sls 630 term project: student writing assessment for eli ... filesls 630 term project: student...

1

SLS 630 Term Project:

Student Writing Assessment for ELI 73 Curriculum Development

Crystal Fen-Chuan Lu

Submitted to: English Language Institute

May 13, 2002

(Revision finished on November 20, 2002)

2

SLS 630 Term Project:

Student Writing Assessment for ELI 73 Curriculum Development

The purpose of this project is to assist the ELI to find out about the writing needs of ELI 73

students and to recommend ways that ELI 73 can meet those needs. For these purposes, this project

is organized into two parts: Part I is a review of ELI 73 student writing samples in terms of six

traits — content, organization, grammar, word use, punctuation, and mechanics — in an attempt to

identify writing weaknesses that ELI 73 students have. Part II offers a number of pedagogical

suggestions for improving students’ writing. These suggestions are made in the framework of a

process approach, which is currently employed to teach ELI writing courses.

Part I. A Review of ELI 73 Student Writing Samples

Method

Participants

Of the 15 students enrolled in ELI 73 in spring 2002, seven agreed to participate in this project.

These seven participants (six females and one male) were composed of five graduate and two

undergraduate students with four L1 backgrounds: Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Thai. They

were all from different fields of study at UH (Their majors were not further described in order to

assure anonymity.). The entire ELI 73 class consists of ten females and five males in gender, and

seven graduate and eight undergraduate students in the educational background. Apparently,

female graduate students were much more supportive for this project.

Materials

Writing samples were drawn from the participants’ placement tests and writing assignments.

As for the placement tests, graduate participants (n = 5) took the ELI writing test, which required

students to write one essay, whereas undergraduate participants (n = 2) took the Manoa Writing

Placement Exam, which required two essays. In order to give equal weight to the exam essay

3

samples, it was decided to use the first essay, but not the second one, of the Manoa Writing

Placement Exam. The essay types of both placement tests were argumentation and persuasion.

Students were asked to present and support their points of view, or to argue for or against the

article that they were required to read and respond to.

As for the writing assignments, the participants were asked to contribute five essays to this

project. These writing samples were weekly assignments in one page or two, except one sample

that was a five-page word-processed midterm assignment. The essay type of the assignments was

personal response to the assigned reading in the textbook. Since the ELI 73 class had been engaged

in developing writing fluency, students were asked to do plenty of writing, but were not asked to

revise the drafts. So, all the writing samples were first drafts on different topics.

Procedures

Writing samples were collected in the middle of the semester. At first, ELI 73 students were

given a brief explanation of the purpose of this project, and encouraged to contribute their writing

samples for ELI 73 curriculum development. After a personal visit to the ELI 73 class, an e-mail

followed up to restate the importance of their writing samples for this project, and to solicit

voluntary contribution of their writing samples again. When the students agreed to sign a consent

form and brought in copies of their writing assignments, they were offered a small monetary

compensation and some snacks. But five of the seven participants declined the compensation and

expressed that they would like to help me as a friend and also make some contribution to the ELI.

Analyses

A total of 26 essays were reviewed both holistically and analytically: First, two 6-point

holistic scales adapted from Duke and Sanchez (2001), as shown in Tables 1 and 2, were used to

assess the traits of content and organization. Second, a system of error classification with 40 error

types modified from Polio (1997), as shown in Table 3, was used to review the traits of grammar,

4

Table 1

Holistic Scale for the Trait of Content (Adapted from Duke and Sanchez, 2001, p.54)

Point General Descriptor

6 establishes and maintains a clear purpose and focus;

shows sophisticated thinking and ideas;

provides well developed examples and explanations related to topic and purpose;

shows clarity and coherence of ideas.

5 a thinner version of 6

4 maintains a clear purpose and focus most of the time; may stray from the purpose/focus;

presents ideas somewhat lacking in sophistication;

provides examples and details related to the topic, but they may be uneven in

development;

ideas are generally clear but not coherent.


2 shows uncertainty about the purpose and focus;

presents under-developed and unsophisticated ideas;

provides examples and details as listings without development and not always relevant to

topic and purpose;

lack of clarity and coherence of ideas.


5

Table 2

Holistic Scale for the Trait of Organization (Adapted from Duke and Sanchez, 2001, p. 54-55)

Point General Descriptor

6 maintains a logical order/sequence;

focuses on one subject in each paragraph;

provides logical transitions within sentences and between paragraphs;

offers clear introduction and conclusion that frame the topic under discussion.


4 maintains a reasonable order/sequence;

focuses most of the time on one subject per paragraph;

provides logical transitions between sentences and paragraphs, but is not always

consistent in their use;

offers an adequate introduction and conclusion but without much clarity and coherence.


2 displays inconsistent order/sequence;

exhibits difficulty in maintaining focus on one idea in a paragraph;

shows inconsistency in use of transitions within sentences and paragraphs;

offers little in the way of a controlled introduction and conclusion


6

Table 3

Error Classification System (Adapted from Polio, 1997, p.140-142)

No. Error Classification

1. Whole sentence or clause aberrant or contradictory

2. Subject formation (including missing subject and existential, but not wrong case)

3. Verb formation (including wrong or missing auxiliary verb/modal, participle misformation,

gerund/infinitive problem)

4. Verb missing (not including auxiliary/modal)

5. Tense/aspect (incorrect tense, not incorrect formation)

6. Phrasal verb (separation problem, incorrect particle)

7. Causative verb (make + V.)

8. Voice (incorrect voice, not incorrect formation)

9. Object formation (including direct or indirect objects, missing object)

10. Subject-verb agreement (third person singular -s, there is/are)

11. Noun-pronoun agreement

12. Quantifier-noun agreement (much/many, a little/a few, this/these)

13. Quantity words (few/a few, little/a little, most/most of, both/all, all/the whole)

14. Ambiguous/unlocatable reference

15. Wrong or missing pronoun case

16. Dangling/misplaced modifier

17. Sentence fragment

18. Run-on sentence (including comma splice)

19. Faulty parallel structure

20. Relative clause formation (including wrong or missing relative pronoun)

21. Noun clause formation

22. Coordinate conjunction or coordinate clause formation (and, or, but, so, for, nor, yet)

23. Subordinate conjunction or subordinate clause formation (when, while, after, before,

although, even though, because, so that, as, since, if, even if, unless, until, whether)

7

No. Error Classification

24. Comparative formation (including faulty comparison)

25. Superlative formation

26. Singular for plural, or plural for singular

27. Negation (ever/never, either/neither, some/any, misplaced negator)

28. Article (incorrect, missing, extra)

29. Preposition (incorrect, missing, extra)

30. Genitive (missing or misused ‘s, N of N misuse)

31. Word form (e.g., misuse of noun for verb, adjective for noun, adjective for adverb, etc.)

32. Word order

33. Missing word (not including subject, verb, article, preposition, relative pronoun)

34. Lexical/phrase choice (including awkward phrasing)

35. Idiom

36. Wordiness (including redundancy, flabby phrases, and needless expletive constructions)

37. Unintelligible expression

38. Spelling

39. Punctuation (wrong, missing, extra, including restrictive/non-restrictive problem)

40. Capitalization (including misuse of capital letters for small letters)

Note.

a. If sentence at the end of an essay is not finished, don’t code it.

b. Code errors so that sentence is changed minimally. If there are two possible errors

requiring equal change, code the first error.

c. If tense is incorrect and misformed, count it only as #5 incorrect tense.

d. If error can be classified as a relative clause error, or a verb formation error (e.g., I know a

man call John), count it only as #3 verb formation.

e. Don’t double penalize for subject-verb agreement: e.g., Visitor are pleased with the sight.

Count it only as #26 singular for plural.

8

word use, punctuation, and mechanics (Paper format was reviewed separately). Third, the ratio of

errors to total number of words, one of the measures for linguistic accuracy (Chastain, 1990; Kroll,

1990; Polio, 1997), was adopted in this project: Number of Errors

Error Ratio = Number of Words

The errors and words of each writing sample were counted (not including essay titles) to obtain an

error rate. The length of the exam essays ranges from 101 to 395 words, and the length of the

writing assignments ranges from 177 to 890 words. On average, a total of at least 1,000 words,

ranging from 1,055 to 1,168 words, were error-coded for each participant.

All the writing samples were reviewed twice by the same rater (this project investigator). The

interval between the two reviews was three weeks. About the holistic ratings of content and

organization, the agreement within the rater was 92.31%. That is, the rater agreed on the ratings

92.31% (48/52) of the time. Concerning the analytic codings of grammar, word use, punctuation,

and mechanics, the agreement within the rater was 93.99%. That is, 1,157 out of 1,231 errors had

consistent error classifications. When there was disagreement between the two reviews, the

judgment of the second rating or coding replaced the first one, based on the assumption that more

thoughts and experiences accumulated at the second time make a better judgment.

Results

Table 4 shows the holistic ratings for the content and organization of the writing samples.

Because the ELI 73 participants have been placed within a very restricted range of writing

proficiency, the holistic ratings seem to be unable to show much difference between the

participants. A rating of 2-4 on a 6-point scale indicates that the content was fairly lacking in

clarity, coherence, or sophistication, and that the organization did not seem to display a logical

sequence or controlled paragraph development.

9

Table 4 Holistic Ratings for the Content and Organization

Writing Sample Content Organization Student A

A-1 (ELI placement test) 2 3 A-2 (assignment) 3 3 A-3 (assignment) 4 4

Student B B-1 (ELI placement test) 3 3 B-2 (assignment) 3 3 B-3 (assignment) 4 4 B-4 (assignment) 3 3

Student C C-1 (ELI placement test) 3 3 C-2 (assignment) 3 3 C-3 (assignment) 3 3 C-4 (assignment) 3 3

Student D D-1 (ELI placement test) 3 3 D-2 (assignment) 3 3 D-3 (assignment) 3 3 D-4 (assignment) 2 2

Student E E-1 (ELI placement test) 3 3 E-2 (assignment) 3 3 E-3 (assignment) 3 3

Student F F-1 (Manoa placement test) 2 2 F-2 (assignment) 3 2 F-3 (assignment) 3 2 F-4 (assignment) 2 2

Student G G-1 (Manoa placement test) 3 3 G-2 (assignment) 3 3 G-3 (assignment) 3 3 G-4 (assignment) 3 3

10

As for the exam essays, the samples were underdeveloped in either content or organization,

which may be due to tension and time pressure in the exam. As for the ELI 73 assignments, the

samples were the type of personal response to the reading, so students might have paid more

attention to express their ideas (i.e., the content) than to the organization. For example, some essays

presented more than one subject in one paragraph, some had only one paragraph including all

different subjects, and yet some did not maintain a focus and connected paragraphs of incoherent

subjects. But for this type of personal writing, the organization may not be a big issue, compared to

the type of argumentation or persuasion as required in the placement test. But if we inspect the

content only, most essays did not show clarity or sophisticated thinking. Some sentences were

intelligible or difficult to understand.

Table 5 shows the error rates of the participants, including errors of grammar, word use,

punctuation, and mechanics. The total error rate for all the participants was 16.19% excluding

repeated errors, or 17.10% including repeated errors. This suggests that the reader would meet an

average of 1.62 or 1.71 errors every 10 words. The average error rate (excluding repeated errors)

for each participant ranges from 11.19% (Student G) to 23.05% (Student E), which indicates that

Student E made about twice as many linguistic errors as Student G.

Table 6 shows the rank order of the 40 error types, ranking from the most frequent error to the

least. The two most common error types are singularity/plurality and tense/aspect, which account

for 10.15% and 10.07% of the total errors respectively. Actually, these two error types can both be

ranked as No. 1 because of a very small difference of only one error. The error type of articles was

ranked as No. 4, which accounts for 8.85% of the total errors, and is highly related to No. 1

singularity/plurality because these two types are the key features to work out a correct noun phrase.

The error types of verb formation and subject-verb agreement were ranked as No. 6 (5.85%) and

No. 9 (4.22%) respectively, which are related to No. 2 tense/aspect because these three features are

11

Table 5 Error Rates of the Participants

Writing Sample No. of Errors No. of Words Error Rate (Errors/Words)

Student A

A-1 (ELI placement test) 12 101 11.88 %

A-2 (assignment) 18 177 10.17 %

A-3 (assignment) 130 890 14.61 %

Total 160 1168 13.70 %

Total (including repeated errors) 175 1168 14.98 %

Student B

B-1 (ELI placement test) 30 250 12.00 %

B-2 (assignment) 35 217 16.13 %

B-3 (assignment) 33 282 11.70 %

B-4 (assignment) 35 337 10.39 %

Total 133 1086 12.25 %


Student C

C-1 (ELI placement test) 39 296 13.18 %

C-2 (assignment) 30 205 14.63 %

C-3 (assignment) 42 272 15.44 %

C-4 (assignment) 36 316 11.39 %

Total 147 1089 13.50 %


Student D

D-1 (ELI placement test) 58 268 21.64 %

D-2 (assignment) 34 256 13.28 %

D-3 (assignment) 64 344 18.60 %

D-4 (assignment) 26 199 13.07 %

Total 182 1067 17.06 %


12

Writing Sample No. of Errors No. of Words Error Rate (Errors/Words)

Student E

E-1 (ELI placement test) 77 336 22.92 %

E-2 (assignment) 97 387 25.06 %

E-3 (assignment) 74 353 20.96 %

Total 248 1076 23.05 %


Student F

F-1 (Manoa placement test) 101 395 25.57 %

F-2 (assignment) 58 248 23.39 %

F-3 (assignment) 47 207 22.71 %

F-4 (assignment) 36 205 17.56 %

Total 242 1055 22.94 %


Student G

G-1 (Manoa placement test) 38 323 11.76 %

G-2 (assignment) 25 268 9.33 %

G-3 (assignment) 25 228 10.96 %

G-4 (assignment) 31 244 12.70 %

Total 119 1063 11.19 %


Students A—G

Total 1,231 7604 16.19 %

Total (including repeated errors) 1,300 7604 17.10 %

13

Table 6 Rank Order of the Error Types

Rank Error Error Student ID Total Order ID Classification A B C D E F G Error %

1

26

Singular for plural, or plural for singular

10

11

13

24

34

26

7

125

10.15

2

5

Tense/aspect

11

13

19

30

27

18

6

124

10.07

3

34

Lexical/phrase choice

31

11

11

12

23

17

12

117

9.50

4

28

Article

10

16

16

13

29

11

14

109

8.85

5

39

Punctuation

11

6

8

14

11

29

9

88

7.15

6

3

Verb formation

9

10

8

3

13

22

7

72

5.85

7

29

Preposition

15

2

8

14

11

10

5

65

5.28

8

38

Spelling

2

12

6

11

12

12

8

63

5.12

9

10

Subject-verb agreement

7

4

5

3

19

12

2

52

4.22

9

36

Wordiness

7

5

6

10

10

6

8

52

4.22

11

32

Word order

5

4

8

5

3

4

7

36

2.92

12

14

Ambiguous/unlocatable reference

3

4

4

3

4

7

4

29

2.36

12

31

Word form

6

6

3

1

4

8

1

29

2.36

14

40

Capitalization

0

6

3

5

6

5

3

28

2.27

15

23

Subordinate conjunction or clause formation

4

6

1

2

0

6

5

24

1.95

16

18

Run-on sentence

1

1

6

4

0

6

1

19

1.54

17

33

Missing word

1

2

1

2

3

7

1

17

1.38

18

2

Subject formation

2

1

2

2

3

5

0

15

1.22

18

21

Noun clause formation

2

0

1

3

4

3

2

15

1.22

20

4

Verb missing

0

2

0

3

3

4

2

14

1.14

21

13

Quantity words

3

2

2

0

4

1

1

13

1.06

22

22

Coordinate conjunction or clause formation

0

1

2

1

5

1

2

12

0.97

Rank Error Error Student ID Total

14

Order ID Classification A B C D E F G Error % 23

11

Noun-pronoun agreement

2

0

1

1

2

4

1

11

0.89

23

16

Dangling/misplaced modifier

1

0

3

3

1

0

3

11

0.89

23

20

Relative clause formation

2

1

0

1

3

4

0

11

0.89

26

24

Comparative formation

3

0

1

1

1

4

0

10

0.81

27

9

Object formation

1

1

0

3

2

2

0

9

0.73

27

17

Sentence fragment

0

1

0

0

3

1

4

9

0.73

27

27

Negation

1

2

0

3

2

0

1

9

0.73

27

37

Unintelligible expression

1

1

3

0

0

2

2

9

0.73

31

8

Voice

0

0

1

1

3

2

0

7

0.57

31

15

Wrong or missing pronoun case

1

1

2

2

1

0

0

7

0.57

33

19

Faulty parallel structure

2

0

0

0

1

1

1

5

0.41

33

30

Genitive

1

0

2

2

0

0

0

5

0.41

35

1

Whole sentence or clause aberrant or contradictory

1

0

0

0

0

2

0

3

0.24

35

7

Causative verb

2

0

0

0

1

0

0

3

0.24

35

35

Idiom

2

0

1

0

0

0

0

3

0.24

38

12

Quantifier-noun agreement

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0.08

39

6

Phrasal verb

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.00

39

25

Superlative formation

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.00

Total Error

160

133

147

182

248

242

119

1231

100.00

%

13.00

10.80

11.94

14.78

20.15

19.66

9.67

100.00

necessary to form a correct verb phrase. Generally, these common error types suggest that students

15

had trouble with basic sentence skills. However, it does not necessarily mean that students do not

have grammatical knowledge of how to make a correct noun or verb phrase because some students

showed correct use of these forms in some other places in their writing. Rather, it may suggest that

some students made those mistakes due to carelessness or hasty writing. It is likely that once their

ideas were put on the paper, some students spent little time re-scanning the drafts and thus failed to

self-repair the errors.

In addition, the error types of lexical/phrase choice and wordiness were ranked as No. 3

(9.50%) and No. 9 (4.22%) respectively. These two types both have to do with appropriate wording

and phrasing, which indicates that the students lack “adequate working vocabularies” (Witte &

Faigley, 1981, p. 198) to express their thoughts. The other error types in the Top 10 are punctuation,

preposition, and spelling, rank-ordered as No. 5 (7.15%), No. 7 (5.28%), and No. 8 (5.12%). A

great number of spelling errors, occurring in the samples of writing assignments, suggest that some

students did not have serious writing attitudes because they did not check the spelling even when

they had access to the dictionary. Overall, these ten most frequent error types, constituting 70.43%

of the total errors (867/1,231 errors), particularly need instructional attention.

If we look down the rank order, the error types of word order, ambiguous/unlocatable

reference, word form, and capitalization were ranked as No. 11, No. 12, and No. 14. These four

error types plus the top ten types compose 80.34% of the total errors (989/1,231 errors). IF we keep

tracking further down the rank order, the error types ranked as No. 15 through No. 22 make up

about 10% of the total errors. So the error types with a rank order of No.1 to No.22 account for

90.82% of the total errors (1118/1,231 errors). On the whole, this rank order shows students’

common writing weaknesses in grammar, word use, punctuation, and mechanics. It also provides a

list of priorities for focused instruction on these common error types. However, this rank order

does

16

Table 7

Mechanical Details of the Writing Samples

No

. of

Ty

ped

Ha

nd-

Title Margin Double-spac

ing

Indention

Ess

ays

wri

tten

Ye

s

No Ye

s

No Ye

s

No Ye

s

No

26 5 21 17 9 5 21 9 17 22 4

not suggest that students have mastered the other linguistic forms, as ranked in No. 23 through

No. 39, which constitute only 9.18% of the total errors. The last 18 error types rarely occurred

(e.g., superlative formation, phrasal verbs, or idioms) probably because students had avoided

using these structures. Based on the frequencies of errors, what the rank order suggests is that

students need to raise their awareness of the common error types and try to avoid them.

Paper format, a component of mechanics, was individually examined. Table 7 shows the

mechanical details of the writing samples, such as titles, margins, double-spacing, and indention.

Of the total 26 essays, 17 had titles, but 9 did not. Of the 17 titles, 6 were not centered. There

seems to be not much room for feedback because only the 5 typed essays had margins around the

paper, and only 9 essays were double-spaced. As for indention, most participants indented the first

line of every paragraph. Paper format needs to be considered because students will soon face

academic writing tasks in their content courses that basic format conventions have to be observed.

Part II. Pedagogical Suggestions for ELI 73

The results of the holistic and analytic assessments reflect general writing quality of ELI 73

students: The content and organization were not well developed (a rating of 2-4 on a 6-point scale);

17

the errors in grammar, word use, punctuation, and mechanics, were frequent with a total error rate

of 16.19% excluding repeated errors, or 17.10% including repeated errors. This suggests that

ELI 73 students have writing weaknesses overall in six traits, but not in any particular trait. In an

attempt to improve ELI 73 students’ writing ability, a number of pedagogical suggestions are made

in the framework of a process approach, which is currently adopted in the ELI writing courses. To

start with, a brief overview of the process approach is necessary in order to make clear the

arguments put forth in the suggestion section.

Overview of the Process Approach

As opposed to a traditional, form-focused approach, the process approach to teaching writing

is characterized by a focus on the writer’s composing processes (Cumming, 1989; Emig, 1971,

1975, 1977; Jones & Tetroe, 1987; Raimes, 1979, 1985, 1987b; Zamel, 1976, 1983; for a summary,

see Krapels, 1990) and by an emphasis of attending to content before form (Raimes, 1979, 1983,

1987a; Zamel, 1976, 1982, 1983, 1984). A great number of writing process studies have revealed

similarities between composing in L1 and L2: The composing processes of skilled L1 and L2

writers are alike. Similarly, the composing processes of unskilled L1 and L2 writers are also alike

(Heuring, 1984; Jones, 1982, 1983; Lay, 1982, 1983; Tetroe & Jones, 1983; Zamel, 1982, 1983).

Derived from a variety of idiosyncratic writing activities, a composing model of skilled writers

typically reflects a “cyclical process during which writers move back and forth on a continuum

discovering, analyzing, and synthesizing ideas” (Hughey, Wormuth, Hartfiel, & Jacobs, 1983,

p. 28), rather than a linear sequence, as suggested in most writing textbooks. That is, when they

write, skilled writers read back over what they have written for assessing the fit between their plan

and writing. As they re-scan, they discover new ideas, they revise, or they plan what to write next

(Della-Piana, 1978; Emig, 1975, 1977; Murray, 1978; Sommers, 1980). On the contrary, unskilled

writers spend less time planning or re-scanning. When they re-scan, unskilled writers mostly focus

18

on form rather than on content. So they fail to revise as efficiently as skilled writers (Faigley &

Witte, 1981; Flower & Hayes, 1981; Perl, 1979; Pianko, 1979; Rose, 1980; Sommers, 1980).

Therefore, the recursive composing model, or “retrospective structuring” (Perl, 1979, p. 331) is

embodied in a multiple-draft scheme of the process approach, consisting of generating ideas,

writing multiple drafts, producing/receiving feedback, and revising. This multiple-draft scheme

simulates the composing process of skilled writers, and attempts to make the writing behaviors of

unskilled writers more like those of skilled writers.

In addition to an interest in the writer’s composing processes, a pedagogical shift from a focus

on form to a focus on content before form is a reaction against highly controlled, form-focused

writing activities, such as sentence combining or error correction exercises. The process approach

suggests writer-based tasks by the use of journals (Peyton, 1990; Spack & Sadow, 1983), written

brainstorming and freewriting (Knepler, 1984; Taylor, 1981), invention (Spack, 1984), peer

collaboration (Bruffee, 1984; Long & Porter, 1985), feedback (Keh, 1990; Keyes, 1984; Stokes,

1984), and revision (Faigley &Witte, 1981; Hall, 1990; Heuring, 1984). In practice, students are

asked to read about a topic of their own choice, to think about the topic, to write personal response

to the reading, to read and discuss their peers’ writing, and to revise their own writing based on

peer feedback or teacher comments. Through reading, thinking, and writing, a valuable learning

process is created in the writing classroom.

Pedagogical Suggestions

The following suggestions that result from my study confirm a number of practices being used

by the teacher of ELI 73 and the ELI writing curriculum:

Develop a Multiple-Draft Scheme

For the first half of the semester, ELI 73 students were trained to write journals or personal

response to the reading, to focus on content rather than on form, and to give peer feedback on the

19

content of the first draft. These pedagogical principles were following the process approach and

absolutely helpful to students in generating ideas and making meaning to enrich writing. According

to the interview with the instructor, the ELI 73 class was engaged in developing writing fluency for

the first half of the semester, so students were asked to do plenty of writing, but were not asked to

revise their drafts until the second half of the semester.

Recall that the multiple-draft scheme of the process approach reflects recursive writing

behaviors: generating ideas, writing a first draft, receiving feedback, revising the first draft into a

second draft, etc. Students need to be given time and opportunity to think about the comments,

questions, or suggestions received from the feedback, and then revise their drafts by clarifying their

ideas, developing their organization, or correcting their errors in grammar, word use, punctuation,

or mechanics. It is the revising stage that drives students to write through the recursive composing

process. Therefore, it is suggested that students have a multiple-draft process, instead of a

single-draft product, from the beginning of the course.

Moreover, students’ writing attitudes and behaviors need to be redressed. Students need to be

encouraged to re-scan and revise their work as they write. They need to be reminded that what sets

them apart from unskilled writers is that they adapt themselves to re-scanning and revising their

drafts as skilled writers do.

Attend to Form as Well as Content

The process approach has often been misled as an approach that overemphasizes the writer’s

ideas at the expense of the linguistic forms. Faigley (1989) and Raimes (1991b) have pointed out

that some ESL writing textbooks take such an extreme position that students are asked only to

write about personal opinions and experiences without reference to linguistic accuracy (e.g.,

Benesch & Rorschach, 1989; Coles & Vopat, 1985; Cramer, 1985). No mention of grammar is

misinterpretation of the process approach. Zamel (1976, 1982, 1983, 1984) and Raimes (1979,

20

1983, 1987a) claim that writers attend to content before form, rather than content over form.

Zamel (1983) explains that “Decisions about form and organization only make sense with

reference to the particular ideas being expressed” (p. 181). So he suggests that correction of

linguistic forms be delayed until writers have grappled with ideas. Raimes (1991b) also makes

clear that “When program guidelines or an individual teacher’s syllabus actually mandates personal

experience topics, three drafts for every piece of writing, no grammatical correction, and the use of

freewriting, for example, a therapist’s stance might well be at work” (pp. 241-242).

In the theories of second language acquisition, the focus-on-form approach (Long, 1988, 1991)

takes up a similar position that “meaning and use must already be evident to the learner at the time

that attention is drawn to the linguistic apparatus needed to get the meaning across” (Doughty &

Williams, 1998, p. 4). Instruction merely focusing on meaning has been found insufficient to

achieve target-like accuracy. Likewise, overemphasizing the writer’s ideas without attending to

linguistic forms usually results in recurring grammatical errors in students’ writing. For example,

common types of errors were largely repeated in ELI 73 writing samples: Students used singular

nouns for plural nouns, present tense for past tense, or missed articles. If peer feedback or teacher

comments are primarily focused on content, students tend to have little input or opportunity to deal

with grammatical errors, and hence keep repeating them for lack of awareness of linguistic

accuracy. Therefore, it is necessary that ELI 73 students be given opportunity to deal with

linguistic code features, in addition to exploring ideas. They need to raise the awareness of

linguistic forms, especially for academic writing. It is suggested that ELI 73 students be given a

short, explicit lesson (about 10 to 15 minutes per class session) about language skills in grammar,

word use, punctuation, or mechanics, based on the common error types found in students’ writing.

Table 6 may serve as a reference to instructional priorities of the linguistic forms. Recurring errors

indicate students’ needs for language skills, so instruction of linguistic or rhetorical forms cannot

21

be ignored when students’ needs are perceived.

Provide Guidelines for Peer Feedback

Feedback is one of the fundamental stages in the multiple-draft scheme because it provides

students necessary input to think about the weaknesses in their writing. The process approach

recommends the use of peer feedback for the following advantages: First, the use of peer feedback

can increase students’ analytical ability by critically reading their peers’ writing. At the same time,

students discover their own weaknesses when responding comments, suggestions, or grammar

correction to their fellow students’ weaknesses. Second, the use of peer feedback can give students

a greater sense of audience because their readers are not limited to the instructor only. Besides, it

helps modify “writer-based prose” toward “reader-based prose” (Flower, 1979). Third, the use of

peer feedback can reduce writing teachers’ heavy paper load. Instead of leaving the sole

responsibility of correction to the instructor, students can be trained to correct common errors by

themselves. Teachers can save time to focus on errors that students cannot handle. This makes

feedback, either peer feedback or teacher comments, much more efficient.

Only when the practice of peer feedback is conducted well, can students and the instructor

enjoy those advantages. When producing peer feedback, ELI 73 students tended to give a very

general opinion about the content. In most cases, they expressed nothing but agreement with their

peers’ points of view in a few lines, lacking in constructive comments. For unskilled ELI 73

student writers, it is difficult to produce effective feedback if there is no guidance. Therefore, it is

suggested that students be provided with guidelines of clearly stated objectives and evaluation

principles for the practice of peer feedback (Danis, 1982; Flynn, 1982; Keh, 1990; Ziv, 1983).

Research shows that students tend to read for “low order concerns (LOGs),” such as

grammatical errors at the surface level, rather than “high order concerns (HOCs),” such as

development of content and organization (Krest, 1988; McDonald, 1978). Therefore, Keh (1990)

22

suggests that students be taught early in the course how to read critically for HOCs. For instance,

the instructor can show students examples of their first drafts, and teach them ways to read for

HOCs, such as logical presentation of ideas, appropriate use of connectors, or elements of cohesion

and coherence. After the instruction, the teacher provides guidelines for students to follow in peer

evaluation (see Table 8 for an example of guidelines, borrowed from Keh, 1990, p. 298). The use

of guidelines can progress from a very structured checklist to a less structured one, and finally to

no guidelines, depending on students’ competence in producing feedback (Beaven, 1977;

Chandrasegaran, 1989; Ellman, 1980; Hafernik, 1984; Keh, 1990).

Explicit grammar instruction and guidelines are also needed for peer feedback on low order

concerns (LOGs). According to the process approach, students are encouraged to focus on the

content for the first draft, and to focus on the form for the second draft. Therefore, during peer

evaluation, LOGs are inspected for the second draft after HOCs have been examined for the first

draft. It is recommended that students be asked to identify certain error types, rather than too many

types at one time. Then teachers can give their written comments on the third draft and, meanwhile,

evaluate the effectiveness of peer feedback. Also, teachers need to summarize overall weaknesses

on HOCs and LOGs (i.e., the six traits), and remind students to avoid those mistakes.

Incorporate Academic Writing Tasks

The process approach has been criticized for being writer-centered by the use of personal

journals or de-organized freewriting, and thus ignoring the writing demands of highly structured,

impersonal schemata and professional genres in the academic community (Horowitz, 1986a, 1986b,

1986c; Johns, 1993, 1995; Leki & Carson, 1994; Rodrigues, 1985; Swales, 1987). It is argued that

general principles of writing do not suffice students’ needs to encounter task-specific and

community-specific writing tasks required in students’ content courses (Colomb, 1988;

Smagorinsky & Smith, 1992), so ESL writing courses need to prepare students for approaching the

23

rhetorical contexts and conventional genres that students will soon have to confront in their

Table 8

Example of Guidelines for Peer Feedback (Borrowed from Keh, 1990, p. 298)

Type: checklist/structured

Objective/focus:

TS: definition/function

logical connectors

support with examples

restatement sentence

1. What is the author’s purpose in writing?

– to show the importance of something;

– to convince the reader to do something;

– to explain how something is done.

2. Underline the author’s topic sentence.

Does the topic sentence tell you, the reader,

what to expect in the remainder of the paper? □Yes □No

3. Are the author’s points clearly presented to the reader?

Put a triangle △ around every logical connector.

Can you suggest any other connectors?

4. Does the author give enough examples to support his/her point?

Put a question mark ? beside anything not clearly explained.

Put an exclamation mark ! beside a good example.

5. Does the author provide a good conclusion?

As the reader, do you feel satisfied with the ending?

Underline the author’s restatement sentence.

24

academic careers (Johns, 1993, 1995). For example, argumentation has been identified as the most

common type of authentic texts across the disciplines (Connor, 1990; Dillon, 1991; Fahnestock &

Secor, 1982; McCann, 1989). It is claimed that ESL students need to have experiences of writing

argumentative essays during ESL writing preparation, especially because argumentation has been

found to be very difficult for ESL students (Johns, 1991, 1993). In addition, Johns (1993) suggests

that students be aware of the intended audience, who shares values and interests in the academic

discourse. It is the audience’s expectations, values, and interests that shape students’ academic

texts (Kantz, 1989). Therefore, the purpose (general vs. specific/academic) and audience (general

vs. professional) should be taken into consideration in the practice of the process approach in the

ESL writing classroom.

Among the EAP/ESP (English for Academic/Specific Purposes) writing research on needs

analysis (e.g., Braine, 1995; Frodesen, 1995; Horowitz, 1986b; Johns, 1981; Leki and Carson,

1994; Leki, 1995; McKenna, 1987; Ostler, 1980; Prior, 1995; Santos, 1988; Tarone, 1989),

Horowitz (1986b) conducted a survey examining the actual academic writing tasks (e.g., writing

assignments and essay examinations) required by professors (Of about 750 faculty members

contacted, 38% responded.). The survey results reveal that “the academic writer’s task is not to

create personal meaning, but to find, organize, and present data according to fairly explicit

instructions” (Horowitz, 1986b, p. 455). Therefore, Horowitz suggests that information-processing

skills be taught in ESL writing courses to meet the demands of authentic academic assignments.

A skill-based scheme of information processing is recommended as follows:

1. Selecting data which is relevant to a question or issue from sources;

2. Reorganizing that data in response to the given question or issue;

3. Encoding that data into academic English (Horowitz, 1986b, p. 456).

25

In addition to surveys conducted with faculty members (e.g., Horowitz, 1986b; Johns, 1981;

Santos, 1988), a great number of need analysis studies have been conducted with ESL students

(e.g., Frodesen, 1995; Leki and Carson, 1994; Leki, 1995; Ostler, 1980). For instance, Leki and

Carson (1994) investigated ESL students’ perceptions of the relationship between the writing

instruction provided in ESL writing courses and the writing tasks actually required in content

courses across the disciplines. The participants of this survey had taken an ESL writing course and

were enrolled in a content course that required writing. A total of 128 L2 college students were sent

questionnaires, and 60% responded. These respondents, consisting of 14 L1 backgrounds, were

drawn from 23 departments. According to the survey results, the first four skills/strategies that the

respondents wished to have learned or learned better in ESL writing courses were rank-ordered as

follows:

1. Language skills (31%): specifically referring to grammar and vocabulary;

2. Task management strategies (28%): including managing texts (e.g., planning, drafting,

revising), managing sources (e.g., summarizing, paraphrasing, synthesizing), and managing

research (e.g., library skills, research skills);

3. Rhetorical skills (13%): including organization, transitions, coherence, and exemplification;

4. Thinking skills (4%): including developing and expanding ideas, arguing logically,

analyzing, and critiquing.

When the respondents were asked what aspect of their ESL writing preparation was most

important for their success in content-course writing tasks, the first four aspects they responded to

were task management strategies (35%), rhetorical skills (29%), language proficiency (16%) and

thinking skills (13%). Thinking skills are what the process approach emphasizes, but students

appear to need other skills more urgently for academic purposes, such as task management

strategies, rhetorical skills, and language skills. The survey results echo what Johns (1988, 1993,

26

1995), Horowitz (1986a, 1986b, 1986c), and other EAP researchers (e.g., Reid, 1984, 1987, 1989;

Swales, 1990) have suggested: ESL students should be provided with knowledge of rhetorical

forms, conventional genres, and information-processing skills that are intellectually demanded in

the academic community. To conclude their survey, Leki and Carson (1994) express the following:

[A]lthough we understand and endorse the use of such activities as journal writing and the

personal essay in their place, these types of writing tasks may not be enough by themselves,

may not offer enough intellectual challenge to develop in ESL students the ability, and the

confidence in that ability, to make success easier to come by in their academic writing tasks

across the curriculum. (p. 97)

Therefore, it is important to give great emphasis that ELI writing curriculum moves beyond

personal writing and incorporates specific writing tasks for academic purposes. It would be a good

idea to familiarize ELI 73 students with the composing processes in the first half of the semester,

and gradually prepare them for academic writing tasks in the second half of the semester. To

instruct students how to integrate their opinions with external sources of data or information would

help gap students’ immediate writing needs and ELI writing instruction, and would also serve as

strong motivation for ELI 73 students to engage themselves in learning writing.

Conclusion

The assessment of ELI 73 student writing samples reveals that ELI 73 students have writing

weaknesses overall in six traits, not in any particular trait. In addition to a focus on the writer’s

ideas (i.e., the content), ELI 73 instruction needs to equally consider the other traits, such as

organization, grammar, word use, punctuation, and mechanics. Raimes (1991a, 1991b, 1993)

reiterates the importance of a balanced stance of four elements in writing: the form (linguistic

accuracy and rhetorical conventions), the writer (the writer’s ideas and composing processes),

the content (the subject matter), and the reader (e.g., the expectations of the academic audience).

27

In an attempt to meet ELI 73 students’ writing needs, four pedagogical suggestions have been

made within the framework of the process approach, and have to be strongly stressed, though a

number of the practices are being used in the ELI writing curriculum:

1. Develop a multiple-draft scheme: Reflecting a recursive composing process of skilled

writers, a multiple-draft scheme needs to be developed in order to guide students to write

through feedback and revising.

2. Attend to form as well as content: Writers’ ideas cannot be overemphasized at the expense

of linguistic or rhetorical forms, especially for academic writing. It is suggested that a short,

explicit lesson be given per class session on certain error types that are commonly found in

students’ writing, in order to raise students’ awareness of linguistic code features.

3. Provide guidelines for peer feedback: Student writers at an unskilled level need the

instructor’s guidance and concrete guidelines to produce effective peer feedback. By

following the guidelines, students learn how to read for “high order concerns (HOCs)” and

“low order concerns (LOGs),” and how to give constructive comments in critical peer

evaluation.

4. Incorporate academic writing tasks: In order to meet the students’ immediate needs for

academic writing assignments, it is important that ELI 73 incorporate academic writing

tasks (e.g., tasks for training language skills, task management strategies, and rhetorical

skills) into the syllabus, in addition to the use of personal journals to familiarize students

with the composing processes.

The most valuable insight of the process approach is viewing writing as learning. A 17-week

course cannot create an error-free writer, neither can it prepare students for every writing task that

they will encounter in their academic lives. However, it can provide students a tool of learning how

to write better, and also provide skills/strategies that are helpful to meet the immediate writing

28

demands in the academic community.

References

Beaven, M. (1977). The effects of between-draft teacher evaluation versus students’ self-evaluation

on high school revising of rough drafts. Research in Teaching English, 13, 111-119.

Benesch, S. & Rorschach, B. (1989). Academic writing workshop II. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Braine, G. (1995). Writing in the natural sciences and engineering. In D. Belcher & G, Braine

(Eds.), Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy (pp.

113-134). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Bruffee, K. (1984). Collaborative learning and the “conversation of mankind.” College English,

46(7), 635-652.

Chandrasegaran, A. (1989). Developing, planning, and reviewing skills in composition. Paper

presented at the RELC Conference, Singapore.

Chastain, K. (1990). Characteristics of graded and ungraded compositions. Modern Language

Journal, 74, 10-14.

Coles, W. E. & Vopat, J. (1985). What makes writing good. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.

Colomb, G. (1988, March). Where should students start writing in the disciplines? Paper presented

at the Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication,

St. Louis, MO.

Connor, U. (1990). Linguistic/rhetorical measures for international persuasive student writing.

Research in the Teaching of English, 24, 67-87.

Cramer, N. A. (1985). The writing process: 20 projects for group work. Rowley, MA: Newbury

House.

Cumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second language proficiency. Language Learning, 39,

81-141.

29

Danis, F. (1982). Weaving the web of meaning: Interaction patterns in peer-response groups.

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and

Communication, San Francisco, California.

Della-Piana, G. M. (1978). Research strategies for the study of revision processes in writing poetry.

In C. R. Cooper, & L. Odell (Eds), Research on composing: Points of departure (pp.

105-134). Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.

Dillon, G. L. (1991). Arguments and appeals: Rhetorics of the social sciences. In Contending

rhetorics: Writing in academic disciplines (pp. 88-112). Bloomington, IN: Indiana

University Press.

Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Issues and terminology. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.),

Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 1-11). New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Duke, C. R., & Sanchez, R. (2001). Assessing writing across the curriculum. Durham, NC:

Carolina Academic Press.

Ellman, N. (1980). Structuring peer evaluation for greater student independence. In G. Stanford

(Ed.), How to handle the paper load: Classroom practices in teaching English. Urbana,

Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.

Emig, J. (1971). The composing processes of twelfth graders. Urbana, Illinois: National Council of

Teachers of English.

Emig, J. (1975). The composing process: A review of the literature. In R. W. Winterowd (Ed.),

Contemporary rhetoric: A conceptual background with readings (pp. 49-70). New York:

Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a model of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28(2),

30

122-128.

Fahnestock, J., & Secor, M. (1982). A rhetoric of argument. New York: Random House.

Faigley, L. (1989). Judging writing, judging selves. College Composition and Communication, 40,

395-412.

Faigley, L. &Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication,

32(4), 400-414.

Flower, L. S. (1979). Writer-based prose: A cognitive basis for problems in writing. College

English, 41(1), 19-37.

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

and Communication, 32(4), 365-387.

Flynn, E. (1982). Freedom, restraint, and peer group interaction. Paper presented at the Annual

Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, San Francisco,

California.

Frodesen, J. (1995). Negotiating the syllabus: A learner-centered, interactive approach to ESL

graduate writing course design. In D. Belcher & G, Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a

second language: Essays on research and pedagogy (pp. 331-350). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Hafernik, J. J. (1984). The hows and why of peer editing in the ESL writing class. CATESOL

Occasional Papers, 4, 48-55.

Hall, C. (1990). Managing the complexity of revising across languages. TESOL Quarterly, 24(1),

43-60

Heuring, D. L. (1984). The revision strategies of skilled and unskilled ESL writers: Five case

studies. Paper presented at the 18th Annual TESOL Convention, Houston, March 1984.

Horowitz, D. M. (1986a). Process, not product: Less than meets the eye. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1),

141-144.

31

Horowitz, D. M. (1986b). What professors actually require: Academic tasks for the ESL classroom.

TESOL Quarterly, 20(3), 445-462.

Horowitz, D. M. (1986c). The author responds to Liebman-Kleine. TESOL Quarterly, 20(4),

788-790.

Hughey, J. B., Wormuth, D. R., Hartfiel, V. F., & Jacobs, H. L. (1983). Teaching ESL composition:

Principles and techniques. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.

Johns, A. M. (1981). Necessary English: A faculty survey. TESOL Quarterly, 15, 51-57.

Johns, A. M. (1988). The discourse communities dilemma: Identifying transferable skills for the

academic milieu. English for Specific Purposes, 7, 55-60.

Johns, A. M. (1991). Interpreting an English competency examination: The frustrations of an ESL

student. Written Communication, 8, 379-401.

Johns, A. M. (1993). Written argumentation for real audiences: Suggestions for teacher research

and classroom practice. TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 75-90.

Johns, A. M. (1995). Using classroom and authentic genres: Student initiation into academic

writings. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language: Essays

on research and pedagogy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Jones, C. S. (1982). Composing in a second language: A process study. Paper presented at the 16th

Annual TESOL Convention, Honolulu, May 1982.

Jones, C. S. (1983). Some composing strategies of second language writers. Paper presented at the

Colloquium on Learner Strategies at the 17th Annual TESOL Convention, Toronto, March

1983.

Jones, C. S. & Tetroe, J. (1987). Composing in a second language. In A. Matsuhashi (Ed.), Writing

in real time: Modeling production processes (pp. 34-57). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

32

Kantz, M. J. (1989). Repertoire: Matching what’s in your mind with what’s in the text. In D.

McCormick (Ed.), Expanding the repertoire: An anthology of practical approaches for the

teaching of writing (Tech. Rep. No. 30, pp.10-17). Berkeley, CA: Center for the Study of

Writing.

Keh, C. L. (1990). Feedback in the writing process: A model and methods for implementation.

ELT Journal, 44(4), 294-304.

Keyes, J. R. (1984). Peer editing and writing success. TESOL Newsletter (Supplement No. 1:

Writing and composition) 18(1), 11-12.

Knepler, M. (1984). Impromptu writing to increase fluency. TESOL Newsletter (Supplement No. 1:

Writing and composition) 18(1), 15-16.

Krapels, A. (1990). An overview of second language writing process research. In B. Kroll (Ed.),

Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 37-56). New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Krest, M. (1988). Monitoring student writing: How not to avoid the draft. Journal of Teaching

Writing, 7(1), 27-39.

Kroll, B. (1990). What does time buy? ESL student performance on home versus class composition.

In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp.

140-154). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lay, N. D. (1982). Composing processes of adult ESL learners: A case study. TESOL Quarterly,

16(3), 406.

Lay, N. D. (1983). Native language and the composing process. In B. Kwalick, M. Silver, & V.

Slaughter (Eds.), Selected paper from the 1982 conference “New York Writers” (pp. 17-21).

New York: City University of New York, The Instructional Resource Center.

33

Leki, I., & Carson, J. G. (1994). Students’ perceptions of EAP writing instruction and writing

needs across the disciplines. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 81-101.

Leki, I. (1995). Coping strategies of ESL students in writing tasks across the curriculum. TESOL

Quarterly, 29(2), 235-260.

Long, M. H. (1988). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. Paper

presented at the European-North-American Symposium on Needed Research in Foreign

Language Education, Bellagio, Italy: Rockefeller Center.

Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de

Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural

perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Long, M. H., & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language

acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 207-228.

McCann, T. M. (1989). Student argumentative writing knowledge and ability at three grade levels.

Research in the Teaching of English, 23, 62-76.

McDonald, W. U. (1978). The revising process and the marking of student papers. College

Composition and Communication, 24, 167-170.

McKenna, E. (1987). Preparing students to enter discourse communities in the U.S. English for

Specific Purposes, 6, 187-202.

Murray, D. M. (1978). Internal revision: A process of discovery. In C. R. Cooper, & L. Odell (Eds),

Research on composing: Points of departure (pp. 85-103). Urbana, Illinois: National

Council of Teachers of English.

Ostler, S. E. (1980). A survey of academic needs for advanced ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 14,

489-502.

34

Perl, S. (1979). The composing processes of unskilled college writers. Research in the Teaching of

English, 13(4), 317-336.

Peyton, J. K. (Ed.). (1990). Students and teachers writing together: Perspectives on journal writing.

Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

Pianko, S. (1979). A description of the composing processes of college freshman writers. Research

in the Teaching of English 13(1), 5-22.

Polio, C. G. (1997). Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research.

Language Learning, 47(1), 101-143.

Prior, P. (1995). Redefining the task: An ethnographic examination of writing and response in

graduate seminars. In D. Belcher & G, Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second

language: Essays on research and pedagogy (pp. 47-82). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Raimes, A. (1979). Problems and teaching strategies in ESL composition. Language in Education:

Theory and Practice 14. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Raimes, A. (1983). Anguish as a second language? Remedies for composition teachers. In A.

Freedman, I. Pringle, & J. Yalden (Eds.), Learning to write: First language/second

language (pp. 258-272). Harlow, England: Longman.

Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled ESL students do as they write: A classroom study of composing.


Raimes, A. (1987a). Why write? From purpose to pedagogy. English Teaching Forum, 25(4),

36-41.

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

ESL college student writers. Language Learning, 37, 439-468.

Raimes, A. (1991a). Out of the woods: Emerging traditions in the teaching of writing. TESOL

35

Quarterly, 25(3), 407-430.

Raimes, A. (1991b). Instructional balance: From theories to practices in the teaching of writing.

Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1991.

Raimes, A. (1993). The author responds…. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 306-310.

Reid, J. (1984). Comments on Vivian Zamel’s “The composing processes of advanced ESL

students: Six case studies.” TESOL Quarterly, 18(1), 149-153.

Reid, J. (1987, April). ESL composition: The expectations of the academic audience. TESOL

Newsletter, p. 34.

Reid, J. (1989). English as a second language composition in higher education: The expectations of

the academic audience. In D. M. Johnson & D. H. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing:

Empowering ESL students (pp. 220-234). New York: Longman.

Rodrigues, R. J. (1985). Moving away from writing-process worship. English Journal, 74, 24-27.

Rose, M. (1980). Rigid rules, inflexible plans, and the stifling of language: A cognitive analysis of

writer’s block. College Composition and Communication 31(4), 389-401.

Santos, T. (1988). Professors’ reactions to the academic writing of nonnative-speaking students.


Smagorinsky, P., & Smith, M. W. (1992). The nature of knowledge in composition and literacy

understanding: A question of specificity. Review of Educational Research, 62, 279-305.

Sommers, N. (1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers. College

Composition and Communication 31(4), 378-388.

Spack, R. (1984). Invention strategies and the ESL college composition student. TESOL Quarterly,

18(4), 649-670.

Spack, R., & Sadow, C. (1983). Student-teacher working journals in ESL freshman composition.


36

Stokes, E. (1984). An ESL writing workshop. TESOL Newsletter (Supplement No. 1: Writing and

composition) 18(1), 4-5.

Swales, J. M. (1987). Utilizing the literatures in teaching the research paper. TESOL Quarterly,

21(1), 41-68.

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

Cambridge University Press.

Tarone, E. (1989). Teacher-executed needs assessment: Some suggestions for teachers and

program administrators. MinnTESOL Journal, 7, 39-48.

Taylor, B. P. (1981). Content and written form: A two-way street. TESOL Quarterly, 15(1), 5-13.

Tetroe, J. & Jones, C. S. (1983). Planning and revising in adult ESL students. Paper presented at

the Annual Conference on College Composition and Communication, Detroit, March 1983.

Witte, S. P. & Faigley, L. (1981). Coherence, cohesion, and writing quality. College Composition

and Communication 32(2), 189-204.

Zamel, V. (1976). Teaching composition in the ESL classroom: What we can learn from research

in the teaching of English. TESOL Quarterly, 10, 67-76.

Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 16(2),

195-210.

Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL

Quarterly, 17(2), 165-187.

Zamel, V. (1984). In search of the key: Research and practice in composition. In J. Handscombe, R.

Orem, & B. P. Taylor (Eds.), On TESOL ’83: The question of control (pp. 195-207).

Washington, D.C.: TESOL.

Ziv, N. (1983). Peer groups in the composition classroom: A case study. Paper presented at the

37

Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Detroit,

Michigan.

sls 630 term project: student writing assessment for eli ... filesls 630 term project: student...

Documents