed discussion of teaching approaches at
beginning, intermediate and advanced levels of proficiency. At
lower levels frequent, short writing activities can help to build
familiarity and develop a useful, productive vocabulary. The
variety and length of tasks can be extended for intermediate level
students - developing more complex themes and building a repertoire
of strategies for effective writing. Advanced level students need
to develop a greater understanding of genres and the place of
writing in particular discourse communities. They also need to
develop their strategies and establish their own voice in the
second language.
Home | Contact us | Join the mailing list
AboutEventsNewsResourcesProjectsServicesPapers and
articlesMaterials BankHome ResourcesWriting in a second
language
Author: Alasdair Archibald Dr Alasdair Archibald
Abstract
Writing is not only the process the writer uses to put words to
paper but also the resulting product of that process. This process
and product are also conditioned by the purpose and place of
writing (its audience and genre). Writing in a second language is
further complicated by issues of proficiency in the target
language, first language literacy, and differences in culture and
rhetorical approach to the text. Instruction in writing can
effectively improve student proficiency in a number of key areas.
Approaches to instruction have variously targeted process, product
and purpose of writing. More recent approaches both to its teaching
and assessment recognise the need to integrate all aspects of
writing.
Table of contents
1. Introduction2. Writing3. Teaching and learning4. Concluding
remarksBibliographyRelated links1. Introduction
Writing, together with its teaching in both first and second
language contexts, is currently the subject of a considerable
amount of research and other educational endeavour. Papers on
aspects of writing can be found in almost any issue of applied
linguistics or educational journals, and there are currently a
number of journals devoted to the subject (see bibliography).
This is, however, a fairly recent development, with writing and
its teaching only emerging as a scholarly discipline in the 1970s
(Nystrand, Green, & Wiemelt 1993; Raimes 1991). Before that
time writing was seldom seen as something to be taught for its own
sake and in the second language classroom it was most often used as
a way of demonstrating mastery of the structures studied in class
or for dictation.
Despite this huge increase in interest in writing and a
considerable amount of work on models of how people write (see e.g.
Flower & Hayes 1981 and Hayes 1996 for L1 writing and Zimmerman
2000 for L2 writing), there have been relatively few models
developed of the role of instruction in writing in a second
language (Cumming & Riazi 2000; Grabe 2001). This is, at least
in part, due to the multifaceted nature of writing. The term
writing refers both to an act and the result of that act. This
immediately sets up two possible perspectives on acquiring writing:
learning the process of composing and learning the form and
organization of the product. But writing also has a social
dimension and purpose, which can lead to other perspectives
focussing on genre, voice, and audience (Swales 1990; Cope &
Kalantzis 1993; Fairclough 2001; Ivanic 1998). There is overlap
with reading skills in these areas: the reader is required to
decode the formal and social aspects of the text where the writer
is required to encode them.
2. Writing
2.1 The writer
When writers write, they bring to the task knowledge of the
process of writing and of the strategies they will use in
composing. They bring knowledge of the subject matter to be written
about and plans for how it can be ordered and structured for
presentation (Bereiter & Scardamalia 1987; Faigley & Witte
1981; Flower & Hayes 1981; Hayes 1996). They bring knowledge of
the product of writing, of the formal structures of language and of
discourse structure and the construction of texts (Connor &
Johns 1990; De Beaugrande 1980, 1984). They bring knowledge of the
situation within which the writing takes place, its social and
professional context, together with their experience of the
expectations of the reader within the discourse community and of
the forms, social contexts, genres, and expectations of their
background culture (Bruffee 1986; Cope & Kalantzis 1993;
Fairclough 2001; Ivanic & Camps 2001; Johns 1997).
2.2 Writing in a first and second language
A number of recent studies have suggested that the processes of
L2 writing are in many ways distinct from those of L1 writing.
Silva evaluated 72 studies comparing L1 writing with L2 writing and
found a number of
salient differences between L1 and L2 writing with regard to
both composing processes (and subprocesses: planning, transcribing,
and reviewing) and features of written texts (fluency, accuracy,
quality, and structure, i.e., discoursal, morphosyntactic, and
lexicosemantic). (Silva 1993)
The writers relative proficiency in the target language is also
claimed to be a source of differences between L1 and L2 writing
(Bardovi-Harlig 1995; Cumming 1989), as is the writers knowledge of
the target language genres and associated sociocultural
expectations (Cope & Kalantzis 1993; Leki & Carson 1997;
Silva 1997; Swales 1990), and the interaction between the writers
L1 experiences and the meaning of literacy in the target language
culture (Bell 1995; Connor 1996; Cope & Kalantzis 1993, 2000;
Mohan & Lo 1985; Pennycook 1996).
These differences clearly do exist between writers writing in
their L1 and in their L2, and particularly for writers with low
levels of proficiency in their L2 who often rely heavily on their
first language resources (Manchn, Roca de Larios, & Murphy
2000; Zimmerman 2000). However, there is considerable variation
among L2 writers. Weissberg (2000) suggests that for L1 literate
adults, writing plays an important role in second language
development, not only in the development of accuracy but also in
the emergence of new structures. The ways in which such individuals
write, and use writing, in their L2 is likely to be quite different
from their colleagues for whom writing in their L1 plays a lesser
role. For writers who are more proficient in their L2, differences
may be fewer. Matsumoto (1995) found that proficient bilingual
writers tend to use the same strategies when writing in both L1 and
L2. A similar study by Beare (2002) supported this finding.
3. Teaching and learning
Teaching writing has, since the 1970s, reflected this same
multiplicity of perspectives as the research. Raimes (1991)
outlined four approaches that dominated the teaching of writing at
different times. These have involved a focus on form, on the
writer, on content, and on the reader. A slightly later survey
(Raimes 1998) added approaches that have focused on more social
issues such as genre and on critical approaches to writing
pedagogy. One of the key areas in growth of teaching writing over
the past 20 years has been in English for Academic Purposes. The
recent sharp increase in the number of applicants to higher
education from countries without a strong background in the English
language has highlighted the need for specialised support (Jordan
1997; Bjrk, Bruer, Rienecker & Jrgensen 2003).
3.1 Teaching writing
Although proficiency in writing is somewhat related to overall
language proficiency, particularly at the lower end of the scale
(Cumming 1989), improvements in general language proficiency do not
necessarily affect a students proficiency in writing in their L2.
However, as illustrated in the next section, writing instruction
can be effective in raising proficiency in a number of areas.
Recent approaches to instruction have recognised that, while weak
areas can and should be specifically addressed, writing must always
be seen as culturally and socially situated. Cumming (2002)
cautions writing teachers to be wary of exercises that attempt to
break writing down into component skills as such exercises often
eliminate portions of the task that are important to the personal
and cultural significance of the writing.
This more eclectic and holistic approach recognises that
learners needs are different at various stages in their learning
and that teachers must develop tasks to accommodate this. Grabe and
Kaplan (1996) give a detailed discussion of teaching approaches at
beginning, intermediate and advanced levels of proficiency. At
lower levels frequent, short writing activities can help to build
familiarity and develop a useful, productive vocabulary. The
variety and length of tasks can be extended for intermediate level
students - developing more complex themes and building a repertoire
of strategies for effective writing. Advanced level students need
to develop a greater understanding of genres and the place of
writing in particular discourse communities. They also need to
develop their strategies and establish their own voice in the
second language.
3.2 Evidence of instructional effect
Despite the lack of models of learning to write, there is an
assumption that instruction in writing does have an effect and that
the knowledge required of a writer is learnable and the skills
trainable. It is central to writing instruction that writers make
progress as a direct result of the instruction they receive. In a
general second language learning context, a students progress in
writing is often assumed to be simply a part of the overall
increase in their language proficiency. Whilst it is clear that
students ability to write clearly and accurately depends to an
extent on their general level of proficiency in the target language
(Bardovi-Harlig 1995; Cumming 1989) there are aspects of
proficiency that are either specific to students writing or that
may be specifically seen to develop through writing (Weissberg
2000).
Instruction affects student accuracy in the use of the target
language in their writing and also the range of choice of structure
and vocabulary available to them for use in writing. Tsang and Wong
(2000) studied the effects of explicit grammar teaching on student
writing. They claim that there were indications that the students
were able to write with greater readiness and use more mature
syntax.
Instruction affects the students understanding of the cultural
and contextual appropriacy of particular structures or vocabulary,
their understanding of the norms and expectations of the target
genres regarding form, and their understanding of the norms of the
target genres regarding the choice of information and its
sequencing and structuring. Archibald (1994) investigated how the
discourse proficiency of secondary school students writing in
English as a second language developed in different age groups. He
found that students improved in their use of discourse markers and
links and that they developed a better feel for the contextual
appropriacy of their language. Shaw and Liu (1998) analysed the
ways in which the features associated with academic register
changed over the period of a pre-sessional course in English for
academic purposes. They found an increase in areas such as
impersonality, formality, and hedging in the students writing at
the end of the course. They attribute this to an increased
understanding of the norms of academic writing and a move away from
a single neutral variety of English that learners tend to use for
all purposes. Archibald (2001), also using pre-sessional course
students, found that teaching had a significant effect on the
structure and organisation of the students writing.
Instruction in the processes of composition has an effect on the
students ability to reflect on their writing and to produce more
effective and appropriate texts in the target language. Sengupta
(2000), working with secondary school students, describes the
effects of giving instruction in revision strategies to writers of
English as a second language. He found that explicit teaching of
these strategies had a measurable effect on the quality of the
students final draft. Cresswell (2000) reported on the effects of
students learning to self-monitor their writing and to pay
attention to the process and the organization of their writing. He
reported improvement in the students ability to pay attention to
the content and organization of their writing. Connor and Farmer
(1990) found that teaching second language writers topical
structure analysis to use as a revision strategy had a positive
effect on the clarity of focus of the final texts. At a more
general level, Akyel and Kamisli (1997) reported on the effects of
EFL writing instruction on composing in both first and second
languages. They found that the students used similar composing
strategies in both their L1 (Turkish) and L2 (English) and that
writing instruction in the L2 had a positive effect both on their
writing processes and on their attitudes to writing in the two
languages.
The direct effects of different types of feedback on student
writing have also been analysed. Ferris (1997) found that changes
made by students in response to teacher comments did have a
positive effect on the overall quality of their papers. Villamil
and de Guerrero (1998) investigated the impact of peer revision on
L2 writing and found that it had a positive effect on the quality
of the final draft. Berg (1999) trained students in how to give
effective peer response to writing. She found that this training
had a positive effect on the students revision types and on the
quality of their texts.
3.3 Assessing writing
Assessment in writing should ask students to demonstrate their
membership in the community of fluent writers of [English]
(Hamp-Lyons & Kroll 1997:17). It should reflect not only the
stage of general linguistic proficiency of the student, but also
their ability to use the forms appropriately within the social and
professional conventions of writing in the target language. The
assessment of students levels of proficiency in writing and of its
change over time has been the subject of a considerable amount of
recent research (see Kroll 1998). Assessment has tended to mirror
instruction with new approaches to assessment accompanying changes
in teaching.
Assessment of the classroom work involved in writing has been
carried out through portfolios (Belanoff 1997). Feedback has been
given on the written product through the reader responding to the
writers message (Ferris, Pezone, Tade & Tinti 1997) or through
directly evaluating the form of the product. Assessment of the
product of writing has involved assessments of the overall quality
of the text, usually using a holistic or a primary or multiple
trait scoring system (Hamp-Lyons 1991b; Kroll 1998). Other
assessments of the product of writing have involved assessments of
linguistic accuracy (Polio 1997).
Assessments of the quality of the text as a product using a
variety of holistic and/or multiple trait scales are perhaps the
most common ways in which students writing is assessed. Such scales
are most easily applied to situations in which large numbers of
students need to be assessed simultaneously and are often
associated with mass testing.
Holistic assessment became popular in the mid 1970s and is still
one of the most common forms of assessment for shorter pieces of
writing. The rater or raters read the text quickly and, based on
guidelines, give an impressionistic mark. If the text being marked
shows a uniformity in the writers proficiency in language use,
knowledge of the genre, skills of text production, then this
holistic mark may indeed be a fair representation of the writers
performance. The writing of second language learners, however,
often displays marked differences of proficiency in the various
facets of writing, and holistic marking in these cases becomes
difficult and suspect. The problems relate both to the adequacy of
the scheme to represent the writers efforts (Hamp-Lyons 1995;
Connor-Linton 1995) and, relatedly, to rater reliability (Vaughan
1991).
Hamp-Lyons (1995) suggests that a multiple trait scheme - one
that scores a number of different facets or traits in a students
writing - has advantages over holistic marking in that it can
highlight rather than cover differences in proficiencies within a
students writing. She claims that multiple trait schemes are more
reliable than holistic approaches, that they provide more
diagnostic information to the student and the teacher, that they
highlight salient features of the text, and that they have greater
validity (Hamp-Lyons 1991).
Certainly, multiple trait scoring has the attraction of at least
recognising that student writing in a second language often
displays quite variable levels of proficiency in different areas.
There is a danger, however, of it being seen as reducing writing to
a series of discreet skill areas that can be quantified and
assessed separately from one another. Traits are not separate or
separable features of a piece of writing, they are interwoven and
interdependent and their analysis provides different perspectives
on the text. An important question is whether the perspectives
chosen in a particular scheme are really different enough from one
another to warrant being scored separately.
4. Concluding remarks
This article has highlighted areas in which research into
writing in a second language can and does inform classroom
practice. It has focused on the complexity of writing and the
interplay of the various issues that must be addressed by teachers
and learners who approach writing in a second language. There has
been considerable interplay in recent years between research into
writing and learning and instruction in writing. Much of the
research has direct relevance to the classroom, and classroom
practice and observation are the source of many research studies.
The rising profile of second language writing and particularly of
writing for academic purposes has also led to a proliferation of
resources aimed at both teachers and students. Some useful Internet
sites, journals, and published overviews on writing are listed
below.
Bibliography
Further reading
Grabe, W. & W. Kaplan (1996). Theory and Practice of
Writing: An Applied Linguistic Perspective . Harlow: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2002). Teaching and R esearching W riting . Harlow:
Longman.
Kroll, B. (ed.) (2003). Exploring the Dynamics of Second
Language Writing . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Silva, T. & P. Matsuda (eds) (2001). On Second Language
Writing . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Erlbaum Associates.
Tribble, C. (1996). Writing . Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Bibliographic references
Akyel, A. & S. Kamisli (1997). Composing in first and second
languages: Possible effects of EFL writing instruction. In K.
Pogner (ed.), Writing: Text and Interaction . Odense Working Papers
in Language and Communication 14, 69-105.
Archibald, A. (1994). The Acquisition of Discourse Proficiency:
A Study of the Ability of German School Students to Produce Written
Texts in English as a Foreign Language . Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Archibald, A. (2001). Targeting L2 writing proficiencies:
Instruction and areas of change in students' writing over time.
International Journal of English Studies 1, 2:153-74.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1995). A narrative perspective on the
development of the tense/aspect system in second language
acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 17,
2:263-91.
Beare, S. (2002). Writing Strategies: Differences in L1 and L2
Writing. Proceedings of the Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies
in Higher Education Conference 24-26 June 2002, Manchester
Conference Centre, UMIST.
Bell, J. S. (1995). The relationship between L1 & L2
Literacy: Some complicating factors. TESOL Quarterly 29,
4:687-704.
Belanoff, P. (1997). Portfolios. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Bereiter, C. & M. Scardamalia (1987). The Psychology of
Written Composition . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Berg, C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL
students' revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second
Language Writing 8, 3:215-41.
Bjrk, L., B. Bruer, L. Rienecker & P. Jrgensen (eds) (2003).
Teaching Academic Writing in European Education . A Collection of
Papers from the First EATAW Conference held in Gronigen, The
Netherlands, 2001. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bruffee, K. A. (1986). Social construction, language, and the
authority of knowledge: A bibliographical essay. College English
48:773-90.
Connor, U. & M. Farmer (1990). The teaching of topical
structure analysis as a revision strategy for ESL writers. In B.
Kroll (ed.), Second Language Writing: Research and Insights for the
Classroom , 126-39. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Connor, U. & A. M. Johns (eds) (1990). Coherence in Writing
. Alexandria Virginia: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other
Languages, Inc..
Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural Aspects
of Second-language Writing . Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Connor-Linton, J. (1995). Looking behind the curtain: What do L2
composition ratings really mean? TESOL Quarterly 29, 4:762-65.
Cope, B. & M. Kalantzis (eds) (1993). The Powers of
Literacy: A Genre Approach to Teaching Writing . London: Falmer
Press.
Cope, B. & M. Kalantzis (eds) (2000). Multiliteracies .
London: Routledge.
Cresswell, A. (2000). Self-monitoring in student writing:
developing learner responsibility. ELT Journal 54, 3:235-44.
Cumming, A. & A, Riazi (2000). Building models of adult
second-language writing instruction. Learning and Instruction 10,
1:55-71.
Cumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second language
proficiency. Language Learning 39, 1:81-141.
Cumming, A. (1998). Theoretical perspectives on writing. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics 18:61-78.
Cumming, A. (2002). If I had known twelve things. In L. L.
Blanton & B. Kroll (eds) , ESL composition tales: Reflections
on teaching , 123-34. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press .
De Beaugrande, R. (1980). Text, Discourse and Process . London:
Longman.
De Beaugrande, R. (1984). Text Production: Towards a Science of
Composition . Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Faigley, L. & S. P. Witte (1981). Analyzing revision.
College Composition and Communication 32, 4:400-15.
Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and Power. 2 nd ed., London:
Longman.
Ferris, D. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on
student revision. TESOL Quarterly 31, 2:315-39.
Ferris, D. R., S. Pezone, C. R. Tade & S. Tinti (1997).
Teacher commentary on student writing: descriptions and
implications. Journal of Second Language Writing 6:155-82.
Flower, L. S. & J. R. Hayes (1981). A cognitive process
theory of writing. College Composition and Communication
32:365-87.
Grabe, W. (2001). Notes toward a theory of second language
writing. In T. Silva & P. Matsuda (eds), On Second Language
Writing, 39-57. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Erlbaum
Associates.
Hamp-Lyons, L. & B. Kroll (1997). TOEFL 2000 - Writing:
Composition, Community, and Assessment (TOEFL Monograph Series 5).
Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (1991). Scoring procedures for ESL contexts. In
Hamp-Lyons, L. (ed.), Assessing Second Language Writing in Academic
Contexts , 241-76. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (1995). Rating non-native writing: the trouble
with holistic scoring. TESOL Quarterly 29, 4:759-62.
Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition
and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. R. Ransdell (eds),
The Science of Writing, 1-27. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and I dentity: The D iscoursal C
onstruction of I dentity in A cademic W riting. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins
Ivanic, R. & D. Camps ( 2001 1998 ) . Writing and Identity:
The Discoursal Construction of Identity in Academic Writing.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins . I am how I sound: v oice as
self-representation in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language
Writing 10 , 1-2:3-33 .
Johns, A. (1997). Text, Role and Context . Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for Academic Purposes: A Guide and
Resource Book for Teachers . Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Kroll, B. (1998). Assessing writing abilities. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics 18:219-40.
Leki, I. (1996). L2 composing: Strategies and perceptions. In B.
Leeds (ed.), Writing in a Second Language. Insights from First and
Second Language Teaching and Research, 27-37. London: Longman.
Manchn, R., J. Roca de Larios & E. Murphy (2000). An
approximation to the study of backtracking in L2 writing. Learning
and Instruction 10, 1:13-35.
Matsumoto, K. (1995). Research paper writing strategies of
professional Japanese EFL w riters. TESL Canada Journal 13 :
17-27.
Mohan, B. & W. Lo (1985). Academic writing and Chinese
students: Transfer and developmental factors. TESOL Quarterly 19,
4:515-34.
Nystrand, M., S. Green, & J. Wiemelt (1993). Where did
composition studies come from? An intellectual history. Written
Communication 10, 3:267-333.
Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing others' words: Text, ownership,
memory, and plagiarism. TESOL Quarterly 30, 2:201-30.
Polio, C. G. (1997). Measures of linguistic accuracy in second
language writing research. Language Learning 47, 1:101-43.
Raimes, A. (1991). Out of the woods: Emerging traditions in the
teaching of writing. TESOL Quarterly 25, 3:407-30.
Raimes, A. (1998) Teaching writing. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics 18:142-67.
Sengupta, S. (2000). An investigation into the effects of
revision strategy instruction on L2 secondary school learners.
System 28, 1:97-113.
Shaw, P. & E. T. K. Liu (1998). What develops in the
development of second-language writing? Applied Linguistics 19,
2:225-54.
Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature
of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL
Quarterly 27, 4:657-77.
Silva, T. (1997). Differences in ESL and native-English speaker
writing: The research and its implications. In C. Severino, J. C.
Guerra & J. E. Butler (eds), Writing in Multicultural Settings,
209-19. New York: The Modern Language Association of America.
Silva, T., I Leki & J. Carson (1997). Broadening the
perspective of mainstream composition studies. Written
Communication 14:398-428.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre Analysis . Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Tsang, W. K. & M. Wong (2000). Giving grammar the place it
deserves in process writing. Prospect 15, 1:34-45.
Vaughan, C. (1991). Holistic assessment: what goes on in the
rater's mind? In Hamp-Lyons, L. (ed.), Assessing Second Language
Writing in Academic Contexts, 111-25. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Villamil, O. S. & M. C. M. de Guerrero (1998). Assessing the
impact of peer revision on L2 writing. Applied Linguistics 19,
4:491-514.
Weissberg, B. (2000). Developmental relationships in the
acquisition of English syntax: Writing vs. speech, Learning and
Instruction 10, 1:37-53.
Zimmerman, R. (2000). L2 writing: Subprocesses, a model of
formulating and empirical findings, Learning and Instruction 10,
1:73-99.
Related links
Online writing resources
Purdue University Online Writing
Labhttp://owl.english.purdue.edu
Sentence Sensehttp://webster.commnet.edu/sensen
Advice on Academic
Writingwww.utoronto.ca/writing/advise.html
Literacy Education Onlinehttp://leo.stcloudstate.edu
UW-Madison Writing Centerwww.wisc.edu/writing
Using English for Academic Purposeswww.uefap.co.uk
Focus on Writing: Northwest Education, Winter
2002www.nwrel.org/nwedu/08-02
Journals
Assessing
Writingwww.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/620369/description#description
Journal of Second Language
Writingwww.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/620372/description#description
College Composition and
Communicationwww.ncte.org/pubs/journals/ccc
Written
Communicationwww.sagepub.co.uk/journal.aspx?pid=105811
Referencing this article
Below are the possible formats for citing Good Practice Guide
articles. If you are writing for a journal, please check the author
instructions for full details before submitting your article.
MLA style:Canning, John. "Disability and Residence Abroad".
Southampton, 2004. Subject Centre for Languages, Linguistics and
Area Studies Guide to Good Practice. 7 October 2008.
http://www.llas.ac.uk/resources/gpg/2241.Author (Date)
style:Canning, J. (2004). "Disability and residence abroad."
Subject Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies Good
Practice Guide. Retrieved 7 October 2008, from
http://www.llas.ac.uk/resources/gpg/2241.HumBoxHumbox
The Humbox is a humanities teaching resource repository jointly
managed by LLAS.
Online Resources
ResourcesPapers and articlesMaterials BankEvent reports700
reasonsArea Studies Library collectionsWhy study languagesPapers
and articles
Papers & articles homeby Themeby Titleby Authorby
DateAdvanced searchLook for similar items by theme:
L1L2Language acquisitionProseWritingShare
Enjoy the page so far?Recommend it to your friendsShare on
FacebookShare on Twitter Share on Google+Share on LinkedInShare by
emailMore about us
About LLASContact usWhere to find usMeet the teamHelp
Site indexAdvanced searchSearch by themePrivacy PolicyJoin
in
News blog
Join our mailing listContribute to our magazineSyndicate and
re-use
RSS feed iconRSS feedsSharing dataiCal feedsMore LLAS websites:
Studying languages at university | Why study languages? | Routes
into Languages | Links into Languages
t: +44 (0)23 8059 4814 | f: +44 (0)23 8059 4815 | e:
[email protected]
LLAS Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies, Avenue
Campus, Highfield, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17
1BF
Copyright 2015 LLAS Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area
Studies, University of Southampton
