Teaching L2 Composition

Teaching L2 Composition
Third Edition
This popular, comprehensive theory-to-practice text is designed to help teachers

understand the task of writing, L2 writers, the different pedagogical models used
in current composition teaching, and reading–writing connections. Moving from
general themes to specific pedagogical concerns, it includes practice-oriented
chapters on the role of genre, task construction, course and lesson design, writ-
ing assessment, feedback, error treatment, and classroom language (grammar, vo-
cabulary, style) instruction.
Changes in the Third Edition

j The term ESL to refer to student writers is replaced by the broader, more accurate,
and current term L2
j Significantly revised chapter: Concepts in Writing and Learning to Write in a
Second Language
j New chapter: Understanding Student Populations and Instructional Contexts
j New chapter: Composition Pedagogies: Theory, Principle, and Practice
j New chapter: Developing Language Skills in the Writing Class: Why, What,
How, and Who
j Discussions of technological affordances for writing pedagogy are now woven
throughout the chapters at appropriate points
j Reconfigured and streamlined content moves more methodically through in-
structional principles and practices, including a merger of two chapters on
course and lesson design into one, and two chapters on teacher and peer feed-
back into a single integrated discussion of response to student writing
j A new feature, Further Reading and Resources, highlights in convenient list
form the key resources mentioned in that particular chapter as well as other
materials that readers may find helpful.
Dana R. Ferris is professor in the University Writing Program at the University of

California, Davis, United States.
John S. Hedgcock is professor of Applied Linguistics at the Monterey Institute of

International Studies, California, United States.
This page intentionally left blank
Teaching L2 Composition
Purpose, Process, and Practice
Third Edition
Dana R. Ferris
John S. Hedgcock
Dana R. Ferri
John S. Hedgc
This edition published 2014
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2014 Taylor & Francis
The right of the authors to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by them
in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any
form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system,
without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered
trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to
infringe.
First edition published 1998 by LEA
Second edition published 2005 by LEA
Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Ferris, Dana. [Teaching ESL composition] Teaching L2 composition : purpose, process,
and practice / By Dana R. Ferris and John S. Hedgcock. — Third Edition.
pages cm
Previously published as: Teaching ESL composition, 2nd ed.; 2005.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
I. Hedgcock, John. II. Title.
PE1128.A2F47 2014
428.0071—dc23
2013013174
ISBN: 978-0-415-89471-5 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-0-415-89472-2 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-0-203-81300-3 (ebk)
Typeset in Minion
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
Brief Contents
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
1 Concepts in Writing and Learning to Write in a Second

Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 Understanding Student Populations and Instructional Contexts . . . . . . . . . . 29
3 Composition Pedagogies: Theory, Principle, and Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4 Reading, Genre Awareness, and Task Design in the L2 Composition

Course . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
5 Course Design and Instructional Planning for the L2 Writing Course . . . . . 146
6 Classroom Assessment of L2 Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
7 Response to Student Writing: Issues and Options for Giving

and Facilitating Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .237
8 Improving Accuracy in Student Writing: Error Treatment

in the Composition Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
9 Developing Language Skills in the Writing Class:

Why, What, How, and Who . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353
Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413
Contents
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
1 Concepts in Writing and Learning to Write in a Second Language . . . . . . . . . 1

Theoretical Knowledge in L2 Writing Instruction and Research . . . . . . . . . . 3
Fundamentals of Writing and Writing Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Origins of Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Lexigraphic Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Distinct Dimensions of L2 Writing Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Prior Knowledge: Implications for Teaching L2 Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Intercultural Rhetoric and Its Implications for
Teaching L2 Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Chapter Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Further Reading and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Reflection and Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Application Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2 Understanding Student Populations and Instructional Contexts . . . . . . . . . . 29

L2 Writers: Understanding Student Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
International (Visa) Students. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
EFL Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Resident Immigrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Generation 1.5 Learners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Literacy Abilities of Different L2 Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Contexts: Where L2 Writing Is Taught . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Foreign Language Contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Second Language Contexts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
viii Contents
Chapter Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3 Composition Pedagogies: Theory, Principle, and Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Sources of Expertise in L2 Composition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Rhetoric and Linguistics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Composition Studies and Applied Linguistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Theory, Research, and Practice in L1 and L2 Composition
Instruction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Product-Oriented Instructional Traditions in L1 Rhetoric
and Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
The Process Movement and Allied Pedagogies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Composition in the Post-Process Era . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Emergence of a Discipline: Issues and Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Shifts in Pedagogical Focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Chapter Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
4 Reading, Genre Awareness, and Task Design in the

L2 Composition Course . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
L2 Literacy Development and the Sources of Literate Knowledge . . . . . . . . 94
Reading and Writing: Parallel Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
The Reciprocity of the Reading–Writing Relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Reading–Writing Relationships Within and Across Languages . . . . . . 97
Reading Instruction in the Composition Course. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Integrating Reading and Writing in L2 Composition Instruction . . . . . . . 100
Reading to Write . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Writing to Read . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Writing to Learn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Reciprocal Literacy Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Reading, Writing, and Communication in Socioliterate
Communities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Building Socioliterate Knowledge Through Work with Genres . . . . . . . . . 108
Approaches to Genre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Defining Genre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Genres, Genre Awareness, and Genre Production in
L2 Writing Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Designing Tasks and Assignments for Socioliterate Instruction. . . . . . . . . 119
Contents ix
Maximizing Literacy Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Text Selection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Formal Task and Assignment Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
The Mechanics of Task Design and Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Guidelines for Devising Writing Prompts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Genre Authenticity: Avoiding Formulaic Assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Chapter Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Further Reading and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Reflection and Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
Application Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Appendixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
5 Course Design and Instructional Planning for the L2 Writing Course . . . . . 146
Curriculum Development Essentials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Needs Assessment: Mapping Learner Needs and Institutional
Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Environment Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Needs Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Needs Assessment Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Setting Targets for Learning and Teaching: Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . 157
From Goals and Objectives to Syllabus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
Nuts and Bolts: Prioritizing, Sequencing, and Planning for Writing . . . . . 164
Lesson Planning: Practices and Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
Identifying Lesson Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
Sequencing and Organizing a Lesson Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
The Mechanics of Lesson Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
Chapter Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
Appendixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
6 Classroom Assessment of L2 Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

Purposes for L2 Writing Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Measurement Tools and Participant Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
Principles of Task Reliability and Validity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Reliability in Writing Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
Validity in L2 Writing Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
Approaches to Scoring L2 Writing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
Holistic Scoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
Analytic Scoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
Primary and Multiple Trait Scoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
x Contents
Portfolio Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215

An Outline for Portfolio Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
Practical Concerns in Assessing Student Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
Managing the Workload. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
Assignment Grading Anxiety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Assigning Course Grades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
Chapter Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
7 Response to Student Writing: Issues and Options for Giving

and Facilitating Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
Perspectives on Teacher Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
Research on Teacher Feedback. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
Descriptive Studies on the Nature of Teacher Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . 238
Effects of Teacher Commentary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Student Views of Teacher Feedback. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
Research on Teacher Commentary: Summary and Caveats . . . . . . . . 240
Principles for Written Teacher Feedback. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
Guidelines for Written Teacher Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
Follow-Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
Written Commentary: Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
Teacher–Student Writing Conferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
Implementing Writing Conferences: Issues and Options . . . . . . . . . . 252
Logistics: When, Where, and How Often? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
What Topics Should Conferences Cover? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
Beyond Teacher Response: Other Sources of Feedback. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
Peer Response for L2 Writers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
Implementing Peer Response Successfully . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
Integrating Peer Response Into Course and Lesson Design . . . . . . . . 256
Preparing Students for Peer Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
Forming Peer Review Dyads and Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
Structuring Peer Response Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
Following Up on Peer Review Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
Peer Review: Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
Building Autonomy Through Guided Self-Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
Feedback From Outside Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
Chapter Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
Contents xi

Appendixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
8 Improving Accuracy in Student Writing: Error Treatment

in the Composition Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
A Brief History of Error Correction in the Writing Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
Error Correction: Questions, Issues, and Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
Does Error Feedback Help Students At All? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
What Is an Error? Should Teachers Mark for “Errors”
or “Style”? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
What Kinds of Errors Do L2 Writers Most Typically Make?. . . . . . . . 283
Should Error Feedback Be Selective or Comprehensive? . . . . . . . . . . 284
Should Error Feedback Focus on Larger or Smaller
Categories?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
Should Feedback Be Direct or Indirect? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
Should Errors Be Labeled or Located? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
Where in the Text Should Error Feedback Be Given? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
How Should Teachers Provide Error Feedback?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
Strategy Training for Self-Editing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
Techniques for Teaching Editing Skills in the Writing Class . . . . . . . . 294
Conclusion: Putting It All Together. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
Chapter Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
9 Developing Language Skills in the Writing Class: Why, What,

How, and Who . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
Perspectives on Language Instruction in the Writing Class . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
The “Why”: Is Language Development Useful for the
Writing Class? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
The “What”: How to Select Structures and Strategies for
Instruction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312
Consider Student Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
“Exploit” Class Reading Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
Consider Language Required for Assigned Writing Tasks. . . . . . . . . . 320
The “How”: Approaches to Vocabulary and Grammar
Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
The General Shape of Mini-Lessons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322
Mini-Lessons for Language Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
Analyzing Grammatical Choices in Writing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335
Teaching Other Stylistic Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339
xii Contents
Using Corpus Tools for Language Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341

Summary: Putting It All Together . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343
The “Who”: Considerations for Teacher Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344
What Teachers Need to Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
Chapter Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353
Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413
Preface
In keeping with the approach that we took in this book’s first two editions, Teach-
ing L2 Composition: Purpose, Process, and Practice aims to present practical ap-
proaches to the teaching of second language (L2) composition in light of current
theory and research on L2 writing processes, practices, and writers. It should ap-
peal to the following audiences:
1. Teacher-educators and their students in pre-service TESOL and composition

preparation programs;
2. In-service writing instructors currently engaged in teaching writing and re-
lated literacy skills to L2 writers, whether in designated courses for multilin-
gual students or mainstream composition programs;
3. Writing program administrators who wish to learn more about contemporary
pedagogies and meeting the diverse needs of multilingual writers;
4. Researchers investigating L2 writing and L2 composition pedagogy.
This volume addresses the needs of these diverse audiences by providing over-
views of research related to L2 writing, as well as numerous opportunities to re-
flect on, develop, and practice the teaching skills needed for effective instruction
of L2 writers. Preview and postreading questions in each chapter are intended to
stimulate readers’ thinking about the material presented and provide discussion
prompts for those using the book in a classroom setting. Application activities
at the end of each chapter offer hands-on practice for pre-service and in-service
writing instructors and serve as resources for teacher educators. Because of the
book’s integrated emphasis on theory, research, and practice in L2 composition,
xiv Preface
it is appropriate as a primary or supplementary text for courses focused on L2

writing theory, as well as practicum courses that emphasize or include literacy
instruction as a focal point.
As a discipline, L2 writing has come a long way in the past 20 years. Indeed,
there has been an explosion of publications (journal articles, edited collections,
monographs, dissertations, and so forth) on an enormous range of topics related
to L2 writing. Even for specialists, it is challenging to stay up to date. Thus, one of
our primary goals in each edition is to furnish readers with a synthesis of theory
and practice in a rapidly evolving community of scholars and professionals. Al-
though all the topics discussed in the chapters are firmly grounded in reviews
of relevant current research, we believe that the book’s wide array of hands-on
practical examples, materials, and tasks is what sets it apart from others of its kind.
By summarizing and analyzing strands of theory and research in ways that are ac-
cessible to newer instructors, we have endeavored to help readers see the relevance
of the field’s knowledge base to their own classroom settings and student writers.
Changes to the Third Edition

The first two editions of this book were fairly similar to each other; in the second
edition, we primarily sought to update and refine the material from the original
volume. In contrast, this third edition includes substantial new material and some
major changes to the volume’s organizational structure. The first change is the title.
Although it is highly unusual to make such a change between editions, we deter-
mined that the broader term L2 was a more accurate and current descriptor than
ESL, which was featured in the previous editions. Not all L2 writers are developing
their skills in English; we have accordingly changed references from “ESL” to “L2”
(or in some cases we refer to student writers as “multilingual”) throughout the book.
Along with subtle changes to the title and terminology, we reconfigured mate-
rial in certain chapters and added several new ones. Chapter 1, for example, in-
troduces readers to writing systems and processes before delving into the unique
challenges facing L2 writers. The chapter examines the role of prior knowledge
and recent insights from intercultural rhetoric, which lay a foundation for sub-
sequent chapters. We composed Chapter 2, “Understanding Student Populations
and Instructional Contexts,” because we recognize that the term L2 writer needs
further definition: L2 writers are found in a broad range of educational contexts
that are quite different from one another. Although we had briefly touched on
these themes at various points in the second edition, we came to realize that this
definitional and descriptive work is important enough that it warranted its own
chapter. This decision also follows a pattern that we established in our coauthored
book Teaching Readers of English (Hedgcock & Ferris, 2009).
We added Chapter 3, “Composition Pedagogies: Theory, Principle, and Prac-
tice,” to acknowledge and explore the role of mainstream, or first language (L1),
composition practices in the teaching of L2 writers. Teachers of L2 writing come
from diverse academic backgrounds. Some are applied linguists who have had
Preface xv
little or no training in composition pedagogy but who nonetheless find themselves

teaching L2 writing courses, whereas others are primarily trained as composition-
ists who may be well versed in composition theory but who need more exten-
sive background in second language and literacy acquisition processes. Bearing in
mind that most pre-service instructors do not have the time or opportunity to take
extensive coursework in several different fields, we added this chapter as a quick
overview of the major approaches to composition instruction.
The final new addition is Chapter 9, “Developing Language Skills in the Writing
Class: Why, What, How, and Who.” Although our previous editions discussed er-
ror correction and grammar instruction in the writing class, we wanted to expand
the discussion beyond reactive discussions of student error to proactive consid-
erations of helping students develop the specific linguistic repertoire(s) they will
need to achieve their communicative purposes as writers. The chapter goes well
beyond error to discuss how instructors can help student writers gain awareness
and control of formal features (grammar, vocabulary, punctuation) that influence
the accuracy, clarity, style, and effectiveness of written texts in various genres.
As one might imagine, adding three new chapters to an already full-sized volume
necessitated some decision making about the existing material. We condensed the
previous two chapters on course and lesson design into one (again following the
model of our 2009 reading book). We also merged two previously separate chap-
ters on teacher and peer feedback into a single integrated discussion of response
to student writing. We decided to eliminate the stand-alone chapter on technology
for writing; in both previous editions the chapter was already out-of-date before it
was published. Further, technology is now integral to writing instruction in nearly
all contexts; dedicating a separate chapter to the uses of digital technology (as if
it were something new or optional) somehow felt quaint. Instead, we have wo-
ven discussions of technological affordances for writing pedagogy throughout the
chapters at appropriate points.
Further structural changes in the third edition involved reconfiguring the
volume’s medial chapters, in an effort to have the text move more methodically
through instructional principles and practices. For instance, Chapter 4 first ex-
plores the dynamic reciprocity between reading and writing processes; it then
presents options for integrating reading mindfully into composition courses. The
chapter likewise acquaints readers with a socioliterate approach that features the
analysis and production of authentic genres in writing instruction; it concludes
with practical recommendations for avoiding formulaic writing and construct-
ing purposeful writing prompts and assignments. Chapter 5 surveys principles
of course design and instructional planning, again following the model of our
reading book. Course design and assessment are so inextricable that it is nearly
impossible to discuss one topic without the other. Consequently, our introduc-
tion to L2 writing assessment (Chapter 6) now immediately follows Chapter 5.
With the reorganized chapter structure, the current volume now consists of: three
“foundations” chapters (1–3) that look at L2 writing, L2 writers, and pedagogi-
cal models; three broad chapters (4–6) that examine reading-writing connections,
xvi Preface
instructional design, and assessment; and three specific chapters (7–9) that focus
on response, error treatment, and language development.
Although the overall flow of the book is different, readers of the previous edi-
tions will recognize the familiar chapter structure. All chapters still include Ques-
tions for Reflection (at the beginning), Reflection and Review activities (at the end),
Application Activities (following the text), and various figures and appendices that
provide examples and illustrations of chapter material. As in our reading book,
Teaching Readers of English: Students, Texts, and Contexts (Hedgcock & Ferris, 2009),
we have also added “Further Reading and Resources” lists at the end of each chapter
(before the Reflection and Review sections) that highlight the key resources men-
tioned in that particular chapter as well as other materials readers may find helpful.
Complete bibliographic information for those sources, and all others cited within
the text, is provided in a comprehensive reference list at the end of the book.
When we began work on the first edition of this book, we were only a few years
beyond graduate school and were working as new teacher educators at our respec-
tive institutions. We have learned a great deal over the years because of the growth
of the field, our own evolution as writing teachers, and—most importantly—our
frequent opportunities to use the material in this book with our own classes of
pre-service instructors in Master of Arts in Teaching English to Speakers of Other
Languages (MATESOL) programs. Although we have moved from being new pro-
fessors to seasoned veterans, three things have remained constant: (1) We continue
to be humbled by the efforts and successes of L2 student writers; (2) we believe
strongly in the critical importance of effective literacy instruction for L2 students;
and (3) we aim to offer accessible and useful resources to their instructors. We
hope that this updated and redesigned version of Teaching L2 Composition will
both please users of the previous editions and will win the book some new friends.
Dana’s Acknowledgments
Since the second edition of this book was published, I have moved to a new position,
as professor in the University Writing Program at the University of California at Da-
vis. This position affords me opportunities not only to work with L2 writing instruc-
tors but also with mainstream (pre-service and in-service) composition instructors
and with faculty across the disciplines. The broader perspective of this new challenge
has definitely influenced my thinking and even my terminology as I worked on this
book. I am grateful to my colleagues and students in the UWP, and I especially want
to mention the former director who hired me, Professor Chris Thaiss; the current
director, Professor Carl Whithaus; Dr. Aliki Dragona, who has worked closely with
me in directing the first-year writing program; and my writing group colleagues Pro-
fessors Rebekka Andersen and Sarah Perrault, who have been generous with their
personal support and excellent constructive feedback on various written projects.
The original table of contents for the first edition of this book was derived directly
from my syllabus for English 215B: Teaching ESL Writing, a course that I created in
1993 and taught many times over the years in my previous position at California
Preface xvii
State University, Sacramento. I continue to acknowledge my gratitude for the oppor-

tunities that I had there and to my colleagues and students in the TESOL Program
and the English Department. Although I have moved elsewhere, I will always be
thankful for the years that I spent there and how they influenced my development as
an L2 writing professional and the development of this book, in particular.
Finally, I thank my doctoral adviser and mentor, Professor Robert B. Kaplan
(Emeritus, University of Southern California), and my husband, Randy Ferris, for
their support over these many years. Last but not least, I want to thank my wonder-
ful coauthor, John Hedgcock, for being a joy and an inspiration to work with on
our various ventures. When I grow up, I want to be just like him!
John’s Acknowledgments
Like Dana, I found early inspiration for the first edition of this book as I developed
materials for my graduate courses. I have been privileged to work with generous
and supportive faculty colleagues, as well as outstanding MA students, at the Mon-
terey Institute of International Studies (MIIS). I am especially indebted to my Fall
2012 cohort of EDUC 8560 students, many of whom eagerly read chapter drafts,
diligently completed assignments, and offered thoughtful (and incisive) feedback
on them as we worked our way through our course on teaching L2 writing. I am
also delighted to thank Ann Flower, Pamela Jungerberg, and Monica Wilmot, su-
premely knowledgeable staff members at the William Tell Coleman Library, who
made locating sources for this book easy, efficient, and always pleasant. My pro-
gress as a writer was painfully slow, and I offer my profound thanks to Dana, who
exercised far more understanding, patience, and encouragement than I deserved
as this book took shape. She sets unparalleled standards for her expert knowledge,
productivity, and collegiality. Equally deserving of appreciation for his patience
and endurance is my partner, Simon Hsu, who had to put up with me every day as
I struggled to make progress. Along with our four-legged brood (Amica, Bella, and
Lily), he lifted my spirits and kept me on target.
Joint Acknowledgments
We continue to be profoundly grateful for the friendship and support of our
amazing editor, Naomi Silverman, who gave two young, unknown academics a
chance back in 1995 and has been by our side ever since. Her encouragement, ad-
vice, and unsurpassed patience have kept us going even when the demands of real
life sometimes made it difficult to keep the project on track. We also thank other
members of the editorial staff at Routledge/Taylor & Francis who have worked on
this edition. Finally, we are grateful to the users of the second edition who pro-
vided outstanding feedback before we began on the third edition.
Dana Ferris
John Hedgcock
Chapter 1
Concepts in Writing
and Learning to
Write in a Second
Language
Questions for Reflection

1. Consider your experiences as a student writer and as a teacher of writing, if
applicable. Whether you are an experienced or inexperienced teacher, what
skills and competencies do you most want your students to develop? Why?
2. Where do you think writing comes from, and why have writing skills
become so essential in modern societies?
3. What sorts of knowledge about writing, writing processes, and writing
pedagogy would you like to develop? Why?
4. What do you think accounts for the diversity of writing systems? How
do you think people best learn to use a writing system?
5. In what ways is writing in an additional language (that is, a language other
than one’s maternal language or languages) similar to—and different
from—writing in one’s mother tongue? Why? How might being literate
in one language help (or hinder) developing literacy in another language?
Writing is the most important technology in the history of the human spe-
cies, except how to make a fire. (Powell, 2012, p. 11)
One of our primary activities as teachers of writing involves conceptualizing our

beliefs and practices about learning and teaching. For some educators, conceptu-
alizing belief and practice primarily amounts to what Hyland (2003) described
2 Concepts in Writing and Learning to Write in a Second Language
as “an application of practical professional knowledge, gained through hands-on

classroom experience” (p. 1). Experience alone, however, is seldom sufficient when
it comes to developing deep professional expertise:
Everything we do in the classroom, the methods and materials we adopt,

the teaching styles we assume, the tasks we assign, are guided by both
practical and theoretical knowledge, and our decisions can be more ef-
fective if that knowledge is explicit. A familiarity with what is known about
writing, and about teaching writing, can therefore help us to reflect on
our assumptions and enable us to approach current teaching methods
with an informed and critical eye. (Hyland, 2003, p. 1)
We fully concur with Hyland and have designed the contents of this book with
the dual aims of providing readers with explicit knowledge and practical tools for
performing successfully as teachers of composition. It is customary and appro-
priate for course books and teacher preparation manuals to present an account
of a field’s historical foundations, fundamental concepts, theoretical landscape,
research agendas, and models of practice. Pre- and in-service teachers who seek
primarily to develop practical strategies for effective classroom teaching occa-
sionally find this convention to be frustrating. Many newcomers to a profession
understandably find the careful study of abstract theories and research-based con-
clusions to be only distantly relevant to the concrete needs of future practition-
ers. In this book, we aim to provide readers with a principled set of instructional
tools for teaching writing to secondary and postsecondary learners of English as
a second language (ESL), English as a foreign language (EFL), and English as an
additional language (EAL).1 To accomplish this objective, this chapter lays a foun-
dation of historical precedents, theoretical principles, and research-based models
so that users of this book can build sufficient knowledge to make informed deci-
sions about the pedagogical methods, processes, and strategies introduced in the
practice-oriented chapters that follow.
By acquainting themselves with the historical origins of writing, the disciplines
devoted to its study, and the philosophical orientations that guide the delivery of
L1 and L2 composition instruction, readers can approach contemporary instruc-
tional paradigms from a knowledgeable point of reference and can make informed
instructional decisions that best serve their students in their local educational con-
texts (Atkinson, 2010; Hawkins & Norton, 2009; Hedgcock, 2010; Matsuda, 2003b;
Polio, 2003; Polio & Williams, 2011). In this chapter, we first examine the intel-
lectual and practical value of theoretical knowledge in composition instruction.
Following a brief overview of the nature and functions of writing in contemporary
society, we then discuss the complex factors that distinguish multilingual writers
and writing processes from monolingual writers and writing processes. To com-
plete this overview and to lay a conceptual foundation for subsequent chapters, we
survey the disciplinary sources that have shaped L2 writing as a field of study and
professional specialization.
Concepts in Writing and Learning to Write in a Second Language 3
Theoretical Knowledge in L2 Writing Instruction

and Research
The spirit and design of this book reflect our view that developing effective in-
structional skills for the composition classroom of the 21st century requires,
among other things, an explicit awareness of the precepts that guide beliefs and
practices in the field (Borg, 2009; Edge & Richards, 1998; Hedgcock, 2009; Kroll,
2003b; Tsui, 2009). Our understanding of writing processes and the best methods
for teaching them is disparate and continues to shift (Polio & Williams, 2011; Silva &
Brice, 2004). Teachers must consequently “consider a variety of approaches,
their underlying assumptions, and the practices that each philosophy gener-
ates” (Raimes, 1991, p. 412). Knowledge of formal models, theories, and methods
enables teachers to discover, build, and articulate their own theories (Grabe &
Kaplan, 1997; Hedgcock, 2002; Kumaravadivelu, 2012; Yates & Muchisky, 2003).
Explicit, formal knowledge promotes in teachers an appreciation of the strengths
and weaknesses of their own skills, a dimension of teacher education that encour-
ages professionals “to become critical and reflective practitioners, researchers of
their own professional life, and agents of change” (van Lier, 1994, p. 7). Zebroski
(1986) illustrated how theoretical sources served his day-to-day practice as a writ-
ing teacher by leading him to discover his assumptions about writing: Theory, he
wrote, “has aided me in crafting a more coherent and unified course structure. It
has encouraged me to try out . . . new methods of teaching writing. It has helped
me to relinquish control . . . ” (p. 58).
In tandem with the insights of empirical research, formal theories therefore
can—and should—play a vital role in our instructional planning, teaching prac-
tice, and assessment processes (Cumming & Riazi, 2000; DiPardo & Sperling,
2005; Hedgcock, 2010; Sasaki, 2000). In order to make the most of theoretical
models and formal research, however, we must acknowledge the complex re-
lationship between instructional practice and theoretical knowledge, which is
so often simplistically characterized in terms of a misleading “theory versus
practice” dichotomy. Numerous observers have challenged and critiqued this
unfortunate and unproductive dualistic viewpoint, which can lead pre- and in-
service teachers to assume that instructional practice is quite removed from for-
mal theory and thus that practice is somehow atheoretical (Cumming, 2010; de
Beaugrande, 1997; Hedgcock, 2010; Silva & Brice, 2004; Zhu, 2010). At best, such
dualisms engender the misguided assumption that classroom teachers must
“apply” theoretical models, which can readily guide or drive instructional pro-
cesses (Hedgcock, 2002, 2009, 2010). At worst, such falsely dichotomous views
can generate unnecessary and unjustified antipathy (if not outright antagonism)
between those who align themselves with theoretical activities and those who
situate themselves as “practitioners” (Hedgcock, 2002; Stenberg & Lee, 2002).
Grabe and Kaplan (1996) cautioned that “one does not simply ‘apply’ a theory
and thereby produce a means of instruction” (p. 235). Atkinson (2010) addition-
ally pointed out that
a simple theory-practice distinction is not a productive way to think in L2

writing and teaching. Instead, it is the speculative and thoughtful nature
of theory combined with practice—and the lively and necessary dialogue
between them—that gives them an invaluable place in helping teachers
and researchers do what they do. But theory in this sense is not a pana-
cea; it is more like a spark, or sometimes an irritant. (p. 6)
Whether we perceive theory as a spark, an irritant, or a guiding force, we should

view it not as uniformly abstract or distant from the challenges that we face as
novice or expert teachers. Rather, we should appreciate the enormous practical
utility of theoretical models and empirical research. “When fully embraced,” ar-
gued DiPardo and Sperling (2005), “theory becomes more than the far-out hunch
that popular usage would have it, more than the blue-sky imaginings of academ-
ics . . . ” (p. 138). As Atkinson (2010) and numerous others have observed, with-
out the knowledge provided by theoretical principles, we lose sight of crucial
tools for responsible instructional planning, effective classroom decision making,
productive expert response, and meaningful assessment. It is worth recalling an
oft-cited dictum attributed to Kurt Lewin, a pioneer in social psychology: “There
is nothing so practical as good theory” (Lewin, 1951, p. 7). Indeed, although the
pursuit of a single, unified theory is likely to be illusory (and perhaps not even
desirable), the range of theoretical and research-based sources available in L2
writing provides questions and insights of concrete value to teachers. Following
Grabe (2001) and Grabe and Kaplan (1996), Hedgcock (2010) proposed the fol-
lowing eight outputs of the overlapping orientations of contemporary L2 writing
theory and research:
1. An account of how writers generate texts and why readers deem texts
effective
2. An explanation of why writing quality varies when context, topic, and task
are held constant
3. An understanding of why some writers produce unsuccessful texts un-
der certain conditions and when assigned specific composing tasks
4. A characterization of how developmental paths vary under divergent
conditions
5. Criteria for evaluating curricula, instructional methods, and educational
outcomes
6. Frameworks for constructing effective, construct-appropriate writing
curricula
7. Tools for devising productive teaching practices and response methods
8. Reliable, valid, and fair procedures for assessing written products and
writers’ skills (pp. 233–234).
In this chapter, we will sketch a background against which subsequent chapters

will survey these areas of concern and we will familiarize readers with theoretically
informed, research-based strategies for delivering effective L2 composition in di-
verse educational contexts. After presenting an overview of the origins and nature
of writing, we will examine features of L2 writing that distinguish it from writing
in one’s maternal language(s).
Fundamentals of Writing and Writing Systems

Writing is magical, mysterious, aggressive, dangerous, not to be trifled
with. Although it takes many forms, it is always a technology of explosive
force, a cultural artifact based not in nature . . . but sprung from the hu-
man mind. (Powell, 2012, p. 11)
Powell’s (2012) characterization of writing evokes a powerful set of meanings.

It reminds us that, although members of literate societies may view writing as a
rather ordinary tool for communication, record-keeping, and learning, it should
not be taken for granted. As Birch (2007) observed, writing “uses a written sym-
bol to represent a unit of language and not an object, event, or emotion directly”
(p. 15). This symbolic relationship certainly distinguishes written communica-
tion from speech: Unlike oral language, which involves a “universal set of cogni-
tive skills,” writing systems and practices must always be “socially contextualized”
(Grabe & Kaplan, 1996, p. 17). Indeed, writing represents a profoundly influential
technological innovation that serves modern cultures in easily overlooked ways:
Writing “increases human control of communication and knowledge” (Birch,
2007, p. 15).
Before delving into writing processes and the theories that explain them, we
should first establish an operational definition of writing as a type of system that
combines semiotic, communicative, cognitive, and creative functions. Coulmas
(1996) characterized a writing system as
a set of visible or tactile signs used to represent units of language in a

systematic way, with the purpose of recording messages which can be
retrieved by everyone who knows the language in question and the rules
by virtue of which its units are encoded in the writing system. (p. 560)
Fischer (2003) similarly held that writing must
j have as its purpose communication;

j consist of artificial graphic marks on a durable or electronic surface; and
j use marks that relate conventionally to articulate speech (the systematic ar-
rangement of significant vocal sounds) or electronic programming in such a
way that communication is achieved. (p. 15)
Although the description proposed by Coulmas and the criteria posited by

Fischer may seem self-evident, Connor-Linton (2006) cautioned that “defining
writing is not easy” (p. 404), partly because scripts vary widely with respect to
the “units of language” symbolized by “markings,” which can consist of a com-
plex and intriguing array of visual representations that are sometimes difficult
to classify. Powell’s (2012) more recent definition holds that “writing is a system
of markings with a conventional reference that communicates information, like the
signs on this page” (p. 13). Although the descriptions proposed by Coulmas and
Powell are accurate and helpful, they are somewhat broad, as they do not specify
the unique forms that writing systems (also called scripts and orthographies) can
take. We believe it is crucial for writing professionals to recognize the diverse ways
in which written symbols can convey meaning and to appreciate the recency and
ingenuity of writing as a complement to—and extension of—spoken language
(Baron, 2009).
Origins of Writing
The observation that “writing is old” probably comes as no surprise, but sym-
bol systems that we frequently call writing systems (scripts) involve “writing at-
tached to speech” (lexigraphic writing) and are quite recent—dating to about 3500
BCE (Powell, 2012, p. 3). Writing scholars (anthropologists, archaeologists, and
linguists) draw a strong distinction between scripts and their antecedents, which
consist of pictorial depictions of human figures, animals, plants, the sun, stars,
events, and so on. Gelb (1963) characterized such pictorial systems as “forerunners
of writing,” also called protowriting (Connor-Linton, 2006; Coulmas, 1989, 1996;
Daniels & Bright, 1996; Robinson, 1999; Wolf, 2007). Crystal (2006) explained
that, in a pictorial system, “a set of wavy lines might represent the sea or a river, and
outlines of people and animals represent their living counterparts” (p. 108), as we
see in the Sumerian pictograms shown in Figure 1.1. Exact representation in a pic-
torial system is not required; images must simply be clear enough to be recognized
as part of a narrative. To “read” a sequence of images or symbols, “it is enough
only to recognize the symbols, and the sequence may then be verbally described
in a variety of ways, in whatever language one happens to speak” (Crystal, 2006,
p. 108). This kind of system is known as primary symbolization or semasiography,
protowriting in which signs are not linked to speech forms and can be appear in
any sequence (Powell, 2012). In reproducing and interpreting symbol sequences,
“there is . . . a great deal of possible ambiguity,” partly because the symbols do not
have to be directly linked to words, morphemes, syllables, or phonemes in any
given language (Crystal, 2006, p. 109).
Archaeological evidence suggests that pictorial systems may have emerged
as early as the Paleolithic Era (extending from roughly 2.6 million years ago to
the end of the Pleistocene Age, about 10,000 BCE). Petroglyphs, graphic symbols
“made by pecking with a small stone on a boulder,” have been dated to around
100,000 years ago (Powell, 2012, p. 20), as have mnemonic (memory) tools for
bird
fish
sun
grain
orchard
FIGURE 1.1 Sample Sumerian pictograms.
storing information (Connor-Linton, 2006; Crystal, 2006; Janson, 2012; Lock &
Gers, 2012; Macaulay, 2011; Schmandt-Besserat, 2012). Gelb (1963) described the
celebrated cave paintings of Lascaux in France’s Dordogne region, dating to about
20,000 BCE, as a form of “primitive art,” a forerunner of writing. As with compa-
rable but more recent petroglyphs discovered in the Utah desert and at other ar-
chaeological sites throughout the world, “we can never understand these remnants
of the past because we do not know why they were made or what they meant to
their maker” (Powell, 2012, p. 21).
A second category of protowriting identified by Gelb (1963) is the “descriptive-
representational device” or picture, which tells the viewer something by relying on
some convention of figurative art, as in the illustrated instructions for assembling
a shelving unit in Figure 1.2. Readers will note that the image shows but does not
use a script or linguistic signs to tell the user how to put the components together,
a kind of iconic representation that Olson (2012) called “tokening reality.” Simi-
larly, descriptive-representative artifacts such as the Narmer Palette, discovered
at Hierakonpolis in southern Egypt, demonstrate the ancient Egyptians’ effort to
“communicate complex information” and tell stories by systematically arranging
conventionalized figures (Powell, 2012, p. 26). Dating from 3100 BCE, the begin-
ning of the Pharaonic period, the Narmer Palette consists of an array of figures de-
picting a battle between north and south Egypt, as well as marks believed to index
human speech forms (hieroglyphs). The Narmer Palette and comparable archaeo-
logical artifacts thus present “different ways of imparting information . . . happily
rolled into a single document” (Powell, 2012, p. 29).
Gelb’s (1963) third category, the “identifying-mnemonic device,” is a fore-
runner system that clearly establishes a protagonist or event “by isolating a con-
spicuous feature of the person or event” (Powell, 2012, p. 29). Common among
ancient cultures across the globe, identifying-mnemonic devices might consist
of drawings of human figures designed to represent individuals, animal figures
FIGURE 1.2 Descriptive-representational illustration.
in a narrative, or symbolic depictions of events. For example, the Winnebago

Indians devised a symbol system to keep track of songs, which recounted events
such as migrations, battles, and the like. Preserving records by painting images
on muslin cloth, Northern Plains Indians such as the Lakota kept track of time
and recorded historical events by maintaining a count of winter seasons. Under
the direction of tribal elders, a tribal record-keeper might assign a year a specific
image embodying a signature event associated with that season (e.g., a drawing
of a teepee symbolizing a migration or a figure of a deer representing a successful
hunting season). These “picture-writings” consisted of winter counts arranged in
sequences running from the lower-left corner of a cloth to the right, then turn-
ing the corner and running right to left. By referring to these linear sequences
of mnemonic symbols, record-keepers could retell events in oral narratives and
songs. However, unlike the lexigraphic scripts familiar to us today (alphabets,
syllabaries, and logographic orthographies), picture writings could not establish
an absolute point of temporal or spatial reference. Moreover, records of winter
counts could not convey comparably intelligible messages across tribal bounda-
ries, as each record-keeper devised his own set of local mnemonic conventions. As
Powell (2012) observed, picture writings “are private symbol systems and . . . do
not refer to elements of speech” (p. 31).
These protowriting systems are numerous and widely distributed geographi-
cally, having been discovered in locations as remote from one another as China,
Egypt, and Mexico. For the most part, protowriting systems emerged indepen-
dently; in many cases, they were invented as hunter–gatherer societies became
agrarian and more permanent. One of the most well-documented cases of such
an invention took place in Mesopotamia (near the Tigris and Euphrates riv-
ers, in what are modern-day Iraq and Iran) as early as 8000 BCE, where the
Sumerians inscribed wedge-shaped strokes (cuneiform) and stylized lines on
clay tablets, which were “counting tokens” to record financial transactions
(Schmandt-Besserat, 2012). Users carried counting tokens in clay envelopes
called bullæ, which the Sumerians eventually inscribed with the type and num-
ber of tokens inside. These bullæ inscriptions were thus symbolic representa-
tions of other symbols, making this a secondary symbolization system, which led
to “the next step toward a full-fledged writing system” (Connor-Linton, 2006, p.
419). For example, the Sumerian symbol (glyph) for arrow ( ), realized as [ti]
in speech, represented the word for life, til. With increasing use, symbols would
gradually become associated with the sounds of the words that they represented,
leading to the creation of more and more symbols representing a growing num-
ber of referents (Ager, 2013).
As the number of symbol–referent relationships proliferated, scribes discov-
ered the rebus principle, a shortcut that establishes a correspondence between sym-
bol and speech and thus increases the efficiency of a script. Because many glyphs
could be pronounced the same way while representing different words, a system
of determinative forms developed. Determinatives could index a word’s seman-
tic category and phonetic constituents, showing how to pronounce it, distinguish
it from its homophones (words with the same pronunciation), and thus mini-
mize ambiguity. Leading writing scholars maintain that, when a writing system
begins to apply the secondary symbolization of the rebus principle to all sounds, it
reaches a sort of critical mass or tipping point. After the application of secondary
symbolization, a script can efficiently and systematically encode a very large num-
ber of meanings. In the case of Sumerian cuneiform, which is primarily syllabic,
scribes soon discovered that they could combine graphemes (representing single
syllables such as [ti]) to form compounds. Through compounding, scribes could
express even more complex meanings and relationships, ultimately constructing
phrases and clauses. Powell (2012) characterized these discoveries in terms of their
historic impact:
Writing cast a veil across the human past, separating the million human
years that came before from the turbulent last five thousand years. In
the brief period since the discovery in Sumer around 3400 BC[E] of the
phonetic principle in graphic representation—when conventional mark-
ings first represented sounds of the human voice—the cultures encoded
in this and subsequent related traditions of writing have changed human
life forever. (p. 11)
Egyptian hieroglyphs similarly took form as pictograms (glyphs)(cf. Figure 1.1),

gradually developing into a complex script that comprised logograms (which repre-
sent morphemes), phonograms (which represent consonants and consonant clus-
ters), and determinatives (semantic classifiers) (Crystal, 2006; Robinson, 1999).
Many Egyptian logograms reflected the pictograms from which they evolved: From
cat (miw)
msh (crocodile) m s h crocodile m i w cat
FIGURE 1.3 Egyptian glyphs for crocodile and cat.
these symbols, “scribes derived the world’s first alphabet by the principle of acroph-
ony, in which a hieroglyph for one word came to represent the first consonant of
that word” (Connor-Linton, 2006, p. 421). For instance, as we see in Figure 1.3, the
glyph for crocodile consists of a figure of a crocodile, which represents the phoneme
cluster /m/. Like the combinatorial principle that emerged in Sumerian, Ancient
Egyptian combined the glyph for crocodile with the glyphs that spell out /m/. Like-
wise, the hieroglyphs for cat merge the glyphs for /m/, /i/, and /w/ with an image
depicting a cat (Ager, 2013). As Connor-Linton (2006) noted, “once the link between
visual symbol and sound symbol had been established, it was just a matter of time
before someone invented the alphabet” (p. 420), a category of script that we recog-
nize as writing today.
Lexigraphic Writing
As the preceding passages suggest, the dating of protowriting and writing systems
is hardly an exact science. Classifying forerunners of writing and the lexigraphic
scripts that developed from them can be equally challenging. Writing scholars
generally agree that lexigraphic writing systems probably took shape around 3500
or 3400 BCE, evolving independently of one another “at different times in sev-
eral parts of the world—in Mesopotamia, China, Meso-America, and elsewhere.”
Thus, “there is nothing to support a theory of common origin,” although these
systems share common features (Crystal, 2006, pp. 107–108).2 It is important to
note that contact among civilizations precipitated by historical events (i.e., explo-
ration, trade, conflict, conquest, colonization, migration, and so on) often led to
language change and consequent crosscultural influences on scripts (where they
existed). Contact between two or more cultures can necessitate the emergence of
a lingua franca, as well as pidgins and creoles (Mesthrie, Swann, Deumert, & Leap,
2009). Sustained contact can similarly contribute to changes in literate practices
and writing systems. For example, before declining into disuse, Egyptian hiero-
glyphic script “had launched a new writing system, the ancestor of the Roman
alphabet.” This shift from hieroglyphics to the Roman alphabet “would be car-
ried by several successive dominating cultures: the Phonenicians, the Greeks, and
the Romans” (Connor-Linton, 2006, p. 423). Thus, it is fairly easy to see that the
boundaries between and among scripts can sometimes blur, like the classification
systems developed by writing scholars.
A detailed study of the world’s writing systems is not possible here, but it is
useful for writing teachers to acquaint themselves with the formal features that
distinguish them from one another. (For thorough and interesting accounts of
the history of writing, consult Further Reading and Resources at the end of this
chapter, as well as the Omniglot website: http://www.omniglot.com.) For ex-
ample, L2 writers who already know a script that differs considerably from that
of the target language may require special assistance in recognizing elements
that may or may not transfer successfully across orthographies (Akamatsu, 2003;
Bialystok, 2001; Cook & Bassetti, 2005; Dressler & Kamil, 2006; Koda, 2005;
Mori, 1998). A fundamental feature that lexigraphic scripts share is that their
“signs are attached to necessary forms of speech” and are normally “arranged
in a linear sequence corresponding to sounds in speech” (Powell, 2012, p. 51).
Lexigraphic scripts contain symbols (graphs) that signify linguistic units, such
as words, morphemes, syllables, phonemes, phonemic features (e.g., voicing,
tone), and phonetic features (e.g., aspiration and syllable stress, which may be
predictable by phonological rule). In some orthographies, graphs can represent
combinations of these units (e.g., a word or syllable plus a tone). Words and
morphemes express meaning, whereas syllables, phonemes, and features do not
convey meaning on their own. For example, like phonemes (which represent dis-
tinct sounds), graphemes “are the smallest units in a writing system capable of
causing a contrast in meaning.” In English, “the switch from cat to bat introduces
a meaning change; therefore, c and b represent different graphemes” (Crystal,
2006, p. 105).
As we consider how the elements and architecture of writing systems influ-
ence writing, reading, and cognition, it is helpful to recognize how scripts differ
(see Figure 1.4). Chief among the differences is the set of linguistic units repre-
sented by a script’s graphs. We can assign scripts to two broad categories, accord-
ing to the nature of the relationship between their symbols and the linguistic
units that they represent: (1) logographic systems (or logographies), whose inven-
tories contain graphs that represent morphemes, words, and even concepts; and
(2) phonographic systems (or phonographies), whose inventories contain graphs
that represent units of sound. We can subdivide the phonographic category into
two subcategories, which sometimes overlap: Syllabic orthographies (or sylla-
baries) consist of graphs representing syllables, whereas alphabetic scripts (al-
phabets) consist of graphs representing individual phonemes (i.e., consonants
and vowels) (Crystal, 2006; Daniels & Bright, 1996; Taylor & Olson, 1995; Wolf,
2007). We should note that, because scripts are “made” and therefore adapt-
able (Crystal, 2006), users of a language may borrow graphs from orthographies
other than the one conventionally used to write messages in that language. For
example, we all use nonphonemic, nonsyllabic graphs when we write Arabic nu-
merals, mathematical symbols, and punctuation marks such as 1, 2, 3, +, –, = ,
<, >, %, ¢, $, £, €, ¶, !, and so on. These graphs may not have speech equivalents,
although the symbols themselves have names (e.g., we may call @ “the at sign”
or “the commercial at”; & is called an ampersand, and so forth). Readers and
writers of any language can use these logograms, but do not need to know their
names in order to do so.
Category Language Script Name Sample Transcription

Logographic Chinese Sinograms {h&rtzi) uujinn? uujinn?
(Opaque!
Logographic + Japanese kanji, katakana, uujinn? uujinn?
uujinn?
Syllabic _________________ h/ragana.
Alphasyllabic Korean hangul * lfe 'S j-S y ® S e?j!
(Transparent)
Alphasyllabic Thai Thai alphabet uujinn?
(Transparent)
Alphabetic Arabic Arabic alphabet f y1-,iL .û_i u l ,
(Consonantal-Opaque)
Alphabetic Russian C yrillic alphabet 3H3IO, HTO yMHTOJlb
(Transparent) ’________________
Alphabetic Greek Greek alphabet £ £ p (jj £vav SdCKiaAa
(Transparent)
Alphabetic Spanish Roman alphabet Conozco a un profesor.
(Transparent)
Alphabetic (Opaque) French Roman alphabet Je connais un professeur.
Alphabetic (Opaque) English Roman alphabet I know a teacher.
FIGURE 1.4 Comparison of selected scripts.
Logographic writing. In contrast to logograms that can be used alongside a wide

variety of scripts, most logographic orthographies align with the structural prop-
erties of the language that their graphological inventories represent. For instance,
Chinese script consists of logograms (characters or sinograms, known in Chinese
as hanzi) that signify morphemes and words. Consequently, logographic writing is
“best suited to . . . Chinese, which does not have lots of inflectional morphology”
(Connor-Linton, 2006, p. 407). The Chinese character (sinogram) inventory, the
basis for Japanese kanji and Korean hanzza, is thought to number about 60,000
unique forms. Approximately 80% of these consist of a radical or signific, one of
perhaps 200 root graphs representing words or bound morphemes, plus a pho-
netic complement or determinative that tells readers how to pronounce the word.
Because sinograms often express approximate meanings and pronunciations,
readers have to “guess or memorize the approximate sound of the phonetic com-
plement,” associating the graph “with a word that they already know” (Mair, 1996,
p. 201). Variable pronunciations associated with phonetic complements further
complicate the guessing game, which requires Chinese readers to connect spoken
syllables and words with sinograms attached to particular meanings (Birch, 2007;
Leong, 1995; Li, Gaffiney, & Packard, 2002). Nonetheless, form–meaning corre-
spondence in Chinese script is predictable enough to allow speakers of diverse and
even mutually unintelligible regional dialects (e.g., Mandarin, Taiwanese Manda-
rin, Cantonese, Shanghainese, Xiang, and so on) to communicate relatively easily
using the same set of characters, whose forms may have changed little since their
invention.
Although estimates vary, research suggests that a reader of Chinese must know
as many as 6,600 sinograms in order to comprehend most texts (Mair, 1996), but
that the 1,000 most frequent sinograms make up about 90% of texts aimed at a
general audience (Connor-Linton, 2006). A skilled reader of scholarly and liter-
ary texts may require an inventory as large as 30,000 sinograms (Mair, 1996). To
put estimates of required vocabulary size into perspective, comprehensive Chinese
dictionaries may include around 50,000 hanzi (entries), although the majority of
these represent low-frequency characters. These demands on memory may seem
formidable, but it is instructive to recall that dictionaries of modern English may
contain about 500,000 separate entries, with the Oxford English Dictionary top-
ping out at over one million words. At the same time, neurolinguistic research has
recently demonstrated that becoming literate in Chinese places unique demands
on regions of the brain that house lexigraphic memory, influencing neuronal cir-
cuitry (Dehaene, 2009; Fischer, 2003; Wolf, 2007). Knowledge of a particular script
can affect learning processes—including the learning of an L2 and a new writ-
ing system—in complex ways. Consider, for example, a literate Chinese speaker
learning English, which is written in the Roman alphabet: Some dimensions of
reading and writing in English may seem fairly easy, whereas developing necessary
strategies such as word analysis might be quite difficult (Hedgcock & Ferris, 2009;
Leong, 1995; Venezky, 1995).
Syllabic writing. In contrast to logographic scripts, which rely largely on

form–meaning correspondences, syllabaries are composed mainly of graph-
emes that represent syllables; alphabetic-syllabaries, as their name suggests, are
hybrid scripts composed of graphemes representing both syllables and pho-
nemes. Syllabic scripts such as Korean hangul, Mesopotamian, and Egyptian
actually evolved from logographies, with some of their graphemes still resem-
bling historical logograms. Other syllabaries, such as Japanese kana and the
Cherokee and Tamil syllabaries, associate single graphemes with consonant-
vowel (CV) and consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) clusters, which have natu-
ral beats and rhythms in speech and which are indivisible—very much like the
letters of an alphabet (Birch, 2007). The Japanese kana system, which contains
47 graphemes, consists of two subsystems, hiragana (which represents gram-
matical functions) and katakana (which are symbols used to transcribe non-
Japanese forms). Kana graphemes allow users to write just about any speech
form, while Chinese-derived kanji logograms require users to develop a lexical
memory trace that associates individual characters with meanings. Literacy in
Japanese thus requires mastery of three interrelated scripts that require a com-
bination of memory, recognition, decoding, and interpretation competencies
(Koda, 1995; Mori, 1998).
Alphabetic writing. Korean hangul and Thai script similarly draw on two types
of orthography, as their grapheme inventories include both syllabic and alphabetic
symbols. These scripts are sometimes called alphasyllabaries or abugidas. “Pure”

alphabets rely solely on the alphabetic principle (sometimes called the phonemic
principle), which holds that each graph (letter) can signify a single sound (pho-
neme) and that grapheme sequences form words (Birch, 2007; Byrne, 1998; De-
haene, 2009; Janson, 2012; Wolf, 2007).3 Of course, no alphabetic script actually
adheres to a strict one-to-one relationship between grapheme and phoneme
(Connor-Linton, 2006). Because a single grapheme can represent multiple sounds,
a small alphabet can represent a surprisingly large number of sounds and sound
combinations, especially with the addition of diacritical marks (e.g., accents [´],
umlauts [¨], tildes [˜], and so forth). Some alphabets were designed to capture the
phonemes and phonological rules of particular languages or language groups, but
most alphabets can be used to write a wide range of languages. Writers of En-
glish, French, Spanish, German, and many other languages use the Roman (Latin)
alphabet. Speakers and writers of Russian, Ukranian, Bulgarian, and other Slavic
languages use the Cyrillic alphabet. Arabic and Hebrew scripts are consonantal al-
phabets (abjads), which require readers to “reinsert” the “missing” vowels (Bauer,
1996; Birch, 2007). For example, readers of abjads read the consonant template
(a predictable sequence of consonants), “associate it with a particular semantic
set . . . and then use the surrounding context to figure out any further meaning
that might be necessary” (Connor-Linton, 2006, p. 415). To use alphabetic scripts,
readers and writers must develop an ability to relate speech to written words, and
vice versa. On the other hand, a person could potentially become literate in Chi-
nese without learning to speak the language or understand spoken messages, as
Chinese logograms directly represent meaning-bearing constituents (morphemes,
words, and even abstract concepts).
The degree of phoneme–grapheme (sound–symbol) correspondence can vary
widely across the world’s orthographies (Daniels & Bright, 1996; Defior, Cary, &
Martos, 2002). Because of this variation, learners acquiring an L2 with a different
writing system can face challenges in their efforts to develop L2 literacy (Birch,
2007; Grabe & Stoller, 2011). As Hudson (2007) observed, “the extent to which
learners’ first language orthographic features are similar to those of the second
language will affect the ease with which they make the transition into fluent second
language reading” (p. 166). Specific challenges may include learning new strategies
for analyzing, decoding, and encoding text that is represented logographically, syl-
labically, or alphabetically. For example, Chikamatsu (1996) and Chitiri, Sun, Wil-
lows, and Taylor (1992) demonstrated that learners whose L1 orthographies differ
process visual and phonological information differently as they learn to read in
the L2. At the same time, it is also understood that L2 learners successfully apply
L1 text processing strategies that are consistent with L2 orthography (Mori, 1998).
Although research on the differential impact of L1 orthographic knowledge on L2
literacy learning is too extensive to synthesize here, studies have revealed evidence
of positive, negative, and non-transfer of L1 orthographic knowledge to the L2.4
Transparency and the Orthographic Depth Hypothesis. A useful tool for clas-
sifying orthographies and for understanding how knowledge of one type of
script might influence the learning of another is their comparative transparency
(or opacity)—the degree to which they adhere to a one-to-one principle. We can
classify orthographies, including alphabets and syllabaries, as transparent, opaque,
or—in many cases—somewhere in between. For instance, because of relatively
close grapheme–phoneme correspondences that allow readers and writers to
“sound out” words and morphemes, the orthographies of Korean (which uses the
hangul alphasyllabary), Serbian (which uses the Cyrillic alphabet), and Finnish
and Turkish (which are transcribed in the Roman alphabet) are considered to be
transparent. Relatively less transparent are the orthographies of Italian and Span-
ish (written in the Roman alphabet) and Modern Greek (transcribed in the Greek
alphabet). Even less transparent (or more opaque) are German and Swedish or-
thographies (both written in the Roman alphabet), owing to their comparably
higher degree of phonological irregularity.
Edging further toward the opaque end of the transparency continuum are
French and Danish (also transcribed in the Roman alphabet). It will come as little
surprise to readers that English orthography is considered to be even more opaque
than French and Danish. Because of extensive phonological irregularity in En-
glish, learners must master predictable sound–symbol correspondences, as well as
those that are irregular and idiosyncratic to individual words (Birch, 2007; Hedg-
cock & Ferris, 2009). Still more opaque are the orthographies of Arabic, Hebrew,
and Aramaic, whose consonantal scripts lead to considerable ambiguity and re-
quire readers to “insert” vowels, as we noted above. Among the most opaque (least
transparent) orthographies are Chinese hanzi and Japanese kanji, whose minimal
phonographic elements (phonetic determinatives) seldom provide readers with
enough information to pronounce words based on logograms alone.
Research on the Orthographic Depth Hypothesis (ODH) informs our current
understanding of the relative transparency of writing systems. In brief, the ODH
predicts that shallow (regular, transparent) orthographies such as Serbian and
Spanish induce learners to analyze words phonologically (at the intraword level)
when they read (Defior et al., 2002; Katz & Frost, 1992). Conversely, the ODH
holds that learners of deep (less regular, opaque) orthographies such as French and
English tend to rely more on lexical information specific to individual word forms
and less on intraword (morphological) analysis (Dehaene, 2009; Grabe & Stoller,
2011; Koda, 1999, 2007b; Koda & Zehler, 2007; Wolf, 2007). Many questions re-
garding the influence of L1 orthographic knowledge on L2 literacy development
remain unanswered, yet we firmly believe that this productive line of inquiry sup-
plies L2 literacy educators with valuable tools for understanding the difficulties
faced by students as they work to develop fluency, accuracy, strategic skills, and a
robust vocabulary in L2 reading and writing (Grabe & Stoller, 2011; Hedgcock &
Ferris, 2009).
Our survey of the origins of writing and its evolution aligns with a consensus
view that writing fundamentally consists of “a system of markings with a conven-
tional reference that communicates information” (Powell, 2012, p. 13). To go beyond
a clinical description of the contents and structure of writing systems, however,
we must consider interactions between writing and speech, as well as the indel-
ible imprint of writing on human communication and cognition. If all writing
systems were phonographic, we might reasonably conclude that writing amounts
to “speech written down”—an optional extension of oral language, which we all
acquire without formal instruction. Admittedly, most of the world’s orthographies
reflect secondary symbolization and are bound to the elements and rule systems of
spoken language (Birch, 2007). It would nonetheless be misguided to conclude that
written communication functions simply as a more permanent re-presentation
of spoken language, or “the graphic counterpart of speech” (Diringer, 1968).
The relationship between speech and writing is complex and dynamic: As Finne-
gan (1988) argued, “no firm line can be drawn between the oral and the written”
(p. 178). Finnegan’s claim can hardly be supported as a generalization in light of
logographic writing, yet the interdependence of phonographic writing and oral
language is undeniable. At the same time, whether written messages are inscribed
on stone, clay, cloth, papyrus, or paper—or encoded digitally as hypertext—they
exhibit features that set them apart in significant ways from oral language (Baron,
2009; Dehaene, 2009; Wolf, 2007). As Smith (2004) wrote, “spoken language and
written language can rarely be the same” (p. 42). Written texts have the power to
determine the meanings that they convey, and these meanings may emerge solely
in written genres and registers (Berman & Ravid, 2009; Biber, 1995, 2009). Olson
(2012) argued that, even more than ingenious tools for expression and formal
innovation, “writing and literacy have become essential aspects of understand-
ing . . . language, mind, and society.” For him and many writing scholars, “writing
and reading make unique demands and provide unique opportunities for think-
ing and, in addition, provide new resources that societies may or may not exploit
for various purposes” (p. 39).
Distinct Dimensions of L2 Writing Development

As our survey of writing systems should demonstrate, developing literacy in any
language requires learning not just its orthography but also the social practices
and cognitive functions required to decode and produce written texts (Barton,
2007; Cook & Bassetti, 2005; Gee, 2012; Hudson, 2007). Writing systems must
be learned through socially mediated processes, such as formal instruction (usu-
ally in school), sustained observation, imitation, and practice—an effortful pro-
cess that can take many years (Hedgcock, 2012). Cultivating literate knowledge in
an L2 “can impose even greater psychocognitive and sociocultural demands on
learners whose L2 oral and aural proficiency may be emergent and whose liter-
ate knowledge in L1 may be limited” (Hedgcock, 2012, p. 221). The remainder of
this chapter introduces and discusses dimensions of L2 literacy that distinguish

L2 literacy development, L2 writing processes, and L2 writers’ texts from their L1
counterparts. Here and in Chapter 2, we will carefully examine the unique profiles
of populations of L2 writers.
Prior Knowledge: Implications for Teaching L2 Writing

As discussed at length in Chapter 2, a primary feature distinguishing novice L2
writers from their L1 counterparts lies in the prior experience that they bring to
the composition classroom. Differences in background knowledge and strategic
proficiency manifest themselves numerous ways: in L2 writers’ responses to texts
and content, in their reactions to L2 composition instruction, and in their famili-
arity with the rhetorical patterns of academic, professional, workplace, and online
discourses (see Figure 1.5).
Prior knowledge about texts, their genre categories, their purposes, and their
formal properties make up learners’ schematic knowledge. Schema, a “script” or
“frame” consisting of a mental framework that organizes prior knowledge, refers
to an individual’s knowledge about a topic, text, or experience (Bartlett, 1932;
Rumelhart, 1980; Rumelhart, Smolensky, McClelland, & Hinton, 1986). According
to schema theory, a person’s expectations and assumptions about a text or speech
event are “externally constructed and impose external constraints on the ways in
which we understand messages” (Schiffrin, 1994, p. 104). Successful comprehen-
sion of texts can depend on schemata (the plural form of schema), “which help us
make sense of new facts, text types, formal patterns, and practices” (Hedgcock &
Ferris, 2009, p. 26). In addition to consisting of organized “chunks” of knowledge
and experience, a schema may also trigger attitudes and feelings (Weaver, 2002).
Together, schemata “explain the constitutive role of culturally organized experi-
ence in individual sense making” (McVee, Dunsmore, & Gavelek, 2005, p. 535).
Researchers and theorists have classified schematic knowledge into a number
of subcategories, three of which we will describe here. The first of these is usu-
ally characterized as content schemata, an individual’s prior knowledge of the ideas
expressed in an oral or written text. Content schemata are clearly crucial for both
readers and writers of any language, and they are especially vital for L2 readers
and writers, as incomplete content knowledge can sometimes cause serious com-
prehension gaps when students encounter unfamiliar texts (Carrell, 1983a, 1983b,
1987; Carrell & Eisterhold, 1983; Chen & Graves, 1995; Grabe & Stoller, 2011;
Hedgcock & Ferris, 2009). Cultural schemata, which some theorists have called
abstract schemata (Nassaji, 2002), include knowledge about culture-specific prac-
tices, traditions, relationships, identities, beliefs, and values (Ketchum, 2006). We
develop cultural schemata in our everyday experiences as human beings and in
the course of routine encounters with others and with culturally embedded forms
of expression (Kern, 2000; Nassaji, 2002; Yule, 2010). Ketchum (2006) character-
ized cultural schemata as a kind of extension of content schemata, as the two are
often inextricably intertwined. That is, in order to understand a text or participate

in a speech event, a person must have established a role (however emergent) as a
member of the culture. A third category, formal schemata, entails what individuals
know about how texts and speech events are organized (their rhetorical structure,
for instance) (Smith, 1988, 2004). A related category, linguistic schemata, includes
knowledge of the morphosyntactic properties and lexical choices associated with
particular genres and speech events, as well as with particular content areas or
topics.5
Investigations of the influences of schematic knowledge on language learn-
ing, L2 reading development, and L2 reading efficiency consistently reveal that
extensive and sophisticated schematic knowledge demonstrably facilitates text
comprehension (and literacy skills more broadly). Conversely, the absence of suf-
ficient schematic knowledge can inhibit text comprehension and even debilitate
novice readers and writers.6 Literacy events, such as reading a text, fundamen-
tally involve an interaction between readers and texts (Rumelhart & McClelland,
1982), and readers’ responses to a text vary according to their schemata and other
circumstances at the time of the interaction (Weaver, 2002). To illustrate the ways
in which our multiple schemata assist and guide us when we encounter a novel
text, imagine that you are glancing over a recipe in a magazine or newspaper, or
that you are skimming a recipe on a website or blog. What would you expect the
content and organization of a recipe to consist of? You would probably antici-
pate finding the dish’s title, a list of required ingredients and their measurements,
and then a sequential list of steps to follow in order to assemble and prepare the
dish. A recipe that deviates from this expected structure might confuse or even
frustrate you, as would a recipe that provided exceedingly technical instructions
or that used peculiar or outdated vocabulary to describe ingredients and proce-
dures. These expectations constitute your formal, content, and cultural schemata.
Naturally, if you have never cooked a meal or baked a cake, your schemata related
to cuisine will be limited—and quite different from the schematic repertoire of a
skilled cook, as your experiences in the kitchen differ from those of people who
have spent more time cooking. In addition, your experience reading that text will
vary depending on the circumstances and your purposes: Are you merely glancing
at the recipe to consider it for a future meal? Are you in the kitchen at this moment
preparing tonight’s dinner? The specific situation will naturally affect your level of
concentration and the attention to detail that you bring to the reading task.
A chief implication of schema theory and its research findings is that teachers
should take systematic steps to ensure that learners find the topics, texts, and other
learning materials of a course cognitively, developmentally, and culturally acces-
sible (Grabe, 2009; Grabe & Stoller, 2011; Hedgcock & Ferris, 2009; Kumaravadi-
velu, 2003, 2006; Mikulecky, 2011). Teachers of writing can achieve these goals by
selecting reading materials and composing tasks that engage learners in capitaliz-
ing on their prior experience, in activating their existing schemata, and in building
this schematic knowledge. We offer specific strategies and procedures for schema
activation and development in Chapters 3–5.
Intercultural Rhetoric and Its Implications

for Teaching L2 Writing
As we have suggested, a significant way in which the schemata of L2 writers differ
from those of L1 writers involves their expectations and assumptions about the
rhetorical conventions and social functions of texts (see Chapter 2). The study
of intercultural rhetoric (IR) aims to characterize these divergent assumptions
and expectations. Connor (2011) broadly defined IR, formerly called contrastive
rhetoric (CR), as “the study of written discourse between and among individuals
with different cultural backgrounds,” noting that discourse entails “language use
beyond the sentence as well as social and ideological assumptions . . . associated
with communication” (p. 2). IR thus endeavors to uncover the effects of these
divergent expectations, as well as formal contrasts, on the literacy development of
L2 learners, including multilingual writers. Connor (1996) observed that the study
and comparison of rhetorical patterns across languages and cultures presupposes
that “language and writing are cultural phenomena. As a result, each language has
rhetorical conventions unique to it” (p. 5).
The genesis of contrastive rhetoric. Kaplan’s (1966) pioneering study is frequent-

ly considered a landmark work in the field of IR (Connor, 1996, 2011; Connor
& Kaplan, 1987; Connor, Nagelhout, & Rozycki, 2008; Enkvist, 1997; Kassabgy,
Ibrahim, & Aydelott, 2004; Thatcher & St. Amant, 2010). At the time that Kaplan’s
article appeared, contrastive analysis (CA) and its applications were very much in
vogue. With the CA approach, linguists and materials developers compared the
grammatical structures and phonological properties of learners’ primary languag-
es with those of the target languages that they were acquiring. It was commonly
believed that CA could identify specific areas of difficulty (e.g., in syntax, mor-
phology, and speech production), and that direct instruction focusing on major
contrastive features could facilitate and accelerate the language learning process
(Gass, 2013; Hudson, 2007; Mitchell, Myles, & Marsden, 2013; Ortega, 2009b,
2010; Saville-Troike, 2012).
Against the backdrop of CA, Kaplan (1966) suggested that L2 students’ pri-
mary languages also exhibited contrasting rhetorical and meaning-making pat-
terns. His study featured a formal analysis of more than 600 paragraph-length
writing samples produced by university ESL students representing a range of
mother tongues. On the basis of a careful rhetorical and linguistic analysis, Ka-
plan proposed several generalizations regarding the relationship of ESL writers’
primary languages and the salient characteristics of their expository writing in
English. For example, Arabic-speaking writers made extensive use of coordina-
tion, to a degree considered excessive by English-speaking academic readers. Ka-
plan further observed that speakers of certain Asian languages such as Chinese
and Japanese tended to circle around a topic or argument, rather than approach-
ing it head-on or introducing an explicit argument. In contrast, speakers of Euro-
pean languages such as Spanish and French tended to digress in exposing a topic
or argument, often introducing extraneous material more frequently than did

English-speaking academic writers.
In subsequent work in the CR tradition, Hinds (1984, 1987, 1990) compared
compositions produced by speakers of Japanese, Korean, and English. He discov-
ered that Japanese and Korean writers consistently delayed revealing their pur-
poses for writing until the end of their texts, apparently preferring an inductive
(in contrast to deductive) rhetorical pattern (Hedgcock, 2012; Hudson, 2007).
In interpreting his results, Hinds hypothesized that the texts generated by Japa-
nese and Korean writers reflected an effort to convince readers of the validity of
their arguments before confirming their theses (and thus gaining their readers’
sympathy). In contrast, Hinds found that Anglo-American essay writers gener-
ally pre-revealed their purposes or arguments quite early in their texts, adhering
to a predominantly deductive rhetorical structure. Whereas this direct rhetori-
cal strategy tends to be valued by Anglo-American readers (and is often explicitly
taught in composition instruction Japanese and Korean writers tended to avoid
this pattern. Hinds suggested that such overtness and directness could be per-
ceived by Japanese and Korean readers as too direct and perhaps even offensive to
a reader who expects writers to expose their reasoning in a much subtler manner.
These descriptive contrasts can “provide a window into cross-linguistically diverse
approaches to structuring written text,” suggesting diverse, culturally embedded
means of expressing meaning (Hedgcock, 2012, p. 225).
It is important to note that Kaplan’s (1966) conclusions were primarily de-
scriptive, rather than predictive, in nature. Connor (2011) recently observed that
Kaplan’s contrastive insights, as well as the CR and IR investigations that have
followed, “inform us about cultural and social practices and preferences shaping
writing and communication.” These insights, wrote Connor, “are important for
teachers to know to better understand their students” (p. 3). We fully concur, given
that no student comes to the L2 writing classroom as a tabula rasa. Rather, the
vast majority of L2 students begin the process of developing L2 writing skills with
literate histories that inevitably influence their readiness and awareness, as we dis-
cuss in Chapter 2. Consequently, L2 writing instruction should be “sensitive and
responsive to the differences across groups” (Ferris, 2009, p. 22).
Controversies in CR/IR research and their impact on L2 writing instruction. Ka-

plan’s (1966) ground-breaking study ignited considerable interest in CR, whose
successor (IR) has generated an impressive body of empirical research. Hinkel
(2002) credited Kaplan with articulating the assumption that L2 students pursu-
ing course work in U.S. colleges and universities “are expected to produce academ-
ic texts that are congruent with Anglo-American rhetorical paradigms” (p. 6). At
the same time, his work presented persuasive evidence that “these students bring
to the larger academic arena the fundamental discourse paradigms that reflect
their L1 conventions of writing, and need to be taught the textual constructs ac-
cepted in writing in English” (Hinkel, 2002, p. 6). Early on, the CR agenda was
informed by theories of linguistic relativity, rhetoric, discourse analysis, genre
analysis, and translation (Connor, 2011). CR research thus focused chiefly on the
written products of experts and novice writers, in contrast to writers themselves
and their writing processes. CR/IR research has understandably led to spirited dis-
cussions concerning the perceived and real influences of L2 writers’ primary lan-
guages, their knowledge of L1-specific rhetorical patterns, and their educational
experiences on the formulation of their texts. Although hardly uncontroversial, IR
has contributed a great deal to our understanding of rhetorical patterns in written
text across genres by accounting for the frequency of rhetorical features in written
discourse and the conventions that typify genres within and across languages and
cultures (Bräuer, 2000a, 2000b; Connor, 1996, 2003, 2011; Connor et al., 2008).
In the years following the publication of Kaplan’s (1966) study, L2 composi-
tion educators derived a number instructional implications from CR research.
For example, many educators believed that the CR hypothesis confirmed the need
among L2 writers for explicit instruction and modeling of L2 rhetorical patterns,
primarily English (Angelova & Riazantseva, 1999; Kirkpatrick, 1997). Predictably,
this view dovetailed conveniently with current-traditional approaches to instruc-
tion that prevailed in the 1960s and 1970s, and into the 1980s (see Chapter 3). As
the CR hypothesis underwent increasing scrutiny, however, reservations concern-
ing its validity and empirical premises surfaced (Panetta, 2001). Specifically, some
early interpretations of CR implied strong connections between writers’ cognitive
processes and their written output. A number of scholars have challenged and even
rejected these hypothesized links, further charging that CR and IR research has
ethnocentric (if not Anglocentric) overtones and that contrastive conclusions are
often culturally deterministic (Casanave, 2004; Kubota, 1999, 2010). A related reser-
vation about early CR studies was that they sometimes drew broad generalizations
about culture-specific textual patterns and rhetorical practices solely on the basis
of L2 students’ written products (Leki, 1997, 2000; Panetta, 2001; Raimes, 1998). A
number of studies have produced outcomes that run counter to CR’s predictions
about negative interlingual transfer. Hirose (2003) and Kubota (1998), for example,
reported empirical results demonstrating that Japanese students identified and suc-
cessfully transferred deductive features from Japanese into their English writing.
According to Kubota (2010), CR research constructed “a binary between English
and non-English languages.” Her sharp critique further held that this binary im-
plied “superiority of English and inferiority of other languages” (p. 267). Other
important objections to early CR approaches involved their tendency to charac-
terize L2 writers’ texts as static, to represent L2 writers and their home cultures in
broad-brush strokes (that is, to essentialize them), and to overlook the role played
by the writers’ audiences in the L2 composing process (Casanave, 2012; Hedgcock,
2012; Kubota, 1997; Leki, 1997; Scollon, 1997; Wu & Rubin, 2000; Zamel, 1997).
Connor (2011) acknowledged this range of criticism as legitimate, pointing
out that “much of it has stemmed from a lack of understanding about what [IR]
stands for today” (p. 13). Researchers and theorists working toward a reframing of
the CR/IR agenda as a genuinely intercultural enterprise have endeavored to diver-
sify the focal areas of empirical research (Connor, 2004, 2011; Connor et al., 2008;
Flower, 2003; Gonzalez & Tanno, 2000; Thatcher, 2011; Thatcher & St. Amant,
2010). Hedgcock (2012) observed that contemporary approaches to IR research
have “expanded the knowledge base about the nature of . . . written discourse,
suggesting principles for guiding L2 student writers toward crafting their written
products in ways that satisfy reader expectations” (p. 226). Connor (2011) attrib-
uted this significant and welcome turn in IR to several factors, including:
j More sophisticated methods of textual analysis and enhanced links among

rhetoricians and text linguists working in diverse traditions
j The influence of comparative rhetoric, which explores the rhetorical conven-
tions and practices specific to languages and cultures (e.g., Arabic, Chinese)
j A reformulation of the working definition of rhetoric beyond the Aristotelian
tradition, to include the precept that rhetoric entails not only the arrange-
ment of textual elements and persuasive skill, but also “mental and emotional
energy” (G. Kennedy, 1998, p. 3) and concern for how “rhetorical situation
guides production” (Sullivan & Porter, 1997, p. 25)
j The application of novel methods in the empirical study of writing, such as
those now commonplace in genre analysis and corpus linguistics
j The influence of intercultural communication, with its emphasis on “the two-
way flow of influence between speaking and writing” across cultures (Connor,
2011, p. 6), as well as recognition that all four skill areas (writing, reading,
speaking, and listening) are interconnected and interdependent
j The influence of cultural studies and its research methods, which feature
rigorous qualitative approaches such as case studies, participant and nonpar-
ticipant observation, ethnography, and autobiographical techniques.
As a result of new thinking and efforts to address prior criticism, the strong
predictive claims made by early CR research no longer typify the study of IR or its
implications for teaching L2 writing (Connor, 2003, 2011; Hinkel, 2002; Kaplan,
2001). In other words, state-of-the-art IR research does not presuppose that writ-
ers from a given linguistic or cultural background will experience the same chal-
lenges in learning a given L2 or in undertaking specific writing tasks. The insights
that IR has supplied concerning texts, genres, writers, and writing processes none-
theless provide composition teachers with a rich knowledge base and with empiri-
cal evidence on which to base decisions about teaching, response, and assessment.
Knowing how patterns of organization in written language differ crossculturally
and crosslinguistically, for example, can help both teachers and students under-
stand the diverse ways in which writers make meaning in and across languages
and literacies (Angelova & Riazantseva, 1999; Flower, 2003; Hinkel, 2002, 2005,
2011b; Kirkpatrick, 1997; Thatcher, 2011; Thatcher & St. Amant, 2010). Figure 1.5
presents a partial list of differences between L1 and L2 student writing generated
by IR research, as well as practical implications and applications to the teaching
of L2 writing.
S elected Form al D ifferences between L1 and L2 S tudent W ritin g

• Divergent preferences for arranging textual elements and sequencing
• Divergent strategics 'or constructing arguments (e.g., direct development of

the writer's position through deductive reasoning, in ontrast to inductive
reasoning achieved by indirect development of a position):
• Different methods of integrating evidence and source malenal into wnting
(e.g.. extent of textual borrowing, paraphrase, quotation, stylistic imitation,
• Different approaches to anlidpating reader expectations and schematic

knowledge (e.g . assumptions about how much information the reader will
require. the degree to which the reader will rely on implicit textual cues lo
• Divergent uses of devices for marking cohesion, or textual unity (e.g.. use of
pronouns, fexical variety and repetition, transitional expressions, and so on)
and coherence (narrative and sequential logic," conventions for revealing
hierarchical and categorical relationships, and so on)-.
• Divergent uses of linguistic structures and devices (e.g . less subordination,
more conjunction, less passivization, less noun modification, more commonly
used vocabulary items, narrower vocabulary range, predictabfe variation in
grammatical structure, simpler style, and so on).
(Sources: Cahill. 2008. Chao, 2008. Connor et ai.. 2DOfl; Grabe &. Kaplan, 1996:
Hedgcock, 2012. Hinkel, 2002. 2005, 2011: Silva. 1993)
Global Im p lica tio n s fo r In stru ctio n
• Familiarity with IR findings can assist educators in understanding
linguistically-, culturally, and educationally-based influences on the rhetorical
processes and textual products of multilingual writers;
• An understanding of IR research can help classroom teachers avoid
essentialmng student winters, their composing processes, and their texts,
leading them to view .ndivtduajs who may Dr may not transfer their L1-based
practices and preferences for rhetorical arrangement inlo their L2 products;
• IR insights may lead L2 wrilers to recognize, understand, and appreciate
home-language-based linguistic, cultural, and educalional faclors that mighi
overtly or overtly influence their written production in the L£:
» Results of IR research can show students that their L2 wnting development
may be affected by cultural patterns and rhetorical practices, rather than
(Sources: Connor. 2011: Hedgcock. 2012; Hinkel. 2011. Lcki. 1991b)
• Teachers and students can collect literacy assignments from across the
curriculum to investigate their unique diswrsive and linguistic features;
• Teachers can guide students in exploring the reader expectations associated
with certain discipline-specific texts and genres;
• Teachers and students can examine literacy practices Ifiat are shared by
disciplines and Discourses while investigating practices and norms that are
• Teachers can plan lessons, activities, end assignments around evidence

gathered from these literacy explorations, engaging students in comparisons
leading to the application of strategies for building new schemata and
(Sources: Connor. 2011: Flower etal., 2000 Hedgcock, 2012: Johns, 1997. 1999,
2002a: Reid, 1993; Thatcher 5 St. Amant. 2010)
FIGURE 1.5 Principal differences between L1 and L2 student writing:

Implications, and applications.
We believe that L2 composition educators must become aware of the rhetorical

expertise that their novice writers bring to the writing classroom. This knowledge
may include formal, content, and cultural schemata, as well as implicit and ex-
plicit expertise about textual arrangement, genres, and their purposes. Teachers
must nonetheless recognize that L2 writers’ primary languages, home cultures,
and prior educational experiences do not predetermine their cognitive advantages
or the potential challenges that they may face in comprehending and producing
unfamiliar rhetorical patterns (Atkinson, 1999; Connor, 2011). L2 writers’ knowl-
edge bases differ not only from those of monolingual writers of English, but also
from those of other L2 writers. That is, each L2 writer should be viewed in in-
dividual terms, not as a prototype representing a set of essentializing collective
norms or stereotypes (Kubota, 1998, 1999, 2010; Scollon, 1997). Individual differ-
ences across L2 writers affect their abilities to comprehend, analyze, and respond
to the texts that they read, to function effectively in L2 literacy classrooms, and to
construct original texts that fulfill the expectations of target language readers. As a
result, writing teachers must consider the implications of schematic and rhetori-
cal differences in selecting texts for reading, designing and assigning literacy tasks,
planning and executing lessons, providing feedback to student writers, and devis-
ing and using assessment instruments.
Chapter Summary
Since its inception, the field of L2 writing has made considerable progress in its
pursuit of robust theory and research geared toward equipping educators with
appropriate tools for designing and implementing effective instruction for a di-
verse and ever-changing population of L2 writers. Indeed, the discipline has made
impressive strides since the latter decades of the 20th century, when Silva (1990)
portrayed the state-of-the-art in L2 composition as a “merry-go-round of ap-
proaches” characterized by an absence of methodological consensus (p. 18). Al-
though we are far from a definitive or comprehensive understanding of optimal
methods for enhancing the composing skills of L2 writers (Hinkel, 2011a; Leki,
Cumming, & Silva, 2008; Polio & Williams, 2011), the field’s increasingly socio-
cultural orientation has led to “a deep appreciation for the social, and often po-
litical, context in which L2 writers must learn and live” (Polio & Williams, 2011,
p. 501). This “social turn” has similarly highlighted the widely accepted belief that
“any effective writing instruction must take the context of writing into account”
(Polio & Williams, 2011, p. 501). A much more nuanced awareness of L2 writers
and their trajectories has similarly contributed to a complex view that endeavors
to account for the cognitive, linguistic, social, cultural, educational, and affective
factors that distinguish L2 writers, writing processes, and texts (see Chapter 2).
Moreover, as Hinkel (2011b) concluded, investigations of L2 text have revealed
the “significant differences . . . between L1 and L2 writing in similar genres and
among similar populations of writers,” affirming that L2 writers require “intensive
and extensive instruction in practically all aspects of constructing discourse and
reasonably fluent and accurate text” (p. 535). In other words, apprentice L2 writ-
ers are likely to need “more of everything” in terms of reading skill development,
genre awareness, idea generation strategies, planning heuristics, drafting practice,
and feedback incorporation techniques than their L1 counterparts (Raimes, 1985,
p. 250). Subsequent chapters will demonstrate that L2 composition instruction
may be maximally productive when it intentionally directs writers’ attention to-
ward macro- and micro-level textual concerns, including audience expectations,
rhetorical arrangement, lexicogrammatical variety, and formal accuracy.
Further Reading and Resources

As in subsequent chapters, we present a list of selected materials that readers may
consult for more in-depth treatments of topics introduced in this chapter. Infor-
mation for published sources can be found in the Bibliography at the end of this
book. We provide selected web addresses for online resources, though we caution
readers that URLs are subject to change.
j Writing systems and the history of writing: Baron (2009); Bräuer (200b);
Connor-Linton (2006); Coulmas (1989, 1996, 2003); Daniels and Bright (1996);
Fischer (2001); Gelb (1963); Grigorenko, Mambrino, and Preiss (2012); Ma-
latesha Joshi and Aaron (2006); Olson (1994); Powell (2012); Robinson (1999)
j L1 and L2 literacy and composition studies: August and Shanahan (2008); Ba-
zerman (2008); MacArthur, Graham, and Fitzgerald (2006); Olson and Tor-
rance (2009)
j L2 texts and writing systems: Candlin and Hyland (1999); Cook and Bassetti
(2005)
j Intercultural rhetoric: Connor (2011); Connor et al. (2008)
j Omniglot online encyclopedia of writing systems: http://www.omniglot.com
Reflection and Review

1. Identify and reflect on the roles of formal theory in teacher learning and in-
structional practice. In what ways can systematic knowledge about theoretical
models and research traditions meaningfully contribute to one’s practices and
skills as a classroom teacher of writing?
2. Why do you think scholars consider the introduction of writing to be such an
influential sociohistorical innovation? In what ways does writing constitute a
novel technology?
3. In your view, what are the most significant ways in which speech and writ-
ing are similar and different? Why is it important for teachers of writing to
appreciate the unique properties of writing systems and processes?
4. Considering the unique characteristics of the various categories of writing

systems surveyed in this chapter, what are the potential advantages and disad-
vantages of each for communication, learning, and teaching?
5. Review the categories of schematic knowledge, reflecting on how these scripts
might help (or possibly hinder) novice L2 writers in reading, processing, and
generating L2 texts. Which schemata do you believe are particularly crucial for
your L2 writers to develop?
6. In what ways might the study of intercultural rhetoric (IR) inform the plan-
ning and delivery of L2 composition courses? How might IR observations
about culturally embedded rhetorical patterns influence the selection of texts
and the development of assignments in a writing course? Identify IR implica-
tions for responding to student writing and assessing student writing.
Application Activities
Application Activity 1.1
Exploring Writing Systems
Individually or with a fellow student, examine and compare two or more writing
systems and summarize your main discoveries in a short written or oral report.
Follow the steps and prompts outlined below:
1. Visit the Omniglot website: http://www.omniglot.com.

2. On the main page, select “Types of writing systems,” and then choose at least
two different types of script, at least one of which must be unlike any orthogra-
phy that you already know. For instance, you might select an alphabet and a syl-
labary, or an abugida (alphasyllabary) and a logographic (semanto-phonetic)
writing system.
3. To facilitate your analysis and comparison, you may wish to create a simple
comparison table. In exploring each script, note the following features:
a. Script type and relative transparency
b. Relationship between script and speech forms
c. Historical origins
d. Direction of writing
e. Number and structure of graphemes
f. Languages written in the script
g. General rules for writing in the script (e.g., some abjads require pointing
of vowels, logographic writing may prescribe stroke sequences)
4. Reflect on what your comparison reveals about how the scripts capture oral
language and represent meaning in distinct ways, noting particularly novel or
surprising insights on your part.
5. Comment on your appreciation of the cognitive challenges of learning a new

literacy and script. How might your understanding of writing systems inform
your practice as a teacher of L2 writing?

Schematic and Rhetorical Text Analysis
For this exercise, select a self-contained authentic text of 750 to 1,500 words that
you might use as a reading passage in an L2 writing course (e.g., a selection from
a course reader or anthology, a literary passage, a nonacademic informational
text for a general audience; see Appendix 4.2 for a list of genres to choose from).
Analyze the selection by addressing the prompts below. Report and interpret your
findings in writing or in a class presentation.
1. What content, cultural, and formal schemata does the author of the text likely
assume on the part of the reader? Identify features of the text that you think
might be culturally embedded and worthy of explicit instruction. How might
you engage your students in comparing textual content and structure to the
content and structure of similar texts in their primary languages?
2. Considering what you know about your prospective students’ existing sche-
matic knowledge, what steps would you take to bridge their potential knowledge
gaps and equip them to maximize their text comprehension? For example, what
kinds of assistance with topical knowledge, rhetorical arrangement, challenging
grammatical constructions, and unfamiliar vocabulary would you provide?
3. Devise a simple instructional outline, along with appropriate materials for as-
sisting students with predicting the text’s contents and structure, understanding
and interpreting it, and ultimately responding to it in a writing task or exercise
(e.g., a reading journal entry, a reaction statement posted as a blog entry, a critical
summary).
Notes
1. Because of the evolving and sometimes controversial ways in which second language
(L2) learners and writers have been classified, it is difficult to arrive at an unproblem-
atic yet meaningful way to refer to multilingual students of English around the world
(Mesthrie, Swann, Deumert, & Leap, 2009). Chapter 2 addresses these challenges, pro-
viding an account of diverse learner populations and the contexts in which they may
learn to write. Throughout this book, we use terms such as second language (L2) and
English as a second language (ESL) to refer inclusively to settings in which English is
taught as a second language (i.e., in contexts where English is a dominant language, such
as North America, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand), as a foreign language (i.e., in
non-Anglophone contexts where English is not a language of public life and where ac-
cess to speakers of English outside the classroom is limited, such as South America, Eu-
rope, and regions of Africa and Asia), and as an additional language (i.e., in plurilingual
contexts such as India, Hong Kong, Singapore, the Philippines, and South Africa, for
instance) (Manchón, 2009; Williams, 2005). Though not optimal, the ESL designation
to some extent describes the status of English in numerous sociolinguistic situations

and represents the diverse types of multilingualism exhibited by many novice writers of
English. The ESL initialism likewise enables us to avoid awkward typographic conven-
tions such as “ESL/EFL,” and so on.
2. Somewhat controversially, Powell (2012) maintained that “even in China the idea of
‘writing’ must have come from Mesopotamia over the Gansu corridor north of the
Himalayas, where caravan traffic was constant. China was never wholly separated from
cultural developments in Mesopotamia” (p. 4).
3. A number of influential scholars (e.g., Goody & Watt, 1963; Havelock, 1982; Janson,
2012; McLuhan, 1962; Ong, 1976; Powell, 2012) have attributed the alphabetic principle
to the Ancient Greeks and Romans. Olson (2012) wrote that these experts “saw literacy
as a primary factor in the rise of what we now call a literate society, and more grandly,
civilization: civil society, the society of rules and laws” (p. 37). Olson and other critics
(e.g., Cole & Cole, 2006; Daniels, 2009) have challenged this conventional view on the
grounds that writing (or at least protowriting) predates Greek and Roman civilizations
and that such systems emerged independently in far-flung geographic locations.
4. For overviews of research addressing interlingual transfer of literacy skills, see Aro
(2006), Birch (2007), Grabe (2009), Grabe and Stoller (2011), Hedgcock and Ferris
(2009), Malatesha Joshi and Aaron (2006), or Pérez (2004).
5. Because classifications of schematic knowledge are not used uniformly among researchers,
we should note that linguistic schema sometimes refers to what we have described here as
cultural schema (see Erten & Razi, 2009; Ketchum, 2006). In this volume, we use the term
linguistic schemata to refer to knowledge about vocabulary (which entails the writing sys-
tem and spelling) and grammar (which is composed chiefly of syntax and morphology).
6. For overviews of the impact of schematic knowledge on L2 reading, see Bernhardt
(2010), Cohen (2009), Grabe (2004, 2009, 2011), Grabe and Stoller (2011), Han and An-
derson (2009), Hedgcock and Ferris (2009), Hudson (2007), Koda (2005, 2007a, 2011),
Mikulecky (2011), and Stahl and McKenna (2006). Selected primary sources include
Anderson and Pearson (1988), Carrell (1983a, 1983b, 1983c, 1984a, 1984b, 1984c, 1987,
1988, 1993), Carrell and Eisterhold (1983), Chen and Graves (1995), Floyd and Carrell
(2006), Keshavarz, Altai, and Ahmadi (2007), Koda (2005), Nelson and Schmid (1989),
Toledo (2005), and Zhang (2010).
Chapter 2
Understanding
Student
Populations and
Instructional
Contexts

1. In your opinion or experience, what are the biggest challenges facing L2
learners when they write in an L2?
2. If you were preparing to teach an L2 writing course (or a writing course
that includes L2 students), what information would be helpful to have
before planning the course, selecting texts, and preparing lessons?
3. What might you need to know about the educational institution/con-
text in order to teach writing effectively in that setting?
In Chapter 1, we defined what we mean by “writing” and “L2 writers” for the pur-
poses of this book. When we first began teaching and when we wrote the first
edition of this book, “ESL writers” meant a specific type of student, usually an in-
ternational (visa) student who had come to the United States or another English-
dominant region to complete his or her studies, or a recently arrived resident
immigrant student. In short, we (and our peers) envisioned newcomers when we
discussed how to teach writing and other L2 skills.
Those assumptions are now outdated. Student demographics in primary,
secondary, and postsecondary institutions have changed dramatically in recent
decades, particularly in the United States, but also in other English-dominant en-
vironments. In addition to the “traditional” newcomers just described, many L2
students are long-term, or even lifelong, residents of the country in which they
30 Understanding Student Populations and Instructional Contexts
now study. They have a wide range of experiences in education, literacy in L1

and/or L2, sociocultural adjustments needed, and socioeconomic statuses. These
backgrounds have influenced their literacy development in L2, and many students
arriving in college or university contexts still face challenges due to their continu-
ing status as L2 acquirers.
Because the size and complexity of the L2 population in educational institu-
tions has changed so dramatically, L2 writers are now found in mainstream com-
position courses, as clientele in writing and learning centers, and in undergraduate
and graduate courses in the disciplines. It is no longer the case—if indeed it ever
was—that a developmental or remedial L2 program or a first-year writing pro-
gram can meet all of these students’ needs as they progress through various levels
of their studies and face increasingly difficult academic literacy demands. As noted
by the Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC), “the
acquisition of a second language and second-language literacy is a time-consuming
process that will continue through students’ academic careers and beyond” (2009).
Wolfe-Quintero and Segade (1999) also argued that “writing ability is developed
through an entire undergraduate education . . . and L2 students have unique
language needs that require assistance throughout their undergraduate career”
(p. 196).1
This chapter will help you gain a clearer picture of these issues. First, we will de-
scribe the different student subgroups that fall under the broad definition of “L2
writers.” We will then discuss the different educational contexts in which teachers
may encounter L2 writers. The chapter thus lays necessary groundwork for our
later discussions of course/lesson/task design (Chapter 5), assessment (Chapter 6),
and response and language development (Chapters 7–9).
L2 Writers: Understanding Student Populations

We have previously defined L2 writers as those born and raised in homes in which
the primary language spoken by parents and other adult caregivers was not the L2.
This is a broad description that needs further examination. In this section, we dis-
cuss the different student populations that can be included under the label of “L2
writers.” Depending on where instructors’ teaching careers take them, they may
encounter any and all of these student groups—and sometimes several distinct
groups of L2 writers in the same classroom.
International (Visa) Students

Definitions. International students travel to another country to study and usually
(but not always) to complete an undergraduate or graduate degree. In most cases,
they intend to return to their country of origin after completing their studies. Not
all international students would be considered “L2,” of course. Visa students in
the United States can and do include students from Canada, the United Kingdom,
Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, to name only a few examples. Other
Understanding Student Populations and Instructional Contexts 31
international students may have come from countries where English is an official
language of the government and the schools (e.g., India and numerous African
countries), but their home language may not be English. To complicate matters
further, some international students in U.S. graduate programs may not be held
for any testing or language requirements because they received an undergraduate
degree from a U.S. university. Their visa status is “international,” but their lan-
guage status is considered “not L2.” In some cases, however, such graduate stu-
dents may still require a great deal of language support to complete their programs
successfully.
As we discuss later in this chapter in the “Contexts” section, a further compli-
cating factor in the definition of international students is their intended length of
stay in the country in which they are pursuing their degree. Some visa students,
for example, study abroad for only a few weeks or months as an opportunity for
language development. These students, often found in institutions’ intensive En-
glish or extension programs, may have a wide range of motivations and goals for
their stay in the host country. Others may go abroad for a full year of serious work
toward their undergraduate degrees in their home countries, similar to U.S. un-
dergraduates who may enroll in a “study abroad” program.
Statistics. The U.S.-focused Institute for International Education (IIE) compiles

data in an annual report called Open Doors, which quantifies proportions of in-
ternational students, visiting scholars, students in Intensive English programs, and
U.S. students who go abroad. According to the 2011 Open Doors report, 723,000
international students were studying in the United States; of these, about 46%
were graduate students, nearly 45% were in undergraduate degree programs, and
the rest were nondegree students. Asian countries sent over 60% of these students,
followed by Europe, Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East. International stu-
dents in the United States are distributed across a wide range of fields, but are
most heavily represented in the sciences, mathematics, engineering, and business;
fewer than 3% pursue degrees in the humanities (excluding fine arts). Finally, it
is also worth noting that numbers of international students in the United States
have been rising steadily. In 1940, U.S. universities and colleges hosted only 6,500
international students. In contrast, over the three most recent reporting periods
(2009–2011), figures have risen by about 10% per year (all data from IIE, 2011).
General Characteristics. Because international students were the original popu-

lation examined by educators and scholars, a number of definitions and descrip-
tions have been provided over the years. For example, most international students
would be considered “elective bilinguals,” described by Valdés (1992) as “individu-
als who choose to become bilingual” for some kind of personal benefit (p. 93). As
noted by Valdés and others, these students tend to come from relatively privileged
backgrounds and are well-educated and literate in their L1s (Ferris, 2009; Leki,
1992; Reid, 2006). As to their background in learning the L2, most international
students are what Reid (1998) called “eye learners.” That is, “they have learned [the
L2] principally through their eyes, studying vocabulary, verb forms, and language
rules” (p. 6).
As recent edited collections demonstrate (e.g., Cimasko & Reichelt, 2011b;
Foster & Russell, 2002), the ways in which L2 writing is viewed and taught around
the world can vary widely. For example, Reichelt (2011) surveyed research on
foreign language writing instruction in a broad range of contexts, finding that
in some settings, students at the secondary level are expected to complete de-
manding, high-level literacy tasks, whereas in other countries or regions, writing
is treated as simply a means to practice or demonstrate achievements in other
language subskills such as listening or reading. L2 writing, when it occurs, is for
the purpose of writing to learn (i.e., to master course content) rather than learn-
ing to write (i.e., for the primary purpose of building composing or writing skills)
(see Chapter 3; see also Manchón, 2011a). English/writing instructors in foreign
language contexts may be further constrained by large class sizes, heavy teaching
loads, and national testing or curriculum requirements (Foster & Russell, 2002;
Reichelt, 2011; You, 2006). For writing teachers, what this diversity means is that
some international students may have never read or written more than a page or
two in the L2 at one time and thus may find the workload of an undergraduate
composition or disciplinary course overwhelming (see Student 1’s paper in Ap-
pendix 2 as an illustration of this point). Further, as described in Chapter 1, many
will have rhetorical and cultural knowledge that is different from that of monolin-
gual L1 peers and of other L2 writers in the same setting.
International students who are new to the host country or culture may struggle
in other ways. They may experience culture shock or homesickness, which may
hinder their academic progress at least temporarily. Many, depending on the na-
ture and extent of their prior L2 instruction in their home countries, may have
listening and speaking skills that are weak relative to their literacy skills (Ferris,
2009; Leki, 1992). These areas of weakness may cause international students to
miss important information in class and to appear relatively disengaged if they
do not participate in class discussion activities common to interactive, workshop-
oriented writing courses in the United States. Teachers of international students,
and especially of courses in which international students are a small minority,
will need to be especially sensitive to these types of struggles and think of ways to
mitigate them (Ferris, 2009; Matsuda, 2008; Matsuda & Silva, 1999). We return to
this point in the final section of this chapter.
Finally, it is also important to acknowledge that the motivations and expecta-
tions of many international students may be different from those of their class-
mates. Some may have very clear instrumental goals in mind for their studies
abroad, and it may not be readily apparent to them how or why an institution’s
insistence that they meet minimum proficiency standards in L2 writing serves
their purposes. One of the authors remembers meeting with an international
student who had failed the university’s writing proficiency examination required
for graduation. The student assured the author that he was going right back to
China to become a physician, and that he would never need to write extensively
in English again. In his mind, the writing requirement was a useless bureaucratic
barrier to his goals, one that was costing him time and money (cf. Leki, 2003).
Teachers should thus not be surprised if they encounter resistance when they re-
quire international students to complete tasks such as brainstorming, freewriting,
peer response, and so on. The value of these activities may not be immediately ap-
parent to some of their students, and teachers should be prepared to explain their
philosophies and approaches.
EFL Students
Definitions. In the L2 writing literature, foreign language (FL) writing is distin-
guished from second language writing (as in “ESL”) (Cimasko & Reichelt, 2011b;
Manchón, 2011a, 2011b; Manchón & de Haan, 2008). Whereas ESL writing stud-
ies focus on “writing in English in English-dominant contexts,” FL writing “occurs
around the world in a broad diversity of languages and contexts” (Cimasko & Re-
ichelt, 2011a, p. vii). The basic distinction is between learners writing in an ad-
ditional language where that language has official status (and may dominate) and
those learning an FL as a subject in school (e.g., English-speaking students enrolled
in French or Chinese courses in secondary school or college) (see Chapter 1).
Ortega (2004) noted the “heavily ESL-oriented’’ direction of L2 writing studies
(p. 3), further arguing that this trend “diminishes the capacity of L2 writing as a
field to produce theoretically robust knowledge that can be useful in improving
L2 writing education across diverse settings” (p. 8). It is thus encouraging to note
newer collections that have focused on FL writing, including edited collections
such as Cimasko and Reichelt (2011b) and Manchón (2009, 2011a), as well as
a 2008 special issue of the Journal of Second Language Writing (17). Beyond the
recent attention to research on EFL writing, of course, researchers investigating
writing in other FLs have been studying various questions on writing for some
decades. However, it is somewhat unusual for ESL/EFL writing scholars to consult
or cite these FL sources in their own work, and vice versa (Hubert & Bonzo, 2010).
General Characteristics. Students learning a FL in their home contexts have

similarities to second language (SL) writers, but there are differences as well. Like
international students, FL students would typically be described as elective bilin-
guals and eye learners. In other words, they are exposed to the FL primarily in the
classroom, and the FL itself is not needed for survival in a surrounding SL context.
In many settings, however, FL classes are not truly “elective” in that students can
choose not to take them. Students in many countries are required to take English
(and perhaps other FL) courses beginning in middle school, if not sooner. Thus,
it would be an overgeneralization to assume that all students in FL contexts want
to learn the FL and are highly motivated to make progress in their L2 literacy de-
velopment. Some students are there for the same reason that others are enrolled
in algebra and chemistry classes—because they must complete those courses to
graduate from secondary or postsecondary programs.
Motivation issues may differ between FL and SL students in other ways. Some
students in FL contexts may aspire to study and even work abroad; they may thus
approach their L2 learning with serious practical objectives in mind. Although
this real-world orientation can encourage their instructors, it can also lead them (as
with international students) toward strong opinions about the kinds of literacy in-
struction they need and do not need—for example, valuing test preparation for in-
ternational college entrance examinations such as the TOEFLiBT(r) (Test of English
as a Foreign Language), IELTS (International English Language Testing System), and
PTE (Pearson Test of English) over process-oriented, multiple-draft writing skills or
extensive reading to build vocabulary. As Reichelt (2011), You (2006), and Lee (2009)
have pointed out, both teachers and students in many settings feel constrained and
pressured by government-mandated examinations that privilege specific types of
language performance and resist other forms of instruction that do not seem rel-
evant to meeting those official standards. International students, in contrast, may be
motivated to acquire the target language and literacy skills they will need in order to
be successful in an academic SL environment, such as writing in genres appropriate
to their particular disciplinary or professional contexts (see Chapters 1, 3, and 4).
Also, like international students who have traveled to the SL context, FL stu-
dents have typically experienced an uninterrupted education in their home envi-
ronments and have highly developed L1 literacy skills. They therefore tend to have
well-established literacy practices and strategies that, in due time, can transfer to
L2 reading and composing tasks. However, depending on the approach and phi-
losophy taken toward FL instruction in their home environments, they may have
had limited opportunities to read and write extensively in the L2. In contrast, in-
ternational students can benefit from repeated exposure to the L2 in their other
courses and outside of school, building their comprehension, fluency, vocabular-
ies, cultural knowledge, and confidence; these improved skills and attitudes can,
in turn, support their L2 literacy development. FL students do not have equivalent
opportunities for L2 exposure, and their instructors must be creative in finding
and requiring useful learning experiences for them. Because of the motivation is-
sues just described, however, students (and administrators or parents) may resist
such activities.
Resident Immigrants
Definitions. As their label implies, resident immigrants are those who have re-
located, usually permanently, to the new SL/L2 context. In the United States and
elsewhere, their legal status is different from that of international students: Where-
as the former group receives time-limited visas to pursue a particular course of
study, immigrants are granted permission for long-term residency, which may
eventually lead to naturalization and citizenship.2 International students typically
(but not always) intend to return to their home countries after their studies are
completed, but resident immigrants usually (but not always) plan to make a per-
manent home in the new host community. Resident immigrants may arrive and
matriculate in school at various points in the educational system, depending on
their family circumstances. Thus, for example, the children of immigrant parents
might begin their education in the SL system in early primary school, in mid-
dle school, or at the end of high school. In contrast, visa (international) students
nearly always arrive to study at the postsecondary level.3
Statistics. In the United States, the number of resident immigrant students in

K–12 settings, colleges, and universities has grown dramatically since the 1960s
(Ferris, 2009; Harklau, Losey, & Siegal, 1999; Matsuda, 2003b; Matsuda & Mat-
suda, 2009; Shaughnessy, 1977). A primary reason behind this development
was the loosening of immigration restrictions in the post-Vietnam era (Ferris,
2009; Matsuda, 2003b). At the college level, the implementation of open admis-
sions and more generous financial aid policies at state-funded institutions in the
1960s led to an influx of students who, in previous generations, might not have
attempted college due to language barriers or economic constraints (Shaugh-
nessy, 1977).
According to the most recent (2010) U.S. census, about 13% of the popula-
tion (40 million) consisted of foreign-born residents (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010;
Walters & Trevelyan, 2011). In K–12 schools, almost 11% (over 5 million) are clas-
sified as English language learners (ELLs) (Language Etc., 2011). The 2010 census
also indicates that, since 2005, immigration patterns have shifted in two notable
ways: (1) New residents are less likely than earlier immigrants to settle in one of
the typical “gateway states” (California, New York, Texas, Florida, New Jersey, and
Illinois) and are spread more widely around the United States; and (2) the most re-
cent immigrants are more likely to come from Asian countries, particularly China,
than from Latin American countries (Walters & Trevelyan, 2011). Both numbers
(of foreign-born residents and of ELLs in schools) have increased steadily since
the previous (2000) U.S. census. In short, the U.S. immigrant population is both
growing and changing.4
General Characteristics. Resident immigrants vary widely from one another

and from international students. Some are voluntary immigrants, having come
to a new home for better professional or economic opportunities; these newcom-
ers typically must demonstrate that they can be financially independent in order
to enter the new country. Others are refugees who have been allowed to immi-
grate due to war or to political or religious persecution in their home countries;
these immigrants must often rely on government assistance. Depending on the
circumstances behind their immigration, new residents may be financially stable
or struggle in poverty. In some cases, the children of these immigrants may ex-
perience psychosocial adjustment issues in their new communities and schools
(James, 1997; McKay & Wong, 2000; Roberge, 2002).
Resident immigrants also show great diversity in their language learning and
educational experiences. Depending on when and under what circumstances
they immigrated, their education may have been interrupted at points, and they
may not necessarily have strong L1 literacy skills. Whereas international students
must demonstrate proficiency in English (or another L2) to gain admission to
universities, immigrants may or may not have had much, if any, exposure to—or
formal education in—the L2 prior to arrival in the new host country. Immigrant
students tend to be circumstantial bilinguals (Valdés, 1992) and ear learners (Reid,
1998a), meaning that they have become bilingual from necessity rather than by
choice and that they learned the L2 in naturalistic settings rather than formally in
the classroom as an academic subject.
Finally, depending on where they went to school in their new home and at what
age they began, the L2 education of resident immigrants may have been inadequate,
as school systems’ philosophies about and resources for the education of ELLs tend
to vary dramatically. As a result, these immigrant students, especially as they proceed
to higher levels of education, may be underprepared in two distinct ways: They do
not have the strong L1 literacy foundation and formal instruction in L2 that inter-
national students typically possess, and they had a much later start in L2 acquisition
than did their peers who were born or arrived earlier into the SL context.
Generation 1.5 Learners

Definitions. The most intensively studied population of L2 writers in the United
States over the past 20 years has been the so-called “Generation 1.5” group. The
term Generation 1.5, taken from Korean (Park, 1999), was first introduced by
Rumbaut and Ima (1988). It refers specifically to the U.S.-educated children of
first-generation immigrants (Harklau et al., 1999). Experts disagree about where
Generation 1.5 should begin and end. For example, is a child who is born in the
United States to immigrant parents and who does not begin learning English until
entering kindergarten at age five considered Generation 1.5, or simply “second
generation”? What about his or her older sibling born in the parents’ home coun-
try? If a student arrives from Mexico at age 15 and graduates from a U.S. high
school, does she or he belong to Generation 1.5, or is she or he a recent immigrant?
In our view, “Generation 1.5” is a label more descriptive of a student’s psycho-
logical and educational experiences than a strictly demographic one. As noted by
Roberge (2009), this generation has “life experiences that span two or more coun-
tries, cultures, and languages” (p. 4) and has “a self-perception of in-between-ness”
(p. 5). Differing slightly from the definition offered by Roberge (and others), we
would also argue that even U.S.-born, second-generation immigrants can share
these characteristics. For example, we do not see much difference between a child
who immigrated to the SL context as a toddler and one who was born in the new
context shortly after his or her parents immigrated. Whether early arriving im-
migrants or U.S. natives, these children share in common a number of factors: (a)
Their parents were newly arrived immigrants; (b) the primary language spoken in
their home was not English; (c) all or nearly all of their education was largely or
exclusively in the SL context (and delivered in the L2); and (d) some of their edu-
cational experience, at least in the early years, was influenced by their ELL status.
As with later-arriving resident immigrants, Generation 1.5 students are a di-
verse group. Roberge (2002, 2009) describes at least five distinct subgroups of
Generation 1.5 learners. Some, for example, are transnationals who travel back
and forth between the SL country and their parents’ home country (for example,
the children of seasonal workers in California, Arizona, Texas, and other border
states). Though many of these children are U.S.-born, these migratory patterns
mean that their educational and L2 acquisition experiences are regularly inter-
rupted. Another subgroup comprises children of immigrants living in linguistic
enclave communities where they are surrounded by others who speak the same L1
as their parents. These Generation 1.5 students have quite different cultural and
linguistic backgrounds than do others living in more heterogeneous neighbor-
hoods. In sum, even if two students’ demographic characteristics place them into
the Generation 1.5 category, we cannot assume that their abilities or their instruc-
tional needs will be identical.
General Characteristics. Compared with the other L2 writer groups that we have
already discussed, Generation 1.5 students are generally much more assimilated to
the broader L2 culture and the educational system, having grown up in it. In many
ways, they look and behave just as any other adolescent or young adult in that so-
ciety. Teachers at the secondary and postsecondary levels may not even realize that
their students are from the Generation 1.5 category unless they ask or until they
notice gaps in their students’ language and literacy abilities that suggest a different
primary language background.
Like other resident immigrants, Generation 1.5 students tend to be circum-
stantial bilinguals and ear learners of the L2. They may have been tracked as ELLs
in their early years of education, receiving bilingual or ESL instruction, and most
were reclassified as English-proficient by middle school, if not sooner. However,
their later start in L2 development and nonmainstream tracking may have con-
tinued to influence their experiences in secondary school, where they may have
been counseled into developmental English courses rather than regular or hon-
ors courses. In addition, their literacy experiences in those courses may not have
been sufficiently challenging to prepare them for postsecondary work (Gilliland,
2012; Harklau, 2000). Arriving in college, they may be stunned and discouraged
to be placed in developmental or ESL literacy courses, rather than in mainstream
baccalaureate-level courses (Ferris, Liu, Sinha, & Senna, 2013).
Researchers who have asked students to characterize their backgrounds have
found that they are often confused about terminology (Chiang & Schmida, 1999;
Costino & Hyon, 2007; Ortmeier-Hooper, 2008). For example, when asked what
their “first language” is, they might respond with questions: “Do you mean the lan-
guage my parents speak? The language I read in? The language I use in school? The
language I use most frequently?” Similarly, whereas some Generation 1.5 students
identify strongly with their parents’ culture, others do not; still others explicitly
describe themselves as “in-between” (Ortmeier-Hooper, 2008; Park, 1999). Labels
can be such a sensitive issue for students in this group that many ESL programs
around the United States have adopted the designation “multilingual” instead.
Some Generation 1.5 students make a point of describing themselves as ESL or L2;
in contrast, others do not view themselves this way and definitely do not believe
that they belong in traditional ESL classes with newcomers. It is particularly im-
portant for teachers, counselors, writing center consultants, and writing program
administrators to avoid generalizations and stereotypes regarding Generation 1.5
learners, because an appropriate course placement or instructional strategy for
one student might be off-putting and ineffective for another one.
Literacy Abilities of Different L2 Populations

Having defined and generally described several major student populations, we can
summarize what researchers have discovered with regard to patterns of literacy
development among these different groups of L2 writers. Figure 2.1 summarizes
these trends.
As we will discuss later, these differences across student groups have a range of
implications for course design and for instruction. For example, international stu-
dents’ relative inexperience with the L2 culture may influence the types of readings
and tasks that are most likely to be appropriate for them (Hinkel, 2004, 2011b; Po-
lio & Williams, 2011). In contrast, the “ear learner” backgrounds of immigrant and
Generation 1.5 students may constrain the types of metalinguistic information
that teachers may provide during in-class grammar instruction (see Chapter 9) or
while giving feedback to students about language errors (see Chapter 8).
Students’ Textual Characteristics. While acknowledging that it can be coun-

terproductive to overgeneralize about these different L2 populations (cf. Hinkel,
2011b), we nonetheless believe it helpful at this point to discuss several real-life
Characteristic International/EFL Immigrant Generation 1.5

L1 Literacy Strong Varies Little/None
Primary Cultural L1 L1 (mostly) L2 (varies)
Identification
Knowledge of L2 None/minimal Some Extensive
Culture
Socioeconomic Middle/upper-middle Working class Working to middle
Status class class
Motivation to For instrumental For survival and Like monolingual L1
Learn L2 purposes integrative purposes peers
Formal Knowledge Yes In some cases No
about L2
L2 Oral/Aural Weak (varies cross- Adequate (in time) Fluent & confident
Skills culturally)
L2 Academic Strong foundation, Varies considerably Weak in many
Reading Skills limited experience cases
L2 Writing Skills Adequate but with Weak Varies considerably,
areas of weakness stronger than
immigrant group
FIGURE 2.1 Academic language and literacy development across different L2

populations. Adapted from Ferris (2009, p. 22) and Hedgcock and Ferris (2009,
p. 54).
examples. The four student papers found in Appendix 2 were all written for
the same first-year composition course at a California university. This class was
“mixed”: It included monolingual English speakers and multilingual writers from
all of the above categories (except, of course, EFL). Students were asked in a diag-
nostic writing task during the first week of the term to spend 60 minutes respond-
ing to the following prompt:
Most professors and students would agree that reading and writing abilities
are very important for success in college and in a future career. But why is this
true—or is it?
“Youngjoo,” one of the international students in the cohort, wrote a text that
was much shorter (366 words) than those written by her classmates (these ranged
from 550 to over 1100 words), suggesting a lack of fluency in timed writing tasks,
even one that was relatively easy and accessible. Her content is reasonably good.
For example, in the second full paragraph, she provides a perceptive insight into
how students need to vary their reading strategies according to their purposes
for reading. However, she ran out of time to develop the ideas in the third para-
graph fully or to write a conclusion. Her sample also contains many language er-
rors involving word choice (“the reading and writing skills do important role”),
subject–verb agreement, and missing articles and plurals, but she shows some con-
trol of sentence structure and of cohesive intersentential cohesive devices (such as
“however,” “for example,” and “secondly”). Her response also shows some strong
vocabulary use (“overwhelmed,” “metaphors”).
The second sample was written by a Chinese immigrant student, “Luan,” who
had come to the United States at age 12. His paper is longer than Youngjoo’s but
shorter than most of his peers’ texts. His essay is fully developed with a short in-
troduction and conclusion; two supporting paragraphs include anecdotes from
his personal experiences as a reader and writer. He also uses idiomatic expres-
sions such as “practice makes perfect” and occasionally a more conversational tone
(“I guess”). However, like Youngjoo, Luan’s response contains numerous linguistic
errors that clearly mark him as an L2 writer, such as the subject–verb agreement
error in the first sentence and the verb tense and aspect error in the third sentence.
Overall, though his sample suggested that he was a more accomplished writer of
English than was Youngjoo, Luan still exhibited potentially serious problems with
fluency and accuracy.
The third paper was written by “Joe,” a Generation 1.5 student born in the
United States. Joe, however, was also a transnational student (Roberge, 2002) in
that his immigrant parents moved the family back to China when Joe was an in-
fant, returning to the United States to stay when Joe was six, when he began learn-
ing English. Joe was a strong student in his major, biology, and planned to apply
to medical school. However, he had struggled mightily with his college writing
and had been required to take the prerequisite developmental writing course three
times before finally passing it and moving on to the college-level first-year course.
Joe’s writing sample is carefully constructed and well organized; it is also slightly
longer (by 38 words) than that of Luan. He takes few risks, uses simple vocabu-
lary and sentence structure, repeats key words frequently, and makes relatively few
language errors (e.g., several instances of inaccurate verb tense inflection). How-
ever, he shows little sophistication in either his content or his lexical and syntactic
choices.
The writer of the fourth paper, “Paul,” was also a Generation 1.5 student.
Paul had immigrated to the United States with his parents at age three. We in-
clude this paper because Paul was the star of the class and received the highest
final grade. Despite the lack of confidence that Paul expresses in his text about
his own writing ability, his strengths are evident: His paper is much longer
than those of the previous three students, his content is thoughtful and inter-
esting, his use of advanced vocabulary is skillful, and his “errors” (such as they
are) include only minor flaws of usage and idiomatic expression. In fact, it is
unlikely that his teacher would have identified him as having a non-English-
speaking background without the information that he himself provided. His
writing sample, together with the others, illustrates the point that we are mak-
ing in this chapter: Multilingual writers exhibit a wide range of backgrounds
and abilities, but that does not mean that they cannot be highly successful,
effective writers.
The preceding discussion with the student exemplars demonstrates that L2
writers display a range of needs and face various challenges—and that these may
differ across L2 student populations. Figure 2.2 summarizes the points that we
have discussed in this section.
___________ Need or Challenge____________________ Most Relevant Group(s)_______

Develop fluency lo produce text in the 12 Internationai/FL
Produce well structured academic essays All
Improve and rcflccl upon writing processes International/FL
and strategies
Develop and effectively use knowledge of All, but especially immigrant and
SOphiSlicated sentence structure and Generation 1.5
academic vocabulary
Effectively and accurately use sources in All. but especially immigrant and
own texts Generation 1.5
Employ appropriate textual borrowing International/FL
strategies and avoid plagiarism
Understand important grammar terms and General ion 1,5 especially, some other
rules and use them In writing and to apply latar-arriving immigrants wrih little formal
expert feedback in revision instruclion in L2
Develop effective strategies for intensive Generation 1.5 and later arriving
academic reading immigrants
Read extensively and confidently in the L2 All, but especial.y inlemational/FL_______
FIGURE 2.2 Literacy needs and challenges for different L2 student populations.
Adapted from Ferris (2009, pp. 85, 93).
Contexts: Where L2 Writing Is Taught

Having described several different subgroups or populations of L2 writers, we
move now to an overview of the various contexts in which L2 writers must oper-
ate. For each setting, we focus specifically on how literacy factors may be addressed
and challenges that can arise in writing instruction. Figure 2.3 presents a summary
of this information.
Foreign Language Contexts

As already discussed in our sections on international/FL students, FL contexts can
vary tremendously. Instructors of L2 writers must take great care to understand
the local conditions and avoid the assumption that they can easily import or trans-
plant their own approaches to the teaching of literacy into a new setting. The many
issues FL instructors must investigate and consider include the following:
j Language and culture: In contrast to many SL teaching contexts, FL educa-

tional settings often serve student populations of homogeneous linguistic and
cultural backgrounds. It is thus useful for educators to investigate crosslinguistic
Context Purposes/Goals fo r A pproaches) to Other

Literacy Instruction Literacy Instruction Characteristics
Meet requirements Varies widely Many settings have
F oreign for graduation and/or depending on context national standards or
Language college admission examinations; many
" " have very large
_pj*?ses
Non-academic Survivai, Basic and practical "student population
(Adult/Vocational employment, (alphabet, real-world in classes may be
Schoot) citizenship writing tasks) transitory: students
wiU have many olher
demands on time
and energy (jobs,
(A ____________________
^ Intensive Short-term language Most writing Student motivations
Language development completed in class; vary widsty; some
3 Program high-interest topics may be unwilling to
c focused on L2 culture: do homework_______
j SL Academic Complete iilgn I Literary analysis Teachers
-o (Secondary) school graduation ; essays aîd/or constrained by heavy
o requirements; meet personal experience teaching loads as to
$ external standards topics assigning/responding
to student writing
SL Academic Meet graduation Sou roe-based tasks, Includes writing
(Postseoondary) wriling requirements; research, persuasive classes, classes in
oomptete writing writing the disoipfines.
tasks for disciplinary writing centers
content courses
FIGURE 2.3 Contexts for L2 writing instruction. Adapted from Hedgcock and
Ferris (2009, p. 221).
differences that may influence student writing (including linguistic and rhe-
torical knowledge that might transfer) and to understand cultural norms
that can affect students’ responses to texts, tasks, topics, and instructional
approaches (e.g., peer response, critical analysis of published text, textual bor-
rowing, and so on).
j L2 status and resources: Whether the L2 being taught is English or another
language, attitudes toward that L2 vary around the world (Jenkins, 2007; Kirk-
patrick, 2010; Weber & Horner, 2012). In many contexts, English is considered
so important that all students are required to begin learning it from early ages,
even as early as primary grades. However, in other contexts, the L2 is just one of
several choices that students may pursue. Outside of formal education, attitudes
toward the language and its users may influence students’ openness to the L2
and willingness to put forth effort to learn it. Moreover, resources in English
(or another L2) are readily available in many settings outside of school, such as
television programs, movies, books, magazines, newspapers, and Internet-based
materials. In more socially conservative and restrictive contexts, however, stu-
dents’ access to such materials may be limited for religious or political reasons.
j Approaches to writing: “Composition” or “writing” as it is taught in the
United States is unheard of in many international contexts (Foster & Russell,
2002). Students write in L1 or L2 to demonstrate mastery of course content,
but they are not always taught “about writing” (Manchón, 2011a). To under-
stand their students’ backgrounds and prior experiences, L2 teachers in FL
contexts should investigate how writing is viewed and used, as well as whether
it is taught as a skill or subject in their contexts.
j External expectations: In many locations, government ministries and stan-
dards control educational curricula and assessments (Canagarajah, 2004;
Hélot, & Ó Laoire, 2011). These may include high-stakes examinations that
students must pass in order to graduate or to enter the next level of educa-
tion (Elliot, 2005; Gallagher, 2007). It is also important to understand the
expectations of the particular institution and its administration, which may
be constrained by these national or local requirements (see Chapter 8).
j Other practical issues: As already noted, in many FL contexts, class sizes are
very large. For instructors accustomed to relatively small writing and literacy
courses, large classes obviously necessitate major changes in approach. For
example, teachers need to plan for more structured small-group work and
probably less one-to-one teacher–student interaction (whether in a confer-
ence or in written commentary). In addition, expectations about student
attendance and homework may vary considerably. Finally, FL writing teach-
ers need to know what resources are available for classroom instruction in
specific contexts (e.g., computer and Internet access, reading selections, pho-
tocopying privileges, projectors, and so forth).
Two obvious implications emerge from the above points. First, for North
American–educated teachers going abroad, it would be a huge mistake to assume
that philosophies or approaches to writing instruction can be exported or even

easily adapted to a given FL context. In nearly all instances, the teacher will be the
one who must adapt. Second, given the tremendous variation around the world,
and even within specific countries or regions, as to educational policies and ap-
proaches to writing, it is extremely important for instructors to carefully examine
and assess each FL teaching context in which they will work. This last observation
is true for any teaching situation anywhere, of course, but it is especially important
when preparing to teach in an unfamiliar culture or region.
Second Language Contexts

In this section, we focus on programs in SL contexts where the L2 is the official/
dominant language. Students in these various programs may be international, im-
migrants, or Generation 1.5, or a combination of two or all three of these subgroups.
Nonacademic settings. Many ESL teachers are employed in adult or vocational

programs that serve L2 students. These programs are most typically designed for
adult immigrant students who need general language development for survival,
cultural adaptation, employment, or citizenship purposes. Students in nonaca-
demic settings need to build many language skills—listening comprehension, oral
fluency, discourse competence, vocabulary, and so forth—and an intensive focus
on writing development is unusual except perhaps at the highest levels of profi-
ciency (particularly for students who might wish to continue their studies at a
postsecondary academic institution).
At lower levels of these programs, “writing” instruction tends to focus on very
practical skills. Writing practice may be offered in order to promote language prac-
tice; in other words, writing activities may reflect a predominant writing-to-learn
orientation. Some students, for example, may not know the Roman alphabet (or
other relevant L2 writing system) and need to learn how to read and write it (see
Birch, 2007; Hedgcock & Ferris, 2009). Because students’ global L2 proficiency is low,
most may be unable to generate much if any text independently; writing practice
may consequently focus on structured tasks such as filling out forms and job appli-
cations. As we discuss in Chapter 3, traditional controlled composition approaches
may be useful in helping students learn to produce texts beyond the sentence level,
although whether such activities truly constitute writing is a matter for debate.
Teachers in nonacademic programs should also be aware of several other de-
mographic and contextual characteristics. First, because of frequent turnover and
open-enrollment policies, student populations in such courses tend to be transi-
tory. Students may drop out of classes as their family or employment circum-
stances change, and others may take their places weeks into the term. The practical
implication of this pattern is that teachers cannot easily design or implement a
detailed syllabus that builds on prior units; rather, they must often teach self-
contained lessons that have immediate value (Gunderson, 2009; Hilles & Sutton,
2001). Second, students in adult education and vocational classes often have many
other responsibilities, such as caring for children and working long hours. They
may come to class tired or distracted, and it may be difficult or impossible for
them to find time for homework outside of class. Again, this observation has im-
plications for teachers’ lesson plans and in-class instruction.
Intensive language programs. Intensive language programs (ILPs) are offered on

North American college and university campuses but tend to be separate from the
rest of the university. Such programs are typically self-supporting (meaning that
they are funded largely or entirely through student fees rather than the college or
university’s general budget), and students may or may not be matriculated stu-
dents at the university. As a result, ILPs are often institutionally marginalized. For
example, the program office is often in the worst building on campus, and courses
may be scheduled for unpopular times in less desirable classrooms. Instructors in
such programs may have low status at the college or university, working on short-
term contracts, often at an hourly wage, without benefits or job security. Beyond
those generalizations (which hold true to varying degrees at many, but not all
institutions), there are several distinct subtypes of ILPs:
1. Developmental, remedial language, and literacy programs: In some set-

tings, students who are admitted to the institution but whose language or
literacy skills are weak (according to institutional placement processes) are
required to complete courses at the ILP before they can proceed to their regu-
lar degree programs. In some cases, they are allowed to pursue credit-bearing
coursework concurrently with language and writing courses at the highest
ILP level. Models of this type (and problems associated with them) are dis-
cussed in articles by Atkinson and Ramanathan (1995) and Lay, Carro, Tien,
Niemann, and Leong (1999) and in edited volumes such as Dimmitt and
Dantas-Whitney (2002).
2. Preacademic language programs: In other programs, students come to the
ILP to work on their L2 skills before being admitted to the host institution
or applying elsewhere in the SL context. They are not guaranteed entry to the
institution upon completing classes in the ILP but in some instances have bet-
ter chances of admission by virtue of their ILP enrollment.
3. Short-term language or culture programs: ILPs also may offer courses for
students who wish to study in the SL context for only a short period of time
(a few weeks or months), primarily for enrichment or enjoyment. Short-term
programs may be open to a general audience of L2 students at the institution,
or they may be contracted with a specific country or foreign institution to
serve a particular group of students. Short-term ILP offerings may also serve
“study abroad” students who come to the SL institution for a few months or a
year, earning credit toward their degrees at their home universities.
Students’ needs and goals for writing and academic literacy instruction vary de-
pending on the type of ILP in which they are enrolled. If it is type 1 (developmental
instruction for already matriculated students), learners need language and literacy
development that is carefully articulated with the entry-level expectations of sub-
sequent baccalaureate-level courses they will need to take at that institution. If
the ILP serves type 2 students (preacademic programs for students who may or
may not ever matriculate at that institution), instructors may pursue a more gen-
eralized course of language and literacy development that will serve students in
a range of future contexts (see the discussion of English for Academic Purposes
[EAP] instruction in Chapter 3). In short-term programs, students may have little
need for or interest in working seriously on their L2 writing skills; writing tasks
that occur will typically take place in class and as a means to respond to course
content in some way (writing to learn). Although the vast majority of students in
ILPs are international students on visas, some type 1 programs may also enroll im-
migrant students who need developmental language or literacy instruction (Lay
et al., 1999). Again, it is vital for teachers in ILPs to understand which kind of
program and students they work with, as well as the expectations of stakeholders
and constraints of the setting.
Academic programs (secondary). As already noted, the number of immigrant and

Generation 1.5 students in K–12 programs in the United States has grown dra-
matically in recent decades and is still growing. Further, immigrants no longer set-
tle only in traditional “gateway” regions. Thus, school systems around the United
States are learning to understand and adapt to a more diverse student population.
At the secondary level, schools tend to focus English instruction on reading
and analysis of canonical literary texts, supplemented sometimes with creative
writing opportunities and tasks in which students reflect on personal experiences.
Some process-oriented techniques (prewriting, multiple-drafting, peer review; see
Chapter 3) are practiced in secondary instruction, but class sizes and teaching
loads often limit the amounts of writing students are asked to do and certainly the
quality of feedback they receive.
There is a small but growing number of international students in secondary set-
tings hoping to attain L2 proficiency and later gain admission to a university in the
host country. However, most L2 writers in secondary settings are either recent im-
migrants or Generation 1.5 students. Some may have begun their formal educa-
tion designated as ELLs but were redesignated at some point as English proficient.
Although some students can function well in mainstream English courses (at regu-
lar or even honors levels), others still struggle with vocabulary, grammar, reading
comprehension, and written fluency. Depending on local school district policy, these
students may be placed in specialized courses with other L2 students and a trained
instructor or in basic or remedial courses with monolingual L1 speakers who strug-
gle academically (Gilliland, 2012; Harklau, 2000). Of course, teachers of L2 students
in secondary settings must also be aware that factors such as self-confidence, identity,
crosscultural conflict, and peer influence are extremely acute with this adolescent
population. Until recently, little attention has been devoted to the development of
academic literacy by secondary L2 students and especially to their critical transition
to postsecondary studies. However, this trend is beginning to change, as seen by a

recent (2011) special issue on the topic in the Journal of Second Language Writing.
Academic settings (postsecondary). L2 writers encounter a variety of SL contexts

at the postsecondary level:
j Two-year (community/junior) colleges: Many two-year college systems allow

students to complete remedial and developmental coursework in English and
mathematics while completing college-level general education courses and
prerequisite courses for specific majors and degrees. Two-year colleges are
government-subsidized and usually quite inexpensive compared to four-year
options. Students in two-year colleges may plan to transfer later to a four-year
college or university, to earn a two-year associate’s degree, or simply to take
specific courses to improve their prospects for employment. Many two-year
colleges, especially in high immigration regions, offer extensive coursework
for multilingual students, including multiple levels of literacy instruction
and skill-specific courses in reading, grammar, and listening and speaking.
Because students in two-year colleges have a range of goals, some may be very
dedicated to their studies; others may be distracted by obligations such as jobs
or families. In addition, as in adult school settings, there may be a fair amount
of attrition, with students dropping out as the term progresses (see Bailey &
Santos, 2009; Patthey, Thomas-Spiegel, & Dillon, 2009).
j Four-year (undergraduate) colleges and universities: In these contexts, stu-
dents pursue bachelor’s degrees in their chosen majors. In North America,
there is a tremendous degree of variation across four-year institutions, rang-
ing from small, select private schools to large, research-focused public univer-
sities to large teaching-oriented state colleges and universities. The nature of
the resources and support offered for multilingual students at these institu-
tions varies widely as well (Dadak, 2006; Kubota & Abels, 2006; Leki, 2007).
Some universities welcome large numbers of international students and offer
“type 1” ILPs to help new students develop needed English skills. Some have
designated sections of college-level writing courses to serve international or
Generation 1.5 students. In other settings, though L2 students can enroll in
designated ESL courses at the developmental level, they are mainstreamed
with other (monolingual L1) undergraduates once they reach college-level
writing instruction. Most institutions offer tutoring or writing center services
(Bruce & Rafoth, 2009; Reynolds, 2009). Generally speaking, outside of a
university-based ILP, it is unusual to find many course offerings for L2 under-
graduates in language skills other than writing.
j Writing in the disciplines: Much of the L2 writing literature focuses on the
experiences of students and teachers in ESL, multilingual, and composition pro-
grams. However, beyond those (typically) required courses in language or writ-
ing, L2 students encounter increasingly challenging academic literacy demands
as they pursue general education courses and major courses in their chosen
disciplines. These challenges are often exacerbated by instructors who are not
trained in writing pedagogy or second language development and who may not
devise adequately clear assignments, scaffold those assignments effectively in the
classroom, provide helpful feedback, or fairly assess students’ written products.
There is an ongoing need for much more outreach to, and training for, faculty
in the disciplines about the needs and abilities of L2 students in their classes. A
recent special issue of the online journal Across the Disciplines (2011) on “WAC
and Second Language Writing” is a promising development; it is to be hoped
that specialists in writing across the curriculum (WAC) and writing in the disci-
plines (WID) will both work collaboratively with L2 writing experts and pursue
more training themselves so that disciplinary faculty can in turn become better
equipped to work with increasingly diverse student populations.
j Graduate and professional programs in universities: As noted earlier, many
international students pursuing degrees in the United States are at the gradu-
ate level (IIE, 2011). Although many have strong English proficiency when
they are admitted, others need additional work in writing or in oral skills
(especially training for those working as teaching assistants for undergrad-
uate courses) (Abasi, Akbari, & Graves, 2006; Casanave, 2002; Casanave &
Li, 2008). Some institutions offer substantial coursework and other support
(such as tutoring and thesis-writing workshops) for international and other
multilingual students, but some do not. Students may further struggle with
thesis or dissertation supervisors who do not have the time, interest, or exper-
tise to help their L2 advisees with their writing or to give them useful feedback.
j Support services: Most colleges and universities offer various types of sup-
port services for students who need extra help with writing or with other
coursework. These include writing centers, learning skills centers, and other
types of tutoring or advising services. In some contexts, writing and academic
support centers employ consultants with specialized training in working with
L2 writers, but in others, consultants often feel unprepared to work with the
diverse needs of multilingual students (Ferris, 2009; Leki, 2009; Patton, 2011).
Thus, settings that should be “the ideal learning environment for students
whose first or strongest language is not English: one-on-one, context rich,
highly focused . . . “ (Leki, 2009, p. 1) may instead be places of frustration for
students and consultants alike.
To summarize our discussion of contexts, it is crucial for teachers of L2 writ-

ing to understand the big picture: Students must face a variety of challenges and
different sets of circumstances as they pursue their goals. Instructors should be
thinking not only about what students in their own classes will need but also
about where their students are going—and about the institutional and societal
contexts and conditions under which they will operate. Thus, needs analysis for
course design purposes (see Chapter 5) should go beyond the specific course,
considering broader questions about the program or department, the institution,

the local community, and the sociocultural environment.
Chapter Summary
In this chapter, we further define what we mean by the term “L2 writers” and look
more closely at the wide range of contexts in which L2 writers are taught or as-
sisted in L2 literacy development. Specifically, we described:
j four different subgroups of L2 writers: international students, ESL students,

resident immigrant students, and Generation 1.5 students;
j four exemplar L2 writers all in the same university composition course (see
Appendix 2);
j the variety of contexts in which L2 writing/writers may be taught; and
j the implications of this awareness of differing student populations and con-
texts for individual instructors.
In so doing, we laid the foundation for discussion in later chapters of how to

design courses, tasks, and lessons for L2 writers and how to respond to and assess
L2 writing.
A final note of caution is appropriate here: Broad discussions of student groups
and institutional contexts can be helpful in an increasingly diverse and complex
educational environment. However, we offer these definitions, descriptions, and
generalizations as a starting point for individual teachers’ own analyses of their
teaching situations and classes. We thus urge readers to work through the Applica-
tion Activities at the end of this chapter and the material on needs analysis later
in this book (Chapter 5) rather than simply “believing” the brief descriptions and
the charts we provided!

j Statistics on international students in the United States: http://www.iie.org
j Edited volumes of research and case studies on Generation 1.5 students:
Harklau et al. (1999); Roberge, Siegal, & Harklau (2009)
j CCCC position statement on “Second Language Writing and Writers”: http://
www.ncte.org/cccc/resources/positions/secondlangwriting
j Recent collections on EFL writing/writers: Cimasko and Reichelt (2011b);
Special issue of Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(1) [2008], Manchón &
de Haan, Eds.
j Special journal issue on adolescent L2 writers: Journal of Second Language
Writing, 20(3) [2011], Ortmeier-Hooper & Enright, Eds.
j Special journal issue on writing across the curriculum (WAC) and L2 writers:
Across the Disciplines (December, 2011), Cox & Myers Zawacki, Eds., http://
wac.colostate.edu/atd/ell/index.cfm

1. If you have taught or tutored L2 writers before, from which of the subgroups
described in the chapter did they come? Are the descriptions of their char-
acteristics and language/literacy abilities consistent with your memories and
perceptions? If not, how are they different?
2. This chapter argues that even native-born children of first-generation im-
migrants can be considered “Generation 1.5.” Were you persuaded by this
argument, or do you think that a student’s place of birth is or should be a
distinguishing characteristic?
3. An interesting question that arises from this discussion of L2 writer sub-
groups is whether all L2 students should have the same class placement,
regardless of background (also see Ferris, 2009; Matsuda, 2008; Roberge,
2009). What do you think about placement of multilingual writers? Should
international students and other newcomers take the same courses than
long-term residents? What arguments could you make on either side of this
question?
4. What is your reaction to the discussion of the four student texts in Appendix
2? If you were teaching these four students in the same course (along with
monolingual English speakers and additional L2 writers), what challenges
would you face, and what strategies would you select to assist them?
5. Look again at the discussion of different institutional contexts in which L2
writers might be taught. As a current or prospective classroom teacher of L2
writers, how might this information be useful to you? Keep in mind that you
will have little or no control over these characteristics.
6. Considering all of the ideas presented in this chapter, if you were interviewing
for a new teaching position or assigned a new course to teach, how might you
gather the information that you would need in order to make good decisions
about that opportunity?
Designing a Student Background Questionnaire
Based on your reading of this chapter, design a short questionnaire (10 questions
or fewer) that you might use to find out about the background of an individual
student or a whole class. Consider the various points raised in the section on the
different subgroups of L2 writers. If you are completing this activity in a course,
share your ideas with your classmates and instructor to compile a group list. In ad-
dition, discuss effective wording and structure of such questions so that you could
obtain the information you need.

L2 Writer Profile
1. Find an L2 student currently enrolled in an English, ESL, EAP, or literacy
course in an academic setting: high school, community college, or university.
2. Obtain background information from the student, using the questionnaire you
designed for Application Activity 2.1 (or another one you may find or adapt).
3. Collect and analyze a piece of the student’s writing:
a. Have the student bring you an assignment that she or he has written for
the course. If no paper is available, ask him or her spend 30–40 minutes
writing a sample for you on a topic of your choice (see Chapter 4 or 8).
b. Analyze the student’s text for strengths and weaknesses. Look at the writ-
er’s response to the assignment, ideas, and organization. Also consider the
student writer’s use of language in the sample (sentence variety, vocab-
ulary use, morphosyntactic accuracy, cohesive elements, and so forth).
Finally, look at nonidiomatic features: Do you see any error patterns? Do
errors interfere with the comprehensibility of the message?
4. Summarize your findings in a short paper or oral presentation. Conclude by
discussing what needs you think this student presents and what strategies you
might employ if you were teaching or tutoring him or her.

Comparing and Contrasting L2 Writers’ Texts
Collect three L2 writers’ texts, from the same class (as in Appendix 2) or from sev-
eral different roughly equivalent classes or course levels. After ranking the samples
from strongest to weakest, compare and contrast them, using whatever criteria
you think are useful or appropriate (see Chapter 6). You may follow the analysis
used to discuss the papers in Appendix 2 if you like, or you can adapt it. You may
also use the chart below if you find it helpful. If possible, find out about both
the assignment(s) to which the students were responding and the student writers’
background characteristics (at least in general).
How could this kind of close analysis of several student texts inform how you
would teach a course these students were in? How you might attempt to meet their
individual needs if you were their classroom teacher or tutor?
Characteristic Strongest Average Paper Weakest

Paper_________________________Paper
Response in Task:
Conient and Ideas
Organization and
Coherence
Errors and
Language Use
Discuss your findings with your classmates and instructor if you are completing
this activity in a class setting.

Investigating an Institutional Context
Complete a small field research project by collecting and analyzing information
about a local educational program that serves multilingual writers. It may be a high
school program, an adult school program, an intensive language program, or a
postsecondary department or program—choose a context that interests you. Col-
lect at least two different pieces of data about the context. For example, you might
examine the program’s website to see what you can learn about how the program
describes its approach to meeting the needs of L2 students. You might interview
administrators, instructors, or students; you might also observe a class or two in
the program. It would likewise be helpful to collect artifacts such as course syllabi
and outlines, grading rubrics, composing assignments, and instructional materials.
Having collected data, see how many of the following questions you can answer:
1. What percentage of the student population consists of L2 writers?

2. What are the backgrounds of the L2 students in this program?
3. How are L2 students placed into courses and levels?
4. How are they assessed during and at the end of classes?
5. Who are the instructors, and how are they trained to work with L2 students?
6. Can you point to specific ways in which the curriculum is responsive to the
diverse needs of L2 writers?
7. How successful are the L2 students in meeting the goals of the program or
course? In meeting their own goals for being in the program or course?
Write a short paper or letter in which you either (a) praise the program as a
model and describe why you believe it is effective, or (b) raise questions or con-
cerns about the program and suggest possible improvements. Address your paper
to an appropriate decision-maker, such as the program head or director, academic
coordinator, district superintendent, or school board.
Appendix 2
Sample Student Texts
Note: These four student writers were all in the same first-year composition
course at a U.S. university. It was a “mainstream” course, not an ESL course. The
texts were written in 60 minutes as a diagnostic writing assignment during the first
week of the term. The writing prompt is shown in the first example.
Student 1: “Youngjoo” (international student from Korea) (366 words)
Writing prompt: Improving my reading and writing skills will be critical to my
success as a college student.
I agreed with the statement: the reading and writing skills do important role
for successful academic life. The reading and writing are connected with every
academic life. To learn something new from the lectures, students have to read
textbooks or paper, and to express your understating, students have to write down
on the answer sheets.
Having the improved reading and writing skills are great advantage to a college
students because you can be finished the lots of reading materials for lectures on
time, and you can understand better and express your idea effective.
Once the quarter is started, the college students have to read various reading
materials. Those could be for their majors or general education classes.
However, the reading materials are sometimes overwhelming amount to read
or difficult to understands depend on your reading habit. However, if you know
the way of reading which has different purpose, you could save your time to read.
For example, my major is engineering. I have several thick text books each quarter.
When I was freshman, I tried to read all books, every single page in the text-
book. I spent many time to read them all expecting I would get good grades. How-
ever, at the end of semester when I got a transcript for this quarter, my grads were
not good as much as I expected. When I became a junior year and get used to study
engineering subject, I understood the way of using the textbooks and studying.
Although I spend less time than freshman I spend, my grads were improved.
Secondly, as improving the reading and writing skill, you can understand bet-
ter and explain your idea in better way. When I took a literature class for general
education, I was uncomfortable to read the textbook. The structure of sentences
in the textbook was different compared with the major textbooks. The sentences
of engineering textbook are normally simple and clear. There are no metaphors
and no hidden meaning. However the literature reading had many hidden mean-
ing in one sentence and I had to find the hidden meaning and write the complex
sentence about these. The literature class made me awake of the importance of
reading and writing skill.
Student 2: “Luan” (immigrant student from China) (479 words)

The Importance of Improving My English Reading and Writing Skills
Improving my English reading and writing skills are essential. Most of the col-
lege professors and students are professional writers and readers. Improving my
English reading and writing skills help standardize me into a standard college stu-
dent; this allows me to survive in college.
Improving my English reading and writing skills help shorten the time that I
needed to spend on reading college level texts. Sometimes, I had trouble under-
standing the meaning of the sentences that were written by professional writer. I
usually encountered this type of sentences in English class textbooks. For example,
the writers use many advanced vocabulary words in one sentence. Thus, I had to
read them over several times to get a better understanding of what the sentence
means. Personally, I guess text books that are used in English class are more dif-
ficult to read than those I read online, newspaper or magazine. I guess I usually
spent more time reading English class text book than other students. This might
due to the reason that I have not read enough professional writings to get used to
the professional writing style. However, practice makes perfect; I can improve my
reading skill by reading more professional writings so I can read them faster.
Improving my writing skill is a way to give a better impression to other who
read my writing. For example, if I made a lot of grammar mistakes, the grader
would have to keep stopping to correct the grammar errors; this can affect the
smoothness of the essay. If they stop a lot while reading the essay, they would
forget the information they read previously. Eventually, they might think the essay
was not coherent enough and then they might lower the score. Last year, I had to
write a paper for Sociology class; the paper worth twenty percents of the grade. I
knew I was not good in grammar, so I usually took my writings to my Sociology
T.A and had him check them. This might psychologically gave the T.A a bad im-
pression about my grammar skill. Even though I let three people in the Learning
Skill Center to check the grammar of the paper to ensure that it had no mistake
before I turned it in, but when I got the paper back, I received a B because I got low
score in the grammar section. So, I think improving writing skill very important
to me in college because it will give a bad impression to the readers about one’s
English and they could possibly lower his or her grade.
In college, I think the basic skills one should improve are the reading and writ-
ing skills. It helps improve one’s grade and makes reading texts faster and easier.
Without a good writing and reading skill, college life would be a nightmare.
Student 3: “Joe” (Generation 1.5 student) (417 words)

Importance of Reading/Writing
Like many college students, I hate reading and writing academically. If it were
possible for me to pass a class with an A without reading, then I would not buy the
textbook at all. In addition, I dreaded the classes where there are writing assign-
ments, which have boring prompts. Overall, I do enjoy reading and writing, but
only on the topics that I find pleasurable.
Even if I hate reading and writing academically, I know it will benefit me later.
College students who improve their reading and writing will have increase success
by being able to communicate more effectively to wider range of people.
I do not enjoy reading assigned books or textbooks because the languages in-
side them are very complex, which makes it difficult to understand. Even though
I dislike reading it, I realize that reading texts that are more difficult will improve
my vocabulary and understanding. After constant exposure to more complicated
text, eventually the written language will be extremely clear. I remember when I
was taking general biology classes when I was a freshman, and it was hard for me
to understand the textbook. Now, I noticed that in my advanced biology classes, I
could decipher the text more because of prior exposure to previous text.
After reading various text and exposed to wide range of complexities, then I can
understand a larger majority of people. This is very beneficial for me, since I am
a science major, I will be required to communicate with people who use different
terminology from my own. I noticed my increase science vocabulary when I went
to office hours for chemistry and I asked questions using numerous chemistry
terms, which allowed the teacher to help me understand more. By reading more, I
can help myself understand people more.
Even though I dislike academic writing assignments, I understand that I need
writing to help me communicate more effectively to wider ranges of people. Im-
provements in writing skills help people organize their thoughts better. I noticed that
good writers have great organization in their thoughts, which helps people under-
stand them better. From experience, I noticed that I have poor organization, because
my prior English teachers have a hard time understanding what point I am trying to
get across. If more people understand me, then the more interested they are.
Improving my writing skills will help me gain the attention of audiences I want.
If I communicate in a language that my target audience are use to, then they will
be more interested in reading my texts. That is very beneficial for me, since I am a
science major. By improving my science writing ability, I can better communicate
to scientist.
As much as I dread reading and writing, I know that by doing it, I am better-
ing myself in ways, which will increase my success. I will be able to understand
people at high levels and communicated with them at a high level as well. Overall,
improving my reading and writing is a key to a better life.
Student 4: “Paul” (Generation 1.5 student) (981 words)

The Nature of Reading and Writing
As a first generation Asian-American, my main focus growing up was not read-
ing or writing but in the art of mathematics. To my parents’ understanding, as
long as I was proficient at speaking the English language, the words on the pages
will begin to read and write by themselves. I began to refute this notion vigorously
once I stepped into my first public school classroom where I found that the words
Barney once spoke so adamantly could not be written down with such ease. As
time slowly drifted by and my understanding of the mechanics of reading and
writing vastly improved, I found that my understanding of other subjects also
began to improve. I agree with the many professors and students who find that
reading and writing abilities are very important for success in college and future
careers. I also believe that improving my reading and writing skills will be very
critical to my success as a college student.
I would like to think of myself as a good reader and not an efficient writer.
Reading to me is a more of a pleasurable activity rather than a taxing event that
only occurs when forced. Whether it is the front page of espn.com or one of the
great literary works, I have come to see reading as a relaxation activity where I
can escape the confines of the present and go exploring on my own. Since I rarely
actually travel outside of California, reading gives me a sense of what the world is
like and what danger lurks beneath the midnight skies in Baghdad. I feel that I am
at a point where I can deduce the writer’s meaning and purpose just from read-
ing a few paragraphs. I wish I can be as confident as I am reading as I am writing
because of my many nightmares associated with writing. I feel that I am a satisfac-
tory writer but not a great one by any means. My utter lack of respect for the art of
writing in my earlier years began to pay its dividends as soon as I receive my first
paper in high school drenched in red marks. I am beginning to grasp writing a bit
more over time, but by no means, a good writer.
As my skills as a writer began fall behind my peers, I started to loathe writing as
a whole; whether it be writing up a lab report or writing the dreaded ten page essay
for English. To find the root of this despair, I remembered a certain teacher in the
fifth grade who made me hate writing. He would teach us the verb tenses and gram-
mar rules, yet would change these rules weekly. As a young impressionable child,
I absorbed these incorrect rules which would take me years to fix. I applied these
rules on his many essay assignments and would get them back with red marks say-
ing I made verb tense mistakes. When I tried going to him to ask about my mistakes
and what I could do to fix them, I was met with vague answers and it seems like he
was more interested in emailing his girlfriend more than helping. With my shaky
foundation that I built that year, my next classes would be filled with frustration
and anger at writing. I often times wish my writing experience would have had a
similar path as my reading experience where I met a teacher who taught me to look
beyond the colorful pictures on the cover of books. My third grade teacher intro-
duced me to the world that lies beneath that old and dusty cover. Before switching
over to the many children classics, I was enamored with the Goosebumps series
and their many enticing covers. Yet as reading time comes every day, my third grade
teacher would read to us different stories of myths, dragons, and pirates that could
only be found through those dusty old books. From there on out, I began to love
reading and soon after, my reading skills developed.
As a second year student at UC Davis, I cannot imagine where I would be with-
out the ability to write and read since those two things can dictate how success-
ful you would and would not be. Whether it is doing a lab report or writing up
a four page paper on the diaspora of Asian Americans, your ability to read these
things and carefully write up your own thoughts and opinions is very important.
Everything you do as a college student requires reading because the only way to
gain new knowledge and to actively learn is through reading. Everything you do
here at UC Davis requires writing since there are very little options in making your
thoughts, opinions, and feelings known. Even in the simplest task such as voicing
your concerns through an email to a professor, you must somehow put together
the correct string of words to show him or her how you feel. My parents long
believed that by listening and speaking English in every moment of your life, you
will become and efficient at reading and writing. While this is not entirely false,
learning how to read and write is an art that takes years to master. Even as a science
major, a lot of my ideas and findings are voiced through writing up lab reports
and much of my knowledge about the inner workings of science comes from ef-
fectively reading textbooks. I imagine that as I take classes, I will use my writing
and reading skills to make my ideas and thoughts more concise in my laboratory
findings as well as using my critical reading skills to provide me with substance to
prove my research. As this quarter progresses and as my future unfolds, I believe
that the ability to read and write effectively will dictate the success that I will have.
Notes
1. We would add to these assertions that many, and perhaps most, L2 graduate students
also need and deserve extra writing support to complete their degree requirements and
launch their academic or professional careers.
2. In the United States, a small minority of immigrant students in K–12 schools, colleges,
and universities are undocumented. Although the benefits provided for undocumented
students are a source of great political controversy, these students’ legal statuses are not
especially relevant to our discussion here.
3. The main exception to this generalization is the small population of children of interna-
tional students who spend several years in school in the SL context.
4. We provide these U.S.-focused statistics because we ourselves and many of our readers
are located in the United States. Readers who live or work in other contexts should not
assume that the trends and demographics are similar but should take this introductory
discussion as an example of the types of information they might look for in their own
settings.
Chapter 3
Composition
Pedagogies:
Theory, Principle,
and Practice

1. What do you recall about your early experiences as a beginning writer
in school? Do you remember mother-tongue writing instruction in pri-
mary or secondary school? What do you remember about the methods
used by your teachers and the types of text that you were asked to write?
2. If you took writing courses as a university student, how would you describe
the principles and methods used by your instructors? In what ways did these
methods contribute to your development as an academic writer (or reader)?
3. As you have developed skill as a writer of academic and nonacademic
texts, have you discerned any explicit or implicit theories of writing that
might have driven the classroom instruction that you received?
4. If you have learned (or attempted to learn) a second or foreign language
in a classroom setting, did your courses focus at all on writing? If so, how
would you characterize the instructional method, and what were the aims
of that instruction? Compare your L2 writing experiences to your mother-
tongue writing experiences, noting specific similarities and differences.
5. If you have classroom experience as a teacher of writing, how would you
describe your instructional method, and what kinds of tasks and activi-
ties are typical of your approach and style? What do you think are the
most important skills and strategies for your student writers to master?
6. In what ways do you think cultivating an understanding of diverse
models of writing and instructional methods could help you to become
an effective composition instructor?
58 Composition Pedagogies: Theory, Principle, and Practice
As a relatively young yet maturing academic discipline, L2 writing still lacks a

truly coherent corpus of conclusive theory and research to synthesize in a tidy
survey of learning and teaching (Hedgcock, 2005, 2010, 2012; Polio & Williams,
2011). At the end of the 20th century, Cumming and Riazi (2000) observed that
the field still lacked a unified understanding of “how people actually learn to
write in a second language” and of how formal instruction might most produc-
tively contribute to that learning process (p. 57). Nonetheless, considerable pro-
gress has been made toward constructing a rigorous research agenda and toward
addressing the multiple concerns addressed in Chapters 1 and 2 (Leki et al., 2008;
Matsuda, 2003b). Still, as Zhu (2010) argued, “discussions addressing the con-
nection between theory and practice . . . seem to have focused more on ‘theory
to practice,’ with practice at the receiving end” (p. 214). Her observation brings
to mind Grabe and Kaplan’s (1996) caveat about the presupposition that “apply-
ing” a theory can produce an instructional method. Stressing the “bi-directional,
interdependent, dynamic, and mediated nature of this relationship,” Zhu (2010)
pointed out that “practice often motivates theory development by raising ques-
tions about various aspects of [L2] writing and serves as the site in which theory
is tested” (p. 214).
Irrespective of somewhat asymmetrical relationships between theoretical
constructs and teaching practice, L2 writing as a discipline is far from athe-
oretical. Substantive, rigorous L2 composition research did not appear until
the 1980s, yet its current theoretical frameworks can be traced to advances in
first language (L1) rhetoric and composition, applied linguistics, and TESOL
(Grabe & Kaplan, 1996, 1997; Hedgcock, 2005; M. Kennedy, 1998; Leki, 2000;
Leki et al., 2008; Lindemann, 2001; Matsuda, 1998, 1999, 2003a, 2003b; Miller,
2009; Raimes, 1991, 1998; Silva & Leki, 2004). This chapter first discusses these
inter- and crossdisciplinary connections and then surveys leading approaches
to L1 rhetoric and composition, focusing on models that have shaped theory
development and praxis in L2 writing. We likewise describe approaches that
have taken shape independent of trends in L1 composition. Throughout this
survey, readers should bear in mind that no single theory or paradigm should
be seen as autonomous or self-contained. In fact, we should expect to en-
counter numerous common features and overlapping presuppositions, even
among competing theories (Durst, 2006; Fulkerson, 2005; Hedgcock, 2010;
Knoblauch & Brannon, 1984).
Sources of Expertise in
L2 Composition
In Chapter 1, we proposed that explicit knowledge about how people learn to
write encourages us to question our assumptions and to view our methods “with
an informed and critical eye” (Hyland, 2003, p. 1). We further noted that, as an
Composition Pedagogies: Theory, Principle, and Practice 59
emerging field with a unique disciplinary identity and mission, L2 writing has for-
mulated its guiding theories by drawing on several intellectual traditions. As Silva
and Leki (2004) observed, “L2 writing lies at the crossroads of composition studies
and applied linguistics” and “continues to be shaped by its parent and grandparent
disciplines” (p. 2). Familiarity with the field’s intellectual heritage can be a useful
resource for L2 composition instructors, and as the work of teaching writing has
become more complex with the diversification of the student writer population
(see Chapter 2), L1 compositionists can likewise benefit from recognizing inter-
secting disciplinary interests and insights.
Rhetoric and Linguistics

As in prior historical assessments (e.g., Blanton, 1995; Matsuda, 1998, 2003a,
2003b; Raimes, 1991), Silva and Leki (2004) attributed the range and methods
of L2 writing to its “parent” disciplines, (L1) composition studies and applied
linguistics, tracing these epistemological roots to the field’s “grandparent” disci-
plines, rhetoric and linguistics. The details of these traditions lie beyond the scope
of this chapter, but it is worthwhile to sketch key contrasts and points of intersec-
tion as background for the theoretical and methodological discussion presented in
the next section of this chapter.
The Western rhetorical tradition, the parent of contemporary composition
studies (and grandparent of L2 writing studies), involves the art and craft of per-
suasion that originated in ancient Greece (ca. 500 BCE). Aristotle viewed rhetoric,
an oral practice, as a complement to logic and politics, proposing three kinds of
appeal to the listener: logos (an argument, plea, or idea), pathos (appeal to the
hearer’s sentiments or sympathies), and ethos (the credibility, character, or ideals
of the author) (Enos, 2012). Carried on by the ancient Romans, the rhetorical tra-
dition formalized the canonical processes of constructing a speech: invention, ar-
rangement, style, memory, and delivery (Jansinski, 2001; Lauer, 2004; Lindemann,
2001; Olson, 2002). One can observe these processes featured in many approaches
to composition instruction to this day, particularly those that emphasize repro-
duction of rhetorical modes (description, exposition, narrative, and argument)
(Berlin, 1987; Williams, 2003).
In contrast, the classical antecedents of modern linguistics involved the An-
cients’ philosophical questions about the origins of, and relationships between,
form and meaning. During the Middle Ages, the elevation of grammar as one of
the three elements of the trivium of learning (along with dialectic and rhetoric)
eventually led to a renewed interest in linguistic description. This interest in lan-
guage precipitated the construction of dictionaries and the pursuit of a universal
source of linguistic knowledge during the Renaissance. Accelerated intellectual and
creative activity during the Enlightenment focused on comparative descriptions
of linguistic structure and the establishment of language academies, developments
that paved the way for 19th century scholarship and the structuralist hypotheses of
Swiss linguist de Saussure (1986). Structuralism contrasted langue (“language”—a

system of signs, the formal elements of language) and parole (“speech”—speech
activities that convey meaning), and this contrast undergirds contemporary lin-
guistics. Generative linguistics, synonymous with Noam Chomsky, stressed the
relationship between deep and surface structure, as well as the innateness and
universality of linguistic knowledge (Cook & Newsom, 2007; Radford, Atkinson,
Britain, Clahsen, & Spencer, 2009). These structuralist premises contrasted sharply
with 20th century behaviorist assumptions about language development. As Silva
and Leki (2004) observed, “it was the tenets of structural linguistics that eventu-
ally had the greatest impact on L2 writing” (p. 3), although this influence has been
indirect.
Composition Studies and Applied Linguistics

Scholars often trace the roots of contemporary North American composition
studies to the early 19th century model for first-year composition introduced
at Harvard, where students mastered grammar, style, and rhetoric as they wrote
about canonical works of literature (Berlin, 1987; Connors, 1997; Hillocks, 1986;
Silva & Leki, 2004). Early 20th century higher education underwent a shift to-
ward “the social utility of writing courses,” a direction promoted by the National
Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) (Silva & Leki, 2004, p. 3). As this new
model took hold, the divide between literary scholarship and writing instruction
in university English departments widened, leading to the increased autonomy of
composition studies—and, in some cases, their marginalization. At mid-century,
disciplinary independence coincided with the establishment of the Conference
on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) and its flagship jour-
nal, College Composition and Communication (Matsuda, 1999, 2003b; Matsuda,
Ortmeier-Hooper, & You, 2006; Silva & Leki, 2004). Classical rhetoric returned
to the curriculum in the 1960s as instruction began to stress composing pro-
cesses. A strongly cognitive orientation predominated in composition research
and pedagogy in the 1970s and 1980s, when composition studies became further
professionalized. While empirical study of the cognitive underpinnings of writ-
ing continues, the field’s research strands have expanded to include postmod-
ernism, cultural studies, social constructionism, feminism, reflective practice,
multiculturalism, and digital learning, among others (Clark, 2011; Fulkerson,
2005; George & Trimbur, 2001; M. Kennedy, 1998; Kucer, 2009; Palmeri, 2012;
Sidler, Morris, & Overman-Smith, 2008; Silva & Leki, 2004; Smagorinsky, 2006;
Trifonas, 2011; Troia, 2007; Weigle, 2014).
The disciplinary divide between composition studies and applied linguistics
is comparable to that between rhetoric and linguistics, which developed largely
in parallel but with occasional intersections and overlaps. We can date the begin-
nings of applied linguistics to the Classical Era (Rajagopalan, 2004), but historical
accounts typically recognize the middle of the 20the century as the period in
which applied linguistics came into its own (Evensen, 1997; Grabe & Kaplan, 1996;
Leki, 2000; Widdowson, 2005). The urgent need for accelerated foreign language
instruction in the U.S. during World War II ignited curricular initiatives and re-
search influenced by the behaviorist precepts of operant conditioning and, to a
degree, North American structuralism (Rajagopalan, 2004; Silva & Leki, 2004).
Early issues of Language Learning, applied linguistics’ pioneering flagship journal,
reflect a primary focus on L2 instruction in the 1950s and 1960s. Theoretical con-
cerns included contrastive analysis, pedagogical approaches informed by operant
conditioning, psychometric models of language assessment, and language policy.
In the 1970s, the thematic focus shifted toward the rapid expansion of second
language acquisition (SLA) as a subfield.
Like composition studies, applied linguistics in the 1960s gained legitimacy
through the establishment of professional organizations such as the International
Association for Applied Linguistics (AILA) and Teachers of English to Speakers of
Other Languages (TESOL), and of the American Association for Applied Linguis-
tics (AAAL) in the 1970s. As the field gained momentum, the number of leading
journals expanded; these include Applied Linguistics, the Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, TESOL Quarterly, and Modern Language Journal, to name a few. Over
the 1970s and 1980s, the field’s scope expanded to include empirical research from
diverse disciplines (e.g., linguistics, education, anthropology, and translation,
among others). Applied linguistics presently encompasses theoretical and empiri-
cal work on all aspects of SLA, multilingualism, discourse studies, lexicography,
language policy and planning, education, assessment, literacy studies, rhetoric and
composition, and L2 writing (with its own dedicated serial, The Journal of Second
Language Writing, founded in 1992). A discipline “that mediates between research
and practice,” applied linguistics has contributed substantively to theory-building
and research methods in the study and teaching of L2 composition (Silva & Leki,
2004, p. 5).
As this brief historical comparison suggests, composition studies and applied
linguistics have materialized as academic disciplines with divergent intellectual
and philosophical inheritances, as well as unique programmatic and curricular
designs (Atkinson & Ramanathan, 1995). Nonetheless, the two fields share com-
mon features, including their comparative youth, interdisciplinarity, and ongoing
connections to more firmly established parent disciplines. Furthermore, because
composition studies and L2 writing tend to focus on “pragmatic pursuits,” both
fields are sometimes marginalized by educational institutions and scholars in
more prestigious fields (Silva & Leki, 2004). To appreciate the disciplinary land-
scape, it is useful to recognize points of convergence and divergence. Figure 3.1,
which summarizes key contrasts between composition studies and applied lin-
guistics, will serve as background to the examination of theoretical and pedagogi-
cal models presented in the following section.
D im ensions o f In q u iry C o ni p os it i on S tud i e s L 2 Wri ti n y

and P ractice
OntofDgy R elays! {"reality" of Realist (observations
(existence) observations is socially capture unchanging reality)
National (N America).
Epistemology Predominantly subjectivist Predominantly objectivist
(knowledge, approach to (research findings result (method allots observer to
inquiry) from interaction between adopt a distant viewpoint
National (N America). National (N America).
humanllies
National (N orientation
America). results):
National social science
(N America).
America).
Method Predominanlly hemieneulic Empirical
National (N and often
America).
(form of inquiry) and d>alectlc (Inierpretwe positivist (a pwn' questions
National (N America). National (N America).
Axiology Changing writers' attitudes Explanation of linguistic
(values, goals) and behaviors processes and products
Scope oflnquiry Macroscopic and holistic Microscopic and festricted
Theory and Practice Theory lends 10 be Practice tends to bo
National (N America). America).
Dominant Research Essay Empirical research report
Scope of Co
Focus on Speech and Wnting is primary Speech is primary
Scope of Co
Linguistic Determinism Cognition shaped by Language a reflection of
Scope of Co America).
Scope of Constiiuency National (N America). international, multicultural.
National (N America). America).
America).
Scope of Co America). America). America).
Scope of Co
Scope of Co America). America).
Scope of Co
Political Orientation Lefl lo far left Center left
Institutional Home_________ English departments_______________ Varies__________
FIGURE 3.1 Comparison of composition studies and L2 writing research and

teaching.
Primary source: Silva & Leki (2004).
Additional sources: Atkinson & Ramanathan (1995); Canagarajah (2002b, 2010); Matsuda
(2003b).
Theory, Research, and Practice in L1 and L2

Composition Instruction
L2 writing studies have unquestionably “evolved into an interdisciplinary field” (Silva &
Leki, 2004, p. 5). Consequently, our review of composing pedagogies will draw on
expertise in L1 rhetoric and composition when relevant. It is nevertheless worth re-
calling that, to a great extent, “the theoretical frameworks and research methods for
analyses of L2 writing are derived from those developed and formulated in various
domains of applied linguistics such as text linguistics, discourse analysis, ethnog-
raphy, and cross-cultural communication” (Hinkel, 2011b, p. 523). By acquainting
themselves with the disciplines devoted to the study of writing and the philosophical
orientations that guide the delivery of L1 and L2 composition instruction, readers

can approach instructional paradigms from an informed point of reference, making
instructional decisions that best serve students in their local educational contexts
(Atkinson, 2010; Durst, 2006; Hawkins & Norton, 2009; Matsuda, 2003b). In the
following sections of this chapter, we focus on paradigms and approaches that have
shaped theory development and praxis in L1 and L2 composition. Throughout this
survey, readers should bear in mind that no single theory or paradigm should be
seen as autonomous or self-contained. In fact, we should expect to encounter nu-
merous common features and overlapping presuppositions, even among competing
theories (Fulkerson, 2005; Hedgcock, 2010; Knoblauch & Brannon, 1984).
Product-Oriented Instructional Traditions in

L1 Rhetoric and Composition
Over the course of the early 20th century and into the 1960s, principles and as-
sumptions governing composition instruction in U.S. schools, colleges, and uni-
versities reflected an educational philosophy that focused chiefly on the careful
reading and analysis of canonical literature. Teachers and professors instructed
students (who were presumably assumed to speak English as a mother tongue, or at
least to be proficient enough in English to undergo English-medium instruction)
to read novels, short stories, plays, essays, and poetry. Students would analyze these
works in written compositions, essays, or “themes.” In this product-oriented tradi-
tion, pedagogical practice emphasized the interpretation of influential contempo-
rary and classic literary sources. As a result, little instructional time entailed the
planning, drafting, sharing, revision, or editing of students’ texts (Babin & Har-
rison, 1999; Berlin, 1987; Clark, 2012; Gold, 2008; Gold, Hobbs, & Berlin, 2012;
Grabe & Kaplan, 1996; Graves, 1999; Kroll, 2001; Matsuda, 2003b; Miller, 2009).
Paradoxically, despite the near-absence of explicit rhetorical instruction, students
were expected to produce and master a range of school-based models of rhetorical
arrangement such as description, narration, exposition, comparison and contrast,
process analysis, argumentation, and the like.
To promote proficiency in producing pedagogical genres and rhetorical func-
tions, many 20th century composition textbooks reflected what was then a con-
ventional approach to instruction. The teacher might initially introduce and
define a rhetorical form, pattern, or “mode,” such as comparison and contrast,
in terms of rather rigidly prescribed rules or formulae. Students would then read
one or more works of literature, which they would be directed to analyze during
class. The instructor might then assign a writing task based on the literary sample,
requiring students to imitate the rhetorical pattern previously introduced. In this
sequence of teaching, writing, and assessment, teachers might require students to
follow and even produce a linear template—for example, in outline form—before
planning and developing a single draft of their essays or themes. In the final stages
of the instructional cycle, the teacher would evaluate students’ assignments before
initiating yet another similarly orchestrated sequence based on a new literary text.
Known by some as the traditional paradigm in U.S. English language educa-

tion (Berlin, 1987; Bloom, Daiker, & White, 1997; Williams, 2003), this approach to
composition instruction was not actually grounded in a fully articulated or rigor-
ous theory of education or cognitive development. Also sometimes known as the
product approach (Kroll, 2001), this model of teaching English writing to secondary
and postsecondary students reflected a perspective in which school-based texts—
principally, deductively organized essays and themes—were viewed as rather static
representations of students’ learning and content knowledge. As a result, in product-
oriented writing instruction, very little effort was devoted to the strategies or cogni-
tive operations involved in putting pen to paper (or fingers to the keyboard). Rather,
instruction consisted chiefly of reading works of literature, studying grammar, and
introducing rules for producing “good writing.” Essays were expected to adhere to
rather rigid rhetorical conventions. These conventions included introductions, the-
ses, transitions, and predictable paragraph structures (Clark, 2012; Williams, 2003).
Examples of rules assumed to lead to “good writing” included the following:
j “All paragraphs must have a topic sentence.”

j “All essays have an introductory paragraph, three body paragraphs, and a con-
cluding paragraph.”
j “All concluding paragraphs reiterate the information in the introduction.”
(Williams, 2003, pp. 100–101)
It was widely believed that a student who could produce a predictably formulaic
essay adhering to these norms had satisfactorily displayed academic writing profi-
ciency. Focused almost exclusively on the form of writing, prescriptive, bottom-up
models of writing instruction yielded “unhappy results,” as productive composing
processes cannot rightfully be “reduced to a recipe” consisting of formulaic parts
(Williams, 2003, p. 101). Indeed, recent research has fairly consistently suggested that
the imitation of formulaic models contributes only marginally to developing writ-
ing proficiency and that traditional, mechanical grammar study actually inhibits the
emergence of measurable composition skills (Campbell & Latimer, 2012; Graham &
Perin, 2007). We largely agree and would recommend a socioliterate approach that
features authentic genres as a much more productive alternative (see Chapter 4).
The Process Movement and Allied Pedagogies

A highly influential trend in L1 composition pedagogy and research that emerged
over the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, known as the process approach, emphasized the
individual writer as a creator of original ideas and the need to cultivate his or
her innately generative predispositions. Janet Emig’s (1971) The Composing Pro-
cesses of Twelfth Graders is frequently cited as the process movement’s pioneering
work, “the single most influential piece of . . . [composition] inquiry,” according
to North (1987). Process proponents and practitioners believed that written dis-
course encoded novice writers’ original ideas, serving as a vehicle for exploring
oneself, conveying one’s thoughts, and claiming one’s individual voice, or autho-
rial persona, as an academic or nonacademic writer. Described by many as “top-
down” in orientation, process-oriented pedagogies do not focus on isolated parts
of texts or on grammatical features. Rather, process pedagogies devote attention to
procedures for identifying and solving problems, discovering novel ideas, express-
ing them in writing, and revising emergent texts (Elbow, 1998b; Emig, 1971, 1983;
Kucer, 2009; Matsuda, 2003b; Raimes, 1991; Tobin, 2001; Zamel, 1982, 1987).
A distinguishing feature of process-oriented instruction is its aim “to modify
student behaviors to match those of good writers,” which have been identified in
research featuring interviews, direct observation of skilled and unskilled writers
at work, analyses of think-aloud protocols, and examinations of evolving student
texts (Williams, 2003, p. 101). Hypothesized to be universal, the behaviors and
habits of “good” writers have been formalized as “stages” of the composing pro-
cess, translated into the following pedagogical steps:
j invention (prewriting)
j planning
j drafting
j pausing
j reading
j revising
j editing
j publishing. (Williams, 2003, p. 101)
Although many process writing proponents acknowledge composing to be an

individualized operation in which writers display variation in working through
the stages, process pedagogies generally assume that all writers “engage in these
stages to some degree” (Williams, 2003, p. 101). Such assumptions have led to
understandable criticism among practitioners and researchers who argue that
process-oriented instruction is often delivered in isolation from the cultural, edu-
cational, and sociopolitical contexts where writing takes place (Albrechtsen, Haas-
trup, & Henriksen, 2008; Atkinson, 2004; Canagarajah, 2002b; Casanave, 2003,
2004; Durst, 2006; Hedgcock, 2012; Horowitz, 1986a, 1986b; Hyland, 2002, 2003,
2004a; Kubota, 2010; Kucer, 2009; Kucer & Silva, 2013; Matsuda et al., 2006; Miller,
2009; Williams, 2003).
It is perhaps more accurate to think of process-oriented writing as a range of
approaches and models, rather than as a singular or unitary movement. We conse-
quently refer to plural process-oriented approaches, as process instruction entails
diverse procedures, aims, and ideologies. Williams (2003) succinctly described key
procedural aspects of process-oriented pedagogies, which contrast significantly
with the rather mechanical nature of traditional, product-oriented models:
Process entails a great deal of close contact among students and teach-
ers because of the emphasis on revision. Instruction is individualized
and collaborative, with teachers commonly joining small groups of stu-

dents or meeting with them individually to show them how to solve rhe-
torical problems. The degree of contact resembles an apprenticeship.
(p. 53)
Process-oriented models are often divided into two distinct yet overlapping
categories: expressivist and cognitivist (Faigley, 1986; Kucer, 2009; Polio & Wil-
liams, 2011). Expressivism assumes composing to be “a creative act in which the
process—the discovery of the true self—is as important as the product” (Berlin,
1988, p. 484). In this view, writing instruction should be as nondirective and per-
sonalized as possible, with composing tasks aimed at promoting self-discovery,
the emergence of personal voice, and empowerment of the novice’s inner writer
(Bräuer, 2000a; Burnham, 2001; Clark, 2012; Elbow, 1973, 1998a, 1998b, 2012;
Macrorie, 1984; Murray, 1985; Zamel, 1982, 1983). Elbow (1998b) was an early
and enthusiastic advocate of journal writing and personal essays, texts in which
students could write freely, uncritically, and with no inhibition as a means of
simply producing as many words as possible. Because expressivism highly values
fluency and voice, the writing of journal entries and similarly informal genres is
intended to liberate writers from the inhibitions of writing primarily or exclusively
for a critical audience, such as a teacher (Elbow, 1998b, 1999). Less formal, private
writing is similarly encouraged as a means of promoting experimentation with
novel uses of written language and of giving form to student writers’ novel ideas,
opinions, and even personal feelings (Archibald, 2011; Casanave, 2011; Clark,
2012; Lambirth & Gouch, 2006; Peyton & Reed, 1990). Through uninhibited pro-
duction of texts aimed chiefly at conveying meaning (rather than at reproducing
prescribed rhetorical forms and displaying grammatical accuracy), expressivist
approaches likewise endeavor to cultivate and improve students’ global writing
proficiency (Hillocks, 1995, 2008; Hirvela & Belcher, 2001; Ivaniþ, 1998; Kucer,
2009; Sharples, 1999; Soven, 1999; Weissberg, 1998; Zamel, 1976, 1982, 1983).
Cognitivism has often been described as reflecting a “writing as problem solv-
ing” approach to writing instruction. Cognitivist approaches share with expressiv-
ism several pedagogical elements, including recognition of the need to understand
and cultivate novice writers’ composing processes as generative, recursive, individ-
uated, and “inner-directed” (Bizzell, 1992; Bräuer, 2000a; Kucer, 2009; Matsuda,
2003a, 2003b; McCutchen, Teske, & Bankston, 2008; Olson, 2002; Polio & Wil-
liams, 2011). Cognitivist approaches are nonetheless distinct with respect to their
theoretical underpinnings and sources of empirical support. Cognitivist theory
and research have strongly influenced L1 and L2 composition pedagogy since the
early 1980s, when Flower and Hayes (1980, 1981) and Hayes and Flower (1980)
characterized the composing processes of expert, monolingual writers of English.
They observed that successful writers engaged in nonlinear, recursive mental strat-
egies that could be classified into broadly defined stages: planning, formulation,
and revision (in rough alignment with the process writing steps outlined above).
Another salient feature that sets cognitivism apart from expressivism involves
the former’s emphasis on higher-order thinking and problem-solving operations,
which include observable subprocesses of the planning, formulation, and revision

stages proposed by Hayes and Flower (1980) (McCutchen et al., 2008). Investiga-
tions of novice and expert writers’ text construction processes have identified a
number of cognitive operations and strategies that lead successfully to the produc-
tion of satisfactory texts. For example, in the text construction process, effective
student writers have been shown to:
j define rhetorical problems;

j set goals;
j identify appropriate content;
j capitalize on intertextuality by associating texts with one another;
j generate content (the “knowledge-telling” function, e.g., through sum-
marization of source material);
j pose questions about content and arguments;
j organize and integrate meanings across and within texts;
j transform knowledge (e.g., through analysis and interpretation);
j select writing strategies;
j deploy writing strategies;
j monitor the effectiveness of writing strategies;
j situate rhetorical problems in a broader context;
j propose solutions;
j identify and anticipate reader expectations;
j elaborate definitions through explanation and illustration;
j generate conclusions grounded in evidence;
j manipulate syntax (e.g., through sentence combining); and
j reflect on and evaluate emerging text.
(Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987; Emig, 1983; Flower, 1979, 1985, 1989, 1994; Flower &
Hayes, 1980, 1981; Grigorenko et al., 2012; Haswell, 2008; Hayes & Flower, 1980,
1983; Hayes & Nash, 1996; Hillocks, 2008; Hinkel, 2011b; Kucer, 2009; Kucer & Silva,
2013; Olson & Land, 2007; Roca de Larios, Manchón, & Murphy, 2008; Scardamalia &
Bereiter, 1987; Scardamalia, Bereiter, & Steinbach, 1984; Weigle, 2014)
As research in cognitive science, psycholinguistics, and neuroscience has ad-

vanced, investigations of the mental processes of readers and writers have dem-
onstrated that complex operations such as those listed above can be activated
simultaneously and managed efficiently by the brain (Dehaene, 2009; Koda, 2011;
Wolf, 2007). The demands and constraints of writing in an L2 are distinct (if not
unique) when compared to those of L1 composing processes. As noted in Chapters
1 and 2, unlike L1 writers, L2 writers must work with and compensate for unfamili-
arity with the rhetorical patterns of the L2, an emergent and sometimes develop-
ing L2 grammar, and a smaller (but likely growing) L2 vocabulary, among other
things (Albrechtsen et al., 2008; Manchón, Roca de Larios, & Murphy, 2009; Ortega,
2009a). Nonetheless, many cognitive operations identified among L1 writers are
also routinely deployed by successful L2 writers as they engage in constructing their
texts (Manchón, 2011b, 2011c; Manchón et al., 2009; Olson & Land, 2007; Ortega,
2009a; Sasaki, 2000, 2002; Schoonen, Snellings, Stevenson, & van Gelderen, 2009).
Cognitive approaches to teaching L1 and L2 writing as a process include sig-
nature pedagogical procedures such as invention and other generative prewriting
tasks, drafting, revising multiple drafts, collaborative writing, feedback sessions
with peers and teachers, and the postponement of editing until the final stages of
the composing cycle (Atkinson, 2003b; Bruffee, 1984a, 1984b; Clark, 2012; Murray,
1985, 1987; also see Chapters 4–8). Cognitivist rhetoricians and L2 compositionists
may thus focus principally on developing writers’ intramental processes, especially
cognitive and metacognitive strategies for creating, revising, and polishing their
texts independently (Berlin, 1987, 1988; de Larios, Murphy, & Marín, 2002; Durst,
2006; Flower, 1989; Hedgcock, 2012; Hyland, 2004b, 2011; Kucer, 2009; Murray,
1992; Olson & Land, 2007; Polio & Williams, 2011; Ransdell & Barbier, 2002a,
2002b). From a cognitivist, process-oriented viewpoint, writing is a skill that is
“learnt, not taught”: The teacher’s role “is to be nondirective and facilitating, as-
sisting writers to express . . . meanings through an encouraging and cooperative
environment with minimal interference” (Hyland, 2003, p. 18). Such an approach
to writing pedagogy is consistent with principles of situated learning theory (Lave
& Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998; Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002). A cognitive
approach similarly aligns with sociocultural theory, which is synonymous with
the influential work of Vygotsky, the renowned Russian psychologist (see Daniels,
2001; Kozulin, Gindis, Ageyev, & Miller, 2003; Mahn, 2008; Vygotsky, 1978, 2012).
In fact, Prior (2006) asserted that “sociocultural theories represent the dominant
paradigm for writing research today” (p. 54). In his view, most “situated studies of
writing . . . gesture toward some sociocultural theory” (p. 64).
Composition in the Post-Process Era

A good deal of the literature on composition through about the mid-1990s strongly
implies that process writing entails a unitary method. In fact, it would not be an
overstatement to suggest that the number of “process approaches” might equal the
number of composition teachers. In other words, practitioners interpret and apply
aspects of process models, hybridizing principles and adapting them to reflect their
beliefs, styles, contexts, and—most of all—their students (Blanton, Kroll, Cumming,
& Erickson, 2002; Smagorinsky, Johannessen, Kahn, & McCann, 2010). Nonetheless,
a process-based pedagogy is likely to feature several fundamental, recursive prac-
tices, such as prewriting, peer and teacher feedback, and revision (Cumming, 2003;
Faigley, 1986; Kucer, 2009; Matsuda, 2003a; Smagorinsky, Cook, & Johnson, 2003;
Tompkins, 2011). As instructional practice and beliefs about process have evolved
somewhat from the process movement’s expressivist origins, L1 rhetoricians (e.g.,
Clark, 2012; Dobrin, Rice, & Vastola, 2011; Glenn, Goldthwaite, & Connors, 2007;
Gottschalk & Hjortshoj, 2004; Kent, 1999; Tobin, 1994; Trimbur, 1994) and L2
writing specialists (Atkinson, 2003a, 2003b) have endeavored to characterize what

has come to be known as the “post-process” era. Post-process inquiry aims to iden-
tify and explore the shortcomings of current process-oriented beliefs and practices,
“highlight the rich, multifocal nature of the field,” and “go beyond now-traditional
views of L2 writing research and teaching” (Atkinson, 2003b, p. 12).
Like many popular and influential educational trends, process models (ex-
pressivist and cognitivist alike) have been challenged for pedagogical, theoretical,
empirical, social, cultural, ideological, and ethical reasons. A notable criticism of
process orthodoxy, for example, is that process approaches tend to represent text
construction as solitary, asocial, and decontextualized (Atkinson, 2003b; Dobrin
et al., 2011; Polio & Williams, 2011). Process paradigms assume that written pro-
duction emerges from within the individual writer, a view that can “disempower
teachers and cast them in the role of well-meaning bystanders” (Hyland, 2003,
p. 19). In addition to minimizing teacher authority in the teaching of writing,
the discovery-based, inductive nature of process writing pedagogy typically avoids
pre-revealing the aims of writing and learning to write (Bizzell, 1992; Cope &
Kalantzis, 1993; Feez, 2002; Hasan, 1996).
A related reservation expressed by scholars and educators concerns the high
priority on idea generation, self-discovery, and problem solving in process writing
instruction. These writing and learning goals are worthy and important, but the
emphasis on process often implies that “‘product’ is not important” (Delpit, 1988,
p. 287). Conveying the belief that process should take precedence over product
can be particularly disconcerting, even damaging, to some multilingual writers,
who may not have been socialized into adopting—let alone embracing—the non-
directive, discovery-based practices of process writing instruction. Many process
models, in fact, “draw heavily on inaccessible cultural knowledge” (Hyland, 2003,
p. 21), which well-intentioned teachers may unfortunately assume all students
have available to them. As indicated in Chapters 2 and 7, prototypical aspects of
process-oriented instruction (e.g., personal writing, multi-drafting, extensive re-
vision, peer review, minimal form-focused feedback from teachers, and so on) can
be mystifying to some L2 writers, especially those in EFL and multilingual contexts
where prevailing educational traditions do not support such practices (Atkinson
& Connor, 2008; Holliday, 1994; Polio & Williams, 2011).
Along with its strong focus on composing processes, the process movement’s
overt promotion of personal voice in L1 composition pedagogy has also been
questioned and challenged (Bowden, 1999, 2012). L2 compositionists have like-
wise challenged the appropriateness of this metaphor in L2 writing instruction
(Atkinson, 2000; Belcher & Hirvela, 2001b; Ramanathan & Atkinson, 1999b; Ra-
manathan & Kaplan, 1996a, 1996b). The cultivation of a writer’s voice, which we
might describe in terms of the expression of one’s textual identity or level of con-
fidence in claiming a right to express oneself in print (Albertinti, 2008; Bourdieu,
1991; Ivaniþ, 1998; Morgan & Clarke, 2011; Prior, 2001; Zacher, 2008), can unde-
niably promote the development of writing fluency and skill. Stapleton (2003), for
instance, argued that voice “should be brought into the mainstream of L2 writ-
ing pedagogy either via consciousness raising or through the specific teaching of
certain features” (p. 187). However, Stapleton offered a strong caution regarding
voicist pedagogies, warning that overplaying the voice metaphor “sends the mes-
sage to teachers that voice is critically important, and this message, if passed down
to students, may result in learners who are more concerned with identity than
ideas” (p. 187). Also problematic is the emphasis on introspection, sometimes at
the expense of considering the expectations of the audience. Moreover, because
voice may be perceived by some writers as an alien (and even inappropriate) con-
struct, particularly where academic writing is concerned, they may find the direc-
tive to “claim a voice” to be ideologically unacceptable (Canagarajah, 2010; Clark,
2011; Hirvela & Belcher, 2001; Ramanathan & Kaplan, 1996a). Indeed, because
voicism is unquestionably a culturally embedded construct and pedagogical goal,
teachers should be extremely cautious before assuming that cultivating voice is a
worthy or meaningful objective for their L2 students (Belcher & Hirvela, 2001b).
Groundwork for constructing a post-process framework was laid by cognitivists
and others who stressed that writing, as a component of literacy, is an inherently so-
cial, transactional process that entails mediational activity involving writer, reader,
text, and contexts for writing (Bakhtin, 1981; Bazerman, 1988, 2006; Bereiter &
Scardamalia, 1987; Bracewell & Witte, 2008; Cope & Kalantzis, 1993; Flower, 1994;
Gee, 2012; Gunderson, Odo, & D’Silva, 2011; Kalantzis & Cope, 2012). As a trans-
actional activity, writing represents a process that must be undertaken with the
reader’s background knowledge, needs, interests, schooling, and ideologies in mind
(see Chapters 2 and 5). By understanding their readers and by anticipating reader
expectations, writers shape their texts to meet these expectations effectively (Hinds,
1987; Hyland, 2000, 2003, 2004a, 2009; Johns, 1997, 2003, 2008, 2009a; Tardy,
2009). In this social constructionist view, the audience or target discourse commu-
nity constructs and assigns social value to knowledge. The target discourse commu-
nity also determines the acceptable and preferred forms that this knowledge should
take, thereby defining preferred rhetorical structures and linguistic conventions
(Bax, 2011a, 2011b; Bruffee, 1986; Coe, 1987; Cope & Kalantzis, 2000; Devitt, 1997;
Kalantzis & Cope, 2012; Kessler, 2011; Prior, 2001). As Hyland (2009) observed,
expectations for formal features (text structure, language use, lexical range, layout,
and so on) imply limited choices and encourage conformity, leading to “temporary
genre stability” (p. 27). Although these formal constraints may evolve, learners suc-
ceed when they adhere to these constraints and fail when they deviate from them.
A discourse community commonly comprises a small number of expert mem-
bers and a relatively larger number of apprentice members who operate on the basis
of implicit and explicit public goals (Swales, 1990, 1998; Tardy, 2009; Tardy & Swales,
2008). Examining discourse communities, or Discourses, is instructive because their
members learn and use oral language and writing systems that are often particular
to a local or specialized community’s needs, goals, ideologies, and value systems. Gee
(2012) defined a Discourse “with a capital ‘D’” as composed of people with
distinctive ways of speaking/listening and often, too, writing/reading

coupled with distinctive ways of acting, interacting, valuing, feeling,
dressing, thinking, believing with other people and with various objects,
tools, and technologies, so as to enact specific socially recognizable
identities engaged in specific socially recognizable activities. (p. 152)
Within Discourses, which are complex social structures, we find participatory

mechanisms used by community members—especially “expert” members who
have achieved recognition as legitimate participants—to transmit information,
knowledge, and feedback. These participatory mechanisms can include:
j highly conventionalized speech events such as meetings, interviews, and

presentations;
j informal speech events such as face-to-face interactions, telephone con-
versations, video conferences, and so on;
j highly conventionalized and predictable written communication forms
such as print and digital publications (books, articles, letters, memos,
and the like); and
j less rigidly defined and more fluid forms of print and digital communi-
cation such as blog posts, e-mail messages, text messages, videos, online
chats, and so forth.
Some of these genres enjoy stability over time, as their structural conventions
evolve rather slowly (Hyland, 2004a, 2009). In contrast, other genres types can
undergo rapid structural changes as their users “renovate” formal features to sat-
isfy new purposes (Johns, 1997) and even “destabilize” them (Johns, 2002a). A
Discourse’s purposes guide and shape textual conventions and user expectations,
and it is typically the collective body of members, rather than individual mem-
bers, who define these purposes (Bax, 2011a, 2011b; Bregman & Haythornthwaite,
2001; Bruce, 2008; Swales, 1990, 2004; Tardy, 2009).
When we view oral and written communication (digital or nondigital) as a
process that takes place within and among Discourses, we can easily recognize that
“when people mean things to each other, there is always more than language at
stake” (Gee, 2012, p. 152). That is, when we attempt to express a message or to re-
ceive and interpret meaning, we engage in a “socially situated activity” in which we
express our identities and “get ourselves . . . in sync with . . . objects, tools, places,
technologies, and other people” (Gee, 2012, p. 152). This complex alignment op-
eration certainly entails using language in a way that must be recognizable to oth-
ers (Gee & Hayes, 2011; Hyland, 2004a, 2009), but it also requires people to show
allegiance to believing certain things, acting in certain ways, and being associated
with other participants in the Discourse.
Being in a Discourse is being able to engage in a particular sort of “dance”

with words, deeds, values, feelings, other people, objects, tools, tech-
nologies, places, and times so as to get recognized as a distinctive sort
of who doing a distinctive sort of what. Being able to understand a Dis-
course is being able to recognize such “dances.” (Gee, 2012, p. 152)
In learning to write, the access of novice writers to academic, professional, and

workplace Discourses depends crucially on mastering certain communication skills
and reproducing the conventions unique to specific fields of inquiry and work
(Bazerman, 1994; Freedman & Medway, 1994a; Hirai, Borrego, Garza, & Kloock,
2010; Johns, 1995a, 2002b, 2003; Ruiz-Garrido, Palmer-Silveira, & Fortanet-Gómez,
2010). Such written communication skills may include the writing of expository, an-
alytical, or persuasive texts (“essays”) for secondary English and college composition
courses (Bizzell, 1992; Williams, 2003), the production of empirical research reports
for the physical sciences (Bazerman, 1998; Myers, 1990), or the design of reports,
memoranda, and presentations in the workplace (Belcher, 1991; Bhatia, 1999; Dias,
Freedman, Medway, & Paré, 1999; Dias & Paré, 2000). Because of these educational,
institutional, and social demands, writing instruction should provide novice writers
with opportunities to cultivate content knowledge of the disciplines and Discourses
in question by acquainting students with prototypical patterns of communication in
those disciplines and Discourses. Promoting disciplinary literacy involves offering
learners substantial practice in analyzing the linguistic and rhetorical norms that
typify a Discourse’s common text forms while promoting the cognitive skills needed
to decode and reproduce these text forms. By mastering valued genres, novice writ-
ers can position themselves to join the Discourses and professional communities
to which they aspire (Berkenkotter & Huckin, 1995; Hirvela, 2011; Hyland, 2000,
2004a, 2009; Johns, 1997, 2009a; Reid, 1989). These multiple forms of knowledge,
communicative functions, and transactions align with a broad conceptualization of
contemporary rhetoric, which involves the mindful manipulation of linguistic re-
sources to produce a particular effect on the hearer or reader (Williams, 2003).
Numerous pedagogical models and approaches have been proposed to equip
novice writers with mastery of language production and genre knowledge, as well as
to apprentice students into the Discourses, disciplines, and literate practices associ-
ated with these genres (Bishop & Ostrom, 1997; Bruce, 2008; English, 2011; Hyland,
2004a, 2009; Tardy, 2009). L2 writing instruction has in many respects paralleled
L1 composition with respect to theory and practice (Leki, 1992; Matsuda, 2003b;
Raimes, 1998). Consequently, the next section examines theoretical, methodologi-
cal, and ideological developments as they pertain specifically to the teaching of com-
position in ESL, EFL, EAP, and ESP (English for Specific Purposes) settings.
Emergence of a Discipline: Issues and Methods

Partly as a result of presumed and observed similarities between L1 and L2 writing
processes, ESL and EAP writing instruction in the early 1980s largely replicated L1
classroom practice (Leki, 1992; Matsuda, 2003b). Scholarship in L1 composition
and rhetoric provide influential theoretical underpinnings for L2 composition

pedagogy. At the same time, L2 composition research began to reveal that L2 stu-
dents (primarily ESL and EFL learners) who were already proficient writers in
their primary languages displayed strategies and skills that resembled those dis-
played by monolingual writers of English (Carson & Kuehn, 1992; Ma & Wen,
1999). For example, Cumming (1989), Cummins (1981, 1994), McCarthey, Guo,
and Cummins (2005), and Zamel (1976, 1982, 1983) proposed that ESL writers
with proficient L1 writing abilities tended to transfer their L1 competencies and
strategies to their L2 composing tasks. The ESL writers in these studies exhibited
skills such as planning, interpreting writing tasks, organizing ideas, and revising
their drafts to reflect their goals. In Cumming’s (1989) investigation, intermediate-
and advanced-level writers practiced these strategies as they composed in English
as an independent function of their measured ESL proficiency. Cumming’s study
and others like it led subsequent researchers and practitioners to conclude that
ESL and EAP students’ needs were largely comparable to those of basic L1 writers
with respect to composing processes and their need for instructional intervention.
It is intuitively appealing to assume that primary language literacy constitutes
a solid foundation on which to build L2 literacy skills, including writing. That is,
educators and even learners sometimes presuppose that L1 proficiency and literacy
skills rather naturally transfer to the development of L2 literacy skills (Jarvis & Pav-
lenko, 2007). According to Ortega (2009b), research in second language acquisition
(SLA) has repeatedly demonstrated that interlingual transfer may actually be related
to “perceived L1-L2 similarities” (p. 53, emphasis added). Transfer of knowledge
and skill across languages is “highly complex,” wrote Ortega (2009b), and “cannot
explain all phenomena in interlanguage development.” Though interacting with
developmental patterns, L1 knowledge “does not override them” and may affect L2
development (including writing skills) “by accelerating or delaying . . . progress.”
Primary language knowledge “neither predetermines nor alters such pathways”
(Ortega, 2009b, p. 53). It should therefore not surprise us that research findings
do not uniformly support a strong, positive relationship between L1 and L2 writ-
ing proficiency. For instance, Carson and Kuehn (1992) concluded that, although
highly proficient L2 writers tend to demonstrate very strong L1 composing skills,
their L1 writing skills may actually diminish as their L2 writing skills improve.
Aliakbari (2002) reported comparable findings, observing that highly proficient L2
writers tended to be those who had attained a high level of general L2 proficiency
but who had nonetheless achieved low scores on measures of L1 composing ability.
Factors other than measurable L1 and L2 writing skill are likely to influence the
processes and outcomes of L2 writing development. Among these factors are age
and educational experience (explored in greater depth in Chapter 2), as well as vari-
able L2 proficiency (Aliakbari, 2002; Carson, Carrell, Silberstein, Kroll, & Kuehn,
1990; Carson & Kuehn, 1992) and global L1 and L2 literacy skills, a relationship
that we will examine in Chapter 4. Further influences on L2 writing development
include the nature and extent of students’ prior education (Carson & Kuehn, 1992),
L2 vocabulary size (Ma & Wen, 1999), L2 oral and aural skills (Blanton, 2005; Ma
& Wen, 1999; Weissburg, 2006), affective and attitudinal predispositions (Clachar,
1999; Costino & Hyon, 2007; McCarthey & Garcia, 2005), and the construction of
personal identity as L2 writing skills emerge (Carter, Lillis, & Parkin, 2009; Casa-
nave, 2002; Costino & Hyon, 2007; Cox, Jordan, Ortmeier-Hooper, & Schwartz,
2010; Ivaniþ, 1998; Ivaniþ & Camps, 2002; Kabuto, 2010; Tardy, 2005).
Research findings are thus mixed with regard to the multiple cognitive, affec-
tive, attitudinal, social, and educational influences on how L2 writing skills de-
velop over time, yet being a learner of an additional language does not appear
to prevent people from becoming effective writers in a new language (Hedgcock,
2005, 2012). It is nonetheless clear that L2 learners require assistance as they try to
become fluent, accurate L2 writers equipped with a versatile array of composing
strategies and knowledge of diverse written genres (Segalowitz, 2010). As the field
has evolved, some (e.g., Jones & Tetroe, 1987, Zamel, 1983) have maintained that
the primary needs of L2 writers (including learners of ESL and EAP) consist of ex-
tensive and directed practice with global writing processes, in contrast to more ex-
tensive general language instruction. Research on L2 learners who lack experience
as writers in their primary languages tends to suggest that, like L1 writers, multi-
lingual writers may lack concrete purposes and direction as they plan and execute
composing tasks, may find it difficult to categorize and sequence information in
anticipation of reader expectations, and may encounter stumbling blocks at inter-
mediate steps as they follow their plans and revise their drafts (Bartholomae, 1985;
Bereiter, Burtis, & Scardamalia, 1988; Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987; Bosher, 1998;
Bräuer, 2000a; Cumming, 1989; Faigley, 1986; Graham & Perin, 2007; Kellogg,
1999; Raimes, 1985; Rijlaarsdam & van der Bergh, 2006; Scardamalia et al., 1984).
These difficulties may lead novice L2 writers to focus prematurely—and often
with unsatisfactory results—on micro-level features such as grammatical struc-
ture, word choice, spelling and mechanics. This tendency to devote attention to
word- and sentence-level features may come at the expense of discourse-level con-
cerns such as audience, purpose, rhetorical structure, coherence, cohesion, clarity,
and voice (Cumming, 1989; Jones, 1985; New, 1999; Shih, 1998). Because novice
L2 writers (as well as many novice L1 writers) appear to share similar behavio-
ral tendencies, models of L2 composing pedagogy emphasize process writing and
multi-drafting. Such models presuppose that L2 writers naturally benefit from
instructional techniques similar or identical to those commonly used in L1 com-
position settings (Ferris, 2009; Krapels, 1990; Leki, 1991b; 1992). Recent research
has nonetheless suggested that L2 writers may require more targeted instruction
designed to develop specific types of linguistic awareness, rhetorical skills, and text
development strategies (Craig, 2013; Hirai et al., 2010; Lally, 2000a, 2000b; Ma &
Wen, 1999; Manchón-Ruiz, 1997; Olsen, 1999; Olson & Land, 2007; Roca de Larios,
Manchón, Murphy, & Marín, 2008; Sasaki, 2000; Stapleton, 2010; Thorson, 2000).
Shifts in Pedagogical Focus

To a limited degree, approaches to teaching L2 composition reflect parallel de-
velopments in L1 composition and rhetoric, with shifts in L2 writing instruc-
tion typically following innovations and evolving views in the L1 composition
community. Historical accounts of L2 writing theory and practice provide mean-

ingful insights into how L2 writing theory and practice have evolved and how
the field has claimed its status as a discipline in its own right (Cumming, 2001;
Hedgcock, 2005, 2012; Hinkel, 2011b; Polio & Williams, 2011; Leki, 2000; Mat-
suda, 2003a, 2003b; Raimes, 1998; Silva & Brice, 2004). Because a comprehensive
overview is not practical here, we summarize below several of the more influential
trends in ESL writing instruction according to guiding themes, which we link to
relevant approaches, models of writing, and ideologies. Readers seeking primary
sources providing detailed historical and critical accounts of L1 and L2 writing
pedagogy are encouraged to consult the Further Reading and Resources section at
the end of this chapter.
Focus on discursive form: Traditional and current-traditional rhetoric, 1966–. Raimes

(1991) and Matsuda (2003b) concisely outlined formally oriented approaches to L2
writing informed by the behaviorally inspired audiolingual tradition in L2 education
(Fries, 1945; Jin & Cortazzi, 2011). Audiolingualism, a dominant method from the
1940s well into the 1960s, situated writing essentially as a tool for reinforcing oral pat-
terns of the language being learned and as a means of testing learners’ accurate appli-
cation of grammatical rules (Brooks, 1964; Rivers, 1968).
Informed largely by behaviorist models that viewed language learning as a pro-
cess of habit formation, early models of L2 composition pedagogy stressed the
production of grammatically well-formed sentences. To illustrate, a writing assign-
ment that typifies this paradigm is the controlled composition, a narrowly focused
text (normally of paragraph or essay length) designed chiefly to induce students
to generate specific syntactic patterns (e.g., past simple and past progressive verb
forms in narration), practice new lexical items (e.g., vocabulary related to narrating
an event such as a family vacation), and avoid grammatical and lexical errors (Jin &
Cortazzi, 2011; Kroll, 2001; Matsuda, 1999, 2003b; Pincas, 1982; Silva, 1990).
An extension of this model, often called current-traditional rhetoric, involved
instructing student writers to generate connected discourse by combining and ar-
ranging sentences into paragraphs based on prescribed formulae (Berlin & Inkster,
1980; Clark, 2011; Grabe & Kaplan, 1996; Matsuda, 2003b; Silva, 1990; Silva & Leki,
2004; Williams, 2003). These formulae, sometimes described as “guided composi-
tions,” might take the form of a sequential list of “questions,” the single-sentence
“answers” to which would constitute a reasonably coherent descriptive, narrative, or
expository text. Students might alternatively be required to compose themes follow-
ing a predetermined outline or to complete partially written essays. More cognitively
and rhetorically demanding composing assignments might similarly target a par-
ticular rhetorical formula but require students to generate original content. Com-
monplace rhetorical patterns targeted in current-traditional pedagogy included
exposition, exemplification, comparison (and contrast), classification, process
analysis, argumentation, and so forth. Current-traditional writing instruction often
featured examination of authentic text samples (usually literary sources) represent-
ing these patterns, perhaps supplemented by successful student-generated model
essays (Barnett, 2002; Matsuda, 2003b; Hedgcock, 2005). Among the limitations of
current-traditional approaches were their rigidity and the inauthenticity of the texts
that students had to produce. Because topical content, lexical range, and grammati-
cal variation range were often deliberately confined, student writers were seldom
allowed (let alone encouraged) to deviate from prescribed norms, take risks, exercise
creativity, or produce errors (Matsuda, 2003b). Moreover, the highly formulaic, de-
ductive essay form—which some practitioners insisted had to consist of exactly five
paragraphs—did not authentically represent the wide array of academic and non-
academic genres that students encounter (and produce) outside of an English course
(Hyland, 2004a; Johns, 1997, 1999, 2003; Paltridge, 2004; see Chapter 4).
Focus on the writer: Expressivism and cognitivism, 1976–. In line with process
approaches to L1 composition and rhetoric, a strong and widespread focus on
the writer in L2 composition instruction has drawn our attention to what writers
“actually do as they write” (Raimes, 1991, p. 409). Process proponents thus at-
tempted to identify and define the heuristics, cognitive strategies, and metacogni-
tive processes used by novice and expert writers as they plan, draft, read, revise,
and edit their written work (Bruffee, 1984b, 1993; Cumming, 2001; Manchón,
2001a; Ransdell & Barbier, 2002b). Procedures associated with this writer-oriented
model include experimentation and practice with invention strategies, production
and sharing of multiple drafts through peer collaboration (see Chapters 5 and
7), extensive revision of content and rhetorical form (see Chapter 5), and editing
strategies (see Chapter 8). Curricular models and syllabi reflecting expressionist
and cognitivist principles may similarly allow writers to select their own topics
and take more time to complete composition assignments than would be possible
in a traditional or current-traditional framework.
Focus on disciplinary content and discursive practices, 1986–. A number of

researchers and practitioners have expressed reservations about writer-centered
instructional models. Horowitz (1986c), for example, argued that expressivist ap-
proaches to teaching L2 writing reflected an “almost total obsession” with how
writers construct personal meaning (p. 788). Horowitz and others consequently
charged that expressivist and cognitivist instruction can neglect the undeniable
need of many novice (L1 and) L2 writers to compose texts for academic and pro-
fessional readers with specific kinds of expertise and expectations for acceptable
text (Coe, 1987; Horowitz, 1986a; Hyland, 2000, 2002, 2003; Johns, 1997, 2003).
To address this perceived need, a number of compositionists proposed shifting
the methodological emphasis in the direction of the expert knowledge and writ-
ten genres that typify L2 writers’ particular academic, professional, and vocational
goals—as well as the rhetorical practices of the Discourses (or literacies) that
learners wish to join (Bruce, 2008, 2011; Dudley-Evans, 1997; English, 2011; Frie-
drich, 2008; Hinkel, 2004; Hirai et al., 2010; Hyland, 2009, 2012; Johns, 1997, 2003;
Nesi & Gardner, 2012; Tardy, 2009; Tardy & Swales, 2008; Tribble, 2010).
Rather than replacing composing processes with the pedagogical materials and
methods characteristic of traditional English courses (i.e., language, literature,
culture), proponents of content- and genre-based instruction assert that L2 writ-

ing courses should feature the specific subject matter that L2 learners must master
in their studies and beyond (i.e., in the workplace). In this model, students in
adjunct, multiskill, EAP,1 and ESP2 courses undergo instruction in “the language
of the thinking processes and the structure or shape of content” (Mohan, 1986,
p. 18). This focus on content, disciplinary practices, and the linguistic means of
organizing knowledge in no way precludes the adoption of writer-driven, process-
oriented principles and procedures such as invention, prewriting, revision, col-
laborative writing, or peer review (Bruffee, 1984a, 1984b, 1993; Devitt, Reiff, &
Bawarshi, 2004; Guleff, 2002; Horowitz, 1986b; Hyland, 2006; Johns, 2003, 2009a;
Tardy, 2009; Tardy & Swales, 2008). The fundamental emphasis in content-oriented
or discipline-specific L2 writing instruction “is on the instructor’s determination
of what academic content is most appropriate to build whole courses or modules
of reading and writing tasks around the content” (Raimes, 1991, p. 411).
Focus on readers and literate communities: Social constructionism, the New

Rhetoric, and socioliterate approaches, 1986–. Similar to content-based mod-
els, reader- and discourse-based frameworks for writing instruction have emerged
partly in opposition to the strong prescriptions of writer-centered, process-
oriented approaches, described by Horowitz (1986a) as a form of “humanistic
therapy” (p. 789). Content-, reader-, and discourse-based approaches overlap con-
siderably in terms of method and goals, though they may diverge philosophically
and ideologically. For example, reader- and discourse-oriented composition peda-
gogy is informed by the social constructionist principle that novice writers need to
be apprenticed into multiple discourse communities, such as academic disciplines,
professions, vocations, and social systems beyond the classroom (Bruffee, 1986;
Hyland, 2009; Hyon, 1996).
These discourse communities, or literacies, embody the written, oral, and digital
text forms commonly produced and shared by their members (e.g., Baker, 2010;
Barton, 2007; Barton, Hamilton, & Ivaniþ, 2000; Barton, Ivaniþ, Appleby, Hodge, &
Tusting, 2007; Cope & Kalantzis, 2000; Gee, 2012; Harste, 2009; Hoffman & Good-
man, 2009; Palmeri, 2012; Weiser, Fehler, & González, 2009). According to Lapp,
Flood, Heath, and Langer (2009), “literacies involve all media forms that combine
iconic images, symbol systems, and conventions of presentation. Western societies
have, since the Middle Ages, generally allowed for all of these identifications of
the author (whether single individual or collaborative company)” (p. 4). Literacies
thus entail not only text forms but also the individuals who enact literate practices
such as writing; that is, literacies comprise the social practices of individuals and
groups in the contexts where these texts express meaning and purpose—and where
these texts enjoy status (Gee, 2012; Janks, 2009). To participate in literate practices
and join literacies, student readers and writers must learn how to participate com-
petently in producing acceptable texts. Writing instruction should consequently
prepare students to anticipate, satisfy, and perhaps even challenge the demands of
expert readers (i.e., academic readers and other gatekeepers, such as employers,
colleagues, peers, and so forth) (Flower, 1979; Flower et al., 2000; Hinds, 1987; Hy-
land, 2002, 2004a, 2006, 2009; Johns, 1997; Panofsky et al., 2005; Pennycook, 2001).
This view of literacies as multiple and embedded in social practice is congruent
with what Johns (1997, 1999) called a socioliterate perspective, in which literacies
“are acquired principally through exposure to discourses from a variety of so-
cial contexts” (Johns, 1997, p. 14). Situating language and literacy development in
their social contexts is a hallmark of Systemic-Functional Linguistics (SFL), a tra-
dition now synonymous with Michael Halliday (1978), who stressed the complex
relationship between language and text, as well as how language and text function
in social settings. Halliday proposed that three key features shape the forms of
language, from words and sentences to conversations and texts: field (the social
activity taking place), tenor (the relationships among participants), and mode (the
communication channel) (Halliday, 1978, 2004; Halliday & Hasan, 1989). To-
gether, these features of social context constitute register, the study of which led to
the emergence of Australian genre theories, which have focused chiefly on the oral
and written genres of primary and secondary schools, as well as nonprofessional
workplaces (see Chapter 4). The SFL tradition places particular emphasis on “ex-
plicating textual features, using Hallidayan schemes of linguistic analysis” (Freed-
man & Medway, 1994b, p. 9) by focusing not only on macro-level text structure
and sentence-level features, but also on the context for communication and the
purposes for speaking and writing (Halliday, 2007a, 2007b; Hyon, 1996; Martin,
1997; Martin & Rose, 2008; Rose & Martin, 2012).
The emphasis on the social and ideological contexts for writing has likewise
been influenced by the North American tradition known as the New Rhetoric
(NR), which is grounded in the premise that because “argumentation aims at se-
curing the adherence of those to whom it is addressed, it is, in its entirety, relative
to the audience to be influenced” (Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1969, p. 19). The
New Rhetoric presupposes that writers and orators determine the content and
arrangement of their arguments as a function of their intended audiences, which
may be global (“universal”) or very local (Gage, 2011a; Nicolas, 2011; Perelman,
2001, 2003; Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1969; Williams, 2003). Noting that the
New Rhetoric is informed chiefly by theories of rhetoric and composition in En-
glish (rather than by linguistics or language acquisition), Johns (2003) observed
that the field’s “values, concepts, arguments, and conclusions stem from rhetori-
cal, social, and ideological stances rather than from detailed analyses of language
and text organization” (p. 209). In its effort to reveal the largely tacit rhetorical
knowledge of disciplinary experts and professionals, NR research typically aims
to explore “the ideological, social, and physical surroundings in which genres are
produced” (Johns, 2003, p. 209) and the “dynamic rhetorical structures that can be
manipulated according to conditions of use” (Berkenkotter & Huckin, 1995, p. 3).
Motivated by NR and related theoretical models, the trend toward situating genres,
writing processes, writers, and readers with respect to their sociocultural contexts has
favorably influenced L1 and L2 composition pedagogy. In a socioliterate approach to
teaching writing and other literacy skills, “students are constantly involved in research
into texts, roles, and contexts and into the strategies that they employ in complet-
ing literacy tasks within specific situations” (Johns, 1997, pp. 14–15). Ideologically
and methodologically, socioliterate models are highly compatible with content-
based approaches to teaching composition. To put a reader-centered, socioliterate
pedagogy into practice, teachers, materials developers, and students collect texts and
assignments from relevant disciplines, analyze their purposes, identify audience ex-
pectations, and devise tasks and processes that acquaint learners with prototypical
rhetorical patterns and communication practices (Hyland, 2004a; Johns, 1997, 1999;
Macken-Horarik, 2002; Schleppegrell, 2001, 2004; Schleppegrell & Colombi, 2002).
Socioliterate instruction appropriately focuses on examining, practicing, and
reproducing the implicit and explicit features of texts geared toward particular au-
diences (see Chapter 4 for further discussion). The ability to use and produce texts
from diverse genres is essential to cultivating literacies, which are always embed-
ded in sociocultural contexts and develop by engaging in dynamic verbal activi-
ties. These include reading, writing, and speech, as well as multimodal operations,
in which we draw from two or more modalities to construct a message (Barton
et al., 2007; Belcher & Hirvela, 2008; Cope & Kalantzis, 1993, 2000; Gee, 2012;
Weissberg, 2006; Zamel & Spack, 1998). As Harste (2009) noted, “all language
events are multimodal [in] some sense.” For instance, oral language “is filled with
gesture. Writers often use pictures or figures . . . to complement their writing,” and
website designers “take multimodal texts to new heights” by combining written
text, still images, audio, and video messages (p. 35).
These simple examples of multimodality (language, vision, action) represent
how using multiple sign systems (speech, print, images, gesture) to construct
meaning engages us in particular kinds of work, is culturally enacted, and may
be taken up by others (Barton & Lee, 2013; Burns & Duran, 2007; Harste, 2009;
Kalantzis & Cope, 2012; Jewitt, 2006; Lapp et al., 2009; Palmeri, 2012; Street, 2003;
Tardy, 2008). Because it is “more pervasive, diverse, and important today than ever
before” (Gee & Hayes, 2011), multimodality must be recognized and cultivated as
an essential component of contemporary writing instruction (Craig, 2013; also
see Chapter 5). Multimodal operations are, of course, necessary for navigating
in cyberspace and participating meaningfully in digital communities, including
social media (National Writing Project, 2010; Seo, 2012; Vause & Amberg, 2013;
Wilbur, 2010). We would recognize these operations and skills as components of
digital literacies, “the capability to use digital technology and knowing when and
how to use it” (Ribble & Bailey, 2007, p. 12). More broadly, digital literacies entail
“habits of the mind and activities in which students . . . engage as digital writers,”
ranging from creativity, collaboration, critical reasoning, and decision making to
inquiry, rhetorical manipulation, information management, “remix culture,” and
digital citizenship (National Writing Project, 2010, pp. 100–102).
Literacy development never occurs in a vacuum, and the emergence of aca-
demic, professional, media, and popular literacy skills is no exception (Christie &
Martin, 1997; Gee, 2012; Gee & Hayes, 2011; Jones, Turner, & Street, 1999; Rose &
Martin, 2012). L1 and L2 writers in schools, colleges, universities, and workplace
settings read and write for specific, situated purposes, all of which involve achiev-
ing a set of cognitive, linguistic, academic, and professional goals. Ultimately, lit-
eracy instruction should enable learners to acquire skills, develop strategies, and
master the discursive patterns of multiple literate communities, including the
specific literate communities (academic, professional, or otherwise) in which
they wish to participate and become experts. These discursive patterns, of course,
include formal conventions for constructing (and consuming) written, oral, and
multimodal messages (Barton et al., 2007; Bawarshi & Reiff, 2010; Berkenkotter &
Huckin, 1995; Bhatia, 1993, 1999, 2004; Geisler, 1994; Hyland, 2000, 2006, 2009;
Kress, 2003; Masny & Cole, 2009; Nesi & Gardner, 2012).
Critics of socioliterate approaches such as Benesch (1995, 2001) and Canaga-
rajah (2002a) have interpreted the implementation of EAP, ESP, and genre-based
models as an unwelcome return to a prescriptive, directive, and even determin-
istic stance with regard to materials selection and classroom processes (Adam &
Artemeva, 2002; Freedman & Adam, 2000; Freedman & Medway, 1994a). It is
important to acknowledge that proponents of critical literacy education, dis-
cussed below, have objected to social constructionist approaches (e.g., EAP, ESP,
and genre-based models) for overlooking “sociopolitical issues affecting life
in and outside of academic settings” (Benesch, 2001, p. xv). Critics of social-
constructionist instruction (e.g., Adam & Artemeva, 2002; Benesch, 2001; Cana-
garajah, 2002a; Pennycook, 2001) have highlighted the need for “a more situated
pedagogy” in which novice writers explore and reproduce texts in their socio-
cultural frameworks (Polio & Williams, 2011, p. 498). A further objection to
socioliterate, genre-based instruction is that its emphasis on the formal proper-
ties of texts can be reduced to the formulaic reproduction of genres, much as the
current-traditional paradigm required students to follow recipe-like prescrip-
tions as they composed mechanical essays (Kay & Dudley-Evans, 1998). This
argument holds that the genre-analytic focus on recurring textual forms can
obscure the fact that “genres are embedded in their social contexts in ways that
are too complex to divorce them from these contexts and teach them in the class-
room” (Polio & Williams, 2011, p. 497).
Proponents of socioliterate approaches acknowledge this danger but point out
that students must nonetheless learn that oral and written communication in ac-
ademic disciplines, the professions, and the workplace is inevitably constrained
(i.e., governed by recurring patterns). Citing Christie (1989) and Hyland (2004a),
Polio and Williams (2011) observed that “instruction that is unconstrained may
result in learners’ failure to learn dominant discourse modes and would ultimately
be a disservice to learners” (p. 498). Critical theorists have also charged that socio-
literate instruction (genre instruction, in particular) “recapitulates current power
structures” (Polio & Williams, 2011, p. 498), failing to give students genuine access
to power (Benesch, 1995, 2001; Canagarajah, 2002a; Luke, 1996). We would coun-
ter that socioliterate approaches embrace the precept that writing and writing in-
struction always have social purposes and that the exploration of genres mindfully
situates texts in their sociocultural contexts (see Chapter 4).
Focus on cross-disciplinarity: Writing across the curriculum. Though seldom

explicitly associated with socioliterate models, the writing-across-the-curriculum
(WAC) movement exhibits inherently socioliterate principles and purposes. An-
son (2002a) observed that WAC emerged from the conviction that “writing belongs
in all courses in every discipline” (p. ix). Commonly considered a subfield of L1
composition studies, WAC took root in the 1980s, when composition instruction in
North America was already firmly entrenched (if not compartmentalized) in Eng-
lish departments (Bazerman et al., 2005; Russell, 1992; see “Sources of Expertise in
L2 Composition,” above). Because faculty in academic disciplines expressed dissatis-
faction with the quality of student writing in their specialized fields, compositionists
“faced a new challenge best solved by the entire campus community” (Anson, 2002a,
p. ix). To address this challenge, WAC proponents (compositionists, faculty in uni-
versity departments, and eventually K–12 educators, as well) developed curricula,
courses, and assessments based on the premise that “students best learn the special-
ized conventions, standards, and processes of writing in their chosen fields when
they do so in the context of their own majors, in their discipline-specific courses”
(Anson, 2002a, p. ix). The extensive WAC literature, too vast to explore in depth here,
generally reflects the following principles of developing situated literacies:
j “Writing is the responsibility of the entire academic community.”

j “Writing must be integrated” across disciplines and content areas.
j The entire educational sequence, from primary through postsecondary,
should continuously feature writing instruction.
j The act of writing promotes content and skill learning (writing to learn,
or WTL).
j “Only by practicing the conventions of an academic discipline will stu-
dents . . . communicate effectively [in] that discipline.” (Adapted from
WAC Clearinghouse, n.d.)
In practical terms, WAC programs can be structured in a number of ways,

with instruction often delivered in WAC-designated courses taught by composi-
tion instructors familiar with a discipline’s prototypical genres and sometimes by
disciplinary experts who have undergone training in writing instruction. Many
WAC courses reflect a particular viewpoint and approach (Purdue Online Writing
Lab, n.d.). The writing-to-learn (WTL) approach, for example, views the writ-
ing process as a vehicle for learning (Bawarshi & Reiff, 2010; Bazerman, 2009;
Bean, 2011; Carroll, 2002; Langer & Applebee, 1987; Smart, Hudd, & Delohery,
2011) and features assignments such as reading journals, text summaries, learn-
ing logs, and problem analyses, which tend to be brief and frequent (Kuta, 2008;
Manchón, 2011b; Neff & Whithaus, 2008; Sevilla, 2013). WTL tasks use writing
“to learn about writing itself . . . [and] to learn about something else, i.e., as a mode
of discovery or negotiation to acquire greater knowledge of content, culture, or
language.” Writing thus “operates as a tool for learning while students negotiate
meaning and acquire disciplinary knowledge” (Hirvela, 2011, p. 37). A writing-
in-the-disciplines (WID) approach also reflects socioliterate principles such as
the need to acquaint students with linguistic and rhetorical conventions that
typify genres in their target disciplines so that students can legitimately partici-
pate as members of academic and professional literacies (Clughen & Hardy, 2012;
McLeod, 2001; Tardy, 2008, 2009). WID-driven WAC courses may engage students
in analyzing and reproducing discipline-specific conventions for high-stakes gen-
res such as literature reviews, research papers, lab reports, scholarly presentations,
and so on. WTL and WID approaches are in no way mutually exclusive, as WAC
instruction may draw on both.
Though the WAC movement is grounded solidly in the L1 composition tradition,
its principles and practices are common currency in L2 education. Content-Based
Instruction (CBI) (Brinton, Snow, & Wesche, 1989), for example, presents learners
“with interdisciplinary material in a meaningful, contenxtualized form in which the
primary focus is on the acquisition of content area information” (p. 1). CBI and its
close relative, Content and Language Integrated Language Learning (CLIL), are well-
established approaches to ESL teaching that have also influenced foreign language
(FL) education in North America. Moreover, with the growth of the multilingual
writer population (see Chapter 2), WAC researchers and curriculum developers,
writing program administrators (WPAs), and writing center directors have begun to
address a more diverse learner constituency (see Cox & Myers Zawacki, 2011; Craig,
2013; Hoon, Emerson, & White, 2006; Jordan, 2012; Waldo, 2004).
Focus on social interaction: Collaborative pedagogies. Like social construction-

ist and socioliterate approaches, collaborative pedagogies emphasize the socially
mediated dimensions of creating and transacting texts. The term can refer to a
broad array of instructional practices, none necessarily connected directly to writ-
ing instruction (Bosworth & Hamilton, 1994; Harris, 1999; Howard, 2001; Nunan,
1992). Although we cannot give collaborative pedagogy comprehensive coverage, it
is instructive to introduce the precepts of teaching and learning to write collabora-
tively, which are frequently attributed to Bruffee (1984a). Drawing on collaborative
learning models in educational and developmental psychology, Bruffee (1984a) ar-
gued that cognition was equivalent to “internalized conversation.” Consequently, he
wrote, “thought and conversation tend to work . . . in the same way” (p. 639). Fur-
ther evoking the collective nature of constructing knowledge and making meaning,
Bruffee maintained that learning requires people “to work collaboratively to estab-
lish and maintain knowledge among a community of knowledgeable peers” (p. 646).
Following this line of reasoning, he asserted that “writing . . . is internalized social
talk made public and social again . . . [or] internalized conversation re-externalized”
(p. 641). Proponents of collaborative pedagogy (e.g., Elbow, 2000; Harris, 1999;
Hunzer, 2012; Sullivan, 1994; Thralls, 1992) have asserted that all writing is, at
some level, collaborative—a view informed by theories of intertextuality and the

exchange of knowledge in textual interaction (Bakhtin, 1981; Bazerman, 2004a,
2004b). Intertextuality describes “the relation each text has to the texts surrounding
it”—to the “sea of words” in which a text emerges. Intertextual relations help us
understand how a text “uses those words, how it positions itself in respect to those
other words” (Bazerman, 2004a, p. 84).
Howard (2001) observed that collaborative principles had become “canoni-
cal” in composition studies, with practices such as peer response often taking a
central role in process-oriented models, as noted earlier in this chapter and in
Chapter 7. Other collaborative formats include small-group discussions and col-
laborative writing tasks, in which student writers coauthor a single text. Benefits
attributed to these approaches include:
j the joint construction of new knowledge (Gee & Hayes, 2011; Gere,
1987; Kittle & Hicks, 2010);
j the establishment of authentic, democratic communities of readers and
writers (Day & Eodice, 2004; Elbow, 2000; Elbow & Belanoff, 1999; Holt
& Rouzie, 2006; Lunsford, 2006; Rorty, 1979);
j the necessity for student writers to consider unfamiliar and opposing
perspectives (Ede & Lunsford, 1990; Lunsford & Ede, 2012);
j the potential for reshaping roles and expertise as groups work toward
collective goals (Duin, 1986; Ingalls, 2011; Kittle & Hicks, 2010; Lun-
sford & Ede, 2012; Moss, Highberg, & Nicholas, 2004);
j the cultivation of interpersonal and communicative skills for workplace
environments that require collaboration (Ingalls, 2011; Lunsford & Ede,
2012; Spector, 2012; Stewart, 1988); and
j the promotion of agency and autonomy as a result of collaborating pur-
posefully with peers (Vieregge, Stedman, Mitchell, & Moxley, 2012).
Whether delivering nonevaluative peer feedback (Edgington, 2012; Elbow,

1973, 1998b) or working in writing groups (Anderson & Murphy, 2004; Elbow,
2000; Elbow & Belanoff, 1999; Murray, 1992), student writers engaged in collabo-
ration must assume responsibility for achieving mutually beneficial outcomes.
A hallmark of collaborative pedagogy is perhaps the group writing assignment,
which can take many forms, feature any genre, and unfold in traditional, online,
and hybrid learning environments. Group writing assignments can also vary in
magnitude and complexity (Howard, 2001; Palloff & Pratt, 2005; Vieregge et al.,
2012). A modest in-class task might require writing groups to summarize argu-
ments in a reading passage or to describe a process. For instance, a collaborative
assignment in an introductory neuroscience course might ask student groups to
compose a blog post or create PowerPoint slides describing drugs that influence
synaptic communication. More ambitious assignments might range over a period

of weeks or an entire semester, requiring writing groups to design and execute an
empirical research project, create an original business plan, or design and launch
a functioning website (to name just a few possibilities).
With the proliferation of Web 2.0 technologies, collaborative writing assign-
ments can capitalize on many digital tools that enable instructors and student writ-
ers to communicate with one another synchronously and asynchronously, plan and
monitor their progress, and co-construct texts (Anson, 2003; DePew & Lettner-
Rust, 2009; Palmeri, 2012; Warnock, 2009). Wikis and Google Docs, for example,
enable writers to coauthor and edit a single text (Evans & Bunting, 2012; Kittle &
Hicks, 2010; Lundin, 2008). Course management systems (CMS) such as Moodle
and Blackboard offer platforms that integrate these tools in a course’s digital space,
providing multiple options for coauthoring (e.g., with wikis, blogs, Google Docs,
and so on), communicating (e.g., via discussion fora, blogs, chat rooms, and per-
sonal messaging tools), and sharing texts and other digital products (e.g., audio and
video presentations) in communal online and multimedia spaces (Baron, 2009;
National Writing Project, 2010; Tekobbe, Lazcano-Pry, & Roen, 2012).
Collaborative pedagogies can certainly guide the development and delivery of
an entire course or instructional program. At the same time, because collaborative
models are diverse and not necessarily uniform (unlike a “pure” process approach
or a critical literacy syllabus, discussed below), composition instructors and liter-
acy educators may selectively integrate collaborative approaches into their courses
(Howard, 2001). For instance, one might opt to require one or two joint writing
assignments in a course where students also produce single-authored assignments.
Before embracing collaborative practices, of course, teachers should consider phil-
osophical objections and practical reservations. One such objection is that col-
laborative writing may discourage student writers from claiming their voices and
“owning” less-than-satisfactory contributions that undermine the quality of the
final product (Anson, 2003; Viggiano, n.d.). Of common concern to instructors
are planning and classroom management difficulties, including the following:
j Training students to work harmoniously and productively in teams can

consume valuable class time, as can collaborative activities.
j Without training, intervention, and accountability, students may go off-task.
j Students may resist group work, making writing groups challenging to
manage, particularly when organizational problems and interpersonal
conflicts arise (Dale, 1994; Wirtz, 2012).
j Because of asymmetrical levels of skill, content mastery, and effort, above-
average students may feel penalized, preferring to work alone (Piontek,
2004; Webb, Nemer, Chizhik, & Sugrue, 1998; Zellermayer, 1997).
j Asymmetrical contributions to collaborative projects can pose serious
assessment difficulties (Crusan, 2010; Viggiano, n.d.).
These challenges are by no means insurmountable and can be addressed by

carefully constructing assignments that necessitate collaboration, by providing ap-
propriate learner training, and by systematically scaffolding student interactions
throughout the process (Lunsford & Ede, 2012; Moline, 2012). Given the increas-
ing prevalence of high-stakes collaborative projects in secondary and postsec-
ondary education, as well as in the 21st century professional workplace (Hunzer,
2012), we urge L2 writing professionals to equip their multilingual writers with
transferable collaborative skills and strategies.
Focus on sociopolitical concerns and critical literacy, 1990–. As scholars

have increasingly appealed to “Freirian notions of liberatory literacy practices”
(Grabe & Kaplan, 1996, p. 32), considerable attention in L1 and L2 writing has
been devoted to the ethical, ideological, political, and socioeconomic dimensions
of literacy education. From the traditional to the socioliterate, theoretical and in-
structional models of literacy and L2 writing instruction have come under care-
ful scrutiny over the past few decades (Benesch, 1995, 2001; Canagarajah, 2002a,
2002b, 2010; Comber & Simpson, 2001; Freire & Macedo, 1987; Gunderson et al.,
2011; Hammond & Macken-Horarik, 1999; Pennycook, 1996b, 2001). Informed
and inspired by the influential Brazilian literacy scholar and activist Paulo Freire
(1970, 1985, 1994), experts such as Zamel (1993) have argued that academic
literacy instruction should enable student writers to comprehend, analyze, and
negotiate the demands of academic disciplines—and even to challenge certain
educational practices. Belcher and Braine (1995) asserted that the teaching of
academic literacy should no longer be understood as “neutral, value-free, and
non-exclusionary” (p. xiii).
L2 writing specialists have consequently begun to address issues of critical ped-
agogy, defined by Shor (1992) as:
habits of thought, reading, writing, and speaking which go beneath

surface meaning, first impressions, dominant myths, official pronounce
ments, traditional clichés, received wisdom, and mere opinions, to
understand the deep meaning, root causes, social context, ideology, and
personal circumstances of any action, event, object, process, organiza-
tion, experience, text, subject matter, policy, mass media or discourse.
(p. 129)
As Benesch (2001) emphasized, it is important to recognize that critical

pedagogy—like its sister disciplines, critical discourse analysis and critical
literacy—is “not a current trend or new method of teaching looking for converts.”
Rather, “critical pedagogy is a response to disaffection with the status quo” (Ben-
esch, 2001, p. 138). Composition researchers and educators are particularly in-
terested in critical literacy, “the use of texts to analyse and transform relations of
cultural, social and political power” (Luke & Dooley, 2011, p. 856). In terms of
instructional process and practice, critical literacy approaches
view texts—print and multimodal, paper-based and digital—and their

codes and discourses as human technologies for representing and
reshaping possible worlds. Texts are not taken as part of a canonical
curriculum tradition or received wisdom that is beyond criticism. Rather
they are conceived of as malleable human designs and artefacts used
in social fields. In this regard, critical approaches begin by culturally and
historically situating languages and discourses, texts, their authors and
readers—bracketing and disrupting their “natural,” given, or taken-for-
granted authoritative status in institutional and everyday contexts. Texts,
then, operate in identifiable social, cultural, and political contexts. The
aim is to develop learners capable of critiquing and making texts in their
cultural and community interests. (Luke & Dooley, 2011, p. 856)
This broad critical framework has provided composition theorists, researchers,

and teachers with tools for engaging in critical needs analysis (Benesch, 1995),
critical discourse analysis (Fairclough, 2010; Weiss & Wodak, 2003), and critical
writing about academic genres (Benesch, 2001; Hyland, 2002; Warnick, 2002).
“Criticality” similarly supplies socially relevant tools for understanding iden-
tity construction processes (Berlin, 2005; Carter et al., 2009; George, 2001; Ha &
Baurain, 2011; Ivaniþ, 1998; Mailloux, 2006; Norton, 1997), race and class issues
(Canagarajah, 2002a, 2002b; Kanno & Harklau, 2012; Kubota & Lin, 2009; Van-
drick, 1995), gender equality and inequality (Belcher, 1997; Daniell & Mortensen,
2007; Vandrick, 1994), the role of human sexuality in education (Nelson, 2009),
and the complexity of text appropriation and plagiarism (Bloch, 2001; Hyland,
2000; Pecorari, 2001, 2008; Pennycook, 1996a).
These theoretical, ideological, and methodological orientations do not necessar-
ily reflect discrete historical periods, epistemological traditions, or philosophies—
nor are they always confined to L1 composition or L2 writing communities of
practice (Silva & Leki, 2004). Although each focal area may represent a distinct
instructional purpose, we can see considerable historical, conceptual, and practi-
cal overlap among them. The matches and mismatches that we observe among
these orientations can certainly cause confusion among composition educators in
search of answers to pedagogical questions. Nonetheless, with the maturation of
L2 writing as a discipline and profession, progress has been made. Consequently,
newcomers to the field, as well as seasoned composition teachers, can more eas-
ily navigate a sometimes bewildering landscape of theories and practices (Durst,
2006; Hedgcock, 2012; Kroll, 2003b; Panofsky et al., 2005).
Chapter Summary
Since the field’s inception, L2 writing has made considerable advances in pursuing
robust theory and research geared toward developing effective instructional models
for a diverse population of L2 writers. Indeed, the discipline has made impressive
strides since the late 20th century, when Silva (1990) portrayed the state-of-the-
art in L2 composition as a “merry-go-round of approaches” characterized by an
absence of methodological consensus (p. 18). We still lack a definitive understand-

ing of optimal methods for enhancing the composing skills of L2 writers (Hinkel,
2011b; Leki et al., 2008; Polio & Williams, 2011), yet we have two rich disciplinary
traditions to draw from: L1 rhetoric and composition studies, as well as applied lin-
guistics and L2 writing. Moreover, the field’s increasingly sociocultural orientation
has led to “a deep appreciation for the social, and often political, context in which
L2 writers must learn and live” (Polio & Williams, 2011, p. 501). This “social turn”
has similarly highlighted the widely accepted belief that “effective writing instruc-
tion must take the context of writing into account” (Polio & Williams, 2011, p. 501).
A much more nuanced awareness of L2 writers and their trajectories has similarly
contributed to a complex view that accounts for the cognitive, linguistic, social,
cultural, educational, and affective factors that distinguish L2 writers, writing pro-
cesses, and texts (see Chapter 2). To sort out the perplexing array of perspectives on
L1 and L2 writing and how to teach it, we support Silva’s (1990) proposal that we
approach L2 writing as “purposeful and contextualized communicative interaction,
which involves both the construction and transmission of knowledge” (p. 18).

j Classical and contemporary rhetoric: Bizzell (2006); Corbett and Connors
(1999); Gage (2011b); Murphy (2012)
j L1 composition, rhetorical studies, and research: Bazerman (2008); Connors
(1997); Durst (2006); Fulkerson (2005); Gold (2008); M. Kennedy (1998);
Lauer (2004); Lunsford, Wilson, and Eberly (2008); MacArthur et al. (2006);
Miller (2009); Nickoson and Sheridan (2012); Pressley, Billman, Perry, Reffitt,
and Reynolds (2007); Ritter and Matsuda (2012); Russell (2002); Sidler, Mor-
ris, and Overman-Smith (2008); Sloane (2001); Smagorinsky (2006); Sullivan,
Tinberg, and Blau (2010); Vandenberg, Hum, and Clary-Lemon (2006); Vil-
lanueva and Arola (2011); Weiser et al. (2009)
j Instructional practice in L1 composition: Clark (2011); Elbow (2000); Fried-
rich (2008); Herrington, Hodgson, and Moran (2009); Murphy and Sher-
wood (2003); Palmeri (2012); Pennington and Burton (2011); Tate, Rupiper,
and Schick (2001); Williams (2003); Yancey (2006)
j Collaborative pedagogies: Bosworth and Hamilton (1994); Gere (1987);
Howard (2001); Hunzer (2012); Moss et al. (2004)
j WAC: Anson (2002b); Barnett and Blumner (2008); Bazerman et al. (2005);
Clughen and Hardy (2012); Craig (2013); MacDonald (1994); McLeod, Mi-
raglia, Soven, and Thaiss (2001); McLeod and Soven (2006); Pennington and
Burton (2011); Peterson and Daniels (2008); Zawacki and Rogers (2011)
j L2 composition theory and research: Cumming and Riazi (2000); Hinkel
(2004; 2011a; 2011b); Jordan (2012); Kroll (2003a); Leki et al. (2008); Man-
chón (2001b, 2011a); Paltridge et al. (2009); Polio and Williams (2011); Silva
and Matsuda (2001, 2010); Tang (2012)
j Instructional methods in L2 composition: Berlin (2005); Matsuda, Cox,
Jordan, and Ortmeier-Hooper (2010); Nation (2009); Panofsky et al. (2005)
j Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) Clearinghouse website: http://wac.

colostate.edu/intro
j Purdue Online Writing Lab (OWL) WAC webpage: http://owl.english.purdue.
edu/owl/resource/671/1

1. Reflect again on your experiences as a student writer. Based on the theories
and pedagogical models reviewed in this chapter, how would you character-
ize your prior instruction as an L1 or L2 reader and writer? What theories of
writing do you believe motivated the instruction that you underwent?
2. Identify the theoretical, philosophical, ideological, and educational principles
that set L1 rhetoric and composition studies apart from L2 writing studies and
its applied linguistics orientation. What are the primary differences? What
features do the two traditions share?
3. How will the principles and agendas of L2 writing’s parent disciplines (L1
rhetoric and composition studies, in contrast to linguistics and applied lin-
guistics) inform your beliefs and practice as an L2 composition instructor?
4. Identify the chief characteristics of the theoretical orientations toward L1
and L2 composition and rhetoric examined in this chapter: traditional and
current-traditional models, process-oriented approaches (expressivism, cog-
nitivism), post-process approaches (including social constructionist models
and the New Rhetoric), collaborative pedagogies, and critical approaches.
5. Compare and contrast these theoretical orientations: What theoretical, ideo-
logical, and practical features do these models have in common? What dimen-
sions set them apart from one another?
6. How might one or more of the theories and approaches introduced above
inform your future practice as an L2 composition instructor? How would you
describe your theoretical and pedagogical orientation as a teacher of writing?
Guided Retrospection
Directions: Reflect on your experience as a student of writing in an L1 or L2 setting,
either by discussing your recollections with a group of classmates or by recording
your reflections in writing for subsequent review (e.g., in a private digital file or
blog). After deciding on an appropriate audience (you, your peers, your instructor,
or a combination thereof), explain how you would characterize the instructional
approach or approaches used in your prior education in terms of the major theo-
retical orientations presented in this chapter (i.e., traditional, current-traditional,
process [expressivist, cognitivist], social constructionist, New Rhetoric, critical,

and so on). Describe the specific ways in which you benefitted (or perhaps failed
to benefit) from these instructional approaches, noting alternatives that might
have served you better as an apprentice L1 or L2 writer.

Introspective Process Analysis
1. Select a substantial academic writing task that you have been assigned in one
of your courses (e.g., a research paper, a bibliographic essay, a project pro-
posal). Select an assignment that requires extended prose, the integration of
published sources, and revision (rather than a short homework assignment or
an overnight take-home exam).
2. Before starting the assignment, create a chronological log where you record
impressions of your processes, procedures, and decision making throughout
the evolution of your writing. You may record written log entries in a note-
book or binder, in an electronic file, or in a private blog. Entries could also
take the form of audio or video recordings. Select any combination of tools for
tracking your progress, taking care to date your entries and to record informa-
tion that will be useful in analyzing your process retrospectively. You should
include this log as an appendix to your completed analysis.
3. Refer to the following questions and prompts as you begin planning and
drafting, returning to them repeatedly as your draft takes shape:
a. What is your topic, and what does this assignment actually require? What
are the assignment’s explicit and implicit purposes?
b. Who is your audience? What are your reader’s (or readers’) expectations
for the final product? Explain.
c. How did you get started? Describe specific procedures.
d. Characterize the processes involved in producing a preliminary draft.
Note the time of day, place, and the length of time required to gener-
ate a draft. Describe brainstorming, listing, planning, reading, and other
processes involved (including thinking about the assignment while you’re
not actually working on it). Record instances in which you made prog-
ress, took steps backward, abandoned your original plans, became dis-
couraged, and so on. Consider why you made these decisions.
e. Describe what pleased or disappointed you after completing an initial draft.
f. Note your thoughts about your audience as you built a draft and began
revising it. Did your perceptions of the audience change? Why?
g. Describe the processes entailed in crafting a second (or third) version of
the assignment. To what extent did subsequent versions resemble previ-
ous iterations? What changes did you make? Why?
h. If you received oral or written feedback from another reader (a friend, a
classmate, a tutor, your instructor), discuss how the feedback favorably or
unfavorably influenced your revision process.
i. If you went through multiple revision steps, return to items d–h and docu-
ment your impressions.
j. Perform an honest appraisal of your effectiveness in addressing the
assignment itself. How—and how successfully—did you accomplish the
instructor’s stated goals? How might you have altered your process if you
had had more time? Describe your satisfaction with the final product.
k. Summarize the chief features of your composing process in completing
this assignment, highlighting your strengths and weaknesses as a planner,
writer, and editor.
l. How do your current impressions of your composing processes agree
with your original beliefs about these processes? What have you learned
from analyzing your process?
m. Characterize the chief focal areas of your composing processes. At what
points are your processes predominantly form focused, writer based,
content oriented, and reader centered?
4. Based on your log entries and the success of your final product, compose a
first-person analytic commentary on your own writing, revision, and editing
processes, synthesizing the factors listed in item 3 that are most significant to
you. In your commentary, identify the skills and strategies that typify your
profile as an academic writer. Consider how your discoveries about yourself
might inform your future practice as a teacher of L2 writing.
5. Attach a complete appendix that includes your compiled log entries, drafts of
your work, and other materials that contributed to your composing process
(e.g., written, audio, or video feedback supplied by a peer, tutor, or instructor).

Classroom Observation Assignment
Individually or with a classmate, arrange to visit one L1 and one L2 composition
course. These courses may be offered in any format—traditional, online, or hy-
brid. Before conducting your observations, select or develop a set of focused, easy-
to-use, nonevaluative classroom observation tools to capture classroom behaviors
and processes of specific interest to you (e.g., Cooper & Borich, 2003; Croll, 2007;
Saginor, 2008; Wajnryb, 1992; Wragg, 2012; Zacharias, 2012). Use these tools to
focus your attention and generate comparable observation data as you take field
notes. After your observational visits or sessions, prepare a written report in which
you describe and draw inferences about the following:
1. Information concerning course level, the literacy curriculum, writing

performance and proficiency goals, assignment types in progress, institu-
tion type, student demographics (L2 proficiency, primary language back-
grounds, prior education, gender ratio, age range, and so forth—see Chap-
ters 2 and 4).
2. The contents, sequencing, procedures, and tasks observed during the lesson.
3. The instructor’s explicit and implicit objectives for the lesson and its compo-
nents (i.e., tasks, activities, assignments, and so on).
4. The extent to which the instructor’s objectives were met.
5. The instructor’s (and perhaps the institution’s) primary theoretical and ideo-
logical orientation toward literacy education and writing instruction.
6. Evidence of student learning as observed in their behaviors and written prod-
ucts. Use the preceding steps as basic guidelines for reporting and reflecting
on your classroom observations. You may also wish to consider the following
additional options for maximizing your observational efforts:
a. In at least one observation, focus on a single writer’s behaviors during the
lesson. Interview the student after the lesson to capture his or her impres-
sions of the course, composing processes, and so forth.
b. Meet with the instructor before and after your observation to learn about
his or her explicit expectations for, and perceptions of, the lesson that you
documented. Compare the instructor’s impressions with your own (and,
if possible, with those of a student).
c. Compare a mainstream (L1) composition lesson to an L2 composition
lesson in terms of learning outcomes, lesson aims, procedures, tasks, and
student engagement. Discuss the similarities and differences between the
theoretical and ideological orientations of the courses and lessons.
7. Synthesize your primary insights, focusing principally on the theories and
beliefs about literacy development (writing skills, in particular) reflected
in your observational data. From these insights, identify three or more
practical goals or resolutions for your future practice as a teacher of L2
composition.
8. To complete your observation report, include an appendix with your field
notes and other materials related to the lessons that you observed (e.g., syllabi,
assignment guidelines, worksheets, student writing samples, and so forth).

Textbook Analysis and Comparison
Collect one L1 (or mainstream) composition textbook and one composition text-
book designed to teach L2 or multilingual writers (or more of each, if you like).
After previewing the tasks and prompts below, examine each textbook sample,
taking notes and recording your observations and impressions.
1. Before beginning your analysis, prepare a simple comparison table like the
one on next page in which you record primary features of each sample.
2. In your review of each textbook, consider the following prompts:
a. Does the book appear to reflect a single theoretical orientation or model
of composition, or does it reflect a combination of orientations? Refer to
specific textual features to justify your viewpoint.
________________________________________________ Textbook *1 Textbook 2

Bibliographic entry (author, date, title, edition.
publisher, publication date^
Primary audience (L1 writers, L2 writers, com bination)
Target institutional setting (secondary, community
college, college or university, mlenstve English
program)
Wrltlngflanguage proficiency level (for L1—basic,
freshman composition, advanced; for L2—beginning.
intermediate, advanced)___________________________
Genre category or categories (e.g., anlhoiogy or
reader, rhetorical manual, combination)
Theoretical onentation(s)
Sample composing assignments
Chief strengths
Chief weaknesses
b. To what degree does a particular orientation seem to dominate the book’s

aims, content, and design? Explain.
c. Provide examples of reading activities, practice tasks, and composing
assignments that exemplify specific theoretical views or biases.
d. How do you think the book’s orientation and design match (or fail to
match) the goals of the institution(s) where the book is likely to be used?
e. How do you think use of the book might influence the development of
students’ composing skills and instructors’ pedagogical practices?
f. Considering the book’s intended audience and educational setting, evalu-
ate its likely effectiveness as a teaching and learning tool. What are its
strengths and weaknesses? How would you overcome its flaws?
3. Summarize and discuss your observations, findings, inferences, and impres-
sions in a written report or in a classroom presentation.
Notes
1. Hyland (2006) defined EAP as “teaching English with the aim of assisting learners’ study
or research in that language” (p. 1).
2. Dudley-Evans (2001) characterized ESP as English-language instruction designed to
meet the particular (and often local) needs of learners by means of the methods, ac-
tivities, and practices of the discipline in question. Curricular material and instruction
directly address the grammar, vocabulary, discourse, genres, registers, and knowledge-
building processes of the target discipline or professional activity.
Chapter 4
Reading, Genre
Awareness, and
Task Design in the
L2 Composition
Course

j How have your reading experiences and skills influenced your develop-
ment as an L1 (and L2) writer? Why might reading skill be an especially
important factor in how multilingual students become proficient writers?
j What genres do you encounter as an academic and nonacademic reader?
What features typify these genres? What have you learned from them?
j If you have teaching experience, what features do you seek in instruc-
tional materials (e.g., print and digital texts, software, and so on)? What
distinguishes a good textbook or software application from a poor one?
j In what respects might criteria for an L2 literacy or composition textbook
differ from those that we might apply to other types of textbook? Why?
j Under what conditions should a composition teacher augment a text-
book with supplemental materials, tasks, and assignments? Justify your
response.
j What types of in-class and out-of-class activities and exercises are most
productive for inexperienced writers? For experienced writers? Why?
This chapter builds on selected models of composition introduced in Chapter 3

and lays groundwork for the instructional design principles explored in Chap-
ter 5. We will first examine the central role of reading processes in the teaching
and learning of L2 writing and then turn our attention to genre analysis and its
94 Reading, Genre Awareness, and Task Design
practical implications for designing literacy tasks and engaging students in pro-
ducing authentic texts.
L2 Literacy Development and the Sources of

Literate Knowledge
Readers seeking to develop skills for teaching L2 composition might wonder why we
would devote extensive attention to reading development in a book on L2 writing.
Our focus on reading relates to a “commonly established practice and belief: Writ-
ing teachers teach writing, and reading teachers teach reading” (Hirvela, 2004, p. 10).
This view reflects a pervasive yet misguided assumption that reading is somehow
secondary to writing and that—worse yet—writing instruction need not systemati-
cally target or cultivate students’ reading skills and strategies. We fervently reject these
views, as we believe that reading instruction is as much the job of writing instructors
as the teaching of composing skills. Our experience as academic writers and teach-
ers of writing confirms our firm belief that one cannot successfully teach writing
without simultaneously teaching reading (Carson & Leki, 1993; Hirvela, 2004). In
other words, writing should not be isolated as a cognitive or academic activity, as the
process fundamentally depends on writers’ purposeful interactions with texts, with
fellow readers and writers, and with literate communities of practice (see Chapter 3).
Research and practical experience overwhelmingly demonstrate that one can-
not become a proficient writer in any language without also developing an array
of literacy skills, including the ability to comprehend written text both fluently
and accurately (Grabe, 2009; Grabe & Stoller, 2011, 2014; Hedgcock & Ferris,
2009; Hudson, 2007; Tsai, 2006). Describing the literature on reading–writing
connections in L1 literacy and L2 learning, Grabe (2003) observed that “cumula-
tive insights from this body of research have contributed to helping teachers find
a variety of ways to exploit reading and writing connections” (p. 242). Because of
the sheer quantity of this research, our discussion will focus chiefly on its implica-
tions for designing and delivering composition instruction.1
As a function of global language proficiency and cognitive development, read-
ing has received considerable attention among researchers and teachers over the
last several decades. Reading in any language was once portrayed as an individual-
ized mental activity involving the decoding of print, “an intrapersonal problem-
solving task that takes place within the brain’s knowledge structures” (Bernhardt,
1991, p. 6). Indeed, the act of reading involves a transformation of the reader’s
state of knowledge. This transformation depends on the information encoded in
text, how long the process takes, sources of error, and the conversion of textual
material to knowledge that will subsequently become available for retrieval from
short- and long-term memory (Bernhardt, 2010; Grabe, 2009; Hudson, 2007;
Just & Carpenter, 1987; Koda, 2005, 2011).
Conversion of text-based information to knowledge is widely believed to
form the basis of how readers become writers. This acquired information con-
tains print-encoded messages as well as clues about how a text-based message’s
Reading, Genre Awareness, and Task Design 95
grammatical, lexical, semantic, pragmatic, and rhetorical constituents combine to

make the message meaningful. Acquiring proficient literacy skills requires learners
to recognize interconnections among the components and processes of literate
activity. A reader trying to understand a written text must perform three complex,
interdependent activities: “decode the message by recognizing the written signs,
interpret the message by assigning meaning to the string of words, and finally, un-
derstand what the author’s intention was,” a process involving interactions among
writer, text, and reader (Celce-Murcia & Olshtain, 2000, p. 119). Teachers inter-
ested in the learning and teaching of L2 composing skills should therefore under-
stand the dynamic interplay between reading and writing and the implications of
this reciprocal relationship for classroom instruction.
Reading and Writing: Parallel Processes

Research over the last several decades largely supports parallels between reading
and writing processes (Grabe, 2009; Grabe & Stoller, 2011; Hudson, 2007;
Koda & Zehler, 2007). Tierney and Pearson (1983) first introduced a five-
component composing model in which readers build meaning in an ongoing in-
ner dialogue that parallels the processes by which writers construct meaning:
1. Plan—Readers and writers set procedural and content-specific goals.

2. Draft—Like writers, readers construct preliminary mental “drafts” as
they read, searching texts for familiar language and meanings and as-
sembling meanings that cohere and are aligned to a purpose.
3. Align—As writers adjust their stances with respect to their audiences and
topics, readers reshape their roles vis-à-vis the text’s author and content.
4. Revise—Readers and writers examine their emerging mental and physi-
cal texts, reshaping, editing, and correcting them as they advance in the
process.
5. Monitor—Readers, like writers, establish distance from the mental
scripts and physical texts that they have constructed in order to evalu-
ate those products, compare them to other texts, and potentially revise
them further.
(Sources: Barnhouse & Vinton, 2012; Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000; Hirvela, 2004;
Hudson, 2007; Shanahan & Tierney, 1990; Tierney & Pearson, 1983)
As readers seek to comprehend a text, they generate meaning by relating textual

content to their background knowledge. Conversely, as writers write, they relate
schematic knowledge to texts. “Both skills involve generating relations among the
text segments—words to sentences, sentences to paragraphs, paragraphs to larger
texts—as well as generating relationships between knowledge and experience and
the text” (Hudson, 2007, p. 265).
The Reciprocity of the Reading–Writing Relationship

Writing and reading involve parallel cognitive operations; they also enjoy a symbi-
otic developmental relationship (McGinley & Tierney, 1989). That is, reading con-
tributes substantively to the development of composing skills (reading to write),
while writing can measurably improve reading skills (writing to read). Findings
that support connections between reading and writing performance have gener-
ated three interrelated models to describe the relationship. A linear view, called the
directional hypothesis (Eisterhold, 1990; Grabe, 2003; Hirvela, 2004), assumes that
composing skills emerge as a result of establishing sound reading skills, presum-
ably through practice and abundant contact with print. Although the directional
model once had strong advocates, research offers at least two alternative means
of describing how reading and writing may be related. The nondirectional model
holds that a single cognitive proficiency underlies both reading and writing pro-
cesses (Eisterhold, 1990). Its chief implication is that instruction should focus on
constructing meaning in both reading and writing tasks (Eisterhold, 1990; Grabe,
2003). In contrast, the bidirectional model (somewhat like the nondirectional
model) holds that practice in writing promotes the development of reading skills,
just as improved reading proficiency can enhance writing skills (Hirvela, 2004; Ol-
son, 2010). The bidirectional model predicts that the reading–writing connection
in both L1 and L2 undergoes qualitative change as learners strengthen and diver-
sify their literacy skills (Heller, 1999; Hudson, 2007; McGinley & Tierney, 1989).
Both the nondirectional and bidirectional hypotheses pose the challenge of de-
termining “precisely where writing and reading begin and end” (Hudson, 2007,
p. 274), as writers read while writing and readers think as writers do as they write
(Hefflin & Hartman, 2002; Smith, 1984). In line with the bidirectional hypothesis,
the perspective taken in this book is that teachers should approach the teaching
of composition as an opportunity to build their students’ academic, professional,
professional, social, cultural, critical, and digital literacies, which are multiple and
which entail many kinds of expertise (Baker, 2010; Baron, 2009; Barton, 2007;
Barton et al., 2000; Beach, Anson, Breuch, & Swiss, 2008; Bedard & Fuhrken, 2013;
Burke & Hammett, 2009; Christel & Sullivan, 2010; Cope & Kalantzis, 2000; Gee,
2012; Gee & Hayes, 2011; Hoffman & Goodman, 2009; Jensen, 2011; Kalantzis &
Cope, 2012; National Writing Project, 2010; Trifonas, 2011; Warnick, 2002).
As reciprocal reading–writing relationships have become a focal point of re-
search, literacy education has capitalized on interactions between reading and
composing operations. Reading and writing both involve building meaning, de-
veloping cognitive and linguistic skills, controlling thinking, solving problems,
and activating schemata (Birch, 2007; Carson, 1993, 2001; Devine, 1993; Flower
et al., 1990; Jabbour, 2001; Kucer, 2009; Kucer & Silva, 2013; see Chapter 1 for
a discussion of schema theory). As readers read, they enter ideas in the form of
words and sentences into their mental databases, which they subsequently search
and modify as they encounter new textual information (Amsel & Byrnes, 2002;
Carrell, 1983a, 1983b; Carrell & Eisterhold, 1983; Kellogg & Whiteford, 2012).
In activating, reworking, and building schemata, readers dynamically formulate

meaning for a given passage or text. In this process, they construct meaning by
storing new knowledge, sorting through banked knowledge, attending to textual
clues about the author’s intended meaning(s), and assembling these data into co-
herent knowledge structures (Koda, 2005). If successful, readers transform exist-
ing knowledge into new understandings and ideas. Schema theory highlights vital
links between reading and writing by identifying the processes by which readers
discover ideas and perspectives that become available as subject matter for their
writing. As readers consciously and unconsciously build more numerous and
complex schemata, they develop a tacit (and sometimes explicit) awareness of
genres and of the expectations of their readers (Chen & Graves, 1995; Costino &
Hyon, 2011; Dobson & Feak, 2001; Goldman, 1997; Hyland, 2004a; Hyon, 2002;
Johns, 2008, 2009a; Koda, 2005; Pang, 2002).
Reading–Writing Relationships Within and Across Languages

Literacy research has explored numerous literacy connections, including reading–
writing relationships among monolingual and multilingual writers. Studies of both
intra- and interlingual literacy development have focused on learners’ measurable
literacy skills and performance, in addition to variables such as reading habits,
exposure to print, and the like. Numerous investigations of literacy development
across languages have also explored the transfer (and nontransfer) of L1 reading
and writing skills to L2 literacy development (for surveys of this work, see Grabe,
2009; Grabe & Stoller, 2011, 2014; Hedgcock & Ferris, 2009; Hudson, 2007; Koda,
2005, 2007a, 2011; Koda & Zehler, 2007).2
Much of this expanding research demonstrates that effective reading skills
predict and promote effective writing skills, both within languages (Fitzgerald &
Shanahan, 2000; Langer & Flihan, 2000; Pinto, 2004; Stotsky, 1983; Teale & Yokota,
2000) and across languages (Hirvela, 2004). Related research supports positive re-
lationships between L1 and L2 reading skills: Good L1 readers tend to be good
L2 readers who effectively transfer relevant L1 strategies and skills to L2 reading
tasks (Grabe, 2003, 2009; Hudson, 2007; Ito, 2011). In contrast, research exploring
relationships between L1 and L2 writing skills has produced mixed results. Some
studies have shown that measures of L1 and L2 writing proficiency are strongly
correlated (Hirose & Sasaki, 1994; Ito, 2004; Kamimura, 2001; Sasaki & Hirose,
1996), whereas comparable investigations have produced data that do not uni-
formly support significant positive relationships (Abu-Akel, 1997; Carson et al.,
1990; Pennington & So, 1993).
With respect to reading–writing relations, L1 studies have largely borne out
strong, positive relationships, in support of nondirectional and bidirectional views
(Crowhurst, 1991; Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000; Krashen, 2004; Langer & Applebee,
1987; Nelson & Calfee, 1998; Perfetti, Rouet, & Britt, 1999; Pressley, 1998; Stotsky,
1983). Similarly, investigations of reading–writing links in L2 learning often sup-
port positive links between reading and writing skills (Cummins, 1979, 1981, 1984).
Ito (2011), for example, explored the contribution of EFL reading proficiency to
academic writing skill. In his study of 68 Japanese secondary students, he reported
strong (and statistically significant) correlations between students’ reading and writ-
ing scores. In line with comparable studies (e.g., Abu-Akel, 1997; Hirose & Sasaki,
1994; Pennington & So, 1993; Sasaki & Hirose, 1996), Ito (2011) concluded that “the
development of L2 reading skills may improve the quality of students’ . . . L2 writing”
(p. 27). Similar research comparing reading and writing performance points toward
a productive interplay between the two operations, particularly when texts and lit-
eracy tasks are related and when learners can integrate textual information in pur-
poseful writing tasks (Ackerman, 1991; Grabe, 2003). As Hudson (2007) observed,
“reading and writing rely on analogous mental processes,” during which “learn-
ing takes place, and the two skills reinforce themselves and each other recursively”
(p. 277). Globally speaking, cumulative evidence from this line of inquiry “indicates
that good writers are good readers” (Chuy, Scardamalia, & Bereiter, 2012, p. 181).3
As argued in Chapters 1 and 2, L2 literacy acquisition involves a more complex
interaction of skills and knowledge than does L1 literacy acquisition, as literate
multilingual writers may bring to the writing course well-developed L1 literacy
skills (and even literacy skills in other languages as well). At the same time, because
L2 writers may have underdeveloped linguistic, rhetorical, academic, and strategic
L2 knowledge, we cannot assume reading-writing relationships to be as clear-cut
for them as they might be for L1 writers (Ferris, 2009; Grabe & Stoller, 2011; Hedg-
cock & Ferris, 2009). We would naturally caution that becoming a skilled reader by
no means guarantees writing proficiency in any language (Shanahan, 1984). None-
theless, strong and controversial claims about the primacy of reading practice over
writing practice can be useful for L2 literacy educators, as they bring to light a
basic premise: To varying degrees, composing skills must emerge from exposure
to—and meaningful interaction with—textual material. Some have argued that
reading may actually make a more significant contribution to writing proficiency
than the practice of writing itself, particularly when reading is self-initiated or
self-selected (Krashen, 1984, 2004, 2011; McQuillan, 1994; Smith, 1984). Under-
scoring the fundamental role of reading relative to writing practice, Smith (1988)
observed that “no one writes enough to learn more than a small fraction of what
writers need to know” (p. 19). Such a seemingly commonsense claim should be
qualified when applied to L2 writers, for whom reading itself is often far slower
and more laborious than we commonly recognize (Grabe, 2009; Grabe & Stoller,
2011; Hedgcock & Ferris, 2009; Schmitt, Jiang, & Grabe, 2011). Nonetheless, the
overwhelming evidence for the crucial contributions of reading to the process of
becoming a writer should remind educators that composition instruction must
systematically cultivate students’ reading skills and strategies.
Reading Instruction in the Composition Course

L1 and L2 literacy research generally supports an approach to composition peda-
gogy in which explicit writing instruction is carefully balanced with many types
of literacy tasks, notably reading (Grabe, 2003; Grabe & Stoller, 2011, 2014).
The ability to read and make sense of any field’s content knowledge entails a wide
range of microskills that may not be apparent to educators who take such skills
for granted (Grabe, 2001). We can more fully understand the complexity of these
“basic” reading processes and work toward teaching them by recognizing essential
microskills, many of which can be targeted in instructional tasks appropriate for
the composition classroom. Figure 4.1 presents a selective sampling of teachable
microskills and strategies associated with reading development, comprehension,
and information gathering. This list should remind teachers of the breadth and
complexity of the cognitive and metacognitive operations that their writing stu-
dents must manage whenever they read a print or digital text for a writing course
(also see Chapter 5). Writing teachers should recall that students may require sus-
tained practice and explicit instruction in the use of higher-order (and sometimes
R eading S k ills D evelopm ent

Divide words Define high-frequency words_____________
Use a dictionary pronunciation key Decode compound words______________
Draw on and develop a rich vocabulary______Use context clues to understand meaning
Understand polysemy (multiple meanings! Recognize synonyms, antonyms,
identify word roots and affixes (prefixes and homonyms, and other semantic relations
suffixes, plural markers)__________________________________________________________
Reading C om prehension D evelopm ent
Categorize words and information__________ Judge reliability of source________________
Sequence words and infonratinn___________ Compare and contrast__________________
Follow directions________________________ Judge prepositional content______________
Read for information at a rapid speed_______Understand and use figurative language
Retell a story____________________________ Understand literary and academic fcmns
Identify key words_______________________ Evaluate characters, narrators, authors
identify main ideas_______________________ Evaluate narrative settings
Summarize______________________________ Draw factual conclusions_________________
Predict outcomes Distinguish fact from fiction and opinion
Modify incorrect predictions Recognize purposes for reading
Recognize and repair miscomprehension Shill purposes for reading as needed______
identify tone or emotion in e text____________ Read critically__________________________
Generate inferences_____________________ Deploy strategies to monitor
Align r*ew material with existing schemata comprehension_________________________
Reading, Research, and S tudy S k ills
Alphabetize Use tabfes of contents, indexes,
Plan for writing while reading_______________glossaries, etc. efficiently________________
Cross-reference_________________________ Use print and digital reference tools (e.g.,
Interpret and use visual input (e.g., images, dictionary, encyclopedia, search engines.
maps, graphs, elc.) effectively______________ate.) efficiently__________________________
Understand and synthesize information Use tevt-based, visual, and interactive
from various sources_____________________ electronic resources to collect and compile
Classify prim and digital texts (e.g.. books, information; apply QUEST model
articles, websiles. blogs, etc.) by genre (Question, Understand Resources,
category_________ Evaluate, Synlhesize, Transform)
FIGURE 4.1 Three sets of reading competencies, microskills, and strategies for
readers and writers of English. Adapted from Hedgcock and Ferris (2009); related
sources include Block and Pressley (2008); Eagleton and Dobler (2007); Grabe
and Stoller (2011); National Writing Project, 2010; Vause and Amberg, (2013).
even “basic”) reading subskills, which—as Grabe (2001) stressed—“cannot be by-

passed” (p. 18). Comprehensive resources for teaching and assessing reading can
be found in the Further Reading and Resources section at the end of this chapter.
We would especially recommend Grabe and Stoller (2011), Hedgcock and Ferris
(2009), and Vause and Amberg (2013).
Equipped with the understanding that reading–writing relationships are mul-
tidimensional and evolve as learners develop more sophisticated literacy skills
(Grabe, 2009; Hedgcock & Ferris, 2009; Hudson, 2007), teachers can adjust the
weight given to reading tasks and writing practice according to the needs and ex-
pectations of their learners (see Chapters 2 and 5). For example, low-proficiency
secondary or pre-college learners with limited L2 academic literacy skills may
benefit from extensive and intensive reading coupled with abundant practice in
writing for fluency. Advanced-level university students, on the other hand, may
gain more substantially from intensive, discipline-specific reading, guided prac-
tice in reproducing key genres, and accuracy-oriented instruction (see Chapter 8).
Composition teachers should therefore make decisions about materials, classroom
activities, and assignments based on these needs. Such decisions should also be
informed by the multiple instructional options suggested by the directional, non-
directional, and bidirectional reading–writing models.
Although these models may differ in orientation, they are complementary and
share a core principle: Writing skills cannot emerge by dint of practice alone. Un-
derlying these hypotheses is the premise that composing skill in any language can-
not develop without knowledge of the forms, patterns, and purposes of written
language. The notion that real learning depends on abundant, meaningful input
is virtually axiomatic in L2 learning and teaching (Mikulecky, 2011). In keeping
with both the nondirectional and bidirectional models, Zamel (1992) and Hir-
vela (2004) described tools for maximizing the transactional, mutually supportive
relationship between reading and writing in the composition classroom. Just as
reading is constructive and recursive, “writing our way into reading,” as Zamel
(1992) put it, enables us to reexamine texts and question our understanding. As we
engage purposefully with texts, we “reflect on the complexities, deal with the puz-
zlements, and offer approximative readings. By providing us a means for working
out a reading, writing allows insights that may have been inaccessible or inchoate
at the time the text was read” (Zamel, 1992, p. 472).
Integrating Reading and Writing in L2

Composition Instruction
Leading literacy experts have argued that apprentice writers benefit from engaging
in reading-based writing tasks that require them to read like writers (Johns, 1997;
Nation, 2009; Smith, 1984) and write like readers (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1984;
Heller, 1999; Kucer, 2009; Newell, Garriga, & Peterson, 2001). Effective writers “im-
agine reader attributes and . . . use those attributes to assess their [own] writing”
(Beach & Liebman-Kleine, 1986, p. 65). Tasks that engage writers in imagining
reader attributes and expectations include those that require reading for meaning
and details, inferencing, predicting, skimming, scanning, critical reasoning, and

reacting. Grabe (2003) proposed 10 guidelines for integrating reading into the
writing curriculum, which we have adapted in Figure 4.2. These guidelines inform
1 A nalyze a u the n tic literacy tasks. C oiled academic and non-academic

literacy tasks and assignments from across the curriculum and the workplace
Examine task requirements, options and methods for completing tasks,
features of successful performances (Bawarshi & Reiff, 2010; Dewitt, Reiff, &
Ba wars hi, 2004; Hyland ,2003, 2004a. 2004 b, 2006; Johns, 1997).
2. P ractice and produce many a u th e n tic genres and tasks. These may
include instructional genres such as reading responses, summaries, limed
essay exams, literature reviews, as weli as workplace and professional
genres Such as electron ic correspondence, presentations, reports, and So on.
Skills, genres, and authentic tasks ,:need to be recycled regularly" to promote
“increasingly . . . complex probtem-solving routines1' (Grabe, 2003, p. 256:
also see Bruce, 2005).
3 D evelop rh e to rica l stances w ith respect to te x ts and tasks. To build
reading-writing connections, teach students to adopt "critical perspectives on
text resources,' leam about "textual choices for conveying meaning."
recognize how writers shape texts with linguistic tools, and reflect on "the
stances and perspectives taken in their own writing" (Grabe. £003, p. 256).
4 P rom ote aw areness o f te x t stru ctu re . As students must 'understand how
written discourse is organized to communicate within genre and task
expectations" (Grabe, 2003, p. 256}, provide explicit instruction that "inducts
learners into the linguistic demands of genres [that] are important to
participation in school Seaming and in the wider community" (Macken-Horarik,
2002. p. 26). Focus on rhetorical arrangement, markers of coherence and
cohesion, text and task goals, and audience expectations (Ba wars hi & Reiff,
2010:; Grabe, 2003; Martin & Rose, 2006, 2012).
5. Teach stu d e n ts to read and w rite stra te g ica lly. A primary goal of
academic literacy instruction should be to help students use, manage, and
automatize strategies for reading (see Figure 4.1) and writing (see Chapler 3)
by devoting "extended attentmn to strategic processing and continual student
awareness of planning, monitoring, and repairing" (Grabe, 2003, p. 256; also
see Grabe, 2009; Grabe & Stoller, 2011. Hedgcock & Ferris, 2009).
6. C ollect, understand, and a p p ly peer and e xp e rt response. The exchange
and processing of feedback “is an essential component of any curriculum
focusing on reading and writing." The benefits of feedback on writing "also
apply to reading comprehension and critical reading tasks’ (Grabe, 2003, pp.
256-257). Systematic transmission of expert and peer feedback cultivates a
literate community in which students read and respond to their peers' work
while also oomposing their own texts for a real audience (Eibow & Belanoff,
1999, Ferris, in press, Hyland, 2012, Weiser et a l , 2009; also see Chapter 7).
7 Teach stu d e n ts to assem ble and in te rp re t m e a n in g fu l in fo rm a tio n. A
curriculum designed to strengthen reading-writing connections should feature
topics that capture students’ inlerest while providing guidance with data
gathering and analysis (e.g., bibliographic research, Web searches, surveys,
interviews, observations, peer canvassing, etc.). These processes "provide
important practice for analyzing information, critiquing content from texts, and
planning ways to present information" effectively (Grabe. 2003, p. 257),
Writing courses are also ideal sites for developing information and media
literacies, which include efficient strategies for "searching for, managing, and
assessing" digital data (National Writing Project, 2D10- p. 54).
. & Focus on e ffective strategies fo r w ritin g fro m sources. Writers must use
; textual resources appropriately as they plan and compose texts. Cultivating
reading strategies such as evaluating arguments and evidence, inferring
latent messages, identifying intertextual relations, and so on (see Figure 4.1)
"requires a considerable commitment to writing from texts" in the form oF
frequent practice and feedback (Grabe. 2003, p 257)
; 9 Teach and practice sum m ary and synthesis shills. Summary and
synthesis "are essential aspects of larger tasks requiring writing firom text
resources," from bibliographic essays and book reviews lo graduate research
papers and doctoral dissertalions (Grabs, 2003, p. 257). As Hirvela (2004)
pointed out ' summarizing is one of the primary contact points between
reading and writing in academic settings; from elementary school Ihrough . . .
graduate school, students are likely to engage in summarizing . . . " (p. 39).
: 10. Integrate reading and w ritin g in the assessm ent plan. Instruction should
provide continual, formal feedback on reading and wnting tasks, as well as
explicit discussion of texts, reading processes, and composing assignments.
Grabe (2003) recommended assessment tools such as “writing portfolios,
limed essay writing that is graded (and then discussed), and larger projects
(posters, reports, [research] papers, etc.) in which formal feedback
mechanisms are used . . along the way" (p. 258). To these options, we
would add digital tasks and tools such as blog entries and comments, wikis,
multimedia products, and so on (see Chapters 5-7).
FIGURE 4.2 Guidelines for designing effective, authentic L2 literacy tasks.

Adapted from Grabe (2003, pp. 255–257).
the reading–writing and genre-based task design recommendations introduced in

the following sections, this chapter’s Application Activities, and the course design
principles outlined in Chapter 5.
Reading to Write
As the label suggests, read-to-write activities can involve any literacy event “in
which readers/writers use text(s) that they read, or have read, as a basis for text(s)
that they write” (Carson, 1993, p. 85). Familiar to many writing teachers, read-to-
write tasks can involve popular assignments such as reading journals, summaries,
book reviews, literature reviews, and the like, all of which can contribute meaning-
fully to students’ literacy development. Nonetheless, we encourage readers to avoid
the common but somewhat misguided assumption that reading a text is merely
a means toward the greater end of writing. “Instead of assigning texts because of
the information about a subject they can provide writers,” we should also “take
into account the texts’ value as sources of knowledge or input about writing itself ”
(Hirvela, 2004, p. 113). We should thus devise literacy tasks that require readers to
extract, understand, and interpret textual content while also drawing their atten-
tion to texts’ formal features (e.g., rhetorical arrangement, prototypical grammati-
cal patterns, lexical choices, and so on) (see Hedgcock & Ferris, 2009, Chapter 5;
also see Bawarshi & Reiff, 2010; Hinkel, 2004; Hyland, 2004; Hyon, 2002).
Writing to Read
As literacy research has demonstrated, the reading–writing connection is not uni-
directional. Indeed, we often “make sense of our experience only insofar as we are
able to represent it to ourselves” (Burnham & French, 1999, p. 77). Write-to-read
tasks engage students in representing meanings to themselves and others before
(and sometimes while) they read. Because writing itself is a ready representation
tool, it conveys “a unique power to bring clarity to our thoughts, to soothe our
nerves, to provide new ways of examining situations, [and] to allow us to review
alternative interpretations” of experiences and texts (Hirvela, 2004, p. 77). For ex-
ample, thoughtful reading of journal and blog entry prompts can engage students
in predicting the content and form of a text before they read it; subsequent en-
tries can then direct students to compare their predictions with the text itself. Of
course, reading and writing journals represent but one option among many for
integrating purposeful write-to-read tasks into composition courses. As Hirvela
(2004) noted, “writing before, during, or after reading enables a reader to make
sense of her or his reading, which in turn strengthens the quality of the reading
and contributes to the development of L2 reading skills” (pp. 73–74).
Writing to Learn
Similar in purpose and design to write-to-read tasks, write-to-learn activities “help
students think critically about information” by engaging them in “applying con-
cepts, testing out ideas, and integrating new information into what they already
know” (Craig, 2013, p. 21). These aims are driven by the cognitivist approach to
process and post-process writing pedagogies (see Chapter 3), in which novice writ-
ers (and readers) advance from knowledge-telling to knowledge-transformation as
they become more proficient (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1987; also see Chuy et al.,
2012; Kellogg & Whiteford, 2012). Frequently used in WAC settings, writing to
learn may involve low-stakes writing activities such as “short, unfinished, or per-
haps very rough” products that can be generated “on index cards, scraps of paper,
on computers, or on whiteboards” (Craig, 2013, pp. 21–22). Ungraded, informally
assessed—and even playful—write-to-learn tasks can include notes (e.g., from
class lectures and brainstorming sessions), concept maps, spidergrams, outlines,
free-writes, sketches, drawings, and diagrams produced by hand or in digital form
(e.g., with software and web-based visualization tools such as Inspiration, Bubbl.
us, Wordle.net, and Magnetic Poetry). These products might or might not supply
material for formal composing assignments. More involved write-to-read assign-
ments can take the form of journal writing, which provides a “non-intimidating
way to add writing and reflection to a course as a student collects responses to read-
ings, summarizes thoughts, or focuses on questions raised by reading or lectures”
(Craig, 2013, p. 21). The journal tasks described in the next section offer ideas for
capitalizing on the cognitive and rhetorical benefits of writing-to-learn activities.
Reciprocal Literacy Tasks

Options for integrating reading and writing in L2 composition courses are numer-
ous and flexible, ranging from frequent and informal tasks such as journals, blogs,
and tweets to formal, high-stakes assignments such as research reports and grant
applications. In the following passage, we will describe selected reading–writing
tasks that can be sensibly integrated into the writing curriculum. Sources listed in
the Further Reading and Resources section at the end of this chapter provide more
detailed assignment ideas.
Reading response journals. Whereas personal journals may or may not focus on
texts, reading response journals (also called reading logs or literature logs) may ex-
pressly invite L2 writers to respond to assigned and self-selected readings (Camp-
bell & Latimer, 2012; Smagorinsky, 2008). Of course, the purposes and substance
of numerous types of journals can overlap. Reading journals can serve as a natural
component of a voluntary or mandatory reading program in a writing course,
though writers may not immediately appreciate the benefits (Holmes & Moulton,
1995). Zamel (1992) outlined several approaches to giving students “experiences
with the dialogic and dynamic nature of reading” (p. 472) through reading jour-
nals. The journal options outlined below are designed to cultivate students’ writ-
ten fluency, critical reasoning skills, rhetorical awareness, and knowledge of how
written language conveys meaning:
j Ask students to maintain informal, low-stakes reading logs in which they

record and discuss assigned and pleasure reading (e.g., textbooks, liter-
ary fiction and nonfiction, print and online journalistic texts, digital
media, and so on). Instruct students to write about information that
they find interesting, significant, perplexing, moving, or otherwise
striking to help them realize that “their written reflection makes . . . un-
derstanding possible” (Zamel, 1992, p. 474). Kucer and Silva (2013)
recommended posing questions such as:
d What did I learn from reading this text?
d Why did the author write this text? What was the author trying to
tell me?
d What parts did I like best? What parts were my favorites? Why did
I like these particular parts?
d Did this text remind me of other texts I have read? How was this
text similar or dissimilar to other texts?
d What would I change in this text if I had written it? What might the
author have done to [make] this text even better, more understand-
able, more interesting?
d Are there things/parts that I did not understand? What can the au-
thor do to . . . explain these parts [better]? (p. 150)
j Assign double-entry or dialectal notebooks, in which pages or word-

processing files are bisected into two vertical columns (Campbell & Lat-
imer, 2012; Smagorinsky, 2008). In the left-hand column, writers copy or
summarize passages that interest them; in the right-hand column, they
respond by posing questions, paraphrasing, commenting, and so on (see
above). Encourage students to respond in the form of images, diagrams,
and metaphors. Digital writing spaces and tools that are accessible on
tablets and Internet-ready mobile phones (e.g., GoogleDocs, Bubble.us,
and so on) can make it easy for students to maintain and share entries
whenever and wherever they read (National Writing Project, 2010).
j Ask students to write entries consisting of brief marginal notations in
the original text, a form of response that “allows students to consider,
weigh, and interpret their reading and gives rise to reactions that they
may not have been aware of ” (Zamel, 1992, p. 477). Students who read
e-books can use e-reader and tablet software (e.g., iAnnotate) to high-
light passages and insert typed and audio annotations (National Writ-
ing Project, 2010).
j Assign predictive entries in which students write about an experience or
weigh their ideas about an issue featured in a text that they are about
to read. Such schema-raising can help students anticipate connections
that they would not otherwise identify (Casanave, 2011; Hirvela, 2004)
and “approach the reading from a position of authority” (Zamel, 1992,
p. 478). To show students that good readers naturally predict meaning,
ask them to compare their predictions with those of their peers and
the original text. “Written predictions of this sort literally transform
student writers into authors of the text” (Zamel, 1992, p. 479). Smago-
rinsky (2008) advised teachers to encourage students not only to view
texts but also to re-view them using their new knowledge.
Frequent journal writing can be extraordinarily valuable to writers by giving

them an incentive to read extensively while providing instructors with continu-
ous evidence of students’ comprehension of assigned and self-selected texts. Jour-
nal proponents generally recommend against using reading journals for formal,
summative assessment (Casanave, 2011; Smagorinsky, 2008). Rather than assign-
ing grades for reading journals, teachers may ask students to compose a specified
number of entries based on a choice of prompts (task stimuli). Students whose
entries are complete receive a full mark. Qualitative teacher response to journals
may consist of oral, handwritten, or word-processed comments that acknowl-
edge, affirm, and inquire about students’ entries. Campbell and Latimer (2012)
recommended streamlining teacher response by limiting entry length to a page,
“asking students to highlight their most important question or observation for a
response,” and inviting students to comment on one another’s entries (p. 84).
Summaries. As complements to open-ended journal tasks, summaries offer

teachers and writers important vehicles for intensive reading, for practicing pre-
writing and composing subskills, and for assessing essential academic literacy skills
(see Figure 4.1 and Appendix 4.1). Geisler (1995) defined a summary as “the sim-
plest text that attempts to represent in some form what another text says” (p. 105).
Bazerman’s (1985) characterization similarly captures the essence of the genre:
Summary “allows you to reproduce another writer’s thoughts—but in shortened
form” (p. 67). Fairly and accurately reproducing a text, of course, entails complex
cognitive, linguistic, and rhetorical operations, including: (a) thorough compre-
hension of the original source; (b) selection of the text’s most salient information;
(c) deletion of less-than-essential information; (d) compression and integration
of the selected information; and (e) arrangement of selected material in a way that
reflects the rhetorical structure of the original (Bazerman, 1985).
Engaging in these operations can produce several tangible benefits for L2
reader-writers. First, “summary writing is an authentic task used in all content
area instruction across a wide variety of contexts” (Pasquarelli, 2006a, p. 105). Sec-
ond, summary writing, “especially as a means to some larger end (e.g., summariz-
ing several articles read for the eventual writing of a research paper), provides
rich opportunities for writing to enhance reading,” and demonstrates the inter-
dependence of reading and writing in writing instruction (Hirvela, 2004, p. 89).
Third, partly thanks to the brevity of the summary genre, summarization practice
presents a natural context for teaching students to distinguish between legitimate
intertextual practices and text appropriation from inappropriate textual borrow-
ing (plagiarism) (Abasi, Akbari, & Graves, 2006; Hirvela, 2004; National Writing
Project, 2010; Pecorari, 2008; Pennycook, 1996a). Appendix 4.1 presents a class-
room EAP exercise introducing summary writing that aims to provide students
with explicit guidance in recognizing the textual features of this (sub)genre and
practice in reproducing it (as a prelude to similar work with paraphrasing and
quotation). Effective procedures for teaching summarization skills are also widely
available in recent academic writing textbooks (e.g., Swales & Feak, 2012) and
in the professional literature (e.g., Bazerman, 2004a; Hirvela, 2004; Pasquarelli,
2006a, 2006b; also see Further Reading and Resources).
Response essays. Somewhat like journal entries that invite writers to record and
reflect on their “perceptions of a reading experience and its natural, spontaneous
consequences” (Bleich, 1978, p. 147), response essays direct students’ attention to
their reading processes, and even to difficulties encountered during reading (Sal-
vatori, 1996). Brief, first-person response essays serve as a medium in which writ-
ers grapple with textual content and their efforts to construct meaning from their
encounters with novel material. Although we have reservations about formulaic
essay genres (see below), response essays “need not be formal or graded papers”
(Hirvela, 2004, p. 99) and generally involve open-ended prompts and flexible ex-
pectations. Response essays generally require writers to cite passages from a text,
but “a student can express anything . . . so long as she demonstrates . . . a careful
reading of the text” (Lent, 1993, p. 239). As writing-to-learn tasks, response essays
encourage developing writers to “use writing as a tool for learning rather than a
test of that learning” (McLeod & Maimon, 2000).
We have suggested that L2 writing teachers should systematically endeavor to
strengthen reading–writing interactions by promoting multiple literacy practices
among their students and by integrating reading instruction purposefully and ex-
plicitly into the composition curriculum. We believe that an effective approach
to literacy instruction entails a careful balance between reading and composing
activities. Achieving such a balance requires:
j broad and deep exposure to increasingly difficult texts, print and digital;
j systematic practice with top-down, bottom-up, and interactive read-
ing comprehension strategies and skills to cultivate both speed and
accuracy;
j promotion of a sizable vocabulary;
j scaffolded face-to-face and digital interaction and discussion that fo-
cuses on constructing meaning from texts; and
j “writing about what is to be read or has been read” (Grabe, 2001, p. 19).
Reading, Writing, and Communication in

Socioliterate Communities
L1 and L2 students alike must achieve disciplinary awareness, genre knowledge,
text comprehension, and production skills (Hyland, 2004a; Johns, 1997, 2003,
2008, 2009a, 2009b; Spack, 1997). To meet these objectives, learners must first
understand that classroom instruction will involve them in reading and writing
for tangible purposes. These purposes are often grounded in established ways of
being and thinking, many of which may be tacit and socially transmitted. Freed-
man (1987) wrote that learners may engage in novel literacy activities with only
a “dimly felt sense” of the task or genre (p. 102), which they may subsequently
modify and expand as they read and write (Bawarshi & Reiff, 2010; Leki, 2011).
Eskey (1993) observed that, because Discourses and literacies are “composed of
the work of the people who read and write [their] texts,” discursive processes and
literacy learning must have “a social as well as a cognitive dimension, a dimension
that plays a major role in shaping the literate behavior of readers and writers in
any real-world context” (p. 224). L2 educators play a crucial role in bringing their
learners into such Discourses and literacies, given their responsibility for prepar-
ing their students to meet the demands and challenges of academic institutions
(Johns, 1997, 2003). Facilitating this socialization process assumes that reading,
as a central component of academic literacy, involves cultural and sociocognitive
interactions among readers, writers, and texts (Barton & Hamilton, 2004; Blom-
maert, Street, & Turner, 2007; Street, 2010).
Socialization into academic literacy also presupposes that writing is a com-

munication “technology” (see Chapter 1). Further, as we noted in Chapter 3, writ-
ing also encompasses complex social and cognitive practices (Bazerman, 2004b,
2006; Bracewell & Witte, 2008; Flower, 1994; Freedman & Medway, 1994a, 1994b;
Gee, 2012; Geisler, 1994; Ivaniþ, 1998; Kress, 1993; McCutchen et al., 2008; Miller,
1994a, 1994b; Prior, 1998, 2006). These precepts coincide with the socioliterate
perspective, in which students encounter Discourses and literacies, observe their
practices, and “gradually develop theories of genre” (Johns, 1997, p. 14; see Chap-
ter 3). A socioliterate view suggests practical strategies for literacy instruction,
which include helping students:
j investigate their own histories and literacy practices;

j identify strategies for future rhetorical situations;
j study “the literacy practices of . . . advanced students and faculty”; and
j examine texts, roles, and contexts to promote “awareness and critique of
communities and their textual contracts.” (Johns, 1997, p. 19)
Building Socioliterate Knowledge Through

Work with Genres
Socioliterate L2 instruction aims to apprentice writers into established communi-
ties of readers, writers, and digital citizens (National Writing Project, 2010). As
noted in Chapter 3, these collective entities are sometimes called Discourses (“with
a capital ‘D’”)(Gee, 2011, 2012). Literate communities are also called literacies
(Gee, 2012) and literacy clubs (Smith, 1988). A related term used by some genre
analysts and social constructionist researchers is community of practice, “a set of
relations among persons, activity, and world, over time and in relation with other
tangential and overlapping communities of practice” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 98).
Sometimes called situated learning, the social and cognitive development under-
gone by learners in communities of practice amounts to a form of apprenticeship
(Guleff, 2002; Rogoff, 1990; Wenger, 1998; Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002).
As apprentices, learners “pick up . . . practices through joint action with more
advanced peers, and advance their abilities to engage and work with others in car-
rying out such practices” (Gee, 2004, p. 77).
Many literate practices (e.g., reading, writing, talking about texts) unfold for-
mally and explicitly in classrooms, offices, and meeting rooms. They also take
place informally and implicitly in the course of daily human activity, such as when
we learn to cook in the family kitchen, fold laundry, throw a ball, play video games
with a guild, compose a text message, replace a SIM card, create a blog or wiki, or
take part in an online chat. Apprenticeship into these practices can be mediated
in real-time, face-to-face interaction, as well as in digital spaces such as Facebook,
YouTube, and Twitter, where communities of practice also thrive (Gee, 2004; Gee &
Hayes, 2011; Geertz, 1983; Hawisher & Selfe, 2007; National Writing Project, 2010;
Seo, 2012; Snyder, 2007; Warschauer, 1997; Wilbur, 2010).
Genre studies and socioliterate research emphasize the pedagogical imperative to
demonstrate that reading, writing, and building reading–writing connections can en-
able students to develop knowledge, display it, and become participants in literacies.
As seasoned members of literacy clubs and academic communities of practice—“old
timers,” as Lave and Wenger (1991) called them—educators are perhaps the most
accessible models of literate behavior, or “surrogates,” that their students encounter
in the educational process (Smith, 1988). As surrogates and facilitators, composition
teachers can familiarize students with the personal, social, educational, and profes-
sional uses of written language, bringing them into communities of experts and nov-
ices who produce, consume, and interact around texts (Hyland, 2000, 2004a, 2009).
We observed in Chapter 3 that instructors can achieve this aim by featuring materials
that exemplify the texts used, valued, and created by expert readers and writers for the
purposes of acquiring and creating new knowledge. It is only by understanding and
selectively adopting the behaviors and values of academic and professional disciplines
and communities of practice that L2 students can join the ranks of expert readers and
writers (Dias & Paré, 2000; Hedgcock, 2008; Tardy, 2009).
The majority of L1 and L2 reading–writing studies cited in this chapter suggest
that composing skills develop in strength and range as students work meaningfully
with multiple genres, subgenres, and text types (Grabe, 2001, 2002, 2003; Hyland,
2004a; Martin, 2000, 2002; Martin & Rose, 2008; Rose & Martin, 2012). Informed
by these socially grounded perspectives, we encourage L2 composition profession-
als to adopt an approach to writing instruction that nurtures learners’ participation
in a rich diversity of academic, professional, and even popular literacies (print and
digital), as well as proficiency in producing appropriate genres. The following dis-
cussion will focus on cultivating awareness of formal (i.e., rhetorical and linguistic)
conventions of text-based and multimodal genres to promote the comprehension,
analysis, reproduction, and critique of texts associated with those genres. We will
thus examine tools for integrating reading tasks and skills practice into the teach-
ing of written genres in L2 composition instruction. Developing genre awareness
and the ability to (re)produce genres necessitates mastery of forms and mechanical
operations, as well as (perhaps more importantly) an appreciation of the complex
psychological, sociocultural, educational, political, and ideological contexts in which
texts are produced, transacted, challenged, and reformed (Bhatia, 1993, 2004; Bowen &
Whithaus, 2013; Casanave, 2002; Christie & Martin, 1997; Devitt, 2004; Dias et al.,
1999; Dias & Paré, 2000; Freedman & Adam, 2000; Hyland, 2004a; Johns, 199y, 2003,
2008, 2009a; Molle & Prior, 2008; Nesi & Gardner, 2012; Paltridge, 2001).
Approaches to Genre
Traditional definitions of genre focused mainly on categories of literary text and sub-
sequently on the lexical, grammatical, rhetorical, and discursive features of written
forms (Bawarshi & Reiff, 2010; Costino & Hyon, 2011; Devitt, 2004; Halliday &
Hasan, 1989; Hyland, 2002; Johns, 2003; Swales, 1990). As we noted in Chapter 3,
although these functions still represent important aspects of genre studies, genre is
better understood in dynamic, socially complex terms. Because we embrace a genre-
oriented approach to writing instruction, it will be helpful to consider the diverse
ways in which genre has been defined in order to enrich our understanding of this
highly productive conceptual and pedagogical tool. Rose and Martin (2012) proposed
a deceptively simple view of genre, describing it as a “staged goal-oriented social pro-
cess” (p. 1), a definition that has generated strategies “designed to guide students to
write the genres of schooling” (p. 2). Genre further entails “configurations of meaning
that are recurrently phased together to enact social practices” (Martin, 2002, p. 269).
Though “abstract and schematic,” genre knowledge is “systematic” and “conventional,
in that form and style may be repeated” (Johns, 1997, pp. 21–22).
As contemporary genre studies represent a range of theoretical and ideologi-
cal sources, it is difficult to present a fair, accurate overview of the field’s breadth,
influence, and vitality. It is similarly challenging to settle on a single or even uni-
fied definition of genre itself. To sort out the theoretical and ideological origins of
genre theory, it will be helpful to identify the leading approaches, which have been
examined by Hyon (1996), Johns (1997, 2002b), and Bawarshi and Reiff (2010),
among others. The following summary presents an overview:
1. The Sydney School, or Systemic-Functional Linguistics (SFL) approach. A

“carefully developed and sequential curriculum” informed by Systemic-
Functional Linguistics, genre pedagogy in this tradition begins “by
modeling genres and explicating the features of those genres” within the
framework of “the Hallidayan socially based system of textual analysis”
(Bawarshi & Reiff, 2010, p. 176). Teachers and learners analyze com-
mon, “elemental” genres to highlight “how the organization of language
is related to its use, since . . . language construes, is construed by, and
(over time) reconstrues social context” (Martin, 1997, p. 2). In SFL ped-
agogy, learners are guided in the reproduction of these genres, a process
in which they ultimately acquire these genres as their own (Hyon, 1996;
Johns, 2002a, 2009a; Rose & Martin, 2012).
2. English for Specific Purposes (ESP). A model of “specific-learner-centered
language instruction,” ESP aims to teach discipline-specific oral and written
genres based on careful analyses of L2 learner needs (Belcher, 2009b, p. 2).
Central to the ESP approach is Swales’s (1990) theory of rhetorical moves,
analysis of textual features, and “relating those features to the values and
rhetorical purposes of discourse communities” (Johns, 2002b, p. 7).
3. The New Rhetoric (NR). The NR tradition contextualizes genre with the
aim of teaching students to analyze “genres and their rhetorical and so-
cial purposes and ideologies” critically (Bawarshi & Reiff, 2010, p. 176).
As observed in Chapter 3, NR views genre as dynamic and evolving; in-

struction tends to assign priority to rhetorical situations over the analy-
sis of lexico-grammatical features (Freedman & Medway, 1994a, 1994b;
Gage, 2011b; Johns, 2002a, 2009a, 2009b; Perelman, 2001).
4. The Brazilian didactic approach. Curricular initiatives and genre pedago-
gies in Brazil have been informed by SFL, interactional approaches to dis-
course, and theorists such as Bakhtin (1981) and Vygotsky (1978, 2012)
(see Chapter 3). The Brazilian approach explores: (a) the spheres in which
genres operate; (b) the social history of genre development; (c) contexts
for genre production; (d) the thematic content of texts; and (e) the stylis-
tic features that typify genres and their authors (Bawarshi & Reiff, 2010).
These approaches share a number of characteristics and goals while exhibiting

distinct methods and purposes. For example, SFL and ESP approaches generally
move from context to text, whereas NR typically begins with text analysis and
advances to exploration of the socio-rhetorical contexts in which genres function
(Belcher, 2009b; Johns, 2009a). Brazilian genre pedagogy, in contrast, may focus
early on producing target genres based on students’ existing schemata, moving to
genre analysis in social contexts (Bawarshi & Reiff, 2010).
Defining Genre
These diverse approaches to genre theory and pedagogy have predictably gener-
ated a range of operational definitions of genre itself. Indeed, “genre means dif-
ferent things to different scholars,” though experts widely agree that the construct
refers to “recurring or characteristic textual (oral or written) responses to the
requirements of the social context” (Polio & Williams, 2011, p. 496). Although
we can hardly capture the depth, breadth, or complexity of genre theories and
pedagogies here, the following discussion will present a sampling of working defi-
nitions of genre, followed by implications of genre theory for designing literacy
tasks and instructional units. The following list captures how selected theorists
and researchers have described genres and genre production:
j Genres represent regularities of staged, goal-oriented social processes

(Halliday & Martin, 1993; Martin, 1992; Martin & Rose, 2003, 2008;
Rose & Martin, 2012) and “abstract, socially recognised ways of using
language” (Hyland, 2002, p. 114);
j As exemplifications of sociocognitive schemata, or scripts, genres reflect
mental structures shared by members of Discourses and literacies (Bax,
2011a; Hyland, 2009).
j Genres consist of shared sets of communicative purposes (Hyland, 2004a,

2009, 2012; Swales, 1990, 1998, 2004) and “diverse ways of acting, of pro-
ducing social life, in the semiotic mode,” including conversations, board
meetings, political interviews, and book reviews (Fairclough, 2003, p. 206).
j Genres embody typified rhetorical action (Miller, 1984, 1994a, 1994b) and
recognizable “frames for social action” that provide “guiding principles
for achieving particular . . . purposes” with language (Hyland, 2009, p. 26).
These complementary categories enable us to envision genre as a concrete label

for structural dimensions of oral performances and written products:
j “A staged, goal-oriented, purposeful activity in which speakers engage

as members of our culture.” Staged activities might include “making a
dental appointment, buying vegetables, telling a story, writing an essay,
applying for a job, writing a letter to the editor, inviting someone to
dinner, and so on” (Martin, 2001, p. 155);
j “A kind of text,” such as an academic lecture, a casual conversation, a
newspaper report, or an academic essay (Paltridge, 2006);
j “[A] class of communicative events, the members of which share some
set of communicative purposes . . . [that] are recognized by the expert
members of the parent discourse community and thereby constitute the
rationale for the genre” (Swales, 1990, p. 58);
j “[A]n orientation to action for both producers and receivers” that sug-
gests “ways to do things using language [that] are recognizable to those
we interact with” (Hyland, 2009, p. 26).
As we can see from these diverse definitions and examples, genres pervade our
daily lives, providing tools for naming and enacting recurring, socially constructed
activities that index participants, purposes, and textual practices. The genre con-
struct presents a practical and highly productive tool for literacy instruction for
numerous reasons, listed below. Specifically, genres:
j Endure because of the functions that they perform;

j Gain and maintain legitimacy as a result of recognition;
j Exhibit features that are guided, shaped, and determined by these
functions;
j Reflect idealized, prototypical, and repeated formal conventions;
j Are identifiable because of their social and contextual utility;
j May or may not manifest linguistically;
j Index formal expectations shared within (and across) communities of

users;
j Often (but not always) have labels;
j Frequently exhibit intertextual relations and can be aligned with genre
sets, clusters, or chains (see below); and
j Tend to be stable, but are typically flexible and hybrid (that is, they
change, blend, evolve, and die out).
(Sources: Bawarshi & Reiff, 2010; Bax, 2011a, 2011b; Bhatia, 2002; Devitt, 1991, 2004;
Halliday & Martin, 1993; Hyland, 2004, 2009, 2012; Johns, 1997, 2003; Miller, 1984;
NCTE, 2008; Rose & Martin, 2012; Swales, 1990, 1998)
We all encounter numerous genres in the course of a day, and though we may
recognize high-prestige literary and academic genres, the full array of genres
across Discourses, literacies, and communities of practice supplies teachers and
learners with extraordinarily productive tools for learning and teaching. Appendix
4.2 presents a partial list of oral, written, digital, and multimodal genres designed
to stimulate readers’ thinking about the rich variety of genres available for analy-
sis, imitation, and experimentation. To narrow our focus on the implementation
of a socioliterate genre pedagogy, we can identify and explore a cluster of high-
frequency academic genres such as those listed in Figure 4.3.
As Swales (2004) observed, the genres of academic communities of practice rep-
resent a broad assortment, a constellation of academic discourse; a few representa-
tive genres appear in Figure 4.3. Collectively, these genres (among others), represent
Some Academic Genres

W ritten Genres OraiJ3enres _
Research Articles _________ Lectures ____ __
Conference Abstrac ts ________ Seminars__________
Grant Proposals ^ .................Collofluia...................
Literature_Revjews_ Conference Presentations
Undergraduate Essays Master's and PhD Defenses
_R_eading Response Journals Student Presentations____
Lab Reports ..Tutonais.................
Submission Letters_ Admissions Interviews
Book Reviews O ffice Hour Consultations
_PhD_Dissertations W riting Center Appointments
....... Textbooks : Peer Study Groups
Reprint Requests Group Project Meetings
Editor Response Letters-—
—
FIGURE 4.3 A genre cluster. Adapted from Hyland (2009, p. 27).
a genre cluster, a tool that describes “how spoken and written texts can cluster to-
gether in a given social context” (Hyland, 2009, p. 27).4 These genres draw from,
respond to, and interact with one another in intertextual webs (Bakhtin, 1986).
Intertextual connections can be overt, such as when writers and speakers quote,
paraphrase, and cite the work of others, a construct that Fairclough (1992, 2003)
called manifest intertextuality. Intertextual relations can also be covert and implicit,
such as when a text “is shaped by borrowing generic or rhetorical conventions from
other genres” (Hyland, 2009, p. 27), a pattern known as constitutive intertextual-
ity, or interdiscursivity (Fairclough, 1992, 2003). The paragraph that you are now
reading, for example, exhibits manifest intertextuality by quoting passages from
the work of experts and constitutive intertextuality by following a conventional
form of rhetorical arrangement (i.e., a deductive pattern of definition and exem-
plification). In the next section, we will introduce a framework for systematically
engaging L2 students in interdiscursive activity by analyzing genres and literacies,
developing genre awareness, producing genre-appropriate texts, and participating
in literate communities.
Genres, Genre Awareness, and Genre Production

in L2 Writing Instruction
As Tardy (2008) observed, “to use a genre is to participate in an intertextual sys-
tem” (p. 193). To equip novice writers with skills for participating meaningfully
in intertextual systems, L2 composition instruction should systematically help
students use, analyze, critique, and produce a range of genres. Genre-oriented
pedagogies have evolved in L2 composition instruction “as a response to process
pedagogies, as an outcome of communicative methods, and in consequence of our
growing understanding of literacy” (Hyland, 2004a, p. 7). To go beyond the tradi-
tional, current-traditional, and process-based paradigms surveyed in Chapter 3,
we encourage teachers to investigate the theories, materials, and strategies de-
veloped by experts in socioliterate pedagogies, genre studies, EAP, and ESP. The
sources listed in the Further Reading and Resources section offer extensive and
detailed tools for instructional design, teaching, and assessment that explore the
principles and procedures in this book in further depth.
Among the principles underlying socioliterate approaches is the simple observa-
tion that, to become fluent readers and writers, L2 learners must become efficient,
critical consumers and producers of the genres valued in the literacies that they
wish to join (e.g., academic disciplines, professions, workplaces, virtual communi-
ties, and so on). Essential to mastering these skills and claiming new roles are recog-
nition and reproduction of conventions: “Expectations for particular conventions
of layout and language,” wrote Hyland (2009), “imply some constraint on choice
and so tend towards conformity among genre users, [leading] to some genre stabil-
ity. Choice, in fact, is actually defined by constraint, and there can be no meaning
without it” (Hyland, 2009, p. 27, emphasis added). Constraints are observable at all
levels of textual form, from macro-level elements of rhetorical arrangement (see

Chapters 1 and 3) to micro-level features such as sentence structure, word choice,
spelling, and mechanics (see Chapters 8 and 9).
Devitt (1997) characterized these constraints as a “language standard” of so-
cially, rhetorically, and linguistically appropriate conventions within a Discourse,
literacy, or community of practice. These constraints and standards may change
over time, yet novices inevitably discover “rewards for playing the game,” as well
as “consequences for violation” (Hyland, 2009, p. 27). For example, L2 writers as-
signed to compose a narrative must recognize that their texts will not exist in
isolation; rather, their products must exhibit overt and covert (manifest and con-
stitutive) intertextual features. In their narratives, students must write in ways that
reflect a recognizable structure and engage readers by portraying common expe-
riences and interpretations. With the aid of genre analysis, students develop an
explicit awareness that their texts are not disconnected from other texts and that
their work fits into a “background of other opinions, viewpoints, and experiences
on the same theme” (Hyland, 2004a, p. 81).
Before we explore genre analysis and its implications for L2 literacy education,
it will be helpful to address reservations about genre pedagogies, including ESP
and EAP. As we noted in Chapter 3, a prevailing objection to genre-based mod-
els, with their pragmatic goal of helping students succeed as readers and writers
in classroom and workplace settings, can lead to a narrow focus on reproducing
high-prestige academic and professional genres. Critics have held that analyzing
and imitating genres can lead to a kind of indoctrination that imposes certain
sociocultural norms and ideologies on students. Benesch (2001), for example,
challenged an assumption among EAP educators that “students should accommo-
date . . . to the demands of academic assignments, behaviors expected in academic
classes, and hierarchical arrangements within academic institutions” (p. 41).
Canagarajah (2002a) similarly asserted that genre pedagogy de-emphasizes “criti-
cal awareness of . . . underlying knowledge-making processes,” thereby encourag-
ing students “to adopt a passive and dependent relationship toward the activities
of . . . academic communities” (p. 131).
We readily acknowledge that a tool as powerful as genre can be reduced to
formulaic structures, yet certain objections to genre pedagogies are overstated and
consequently unfair. Indeed, as we pointed out in Chapter 3, contemporary genre
pedagogies involve students in situating genres socially, sometimes destabilizing
and renovating them (Johns, 1997, 2002a). Further, systematic exploration of text
construction processes, language choices, and metalanguage “facilitates critical
analysis” of texts (Hammond & Macken-Horarik, 1999, p. 529). Moreover, learn-
ing the genres of a culture “is both part of entering into it with understanding
and . . . developing the necessary ability to change it” (Christie, 1987, p. 30). Finally,
Hyland (2004a) stressed the responsibility of literacy educators to develop stu-
dents’ genre knowledge: He argued that “to fail to provide learners with what we
know about how language works . . . denies them the means of both communicat-
ing effectively in writing and of analyzing texts critically” (p. 42).
Genre analysis. A fundamental source, inspiration, and tool for genre pedagogies,
genre analysis situates oral and written texts with respect to their textual and so-
ciocultural contexts. Bhatia (2002) defined genre analysis as “the study of situated
linguistic behavior in institutionalized academic or professional settings” (p. 22).
The process connects texts and contexts with the social nature of the production,
reproduction, and reading of texts. Genre analysis entails “a range of tools and atti-
tudes to texts, from detailed qualitative analyses of a single text to more quantitative
counts of language features,” enabling researchers, teachers, and students to explore
the actions of writers and speakers as they construct written and oral texts (Hyland,
2009, p. 25). Models of genre analysis differ with respect to the particular genre tra-
dition embraced (i.e., SFL, ESP, NR, or Brazilian didactic approach) and their core
focal areas. Genre analysis in the NR tradition, for example, may focus on the deci-
sions made by writers as a function of the social context and purpose for writing.
In SFL and ESP approaches, genre analysis may examine the relative frequency of
prototypical genre features (i.e., rhetorical, linguistic, and lexical patterns) to deter-
mine how they cluster within and across texts, genres, genre clusters, and Discourses.
Figure 4.4 presents a widely known template describing a high-frequency aca-
demic genre, the research paper (RP) introduction. Introduced by Swales (1981,
1990, 2004), the Create a Research Space (CARS) model is widely used by research-
ers and teachers as a framework for characterizing prototypical features of the
introduction genre. The result of careful and extensive analysis of a wide range of
RP introductions, the CARS model features three distinctive rhetorical “moves”:
(1) establishing a research territory; (2) establishing a niche; and (3) occupying
MOVE P rio rity FliWCTIOfJ

MOVE 1 E s ta b lis h a R esearch T e rrito ry
a Optional Show that the general research area is important,
central, interesting, problematic, or relevant
b Obligatory Introduce and review items o f previous research in
___________________________ the area____________________________________________
M OV£ 2 E s ta b lis h a N iche (nrcê = a kind o f space or gap
in the existing knowledge base where new
research would be helpful)
a Obligatory Indicate a gap in previous research or extend prior
___________________________ know ledge in some way____________________________
MOVE 3 O c c u p y th e N iche
a Obligatory Outline purposes or stale the nalure of the present
research
b PISF* List research questions or hypotheses
c PISF" Announce principal findings
d PISF* S late the value of the present research
e__________ PISF' Inflicate th e structure of the R P_____________________
"PISF = Probable in some fields; rare in others
FIGURE 4.4 The CARS (Create a Research Space) model: Moves in research
paper (RP) introductions. Adapted from Swales (1990, 2004) and Swales and
Feak (2012).
the niche. As a pedagogical tool, the CARS model can effectively acquaint student
writers with the prototypical sequencing of information in introductory passages
before and while they read RPs.
Applications for the CARS model and similar genre-analytic tools include
preparing students for intensive reading and systematic analysis of genres in the
classroom. Major goals of socioliterate and genre-oriented pedagogies entail
equipping L2 students to analyze texts, develop their genre awareness, and nurture
their ability to produce texts that exhibit required elements of target genres and
genre clusters (see Figure 4.3). Like Swales’s CARS model, Figure 4.5 summarizes
selected rhetorical and linguistic tendencies that typify many genres of academic
writing. Teachers can make productive use of findings such as these to engage
students in evidence-based approaches to analyzing and comparing genres, identi-
fying obligatory and optional features, and exploring the practices of literate com-
munities in which certain genres thrive and enjoy prestige. These processes can
lead to critical exploration of texts, genres, and the literacies and Discourses whose
members produce and consume them (see Chapter 3).
Socioliterate classroom practices. Although the sources cited in this chapter can
provide readers with tangible resources for building their own socioliterate reper-
toires, we can sketch a general framework for executing a socioliterate pedagogy.
At its core, “genre-based writing instruction lays bare the linguistic and rhetorical
bones of different registers in order to facilitate . . . mastery” (Polio & Williams,
2011, p. 497). Recognizing the practical challenges of embracing a socioliterate
approach, Johns (1997) posed this question on behalf of literacy teachers: “Given
the short time I have to work with my students, how can I best prepare them for
the varied and unpredictable literacy challenges that they will confront in their
academic and professional lives?” (p. 114).
: 1. A cadem ic texts should exhibit formal features that satisfy the genre
requirem ents o f the target literate community, discipline, or classroom.
I 2. A cadem ic texts should present argum ents explicitly and define key terms
I for the reader.
| 3. Introductory passages should generally pre-reveal a text's topic and
argument, though some genres may not require an explicit preface,
j 4. W riters should provide explicit signals (i.e., linguistic “ signposts"
throughout their texts to inform readers of the direction of the argum ent.
E 5. Texts should maintain a distance between w riter and content to convey
; Objectivity (e.g., by adopting a fairly high register referring only
infrequently to the writer with first^person pronouns, etc.).
! 6. W hen presenting research and synthesizing published work, writers
\ should adopt a guarded stance by hedging
| 7 Texts shouW acknowledge the social roles o f readers and writers.
! 6. Texts m ust acknowledge intertextual relationships to support their
I arg u ments a nd encou rage discu ssion.
FIGURE 4.5 Prototypical features of academic genres. Adapted from Johns (1997,
2003); additional sources include: Hyland (1998, 2000, 2004a, 2008, 2009, 2012);
Leki (2011); Swales (1990, 2004); Swales and Feak (2012).
By involving students in exploring, understanding, and questioning texts and

genres through genre analysis, we provide them with strategies and skills for pro-
ducing texts that exhibit the requisite features of targeted genres (Hammond &
Macken-Horarik, 1999). Johns (1997) outlined broad goals for socioliterate in-
struction, which lend themselves particularly well to integrating reading system-
atically into writing instruction and to promoting genre awareness:
j Demystify texts, genres, literacies, literate practices, readers, and writers;

j Organize literacy instruction around prototypical genres, text struc-
tures, practices, and value systems;
j Cultivate a culture of discovery and analysis, rather than simple replication.
Socioliterate instruction develops “researchers, not dogmatists—students
who explore ideas and literacies rather than seek simple answers” (p. 69).
Teachers can pursue these goals by designing units, assignments, and activities
that engage students directly in purposeful encounters with authentic genres. To
guide teachers in selecting suitable materials and crafting literacy activities for
classroom use, experts have proposed a number of instructional practices, which
are perhaps most effectively executed cyclically:
j Gather representative texts (written, oral, hybrid) from the target lit-
eracy or literacies, situating them with respect to their genre categories
or clusters.
j Identify the contexts in which target texts and genres are transacted; ex-
plore the literacy practices of genre producers and consumers, as well as
their roles in those contexts.
j Explore the purposes of texts and genres by investigating reader expecta-
tions for those texts and the goals that writers wish to achieve in produc-
ing them.
j Build literacy activities, assignments, and units around the genre goals
associated with these reader and writer purposes (see Chapter 5).
j Involve students in guided genre analysis tasks that focus on the rhetori-
cal, lexical, syntactic, and stylistic conventions of target genres. Consider
the prototypical formal properties of high-value genres, obligatory con-
ventions, optional features, and the degree of variation allowed.
j Investigate the textual materials, explicit knowledge, and cognitive skills
required to produce high-value genres. Examine texts and literacy prac-
tices to understand how successful writers generate successful texts.
(Sources: Burns & Joyce, 1997; Hyland, 2004a; Johns, 1997; Nesi & Gardner, 2012;
Tardy, 2009; Tribble, 2010)
Feez (1998) proposed a five-stage teaching–learning cycle for devising instruc-

tional units (see Chapter 5) and individual literacy tasks and assignments, which
are the primary focus of the remainder of this chapter. Grounded in SFL pedagogy,
Feez’s scheme can inform the planning and execution of classroom activities by
“showing the process of learning a genre as a series of linked stages” and leading
learners toward “a critical understanding of texts” (Hyland, 2004a, p. 128):
1. Context-setting. Help students understand the target genre’s purposes and

the context for writing. For instance, science students required to prepare a
procedure might visit a lab, view recordings of how experts work in this oral
genre, and undergo scaffolded instruction (e.g., teacher questioning, direct
teaching, lexical enhancement, role plays, jigsaw reading, and so on).
2. Modeling. Students learn to deconstruct texts by analyzing textual mod-
els generated by experts and peers. Scaffolded instruction focuses on how
stages, purposes, and language interact in the creation and maintenance of
genres and texts. Grammar and lexis are never treated in isolation; formal
features are always functionally related to genres, purposes, and participants.
3. Joint construction. Students collaboratively construct target texts (Vy-
gotsky, 1978), incorporating data and experience from context-building
steps and other sources. Students thus learn to write collaboratively, a
common educational and professional practice.
4. Independent construction. The teacher guides students in the indepen-
dent construction of texts, providing feedback as needed.
5. Comparison. Writers link and compare their emergent texts with other
texts in the target genre, often sharing and critiquing one another’s pro-
duction as their knowledge of disciplinary practice progresses (Feez, 2002).
(Adapted from Feez, 1998, p. 28; also see Hyland, 2004a)
Designing Tasks and Assignments for

Socioliterate Instruction
With these principles and practical guidelines in mind, we can undertake the work
of conceptualizing and developing authentic, genre-appropriate tasks for reading
and writing. In line with our strong view that writing instruction should system-
atically integrate reading practice and skills development, we encourage teachers
to follow Johns’s (1997) recommendations:
j “Draw from all possible resources” (p. 115);

j “Select texts carefully” (p. 117); and
j “Design carefully crafted writing assignments” (p. 122).
These guidelines for socioliterate instruction exemplify the socially embedded

nature of text construction and the genre systems that enable teachers and learn-
ers to penetrate disciplines and literacies, explore and adopt literacy practices, and
understand the ideological underpinnings of genres. These principles further sug-
gest that responsible L2 composition instruction need not rely principally or solely
on traditional, academic genres such as textbooks and literature. In the following
discussion, we will discuss options for maximizing literacy resources for teaching,
selecting suitably authentic and challenging materials, and constructing situation-
ally appropriate reading, writing, and integrated tasks.
Maximizing Literacy Resources

To maximize literacy resources in a writing course, we must take great care in
choosing materials for reading and writing; to fulfill this aim, we must frame texts
and tasks in a sociocultural framework by involving students in the investigation
of literacy practices and genre production processes. Johns (1997, 2003, 2009a),
for example, suggested activities such as consulting and interviewing experts (e.g.,
faculty and staff members on campus, professionals in the disciplines, employees
in workplaces, and so on) and apprentices (e.g., advanced students). In addition
to preparing students to plan, conduct, and report interviews, we can help them
develop and conduct surveys among experts and apprentices. We can likewise
guide students in the collection of sample texts and other artifacts that represent
targeted genres.
Once compiled, these materials can undergo genre analysis and deconstruction,
processes that the instructor can carefully scaffold (e.g., by exploring rhetorical
moves). These collection and analysis procedures can simultaneously teach skills
for evaluating the validity and credibility of source material and online research. In
wired environments, teachers can assign and lead guided online searches and critical
reading tasks. For instance, teachers might create portals (pages of links) from which
students can engage in online research using search engines and online databases
(National Writing Project, 2010). Search exercises can include problem-solving ac-
tivities, puzzles, and prompts requiring students to think individually and collabora-
tively as they use digital technology to address particular queries about topics, texts,
writers, and readers. “Have students explore different information and communica-
tion technologies and choose the best technology to facilitate the task at hand and
the situation to which they are responding” (National Writing Project, 2010, p. 58).
A particular benefit of capitalizing on technological resources in writing in-
struction is that collaboration with digital technology enables students to engage in
teaching one another, thus creating a zone of proximal development (ZPD). We can
thus encourage learners with particular technological literacy skills to lead the way
in executing tasks and projects. In writing groups, for instance, student writers with
expertise in conducting online searches, video or audio editing, or graphic design
can assume appropriate leadership roles as teachers and mentors. By teaching and
learning from one another and sharing their experiences as writers, “students will
learn to make knowledge from their experiences . . . and transfer that knowledge to
new problems and challenges” (National Writing Project, 2010, p. 58).
Text Selection
Because of the staggering quantity of online and print materials available for teach-
ing, evaluating instructional materials can be an intimidating experience. Thanks
to widespread Internet access, collecting authentic materials is much less difficult
than selecting and presenting them in a pedagogically sound way. We concur with
Johns (1997), who argued that we should first choose texts for “authenticity and
completeness,” aiming for samples that are “full and unabridged, preserved just as
they have been written” (p. 118). Figure 4.3 presents an array of authentic written
and oral academic genres; Appendix 4.2 offers a list of nonacademic, professional,
and popular genres. We should complement authenticity by choosing texts for their
“teachability and appropriateness” (Johns, 1997, p. 118). We can meet both goals by
drawing selections from genre categories that reflect the target literacy or Discourse
and that best match students’ literacy and linguistic needs (Craig, 2013). Choosing
materials that are accessible to students and that don’t overtax their reading abilities
is crucial: There is simply no point in designing an assignment, activity, or lesson
around a text that students do not understand. We strongly encourage teachers to
consider a text’s readability by carefully evaluating its content, rhetorical arrange-
ment, syntactic complexity, and vocabulary range before assigning it. Also essential
is providing students with tools for reading efficiently (e.g., pre-, during-, and post-
reading questions about content and structure; comprehension aids and checks; vo-
cabulary support) and allowing sufficient time for careful reading (see the Further
Reading and Resources section for sources on scaffolding the L2 reading process).
Also crucial in text selection is assessing “specific text-external factors” such as
audience and purpose (Johns, 1997, p. 119). In surveying prospective materials, we
can consider text samples produced for general as well as specialist readers. Students
unfamiliar with a discipline may need to learn about its domain content and value
systems before exploring its genres and discursive conventions. “Community-specific
academic texts” (p. 119), on the other hand, enable students to analyze and decode
specialized rhetorical, grammatical, and lexical features unique to the Discourse. Johns
(1997) also recommended locating text samples with “visuals and other text-internal
features” (p. 120), such as photographs, drawings, graphs, formulae, charts, and
unique formatting features. In presenting authentic texts, we should provide guidance
in exposing “language-related text-internal factors” that might “prereveal information
about textual content, organization, and argumentation” (p. 120). Language-related
features might include topic sentences, thesis statements, conclusions, headings, bold-
face and italicized type, and so on. Application Activity 4.3 presents a text analysis task
designed to engage students in attending to such prototypical formal features.
Recommendations for text selection would be incomplete without discuss-
ing commercial textbooks, which continue to be pervasive in educational systems
throughout the world. Indeed, for many educators, textbooks provide the backbone
for the courses they teach. We urge literacy teachers to develop their own materials
and to supplement textbooks, yet we recognize that “many teachers are required
to use textbooks.” Indeed, “a majority of teachers don’t have the time or resources
to prepare their own materials, and so textbooks are a necessity” (Graves, 2000,
p. 173). We will briefly consider arguments for and against relying on commercial
course books in literacy courses.
Content-area textbooks should admittedly be considered fair game in socio-
literate instruction, although teachers should view them critically. Geisler (1994),
for example, cautioned against allowing the textbook genre to serve as a surrogate
for prevailing academic genres and subgenres: “Textbooks, still the mainstay of
the curriculum, are interpreted as containing the domain content upon which
students will be tested. Writing, on the rare occasions it is used, serves to duplicate
the knowledge structure of those texts” (p. 87). At the same time, “textbooks are
socially constructed . . . [and] can be analyzed and used for the advancement of
genre knowledge” (Johns, 1997, p. 125). Literature, also a prominent component
of many composition curricula, can likewise be approached from an exploratory,
socioliterate, and critical perspective, which differs significantly from its treatment
in traditional, current-traditional, and process-based models (Hedgcock & Ferris,
2009; Hirvela, 2001; McKay, 2014; Vandrick, 2003; also see Chapter 3).
The following summary presents arguments for and against basing literacy courses
on published textbooks:
Benefits of Relying on a Textbook

j A textbook reflects its author’s decisions about course goals and learn-
ing objectives, providing a framework for a course. Content and skills
to be targeted in the course are explained and sequenced for the teacher,
facilitating instructional planning.
j Students may enjoy the sense of security provided by a textbook, which
helps students understand what will be expected of them in the course.
j Inexperienced and untrained teachers may find a commercial textbook
to be a valuable tool for planning, instruction, and assessment.
j A textbook may provide teachers and learners with reading material, ac-
tivities, exercises, and visual aids, a self-contained package that can spare
the teacher valuable time in locating and adapting authentic materials.
j Some textbooks offer assessment tools such as quizzes, tests, assign-
ments, and projects that directly reflect the textbook’s content and ped-
agogical aims.
j Supporting materials such as companion websites, PowerPoint slides,
worksheets, scoring guides, teachers’ manuals, and the like frequently
accompany commercial textbooks.
j Textbooks can offer a common point of reference in delivering a curricu-

lum. When used by all instructors in a program, a textbook can ensure
that a course adheres to institutional goals across a given level of instruc-
tion. A textbook series used in a program can similarly provide continuity
and coherence among levels of instruction.
Drawbacks of Relying on a Textbook

j A textbook’s approach, content, and tasks may not be relevant or ap-
propriate to a particular cohort of students.
j Texts and tasks might not match students’ language proficiency, literacy
skills, needs, or goals.
j A textbook may reflect a philosophy that conflicts with that of the teacher.
j A textbook may focus too much or too little on selected dimensions of
language and literacy, serving too narrow or too broad a range of needs.
j The combination of task and activity types might be ill-suited to a stu-
dent population (e.g., too many or too few grammar-focused exercises,
discovery tasks that are too open ended, and so forth).
j Some textbooks are designed according to a linear, mechanical sequence,
making creative deviations difficult.
j Reading selections, activities, exercises, and multimedia enhancements
may lack authenticity and appeal, thereby boring and demotivating
students.
j Textbooks may present material (e.g., topical or thematic reading selec-
tions, journalistic texts, and so on) that quickly loses its currency.
j A textbook’s prescribed sequence and coverage may be overly ambitious
or unrealistic, resulting in the teacher’s failure to complete a portion of
the material.
(Sources: Byrd & Schuemann, 2014; Graves, 2000; Nation & Macalister, 2010)
Given these considerations, we would encourage teachers to approach textbook

selection critically and with reasonable expectations in mind. First, there is no
reason to presuppose that an L2 literacy course must be based on a textbook; in
fact, many instructors manage without any textbooks at all. Second, a textbook
(or textbook package) simply cannot provide each and every feature that teachers
and students might want, as the needs of students, teachers, and institutions vary
so widely. “There is no such thing as a perfect textbook” (Brown, 1995, p. 166). We
should always anticipate the need to adapt and supplement even the best com-
mercial materials to accommodate evolving student learning needs and interests.
Teachers must learn to supplement and adapt textbooks and develop techniques
for deploying them effectively (Nation & Macalister, 2010).
It is sometimes possible to eliminate from consideration materials that fail to

meet most or all of your general requirements. We suggest asking the following
simple yes or no questions as part of your preliminary screening:
Does the Textbook . . .

j Cover topics, genres, and literacy skills targeted in your course?
j Present suitable samples of the genres and text types that you want your
students to read, analyze, interpret, critique, and reproduce?
j Contain clear, well-constructed activities, tasks, exercises, and assign-
ments that will help your students develop the L2 literacy skills targeted
in the curriculum plan and course objectives?
j Provide an adequate number of useful, productive, provocative, and
socioculturally appropriate discussion topics, classroom activities, and
composing assignments?
j Present information, explanations, procedures, strategies, and supple-
mental material that will help you effectively present new material, skill
incentives, and composing strategies to your students?
j Appeal to you in terms of its underlying philosophy, organization, com-
prehensiveness, visual features, and ease of use?
If you are unsure about any of these issues, review the questions from your stu-
dents’ point of view: How confidently can you predict that a textbook’s approach,
design, content, and tasks will enable your students to achieve your learning ob-
jectives? If your answer to one or more of these questions is “no,” then you might
legitimately eliminate the book from further appraisal.
Formal Task and Assignment Design

This section outlines principles and procedures for constructing formal prompts,
tasks, and assignments for literacy instruction and assessment, some of which in-
corporate authentic genres such as those described earlier in this chapter. In con-
trast to practice and invention activities (e.g., brainstorming, listing, clustering,
freewriting, and so forth; see Chapter 3), instructional tasks provide a structure
for designing goal-oriented processes leading to measurable products. Though
task has been defined in ways too numerous to catalogue here, a few fundamental
characteristics underlie divergent definitions:
A Task . . .
j is guided or driven by an implicit or explicit goal;
j demands cognitive and communicative processes required for interac-
tion and work in the “real world”;
j focuses learners chiefly (though not exclusively) on expressing (and per-

haps negotiating) meaning, solving a problem, or arriving at a discovery;
j requires learners to select from and use an array of material, cognitive,
and linguistic resources (e.g., oral, written, and multimodal texts) in the
task’s planning and execution;
j targets a clearly defined outcome in the form of a performance or prod-
uct (e.g., a writing assignment, presentation, role-play, discovery, and so
on), the success of which can be measured.
(Sources: Craig, 2013; Ellis, 2003, 2006; Nassaji & Fotos, 2011; Samuda & Bygate,
2008; Skehan, 1996; Willis & Willis, 2007)
Largely geared toward multiskill L2 instruction, research on tasks and task-

based instruction has been conducted in second language acquisition (SLA),
though L1 and L2 literacy educators have much to gain from applying task-based
principles in constructing assignments, classroom activities, and lessons (see
Chapter 5). In reading and writing instruction, a task can specify: (a) the product
and genre category that we expect learners to formulate (e.g., a summary, a pres-
entation, a peer review, a report); (b) the operations required to generate the
target product (e.g., extraction of information from print and online sources,
memorization, classification, synthesis, and so forth); and (c) the tools, resources,
and “givens” available to students as they plan and generate their products (e.g.,
texts, model products, advance organizers, software, peers, tutors, and so on)
(Doyle, 1983).
This view of the task as a procedural unit parallels social constructionist ap-
proaches to academic and disciplinary literacies, incorporating essential learn-
ing and composing processes (Bax, 2011a, 2011b; Coe, 1987; Johns, 1997, 2003;
Kalantzis & Cope, 2012). Contemporary definitions of task purposefully integrate
process and product, enabling us to avoid a misleading, artificial separation be-
tween the two (see Chapter 3). In practical terms, a task minimally contains verbal
input data (e.g., a reading passage from one or multiple sources, a dialogue) and/
or a nonverbal stimulus (e.g., a video clip, a picture sequence), along with an activ-
ity requiring processing of the input. A task likewise spells out how learners might
go about understanding and processing the input, as well as the task’s purposes,
audiences, and participant roles (Johns, 1997, 2009a, 2009b).
Authentic composing tasks should aim to achieve several broad goals:
j Develop students’ formal, content, and cultural schemata (see Chapter 1);
j Cultivate sociocultural awareness of contexts for writing, including the
roles of readers and writers (see Chapter 3);
j Encourage writers to write from a variety of prompts and under diverse
conditions (e.g., under time pressure, with or without peers, and so on);
j Promote intertextual skills (e.g., by integrating material from what stu-

dents have read into their own texts through quotation, paraphrase, and
summary);
j Require the use of diverse tools for writing, including digital technology;
j Build genre awareness and rhetorical arrangement skills; and
j Develop writers’ control of the conventions of written language.
(Sources: Carter, 2007; Johns, 1997, 2003, 2009a, 2009b; McKay, 1994; National Writing
Project, 2010; Pasquarelli, 2006b; Tardy, 2009)
To identiy and target manageable subsets of reading–writing skills and strate-

gies, literacy tasks and assignments should naturally be informed by—and explicitly
geared toward—a course’s learning and performance goals. We introduce goal- and
objective-setting principles in Chapter 5, which recommends procedures for artic-
ulating learning outcomes. For example, a learning outcome for a university com-
position or WAC course might read: “Master the most widely used documentation
styles (APA, MLA, and scientific method)” (Williams, 2003, p. 282). A performance
standard presented in Chapter 5 reads: “Use technology, including the Internet, to
produce and publish writing and to interact and collaborate with others” (Com-
mon Core State Standards Initiative, 2010, p. 41). This goal suggests numerous lit-
eracy tasks that would engage students in searching for information, understanding
it, synthesizing it with peers and for an audience, and assembling a text that adheres
to desired genre conventions. As noted in Chapter 5, well-constructed, measurable
performance objectives and goals should scaffold course design and assessment.
Similarly, we should regularly consult stated course aims as we create, adapt, and
implement assignments, tasks, and activities for literacy teaching and learning.
The Mechanics of Task Design and Implementation

Before constructing and integrating a task or assignment into a lesson or unit,
teachers should first consider the extent to which the exercise will enable students
to practice dimensions of the composing process (e.g., reading from sources, pre-
writing, drafting, revision, editing, and so on) and to test their developing com-
posing strategies (White, 2007; Williams, 2003). Figure 4.6 lists criteria that target
both general and specific features to consider when selecting content matter, iden-
tifying a socioliterate context, specifying genre expectations, writing directions,
and presenting assessment standards. Items in this checklist can be used selectively
for devising day-to-day tasks as well as formal writing assignments—in particular,
those that will require advance planning, writing from sources, multi-drafting,
and formal assessment (see Chapter 6).
Admittedly, it would be difficult to develop tasks and activities that uniformly
meet all of these expectations. However, we should recall that meaningful literacy
A s s ig n m e n t a n d T a sk G u id e lin e s
1. Practical. Procedural, and Mechanical Requirements
□ A carefuiiy and dearly constructed prompt or stimulus (see Figure 4 9)
□ A timetable for drafts, feedback, self-evalualion, final submission, etc.
u Explicit reference to the genre category (e.g., m a y , editorial, summary, lab report,
critical rev bdw. memorandum, research paper, etc.; see ApuendKX 4^2)
U Indication ol whether writers have a ChoiCB of topics and tasks
u Succinct, imammguous, and easy-to-follow directions and procedures (i.e., step-by-step
descriptions of the stages required to complete the assignment successfully)
u Noles concerning recommended or required rength
a A description of required or preferred medium (eg., digital print, multimodal)
□ A description of presentation requirements (e.g text format and document design.
preferred style sheet, mechanical conventions, etc.)
□ A description of required documentation (e.g., bibliographic sources. primary data, etc.)
2. Socio literate C ontext and Core C ontent
□ A task that fairly and authentically represents or approximates the genre knowledge and
skills, that students must display m the communicative, educational, or workplace salting
0 A characterization of the text's intended audience and audience expectalbns (i.e., a
portrayal of the sociolilerate context for ihe assig nmenl)
u An explanation of ttie text's purposes (L.e why writers of lhat genre compose such texts)
a A topic, theme, subject, or range of options that will interest, motivate, and appeal to
student writers at all proficiency levels in the course
□ A topic, iheme, subject, or range of options that covers a sufficiently wide band of
content and ski'Is to engage all students without unfairly pnvileging some over others
(i.e., a topic lhat can be written aboul with equal ease by using available resources)
□ A task that necessifates fha production of connected written discourse and presents
options leacirsg jo comparable product) (i.e.. samples that can be fairly compared in
terms of complexity, length, rhelDiica! oonlral, lluency. grammatical accuracy, etc.)
U A task that requires cognitive and i riguistio skills that tap into wrilers' current schemata
and competencies, lakes them beyond Iheir current level of expertise. and diversifies
their rhetorical and stylistic repertoires
a A rationale (i.e., a description of the assignment's purpose and the fiteracy skills thal
writers wilt develop and demonstrate by completing the assignment}
3. Resources
□ Notes concerning the sourccs to consult for ideas and assistance, such as reading
materials, motlel texts (anchor samples), class discussions, lectures, project work, etc.
j Description of t'H ph.il and relevant preventing, drafting, revision, and editing Strategies
□ Guidelines governing oulsida help such as peers, writing center tutors, librarians, word
processing and composing software, online tools, etc.
u Description of roles to be played by instructor and peer feedback in the revision process
□ Notes about how wriiers should manage their time to complete the wori< on deadiine
4. A ssessm ent Criteria
a An account of fealunes and criteria that will determine writers' success m completing the
assignment (e.g., topical focus, essential content, adherence to prespecified rhetorical
conventions. grammateal and stylistic features, length, etc.; see Chapter 6)
□ Explicit reference to a scoring rubric to be applied In evaluating the product and the
process (see Chapter 6}
FIGURE 4.6 Writing assignment checklist. Adapted from Campbell and Latimer
(2012); Craig (2013); Crusan (2010); Gardner (2008); Johns (1997, 2009b); Reid
and Kroll (1995); Weigle (2002, 2007).
assignments are often more difficult for students than teachers think and should
thus be devised with great care (Adler-Kassner & O’Neill, 2010; Carson, 2001;
Coombe, Folse, & Hubley, 2007; Crusan, 2010; Hamp-Lyons, 2002; Leki, 1995;
Reinders & White, 2010; Way, Joiner, & Seaman, 2000; Weigle, 2002, 2007).
Guidelines for Devising Writing Prompts

Systematic composing tasks should recycle students’ current knowledge and skill,
build on this developing expertise, diversify their skill repertoires, and require students
to select the right genre options and medium for writing (see Figure 4.6). A well-
designed assignment can stimulate a range of varied and productive classroom activi-
ties, writing tasks, and feedback processes (see Chapters 6–9). Central to the success of
a composing assignment is writing the prompt and assignment specifications in a way
that writers readily understand. As Crusan (2010) acknowledged, “creating explicit,
nonambiguous prompts for writing tasks and timed essay exams can be . . . daunting”
(p. 68). She recommended three simple steps for creating suitable prompts for timed
writing, which just as readily apply to more elaborate composing assignments:
1. “State a context in one to two sentences.”

2. Present directions separately, specifying genre, audience, and topic.
3. Define the target genre and requirements for rhetorical arrangement with
representative verbs such as argue, compare, contrast, convince, defend, de-
fine, evaluate, persuade, summarize, and so forth. (Crusan, 2010, p. 68)
To illustrate, Crusan proposed the following sample prompt, which we have

slightly adapted:
Assignment: Persuasive Letter

Context: Many parents and policymakers believe that public education does
not produce the quality or quantity of learning needed for success in the
21st century workplace. Some critics have proposed shortening school vaca-
tions, lengthening the academic year, and extending the school day. Mean-
while, others believe that these measures would be a bad idea, as children
and adolescents learn important skills outside of school.
Directions: Individually or with a peer, write a letter of about 500 words to
your school board, PTO newsletter, or local newspaper. Argue for or against
proposals to lengthen the academic year and school day. Try to convince
your readers to adopt your position by supporting your opinion with reli-
able evidence. (Adapted from Crusan, 2010, p. 68)
This prompt describes a socioliterate context, establishes a role of the writer,

defines the text’s audience, and involves a topic that could potentially pertain to
students’ lives (White, 2007). Moreover, the directions specify a known genre, re-
veal expectations, and identify the resources needed to generate a suitable text.
The assignment outlined in Figure 4.7 exemplifies similar components but is
EAP 2170: W riting fo r th e S ocial S ciences I t I

Writing Assignment 1 Op-Ed (Opinion/Editorial)
Topic
Im m ig ra tio n P o lic y R e fo rm
B ackground
Our recen! readings, videos, and discussions have revealed that immigration
policy has again become an urgent concern. In some countnes. efforts to reform
immigration policy and the agencies that enforce it have ignited spirited debates.
Ahtl-lmmigrant sentiment has simmered and even erupted in some countries,
alarming immigrants and raising worries about nationalistic fervor and racism. In
the U.S., ongoing controversy surrounds immigration reform legislation proposed
by Congress and the White House. Meanwhile, several state governments have
implemented policies designed to detect and penalize undocumented workers by
denying them access to public services; some of these policies have been
challenged in the courts. Because of the significant political, legal, social,
economic, and educational implications of Immigration policy and enforcement,
elected officials and judges face numerous dilemmas and pressure from voters
and immigrant communities lo enact laws that satisfy diverse constituencies
while treating documented and undocumented immigranis fairly and equitably
Op-Ed A ssig n m e n t
Based on our course readings, videos, and your developing knowledge of the
national and global immigration issues we have explored, analyze the current
immigration policy of (be government of your choice. In a 400- lo 600-word op-ed
column, consider how this policy might change In the near or dislant future.
Because many societies are currently grappling wilb immigration issues, you may
refer to the official policies of other governments, though you are not required to
make extensive comparisons. In your analysis, identify a salient problem (or sel
of problems) in the policy or proposed legislation that you analyze. Propose a
plausible solulion to that problem, outlining recommended steps leading to its
implementation. In describing your solution, discuss how it would ameliorate the
central pioblem{s} and acknowledge likely objections and counterarguments.
Keep in mind that op-ed columns often address many kinds o f readers, including
news subscribers, public officials, policy analysts, and journalists.
G etting Started
You have already explored immigration controversies in our course readings,
discussed these texts in class, and whtten several blog enlries on the issue.
Review our source readings, our course blog, and reflections in your reading
journal. You can collect further materia! to support the arguments in your op-ed.
You should also examine the op-eds on our course blog. We will analyse and
compare two of Ihese samples in class using Swales’s move analysis lo help you
understand the key elements of successful op-ed columns.
R esources
□ The bibliography on our course Website
□ Sample op-ed pieces in the Op-Ed Folder on our Website
□ Recent digital or print issues of The Econom ist. The New York Times. The
Financial Times, and other current news and opinion sources
□ Scholarly sources available through the Library's online databases.
T im eline
Week 4 Day 1 Bring your materials and notes ta class for brainstorming session.
Begin draft in class
Week 4 Day 2 Exchange Op-Ed (Draft 1) with classmates
Week 4 Day 3 After writing careful comments on your peer's draft, present your
suggestions In class
Week 5 Day 1 Submil Op-Ed (Draft 2 - first revision) for Instructor feedback
Week 5 Day 2 Individual conferences w ilti instructor
Week 6 Day 1 Submil Op-Ed (Draft 3 - second revision) via Google Docs for
editing and proofreading in peer groups
Week 6 Day 2 Submil Op-Ed (Draft 4 - final revision with self-analysis checklist)
to course Website for class review
A ssessm e nt C riteria
We wilt use the EAP 2170 Assignm ent Scoring Rubric and the genre-specific
features below to evaluate the final version of your Op-Ed column;
□ A title that effectively conveys the central argument of your column
□ A c o n c is e in tro d u c tio n to th e p o lic y p ro b le m (s ) a n d y o u r so lu tio n (s)
□ M ethodical analysis of policy points and s o lu tio n s ), organized as you like
□ Explicit distinctions between opinion and factual evidence
□ Explicit distinctions between your opinions and those of Ihe experts you cite
□ A synthesis of the mam elements of your analysis, arguments, and solutions
□ References and citations that follow Ihe conventions of the Style Book.
□ Adherence to formal conventions of grammar, diction, spelling, and
mechanics as .detailed in the Sty/e Book..
FIGURE 4.7 Sample op-ed assignment for an advanced EAP course.
considerably more elaborate. The task, designed for advanced multilingual uni-
versity students in a genre-based EAP course, supplies noticeably greater detail
with regard to context, genre features, resources, and assessment standards.
In contrast to these examples, poorly devised and incomplete prompts tend to
omit or overlook one or more of these features (see Figure 4.6). To demonstrate
how ineffective and incomplete prompts can confuse students and generate un-
intended responses, Crusan (2010) presented the following writing assignments
from university essay examinations:
j “Indian armed resistance after 1760 was pointless. Discuss.”

j “Discuss the use of metaphor in To Kill a Mockingbird.”
j “Discuss the following: The Prince of Tides was neither about princes
nor tides.” (p. 69)
Although these prompts identify topics for writing, they neglect to inform writers
about required textual features, rhetorical arrangement, and length. Also lacking
are indications of a purpose for writing or the product’s intended audience.
Choice
Related to issues of topical focus and genre is the question of choice. Assignment
writers and assessors must weigh the advantages of giving students a single prompt
or offering them multiple options. A convincing argument can be made for as-
signing a single prompt, as it gives students a uniform stimulus to produce texts
that can be fairly and reliably compared in the feedback and assessment process.
Designing a single genre-oriented task is also a viable pedagogical option when
working with beginning- and intermediate-level writers who may work best with
a confined topical area and a limited set of rhetorical and grammatical patterns. A
single question or prompt is also appropriate when introducing intermediate- and
advanced-level writers to unfamiliar genres and rhetorical patterns, particularly
when the course syllabus involves unfamiliar content.
On the other hand, providing students with a choice offers notable advantages.
First, students may be more interested in, and motivated by, a prompt that they
have selected from a short menu; students who select tasks that appeal to them
may thus exercise more agency and autonomy than they otherwise would. A re-
lated benefit for both teacher and students is that students’ products are likely
to represent a wider variety, making peer feedback more appealing and teacher
response a bit less predictable. At the same time, it is worth recalling one of the
criteria listed in the checklist in Figure 4.3: When students are presented with two
or more options, the prompts should be written so that student texts can be fairly
compared on the basis of context, content, genre, complexity, and so on.
Genre Authenticity: Avoiding Formulaic Assignments

As our exploration of genre pedagogies and task construction suggests, we
strongly favor building writing processes and products around authentic genres
and the socioliterate communities that value them. Our recommendations for de-
signing literacy assignments have thus deliberately avoided reference to the for-
mulaic five-paragraph essay, or five-paragraph theme (FPT), which Smagorinsky
(2008) described as “one of those school assignments that is reviled by writing
theorists yet ubiquitous in U.S. classrooms” (p. 13). Despite the pervasiveness of
the FPT in North American educational settings and its perceived teachability, our
socioliterate perspective prompts us to discourage L2 educators from replicating
it. As Johns (2003) pointed out, “there is no place for dull repetition of the clas-
sic, autonomous, North American Five-Paragraph Essay in the Sydney School”
or in genre-based instruction (p. 204). In addition to its incompatibility with the
leading genre traditions, the FPT’s perceived pedagogical benefits are highly ques-
tionable. In a broad survey of classroom investigations of K–12 instruction and
writing performance, Campbell and Latimer (2012) concluded that “thirty years
of research confirm the failure of the five-paragraph formula” (p. 4). Although
space limitations prevent us from exploring the literature on the FPT in depth
here,5 our discussion will refute common “myths” that continue to justify basing
composition instruction on reproduction of the FPT (Campbell & Latimer, 2012).
A frequent claim made by FPT defenders is that the formula “is an actual
form” or genre, yet most writers would be “hard-pressed to find essays written
in the five-paragraph formula beyond . . . school walls” (Campbell & Latimer,
2012, p. 5). Genre research persuasively demonstrates that formulae consisting of
an introduction that narrows to a “thesis,” three “body” paragraphs that present
“support,” and a final paragraph that restates the “thesis” simply do not exist in
academic disciplines, workplaces, or even classrooms (with the glaring excep-
tion of many English classrooms) (Brannon et al., 2008; Johns, 2003; Swales,
2004). Critics maintain that the FPT is not a genre; rather, it is a synthetic model
designed mainly to stimulate written production that teachers can easily assess.
Perhaps more worrying than the FPT’s obvious inauthenticity is its potential
for short-circuiting the learning process by leading teachers and students to be-
lieve that producing a FPT is really writing. After all, a “successful” FPT requires
“simply slotting information into prefabricated formulas” while failing to engage
writers in “a complex process of meaning-making and negotiation between a
writer’s purposes and audiences’ needs” (Brannon et al., 2008, p. 16). Indeed, the
rigid formula “forces premature closure on complicated interpretive issues and
stifles ongoing exploration” (Wiley, 2000, p. 61), ultimately “stunts the growth
of human minds” (Wesley, 2000, p. 57), and limits the “development of complex
thinking” (Argys, 2008, p. 99).
A common assumption underlying the FPT is that it serves merely as “a start-
ing point . . . a necessary first step that supports students in moving to more so-
phisticated writing” (Campbell & Latimer, 2012, p. 5). In fact, many instructors
routinely model the FPT “to teach the basic concepts of essay structure, intending
students to build on that base as their writing skills expand.” A frequent conse-
quence, however, is that L1 and L2 writers become “unable to leave that tangible
model,” finding the task of composing a longer, more complex text difficult (if
not impossible) “because they truly don’t understand that content and form work
together” (Vause & Amberg, 2013, p. 68). Novice writers who come to believe that
the FPT is an authentic genre situated in a socioliterate community tend to repli-
cate the formula when called on to produce real genres for real readers. In fact, the
authors can recall instances in their careers when it became necessary to “unteach”
the FPT in order to persuade student writers to stop relying on the formula and
instead to interrogate real academic and professional genres (Fanetti, Bushrow, &
DeWeese, 2010).
Unlike the FPT replication model, genre pedagogy invites writers to “think
about each element of their developing text in terms of the rhetorical situation,” as
well as “rhetorical moves, specific cognitive structures . . . used across a genre to or-
ganize information and help fulfill the . . . purpose of the text” (Vause & Amberg,
2013, p. 68). In disappointing contrast, the FPT focuses on arbitrary, vaguely de-
fined components (e.g., “introduction,” “body,” “conclusion”) that fail to provide
the guidance and genre awareness that developing writers need when they read
and produce authentic texts for learning, communicating, and displaying knowl-
edge. “Championing the five-paragraph essay as authentic,” wrote Crusan (2010),
“misleads students about the kinds of writing that is expected of them as they
enter colleges and universities” (p. 128).
Another pervasive belief is that the FPT offers novice and struggling writers an
accessible, manageable structure for sequencing information and for using language
skillfully. Though the goal to help beginners by giving them an easily reproducible
model (or shortcut) is laudable, reproducing the FPT teaches students that “writing
is about sentence placement, not about discovery and ideas” (Campbell & Latimer,
2012, p. 6). Brannon and colleagues (2008) further argued that, because the FPT
spoon-feeds struggling writers an arbitrary formula, teaching it “merely sustains the
deficit perception” (p. 18). Reproducing the FPT can tangibly handicap writers, for
whom the sole audience for writing becomes the teacher and for whom “successful”
writing means repeating the formula (Rorschach, 2004). The mechanical repetition
of the FPT in every task is unlikely to help writers “advance beyond a kind of . . . code-
pendence on teachers who have agreed in advance that this sort of formulaic essay”
will be rewarded (Wiley, 2000, p. 65). The rigid form itself becomes the priority, as
“that’s what the teacher will grade on” (Smagorinsky, 2008, p. 74), minimizing the
importance and value of textual content, original ideas, experimentation, autonomy,
voice, authenticity, and complex writing and revision processes (Argys, 2008; Camp-
bell & Latimer, 2012; Courtney, 2008; Kane, 2005; Romano, 2000; Rorschach, 2004).
Chapter Summary
This chapter has situated L2 composition instruction in a framework informed
by contemporary approaches to literacy, including genre research and pedagogy,
which view reading and writing as both social and cognitive practices that emerge
in parallel. We explored research and theory demonstrating that reading and writ-
ing in L1 and L2 are reciprocal, socially constructed processes that can involve pro-
ductive transfer across skills and languages. The comprehension, use, and creation
of text thus serve as tools for achieving membership in socioliterate communities,
which comprise both expert and novice readers and writers. Because of interde-
pendencies across languages and skills, composition instruction is most likely to
succeed when it systematically cultivates efficient reading skills, along with profi-
ciency in writing in multiple authentic genres. To promote reading skill, writing
skill, and genre awareness, literacy education must engage L2 students in authen-
tic literacy events, which require carefully designed tasks that involve students in
exploring the genre landscapes of academic disciplines, professions, workplaces,
popular culture, and social media. Tasks and assignments must likewise supply
writers with guidance as they analyze target genres and learn to produce texts that
align with genre conventions.

j L2 reading development and instruction: Bernhardt (2010); Evans, Harts-
horn, and Anderson (2010); Grabe (2009); Grabe and Stoller (2011, 2014);
Hedgcock and Ferris (2009); Hudson (2007); Mikulecky (2011); Koda (2005,
2007a, 2011); Koda and Zehler (2007); Nation (2009); Singhal (2006)
j Reading–writing connections: Belcher and Hirvela (2001a); Bishop and Os-
trom, 1997; Carson and Leki (1993); Earle and Zimmermann (2002); Grabe
(2003, 2009); Heller (1999); Hirvela (2004); Hudson (2007); Olson (2010)
j L1 and L2 literacy instruction: Andrews (2010); Barnhouse and Vinton (2012);
Datta (2007); Gunderson (2009); Hoffman and Goodman (2009); Kucer
(2009); Kucer and Silva (2013); Powell and Rightmyer (2011); Weigle (2014)
j Multiple literacies and multimodality: Baker (2010); Bednarek and Martin
(2010); Bowen and Whithaus (2013); Burke and Hammett (2009); Christel and
Sullivan (2010); Cope and Kalantzis (2000); Gee (2012); Harste (2009); Ho,
Anderson, and Leong (2010); Hoffman and Goodman (2009); Jewitt (2006,
2009); Kalantzis and Cope (2012); Masny and Cole (2009); Molle and Prior
(2008); O’Halloran and Smith (2011); Palmeri (2012); Weiser et al. (2009)
j Genre research and pedagogy: Bawarshi and Reiff (2010); Bax (2011a, 2011b);
Bazerman, Bonini, and Figueiredo (2009); Berkenkotter and Huckin (1995);
Bruce (2008); Cope and Kalantzis (1993); Devitt (2004); Devitt et al. (2004);
English (2011); Fairclough (2003); Freedman and Medway (1994a); Hyland
(2004a, 2006, 2009); Hyon (1996); Johns (1997, 2002b, 2003); Martin and
Rose (2008); Nesi and Gardner (2012); Paltridge (2001, 2006); Pasquarelli
(2006b); Rose and Martin (2012); Soliday (2011); Swales (1990, 1998, 2004);
Swales and Feak (2012); Tardy (2009); Tribble (2010)
j EAP and ESP: Belcher (2009a); Belcher and Hirvela (2008); Belcher, Johns,
and Paltridge (2011); Hamp-Lyons (2011); Johns (2009b); Johns and Price
(2014); Jordan (1997)
j Writing task and assignment design: Campbell and Latimer (2012); Craig
(2013); Crusan (2010); Gardner (2008); Hyland (2004a, 2004b); Pasquarelli
(2006b); Vause and Amberg (2013)
j Reading and writing journals: Campbell and Latimer (2012); Casanave
(2011); Hirvela (2004)
j Extensive Reading website: http://www.extensivereading.net; International
Reading Association website: http://www.reading.org
j Online prewriting and visualization tools: http://www.bubble.us; http://www
.Inspiration.com; http://www.MagneticPoetry.com; http://www.Wordle.net

1. Consider your history as a reader and writer in your L1. Of the directional,
nondirectional, and bidirectional models, which best account(s) for your de-
velopment as a writer? Explain.
2. If you have L2 literacy experience, how would you compare the development
of your L2 literacy skills to your development as an L1 reader and writer?
If you do not have L2 literacy experience, ask an L2 learner to describe the

sources of knowledge that have contributed to his or her L2 literacy skills.
3. Reflecting on your experiences as an academic reader and writer, describe the
genres that you have most often produced (e.g., summaries, reports, reviews,
research papers, and so on). Have you been given explicit instruction in how
to construct such texts? If not, how did you learn to compose them?
4. What literacy clubs, Discourses, literacies, or communities of practice do
you belong to? For example, do you consider yourself to be a member of
the TESL/TEFL literacy club or community of practice? Are you a parent,
a cook, a surfer, a bird watcher, or a community volunteer? Identify the
practices, values, and literate skills that expert members of these Discourses
demonstrate.
5. Compare the four traditions of genre research and pedagogy introduced in
this chapter: the Sydney School (SFL), ESP, NR, and Brazilian didactics. What
can L2 writing instructors learn from their principles and methods?
6. Of the multiple definitions of genre offered in this chapter, which are most fa-
miliar? Which provide the greatest potential for promoting functional literacy
skills among your population of student L2 writers?
7. In your opinion, why is the notion of genre a fundamental consideration for
composition educators? Identify the pedagogical advantages of addressing the
genres and text types that students must read and reproduce. What are the
potential benefits of raising students’ genre awareness?
8. Consider the literacy needs of a group of students that you know. Identify
genres that they might encounter in their studies and beyond. What principles
would you use to select and sequence these genres in a writing course?
9. Of the principles for designing tasks recommended in this chapter, which
would you characterize as the most important for you? For L2 students?
Writing From Texts
Consider how you might put one or more of the following classroom task ideas
into practice in an L2 literacy course. Using Figures 4.2 and 4.6 as reference points,
assess the potential effectiveness of each procedure.
1. Ask students to maintain reading journals or logs where they record and elab-
orate on what they read for school or for pleasure.
2. Invite students to write about information that they find interesting, signifi-
cant, perplexing, moving, or otherwise striking.
3. Ask students to maintain double-entry or dialectal notebooks in which
they divide pages into two vertical columns. In one column, they copy or
summarize interesting passages; in another, they respond to these entries by

posing questions, paraphrasing, or commenting.
4. To activate students’ content schemata before they read, ask students to write
journal entries about an experience featured in a text that they are about to
read to help them anticipate connections with their prior knowledge.
5. To promote prediction strategies and demonstrate that readers make meaning
as they read, ask students to speculate about what will happen in a text and to
compare their predictions with those of their peers and with the original text.
6. Sequence journal entries around readings so that students address texts from
diverse perspectives. Encourage students not only to view texts but also to re-
view them using their new knowledge.

Writing From Sources Assignment
Select a sample text appropriate for use in a low, intermediate, or advanced L2
literacy course (see Figure 4.2 and Appendix 4.2). Using the sequence outlined be-
low, sketch a simple unit plan that would address the needs of your student writers
(see Chapter 5 for lesson planning guidelines).
1. Design and assign a write-to-read activity: Ask students to produce a freewrite,

journal entry, or response essay about an issue, idea, or experience featured in
the text.
2. Assign your text(s) as homework, allowing time for students to begin reading
in class. Before they begin, instruct students to annotate the text as a means of
encouraging them to preview and predict text content (see Figures 4.1–4.2).
If students are unfamiliar with annotation, model the process.
3. Ask students to compose reading journal entries using some of the proce-
dures suggested in this chapter (also see Application Activity 4.1). To deepen
engagement with the text, encourage students to react to the contents of the
reading selection (e.g., by questioning, agreeing, disagreeing, critiquing).
4. To deepen students’ understanding of the text and its meaning, instruct them
to compose a summary, which they share with peer groups in class or online
(see Appendix 4.1 and Swales & Feak, 2012).
5. Plan and oversee peer-group discussions of their summaries to send students
“back into the text” (Spack, 1993, p. 191) and demonstrate that the exchange
of ideas, reactions, criticisms, and opinions is an integral literacy practice. As
they review their peers’ summaries, encourage students to compare the sum-
maries to the original text and to one another.
6. Introduce a formal composing assignment in writing (see Figures 4.6–4.7).
Ask students to analyze the directions and identify the genre. Review strategies
for exploring audience expectations for rhetorical arrangement, register, tone,
evidence, length, citation style, language choice, and so forth. The assignment
should require students to delve into the original text, to reflect on it critically,
and to situate it with respect to a literacy or discipline.
7. Ask students to draft a version of the assignment to present to their peers (and
possibly to you). Set aside class time for this procedure.
8. Plan and monitor peer review sessions or teacher conferences (see Chapter 7
for peer response strategies). As a prelude, ask students to review their an-
notated reading selections and their pre- and during-reading journal entries.
Peer and teacher response should focus on how fully the writer has fulfilled
the assignment, used the reading selection, and constructed the text to meet
reader expectations. After the feedback session, ensure that students under-
stand the feedback. The revision cycle then continues at the teacher’s discre-
tion (see Chapters 3 and 7).

Text Analysis
The text analysis task below asks students to read intensively as they examine the
rhetorical structure of an excerpt from a university-level textbook. As part of a
series of linked assignments, the exercise aims to sensitize students to deductive
paragraph structure as preparation for a writing assignment in which students will
incorporate the conventions that they identify in the passage.
Step 1. Simulation and Practice
a. Assume the role of a student, then complete the task below.
b. After you finish, compare your responses to those of a peer.
c. Devise a follow-up activity that could lead to a genre-based writing assign-
ment in a literacy course that you are familiar with (e.g., a summary or para-
phrase, a memo, an editorial, an informative blog page or Wikipedia entry, a
literature review) (see Figures 4.2–4.7, as well as Appendix 4.1).
Text Analysis Task

Textbook Passage for Analysis: Definition Structure
Directions to students: The following passage appears in a popular text-
book on the history of Modern English. Read the questions below the pas-
sage, then read the text carefully, noting the sequence of information and
unfamiliar vocabulary.
Semantics and Change of Meaning

The meaning of a word is what those who use it intend or understand that it
represents. Semantics is the study of meaning in all of its aspects. The Whorf
hypothesis, which was mentioned in Chapter 1, proposes that the way our
language formulates meaning affects the way we respond to the world or
even perceive it. On an ordinary level, language clearly influences our daily
activities and habits of thought. Because two persons can be referred to by
the same word—for example, Irish—we assume that they must be alike in
certain stereotyped ways. Thus we may unconsciously believe that all the
Irish have red hair, drink too much, and are quarrelsome. General Seman-
tics, a study founded by Alfred Korzybski, is an effort to pay attention to
such traps that language sets for us (Hayakawa and Hayakawa). Our concern
in this chapter, however, is not with such studies, but rather with the ways in
which the meanings of words change over time to allow us to talk about new
things or about old things in a new light. (Algeo, 2010, pp. 207–209)
Questions for Analysis

1. What are the primary purposes of this passage? For example, do you
think the author’s main objectives are to inform, persuade, or defend a
position? Why?
2. Can you locate the following elements in the passage? How do you know
where to look for them? What functions do they serve?
a. topic sentence
b. references to other passages in the book or chapter
c. definitions, explanations, paraphrases, and examples.
3. What evidence does the author use to develop and illustrate his main
points?
Step 2. Authentic Task Development

Locate an authentic text or passage from any academic, literary, or popular genre
category or cluster (see Figure 4.3 and Appendix 4.2). Using the sample exercise
in Step 1 (above) as an example, design an original exercise to: (a) facilitate genre
analysis, (b) help students explore reader–writer roles and the contexts associated
with the genre, and (c) produce a text that exhibits genre conventions.

Genre Analysis Task
1. Collect some authentic texts representing an array of academic, professional,
and everyday genres (see Figure 4.3 and Appendix 4.2).
2. Select two or three samples that exhibit contrasting prototypical features (e.g.,
a print or digital advertisement, film review, recipe, e-mail message, cover let-
ter, science lab report, academic article).
3. For each sample text, complete a column in the Genre Analysis and Comparison
Grid below (we recommend enlarging it).
4. Compare and contrast your text samples and genres; discuss how you might
use or adapt this task in an L2 writing course.
Samples
Features
1. 2. 3.
Genre
Location
Topical focus
Layout
Length
Rhetorical arrangement
Participants
(agents, subjects, audience)
Functions
(social and communicative)
Style and register
Grammatical features
Lexical features
Genre Analysis and Comparison Grid

(Adapted from Bax, 2011a, Table 3.1, p. 50)
5. As an optional step, describe how you might design assignments and instruc-
tion to help students understand and reproduce target genres using implicit
and explicit socioliterate tools.

Writing Prompt Critique
The writing prompts below were drawn from a variety of postsecondary literacy
and content courses. Examine the prompts, identifying their flaws and weaknesses
based on the criteria presented in this chapter (especially Figure 4.6). Identify
prompts that you think could be salvaged after careful revision, then rewrite two
or more so that they conform to guidelines that you find acceptable.
1. Take-home essay exam for an undergraduate comparative philosophy course:

Do you believe in fate or free will? Explain.
2. Timed essay exam item for an undergraduate geology course:
In a short essay, describe tectonic plate movement. Include a drawing.
3. In-class writing prompt for an intermediate-level IEP reading–writing course:

Define friendship.
4. Take-home exam item for a community college U.S. history course:
Choose one: (a) Using a contemporary federal political issue, discuss aspects of
the separation of powers doctrine that should be changed; (b) Explore how the
American Republic evolved from 1782 to 1789.
5. Essay assignment for a freshman composition course:
U.S. consumer food companies have aggressively marketed products containing
dangerous quantities of fat, sugar, and salt to children and adolescents. Should
corporations be allowed to target young people who may lack the judgment
needed to avoid adopting unhealthful dietary habits?
6. Bibliographic assignment for an undergraduate history of science course:
Write a five- to six-page biographical report on a 20th century chemist, physicist,
or astronomer who has strongly influenced an applied science such as genetics,
bioengineering, climatology, or computer science. Your paper must cite at least
three separate sources and be well-written.
Alternatively, locate samples of writing tasks and assignments from a literacy or

disciplinary course. Using the socioliterate and task design principles presented in
this chapter, analyze and evaluate your sample assignments (see Figures 4.6–4.7).
If you believe that an assignment merits revision or further development, modify
it and justify your revisions in a brief prose commentary.

Writing Task Construction
Using any of the suggestions below (or an alternative of your choosing), construct
a socioliterate writing task for an L2 literacy course. Craft your prompt and task
guidelines with authentic genres, functions, social practices, and audiences in
mind. Consider how your task might follow from and lead to work with other
genres and literacy processes (see Figures 4.2, 4.3, 4.6 and Appendix 4.2).
j An e-mail message to a professor or academic adviser requesting an appointment

j A focus essay or key passage essay that directs students to select a significant
passage from a literary text “and explore its implications for characterization,
theme, or another literary element” (Campbell & Latimer, 2012, p. 85)
j A FAQ sheet for a new product, service, organization, student club, company,
software upgrade, or smart phone or tablet app
j A script for an informational or instructional demonstration video
j An interview with an influential historical or contemporary figure (e.g., an ac-
tor, author, artist, celebrity, composer, entrepreneur, musician, political leader,
scientist)
j A college or graduate school application essay

j A book review
j A literature review.
Appendix 4.1
Summary Exercise for an Advanced
EAP Writing Course
Directions: Individually or with a partner, review the information below, then com-
plete the exercise.
A summary “briefly captures the main ideas of a text and omits information
that is less important,” explains the contents “concisely and fairly,” and is written
in your own words (Lunsford, 2011, p. 151).
Principal Features of a Summary

1. A summary represents the original text in a balanced way. Summary writers
sometimes devote more coverage to earlier parts of the main source, but they
should avoid this tendency: A summary should represent a fair sampling of
the information presented in the original text.
2. A summary should characterize the original material neutrally (i.e., without
critique or evaluation).
3. A summary’s organization should reflect the arrangement of material in the
original text.
4. A summary should condense the original information and be cast in the sum-
mary writer’s own words. Summaries that consist partly or largely of quota-
tions rarely succeed.
5. A summary must acknowledge its original source.
Steps Toward Composing a Successful Summary

1. Read The St. Martin’s Handbook, Sections 7c (pp. 151–152) and 13d (pp. 282–283).
2. Skim the original text. Note headings and subheadings. If there are no head-
ings, divide the text into thematic sections. Identify the text’s purpose and
audience to help you focus on essential material.
3. As you reread the text more carefully, highlight important passages or take notes.
4. Paraphrase the main point of each of the sections that you identified in Step 1
(above). Draft a one-sentence summary of each section.
5. Write out the supporting points for the main topic or argument, avoiding minor
details.
6. Check that you have not copied more than three or four words from the original
text.
7. Go through this process again to make appropriate changes.
Summary Language
Summaries may open with a sentence in the present tense that contains two ele-
ments: the source and the main idea. Here are some examples of how first sen-
tences may begin:
1. In Tyson’s article, “Mapping Dark Matter with Gravitational Lenses,” . . .

2. In his book The Dumbest Generation, Bauerlein asserts that . . .
Here are some introductory statements that students have written for a sum-
mary of a research article:
1. Author S. Goodman in “Transformation of the Nile River Basin” states that

the Nile Basin has changed as a result of continuous irrigation.
2. In “Transformation of the Nile River Basin,” Goodman suggests that the Nile
River basin has changed mainly as a result of continuous irrigation.
Though summaries are usually supposed to be neutral, summary writers may

use a range of reporting verbs, some of which may convey evaluative meaning.
Some reporting verbs are more objective than others, indirectly reflecting the
summary writer’s biases and personal opinions. Evaluative verbs should be used
sparingly. The following list presents a few examples of these useful verbs:
Letter toLett
t Letter toLett
t
argue demonstrate * explain reveal allege irreinuale
assert________ describe_________ hold state assume________ instel
rl? n- disajss_______indicate suggest he iev= presume
MinjLifla emphasize maintain contervi______ ejpposa
reveal
maintain maintain
reveal reveal
maintain maintain
reveal
maintain maintain maintain

maintain
Exercise
Read the following passage from Baron’s popular book, A Better Pencil, then draft a
one- to three-sentence summary. Use the suggestions in the preceding sections to select
the most important information from the text to develop an informative, accurate
summary.
Besides the web page, computers have spawned a number of other

new genres: email, which is neither phone call nor letter; instant messag-
ing, which goes a step beyond email; and the latest, the blog, a kind of
web page on steroids. We’ve had the rare opportunity of watching these
genres from in our own lifetime—it’s a little bit like being present at the birth
of stars. Like stars, each new genre emerged from an initial chaotic state
and coalesced over time, developing its own structures, conventions, and
standards as its community of users grew and began both to organize and
regulate itself. Email was one of the first digital genres, and it has had a tre-
mendous impact on our communication practices. (Baron, 2009, p. 139)
Appendix 4.2
Partial List of Academic and Nonacademic Genres and Subgenres
!_Adventure■jria g a zln e sto ry Letter toLett t

!_Adventure■jria g a zln e ' sto ry i Letter
Letter to
Letter edito
to the
Lettt t r
toLett
!_Adventure■
Letter to thejria g a rzln e sto ry
edito Letter toLett t
Letter to the edito r LetterLetter
toLettt toLettt
Letter to the edito r Letter toLett t Letter toLett t
!_Adventure■
to thejria
LetterLetter to gthe
editoa zln e sto
redito r ry Letter toLettLetter
t toLett
t
| Biqgraph<
Letter ta
tol the
to the
!_Adventure■
Letter jria edito riârijr
g a zlnr e sto
edito r ry ; Letter
M ap wtofLett
i Tt s ^Letter
a r i s tto
kLett
^t sn d analysis
Letter toLett
t
Letter to the edito r Letter toLett t
Letter to the edito r Letter toLett t Letter toLett t
LetterLetter
to theto edito
the edito
r r Letter toLett t
Letter to the edito r Letter toLett t
M ap w f i T sjria
!_Adventure■ ^ agr iaszlntk e^ snstodryanalysis Letter toLett t
I Broadcast
M ap w f i T nsjria
!_Adventure■ e^wag's
r iad vt kee
szln ^'itl^
stondry
sn ieanalysis
rV " I Letter
Newsletter"
toLettt
I_Broad
M ap cast
w f i T. nse^ âjiu
r i smt ka^n sn jn ta
d re s t sto ry [ N
analysis 0iwspager
Letter toLett t faartu
Letter ne tostoryt i _i
Lett
j !_Adventure■
Broadcast
Letter to the news
jria g asto
edito r ry
zln j _M
Napev/sp
Letter fap
w to Tter
iLett s ^haLetter
urman i^Letter
i s t k tonterest
sn
Lett tostoQ/
t d analysis
Lett
t
Letter to t Letter toLett t
j Business''article
Letter Letter
to t to t i PLetter
ersonaiadvertisem
toLettLetter
t ent
toLett
t
LetterLetter
to t to t LetterLetter
toLett t toLett
t
Letter to t Letter
LettertoLettto
t Lett
t
Letter to t Letter to t Letter toLett t
Letter to Lt etter to t Letter toLett t
M ap w f i T s ^ a r i s t k ^ sn d analysis Letter toLett t
Letter to t LetterLetter
to t to t Letter toLetter
t to t
Letter to t Letter to t Letter toLettert to t
i . Letter Letter
to ™
t ) to
' r st l ' '. L pLetter
i rM ntati
^ aaptowLetter
tfoi T s ^to
n jj& a t,r F
.g, i sct ^k £^ osn
indt . analysis
Keîoto)
Letter to t Letter toLett
t
Letter to t Letter Letter
to t to t Letter toLett
t
L Letter to t LetterLetter
to t to t LetterLetter
toLetter
t toLetter
tto t to t
Letter to t Letter toLetter
t to t
i Court
M ap proceeding
w f i T s ^ a r i s(e.^., hearing,
t k ^ sn tria ij j RLetter
d analysis estaurant t review
toLetter to t
Letter to t Letter to t
Letter to Letter
t to t Letter toLetter
t to t
I M
Criiicjue ofsa"published
ap w f i T ^ a r i s t k ^ snsource
d analysis j Scene from
Letter to a stage
t Letter to t fjiay
Letter to t
Letter to t LetterLetter
to t to t
M ap w f i T s ^ a r i s t k ^ sn d analysis Letter to t
Letter to t Letter to Lt etter to t
!. Editorial ■ Songl^ricfi ._
j E-mail m essage j Speech
i Encyclopedia or W ikipedia eni’ry : Summons
i .Jt^Jtuy. LT^J?Jsi maintain
I Facebook post I Talk show segment
! Facebook wail j Tall taie
i. !r.?j.ry.M ? . maintain maintain
I FAQ sheet EJe xt message
j Film poster j Textbook chapter
i Film review i Tim eline
j Film scene i To^do list
j Financial report j Top ten list
j GhOSt story I Transportation schedule
{ Glossary ! Travel brochuire lj _
! Graphic novel [ Travel itinerary
{ G reeling card { Tribute
; H andbook r TV advertis a m 6h t
I Infomercial I TV program review
{ inform ational video ! Tweet
j Inner..^Bnologue j_User's manual_
{ Interview i Lrtilrtjr bill,
j Invitation [ Vignette
I Joke I V d o e m a il [passage
I Journal entry ! W ebsite
I L ast wiif and teslam ent I W orship service
I. maintain
!?.rM 1. maintain .video.
Notes
1. A state-of-the-art treatment of L2 reading research and instruction is regrettably beyond
the scope of this volume, but we encourage readers to consult leading sources explor-
ing the interdependence of reading and writing processes (see the Further Reading and
Resources section at the end of this chapter).
2. Primary sources examining the interlingual transfer of reading skills include: Alderson
(1984); Bossers (1991); Carrell (1991); Hayashi (2004, 2009); Hulstijn (1991); Hulstijn
and Bossers (1992); Koda (1995, 2007b, 2011); Lee and Schallert (1997); Shokrpour and
Gibbons (2000).
3. Further sources on interlingual reading–writing relationships include: Belanger (1987);
Bernhardt and Kamil (1995); Carson (1993); Carson et al. (1990); Cumming (1989);
Cummins (1981); Day and Bamford (1998); Elley and Mangubhai (1983); Fakhri
(1994); Flahive and Bailey (1993); Frodesen and Holten (2003); Grabe (2009); Grabe
and Stoller (2011); Hedgcock and Atkinson (1993); Hirose and Sasaki (1994); Hyon
(2002); Ito (2004); James (2009); Janopoulos (1986); Johns (1995b, 2008); Jones and
Tetroe (1987); Krashen (1984, 1985, 2004); McQuillan (1994); Mikulecky (2011);
Mustafa (1995); Nation (1997, 2009); Nelson and Calfee (1998); Pennington and So
(1993); and Stotsky (1983).
4. Genre theorists distinguish genre clusters from related genre collectives. Devitt (1991)
defined the genre set as a complete array of texts that a particular literacy or discourse
community produces and consumes. For instance, science students and teachers work
with a genre set including textbooks, lab reports, lectures, and demonstrations. A genre
chain, in contrast, can comprise a succession of genres in a given context. Swales (2004)
provided this example: “a formal invitation to speak at a . . . colloquium, an accept-
ance (perhaps by e-mail), the presentation itself, and then perhaps a thank-you letter—
possibly enclosing a check” (p. 18).
5. Papers and technical reports describing this research, archived by the National Center for
the Study of Writing and Literacy, are available at the National Writing Project website:
http://www.nwp.org/cs/public/print/doc/resources/techreports.csp
Chapter 5
Course Design
and Instructional
Planning for the L2
Writing Course

1. Do you recall any of the course syllabi or outlines presented in second-
ary or postsecondary courses that you have taken? If so, how did you use
them, if at all? Do you remember aspects of syllabi or course outlines that
helped you with your own learning, time management, and achievement?
2. In what ways should the design of a literacy course—in particular, a
course that focuses on developing writing skills—accommodate stu-
dents’ sociocultural and educational needs? How should a course plan
reflect an educational institution’s requirements and philosophy?
3. What features of a literacy or composition course necessitate some-
what different planning strategies than might be required for a content
course in an academic discipline such as physics, history, sociology, art
history, or literature?
4. Considering your experience as a student, what are the essential com-
ponents of a successful lesson? What activities or tasks should form the
basis for lessons designed to teach literacy skills, including the writing of
academic and nonacademic genres? How should lessons be sequenced,
and why?
5. Based on your experiences as a student (and, if applicable, as a teacher),
identify the hallmarks of productive classroom instruction (planning
and delivery)? What is required for effective classroom management?
Course Design and Instructional Planning for the L2 Writing Course 147
In Chapters 1–3, we introduced theoretical foundations of L1 and L2 writing in-

struction, explored the unique demands placed on L2 writers, and surveyed influ-
ential pedagogies. This chapter introduces operational principles for planning L2
literacy courses that feature writing; it also proposes flexible tools for designing
and executing appropriate lessons for cultivating L2 writing skills and strategies.
Building on the socioliterate, integrated-skills approaches addressed in Chapters 3
and 4, we will suggest procedures for designing courses, planning lessons, and con-
structing purposeful classroom tasks.
To understand the complexity of these processes and to execute them in the
“real world,” it is instructive to examine the theoretical and empirical bases of in-
structional design. Paradoxically, L2 writing—despite its strongly “applied,” prac-
tical orientation and close connection with TESOL (see Chapter 3)—presently
lacks a robust, or even coherent, framework for curriculum and syllabus design.
In their comprehensive survey of the field, Leki and colleagues (2008) observed
that
one would be hard pressed to identify foundational concepts that have

aspired to provide a single, guiding basis on which to organize writing
curricula comprehensively . . . [L]ittle research and few models of L2
writing have tried to relate curriculum content directly with L2 students’
writing achievements. (pp. 72–73)
Hinkel (2011b) further commented on this ongoing gap in the knowledge base
supporting L2 instructional practice: “[R]esearch on principles for effective cur-
riculum design or instructional methods for L2 writing is conspicuously missing”
(p. 531). This peculiar curricular void can be partly attributed to the minimal
attention devoted to curriculum and instructional methods in the discipline’s re-
search agenda (Leki et al., 2008; Polio & Williams, 2011). Hinkel (2011b) aptly
portrayed this state of affairs:
[F]ew, if any, combinations of techniques or theoretical models have been

empirically validated in terms of their pedagogical effectiveness or even
usefulness. Rather, many of the currently prevalent approaches to teach-
ing L2 writing have become established instructional practices that typi-
cally fall under the umbrella term of “what works” (also known as “best
practice”) in pedagogy and curriculum design. (pp. 531–532)
Of course, L2 writing professionals are deeply engaged in instructional design,

though curricular models tend to be influenced predominantly by conventionally
repeated practices. “Trends in L2 writing instruction and curricula,” wrote Hinkel
(2011b), “have gravitated toward . . . sets of incremental teaching techniques and
theoretical approaches that have gathered enough momentum to form particular
schools of thought” (p. 531), such as those surveyed in Chapter 3. Despite the lack
of a unified curriculum development model in L2 writing instruction, we do not
148 Course Design and Instructional Planning for the L2 Writing Course
have to rely solely on “what works.” Rather, we will propose a framework for in-
structional design informed by the rich tradition of curriculum theory in general
education and language education. General education sources are helpful for their
breadth and theoretical depth, though they may lack the disciplinary depth that
we seek. Curriculum studies in language education exhibit a historical bias toward
oral and aural skills (Leki et al., 2008), yet their principles are appropriately sensi-
tive to the complexity of language development and the details of classroom peda-
gogy (Nation & Macalister, 2010).
Curriculum Development Essentials

Before we delve into the procedural dimensions of course design and instructional
planning, it will be helpful to review essential principles of curriculum making, a
complex process that Null (2008) described as “both timeless and context depend-
ent” (p. 478). It is timeless “because it deals with how to take knowledge of any
kind and connect it with a group of students located in time and space” (p. 478).
Curriculum design must also be contextually grounded, for its purpose entails
“the preparation and transmission of knowledge within an institution whose pur-
pose is to educate” (p. 478). Tyler (1949), a social scientist and pioneer of cur-
riculum development in the 20th century, proposed four global questions to guide
educators, administrators, and materials writers in creating curricula:
1. What purposes does the institution, program, or teacher wish to fulfill?

2. What educational experiences are most likely to lead to the fulfillment
of these purposes?
3. How can educational practice best organize these experiences?
4. How do we evaluate the success of these experiences?
To address Tyler’s questions in a recursive, cyclical manner, Taba (1962) intro-

duced a seven-step process intended to offer professionals concrete procedures for
curriculum development:
1. Diagnose needs;
2. Formulate objectives;
3. Select content;
4. Organize content;
5. Select learning experiences;
6. Organize learning experiences;
7. Determine what procedures and performances to evaluate—and how to
do it.
Rather than addressing global principles concerning the design of entire cur-
ricula, this chapter will concentrate chiefly on the day-to-day planning tasks of
writing teachers: planning courses, sequencing components of a writing cycle, de-
signing lessons, and executing learning tasks. In our first section, we survey the
needs assessment process, as addressing the unique characteristics of L2 writers is
essential to shaping effective L2 literacy instruction.
Needs Assessment: Mapping Learner Needs

and Institutional Expectations
Needs assessment (NA) broadly entails “procedures for identifying and validating
needs, and establishing priorities among them” (Pratt, 1980, p. 79). This process
entails gathering and interpreting information about a particular “client group” in
an institutional setting. In education, NA focuses on learners’ needs: “Once they
are identified, needs are translated into learning objectives, which in turn serve as
the basis for further development of teaching materials, learning activities, tests,
program strategies,” and so forth (Brown, 2011, p. 269). In their framework for
designing L2 curricula, Nation and Macalister (2010) proposed interrelated cat-
egories of qualitative and quantitative information to be gathered in NA. The first
of these is environment analysis; the second consists of needs analysis (a term that
we will use interchangeably with needs assessment). We will briefly characterize
both processes and their component processes, which should yield reliable and
valid data for constructing appropriate course plans, lessons, assignments, and as-
sessments. Where relevant, the discussion refers to Figure 5.1, which presents a list
of tools for gathering objective and subjective NA data.
Environment Analysis
In environment analysis (Tessmer, 1990), teachers and curriculum developers care-
fully examine “the factors that will have a strong effect on decisions about the goals
of the course, what to include in the course, and how to teach and assess it” (Na-
tion & Macalister, 2010, p. 14). Also known as situation analysis (Richards, 2001)
or constraints analysis, environment analysis offers assurance that the design, con-
tent, delivery, and evaluation of a course or curriculum can actually be carried
out. For example, common constraints that can undermine the potential success
of a curricular innovation include class size, a shortage of material resources, in-
adequate instructor training, and institutional resistance to experimentation with
novel instructional methods (see Chapter 3).
Learners. Chapter 2, which explores L2 writer populations in some detail, cata-
logues both general and specific factors that we should use to identify students’ in-
structional requirements. This information should, of course, include demographic
information such as age, multilingual proficiency, cultural background and affilia-
tions, educational experience, career aspirations, and so on (Graves, 2000; Richards,
2001; Smagorinsky, 2008). Clearly, we want to know who our student writers are,
administrators, administrators,
* S urveys and q u e s tio n n a ire s. Collect needs data by devising and
administering context-appropriate surveys and questionnaires to relevant
stakeholders (i.e , current and former students, writing instructors, instructors in
the disciplines, and so on). Target information can include biodata, opinions,
and self-assessments. Surveys and questionnaires can be distnbuted and
colfected in traditional paper-and-pencil format. To maximize efficiency and
return rate, administer electronic surveys via a course management system
(CMS) or free online tool such as Survey Monkey.
» interview s. Using a simple interview schedule or protocol, conduct structured
or semi-structured interviews with stakeholders (learners, writing instructors,
administrators, i n s t r u c t o r s jn gtâdemic discip lm e s , prospective employers, and
administrators,
* in s titu tio n a l data c o lle c tio n and analysis. Gather and analyze
documentation such as curriculum plans, goat statements, course syllahi,
textbooks, assessment plans, placement and exit exam data (e.g., TOEFUBT,
i ELTS, or PTE scores), student grade reports, samples of students’ written
administrators,
administrators,
* O bservation. With the help of a systematic, easy-to-use observation
instrument, conduct observations of writing courses, writing center tutorials,
and faculty meetings. Follow an individual student or cohort of Student writers
administrators, administrators,administrators,
FIGURE 5.15.1 Tools for

fo r collecting
c o lle c tin g objective
o b je ctive and
and subjective
su b je ctive needs assessment
assessm ent
data. Adapted
A dapted from
from Brown
Brown (1995, 2011) and and Nation
Nation and
and Macalister
M acalister (2010).
what they know and can do, and what they need to learn in order to advance as
writers and readers. As we will demonstrate below, demographic data collected from
them should be used systematically to design course syllabi and classroom tasks
(Brown, J. D., 2011, 2012; Dudley-Evans & St. John, 1998; 1998; Long, 2005b; Nation &
Macalister, 2010).
Teachers. Working from a thorough profile of the student population is vital to
the success of implementing a curriculum or course, but NA must consider all stake-
stake
holders (Brown, J. D., 1995,
1995, 2011, 2012; Graves, 2000; Long, 2005a, 2005b; Richards,
2001). Naturally, the instructors who teach the courses that we design, as well as those
who will work with our students in subsequent courses, are equally important stake-stake
holders in the process of literacy education. Among the factors that should be taken
into account in environment analysis are instructors’ level of training, their familiar-
familiar
ity with course material, and their versatility in adopting and adapting novel instruc-
instruc
tional approaches, methods, strategies, and content. Similarly influential information
includes teachers’ expertise in selecting and creating appropriate material, as well as
their skill in developing assignments and assessing student writing (see Chapters 6
and 77).
). Furthermore, one should never overlook factors such as teachers’ workloads,
their willingness to take on instructional innovation, or the ways in which their teach-
teach
ing philosophies align or clash with a new approach to instruction or course design.
Situation. For the same reasons that we should consider the diversity of learn-
ers in our classrooms and the educators who serve them in making pedagogical
decisions, we should be mindful of the student demographics described in the
research literature. As discussed at length in Chapter 2, an obvious characteristic
to consider in environment analysis is the type of institution in which students
undergo L2 instruction (Long, 2005a; Nieto, 2002; Nieto & Bode, 2008; Nieto,
Bode, Kang, & Raible, 2008; Silva, 1993). Even within a single institutional setting,
we also find diverse types of students. Students at Japanese universities enrolled
in EFL writing courses, for instance, may have received little or no preparation
as writers of English, despite having studied English continuously throughout
secondary school (Casanave, 2012; Kubota & McKay, 2009; McKay, 2012). In the
North American context, high schools and community colleges often serve a high
proportion of immigrant students, depending on geographical location. In con-
trast, four-year colleges and research universities may attract a high proportion
of international students while also serving immigrant and Generation 1.5 stu-
dents. Community colleges often serve higher numbers of immigrant students, as
these institutions offer opportunities to transfer to four-year institutions (Bailey &
Santos, 2009; Ching, McKee, & Ford, 1996; Patthey et al., 2009). Chapter 2 also
highlighted the need to distinguish between intensive English programs (IEPs)
and college or university departments that offer composition courses (DeLuca,
Fox, Johnson, & Kogen, 2001; Dimmitt & Dantas-Whitney, 2002; Matsuda & Mat-
suda, 2009; Roberge, 2002, 2009; Silva, Leki, & Carson, 1997; Tribble, 2010). In
L2-track writing courses that parallel NS courses, instruction may be driven by the
mainstream curriculum and L1 composition principles (see Chapter 3). Conflicts
may understandably arise between philosophies and approaches to the literacy
processes that students must master (cf. Atkinson & Ramanathan, 1995; Costino
& Hyon, 2007; Johns, 2003, 2008; Kroll, 2001; Silva et al., 1997).
Needs Analysis
Following on Pratt’s (1980) broad definition, Nation and Macalister (2010) pro-
posed that needs analysis (NA) “examines what . . . learners know already and what
they need to know” (p. 24). The NA process likewise targets a course’s goals and
content, ensuring “that the course will contain relevant and useful things to learn”
and “asking the right questions and finding the answers in the most effective way”
(Nation & Macalister, 2010, p. 24). To make the range of needs more manageable,
Hutchinson and Waters (1987) introduced two categories of educational needs:
target needs (the things that learners need to accomplish in the target setting) and
learning needs (what learners must do in the learning process). Nation and Ma-
calister (2010) further subdivided target needs into three helpful subcategories,
which we describe below: necessities, lacks, and wants. These divisions help us to
set present knowledge and skill apart from required knowledge and skill, as well
as to distinguish objectively observable needs from subjectively perceived needs.
Necessities. As the label implies, necessities refer to the requisite knowledge
and skills that students must master and that a course or program may target
(Brindley, 1984). Nation and Macalister (2010) suggested that “the first thing to
look at in necessities is the demands of the target tasks” (p. 27). For academic and
preacademic L2 writers, relevant literacy tasks might include:
j listening to academic lectures and taking notes;

j revising and reviewing class notes to prepare for timed quizzes and
exams or to integrate into formal writing assignments;
j participating in classroom speech events, such as interacting with instruc-
tors, collaborating with peers during group activities, and so forth;
j writing under timed conditions, such as short-answer and essay exami-
nations;
j writing brief academic texts (writing-to-learn assignments) such as jour-
nal entries, reading responses, text summaries, blog posts, lab reports,
problem sets, memoranda, and so on;
j planning and writing extended (learning-to-write) academic assignments
such as literature reviews and bibliographic, analytic, and argumentative
essays;
j producing and delivering discipline-specific texts and genres such as
annotated bibliographies, book reviews, data-based research papers, case
studies, classroom presentations (using PowerPoint, Keynote, or Prezi,
for example), posters, websites, digital and print portfolios, and so forth.
After identifying the particular products and performances that students will
be required to generate (see Figures 5.1 and 5.2), we can then analyze these genres
and texts formally by scrutinizing their rhetorical arrangement, linguistic features,
and lexical properties. Further, as we argued in Chapter 4, we must examine them
contextually by studying the socioliterate situations, values, and practices of the
discipline, literacy, or Discourse where these texts enjoy currency and prestige
(Belcher et al., 2011; Hyland, 2009; Johns, 1995a, 1995c, 1997, 1999, 2003, 2009a).
These analyses often intersect with aspects of environment analysis (particularly,
situation analysis) and are crucial, as they serve as the basis for Step 2 in Taba’s
(1962) framework: formulating course goals in measurable terms, a process de-
scribed below. A further outcome of appraising necessities serves Step 7 in Taba’s
model, evaluating the effectiveness of the course syllabus or curriculum. With an
inventory of necessities, we can later ask important questions such as: “Can we
see . . . evidence that the course has helped the assignment writing of learners . . . ?
What kind of improvement did the course make? Did learners . . . do well in their
later study?” (Nation & Macalister, 2010, p. 28).
Lacks. Not surprisingly, discovering lacks involves starting with the broad ques-
tion, “What do . . . learners lack?” (Nation & Macalister, 2010, p. 25). As with the
assessment of necessities, capturing lacks (gaps) is complemented by situation
analysis (Richards, 2001; Tessmer, 1990). In the case of L2 composition instruction,
we can penetrate concerns about writing proficiency by reviewing the quality of

students’ written production (see Chapter 6). Ideally, we should also inquire into
the effectiveness of their composing processes and strategies (see Figure 5.2). We
can draw accurate inferences about processes based on writing quality, but the
most reliable means of identifying lacks and weaknesses is to observe student writ-
ers engaged in a composing cycle (Nation & Macalister, 2010). In addition, our
discussion of environment analysis featured the role of teachers, whose functions
as respondents and assessors can contribute a great deal to identifying lacks or
gaps in a course or program. Nation and Macalister (2010) recommended posing
broad questions about what instructors see as the strengths and weaknesses of
students’ writing assignments and processes.
Students, of course, are key stakeholders whose writing performance and
perceptions can point toward specific lacks that a course of instruction should
address. We can gather valuable data concerning students’ literacy needs, includ-
ing those pertaining to writing skill, by measuring their composing proficiency
by gathering writing subscores on international college entrance examinations
such as TOEFLiBT, IELTS, PTE, and local placement and exit instruments (see
Chapter 6). Also valuable, though unfortunately less reliable, are students’ per-
ceptions of their needs as L2 learners and writers, as we note in our discussion
of wants (see below). We should query student writers about their skills and skill
gaps; we should additionally capture what they believe about the writing skills
and strategies that they will need in the future, keeping in mind that students’
self-reported perceptions may not always fully or objectively reflect their measur-
able needs (Dörnyei & Taguchi, 2009; Molle & Prior, 2008). To complement and
counterbalance the inherent subjectivity of student perceptions (which we might
more appropriately characterize as wants), we can elicit somewhat more objective
information about lacks by investigating their learning and writing processes with
the aid of questionnaires, brief reflection memos, five-minute papers, and so on
(Brown, 2011; Long, 2005b; Nation, 2009; also see Figure 5.1).
Wants. As the label indicates, wants (also called felt needs) constitute a dis-
tinct category from needs (Brindley, 1984), as “learners have their own views about
what they think is useful for them” (Nation & Macalister, 2010, p. 29). Learner
wants are perhaps the easiest category of NA information to capture and are “use-
ful in working out whether . . . learners’ views and the needs analyst’s views are the
same or not” (Nation & Macalister, 2010, p. 29). Because teachers have ready access
to their students, they can easily elicit student wants and expectations with simple
tools such as informal conversations, interviews, and surveys (see Figure 5.1). Be-
cause student wants, expectations, and perceived needs often shift, it is useful to
collect such information at intervals, preferably by deploying a variety of elicita-
tion methods (Brown, 2011; Buckingham, 1981). Not only can learner wants be
inherently unstable, they can also generally only be captured through self-report,
a sometimes unreliable means of data collection (Brown, 2001). That is not to say
that we should not focus on self-reported wants, expectations, or perceived needs.
To the contrary, knowing what our student writers think about their felt needs is
vitally important to engaging them in the learning process and to adjusting our
teaching appropriately. At the same time, as student opinions and beliefs may not
always (or even often) align with genuine necessities and lacks, it is appropriate
to view these data sources as complementary. Preserving the complementarity of
necessities, lacks, and wants also facilitates triangulation, a procedure in which
“researchers [compare] different sets and sources of data with one another” (Long,
2005a p. 28). Triangulation strengthens the credibility and validity of NA data and
their interpretation (Brown, 2001; Gilabert, 2005), establishing a strong founda-
tion for formulating goals and constructing a syllabus (Taba, 1962).
Needs Assessment Instruments

Having considered the “what” and “why” of the NA process, we now turn to the
“how.” As Buckingham (1981) observed, “a great variety of assessment instru-
ments and processes are available” (p. 15), making our task as needs analysts
both easy and difficult. The abundant array of NA tools and instruments eases
our workload, as we can adapt existing models, rather than starting from scratch.
On the other hand, the “great variety” can make the selection of appropriate and
practical instruments a formidable challenge. As our scope here is confined to the
context of L2 writing courses (in contrast to program-wide NA and curriculum
development), we concentrate primarily on instruments that are easy to adapt
and construct, practical to administer, and simple to analyze in the context of an
individual program or course. Figure 5.1 lists and describes numerous tools for
conducting NA, several of which we will examine below. We encourage readers
seeking more extensive treatments to consult the NA sources listed under Further
Reading and Resources at the end of this chapter.
Familiar to teachers and students in many educational contexts, survey and
questionnaire instruments offer several practical benefits, including their ready
availability, the ease with which they can be administered, and the abundance of
quantitative and qualitative data that they can supply (Brown, 2001; Dörnyei &
Taguchi, 2009). Electronic administration can enhance the ease and speed of
data collection while also significantly raising survey return rates. Needs ana-
lysts can construct and efficiently distribute paperless surveys using a course
management system (CMS) (e.g., Canvas®, Moodle®, or BlackBoard®) or a free
(or low-cost) online survey tool (e.g., surveymonkey.com, surveygizmo.com,
kwiksurveys.com, or Google Docs). Well-known drawbacks of questionnaire
research include their reliance on self-report, as we noted above. Moreover,
“questionnaires are notoriously difficult to design well” (Nation & Macalister,
2010, p. 29): Articulating the variables being surveyed requires great clarity and
precision (Brown, 1997). For instance, survey writers must take care to avoid
excessively long, ambiguous, negative, and incomplete items (Brown & Rodg-
ers, 2002).
Instead of presenting a static, “one-size-fits-all” survey or interview format,
we offer the variables in Figure 5.2 as elements to consider in constructing needs
analysis instruments tailored to your learner population, institutional setting, and
1. S tu d e n t d e m o y ra p h ic s
□ Age J Educational experience
LI Gender J Work background
U Nationality □ Career aspirations
□ Ethnic backgroiMid _i immigration status {if A m icable)
LI Primary languaêls) □ Family background
2. S tu d e n ts ' tc v o l o f LZ p ro fic ie n c y and' k n o w le d g e
□ Mea&ured proficiency in reading, listening, speaking writing, and grammar
U 12 vocabulary size
3. Students' L1 an-d L2 literacy skills
□ Lilerale experience and knowledge in home <L1}cultureis), including school-based and oilier literacies
LI L iir a te experience and knowledge in target (L2) culture including school-based and olhcr literacies
4. S tu d e n ts ' in tc re u ltu ra l a n d c r o s s - lin g u is tic k n o w le d g e
□ Prior experience In she L2 end other sociocultural environments
IJ Fa mil rarity with sociocultural and pragmatic dimensions of iho L2
□ Awareness of cross-linguistic similarities and differences. especially those involving writing systems
aftd affecting literacy development
5. S tude nts' interests
U General topics and issues of H e ra s t to students
□ Personal experiences and areas of Interesf
□ iâliunaii'^rofessionai experiences and a n i l or Merest
S. Students' preferred learning styles and strategies
□ hjcpectalions cojKerning teaching and assessment methods
□ Preferred methods and strategies far learning
U Preferences (and d ere fe re n ce s) for collaborative learning
□ Preferences (and d ere fe re n ce s) for digitaity mediated reaming. communication, and collaboration
7. S tude nts' attitudes and m o tivationa l profiles
IJ Attitudes toward1themselves as learners
□ Attitudes toward fellow learners
□ Attitudes loward me le a d * *
U Attitudes toward formal instruction
□ Attitudes toward: the target language (L2}, Its user communities, and jI s literate practices
S. S tude nts' and o th e rs ’ learning aims
IJ Reasons for enrolling in an L2 Heracy course
□ Short- and torvgMerm goels as L2 readers and enters
□ Expectations concerning course outcomes
9. T a rg e t c o n t e x ts )
□ Situations where students wfll engage in literacy events (particularly writing!* beyond the classroom
□ Topics about w‘t:d i students will read and w; 1k in iheir Reids or study and careers;
LI Disciplinary and professional settings where students will use and produce L2 text a * d speech
□ Interactional ares relabcnship vaâbles (e.g., identity, power, gender, sociel status, and so on)
10. L ite ra cy s k ills and stra tegie s needed fa r academic-, profession al, and w orkp lace tasks
U Purposes for which studenis w i read and produce L2 lexis
□ Need tor understanding and giving directions
□ Need lor seeking and sharing mformation in print-based and digital environments
LI Communicative functions genres, and registers typical in students' larget disciplines, professions, and
________klerate communitas_______________________________________________________________________
FIGURE 5.2 Checklist of demographic, educational, motivational, and aspira-

tional variables to consider in the NA cycle. Based on Chapter 2 and adapted
from Hedgcock and Ferris (2009); compare with Brindley (1984); Brown (1995,
2001, 2011); Graves (2000); Seymour and Walsh (2006).
teaching style. To exemplify, the sample questionnaire in Appendix 5.1 provides a

sample of a pre-course survey developed by an instructor preparing a syllabus and
course outline for an EAP course for international students. Clearly geared toward
nonimmigrant students with limited experience in English-medium classrooms
(see Chapter 2), items include both controlled-response prompts (which allow for
easy quantitative analysis) and constructed response (or open-response) prompts
that elicit qualitative, verbal input from students. To make the items easy to re-
spond to, they are presented as descriptors or belief statements to which students
assign a numeric value based on a fixed Likert-type scale. The belief statements,
self-assessments, and prompts are specifically designed to invite students to re-
port their perceived expertise as readers and writers, in addition to their opinions
about the uses of digital technology, collaborative work, drafting processes, feed-
back, and revision. Because he administered the survey prior to the start of the
course via CMS, the instructor used student responses to address these issues in
the course syllabus and to plan instruction to accommodate the reported needs,
preferences, and learning styles of the class. Questionnaire results not only guided
the instructor’s course planning, but also provided information about which
students could subsequently reflect as a measure of their literacy development
as the course progressed. During periodic writing conferences and online chats,
the teacher informally queried students about their level of satisfaction with the
course, the usefulness of the assignments, and the value of peer and instructor
feedback. Near the end of the term, the instructor devised a retrospective assign-
ment in which students wrote a comparison of their initial perceptions and their
cumulative achievements as writers.
Regularly examining formally and informally gathered self-report data about
their students’ work patterns, study habits, drafting styles, task type preferences,
and so forth can effectively inform teachers of ways in which they might adjust or
alter their planning and teaching. Informed by student perceptions, opinions, and
self-assessments, teachers can design syllabi, plan lessons, construct assignments,
and lead activities that capitalize on students’ strengths and overcome their weak-
nesses. Also valuable is information about how to avoid student resistance to dis-
preferred task types and modalities, such as collaborative activities, peer response
tasks, and digitally mediated interaction. If the teacher elicits student attitudes
toward these learning tools, she or he can take steps to provide appropriate learner
training in advance—or perhaps opt for alternatives. Instruments used to collect
students’ wants and perceived lacks (opinions, attitudes, beliefs, and expectations)
are perhaps most suitably developed by adapting and combining styles and strate-
gies resources already available.1 Other valuable NA instruments include inter-
views with stakeholders and classroom observations, admittedly labor-intensive
methods that can nonetheless yield useful complementary data for triangulation
with complementary NA data sources.
An equally rich source of qualitative data that is usually readily accessible to
the needs analyst consists of classroom instruction itself, as well as interactions
outside the classroom (e.g., writing center tutorials, student–teacher writing
conferences, and so on). Like interviewing, observation can be time consuming
and labor intensive, as is the process of analyzing and interpreting observational
data. Nonetheless, observations of learners, teachers, and tutors in the settings
where they most frequently interact can generate vital triangulation data (Brown,
2011; Saginor, 2008). Simply defined, observation entails “the watching of be-
havioral patterns of people in certain situations to obtain information about the
phenomenon of interest” (Johnson & Christensen, 2008, p. 211). Not so simple,
alas, are the tasks of selecting from among the more than 200 instruments pres-
ently available, learning how to use them consistently and systematically, taking
complete field notes, and parsing notes and transcripts for analysis (Brown &
Rodgers, 2002). With the help of a few easy-to-use, context-appropriate observa-
tion instruments, however, capturing and interpreting samples of instructional
• Like the assessment process (see Chapter 6), NA must involve processes
and instruments that are reliable, valid, and practical to administer.
• As needs (necessities, lacks, and wants) vary over lim e and by context, NA
■ Q uality NA must address multiple needs and feature a combination o f data-
gathering tools lhat elicit evidence for triangulation
• NA instrum ents and processes should be selected and adapted for the
particular context. Ready-made, "off-the-rack" tools can provide helpful
starting points but usually require tailoring to the local setting.
• Effective NA is continuous and cycJical, rather than sporadic. Experts
recommend conducting NA tjofore the start of a course, during the early
stages o f a course, at one or two intervals during a course, and at ils
conclusion. In this way, formal and informal NA output can inform subsequent
administrators,
• In reporting NA outcomes, work toward consensus on high-priority
necessities, lacks, and wants by emphasizing robust results and discoveries.
Respect and accomm odate minority perspectives as much as possible.
(Brindley, 1984; Brown, 1995, 2011; Buckingham, 1981. Long, 2005b; Nation &
administrators,
administrators,
FIGURE 5.3 Guidelines for effective needs assessment (NA). Adapted from Brind-
ley (1984); Brown (1995, 2011); Buckingham (1981); Long (2005b); Nation and Ma-
calister (2010); Tyler (1949).
interactions can contribute meaningfully to the NA process.2 For example, obser-

vation can provide insight into a program’s implicit theories, ethos, and values.
The process can also reveal how the stated principles of a program or instruc-
tor match pedagogical practice, pointing toward necessities, lacks, and wants
(Nation & Macalister, 2010).
This brief survey of selected data gathering tools is designed to provide read-
ers with simple yet practical tools for conducting environment and needs analy-
ses efficiently. We conclude this section with Figure 5.3, which proposes general
guidelines for planning and carrying out an effective NA process, which can sub-
sequently lead to the formulation of objectives and course design.
Setting Targets for Learning and Teaching:

Goals and Objectives
The immediate and natural result of NA involves the specification of aims or ob-
jectives, leading next to the selection and organization of content and learning
experiences—Steps 3 through 6 in Taba’s (1962) sequential framework. Although
it is common practice for NA procedures to culminate in formal reports dissemi-
nated to key decision makers (see Brown, 1995, 2011; Gilabert, 2005; Nation &
Macalister, 2010), we will advance to the identification and formulation of learn-
ing objectives for L2 literacy courses and units. A crucial component of curriculum
development and implementation, “objectives are the link that connects the NA
to the rest of the curriculum (i.e., to the materials, testing, teaching, and program
evaluation)” (Brown, 2011, p. 284). Systematic programmatic information (from
a satisfactory environment analysis) and data on student writers and their literacy
profiles (based on a careful appraisal of needs; see Chapter 2) should provide suf-
ficient material for outlining what Brown (2011) called “a defensible curriculum,”
course syllabus, or unit plan (p. 287). A defensible instructional framework is “one
that satisfies the . . . learning and teaching requirements of the students and teach-
ers within the context of particular institution(s)” (p. 269).
Goals, “the main purposes and intended outcomes of your course,” constitute
the global learning targets around which we design curricula, syllabi, and instruc-
tional units (Graves, 2000, p. 75). Most often expressed broadly, goals allow for
backward design planning (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005), which “begins with a focus
on the end results,” leads to the determination of acceptable evidence of student
learning, and consequently suggests specific options for planning learning experi-
ences and teaching (Shrum & Glisan, 2010, p. 92). Objectives, in contrast, consist
of a narrower range of desired outcomes or “statements about how . . . goals will
be achieved” (Graves, 2000, p. 76). As we work our way through objectives (e.g., in
a sequence of lessons or units as a course unfolds), we break goals “into learnable
and teachable units. By achieving . . . objectives, the goal will be reached” (Graves,
2000, p. 76).
Just as curriculum experts insist that NA results should directly inform course
goals, they similarly maintain that the formulation of goals and objectives should
be an integrative, reciprocal task. That is, goals frame objectives, while the in-
cremental or cyclical achievement of objectives should eventually fulfill goals.
Moreover, goals should guide (and be guided by) ongoing assessment of student
achievement, progress, and proficiency (see Chapter 6). Essential to connecting
objectives to goals is understanding the distinctions between them (and planning
courses, units, and lessons so that they lead to the fulfillment of goals). Simply put,
an objective “describes what learners will be able to do” (Shrum & Glisan, 2010,
p. 98). Whether they form the basis for a course, unit, or lesson, meaningfully
stated objectives “contain an indication of the realistic context” for which students
must exhibit knowledge and display a skill. Objectives should not “consist of a
listing of textbook exercises” or a sequence of instructional procedures (Shrum &
Glisan, 2010, p. 97). Rather, to be useful, objectives must state target outcomes in
terms of behavioral referents. Specifically, appropriate objectives “use action verbs
that represent desired student behavior. Verbs such as ‘learn’ or ‘understand’ are
too vague for use in objectives” (Shrum & Glisan, 2010, p. 97). Examples of suit-
ably (and measurably) formulated objectives would include: “Learners will be able
to describe their daily routine” and “Learners will be able to write an e-mail message
to a key pal” (Shrum & Glisan, 2010, p. 97). Useful action verbs in a category such
as collaboration might include co-create, compromise, contribute, give feedback, re-
ceive feedback, and share; measurable verbs in an information literacy category
might include determine significance, evaluate, gather, locate, and utilize (National
Writing Project, 2010, pp. 100–101).3 In contrast, examples of poorly crafted ob-
jectives might include: “The teacher will explain the key elements and sequence of
a good summary” and “Students will learn about topic sentences.”
To illustrate the interdependent relationship between objectives and goals,

consider the following goal statement for an advanced-level L2 literacy course:
“Students will be able to utilize the skills of reading and writing for the purposes
of: socializing, providing and obtaining information, expressing personal feelings
and opinions, persuading others to adopt a course of action in the targeted topic
areas” (Graves, 2000, p. 242). The objectives derived from the preceding goal state-
ment (below) are crafted to guide instruction and assessment over the course of a
semester or academic year.
Students will be able to:

j Read and comprehend materials written for [English speakers] when
the topic and language are familiar;
j Read simple materials independently, but may have to guess at mean-
ings of longer or more complex material;
j Write short notes, uncomplicated personal and business letters, brief
journals, and short reports;
j Write brief analyses of more complex content when given the oppor-
tunity for organization and advance preparation, though errors may
occur more frequently. (Graves, 2000, pp. 242–243)
It is worth noting that these learning aims are expressed in terms of behav-
iorally observable (and, importantly, measurable) outcomes, framed by the “Stu-
dents will be able to . . . ” (SWBAT) stem. We find the SWBAT stem to be especially
useful in specifying particular performance targets, whether these are to serve as
macro-level goals (e.g., for a curriculum, course, or instructional unit) or as rela-
tively specific objectives (e.g., for an instructional unit, lesson sequence, or single
lesson) (Brown, 1995; Glanz, 2009; Shrum & Glisan, 2010). Irrespective of the
magnitude and scope of instructional aims, specific performance characteristics
enable the teacher to monitor student progress as reflected in expected outcomes:
“Clear goals help to make teaching purposeful because what you do in class is
related to your overall purpose. Goals and objectives provide a basis for making
choices about what to teach and how” (Graves, 2000, p. 79).
The predetermination of learning outcomes and their behavioral referents
“may be seen as conflicting with the essential speculative nature of the education
process” (White, 1988, p. 30). Some critics have charged that stating objectives
and teaching toward them trivializes education by forcing instructors to focus on
narrowly defined skills and written products (Benesch, 2001; Hillocks, 1995; Jo-
seph, Bravmann, Windschitl, Mikel, & Green, 2000). It is certainly appropriate to
exercise flexibility in planning courses and leading lessons; we should allow for
contingencies and discoveries that emerge as students grapple with novel content,
experiment with new strategies and skills, and diverge from well-laid plans (Roen,
Pantoja, Yena, Miller, & Waggoner, 2002; Smagorinsky, 2008). However, embracing
the unexpected and departing from a solid outline does not necessarily preclude
gearing instruction toward valid aims (which are ideally derived directly from
systematic NA). Indeed, teachers should view goals and objectives not as rigid,
prescriptive targets, but as flexible guidelines keyed to performance outcomes em-
bedded in the curriculum.
We encourage composition instructors to plan and evaluate courses, lessons,
and student performance with explicit reference to institutionally accepted bench-
marks for progress, achievement, and skill. Such benchmarks are commonplace in
primary and secondary education in many settings, but are perhaps less common,
consistent, and formalized in postsecondary education. We would nonetheless
encourage writing teachers at all levels to understand and implement goals and
benchmarks (often called standards in the United States) that are appropriate (or
mandated) for their student writers. For example, the Common Core State Stand-
ards (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010), developed to ensure “that
all students are college and career ready in literacy no later than the end of high
school,” describe global literacy outcomes and specific writing objectives for K–12
students that are “aligned with college and work expectations” (p. 3). Because the
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) “lay out a vision of what it means to be a
literate person in the twenty-first century” (p. 3), they are as relevant to college-
level instructors as to K–12 educators. The following College and Career Readiness
(CCR) Anchor Standards for Writing frame benchmarks that are explicitly speci-
fied for each grade level (grades 6–12):
Text Types and Purposes*

1. Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics
or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence.
2. Write informative/explanatory texts to examine and convey complex
ideas and information clearly and accurately through the effective selec-
tion, organization, and analysis of content.
3. Write narratives to develop real or imagined experiences or events us-
ing effective technique, well-chosen details, and well-structured event
sequences.
Production and Distribution of Writing

4. Produce clear and coherent writing in which the development, organi-
zation, and style are appropriate to task, purpose, and audience.
5. Develop and strengthen writing as needed by planning, revising, edit-
ing, rewriting, or trying a new approach.
6. Use technology, including the Internet, to produce and publish writing
and to interact and collaborate with others.
Research to Build and Present Knowledge

7. Conduct short as well as more sustained research projects based on
focused questions, demonstrating understanding of the subject under
investigation.
8. Gather relevant information from multiple print and digital sources,
assess the credibility and accuracy of each source, and integrate the in-
formation while avoiding plagiarism.
9. Draw evidence from literary or informational texts to support analysis,
reflection, and research.
Range of Writing
10. Write routinely over extended time frames (time for research, reflection,
and revision) and shorter time frames (a single sitting or a day or two)
for a range of tasks, purposes, and audiences.
(Source: Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010, p. 41)

* These broad types of writing include many subgenres.
The CCR Anchor Standards not only lay out performance benchmarks around
which one could build a writing course or curriculum, but also convey an inte-
grated perspective on writing and academic literacies (see Chapters 3 and 4; cf.
Gottlieb, Katz, & Ernst-Savit, 2008; National Writing Project, 2010; Vause & Am-
berg, 2013). For instance, the document characterizes writing as “a key means of
asserting and defending claims, showing what [students] know about a subject.”
Specifically, the CCSS hold that students must “know how to combine elements
of different kinds of writing—for example, to use narrative strategies within argu-
ment and explanation within narrative—to produce complex and nuanced writ-
ing.” Further, students must demonstrate an ability “to use technology strategically
when creating, refining, and collaborating on writing” (Common Core State Stand-
ards Initiative, 2010, p. 41). Grade-level anchor standards subsequently articulate
college and career writing benchmarks, including this goal for writers in grades 11
and 12: “Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or
texts, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence” (Common Core
State Standards Initiative, 2010, p. 45). To guide teachers and assessors, the anchor
standards further describe target skills and textual evidence for their mastery, as in
this benchmark: “Introduce precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establish the signifi-
cance of the claim(s), distinguish the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims,
and create an organization that logically sequences claim(s), counterclaims, rea-
sons, and evidence” (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010, p. 45).
Established literacy goals and standards such as the CCSS can supply teach-
ers and curriculum developers with tremendously productive tools for planning,
teaching, and assessment, particularly when standards are comprehensive, specific,

and evidence-based. Equally valuable resources for the teaching of L2 writing (and
broader literacy skills) include standards developed by professional organizations
and educational agencies such as the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other
Languages (TESOL); the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) and its
affiliate, the Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC);
the National Writing Project (NWP); the National Assessment of Educational Pro-
gress (NAEP); and the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages
(ACTFL) (see the links and references in the Further Readings and Resources sec-
tion at the end of this chapter). The explicit instructional objectives in a curricu-
lum plan or course syllabus enable teachers to accomplish crucial design tasks.
These tasks include transforming needs into learning objectives, specifying teach-
ing and learning activities, adopting suitable course materials (see Chapter 4),
determining appropriate methods of learner assessment (see Chapter 6), and
evaluating teacher effectiveness (Calkins, Ehrenworth, & Lehman, 2012; Gottlieb
et al., 2008; Graves, 2000; Lea, 2004; NCTE, 2008; National Writing Project, 2010;
Panofsky et al., 2005; Robinson, 2011; Tanner & Tanner, 2007).
Naturally, making appropriate use of standards, goals, and objectives requires
caution and knowledge of the unique features of the local context. We conclude
this section by suggesting several general guidelines for formulating goals and ob-
jectives, planning courses, and carrying out instruction:
j The type and level of specificity of goals and objectives can vary.
j Objectives can (and often should) evolve as environmental constraints
and measured needs change—goals and objectives are most helpful
when they reflect the needs of learners in the local context.
j Instructors should formulate goals and objectives through a collabora-
tive process based on reliable NA evidence, ideally leading to the con-
sensual identification of reasonable teaching and learning aims.
j Though goals and objectives should be articulated clearly and concretely,
they should not be overly restrictive or prescriptive. Flexibly formulated
objectives enable teachers to plan instruction in ways that effectively
serve their learners (rather than confining or hindering teachers’ efforts).
(Sources: Brown, J. D., 1995, 2011, 2012; Hyland, 2004a; Smagorinsky, 2008).
From Goals and Objectives to Syllabus

As Robinson (2011) noted, “syllabus design is based essentially on a decision about
the ‘units’ of classroom activity, and the ‘sequence’ in which they are performed”
(p. 294). We have found it useful to think of a course syllabus as a guiding docu-
ment comprising two main parts. First, in addition to pre-revealing course goals, a
syllabus serves as a contract between instructor and students, summarizing expec-

tations and how they can be met (Hafernik, Messerschmitt, & Vandrick, 2002; Kroll,
2001; Robinson, 2011). Second, a syllabus provides a framework and planning tool.
It structures and sequences instructional aims, units, lessons, assignments, class-
room activities, and assessment procedures for both the instructor and students
(Bruce, 2005; Graves, 2000; Nunan, 2001). The checklist in Figure 5.4, though not
1. Descriptive Information _
u Course name, number, meeling times, location, and access y \
Information for course Websila or CMS v , \S /
□ Prerequisites and other requirements jU lf
□ Instructor's name and contact information (office location,
consultation hours. campus telephone number. e-mail address, or CMS ID)
2. Course Goals and Primary Content
□ Program-level and course-specific goals, optimally crafted in behaviorally
observable terms {e.g., Students will be able to |SW 0AT|. )
j Core course content; aspects of literacy and composing processes lo be
presented, practiced, and assessed
□ Dimensions of rtietoric, textual analysis, grammar, and vocabulary to be
addressed
Q Description of how students will stiow progress toward meeting aims (see item 7)
□ Quantify and scope of reading matenal lo be oovened in classroom {or online)
activities end writing assignments
3. Reading Materials
□ Bibliographic information for required and optional text sources: details about
their aveilability (including information about studenl access to digilal resources)
u List of reeding assignments, Iheir sequence, pega renges, and deadlines (if this
information can be determined in advance)
4- W riting and Multimodal Assignments
q Number and description of writing assignments, including information aboul
genre, length, use of published sources, etc. (see Chapters 4 and 6}
J Descriplion of assignments requiring mulli-drafting, peer response, teacher
feedback, online collaboration (e.g.. oo-construtlion of wikis or Googiedocs. etc.)
□ Indication of whicTi assignments will involve timed (in-class) or online writing
□ Policies governing late and revised assignments, collaboration, plagiarism, etc.
□ Presentation requirements, required or preferred slyle sheet {e.g., APA, MLA},
length criteria, text formatting, mechanical conventions, digital file formatting, etc.
5. tn struction al P rocesscs a nd P roced ures
□ Descriplion of how class time and synchronous online sessions will be allocaled
(e.g., balance of planning, drafting, online and face-to-face collaboration, peer
review sessions, discussions, leclure, in-class writing, quizzes, etc.)
J Expectations for studenl preparedness and participalion in discussions, group
tasks, peer review sessions, contributions to eleclronic bulletin boards, etc
6. Course Requirements
□ Summary of compulsory assignments and their deadlines
□ Descriplion of assessment criteria, including how sludent vvorK will be evaluated
j Explicit policies concerning attendance, participation, missed assignments, etc.
7. Assessment Plan
□ Explicit description of assessment criteria and how they will be applied
q Account of how final course grades are weighted (if applicable) and calculated
li Justification of assessment and marking procedures
3. Course Schedule or Timetable
'■J If appropriate, a session-by-session or weeK-t?y-week calendar of dates, themes,
events, assignments, and deadlines (considerable flexibility may be required with
course oultines to accommodate inevitable delays and negotiated syllabi j
FIGURE 5.4 Syllabus checklist.

exhaustive, offers a framework for providing students with the information they
will need about course goals and content, workload, participation requirements,
institutional and classroom policies, assignments, and performance expectations. A
further function of Figure 5.4 is to serve as an advance organizer for the discussion
of course planning that follows. A sample syllabus for a postsecondary composition
course appears in Appendix 5.2.
Nuts and Bolts: Prioritizing, Sequencing, and Planning

for Writing
One of the most challenging tasks facing novice and even experienced classroom
teachers is mapping a sequence of instructional activities to scaffold student
learning over the span of a course. Nuts and bolts of this demanding planning
process include selecting and organizing content (course books, primary reading
selections, and so on), thematic and skills-based units, literacy tasks, and class-
room processes (see Chapter 4). As Widdowson (1990) observed, a syllabus fun-
damentally formalizes targeted knowledge and skills and “arranges this content
in a succession of interim objectives” (p. 127). Before introducing practical tech-
niques for completing these tasks, we offer several guiding insights and principles
to assist in laying groundwork for developing a syllabus and course outline. Sma-
gorinsky (2008) identified developmental tendencies “that could help us make
decisions about what is developmentally appropriate” (p. 132). These tenden-
cies are consistent with Vygotsky’s (1978, 2012) sociocultural notion of the ZPD,
the distance between an individual’s current developmental state and the next
(more sophisticated) stage of cognitive functioning (Chaiklin, 2003). Primarily
descriptive of the maturation of cognition and reasoning among children and
adults, these developmental trends have also been observed among adult learn-
ers. In literacy development, learners tend to advance to reasoning about complex
concepts and relationships after capturing structurally simpler ideas and con-
nections. They similarly move from understanding concrete (or literal) notions
before moving on to abstract ideas and symbols, shifting from a personal to an
interpersonal (or multipersonal) orientation as they read and write (Smagorin-
sky, 2008).
As sociocultural approaches have increasingly been applied to literacy devel-
opment and instruction (see Chapter 3), Vygotskian concepts have gained wider
influence in conceptualizing writing processes and models for teaching them
(Daniels, 2001; Glenn et al., 2007; Hyland, 2004a; Mahn, 2008; Prior, 2006). We
must nonetheless exercise caution when interpreting developmental patterns for
instructional planning. For example, Smagorinsky (2008) acknowledged the soci-
ocultural view that “teaching leads development,” stressing that teaching itself does
not necessarily precipitate or produce learning. He also pointed out that:
if you think that students are at a particular level, don’t teach to that level.
Rather, lead them to a higher level of development—think of it as a sort
of cognitive carrot and stick. Instead of designing a static curriculum
targeted at students’ presumed levels, teachers who follow this principle

are attentive to where students are and where instruction might take
them. (Smagorinsky, 2008, p. 133)
Informed by sound developmental principles and reliable NA information,

teachers need a systematic means of selecting texts, assignments, activities, and
processes. Once selected, these components must be sequenced into a meaningful
progression leading to the achievement of learning outcomes. Macken-Horarik
(1996) proposed a model for constructing genre-oriented unit plans and course
outlines in which four learning domains allow for the flexible arrangement of
situations and topics. Placing different demands on learners, these experiential
domains enable teachers to recycle topics and genres through multiple levels of
complexity in multiple registers (Hyland, 2004a), as shown in Figure 5.5.
Based on Macken-Horarik’s (1996) model and contemporary approaches to genre
instruction, Hyland (2004a) proposed a matrix of genre families that enables the course
designer to determine how “elemental genres are similar and make it possible to link
one text with the next in a learning sequence designed to scaffold progress through
texts that draw on the same grammatical features to express broadly similar purposes”
(p. 111). Though not a linear or sequential model, Figure 5.6 illustrates textual rela-
tionships that would allow the teacher or course planner to focus on a text family, pro-
totypical feature or function, or genre category in organizing an instructional outline.
Dom ain: Everyday ■+ Applied > Theoretical > Critical

Type o f Common Praclical Formal Informal
K now ledge sense t ducat ion
Id e n tity and Familiar Practitioner Impersonal Complex
Roles
Topics and Home, family Work skills, Technical and interpretive,
Language community domestic profession a! persuasive
hobbies
FIGURE 5.5 Experiential content domains. Based on Macken-Horarik (1996).
Text Family Prototypical Feature(s) Sample Written Genres

_______________________ and F unctions_______________________________
Exchanges Joint construction internet chat, text (SMS)
messages., personal e-mail
correspondence
Forms Pnnted or digital, with Simple and complex
respondent spaces formatted texts
Procedures Sleps to achieve a goal Instmclions, procedures,
and protocols
Informational Texts Provide news or data Descriptions, explanations,
and reports
Story Texts Retell events and respond to Recounts and narratrves
them
Persuasive Texts Argue for or against a Expositions, discussions,
_________________________ premise or thesis____________ and opinion texta_____
FIGURE 5.6 Genre families for course planning. Adapted from Hyland (2004a).
When designing units of work (e.g., curricula, course outlines, project sequences,
thematic or genre units, assignment sequences, and lesson plans), we should con-
sider several factors likely to affect a unit’s success:
1. Length. Source material should be sufficient (and sufficiently extensive),

but not so long or demanding that learners might lose interest.
2. Development. One sequential component should lead smoothly and pro-
gressively toward the next, reflecting a logical (e.g., linear, hierarchical) or
ideally recursive (e.g., cyclical, spiral, or matrix) arrangement (see below).
3. Coherence. The unit exhibits a discernible sequential logic.
4. Pacing. Each component (task, activity, literacy assignment) moves
along at a comfortable but purposeful speed, with no single component
disproportionately longer than others.
5. Outcome. At the conclusion of the unit, students exhibit an ability to
perform a related series of targeted tasks. (Adapted from Richards, 2001,
p.166; additional sources include Aranha, 2009; Bruce, 2005; Graves, 2000;
Hyland, 2004a, 2006; Nation & Macalister, 2010; Smagorinsky, 2008)
Decisions about how to organize a unit or course involve the relevance of top-
ics and themes, reading selections, processes, and products (Smagorinsky, 2008).
Planning decisions also involve how much instructional time should be devoted to
these components. Hyland (2004a) observed that units of work in literacy courses
are perhaps “best seen as real-life activities or situations in which people do spe-
cific things through writing” (p. 115). He recommended assigning a high priority
to writing activities by focusing units on one of the following:
j A written text. The focus and goals of the course may feature a text such
as a sales letter, a job application letter, a blog entry, a narrative essay, or
a section of a longer genre, such as a literature review from a research
paper, the problem–solution stage of a narrative text, or the discussion
section of an engineering thesis.
j A particular writing strategy. Strategies might include collecting sources
for and planning an argumentative essay, planning and drafting a report
of a workplace simulation, or the collaborative writing of an investiga-
tive news report or business plan (see Chapter 3).
j A sequence of genres (or part of that sequence). Based on course length
and students’ language proficiency, literacy skills, and genre familiar-
ity, a focus on genre sequence might entail the development of a series
of oral and written communications responding to a customer inquiry
(e.g., in a workplace setting) or compiling a professional webfolio

(including, for example, a résumé or CV, professional autobiography,
goal statement, documents demonstrating academic and professional
achievements, and so on) and preparing for a job interview. (Adapted
from Hyland, 2004a, p. 115)
To plan a course or unit, teachers frequently create an outline or a calendar; in

fact, postsecondary institutions generally require both a syllabus and course out-
line. A common method for constructing an outline or calendar relies on a linear,
item-by-item approach, which we do not recommend. Such a planning method
overlooks the need to account for absenteeism, to recycle processes and strategies,
and to accommodate diverse learning styles (see Chapter 2). Citing evidence from
research on human memory and cognitive development (e.g., Baddeley, 1997;
Bruner, 1962), Nation and Macalister (2010) argued that “the worst kind of linear
development assumes that once an item has been presented in a lesson, it has been
learned and does not need focused revision [review]” (p. 82). While recognizing
the need to plan instruction chronologically, Nation and Macalister (2010) pro-
posed “variations of linear progressions [that] try to take account of the need for
repetition,” including spiral and matrix models (p. 82).
Figure 5.7 presents a scheme and set of procedures for incorporating overlap-
ping phases of a process-oriented multi-drafting cycle (see Chapter 3), which re-
flects features of the spiral curriculum described by Nation and Macalister (2010)
and which is adapted specifically for writing instruction. These phases represent
overlapping, recursive, and increasingly complex phases and subprocesses, not all
of which are mandatory (Clark, 2011; Williams, 2003). As Hillocks (1995) ob-
served, “the general model of the composing process” can be useful, but “it can-
not begin to account for variations in process that appear to be dependent on a
variety of factors” (p. xix). We would stress that the stages leading from prewriting
through publishing are not mechanical, autonomous steps to be trivialized or slav-
ishly followed, although we have found that students often find discrete steps to be
helpful and even reassuring.
Similar to the cyclical model shown in Figure 5.7 (which is inspired by a spiral
design), a matrix model entails planning multiple and diverse encounters with
the same skill, strategy, or genre. In a matrix design like the one illustrated in
Figure 5.8, “one unit of progression is systematically varied against another, so that
the same items are met with different contexts” (Nation & Macalister, 2010, p. 83).
For instance, the same task or skill (e.g., writing from sources, planning for writ-
ing, drafting) receives systematic attention across diverse topics, themes, genres, or
assignments. Each lesson consists of alternative matchings, offering students the
benefit of repeated opportunities to encounter texts, genres, and literacy strategies,
thereby enriching both declarative and procedural knowledge (Baddeley, 1997;
Bruner, 1962).
administrators,
J Involve wnters in text-biased tasks featuring both reading and writing (see Chapter 4),
J Lead activities requiring students to wnte from texts.
J To prepare for intensive writing (i.e . drafting and revising formal assignments), allow
for extensive writing for discovery, both in class and out; promote production of texts
that address the tasks, audiences, and genres at hand,
J Weave idea generation tasks (eg., brainstorming, mapping, clustering, cubing, e tc )
into the instructional sequence. Practice multiple pre-writmg activities (see Chapter 4),
administrators,
administrators,
J Encourage students to plan as they go along and to understand the evolving
administrators,
administrators,
J Continuously supply content- and theme-based 'nput in the way or readings,
discussions, and so forth to develop and sharpen students' emerging ideas and plans.
J Allow sufficient time for students to exchange ideas, share their plans, and elicit new
information for further development of a schema for the writing task
administrators,
administrators,
J Give students practice envisioning the text's audience, the reader’s knowledge and
expectations, strategies
administrators, for satisfying
administrators, reader expectations, and soon
administrators,
J Provide students with practice incorporating peer and expert feedback into their
administrators,
administrators,
J Continue to supply content- and theme based input by way of readings and
discussions to supplement and narrow students' emerging ideas and plans.
Feedback, Incubation,
administrators, and Revision
administrators,
administrators,
J Demonstrate productive and supportive ways in which students can respond to tfis
J Conduct peer response sessions in a safe environment where students act as critical
readers, but not as evaluators (see Chapter 7).
J Emphasize the benefits of responding to the work of others, noting that the greatest
contribution of pee? feedback may be to the peer reviewer, rather than the writer.
J Demonstrate procedures and techniques for evaluating peer and expert feedback,
and for applying that information to students' changing drafts.
J Build in incubation time between composing subprocess.
administrators,
administrators,
□ Build sufficient time into the teaching sequence for peer, teacher, and self-editing of
mature, reader-centered prose (see Chapter 7).
administrators,
J Provide opportunities for students' "finar products to be disfribuled. shared, and
administrators,
J Systematically engage students m making decisions regarding written products that
might be included in their writing portfolios (if applicable).
FIGURE 5.7 Writing process schema for course planning: A cyclical model
Adapted from Elbow (1973, 1998a, 1998b); Johns (1997, 2003); Kroll (2001); Mur-
ray (1987); Nation and Macalister (2010); Weigle (2014); Williams (2003); Zamel
(1982, 1983).
To operationalize an iterative, recursive unit or course plan, we must first and

foremost establish student and program goals as our highest priority, organizing
material, instructional procedures, and tasks accordingly (Brown, J. D., 2012; Glanz,
2009; Glenn et al., 2007; Purgason, 2014; Robinson, 2011; Shrum & Glisan, 2010).
n
■4-1 +*
. E . c . C
I f <U m a* ^ 3J
* E. i i i I 51
je cn *e ra I & JZ os
§ | i g 1 8
5.5 a < a *
o « O a> o a> o ^
1“ c *" £ »- c <- c
aj & at <u
O o O
Task/Skilt 1 Lesson 1 Lesson 2 Lesson 3 Lesson 4

Task/Skill 2 Lesson 5 Lesson 6 Lesson 7 Lesson 6
FIGURE 5.8 Sample of a matrix-based unit or course outline. Adapted from

Nation and Macalister (2010).
Second, it is crucial to understand how our planning decisions (materials selection,

sequencing, balance of instructional activity types, assignment development, and
so on) will help students to meet course goals. If textbooks and assignments are
prescribed by an academic department, program, institution, or educational agency,
our syllabi will still not write themselves; our teaching will be most effective when we
can justify—to ourselves and to our students—our planning decisions with direct
reference to course objectives (Cumming, 2003; Nation & Macalister, 2010; Smagor-
insky, 2008). Third, flexibility is essential: Teachers must devise course schedules that
are realistic for them and for their students, as no timeline can be etched in stone.
Some teachers can efficiently follow and complete a detailed, preplanned course
timetable. New teachers and those assigned to teach a course for the first time may
prefer a highly structured course calendar, step-by-step lesson outlines, and detailed
assignment descriptions inherited from more seasoned instructors. We readily ac-
knowledge the value in working from an established course outline and tested lesson
scripts. Before they gain their footing and develop confidence and flexibility, novice
teachers and newcomers can benefit tremendously from following a prescribed plan
and replicating a veteran teacher’s syllabus and instructional methods. In contrast,
more experienced teachers may find it difficult to adhere too closely to a course
outline that lays out a day-by-day plan for a multiweek module, 10-week term, or
15-week semester. Under certain conditions, teachers can work with students to ne-
gotiate a syllabus, involving learners in decision making about literacy development
tasks, reading selections, the nature and number of assignments, multi-drafting pro-
cesses, revision requirements, assessment criteria, portfolio contents, and so forth
(Bamberg, 2012; Nunan, 2001; Shaw, 2009). Under such circumstances, a quarter- or
semester-length timetable is perhaps unnecessary. Admittedly, successfully deliver-
ing a negotiated or process syllabus requires even more scrupulous attention to cur-
ricular goals and course objectives, as teachers must ensure that writers achieve the
outcomes stated in the syllabus without the explicit structure of a detailed timetable
(Breen, 1987; Breen & Littlejohn, 2000; Clarke, 1991).
With these general planning precepts in mind, we can begin to lay out the work
of a thematic unit within a course or an entire semester with institutional and
student learning goals (as operationalized in our course objectives) as clear, meas-
urable targets (Shrum & Glisan, 2010). It is useful to start the process with an aca-
demic calendar or planner showing the exact number of traditional or virtual class
meetings to plan for. Holidays and planned cancellations (e.g., professional con-
ferences, in-service training sessions, and so on) should then be noted; required
make-up meetings should be built into the schedule. Class days should also be re-
served for prescribed midterm and final examinations to give a clear picture of ex-
actly how many meetings can be planned for teaching, workshops, peer response
sessions, writing conferences, and the like. We further suggest designating one or
two sessions per term as “free” or “flex” (flexible) sessions, if the academic calendar
permits. Flex sessions can provide highly valuable padding that allows the teacher
to carry over units, tasks, and assignments without having to rework the entire
course timetable when a class falls behind schedule, as many inevitably do. If the
course proceeds as planned, flex sessions can then be used for extra writing time,
teacher–student conferences, portfolio preparation, and even working ahead.
Next, it is a helpful to schedule deadlines for formally assessed writing assign-
ments, particularly if those deadlines are prescribed by the program, department,
or institution. We recommend working backward from target outcomes and final
submission deadlines to include intermediate deadlines for drafts, peer feedback
sessions, editing workshops, student–teacher conferences, and so forth (Glanz,
2009). The sample syllabus and course outline in Appendix 5.2 illustrates one way
in which the backward design planning method (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005) can
be employed. We recommend allocating adequate time for multi-draft assign-
ments and revised texts, particularly near the beginning of a term, when writ-
ing assignments tend to take longer to work through. Extra class periods may be
necessary early on to discuss preliminary drafts, demonstrate and practice peer
response techniques, and revise assignments in class or online.
Many experienced instructors likewise find it valuable to build into the course
timetable sufficient time for them and their students to read assigned texts, practice
prewriting and drafting techniques, and work through peer response activities. The
timetable should also allow sufficient time for the teacher to annotate and evalu-
ate student writing (see Chapters 6 and 7). We similarly recommend as much time
between class sessions as is practical to make a multi-draft approach worthwhile,
particularly if multi-drafting is a central feature of the course. To maximize the multi-
drafting approach and provide sufficient incubation time between drafts, it can be
useful to initiate a new writing assignment while the preceding one is still in progress.
For example, it may be time-efficient to collect a set of short assignments for feedback
or assessment while students embark on a more involved and complex assignment.
Once core assignments are in place and deadlines for preliminary work (drafts,
peer and teacher feedback, revision, and so on) are established, the course outline
has a skeletal form that allows for the planning of reading assignments, discussions,
lectures, student presentations, writing group sessions, peer response workshops,
online chats, and other class activities. If reading figures prominently in the course
objectives (as Chapter 4 strongly suggests it should), reading selections should be
assigned with great care so that they correspond meaningfully to the themes, gen-
res, rhetorical patterns, and discursive forms to be featured in the syllabus, as well
as the writing assignments and literacy tasks that are based on them (Hirvela, 2004;
Hyland, 2004a, 2006; Johns, 1997; Kroll, 2001; Smagorinsky, 2008). These guide-
lines should apply as readily to the planning and delivery of online and hybrid
literacy courses as to traditional-format courses. Of course, planning for an online
or hybrid course will likely necessitate careful management and deployment of the
digital resources available (i.e., CMS platforms, websites, blogs, wikis, social media
platforms, chat tools, slideshow software, audio and video editing software, and the
like) (Bedard & Fuhrken, 2013; Hewett & Ehmann, 2004; Jensen, 2011; Kessler, Os-
koz, & Elola, 2012; National Writing Project, 2010; Oxford, 2009; Reinders & White,
2010; Spector, 2012; Tekobbe et al., 2012; Warnock, 2009; Wilbur, 2010).
Instructors who use published anthologies and rhetorical readers as required
textbooks will often find that reading selections in such collections are presented
as units, topically linked, and connected to particular genres (e.g., critical and per-
suasive essays, summaries, op-eds, and so on) or specific literacy tasks (e.g., ana-
lytic and critical reading, text analysis, planning for writing, writing from sources,
and so forth) (Hewings, 2010). Examples of themes included in contemporary
mainstream and L2 composition textbooks include affirmative action, educational
policy, environmental controversies, gender issues, globalization, human sexuality
and equality, immigration, language rights, multiculturalism, racism, reproduc-
tive rights, and so forth. Where such textbooks are not part of the curriculum, a
thematic approach may still be used as the basis for syllabus design, with a the-
matic unit revolving around an identifiable topic or context (Keller, 1999; Shrum &
Glisan, 2010; Smagorinsky, 2008). As with writing assignments, reading assign-
ments should be allotted generous time. Lengthy reading selections may need to
be divided into smaller parts to enable students to complete them and to provide
for effective treatment in class (Bernhardt, 2010; Grabe & Stoller, 2014; Hirvela,
2004; Nation, 2009; Toledo, 2005). Finally, teachers should lay out their plans so
that they and their students can see the chronology of the entire term, whether in
print or digital form. Before finalizing the course schedule, it is wise to ensure that
adequate time has been allocated for especially labor-intensive literacy tasks (e.g.,
extended reading selections, multistage writing assignments, research projects).
Because it is so easy to underestimate the time required to get things done in and
outside of class, we urge readers to adopt a ruthlessly realistic approach to dedi-
cating time to teaching and learning activities. In fact, we have at times advised
apprentice teachers to write their course and lesson outlines, assign a reasonable
time frame for each activity or assignment, and then go back and double the time
designated for each step. For multi-draft assignments, teachers should track the
sequence they have sketched to allow enough time for multiple iterations of draft-
ing, feedback, revision, and editing (Kessler et al., 2012; Kroll, 2001; National Writ-
ing Project, 2010).
Lesson Planning: Practices and Procedures

Our discussion now turns to the day-to-day demands of planning and delivering
lessons, a process that may make the greatest contribution to the development
of students’ literacy knowledge and skill. Somewhat paradoxically, principles and
techniques for lesson planning tend to be neglected, if not entirely overlooked,
in composition studies. Before we introduce these principles and techniques, we
should consider Smagorinsky’s (2008) commonsense observations about the basic
value of careful planning: “It’s important to design good individual lessons that
are related to the unit goals. It’s also important for the lessons to be interrelated
and to build cogently toward the unit goals” (p. 184).
Identifying Lesson Objectives

In the same way that the instructional objectives specified in a syllabus identify the
knowledge and skills that students will display at the end of a course, effective les-
son objectives describe the observable behaviors that students will demonstrate at
the end of a class period, lesson sequence, or unit (Glanz, 2009; Purgason, 2014;
Shrum & Glisan, 2010). If instructional objectives are clearly specified in the sylla-
bus, identifying lesson objectives should be an easy task when it comes to planning
individual class periods, whether physical or virtual. Lesson objectives should ema-
nate directly from instructional objectives and at least indirectly from program or
course goals. Consider, for example, this performative aim from the CCR Anchor
Standards for Writing presented earlier in this chapter: “Write narratives to develop
real or imagined experiences or events using effective technique, well-chosen de-
tails, and well-structured event sequences” (Common Core State Standards Initia-
tive, 2010, p. 41). A corresponding performance objective for a lesson derived from
this course or curricular aim might read “Plan and compose the opening passage of
a first- or third-person narrative.” The following multistage, collaborative writing
assignment might embed this intermediate or enabling objective:
Draft the opening passage of a story about one of the three photos
posted on the blog available on our course website. Write two to three
paragraphs (250 to 400 words or so) describing the image and the set-
ting for your story. Your blog post might even begin part of the story. Your
classmates will read and comment on your entry; each writing group
will then select one opening passage and collaborate on constructing a
short story based on that opening passage. Envision as your audience
both the other members of your writing group and the entire class.
The anticipated outcome is described in terms of an observable, measurable

student performance as well as a written product that students can work with and
that can ultimately be published, shared, and assessed. The objective statement is
also worded with action verbs such as “compose” and “describe” (as opposed to
verbs such as “learn” or “understand,” which are difficult to observe and even more
difficult to appraise) (Shrum & Glisan, 2010).
Many experienced and skilled teachers plan and execute productive lessons with-
out writing out their objectives in detail, but effective teachers do have a clear pur-
pose in mind when they select classroom tasks and organize them into coherent
lessons. As Glanz (2009) emphasized, this purpose or aim “will be the backbone of
the lesson. All activities should point toward the achievement of that aim” (p. 85).
It is advisable for both novice and experienced teachers to identify lesson objectives
routinely in their planning (Brown, 2007; Glenn et al., 2007; Graves, 2000; Smagor-
insky, 2008). Explicit, measurable objectives help teachers to unify the components
of their lessons, allowing them to determine what students already know and can
already do. Effective planners then decide how to engage students in tasks that lead
to intermediate and terminal objectives, visualizing lessons “as clusters or sequences
of activity” and blending content with activity (Shrum & Glisan, 2010, p. 98). Think-
ing carefully about how to lead students from their current level of skill toward es-
tablished standards also enables teachers to make their aims explicit and transparent
to students, who can then understand the purposes underlying classroom activities
and assignments, as well as how these activities lead to achieving course goals.
Sequencing and Organizing a Lesson Plan

A lesson plan can take many forms, depending on the time constraints and per-
sonal style of the individual teacher. Regardless of what it looks like, a lesson plan
should provide the teacher with a sequential outline for presenting materials,
delivering information, interacting with students, and leading students through
structured and unstructured activities. Much more than a mere step-by-step chro-
nology of classroom events, however, a lesson plan is a practical, tangible, and
potentially dynamic tool for meeting student needs as operationalized in course
objectives. It serves as a vital link between curricular goals and the learning that
we wish to bring about among our students (Brown, 2007; Cruickshank, Jenkins, &
Metcalf, 2011; Glanz, 2009; Purgason, 2014). In this sense, the lesson is where the
known (instructional objectives, texts, and so on) meets the unknown (the novice
writers in our writing courses). At the same time, the aim of systematic lesson
planning “is not to write a script, but to try to anticipate how classes will go from
day to day” (Smagorinsky, 2008, p. 184).
Hillocks (1995) pointed out that mapping out instruction is initially an explor-
atory endeavor, as we need time to get acquainted with our students: “We cannot
begin planning, except with general outlines, until we know what students do as
writers” (p. 132). Because we cannot possibly anticipate every aspect of what hap-
pens in our classrooms, we can think of lessons as opportunities for experimenta-
tion. Not all lessons or activities will succeed. We can be prepared for this outcome,
however, by expecting the unexpected (e.g., a technology failure, a large number of
absences, finishing early, running late, and so on). It makes sense to build contin-
gency plans into a lesson outline. We can also improve our teaching effectiveness by
reflecting on what works well and what does not work so successfully with the stu-
dents in our own classes (Bailey, Curtis, & Nunan, 2001; Cruickshank et al., 2011;
Falk, 2012; Glanz, 2009; Murphy, 2014; Richards & Farrell, 2005). Hillocks (1995)
offered sound planning advice in noting that “the thoughtful teacher, in searching for
ways to help students learn more effectively, will plan real trials (what researchers call
quasi-experiments), determine what effect they have, even as the trial goes forward,
and consider new options as a result” (p. 125). Most teachers, even those seasoned and
self-assured enough to conduct entire lessons with no written notes, are aware of the
benefits of advance planning, which can lead to a willingness to abandon their plans
when necessary (Smagorinsky, 2008). A prepared lesson plan, whether a general list of
activities or a meticulously detailed sequence of procedures, facilitates processes such
as post-lesson evaluation, problem diagnosis, and skills enhancement.
The Mechanics of Lesson Planning

In purely mechanical terms, a lesson plan can take any number of forms: Some
teachers write their lesson outlines by hand; others may word process and print
them, whereas still others may prepare them in digital form for use on laptops
and tablets in the classroom. Teachers working in wired environments can prepare
their class plans using interactive software such as PowerPoint, Keynote, or Prezi,
enabling them to project outlines and materials onto a screen or array of monitors
(Christel & Sullivan, 2010). In contrast, a low-tech lesson plan can easily be printed
out on notecards. For some teachers, it is enough to write out lesson notes before
class to put the content and sequencing into their heads; in this way, they don’t
need a written plan during the lesson. Whatever form a lesson plan takes, it should
be readable, convenient to refer to in class when needed, and usable as a future
record of what took place. Rather than proposing a rigid or prescriptive model for
planning L2 literacy instruction, we would like to offer a few general guidelines for
ensuring efficient planning and effective delivery. We believe that successful lessons:
j Involve learners in worthwhile, authentic literacy tasks and activities;

j Reflect variety in terms of types of activity and modality;
j Demonstrate differentiation or individualization to accommodate
divergent learning styles and expectations;
j Exhibit careful and appropriate pacing;
j Exhibit smooth transitions;
j Include phases with medial and final summaries;
j Include opportunities to monitor student engagement and learning; and
j Conclude with work that will facilitate natural follow-up in subsequent
lessons.
(Sources: Cruickshank et al., 2011; Glanz, 2009; Purgason, 2014; Schellekens, 2007)
The checklist in Figure 5.9 includes practical and procedural aspects of the plan-
ning process that methodologists and educators consider essential in constructing
a lesson. Appendix 5.3 contains an example of an authentic lesson plan that aims
to reflect these principles, procedures, and formatting options. Figure 5.9 focuses
principally on logistical elements, whereas Figure 5.10 focuses on pedagogical
moves and instructional procedures.
Although most of the items in Figure 5.9 are self-explanatory, a few are wor-
thy of elaboration. In addition to reviewing the lesson’s objectives, making a note
about the work that students did during the previous class and have done for
homework can give us a realistic feeling for what kinds of reading, writing, discus-
sion, and problem-solving tasks students are ready for next. This review process is
invaluable in managing time effectively. Preparing a list of equipment (e.g., laptop,
flash drive, speakers), materials, page numbers, and so on before class can prevent
the need to spend valuable class time getting organized. Having a prepared check-
list of student work to return and collect can likewise save time, as can dispensing
with announcements efficiently. Some teachers routinely write these on the board
or on a slide for students to read on their own; others prefer to make announce-
ments at the end of class, when they won’t have to be repeated for latecomers. On
i C ourse and Lesson Objectives

\ J Summary Or list of lesson objectives
| Work Previous!/ Completed
\ □ Account of reading, writing, discussion, and feedback completed in previous
j class session
! Materials
j 3 Textbooks and reading selections (print, digital, or both)
j J Instructional materials (e.g , digital resources such as text files and software;
i print resources such as handouts, worksheets, feedback guides, and so on)
\ □ Technological resources (a.g., laptops, tablets, smart phones, projection unit,
I and so forth}
; Class Management
I J Assignments to be given and collected
i j Housekeeping and class business {announcements, reminders, deadlines, and
j so forth)
| Lesson Sequence (see Figure 5.10)
j □ Time allocation tor lasks and activities
j J Variety of activity types (reading, drafting discussion, collaborative tasks, lecture,
i and so on)
I 3 Transitions between lesson phases and integration of activities
; j Coherence and aotrvily flow
! j Clear, explicit procedures for setting up collaborative and independent tasks
] Contingency Plans
■j Idoas for alternative lasks or activities in ease the lesson ends early or a lesson
\ component has to be abandoned
] P osf-Lesson Reflection and Solf-Evaluation
\ i Observations to keep in mind before planning Ihe next lesson
| □ Notations on successful tasks, procedures, and techniques
: j Comments on tasks, procedures, and techniques to modify
FIGURE 5.9 Lesson plan checklist.

an increasing number of campuses, instructors can also post informational mes-

sages on course websites and electronic bulletin boards.
The core lesson elements in Figure 5.9 refer to techniques for successfully ex-
ecuting the steps outlined in Figure 5.10. The first of these elements is time man-
agement—perhaps the most pervasive challenge for teachers in carrying out their
lesson plans. For this reason, a useful practice is to anticipate the time that each
activity in a lesson will take, adding a few extra minutes to that total or specifying a
range (e.g., 10–15 minutes) rather than an absolute time frame. This strategy gives
teachers a way of estimating what can reasonably be accomplished in a class period
(Glanz, 2009; Purgason, 2014). A general rule is that open-ended activities such as
unstructured discussions of texts, collaborative tasks, peer response workshops,
and student conferences frequently take much longer than teachers predict, partly
L e sso n P hase T e a c h e r A c tio n s S tu d e n t A c tio n s

1. A c tiv a tio n o f P rio r - Hetps students recall w hat tfiey *■ Repod on prior learning
L e a rn in g have learned ar practiced in
previous tesson(s)
» Auks studenls to deriwnstralje * Demonstrate new knowledge iiru
new knowledge and skiJIs skills tfirough recall and practice
2. Preview/Warm-up » Previews new tesson, connects • Respond to preview
new material lo prior learning
* Checks students' understanding
» Captures studenls' intcfesl and * Respond tc leader's prompts
simulates anticipation of lesson
content and Lyuks
3. L a s s o n C o re : * P re se n ts n e w m aterial, w ritin g » R esp o n d tD te a c h e r's
in s tr u c tio n , task, or actMly presentation (e.g., by taking
P ro c e d u re s , * M a y co nve y lesso n aim s nates, askin g q u e s tio n s )
Participation ■ Models task Dr activity, guiding * Observe modeli ng, ask questwnE
studenls lo engage wiin new
concepts and practice relevant
s tills * U n d e rta k e (tie ta s k Or activity
* Instructs students Ed complete individually or in groups
task or activity Individually or In
groups - Complete the task or activity
* Provides opportunities for independently
students lo practice using ne>v * Elicit teacher's assistance to
Knowledge and skins complete me task, as needed
independently
* Encourages student involvement,
participation, and interaction
- Checks students' understanding
of material and concepts at hand
A. Closure « Prom pts students to reflecJ Dn * Discuss Dr describe what they
what they have practiced and have teamed or practiced
learned
» Links new learning to prior and *■ Discuss relationship of new
future learning learning to prior and future
leading
5. Follow-up and * Presents additional tasks or * Complete additional tasks Of
Preparation for activities to practice same activities
Nest Lesson concepts
* Prepares for future tasks and • Take nde to prepare forfurftier
learning objectives teaming
FIGURE 5.10 Conceptual framework for lesson sequencing.

because of the numerous unexpected—yet often productive—questions that can

emerge and partly because managing such activities requires added time. The
same can often be said of untested classroom tasks.
Related to the issue of time management is the principle that lessons should in-
volve variety in terms of task type and interactional styles (Glanz, 2009; Glenn et al.,
2007; Purgason, 2014; Shrum & Glisan, 2010). In an L2 composition course, it is
entirely appropriate for a significant amount of class time to be dedicated to the
practice of writing, to the discussion of writing processes, and to effective text con-
struction strategies. The classroom should serve not only as a workshop environ-
ment in which students produce and experiment with writing, but also as a setting
for meaningful, socioliterate activity that draws on teacher expertise and peer in-
teraction (Kroll, 2001; Smagorinsky, 2008; Smagorinsky et al., 2010; Weigle, 2014).
Similarly, because many composition courses are not only writing courses but
also reading courses (see Chapter 4), it is reasonable to dedicate a substantial por-
tion of class time to responding to, analyzing, discussing, and writing about the
required texts and genres featured in the syllabus (Hirvela, 2004; Hyland, 2004a;
Johns, 1997, 2003; Williams, 2003). Class meetings should likewise reflect a careful
balance between teacher talk and student talk, small group activities, class discus-
sion, and lecture (Schellekens, 2007). Classroom activities should also be linked
explicitly to one another and to the instructional objectives so that students can
see that lessons are internally coherent and connected to both institutional goals
and their own literacy goals (Glanz, 2009; Hyland, 2004a). Of course, implement-
ing transitions to link lesson components and establish coherence requires skill,
but transitions are a crucial part of the teaching process. Making explicit links is
easier when classroom tasks have a discernible purpose and are introduced with
transparent, easy-to-understand directions and procedures (see Chapter 4).
Whenever practical, lesson plans should involve careful thought about how
classroom activities will be set into motion by the teacher and students. It is also
sometimes necessary to have a contingency plan at the ready if the lesson con-
cludes earlier than planned (Cruickshank et al., 2011; Glanz, 2009; Smagorinsky,
2008). This alternate task or activity does not necessarily require elaborate ad-
vance preparation. Indeed, an alternate task could involve something as simple as
inviting students to freewrite on an aspect of a recent reading assignment, update
a course blog or wiki, or begin the next reading assignment. The point here is that,
even though these are straightforward solutions to the problem of underplanning,
they may not seem so straightforward when we reach the end of a class period with
10 or 15 minutes to spare. When armed with a practical contingency plan, teach-
ers can implement it seamlessly while engaging student writers in a valuable and
productive literacy task that accomplishes much more than filling an unexpected
time gap.
Post-lesson reflection should not be seen as an addendum. On the contrary,
we should view postinstructional evaluation as an integral part of meeting course
objectives and of promoting our own professional development (Bailey et al.,
2001; Murphy, 2014). Teachers can take simple yet productive steps to evaluate
a lesson outline at the end of a class session. For example, an instructor might de-
cide whether to repeat the same procedures if given a chance to reteach the lesson
or make changes. As Glanz (2009) advised, “it is always wise to evaluate a lesson
plan. . . . It’s especially important if the lesson fell short of your expectations the
first time around” (p. 94). In addition to recording a lesson’s successes and failures,
we might note how long each activity took. Many teachers use their post-lesson
observations and assessment as starting points for planning the next class period.
This cyclical practice provides the teacher and his or her students with a sense of
continuity from one meeting to the next, facilitating the process of tracking the
class’s progress through the syllabus. We recommend maintaining a “Notes for
Next Time” file for keeping track of macro-level observations (e.g., “Assignment 2
was too rushed”) and micro-level reminders (e.g., “Replace narrative reading as-
signment,” “Peer response session ran too long”).
We now turn to the central pedagogical task of lesson planning: laying out the
procedures involved in teaching a group of students in a meaningful literacy event
such as writing and providing them with substantive writing practice in the course
of a class period. The framework in Figure 5.10 presents a general outline for a
lesson sequence (i.e., that part of the class period focused not on classroom man-
agement but on teaching, learning, interaction, and literate activity—including
the production of written discourse). After whatever preliminary business pre-
cedes the actual lesson (see Figure 5.9 and the explanation that follows it), the
sequence ideally begins with a procedure in which students recall what they have
learned or practiced previously. This phase does not necessarily require an elabo-
rate, comprehensive review; it might involve a five-minute task in which students
write a quick summary of the preceding day’s discussion of a reading selection,
compose a three-sentence reaction to the instructor’s feedback on their last writ-
ing assignment, or complete a simple quiz on the text to be discussed in groups
that day. These straightforward techniques should reactivate students’ knowledge
and awareness to facilitate the introduction of new knowledge and to promote the
practice of new skills.
The preview phase is sometimes indistinguishable from the activation phase,
although previewing tends to direct students’ attention to what lies ahead. During
the preview, the teacher might briefly reveal his or her objectives before getting
into the heart of the lesson, although stating aims is not always necessary and may
sometimes be undesirable. The instructor should have identified achievable aims
for a lesson, but it is often preferable not to announce these aims, leading students
through an inductive sequence in which they explore texts, observe patterns, and
formulate inferences about text structure, composing strategies, and written lan-
guage on their own initiative (Brinton, 2014; Larsen-Freeman, 2003; Nassaji &
Fotos, 2011; Purgason, 2014). Glanz (2009) further recommended letting students
“derive the aim, rather than having the teacher state it at the outset” in order to
encourage them to “identify with the lesson and make it their own” (p. 85).
As the lesson gets underway, activities that might follow the summary task de-
scribed above would include a read-aloud of students’ summaries in small groups
or a discussion of the next writing assignment’s literacy goals. A follow-up to stu-

dents’ three-sentence responses to comments on their draft texts might serve as an
introduction to strategies for incorporating teacher feedback into a revised assign-
ment; a review of reading quiz answers would be a good way to use that exercise to
initiate a more detailed analysis of a text. Depending on students’ understanding
of the material, this portion of the lesson could last from five to fifteen minutes be-
fore giving way to the lesson core, where new material is to be introduced and new
skills are to be practiced. In the case of the discussion summaries and subsequent
read-aloud activity, the teacher might initiate students on a writing assignment
draft focused on the text that sparked the original discussion. One option would
entail brainstorming writing topics; another would involve instructing students to
begin writing based on a choice of focused prompts or initiating a collaborative
web search. To use students’ three-sentence reactions to essay feedback and the
subsequent introduction to incorporation strategies, the teacher might instruct
the class to begin working on revised drafts. Meanwhile, the teacher could discuss
revision plans with students in mini-conferences. Following a correction of the
reading quiz and a discussion of the solutions, the teacher might scaffold a class
or group activity in which students perform a detailed analysis of the text. In all
of these hypothetical situations, students become actively involved in tasks that
require them not only to recycle familiar knowledge, but also to practice new skills
and acquire new knowledge (Glenn et al., 2007; Hirvela, 2004; Hyland, 2004a;
Smagorinsky, 2008; also see Chapter 4).
Like the activation and preview segments, the closure phase may require very
little time. Closure is nonetheless an important process leading naturally and logi-
cally to the follow-up. In each case, closure might involve prompting students to
identify what they have practiced and why, and clarifying for them the purposes
that their work will serve. For the students who began composing initial assign-
ment drafts in class, a natural extension of this task would be to complete the
drafts and elicit peer responses to them at the next class meeting. Students who
were given instruction on incorporating feedback and who conferenced with the
instructor might be asked to complete their revisions and reflect on the value of
the feedback process. In the case of the students who practiced with text analysis,
the teacher might assign a brief, structured written analysis for the next class (see
Chapter 4). Alternatively, the teacher might ask writers to apply the same analytic
techniques to a different but related text in preparation for a class discussion. In all
of these scenarios, the conclusion of each lesson requires the application of previ-
ously introduced skills and knowledge, and the laying of groundwork for future
learning (Glanz, 2009; Smagorinsky, 2008).
At this juncture, it is worth reiterating several related points made earlier in this
chapter. The first is that, as with designing course outlines and unit plans, con-
structing lesson plans and putting them into action requires flexibility if the teacher
is to achieve instructional aims, satisfy student needs, and avoid persistent frus-
tration. The second point concerns the planning framework described in the pre-
ceding section, schematized in Figures 5.9 and 5.10, and exemplified in Appendix
5.3: The lesson design scheme we have sketched is intended to provide a general
heuristic for developing lessons and making them successful—it should not be ap-
plied zealously or rigidly. We nonetheless firmly believe that structure is necessary
in planning and teaching writing courses and that structure should be adjusted to
accommodate learners’ needs and the unexpected events that are inevitable in any
classroom. To paraphrase Hillocks’s (1995) notion of lesson planning, the most ef-
fective teacher of writing is the one who designs lessons as “trials,” expects lessons
to produce unanticipated results, and applies those results in subsequent teaching.
It is through this process that we discover “new options” (p. 125).
Chapter Summary
Course design and implementation constitute complex tasks for many composition
teachers. To make these tasks more manageable, this chapter has explored principles
and procedures for constructing syllabi, course outlines, unit plans, and lessons as
a direct function of identifiable student and institutional needs. We present the fol-
lowing summary statements as a general synthesis of the principles we have covered:
j A clear understanding of learners’ backgrounds, needs, expectations,

styles, and strategies, as well as institutional requirements (as identified
in systematic and ongoing needs analysis), is crucial to the formulation
of achievable course goals and instructional objectives.
j The most effective syllabi, course outlines, and lesson plans are those
that accommodate multiple, recursive writing processes by allowing
adequate time for reading and exploring genres, composing and revis-
ing drafts, giving and using feedback, and encountering new content.
j Maintaining a clear sense of instructional objectives in constructing
daily lesson plans enables the teacher to effect coherent instruction by
connecting tasks within lessons and by linking each lesson to past and
future lessons.
j Flexibility is essential in all aspects of instructional planning.

j Curriculum design in general education and composition: Connelly, He, and
Phillion (2008); Luke, Woods, and Weir (2012); NCTE (2008); Smagorinsky
(2008); Stern and Kysilka (2008); Tanner and Tanner (2007); Walker (2003)
j Needs assessment processes and tools: Brindley (1984); Brown (1995, 1997,
2001, 2011); Brown and Rodgers (2002); Dörnyei and Taguchi (2009); Dudley-
Evans and St. John (1998); Graves (2000); Jordan (1997); Long (2005b); Molle
and Prior (2008); Nation and Macalister (2010); Richards (2001)
j Curriculum, syllabus, unit, and materials design: Brett and González-Lloret

(2011); Brown, J. D. (1995, 2012); Bruce (2005); Gottlieb et al. (2008); Graves
(2000); Harwood (2010); Jordan (2012); Markee (1997); Nation and Macali-
ster (2010); Pennington and Burton (2011); Richards (2001); Robinson
(2011); Smagorinsky (2008); Smagorinsky et al. (2010); Tomlinson (2010);
Warnock (2009); Waters (2011); Wilbur (2010)
j Lesson planning and instructional practice: Brinton (2014); Brown (2007);
Celce-Murcia, Brinton, & Snow (2014); Christel and Sullivan (2010); Cruick-
shank et al. (2011); Glenn et al. (2007); Glanz (2009); Kirby, Kirby, and Liner
(2004); Pennington and Burton (2011); Purgason (2014); Roen et al. (2002);
Schellekens (2007); Shrum and Glisan (2010); Wyse, Andrews, and Hoffman
(2010)
j Standards, writing curricula, and instructional design: ACTFL (2012); Calkins
et al. (2012); Common Core State Standards Initiative (2010); Joint Task Force
on Assessment of the IRA and NCTE (2009); National Writing Project (2006,
2010); Vause and Amberg (2013)
ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines: http://actflproficiencyguidelines2012.org
Common Core State Standards Initiative: http://www.corestandards.org
Council of Writing Program Administrators: http://wpacouncil.org; http://
wpacouncil.org/positions/outcomes.html; http://wpacouncil.org/framework
National Assessment of Educational Progress (U.S. Department of Education):
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard
National Council of Teachers of English, Standards for the Assessment of
Reading and Writing: http://www.ncte.org/standards/assessmentstandards
National TESOL Standards: http://www2.gisd.k12.nm.us/standards/esl/index
.html
National Writing Project: http://www.nwp.org

1. In what ways can student background variables (e.g., primary languages,
prior education, educational and career goals, immigration status, motiva-
tional profile, and so forth) affect their potential performance in ESL and
non-ESL literacy courses? How can a systematic characterization of students’
backgrounds inform writing instruction?
2. Identify the distinctions among necessities, lacks, and wants in needs assess-
ment. Why are the differences important?
3. Describe the roles played by goals and objectives in the planning of syllabi,
course outlines, and lesson plans. Identify the advantages of linking goals and
objectives to course content and classroom tasks.
4. In what ways can a syllabus, course outline, or unit plan assist the teacher in
planning literacy instruction and writing practice? How can these tools assist
students in their literacy skill development?
5. What are the principal components of a writing lesson?
6. Explain specific methods for operationalizing reading, prewriting, compos-
ing, feedback, and revision tasks into a syllabus or lesson plan.
L2 Writer Profile
Using Figures 5.1–5.3 and Appendix 5.1 as starting points, devise a questionnaire
that you could administer to a prospective group of writers at an institution with
which you are familiar. Add or modify items that pertain to the population and
institution (see Chapter 2). Your purpose is to develop an instrument to use and
adapt in your own classroom teaching and action research. Solicit feedback on
your survey from your instructor, colleagues, classmates, and administrators. Fol-
lowing your revisions, administer the questionnaire to a class that includes L2
writers, compile the frequency data, and compose a profile of the sample. In your
report, suggest an instructional approach that would be appropriate and effective
for that group of writers.

Syllabus Assessment
Using the syllabus development checklist in Figure 5.4, compare the sample syl-
labus in Appendix 5.2 with a syllabus and course outline for a writing course at
a local school or college. Based on the criteria outlined in this chapter (including
Figures 5.6–5.8), prepare a written or oral assessment of the strengths and weak-
nesses of the sample syllabi in light of what you know about the institution, the
curriculum, and the learner population. In addition to the checklists, the follow-
ing questions may help to scaffold your comparative analysis:
1. What are the stated course goals and instructional objectives?

2. How well do course content and organization coincide with goals and objectives?
3. If you were to teach one of the courses, what changes would you make to the
syllabus? Why?

Assessing Lesson Plans
Compare the lesson planning tools presented in Figures 5.9 and 5.10 to the sam-
ple lesson plan in Appendix 5.3. Alternatively, compare these to one of your own
lesson plans, or to a lesson outline prepared by a colleague for an actual literacy
course. Based on the criteria presented in this chapter, assess the strengths and
weaknesses of the lesson plan in light of what you know about the course and
the students. To what extent does the lesson plan address instructional objectives?
What changes would you make to the lesson plan, and why?

Working With Lesson Plans
1. Referring to the lesson plan formats suggested in Figures 5.9 and 5.10 and
exemplified in Appendix 5.3, outline a simple lesson for a literacy course in
which you have conducted observations or worked as a practice teacher or tu-
tor. Alternatively, prepare a lesson outline for one of the following hypotheti-
cal situations:
a. An introductory session for a novice-level L2 literacy course in a second-
ary setting on writing brief (250 to 300 word) blog posts responding to a
literary text
b. An advanced-level IEP course on summarizing and paraphrasing sources
(e.g., textbook chapters, scholarly articles, web pages, and so forth) in
bibliographic essays (see Chapter 4 and Figure 5.6)
c. A community college remedial literacy course requiring students to para-
phrase and quote from academic sources (see Chapter 4)
d. A university composition course serving L1 and L2 writers who need help
supporting arguments with evidence in persuasive genres (see Chapter 4).
2. After writing (and, if possible, teaching) a lesson using the suggested format,
explain the revisions that you would make to the structure. What changes in
the format would make the plan easier to use?
Appendix 5.1
Writing Skills, Styles, and Preferences Questionnaire
Advanced Academic Writing for Multilingual Writers
A. S tude nt b a ckg ro u n d in fo rm a tio n .

Name:
f& Z z . / Home country:
4/ J Home lanûage(s):
B. C la ssro o m w o rk styles.
DJ RECTI ON S: This portion of the survey will help your instructor understand tht
ways in which you prefer to complete class assignments. Think about your mos
recent experiences in college or university courses. For each statement, check the
numeric value that best descnbes your habits and preferences. Please be honest
Candid responses will give your instructor valuable information.
1 * Strongly agree 3 - Somewhat agree 5 = Disagree
2 = Agree 4 = Somewhat disagree 6 = Strongly disagree
1 5 3 4 5 6
t. In my home country, I had many opportunities to
work wilti fellow classmates on projects and
assignments
2. Outside my home country, ! have had
opportunities (o work with fellow classmates or>
projects and assignments.
3. Fn general, Fenjoy working with other students in
planning and completing academic assignments.
4- When l wort with a partner or a small group, I
usually produce better work than I do when
working alone.
5. When I work with a partner ora small group, I
often learn new things from others.
6. Iam comfortable working wrth partners who are
also nonnative speakers of English.
7 Iprefer working with a partner or with a group
when the teacher assigns specific rotes to group
members.
a. Ihope we will do a lot of pair and group work In
this course.
9. When I work with a partner or small group, I prefer
to work face-lo*face, rather than collaborating
online (e.g., via e-mail, chat, blog, wiki, etc.).
10. Iam comfortable sharing my writing online in
blogs and wikis
academic wriler In m academic wriler In m

DIRECTIONS: This porUon of the survey Is designed to help you and your instructor
understand how you prefer to plan and com plete writing assignm ents in English,
Think about your most recent experiences in classes where you wrote academic
papers. For each sJatement, check the numeric value that best describes your habits
academic wriler In m
11= Strongly agree 3 = Somewhat agree 5 = Disagree
2 = Agree 4 = Samewhai disagree 6 = Strongly disagree
1 I think I am a successful academic wriler In my

1 academic wriler In m
2. I think I am a Successful writer OF academic
2. academic
I think I amwriler In m
a Successful writer OF academic
3. In my writing assignments, I effectively use source
material
3. In (e.g.,assignments,
my writing print and digital! boolts. articles.
I effectively use source
academicacademic
wriler Inwriler
m In m
4 Oro of my strengths as a writer of Er^ltsh *
4 academic
academic
wriler wriler
In m In m
5 I am skilled at organizing ideas and expressing
5 academic
academic
wriler
wriler
In mIn m
6- I have learned how to write academic texts mostly
6- academic wrilerhow
I have learned In mto write academic texts mostly
7. When I work on an assignment, Jwork almost
8 I use good word-processing and Internet skills
8 I use good word-processing and Internet skills
9 I rearrange my *deas a lot when i plan a writing
10. When I revise a paper or d r a li I often make a lot
10. When I revise a paper or d r a li I often make a lot
11. As I revise an assignment, I like to add new
11. As I revise an assignment, I like to add new
12 When I plan, write, and revise an assignment I
think carefully
12 When aboutand
I plan, write, what my reader
revise expects from
an assignment I
academic
13. Before wrileranInassignment.
i revise m I ask someone to
13. Before i revise an assignment. I ask someone to
14. M y academic assignments usually open with a
14. academic wriler academic
In m wriler In m
15. In my academic assignments, I try to include
examples
15. In and sources
my academic 1o support
assignments, I trymy points.
to include
16 - I try to connect paragraphs to my mam ideas or
16 - I try to connect paragraphs to my mam ideas or
17 When H um In assignments. Iheyconlaen tew
17 When H um In assignments. Iheyconlaen tew
IB My assignments si-iow that I have a slrong
IB My assignments si-iow that I have a slrong
19. My assignments usually contain minor spelling
19. My assignments usually contain minor spelling
20. I am confident about using references, quotations,
20. I am confident about using references, quotations,
21 I know hew to organize and format a bibliography
21 I know hew to organize and format a bibliography
22. I learn a lot from ihe comments and corrections
22. that my instructors write on my assignments.
23. I enjoy sharing my writing with other students and
23. I enjoy sharing my writing with other students and
24. After getting instructor Feedback on my writing. I
leam getting
24. After things thal I can apply
instructor 1o future
Feedback on mywriting Vaska.
writing. I
25. I prefer to interact with my instructor and get
feedback cHgUaiy, rather than on paper
25. I prefer to interact with my instructor and get or In
1. My greatest strengths as
DIRECTIONS: Please complete the statements below with at least three points. Be
1. My greatest strengths as
1. My greatest strengths as a writer o f English include:
186
186
186
2. Aspects of my writing that I would like most to improve in this course include:
186
186
186
3. The things Lhat will help m e to improve m ost as a w rile r o f English include:
186
186
186
1. Mystrengths
1. My greatest greatest as
strengths as
Appendix 5.2
Sample Syllabus and Course Outline
ENGLISH 2210 — Writing for Academic and

Professional Purposes
Syllabus and Course
C ourse Outline
Fall Semester 2015 Metropolitan College

ENGL 2210, Section F—4 semester units i Dr. A, 1-ang, Instructor
Class M K tirg s : M W F 9 0 0 - i 0 20 [ O ffire H w irs: M W F 12:36^1:56
’ Cjassmmri: CH ^ JclV 5 ^ 9 2 2 8
O fficc: DCS 442 :_______e-m ail: alanj’f e mc.cdu
Course Description and Goals

ENGL 2210 is an academic and professional literacy course for nonnative speakers
of English who have placed at intermediate level or higher on the College Lan-
guage and Critical Skills Test or who have completed ENGL 2205. Literacy goals
for ENGL 2210 encompass cultivating core print and digital literacies necessary
for success in university-level courses and the workplace, with a particular fo-
cus on reading, thinking, research, and writing skills. By successfully completing
ENGL 2210, you should be able to:
■ Use top-down, bn(iom-up, and interactive reading, strategics selectively in encounters

Mi w ith diverse prim and d igita l genres
T3 ■ Comprehend, analyze, and interpret other people’ s w ritin g hy reading llu c n tly and
(C
0* accurately
a£
* [nterrcM'ate and critique text content, rhetorical structure, and authors’ jjurposcs
Mi * Demonstrate genre and audience awareness by understanding w ritin g tasks,
T3 investigating reader expectations, and id c n tily in g w riters' purposes
■i(C
0* P * Gather valid, reliable, and usefuli inlbrm alion fa t w ritin g by conducting systematic
a£ research o f prin t and online sources and bv usine. effective web navigation skills
* Summarize, paraphrase, and quote effectively fro m prin t and online soun.es
* Demonstrate efficie nt idea generation, rhetorical planning, drafting, revision* and
editing strategies fur producing diverse academic, professional, arwl popular genres
* Reproduce academic, professional, and popular print and digital genres (e.g., high-
Mi
sir register forms such as n o nfiction narrative,. inform ational texts* analytical and
T3 persuasive tests: inform al text types such as blog enlrics. videos* etc.)
(C
0* + Demonslrate fluent, creative self-expression via print and digital media while
a£
avoiding plagiarism
* S olicit, produce, and use peer feedback on w ritin g (e.g.. by providing thoughtful oral
and digital commentary un peers’ drafts and using peer feedback e ffectively in the
revision process)
* LV iduate^pur skjj] as a reader w riter. m d user o f prim and djj£itulatexts.
Students will practice and refine these skills by completing reading selections, dis-
cussing their interpretations in class and online, posting and responding to com-
ments on our course blog, sharing their work with peers (in person and online),
and producing formal and informal writing assignments featuring functions such
as description, narration, exposition, summary, analysis, and comparison.
The Composing Process

Becoming a skilled, efficient writer requires more than merely completing assign-
ments and turning them in on time, although these goals are essential. Writing
about a topic or issue is an excellent way to measure our reading and sharpen our
thinking skills. By writing and thinking about our writing, we discover new ideas,
as well. When we write for a genuine audience, we also broaden our perspectives
and learn language conventions that make our ideas comprehensible to others. You
should view ENGL 2210 as an opportunity not only to improve the quality of your
writing, but also to strengthen the reading and thinking skills that will help you
succeed academically and professionally. Keep in mind that writing is not always a
tidy, linear process for all writers. Sometimes, a successful piece of writing such as
an application essay or research paper doesn’t start out with an outline or follow
a clear sequence of development. Unlike the process of building a house, writing
sometimes requires us to take apart what we’ve started and build an entirely new
structure. In fact, not all writing has to end up in a nice, clean, grammatically ac-
curate package: Some writing tasks can be very messy but very useful for the writer
him- or herself. For most of us, writing for an audience is an ongoing process
that requires a lot of rethinking and revision. Writing also forces us to struggle
with language, an activity that challenges nonnative and native speakers of English
alike. As a result, we may sometimes need the help of others (e.g., a classmate,
an instructor, a tutor, or a friend) who can respond to our work and offer a new
perspective. And even though we may think of writing as a solitary activity, we
can often make our writing more meaningful when we share it with somebody
else, as we do when writing an assignment for school or work, sending a text or
email message, or even updating our Facebook walls. We can also learn about the
strengths and weaknesses of our own written expression by reading what our peers
write. Because so much writing is public, I would like to encourage you to use our
class activities and assignments as means of becoming better readers and writers.
Much of our time in this course will therefore focus on reading texts, discussing
and writing about them, and working with your classmates’ drafts.
Required Course Materials and Resources

For this course, you will need the following materials and tools:
j Carr, N. (2010). The shallows: What the Internet is doing to our brains. New
York, NY: Norton. [Paper or e-book]
j Greene, S., & Lidinsky, A. (2012). From inquiry to academic writing: A text and
reader. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s. [Paper or e-book]
j Regular access to the Purdue Online Writing Lab (OWL): http://owl.english.
purdue.edu/owl.
j An active MCIntranet account for access to the Web, our Moodle course
(including blogs and wikis), and the library’s online catalogue and data-
bases
j An advanced word-processing application such as Pages or Microsoft Word
(If you do not have a recent version of MS Office, consider downloading Open
Office software, http://www.openoffice.org)
j A tablet (e.g., an iPad, Surface, or KindleFire) or a laptop computer, which you
should bring to class for easy access to reading selections, our Moodle course,
and other Internet resources. Also highly recommended are apps for annotat-
ing .pdf files, organizing research materials, storing documents in the Cloud,
and so on: AudioNote; Bump; Documents to Go; Dropbox; EverNote; OnLive
Desktop; Penultimate; QuickOffice
j A flash drive for file back up
j A student ID card with a library bar code
j Notebook paper and pencil or pen (Bring to class every day.)
College Writing Center

Because writing is a complex skill that requires time, practice, and multiple types
of guidance, the College Writing Center (CWC) provides assistance with reading,
writing, and technology skills to all students, free of charge. Drop-in hours are
available throughout the week (8:00am to 9:00pm) and on Saturdays (10:00am to
3:00pm); you are encouraged to arrange 30– or 45-minute appointments on the

CWC website (http://www.mc.edu/writingcenter).
Requirements and Student Responsibilities

From the Student Handbook (http://www.mc.edu/engcomm/studenthandbook):
1. Attendance is mandatory. Except for excused absences, students will attend all
class sessions (real and virtual). An excess of three hours of unexcused absence
will result in automatic exclusion from the course. Two late arrivals count as a
one-hour absence.
2. Late work is acceptable only under extenuating circumstances (i.e., illness,
personal and family emergencies, and so forth, as defined in the Student
Handbook). If you have trouble submitting your work on Moodle, contact me
via e-mail, attaching your assignment.
3. Participation in class discussion, feedback sessions, and online interactions
(via blog, wiki, or chat) is expected of all students and will be considered in the
course grade. See Participation Guidelines, available on our Moodle course.
4. Word processing is required for all graded writing assignments and for as-
signments included in the ENGL 2210 Portfolio. All ENGL 2210 students
must complete the College Computer Literacy Workshop. (Your registration
card describes this policy.) At the instructor’s discretion, students may submit
draft materials in hard copy form.
Assessment and Grading Policies

Your course grade will be determined on the basis of the following weighted scale:
1. E-Portfolio
a. Self-assessment summary (10%)
b. Your choice of three revised writing assignments (40%) 70%
c. One timed writing of your choice (10%)
d. Two written peer responses (10%)
2. Selected weekly blog posts and comments, peer response tasks not 20%
included in your E-Portfolio, and class participation
3. Reading and grammar quizzes 10%
1. E-Portfolio: The Department of English and Communication Studies re-

quires ENGL 2210 students to compile and submit an Electronic Portfolio
(E-Portfolio) for assessment. The ENGL 2210 Portfolio Guidelines explain
options and requirements. Follow the link on our Moodle course to the
Matrix portal, where you will find models.
a) Your self-assessment summary will consist of a thoughtful, 750-word com-
mentary (cover letter) reflecting on your progress over the semester and
your goals for your future academic writing (in particular, ENGL 2215).
You will have a chance to work on your self-assessment in class before

finalizing it. Follow the Self-Assessment link in our Moodle space for sug-
gestions and samples.
b) Revised writing assignments will count for graded credit when you submit
your final version to me. The first two assignments will consist of three
drafts (a first, second, and final version). For each assignment, you will be
given a choice of genres (e.g., a personal writer history, critical or reflec-
tive essay, editorial, book review), topics, and reading selections, along
with guidelines and sample texts. Your initial drafts will be qualitatively
assessed; you will receive a percentage grade only on the final version
(unless you request a provisional grade on early drafts). The quality of
writing assignments will be assessed according to the scoring rubric in
the ENGL 2210 E-Portfolio Guidelines, which we will review in class so
that you can use the criteria to improve your writing. Assignments are
assessed not only for their quality, but also on the basis of the writer’s use
of peer and instructor feedback in revising.
c) Timed writings will be administered three or four times during the se-
mester to give you practice writing essay exams and workplace texts that
involve time constraints. We will practice techniques for writing under
speeded conditions; topics, sources, and criteria will be given in advance
of each timed writing, one of which you may revise.
d) Written peer responses (delivered via Moodle, wiki, or Google Docs) will
be required at least four times during the semester. We will practice and
evaluate peer review techniques periodically, and you will be given in-
structor feedback to help you become an effective peer reader. Follow the
Peer Response link in our Moodle space.
As the ENGL 2210 Portfolio Guidelines explain, you will maintain and present
your E-Portfolio in a folder using Moodle, though you may also use Dropbox.
Your E-Portfolio is an ongoing activity; keep it in good order! If you maintain your
E-Portfolio throughout the semester, assembling and sharing your work at the end
of the semester will be simple.
2. Blog posts will consist of weekly, 400- to 600-word entries. You may post to
your own blog, to a group blog, or to the course blog (all available on our
Moodle course). You will also post at least one 40– to 100-word comment per
week on any of your peers’ blogs or on the course blog. Follow the Blog link
in our Moodle space for some simple guidelines.
3. Reading and grammar quizzes will cover selections from The Shallows and
assigned chapters in From Inquiry to Academic Writing. Unless otherwise an-
nounced, quizzes will be available on Quia.
Details about how student work is assessed are described in the ENGL2210
Assessment Scale (follow the link in our Moodle space). Generally, assignments
are assessed on the basis of how successfully the text:
j satisfies assignment and reader expectations;

j achieves its explicit and implicit purposes;
j reflects the writer’s use of resources and skill in reproducing genre conven-
tions; and
j demonstrates the writer’s control of the stylistic, grammatical, lexical, and
mechanical conventions of Modern English.
Letter grades are assigned on the basis of the following numeric scale:
A = 95-100% B- = £7-90% B-=80-S2% C= 73-76% D+= 67-69% D- = 60-62%

A- =90 <34% B- S3 86% C+ = 77 79% C- = 7fl 72% I) = 63 66% F = 0-60%
Course Outline
The course outline on next page lists readings on the writing process and genres
in From Inquiry to Academic Writing (FIAW) to get us started. We will decide on
reading selections from FIAW as a class before we determine a plan for reading
The Shallows. Therefore, our outline is partly a work in progress. Nevertheless, I
have included topics, tasks, and assignment deadlines to keep us on track with the
course objectives and E-Portfolio requirements for the first five weeks. We will use
the calendar in our Moodle course to map out our plan for the remaining 10 weeks
of the semester. Where topics and assignments are listed, you will be expected to
come to class with the relevant work completed. Keep track of reading and writing
assignments by checking Moodle regularly; Mac users can sync these deadlines
with iCal. Midterm Portfolios will be due at the beginning of Week 8; Final Port-
folios will be due on Monday of Finals Week (Week 16).
FNGI-1SH 2210, Section F

[fee#; Da\ : Toj:it '.t arid ActiI'itics \ .itfigi tmenIs Due
1 : M i introduction to th e w riU nj p r x w *
r G roup te sts: R eading and w ritin g strategies I
■C o u rw introduction :
w Preview Ass gnmenl 1; W riter Autobiography [ Read FI AW Ch. I
>lnquir>': Habits o f itie mind ■
i RcBidLng atmuji l*aejs .
F I R cadbig £ id w ritin g............
tc*ia j 5 * a d Rodriguez (FIA W pp. L W L)
r W riting as conversation j Btog E n tr} ' 1
2: M : Reading like a w riter [ Read R A W Ch. 2
[fc]KK!!!M ............ »...................................................
W [ Practice prewriiiiig lechniques \ Reid Hirsdi and Provenzo (F IA W
l Group practice: Brainstorming and planning \ pp_ 13—40)
j Begin drafth^ Assignment I j Blog entry 2
p \ Draft Assignment I in class j Read sample writer autobiography
■ ; Writine conferences : jon MoodleJ
3j M \ Quiz 1: FIAW Chs. 1-2 j Read W riting as a P artnenhip (on
j The peer review process? Practice j Moodle)
........................ ............ ............ ............ L ..,
j j m . 1 L ............ .1.?*?.
W : Finding and evaluating sources : Read FI A W Ch. 6
; Group a ctivity; Web navigation strategies i Blog m tr y 3
I Introduce and discuss Assignment 2: Rhetorical 5
: analysis nr sjnLfoesis \
p «Group follow-up: Web navigation ■ Review FI AW Ch. 6
:Understanding and draining timed w riting f Assignment liD r a ft 2)
r__ •.assjgAiiKflds^|gfvie^-_ Timed. Wriijn& \ m ........ ................... ........... ..................
4I M : Return Assignment 1 (D raft explore revision j Read F IA W Ch. 3, Rojslacaer and
\ strategies I Primask
| Discussion and exercise: Exploring academic j
I genresând argume-nts_ _
\y ; 'linked W ritin g 1 (45 minutes J ■ Read Deresiewicz(F IA W Ch. 4)

I <irammar and style workshop (topics to be ■ Blog unt n 4
f announced) :
1? j Peer review: Assignment 2 (D raft I ) j Assignment 2 (Draft 1)
. ..L .„ .J..K rp.sal* ............
? l i 3ftr i .J,... ......i * „ ................................................
5 1 M ! Reading, and w riting summaries, paraphrases, : Read FIAW Ch. 7
: ; and quotations ■ Assignment I (Draft 3)
\ Group exercise: Comparing summaries and f
. .. . .
............ :
............ JSHJfSi...
............ .........1...
W \ Q uiz 2: FIA W Chs. 3, fi- 7 j Locate and posi a published editorial
■PlagLonsm: Wrhat is it? How do we avoid it? ■ on u ■ss,'ue
............
. .. „ . . !.SiSlBLfJ?f.l2".?....
F £Exploring, editorial genres [ Read two o f your peers’ published
Group exercise: Analysis o f selected editorials j editorials
« : Assignment 2 (Draft 2 )
Appendix 5.3
Sample Lesson Plan
Background
This introductory writing course for multilingual college freshman writers focuses
on developing print and digital literacies for university-level study and profes-
sional communication. Its chief goals include enhancing students’ reading, re-
search, and writing skills, as well as their genre knowledge. This 90-minute lesson
outline is designed for the second class day of the first week of a new semester.
Lesson Outline
Week 1, Day 2
Work Previously Completed

Students have been introduced to the syllabus and course requirements; they have
completed a six-page reading passage, “Inquiry: Habits of the Mind,” from one of
the required textbooks. The passage describes how the act of writing promotes the
thinking process.
Learning Objectives
Students will be able to:
j Read, understand, and ask questions about a writing task

j Recognize and practice prewriting strategies (listing, webbing, freewriting,
and classification)
j Participate productively with peers during assigned collaborative activities
Materials Needed
j PowerPoint presentation (PreWriting.pptx)
j Inspiration (v. 9) software application for laptop or tablet
j From Inquiry to Academic Writing Chapter 1
j Handouts: (1) Writer Autobiography Assignment Description; (2) Under-
standing Writing Assignments
Procedural Outline
w ith your pee w ith wyour

ith your
pee pee w ith your pee
w ith your pee
w ith yourwpee
ith your pee w ith your pee
« w
Verify thatpeers.
ith your siudems haveto(heir
Prepare issctboob
share and Laptops
your group's or and
thoughts tablets.
w ith your pee w ith
w ith
your
your
peepee
20-15 Review
w ith your pee and Discussion Divide class into triad gwiiips.
mith
w ill. your
"‘Inquiry:
pee Habits o f the « Instruct groups to select a recorder to report results to class.
MiiwT passage • wproject
ith your fc‘lnquiiyr ofshare
Habits to
peers. Prepare (lie Myour
ind" group's
review and discussion
thoughts and
(Materials: ’In q u iry : prumpls Oti screen (Or wnte on board):
Habits o f the M ind” I . Offer a definition or example o f * “ habit o f the mind." and
w ith your pee w ith your peers. Prepare to share your group's thoughts and
2. Thew ith tex.t
yourdescribes w ritingtoas
peers. Prepare a conversation.
share your group'sWhat does and
thoughts the
author
w ith yourmean, andPrepare
peers. who participates an there
to share your conversations?
group's thoughts and
w ith your peers. Prepare to share your group's thoughts and
wwith
ithyour
yourpeers.
peers.Prepare
Preparetotoshare
shareyour
yourgroup's
group'sthoughts
thoughtsand
and
wwith
ithyour
yourpeers.
peers.Prepare
Preparetotoshare
shareyour
yourgroup's
group'sthoughts
thoughtsand
and
w ith your pee
wwithithyour
your peers.Prepare
peers. Preparetoto share
share your
your group'sthoughts
group's thoughtsand
and
w ith your
w ith pee
your pee
* Instruct students to share their responses to prompts with their
gm tip mates; the recorder takes brief notes. Lim it discussion
lime 10 15 rniii, As students work together* listen for examples
and themes that might he useful during Demonstration (below).
* A llo w 10 mm. tor class-wide discussion o f groups' responses to
prompts. As recorders report orally, lake notes (in a W ord 11le
w ith your pee w ith your pee w ith your pee w ith your pee
; 15-20 ;Introduce W riter * Transition: Continuing from above, inform students that their
: min. j Autobiography j first multi-draft w riting assignment w ill require ihem to inquire ;
| Assignment j imo "hubiiLs o f the m ind" by composing a history o f their own
w ithwyour pee pee
ith your w ith your pee w ith yourw ith pee
your pee
; Autobiography • Distribute W riter Autobiography Assignment handouts,
w ith your pee w ith your pee w ith w your
ith your
pee pee
* After asking students lo remain in their peer groups, instruct j
; them to appoint a member to read the assignment text aloud to j
the
w ithleiroup
your (someone otherto
peers. Prepare than theyour
share reporter fromthoughts
group's Lhe previous
and !
w ith
w ith your
your peepee
j I . As you read through the assignment o r follow your partner j
w ith your pee
w ith your pee
2, Sliare your thoughts ami questions about the assignmeni j
w ithyour
w ith yourpeers.
peers.Prepare
Preparetotoshare
shareyour
yourgroup's
group'sthoughts
thoughtsand
and j
assignment; i nvite
w ith your peers. students
Prepare lo share
to share w riting
your experiences;
group's note
thoughts and
w ith your
w ith
pee your pee
10-15 Demonstration. * Before introducing PowerPoint presentation, in form students

m ill. Pnewritimg Strategies that they w ill learn about and practice prewriting strategics for
(Mifttcrials: Pre- their W riter Autobiography Assignments.
W riting.pfrtx; Inspiration • Present P ttw riliflg Strategies slides. Conclude presentation by
software) inviting students to share iheir own strategies.
■ Introduce Inept ration soft wart;.
« Refer to the “ habits o f 11k mind' 1 Mss from ilw first segment;
fte w w '■II ;i I'- i'l li i I I I mnppi i l g ; i lid * L h i I i i :j : 11 11r-. ;-.i i ;i I io r.
15-20 Practice: Prewritmg ■ Instruct students to lake out laptops or tablets; direct them lo
rain. Strategies Inspiration weblink,
(Materials: Inspiration * A fte r inviting each group to select an idea from the '“habits o f
software) m ind" discussion or a w riting experience., ask students to
develop a mind-map or weh using Inspiration,
* Monitor each group’ s progress; note problems lo focus on
___ during next class. _
5 mini, Wrap-up * Confirm students'understanding o l'W riter Autobiography
criteria.
* Assign homework lo r next cLass:
1. Use Inspiration lo create a mind-map, web, or list to get
started on W riter Autobiography:
2. Follow up w ith a free-write 1o begin planning first draft;
2; Read Rodriguez essay (textbook); post response lo b log .___
Notes
1. A number of sources on learner differences (learning styles, strategies, preferences, pre-
dispositions, and so on) introduce tools for eliciting these variables from learners. A
partial list of such sources includes: Brown (1995); Dörnyei (2005, 2006, 2007); Ellis
(2009); Graves (2000); Hurd and Lewis (2008); Jordan (1997); Reid (1995).
2. Such instruments can be found in Allwright (1988), Borich (2010), and Wajnryb (1992),
among others.
3. For a complete, categorized list of traits, actions, and learning outcomes for 21st century
literacies, see Bedard and Fuhrken (2013) and National Writing Project (2010, pp. 100–
102). These categories include: creativity and originality; collaboration; management
and leadership; evaluation and decision making; diversity; articulation; critical thinking
and problem solving; observation and inquiry; communication in rhetorical contexts;
knowledge making; information literacy; personal habits of mind; remix culture; tech-
nology knowledge; and digital citizenship.
Chapter 6
Classroom
Assessment of
L2 Writing

1. In your experience as an academic writer, what procedures have your
instructors used to assess and score your writing performance? To what
extent were these procedures explicit and appropriate?
2. In what ways have the scores or grades you have received on your writ-
ing helped you to improve the quality of your written products? How
have scores enhanced (or inhibited) your learning and mastery of com-
posing skills?
3. If you have had experience as a composition instructor, what are your
greatest challenges in evaluating student writing? If you are a pre-service
teacher, what are your most significant apprehensions regarding assess-
ment? Why?
4. What should be the roles of formal assessment in the teaching of
composition?
5. Are you familiar with alternative assessment options such as portfolios?
If so, under what circumstances, and what benefits do you associate
with them?
This chapter approaches practices in L2 writing assessment from the viewpoint

that meaningful performance evaluation is an ongoing process involving both
teachers and students, not merely a procedure for assigning a quantitative score
Classroom Assessment of L2 Writing 197
to a single product or series of performances. As a formative and inherently peda-

gogical endeavor, the assessment of students’ writing processes and products is a
central responsibility that should be tightly linked to syllabus design, lesson plan-
ning, task and assignment development, and feedback processes (Katz, 2014).
Writing assessment is pedagogical in that, when reliable and valid, its outcomes
inform writers in ways that directly and indirectly promote their progress as in-
dependent writers. This interactive relationship between assessment and learn-
ing parallels basic principles of dynamic assessment (DA), an alternative approach
driven by Vygotsky’s (1978, 2012) sociocultural theory. The aim of DA “is to gauge
and advance the learning potential of individual learners and to devise appropri-
ate educational strategies” (Antón, 2012, p. 106).1 Scores, grades, and evaluative
feedback should consistently contribute to writers’ learning processes and to the
improvement of their measurable writing skills. An extension of this pedagogical
function is that, when performed responsibly, assessment informs teachers of their
own effectiveness, as reflected in their students’ increasing proficiency and their
achievement of programmatic and individual writing goals.
This concept is sometimes called washback, “the effect of an assessment on teach-
ing and learning” (Crusan, 2010, p. 42), or how “a test influences language teachers
and learners to do things they would not otherwise do that promote or inhibit lan-
guage learning” (Messick, 1996, p. 241). When the implementation and outcomes
of a test or instrument “trigger improvement of a course or a syllabus,” positive
washback results (Crusan, 2010, p. 42). In contrast, negative washback entails “any
effect of testing that leads teachers to practices which they feel are counterproduc-
tive, in terms of student learning, or which do not reflect the current thinking in
the field” (Weigle, 2002, p. 54). Given the potential for influential washback effects,
assessment is an essential teaching task: “We need to know what students do as writ-
ers, for both planning and the evaluation of our own teaching. Further, we need to
track progress over the course of our teaching” (Hillocks, 1995, p. 132).
Purposes for L2 Writing Assessment

Most educators are well acquainted with the institutional necessity of assessment,
as well as its potential pedagogical value. For example, assessing students’ prod-
ucts, performances, and progress is an ongoing process required for the reporting
of grades. Of course, assessment serves this and a number of other educational
functions, which we review below:
j Aptitude assessments aim to measure innate ability and skill, as well as

students’ potential for success in particular content and skill areas.
j Proficiency assessments likewise measure ability and skill, but proficiency
assessments aim to gauge skills developed as a result of instruction.
j Placement assessments assign students to appropriate courses and levels.
198 Classroom Assessment of L2 Writing
j Diagnostic assessments similarly measure students’ readiness to under-

take particular courses and are thus typically administered at the start
of a course to determine what students know and to verify the accuracy
of their placements.
j Achievement assessments (also called progress assessments) appraise
students’ learning and progress in a course; achievement assessment
thus endeavors to measure the effectiveness of instruction and is typi-
cally a principal responsibility of classroom teachers.
j Program evaluation involves assessing student learning outcomes in or-
der to discern the effectiveness of a program’s curriculum and instruc-
tional practices.
(Sources: Crusan, 2010; Fulcher, 2010; Fulcher & Davidson, 2007; Hughes, 2003;
Jamieson, 2011; Nation & Macalister, 2010; O’Neill, Moore, & Huot, 2009; Weigle,
2002; White, 2007)
These assessment purposes can involve significant consequences for student writ-
ers and involve high stakes. It is therefore “very important to follow rigorous
standards to guarantee that our assessments are valid, fair, and appropriate to the
context and purposes for which they are designed” (Crusan, 2010, p. 32).
Measurement Tools and Participant Roles

Before examining the fundamentals of L2 writing assessment and their related pro-
cedures, we should first acknowledge the contradictions facing teachers when they
evaluate their students’ work. Educational assessment practices are frequently framed
in terms of high-stakes proficiency examinations such as the Test of English as a For-
eign Language Internet-Based Test (TOEFLiBT®), International English Language
Testing System (IELTS®), Pearson Test of English (PTE®), and aptitude tests such
as the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT®), Graduate Record Exam (GRE®), and so on.
Formalized tools for evaluating student writing, such as those introduced later, are
unfortunately (and sometimes notoriously) associated with product-centered scor-
ing that fails to assess or value student writing processes (Crusan, 2010; Kroll, 1998;
Nichols & Berliner, 2007). We refer to these formalized instruments because they
offer teachers systematicity, rigor, and a theoretical foundation. Our primary em-
phasis here is on their classroom applications—in contrast to their role in large-scale
diagnostic, placement, and exit testing (Kunnan & Grabowski, 2014). We likewise
acknowledge the need to judge writers’ products, particularly in academic settings—
provided that such judgments entail meaningful feedback on writers’ processes and
progress (see Chapter 8). Thus, we view learners’ written products as reflections of
their ongoing development, a perspective that is particularly appropriate in the con-
text of a socioliterate approach to L2 writing instruction (see Chapters 3–5).
A contradiction inherent in teaching writing concerns the instructor’s dual

identity as respondent (i.e., audience and coach) and evaluator (Hamp-Lyons,
2003). That is, teachers provide formative feedback—input and guidance designed
to promote students’ development and skill as they advance through a process or
course. At the same time, teachers typically assign summative assessments in the
form of scores and grades, which “summarize” how successfully a learner has satis-
fied criteria at the end of an assignment, unit, or course (Brown & Abeywickrama,
2012). These objectives “may operate at cross-purposes” (Hedgcock & Lefkow-
itz, 1996, p. 288). Classroom evaluation thus entails a paradox, as “the audience
is usually limited to the person (the teacher) who also designs, assigns, and as-
sesses that writing” (Reid & Kroll, 1995, p. 18). Teachers can productively cope
with this all-too-common situation by acknowledging the contradiction overtly,
rather than by ignoring it. To acknowledge and relieve this inherent tension, we
can devote explicit attention to assessment issues in the classroom, purposefully
integrate assessment mechanisms into instructional processes, and implement
various methods to identify those that are most appropriate for a specific popula-
tion of multilingual writers (Coombe et al., 2007; Crusan, 2010; Jamieson, 2011).
Principles of Task Reliability and Validity

Whenever student performance is evaluated for the purposes of diagnosis, place-
ment, or advancement, the classroom teacher’s responsibilities may be no less im-
portant than those of a tester or administrator, in the sense that he or she may be
making decisions that could affect students’ further training and possibly their
careers. Consequently, it is essential for composition teachers to understand the
weight of their responsibilities and to develop the knowledge and skills to execute
them fairly and confidently (Polio & Williams, 2011; Weigle, 2007; White, 2007).
Designing effective writing assignments requires “much more than simply think-
ing of a topic for test takers to write about and then using our own judgment
to rank order the resulting writing samples” (Weigle, 2002, p. 2). Although we
are concerned chiefly with ongoing classroom assessment, precepts of large-scale
educational measurement (and language testing, in particular) provide us with a
framework for selecting and implementing assessment methods for everyday use.
In composition instruction, an obvious precept holds that an artifact of student
performance that is subject to measurement must have been generated “through
the production of writing” (Hamp-Lyons, 1991b, p. 5). When we score student
writing performance or proficiency, the outcome must be based on a student-
generated text. This text should consist of 100 words or more and be based on a
prompt that gives the writer “considerable room” in which to generate extended
discourse (Hamp-Lyons, 1991b, p. 5). This type of measurement is known as di-
rect assessment, which contrasts with indirect or objective measurement (Brown &
Abeywickrama, 2012; Fulcher & Davidson, 2007; Huot & Neal, 2006; Weigle, 2002).
An indirect measure might evaluate writing ability by testing verbal reasoning,
error recognition, or grammatical accuracy—all of which may reflect or even
predict writing performance in some way, but only indirectly. Hamp-Lyons and
Condon (2000) argued that direct measures are “far more credible” than indirect
measures, as they “make human writers actually perform the skill on which they
are being assessed, and . . . give human readers that performance to judge” (p. 11).
Although direct assessment of writing is widely preferred over indirect assessment
(CCCC, 2006b; Hamp-Lyons, 2003; Murphy & Yancey, 2008), Crusan (2010) ob-
served that indirect assessment has recently regained some popularity, particularly
for placement purposes. Generally speaking, we strongly support the use of mul-
tiple methods of direct assessment in the classroom setting, where teachers can
learn the most about their students’ writing abilities by engaging students in as
much writing practice as possible and by systematically assessing their production
(National Writing Project, 2010).
Admittedly, fairly scoring student writing requires more effort and training
than the scoring of indirect instruments such as grammar and vocabulary tests:
Raters must be trained to use scoring scales and to apply standards in a consistent,
equitable manner (Hamp-Lyons, 2003; Katz, 2014; Shrum & Glisan, 2010; Weigle,
2007). There is no question, however, that direct methods are the most appropri-
ate and potentially valid forms of assessment in the writing classroom.
Reliability in Writing Assessment

Maintaining reliability is a consistent challenge for classroom teachers, administra-
tors, and professionals concerned with evaluating writing performance at program-
matic, institutional, and governmental levels. Reliability in writing assessment refers
to the consistency with which a writing sample (traditionally called a test of writing)
is assigned the same rank or score after multiple ratings by trained evaluators or au-
tomated rating software (Brown & Abeywickrama, 2012; Ericsson & Haswell, 2006;
Hamp-Lyons, 2003; Huot & Neal, 2006; Shermis & Burstein, 2003; Weigle, 2002).
Evaluators must endeavor to ensure multiple types of reliability (Penrod, 2005;
Sax, 1974). Student-related reliability involves students’ psychological and physical
state and general readiness to face the cognitive demands of academic tasks such as
writing. For example, illness or fatigue can compromise student-related reliability.
Interrater reliability (or interrater agreement), in contrast, entails how closely the
scores assigned by two or more raters agree (Crusan, 2010; Fulcher, 2010; Fulcher &
Davidson, 2007; Hamp-Lyons, 1991a; Hamp-Lyons & Condon, 2000; Weigle, 2002).
In the psychometric tradition, interrater reliability is measured mathematically by
feeding independent rater scores into a statistical formula, commonly a correla-
tion efficient.2 These coefficients are expressed as a value between zero and one,
with coefficients approaching one indicating the strongest agreement (Brown &
Abeywickrama, 2012; Cherry & Meyer, 1993). Test reliability, meanwhile, involves
features of the writing task, such as content, format, length, and the comprehensi-
bility of task directions (Fulcher, 2010; Fulcher & Davidson, 2007; Hughes, 2003).
In daily practice, ensuring reliability can pose challenges, particularly because
classroom teachers are often the sole evaluators of their students’ writing. Research
has revealed that, despite their best efforts, even seasoned raters can exhibit incon-
sistency in their scoring behaviors (Chiang, 1999; Cumming, Kantor, & Powers,
2002; Erdosy, 2001; Smith, 2000; Vaughan, 1991; Weigle, 1999, 2002). Nonetheless,
systematic application of clear, specific, and level-appropriate scoring criteria can
enhance an instructor’s reliability by focusing his or her attention on specific tex-
tual features as reflected in course objectives and task goals (see Chapters 4 and 5).
Consistent use of such criteria and tools can likewise provide an instructor with
practice that, over time, will enable him or her to assign scores and offer feedback
with confidence (see Chapter 7).
Validity in L2 Writing Assessment

Validity refers broadly to a reciprocal measurement precept crucial to successful
writing assessment; it also entails the extent to which an instrument truly meas-
ures what it is intended to measure (Brown & Abeywickrama, 2012; Fulcher, 2010;
Miller, Linn, & Gronlund, 2013; O’Sullivan, 2011; Waugh & Gronlund, 2012).
Demonstrating validity is as essential to equitable writing assessment as estab-
lishing reliability. Psychometric assessment principles conventionally hold that
reliability is a prerequisite to validity, for no measure “can be valid without first
being reliable” (Hamp-Lyons, 1991c, p. 252). We acknowledge that some writing
assessment researchers and theorists (e.g., Cherry & Meyer, 1993; Crusan, 2010;
Moss, 1994; Penrod, 2005) have rejected this premise. For example, Hamp-Lyons
and Kroll (1996) maintained that reliability and validity are interdependent. “The
psychometric wisdom,” they wrote, “is that no test can be more valid than it is
reliable.” Scores that lack consistency “are essentially meaningless and cannot be
valid. But the knife cuts both ways: If a test is not valid, there is no point in its be-
ing reliable since it is not testing any behavior of interest” (p. 65). Crusan (2010)
similarly argued that “test validity is essential to test reliability. If a test is not valid,
then its reliability is irrelevant” (p. 42). Because a thorough treatment of reliability
and validity verification is unfortunately beyond the scope of this book, we en-
courage readers to consult the Further Reading and Resources section at the end
of this chapter for sources that explore these issues in depth. The following brief
descriptions of validity categories are intended to provide readers with sufficient
background knowledge to understand and apply the assessment constructs intro-
duced in the remainder of this chapter:
j Face validity (also called surface credibility) is achieved by ensuring that

teachers and students perceive a writing instrument to measure what
it purports to measure (Bachman, 1990; Crusan, 2010; Fulcher, 2010).
A prompt that aims to elicit writers’ argumentative skills, for example,
lacks face (and construct) validity if it actually elicits some other genre
or rhetorical form.
j Construct validity refers to “theoretical claims that factors such as devel-

opment, organization, and issues of grammar and mechanics are major
components of proficiency in writing” (Crusan, 2010, p. 41). Construct
validity requires us to measure composing skills by setting writing tasks
and assessing the features that we have decided to measure.
j Criterion validity indicates how strongly an instrument’s results cor-
relate with some external (and more concrete) measure, “other than
another test” (Stoynoff & Chapelle, 2005, p. 216). We could establish
the criterion validity of a timed writing test by comparing the scores
that it generates to the same writers’ scores on multi-draft writing as-
signments. Criterion validity includes concurrent and predictive validity,
which we achieve when a performance produces the same rank order of
scores as another previously validated instrument or a test administered
at a future time (Bachman, 1990; Fulcher, 2010; Fulcher & Davidson,
2007; Hamp-Lyons, 1991b).
j Content validity, which is intertwined with construct and criterion
validity, implies that a test “measures what it is supposed to measure”
(Crusan, 2010, p. 41). A test that exhibits content validity “elicits writing
that allows the reader . . . to see a sufficient and accurate sample of what
the writer can do with the key ideas and skills to be mastered” (Hamp-
Lyons, 1991a, p. 11).
j Consequential validity entails the ethical, ideological, social, and eco-
nomic impact that assessment results may have on students’ motivation,
attitudes, aspirations, educational progress, and career prospects (Cam-
bridge, Cambridge, & Yancey, 2009; Chapelle, 2011; Coombe et al., 2007;
Huot & Neal, 2006; Messick, 1996; Murphy & Yancey, 2008; Yancey, 2004).
We can ensure and enhance multiple forms of validity by monitoring not only
students’ written products, but also their processes and progress, a goal that can be
achieved with formative models such as portfolio assessment (NCTE, 2008). Re-
gardless of the components emphasized for assessment in a writing course, teach-
ers should have a working knowledge of the fundamental precepts of validity as
they design instruments and make decisions about scoring procedures (Fulcher,
2010; Katz, 2014). Without valid instruments, it is difficult if not impossible to
ensure that the assessment process will produce the desired washback effects.
Approaches to Scoring L2 Writing

Evaluative response to student writing can take various forms, each offering unique
advantages and challenges. In this section, we describe three approaches to scoring
that are appropriate and practical for use in the classroom context: holistic, ana-
lytic, and trait-based scoring. These summative methods are also used in large-scale
testing models informed by psychometric theory (Kunnan & Grabowski, 2014;

Polio & Williams, 2011). We will focus chiefly on ways in which classroom teachers
can apply these methods in their educational settings. Writing assessment always
takes place in a particular context, thus its implementation can vary widely. We
present our approach to scoring as options from which teachers can select, rather
than as preferred or prescribed methods. Just as lesson plans, materials, and assign-
ments must be designed and administered in light of key contextual factors (see
Chapters 4 and 5), scoring procedures should be selected and adjusted as a function
of the following critical variables, which we have reformulated as questions:
j What is the construct? That is, what are we trying to elicit and measure? How
do we define writing proficiency or performance relative to a composing
task? For example, do we wish to learn how effectively writers can perform a
particular discursive function (e.g., report, persuade, and so on) or produce
a specific genre (e.g., book review, blog, and so forth) in written English?
j Why do we need to test students’ writing proficiency? How will we use
the output resulting from the writing task?
j Who are the writers whose performance we wish to measure? What do
we need to know about our writer population to construct assignments
that elicit their best performances?
j Who will evaluate writers’ production, and what standards will apply?
What measures can be taken to guarantee consistency across scorers’
evaluations?
j Who will use the data that the writing task produces? In what form will
those data be most useful?
j To what extent do practical constraints (e.g., time, materials, funding,
infrastructure, human labor, and so forth) limit the information that a
composing task or test can generate about writers’ abilities?
j What do instructors, assessors, and score users need to know about educa-
tional measurement to ensure the validity and reliability of assessments?
(Sources: Adler-Kassner & O’Neill, 2010; Broad et al., 2009; Brown & Abeywickrama,
2012; Crusan, 2010; Hamp-Lyons, 1991a, 2002, 2003; Hughes, 2003; Huot, 2002;
Jackson, 2011; Kroll, 1998; Miller et al., 2013; O’Neill et al., 2009; Reid & Kroll, 1995;
Shrum & Glisan, 2010; Valdez-Pierce, 2003; Waugh & Gronlund, 2012; Weigle, 2002,
2007; White, 2007)
Fair, informative writing assessment practices take into account students’ needs
and competencies, social and institutional expectations regarding writing perfor-
mance, target genres, the teacher’s readiness to deploy assessment tools, and the
quality of the assessment instruments themselves.
The assignments, topics, and prompts used to generate student writing for assess-
ment purposes should be devised with the same care that we apply to developing any
composing task. The principles of task construction outlined in Chapter 4 apply to the
development of tasks and prompts used in the evaluation process. We do not make a
distinction between task construction for teaching and task construction for assess-
ment, as one of our primary operating principles is that responsible assessment is also
a fundamental part of the teaching process. In this sense, summative methods of as-
sessing student writing (i.e., assigning scores or grades) can also be used formatively
(i.e., by assessing student work qualitatively as the writing process unfolds) (Hirvela &
Pierson, 2000; NCTE, 2008). The characteristics listed below offer a useful checklist for
developing routine prompts for both formative and summative writing assessment.
1. Clarity: A clearly worded prompt does not require students to waste

time understanding what the assignment requires but offers brief and
succinct directions that allow them to begin writing quickly and easily.
2. Validity: A valid prompt generates written products whose scores reflect
the range of writing proficiencies represented in the class—highly
skilled writers receive higher scores than less skilled writers. The range
of outcomes does not show an excessively high proportion of scores in
the middle range. A good prompt thus allows weaker writers to com-
pose comfortably at their level while challenging the most advanced
writers to perform at their best.
3. Reliability: The scoring rubric (guide) is transparent and succinct enough
to apply consistently across all writing samples to be assessed; multiple
readings of the same papers by different raters produce similar, if not
identical, scores.
4. Interest: The prompt is interesting and engaging enough to encourage
students to write about it with genuine concern, leading to the produc-
tion of texts that engage the reader. In this way, potential boredom on
the part of the reader or evaluator will not unfairly bias scoring.
(Sources: Adler-Kassner & O’Neill, 2010; Crusan, 2010; Gardner, 2008; Herrington et al.,
2009; Huot, 2002; Reid & Kroll, 1995; White, 1998, 2007)
Holistic Scoring
An efficient approach to writing assessment is holistic (global) scoring, which rates
or ranks writing proficiency as reflected in a given sample. Holistic scoring rubrics
may comprise four to ten levels or bands, with even-numbered scales generally
preferred to force evaluators to assign scores above or below the midpoint. Each
band corresponds to a score, a set of descriptors, and benchmark (representative)
writing samples. A product of the “holistic wave” (from about 1970 through the
mid-1980s) (Yancey, 1999), holistic scoring allows “quick, economical, and rea-
sonably reliable rankings” of large quantities of writing samples (White, 1995, p. 31).
This method requires evaluators to assign impressionistic ratings or ranks and is

frequently used for placement and diagnostic purposes, as well as for high-stakes
assessments (e.g., TOEFLiBT®, SAT®, GRE®, and so on).
Holistic scoring rubrics can be general (as in Figure 6.1) and used to rate a
range of text types, or quite detailed (as in Figure 6.2). A chief advantage of holistic
scoring is that the procedure requires readers to respond to a text as a whole, rather
than to a dimension that may stand out to an individual reader as particularly
weak or strong (e.g., originality of ideas, rhetorical arrangement, reproduction
of target genre features, grammatical accuracy, and so forth). The method like-
wise emphasizes what the writer has done skillfully, as opposed to the text’s per-
ceived deficiencies (Hamp-Lyons, 2003; Weigle, 2002). The holistic approach has
found favor with process writing proponents, as the technique stresses strengths
and works effectively in multi-draft instruction. The relative speed and efficiency
of holistic scoring are also recognized by administrators and classroom teachers,
Rating Sea 19 fa r Informative Texts

■ The text directly addressee the writing taak and dearly exposes its purpose.
■ The texl is logically organized, its coherence marked by explicit transitions.
5 ■ The texl presenis solm supporting material lhai 15 explicitly connected lo its purpose.
* Choice or vocabulary Is excellent.
* Grammatical errors are minor jni) infrequent.
...,,* „®E£!li!!SlSS^
w ith your pee on_0re general ly accurate.
> The texl addresses the writing task, exposing its purpose wilfi reasonable clarity.
* The texl shows solid organization and use of coherence markers.
4 * The text presents supporting matenai that i$ related lo the text's main purpose.
* Vocabulary use is above average.
■ The text contains minor grammatical errors that do not inlerfere with IJie main idea
E1rors in speiJinjja nd jgurdiMion oMur but do strsctjhe reads;......
* The text a d d re s s the writing task, but in ways that lack clarity and explicitness.
* Though reasonably arranged, the text lacks overt coherence markers and cohesion.
+ Supporting material may be underdeveloped due to a lack of specificity or examples.
•* + Vocabulary use is average for an intermediate-level L2 student writer
* The text may contain grammatical errors that compromise its comprehensibility.
* S^lirHandpunctuation errors majfdistracttfie reacer.....
* Only marginally addressing Ihe writing las*. the text's purpose is difficult lo identify.
* The texl lacks obvious rhelorical stmclrjre: coherence and cohesion are weak
+ Supporting materia! is inadequate, unclear or irrelevant.
* * Vocabulary use is weak.
■ Frequent grammatical errors compromise the texl's comprehensibility
■...Bnrora In sf®llmjj_ard punctuation 00nsistcntl^ d;slrad. the reader....
+ The text doe3 not address the task or Fulfill- its purpose
* The texl lacks organization, coherence, and cohesion.
» Supporting material is ineffective or altogether absent.
' > Vocabulary uso is extremely weak.
■ Mafor grammatical errors abound, seriously compromising comprehensibility.
> Spelling and punctuation errors are frequent and highly distracting.
FIGURE 6.1 Sample holistic scoring rubric for brief informative texts (e.g.,
simple news accounts, bio statements, film and restaurant descriptions, journal
entries) for a low-intermediate ESL/EAP literacy course.
AAdvanced
dvancedEEnglish
nglishWWnting
ntingforforAAcadem
cademicicPurposes
Purposes
E v a lu a tio n C rite ria fo r R e v is e d W ritin g A s s ig n tn a n ts
A dvanced E nglish W nting for A cadem ic Purposes
An A sample is admirably thorough and complete Explicit and d e a r the position is
strongly artd substantially argued with abundant reference io expert sources. The central
issues and their complexity are Vested seriousty, wijh alternative viewpoints considered
The sample shows strong rhetorica! control, displaying unity and subtle management.
Ideas are balanced with support that <s organized according to Vie content. Texlual
elements are connected through exp.icit logical and linguistic Iransitions. Repetition and
redundancy are m inim al The sample shows excellent language control, accurate diction,
stylistic precision, antf meticulous adherence I d m echanical conventions
A B sample is thorough and complete. The Lexl Coaly effectively with Vie tsSues,
presenting the position cteariy and articulating arguments substantive*/. References
maue to ejtp&rt SDIilRH arc ample and appropriate. Alturnallvu perspectives uiu also
addressed competently. The sample shows strong rhetorical control and is welf
managud Ideas arc generally balanced with Support; the whole text shows s l'c iy conlful
of organi7aiicn that is appropriate to ih e conlent. Textual elements are generally well
connected, although rheloncal HuenCy maiy at Lmes need improvement. Ocuusonal
repetitions. redundancies and missing transitions mac occur, but trie sample reflects
sitting language control and reads smoothiy. Grammatical wull-IOrmedneS* artd accurate
diction are apparent, aittiough minor errors might be present. Stylistic and mechanical
errors are m inor and do not distract the reader.
Possibly lacking In thoroughness, a C sample is nonelheless complete The text
discusses (he issues but requires more focus, development, and synthesis o f expert
sources. The position, while thoughtful, ru e d ; to be clarified; arguments may require
further substantiation. Repe1i1ion, redundancy, and inconsistency sometimes compromise
the sam ples locus end direction. Alternative viewpoints are minimally addressed and
developed Although 1he sample shows com petent rhetorical conlrol, management, and
arrangement, ideas may not Lo balanced with support. The text shows uv dencc of
planning, but a lack of connectors sometimes interferes with rhetorical fue ncy. Language
is grammatical but may lack lluidily. Grammatical structures and lexical choices express
the wrtler's imended meanings, but more appropriate choices could have been made,
lor ui ■j j y ■itac : ■.. stylistic, and mechanical enters sometimes interfere wilh the reader's
comprehension. Samples assigned a m a rt of C should he revised and re-submitted.
A D sample lacks both completeness and thoroughness. Although the tex1 may nonsider
the issues, it relies heavily on opinions or claims lhal la d ; substantial evidence,
sometimes leading 1he reader to w onder if 1tie writer has grappled with the complexity of
the topic. Synthesis of expert sources Is de ficie n t Superficial or Inconsistent
argumentation, along wdh inadequate development, seriously compromise the tent's
ability to convince the reader Alternative perspectives are given little or no senous
atlemion. Lacking rfietortcal conlrol much or most o f the lime, the sample's overall snape
Is difficult to discern. Arrangement suggests a lack of balance of support lhal leads to
breakdowns in rhetorical fluency. Trensilions w ithin and across sentences and
paragraphs a n attempted, with only partial success. Displaying weak linguistic control,
the text contains grammatical lexical, and mechenical errors that threaten the reader's
comprehension. Samples assigned a mart: of D must be revised and te-submdtfrd
An F sample <s unsuccessful because II is cleany incomplete and fails lo develop and
support an argument reialed to the lopic. Although the topic m ay be mentioned. 1he text
digresses or does nol treat issues o f relevance to the assignment Superficial and
naccurate treatment of expert sources suggests a Fai ure lo read sources carefullyy
Demonstrating fitise rhetoncal control, the sample shows virtually no evidence o f p anning
or organ zation. as exemplified in underdeveloped or nonexistent connections and
transitions. The texl demonstrates Inadequate Imguislic control with morpho-syntactic.
lexical and mechanical errors sertously marring the writer's intended meaning. Samples
assigned a mark o f F must be revised and re-subm-Hed
FIGURE 6.2 Sample holistic scoring rubric for an EAP course.

who must often evaluate and comment on large numbers of student writing as-
signments (Brown & Abeywickrama, 2012; Huot & Neal, 2006; Weigle, 2014).
Holistic scoring nonetheless presents disadvantages that teachers should bear
in mind. First, a holistic score cannot effectively provide diagnostic information; it
does not explicitly reflect components that refer to specific traits of a student text
(e.g., richness of content, coherence, morphosyntactic accuracy, lexical diversity,
and so forth) (Crusan, 2010). A single-value score also reduces reliability, although
this problem can be addressed when two or more trained raters (or a trained hu-
man rater and an automated scoring engine) score each writing sample (Camp,
1993; Educational Testing Service, 2012; Hamp-Lyons, 1991c; Sakyi, 2000). In ad-
dition, a single score may be difficult to interpret for students and teachers alike
unless they share the same understanding of the descriptors in the rubric’s bands
(see below). Moreover, even if raters’ scores reflect a strict and consistent applica-
tion of a single rubric, the same score assigned to two different texts may reflect
judgments of two entirely distinct sets of characteristics related to raters’ cultural or
disciplinary backgrounds (Kobayashi & Rinnert, 1996; Robinson, 2000; Shi, 2001).
Divergent evaluations can also result when a holistic score compresses inter-
connected judgments about all dimensions of a text (i.e., topic, genre, rhetorical
arrangement, style, linguistic form, and so on). Conversely, raters may not apply
the same priority to certain text features, resulting in uneven, unfair scores (Cru-
san, 2010; DeRemer, 1998). For example, research has shown that raters tend to
assign higher holistic scores to longer samples, even when writing quality is com-
parable to that of shorter versions (Huot, 1993, 2002). Finally, holistic scoring may
produce negative washback by penalizing students’ efforts to take risks, as “writ-
ers may display only novice ability with more complex forms, while those using
simpler forms get higher ratings” (Cohen, 1994, p. 315). Classroom teachers can
avoid a number of these pitfalls by developing clear rubrics, monitoring reliability
with the help of peers, reviewing student writing in portfolios, and by employing
consistent, explicit marking practices (Crusan, 2010).
Scoring rubrics have historically been designed to aid raters, yet rubrics should
also be viewed as valuable teaching tools when presented to students and used sys-
tematically during the assessment process. Hamp-Lyons (1991c) forcefully argued
that any method of writing assessment that “fails to utilize the educative potential”
of the instrument itself “permits a disjunction between teaching and assessment,
a disjunction we have suffered under for all too long, and need suffer no longer”
(p. 244). We would similarly maintain that a scoring rubric should reflect the ex-
pectations of the writer’s intended audience, whether real or simulated, as well
as the target genre of the writing (Douglas, 2000; Hyland, 2004a). When given to
students early in a course, a rubric can enable writers to understand the mark-
ing criteria to be applied to their texts. A well-designed rubric can also serve as a
framework for providing feedback for revision (see Chapters 7–8).
To be used productively in this way, descriptors must be explicit, comprehensi-
ble, level-appropriate, and geared toward the rhetorical goals of the writing course.
Figures 6.1 and 6.2 provide illustrations of rubrics whose descriptors are designed
for use as both teaching and assessment tools in two distinct contexts. Figure 6.1
shows a five-level holistic scoring rubric for a community college composition
course aimed at expository and descriptive genres. The rubric in Figure 6.2, mean-
while, is designed for use in a more highly specialized environment: an advanced-
level EAP course requiring writing from sources and argumentation. Its five-level
scale is intended to parallel the traditional letter-grade marking system.
In holistic scoring, the rater reads each sample quickly, assigning a single rating
based on an overall impression as described in the rubric (see Figures 6.1 and 6.2).
In institutional writing assessment (i.e., for placement, diagnostic, or exit screen-
ing purposes), two or more raters independently assign scores to ensure reliability,
particularly if marking takes place on a department- or institution-wide basis. High-
stakes standardized tests similarly require two independent ratings. When ratings are
the same or differ by only a single point on a five- or six-point scale, they are thought
to agree. When scores differ by more than one scoring band (typically one point), the
tertium quid procedure is frequently adopted. The tertium quid procedure requires a
third rater to assign an independent score; the “bad” (most discrepant) rating of the
three is excluded, and the new paired scores are then used to calculate interrater reli-
ability (Cherry & Meyer, 1993). Holistic scores on the independent writing sample
on the TOEFLiBT® and PTE® are now determined by combining the score of an
independent human rater with that of an automated scoring engine.3
In the classroom setting, however, the instructor may assign a holistic numeri-
cal or letter grade to an assignment after one or more readings. He or she may
also provide the student with written or oral feedback to supplement the holistic
rating. In day-to-day classroom scoring, teachers sometimes prefer a more finely-
tuned instrument or a more flexible tool for assigning borderline marks that fall
between scoring bands. This need arises when an assignment displays most of the
characteristics of one band but simultaneously exhibits features of another band.
Consider how the rubric in Figure 6.2 might be applied to a “thorough and com-
plete” sample that “deals effectively with the issues” and competently addresses “al-
ternative perspectives.” These are obviously B features. At the same time, ideas may
not be “balanced with support,” a lack of connectors may interfere with “rhetorical
fluency,” and the language may lack “fluidity.” Furthermore, “morpho-syntactic,
stylistic and mechanical errors . . . interfere with . . . comprehension.” These C
characteristics suggest that neither a mark of B or C would be appropriate. A fairer
alternative would be to assign a B– or a C+, depending on the extent to which the
B features override the C features. Whereas the +/– option might not be available
in large-scale assessment, it provides a reasonable tool for teachers who do not
wish to be confined to band-specific scores that may not accurately or fairly reflect
all dimensions of a writing sample.
Analytic Scoring
Analytic scoring offers advantages similar to those associated with using + and –
marks in conjunction with a holistic rubric. Unlike holistic scoring, analytic
scoring relies on a rating scale that separates textual features and predetermines
their weights; criteria are prioritized before scoring begins. Thus, components
such as content, organization, cohesion, style, register, vocabulary, grammar, spell-
ing, mechanics, and so forth, are preassigned a maximum numerical value, with
decreasing step scales or bands described within each component. In the widely
known (and somewhat notorious) “ESL Composition Profile” (Jacobs, Zingraf,
Wormuth, Hartfiel, & Hughey, 1981), for example, each of the five components
has a descending, multilevel scoring scale with its own descriptors. The sample
“Essay Rating Profile” in Figure 6.3, an adaptation of the Jacobs et al. (1981)
model, illustrates what such a scoring guide looks like. The scheme in Figure 6.3
is designed for use in a freshman composition course for both mainstream and
multilingual writers; its scale allows for assigning letter grades or numerical values
that, when summed, yield a score out of 100.
Analytic scoring is sometimes recommended as an alternative to holistic scor-
ing for a number of reasons. A significant advantage is that analytic scoring guides,
by virtue of their explicit descriptors and weighting systems, facilitate the training
of raters. Because consistent, reliable holistic scoring often requires regular (and
sometimes extensive) norming, novice composition teachers may initially find an
analytic scale easier to use than a holistic rubric because they can isolate and rate
specific textual features. Departments may request that instructors use analytic
scales as a way of standardizing rating procedures across sections and courses.
A further benefit of analytic scoring is that the procedure can guard against the
conflation of two or more text-based categories, a common drawback of holistic
scoring (Cherry & Meyer, 1993; Weigle, 2002, 2007; Williamson & Huot, 1993).
In terms of instructional impact, analytic guides reflect priorities assigned to
specific aspects of written products and writing processes featured in the syllabus.
Descriptors must characterize distinct discursive and linguistic course objectives
(e.g., rhetorical arrangement, figurative language, use of logical connectors, com-
plex syntax, and so forth), and coefficients (weightings) for textual components
can vary to encourage students to direct their efforts toward improving targeted
skills (see Figure 6.3). For example, in a beginning- or intermediate-level course
emphasizing idea development and fluency, the scoring guide might assign a 40%
to 60% coefficient to content development, with rhetorical structure and gram-
matical accuracy receiving proportionally lower weightings. Finally, the explicit-
ness of analytic scoring offers teachers a valuable tool for providing writers with
consistent, explicit feedback (Hughes, 2003). Analytic guides can provide space for
each component’s score or rating and allow teachers to circle or underline descrip-
tor items that apply to the essay being evaluated (Crusan, 2010). When teachers
use these options, complemented by text-specific comments (see Chapters 8–9),
component scores have meaning beyond mere numerical values or ranks—they
are tied directly to identifiable text features and to explicit standards that apply
equally to all student writers.
Critics of analytic scoring maintain that the quality of a writing sample repre-
sents much more than the sum of its parts. Measuring the effectiveness of a writing
RHET 105A — Com position I

Essay Rating Profile
NAME: E ssay
Tfltec
i\ i n u c T o n i. Date:
Record !Grade Score
Score foere Range
C o n te n t
A 24 -27 Superior understanding of (epic and wriling conte*1; valuable
central purpose/thesis defined and supported with sound
generalizations and substantial, specific, and relevant details,
rich, distinctive oontenl lhal is original, peroeplive and/or
persuasive; strong reader interest
B 22 -23 Accurate grasp of topic and writing context: worthwhile
Central purpose/thesis clearly defined and supported with
sound generalizations and relevanl details: substantia! reader
_interest
C 19-21 Acceptable but cursory understanding of topic and writing
context; routine purpose/thesis supported with adequate
generalizations and relevant details' suitsble but predictable
content that is somewhat sketchy or overly general;
occasional repetitive or irrelevant material: one or Iwo
unsound generalizations: average reader interest
D^F 5-18 Little or no grasp of the topic or w iling context; central
purpose/tbesis not apparent, weak, or irrelevant to assigned
task; inadequate supporting points nr details: irrelevant
material, numerous unsound generalizations, or needless
repetition of ideas; insufficient, unsuitable, unclear, vague, or
weak content: minimal or no reader interest; less than
specified lengih
Rhetorical Structure
A 21-23
Exceptionally cfear plan oonnected to thesisf purpose; plan
developed with consistent attention to proportion, omphasis.
logical order, flow, end synthesis of ideas: paragraphs
coherent, unified and effectively developed: striking title,
Introduction, and conclusion
B 13-20 Clear plan related to ibesis; plan developed with proportion,
emphasis, logical under end synthesis of idees: paragraphs
coherent, unified and adequately developed' smooth
transitions between paragraphs: effective title, introduction,
and conclusion
C 16-17 | Conventional plan apparent but roulinely presented;
paragraphs adequately unified and coherent, but minimally
effective in development: one or two weak topic sentences,
transitions between paragraphs apparent but abrupt,
mechanical, or monotonous; routine title introduction, and
conclusion ..................
D/F 5-15 Plan not apparent, inappropriate, undeveloped, or developed
with irrelevance, redundancy, inconsistency, or inattention to
logical progression: paragraphs incoherent, underdeveloped,
or not unified: transitions between paragraphs unclear,
ineffective, or nonexistent; weak or ineffective litle
________ introduction, and conclusion .........................................
I A I 18-20 I Sentences siihliiilly constructed, unified, coherent, forceful,
effectively vaned; deftness in coordinating, subordinating, and
emphasizing ideas; hHrmnniuus agreement of Mhtent and
sentence design; impressive use of grammatical structures
I B I 18-17 Sentences accurately and Coherefitly constructed witti some
variety; evident and varied coordination, subordination, and
emphasis of ideas; no errors in complex patterns; effective
C 14-15 ; Sentences constructed accurately but lacking in cfetinclion;
minimal skill in coordinating and subordinating ideas; little
variety m sentence structure: clarity weakened by occasional
awkward incomplete, fused, and/or improperly predicated
clauses and complex sentences, marginal to adequate use of
clauses and complex sentences,
D/F 1-13 Sentences marred frequently enough to distract or frustrate
the reader; numerous sentences incoherent, fused,
Incomptete, and/or improperly predicated, monotonous,
simple sentence structure; unacceptable use of grammatical
clauses and plex
A 16-17 I Diction dtetrative; fresh, precise. concrete, economical, and
idiomatic word choica, word form mastery, appropriate,
B 14-15 Clear, accurate, and idiomatic diction; minor errors in word
form and/or occasional weaknesses in word choice: generally
clauses and and
clauses complex sentences,
complex sentences,
C 12-13 Satisfactory diction; generally accurate, appropriate, and
idiomatic word choica, though occasionally predictable
wordy, or imprecise; limited vocabulary; clarily weakened by
errors in S-V and pronoun agreement, point of view, word
forms; mechanical and/or mconsistant tone
D/F 1-11 Diction unacceptable for a college-Jevel essay: inappropriate,
non-idiomatic, and/or inaocurate word choice that distracts
the reader or obscures content: numerous wofd form errofs;
clauses and and
clauses complex sentences,
complex sentences,
a 12-1 j Clarity and effeciiveness of expression enhanced by
consistent use of conventional punctuation capitalization.
clausesclauses and complex
and complex sentences,
sentences,
B 10-11 Ftow of com munication only occasionally d iverted by errors in
conventional punctuation, capitalization, and spelling;
C 8-9 Adequate clarify and effectiveness of expression, though
diminished by punctuation, capitalization, and/or spelling
D/F 1-7 Communication hindered or obscured by frequent violations
| of punctuaition. capitalization, and/or spelling conventions;
clauses andclausesclauses
andand
clauses
clauses
and and clauses and
clauses and
FIGURE 6.3 Sample scoring rubric for a freshman composition course.

sample by tallying subskill scores can diminish the interconnectedness of written

discourse, conveying the false impression that writing can be fairly assessed by ana-
lyzing separable text features (Hamp-Lyons, 1996). Component scales may not be
used effectively according to their internal criteria, creating a halo effect in which
one component score may influence another. A related disadvantage involves how
raters operationalize overly simplified, misleading, ambiguous, or overlapping de-
scriptors (Brown & Abeywickrama, 2012). Experienced raters sometimes find it dif-
ficult to assign numerical scores based on certain descriptors, even when they can
refer to benchmark texts. Qualitative judgments of coherence, style, and similarly
abstract textual characteristics are thus not always easily accommodated by analytic
scoring methods (Brindley, 1998; Polio, 1997). Finally, analytic scoring may unfairly
bias readers in favor of samples exhibiting features that are easily identified based on
the rubric’s components and descriptors. Because grammatical errors are among the
most salient characteristics of student writing for many readers, grammatical form
may receive more attention from raters than text features such as idea development
and rhetorical structure, even though the latter may be assigned heavier weighting
in the scoring guide (Hamp-Lyons, 1996). The unfortunate result of such bias is that
writers might not receive appropriate scores or truly beneficial feedback.
Primary and Multiple Trait Scoring

Holistic and analytic scoring rely on preexisting instruments and a priori criteria.
In contrast, primary and multiple trait scoring presuppose that the quality of a
writing sample can only be judged accurately with reference to a specific writing
context (Crusan, 2010; Douglas, 2000; Hamp-Lyons, 1991c, 2003). Trait-based as-
sessment “treats the construct of writing as complex and multifaceted,” enabling
assessors “to identify the qualities or traits of writing that are important to a par-
ticular context or task type and to evaluate writing according to the salient traits
in a specific context” (Hamp-Lyons, 2003, p. 176). Contextualization necessitates
scoring guides that are unique to each prompt and the writing generated (Crusan,
2010). The chief goal of this approach is to develop criteria for successful writing
on a given topic and in a specified genre and context. Teachers and writers focus
on a narrow, identifiable range of textual features, or traits. At the same time, trait-
based instruments “do not claim to assess every element of writing ability that may
be manifested in the context” but rather “the most salient criteria or traits” associ-
ated with the task (Hamp-Lyons, 1991c, p. 248).
If a composing assignment aims to elicit persuasive writing, for example, scor-
ing might focus on the development of an argument. The intentional emphasis
on this feature would constitute primary trait scoring. In multiple-trait scoring,
the principle is the same, except that several facets make up the scoring instru-
ment: The procedure “is context sensitive at all stages and in all dimensions of the
test development, implementation, scoring, and score reporting” (Hamp-Lyons,
2003, p. 176). In the case of a persuasive assignment, traits might include the
directness of the position statement or proposition, the weight of evidence favor-
ing the claim, the credibility of the writer’s sources, the use of counterargument,
the clarity of the warrant (the link between the claim and the evidence), and
so on (see Chapter 3). A trait-based approach thus focuses the reader’s atten-
tion directly on the purposes of the writing task, as Figure 6.4 illustrates. When
used as part of the instructional cycle, trait-based guides offer the advantage of
ENSL 24: Advanced Reading and Composing for Nonnative Speakers

TIMED WRITING 3: Comparative Analysis Assignment
In their respective essays, Chang and Hunter express conflicting perspectives on how
technology has influenced the education and training of the modern workforce. You will have
90 minutes in which to explain which author presents the most persuasive argument and
why. Based on a brief summary of each author’s point of view, compare the two essays and
determine which argument is the strongest. State your position clearly, giving each essay
adequate coverage in your discussion.
Scoring Guide for Timed Writing 3
Score Rhetorical Structure Summary Presentation Language Use

and Comparison
6 The writer’s position is The main idea of each Language is direct,
stated explicitly and essay is accurately fluid, and generally
substantiated with captured and clearly accurate; vocabulary
relevant references to represented; coverage use is sophisticated and
the two essays. of the two essays is varied.
symmetrically balanced.
5 The writer’s position is The sample effectively Language control is
stated clearly and paraphrases each good; vocabulary use is
supported with essay’s main idea; nicely varied.
references to the two coverage of the two
essays. essays is well balanced.
4 The writer’s position is The sample Language shows
sufficiently explicit but paraphrases each satisfactory but
could be stated more essay’s main idea with inconsistent control;
clearly; references to moderate effectiveness; vocabulary use shows
the two essays are coverage of the two adequate variety.
adequate. essays is adequately
balanced.
3 The writer’s position is The sample merely Language shows
not sufficiently explicit; restates each essay’s inconsistent control;
references to the two main idea or captures vocabulary use shows a
essays are sketchy. them inaccurately; lack of variety.
coverage of the two
essays is not
satisfactorily balanced.
2 The writer’s position is The sample only Language shows
either not explicit or is partially restates each inconsistencies that
ineffectively developed; essay’s main idea; distract the reader;
references to the two minimal coverage of the vocabulary use is
essays are minimal two essays. highly restricted.
and inadequate.
1 The writer does not The sample fails to Language control
state a position; capture the main ideas frequently distracts the
references to the two of either essay. reader; vocabulary use
essays are is highly restricted and/or
unacceptable or inaccurate.
nonexistent.
0 Not a ratable sample. Not a ratable sample. Not a ratable sample.
FIGURE 6.4 Sample multiple trait scoring guide (with prompt).

encouraging writers to limit their attention to a manageable set of topical re-

sources, rhetorical strategies, and linguistic features as they compose and revise
(Douglas, 2000).
The multiple trait scoring guide reproduced in Figure 6.4 aims to evaluate a
timed writing in which advanced, college-level L2 writers compared two brief es-
says expressing opposing views. Students had completed readings on technology’s
influence on education and the professions and were preparing for a formal de-
bate on the topic. This assignment was designed (a) to give students extended and
intensive practice analyzing and comparing written arguments and (b) to extend
their topical knowledge. The instructor had selected this topic and readings based
on students’ majors and the next course in the literacy sequence, an interdiscipli-
nary course on writing in applied science. The prompt and the scoring guide are
thus constructed to reflect key dimensions of the assignment:
j its genre category and the rhetorical patterns associated with it (e.g.,
explicit statement of the author’s position, comparison, and so on);
j the subtasks associated with successfully completing the task (summa-
rizing the two reading selections);
j the formal features elicited in the prompt (appropriateness of language,
effective lexical use, and so on).
The descriptors are geared toward measuring the academic and rhetorical skills
specified in the course objectives. Furthermore, the scoring procedure is adapted
to the context, purpose, and style of writing elicited. Using this six-level scale, the
rater assigns a single score to each trait to determine a cumulative score of zero
to 18. This total can be divided by three to arrive at a mean score on a scale of one
to six. For example, a writing sample may be assigned a score of five for rhetorical
structure, a four for summary presentation, and a six for language use, yielding a
cumulative score of 15/18 (83%), or 5.0 on a six-level scale.
Predictably, trait-based scoring involves several drawbacks: The time and ef-
fort required to construct and test a scoring guide for each writing assignment
may exceed the limits of many classroom teachers. Moreover, a primary trait
model cannot fully integrate writers’ strengths and weaknesses. Even a sophis-
ticated primary trait scale might award a lower score to an exemplary partial
writing sample than to a truly weak sample that fully addresses the prompt.
Furthermore, “even if the traits are specific to a local context, the raters may
still fall back on traditional generalized concepts in their actual ratings” (Cohen,
1994, p. 323).
We can take basic steps to overcome the pitfalls of trait-based writing assess-
ment. Because a trait-based scoring guide must be individualized to each writing
assignment, we recommend incorporating rubric preparation directly into the
task design process (see Chapter 4). A primary or multiple trait assessment scale
should contain the following elements:
1. The task or prompt;

2. A reference to the target genre and a description of the rhetorical trait(s)
elicited by the task and featured in the scoring criteria;
3. An interpretation of how the task or prompt will generate the expected
writing performance;
4. Identification of the relationship between the task and the trait(s) to be
assessed;
5. A scoring guide (see Figure 6.4);
6. Benchmark writing samples representing each band or score value;
7. A rationale for the scores assigned to the benchmark samples.
(Sources: Crusan, 2010; Hamp-Lyons, 1991c, 1996, 2003; White, 2007)
We have surveyed approaches to assessing and scoring student writing to pro-

vide readers with a range of practical options. Crusan (2010) proposed that “all
assessment should be locally designed and locally controlled,” though she also ac-
knowledged that constructing rubrics and scales is “one of the most worrisome
and . . . overwhelming” assessment responsibilities (p. 72). We concur with her
recommendation to “adopt and adapt” established rubrics such as those presented
in this chapter and elsewhere (e.g., Brown & Abeywickrama, 2012; Crusan, 2010;
Weigle, 2012). Also recommended are online rubric-generating tools such as Rub-
istar and TeacherVision (see the Further Reading and Resources section).
Portfolio Assessment
The scoring methods addressed in the preceding sections offer classroom teach-
ers a range of options from which to choose in selecting response and assessment
methods for their courses and assignments. These summative procedures, used
individually or in combination with one another, can easily serve portfolio as-
sessment, which is not an alternative scoring procedure, but rather a model for
organizing writing processes and products for ongoing reflection, feedback, and
evaluation (Callahan, 1995; Crusan, 2010; Elbow & Belanoff, 1997; Hirvela &
Sweetland, 2005; Mabry, 1999; Katz, 2014; NCTE, 2008; White, 2007). A portfolio
system does not require any particular scoring procedure; in fact, some portfolio
assessment models involve no scoring at all, although the process necessitates on-
going instructor intervention, response, and evaluation (Elbow, 1993). Portfolio
assessment has become increasingly recognized as a valid and valuable tool for
instruction and measurement in many contexts, including primary and second-
ary education, college composition, foreign language education, and professional
training. As Hamp-Lyons and Condon (2000, p. 15) observed, “portfolios have

spread like wildfire” in North America since the groundbreaking work of Belanoff
and Elbow (1986), precipitating what Yancey (1999) described as the portfolio and
program assessment wave. Portfolio systems have also become commonplace in
Australia and the United Kingdom.
Once considered an “alternative” means of assessing learner achievement of all
sorts (not just writing), portfolio assessment has become a mainstream practice that
features “production rather than recognition, projects rather than items, and teacher
judgment rather than mechanical scoring” (Calfee & Perfumo, 1996, p. 63). When
carefully planned and implemented, portfolio assessment crucially engages students
and teachers in continual discussion, analysis, and evaluation of their processes and
progress as writers, as reflected in multiple products. As Yancey (1992) maintained,
“reflection is perhaps the most critical feature distinguishing portfolios of writing
from simple work folders” (p. 86). Hirvela and Pierson (2000) noted that “the self-
assessment procedures of portfolio pedagogy can enable students to learn from their
self-analysis or reflection what otherwise might not have become apparent to them.”
Consequently, “students gain a deeper understanding of their performance and
abilities as writers” (p. 113). Naturally, self-analysis and reflection can only produce
fruitful outcomes if they are systematically scaffolded (Hirvela & Sweetland, 2005).
Students, teachers, and administrators must bear these principles in mind if
they expect a portfolio process to produce favorable outcomes (Crusan, 2010).
The principles outlined below, drawn from diverse sources, point toward the de-
velopmental nature of a valid portfolio assessment system:
1. Collection. A portfolio comprises a collection of work that is a subset

of a larger archive, which represents the whole of a student’s accom-
plishments. More frequently (and more practically), a print or elec-
tronic portfolio represents a subset of artifacts completed in a course,
program, or school. Portfolios “allow readers to draw conclusions
about writers, not only about the pieces of writing themselves. Collec-
tion . . . is the source of the portfolio’s greater face validity, of its ability
to represent the writer more fully than earlier forms of assessment
allowed” (Hamp-Lyons & Condon, 2000, p. 33).
2. Selection. The process by which the subset emerges entails selection, a
key dimension of portfolio assessment. Selection criteria vary accord-
ing to the rhetorical situation contextualizing the portfolio, which
may show only the writer’s development or which may demonstrate
both growth and achievement. The writer’s selection is usually guided
by external criteria, although he or she is given options from which
to select in compiling the collection, thereby promoting agency, au-
tonomy, and self-assessment (Crusan, 2010; Hirvela & Pierson, 2000).
Selection implies that “the assessor sees some evidence of a writer’s
ability to make extra-textual choices, to present a selection that rep-

resents the writer well across the specified requirements for contents
and the announced criteria for judgment” (Hamp-Lyons & Condon,
2000, p. 35).
3. Communication. Unique to portfolio assessment is the principle of
communication. Like any portfolio, a writing portfolio conveys some-
thing about the writer, his or her values, the literate contexts that
the writer has come to know, and so forth (Huot, 2002; Johns, 1997;
Mabry, 1999).
4. Range. Literacy instruction “should present frequent opportunities to
write, in a variety of forms or genres, for a variety of purposes and a
variety of audiences” (Hamp-Lyons & Condon, 2000, p. 33). Student
writers consequently generate a variety of writing samples from which
they can select pieces that display a range of their individual accom-
plishments (NCTE, 2008).
5. Context richness. Hamp-Lyons and Condon (2000) noted that “insofar
as the contents of the portfolio represent the opportunities that a cur-
riculum has presented . . . the portfolio will be context rich” (p. 33).
Portfolios presuppose that “writers bring their experiences, in the
form of their writings, with them into the assessment, that the port-
folio comprises samples of the writing produced in those learning ex-
periences” (p. 34). A portfolio can present not only student texts and
multimedia projects, but also their evolving roles as writers and the
contexts in which they have learned to write.
6. Delayed evaluation. By delaying the appraisal of written products,
selections, and self-assessments to the end of an academic term, a
portfolio promotes revision, encouraging students to assume respon-
sibility for their learning by giving them control over how they manage
their time (Crusan, 2010). Portfolio instruments also move teachers
“beyond judgments about students’ competence, leading them to
make judgments about the effectiveness of their course(s) as a whole”
(Hamp-Lyons & Condon, 2000, p. 34).
7. Writer-centered control. Key facets of portfolio assessment are under
the control of teachers and administrators (e.g., collection, range, and
context, which reflect curricular goals and the norms of a literate com-
munity). Nonetheless, a portfolio places “a large measure of control
over success into the learner’s hands” (Hamp-Lyons & Condon, 2000,
p. 35). With the freedom to select portfolio entries, students exercise
control over the snapshot that the portfolio will display. Because they
receive feedback and revise their work as the portfolio evolves, students
can improve the quality of their final collection as they see fit (Hamp-
Lyons, 2006; Weigle, 2002; Yancey, 1992, 2009; Yancey & Weiser, 1999).
8. Evolution over time. A hallmark of portfolios is that they expose the

evolution of selected written products as they are revised, edited, and
polished (Reynolds, 2000; Yancey, 2009). Writers present a series of
drafts leading to an exemplary final product, enabling them to repre-
sent their processes as writers and readers as reflected in sequential it-
erations of their products. Furthermore, “thinking about development
over time . . . along specified parameters opens the door for surprises,
allowing learners to exhibit and even to emphasize their development
in ways or areas that the teacher may not have specified or even antici-
pated” (Hamp-Lyons & Condon, 2000, p. 37).
9. Measured progress. Portfolios offer a means by which writers and
teachers monitor learning over time, tracing “growth along specific
parameters” (Hamp-Lyons & Condon, 2000, p. 36). Guidelines and
criteria predetermine expectations concerning the quality of portfolio
entries and specifications for measuring skill development. Assess-
ment criteria allow for the evaluation of the extent to which learn-
ers have improved their literate skills and generated meaningful texts
(Crusan, 2010; Yancey, 2009). Portfolio standards “allow students to
show the extent of their progress toward exhibiting . . . characteristics
of good writing and writers” (Hamp-Lyons & Condon, 2000, p. 37).
10. Reflection. By reflecting mindfully on their products and processes,
writers explain their learning, how portfolio entries evolved, how en-
tries compare to one another, and how writing has enhanced their liter-
acy skills (Hirvela & Sweetland, 2005; Johns, 1997; Luoma & Tarnanen,
2003; Reynolds, 2000; Yancey, 1992, 2004). Guided self-assessment
helps “put control for learning into [learners’] hands” (Hamp-Lyons
& Condon, 2000, p. 36).
11. Evaluation. A portfolio naturally entails evaluation by demonstrat-
ing systematic appraisal. As they make selections, arrange entries, and
articulate the strengths of their portfolio contents, students evaluate
their work and provide the assessor with a cross-section of products
to examine and evaluate (Reynolds, 2000; Weigle, 2002).
12. Authenticity. Because they exemplify direct assessment par excellence,
portfolios represent learner performance and progress authentically. A
complete portfolio contains artifacts that present an album of literacy
performances. Unlike indirect writing assessments that at best provide
single snapshots (sometimes taken at inopportune moments), portfo-
lios allow writers to expose the genuine, iterative nature of their pro-
cesses. Embedded in real literacy contexts, portfolios are inextricably
linked to socioliterate communities, their members, and the genres that
they produce (Dolgin, Kelly, & Zelkha, 2010; Durst, Roemer, & Schultz,
1994; Hirvela & Pierson, 2000; Johns, 1997; Yancey, 2004, 2009).
Given these characteristics, one can easily see how a portfolio scheme can encour-
age the cyclical, heuristic, and recursive principles of post-process pedagogies
(Yancey, 2004, 2009; also see Chapter 3). Furthermore, the teacher–student trans-
actions and dialogue entailed in portfolio assembly and evaluation underscore the
vital role played by assessment in teaching and learning.
Portfolio assessment is naturally subject to limitations, particularly when used
for large-scale performance evaluation. One such limitation concerns how raters
fairly and reliably arrive at a single outcome for judging and comparing writing
quality, especially when the products that students include in their portfolios vary
in terms of genre and complexity (Hamp-Lyons & Condon, 2000; Weigle, 2002;
Williams, 2000). How can grading equivalence be established when individual
writers select from a range of artifacts to include in their portfolios? Crusan (2010)
called into question the face, construct, and criterion validity of portfolio guide-
lines that allow students broad latitude in selecting portfolio contents: “If port-
folios include only students’ best work, are they truly a reflection of growth over
time” (p. 80)? Similarly, how does one control variation that might occur when
different tasks assigned by different instructors necessitate the rating of portfolios
that are not ostensibly comparable (O’Neill et al., 2009)?
A further concern to be addressed is the need to preserve authenticity, a cri-
terion that must apply to the texts included in portfolios and to the contexts for
producing them (see Chapter 4). Also essential is ensuring authenticity of author-
ship: “How will . . . portfolio raters know that the students actually wrote all the
pieces in the portfolio, and when is editing and revising assistance from others
too extensive to represent the student’s own writing abilities?” (Grabe & Kaplan,
1996, p. 417). White (1998) raised similar operational reservations: “Portfolios
pose problems for assessment because of their sheer bulk and the uncontrolled
conditions under which they are produced” (p. 120).
A final dimension to be considered with extreme caution before adopting a
portfolio assessment plan is its practicality. Indeed, for many educators and ad-
ministrators, factors related to teacher and student workload are paramount in
setting an assessment policy and plan. To ensure the success of portfolio assess-
ment, instructors must commit to a manageable timeline of ongoing, formative
feedback on multiple drafts, as well as writing conferences (see Chapter 8). Also
crucial is systematic scaffolding of the portfolio process for students from the be-
ginning of a course and sustaining support of portfolio development through-
out the term (Crusan, 2010). These challenges should be confronted directly in
designing portfolio guidelines and rubrics—and, perhaps most importantly—in
managing portfolio development as it unfolds in a course (White, 1998, 2007). A
partial solution to these problems is to develop explicit instructions for students
and instructors that ensure consistency, comparability, and reliability in the com-
pilation and evaluation of portfolios.
An emerging and rapidly evolving option that addresses a number of the prac-
tical reservations concerning portfolio assessment is the electronic portfolio (e-
portfolio), preliminary models of which were introduced in the late 1990s and
early 2000s (Cambridge et al., 2009; Huot & Neal, 2006; Penrod, 2005; Yancey,
2009). Web 2.0 technology offers a wide range of synchronous and asynchronous
tools such as CMSs, social networks, blogs, and wikis that enable student writers
and teachers to communicate about writing (Beach, Clemens, & Jamsen, 2009;
Lundin, 2008). The National Writing Project (2010) described an e-portfolio as a
compilation of a writer’s products, “displayed in the form of a Web site, slideshow,
or other form of multimedia.” This digital collection may “present not only textual
documents but also audio work, video work, and multimedia compositions,” al-
lowing writers “to edit, add to, or otherwise change . . . materials as they see fit”
(p. 53). Research on e-portfolio assessment has demonstrated that
longstanding principles of good writing assessment can guide us as we

create more meaningful writing assessments. Technology can help solve
problems of storage and search, and makes large collections of student
work easier to manage. And Web tools make sharing and responding to
student work easier. (National Writing Project, 2010, p. 110)
A thorough exploration of the benefits and pitfalls of e-portfolios would re-

quire more space than we have here, though we encourage readers to make use
of the excellent digital tools currently available for managing portfolios online
(see the relevant sources listed in the Resources and Further Reading section at
the end of this chapter). When implemented thoughtfully and systematically, a
traditional or e-portfolio approach can furnish experienced and novice teachers
with rich and abundant opportunities for managing, monitoring, and reflecting
on composing processes and diverse literacy products (Adler-Kassner & O’Neill,
2010; Beach et al., 2008, 2009; Cambridge et al., 2009; Elbow & Belanoff, 1997;
Hirvela & Pierson, 2000; Hirvela & Sweetland, 2005; Penrod, 2005; Yancey, 2004,
2009).
An Outline for Portfolio Assessment

Far from an easy way to assess student writing, portfolios require rigorous plan-
ning and training for teachers and learners, as well as continuous follow-through
(Hamp-Lyons, 2003; Weigle, 2007). Practitioners must also be alert to the dan-
ger of reducing portfolio assessment to a positivist method that trivializes writing
processes. Hamp-Lyons and Condon (2000) warned that, when the chief purpose
of portfolios is to assess writing, practices may become essentialized. That is, the
focus becomes “what kind of portfolio this program or that program uses, how it
is read and evaluated (in logistical terms) in a specific context, what local faculty’s
and students’ reactions have been, and so forth” (p. 27).
With these dangers in mind, we present a simple portfolio framework that,
although developed for a specific educational context, illustrates how portfolio as-
sessment can function effectively within and across courses. Clearly, the extent and
complexity of portfolio systems vary widely (Yancey, 2009). For example, many
college and university writing programs require instructors to use program-wide

portfolio assessment procedures and to participate in institutional portfolio rating
sessions at specified intervals (e.g., at midterm and term end). In such circum-
stances, each course syllabus may specify program-wide guidelines for students to
follow in compiling their portfolios and for instructors to use in teaching, review-
ing student work, and conducting conferences (see Appendix 5.2). Scoring criteria
may likewise be standardized for multiple sections, thereby facilitating collabora-
tive evaluation of students’ portfolios, as instructors may judge their own students’
work and participate in team grading of the work of students in other sections.
Alternatively, teachers may be free to determine whether they will use portfolios at
all. If they elect to implement a portfolio system, teachers may need to decide the
weight of a portfolio in determining course grades, depending on the proportion
of course goals that the portfolio will represent (Adler-Kassner & O’Neill, 2010;
Crusan, 2010).
The model outlined in Figure 6.5 describes the e-portfolio process for a course in
a college composition program serving L1 and L2 writers; its structure is based on the
systems outlined by Belanoff and Dickson (1991), Belanoff and Elbow (1986), Cam-
bridge and colleagues (2009), Crusan (2010), Condon and Hamp-Lyons (2000), and
Yancey (2009), among others. (The materials listed in the Further Reading and Re-
sources section provide detailed descriptions of portfolio frameworks, procedures,
and evaluation methods.) In addition to the global assessment principles outlined
earlier in this chapter (see Task Reliability and Validity and Approaches to Scoring
L2 Writing), we recommend designing portfolio assessment models that can achieve
the outcomes proposed by the National Writing Project (2010):
j Collect extended writing samples over time. Digital writing produced through
blogs, wikis, and online word processing . . . make it easier than ever for stu-
dents to draft, revise, collect, and reflect on their writing over time. . . .
j Have students write in multiple genres. Because of the many ways in
which digital writing can be shared, aggregated, and circulated to au-
diences, students [should] write about topics of personal interest in a
variety of genres. . . .
j Apply appropriate rubrics. As digital writing continues to evolve, writ-
ing teachers can build on existing rubrics for models of how to assess
student work but must be conscious of the ways in which these rubrics
may limit, or even contradict, the goals of digital writing. . . .
j Address writing across content areas. [Because] students need explicit
instruction in how to write for the different discourses, genres, and con-
ventions expected in diverse disciplines, digital writing tools give teach-
ers in . . . content areas unprecedented opportunity to work with their
students throughout the writing process. (pp. 110–112)
The college program for which the portfolio system outlined in Figure 6.5 was
designed offers pre-mainstream EAP, regular composition, and WAC courses,
the latter two serving both L1 and L2 writers. Portfolio assessment is used in all
courses; we focus here on the implementation of the E-Portfolio Guidelines for
ENGL 2210, a freshman writing course for multilingual students.
The following outlines a global sequence for leading instructors and students
through a term, culminating in the submission and assessment of an e-portfolio:
1. New faculty and graduate teaching associates undergo an orientation to

portfolio processes, procedures, and assessment criteria (see Figure 6.5).
In-service training is provided for continuing instructors. Workshops
and training sessions also focus on selecting course materials, setting
course outlines, and designing genre-specific writing assignments.
2. Instructors acquaint ENGL 2210 students with E-Portfolio Guidelines
(Figure 6.5) and provide guidance in the use of wikis, blogs, Google
Docs, and the digital portfolio platform to promote revision of drafts
and the development of multimodal products. Students may require
guidance and intervention before taking charge of their progress as writ-
ers (Cambridge et al., 2009; Lundin, 2008; Reynolds, 2000; Yancey, 2009).
3. Novice and continuing instructors participate in norming sessions
prior to scoring the first graded assignment. Norming entails practice
rating benchmark samples according to the ENGL 2210 scoring rubric,
which is similar to the sample in Figure 6.2.
4. As they respond to drafts and assess assignments, instructors provide
formative feedback and supply provisional grades only when students
request them. Instructors meet individually with students for compul-
sory midterm and semester-end conferences to assist in the selection of
e-portfolio products.
5. Following renorming sessions with benchmark samples, midterm and
final portfolios are evaluated collectively to ensure that uniform stan-
dards are met. Teams of experienced and less experienced instructors
review midterm e-portfolios, completing an evaluation form with writ-
ten comments and a provisional grade. At the end of the term, indepen-
dent holistic ratings of e-portfolios are completed online; discrepant
evaluations trigger the tertium quid procedure, which is overseen by a
supervisor or coordinator.
Given the high stakes, e-portfolio evaluation necessitates careful planning and
is ultimately intended to relieve the challenges of determining course grades. The
e-portfolio model described above represents one of innumerable possible designs
for a formative writing assessment system in which performance evaluation directly
supports teaching, and instruments hold writers and teachers accountable for their
ENGL 2210 E-PORTFOLIO GUIDELINES

clauses and
The Department of English and Communication Studies has developed a system of e -
Portfolio assessment for all EAR. composition, and WAC courses. The ENGL 2210 E-
PorTfolio is designed to help you meet Ihe course's objectives: building your maslery of
academic and non-academic genres, research techniques, collaborative learning
processes, grammatical expertise, and editing skills. This course will develop your digital
literacy skills, including your ability (jo read, critique, and produce diverse academic, non
academic, and popular texts in digital and print media. The sytlabus therefore features
fiction and nonfiction texls drawn from sources ranging from sctiolarly materials to
popular media. You will write about topics using rhetorical strategies that include
exposition, explanation, description, comparison, analysis, and persuasion, among
others. When completed, your ENGL £210 E-Portfolio will demonstrale your control of
these processes and your progress as a wnler of diverse genres; it will also showcase
products displaying your creativity and professional potential.
For policies pertaining to Ihe presentalkm and evaluation of Portfolios, refer to the £-
Portfolio Policy Ms mat, included in the course syllabus and available in your section's
Matnx portal (follow the Sink in your Moodle course). The Policy Manual includes
important information about procedures, confidenliality, grading, and so on. Review Ihe
Policy Manual carefully and refer to it throughout the semester. Perhaps the best way to
acquaint yourself with expectalions for your ENGL 2210 E-Portfolio is to review
successful e-portfolios assembled by other studenis (follow |he link on the Matrix portal )-
ENGL 2210 E-Portfolio Requirements
As your syllabus and course outiine indicate. ENGL 2210 will require four revised
assignments and five timed writings [his semester. You must submit all of these
assignments on time and In the specified form {or satisfy the make*up policy) In
order to earn a grade of “ C" or higher (Policy Manual, p. 7). Assignment receiving a
mark of ‘ LT (Unsatisfactory) must be revised and lesubmllted; only those assignments
that receive a mart; of “S" (Satisfactory) are eligible for inclusion in your E-Portlblio
The Midterm E-Portfolio and Final E-Portfolio are linked documents: Your Midterm E-
PortfoliQ is an in-progress version of your Final E-Portfolio. In ENGL 2210, 70% of your
course grade is based on the quality of your Final E-Portfolio. Please review the Policy
M a n u a l (pp. 9-12) for an explanation" of how the conlents of your E-Portfollo will be
assessed. Included in Uie P o lic y M a n u a l* s a scoring ru b ric , “Explanation of Standards for
Assessmg Studenl Writing in ENGL 2210,' which describes the features of writing
assignments that earn marks of A, B, C. D, and F.
C hecklist for the Midterm E-Portfolio
Your Midterm E-Portfolio will be due at the end of Week S. Mattix will not accept your
Midtenn E-Portfolio unless it contains the items listed below:
j A 500-750-word cover letter - a self-assessment of your performance antf progress
over the first seven weeks of ENGL 2210, Use the M id te rm S e lf-A s s e s s m e n t
G u id e lin e s to compose this document, which should review your work and growth as
a writer. If you wish to receive a provisional, in-progress grade, selectJIn-Progress
Grade' when you submit your E-Portfolio via the Assessment Module in Matrix.
□ Assignment 1 (including all inteirnedFale drafts, a peer response worksheet from at
leasit one classmate, a self-analysis cover sheets, and written in stfuctor feed back).
j Assignment 2 OR Assignment 3 (including one intermediate draft, a peer response
worksheet from at least one classmate, self-analysis cover sheets. and written
clauses clauses
and and
□ One timed writing {including written Instructor feedback). You may optionally inducts
clauses and clauses
clauses
and
and
□ One to two informal, personal, or self-seiectecf products (e.g., text material, such as a
blog Or Journal entry, a reading response, a letter, a poem, an op-ed; a visual, video,
or multimedia artifact such as a slide presentation, video, song, or short film, which
clauses and clauses
clauses
andand
J One commentary on a peer's major assignment, including the annotated digital draft.
clausesclauses
and and
Final Conferences will be scheduled with your instructor during Weeks 12 and 13. You
will submit a draft of your 75G-word final self-assessment to your inslructor in advance of
your conference, along with other materials that he er she requests. In your Conference,
you and your instructor uvtll discuss your progress and the wriling samples that you will
clauses and clausesclauses
and and
clauses and clauses and clauses and
Your Final E-Portfolio will be due at the end of Week 15. The Matrix Assessment Module
will not accept your Final E Portfolio unless it contains the items listed below. You may
array your E-Portfolio using any design you choose (e.g., as a folio, matrix, web).
D A 750-word cover letter - a self-assessment of your performance and progress in
ENGL 2210. Use the Final Setf-Assessmont Guidolines to compose this document,
which will review your Portfolio contents and progress as a writer. Your self
assessment will also explain why you heve given yourself the grade you have
indicated. If your instructor asks you to revise your self-assessment dunng your Final
Conference, please file the initial version in the Assessment Module.
j Three revised assignments {each including intermediate drafts, at least one peer
response worksheet, self-analysis pages, and all instructor feedback).
□ Two of your timed wntings (Including Instructor feedback). You may also optionally
Include a revision of one of these timed writings, with an appropriate cover page
Follow the guidelines rn (he Assessment Module of Matrix to help you with ti*ese
□ Two informal, personal, or self-selected products (e.g,. texl material, such as a blog
or journal entry, a neadsng response, a letter, a poem, an op-ed; a visual, video, or
multimedia ariifact such as a slide presentation, video, song, or short film).
3 One commentary on a peer's major assignment, including the annotated digital draft.
clauses and
■ You will submit your E-Portfolio via the Assessment Modulo of Matrix. Your instructor
will provide guidance in hew to use Matrix productively. You may also use ihe
platform's tutorials lo help you determine which formats work best for you and to
create documents that represent your work most effectively and creatively.
■ Please check the Policy Manual for presentation options and requirements.
• Your Midterm and Final E-Portfolios will be reviewed independently by your instructor
and by another ENGL 2210 instructor who does not know your work. See the Policy
clauses and clauses and clauses clauses
and and
FIGURE 6.5 Sample portfolio process guidelines for a freshman composition

course for multilingual writers.
decisions (Crusan, 2010; Hamp-Lyons & Condon, 2000). In some respects, port-
folio assessment reflects the general movement toward dynamic, learner-centered
assessment (Antón, 2012; Brown & Abeywickrama, 2012; Grigorenko, 2009; Po-
ehner, 2010; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2002). In particular, portfolio assessment
involves writers in managing and appraising their own processes (Gottlieb, 2000;
Hamp-Lyons, 2003; Hirvela & Pierson, 2000).
Portfolios are neither a panacea nor a universally accepted alternative to tradi-

tional assessment. Nonetheless, portfolio assessment offers promising possibilities
for instructors and student writers alike, despite requiring careful planning and
serious commitment. Before concluding this section, we would alert readers that
the methods of assessing performance and achievement described here reflect a
criterion-referenced, or absolute, approach (Jamieson, 2011). That is, by using pre-
selected rubrics, we specify standards on a numerical scale designed to supply stu-
dents with qualitative and quantitative appraisals of learning and performance.4
Practical Concerns in Assessing Student Performance

This final section touches on practical issues in performance assessment that are
often downplayed or overlooked in composition teaching and teacher prepara-
tion. Some of these issues relate to responding to written products, a topic that
Chapter 7 explores in depth; the issues addressed in the remainder of this chapter
pertain to wider issues of management, scoring, and record keeping.
Managing the Workload

Responding efficiently to student writing is often a primary concern of novice and
experienced teachers, for whom the workload can be simply overwhelming. “All
writing teachers know how difficult it is to grade numerous student papers,” as
Williams (2003) candidly observed. “It is a time-consuming, tedious task,” often
because many instructors continue to “use a very traditional grading method,” de-
spite embracing contemporary principles of response and assessment (p. 314). To
address ongoing concerns related to managing volume and response fatigue, we
recommend two general guidelines. First, we need to take a ruthlessly realistic ap-
proach to assessing student writing by planning sufficient time to review assign-
ments and by mindfully building time for this process into our course calendars.
Second, we need to manage students’ expectations about when to expect grades and
feedback by making reasonable promises that we can actually keep. Novice teachers
may spend 40 minutes or more on a 500-word sample; experienced instructors may
spend 15 to 20 minutes (Williams, 2003). Even at that rate, scoring 30 assignments
can easily consume a full eight-hour workday or more. With practice, experience,
reliable scoring instruments, and efficient digital tools (e.g., a CMS or other web-
based platform for sharing and managing student work, such as Course Studio),
grading time can be reduced to a manageable level (Crusan, 2010; White, 2007).
Still, whether reading paper or digital documents, we may need to restrict the
time spent on each piece of writing to a fixed period (e.g., 15 to 20 minutes per sam-
ple). Alternatively, we can divide our workload into smaller chunks, marking five to
ten samples per day over a three- or four-day period, rather than reading through a
set of assignments in a single day. It is advisable to announce return dates based on a
reasonable timetable. If assignments require revision, they should be returned early
enough to allow students several days before the revised version is due. To minimize
unproductive marking practices and maximize meaningful instructional time, we

offer several additional suggestions for planning and handling student writing:
j Assign reading journals, blog entries and comments, freewriting, five-

minute summaries, and other types of informal writing that promote
frequent practice (see Chapter 4) but that can be reviewed quickly with-
out editing or scoring (Smith, 2005; Williams, 2005).
j Specify that not all writing tasks will be formally assessed (Elbow, 1993;
Morrison, 2005; White, 2007). Smith (2005) recommended comple-
menting formal evaluation with informal check systems that award
credit for work that is completed and reviewed by peers (with or with-
out review by the teacher).
j Construct writing assignments carefully (see Chapter 4). Clearly articu-
late tasks in writing, providing benchmark assignments to improve stu-
dents’ chances of producing successful, genre-appropriate work at the
outset (Gardner, 2008). Higher-quality student writing necessitates less
marking time (Crusan, 2010; Weigle, 2002, 2007; Williams, 2003).
j Model and discuss use of your scoring rubric to evaluate benchmark
texts in class to reduce the need to comment extensively on individual
assignments. Reference performance criteria explicitly (or include the
scoring rubric) in the assignment description to allow you and your stu-
dents to identify each text’s strengths and weaknesses efficiently (Cru-
san, 2010; Glenn et al., 2007).
j Provide learner training to prepare student writing groups to respond
meaningfully to drafts (see Chapters 3 and 7; cf. Moss et al., 2004).
j Avoid excessive editing and proofreading on early and middle drafts
(see Chapters 7–8; cf. White, 2007; Williams, 2003).
j Consider using a numeric or symbolic coding system that enables you
to forgo extensive comments (see Chapters 7–8).
j Focus comments on the central issues and textual conventions featured
in the writing task and in students’ cover sheets (Crusan, 2010; Glenn
et al., 2007; Williams, 2003).
j Use face-to-face or computer-mediated conferences (e.g., via CMSs or
tools such as Elluminate®) to provide efficient, real-time formative and
summative evaluations of student work (see Chapter 7; cf. Bloch, 2008;
Crusan, 2010).
j Integrate self-rating into your assessment plan, noting that self-appraisal
should never replace expert assessment (Brown & Abeywickrama, 2012;
Polio & Williams, 2011). Self-rating provides “another means for learn-
ers to practice writing and self-reflection” (Luoma & Tarnanen, 2003,
p. 461). Online self-assessment tools include ETS’s Criterion®, Pearson’s
WriteToLearn®, and Vantage Learning’s MYAccess!® (see Crusan, 2010,
for a review of self-assessment engines).
j Consider adopting a contract system in which students earn a course

grade (e.g., a B) “based not on our evaluation of their writing quality
but solely on their completion of the specified activities” (Danielewicz
& Elbow, 2009).
j Stagger assignment deadlines in your course outline (Mezeske, 2005).
Assignment Grading Anxiety

Weigle (2007) perceptively observed that “one of the most troublesome aspects of
assessing writing for many teachers is assigning grades or numerical scores to their
students’ work” (p. 203). Despite the availability of explicit, valid, and contextually
appropriate rubrics, teachers may find it difficult to initiate the grading process,
often because they fear making judgments that may be biased, unjustified, and
possibly damaging to student writers (Crusan, 2010; Glenn et al., 2007). These
natural apprehensions should not be treated lightly. Frequently, what teachers fear
the most are the results of crude, reductionist, and overly simple rankings (i.e., a B
versus a C) that do not convey a meaningful response to students (Hamp-Lyons,
1996, 2003). If we undertake evaluation in Elbow’s (1993) sense, however, ranking
serves as but one step in the assessment process.
Ranking can function as a valuable starting point when we are faced with a set
of assignments to mark, though we would obviously not curtail our efforts at that
point. Williams (2003, pp. 316–317) proposed an elaborate multistep process for
scoring assignments, which we have adapted and simplified below:
1. To begin, skim the entire set of assignments “to get a sense of . . . strengths
and weaknesses . . . to grade them mentally, without making any marks”
(Williams, 2003, p. 316).
2. After reading the first sample, compare it with your “internalized stan-
dard” for an excellent text as described in the scoring rubric, then set the
sample aside.
3. Quickly read the other assignments, compare them to one another
and to your internalized standard, and then sort texts into excellent,
adequate, and unsatisfactory categories. Alternatively, classify samples
by scoring band (if your scale comprises five bands, as in Figures 6.1
and 6.2, you will categorize samples into five subsets). Flag borderline
assignments that require more careful decision making for assigning a
score or grade.
4. Begin your second reading by making selective marginal and/or end
comments, as recommended in Chapter 7. Aim for succinct feedback
keyed to the verbal descriptors in the appropriate scoring band(s).
5. Revisit borderline samples before assigning scores or grades, ensuring

that marks align with the standards in your rubric and that marks are
comparable to the grades assigned to the unproblematic samples.
Whether rating student writing digitally or with pen and paper, we should ap-
ply the response principles introduced in Chapters 7 and 8. In addition, it is vital
to bear in mind the natural tendency for bias to creep into the process and for “in-
ternalized standards” to shift imperceptibly as we evaluate a set of writing samples
(Crusan, 2010; Glenn et al., 2007; Lumley & McNamara, 1995; Sakyi, 2000; Smith,
2000; Vaughan, 1991; Weigle, 1999, 2002; White, 2007; Williams, 2003). Elbow (1993)
suggested that reflection on our intuitions should be part of judgment and that evalu-
ation inherently involves judgment. We cannot avoid judgment, but we can make it
transparent and useful for our students. Useful questions to consider as we monitor
bias might include the following: Why do I think writing sample Y is better than sam-
ple X? How do my judgments coincide with the descriptors in the rubric? How does
my reading of sample Z affect my rereading of samples X and Y? If I read these texts
tomorrow, will my rankings be different? By addressing such questions before assign-
ing grades, we can move toward informative evaluation and calibrate our reading to
a valid external standard (i.e., the task, the rubric, benchmark samples, the quality of
individual samples with respect to the others, and so forth) (Crusan, 2010; Murphy &
Yancey, 2008; Panofsky et al., 2005; Weigle, 2002; also see Chapter 5).
Teachers may find measuring the quality of writing and assigning grades dis-
tressing because of insecurity about their objectivity and assessment skills (Wei-
gle, 2007). Most composition teachers are highly sensitive and mindful of their
students’ investment in their writing. Assignment and course grades are often tied
to writers’ perceptions about how they are valued by authority figures such as
teachers. To mitigate anxieties generated by the high stakes of educational meas-
urement, we recommend that teachers regularly remind themselves and their
students that formal assessment, when implemented according to the principles
introduced in this chapter, should provide information about writing achieve-
ment, proficiency, and progress (Crusan, 2010). Moreover, measuring intangible
factors such as effort and motivation is extraordinarily difficult. We should recall
that writing instructors are expected to evaluate products, not the persons who
author them. Systematic assessment should thus provide a means of communi-
cating honestly about writing quality. Explicit standards and scoring instruments
enable us to justify the grades we assign and to monitor our consistency in apply-
ing established criteria (Crusan, 2010; Miller et al., 2013; Schreiner, 2009; Vause &
Amberg, 2013; Waugh & Gronlund, 2012; Weigle, 2002; White, 2007).
A further recommendation for reducing grading anxiety involves a simple re-
minder: Not all assignments have to be formally assessed (Morrison, 2005). “Just
because . . . institutions oblige us to turn in a single quantitative course grade at
the end of every marking period, it doesn’t follow that we need to grade indi-
vidual papers” (Elbow, 1993, p. 191). This precept applies to evaluating individual
assignments summatively, as well as to portfolio systems. When the syllabus al-

lows for flexibility in terms of how many assignments are graded, teachers should
take full advantage of their prerogative to focus essentially (or solely) on provid-
ing qualitative feedback on occasion, and not on traditional ranking, though we
would argue that both methods are necessary and useful.
Assigning Course Grades

Determining individual course grades can be as anxiety-provoking for teachers as
marking student writing for the first time. Clearly, the two processes should be un-
dertaken with the same care. Arriving at fair, informative course grades need not,
however, cause undue worry. First, we should “base grades on a wide variety of
valid assessment data” (Glanz, 2009, p. 189). Moreover, as we stressed in Chapter 5,
the process of assigning grades should be explicitly and systematically framed with
respect to clearly stated learning aims and achievement standards. This informa-
tion should be explicit in the syllabus’s assessment plan, which should also indi-
cate coefficients (weights) for specific assignments and performance categories,
and grade calculation procedures.
In many postsecondary settings, coefficients are fixed for certain courses; in
others, instructors may have complete freedom to weight grades as they wish. When
given options, teachers should first examine course goals and the aims of graded work,
as recommended in Chapter 5. The weighting of assignments in the grade calculation
formulae appearing in the syllabus’s assessment plan should reflect the importance of
these assignments in the course and the effort required for students to complete them
satisfactorily. For example, a multi-draft research assignment should legitimately re-
ceive more weight in the course grade if research writing is featured as a major course
goal; it should likewise be weighted more heavily than an informal blog post, a five-
minute reflection, or a 30-minute timed writing. In a course requiring extensive read-
ing, the grading scale might assign a corresponding weight to reading tasks such as
reading journals and content quizzes (see, for example, Appendix 5.2).
A related concern is rewarding students for their progress, particularly when the
syllabus professes a process orientation and an emphasis on revision. Without com-
promising evaluation criteria, teachers can make room in their assessment plans
and grading policies for fair appraisal of both products and progress (Brown &
Abeywickrama, 2012). This goal can be achieved by weighing assignments given
later in the term more heavily (i.e., by assigning a higher coefficient) than those
given at the beginning. In a course that leads to the drafting and revision of an orig-
inal research paper, for example, initial assignments might target skills necessary
for composing and polishing that final product. Early assignments might require
students to read, analyze, and synthesize sources as practice for extensive work with
new material and a demanding research process later in the term. Initial assign-
ments might be assigned coefficients of 15% or 20%, whereas the final research or
multimedia project might be weighted 30% or more to reflect increasing demands
and the accretion of increasingly complex skills. Thus, students whose performance
is initially weak have opportunities to improve their marks over time. Meanwhile,
students who begin with more solid skills have ample incentive to complete the
assigned work and improve their skills. Variable coefficients can be a useful tool in
traditional courses as well as in courses that feature portfolio assessment.
An additional recommendation for easing the distress of determining course
grades is pragmatic: Keep current, accurate records of student performance. In-
structors who use CMSs such as Canvas®, Moodle®, or BlackBoard® can use the
grading and reporting tools built into these platforms. Commercial applications
(e.g., EasyGradePro®, Gradekeeper®, Microsoft Excel®) and websites (e.g., Jupiter
Grades®, LearnBoost®, Teacher Ease®, GradeBook Wizard®, Think Wave®) offer
efficient, customizable, and easy-to-use tools for recording, storing, calculating,
and reporting course grades at a low cost or even free of charge. Whether you
track student performance with a software application, a cloud-based tool, a tra-
ditional grade book, loose grade sheets, or individual progress charts, all assign-
ments should be recorded in the form of a score, grade, check mark, or other
informal notation. The grade record should also track attendance, peer critiques,
writing group contributions, intermediate drafts, and so on, if these components
are assessed in your course or program.
As you assess and return student work, record the results in a form that will be
easily converted to summative grades at the end of the term. For example, if your
grading system is based on percentages (as in the case of analytic scoring—see
Figure 6.3) or scoring bands (as in the case of holistic and trait-based scoring—see
Figures 6.1, 6.2, and 6.4), enter these values instead of converting them to letter
grades, decimal values, or symbols. Recording scores exactly as they are reported
to students will obviate the need to reconstruct these notations later and will fa-
cilitate the calculation of means and weighted scores. The conversion table shown
in Figure 6.6 presents suggested equivalencies.
Letter Grade Percentage Six-Level Five-Level Descriptor

Grade Points Scale Scale Scale
(cf Figures 6.2-6.3) (cf Figure 6.4) (cf Figures 6.1-6.2)
A 4.0 94-100% 6 Excellent to
5 Outstanding
A- 3.7 90-93% 5/6
B+ 3.3 87-89% 5
4 Good; Above
B 3.0 83-86% 4/5 Average
B- 2.7 80-82% 4/5
C+ 2.3 77-86% 4
3 Adequate;
C 2.0 73-75% 3/4 Average
C- 1.7 70-72% 3
D+ 1.3 67-69% 2/3 Inadequate;
D 1.0 63-66% 2 2 Unsatisfactory;
D- 0.7 60-62% 1/2 Below Average
F 0.0 0-59% 1 1 Failing
FIGURE 6.6 Numeric grade conversion scale.

Student Short Papers (30%) Timed Papers 20% Project 35% Homework + Quizz (15%) End of the Course
ID Name 1 2 3 Avg 1 Avg 1 Avg 1 2 3 4 5 Avg Avg Grade
1024 ANG, B 65 70 66 67.00 55 55.00 70 70.00 50 63 55 70 84 64.40 63.44 D-
1025 BEJARANO, C 85 97 90 90.67 89 89.00 80 80.00 100 97 100 85 90 94.40 87.26 B
1054 CAI, D 75 95 70 80.00 76 76.00 85 85.00 80 75 89 85 84 82.60 80.36 C+
1152 DJARIAN, E 84 86 93 87.67 94 94.00 93 93.00 95 90 95 90 95 93.00 92.02 A-
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Class Averages: 77.25 87.00 79.75 81.33 78.50 78.50 82.00 82.00 81.25 81.25 84.75 82350 88.25 83.60 80.77 C+
FIGURE 6.7 Sample grade book (Microsoft Excel worksheet).

If course grades are weighted, organize the columns of your database, spread-
sheet, or grade book to reflect the categories and coefficients specified in your
assessment plan. In this way, you can easily convert cumulative scores or means
into weighted scores, which can subsequently be summed to calculate a compos-
ite score or grade. Computer software for tracking student grades is remarkably
flexible, easily accommodating weighted grades, an array of scoring scales, and
qualitative comments. The sample grade book in Figure 6.7 (previous page) shows
how one might format a Microsoft Excel® worksheet to reflect coefficients, record
scores, compute category means, and calculate cumulative (letter) grades.
Chapter Summary
This chapter has outlined principles of classroom-based writing assessment; it has
also described theoretical and procedural aspects of holistic, analytic, and trait-
based scoring methods. In addition to examining approaches to rating student
writing, we have presented an overview of portfolio assessment in the context of
L2 writing instruction. Finally, we have offered suggestions for managing paper
marking and facilitating student performance evaluation. Throughout this chap-
ter, we have emphasized the pedagogical role of assessment in writing instruction.
In our view, responding to and evaluating student writing is as crucial to suc-
cessful L2 writing instruction as careful materials design, course planning, and
classroom teaching. Moreover, establishing clear, systematic scoring criteria is as
useful for students as for teachers. Major points related to this generalization can
be summarized in the statements that follow:
j Whatever scoring method(s) they select for assessing student work,

teachers should aim for the highest standards of validity and reliability
while keying assessment directly to learning goals.
j Each scoring method presents advantages and disadvantages that must
be weighed in light of (a) each method’s reliability and validity and
(b) how well the method informs students about their performance and
progress.
j Portfolio assessment offers distinct advantages over traditional, sum-
mative evaluation of individual writing assignments and can maximize
the interactive, heuristic, recursive elements of process-based compos-
ing pedagogy introduced and explained throughout this book.
j Efficient planning, paper marking, record keeping, and reporting prac-
tices facilitate fair, informative assessment of student performance and
progress.

j L1 writing assessment: Adler-Kassner and O’Neill (2010); Dolgin et al. (2010);
Elliot (2005); Elliot and Perelman (2012); Herrington et al. (2009); Huot
(2002); Huot and Neal (2006); Huot and O’Neill (2009); O’Neill et al. (2009);
Vause and Amberg (2013); White (1998, 2007)
j L2 writing assessment: Crusan (2010); Hamp-Lyons (1991a, 2003); Hamp-
Lyons and Kroll (1996); Kroll (1998); Polio and Williams (2011); Shaw and
Weir (2007); Weigle (2002, 2007)
j Language assessment theory and practice: Brown and Abeywickrama (2012);
Coombe, Davidson, O’Sullivan, and Stoynoff (2012); Coombe, Folse, and
Hubley (2007); Fulcher (2010); Fulcher and Davidson (2007, 2012); Jamieson
(2011); Hu (2012); Hughes (2003); Katz (2014); Kunnan (2000); Kunnan and
Grabowski (2014); McNamara (2000); O’Malley and Valdez-Pierce (1996);
O’Sullivan (2011)
j L1 and L2 portfolio assessment: Calfee and Perfumo (1996); Cambridge et al.
(2009); Hamp-Lyons and Condon (2000); Mabry (1999); Reynolds (2000);
Yancey (2004, 2006, 2009); Yancey and Weiser (1999)
j Educational measurement: Griffin, McGaw, and Care (2012); Miller et al.
(2013); Schreiner (2009); Waugh and Gronlund (2012)
j Technology-enhanced writing assessment: Beach et al. (2009); Burke and
Hammett (2009); Cambridge et al. (2009); DeVoss, McKee, and Selfe (2009);
Golub (2005); Herrington et al. (2009); Shute & Becker (2010); Yancey (2009)
j Scoring rubrics: PTE® scoring guides, http://pearsonpte.com/PTEAcademic/
Pages/TestScores.aspx; TOEFLiBT® scoring guides for writing subtests, http://
www.ets.org/toefl/institutions/scores/guides
j Online rubric development: Rubistar, http://rubistar.4teachers.org/index.
php; TeacherVision, http://www.teachervision.fen.com/teaching-methods-
and-management/rubrics/4521.html
j Automated scoring, assessment, and feedback: Criterion® Online Writing Eval-
uation, Educational Testing Service, https://criterion.ets.org; DIALANG Proj-
ect, http://www.dialang.org; EduMetry, http://www.edumetry.com; Intelligent
Essay Assessor®, Pearson, http://kt.pearsonassessments.com; IntelliMetric®,
Vantage Learning, http://www.vantagelearning.com/products/intellimetric

1. How do face, criterion (concurrent and predictive), content, construct, and
consequential validity differ? Why are they relevant in L2 writing assessment?
2. Describe the relationship between validity and reliability. Why are both con-
structs important in assessing student writing and overall performance?
3. Identify and compare principles underlying holistic, analytic, multiple-trait,

and primary-trait scoring. Of these scoring methods, which offers the greatest
advantages in your teaching context? Why?
4. How can assessment criteria and scoring procedures be integrated into a writ-
ing course syllabus to promote positive washback? What are the advantages of
using an assessment plan systematically as a teaching tool?
5. Can formative portfolio assessment be claimed to be a more valid method of
writing assessment than traditional, summative evaluation? Explain.
6. Discuss scoring techniques and grading methods that you might adopt or
adapt in your teaching context. Explain and justify your choices.
Holistic Essay Scoring Practice
1. Select several student writing samples from those provided in Appendices 2,
7.1, 7.4, and 8. Alternatively, select several assignments written by students in
an L2 writing course. These samples should represent a range of strengths.
2. Rate the essays using the holistic rubric in either Figure 6.1 or 6.2. Comment
on a copy of the rubric or on the texts as you would if you were evaluating
them in a classroom setting.
3. Make copies of your comments and scores for each of the samples; distribute
this material to one or more classmates for comparison.
4. In a face-to-face or digital discussion, compare your scores and comments
with those of your peers. Use the following prompts to guide you:
a. On what points did you agree or disagree? Why?
b. If you disagreed, arrive at a consensus evaluation of each sample.
c. Identify the sources of your agreement and disagreement, formulating a
list of suggestions for using holistic scoring rubrics.

Analytic Essay Scoring Practice
1. As you did in Application Activity 6.1, select a set of student essays from those
provided in Appendices 2, 7.1, 7.4, and 8 (or two or three sample assignments
produced by students in an L2 writing course). These samples should repre-
sent a diverse a range of quality.
2. Rate the samples using the analytic scoring rubric in Figure 6.3. Make com-
ments on a copy of the scoring sheet or on the writing samples, as you would
if you were evaluating the essays in a classroom setting.
3. Make copies of your comments and scoring sheet for each sample and distrib-
ute this material to one or more classmates for comparison.
4. In a face-to-face or digital discussion, compare your component and compos-

ite scores as well as your comments with those of your peers. Use the following
prompts to guide you:
a. On what points did you agree or disagree? Why?
b. If you disagreed, arrive at a consensus evaluation of each of the samples.
c. Identify the sources of your agreement and disagreement, formulating a
list of suggestions for using analytic scoring rubrics.

Comparing Holistic and Analytic Scoring
1. Using the writing samples that you evaluated and discussed in Application
Activity 6.1, rate and comment on these using the analytic scale in Figure 6.3.
2. Follow the discussion and comparison guidelines outlined in Application Activ-
ity 6.2, items 2–4.
3. In your discussion, consider these questions:
a. How well do your analytic ratings match with your holistic ratings?
b. Where do the two sets of scores and comments differ? Why?
c. Given the nature of the writing tasks that you evaluated, which scale do
you feel is most appropriate? Why?
d. How would you modify either scale to suit your educational setting?

Designing and Testing a Rubric or Scale
1. Identify an L2 or other composition course at a nearby institution. Individu-
ally or with a peer, use this context to design one of the following:
a. A holistic scoring rubric intended for systematic use in the course;
b. An analytic scoring scale intended for systematic use in the course;
c. A primary or multiple trait scoring scale intended for evaluating a spe-
cific writing assignment.
2. Use a model from Figures 6.1–6.4 as a framework or consult other sources
cited in this chapter for alternative sample instruments. If you are not teaching
the course, familiarize yourself with the students and course goals.
3. In addition to constructing a scoring guide, prepare a scoring package that
includes components such as benchmark papers for the bands in your scale,
a rationale for the scores assigned to those papers, and an explanation of how
the instrument reflects and promotes course goals (i.e., an analysis of the in-
strument’s validity). If you design a primary or multiple trait scale, include
the task or prompt, a description of the traits elicited, and an interpretation
of how the task generates the expected writing performance.
4. If possible, pilot your instrument by using it to evaluate a set of assignments.
Use this experience to revise and refine your instrument for future use.

Designing a Writing Portfolio Plan
1. Select a mainstream, L2, or combined composition course at a nearby institu-
tion where the current assessment scheme relies on traditional summative
evaluation of individual writing assignments.
2. Conduct a modest study of the course design, syllabus, curriculum, and
learner population (see Application Activities 5.1–5.2 for guidelines). Assess
the feasibility of introducing a portfolio system into the assessment plan.
3. Based on the portfolio model for ENGL 2210 described in this chapter (or
based on other sources on portfolio assessment), propose a simple portfolio
plan tailored to the course you have selected. In your proposal, describe the
following elements: sequences, procedures, and instruments. Include written
guidelines for students, similar to the sample materials shown in Figure 6.5.
4. Share and discuss your proposal with your peers, your instructor, and the
instructor of the course. If you teach the course yourself, consider how you
might integrate your portfolio scheme into the course and pilot it successfully.
Notes
1. A thorough characterization of DA is regrettably beyond the scope of this book (see Poeh-
ner, 2010). Although this chapter does not draw explicitly on a DA model, the principles
and practices introduced here and in Chapter 7 align with DA precepts. Citing Grigorenko
(2009) and Sternberg and Grigorenko (2002), Antón (2012) highlighted fundamental dis-
tinctions between DA and traditional (non-DA) approaches. Non-DA practice “focuses
on past, matured abilities,” whereas DA “projects towards the future by [discerning and
nurturing] emergent abilities” (p. 107). Further, in DA, the assessor “integrates teaching
within the assessment itself”; in non-DA approaches, assessors must adopt neutral roles
(p. 107). Finally, “providing qualitative feedback during assessment” is fundamental to DA,
whereas feedback is supplied at the end in traditional assessment (p. 107).
2. Numerous formulae have been used to calculate interrater agreement, including Pear-
son’s r, Spearman’s ȡ (rho), and Cronbach’s Į (alpha).
3. Automated scoring in high-stakes assessment continues to fuel controversy. Familiar scor-
ing engines include ETS’s e-rater® (ETS, 2012) and Pearson’s Intelligent Essay Assessor™
(Pearson, 2012). Machine scoring of writing tests has so far been confined to formulaic
four- and five-paragraph essays (Ericsson & Haswell, 2006; Shermis & Burstein, 2003;
Williamson, 2003). Interestingly, research has demonstrated that combined e-rater® and
human evaluator scores on TOEFLiBT® writing subtests show higher interrater agree-
ment than scores generated by two independent human evaluators (Attali, Bridgeman, &
Trapani, 2010). For a thorough discussion of the validity, reliability, and fairness of auto-
mated scoring, see Crusan (2010) and Huot and Neal (2006).
4. In criterion-referenced assessment, scores and grades are thought to be consistent and
comparable over time and across student cohorts and assignments (Brown & Abeywick-
rama, 2012; Coombe et al., 2012; Fulcher & Davidson, 2007, 2012; Jamieson, 2011; Miller
et al., 2013; Waugh & Gronlund, 2012). In contrast, norm-referencing assigns and interprets
scores on an assessment (e.g., a test) in relation to normative measures of central tendency
(i.e., means, medians, standard deviations, and so on). Norm-referenced instruments “set
goals for students based on the average performance of a population of students . . . they
compare a student’s score against the scores of others who have already taken the test,”
representing that performance with a percentile rank (Crusan, 2010, p. 132).
Chapter 7
Response to
Student Writing:
Issues and
Options for Giving
and Facilitating
Feedback

j From your own experiences as a student writer, what memories do you
have of teacher responses to your texts? What types of feedback have
you as a writer found most helpful? Most problematic?
j Do you feel that the types of responses (in both content and form) that you
have received would also be appropriate for L2 writers? Why or why not?
j As you think about responding (or facilitating response) to student
writing in your present or future teaching, what questions and concerns
come to mind? What do you feel you need to know to give your students
effective feedback?
j What are your own experiences with peer feedback? As a current or
future teacher, what ideas or questions do you have about facilitating
successful collaborative work, especially with L2 writers?
Perspectives on Teacher Response

As discussed in Chapter 3, approaches to teaching composition (whether to L1 or
L2 writers) have changed dramatically over the past quarter century. Despite all
of these changes, however, one element has remained constant: Both teachers and
students feel that teacher feedback on student writing is a critical, nonnegotiable
aspect of writing instruction. In most instances, it represents the single largest
238 Response to Student Writing
investment of teacher time and energy, much more than time spent preparing for
or conducting classroom sessions (see Hairston, 1986; Sommers, 1982). Teacher
feedback also provides the opportunity for instruction to be tailored to the needs
of individual students through face-to-face dialogue (in teacher–student writing
conferences) and through the draft-response-revision cycle, during which teach-
ers assist students at various points through their written commentary.
Teachers’ awareness of the time that they spend in responding to student writ-
ing and of the potential benefits of their commentary raises the stakes of this com-
plex and challenging endeavor. Novice teachers can be paralyzed with anxiety over
providing feedback to student writers, not knowing where to start or how to make
comments that are clear and constructive without being discouraging or too di-
rective. More experienced instructors can be overwhelmed by the time it can take
to respond effectively to student writing and can find themselves wondering if, in
the end, their feedback is helpful and has really done their students any good (see
Ferris, Liu, & Rabie, 2011). When we have made conference presentations or con-
ducted workshops on this topic, one of the most frequent questions asked is, “I am
drowning in the paper load. How can I make this go more quickly?”1
In this chapter, we will address the concerns of both novice teachers—who may
feel that they do not know where to start—and veteran teachers, who would like to
improve both the effectiveness and the efficiency of their commentary. We will first
outline some principles and practical guidelines for responding optimally to student
writing. We will then move to a discussion of other feedback sources beyond the
teacher, focusing especially on ideas for facilitating effective peer feedback sessions.
Research on Teacher Feedback

Although there has been fairly extensive examination of error correction in ESL
writing (see Chapter 8; also see Bitchener & Ferris, 2012; Ferris, 2011), there has
been surprisingly little research on other sorts of teacher commentary in L2 writ-
ing. Empirical studies of teacher feedback have typically represented three major
categories: (1) descriptive studies of what teachers actually do when responding to
student writing; (2) research on the short- and long-term effects of teacher com-
mentary; and (3) surveys of student opinions about and reactions to instructor
feedback. Although the research base on these issues is far from comprehensive
or even adequate, enough work has been done in both L1 and L2 composition
settings to allow us to speculate with some confidence on patterns and trends that
emerge from the literature to date.2
Descriptive Studies on the Nature of Teacher Feedback

In attempting to describe and categorize teacher commentary, researchers have
addressed two major issues: what teacher feedback is focused on and how teacher
comments are constructed. Early reviewers of L1 and L2 composition research
on the nature of teacher feedback were sharply critical of instructors’ responding
Response to Student Writing 239
behaviors, declaring them ineffective and an “exercise in futility” (Knoblauch &

Brannon, 1981; Zamel, 1985).
In assessing such negative reports, however, we need to recognize that most of
them arose from earlier instructional paradigms in which instructors read only
one draft of student papers; teacher feedback was primarily provided to explain
and justify the grade, perhaps adding some general suggestions for the student
writer to consider next time. However, as teachers have adopted a multiple-draft,
response-and-revision approach to composition instruction (see Chapter 3), they
have begun to intervene at earlier stages of the process (as students craft prelim-
inary drafts) and to provide commentary on a broader range of issues (Ferris,
1995b; Ferris, Liu, et al., 2011; Montgomery & Baker, 2007).
It is fairly straightforward to observe that teachers should and do provide feed-
back at various stages of the writing process (not just at the end) and about a
range of issues (not just grammar), yet the question of how such commentary
is constructed is one of greater complexity and practical interest to most teach-
ers. Text-analytic descriptions of written and oral teacher commentary have been
fairly rare in the literature—due, no doubt, to the labor-intensive nature of such
investigations—but several studies have provided a promising start to this research
base and yielded some valuable and replicable analytic models (e.g., Conrad &
Goldstein, 1999; Ferris, Pezone, Tade, & Tinti, 1997; Goldstein, 2006; Hyland &
Hyland, 2001; Straub & Lunsford, 1995).
Effects of Teacher Commentary

Quantitative descriptions of teacher commentary are interesting and illustrative,
but perhaps the most pressing question for writing instructors is whether the feed-
back over which they labor so diligently actually promotes writing development.
Studies that explicitly link teacher commentary to student revision have been
scarce, indeed, and longitudinal research on student improvement as a result of
teacher feedback has been virtually nonexistent (Knoblauch & Brannon, 2006). Part
of the problem, perhaps, is that it is difficult to trace the effects of specific teacher
comments on revision, to measure and quantify “improvement,” and to isolate the
effects of teacher feedback from other aspects of writing instruction (pedagogical
approach, reading practice, and so on), which also influence literacy development
(Goldstein, 2001, 2005, 2006; Knoblauch & Brannon, 2006; Reid, 1994).
That said, the few studies that have been conducted along these lines have
yielded results that are helpful both in assessing the effectiveness of teacher com-
mentary and certainly in identifying areas for future empirical investigations. One
important and clear finding is that L2 student writers are highly likely to incor-
porate teacher commentary into their subsequent revisions. Although it is cer-
tainly encouraging to find that the feedback we work so hard on is taken seriously
by our students (Ferris, Liu, & Rabie , 2011), it can also be daunting to realize that,
because it is unlikely that our students will ignore our comments, the burden is on
us to make sure that our feedback is helpful or at least does no harm.
Thus, if students do, indeed, pay attention to teacher commentary and try to
utilize it as they revise, the next question is whether such teacher-influenced revi-
sions are actually beneficial to the quality of student texts and to their develop-
ment as writers over time. Again, evidence on this point is scarce, but in the few
attempts to trace the influence of teacher commentary on student writing, it ap-
pears that, while the majority of changes made by students in response to teacher
feedback have a positive impact on their revised texts, at least some teacher com-
ments lead students to make changes that actually weaken their papers (Conrad &
Goldstein, 1999; Ferris, 1997, 2001a).
Student Views of Teacher Feedback

Studies exploring the nature of teacher feedback and its effects on student writers
have been relatively rare; however a more substantial body of work in both L1 and
L2 composition examines student reactions to teacher response (Arndt, 1993; Co-
hen, 1987; Cohen & Cavalcanti, 1990; Enginarlar, 1993; Ferris, 1995b; Hedgcock &
Lefkowitz, 1994, 1996; Montgomery & Baker, 2007; Radecki & Swales, 1988; Saito,
1994; Straub, 1997; see Ferris, 2003, Ch. 5, for a review). Findings across these
studies have been fairly consistent and suggest the following:
1. Students greatly appreciate and value teacher feedback, believing that it

is important and helpful to their writing development.
2. Students value teacher feedback that serves multiple purposes—not just
word- and sentence-level errors.3
3. Students express frustration with instructor feedback that is illegible,
cryptic (consisting of symbols, circles, single-word questions and com-
ments, and so on), and confusing (e.g., unclear questions, suggestions
that are difficult to incorporate into a revised draft, and so forth).
4. Student writers appreciate and value a blend of encouragement and
constructive criticism, reporting that they are generally not offended or
hurt by concrete suggestions for improvement.
This set of findings on student attitudes toward response should both encour-
age and challenge teachers. On the one hand, it is good to know that our efforts
are valued and well received by students. On the other, we should take seriously
student concerns about ineffective feedback and do what we can to develop and
improve our own responding practices.
Research on Teacher Commentary: Summary and Caveats

Whereas research on teacher feedback is still in its early stages (though already
more evolved than when prior editions of this text were published), we can offer
the following suggestions that arise from the existing research base:
j Feedback is most useful when provided at intermediate stages of the

writing process rather than after an assignment is finalized.4
j Teachers should provide feedback on a range of features (i.e., not just
“language” and not just “ideas”).
j Teachers should pay attention to the formal characteristics of their feed-
back (length, legibility, scope, pragmatic form, and so on) so that stu-
dents can understand comments and utilize them effectively.
We should also be reminded that response, though influential, is only one as-
pect of what makes a writing course successful in meeting the individual student
needs. The institutional and classroom contexts and the characteristics of indi-
vidual student writers also influence how well teacher response practices “work”
and students’ overall progress in, and satisfaction with, the course.
Principles for Written Teacher Feedback

Considering our personal experiences with feedback that we have received on our
own writing and feedback that we have delivered as teachers, together with what
the literature suggests about teacher commentary especially for L2 writers, we
can offer some guiding principles for how to approach the delicate and arduous
process of constructing written feedback for L2 student writers (summarized in
Figure 7.1 and discussed below):
1. The teacher should not be the only respondent. Depending on their abil-
ity and experience with writing, many students can benefit greatly from
peer response and guided self-evaluation, as well as feedback from out-
side sources such as writing center consultants. We discuss these topics
later in this chapter.
2. Written commentary is not the only option. For certain writing difficulties
and for some individual temperaments and learning styles, face-to-face
writing conferences may be a better option. (Guidelines for effective
teacher–student conferences are provided later in this chapter.) Some
teachers also provide audio-recorded commentary on student texts, us-
ing the audio option in the Microsoft® Word® Comments menu, for
example.
3. Teachers do not need to respond to every single flaw or weakness on every
single writing sample. Most experienced teachers prioritize areas of con-
cern on individual student papers and selectively respond to the most
important features. Trying to address all problems on every draft or
assignment can exhaust teachers and overwhelm students with com-
mentary that may exceed the amount of text that students themselves
have produced. Furthermore, too much commentary can interfere with

student autonomy and motivation (see the next point), making them
overly dependent on teacher feedback.
4. Teachers should take care to avoid “appropriating” (taking over) student
writing. Final decisions about content and revisions should be left in the
control of the writer. A great deal has been written about the issue of
teacher “appropriation” of a student’s text, a legitimate concern. As Bran-
non and Knoblauch (1982) argued, if a writing sample starts to feel as if it
belongs to the teacher, rather than to the student writer, the student may
lose the motivation to write. At the same time, in efforts to avoid such
appropriative behavior—through questioning, indirectness, hedging,
and so forth—teachers may also fail to convey a clear message about how
the writer can genuinely improve an evolving text (Hamp-Lyons, 2006;
Newkirk, 1995; Patthey-Chavez & Ferris, 1997; Reid, 1994). Several recent
ethnographies of response to L2 writers in mainstream writing courses
provide troubling evidence of unhelpful teacher feedback practices, in-
cluding unclear feedback and a failure to help students understand how
to apply feedback to revision (Gilliland, 2012; Hamp-Lyons, 2006).
5. Teachers should provide both encouragement and constructive criticism
through their feedback. Most students recognize that teacher feedback is
intended to help them and will not be offended if instructors provide
suggestions for improvement. However, it is human nature to desire and
appreciate favorable responses to the work that we have done, as well. An
important part of our job as L2 writing instructors is to build students’
motivation and especially their confidence in expressing their ideas in
the L2. Although it is not strictly necessary to strive for a 50–50 propor-
tion of praise and constructive criticism, teachers should recognize that
both types of feedback are needed for the overall development of the
writer and train themselves to provide consistent written feedback at
both ends of the spectrum (see also Hyland & Hyland, 2001, 2006a).
1. The teacher should not be the only feedback source.

2. Written commentary is not the only alternative.
3. The teacher should be selective in providing written feedback, prioritizing the
most important issues on a particular paper.
4. The teacher should avoid "appropriating," overtaking over, a student's to d —
but also should not abandon students by failing to provide helpful, clear
suggestions fur improvement.
5. Written feedback should include a judicious mix of praise or encouragement
about what the student did well and constructive cnticism for the present tent
or future writing projects._______________________________________________
FIGURE 7.1 Guiding principles for written teacher commentary.

Guidelines for Written Teacher

Commentary
With these guiding principles in mind, we can turn to practical suggestions for
how to approach written commentary and how to construct responses that are
helpful, clear, personalized, and encouraging. This discussion is divided into three
general “stages”: approach (knowing what to look for and prioritization); response
(providing the commentary itself); and follow-up (helping students utilize feed-
back and holding them accountable for considering it).
Approach
Pre-service and novice teachers in our courses often articulate that their great-
est fear and struggle in responding to student papers is “knowing where to start.”
Teachers often find themselves at one of two extremes: not knowing what to look
for or how to analyze student work critically, or being so overwhelmed with the
extent and severity of students’ writing difficulties that they are paralyzed with
indecision about where to begin.
Instructors who are not sure about what to look for can utilize course- and
task-specific goals and scoring criteria to identify possible areas of weakness and
student need (see Chapters 5 and 6). A rubric or checklist that outlines the quali-
ties of passing or excellent assignments in our local contexts can help us articulate
questions that we might ask ourselves as we read our students’ work. For exam-
ple, one assignment checklist included the following point: “Opposing viewpoints
have been considered and responded to clearly and effectively” (see Ferris, 2003,
p. 135). A question that the teacher might thus consider while reading a student
text is: “Is this a one-sided argument, or have possible counterarguments been
anticipated and addressed in the paper?”
Another way in which teachers can approach providing commentary is to con-
sider textual features that have been covered in classroom instruction and to look
carefully at student writing samples to determine whether they have grasped and
applied those concepts (see Chapter 6). For example, if class time has been devoted
to crafting effective introductions to academic essays, using cohesive devices, or
shifting verb tenses accurately in telling a personal narrative, the teacher may elect
to comment on those specific rhetorical aims in student papers to remind writers
of what has been addressed in class.
Once an instructor has examined a sample and has identified areas for im-
provement (“feedback points”), he or she then needs to consider how to prioritize
these concerns and select which ones to address in written commentary. As sug-
gested by Principle 3 above, it can be counterproductive for teachers to attempt
to comment about every possible problem observed. Although prioritization is
highly variable and by definition subjective, teachers should consider the follow-
ing in selecting feedback points to address:
1. the stage to which the term has advanced and the skills addressed in
class;
2. the phase of the composing process (e.g., initial draft, penultimate draft,
and so forth) at which commentary will be most useful;
3. the needs of individual student writers, including topics addressed in
previous feedback cycles, recurring problems, and encouraging signs of
progress; and
4. their own judgment about the relative importance or urgency of the
possible feedback points in a particular assignment, which again can
and should vary considerably from student to student.
Considering these issues, we have found that a range of two to four feedback
points per assignment is usually about optimal.
As an aside, if one is following the principle of prioritization, it should go with-
out saying that a teacher should read the entire assignment first before writing any
comments. Two practical reasons support this commonsense practice. First, most
veteran writing teachers know the chagrin of jotting a comment, question, or criti-
cism in the margin of a student’s paper and then finding that the point they have
raised is addressed beautifully in the next paragraph or on the next page. Prema-
ture commentary wastes teachers’ precious responding time and energy; worse, it
can make the teacher look careless or incompetent in the eyes of student writers
if they receive such hasty commentary or see it scratched out in the margins of
their papers. Even though the use of electronic comment boxes can make this
repair process easier and less messy, writing unnecessary comments that are later
deleted is still a waste of effort. More importantly, if the idea of prioritization is
that we should address the most critical and urgent issues in student writing, then
by definition, we cannot know what those are until we have read the entire text and
identified all of its strengths and weaknesses.
The final point about an instructor’s approach to writing commentary on
student papers is that he or she should develop a philosophy of commentary
(based, for example, on the “guiding principles” introduced above) and a strat-
egy for commentary, whether it involves a checklist, writing a letter, highlight-
ing language errors, or a combination. Teachers should strive to be consistent
in adhering to their philosophies and strategies. They should also explain their
approach to students; doing so can reduce misunderstandings, require teachers
to articulate the approach for themselves, and motivate them to follow it (see
Chapter 5).
Response
Having selected feedback points for response, the instructor then has some spe-
cific practical choices to make in providing commentary.
The mechanics of feedback. As teachers have become more conscious of develop-

ing effective response procedures, a variety of techniques have been proposed to
provide feedback to students. These techniques have included audio-recorded oral
feedback (in contrast to written comments on papers), comments and corrections
inserted into students’ digital files using word-processing tools, comments sent via
e-mail, and comments provided via synchronous tools (e.g., live chats) or asyn-
chronous affordances (e.g., discussion boards) of course management systems
such as Blackboard, Moodle, and the like.
Clearly, all of these techniques have their advantages. In the case of audio-
recorded commentary, students practice their listening comprehension skills; in
addition, student writers who are more comfortable processing information via
auditory rather than visual modes may find such feedback more helpful than writ-
ten commentary. However, some students may find oral responses frustrating and
confusing due to weak aural skills or a more visual orientation; in addition, some
teachers may feel less comfortable recording audio comments than composing
written responses. Teacher feedback delivered digitally, regardless of platform,
offers the same visual advantages as handwritten commentary, with the added
benefit that handwriting idiosyncrasies will not interfere with students’ mental
processing of the written message (Ferris, 1995b). However, teachers should note
that excessive use of “track changes” can create as much visual clutter as overly
busy handwritten corrections. Electronic feedback also provides the advantage of
permanence, meaning that it is easy for teachers and students to retrieve, review,
and reflect on feedback given and received (Ferris, 2012).
For all of these alternative responding techniques, convenience and the avail-
ability of technology may be the deciding issues for classroom teachers. Some
teachers may find it easier to take a stack of papers with them wherever they go,
working on them as they have time. Because of the limitations of time and space
associated with audio-recording and computer formats, many teachers may find
these options to be practical for only a small proportion of their students’ as-
signments. For the composition teacher who has several large classes of students
submitting papers every week, convenience is a significant consideration. Further-
more, in many settings, students may not have computers available to them or
have equal access to them. However, if we assume that all students have adequate
access to technology, decisions about whether to use these tools will likely rest on
student preferences and learning styles (i.e., for oral vs. written feedback) and on
the teacher’s preferences and needs, as well.
The tools of written feedback. Teachers have several other choices to make: Will
they use a separate response sheet or write directly on the paper? Will they use
some sort of rubric, coding sheet, or checklist for responses, or will they simply
provide verbal comments? Again, research findings do not point to an advantage
of a single method over another. It can be argued that structured rubrics, check-
lists, or feedback forms provide teachers and students with a consistent frame-
work and terminology to provide and process feedback. However, it also can be
argued that overly general response checklists can limit and inhibit teachers from
providing personalized responses appropriate to the student and the assignment
given. Perhaps more important, if students do not understand the checklist or
rubric, the forms can actually be distracting and counterproductive. Beyond the
mechanics of feedback, we should consider additional practical questions.
Preliminary drafts or final drafts? Most scholars agree that teacher feedback is
most effective and most likely to be utilized by students when it is provided on
preliminary drafts that can be revised (Ferris, 1995b; Krashen, 1984; Zamel, 1985).
Does this viewpoint mean that feedback on a final draft amounts to wasted effort?
Perhaps not, but it could probably be handled differently. Whereas feedback on
earlier drafts is formative—helping students to see where their developing text can
be improved—final-draft feedback tends to be evaluative and summative, inform-
ing students about what they did well, explaining the basis for a grade or a score if
one is given, and perhaps offering more general suggestions for the student to con-
sider on subsequent assignments (see Chapter 6). Finally, with many instructors
utilizing portfolio assessment in composition courses, even “final draft feedback”
may not truly be final if the student chooses to further revise an assignment (see
Chapter 6). Thus, it can be worth the instructor’s effort to let the student know
where the paper stands with regard to the task and the course assessment criteria
and what could still be done to improve it.
End notes or marginal comments? Arguments favoring both sides of this issue
can be made. End notes enable the teacher to summarize his or her reactions to
the entire paper; because they are not subject to the space limitations of marginal
notes, comments can be longer, clearer, less cryptic, and easier to read. Margin-
al comments, on the other hand, offer immediacy (as they are clearly keyed by
visual proximity to local textual content) and communicate to the writer the sense
of an involved, interested reader engaged in a dialogue with the writer.
We have found that the ideal solution is a combination of both marginal and
end notes. We recommend that instructors, after reading through a sample care-
fully and selecting feedback points as described above, next construct a summary
end note, perhaps in the form of a personal letter to the student (see Figure 7.2).
The teacher can then go back through the text, making marginal comments that
highlight or illustrate the points raised in the end note and offering praise and
other “interested reader” comments. Appendix 7.1 provides an example of a stu-
dent paper with teacher commentary, followed by a brief analysis. However, if
time is short, we would recommend privileging the summary end note over the
marginal comments, simply because it can provide a comprehensive overview of
the paper and be clearer and easier to read.5
Praise or criticism? As noted previously, the research literature provides persuasive

arguments for incorporating both comments of encouragement and suggestions for
improvement in our written commentary. Many teachers like to use the “sandwich”
Dear Tong,
This is a very nice first draft. I especially appreciated your
thoughtful response to the essay question: That lies can be either
good or bad depending upon the person’s intentions. You also did
a nice job of identifying arguments to support your opinion and
providing good examples in the first two body paragraphs. I have
a couple of suggestions for you to consider as you revise:
(1) In your introduction, you argue that people may lie with
good or bad intentions. But in the body of your essay, all of your
points and examples are about lying with good intentions. You
might consider either changing your introduction or adding a
paragraph or two that talk about lying with bad intentions.
(2) I think your third body paragraph—about lying to protect
yourself—needs some more thought and additional detail. What
would be an example of an appropriate lie to protect oneself? How
is this different from a child who lies to his/her parents or teacher
to escape punishment (also “protecting” oneself)?
Great job so far. I’ll look forward to reading your second draft!
Best wishes,
Teacher
FIGURE 7.2 Sample summary end note to student writer.

Source: Ferris (2008, Fig. 5.4, p. 107).
approach to writing end notes—beginning and ending the note with encouraging
remarks (the “bread”) and supplying two to four critical feedback points or sugges-
tions in the middle (the “filling”). Figure 7.2 also illustrates this style of commentary.
Many instructors also like to write positive comments in the margins of student
papers to communicate that they are interested, engaged readers.
Regardless of where or in what proportion one writes encouraging com-
ments, teachers should make the effort to write comments that are text-specific
(“Great detail in the story about your sister”), in contrast to annotations that
are merely generic (“Good use of personal examples”). Although most students
appreciate comments like “Nice job on your first draft,” they likely are even
more encouraged by an account of what was “nice” about it. In arguing for
the consistent use of text-specific praise, however, we need to mention a cou-
ple of caveats. First, we should avoid praising passages of an assignment in
which we also suggest extensive revision. This practice sends a mixed message
to the student writer (“Great detail in this paragraph”; “This paragraph needs
to be better focused”), and the limited research evidence available suggests that
students are highly unlikely to make substantive revisions to portions of a pa-
per that the teacher has effusively praised (Ferris, 1997; Sperling & Freedman,
1987). Second, if a student’s draft truly is off-base (e.g., has strayed far from the
writing task), plagiarized, or incomprehensible—or shows an obvious lack of
effort—we do not believe that the teacher should turn him- or herself inside
out to compliment a submission that is completely unpraiseworthy. It is both
appropriate and fair to encourage or require the writer of such a problematic
draft to go back to the drawing board. Nonetheless, we find it a good discipline
for ourselves and for our students when they deliver peer response to ask first
what the student writer did well before launching into criticism or suggesting
options for improvement.
Questions or statements? Following strongly worded cautions in the L1 response

literature about the danger of appropriating student texts through overly directive
teacher commentary (Brannon & Knoblauch, 1982; Sommers, 1982; Sperling &
Freedman, 1987), both L1 and L2 composition instructors are often trained to
use questions rather than imperatives or statements to respond to student writ-
ers. More recently, concerns have emerged about whether questions are always the
most effective commenting strategy, especially for L2 writers (Ferris, 1995b, 1997,
2001a; Straub, 1997). For some L2 writers, particularly newcomers educated pri-
marily in their home countries, such questions can cause both pragmatic and cul-
tural confusion. Monolingual English L1 writers may easily recognize an indirect
comment such as “Can you give an example here?” as conveying the illocutionary
(implicit) meaning of a polite request rather than the meaning of a true question
eliciting information (akin to “Can you shut the door?”). In contrast, L2 writers
who are less experienced with English pragmatic conventions and North Ameri-
can teachers’ desire to avoid appropriative behaviors may either misinterpret such
a “question” as an information request (i.e., a “real” yes–no question) or wonder if
the teacher’s questioning is a sign of incompetence or insecurity. Such indirectness
could consequently lead to teacher frustration when it appears that the student, in
a revised paper, completely ignores a clear and reasonable suggestion (Ferris, Liu,
et al., 2011).
We do not mean to suggest that instructors should abandon questioning as
a commenting strategy; on the contrary, we use questions consistently in feed-
back to our own students’ writing. However, we believe that writing instructors
should perhaps reexamine their questioning techniques periodically, first by not
assuming that questions are the only (let alone the best) approach for all types
of feedback. When writing comments in the form of questions, teachers might
ask themselves three questions: (1) If the student answers this question, will the
response really improve the effectiveness of the paper? (2) Will the student be
able to understand this question’s intent and form? and (3) Will the student know
how to incorporate the answer to this question into a revised version at a rhetori-
cal level? A practical suggestion is to pair questions with statements that make
explicit revision suggestions while perhaps hedging the suggestion (e.g., “Maybe
you could . . . ”).
Although we agree with Conrad and Goldstein’s (1999) observation that the for-
mal characteristics of teacher commentary are less significant than their substance,
we have found that, particularly for L2 writers, teacher attention to the linguistic
features of written commentary can be important and even critical in students’ abil-
ity to process teacher feedback effectively. In addition to making judicious use of
annotations in the form of questions, teachers should also avoid assuming that stu-
dents are familiar with rhetorical and grammatical metalanguage (e.g., introduction,
transition, agreement, tense, and so on). L2 students may be far less aware of teach-
ers’ responding shorthand or symbols than we may believe, and unhelpful marginal
comments such as “vague,” “awkward,” and “unclear” should, in our opinion, be
banished from all writing teachers’ repertoires. Finally, teachers should attend to the
length and formatting of their comments to make them visually reader friendly; we
recommend breaking suggestions into a numbered or bulleted list, rather than a
lengthy prose paragraph, and keeping individual sentences concise and clear.
Content or form? Another area of some debate in the literature is whether L2 writ-
ing teachers should avoid mixing commentary on student writers’ ideas and con-
tent with feedback on formal errors and the linguistic features of their texts. As we
have already discussed, it is neither necessary nor desirable for teachers to respond
to every problem on every draft of an assignment. On early drafts, students most
likely will be discovering, generating, focusing, and organizing their ideas. Respons-
es should primarily assist writers in revising content and addressing the writing
task. As their drafts mature, student writers must be encouraged to edit, proofread,
and correct their work before it is finalized; teacher feedback on errors can facilitate
this process. Chapter 8 discusses in detail how teachers might approach the chal-
lenging task of error correction and how they can effectively combine feedback
on form with explicit strategy training to build independent self-editing skills (see
Bitchener & Ferris, 2012, Ch. 7; Ferris, 2011, Ch. 4; and Ferris, 2003, Ch. 3 and 7).
Although the chapter division in this volume (i.e., between Chapters 7 and 8)
explicitly separates the issues of responding to student content from response to
lexical and syntactic problems (as does most research), it is crucial to acknowl-
edge that the oft-cited distinction between content and form is largely artificial (as
are so many dichotomies). Content determines form, yet inaccurate form can ob-
scure meaning and inhibit reader comprehension. For instance, consistent errors
in tense and aspect marking (form) can confuse readers about the time frame or
immediacy of actions or states depicted in a passage (content). Inaccurate lexical
choices (form) can significantly undermine the overall comprehensibility of a text,
causing uncertainty about the writer’s intended message (content). Nonetheless,
because teachers’ strategies for detecting and marking lexical and syntactic errors
tend to be different from responding to content, the techniques that can be used
warrant a separate and elaborated discussion (provided in Chapter 8).
Follow-Up
A crucial aspect of the response cycle that teachers may neglect to incorporate
is follow-up: making sure that students understand the feedback we have given
them, helping them with revision strategies after receiving feedback, and holding
students accountable through the writing process for responding productively to

feedback. Also easy to overlook is linking the delivery and use of expert and peer
feedback to the assessment of students’ writing processes and written products.
Instead, teachers often simply return marked papers to students at the end of class
or via e-mail, saying, “The next draft is due one week from today.” This lack of at-
tention to follow-up is unfortunate, as it fails to recognize that: (a) Students may
not understand the comments we have made, despite our best attempts to be clear;
(b) students may not know how to revise skillfully, even if they understand our
feedback; and (c) students may not be sufficiently motivated to exert themselves
during revision, preferring instead to make a few minor micro-level changes that
can be handled at the computer in just a few minutes. Inability or unwillingness
apply feedback to their future writing may not only impede student progress but
also may greatly frustrate their teachers (Ferris, Liu, et al., 2011). Teachers can
address this problem head-on by building follow-up activities into writing assign-
ments and course syllabi (see Chapters 5 and 6).
The first step in ensuring that students understand written feedback is, of course,
to construct it carefully. Incomprehensible feedback cannot possibly help student
writers. Even when we are careful and systematic, all human communication can
misfire at times, particularly when participants in the exchange include novice
writers composing in a second language.6 With this in mind, we should allow stu-
dents time in class to read over feedback, to ask questions about it immediately, or
to ask them to write a one- to two-paragraph response to feedback articulating in
their own words what they think the main points of the feedback might be.
Students should also receive in-class instruction on revision strategies, both in
general and specifically in how to take suggestions from a reader (teacher or peer)
and use them to make effective changes in their texts (Hamp-Lyons, 2006). At the
same time, writers should be assured that they are the authors of their texts and
that final decisions about revisions should remain in their hands. In other words,
student writers should be given explicit permission to disregard suggestions that
they find unhelpful or with which they disagree. Because research indicates that
student writers are far more likely to attend to and attempt to address teacher
feedback than to ignore it, they may well need to be reminded to exercise agency
and authority over their own revision decisions (Ferris, 2001a, 2003; Sperling &
Freedman, 1987; Straub, 1997; Vieregge et al., 2012).
While assuring students of their “rights to their own texts” (Brannon & Kno-
blauch, 1982), teachers should also stress to students that feedback from teachers
and peers can be extremely valuable to their development as writers and to the
quality of their finished texts. Indeed, it can be foolish and even perilous to re-
fuse to consider such advice. In keeping with principles of authenticity and social
constructionism (see Chapters 3 and 4), students should be reminded that profes-
sional writers often participate in writers’ groups because they recognize the value
of another reader’s feedback, and that scholars and authors must submit to the
blind peer review process required by journal editors and book publishers. Profes-
sional authors are not likely to have their work taken seriously if they fail to show
respect for the reviewers who have provided their time and expertise in critiquing
their work.
We can suggest several ways to hold students accountable for taking seri-
ously the feedback they have received. One is to require students to include with
revisions a cover memo explaining how they have (or have not) incorporated
their teacher’s or fellow writers’ suggestions, and why. The affordances of word-
processing features such as “track changes” in Microsoft® Word® also provide
students with opportunities to capture and reflect on their own revisions. An-
other strategy is to require students to submit iterations of multi-drafted writing
projects so that teachers can compare earlier versions with later versions. Teachers
can then choose to make comments about the quality and effort demonstrated
in student revisions or make such good-faith effort part of the assignment and
assessment plan (see Chapter 6).
Written Commentary: Summary

Research on written teacher commentary has helped us identify issues to con-
sider and practical strategies for providing feedback to student writers that is clear,
helpful, encouraging, and constructive. To summarize, these suggestions include
the following:
j Teachers should identify and articulate—to themselves and to their

students—their purposes and philosophies in responding to student
writing.
j Teachers can utilize diverse sources of information (e.g., course assess-
ment rubric, assignment specifications, prior classroom instruction,
individual student needs) to examine student writing and select and
prioritize feedback points about which to write comments.
j An ideal approach to commentary involves a thoughtful mix of a sum-
mary end note and marginal comments. However, if teachers only have
time for one mode of response, they should choose the end note.
j Feedback should optimally include a balance of praise and constructive
criticism.
j Especially for L2 writers, teachers should consider the formal charac-
teristics of their comments (questions vs. statements and imperatives,
formal terminology, length, and so forth) to ensure clarity.
j Teachers may wish to prioritize comments about content over feedback
on language errors on different drafts of student papers, or they may
choose to provide a combination of both feedback types on all drafts.
j Teachers should be intentional in helping students understand their
feedback and to use it effectively in revision and in future writing.
As teachers sit down to provide feedback to their student writers, they face sev-
eral difficult decisions (e.g., end vs. marginal comments, using a feedback form,
whether to respond to language errors, and so on) and challenges (e.g., how to
make their feedback encouraging, specific, and clear in ways that assist students—
without frustrating or disempowering them). There is an art to providing effective
feedback, and most teachers have a learning curve. Nonetheless, with thoughtful
approaches and reflection, most teachers can improve and become highly effective
at responding to their students’ texts and can ensure (through careful decision
making and follow-up) that students achieve maximum benefits from those feed-
back opportunities.
Teacher–Student Writing Conferences

Another important means of providing feedback and instruction is through one-
to-one writing conferences. Over the past several decades, the writing conference
has emerged as a popular teaching tool. One reason for its popularity is the percep-
tion that writing conferences save teachers time and energy that would otherwise
be devoted to marking student writing. Another is the immediacy and potential
for interaction and negotiation that the conferencing event offers, allowing for
on-the-spot clarification of difficult issues (Conrad & Goldstein, 1999) and help-
ing teachers to avoid appropriation of student texts (Brannon & Knoblauch, 1982;
Sommers, 1982; Zamel, 1985). Finally, writing conferences offer a more effective
means to communicate with students with stronger auditory than visual orienta-
tions as learners. Some writing instructors (e.g., Carnicelli, 1980; Garrison, 1974)
are so deeply convinced of the value of writing conferences that they have suggested
doing away with all other forms of in-class instruction to make time for them.
Implementing Writing Conferences: Issues and Options

Early process-oriented concerns, particularly the desire to avoid appropriating
students’ texts and dictating the terms of revision, led to specific suggestions and
guidelines for conducting teacher–student writing conferences (Bruce & Rafoth,
2009; Murphy & Sherwood, 2003). For instance, Murray (1985) encouraged teach-
ers to allow students to take the lead in conferences by eliciting student writers’
responses to their own writing before offering any feedback or evaluation—a pro-
cedure characterized by Newkirk (1995) as indirect. Similarly, Harris (1986) pre-
sented a list of nondirective strategies to guide teachers in one-to-one interactions
with students.
If a teacher wishes to incorporate writing conferences into a composition
course, he or she should consider several practical issues. The first is whether to
provide feedback to all students in this manner. Some students would no doubt
enjoy the opportunity to discuss their writing face to face with their teacher, both
to get individual attention and clear up any problems. Meanwhile, others might
prefer written feedback because (1) they find one-to-one discussions with their
teacher intimidating, (2) they prefer seeing feedback in writing, or (3) they might
forget what they have discussed with the teacher during the conference. We can
recommend several options for sorting through these issues. A teacher can ask the
students at the beginning of the term whether they prefer written or oral feedback
or some combination of both (see Chapter 5). For students who are unsure, the
teacher can provide written feedback on one assignment and oral feedback on the
next. For students who feel nervous about conference dynamics, ideas to relieve
their anxieties might include conferencing with pairs of students (also adding a
peer feedback dynamic to the mix) and allowing students to audio-record or take
notes during the conference.7
Logistics: When, Where, and How Often?

Along with the question of whom to conduct conferences with, a teacher must
decide when, where, and how often to hold such conferences. Options range from
holding conferences during every class session (i.e., requiring students to write
during class and consult the teacher for a conference as they feel the need) (Gar-
rison, 1974), to holding conferences at regular intervals (e.g., seeing each student
during office hours on a three- or four-week rotation), to requiring students to
come in at least once during the course for a conference, to making conferences
completely optional and holding them only at the students’ request. Decisions
about frequency and time frames will be influenced by logistical issues such as
scheduling and office space. If a teacher has an office, holding regular office hours
can be the best way to hold conferences; some instructors occasionally cancel
classes to hold conferences with hard-to-schedule students. Unfortunately, many
part-time writing instructors have neither an office nor office hours. If available,
a computer writing lab classroom can be an ideal setting for one-to-one teacher–
student interaction: Students can work at individual work stations while the in-
structor moves around the room and holds brief consultations as the need arises
and inclination leads.
What Topics Should Conferences Cover?

Once the teacher has resolved logistical issues, it is important to prepare and plan
for conferences. What to discuss during conferences will vary according to the
context of the conference. For instance, if the conference is student-initiated, the
student may well have a particular question to discuss or problem to resolve. If
the teacher has scheduled a conference, options for topics to discuss range from a
holistic reaction to the student’s latest paper, to a specific discussion of a particular
writing problem or a teaching point covered in class, to planning for a particularly
challenging assignment (e.g., identifying a focus and sources for a research paper).
If the teacher has an opportunity to prepare ahead of time for a conference, he or
she might want to make notes on particular concerns to discuss with the student
that have arisen during class or that he or she has noted in previous papers. Some
teachers also find it useful to ask students to complete an “office visit form” in
which the writer articulates questions that he or she would like to discuss during
the conference so that the time can be well spent. Overall, the same principles
discussed above for written commentary also apply to conferences: The teacher
should prioritize, avoid taking an overly directive position, be clear and encourag-
ing, and expect the student to apply ideas and suggestions from the conference to
his or her future writing.
Beyond Teacher Response: Other Sources

of Feedback
Peer Response for L2 Writers
As we have noted, written teacher feedback has most typically been regarded by
L1 and L2 researchers as a necessary evil—burdensome to writing teachers and
limited in its effectiveness for helping student writers improve (see Ferris, Liu,
et al., 2011). Enthusiastic scholarly proponents of written teacher response are
few in number, although surveys of L2 student opinions on teacher feedback have
found that L2 writers believe that instructor feedback is both necessary and help-
ful (Ferris, 1995b; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994, 1996; Jacobs, Curtis, Braine, &
Huang, 1998; Zhang, 1995). In contrast, peer response has vocal, forceful propo-
nents and detractors, as well as a rapidly increasing number of detailed studies on
the nature and influence of peer response.
Theoretical frameworks. Arguments favoring peer response are informed by

several related schools of thought. First, because peer response activities can take
place at various stages of a multi-draft composing process (prewriting, discovery,
invention, planning, between-draft revision, editing, and so on; see Chapter 3),
they fit well with the increased emphasis on processes in composition instruction
(Connor & Asenavage, 1994; Emig, 1971; Flower & Hayes, 1981; Liu & Hansen,
2002; Zamel, 1982, 1985, 1987). A second theoretical basis for peer response is
the social constructionist emphasis on collaborative learning (e.g., Bruffee, 1984a,
1984b, 1986). Support for collaborative learning and social constructionism is de-
rived, in turn, from the Vygotskyan view that “cognitive development results from
social interaction” (Carson & Nelson, 1994, p. 18; also see Mendonça & Johnson,
1994; Nelson & Carson, 2006; Villamil & Guerrero, 2006; Vygotsky, 2012). Finally,
in the L2 context, group work in general and writing response groups in particular
have support from second language acquisition (SLA) claims about the impor-
tance of interaction for L2 development (e.g., Long & Porter, 1985; Mangelsdorf,
1989; Mittan, 1989; Pica, 1984).8
Practical Benefits. L1 and L2 teachers and researchers have claimed that peer
feedback activities in the classroom offer numerous advantages. For novice writ-
ers in general, the following benefits of peer response have been claimed:
j Students can take active roles in their own learning (Hirvela, 1999;
Mendonça & Johnson, 1994).
j Students receive “reactions, questions, and responses from authentic
readers” (Mittan, 1989, p. 209) and can “reconceptualize their ideas in
light of their peers’ reactions” (Mendonça & Johnson, 1994, p. 746).
j Students gain a clearer understanding of reader expectations by receiv-
ing feedback on what they have done successfully and on what remains
unclear (Mittan, 1989; Moore, 1986; Witbeck, 1976).
j Responding to peers’ writing builds critical skills needed to analyze and
revise one’s own writing (Leki, 1990b; Lundstrom & Baker, 2009; Mit-
tan, 1989).
j Students gain confidence and reduce apprehension by seeing peers’
strengths and weaknesses in writing (Leki, 1990b; Mittan, 1989).
j Peer response activities engage student writers and build classroom
community (Ferris, 2003; Hirvela, 1999; Liu & Hansen, 2002; Men-
donça & Johnson, 1994).
j Peer response activities provide opportunities for student writers to re-
ceive more feedback than the teacher alone is able to provide.
Although theoretical and practical arguments for utilizing peer response in a

L2 writing class are solidly grounded, such activities may be even more important
in “mixed” mainstream courses in which L2 writers of various descriptions study
alongside L1 peers (see Chapter 2). Well-constructed peer response activities (see
below) can provide a valuable source of extra support for those students, whose
instructors (a) may not have been trained to work with L2 writers and (b) must
juggle the needs of an entire cohort of diverse students.
Concerns about peer response. We are strong proponents of peer response in our
own teaching and could not imagine teaching writing without it. It is nonetheless
fair to note that experts (e.g., Connor & Asenavage, 1994; Ferris, 2003; Hamp-Lyons,
2006; Leki, 1990b; Liu & Hansen, 2002; Zhang, 1995) have raised valid reservations
and criticisms of peer response, especially when used in L2 composition instruction:
j Student feedback may focus excessively on surface concerns;

j Student feedback may be vague and unhelpful;
j Intercultural communication issues may interfere, as students’ feedback
to one another may be received as hostile or adversarial;
j Student feedback may be ill-informed and even incorrect (either gram-
matically or rhetorically), thus misleading the writer;
j Students from certain cultural backgrounds may find peer feedback ac-
tivities uncomfortable and face-threatening;
j Students with weak oral and aural L2 skills may find the listen-
ing and speaking demands of the peer review task too difficult and
stress-inducing;
j L2 students may feel intimidated by participating in peer response
groups or dyads with L1 peers, concerned that they have little to offer
and that their language or writing might annoy their peers;
j Students may resent peer feedback, believing that only the teacher is
qualified to comment on student writing.
This list of reasons not to use peer review in writing classes may seem daunting,
yet we believe that these potential problems can be mitigated or prevented entirely
with careful planning and execution of peer feedback activities.
Implementing Peer Response Successfully

Figure 7.3 summarizes suggestions for implementing peer response, which are dis-
cussed further below.
Integrating Peer Response Into Course and Lesson Design

Research on peer response in composition courses suggests that students are most
likely to reap the benefits described above if peer response is implemented reg-
ularly and not haphazardly. For example, for a multi-draft writing assignment,
students might come to expect that they will confer in writing groups or dyads
around a completed initial draft and perhaps again later for final draft editing
or polishing. If student writers realize that they will have the opportunity and
responsibility to work with peers at specific points in their drafting process, the
expectation encourages them to take the writing and response tasks seriously—to
come to peer review sessions with adequate drafts in hand and to engage diligently
in reading and responding to classmates’ work. Even if students do not initially
provide effective feedback to peers, they still benefit from reading one another’s
papers and from the relationships and classroom community that grow through
peer review activities (Leki, 1990b; Mangelsdorf, 1992; Mittan, 1989; Stanley,
1992). We have found that our students come to count on, and even look forward
1. Integrate peer response carefully into course design and use it consistently.
2. Prepare students for peer review and model the process.
3. Be strategic in forming peer review groups or dyads.
4. Provide a clear structure for peer review activities.
5. Monitor and follow up on peer feedback sessions.
FIGURE 7.3 Suggestions for implementing peer response with L2 writers.

to peer review, objecting if such opportunities are skipped or rushed because the
syllabus is packed too tightly (see Chapter 5). Thus, we suggest that teachers plan
carefully for peer review days in their course outlines and for follow-up and reflec-
tion activities, discussed below.
Preparing Students for Peer Review

Students educated in North American institutions and certain EFL settings have
likely encountered peer response and other forms of group work while in second-
ary school or even earlier. In contrast, international students and other newcomers
may or may not have experienced peer review, depending on the model of lan-
guage and literacy of their home countries (see Chapter 2). For both groups of stu-
dents, discussion and modeling are appropriate—for the peer review “veterans,”
to defuse anxieties and even bad memories of previous experiences, and for the
newcomers, to demonstrate how and why peer review activities can be beneficial
for them. Several researchers have examined the effects of training on peer review
sessions, finding in all instances that it improved both the quality of the experi-
ence and students’ reactions to it (see Berg, 1999; Ferris, 2003; Liu & Hansen, 2002;
Lundstrom & Baker, 2009; Stanley, 1992; Zhu, 1995).
Some approaches to such training can be quite elaborate (see Stanley, 1992;
Zhu, 1995), but we have found that even short, easily prepared activities can suf-
fice. At minimum, they should consist of: (a) some discussion of students’ prior
experiences with and beliefs about peer response, its benefits, its possible draw-
backs, and ways to mitigate any problems that could arise; (b) class examination of
a writing sample (ideally by a student unknown to the class), using the same peer
review instructions that they will employ with their own peers’ papers; and (c) a
debriefing about the strengths and weaknesses of the student sample, followed by
class roleplay in forming constructive and sensitive commentary to that writer.
This last step can be especially important, as students may enthusiastically become
quite critical of a student paper when the writer is not in the room. It is therefore
helpful to remind students that harsh or negative feedback can be very demoral-
izing to a writer. We have been able to complete this low-key training sequence in
30 minutes or fewer.
More ambitious training suggestions include watching and analyzing videos of
sample peer review sessions (created by the teacher or department or available on
websites for some published composition handbooks), examining and critiquing
a sample paper with peer review commentary (to note what the peer said and how
the feedback was given), or examining a transcript of a peer response session to
see how the interaction succeeded or failed. Though all of these ideas may be very
useful in building further analysis and critical thinking skills in conjunction with
peer review, teachers must decide how much is necessary or possible given their
course calendars. However, we strongly encourage all teachers to go through some
form of “light” training process (as described above) the first time the class does
extensive peer review.
Forming Peer Review Dyads and Groups

One of the most important steps that an instructor can take toward the success of
peer review in a course is to think carefully about how students are grouped for
peer response tasks (Ferris, 2003; Liu & Hansen, 2002): Will students work in dy-
ads or in larger groups? Will the teacher assign the groups, or can students choose
their own collaborators? If the teacher designates groups, what criteria will he or
she use? How big should the groups be? Should groups remain intact throughout
the course or term, or should they be switched at various intervals?
We cannot point to any research-based principles for designating peer response
groups or to a reliable list of best practices. We will simply offer a few points for
teachers to consider. First, we generally prefer small groups to dyads, with our pre-
ferred group sizes being three (ideally) or four (if needed because class size is not
easily divisible by three). We find that small groups are more comfortable and
provide a broader variety of perspectives and writing styles than dyads do. How-
ever, others have observed that dyads allow peer review to go deeper into student
writing because more time is available (Villamil & Guerrero, 2006). Moreover, we
have found that pairs can work well for time- and labor-intensive activities such as
close editing tasks on penultimate drafts.
Second, we believe strongly that the instructor should assign the groups based
on interdependent criteria such as students’ relative writing strengths, language
backgrounds, gender, and observed personality. For example, we may form triad
groups that include one very strong writer, one weaker writer, and one average
writer. Sometimes we may consider even more specific strengths by pairing a stu-
dent with strong organizational skills but a limited vocabulary range with a writer
who displays excellent lexical control but whose rhetorical focus is scattered. One
can see from these suggestions that it is important for the instructor to gather and
analyze as much information as possible (questionnaires, ice-breaking activities,
diagnostic writing samples) about the students before assigning them to groups
(see Chapter 5).
Finally, we have found that peer response groups work best when they stay
together over a period of time because students become comfortable with their
group members and their writing and response styles. However, if the teacher ob-
serves that groups do not work well together, it may be appropriate to reconfigure
them at midterm or after one or two peer review sessions. Even if they function
well, a midterm change might inject some welcome variety. Instructors need to
weigh the best approach to this question for particular student cohorts.
Structuring Peer Response Activities

Although peer response enthusiasts agree that providing students with guidance
for peer review sessions is critical, some proponents disagree about the extent to
which teachers should structure peer review activities. Advocates of a less struc-
tured approach have argued that, if the teacher establishes an overly directive or
prescriptive means of generating peer feedback, students’ interactions will re-

flect the instructor’s intentions and priorities, rather than their own independent
thoughts and reactions—another form of teacher appropriation of the writing
process (Elbow, 1973; Lockhart & Ng, 1995; Nelson & Murphy, 1992, 1993). The
student guidelines proposed by Nelson and Murphy (1992/1993), for instance,
simply advise students to “describe [their] reactions to the paper” and to “be
specific—point to particular items in the paper” (p. 25).
We have found that younger (secondary and early college) students, especially
L2 writers, appreciate and benefit from more structure rather than less during peer
response. A common student complaint about feedback in general and peer re-
sponse in particular is that it is too broad, too congratulatory, and not concrete
enough to be helpful (Ferris, 2003; Leki, 1990b). If students are provided with guid-
ing questions to consider as they read and specific review tasks to complete, they
tend to produce more useful feedback and to enjoy the process more themselves.
For more proficient students, greater flexibility is perhaps appropriate. Lockhart
and Ng (1995) suggested that “guiding questions may help provide a direction and
a focus to the interaction,” but that once students become comfortable with the
process, “they should be allowed greater autonomy to respond according to the
needs of the text and the writer” (p. 648). Such autonomy may emerge more quickly
with advanced undergraduate and graduate student writers (Vieregge et al., 2012).
Instructors can structure peer review activities in numerous ways, which should
differ depending on the stage of the composing process where peer response is in-
troduced, the demands of the writing task, and students’ expertise and experience
with peer interaction. For example, in early draft stages, students might convene
in groups following individual in-class work to share main arguments, an out-
line, or sources of evidence for an academic text. This procedure might take 10 to
15 minutes, but it has two immediate benefits: (1) The students get immediate
feedback and input from others about an assignment they are all developing; and
(2) when groups meet again for a more extensive review of completed drafts, they
will already have an idea of what their group members’ papers are about, allowing
for more informed reading and response.
For a more advanced draft, teachers have at least three general options to con-
sider in setting up peer review tasks. One is the worksheet approach, in which stu-
dents are asked to provide specific information about the group member’s text
in writing (e.g., “Find the thesis statement and reproduce or paraphrase it here”
or “What are the main arguments the writer makes in support of his or her posi-
tion? State them in your own words.”). A variation on the worksheet approach is
to ask students to complete a rubric appraising the strengths and weaknesses of
the assignment (perhaps the same rubric that will be used to assess the finished
product). A second option is the guiding questions approach mentioned above:
Students keep a list of guiding questions in mind as they read a peer’s text, share
comments describing what they appreciated about the sample, and provide sug-
gestions for the writer to consider while revising. The third option is the marginal
comments approach, in which peer readers provide annotations in the writer’s text,
using either an electronic comments feature or producing handwritten comments.

Appendix 7.2 provides sample instructions for all three types of peer review task.
All three approaches can deliver beneficial results, depending on the context. The
worksheet approach may be useful for less proficient writers who have limited experi-
ence with peer response. It is highly structured and tells students exactly what to look for,
informally assesses their comprehension of what they have read, and promotes aware-
ness of textual elements that they should also incorporate in their own papers (Lund-
strom & Baker, 2009). More proficient or mature writers might find such tasks boring
and frustrating. The guiding questions approach is open-ended, allows respondents to
choose which aspects of the text to comment on, and can take less time to complete
than either of the other two approaches. A drawback is that, because it directs reviewers
simply to provide general comments about strengths and suggestions for improvement,
they may skim quickly through the task and provide vague comments that do little to
help recipients. Teachers can mitigate this disadvantage by careful advance modeling
and by spot-checking the quality of peer comments after the fact.
Finally, marginal comments are useful because feedback is text-specific and
similar to the feedback that teachers may provide on drafts and final versions of
assignments. This method forces respondents to read and comment carefully and
specifically. However, this approach is time-intensive and may tempt students to
focus prematurely on grammar, word choice, and mechanics as they annotate. In
designing peer review tasks, teachers should thus think carefully about what their
students will value and be able to manage effectively.
These options are all teacher-initiated and designed. Some instructors like to pro-
vide students greater autonomy in, and responsibility for, the feedback process by
asking student writers themselves to articulate questions about their own texts and
about which they would like feedback. For example, we can ask student writers to
come into peer review sessions not only with completed drafts for their group to read,
but also with several questions to which they would like group members to respond
(perhaps in the form of a cover memo like those that instructors might request).
Alternatively, pairs or groups might decide together how they would like to approach
a particular peer review session. Writer-initiated review sessions can be highly benefi-
cial, as they ensure that writers receive the kind of feedback most desired; in addition,
they force writers to think critically and analytically about their own texts-in-progress
so that they can articulate specifically where they would most like assistance. In sum,
the teacher can select from several models for designing peer response sessions. A
combination of approaches at different points in a term might also be appropriate
and engaging for students. We discuss peer editing sessions (in which peers give one
another feedback about errors and language choices) in Chapter 8.
Following Up on Peer Review Tasks

In our discussion of teacher commentary earlier in this chapter, we discussed why
it is important to include reflection and accountability mechanisms so that stu-
dent writers take seriously the feedback they have produced and received—and at-
tempt to use the latter to improve their future writing. Such follow-up is especially
necessary when the feedback source is peers rather than the teacher, as studies
suggest that L2 writers’ “default” position is to discount peer suggestions and wait
for the teacher’s appraisal (Connor & Asenavage, 1994; Zhu, 1995). Peer review
follow-up tasks can accomplish three related goals: (1) They can help students
reflect critically on feedback received; (2) they demonstrate to peer respondents
that their feedback to writers will be scrutinized; and (3) they can help the teacher
monitor the success of the peer review tasks.
To achieve the first goal, teachers can ask students to complete various activi-
ties. For example, at the end of a peer review session, one can plan class time for
writers to review the feedback they have received and to write a response to it. As a
homework assignment, students might also compose a short analysis of their peer
review session, discussing how it will or will not influence their subsequent revi-
sion of the text. Figure 7.4 presents sample instructions for tasks along these lines.
Teachers can then assess both the attention devoted to the peer review session
and the quality of the comments by reading these reflective responses and by look-
ing at students’ written peer review efforts (worksheets, marginal comments, and
Activity 1: Immediate In-Class Reflection

Note: This activity is designed as a five- to ten-minute freewriting exercise to be
be completed in class right after a peer review workshop. Here is the prompt,
which could be written on a board or handout – or projected on a screen:
• How did your peer review session go?
• Did you find it helpful? Why or why not?
• How did you feel about your own participation as a provider and recipient of
feedback?
• Did you think your group worked well together? Why or why not?
Students should be assured that their responses will be confidential, only to be
seen by the instructor.
Activity 2: After-Class Reflection and Revision
Instructions: Now that you have written a first draft and read and responded to
the drafts of several classmates, reread your own text and the comments provide
by your classmates. Revise your draft and save it as a new file.
Next, compose a short memo (200 to 300 words, or about one double-spaced
page) to me that addresses the following questions. Call this memo “Assignment
1 Revision Memo” and put it into your Drop Box when you are done.
• How did your peer draft workshop go?
• What did you learn from (a) reading your peers’ drafts; and (b) getting their
comments on your own draft? What impact did this have on your revision?
• What changes did you make between Drafts 1 and 2, and what were the
sources of those changes (e.g., peers’ suggestions, ideas from peers’
papers, your own rethinking)?
• How do you feel about your paper at this point? As you approach your final
draft, identify one to three specific questions or concerns about which you
would like feedback from me.
FIGURE 7.4 Sample reflection activities following peer review.

so on)—perhaps incorporating the effort and quality reflected in peer response

into the assignment evaluation or class participation grade. We have occasion-
ally discovered interpersonal problems in peer response groups through these
follow-up tasks; this information may lead us to intervene with peer respond-
ents who have provided harsh or cursory commentary, to check in with a student
who is frustrated or hurt by peer review interactions, to adjust the composition
of groups, to modify tasks assigned to peer review groups, and to be more aware
of individual students who may not respond favorably to their groups. This last
point is especially important in courses where L1 and L2 students are mixed and
where multilingual writers may feel intimidated by or hesitant about group work
(Hamp-Lyons, 2006; Zhu, 2001).
Peer Review: Summary

Despite the potential difficulties and concerns that we have raised, carefully de-
signed peer response activities can be extremely beneficial to individual student
writers and to the classroom climate. Teachers who dismiss peer feedback because
the practice doesn’t work or wastes time, or because students react negatively, may
have inappropriate expectations concerning the procedure. Most notably, teach-
ers should not assume that peer response, even when implemented effectively,
can (or should) replace or drastically reduce the need for teacher response. Before
anticipating favorable outcomes, teachers must prepare students adequately and
structure peer review sessions appropriately. Although the cost of peer response
as an integrated part of a writing course is high—it takes a great deal of time
not easily spared from the typically crowded course syllabus—its potential ben-
efits are enormous. The principles and practical suggestions outlined in this sec-
tion should help L2 writing educators implement this valuable technique more
successfully.
Building Autonomy Through Guided Self-Assessment

As we argued earlier in the chapter, feedback to student writers can and should
come from different sources. An overlooked source of feedback is, of course, the
writer him- or herself. In addition to feedback from outside sources (teacher,
peers, tutors), students should be consistently and intentionally led through
reflection on and critical analysis of their own writing. Reflection is one of
the key variables linked by composition scholars to student transfer of skills
from writing classes to future studies (Beaufort, 2004; Devitt et al., 2004;
Downs & Wardle, 2007). Self-evaluation activities help students become better
readers and editors of their own writing; such work builds confidence as stu-
dents become more aware of their own strengths and of their abilities to help
themselves. Such activities might include the following over the duration of a
composition course:
j Beginning-of-term questionnaires, writing prompts, or discussion ac-

tivities to elicit students’ memories, feelings, and opinions about their
own prior writing experiences (see Chapters 2 and 5);
j In-progress memos and freewrites about students’ thoughts and strug-
gles as they write and revise an assignment (see Figure 7.4);
j Responses to peer and instructor feedback;
j Self-editing exercises in which students are led through a structured
process of reviewing their papers for accuracy and style (see Chapter 8);
j Final draft memos in which students reflect on how they developed an
assignment and how they feel about the end product;
j End-of-term writing activities (e.g., a final essay question or a portfolio
cover letter) in which students look retrospectively on their efforts dur-
ing the course, inventory what they have learned, and reflect on goals
for improvement.
Appendix 7.3 provides several sample guided self-evaluation tasks. Instructors

should also keep in mind that such self-analysis exercises might be unfamiliar to
students, especially those newly arrived from other cultures, and spend a bit of
time at the beginning of the term explaining the purposes for these activities.9
Feedback From Outside Sources

Teacher feedback, peer response, and guided self-evaluation activities are all planned
and facilitated by classroom instructors. We should also briefly acknowledge the role
of other feedback sources in L2 writing development. For example, most postsec-
ondary institutions in North America provide some sort of writing or learning as-
sistance center where students can go for additional assistance from trained tutors
or consultants, who may be trained undergraduate students, graduate assistants, or
permanent staff members (Anderson & Murphy, 2004; Barnett & Blumner, 2008;
Bruce & Rafoth, 2009). Such on-campus resources can provide additional support
for L2 students beyond what an individual teacher is able to offer (Leki, 2009). Simi-
larly, students may choose to hire private tutors or editors to provide additional as-
sistance with their writing. Busy writing instructors can sometimes be overwhelmed
with individual students’ needs for extra help, and they will often refer their students
to on-campus or private tutors (Ferris, Brown, Liu, & Stine, 2011).
In addition to these in-person consultants, online resources to which students
can turn for extra writing help abound. These include online writing labs (OWLs)
or other writing sites (e.g., publishers’ and authors’ websites to accompany writing
textbooks or handbooks) that supply materials, exercises, and quizzes to help stu-
dents learn more about the writing process, grammar and mechanics, bibliographic
research methods, writing from sources, discipline-specific citation conventions
(e.g., APA, Chicago, MLA, and so on), writing in the disciplines, and so forth. In
addition, numerous online services enable students to submit their papers online
and receive either automated or “live” feedback (Crusan, 2010; Ware, 2011; Ware &
Warschauer, 2006). One such service, Criterion®, was developed by Educational
Testing Service to provide “instant diagnostic feedback and real-time scores on es-
say submissions to help students improve skills and build confidence. Students can
rewrite their essays using feedback they receive online from both the Criterion®
service and their writing professors” (Educational Testing Service, 2012). Like com-
parable paid services, Criterion® is a web-based application for both faculty and
students that supplies both scores and qualitative evaluations generated by sophis-
ticated algorithms. Such online resources have the potential to complement, but
not replace, what a teacher can do individually and during class time.
However, we must offer a few cautions in mentioning these additional out-
of-class resources. First, campus writing centers, learning assistance centers, and
private tutors may not always be adequately equipped to work effectively with L2
writers, and they may be philosophically opposed to working intensively with stu-
dents on matters of linguistic accuracy (Bruce & Rafoth, 2009; Ferris, 2009; Leki,
2009; Thonus, 2002, 2003). Before recommending (or requiring) students to con-
sult a tutor or visit the writing center, instructors should determine whether these
resources will be appropriate and helpful for their students. Ideally, classroom in-
structors should work in partnership with tutors by providing information about
course requirements and course assignments. It is especially helpful for teachers to
prepare students for tutoring with a list of several concrete suggestions about what
the student could work on with a tutor.
Similarly, it is probably not adequate simply to hand students a list of web ad-
dresses and suggest that they consult them. Not all materials are equally valuable or
accessible to all populations; teachers should evaluate materials that they recommend
with the same scrutiny and care that they would exercise in selecting materials and
textbooks for their own courses (see Chapter 5). Teachers should also think carefully
about what they will say to their students about the use of online feedback sources
(e.g., grammarly.com, Criterion®, and so on): Will such services provide clear and
useful feedback that supplements (but does not replace) what the teacher and peers
can give? Will students become overly dependent on this external feedback, circum-
venting the hard work of evaluating, revising, and editing their own writing? It is
probably unrealistic to forbid students to consult such sources; consequently teach-
ers must think through their classroom policies and recommendations for students.
In short, in our highly interactive digital world, there are many ways for students to
receive help with their writing outside of traditional classrooms. Instructors need to
consider how they can work with, rather than against, such supplementary resources.
Chapter Summary
In this chapter we have looked in depth at one of the most central facets of writ-
ing instruction: the kinds of feedback experiences that teachers can provide or
facilitate for the student writers in their courses. We have spent a lot of time on
this topic (and indeed will spend more in the next chapter on the more specialized
question of error correction) because feedback has the potential to be incredibly
valuable for student writers—particularly L2 writers, whether in designated L2
courses or mixed mainstream courses, who face tremendous challenges in learn-
ing to write successfully in the L2. However, unless teachers take the time to reflect
on their own feedback practices and to design such activities carefully, response
mechanisms may fall short of their potential, to the ultimate frustration of teach-
ers and the detriment of their students (Ferris, Liu, et al., 2011). To review, we have
covered the following ground:
j Principles for successful teacher feedback;

j Strategies for written teacher commentary;
j Adaptations for teacher–student writing conferences with L2 writers;
j Potential benefits and drawbacks of peer response;
j Approaches to successful implementation of peer review;
j Ideas for guided self-evaluation;
j Discussion of external (out-of-class) feedback sources for student writers.
Response to student writing is unquestionably the most demanding and time-

consuming aspect of an instructor’s job, yet it is also arguably the most important.
It can be dynamic, creative, and satisfying, as it represents our biggest investment
in each individual student’s progress. It is hard work to do well, but it is worth the
effort to develop and improve one’s responding skills and repertoire.

j Book-length works/collections on response to student writing (L1 composi-
tion): Anson (1989); Straub (1999, 2006); Straub and Lunsford (1995)
j Monographs and collections on response to L2 student writing: Ferris (2003);
Goldstein (2005); Hyland and Hyland (2006a); Liu and Hansen (2002)
j Key studies of teacher written response to L2 writers: Conrad and Goldstein
(1999); Ferris (1995b, 1997); Ferris et al. (1997); Hyland and Hyland (2001);
Leki (1990a); Reid (1994); Zamel (1985)
j Key studies of teacher–student writing conferences for L2 writers: Ewert
(2009); Goldstein and Conrad (1990); Patthey-Chavez and Ferris (1997)
j Key studies of peer response in L2 writing: Carson and Nelson (1994, 1996);
Connor and Asenavage (1994); Lundstrom and Baker (2009); Mendonça and
Johnson (1994); Nelson and Carson (2006); Paulus (1999); Stanley (1992);
Villamil and Guerrero (2006); Zhang (1995); Zhu (1995, 2001)
j Books on L2 students in writing center contexts: Bruce and Rafoth (2009);
Reynolds (2009)
j Selected websites providing instructional material and exercises for student

writers:
d Purdue Online Writing Lab (OWL): http://owl.english.purdue.edu; Col-
orado State OWL: http://writing.colostate.edu
d Website accompanying handbooks by Diana Hacker: http://www.
dianahacker.com/reference.html
d Website for Andrea Lunsford handbooks: http://www.bedfordstmartins.
com/Catalog/other/lunsfordhandbooks
d Ann Raimes Keys for Writers website: http://college.cengage.com/
english/raimes/keys_writers/3e/students/index.html

1. If you were planning a composition course, what options might you consider
for when and how students should receive feedback? How might you balance
these alternatives over a quarter- or semester-length course?
2. What issues surrounding teacher feedback might be unique to (or at least
more salient for) L2 writers? How might you adapt your feedback strategies
between a mainstream (L1) composition course and an L2 writing course, or
a course that serves both L1 and L2 student writers?
3. Identify the advantages of written commentary over face-to-face conferences.
At this stage in your teaching career, do you have a preference (or a mode that
you would prefer)? Why? Identify hypothetical arguments in favor of peer
response rather than teacher response (or vice versa). What arguments favor
implementing both?
4. Based on your own experience and the contents of this chapter, what do you
think is the single greatest potential benefit for students who participate in
peer feedback activities? What is the greatest potential drawback? What steps
might teachers take either to maximize possible benefits or to prevent poten-
tial problems?
5. Do you agree with those who favor an open-ended approach to peer response
or those who advocate tighter teacher control? This chapter clearly favors the
latter position. Justify your opinion.
6. Identify the advantages and disadvantages of allowing students to choose their
own peer response partners, as opposed to teacher assignment. Although this
chapter clearly favors the latter position, persuasive arguments can be made
for both positions.
7. This chapter recommends the use of guided self-evaluation and reflection
activities. Have you used these as a writer or as a teacher? Do you think such
activities would be more or less effective with L2 writers than with other stu-
dents, and why do you hold this opinion?
8. What are your opinions about sending student writers for outside help, such
as to a writing center, a tutor, or online resources? What are the benefits, and
what reservations would you have?
Surveying Teachers and Students About Responding Practices
1. Contact the teacher of an intermediate or advanced ESL writing class in your
community (at a high school, community college, university, or intensive
English program). Ask the teacher if you can visit the class, administer a sur-
vey to the students, and interview him or her later about the results.
2. Using the survey developed by Cohen (1987) and adapted for multiple-draft
contexts by Ferris (1995b), prepare enough copies of a survey form for the
class you will visit. Alternatively, create and administer an online version of
the survey using an online tool (e.g., surveymonkey.com, surveygizmo.com,
kwiksurveys.com, or Google Docs).
3. Attend the class, give instructions, and administer your survey. Analyze the survey
responses, following the procedures discussed in Cohen (1987) and Ferris (1995b).
4. Interview the teacher about the survey results to discover the degree to which
students’ perceptions are accurate (at least in the teacher’s view).
5. Compose an analysis of your survey results and teacher interview, comparing
your findings with those of Cohen (1987) and Ferris (1995b).

Examining Teacher Commentary and Its Effects
In Appendix 7.1 is a student writing sample, together with background informa-
tion about the course it was written for and the writing prompt. This sample also
shows written teacher commentary in the margins and in an end note. Read the
student paper and examine the teacher’s commentary. What (if anything) do you
like about the teacher’s feedback? What (if anything) do you dislike, wonder about,
or disagree with? Reread the section of this chapter on written teacher feedback
subtitled “Response.” In what ways does this teacher feedback reflect or fail to re-
flect the suggestions given here? If you were the teacher and the student writer
were in your class, what might you have done differently? Why?

Examining a Student Paper, Selecting Feedback Points,
and Constructing Commentary
Appendix 7.4 contains another student paper from the same class as in Appendix 7.1
and Application Activity 7.2. Read the sample carefully. Identify one or two strengths
and two to four feedback points (constructive criticism and suggestions to facilitate
revision). Then, following the example shown in Figure 7.2, construct an end note
to the student. After you have completed the end note, go back and add marginal
comments as appropriate.
Then write an analysis of your experience, considering the following questions:
1. What principles guided you as you read and responded to the student papers?
2. What struggles, if any, did you have in responding to the student paper?
3. What questions or concerns do you have about responding effectively to student
writing in the future?

Designing a Peer Response Task
Imagine you are teaching high-intermediate or advanced L2 writers in a secondary
or college course. The diagnostic assignment administered during the first week
of instruction was an argumentative essay based on a newspaper article entitled
“Violent Essay Lands Boy in Jail.” The prompt is reproduced below.
Writing Prompt
Directions: Please read the article “Violent Essay Lands Boy in Jail.” Then re-
spond to the writing prompt below.
Background
School violence has been a major problem in recent years. Due to the fear
of violence, many schools have adopted a “zero tolerance” policy toward
students who carry weapons, make threats, or commit violent acts. These
students are suspended or expelled by the school, and often they are also ar-
rested by the police. In the article “Violent Essay Lands Boy in Jail,” a student
was suspended and arrested for writing a scary Halloween essay.
Writing Task
Write an essay giving your opinion: Should a student be punished for some-
thing he or she writes for a school assignment? Support your position with
facts from the article or other news stories you are aware of. You may also
use your personal experience or that of your friends. Be sure to state your
opinion clearly and include specific references to the article.
1. Considering the peer response principles and suggestions introduced in this

chapter, imagine that you are designing a peer feedback activity based on this
assignment. For this exercise, assume that your students have composed an
initial draft in class and will revise it at least twice before it is finalized.
2. Choose one of the three general approaches to peer feedback activities (work-
sheet, guiding questions, marginal comments) discussed in this chapter (also
see Appendix 7.2).
3. Create a handout that you would give to students to scaffold the peer response
activity. This handout can take a variety of forms, but it must have clear instruc-
tions for students to follow. At the top of the handout, explain the procedures
you would use (in or out of class) to implement this activity: How much time
it might take? How would students distribute their work to one another? How
would students deliver feedback to their peers? How you would follow up?

Giving and Receiving Peer Feedback
1. Select a writing or teaching project that you have worked on recently (e.g., a
paper for a graduate course, a conference presentation, a lesson plan or syl-
labus, a set of class materials). Find a partner who is working on the same
project or something similar.
2. Using the precepts and examples discussed in this chapter, design a peer re-
sponse form appropriate for critiquing the paper or project.
3. Exchange materials with your partner. Before meeting, read your partner’s
materials carefully and write answers to the peer response questions you con-
structed in Step 2.
4. Meet with your partner to discuss your responses to each other’s papers. Take
notes on or record your discussion.
5. Compose a reflective essay in which you discuss:
a. the experience of designing response questions for a professional project;
b. the experience of reading and responding to your peer’s work;
c. what you thought about your partner’s oral and written responses to your
work (Did you agree with him or her? Did you find the responses valu-
able? Why or why not?);
d. insights that you gained about the peer response process from participat-
ing in the discussion and from your notes/recording of the discussion;
e. how this experience relates to your own teaching and to the students that
you (hope to) work with.

Evaluating Outside Resources for Feedback
1. Imagine that you are teaching an L2 writing course (or a course that serves
both L1 and L2 writers). Choose a context and level with which you are famil-
iar. Investigate resources to which you could refer students for extra feedback
outside of your course. Examine one or more possibilities from each of the
following categories:
a. Tutoring resources, such as a writing center or learning assistance center
on your campus, or private tutoring resources in the community;
b. Websites that provide instructional materials for student writers, such as

online writing labs or OWLs and textbook companion websites;
c. Online services that provide feedback to students on their writing, in-
cluding OWLs and commercial services such as grammarly.com and
Criterion®.
2. For each resource that you examine, consider the following questions:
a. Is this resource designed and equipped to work effectively with L2 writers
(rather than a generalized, nondifferentiated student population)?
b. Will this resource provide the kind of feedback that L2 writers in your
course might need? For example, some writing centers adhere to strict
policies in favor of working with student writers on “higher-order” con-
cerns but not sentence-level features.
c. Will the information and feedback be clear, accessible, and manageable
for your students?
d. Would you suggest or require your students to consult this resource?
Would you try to prevent them from doing so?
3. Conclude your investigation by crafting either a memo to a program supervisor
evaluating these resources or a handout giving your students information about
how to access recommended resources and advice for how best to use them.
Appendix 7.1
Sample Student Paper with Teacher Commentary
Note: The paper below was written for a university L2 writing course entitled
“Writing for Proficiency” (see Ferris, 2001b). The prompt is reproduced in the box
below. The essays were written in 50 minutes in class during the first week of the
semester. Students had been given the reading and some prewriting questions to
consider in advance. They were asked to revise their in-class drafts after receiving
teacher feedback.
Please read the attached article by Terry Lee Goodrich entitled “Lies are so
commonplace, they almost seem like the truth.” Then write a clear, well
organized essay that responds to the following question:
Is lying always wrong? Why or why not?
Be sure to consider both sides of the issue as you explain your opinion. Ref-
erences to the article—facts, quotations, summary, etc.—are required.
Source: Ferris, Kennedy, & Senna 2003 Research Corpus, Essays 1–4. Used with stu-
dent permission.
Lying is not always wrong, if it is used for good intentions. Lying can be very
manipulative, yet that particular quality, Goodrich mentioned, “is also exciting.”
Instead of using it for evil, lying can be a vital source for good, whether it from
sparing a child feelings or doing it just to get something out of it. There are numer-
ous explanations why people would create white lies. One reason why people lie
is to surprise or distract a love one. Another reason why people do it is to create a
diversion, in order to escape the difficulties that may take place by telling the truth.
There is no greater rush than getting away with a good, harmless lie. For example,
on one occasion, I have used lies for good intention. My close friend birthday was
coming up. My friends and I were planning a surprise birthday. We did not want
the birthday girl to know of this, so we manipulated her into thinking that we did
not remember her birthday. Making up stories that we were busy on that day, to
convince her so. Seeing the hurt in her eyes further greaten our smile. Like Goodrich
said, “even though people lie for good reason, lying can be harmful.” My friends and
I knew that by lying to her, the surprise party would be a total success. Yes, our way of
springing the party on her was wrong, but when the surprise was successful, seeing
the joy on her face gave everyone involve a great rush, and that is exciting.
When Goodrich said that, “everyone lie” it could very well be the truth. People
lie constantly to avoid difficult situation by telling the truth. For instant, I was
at my friends’ house for dinner. His mother was cooking her best dish that took
hours to make. During the course of the meal she asked me how was it. The truth
is that I didn’t like it, maybe is because I hate shrimp, but to avoid being an un-
wanted guess, I bit my lips and told her that the meal was excellent. Besides my
stomach hurting from the shrimp, no feelings got hurt.
To conclude, small, harmless lies can be exciting and fun. Not knowing if you
will get caught in a lie, or knowing that you just got away with a lie is a great thrill.
The truth is, some lies can be damaging when it is discovered, but if done properly,
lies can be very benificial. No one really likes to lie, but not everyone is aware that
they are lying. Lying is not always wrong.
Lucy,
You did a nice job of taking a clear stand on the essay question by saying
that “lying is not always wrong.” Your two examples—the surprise party and
the shrimp dish—were both effective in illustrating times when a lie may be
harmless and even beneficial.
There are a couple of issues you need to think about as you write your next draft:
(1) You should also discuss times when lying is harmful. You hint at this a
couple of times in your introduction and conclusion by saying that lying
can be “manipulative” and “damaging,” but the rest of your essay presents
a very positive view of lying. I’d suggest adding a paragraph or two that
defines the types of lies that are harmful and provides an example or two
and perhaps ideas from Goodrich’s article.
(2) The story about your friend’s birthday is a bit confusing. You are honest about
the fact that your lying caused her pain, and you even describe it as “wrong,”
yet you present it as an example of when lying can be beneficial. See if you
can make this clearer by explaining either (a) what you might have done
differently or better; or (b) why you think the positive aspects of the surprise
“erased” the hurt she felt when she thought you had forgotten her birthday.
(3) You need to use Goodrich’s article more in your essay. Be sure to introduce it
clearly at the beginning—author’s full name, article title, and a brief summary
of the main idea(s)—and see if you can use facts, examples, or specific quota-
tions to support your own arguments and examples throughout the paper.
You are off to a great start with clear organization and nice examples. I will
look forward to reading your next draft! Be sure to e-mail me, talk to me in
class, or come by my office if you need any help as you revise!
Good luck!
— Teacher
Appendix 7.2
Sample Peer Response Tasks
Sample 1: The Worksheet Approach10

Purpose: The purpose of this exercise is to enhance your skills in critical analysis
and familiarize you with the features of academic writing.
Workshop Instructions: After you have read through your peer’s draft, use this
form to record information from your analysis; refer back to your peer’s text as
needed. You will return this completed form to the writer when you are finished.
1. In your own words, state the main idea of the author’s essay.
2. How does the writer’s main idea relate to the assignment prompt? Identify key
words and phrases from the writer’s main argument or thesis and the prompt
that connects them.
3. Complete the following response grid:
| What argu mania j W M IrlfonnailOfl j Wfiat anampiea ! Whal information

j did the writer f cited from =did the miter j appears
| present? \ readings relates to \ provide for each I insignificant (0 the
; the ar£y(rieftt_s?_ ; argument? | arguments? _
I 9
!j .
Lb
i r
\ \\
4. What difficulties, if any, did you encounter in locating the information you
needed for the grid?
5. How does each argument relate back to the writer’s main idea?
6. What did you find in the writer’s draft that you might apply to your own writing?
7. In a brief paragraph addressed to the writer, comment on the positive at-
tributes of the draft and provide suggestions that might guide him or her to
make improvements in a revision.
Sample 2: The Guiding Questions Approach

Note: This peer review task was designed for a literacy narrative assignment in a
first-year university writing course.
Peer Review Workshop Instructions

1. Read your group member’s paper, considering the features and questions
below. At the end of the draft, write a brief summary comment specifically
mentioning at least two things you liked about the draft and at least two sug-
gestions for the writer to consider while revising. Be sure to write legibly.
2. When you are finished reading and writing, discuss each group member’s
draft in turn (about five minutes per writer). Answer questions about your
own text and ask questions about your peers’ feedback on your work. Offer
constructive and respectful comments, but don’t be so polite that you don’t
say anything helpful. When your group discussion is over, return your marked
copies to the writers.
Specific Features to Consider

Please avoid commenting on aspects of grammar, spelling, punctuation, and mechan-
ics. We will consider these features on the next draft.
j The narrative as a whole: Is the story clear to you? Did the writer provide
enough details for you to understand what happened? Are there points where
you wanted more information or detail?
j The evidence (especially anecdotes and quotations): Did the writer relate anec-
dotes effectively and concisely (avoiding too much detail)? Were the anecdotes
clearly tied to the writer’s main points, or were you unsure about the story’s
purpose? Did quotations add to the flavor and liveliness of the piece, or did
they seem unnecessary?
j The analysis: Sometimes writers can relate an excellent story but fall short in
effectively explaining its meaning or significance. Were there any points where
you wanted more analysis?
j The organization: Did the overall flow of the piece make sense? Were indi-
vidual paragraphs well focused and closely connected to one another?
j The opening and closing: Did the beginning of the piece catch your attention
and help you understand the text’s theme and purpose? Did the end of the
piece give you a clear picture of what you should learn or remember from
reading it?
Sample 3: The Marginal Comments

Approach
Note: This peer review task was designed for an advanced college writing course.
Students were directed to compose a personal statement for a graduate or pro-
fessional school program to which they might apply. They also were required
to include and follow task instructions provided by the institution or program
to which the statement was addressed (made available via web link or copied
and pasted into the document). The activity was designed to take place in a
computer-equipped classroom; students were instructed to use the “comments”
feature in Microsoft® Word® to provide marginal commentary. They then would
e-mail the marked draft back to the writer and upload a copy to their own class
folder on the course website so that the teacher could check their peer review
work later.
General Instructions
j Work in your assigned writing groups, taking 20 minutes per paper.
j Use the questions below to guide your responses.
j Do not focus on sentence- or word-level features (i.e., grammar, mechanics,
and so forth) at this point.
j Write comments (praise, suggestions, questions) in the margins or in a note
at the end of the paper with feedback and suggestions for revision.
j Convey your feedback respectfully and constructively while offering concrete
and specific recommendations. Avoid being so nice that your comments pro-
vide little meaningful help to the writer.
Questions to Consider
j Did the writer address the writing task effectively?
j Did the writer anticipate the needs of the target audience?
j What do you want to know more about?
j Is anything unclear? Where does the writer need to add detail or explanation?
j What do you like best about this paper so far?
j What are your suggestions for revision?
Appendix 7.3
Sample Guided Self-Evaluation Activities
Sample Task 1: Midterm Response to Teacher

Feedback and Self-Evaluation
Instructions: You have now completed and received feedback on three assignments
(Diagnostic and Assignments 1 and 2) and grades on two. With two major assign-
ments to go, now is a good time to take stock of the progress you have made this
quarter and where you still need to go. Reread the papers you have received back
from me with feedback; next, complete the writing task below. Write a short note
to me addressing the following issues. You do not need to include all of them—just
those that are the most relevant to your own situation. Sign your name to your
letter and put it in your Dropbox when you are done.
j Have you been surprised by any of the feedback you have received?
j Has anything confused you?
j What do you most agree with (if anything)?
j Do you (respectfully) disagree with any of my comments or suggestions?
j Considering the assignments that you have so far produced this quarter, do
you believe you have made good progress in developing your writing skills?
j With the two upcoming papers in mind, what specific areas of writing do you
feel you still need to improve? What strategies will you use to work on them?
Sample Task 2: Instructions for

Reflection Memo
Note: This was designed to accompany a final assignment draft.
Format and Specifications: Compose this assignment as a short essay of 200 to

300 words (longer is okay). Your letter should consist of several well-developed
paragraphs. Double space, spell check, edit, and proofread your text.
Task: For this assignment, you identified a problem that you wanted to discuss
with a specific audience in a particular format (genre). In your memo, you should
discuss the rhetorical analysis process that you went through to develop this as-
signment. You may find the following questions helpful, but do not assume that
you need to answer all of them. You do not need to follow this particular order and
may add ideas not covered below.
j In your thinking and idea-generating process, what came first: the audience or
the problem?
j Did any ideas from Carroll’s article on rhetorical analysis or Dirk’s article on
genre particularly help you? If so, which one(s)? Feel free to add key quota-
tions if you like, including the page numbers.
j What was your understanding of your audience’s needs and interests, and how
specifically did this understanding influence how you drafted your text?
j What was your understanding of the characteristics of the genre you chose,
and how specifically did you organize and draft your text to fit that genre?
j What did you find most interesting about this assignment?
j What was most difficult or frustrating about it?
j At this stage of development, how do you feel about your text? Do you think
you might include it in your final portfolio? If not, why not? If so, what work
might still be needed, in your opinion?
Sample Task 3: Final Portfolio Letter Prompt

Note: This task was designed to introduce a final portfolio at the end of a first-year
writing course.
Instructions: You may structure your letter in any way that makes sense to you, but
it might cover the following ground:
j A discussion of where you were as a writer at the beginning of this course and
where you think you are now. If you feel you have made progress, what specific
elements of the course helped you to develop further as a writer?
j A discussion of the pieces that you are including in your portfolio. In this part
of the letter, you must write very specifically about the pieces that you wrote
and their content—avoid merely describing the assignments in general.
j A discussion of how the lessons learned in this course will help you accom-
plish reading and writing tasks in other courses and in the workplace.
j Your thoughts about where you still need to grow and develop as a writer after
this course is over.
j Anything else that you want your readers to know about you, your writing,
and the written products that you have included in your portfolio?
Appendix 7.4
Sample Student Paper for Responding Practice
(For Application Activity 7.3)
Note: Background information about the course and writing task appears in Ap-
pendix 7.1.
In an everyday going, many people lie all the time. There are many reasons why
people lie. They lie to protect themselves, to protect others, to get attention, to
get things they desire or want. In my opinion, lying is a part of everybody’s daily
routine, such as waking up in the morning, eating, going to work or school, and
sleeping. A daily routine of lying can be simple as telling your mom that you are
not able to go home early due to a group study, but instead you’re going out with
your friends to a perty. This is the type of lie that many people often do everyday
of there lives, and it is normal. I believe that lies are not always harmful, and it is
appropriate sometimes. However, everybody should set limits and boundaries to
determine whether a lie should be acceptable or not.
In the article,“Lies Are So Commonplace, They Almost Seem Like The Truth”
Goodrich states that many people lie for good reasons, but lying can be hurtful
and risky if the lies are discovered and it can destroy the trust and the relationship
with the peson. I agree with this statement because everybody should know the
consequences from lying, even if the lie is simple or serious. For example, I was in
a relationship for five and a half years. At the last year of our relationship, he con-
stantly made excuses that he was busy and could not spend time with me.
Afterward, I had found out that all the times that he had refused to go out with
me, he was out with my best friend. They had been seeing each other for several
months. I was very devistated and hurt. I couldn’t believe it. They’ve been lying
to me for so long that I felt so stupied. In this type of situation, the lie will soon
be discovered. I believe that this type of lie is unacceptable and it should not be a
daily routine.
Overall, lying is something that everybody will do as a part of growing up. A
harmful lie or an appropriate lie depends on how an individual use it.
Notes
1. One of the authors (Ferris) was once asked to give a workshop on the assigned topic
of “Giving Meaningful Feedback Without Increasing Teacher Workload.” In a nutshell,
this title expresses the desire of most writing teachers: They truly want to help their
students improve through their feedback, but they don’t want to become “composition
slaves” (Hairston, 1986).
2. For a detailed review and critique of this body of studies, see Ferris (2003, especially
Chapter 2).
3. However, in all cases, students said they see language-related feedback as critical, in
addition to comments on other aspects of their writing. See Chapter 8 for more dis-
cussion of this point; see also Ferris (2003, Ch. 5) for a more in-depth review of this
student survey research.
4. There is an argument to be made, however, for also providing summative feedback on
a student’s final draft that is intended to help him or her reflect on lessons learned that
can be applied to future writing projects. See Ferris (1995b) for discussion.
5. One of the authors recently taught two writing courses in a six-week summer session,
and in an effort to manage the response load in the compressed time frame, experi-
mented with writing a substantial end note (paired with a task-specific rubric) and
offering extra consultation time for students who wished more detailed feedback. This
teacher’s usual practice is to give students the rubric and end note, along with marginal
comments on the texts. The author was gratified to discover that, based on item scores
in student evaluations, students appreciated this streamlined form of feedback just as

much as the more elaborated approach in other courses. This was an interesting, if
anecdotal, discovery.
6. We should also make the humbling observation that writing teachers, no matter how
experienced, can misunderstand their students’ intentions and purposes, leading us to
write comments that are off-point, inaccurate, and sometimes even unhelpful.
7. In conferences with students, one of the authors has recently adopted the approach of
opening the student’s electronic text file on the computer, discussing issues with the
writer, and then inserting ideas or comments discussed into the margins of the text,
using the comments feature in Microsoft Word. The document is then saved as some-
thing such as “Draft 2 with Conference Notes” and immediately emailed or uploaded to
the course website. This technique provides the best of both worlds—the face-to-face
interaction plus a written record that the student can use later in revision.
8. Ferris (2003) and Liu and Hansen (2002) present detailed discussions of the benefits
and limitations of peer response.
9. We have found that even monolingual English speakers do not immediately take to
such reflective exercises without a bit of preparation. For more advanced courses, a
freely available essay by Sandra Giles on reflection in the open source text Writing
Spaces, Vol. I (2010), has proved useful for such discussions.
10. Source: Dollesin (2003). Used with permission of the author.
Chapter 8
Improving
Accuracy in
Student Writing:
Error Treatment in
the Composition
Class

j Think about your own writing processes. At what stage in your writing
do you focus on the linguistic accuracy of your work? How and where did
you acquire the grammatical knowledge that you use to edit your work?
j How effective is your approach to editing your own writing? If it is ef-
fective, why do you think so? If it does not always work, what might
improve it?
j If you have experience in teaching writing, what do you find most chal-
lenging about giving students feedback on their language errors (gram-
mar, word choice, spelling, mechanics, and so on)?
j What ideas do you have about the best way(s) to help L2 students focus
on editing their written work? Are these ideas congruent with your own
editing process? Why or why not?
A Brief History of Error Correction in the Writing Class

Most writing theorists and instructors would agree that process-oriented pedago-
gies (see Chapter 3) have greatly enhanced the outcomes of both L1 and L2 com-
position instruction. However, although students might be much better at idea
generation and revision than they once were, L2 student papers may nonetheless
contain excessive grammatical and lexical inaccuracies according to the standards
280 Improving Accuracy in Student Writing
of English-speaking academic readers. Teachers of L2 writers understand that L2

acquisition is a process that takes time and that an expectation of perfect, “native-
like” papers, even from advanced students, is unrealistic. They further observe that
even monolingual English speakers make errors in their writing. Other readers
of L2 writing, however, often demand a high level of formal accuracy. Because of
these realities and because teachers will not always be available to assist their stu-
dents, writing instructors need to help their students develop and improve their
editing skills.
Prior to the advent of process-oriented instruction in L2 literacy instruction,
teacher feedback to second language writing students was often excessively con-
cerned with eradicating student errors to the detriment of helping students de-
velop their ideas, as discussed in Chapter 7 (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012; Ferris, 2010;
Zamel, 1985). Often, that error-intensive feedback was demonstrably unsuccessful
in helping reduce error frequency in subsequent student writing (see Truscott,
1996, for a review). However, as process-oriented practices, with their emphasis
on student writers’ ideas and individual writing processes, achieved widespread
acceptance in the 1980s, some practitioners swung to the opposite extreme, giving
little or no attention to the morphosyntactic or lexical accuracy of students’ final
products (Horowitz, 1986b). Zamel (1982) reminded us that “engaging students
in the process of composing [does not eliminate] our obligation to upgrade their
linguistic competencies. . . . If, however, students learn that writing is a process
through which they can explore and discover their thoughts and ideas, then prod-
uct is likely to improve as well” (p. 207). Many teachers appeared to focus on the
second half of Zamel’s statement (“product is likely to improve” as the result of a
focus on process) but did not grapple adequately with the “obligation to upgrade
their linguistic competencies.”
Some L2 scholars (e.g., Eskey, 1983; Horowitz, 1986b; Reid, 1994) immediately
raised questions about whether fervent adherence to process approaches would
meet the needs of L2 writers, who are simultaneously coping with second lan-
guage acquisition and developing their literacy skills. ESL writing teachers trained
in process pedagogies also found that students’ errors “were not magically dis-
appearing as the sure result of a more enlightened process” (Ferris, 2011, p. ix).
Thus, instructors in the late 1980s and early 1990s began seeking better answers
about techniques and strategies to help students improve the accuracy of their
writing while working within a process-oriented paradigm. These questions led to
the publication of various “how-to” articles, books, and chapters for teachers (e.g.,
Bates, Lane, & Lange, 1993; Ferris, 1995c, 2011; Frodesen, 2001; Reid, 1998b), edit-
ing handbooks specifically authored for ESL writers (e.g., Ascher, 1993; Fox, 1992;
Lane & Lange, 2011; Raimes, 2004), and primary research on the effects of error
correction, grammar instruction, and strategy training (see Bitchener & Ferris,
2012; Ferris, 2003, 2011 for reviews).
A new era in the debate surrounding error treatment in the larger process–product
conversation was ushered in by a review essay published in Language Learning by
Truscott (1996). In his article, Truscott argued strongly for the abandonment of
Improving Accuracy in Student Writing 281
grammar correction in L2 writing courses. The appearance of Truscott’s article

led to a published exchange in 1999 in the Journal of Second Language Writing
(Ferris, 1999a; Truscott, 1999; see also Ferris, 2004, 2010), which in turn spurred
on substantial new research efforts. Still, for most teachers, students, and readers
of L2 writing, the “debate” is, quite literally, academic. They know that L2 student
writers have gaps in morphological, syntactic, and lexical knowledge that are more
substantial than those of most L1 writers. Instructors know that most L2 students
have not had enough exposure to the language (especially written English) to
have developed intuitions that match those of their monolingual counterparts.
They know that the resulting errors students make in their writing may be seri-
ous (interfering with the message) and stigmatizing (irritating to an academic or
professional audience). In short, they know that L2 student writers need help in
improving the linguistic accuracy of their texts. For these instructors, the ques-
tions surrounding error treatment are not whether to address language issues in
student writing but how best to do so (see Bruton, 2009; Evans, Hartshorn, Mc-
Collum, & Wolfersberger, 2010; Ferris, 2011; Hartshorn, Evans, Merrill, Sudweeks,
Strong-Krause, & Anderson, 2010). The remainder of this chapter is therefore de-
voted to reviewing the questions concerning error feedback and strategy training
for L2 writers. We also aim to offer practical suggestions based on our best guesses
about how to approach these challenging tasks derived from the existing research
base and from our own experiences as teachers. Because we definitely do not wish
to argue that error treatment should be the only or the primary concern of an L2
writing course, we conclude this chapter by proposing ways of integrating these
concerns with other dimensions of literacy education.
Error Correction: Questions, Issues, and Options

The following section addresses eight core questions that reflect the concerns of re-
searchers and teachers regarding the practice of formal error treatment. Figure 8.1
previews these questions.
1. Does error feedback help students at all?

2. What is an error? Should we mark for "errors'1or ''style11?
3. What kinds of errors do L2 writers most typically make?
4. Should error feedback be selective or comprehensive?
5. S ho uId erro r feed back focu s o n /arger or smaWer categories
or types?
6. Should feedback be direct or indirect?
7. Should errors be labeled or focated?
S. Where in the text should error feedback be given?
FIGURE 8.1 Questions about error feedback.

Does Error Feedback Help Students At All?

The most pressing question to ask of the research base is the one raised by Truscott
(1996): Is error feedback harmful or helpful for L2 writers? In his review, Truscott
argues that: (a) The existing research base provides no evidence that “gram-
mar correction”1 ever helps any students; (b) a number of “practical problems”
(teacher incompetence, student inattention, and so on) render error correction a
futile exercise; and (c) time spent on error correction is actually harmful because
it takes energy and attention away from more important issues (i.e., student ideas)
in writing courses. Since his 1996 article, Truscott has continued to assert this
strong position in a series of papers and responses to other authors (Truscott,
1999, 2004, 2007, 2009; Truscott & Hsu, 2008).
However, contrary to Truscott’s assertion, empirical evidence strongly suggests
that error feedback can help students, both in the short term and the long term. In
the second language acquisition (SLA) literature, for instance, findings reveal that
adult acquirers in particular need their errors made salient and explicit to them
so that they can avoid fossilization and continue developing their target language
competence (e.g., Doughty & Varela, 1998; Doughty & Williams, 1998; Ellis, 1998;
Ellis, Basturkmen, & Loewen, 2001; James, 1998; Lightbown, 1998; Lyster & Ranta,
1997; Tomasello & Herron, 1989). In studies of error correction in L2 writing, we
find evidence favorable to systematic error treatment in two strands of research:
(1) studies that compare the accuracy of texts generated by students who received
error correction with the texts of students who did not (van Beuningen, de Jong,
& Kuiken, 2012; Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener & Knoch, 2008, 2009, 2010a, 2010b;
Bitchener, Young, & Cameron, 2005; Ellis, Sheen, Murakami, & Takashima, 2008;
Fathman & Whalley, 1990; Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Kepner, 1991; Sheen, 2007);2
and (2) studies that measure increases in linguistic accuracy over time in student
texts (Bitchener & Knoch, 2010a; Ellis et al., 2008; Ferris, 1995a, 1997, 2006; La-
lande, 1982; Robb, Ross, & Shortreed, 1986; Sheen, 2007). To briefly summarize
a great deal of research activity over the past 16 years, there is now extensive evi-
dence that corrective feedback, provided under specific conditions, can indeed
help L2 writers to acquire target structures and improve the accuracy of their texts
over time. Figure 8.2 summarizes the current evidence on this big question of
whether to provide error correction.
What Is an Error? Should Teachers Mark for

“Errors” or “Style”?
Disputes concerning error have often centered on the question of whether it is fair
or accurate to label the “incorrect” production of L2 learners as “errors,” or whether
such forms should more properly be considered to be natural consequences of the
evolving stages of learner interlanguage (e.g., Corder, 1967; James, 1998; Truscott,
1996). Nevertheless, many teachers would likely be comfortable with a working
definition of error such as the following: Errors consist of morphological, syntactic,
1. C o rre c tiv e fe e d b a c k (O F) h e lp s s tu d e n ts re vise e x is tin g te x ts

(Ashwell, 2000; Chandler, 2003; Falhm an & W halley, 1990; Ferris, 2006;
Ferris & Roberts, 20 01 ; Truscott £ Hsu, 2003).
2 C F , u n d e r s p e c ific co n d itio n s , “ca rrie s o v e r” to s u b s e q u e n t n ew
tex ts (e.g .. Bitchener & Knoch, 20 10a, 2010b: Ellis, et al., 2006: Ferris,
2006; Sheen, 2007).
3. F o c u s e d CF is m ore v a lu a b le th a n u n fo c u s e d C F (Bitchener & Knoch,
2009; Ellis et al,. 2009; Sheen. 2007; Sheen. Wright, & Moldawa, 2009),
4. F a r w ritin g d e v e lo p m e n t, in d ire c t CF m ay b e m ore v a lu a b le in the
lon g run th a n d ire c t CF (Ferris, 2006: Hendrickson. 1930, Lalande,
1982).
5. F o r SLA , d ire c t C F m ay b e m o re v a lu a b le (Bitchener & Knoch. 2009;
also see Bitchener & Ferris, 20 12 : Chapter 3)
6 E x p lic it CF (w ith labels, co d e s , o r o th e r m e ta lin g u is tic e x p la n a tio n )
m a y b e m ore v a lu a b le th a n u nlab eled C F — b u t Its e ffe c tiv e n e s s
d e p e n d s on th e le a rn e r’s m e ta lin g u is tic K n o w led g e b a s e (Bitchener &
Knoch, 2008; Ferris, 1999b, 2006; Ferris, Liu, Sinha, & Senna, 2013;
Ferris & Roberts, 2 0 0 1 )
7 S p e c ific c a te g o rie s o f erro rs m ay be m o re re s p o n s iv e to w ritte n CF
th an o th e rs (Bitchener. Young, & Cam eron, 20 05 ; Elfis e t al., 2006: Ferris,
2006; Ferris & Roberts, 2001; van Beuningen et al., 2012).
8. T e a c h e rs p ro vid e CF fre q u e n tly (th o u g h n o t alw ay s e ffe c tiv e ly )
(Ferris, Liu. & Rabie, 2011; Lee, 2 0 0 6 . 2009; Lunsford & Lunsford, 2006;
Montgom ery & Baker, 2007; Truscotl, 1996).
9. S tu d e n ts b e lie v e th a t C F is va lu a b le fo r th e m . (Ferris. 1995b, 2006:
Ferns & Roberts, 2001; Lek<, 1991; Lefkowitz & Hedgoock, 1996;
Montgom ery & Baker, 2007; TruscotL, 1396).
10. S u b s ta n tia l in d iv id u a l d iffe re n c e s a ffe c t s tu d e n ts ' ab ility,
w illin g n e s s , a n d m o tivatio n to u tilize C F to Im p ro v e th e ir w ritin g
(Ferris, 2006; Ferris et al., 2 0 1 3 )_________________________________________
FIGURE 8.2 Summary of recent findings on the effectiveness of error correction.

Adapted from Ferris (2012, p. 8).
and lexical deviations from the grammatical rules of a language that violate the in-
tuitions or expectations of literate adult native speakers of that language.3 Issues of
“style,” on the other hand, relate more to the teacher’s sense that a particular word
or phrase might flow more smoothly or idiomatically in a text, rather than to any
violation of underlying or universal grammatical patterns. With the exception of
very advanced, highly proficient L2 writers, it is probably both more urgent and
more productive to focus on errors that are patterned and rule-governed and can be
addressed constructively through feedback and strategy training. We discuss helping
students to analyze and develop effective writing styles for different genres and tasks
in Chapter 9; here we focus more narrowly on the above definition of error.
What Kinds of Errors Do L2 Writers Most Typically Make?

Whereas monolingual native speakers produce errors in their texts, the errors
produced by L2 writers tend to be distinct from those of their native speaker
counterparts. For instance, L2 writers frequently struggle with a range of issues

related to verbs, for example, errors in verb tense, errors in form (accurate for-
mation of tenses, passive constructions, modal constructions, and so forth), and
subject–verb agreement. Native-speaker students rarely if ever make analogous
verb errors. L2 writers also wrestle with understanding the properties of English
nouns. Specifically, they may not grasp distinctions between the various subclasses
of nouns (count/noncount, abstract, collective, and so on) or their implications
for plural or possessive endings, use of articles and other determiners, or subject–
verb agreement.4 As an empirically based illustration of these contrasts, Figure
8.3 summarizes findings from three large studies on the relative frequencies of
types of error in college student writing. The first two (Connors & Lunsford, 1988;
Lunsford & Lunsford, 2008) were based on texts from “mainstream” (mostly L1)
composition settings. The third (Ferris, 2006) drew upon texts written for six sec-
tions of a university L2 writing course.
It is important to note that L2 students produce a range of errors depending on
the structure of their L1s and the extent and nature of their previous exposure to,
and instruction in, English (see Chapter 2; Ferris, 1999b, 2003; Leki, 1992; Reid,
1998a). For example, the student writers in Ferris (2006) were mostly Genera-
tion 1.5 students, with a lower proportion of newcomers (international students
and recent immigrants). Particularly in heterogeneous L2 classrooms in English-
speaking countries, a teacher might encounter, for example, one group of students
that makes frequent verb tense errors, another that struggles with the English de-
terminer system, and another that has trouble with word order; there may be no
overlap across groups. It is thus extremely important for L2 writing teachers to
take time to analyze the error patterns and needs of individual students and of
each new group of student writers, rather than making assumptions about what
all L2 writers need.5
Should Error Feedback Be Selective or Comprehensive?

The next question to consider in providing error feedback is whether to mark only
some errors or all of them. Arguments in favor of the former approach (selective
correction) are compelling: It is less overwhelming to teachers and students and
allows for prioritization of the most serious, frequent patterns of errors made by
individual students. This option is thought to facilitate progress toward developing
successful self-editing strategies (Bates et al., 1993; Ferris, 1995c; Hendrickson, 1980;
Lane & Lange, 2011; Reid, 1998a, 1998b). Arguments against this position are raised
by students themselves: Survey reports indicate that they prefer all of their errors to
be identified so that they don’t miss anything (Komura, 1999; Leki, 1991a; Rennie,
2000). Some SLA researchers have suggested that leaving errors uncorrected can lead
to fossilization (Higgs & Clifford, 1982; Scarcella, 1996). Finally, some experts have
observed that for real-world writing tasks, students must learn how to edit their texts
comprehensively rather than selectively, and that marking only a few errors at a time
may not help them to do so adequately (e.g., Hartshorn et al., 2010).
Connors and Lunsford (1988) Lunsford and Lunsford (2008) Ferris (2006)
(U.S. college students) (U.S. college students) (ESL university students in California)
1. No comma after introductory 1. Wrong word 1. Sentence structure

element 2. Missing comma after an 2. Word choice
2. Vague pronoun reference introductory element 3. Verb tense
3. No comma in compound sentence 3. Incomplete or missing 4. Noun endings (singular/plural)
4. Wrong word documentation 5. Verb form
5. No comma in non-restrictive 4. Vague pronoun reference 6. Punctuation
element 5. Spelling error (including 7. Articles/determiners
6. Wrong/missing inflected endings homonyms) 8. Word form
7. Wrong or missing preposition 6. Mechanical error with a quotation 9. Spelling
8. Comma splice 7. Unnecessary comma 10. Run-ons
9. Possessive apostrophe error 8. Unnecessary or missing 11. Pronouns
10. Tense shift capitalization 12. Subject-verb agreement
11. Unnecessary shift in person 9. Missing word 13. Fragments
12. Sentence fragment 10. Faulty sentence structure 14. Idiom
13. Wrong tense or verb form 11. Missing comma with a non- 15. Informal (Appendix, p. 103; from
14. Subject-verb agreement restrictive element Chaney, 1999, p. 20)
15. Lack of comma in series 12. Unnecessary shift in verb tense
16. Pronoun agreement error 13. Missing comma in a compound
17. Unnecessary comma with sentence
restrictive element 14. Unnecessary or missing
18. Run-on or fused sentence apostrophe (including its/it’s)
19. Dangling or misplaced modifier 15. Fused (run-on) sentence
20. Its/it’s error (Table 1, p. 403) 16. Comma splice
17. Lack of pronoun-antecedent
agreement
18. Poorly integrated quotation
19. Unnecessary or missing hyphen
20. Sentence fragment (Table 7, p.
795)
FIGURE 8.3 Student error types in L1 and L2 composition studies is listed in order of frequency (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012,
p. 97).
The question of selective versus comprehensive error correction may also rest on
the stage of the writing process at which the feedback is given. Some composition
researchers and many instructors take as axiomatic that editing for language errors
should be postponed until the end of the writing process (e.g., Sommers, 1982;
Zamel, 1985). As a corollary, proponents of multi-drafting maintain that teachers
should withhold error feedback until the penultimate or final drafts. The concern
is that students will prematurely attend to form rather than continuing to develop
their ideas and “that students cannot attend to multiple concerns at the same time”
(Frodesen & Holten, 2003, p. 145). However, the empirical evidence available actu-
ally suggests otherwise (e.g., Ashwell, 2000; Fathman & Whalley, 1990; Ferris, 1997),
namely, that students are capable of addressing language and content issues simul-
taneously. One researcher has even argued that an excessively hands-off approach
to error feedback may be harmful to students’ progress (Shih, 1998).
According to Frodesen and Holten (2003), “research . . . suggests that it is in
the best interest of L2 writers to attend to language issues consistently throughout
the drafting process” (p. 145). They are careful to note, however, that their conclu-
sion does not necessarily imply that teachers should mark errors on every single
paper, but rather that the teacher may wish to use a range of strategies through
a multiple-draft process to focus students appropriately on selected forms. For
example, an instructor may wish to mark or comment selectively on several major
patterns of error in a preliminary student draft, knowing that the content of the
paper may still change a great deal but wanting nonetheless to give some language-
related advice. On a final draft of a paper, one that has been graded or will not be
further revised, the instructor may wish to mark all remaining errors so that the
writer has that information available for charting (discussed later in this chapter)
or simply for future reference.
If an instructor opts for selective error feedback, the question of which errors to
mark then arises. Experts have suggested that teachers focus on patterns of error
that are global or serious (interfering with the comprehensibility of a text), frequent
(relative to other error types), and stigmatizing (more typical of L2 writers than of
other students and potentially more distracting to authentic academic and profes-
sional audiences). Take, for instance, a hypothetical student paper with 30 obliga-
tory contexts for verbs to be marked morphologically for tense, aspect, or voice.
The writer either omits the required morpheme or uses an incorrect form in 10
of the 30 contexts. This would be an example of an error that is both frequent and
stigmatizing. Whether individual verb errors are serious depends on the coherence
of the paper and whether the writer successfully indicates time frame, active/pas-
sive voice, and completion of actions and states (aspect) in other ways.
Should Error Feedback Focus on Larger or Smaller

Categories?
Having identified general features that are troublesome for L2 writers and prin-
ciples for prioritizing on which errors to focus, another question arises: Is it most
helpful to student writers to give feedback on smaller, discrete categories of error

(e.g., verb tense vs. verb form) or simply indicate that there is a problem within a
broad category (verbs)? L2 writing textbooks and editing handbooks are split on
this question: Some focus on 15 to 20 smaller categories (e.g., Folse, Solomon, &
Smith-Palinkas, 2003; Lane & Lange, 2011; Raimes, 2004), whereas others select
five or six larger ones (e.g., Ascher, 1993; Fox, 1992).
The argument in favor of narrower categories is that students can be provided
with a more learnable, “bite-sized” set of rules to master—topics that can more easily
be covered in classroom mini-lessons and practice exercises (see Chapter 9) that can
be integrated into a literacy course syllabus. On the other hand, we often detect over-
lap among these smaller categories, and even experienced teachers disagree about
whether an error should be classified as “verb tense” or “verb form,” whether a noun
phrase is ill-formed because it needs a plural ending or an article, or whether a lexi-
cal error reflects a problem of spelling or word choice. Thus, an elaborate marking
system of 15 to 20 error types or codes may lead to instructor errors, may overwhelm
teachers, and may confuse and discourage students. Figure 8.4 provides examples of
student errors marked for micro- and macro-level error types.
Should Feedback Be Direct or Indirect?

One of the most important decisions in error correction is whether teachers should
provide direct or indirect feedback. Direct feedback simply involves providing a
target-like form for the student writer (or a suggested correction, if more than one
is possible or if it is not entirely clear what the student intended to express). Indirect
feedback, on the other hand, provides students with an indication that an error has
been made (underlining, circling, an error code, etc.) but requires the student to
self-correct. Most experts agree that indirect feedback clearly has the most potential
for helping students to continue developing their L2 proficiency and metalinguistic
knowledge. When asked about error feedback preferences, students seem to real-
ize that they will learn more from indirect feedback (Ferris et al., 2013; Ferris &
Roberts, 2001; Leki, 1991a). However, we would suggest that direct correction can
play a productive role among lower-level students who are unable to self-edit even
when an error is called to their attention. Direct correction may also be appropriate
for selected idiomatic lexical errors (e.g., collocations involving wrongly selected
prepositions) and perhaps when a writing sample will not be further revised and
the teacher wishes to call the student’s attention to recurring errors. Figure 8.5 pre-
sents samples of direct and indirect feedback supplied by a teacher on a brief text.
Should Errors Be Labeled or Located?

If a teacher opts for indirect feedback as the primary mechanism, a further cor-
rection option to consider is whether the errors should be labeled as to error type
(with labels or correction codes) or whether they should simply be located—the
error circled or highlighted but no further information provided. The argument
The student text excerpt below has been marked in two ways: (1) Errors in five broader categories
marked; (2) Errors in narrower, more discrete categories.___________________________________________
Option A (Broader Categories)
ww v/ww
Lying is considered dishonest, cheating, or not telling the true, but can anyone tells that he or she never
V ss
ever lie? Of course not, “everyone lies.” I used to lie, and I cannot guarantee that I will not lie again in
ww
the future. Many people lie because they want to make fun while others lie to take advantage o f someone
ww ss
else. However, lying is harmful while the person we lie to discovers that we are telling a lie. Despite o f
ww
that, all lies are not necessary bad or wrong.
ww ss
We sometimes lie because we want to make people happy. I lied to a girl, for she would get mad.
V ww V
I met a girl four years ago. She Is very quite, but her friend, Mindy, likes to talk a lot. I liked Mindy
ww
because she and I had a very good conversation. While Mindy left, I told that girl that I liked her more
ww
than Mindy because Mindy talked too much. I also told her that most quite girls are polite and honest, so
ss
so she must be a very good girl. Although I really didn’t her, I lied to make her happy.
___________________ KEY: V = verb; WW = word choice/form; SS sentence structure.___________________
Option B (Narrower Categories)
WF VF/WW
Lying is considered dishonest, cheating, or not telling the true, but can anyone tells that he or she never
VF RO
ever lie? Of course not, “everyone lies.” I used to lie, and I cannot guarantee that I will not lie again in
ww
the future. Many people lie because they want to make fun while others lie to take advantage o f someone
ww
else. However, lying is harmful while the person we lie to discovers that we are telling a lie. Despite of
WF
that, all lies are not necessary bad or wrong.
WW ss
We sometimes lie because we want to make people happy. I lied to a girl, for she would get mad.
VT SP VT
I met a girl four years ago. She is very quite, but her friend, Mindy, likes to talk a lot. I liked Mindy
ww
because she and I had a very good conversation. While Mindy left, I told that girl that I liked her more
SP
than Mindy because Mindy talked too much. I also told her that most quite girls are polite and honest, so
ss
she must be a very good girl. Although I really didn’t her, I lied to make her happy.
KEY: VT = verb tense; VF = verb form; WW = word choice; WF = word form; SS = sentence structure; SP spelling.
FIGURE 8.4 Error marking strategies: Broader and narrower categories.
in favor of the labeling option is that an indication of error type might elicit previ-
ously learned rules that students can then apply to the self-editing task. The op-
posite argument is that the less explicit option (locating) requires even more effort
on the part of the student writer, who must not only figure out the correct form
but also determine why it was ill-formed in the first place.
In deciding about labeling or locating, teachers have several questions to con-
sider. First, what are the students’ backgrounds? As discussed in Chapter 2, inter-
national or EFL students who have received formal grammar instruction in the
L2 (“eye learners”) might benefit from rule reminders or codes that will jog their
memories. Simply locating errors might not supply enough information or elicit
enough implicit knowledge for them to self-correct successfully. In contrast, “ear
Option A: Direct Feedback

tru th trdy
I vinu; is considered dishonest, cheating, m not telling the true, hut can anyoifce lelfcs, that he or she tievet
lie s p ' '
ever lie? Of course not. "everyone lies.” ] used to lie, and 1 cannot guarantee that I will not lie again in
have*
the future. Many people Me because they w-ani u> n ^ k i fun while others lie to take advantage Dfsonaeoiie
iflien
else. However, lying is harmful while the person we lie to discovers that we are telling a lie. Despite ef
.nece-Ea-ar il y
thyii, all Iii^s are not necessary bad or wrong.
so n ot
We sometimes lie because we want to make people happy. I lied to a girl for she would gel mad.
was quiet 1iked
I me! u îrl four years ago She h ver>' quite- bn! her friend, Mindy. I lk a to talk a lo!, t liked Mun.lv
ftfter/w h en
■Tiorfl
because she and I had a very good convefsatioai. While Mindy left, I 10Id ihat ^>1 that I liked her than
q u ie t
VIindy beeau.se Mindy lalkedl boo much. I also told her ihat most quite girl* are poliie and honest, so
lik e
she must he a very good girl. Alihoujjh I really d id n 't ■
’ her, Elied to make her happy.
O ption IS: Indluccl leetJhaek ll-.rn ir Location I

l.yim\ is considered dishonest, cheat hijj, or fu'rt telling iby I rue, hut can anyone Eel K that he or
she never ever lieJ:' O f course not, “everyone lies.’" I used to lie, and I cannot guarantee that I wilt not lie
again in ilk: Allure. Many people lie hecause they want to make tun while others lie to lake advantage of
someone else. However, lying is harmful w Nile the person we lie to discovers that we are Idling a lie.
Despite of ihat. all lies are not necessary had or wrong.
We sometimes lie because we want lo make people happy. I lied to a g iii for she won Id gel mad
I met a girl four yean ago. She Is very quite, but her friend, Mindy, likes to talk a lot. I liked Mindy
because she and I had a very good COnverSaliOfi, W hile Mindy left, I !old ihat îrl (hai I liked her more
than Mindy because Mindy talked too much. I also told, her that most quite girls are polite and. honest so
she roust he a very good girl. Although I really d id n 't tier, I lied to make her l^ppy.
Option C : Indirect Feedback (V erb a l End N ote)

As you revise* be sure to cheek your verbs to see if they are in the right ten « (past or present) ami cheek
your woj'd choice, I’ve highlighsed some examples of eirors in the first two paragraphs to show you what
] mean, but there are others throughout your paper.
FIGURE 8.5 Direct and indirect feedback samples.
learners” may have a much stronger “felt sense” of the language—but very little
grasp of metalinguistic terminology or access to learned rules. To put the prob-
lem another way, “whereas an international student may access a language rule to
identify and explain an ungrammatical form, an immigrant ESL student intuits
that the form ‘sounds wrong’ much as a native English speaker might” (Frodesen &
Holten, 2003, p. 150; also see Ferris et al., 2013). In short, different learners might
benefit from different degrees of explicitness in error correction.
Where in the Text Should Error Feedback Be Given?

A related concern involves where to provide corrections. Although many teach-
ers provide direct or indirect in-text feedback at the error location, some opt for
checkmarks in the margin (e.g., “There’s an error somewhere in this line, but you
have to find it yourself ”) or even for verbal end comments about patterns of er-
ror, with or without some in-text errors underlined for illustrative purposes (e.g.,
“You have a lot of missing verb tense endings. I’ve underlined some examples on
the first page, but there are others throughout the essay.”) Students tend to prefer
point-of-error feedback, but if a teacher is purposefully moving students toward
becoming autonomous self-editors, providing less explicit feedback over time may
be an appropriate instructional strategy in some cases (Ferris, 1995c, 1997; Robb
et al., 1986).
How Should Teachers Provide Error Feedback?

In the previous section, we focused on the “what” of error correction (direct or in-
direct, more or less explicit) and the “where” (margins, in-text, end note). In this fi-
nal section, we look more specifically at two specific questions: “How?” and “Who?”
The tools of corrective feedback. In the past, much concern was expressed by
scholars and teacher educators about “the red pen” (see, e.g., Semke, 1984) and
its effects on the morale and confidence of student writers. While there is little
evidence that the color of the pen makes much difference (Hedgcock & Lefkow-
itz, 1994), it may well be true that the mechanics and/or tools used by teachers
may influence not only students’ reactions to feedback but also their ability to
understand and benefit from it. For instance, in a study of L2 writers’ reactions to
teacher commentary in general (including grammar feedback), students pointed
to legibility (i.e., teacher handwriting) and clarity (unfamiliar codes and symbols)
as barriers to their understanding of teacher feedback (Ferris, 1995b). It should be
self-evident that feedback that cannot be understood or even decoded by student
writers will fail to help them and worse, will frustrate them.
Thus, teachers must think carefully about legibility and visual impact of com-
ments and corrections on a page of student text. It is tempting to assume that the
affordances of word-processing eliminate legibility problems in teacher or peer
feedback, yet a page cluttered with numerous in-text corrections and marginal
notes may be confusing and off-putting to a writer regardless of whether those
marks are handwritten or digitally inserted. We are not arguing against electronic
feedback. On the contrary, we believe it offers numerous advantages for teachers
and students. The “comments” function in Microsoft Word®, for example, allows
teachers to mark specific portions of text and write comments right next to them
in the margins—comments that can be legible and in complete sentences, unlike
handwritten marginal notes that may be cryptic and/or incomprehensible because
of space. Further, the use of electronic feedback captures the teacher’s suggestions
in permanent form so that they can be reviewed by the student (and the instruc-
tor if desired), unlike handwritten comments on a hard copy that can be lost.
A recent study of U.S. college writing instructors’ self-reported responding prac-
tices found that relatively few use computer-based tools in responding to student
writing (Ferris, Liu, et al., 2011). Hopefully this trend will change, as electronic
feedback can provide the teacher with valuable options for improving the quality
of responses students receive.
At the same time, “there are principles for enlightened, compassionate, help-
ful feedback that all teachers should follow. The use of modern tools should not
somehow justify suspending these rules” (Ferris, 2012, p. 9; see also Ware & War-
schauer, 2006). With this point in mind, there are two specific points to highlight.
First, the discussion above about selective, prioritized feedback being more help-
ful to student writers than comprehensive error feedback that covers too much
ground in a short space still applies whether the teacher is using a pen or a word
processor. In most instances, feedback on errors should focus on a few patterns
of error at a time. Second, we believe that the use of “track changes” (in Micro-
soft Word®) by a teacher sends the wrong message to the student writer, the same
message of “appropriation” that we discussed as a problem in Chapter 7. “Track
changes,” after all, is an editing tool used when a document is being coauthored
by several people (similar in ways to wikis or Google Docs/Drive) and/or when a
supervisor is making authoritative edits to a document drafted by a subordinate.
In either instance, authority has moved from the hands of the original writer and
is now shared, or even ceded, to others. Using “track changes” is a power move,
one that signals that the “tracker” is taking control of the document.6 In short,
teachers providing computer-based error feedback must still endeavor to avoid
overwhelming or disrespecting student writers with overly aggressive responding
behaviors.
Beyond everyday word-processing tools (“track changes” or “comments”),
some teachers have employed more elaborate or creative ways of using technology
for corrective feedback. For instance, Brown (2012) described using color cod-
ing to mark patterns of error (e.g., blue for verbs, yellow for noun plurals) and
reported that his own students found the colors more noticeable and memorable
than an error code might have been. While Brown used physical highlighters for
his project, word processors have many different highlighter colors, or the teacher
can change the font color in the text to send the message. Also, some teachers have
developed or used macros to insert corrections into student texts; writers can click
on the macro marker and receive not only an indication of the error type but also
perhaps a short rule reminder or even a link to a class handbook or website. As
to this latter suggestion, though, not all teachers feel equally comfortable with
designing such macros and/or articulating detailed grammatical explanations for
errors. In addition, instructors would need to take care that any linked rule re-
minders would be understandable to the student writers receiving them (see Fer-
ris, 2012; Milton, 2006 for more discussion of macros for error correction).
Before moving on from the “how” of error correction, we should also mention
that teachers may choose to use oral feedback methods to provide it. For instance,
recent versions of Word® allow the teacher to audio-record comments rather than
writing them, embedding the audio file into the student’s document. Some teach-
ers feel more comfortable providing feedback orally, and some students are more
auditory than visual learners, so this could be an interesting alternative. Further,

in-person writing conferences may sometimes be the best way to help students
wrestle with complex language problems in their writing. Teachers may struggle
to provide clear, informative error feedback if the errors are complex and/or if it
is unclear what the writer was actually trying to say. Students may not always un-
derstand error feedback or how to apply it. In a longitudinal multiple case study of
10 university L2 writers, Ferris and colleagues (2013) found that a combination of
selective indirect feedback (up to four error patterns per text) paired with follow-
up one-to-one discussions with the writers was helpful (to the students) and in-
formative (to the researchers and the instructor) and that the students themselves
greatly appreciated the in-person interactions around their texts. Figure 8.6 pro-
vides suggestions for teacher–student error conferences.
Finally, in designing error feedback, instructors should consider the question of
who should provide it: The teacher? Peers? Outside sources such as tutors? Student
writers themselves? Many teachers of L2 writers, and their students, assume that only
the teacher can or should provide error feedback. They worry that peers or writers
themselves will not have adequate linguistic knowledge to provide comprehensive
error correction. Teachers may be leery of suggesting that students go to writing
centers or tutors for editing, fearing that the outside helper will provide too much
assistance and that student writers will not learn to analyze and edit their own work.
While these are legitimate concerns, there are good reasons to consider facilitat-
ing or encouraging other sources of error feedback for student writers. Peer- and
self-editing sessions can build good proofreading and analysis skills, as we discuss
in the next section. If expectations for such activities are appropriate and if they are
carefully structured (see also the discussion of peer response in Chapter 7), students
can give each other helpful assistance and learn self-editing strategies that can help
them in the future. Writing center consultants or private tutors can provide the same
kind of one-on-one discussion and clarification noted above for teacher–student
error conferences, extending the time and energy that one individual teacher might
have available. In short, there are ways to maximize the benefits of additional “pairs
of eyes” for error feedback while mitigating possible problems or risks.
To summarize this whole section on error correction issues, the task of pro-
viding error feedback on student writing is complex, involving teacher decisions
about what constitutes an “error,” which errors to mark and how, what specific
groups and individuals need most, and how error correction fits in with other
classroom instructional choices. Furthermore, it is important for teachers not only
to consider these “what, how, who, and why” questions, but also to make sure that
they are adequately prepared themselves to assess the accuracy of student writ-
ing and to provide meaningful guidance to their students (see Bitchener & Ferris,
2012, and Ferris, 2011, for detailed discussions of the types of preparation teach-
ers need to respond effectively to student errors). Finally, in addition to providing
error feedback on student texts, the treatment of error in L2 student writing also
should incorporate strategy training to help students move toward autonomy in
editing their own work. It is to this topic that we turn next.
P re lim in a ry (U n m arked } D rafts

1. Ask the student to read the sample aloud while you follow along on a separate copy.
Instruct the student to atop and verbalize co m m e n t about any errors of corrections
s/he notices. Note the errors caughl by the student and suggested corrections on
your copy of the paper.
2. Then go Uirough the sample again, this time reading it aloud yourself. For any
remaining errors not caught by the student during step 1, stop and ask en indirect
question {"What about thh£?' or simply repeat the erroneous form or phrase). See if
the sludentcan suggests correction for errors you call to his/herattenlion. Take
notes on your copy using a differenl color of ink.
3. Show (he student your paper, marked with two pen colors—one representing errors
s/he found and attempted to correct independently: ttie othor representing errors you
pomted out. Discuss your findings, pointing out (a) what the student did well In terms
o f finding and correcting errors; and (b) problematic error types lhat you notice {either
frequent or types resistant lo self-editing). Ask Ihe student lo take notes on his/her
sample, including correct forms that you provide for him/her.
4. Keep your copy of the sample on file for future reference aboul the student's
progress and for identifying topics for class mini-lessons
M a rk e d D rafts
1. Read and provide indirect feedback (error location only) on Ihe student's essay draft.
Then ask the student, in class, to attempt corrections for all errors that you marked.
Ask the student to number each marked error consecutively and complete an error
analysis chart (see example, below). Ask the student to produce a revised essay
drain (including boiti corrections and responses lo feedback on other issues) prior to
your error conference._____________________________________________________
E rror Type________________________^_Total Errors
Verb TensefForm
Noun Endings
Determiners
W ord Choice/Word Form
Sentence Slructura: Missing or Unnecessary Words, Word Order
Sentence Structure: Fragments, Run-ons, or Comma Splices
Spelling, Punctuation, and Capitalization______________________
Other ___________________________
2. Use the marked essay draft, the chart, and the new revision as data sources lor your
conference. First, walk through the in-class corrections made by the student,
discussing (a) w holherthe student categorized the errors correctly on the chart; and
(b) whether the corrections suggested by the student are accurate. Next, compare
that draft to the subsequent out-of-class revision. Note where the student did/did not
make edits from the previous draft and discuss why (lack of understanding,
carelessness, larger text revision, and so on) Take notes on your discussion. Ask the
student to summarize what sfhe has learned about his/her patterns of error, points of
confusion, and editing and revision strategies.
3. Take copies o f all o f the student drafts and attach Ihe notes from your conference.
Keep them on file for future reference and lesson planning.
FIGURE 8.6 Suggested procedures for error conferences.
Strategy Training for Self-Editing

We previously alluded to the controversy among teachers and researchers con-
cerning whether teacher error correction offers measurable benefits for L2 writers.
In contrast, one can find a consensus among experts that L2 writers need strategy
training to become independent, autonomous self-editors.7 We all recognize that

linguistic accuracy is, in fact, an essential component of effective writing (among
many). However, writing instructors will not always be there to guide student
writers. Thus, we need to help our students learn to help themselves.
Techniques for Teaching Editing Skills in the Writing Class

Most modern researchers advocate an indirect discovery approach toward teach-
ing editing skills to L2 students. Although the goal of teaching students to become
independent self-editors (Ferris, 1995c; Lane & Lange, 2011) is clearly a crucial
one, students at beginning to intermediate levels of English proficiency may not
have the linguistic skills to monitor their own written products successfully (cf.
Jones, 1985). In a general discussion of error production and correction in second
language acquisition, Brown (2006) suggested that learners pass through succes-
sive stages in developing their abilities to recognize and correct their own errors,
ranging from the “random error stage,” in which learners have no systematic idea
about a given structure, to the “stabilization stage,” in which learners make rela-
tively few errors and can self-correct. Many L2 writing students find themselves
at an in-between stage where their errors are systematic and where they can self-
correct some, but not all, errors—if they are pointed out by someone else. It is
a rare student in an L2 writing course who can find and correct his or her own
errors without assistance from a teacher or other expert source. In nearly all of
the numerous studies cited earlier in this chapter that involved control groups
receiving no feedback, students who received feedback outperformed controls in
accuracy measures on revision tasks and/or subsequent new texts.
Students with an emergent ability to recognize and correct their errors most likely
need different types of intervention than do more proficient students. Brown (2007)
and Frodesen (2001) suggested that the types of writing of which low-level students
are capable include copying (of model texts and their own teacher-corrected com-
positions), controlled and guided writing exercises involving manipulation of vari-
ous syntactic structures, and dictocomps (see Figure 8.7 for sample activities).
As students progress in their acquisition of English syntax, morphology, and
lexis, as well as their formal learning of more complex discourse conventions, they
can be given more responsibility for correcting their own errors. An error cor-
rection system such as the one advocated in two companion volumes on editing
(Bates et al.,1993; Lane & Lange, 2011) may be useful for this intermediate level
of editing proficiency. In these textbooks, teachers and students learn a system of
marking papers for different types of errors and are encouraged to prioritize and
keep track of their error patterns using charts. However, depending on students’
prior educational experience, especially their English language development, sys-
tems such as these may need to be adapted to accommodate students’ relative
knowledge of formal grammar terminology (see Chapter 2 and discussion above
regarding “eye” and “ear” learners and their prior grammar knowledge).
Once students have progressed to a point where they can either correct a variety
of errors when they are pointed out or find and correct errors themselves, teachers
* D id y o u eat breakfast? WSiere (at home o r at school)?

In s tru c tio n s : C hange the p a ra g ra p h into p a s t tense. The firs t sentence is
* y o u eat breakfast?
M y w ife gets up e a rly in the m orning. She hates to get up in the m orning. She
has to get dressed q u ic k ly to e a tth an e a rly bus to w o rk . I go to w o rk later,
and 1 d riv e m y car. Siie do esn 't have much tim e fo r breakfast, so she ju s t lias a
eup o f enffee w h en she gets Lo w o rk. I have a b o w l o f ecneal and fru it b tfo re 1
go to w o rk. I understand w h y m y w ife doesn’t lik e m orn ing s? (A d a p te d fro m
eat breakfast? WSiere
D id y o u eat breakfast? WSiere (at home o r at school)?

eat breakfast? WSiere WSiere
eat breakfast?
In s tru c tio n s :' You ju s t re a d a pa ra g ra p h a b o u t a m a n a n d his w ife getting
re a d y fo r w o rk in the m orn ing N o w w rite a pa ra g ra p h a b o u t w h a f y o u did this
m orning. A n s w e r the qu estio ns to g e t id ea s fo r y o u r pa ra g ra p h .

H o w d id you"get to school? D id you w a lk ! ride a bike, d riv e a car. o r ride a
breakfast?
DDididyyoouueat
eatbreakfast?
breakfast? WSiere
WSiere(at
(athome
home oor ratatschool)?
school)?
id y o u eat breakfast? WSiere (at home o r at school)?
id y o u eat breakfast? WSiere (at home o r at school)?
F o llo w -u p : Mow cha ng e your paragraph about th is m orn ing into ono about
P ro ce d u re : U se a pa ra g ra p h like the one in P a d A. R e ad the pa ra g ra p h a lo u d
se v e ra l tim es at norm a/ speed. Then w rite th e ke y w ords on the bo ard in
se q u e n ce (see list b e lo w fo r an exa m ple) a n d a sk th e stud ents to rew rite the
p a ra g ra p h as Ihe y re m e m b e r it, using th e w ords on fhe board.
breakfast? breakfast? breakfast? breakfast? breakfast?
breakfast? breakfast? breakfast? breakfast? breakfast?
FIGURE 8.7 Sample exercise for beginning L2 writers. Activities developed

from suggestions in Brown (2001).
can take several steps to help them move further toward autonomy. In this ap-
proach, advanced L2 students can be taught over several phases during the writing
course to become self-sufficient as editors. Figure 8.8 provides a sample timeline
of this process for a 15-week semester; instructors with shorter or longer terms can
adjust the timeline for each phase accordingly.
Phase 1: Focusing students on form. The intent of this stage is to help students re-
alize the importance of improving their editing skills. According to Ferris (1995c),
some teachers assume that L2 writers focus excessively on grammatical form at
the expense of developing and organizing their ideas. However, many L2 students
have little interest in editing their written products. Such writers may find editing
Teach in g E d itin g O v e r a 15-w eek S em es ter

P h as e 1 fWeefcs 1 -3 ): F O C U S IN G S T U D E N TS O N F O R M
breakfast?
* S tu d e n t s le a rn lo r e c o g n iz e Ih e im p o rta n c e of im p r o v in g e d itin g skills;
* S tud ents begin to identify th e ir ow n "sources o f error."
breakfast?
* Students w rite a diag nostic essa y: teacher pre pa res a rep ort o f m ajor
w e a kn e sse s and indinates w h a t sort o f gra de th e stud ent is likely to rece ive if
breakfast? breakfast? breakfast? breakfast?
* S tud ents exa m in e sam p le sentences and essays, no ting w h at
co m p re h e n sib ility pro blem s are rooted in s e n te n c e -le v e l erro rs
P h as e 2 (W eeks 4 -1 0 ): TR A IN IN G S T U D E N T S TO R E C O G N IZ E M A JO R
breakfast?
breakfast?
breakfast?breakfast?
* S tud ents un de rsta nd and identify m a jo r e rro r type s in sam ple essays;
* S tud ents keep w ritten re co rd s o f the m ajor type s o f errors they m ake , turne d
breakfast? breakfast?
* S upplem en tary instruction on m ajor sources o f e rro r is given in ciass, lab, o r
through in d e p e n d e n t study, as necessary (see C h a p te r 9 fur d iscussio n o f
breakfast? breakfast? breakfast? breakfast?
P h as e 3 (W tm ks 1 1 -1 5 ): HELPIN G ^STU D EN TS TO F IN D A N D C O R R E C T
* S tud ents edit th e ir own essa ys and cha rt th e ir progress:
* Instructio n on m ajor sources o f e rro r continues.
FIGURE. 8.8 Student self-editing process. Adapted from Ferris (1995c, p. 46).
tedious, may not see it as important, or may have become overly dependent on
experts (i.e., teachers, tutors, and so on) to correct their work for them. “Thus, a
crucial step in teaching students to become good editors is to convince them of the
necessity of doing so” (Ferris, 1995c, p. 18).
We recommend several strategies for raising students’ awareness of the impor-
tance of editing in general—and of addressing the expectations of a socioliterate au-
dience (cf. Chapters 1–3). The first strategy involves setting classroom tasks in which
writers look at sentences or a short student text containing a variety of language
problems (see Figure 8.9). Another useful strategy for convincing students of the
necessity of developing editing skills is to give them a diagnostic essay assignment
early in the term and provide them with comprehensive feedback about their writ-
ing, including detailed information about their editing weaknesses, so that they have
specific grammatical features to focus on throughout the semester. (See Ferris, 2011,
pp. 123–129 for a more detailed discussion of this consciousness-raising stage.)
Phase 2: Providing strategy training. Once the importance of accuracy and of

developing self-editing strategies has been established, the teacher should share
with students both general principles of SLA and specific strategies for self-editing.
Editing Exercise
In stru ctio n s: R e ad 3 sam p le student p a p e r and look a t the course grading criteria
(especially the descriptions o f a pa ssin g sam ple versus a failing sam ple).
D iscuss the follow ing questions w ith y o u r in stru cto r and classm ates.
1 C onsidering errors only, if th is paper were w ritten for the fin a l do you think
ih e student w ould pass the class? W hy o r w hy not?
2. W hat are the m ost frequent type s o f errors you see In Ihis essay?
FIGURE 8.9 Consciousness-raising exercise with sample student paper.
breakfast?
breakfast? breakfast? breakfast?
D irections: R e ad through a student writing sam ple and highlight e ve ry verb o r
verb phrase. Exam ine each one carefully to see if there ore a n y errors in verb
tense o r form. If y o y find a n y errors, see if you can sug ge st 3 correction. Then,
using a diffe re nt color highlighter, highlight all o f the no un s a n d noun phrases
Check each one to see if it needs a p lu ra l o r possessive ending, has an incorrect
find in g, o r has an ending (ftaf is unnecessary. F or a n y errors you find, sug ge st a
correction. Be p re pa red to discuss with yo u r cla ssm ates and te a ch e r w hat errors
you found, w hy you think they are wrong, and w hy y o u corrected them in the way
breakfast?
FIGURE 8.10 Exercise for identifying error patterns.
Asbreakfast?
to the former, students should be relieved to hear that adult language learning
takes time and occurs in stages, that errors are a normal part of the acquisition
process (comparisons with child language acquisition are helpful here), that as-
pects of English grammar are idiosyncratic and full of troublesome exceptions
(thus relieving some embarrassment they may feel about “carelessness” or inability
to master certain structures), and that it is neither possible nor necessary to expect
to produce perfect, error-free papers by the end of a writing course (see Ferris,
2008, for discussion of this last point).
Many L2 literacy texts and resources for teachers provide lists of strategies that
students should consider in editing their texts. These include basic proofreading
recommendations such as “read your paper aloud.” One of the most important
editing strategies that students can learn, however, involves making separate, nar-
rowly focused passes through texts to look for targeted error types or patterns.
These categories may vary depending on the teacher’s perception of student needs.
However, these error forms should be selected from frequent, serious, and stig-
matizing error types. Students are sensitized to these error patterns by reviewing
the targeted categories, identifying them in sample student essays, and looking
for these errors in peer editing exercises (see Figure 8.10; see also Ferris, 2011, pp.
131–133). Such activities can also “lead students away from the frustrating and
often counterproductive notion that they can or should attempt to correct every
single error in a given essay draft” (Ferris, 1995c, p. 19).
Phase 3: Asking students to find and correct their own errors. After students have
been made aware of their unique weaknesses in editing through teacher and peer
CB a 12 LT>
1? C e u o
c
q a t
I g U LU
A s s ig n m e n t E £ UJ flj fl*
i
m yj o o £ lL
p C 3 h.
D ra ft 0 V
o * T5 jz
£ 5
z 1 5 * 1eft o
1A
ie
1C
?A
2B
2C
3A
3B
3C
4A
4B
4C
FIGURE 8.11 Sample error log.
feedback and have practiced identifying error patterns on model student essays and
peers’ drafts, they should then be instructed to locate and correct errors in their
own essay drafts. In addition, throughout the term, the students can keep a log
of error frequencies in the different categories to observe their improvement and
build their confidence as editors (see Figure 8.11 and Ferris, 2011, p. 133–137 for
examples and further discussion). Several researchers have reported that students
who consistently maintained error logs made significant progress in reducing fre-
quency of targeted errors over time (Lalande, 1982; Roberts, 1999). As the semester
progresses and students accumulate more and more editing practice, the amount
of editing feedback provided by the teacher should gradually decrease, with the
editing task being turned over first to peer editors and then to writers themselves.
Finally, an important part of self-editing strategy training for the 21st century
involves helping students make effective and appropriate use of computer-based
tools. Students need to learn how to benefit from built-in spelling and grammar
checkers in word-processing programs and how to avoid problems and pitfalls
they present. Specifically, students should grasp the following principles:
j They should always run the spelling checker. It can catch typing er-
rors and doubled words or stray punctuation. The spelling checker in
this sense is like an extra pair of eyes (and eyes that do not get tired or
distracted).
j They should also be aware that the spelling checker will not catch ev-
erything. Misspelled words that are other real English words will not be
marked. Spell checking does not replace proofreading.
j They should recognize that the spelling checker may give several sugges-
tions for corrections and that the appropriate choice may not always be
first on the list. They will need to analyze the misspelled word and the
alternatives in context rather than quickly accepting the first alternative.
j They must understand the limitations of the grammar checker, which is
based upon rules that do not apply to every genre and audience, and—
importantly—is not programmed to catch errors typical of L2 writers.
They will need to carefully analyze suggestions for corrections to see if
they are appropriate or even necessary, and they should not assume that if
something was not marked by the grammar checker, it is therefore correct.
j They should also know that spelling and grammar checkers have op-
tions that can help them check aspects of their writing style, such as
contractions, use of first person pronouns, sentence length, or passive
voice, to name but a few. (See Chapter 9 for more discussion of teaching
students about writing style.)
In short, students need to hear two apparently contradictory messages: Com-

puter-based tools can help them in their own self-editing, but they do not re-
place their own systematic, careful decision-making processes about their texts.
E x e rc is e : Gnve students an exce rpt such a s the one below. See w h ich errors
the y can identify. Then show the m the exce rpt w ith sug ge stion s from a w o rd -
prooessing p ro gra m 's spelling and g ra m m ar che cker. A sk the m to (1) N ote erro rs
the y fou nd that w ere not identified by the program ; and (2 } A n a lyze the
su g g e stio n s given: W ere the y accurate? N ecessary? C le a r enough to he
helpful? Eased u p on th e exe rcise , d iscu ss w ith stud ents w ays in w h ich spelling
o r gra m m a r checkers can he lp them and w ays in which the y are limited.
In general ( I \ people expect truth Irons each oitie™ (2) but usually iliai is noi the case.
Pcople (3) who expect truihhoften lie. Lying is common and il is ro t fined (4) to a
certain class or rate. Young, old. male, female, black or white all lie. [’copie view lying
in different ways, (5) Some consider is w ring in any s ta tio n (ft). Others w ill lie i f
circu itistances are conducive 1Vir lyin^. Another goup{7) o f people w ill lie no matter
what the SLlualion is Lying can never be viewed its a justifiable act no malter what is the
purpose o f it. Lies arc always harmful al the end even i f they were for a good reason.
S u g g e s tio n s fro m S p ellin g /G ra m m a r C h e c k e r:
breakfast?
breakfast?
breakfast?
breakfast?
breakfast?
breakfast?
breakfast?
breakfast?
6. s a tia lio n (firsl spelling sug ge stion given; the Correct one, situation, was
breakfast?
breakfast?
FIGURE 8.12 Spelling and grammar checker exercise. Adapted from Ferris
(2012, p. 17).
Figure 8.12 shows a sample exercise that illustrates the potential and limits of the
spelling and grammar checkers.
Conclusion: Putting It All Together

We have covered two major themes in this chapter under the rubric of helping to
promote accuracy in student writing: error feedback and strategy training for self-
editing. Nonetheless, L2 writing teachers must balance a range of priorities in design-
ing a literacy course that features written production (see Chapter 5); dealing with
student errors is only one of these priorities, and arguably not even the most impor-
tant. How, then, do we integrate the “treatment of error” into a comprehensive plan
for a particular course? Whereas the specific answer to this question will vary accord-
ing to the length and nature of a course, we offer the following summary suggestions
for how to tie error treatment processes into an overall course plan:
1. Begin each writing course with a diagnostic needs analysis. This exercise
could include student background questionnaires (see ideas in Chapters 2
and 5), a specific grammar knowledge pretest, and a diagnostic error
analysis based on student writing samples. (See Chapter 9 for further
discussion of this point.)
2. As part of teaching students about writing processes, discuss the impor-
tance of editing and introduce self-editing strategies. In our own L2 lit-
eracy courses, we tend to move systematically and recursively through
the stages of drafting, revision, and editing with each new writing as-
signment, for example, by teaching idea-generation strategies prior to
first-draft production, revision strategies following the completion of
a draft, working with editing strategies following at least one revision,
and so on.
3. Give students individual feedback on essay drafts at various stages of the
process. As discussed earlier in this chapter, this strategy does not neces-
sarily mean marking errors on every single assignment that students
produce; it does mean that students should receive feedback regularly
from the teacher as well as through peer-editing workshops. (See also
Chapter 7 for more discussion of peer response.)
4. Give students time in class to self-edit marked drafts and to chart their
errors. It is tempting simply to return papers to students at the end of
class and let them revise and edit on their own time. However, allow-
ing students 10 to 20 minutes in class to review teacher corrections, ask
questions of the teacher and peers, and self-correct on the spot can be a
very productive use of class time, catching students at a “teachable mo-
ment” and allowing them to obtain clarification about problems.
5. Design and deliver a series of mini-lessons on grammar and writing

style. We discuss specific ideas and topics for in-class grammar/lan-
guage instruction in Chapter 9. We mention it here to remind in-
structors that time for such mini-lessons should be built into the
course syllabus.
6. Intentionally move students toward autonomy throughout the writing
course. This goal is accomplished by systematically reducing the amount
of error feedback given by the teacher, providing structured in-class and
out-of-class opportunities for peer- and self-editing, and requiring stu-
dents to analyze, chart, and reflect on their progress.
Chapter Summary
Over the past two decades, L2 writing instruction has swung from one extreme
(attempting to eradicate every single student error) to another (primary attention
given to writers’ ideas and individual writing processes, with linguistic concerns
basically left to “take care of themselves”) to a middle ground (combining the best
of process-oriented approaches with increased but selective attention to linguis-
tic accuracy). Writing teachers, students, and faculty in the disciplines generally
agree on the importance of accuracy in student writing and of teaching students
to become self-sufficient as editors. As learners’ L2 proficiency increases, more
and more responsibility for editing their own writing can and should be turned
over to them. Techniques such as guided writing exercises, identification of error
patterns, text analysis, and grammar mini-lessons (see Chapter 9) can be used to
build students’ editing knowledge and skills as they become more proficient. The
goal of such a discovery approach should not be perfect written products, but
rather L2 writers who gradually reduce the frequency of error in their texts and
become increasingly autonomous as editors. It is also extremely important that
teachers take students’ mother tongue knowledge, L2 skills, and academic back-
grounds (especially L2 instruction) into account in planning instruction, selecting
materials, and providing feedback.

j Book-length works on the treatment of error in L2 writing: Bitchener and
Ferris (2012); Byrd and Reid (1998); Ferris (2011)
j Key articles on the issue of error correction for L2 writers: Bitchener (2008);
Bruton (2009); Evans et al. (2010); Ferris (2004, 2010); Guénette (2007); Trus-
cott (1996, 2007)
j Key studies on error feedback in L2 writing classes: Ashwell (2000); van

Beuningen et al. (2012); Bitchener and Knoch (2010a); Fathman and Whalley
(1990); Ferris (2006); Ferris et al. (2013); Ferris and Roberts (2001); Harts-
horn et al. (2010); Lalande (1982); Leki (1991a); Montgomery and Baker
(2007); Sheen (2007)
j Readings on error correction and technology: Ferris (2012); Milton (2006)

1. Summarize the arguments in favor of providing feedback only on ideas and
organization on preliminary drafts of student papers. What are the arguments
in favor of also providing grammar feedback on early drafts? Which set of
arguments do you find more persuasive and why?
2. This chapter maintains that teachers should not attempt to correct all errors
in a given piece of writing. What are some arguments against this position?
3. To what extent can or should student preferences affect teachers’ decisions
regarding error correction and explicit grammar instruction? What are the
benefits and drawbacks of varying feedback strategies to accommodate in-
dividual students’ preferences, learning styles (e.g., auditory or visual), and
perceived needs?
4. After arguing that there is no theoretical justification for error correction in
L2 writing and that the practical problems with doing so are virtually insur-
mountable, Truscott (1996) asserted that error correction is worse than use-
less. He maintained that it is actually harmful because it consumes so much
teacher and student energy and attention, taking time away from activities
that could promote genuine learning. Imagine that you are a writing teacher
who agrees with Truscott’s arguments and you have therefore decided not to
correct students’ written errors any longer. You need to write a memo to your
supervisor explaining your new position. What would you say? What counter-
arguments might your supervisor offer in response?
5. The discussion of Truscott’s (1996) arguments against error correction in
this chapter raises a broader issue: If research evidence contradicts common
sense or intuitions, on which should a teacher rely? What if the research evi-
dence is scarce, conflicting, or incomplete (as in many issues in L2 teaching)?
While we are waiting for researchers to come up with conclusive answers
(if such answers are, indeed, forthcoming), what should teachers do in the
meantime?
6. Peer feedback and self-evaluation are mentioned at various points in this chap-
ter as mechanisms for helping students improve the accuracy of their writ-
ten texts and for developing self-editing strategies. Does the idea of learners
providing feedback to themselves and others on their errors set off any alarm
bells for you? If so, what are they, and what might you do to either “discon-
nect the alarm” or “lower the volume” (i.e., counterarguments or mitigating
strategies)?
Analyzing a Research Review
Directions: Truscott (1996) and Ferris (2003, Ch. 3) reviewed some of the same
studies of L2 error correction but arrived at different conclusions. Obtain and
carefully read the studies listed below and then answer the questions that follow.
Studies: Cohen and Robbins (1976); Fathman and Whalley (1990); Kep-
ner (1991); Lalande (1982); Robb et al. (1986); Semke (1984). Bibliographic
information for all of the preceding studies is provided in the References
section at the end of this book.
1. For each study, note the following research elements carefully:

a. How many participants were involved?
b. In what pedagogical contexts were the data collected?
c. What was the duration of the data collection?
d. If the design was experimental, was a control group used?
e. What methods were used to collect and analyze data?
2. Now compare your notes on each study. Do you think this body of research is
consistent in either research design or findings? To what extent can the find-
ings of any one of these studies be generalized to all L2 writers? Are all of the
studies, taken as a group, generalizable? Why or why not?
3. For each study, note the findings reported and the conclusions drawn by the
authors. Compare these conclusions to the summaries of that particular study
in the two reviews. In your opinion, are the reviewers’ presentations fair and
accurate? Was there any other way to interpret the authors’ data?
4. If you have access to Truscott’s 1996 article and Ferris’s 2003 book, read the
relevant sections in which the above studies are discussed. You will notice that
the two reviewers come to different conclusions based on the same evidence
(i.e., the studies you just examined). Considering your own analysis, which
reviewer’s presentation do you find more convincing, and why?
Application 8.2
Analyzing Errors in a Student Text
Appendix 8 contains a student paper written for an advanced university L2 writing
course. Complete the following steps to complete an error analysis for this writing
sample.
1. Make an extra copy of this paper before marking it in any way. Go through
the paper carefully, highlighting all instances of errors you find in each of the
categories in the chart below.
Error Categories
V e r b e rro rs A ll e rro rs in ve rb tense o r term, in c lu d in g re le v a n t
s u b je c t-v c rb ag rg g m e n t errors.________________________
N o u n e n d in g erro rs P lu ra l o r possessive e n d in g in c o rre c t, o m itte d , o r
unnecessary; in e lu d c s re le v a n t sub je ct- verb
ag reem ent errors,_____________________________________
A r tic le e rro rs A i fic le o r o th e r d e te rm in e r in c o rre c t, o m itte d , o r
unnecessary._________________________________________
W ro n g w o rd A l l s p e c ific le x ic a l e rro rs in w o rd c h o ic e o r w o rd
fo rm , in c lu d in g p re p o s itio n and p ro n o u n errors.
S p e llin g e rro rs o n ly in c lu d e d i f th e {a p p a re n t)
m is s p e llin g re su lte d in an a ctu a l Hn^liw h w o r d ________
S entence stru c tu re Hmors in s e n tcn co /cla u sc b o u n d a rie s (ru n -o n s ,
fra g m e n ts, c o m m a sp lic e s ), w o rd o rd er, o m itte d
w o rd s o r phrases, unnecessary w o rd s o r phrases,
o th e r u r id io m a tic sentence c o n s tru c tio n .
S p e llin g Errors in spelling (other than those already classified
as w o rd ch o ice ),______________________________________
O th e r E rro rs that do n o t f it in to p re v io u s ca te g o rie s (m a y
in c lu d e C a p ita liz a tio n , p u n c tu a tio n n o t a lre a d y
in c lu d e d in ab ove types, and so on).__________________
2. Now number each error you highlighted consecutively and complete the error
chart below.
s * * , £ = «
fc = ,5 - T ^ .S s; ^ i
3 ^ k_ L“ — ~ ^ ® -_j i
l_ = OC ■V £ -" — 5 — H £
w SC Z U > < S u KW w C
J _______
_2______
2 _____
4
5
J>_____
_7______
_8_____
_9_____
J O _____
_ y _____
_12____
_13_____
JJ ____
_L5_____
_U>_____
17
J 8 _____
J9 ____
20
_2 l_____
_22_____
23
J4 ____
25
26
_27_____
_28____
29____
_30_____
T o ta ls
3. Compare your findings with those of your classmates and instructor. What
problems did you encounter, and what did you struggle with as you completed
this exercise? What has it taught you about the processes involved in respond-
ing to student errors?

Responding to a Student’s Language Errors
Use the results of the error analysis completed for Application Activity 8.2 to com-
plete this exercise.
1. Choose an error feedback method (or combination of methods) discussed in

this chapter—direct correction, highlighting or underlining errors, marking
errors with codes or verbal rule reminders, check marks in the margins, verbal
end comment—and provide feedback as if you were going to return it to the
student writer for further editing.
2. Reflect on and discuss the following questions:
a. What did you see as the student’s chief problems or needs, and why?
b. Did you opt for comprehensive or selective error correction, and why?
c. Why did you select the feedback method(s) that you did? (Consider both
student needs as identified by your error analysis, error type, and argu-
ments about effective feedback types.)
d. Now that you have analyzed and responded to a student’s language errors,
what do you think you still need to learn or practice in order to provide
error feedback successfully on your own students’ written assignments?

Marking Errors Electronically
To complete this exercise, you will need electronic copies of two different student
texts. Use the same error categories described in Application Activity 8.2.
1. Go through the first sample, using word-processor tools to mark errors in

the targeted error categories. Use whatever marking techniques make sense
to you (e.g., comments in the margins, strikethroughs, insertions, and so on).
Compose a short note at the end of the text telling the student what error pat-
terns you found and explaining how you marked errors so that the student
will understand your marking strategies.
2. For the second sample, select different font or highlighter colors for each cat-
egory. Review the text and color code the different patterns of error that you
see. Again, compose an end note to the student explaining what you did.
3. Compare your two experiences of error marking. Which one was easier for
you, and why do you think it was? Look back at the two marked texts and your
two end notes. Which set of corrections do you think would be more helpful
to the student who wrote the text, and why?

Designing a Peer Editing Workshop for Advanced L2 Writers
Imagine that you are teaching a class for advanced L2 writers in an academic set-
ting (or a mixed class that includes L2 writers along with monolingual peers).
Students have written several drafts of a paper and are almost ready to submit a
final version for teacher feedback and/or assessment. Design a 30–45 minute peer
editing workshop so that students can help each other in this final phase of draft-
ing/text production. Consider the following aspects of the workshop:
1. What are your overall lesson goals for this workshop? See if you can articulate
them in 1–3 bullet-point statements.
2. Will students work together in pairs or larger groups (if groups, what size)?
3. How will you put students together for this workshop?
4. What will be the exact instructions you will give them?
5. Will you have them mark hard copies or edit online?
6. What will the timing be? For example, how long will students have to edit
peers’ papers? Will there be follow-up discussion between group members
and/or with you?
Appendix 8
Sample Student Essay for Error Correction Practice
Note: This essay sample accompanies Application Activities 8.2 and 8.3. It was
written by college seniors during the first week of an advanced L2 writing course.
Students had 50 minutes to write in class on the topic, “Are lies always harmful or
are they sometimes helpful?”
Today, in people’s daily life, they often lie to protect themselves, to fit into a spe-
cific group, to make others feel better, or to help others in a different way. Yet, no
matter what reason that cause people tell untruthful information, their purpose
id to more on their living. However, no all lies are harmful. They can be helpful in
some appropriate situations. It all depends how people view them.
It is true that sometimes lies are harmful. They can cause broken relation-
ships, such as friendship, husband and wife, or parents and children. According to
Goodrich, “if one promise to do lunch when this person knew that they will never
get together.” If later on the other person discovered the teller’s purpose, their rela-
tionship would not go along well. Also, Goodrich states that many parents tell their
children that Santa Claus will come on Christmas Eve. In this situation, although
parents say that is to make the Christmas more enjoyable and make their children
happier, as the children grow up and find out the true on their own, they may not
very happy their parents’ attitude. Although the result may not terrible till broken
their parents and children relationship it may bring some negative parent’s value
in children’s mind. In this situation, lying is harmful to both parents and children.
However, sometimes, tell a lie can be helpful if people deal with it appropriate.
I remember two friends of mine Jack and John were best friends. They grew up
together and went to school together. Yet, during their college year, Jack was Major
in accounting because he like business very much. On the other hand, John was not
interested in business much. He was having difficult time to chose his major. At the
same time, he still wants to be with Jack all of the time. Once, when Jack asked John
to major in business so they can still go to classes together, John responded by saying
“OK,” even though he did not like business classes, John found out he enjoy being
manager after his college. John’s lie did not hurt him and Jack. In fact, it helps him
to choose his major while he did not know what to do. On the other hand, Jack also
got some help from John while their studying. Therefore lies can be beneficial some-
times. As a result, not all lies are wrong. Some are harmful while others are helpful.
Notes
1. Truscott (1999) makes a distinction between the terms “error correction” and “grammar
correction.” However, we use the terms interchangeably in this chapter.
2. A study by Polio, Fleck, and Leder (1998) provided counter-evidence to these studies.
Their article was, of course, published after Truscott’s review essay. Another study cited
by Truscott and others as negative evidence on error correction is that of Semke (1984),
but the paper’s lack of clarity about the research design makes her results hard to inter-
pret (see Ferris, 2003, for discussion).
3. We do not address here the distinction made in the SLA literature between “errors” (re-
flecting a gap in the learner’s competence) and “mistakes” (reflecting a temporary lapse
in the learner’s performance).
4. It is only fair to L2 writers to point out that some of these distinctions can seem arbitrary
and idiosyncratic: Why can we say “I bought several chairs” but not “several furnitures”?
In addition, even native speakers do not use them systematically: We do not say “I drank
three coffees,” but a restaurant server taking orders, might say, “OK, that’s three coffees.”
5. As an example, many L2 writing and grammar textbooks focus on helping students mas-
ter the English determiner system or on understanding sentence boundaries (i.e., how
to avoid run-ons, fragments, and comma splices). Yet in a study of nearly 100 university
L2 writers in which over 5,700 errors were classified, it was found that article errors
and clause boundary errors comprised a relatively small percentage of the total: articles
(6.6%), run-ons (2.9%), and fragments (1.8%) (Ferris, 2006).
6. In contrast to the discussion in this paragraph, we believe that the use of “track changes”
can be an excellent way for a student writer to do self-evaluation. For instance, one of the
authors frequently asks students to turn on “track changes” when making revisions be-
tween drafts of a paper; when the revision is finished, students are asked to use the visual
picture painted by “track changes” to reflect on their own revising processes. (Students
may need to be shown how to use the tool, including how to hide it during revision, as
the actual tracking on the page can be visually distracting.)
7. Even Truscott (1999), the most outspoken opponent of grammar correction, acknowl-
edges that teaching students self-editing strategies may have value.
Chapter 9
Developing
Language Skills in
the Writing Class:
Why, What, How,
and Who

j Thinking about your own literacy development in the past and present, to
what extent were (or are) you consciously aware of vocabulary, grammar,
and usage (punctuation and other mechanics) when you read and write?
j By what mechanisms or processes did you (or do you) acquire the language
that you use in your academic or professional reading and writing? What
about informal, everyday literacy activities that you regularly undertake?
j Considering especially L2 students who are advanced acquirers in aca-
demic settings, what is your perception of their need for ongoing lan-
guage development in a writing or literacy course? How much specific
attention do they need to language, and what kinds of attention?
j As a current or prospective teacher, how comfortable do you feel with
the task of developing the linguistic knowledge of your writing stu-
dents? What questions or concerns do you have?
Perspectives on Language Instruction in the

Writing Class
In this final chapter, we focus on an issue that is important but often overlooked in
discussions of writing instruction (see MacDonald, 2007): the continued develop-
ment of students’ language proficiency in the writing or literacy course. It is a bit
310 Developing Language Skills in the Writing Class
surprising that this is such a neglected topic. Certainly, when writing instructors
think about teaching L2 writers, one of the first concerns that comes to mind is
linguistic challenges that may inhibit students from writing as successfully as they
need and want to (Ferris, Brown, et al., 2011).
It is troubling, therefore, that most programs that train future writing instruc-
tors for secondary or postsecondary levels do not include much (if any) discussion
of grammar, linguistics, second language acquisition principles, or pedagogy of
grammar instruction and error correction (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012; Ferris, Liu,
et al., 2011; MacDonald, 2007). No one would argue that attention to language
issues should be the only concern or even the primary focus of a writing course.
However, successful writing, by definition, includes and requires the effective de-
ployment of a range of linguistic and extralinguistic features, including vocab-
ulary, syntax, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing and spacing, and other
elements of document design (e.g., font choices, use of images, and so on). Such
decision making goes far beyond simply avoiding errors, as discussed and defined
in Chapter 8. It also includes a well-developed sense of:
j Rhetorical grammar: how syntactic choices can influence style and con-
vey messages (e.g., Kolln, 2007);
j Genre awareness: ways in which different tasks and audiences can and
should affect language choices (cf. Chapters 1 and 3; see also Johns,
1997, 2003, 2009a; Tardy, 2009);
j Lexical variation: understanding how precise word choices and phrase
structures can influence register (formal/informal, oral/written), com-
municate meaning, and build a more interesting text.
When we consider how much tacit and explicit linguistic knowledge goes into
every sentence we utter or write, not to mention how complex these language op-
tions can be and how daunting they are for L2 acquirers to master, it is amazing
that more attention is not given to this topic in teacher preparation programs.
There are both philosophical and practical reasons behind this “erasure of lan-
guage” in writing programs (MacDonald, 2007). In the 1970s and 1980s, there was
a divide between composition specialists who wanted to develop more precise ways
to talk about and address the language challenges of an increasingly more diverse
population of students (Bartholomae, 1980; Haswell, 1983; Kroll & Schafer, 1978;
Shaughnessy, 1977) and those who wanted to focus on higher-order concerns such
as critical thinking and students’ individual processes (Brannon & Knoblauch,
1982; Elbow, 1973; Krashen, 1984; Sommers, 1980, 1982; Zamel, 1982, 1985). It
was argued that too much attention to surface features of a text (Faigley & Witte,
1981) would short-circuit students’ thought processes, disempower and demoti-
vate them (Brannon & Knoblauch, 1982), and further marginalize students who
were already at risk by employing deficit models of instruction (Hull, Rose, Fraser,
Developing Language Skills in the Writing Class 311
& Castellano, 1991; Rouse, 1979; Santa, 2006). It was also assumed that attention
to grammar in writing courses was not only harmful for all of the above reasons
but also ineffective (see Hartwell, 1985) and usually unnecessary (Williams, 1981).
As the anti-grammar viewpoints coalesced by the end of the 1980s, there were
three related practical consequences. First, it was taken as axiomatic that “theory”
and “research” had proven that language-focused instruction in writing classes was
ineffective and even counterproductive. Second, such viewpoints were presented
as fact to new teachers in composition theory courses. Third, these teachers did not
learn much, if anything, about how to evaluate language issues in student writing,
let alone how to teach such concepts effectively in their own courses. Nonetheless,
writing instructors still must (and do) deal with word- and sentence-level issues
in their students’ texts (Anson, 2000; Bitchener & Ferris, 2012; Ferris, Liu, et al.,
2011; Santa, 2006).
With these historical and practical issues in mind, in this chapter we discuss ap-
proaches to integrated and effective language development in the context of a writ-
ing class. We structure this large and complex topic by asking several questions:
j Why is language-focused instruction useful within the writing or lit-

eracy course, especially for L2 writers?
j What aspects of grammar should a writing teacher include, and how
should instructors approach selecting points for instruction?
j How can teachers approach language instruction in ways that are con-
sistent with the overall goals of a writing course?
We conclude the chapter with a brief discussion of who provides language

support—specifically, what knowledge and skills do writing teachers need, and
how can they obtain it? We hope that regardless of their particular training path,
readers of this chapter will find some practical assistance for this challenging as-
pect of writing instruction.
The “Why”: Is Language Development Useful for the

Writing Class?
We have already argued that skillful language usage is an indispensable and inextri-
cable part of what it means to be a successful writer. Most readers would no doubt
agree with this assertion, but it is not the same as claiming that explicit language
instruction is valuable and appropriate within the context of a writing course. In-
deed, experts have argued and provided evidence that, at least sometimes, it is not
(Hartwell, 1985; Krashen, 1982, 1984). Over the past several decades, L1 researchers
have consistently challenged the practice of teaching grammar and punctuation
rules in composition courses. The basic argument is that student writers already
1. A writing class should never become a grammar class.

2. Grammar and language instruction should begin with an awareness of student
needs (whole class and individual).
3. Language lessons should be brief and narrowly focused.
4. Language lessons should be carefully integrated with ongomg class reading and
writing activities.
5. The instructor shoutd consider individual and small group language instruction as
well as whole class instruction.
FIGURE 9.1 Principles for grammar and language instruction in the writing class.
have an intuitive sense of the rules of their language. What is needed, rather, are op-
portunities to put them into practice: “Language cannot be learned in isolation but
only by manipulating it in meaningful contexts” (Frodesen & Holten, 2003, p. 143).
L2 scholars and teachers have also questioned the efficacy of grammar in-
struction, noting that “the return on grammar instruction is often disappointing.
Teachers find that even when a grammatical feature has been covered and prac-
ticed, students may not use it accurately in their own writing” (Frodesen & Holten,
2003, p. 142). Nonetheless, it has also been noted that L2 writers do not have the
same “felt sense” of correctness nor intuitive grasp of the grammatical rules of
English, so formal instruction may be more important for them (Ferris, 1999b;
Frodesen & Holten, 2003; Reid, 1998a).
It should be evident from the above discussion that overgeneralized and hap-
hazard language instruction will not help student writers. Unfortunately, for
the reasons discussed in the first part of this chapter, much grammar teaching
provided by writing teachers is ineffective. In a recent longitudinal study of L2
university freshmen in a developmental writing course for multilingual students,
the participants described having received extensive grammar instruction in their
secondary English courses but also said they didn’t understand it or didn’t re-
member much of it and often weren’t sure how to apply it to their own writing
(Ferris et al., 2013). With these concerns in mind, we offer several general princi-
ples (Figure 9.1) for designing grammar and language instruction in the writing
course. In the sections that follow, we offer specific suggestions for how to select
language structures for instruction and how to design effective lessons.
The “What”: How to Select Structures and Strategies

for Instruction
One reason for which writing teachers struggle with integrating language instruction
effectively is that there are just so many target structures to choose from. For example,
a teacher might hear this advice: “Use the Academic Word List (AWL) to select vo-
cabulary for your class to work on.” But the AWL (Coxhead, 2000, 2011; Hedgcock &
Ferris, 2009) has 660 word families—far too many for any writing instructor to teach
within a course. Similarly, teachers may be advised to use findings from corpus lin-
guistics research to select syntactic features for instruction (Conrad, 2008). However,
if a diligent teacher consults the weighty and thorough Longman Grammar of Written
and Spoken English (Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad, & Finegan, 1999) for ideas, he
or she may come away overwhelmed with the choices.
Even if a literacy course were called something like “Vocabulary and Gram-
mar for Writers,” the options would still be far too extensive. For a more typical
composition course that includes many other reading and writing activities, con-
sulting the research-informed possibilities may be akin to trying to take a sip of
water from a fire hose. Thus, in this section, we suggest ideas for helping individual
teachers sort through the plethora of options. Our suggestions fall into three gen-
eral categories: (1) considering student needs; (2) considering textual sources (i.e.,
exploiting course readings); and (3) considering the demands of specific writing
tasks. Again we caution that there is no “one set of features” that can be applied
to all literacy course syllabi. Rather, individual teachers will have to consider the
larger context of the class and the backgrounds of the students in that particular
setting (see Chapters 2 and 5).
Consider Student Needs

Teachers may wish to select linguistic features and design mini-lessons based on
common errors made by most or all of the students—especially errors that signal
a lack of understanding of learnable or teachable rules. There are two distinct ways
that teachers can diagnose the linguistic needs of a particular class: (a) through
error analysis of student texts; and (b) through eliciting from students what they
explicitly know and do not know about particular language forms.
Conducting error analyses. Like any other type of needs analysis (see Chapter 5),
error analyses should be both preliminary (at the start of a term) and ongoing (as
the students write and the teacher observes their progress). Teachers can ask stu-
dents to produce a short writing sample in the first week of class (e.g., before the first
class meeting, in class, or for homework between classes). We recommend that tasks
for these initial writing samples be designed to last between 45–90 minutes (depend-
ing on student ability level and other class constraints). A shorter time frame is so
rushed that it will not tell you much, and a longer one may be more than your stu-
dents or the course calendar can tolerate so early in the term. Students should write
about an accessible topic (perhaps with a short reading to stimulate thinking and
content) that is complex enough to generate some more advanced language (i.e.,
something a step beyond a simple personal experience narrative). However, teachers
will need to use their best judgment depending on the age and ability levels of the
students as to what type of writing task is possible for them at this stage.
Having obtained this initial writing sample, teachers can use the texts for sev-
eral important purposes. First, diagnostic writing is useful for placing students
into peer writing groups (see Chapter 7). Further, the teacher can look carefully at
student texts to see what types of language errors they make (and other language
issues, such as vocabulary choice, that they notice). A diagnostic error analysis can
be very time consuming for a teacher, especially at the busy beginning of a term, so
we suggest the following procedures for streamlining the process:
1. Preselect a limited number of error categories on which to focus, such as

verbs, nouns, determiners, word choice, sentence structure, and spelling
and mechanics.
2. Go through the student texts with a highlighter (real or virtual) and
mark all errors you see in the categories you have chosen. (If you also
want to give the students feedback on other aspects of their writing, you
may want to use a second copy of the text for this error analysis.)
3. Return the marked papers to the students. Give them a key that defines
the categories you marked with examples (see Figure 9.2).
4. Ask students to number and categorize their marked errors, using a
chart such as the one in Figure 9.3. Allow them to work in pairs or small
groups; encourage them to ask one another questions and to consult
you if they are confused or stuck.
5. When they have finished charting, ask them to total up the columns on
the chart and complete the numbered list at the bottom of the chart (in
which they self-identify three categories of error that they feel they most
need to work on). Collect the charts and the marked texts.
6. Spot-check the students’ work to see if their charting is accurate (or at
least mostly so). You may find it helpful to compile a whole-class chart
of error types and frequencies, and of the most common error issues in
the class. You can use this chart to add mini-lessons on common errors
to your course syllabus.
7. Return the papers and the charts to the students for their reference.
You may also wish to keep copies for yourself and to briefly share the
whole-group analysis with the class so that they understand why you
have chosen specific topics for future instruction.
Although this student-generated error analysis will not be as precise as what a

carefully trained researcher might complete, it is useful enough to provide specific
information to the teacher and students about issues to work on. Significantly, it
is not overly time consuming, perhaps requiring a couple of hours of quick high-
lighting from the teacher and 30–40 minutes of in-class work from students.
We would also encourage teachers to conduct ongoing error analyses by notic-
ing patterns of error or student confusion while responding to or grading a set
of student papers. These observations can then be turned into brief “common
errors” mini-lessons when the papers are returned to the class (Appendix 9 shows
one such mini-lesson designed by one of the authors for first-year composition
students). We find that students are especially interested in mini-lessons related to
their very recent work because they provide authentic examples and are delivered
Note to stu d e n ts: Your instructor has reviewed your text and marked errors from the
followino cateaones.
Category Name____________ Description________________ Sample Error! s}
Vertis Errors in verb tense {lime) or in When I was in high sdiool, I
fonriina the verb phrase never stu d y .
I use to run live mites a day.
I have wafk this way before
Nouns Plural oj possessive endings I had too many homeworits
on nouns are missing, this weekend,
incorrect, or unnecessary Some student don't like early
morning classes.
Parenls don't like making their
childs unhappy.
Articles Articles (afen, the. some) are I need to buy book for my
missing, incorrect, or history class,
unnecessary That was a unusual-looking
bird.
The coffee can keep you
#wake at nrght
Word Choice Word is incorrect or not The reasons may seem
appropriate in the context oblivious.
Currently, I stand as a Civil
Engineering major, but I may
change it.
Sentence Structu re Mi ssing or u nnecessary words They hope * find ha ppiness in
or problems with word order |jfe
Students do not feel safe in
here in the city.
Bob drove carefully his car.
Mechanics Errors in spelling, punctuation, Many immigrants are trucly
or Capitalization happy in the U S.
Bobs car Is very old.
I saw your Mother in the
supermarket.
FIGURE 9.2 Error categories key for class charting exercise.
at a “teachable moment.” Because we read and respond to student papers electron-

ically, we streamline this process by copying and pasting examples from student
texts into a separate file. This keeps us from having to go back through a set of
papers twice to find examples for a lesson. The teacher may also wish to repeat the
above error analysis charting activity later in the term to reinforce lessons learned
(and the need for self-editing) and so that students can see their own progress (or
lack thereof, in some cases).
Eliciting students’ prior knowledge and opinions about language. In Chapters 2

and 5, we recommended that teachers survey students about their language and
literacy backgrounds. Here, we recommend going further, perhaps during the first
week or two of the course, to discover what students know and believe about lan-
guage, writing, and error. There are a couple of ways to do this, and you may wish
to select or adapt one or use both in some combination.
This first approach is to ask students to assess their own knowledge about
specific grammatical issues. This assessment can take the form of some kind of
Instructions to Students: Review your marked text and number each error. Place a
checkmark in the appropriate column of the chart to indicate the category of each error.
There may be more than one possibility: for example, an “article” error might really be a
“plural” error if you intended the noun to be a plural. As the writer, you know best what
you meant. Ask classmates or your teacher if you get stuck on charting an error. If you
can’t figure it out, put a “?” in the category you think it might be. When you are finished,
total up your columns and complete the list below the chart.
Error Verbs Nouns Articles Word Sentence Mechanics

Number Choice Structure
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Totals
Based on your chart and your own sense of your writing, which three of the categories
above do you think you most need to work on?
1 2 3
FIGURE 9.3 Sample chart for in-class error analysis exercise.
grammar pretest (see Ferris & Roberts, 2001, for one example), or through a ques-
tionnaire (see Figure 9.4). From such instruments, together with a diagnostic error
analysis as described above, teachers can gain a sense of what their students know
(or think and say they know). Diagnostic writing samples, though useful, may not
always tell us everything about what writers actually understand. After all, anyone
can make mistakes when hurried, distracted, or tired. Nonetheless, we can over-
estimate students’ grasp of terms and rules if we do not ask them to display that
knowledge.
In addition to assessing students’ prior knowledge about formal language issues,
it can be useful to ask them about their own strategies for monitoring language use
in their writing. This information could be gathered through a whole-class dis-
cussion, a freewriting exercise, a response essay (see Chapter 4), or a more struc-
tured questionnaire (as in Figure 9.5). Reflective activities such as these also build
students’ self-awareness of their own writing processes and strategies, which they
may never have intentionally examined before. A combination of these elicitation
Instructions to Students: The error types listed below are common errors made by
college writers. Assess your own knowledge and comfort level with these error types by
completing the chart below. “Struggle with” can mean that you make errors of this type in
your writing or that you are not sure enough about the rules to avoid errors (or both). Be
as honest and accurate as you can. This information will help me to design lessons for
our class and give you better individual feedback on your writing.
Sometimes
Frequently
Struggle
Not Sure
Struggle
Struggle
Never
Error Type
Comma errors
Apostrophe errors
Other punctuation errors: ____________________
Word choice errors
Awkward, wordy sentences
Short, choppy sentences
Clause boundaries (fragments, run-ons, comma splices)
Verb tense or form errors
Pronoun reference errors
Subject-verb agreement errors
Plural noun errors
Article errors
FIGURE 9.4 Sample language knowledge self-assessment tool.
activities—diagnostic text analysis, surveys, or pretests assessing metalinguistic

knowledge, and reflection about editing processes—need not take an inordinate
amount of time for students to complete or for teachers to evaluate, but they can
be very powerful tools in helping teachers choose topics for instruction and re-
spond effectively to individual student needs.
“Exploit” Class Reading Activities

When selecting topics for language mini-lessons, considering points of student
need and confusion (as demonstrated in their texts and in their own self-
evaluations) can be very valuable. However, we do not want to limit ourselves
only to specific problems found in student texts—we also want to move beyond
the rather narrow world of “error” to the broader, more proactive step of language
development. In other words, we do not want simply to “fix problems” but to help
students continually build their linguistic repertoires so that they can become ef-
fective writers for a variety of contexts and audiences. A powerful and authentic
way to help students do this is to lead them through purposeful analysis of the
language in texts they read.
Nearly all writing instructors incorporate assigned reading to provide content and
ideas for students’ own writing as well as models for analysis. We discussed reading–
writing connections at some length in Chapter 4; it should thus be apparent that we
Instructions to Students: Tnc- chart M o w describes several self-editing siralegias thel
are nacommended for writers. Honestly assess how often you use these strategies by
checking the appropriate column and responding to Ihe questions below the chart.
S tr a te g y A lw a y s Som etim es N ever
I leave enough time for editing.
I read my drafts aloud to catch errors and improve word

choice and style._
I focus on specific known patterns of error.
I use online or computer-based resources (speil-efieefc.

etc.) to analyze my drafts.__________________________
I use online resources to investigate questions about
language._________________________________
I ask someone to read my drafts to catch editing and
lancuaoe emors.
1. Look at your responses in the chart. Which of the above slralegias has worked Ihe
best for you? Are there any that have not worked? Why do you think they didn't?
2. Are there any strategies in the chart 1hat you Seldom Or never use? Why dor'I you?
Are there any you woukl like to try (oj1tty again)9 Which o<>es?
3. In sentence or note farm, list one to two editing goals that you would like to make
progress toward in this course.
FIGURE 9.5 Sample student writing strategies self-assessment tool.
strongly recommend a reading-rich writing classroom with frequent source-based

writing tasks. However, for some of the same reasons that language is often neglected
or “erased” in writing instruction, teachers often stop short of helping students ana-
lyze the language in the texts that they read, focusing only on textual content. Doing
so represents a missed opportunity, as it is far more engaging to discuss language in
a text that the class is already discussing than to present an isolated grammar lesson
that has no relationship to anything else the students are thinking about.
Teachers can examine texts they plan to read and instruct students to look for
useful and interesting examples of vocabulary, grammar, or style around which
they might develop activities or mini-lessons. If students are asked to write about
ideas from a particular source, the teacher might note key content terms (vocabu-
lary) that students would need to master in order to both comprehend the source
accurately and write about it effectively. For example, in a course supervised by one
of the authors, students read an academic journal article (Hyland, 2010) entitled
“Constructing Proximity.” This article is challenging for the students (who are in a
first-year composition course at a university); furthermore, they must use the ideas
and framework presented by Hyland to write a research-based paper of their own.
Thus, it is very important that the students clearly understand the term “proxim-
ity” (which is the central theme of Hyland’s piece) as well as other key words and
phrases. The teacher would be wise to design in-class or homework activities to
help the students analyze and understand those text-specific content terms.
For some course readings, teachers may be less interested in the specific content
vocabulary and wish to focus more on general academic terms used in the text.
As corpus linguistics researchers have discovered, there are common terms and
“lexical bundles” that are commonly used in academic writing across different
genres and disciplines (e.g., “It is important to . . .” or “Studies have shown that . . .”;
see Biber, Conrad, & Cortes, 2004; Conrad, 2008; Coxhead, 2000). The teacher
may wish to identify some of these items and use them as a basis for a mini-lesson,
pointing out to students how these common terms or phrases can make academic
writers sound like members of a particular discourse community. If teachers have
access to a digital version of the text, they can use a free online tool based on the
Academic World List called the AWL Highlighter to identify words and phrases in
context that can be used for mini-lessons (http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/ãlzsh3/
acvocab/awlhighlighter.htm).
In addition to examining course texts for content and academic vocabulary
items for instructional purposes, teachers might also want to consider the writers’
morphosyntactic choices: Are sentences long or short, simple or complex? Does the
writer use rhetorical questions? Passive voice? If there is narrative or if sources are
cited, how are the verb tenses used? (Some disciplines use past tense while others
require the “literary present.”) What kinds of transitional devices does the writer
use (pronoun reference, repetition of key words or synonyms, and so forth)? In this
same category, the teacher might also want to examine punctuation choices: Does
the writer use semicolons or colons frequently? What about ellipses, parentheses, or
dashes? While some of these punctuation options also are clues to a writer’s style,
using them has grammatical implications as well. For example, because semicolons
connect two or more sentences, if they are used frequently in a text it typically
leads to longer sentences—which in turn is more characteristic of certain genres
(academic texts) and varies across disciplines (more common in the humanities).
Finally, as the previous paragraph hints, the teacher can analyze course texts for
linguistic points related to writing style. How does a particular writer use vocabu-
lary, syntax, punctuation, and even formatting (spacing or paragraphing) to con-
vey humor, intensity, sarcasm, and so forth? If a class text has a particularly lively
or interesting style, it can be useful to design a mini-lesson that helps students
understand the linguistic choices that the writer makes to convey his or her voice,
message, and tone. For example, in a recent article in ESPN Magazine (Reilly, 2012),
a sportswriter talks about how he felt deceived by former college football coach Joe
Paterno. The article, called “Sins of the Father” (a play on Paterno’s name), begins
thus: “What a fool I was.” Throughout the piece, the writer intersperses the same
sentiment repeatedly but with slight variations: “What a(n) _____ (idiot, stooge,
sap, chump, tool) I was.” Each time, the line is spaced as a separate, stand-alone
paragraph. It is almost like a sad song with a repeated chorus. The writer, Rick
Reilly, uses this stylistic device to convey not only his disappointment in Paterno
but also his chagrin at his own perceived stupidity. It is very effective and very
memorable. This simple example demonstrates how a teacher could look at a text
to discover different elements of style to analyze with the students.
To summarize, as the teacher attempts to narrow the universe of possible lin-

guistic items to focus on during class or even in out-of-class work, the vocabulary,
syntax, and style of texts being read and discussed for class can provide interesting,
contextualized opportunities for linguistic development. We offer further sugges-
tions about designing mini-lessons around course readings in the “how” section
later in this chapter.
Consider Language Required for Assigned Writing Tasks

As we have already discussed, when teachers are designing lessons and activities
for language development, they can consider students’ specific linguistic needs
and structures modeled in assigned course texts as possible topics. A third source
of language development topics comes from writing tasks themselves: What sorts
of linguistic structures do these tasks elicit or require? The teacher may find it use-
ful to proactively discuss those structures with the students as they work on and
edit a particular writing assignment.
For instance, in many writing courses, students are asked to write papers that
include some kind of narrative. Many young students will get confused when writ-
ing narratives and inappropriately shift verb tenses within paragraphs or across
different sections of the narrative. Thus, as a class works on a narrative assign-
ment, a mini-lesson on shifting verb tenses may be appropriate. Some writing
tasks, depending on the target audience, might lend themselves well to discussions
of formal and informal language in writing, including a range of features such
as first- and second-person pronouns, contractions, sentence lengths, vocabulary,
and even punctuation (e.g., use of dashes tends to be found more frequently in
less formal genres than in academic writing). Other genre-related topics to discuss
might include voice (passive or active) and mood (subjunctive or conditional, such
as “If the Republicans regain the White House, the Senate would . . . ”). To identify
possible mini-lesson topics, teachers could examine the writing assignments they
give, asking themselves several questions: What linguistic structures (vocabulary,
syntax) would students need to control to successfully complete this task? And of
those, which one(s) might be problematic for many or all of my students? If the
teacher has used that assignment before or one similar to it, he or she might also
consider problems or struggles that previous students have encountered.
Insights from corpus linguistics and genre studies can also be helpful here.
Teachers no longer need to guess at how language is used in different genres and
across disciplines. Well-supported research findings and instructional materials
(e.g., textbooks, dictionaries, and so on) can guide them (see Bennett, 2010; Ferris,
2011; Reppen, 2010). For example, Ferris (2011, p. 181) listed six types of lexical
and syntactic features that researchers have found to be significant in academic
writing (see Figure 9.6). This list is meant to be illustrative rather than compre-
hensive, but it underscores the point that there are specific linguistic features that
may generally be useful for student writers in academic settings to recognize, un-
derstand, and apply to their own writing.
S tru c tu re Comment Sources

Nouns and noun Academic ley Is ara "noun Biber {2006): Biber et at.
collocations heavy," and different noun (1999)
forms require varying
syntactic structures
V erts a nd verb Academic d isco urse lypi w lly Biber et al (1999); Hyland
distribution uses a narcow range of verbs: (2006. 2009); Schuemann
'reporting verbs" are (2006); Swales (1990. 2004);
especially important Swales & Fean (2012)
Verb tenses The use o f preseni simple Conrad (19%, 2001)
and past simple in research
articles ca r vary across
disciplines.
Passive voice The passive voice is widely Biber (1938): Biber et a t
used in some genres and (1999); Swales (1990. 2004);
dispreferred in others. Swales & Peak (2012)
Hedging structures in some genres, being overly Hyland ( 19 <K 1&96.2004a):
assertive and direct is Hyland & Millon (1097}
Inapproprtate.
Markers o f persuasion Ova n markers of persuasion Biber { 19BB). B iber et al.
are found in "everyday (1999); Biber. Conrad,
argument" but less so in Reppen, Byrd, & Helt {2002)
academic argument.
FIGURE 9.6 Sample corpus and genre findings for writing instruction. Adapted
from Ferris (2011, Figure 6.6, p. 181).
To reiterate the point of this “what” section (on what should teachers focus on as
they promote academic language development in the writing course), instructors
should not haphazardly select topics for mini-lessons based on what is available
in a published handbook or a website, no matter how high quality those resources
may be. The problem with them is that they are too broadly based and are aimed at
a large general audience of student writers. Rather, teachers should consider their
own students’ needs and knowledge bases, the source texts they will use together in
class, and the actual writing tasks that students will undertake, and design an inte-
grated series of mini-lessons that will focus on a specific group of students in a par-
ticular place and time. Not only will such a program be most effectively tailored to
the needs of the learners, but it will be interesting and authentic because it is closely
tied to other course materials and activities—so there is a much better chance that
students will remember and apply what they have learned about language.
The “How”: Approaches to Vocabulary and Grammar

Development
In the previous sections, we presented several general principles for incorporat-
ing language development activities in the writing course and suggestions for
how teachers could select possible features and structures for instruction. In this
section, we talk further about the nuts-and-bolts of designing effective language-
focused mini-lessons, concluding with a brief discussion of how to fit them into a
writing course syllabus.
The General Shape of Mini-Lessons

In identifying general principles for mini-lessons (Figure 9.1), we suggested that
(as their name implies) such lessons should be brief and narrowly focused. Ideally,
they should consume no more than 10–30 minutes of class time, although the
teacher might want to assign a discovery activity (see below) for homework the
night before the lesson or practice activities as later follow-ups. Effective language
mini-lessons typically include the following components in some form:
j Text analysis and discovery activities: These activities allow students to

observe and analyze how the target structure is used in natural dis-
course. Teachers often utilize authentic texts (professionally written lit-
erary or expository texts) and well-executed student texts as models for
analysis.1 Figure 9.7 provides an example of a text analysis exercise.
j Brief deductive explanations of important terms and rules. Whereas some
instructors move students directly from inductive discovery activities
to practice and application, it is important to remember that many
students have deductive learning styles and can become frustrated if
they are not provided with a straightforward presentation of important
terms and applicable rules. We recommend keeping such presentations
simple, introducing only a few rules, and perhaps including an “editing
guide,” a series of heuristic questions students can use to evaluate their
own writing or the writing of peers. Figure 9.8 shows one example of
how to approach this part of the mini-lesson.
j Practice and application activities. An effective mini-lesson also includes
opportunities for students to apply what they have learned through ed-
iting for errors in sample student texts, peer editing workshops, and
scrutinizing their own in-progress work. Probably the most overlooked
application type is the focused application to students’ own writing, but
this is arguably the most important. (See Figure 9.9 for sample practice
and application activities.)
While the above four components of mini-lessons (discovery, presentation,

practice, and application) would ideally be included in some form in most or all
such instruction, there may be times when the progression could be different, ei-
ther in the interests of time or because the material reviews lessons given earlier.
For example, the “Common Errors” mini-lesson on word choice errors shown in
Appendix 9 begins with an extremely brief deductive portion, continues with an
exercise that combines discovery and practice, and ends with a discussion that
incorporates application. This entire lesson took about 20 minutes of class time
from start to finish. There are various ways to order and combine these suggested
elements, and teachers should feel free to adapt them depending on the topic, the
time available, and the ground previously covered in earlier mini-lessons.
In s tru c tio n s lo S lu d e n ts; Examine Ihe student texl excerpt below. In this
paragraph, the student writer shifts from past tense to present tense Examine the
paragraph and descnbe: {a) when the shift happens; (b) why it happens; and (c)
whether you think the writer handled the shift accurately
As a First generation Asian-A m erican, my m ain focus growing up w as not reading
or w riting but in the art o f m athem atics. T o my parents' understanding, as long as
I was proficient a t speaking the English language, the words on the pages will
begin to read and write by them selves. 1 began to refute this notion vigorously
once I stepped into my first public school classroom where \ found that the words
B arn ey once spoke so adam antly could not be written down w ith such ease As
tim e slow ly drifted by and my understanding o f the m echanics o f reading and
w riting vastly im proved. I found (hat m y understanding o f o th e r subjects also
began to improve. I agree w ith the many professors a net students w ho find that
reading and writing abilities are ve ry im portant for success in college and future
careers. I also believe that im proving my reading and w riting skills will be very
critical lo m y success as a college student
FIGURE 9.7 Sample discovery activity based on an authentic text sample.

Excerpted from a mini-lesson on verb tense shifts in writing. The lesson
assumes that students are familiar with verbs and tense.
Mini-Lessons for Language Development

The mini-lesson examples in the previous section focus on common errors (verb
tense usage, word choice) made by L2 student writers. However, as we have already
noted, mini-lessons can also go beyond error and be used to facilitate ongoing lin-
guistic awareness (in reading) and development (in writing). In this section, we look
briefly at three applications of this point: analyzing vocabulary, analyzing grammar,
and analyzing style. Space does not permit us to present all of the ideas, arguments,
and research behind these suggestions, so we refer you to Chapter 4 and to our text on
teaching reading (Hedgcock & Ferris, 2009, especially Chapters 3, 5, and 8).
Analyzing vocabulary in assigned readings. Vocabulary is an enormous challenge

for L2 acquirers. As an area for language instruction, it is oddly underrepresented:
While ESL programs may offer courses in grammar and TESOL programs provide
“pedagogical grammar” instruction for future teachers, it is much less common
to find courses in learning or teaching vocabulary (see Folse, 2004, Chapter 1,
for a cogent discussion of this point). Secondary and postsecondary students in
general—not just L2 students—struggle with understanding unfamiliar vocabu-
lary in texts they read. Writing teachers can help them to make progress in this area
by modeling a four-step process with them:
1. Identify new words or unfamiliar usages of words in texts they read;

2. Analyze the words they have identified in context;
3. Research words they cannot analyze;
4. Record their findings in a vocabulary journal for future reference.
W riters often will shift back and forth belween past and present tense, especially in
writing that includes flarratrine— a story from personal experience, a retelling of a plot
in a literary analysis paper, a description o f a historical event, or even a report on a
science experiment or statistical procedures. As we saw in the Discovery Activity,
such shifts can be perfectly appropriate and correct;
...I fo u n d that my understanding of other subjects also bogan to improve. 1 agree
; with the m any professors and students who fin d that reading and writing abilities are
| very important for success in college and future careers.
In this example, the writer moved from describing an experience in the past to a
statement of opinion that he holds In the present. In other words, the shift from past
tense to present tense, even from one sentence to the next in the middle of the same
paragraph, can be natural and accurate. However, writers do som etim es make errors
by incorrectly shifting their tenses in the middle of a narrative, for example starting a
story in the past tense but shifting to present in the middle (while still telling the story
from the past):
A couple o f years ago, my mom to o k my friend Sydney and me to Southern
I California on vacation. As w e drove down the Pacific Coast Highway on the way to
our hoiel, our friend Heidi ( e * t f us, saying that she and her hoyfriend Zack b ro ke up
again. Sydney c a lls her right away to see if Heidi is doing OK, but really il was
because Sydney used to date Zack and w anfs him back herself.
In this narrative, the past tense verbs are in bold and the present tense verbs are in
bold italics. The entire story happened in the past, and the time frame should have
stayed in past tense throughout the whole paragraph. However, the writer shifted to
present tense in the middle of the second sentence, starting with the verb f e r n , and
then went bach and forth between present and past for the rest o f Ihe story.
Why are such errors so common in writing? Several reasons might explain
1. The writer simply forgets {and doesn't double-check) the tense in which s/he
began the story.
2 In casual conversation, w e often tell past-tlme stories In the present tense.
3. W e may have learned to use the "literary present" to talk about events from a
work o f literature (‘As Shakespeare s a y s .. .") but not realize that it doesn't
usually apply to other types o f narrative writing. This “ literary present" convention
also varies across disciplines and style manuals (e.g., in M LA but not A PA).
FIGURE 9.8 Sample deductive presentation on verb tense shifts. Excerpted

from a mini-lesson on verb tense shifts in writing. The lesson assumes that
students are familiar with verbs and tense.
Students are sometimes unaware of how many words they actually skip over or
misinterpret while they read. The “identification” stage asks them to slow down
and take note of words that are completely new to them or that they have never
seen used in this particular way. In the “analysis” stage, they try to figure out what
those terms mean in the context of the particular passage they have read. The
“research” stage asks them to further investigate (using dictionaries, Google, and
other search engines) words that they can’t figure out from context or to confirm
their previous analyses. In the “recording” stage, they select several words or terms
that might be useful for their future reading or writing and note specific features
of those words. Figure 9.10 illustrates an exercise that follows this progression. It
was designed for use with three paragraphs of an academic journal article, but it
could be adapted for other texts of variable lengths.
practice Exercise; Identifying Inappropriate Verb Tense Shifts. The text excerpt
below was from a literary analysis paper written for a high school English course.
Find and mark any erroneous verb lenso shifts in tha paragraph and suggest ways lo
correct them In Ihe context of the passage.
There are also monslers that are nrvore fantasy-like, in “A Sound of Thunder."
the characters time-traveled into the lim e of dinosaurs, and Ihe monster was the T-
Rex. There is one final kind of monster in a couple of the stories. W hen stress and
■ bad things go on between people, it can lead lo horrible things, and the bad things
; are the “monster" in these situations In "The Sniper," (here was a civil w ar going on.
and it led one brother to kill another. Even though the man who killed his brother
didn't know it was him whan he shot him, it:s still a vary depressing situation. Or like
m “The Interlopers," two native American tribes have been in rivalry for ages over a
certain area o f land that Itiey both wanted and the chiefs of these tribes were in the
! forasf fighting aach other and end ad up not being able to get out of tha woods Thay
: decided to make up while iney were trapped together, but in the end it wasn't good
enough lo save them because a pack of wolves went after them.
Application Activity; Find a paper in which you narrated events or in which you
described a text written by another author. Carefully review your paper to determine:
1. whether you shifted tenses while telling <he slory, and if so, if you did so
corcectly. Are there explicit text markers that show when/why you switched from
present-^past or pa sl-^present?
2. whether you used the correct verb tense when writing about the source text by
another author. Try to explain why you chose to use either past or present tense
in that particular context.
FIGURE 9.9 Practice and application activities for mini-lesson on verb tense
shifts. Excerpted from a mini-lesson on verb tense shifts in writing. The lesson
assumes that students are familiar with verbs and tense, Ferris (2014).
We should also mention that this four-step analysis process could be applied to
self-selected extensive reading (books, magazines, and so forth) that you may have
assigned as part of your syllabus (see Chapter 4; see also Hedgcock & Ferris, 2009,
Chapters 4 & 6). Because many students need (and desire) to improve their lexical
control, an ongoing vocabulary journal assignment (that might include entries
from assigned course readings, from extensive reading for pleasure, or even texts
from other courses or a workplace) could be assigned an appropriate portion of
the course grade. This option provides a way for students to work intentionally
and systematically on improving their vocabulary but without resorting to arti-
ficial, decontextualized activities (e.g., “choose three new vocabulary items and
include them in your next paper,” word of the day, and so on).
Improving lexical variety in writing. Research suggests that varied, mature vo-
cabulary choices tend to correlate positively with overall scores of essay quality in
student writing (e.g., Ferris, 1994; Jarvis, Grant, Ginther, & Ferris, 2003). Several
factors may account for this finding. First, a text that has diverse lexical choices
tends to be more interesting to read than one that simply repeats the same narrow
range of terms. Probably more to the point, a strong control of vocabulary most
likely co-occurs with other strong literacy predictors. In other words, someone
who is a fluent reader, a clear thinker, and a skilled writer most likely also has good
S tep 1: Read through the text excerpt assigned for this exercise. Underline,
cinde, Dr highlight any words that seem unfamiliar to you (eiiher com pletely unfamiliar
words or words that you may have seen before but that are used in a new way).
Compare your findings with those o f your classmates.
Step 2: Now choose five of the words that you marked In Step 1 (either the most
unfamiliar words or Ihose that seem most central to the text's overall message).
Analyse iheir meanings in this particular text. Do not use a dictionary. In the fourth
column. "Word type,' just provide your best guess. The point is to become more
aware o f the different categories and how Ihey can help or hinder reading
comprehension.
Word Sentence (or portion of Your guess about tne Word type, common
sentence) i n ivtiicti you wand's meaning (frequent) Hwdemic,
. found the word I______ toplt-scscint
STEP 3: Now explore tha meanings o f the same five words that you analyzed in Step
2, using dictionaries and Google (or another search engine that you prefer). Use the
chart
Lyi balow
ic?i i M n i u VI to
IV record
i r : i A . i i y yyour notes.
w i ■■V I
W ord Meaning (from your research) Accuracy of your guess from
_
_____________________________________________________________
Step 4; Choose at least two words from the previous exercises and create a
vocabulary notebook entry or vocabulary card for each word. The information that
you should include is outlined for you below.
a. Provide the word or phrase
b. Describe where you encountered the wund. For example, give the name o f the
book or article and a page or paragraph number for the word
c. Include information that helps you understand and rem em ber the word. For
example,
* General meaning
• More specific m eaning in this text
■ G ram matical information (part[s] o f speech)
* O ther words that it might co-occur with
• Your sa m pie senten ce(s) with the w o rd :
FIGURE 9.10 Sample exercise for understanding vocabulary in assigned

readings, Ferris (2014).
lexical control. Whatever the reasons, discussing lexical choices and variety with
student writers is a valuable use of class time.
Such discussions can admittedly be fraught with some peril. Every experienced
writing instructor has observed the dreaded “thesaurus errors” that appear when
students eager to display an advanced vocabulary simply plug in synonyms that
may be semantically, syntactically, or stylistically inappropriate. L2 writers run
the added risk of over-relying on bilingual dictionaries and electronic translators,
1. Explain the different categories and registers o f vocabulary found in academic

discourse, using illustrations from word lists.
2. Teach students strategies for analyzing problematic vocabulary in course texts
and in other texts they encounter in school.
3. Encourage or require students to supplement class instruction with self-directed
vocabulary learning.
A. Discuss the importance o f lexical variety end appropriate register choices in
academic writing. Also raise student awareness about collocations and syntactic
consequences of using synonyms.
5. Help students review their own writing to analyze and revise their vocabulary
choices to improve accuracy, variety, and sophistication.
FIGURE 9.11 A process for vocabulary analysis and application.

Source: Ferris (2011, Figure 6.4, p. 174).
which can add to the problem.2 Another challenge has been raised in recent work
on plagiarism and citation (Folse, 2008; Schuemann, 2008): By insisting on “lexi-
cal variety” in writing, we may be pushing students toward appropriating other
authors’ words because they do not have enough vocabulary of their own to cre-
ate accurate and effective paraphrases. In other words, we need to guide students
toward making more sophisticated and successful lexical choices in their own
writing rather than vaguely suggesting that they do so. The process outlined in
Figure 9.11 suggests a pathway for such guidance.
We have already discussed Steps 2 and 3 of this process in the previous section,
so we will briefly touch here on the other three. Step 1 simply reminds teachers to
take a few minutes to discuss with students that there are different kinds of vocab-
ulary that they may encounter in texts and use in their own speaking and writing.
The vast world of “vocabulary knowledge” may seem overwhelming to students in
academic settings, especially those who are still in the process of L2 acquisition. It
can be helpful for students to realize that different lexical items are more likely to
appear in various contexts and that they are not all equally important (or appro-
priate) in every situation. Indeed, the exercise shown above in Figure 9.10 (Step 2)
assumes that this discussion has taken place prior to beginning the exercise.
There are at least three distinct types of vocabulary knowledge teachers might
want to call to students’ attention in Step 1. First, it’s helpful for students to re-
alize that general, everyday vocabulary can take on a range of meanings when
encountered in texts read for school. To provide one simple example, when aca-
demics talk about a scholarly “conversation,” it means something quite differ-
ent than the types of conversations students may have with their friends over
text messages from their mobile phones or via the Facebook chat function. Sec-
ond, it’s useful for students to understand that there are commonly used words
and phrases in academic writing that cross disciplinary boundaries and to be
introduced to the Academic Word List—not so that they can slavishly memorize
them, of course, but so that they are more aware of what academic discourse
often sounds like. Finally, it’s valuable for students to think about specific dis-
ciplinary and topical vocabulary that they might encounter in readings for the
writing course, for other courses, and for their future professions. It is also is
worth mentioning that the “same” terms may not mean exactly the same thing
across disciplines and genres; a “case study” in educational research is not the
same as in a business course, and an “abstract” (the noun) bears no relationship
to an “abstract concept” students might encounter in philosophy or even math-
ematics. Again, the point of this discussion is to help students sort through the
different types of vocabulary they may encounter (or desire to use) in a precise
way that might provide enlightenment and lower anxiety.
Steps 4 and 5 from Figure 9.11 are more challenging, given the possible pitfalls
that we have already mentioned (e.g., thesaurus and translation errors, plagia-
rism). Helping students develop effective lexical variety in their own texts could
involve at least three distinct phases that could be divided into a series of mini-
lessons: (1) Understanding why lexical variety is important; (2) mastering strate-
gies for achieving lexical variety; and (3) avoiding problems that can arise when
trying to vary vocabulary choices. We discuss and illustrate these phases in turn.
The importance of lexical variety for successful writers. Depending on their

educational backgrounds, students may or may not have thought about this issue
before. Indeed, L2 writers may be more focused on avoiding errors through “safe”
lexical choices than on taking risks with sophisticated vocabulary items. However,
it is fairly easy to convey two points to students: (1) Lexical variety (or “diction”) is
often included as a criterion on grading rubrics for academic writing; and (2) texts
with varied word choices are more interesting to read. The sample discovery exercise
in Figure 9.12 illustrates this second point.
Strategies and Tools for Developing Lexical Variety in Writing

Three specific points can be covered in a mini-lesson(s) designed for this purpose:
1. Finding or identifying useful vocabulary for a particular writing task;

2. Editing existing writing to improve lexical variety;
3. Using computer-based or online tools to examine lexical choices.
The first point is intended for the stage in the writing process where students
are gathering ideas and generating content. It builds on the ideas in the previous
section about teaching students to notice and analyze different types of vocabulary
in texts they read. While a vocabulary journal can be an excellent tool for ongoing
lexical development, of course we do not want students to believe that they can
just pluck any item from their journals and insert it into any text they are writ-
ing. They need to identify vocabulary that will be appropriate for the content and
genre of the text on which they are working. Students can do this in a couple of
different ways. If there are assigned source texts that they must use or incorpo-
rate into their own writing, they should study those texts carefully to identify key
D ire ctio n s to stu d e n ts: Examine Ihe two text exoerpls below, which were whiten for
college composition courses. Look specifically at the Iwo writers' use of vocabulary.
Which writer used vocabulary most effectively, and why do you think so?
Excerpt 1
(From an essay examining why reeding end writing are impnrtenl far college students):
After reading various lexts and being exposed to wide range o f complexities,
then I can understand a larger majority o f people. This is very beneficial fo rm e ; since
: am a science major, I will be required to communicate with people who use different
terminology from my own. i noticed my increased science vocabulary when I went to
office hours for chemistry and I asked questions using numerous chemistry terms,
which allowed the teacher to help me understand more. By reading more. I can help
m yself understand people m ore....
Improving my writing skills will help me gain the attention of audiences I want.
If I communicate in a language Itiat my target audience is used to, then I hay will be
more interested in reading my texis. That is very beneficial fo rm e , since I am a
Science major. By improving my science writing ability, I can better communicate wilfi
_scientists.
Excerpt 2
(From a personal staiement for a law school application)
In my own personal life, my uncle used to reinforce the idea that an
education was significant, it is (he only goal he regrets lo have refrained from
attaining. In South American culture, an individual who does not receive a college
education is often considered shameful, and Ihare’s a heavy and prevalent stigma
associated with dropouts. My own uncle chronically suffered from a sense of
inadequacy and felt intelfectually mepl. However, he audaciously and fervently
attended adult school and then continued on to attend community college, white
sim ultaneously working full-time, until he completed his associate’s degree lo
eventually compensate for this inadequacy.
At my university commencement ceremony, he whispered in my ear with
eyes exuding elalion, "You did it, m l cfeitto. You did it." However, he was unaware
that he was my model and inspiration. He influenced my work ethic and he motivated
me to be the best I could be. He instilled a passion and determination in me that
compelled me to nelenilessly pursue my goals. I am indebted to him. He taught me to
oe a citizen of humanity, to recognize global suffering, to appreciate my
opportunities, to be sympathetic towards all walks of life, to be open-minded, to be
giving and helpful, to be resilient and m ost importantly, to love unconditionally. !
simply only followed his exceptional example m overcoming my own set o f Inals.
FIGURE 9.12 Sample activity for discovering lexical variety in writing Ferris
(2014).
vocabulary that they might use in their papers and to ensure that they understand
how to use those key terms appropriately. For example, in an undergraduate legal
writing course, students were asked to write a trial brief (an argumentative essay
for a judge) based on a hypothetical fact pattern about a traffic stop in which a
driver and his car were searched by police without a warrant. A student writing
such a paper might appropriately use the terms “Fourth Amendment,” “probable
cause,” “unreasonable search and seizure,” “Exclusionary Rule,” and “search inci-
dent to a lawful arrest,” all terms which come from either the Fourth Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution or major case law deriving from it.
In addition, students should be encouraged to look for general academic vo-
cabulary that might help them “sound like” a member of that particular Discourse.
For instance, one of the legal writing students in the course described above ap-
propriately used terms such as “possession with intent to sell” and “the officers
confirmed their suspicions”—terms that were not in the assigned readings but
that made him “sound like a lawyer,” which was, in fact, part of the task.
Figure 9.13 shows an excerpt from an academic journal article (about using
peer response in the L2 writing course) that includes both content-specific and
general academic vocabulary. The underlined words and phrases are topic-specific
and include items such as “peer comments” and “group interaction.” The bolded
words and phrases are of a more general academic nature, such as “reported a
follow-up analysis,” “The results showed,” and “The researchers analyzed the tran-
scripts”—all examples of language that could be used in papers about a wide va-
riety of topics, not just research on peer response. The second part of Figure 9.13
shows an exercise that students could do to practice identifying these types of
lexical items. As a follow-up or application activity, students can be asked to simi-
larly analyze an assigned text for a paper they are about to write, preparing a list
of possible words and phrases that might be appropriate to incorporate into their
own papers.
As already noted, the suggestions above are intended for the content-generating
stage of the writing process. In the same way that students are encouraged to
gather facts, examples, and key quotations from sources as part of their planning
and prewriting, they can be directed to identify key vocabulary to incorporate. In
addition, students can also, toward the end of the writing process, be led through
the examination of their near-final texts to assess whether their word choices are
as effective as they would like them to be. First, students can be reminded that the
“editing” phase of writing is not simply for catching typing errors, adding com-
mas, or inserting missing words. It can also be for polishing, for making sure that
their words and sentences are as effective and well chosen as they can be. As to
word choice in particular, students should ask themselves several heuristic ques-
tions as they reread and finalize their writing:
Directions to students: For this exercise, use a text that you have recently read for
a course or a paper that you have written. Choose one to two paragraphs from that
text and conduct an analysis like the one for the peer response journal article below:
Underline topic-specific words and phrases, highlighting general terms and phrases
that seem common and appropriate to this field.
Sample Text Excerpt
Nelson and Murphy (1993) report a follow-up analysis, which examined whether
the students in the group made changes in their drafts based on responses by their
peers. The researchers analyzed the transcripts as well as the student papers to
see if students had revised in light of their peers’ comments. The use of peer
comments in the students’ essays was rated on a scale of 1 to 5. The results
showed that the students made some changes; the average was 3.2. The extent of
the changes was influenced by the type of group interaction; in “cooperative
interaction,” students made more changes than in “defensive” interactions.
FIGURE 9.13 Text excerpt and practice exercise illustrating topic-specific and
general academic vocabulary. Adapted from Connor and Asenavage (1994, p. 259)
j Have I chosen the most effective, correct, and precise words to convey
my message?
j Have I achieved the right level of formality for the writing context?
j Am I repeating key words and phrases enough to achieve cohesion, but
not so often that my writing is boring and repetitive?
General self-editing strategies such as reading a text aloud and asking a class-
mate or friend to give feedback about word choice can also be useful at this stage.
Student writers have several options for looking carefully at their lexical choices:
1. Look for repetition of key words (or their related word forms). This strategy
can be difficult to convey because, on the one hand, some repetition builds
cohesion and makes a text easier for a reader to follow. On the other hand,
too much repetition makes the text dull. Consider this example, written by an
international student at a U.S. university:
First of all, boys and girls learn new things from different perspectives. Chapman
states, “Boys and girls tend to have different styles of learning. Boys often dominate
the classroom by competing to flaunt their knowledge or by creating disruptions.
Girls sometimes feel more comfortable with cooperative learning than with indi-
vidual competition.” Take my personal experience, for example. I studied in all-girls
high schools for six years. I enjoyed learning with my classmates a lot because when I
learned something new, I liked to discuss it with my classmates. We shared our points
of view and encouraged each other so I loved learning and got good scores. Thus, I
believe that teenagers can concentrate more and enjoy studying in single-sex schools.
In this short 120-word excerpt, the writer has used some form of the word
“learn” six times (including one usage inside a direct quotation from a source) and
“study” twice. Other than the language inside the quotation, there is no advanced,
academic-sounding vocabulary, either. In contrast, in the journal article excerpt
shown in Figure 9.13, the key terms are used frequently enough that the ideas are
easy to follow, but the authors also use synonyms so that the same word or term
does not occur too frequently. Several key words and phrases in this excerpt include
“made changes” (used three times) and a synonym, “revised” (once); “responses”
(once), and synonyms “comments” (once), and “interactions” (three times).
2. Examine action and reporting verbs. When discussing another author’s ideas
or the results of research, certain verbs are common (e.g., assert, claim, argue,
note, suggest, show, and so forth; see Chapter 4). Especially within a single
paragraph or in two consecutive sentences, writers will want to vary their verb
choices. It will not confuse a reader if they use “assert” one time and “claim”
in the next sentence, but it will sound monotonous if they say “claim” three or
four times in a row.
3. Consider adjectives or adverbs that qualify or amplify other words. Words such as
too, very, extremely, seldom, rarely, always, never, and so on can be overused. It
weakens writers’ credibility if they frequently say that something is “very” this
or “always” that—they sound like they are exaggerating or overstating claims.
4. Evaluate pronoun reference. Writers will sometimes use too many pronouns
in a short stretch of text. Students will especially want to watch for “it” and
“this.” If a pronoun has been used more than twice to refer back to the same
noun referent, writers probably should repeat the original noun or a synonym
rather than choosing a pronoun again. Overuse of pronouns may not only
confuse a reader but can also quickly become boring: “It. . . . It. . . . It. . . .”3
In addition to introducing students to strategies for identifying useful vocabulary

for their products and editing them for effective vocabulary use, teachers may wish to
introduce students to several computer-based and online tools that can help students
to evaluate and analyze their lexical choices. These include, of course, a dictionary and
a thesaurus (online or print), which students can use to check meanings and usages
of words and to find possible synonyms. Another free analysis tool is the Vocabulary
Profiler tool within the Compleat Lexical Tutor (www.lextutor.ca). Using this tool,
students can upload their own texts and get an analysis of their usage of everyday
(general) vocabulary, items from the AWL, and “off-list” words (which may include
some other content-specific vocabulary). The Profiler also provides type-token ratios
and a lexical density number, both statistics that measure the lexical variety within a
text. As an illustration, Figure 9.14 shows the Vocabulary Profiler analysis of the “traf-
fic stop” text written by the legal writing student mentioned earlier.
What this analysis means is that the legal writing student wrote a very academic-
sounding text, at least as to vocabulary usage. In professional academic texts such
as journal articles, the percentage of AWL words is around 11% (Coxhead, 2000),
Word List Percent Examples from Text

o f Total
K1 (1000 m ost frequent English words) 68.41 on, number, officer, and,
son, etc.
K2 (second 1000 m ost frequent English 7.42 arrested, argues, intent
words)
AW L (Academ ic W ord List) 1 1 25 violation, evidence,
obtained, conducted
Q ff-U st (not on any specific word list} 12 92 R o be d Martin, A/ex. cash
breakfast? (tokens) 732 _ T ype-token ratio (;.34

D ifferent words (types) 282 Lexical density (ratio o f con tent w ords) \ 0.5B~
FIGURE 9.14 Vocabulary Profiler results for student’s legal text.

and this student had close to the same ratio. Nearly 60% of the words in the text
were content words (lexical density or LD), another measure of vocabulary com-
plexity. The type-token ratio is low, meaning that there were many different words
used and not a lot of repetition. In contrast, the short “single-sex schools” para-
graph shown above had a lower percentage of AWL words (and five of the eight
AWL words were from the quoted material, not the student’s own prose) and a
much higher type-token ratio, meaning more repetition and less complexity.
There are also tools on the students’ word processors that they can use for analysis
of their own texts. Usually such programs have built-in dictionaries and thesauruses,
and the writer can set the spelling and grammar checker options to look for poten-
tial lexical problems such as misused words, clichés, and informal language (remem-
bering, of course, the warnings and caveats about spelling and grammar checkers
that we discussed in Chapter 8). Word processors can also provide measures of read-
ability (see Carrell, 1987; Hedgcock & Ferris, 2009), which use a combination of
lexical and syntactic features to determine the relative difficulty of a particular text.
For example, the “traffic stop” legal writing text had a readability score of 12th grade
(final year of high school) and a reading ease score of 42% (anything below 50% is
considered difficult). In contrast, the “single-sex schools” student text was only at
grade level 7.5 and had a reading score of nearly 65%—in other words, by readabil-
ity measures, it was a much simpler text. While these tools do not make or suggest
changes to the student’s text, they provide an objective analysis for the writer to look
at and consider during the editing process. Figure 9.15 provides a sample exercise
that students could use to evaluate their own texts for lexical variety.
Before we leave this discussion of helping student writers to achieve better lexi-
cal variety in their texts, there are several issues or problems that teachers should
help students to avoid. Teachers must point out that developing better or more
interesting word choice in writing is more complicated than simply opening up a
thesaurus and inserting the search results. There are several ways that the lexical
variety process can go wrong if writers are not careful.
Problem 1: Plagiarism. We suggested that students be encouraged to analyze

source texts for key vocabulary that will make their texts sound more polished.
Application Activity 1: For this activity, use an assignment that you are working on
or completed recently. Use the Vocabulary Profiler tool to get a picture of the types of
vocabulary that you used in the text. You might also compare your analysis with
something less formal that you have written, such as a blog post, a Facebook note,
or an email message. What did you learn about your vocabulary choices?
Application Activity 2: Use the same assignment as in Application 1. Choose one
or two paragraphs and read them carefully (aloud if possible). Are there any
passages where your word choice is repetitive or uninteresting? Use one or more of
the strategies or tools suggested in this tutorial to select words or phrases and try to
rewrite them. Compare your original with your revised version. Which one do you like
better, and why?
FIGURE 9.15 Application activities for self-evaluating lexical choices.

Using general academic structures such as “The researchers analyzed the tran-
scripts” or “The results showed” (both from the paragraph in Figure 9.13) is not
going to get them into trouble, as those are commonly used constructions. Nor
will content terms such as peer comments, because those are not unique to this par-
ticular text. However, students should be reminded that they should never simply
copy all or much of a sentence without attributing its source, and if terms seem
to be created or defined specifically for a particular text, they should also cite the
source rather than just appropriating the term (examples of this latter type from
the sample text in Figure 9.13 might include cooperative interactions and defensive
interactions).
Problem 2: Inaccurate substitutions. One of the greatest challenges of English

vocabulary is that there are many words with numerous synonyms. Going back to
our previous example of the word learn (from the single-sex schools text), there
were many possible synonyms suggested by the thesaurus:
apprentice, attain, be taught, be trained, become able, become versed,

brush up on, burn midnight oil, commit to memory, con, crack the books,
cram, determine, drink in, enroll, gain, get, get down pat, get the hang of, get
the knack of, grasp, grind, imbibe, improve mind, lucubrate, major in, mas-
ter, matriculate, memorize, minor in, peruse, pick up, pore over, prepare,
read, receive, review, soak up, specialize in, study, take course, take in, train
in, wade through
Most of these suggestions would not fit into the student writer’s original in-
tended meaning of learn or its related word form. Some would sound awkward;
others would simply be wrong or misleading. Thus, students need to be care-
ful that chosen synonyms actually do match the meaning of the words they are
replacing.
Problem 3: Grammatical errors. Similarly, synonyms often cannot be substituted

word for word into a text. Often, other parts of the sentence will have to change
to remain grammatically correct. Here is another sentence from the single-sex
schools text:
We shared our points of view and encouraged each other so I loved learn-
ing and got good scores.
One of the synonyms for learn suggested by the thesaurus is grasp. But if the
writer inserted “grasping” in place of “learning” in the sentence, it would create a
grammatical problem. In the sentence above, the writer could say something like
“I loved grasping new information,” but she could not just say “I loved grasping.”
Collocation errors of this type can be a major issue for L2 writers, and are far be-
yond the scope of this chapter or even this book. Here, we simply note that when
students are learning and applying new vocabulary, it may be helpful to warn them
about this type of error when making lexical substitutions.
Problem 4: Inappropriate register choices. The term “register” most often refers
to the formality or informality of language choices and their appropriateness for
a particular communicative context. For example, get the hang of, one of the syno-
nyms for learn suggested by the thesaurus, is very informal and could be consid-
ered cliché or even slang. On the other hand, lucubrate is such an unfamiliar word
that it could be confusing and off-putting to a reader. Consider again Excerpt 2
from the discovery activity shown in Figure 9.12. This was the excerpt from the law
school personal statement. Here are just two sentences from that text:
My own uncle chronically suffered from a sense of inadequacy and felt

intellectually inept. However, he audaciously and fervently attended adult
school and then continued on to attend community college, while simul-
taneously working full-time, until he completed his associate’s degree to
eventually compensate for this inadequacy.
There is a great deal of elevated (and low-frequency) vocabulary in these two

sentences (bolded). The terms are used correctly, and overall, the text gives the sense
that the writer is intelligent and well educated. However, a personal statement for
a professional school application should not only convey the writer’s intelligence
and but also his or her personality. One wonders if the vocabulary choices in this
personal statement could become off-putting to admissions committee readers. In
analyzing and rewriting texts to achieve lexical variety, students need to take care
that their vocabulary choices “match” the expectations of their audience.
To summarize this discussion of vocabulary, teachers should keep several
points in mind. First, the absence of a strong, precise, effective vocabulary can be
a barrier to student writers, no matter how good their ideas or organization or
sentence structure may be. Thus, teachers may wish to incorporate mini-lessons
about understanding and using vocabulary effectively in the reading and writing
process. Finally, there are specific ways that teachers can build vocabulary analysis
(for reading) and lexical variation (for writing) into ongoing coursework. Such
work need not be excessively time-consuming, but it can provide powerful tools
that students can build on while in the writing course and beyond it.
Analyzing Grammatical Choices in Writing

Earlier in this chapter, we discussed how teachers could use awareness of student
writers’ common error patterns to select points for classroom instruction. We further
discussed and illustrated principles of mini-lessons that teachers can design to pro-
vide instruction on the rules behind such errors at points where students’ knowledge
can be lacking. In this section, we briefly highlight three issues: (1) addressing the
problem of “untreatable” errors; (2) building basic knowledge of sentence structure;
and (3) developing students’ awareness of how syntactic choices can convey mean-
ing and impact writing style.
“Untreatable” errors. In her 1999 response to Truscott (1996) discussed in Chapter 8,

Ferris introduced the notion of “untreatable” errors, or writing problems that could
not be addressed by reference to a set of teachable and learnable rules. These errors
include
a wide variety of lexical errors and problems with sentence structure,

including missing words, unnecessary words, and word order prob-
lems. . . . Clearly, it [is] not adequate to simply underline these non-
idiomatic, idiosyncratic errors in word choice and sentence construction.
There is no handbook or set of rules students can consult to avoid or fix
those types of errors. (Ferris, 1999a, p. 6)
Ferris later operationalized and examined the notion of treatable and un-
treatable errors in two studies, finding that teachers tended to mark so-called
untreatable errors differently than treatable ones (Ferris, 2006) and that stu-
dents were able to self-edit untreatable errors when called to their attention but
at a lower rate than treatable errors (Ferris & Roberts, 2001). While this is an
admittedly ad hoc description, it matches teachers’ intuitions that some writing
errors are harder to help students with than are others.
With this distinction in mind, how should teachers approach hard-to-treat er-
rors in lexical choice and sentence structure? Options range from ignoring them
to focus on more treatable patterns such as articles or verb tenses, correcting them
directly by providing the preferred form (as the teachers in Ferris, 2006, often did),
or addressing them in one-to-one conferences with students rather than marking
them or teaching lessons about them in class. Teachers tend to take one or even all
of those approaches, but we would suggest another one: mini-lessons that provide
strategy training to help students become more aware of such issues in their own
writing and ideas for solving such writing problems in the future (see Appendix 9
for one example).
Teaching basic sentence patterns. Writing instructors, who are not always trained
in how to teach grammar, may not realize what prior knowledge is assumed in teach-
ing mini-lessons on syntactic patterns. For instance, teachers may want to address
problems with subject–verb agreement (a very common error in student writing)
but fail to understand that students must clearly understand the notions of “sub-
ject” and “verb,” that subjects and verbs have singular and plural forms, and what
it means to say they must “agree,”4 before moving on to more advanced problems
with subject–verb agreement. Similarly, it is hard to discuss active and passive voice
without an understanding of grammatical subject and verb forms. To teach lessons
on everyday punctuation usage rules (such as editing comma splices or inserting a
comma before a coordinating conjunction), teachers must first ensure that students
understand what a basic sentence is, as well as what a coordinating conjunction does.
Teachers must thus, as we discussed earlier in this chapter, take time to find out what
students know about formal grammar in the target language and plan mini-lessons
at the appropriate levels. In order to utilize grammar-oriented instruction in the
writing class, students need to understand (at minimum) the following:
j Parts of speech (grammatical categories): noun, verb, adjective, ad-

verb, articles and other determiners, prepositions, conjunctions, and
pronouns
j The notion and definition of a “sentence”
j How to identify subjects and verbs in a sentence
j The basic sentence patterns in English (simple, compound, complex)
j Other constituents in English that might affect writing style or lead to
errors (prepositional phrases and other adverbials, noun clauses, relative
clauses).
Readers will note that other points of English grammar could be taught. How-
ever, returning to an earlier point we made (Figure 9.1), a writing course is not
a grammar course, and teachers cannot focus on every aspect of L2 grammar in
their lessons (nor should they try to do so). Rather, we focus here on (a) typical
points of grammar and usage that tend to come up in writing, and (b) the foun-
dational grammar information that underlies those grammar and usage issues.
Syntactic choices that influence meaning and style. Teachers of L2 writers may
be so focused on remediating students’ errors in verb tense and form, article us-
age, sentence structure, word choice, and mechanics that the idea of focusing on
style and syntactic variety seems irrelevant. However, as students become more
proficient L2 acquirers and writers, it is important to help them understand that
skillful syntactic choices can help them to communicate more effectively with
real-world audiences for their writing. Several issues can be called to students’
attention:
1. Effective syntactic choices can provide a clear road map through a text for the
reader. This point includes aspects of lexical cohesion (such as repetition of
or synonyms for key words and phrases, pronoun usage, and transitional
terms such as further, however, or in conclusion), but it also includes syntac-
tic maneuvers such as keeping subjects and verbs in close proximity within
a sentence and presenting old information before new in a sentence. These

syntactic choices can facilitate reader comprehension because they can follow
the writer’s ideas and the connections between them.
2. Writers can emphasize important information through their syntactic choices.
Here is a simple example of this point:
On Saturday morning, I left my house to go grocery shopping, but the
driveway was empty. My car was stolen during the night!
Teachers can point out to students that the second sentence in this text begins
with the passive construction “My car was stolen.” It could have been written
as “Someone stole my car, . . . ” or “A car thief stole my car. . . . ” Why use pas-
sive voice here? The important information is the disappearance of the car,
not who stole it (which is unknown). The choice of passive here places the
emphasis on the most important detail in the story.5
3. Syntactic choices can convey the writer’s mood, attitude, or tone. We mentioned
earlier the article about Joe Paterno and how the writer conveyed his own sad-
ness and chagrin through the repetition of the same sentence frame: “What a
_____ (fool, idiot, etc.) I was.” At the beginning of the article, the writer tells a
story about how a Penn State professor called him to warn that Paterno wielded
far too much power and was inappropriately treated as a “saint.” The sports-
writer, at the time a great admirer of Paterno, dismissed the professor’s admo-
nition: “Jealous egghead, I thought” (Reilly, 2012). Note the unusual syntax in
this sentence: A more typical construction would have been something like “I
thought the professor was simply jealous of Paterno’s popularity and fame, so I
ignored him.” Reilly’s choice to write the sentence the way he did—a short, flip-
pant sentence with the derogatory slang term “egghead”—further conveys his
view of his own stupidity, realized long after the fact. (In fact, at the end of the
article, Reilly returns to the anecdote and notes that the professor was right.)
4. Pointing out these principles to students—that syntactic choices communicate
meaning, emphasis, and tone—is a good start. Teachers may also want to point
out specific syntactic structures and options that can build their repertoires as
writers and provide instruction as needed. Some of these options include (but
are not limited to):
j passive voice;
j rhetorical questions;
j subordination (to express relationships and vary style by building
complex sentences);
j prepositional phrases and relative clauses (to add information and
variety);
j varied sentence lengths (e.g., a short sentence followed by a longer
one to change the rhythm of the text);
j varied sentence types (between simple, complex, and compound);
j proximity of subjects and verbs within sentences; and

j placement of old and new information within sentences.
As to how teachers should build this knowledge and awareness of syntactic style
and variety in their student writers, we suggest a three-stage approach. In the first
stage, the teacher might lead students through analysis of a text (either one the stu-
dents are already reading for class or one specially chosen for the mini-lesson) that
illustrates interesting syntactic options. In the second phase, students are encour-
aged to keep a “style journal” in which they record and analyze interesting stylistic
choices by authors in the texts they read. (This is similar to the vocabulary jour-
nal suggested above; teachers could consider combining the two for an ongoing
graded or extra-credit assignment.) In the third phase, students are led through
activities to analyze their own texts (recently written or in process) by looking at
sentence-level options like those described above, perhaps even attempting revi-
sions to make their writing more interesting or effective. Figure 9.16 shows a sam-
ple application exercise along these lines.
Teaching Other Stylistic Elements

Considering formality levels in writing. In this chapter, we have given extensive
coverage to vocabulary and grammar instruction within the context of the writing
D irection s to stu d e n ts; Take an assignment that you are working on now ur have
completed recently. First, using the Microsoft WonctS Spelling and G ram mar tool,
obtain Document Statistics about average sentence length and percentage of
passive sentences (In Word Preferences, select Spelling and Grammar, then select
"Show Readability Statistics" from your G ramm ar settings. If you do not have Word,
perhaps your word processing applicalion has similar tools. Free and easy-to-use
tools are also available online: Search for "sentence length analysis too ls' In your
browser.) After performing your analysis, look carefully through your text, noting the
following patterns:
o Sentence fypes. Do you use certain types more than others (e.g., declaratives,
coordinate sentences, compound sentences, passives, imperatives, questions,
and so on)? Does sentence struciure show suitably broad variation?
o O ther clausal etemerrfs. Consider the use o f introductory elemenls, prepositional
phrases, relative clauses, appositives. and so forth. Do you use these frequently?
Do you noticc suitably wide variation, o r do you tend lo prefer one strategy over
another?
q Proximity o f subjects and verbs in yo u r sentences.
o Ways in which important information is em phasized in each sentence.
Write a one- to two-paragraph analysis of your style. Is it overly simple? Overly
wordy? Overly repetitive? Do you think it is effective and appropriate for the genre,
audience, and task that (he text was constructed for? Is this text typical o f all o f your
writing, or do you think it is unusual? Is there something that you would like lo work
on for future writing tasks?
FIGURE 9.16 Application activity for analyzing sentence variety and style Ferris
(2014).
course. Before leaving this section, we should mention that there are other lin-
guistic and extralinguistic issues that could be profitable topics for language mini-
lessons. For example, a large “problem” identified by teachers and researchers in
student writing is their use of informal language in academic writing (see Lunsford
& Lunsford, 2008). Many young student writers tend to write the way they talk,
and as literacy practices have changed dramatically in recent years with changes in
technology and media, these students may not have received as much exposure to
formal academic language (through traditional reading of print materials) as they
might have in the past. L2 writers who have acquired language in natural settings
(conversation, media) may not have a well-developed sense of register and how
levels of formality and informality in writing may affect their success in commu-
nicating with different target audiences. Specific issues to call to their attention
might include the following:
j Contractions;
j First and second person pronouns;
j How names and titles are used in various forms of written communication;
j Sentence fragments and other stylistic variations;
j Informal words and phrases (profanity and other taboo terms, begin-
ning sentences with coordinating conjunctions such as and or but,
slang, shortenings or abbreviations, clichés, or idioms).
We do not provide this list to suggest that teachers present it to students as

“things you should never, ever do in your writing.” Rather, teachers should point
out that various choices are more appropriate in some contexts and genres than
others. The use of first- and second-person pronouns can be perfectly acceptable
in tasks where students have been asked to write personal narratives or to address
a specific audience directly (“We should . . . ” “You might consider . . .”). Sentence
fragments are ubiquitous in print advertising. Contractions and informal word
choices may create a more natural, appealing tone in certain types of journalism
or in blog posts. Teachers can help students understand this by designing activi-
ties to analyze a range of naturalistic texts to see how these elements of “informal”
language are used (or not used). Figure 9.17 shows one example.
Punctuation and style. Various punctuation choices also tend to be found in some
genres more than others. For example, semicolons are more typical in formal writ-
ing than in informal texts, but colons are found in both (but sometimes for differ-
ent purposes). The use of dashes, ellipses, and parenthetical asides also can vary in
different types of texts. Students have likely noticed all of these elements in their
own reading, but they may never have thought much about how and why those el-
ements are used in various types of texts. A mini-lesson that presents punctuation
Directions to students: Look through a print or digital magazine that includes many
advertisements. Which ut the informal {or less formal) language structures described
in Figure 9.16 did you find? Do you find any of them confusing D r off-putting? W hy or
why nol?
It can also be very interesting to compare and contrast the writing of a particular
author when writing in different genres. For example. Paul Knjgman is an economist
who writes regular opinion columns in the New York Times and m ainlains a blog.
Compare one or more of Krugman's columns (which appear in Ihe print version of
the newspaper and are syndicated nationally} with one or more o f his blog posts
(which are available on Hie Welv York T7mes web site). W hat “informality indicators"
can you find in his blog posts that are not typically present in his columns? If you
prefer, select another writer who maintains a blog in addition to writing news articles
or opinion colum ns and make similar comparisons.
FIGURE 9.17 Exercise for analyzing formality levels in sample texts.
choices as an indicator of style and register could be enlightening to many student

writers. (Other punctuation issues, such as how to use commas, semicolons, and
apostrophes to avoid common errors, tend to be more grammatical in focus than
stylistic.) As with our previous advice about mini-lessons, for these punctuation
points, we suggest that teachers use authentic texts to present examples for analysis
paired with some brief explanations about the rules for dashes, ellipses, and so
forth, and followed by a focused application to students’ own writing.
Using Corpus Tools for Language Instruction

As we conclude this section on the “how” of providing classroom language in-
struction in the context of the writing course, we want to say a few words about
the use of corpora and corpus-based tools for language and writing instruction.
We do mean a few words. Corpus linguistics is a huge area of inquiry that has
exploded over the past 10 to 20 years, and we could not possibly do it justice here.
We refer interested readers to several recent and accessible discussions of corpus
linguistics and its classroom applications for further information (Bennett, 2010;
Byrd & Bunting, 2008; Conrad, 2005, 2008; Coxhead & Byrd, 2007; Ferris, 2011a,
2011b; Hyland, 2008; Reppen, 2010).
What is a corpus? For readers not familiar with this term, a corpus (plural corpora)
is a collection of texts (usually large and always digital) collected in a principled
way, usually for research purposes (Conrad, 2005; Ferris, 2011a). Famous exam-
ples of corpora include the one used to create the Academic Word List (Coxhead,
2000), the British National Corpus, the Corpus of Contemporary American En-
glish, and several developed by the University of Michigan—the Michigan Corpus
of Academic Spoken English (MICASE) and the Michigan Corpus of Upper-Level
Students’ Papers (MICUSP). Many of these are free and easily searchable. Caplan
(2012) suggested that Internet tools such as Google and Google Scholar are also
examples of corpora that students can search to check possible collocations they
might use in their own writing. However, Google is different from the research-
driven corpora listed above in that it is a random, unmoderated collection of texts
rather than a principled one. (It is still useful, of course, but students need to be
aware that not everything on the Internet is always “correct” or a good example.)
Applications of corpus research for writers. Corpus research findings can be use-
ful to teachers and their students in at least two distinct ways. First, over the past 10
years, many corpus-informed pedagogical resources have been developed, such as
dictionaries and grammar and vocabulary textbooks developed from corpus lin-
guistics research findings. All of these resources existed before corpus techniques
advanced to their current state, of course, but now there are teaching materials
based on sophisticated research techniques rather than merely an author’s intui-
tions about what grammatical structures or lexical items should be included in a
textbook. While teachers may or may not find that one of these texts is an appro-
priate choice for their writing courses given other course goals (see Chapter 4 for
principles of text selection), consulting such texts might at least give teachers ideas
about structures to consider and ways to present them.
Second, if the technology is available, teachers can introduce corpus tools and
search techniques to their students in the classroom. As we have already men-
tioned, students can check vocabulary and collocations using Google, the Vocabu-
lary Profiler, or a student-based tool called Check My Words (see Milton, 2006).
If an instructor and students want to investigate the frequency and usage of vari-
ous types of lexical bundles (e.g., “studies have shown that”), or the frequency of
stance or hedge markers across genres or disciplines (Conrad, 2008; Hyland, 2008)
such as modal auxiliaries or “In my opinion,” they can search one or more of the
corpora listed above. Figure 9.18 shows a simple exercise along these lines, adapted
from Caplan (2012).
Students can also use corpus tools to analyze their own writing, either past or in
progress. As previously mentioned, word-processing tools can provide information
about average sentence length, percentage of passive voice sentences, and readabil-
ity. Beyond the word processor, students can also use the same corpus tools de-
scribed above to observe and evaluate their own usage of various constructions that
they may be concerned about and that the class might be discussing. These could
Directions to students: Run two sesnties on Wits phrase: a bunch o f Is (his phrase
common in scadem<c English?
1. Use Google Sctiola r i www.schola j . qoso le. com) with Ihe phrase in quotas on marks.
Repeal ihe search with the ahrases a lot o f and a number of. Compare your results.
7 Use MiCUSP (www eJisorppra m.W) to search to* the same three phrases Compare your
results wilh those from ihe Google Scholar searches. What do you conclude eboul Ihese
three phrases and the r usage,'appropriateness for academic writing?
3, Now choose another phrase that you use frequently in your own waiting for scftool. Try to
think of one or Iwp other ways lo say IhrS phrase. Repeat the searches as in Sleps 1-2,
above.
4. How could you use these search to ^ s jn y o tjr own ftj_lure_writinj?
FIGURE 9.18 Sample corpus search exercise. Adapted from Caplan (2012, p. 135).
include issues that lead to errors as well as stylistic options. See Bennett (2010),
Milton (2006), and Reppen (2010) for ideas for corpus-based classroom activities.
Another smaller application of corpus techniques is for the teacher or students
themselves to compile a small corpus of their own for analysis. Depending on the
purpose of the activity, this corpus might be a selection from the assigned course
readings, a collection of an individual student’s own writings (perhaps from the past
and present and even texts written for purposes other than school), or a class set of
texts from a particular assignment. Again, this self-created corpus could be analyzed
for the various lexical, syntactic, and stylistic issues we have discussed in this chapter.
While corpus materials may seem a bit overwhelming to teachers, they need not be.
As already noted, there are excellent recent resources to help teachers sort through the
massive amounts of information obtained by corpus linguistics researchers—books
for teachers on using corpus materials for pedagogical purposes (Bennett, 2010; Rep-
pen, 2010), textbooks and reference materials developed from corpus findings, and
free, easy-to-use online corpora and search tools. It will admittedly take teachers a
bit of effort to look at these materials and incorporate them into exercises for mini-
lessons, but the effort is worth it: Corpus resources are current, they are authentic, and
such exercises are engaging and interesting for today’s students, who are accustomed
to constantly consulting online resources to obtain information and answer questions.
Summary: Putting It All Together

Although the development of language mini-lessons can be challenging and time
consuming for a teacher, they can be highly effective in presenting important lan-
guage content in ways that students can instantly grasp and apply. In addition,
mini-lessons can be built on in two distinct ways. First, teachers may wish to take
important form-focused topics (e.g., verb tenses, article usage, clause boundaries,
subject–verb agreement, and so forth) and break them down in a continuing series
of mini-lessons that uses earlier lessons as scaffolding for new material. Second,
teachers can tie the mini-lessons to other aspects of the feedback and revision
process (discussed in Chapter 8) through marking student papers for specific
structures covered in mini-lessons and through requiring students to chart their
progress in mastering these rules and structures.
In this section, we have gone into some detail about approaches teachers can
use to develop mini-lessons on language-focused topics for their writing courses
or the student writers with whom they might be working. The obvious question
that arises is: How can teachers possibly integrate this language development work
into a composition or literacy course syllabus? We have several suggestions about
ways to make these activities natural and authentic within the context of other
course goals.
1. Discuss language issues (vocabulary, sentence structure, punctuation and me-

chanics, style) in conjunction with a reading activity. Rather than just focusing
on the content of the text, spend time examining how the writer uses language
to accomplish his or her purposes.
2. Discuss language issues in conjunction with a specific writing task. For instance,
when an assignment is first introduced or when students are generating con-
tent through prewriting activities, teachers might present a mini-lesson (or at
least facilitate a class discussion) on the types of language structures (vocabu-
lary, syntax, and other style issues) that might (or might not) be appropriate
for this particular task.
3. Discuss language issues in conjunction with final editing tasks. Once students
have finalized their content and have gone through several feedback and revi-
sion iterations, it is helpful to set aside time in class or for homework for the
students to go through a guided peer- or self-editing workshop. A language
mini-lesson that leads into the editing activities can be timely and useful at
this point (and students can be instructed to look specifically for whatever
issues were raised in the mini-lesson).
4. Discuss language issues in conjunction with debriefing a graded assignment. As
already noted, “common errors” mini-lessons can be valuable right after the
instructor has read and responded to a class set of papers. The teacher may
wish to set aside time in the syllabus or lesson plan for an assignment debrief
(which could also address class strengths and weaknesses in content or or-
ganization) rather than simply moving on to the next assignment without
reflecting on the one just completed.
The preceding represent at least four regular points in the rhythm of a literacy
course in which an instructor could naturally incorporate language development
in ways that are integrated with the ongoing work of the class. Though teachers
may not know before the course begins exactly what the specific topics of the
mini-lessons might be (that should be determined through ongoing needs analy-
sis, as we have discussed), they can plan ahead for these mini-lessons by noting
“Language Mini-Lesson” at appropriate points on the course calendar, both to
show the students where they will occur and to remind the teacher to set aside
regular time for these activities. We find that this approach to language develop-
ment, as it relates to course planning, works much better than grammar lessons
that are just awkwardly inserted into syllabi or lessons without any transparent
connection to other activities the class is currently doing.
The “Who”: Considerations for

Teacher Development
Some readers may have reached this point in the chapter and experienced some
discomfort. You may be convinced—through reflection or through experience—
that language development is indeed an important aspect of L2 literacy instruc-
tion. However, you may wonder if your own knowledge and skill set is adequate
for the task of diagnosing language issues in student writing, giving effective feed-
back about errors and style, and selecting and teaching language points in the
classroom.
These concerns are legitimate, as teachers need to bear in mind several points
before implementing language development activities effectively. Any language
or writing instructor who has ever attempted to teach English grammar without
adequate planning has learned (the hard way) that simply being a competent, lit-
erate, well-educated user of a target language does not automatically prepare a
teacher to explain and illustrate discrete aspects of language. These are some of
the reasons that the CCCC statement on “Second Language Writing and Writers”
(CCCC, 2009) stresses teacher development as a crucial component in the success-
ful instruction of L2 writers. With these points in mind, we summarize here what
teachers need to know in order to successfully implement the ideas in this chapter
(as well as the ones in Chapter 8). We then discuss how teachers might obtain the
types of knowledge and experience that we recommend.
What Teachers Need to Know

Generally speaking, in order to facilitate students’ ongoing language development
within the context of the writing course, teachers of L2 writers need to have a
knowledge base that includes the following components (adapted from Ferris,
2011, pp. 62–70):
1. Teachers of L2 writers need to study aspects of grammar that are particularly

problematic for nonnative speakers of English. These include the following:
j Forms, meanings, and uses of the different verb tenses and aspect com-
binations in English;
j Forms, meanings, and uses of active and passive voice constructions;
j Basic verb types (transitive, intransitive, and linking) and the con-
straints on each type as to passivization, addition of direct objects, and
so on;
j Auxiliary forms that can be added to verb phrases and the effects of
auxiliaries on the use of inflectional morphemes (i.e., tense and aspect
markers) in the verb phrase;
j Basic types of nouns (abstract, concrete, collective, count, non-count),
and the implications of these types for article usage and inflectional
endings;
j General rules governing subject–verb agreement;
j Differences in meaning and use between definite and indefinite articles;
j Basic clause and sentence patterns and how they should be combined
and punctuated;
j Differences in form and function between nouns, verbs, adjectives, and
adverbs, and how to select the correct form when constructing a sen-
tence. (Ferris, 2011, pp. 62–63; see also Figure 8.3)
2. Teachers need practice in recognizing and identifying errors in student writing.

3. Teachers need practice in developing lessons and teaching grammar points
and editing strategies to their writing students.
4. Teachers need to understand the principles of second language acquisition
and of composition theory and specifically how language development in
writing courses fits into those theories.
5. Teachers of writing should become familiar with language structures needed
for different task types and academic disciplines.
As a prospective or current teacher or a teacher-educator, you may find the

above list daunting. We would argue, however, that this list is relevant for all teach-
ers of writing, not simply those who have chosen a career in working specifically
or exclusively with L2 writers. Student populations in many contexts are extremely
diverse, and teachers can no longer assume that their students are monolingual or
primary users of the target language. In addition, most of these points of teacher
knowledge and skill (with the possible exception of item 1) are equally relevant
even for monolingual and L2 student writers.
Teachers who are already in the classroom or whose current teacher prepara-
tion programs do not develop the knowledge and skill set outlined above might
look for books, courses (local or online), or workshops (e.g., at professional
conferences) that will help them learn and practice these skills. For teachers and
teacher-educators who wish to develop in-service training for their local context,
the following sequence of training activities could be helpful (see Bitchener & Fer-
ris, 2012, pp. 185–192 for more details and description of each component):
j Identify gaps in knowledge and preparation.

j Reflect on and analyze beliefs about error correction and grammar in-
struction in the writing course.
j Build awareness of key grammar and language issues for written error
feedback and for instruction.
j Learn to conduct class needs analyses (see Chapter 5).
j Design and adapt a composition syllabus to integrate language instruc-
tion (see Chapter 5).
j Provide effective written error feedback on individual student papers
(see Chapter 8).
j Design class mini-lessons on grammar, language, and editing strategies
(see Chapter 8).
j Consider the impact of language issues in classroom writing assessment
(see Chapter 6).
A course, workshop, or series of workshops that includes the above sequence of

activities for skills development would give teachers of L2 writers a strong founda-
tion in how to help individual students and whole classes with language issues that
arise in their writing and how to help students continue to build their own linguis-
tic repertoires so that they can be successful writers in a wide variety of academic
and professional situations.
Chapter Summary
This chapter has taken on an ambitious topic: how teachers of L2 writers can build
ongoing academic language development into their courses. It has also covered a
wide range of subtopics, including:
j Why questions: Why have language issues been neglected in writing

courses and in teacher preparation programs? Why is ongoing language
development important for student writers?
j What questions: Bearing in mind that teachers of writing or compo-
sition have many interacting course goals and activities and cannot
cover every possible language point, what selection criteria should
teachers use to develop language-focused mini-lessons for their own
courses?
j How questions: In this section, we talked about principles for design-
ing and delivering effective mini-lessons on language within a writing
course as well as bigger-picture strategies for students’ ongoing ac-
quisition of vocabulary, grammar, and other issues related to writing
style.
j Who questions: We finished the chapter by briefly discussing what
teachers need to know in order to implement the ideas and approaches
presented above. This included a list of teacher development activities
that could be used for pre-service teacher preparation courses or in-
service workshops for current teachers.
As we have noted several times in this chapter, the task of facilitating student
writers’ language development is not a simple one, and doing so effectively will
require preparation, thought, and effort on the part of the teacher. However, we
firmly believe that the ideas in this chapter are not optional “add-ons” to writing
instruction but rather are just as central as other concerns discussed in this book.
After all, without control and precision in language use, there can be no effective
writing—in any language.
j Readings on the applications of corpus linguistics to writing instruction: Ben-

nett (2010); Byrd and Bunting (2008); Conrad (2005, 2008); Coxhead and
Byrd (2007); Milton (2006); Reppen (2010)
j Pedagogical grammar and vocabulary books for teachers: Celce-Murcia and
Larsen-Freeman (1998); Coxhead (2006); Folse (2004); Folse and Azar (2009);
Hinkel (2004); Zimmerman (2008)
j Reading-writing connections: Hedgcock and Ferris (2009); Hirvela (2004)
j Readings on grammar and vocabulary for L2 writers: Byrd and Reid (1998);
Frodesen and Holten (2003)

1. The first part of this chapter discussed arguments for and against incorporat-
ing language-focused instruction in the writing course. If you were at a job
interview and were asked about your stance on this issue, which argument(s)
would you use in order to respond to such a question?
2. In the “what” section of this chapter, it was suggested that teachers use needs
analysis techniques, such as examination of diagnostic writing samples and
questionnaires or discussions with students about their prior knowledge and
opinions, to develop a list of topics for mini-lessons for a particular group of
students. What is your reaction to these suggestions? Does one appeal to you
more than others? Do any raise concerns? Which one(s) and why?
3. We also recommended that teachers develop language mini-lessons based on
assigned course readings and on course writing assignments. Is this some-
thing that you already do or would consider doing? If so, how have such activi-
ties gone? If not, would you consider adding close analysis of writers’ language
choices to other discussions of assigned texts? Why or why not?
4. In the “how” section of the chapter, we suggested that language mini-lessons
should include discovery, explanation, practice, and application activities.
Were any of these elements new to you? Do any seem more challenging to
develop than others? Do any seem unnecessary? Would you add anything?
5. One option we suggested was self-directed language development by asking stu-
dents to maintain vocabulary or style journals to keep notes about language in texts
they read. Does this seem like a good idea to you? Why or why not? Would it be more
appropriate for some groups of students than others? How would you assess it?
6. We suggested that students be trained to analyze and edit their own writing
for greater lexical and syntactic variety. Have you ever done anything like this
with students? Do these ideas appeal to you? Do you see any possible pitfalls?
7. How familiar are you with corpus linguistics research, techniques, and re-
sources? Is this something you would like to learn more about? Does the idea
of using corpus-based activities in your classroom appeal to you (technology
permitting, of course)? Why or why not?
8. Look again at the list of knowledge and skill sets for teachers outlined in the fi-
nal section of this chapter and the suggested progression of training activities
for teacher development courses or workshops. Do some of the items on these
lists seem more relevant and important to you than others? Which one(s)?
Conducting a Language Needs Analysis
Identify a class of L2 writers (or a class of student writers that includes L2 stu-
dents) that you are teaching or have access to. Use or adapt the materials in Figures
9.2–9.5 to develop a list of possible mini-lessons on language patterns that would
be relevant and useful for this particular student cohort. Also decide if the topics
would be relevant for the whole class or only for particular smaller groups of stu-
dents. Rank-order your list as to importance of the topic and (if applicable) which
lessons should come first so that later lessons could build on them.

Examining a Course Text for Relevant Language Structures
For this exercise, use a text that is assigned for an L2 writing course or a course that
includes L2 writers, or find a text that might be appropriate for a particular writing
course. Examine the text to identify (a) relevant vocabulary that might be useful
for reading comprehension and students’ own writing, and (b) other aspects of the
writer’s style (syntactic choices, punctuation, formatting) that might be interest-
ing or enlightening for student analysis.

Examining Writing Assignments for Needed Linguistic Knowledge
Assemble a small collection of writing prompts and assignments used for writing
courses that include L2 writers (say three to five assignments). Examine each one
carefully and create a list of: (a) types of vocabulary items students might need to
accomplish these writing tasks; and (b) types of syntactic structures the tasks might
elicit (e.g., verb tense shifts in narrative, passives, accurate citation of sources, sub-
junctive or conditional, and so forth). Having made the list, consider the following
question: Would it be useful or necessary to develop a language-focused mini-les-

son on one or more of the items on your list? If so, which one(s)? If not, why not?

Examining References on a Particular Grammar Point
Imagine you are teaching a writing course and have selected a particular grammar
point on which to present a 20- to 30-minute mini-lesson to the class. Consult sev-
eral sources for information on this grammar point (e.g., a reference book for gram-
mar teachers, a website, an L2 grammar book, or an editing handbook). After you
have examined the sources, decide how you will address the following questions:
1. Is one source more clear or more appropriate for this grammar point and
group of students than the others? Why?
2. What basic information (terms, definitions, examples) will you need to pres-
ent? Which sources were most helpful in providing these?
3. What rules and strategies for avoiding errors might you include? Which
sources were most helpful in identifying these?
4. Did you find any discovery activities or editing exercises that might be helpful
for your lesson? How might you need to adapt these to accommodate your
students’ needs?

Developing a Language Mini-Lesson
If you have completed Application Activities 9.1–9.3, select one of the topics you
identified and develop a 20–30 minute mini-lesson on a specific grammar point
that might address the students’ needs. (If you did not complete the earlier activities,
pick one of the topics referred to in this chapter.) This mini-lesson must include the
following components: (a) discovery (text analysis) activity; (b) deductive explana-
tion of important terms and rules; and (c) practice and application activities (some
can be assigned as homework so that you can meet time constraints). (See Figures
9.7–9.9 and Appendix 9 for examples.) Begin your lesson with a brief overview of
procedures you would use to teach this lesson. This overview should include any
prior knowledge or previous instruction assumed as background for the lesson.
Appendix 9
Sample Common Errors Mini-Lesson
Word Choice
Word choice problems in academic writing can take at least three different forms:
1. Choosing the wrong word/phrase (wrong meaning for the context)

2. Choosing a word/phrase that is not “wrong” but could be more precise and clear
3. Choosing a word that is not “wrong” or “unclear” but which is too casual for
the academic context
Exercise: Examine the bolded examples below (which come from your own
papers) and decide which of the three error types the example represents. See if
you can suggest possible rewording/rewriting to make the sentence more accurate
or appropriate.
1. But like any election there are some abiding topics that consume the ears of
American citizens.
2. Health and education are other stern issues that are in the heads of American
voters.
3. However, candidates should have class and not even spend such amounts of
money on smear ads.
4. While some try to point out the characteristics of each candidate and who
they truly are, others go along with the loudmouths in the media mainstream.
5. We are at a time that calls for us to have an initiative leader rather one that
has a background and personality that is approved by all.
6. It is evident that this is a tough election.
7. Someone has to be wrong, and it’s a wonder which side is telling the truth.
8. After all, homosexual unions would not garnish the esteemed title of
marriage.
9. Prop 8 should prove to have similar affects.
10. Scrubbing out gay marriage would mean the state of California would lose
around $100,000.
11. And this choice is a mere alter in their personality.
Discussion: “Global” errors are serious and interfere with the comprehensibility
of a written text. “Local” errors may be annoying to a reader—especially if there
are many of them—but they usually do not impede the reader’s understanding.
Do you think word choice errors are global or local? Are some types of word
choice errors more global or local than others? Explain.
If you struggle in your own writing with word choice errors, what strategies
might you use to strengthen your word choice in the future? (These strategies
might be short term—for a paper/class you are working on right now—or long
term—for the future.) What advice would you give other students about develop-
ing an accurate, clear, and appropriate vocabulary for academic writing?
Notes
1. Ferris (2002, pp. 99–100) provides guidelines for the selection and adaptation of text
models for mini-lessons. These include considerations of whether to use papers writ-
ten by students presently in the class, whether to correct errors, and whether the use of
“good” or “bad” student models is more effective.
2. An acquaintance of one of the authors recently shared an anecdote about a student from
outside the United States who emailed about her interest in pursuing a Ph.D. at the friend’s
university, explaining that she was “pregnant” with her master’s degree. We speculated that
an online translator must have changed “expecting” in the L1 to “pregnant” in English!
3. Ideas from this section on evaluating lexical variety in writing are adapted from Ferris
(2014).
4. One of the authors was teaching a mini-lesson on subject–verb agreement in a writing
course and attempted to elicit students’ prior knowledge on the topic. A student help-
fully raised his hand and said “If the noun has an ‘s,’ the verb must also have an ‘s’—so
they agree!”
5. This example is adapted from Ferris (2014).
Bibliography
Abasi, A. R., Akbari, N., & Graves, B. (2006). Discourse appropriation, construction of iden-
tities, and the complex issue of plagiarism: ESL students writing in graduate school.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 102–117.
Abu-Akel, A. (1997). On reading-writing relationships in first and foreign languages. JALT
Journal, 19, 198–216.
Ackerman, J. M. (1991). Reading, writing, and knowing: The role of disciplinary knowledge
in comprehension and composing. Research in the Teaching of English, 25, 133–177.
Adam, C., & Artemeva, N. (2002). Writing instruction in English for academic purposes
(EAP) classes: Introducing second language learners to the academic community.
In A. M. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 179–196).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Adler-Kassner, L., & O’Neill, P. (2010). Reframing writing assessment to improve teaching and
learning. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.
Ager, S. (2013). Sumerian [Webpage]. Retrieved from http://www.omniglot.com/writing/
sumerian.htm
Akamatsu, N. (2003). The effects of first language orthographic features in second language
reading in text. Language Learning, 53, 207–231.
Albertinti, J. (2008). Teaching of writing and diversity: Access, identity, and achievement. In
C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing: History, society, school, individual,
text (pp. 387–397). New York, NY: Routledge.
Albrechtsen, D., Haastrup, K., & Henriksen, B. (2008). Developing writing competence and
vocabulary: Comparing L1 and L2 processes. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Alderson, J. (1984). Reading in a foreign language: A reading problem or a language prob-
lem? In J. Alderson & A. Urquhart (Eds.), Reading in a foreign language (pp. 1–27). New
York, NY: Longman.
Algeo, J. (2010). The origins and development of the English language (6th ed.). Boston, MA:
Wadsworth.
354 Bibliography
Aliakbari, M. (2002). Writing in a foreign language: A writing problem or a language prob-

lem? Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics Journal, 6, 157–168.
Allwright, D. (1988). Observation in the language classroom. London, England: Longman.
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2012). ACTFL proficiency guidelines
2012. Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved from http://actflproficiencyguidelines2012.org
Amsel, E., & Byrnes, J. P. (Eds.). (2002). Language, literacy, and cognitive development.
Anderson, J. A., & Murphy, S. W. (2004). Bringing the writing center into the classroom: A
case study of writing groups. In B. J. Moss, N. P. Highberg, & M. Nicholas (Eds.), Writing
groups inside and outside the classroom (pp. 47–62). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Anderson, N. J., & Pearson, P. D. (1988). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in read-
ing comprehension. In P. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to
second language reading (pp. 37–55). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Andrews, R. (2010). Reframing literacy: Teaching and learning in English and the language
arts. London, England: Routledge.
Angelova, M., & Riazantseva, A. (1999). “If you don’t tell me, how can I know?” A case study
of four international students learning to write in the U.S. way. Written Communica-
tion, 16, 491–525.
Anson, C. (2003). Distant voices: Teaching and writing in a culture of technology. In V.
Villanueva (Ed.), Cross-talk in comp theory: A reader (pp. 797–818). Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Anson, C. M. (Ed.). (1989). Writing and response: Theory, practice, and research. Urbana,
IL: NCTE.
Anson, C. M. (2000). Response and the social construction of error. Assessing Writing, 7, 5–21.
Anson, C. M. (2002a). Reflection, faculty development, and writing across the curriculum:
The power of the scene. In C. M. Anson (Ed.), The WAC casebook: Scenes for faculty re-
flection and program development (pp. ix-xxii). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Anson, C. M. (Ed.). (2002b). The WAC casebook: Scenes for faculty reflection and program
development. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Antón, M. (2012). Dynamic assessment. In G. Fulcher & F. Davidson (Eds.), Routledge
handbook of language testing (pp. 106–119). London, England: Routledge.
Applebee, A. N. (1981). Writing in the secondary school (NCTE Research Rep. No. 21). Ur-
bana, IL: NCTE.
Aranha, S. (2009). The development of a genre-based writing course for graduate students
in two fields. In C. Bazerman, A. Bonini, & D. Figueiredo (Eds.), Genre in a changing
world (pp. 465–482). West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
Archibald, O. (2011). The personal essay as a tool to teach academic writing. In M. C. Pen-
nington & P. Burton (Eds.), The college writing toolkit: Tried and tested ideas for teaching
college writing (pp. 21–40). London, England: Equinox.
Argys, R. (2008). One more thing: Can we teach process and formulaic response? English
Journal, 97 (3), 97–101.
Arndt, V. (1993). Response to writing: Using feedback to inform the writing process. In M.
N. Brock & L. Walters (Eds.), Teaching composition around the Pacific Rim: Politics &
pedagogy (pp. 90–116). Clevedon, Avon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Aro, M. (2006). Learning to read: The effect of orthography. In R. Malatesha Joshi & P. G.
Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 531–550). Mahwah, NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum.
Ascher, A. (1993). Think about editing. Boston, MA: Heinle.
Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft com-
position classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method?
Atkinson, D. (1999). Culture in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 625–654.
Bibliography 355
Atkinson, D. (2000). On Peter Elbow’s response to “individualism, academic writing, and

ESL writers,” by Vai Ramanathan and Dwight Atkinson. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 9, 71–76.
Atkinson, D. (Guest Ed.). (2003a). L2 writing in the post-process era [Special issue]. Journal
of Second Language Writing, 12 (1).
Atkinson, D. (2003b). L2 writing in the post-process era: Introduction. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 12, 3–15.
Atkinson, D. (2004). Contrasting rhetorics/contrasting cultures: Why contrastive rhetoric
needs a better conceptualization of culture. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3,
277–289.
Atkinson, D. (2010). Between theory with a big T and practice with a small p. In T. Silva
& P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Practicing theory in second language writing (pp. 5–18). West
Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
Atkinson, D., & Connor, U. (2008). Multilingual writing development. In C. Bazerman (Ed.),
Handbook of research on writing: History, society, school, individual, text (pp. 515–532).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Atkinson, D., & Ramanathan, V. (1995). Cultures of writing: An ethnographic comparison
of L1 and L2 university writing/language programs. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 539–568.
Attali, Y., Bridgeman, B., & Trapani, C. (2010). Performance of a generic approach in essay
scoring. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 10 (3), 4–16. Retrieved from
http://escholarship.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/jtla/issue/view/142
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2008). Developing reading and writing in second-language
learners. New York, NY: Routledge.
Babin, E. H., & Harrison, K. (1999). Contemporary composition studies: A guide to theorists
and terms. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford, England: Ox-
ford University Press.
Baddeley, A. (1997). Human memory: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Psychology
Press.
Bailey, K. M., Curtis, A., & Nunan, D. (2001). Pursuing professional development: The self as
source. Boston, MA: Heinle.
Bailey, K. M., & Santos, M.G. (Eds.). (2009). Research on ESL in community colleges: People,
programs, and potential. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Baker, E. A. (Ed.). (2010). The new literacies: Multiple perspectives on research and practice.
New York, NY: Guilford.
Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. (M. Holquist, Ed. & C. Emerson, Trans.) Austin,
TX: University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Bamberg, B. (2012). Revision. I. Clark (Ed.), Concepts in composition: Theory and practice in
the teaching of writing (2nd ed., pp. 80–99). New York, NY: Routledge.
Barnett, R. W., & Blumner, J. S. (Eds.). (2008). Writing centers and writing across the curricu-
lum programs: Building interdisciplinary partnerships. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Barnett, T. (2002). Teaching argument in the composition course: Background readings. Bos-
ton, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Barnhouse, D., & Vinton, V. (2012). What readers really do: Teaching the process of meaning
making. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Baron, D. (2009). A better pencil: Readers, writers, and the digital revolution. Oxford, Eng-
land: Oxford University Press.
Bartholomae, D. (1985). Inventing the university. In M. Rose (Ed.), When a writer can’t
write: Studies in writer’s block and other composing process problems (pp. 134–165). New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
356 Bibliography
Bartholomae, D. G. (1980). The study of error. College Composition and Communication, 31, 253–269.
Bartlett, C. (1932). Remembering. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Barton, D. (2007). Literacy: An introduction to the ecology of written language (2nd ed.).
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (2004). Literacy, reification, and the dynamics of social interac-
tion. In D. Barton & K. Tusting (Eds.), Beyond communities of practice: Language, power,
and social context (pp. 14–35). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Barton, D., Hamilton, M., & Ivaniþ, R. (Eds.). (2000). Situated literacies: Reading and writing
in context. London, England: Routledge.
Barton, D., Ivaniþ, R., Appleby, Y., Hodge, R., & Tusting, K. (2007). Literacy, lives, and learn-
ing. New York, NY: Routledge.
Barton, D., & Lee, C. (2013). Language online: Investigating digital texts and practices. Lon-
don, England: Routledge.
Bates, L., Lane, J., & Lange, E. (1993). Writing clearly: Responding to ESL compositions. Boston,
MA: Heinle.
Bauer, T. (1996). Arabic writing. In P. Daniels & W. Bright (Eds.), The world’s writing systems
(pp. 559–564). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Bawarshi, A., & Reiff, M. (2010). Genre: An introduction to history, theory, research, and peda-
gogy. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
Bax, S. (2011a). Discourse and genre: Analysing language in context. London, England: Pal-
grave Macmillan.
Bax, S. (2011b). Discourse and genre: Using language in context. New York, NY: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Bazerman, C. (1985). The informed writer: Using sources in the disciplines. Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin.
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental
article in science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Bazerman, C. (1994). Systems of genres and the enactment of social intentions. In A. Freedman
& P. Medway (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 79–101). London, England: Routledge.
Bazerman, C. (1998). The languages of Edison’s light. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Bazerman, C. (2004a). Intertextuality: How texts rely on other texts. In C. Bazerman & P.
Prior (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and
textual practices (pp. 83–96). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bazerman, C. (2004b). Speech acts, genres, and activity systems: How texts organize activ-
ity and people. In C. Bazerman & P. Prior (Eds.), What writing does and how it does
it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual practices (pp. 309–339). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bazerman, C. (2006). The writing of social organization and the literate situating of cogni-
tion. In D. Olson & M. Cole (Eds.), Technology, literacy, and the evolution of society (pp.
215–240). New York, NY: Routledge.
Bazerman, C. (Ed.). (2008). Handbook of research on writing: History, society, school, indi-
vidual, text. New York, NY: Routledge.
Bazerman, C. (2009). Genre and cognitive development: Beyond writing to learn. In C. Baz-
erman, A. Bonini, & D. Figueiredo, D. (Eds.), Genre in a changing world (pp. 283–298).
West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
Bazerman, C., Bonini, A., & Figueiredo, D. (Eds.). (2009). Genre in a changing world. West
Bazerman, C., Little, J., Bethel, L., Chawkin, T., Fouquette, D., & Garufis, J. (2005). Reference
guide to writing across the curriculum. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
Beach, R., Anson, C., Breuch, L.-A. K., & Swiss, T. (2008). Teaching writing using blogs, wikis,
and other digital tools. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
Bibliography 357
Beach, R., Clemens, L., & Jamsen, K. (2009). Digital tools: Assessing digital communica-
tion and providing feedback to student writers. In A. Burke & R. F. Hammett (Eds.),
Assessing new literacies: Perspectives from the classroom (pp. 157–176). New York, NY:
Peter Lang.
Beach, R., & Liebman-Kleine, J. (1986). The writing/reading relationship: Becoming one’s
own best reader. In B. T. Petersen (Ed.), Convergences: Transactions in reading and writ-
ing (pp. 64–81). Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Bean, J. C. (2011). Engaging ideas: The professor’s guide to integrating writing, critical think-
ing, and active learning in the classroom (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Beaufort, A. (2007). College writing and beyond: A new framework for university writing in-
struction. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.
Bedard, C., & Fuhrken, C. (2013). When writing with technology matters. Portland, ME:
Stenhouse.
Bednarek, M., & Martin, J. R. (Eds.). (2010). New discourse on language: Functional perspec-
tives on multimodality, identity, and affiliation. London, England: Continuum.
Belanger, J. (1987). Theory and research into reading and writing connections: A critical
review. Reading-Canada-Lecture, 5, 10–18.
Belanoff, P., & Dickson, M. (Eds.). (1991). Portfolios: Process and product. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann/Boynton Cook.
Belanoff, P., & Elbow, P. (1986). Using portfolios to increase collaboration and community
in a writing program. Writing Program Administration, 9, 27–40.
Belcher, D. (1991). Nonnative writing in a corporate setting. The Technical Writing Teacher,
18, 104–115.
Belcher, D. (1997). An argument for nonadversarial argumentation: On the relevance of
the feminist critique of academic discourse to L2 writing pedagogy. Journal of Second
Belcher, D. (Ed.). (2009a). English for specific purposes in theory and practice. Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press.
Belcher, D. (2009b). What ESP is and can be. In D. Belcher (Ed.), English for specific purposes
in theory and practice (pp. 1–20). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Belcher, D., & Braine, G. (Eds.). (1995). Academic writing in a second language. Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Belcher, D., & Hirvela, A. (Eds.). (2001a). Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading-
writing connections. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Belcher, D., & Hirvela, A. (Eds.). (2001b). Voice in L2 writing [Special issue]. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 10 (1).
Belcher, D., & Hirvela, A. (Eds.). (2008). The oral/literate connection: Perspectives on L2
speaking, writing, and other media interaction. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan
Press.
Belcher, D., Johns, A. M., & Paltridge, B. (Eds.). (2011). New directions in English for specific
purposes research. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Benesch, S. (1995). Genres and processes in a sociocultural context. Journal of Second Lan-
guage Writing, 4, 191–195.
Benesch, S. (2001). Critical English for academic purposes: Theory, politics, and practice.
Bennett, G. (2010). Using corpora in the language learning classroom. Ann Arbor, MI: Uni-
versity of Michigan Press.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1984). Learning about writing from reading. Written Com-
munication, 1, 163–188.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
358 Bibliography
Bereiter, C., Burtis, P. J., & Scardamalia, M. (1988). Cognitive operations in constructing
main points in written composition. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 261–278.
Berg, E. C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and
writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 215–241.
Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Berlin, J. (1987). Rhetoric and reality: Writing instruction in American colleges, 1900–1985.
Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Berlin, J., & Inkster, R. (1980). Current-traditional rhetoric: Paradigm and practice. Fresh-
man English News, 8, 1–5, 14.
Berlin, J. A. (1988). Rhetoric and ideology in the writing class. College English, 50, 477–494.
Berlin, L. N. (2005). Contextualizing college ESL classroom praxis: A participatory approach
to effective instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Berman, R., & Ravid, D. (2009). Becoming a literate language user: Oral and written text
construction across adolescence. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), Cambridge hand-
book of literacy (pp. 92–111). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Bernhardt, E. B. (1991). Reading development in a second language: Theoretical, empirical,
and classroom perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Bernhardt, E. B. (2010). Understanding advanced second-language reading. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Bernhardt, E. B., & Kamil, M. L. (1995). Interpreting relationships between L1 and L2 read-
ing: Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the linguistic interdependence hypoth-
eses. Applied Linguistics, 16, 15–34.
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. London, England:
Longman.
Bhatia, V. K. (1999). Integrating products, processes, purposes, and participants in profes-
sional writing. In C. N. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes, and prac-
tices (pp. 21–39). London, England: Longman.
Bhatia, V. K. (2002). A generic view of academic discourse. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic
discourse (pp. 21–39). Harlow, England: Longman.
Bhatia, V. K. (2004). Worlds of written discourse: A genre-based view. London England: Con-
tinuum.
Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. Cam-
bridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge, England: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Biber, D. (1995). Cross-linguistic patterns of register variation: A multi-dimensional comparison of
English, Tuvaluan, Korean, and Somali. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D. (2006). University English: A corpus-based study of written and spoken registers.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Biber, D. (2009). Are there linguistic consequences of literacy: Comparing the potentials
of language use in speech and writing. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), Cambridge
handbook of literacy (pp. 75–91). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at . . . : Lexical bundles in university
teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25, 371–405.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language struc-
ture and use. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., & Helt, M. (2002). Speaking and writing in the
university: A multi-dimensional comparison. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 9–48.
Biber, D., Johansson, C., Leech, S., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). The Longman grammar
of spoken and written English. London, England: Longman.
Bibliography 359
Birch, B. M. (2007). English L2 reading: Getting to the bottom (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum.
Bishop, W., & Ostrom, H. (Eds.). (1997). Genre and writing: Issues, arguments, alternatives.
Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second
Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition
and writing. New York, NY: Routledge.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and
international students. Language Teaching Research, 12, 409–431.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The value of a focused approach to written corrective
feedback. ELT Journal, 63, 204–211.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010a). The contribution of written corrective feedback to lan-
guage development: A ten-month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31, 193–214.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010b). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writ-
ers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 207–217.
Bitchener, J., Young, S. & Cameron, D. (2005). The effectiveness of different types of
corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14,
191–205.
Bizzell, P. (1992). Academic discourse and critical consciousness. Pittsburgh, PA: University
of Pittsburgh Press.
Bizzell, P. (Ed.). (2006). Rhetorical agendas: Political, ethical, spiritual. Mahwah, NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum.
Blanton, L. (1995). Elephants and paradigms: Conversations about teaching L2 writing.
College ESL, 5 (1), 1–21.
Blanton, L. (2005). Student, interrupted: A tale of two would-be writers. Journal of Second
Blanton, L. L., Kroll, B., Cumming, A., & Erickson, M. (2002). ESL composition tales: Reflec-
tions on teaching. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Bleich, D. (1978). Subjective criticism. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Bloch, J. (2001). Plagiarism and the ESL student: From printed to electronic texts. In
D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading-writing con-
nections (pp. 209–228). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Bloch, J. (2008). Technologies in the second language composition classroom. Ann Arbor, MI:
Block, C. C., & Pressley, M. (2007). Best practices in teaching comprehension. In L. B. Gam-
brell, L. M. Morrow, & Pressley, M. (Eds.), Best practices in literacy instruction (3rd ed.,
pp. 220–242). New York, NY: Guilford.
Blommaert, J., Street, B., & Turner, J. (2007). Academic literacies: What have we achieved
and where to from here? Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4, 137–148.
Bloom, L. Z., Daiker, D. A., & White, E. M. (Eds.). (1997). Composition in the 21st century:
Crisis and change. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Borg, S. (2009). Language teacher cognition. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The Cam-
bridge guide to second language teacher education (pp. 144–152). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Borich, G. (2010). Observation skills for effective teaching (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Bosher, S. (1998). The composing process of three Southeast Asian writers at the post-
secondary level: An exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 205–241.
Bossers, B. (1991). On thresholds, ceilings and short-circuits: The relation between L1 read-
ing, L2 reading, and L2 knowledge. AILA Review, 8, 45–60.
360 Bibliography
Bosworth, K., & Hamilton, S. J. (Eds.). (1994). Collaborative learning: Underlying processes
and effective techniques. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power (J.B. Thompson, Ed. and G. Raymond,
Trans.). Cambridge, England: Blackwell.
Bowen, T., & Whithaus, C. (Eds.). (2013). Multimodal literacies and emerging genres. Pitts-
burgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Bowden, D. (1999). The mythology of voice. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Bowden, D. (2012). Voice. In I. Clark (Ed.), Concepts in composition: Theory and practice in
the teaching of writing (2nd ed., pp. 227–266). New York, NY: Routledge.
Bracewell, R. J., & Witte, S. P. (2008). Implications of practice, activity, and semiotic theory
for cognitive constructs of writing. In J. Albright & A. Luke (Eds.), Pierre Bourdieu and
literacy education (pp. 299–316). New York, NY: Routledge.
Braine, G. (1996). ESL students in first-year writing courses: ESL versus mainstream classes.
Brannon, L., Courtney, J. P., Urbanski, C. P., Woodward, S. V., Reynolds, J. M., Iannone, A.
E., . . . Kendrick, M. (2008). The five-paragraph essay and the deficit model of educa-
tion. English Journal, 98 (2), 16–21.
Brannon, L., & Knoblauch, C. H. (1982). On students’ rights to their own texts: A model of
teacher response. College Composition and Communication, 33, 157–166.
Bräuer, G. (2000a). Product, process, and the writer within: History of a paradigm shift. In
G. Bräuer (Ed.), Writing across languages (pp. 15–22). Stamford, CT: Ablex.
Bräuer, G. (Ed.). (2000b). Writing across languages. Stamford, CT: Ablex.
Breen, M. (1987). Contemporary paradigms in syllabus design. Language Teaching, 20,
81–92.
Breen, M., & Littlejohn, A. (2000). Classroom decision-making. Cambridge, England: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Bregman, A., & Haythornthwaite, C. (2001). Radicals of presentation in persistent conver-
sation. Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-
ences. Retrieved from http://www.visi.com/˜snowfall/HICSS_PC_History.html
Brett, D., & González-Lloret, M. (2011). Technology-enhanced materials. In M. H. Long &
C. J. Doughty (Eds.), Handbook of language teaching (pp. 351–369). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Brindley, G. (1984). Needs analysis and objective setting in the Adult Migrant Education Pro-
gram. Sydney, Australia: Adult Migrant Education Service.
Brindley, G. (1998). Describing language development? Rating scales and second language
acquisition. In L. F. Bachman & A.D. Cohen (Eds.), Interfaces between SLA and language
testing research (pp. 112–114). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Brinton, D. (2014). Tools and techniques of effective second/foreign language teach-
ing. In M. Celce-Murcia, D. M. Brinton, & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a
second or foreign language (4th ed., pp. 340–361). Boston, MA: National Geographic
Learning.
Brinton, D. M., Snow, M. A., & Wesche, M. B. (1989). Content-based language instruction.
Boston, MA: Heinle.
Brisk, M. E., & Harrington, M. M. (2000). Literacy and bilingualism. A handbook for ALL
teachers. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Broad, B., Adler-Kassner, L., Alford, B., Detweiler, J., Estrem, H., Harrington, S., . . . Weeden,
S. (2009). Organic writing assessment: Dynamic criteria mapping in action. Logan, UT:
Utah State University Press.
Brooks, N. (1964). Language and language learning. New York, NY: Harcourt.
Brown, B., Adler-Kassner, L., Alford, B., Detweiler, J., Estrem, H., Harrington, S., . . .Weeden,
S. (2009). Organic writing assessment: Dynamic criteria mapping in action. Logan, UT:
Bibliography 361
Brown, D. (2012). The written corrective feedback debate: Next steps for classroom teachers
and practitioners. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 861–867.
Brown, H. D. (2006). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). White Plains,
NY: Pearson Education.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles (3rd ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
Brown, H. D., & Abeywickrama, P. (2012). Language assessment principles and classroom
practices (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson/Longman.
Brown, J. D. (1995). The elements of language curriculum: A systematic approach to program
development. Boston, MA: Heinle.
Brown, J. D. (1997). Designing surveys for language programs. In D. Nunan & D. Griffee
(Eds.), Classroom teachers and classroom research (pp. 55–70). Tokyo, Japan: Japan As-
sociation for Language Teaching.
Brown, J. D. (2001). Using surveys in language programs. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Brown, J. D. (2011). Foreign and second language needs analysis. In M. H. Long & C. J.
Doughty (Eds.), Handbook of language teaching (pp. 269–293). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Brown, J. D. (2012). EIL curriculum development. In L. Alsagoff, S. L., McKay, G. Hu, &
W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Principles and practices for teaching English as an international
language (pp. 147–167). New York, NY: Routledge.
Brown, J. D., & Rodgers, T. S. (2002). Doing second language research. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Bruce, I. (2005). Syllabus design for general EAP writing courses: A cognitive approach.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4, 239–256.
Bruce, I. (2008). Academic writing and genre: A systematic analysis. London, England: Con-
tinuum.
Bruce, I. (2011). Theory and concepts of English for academic purposes. New York, NY: Pal-
grave Macmillan.
Bruce, S., & Rafoth, B. (Eds.). (2009). ESL writers: A guide for writing center tutors (2nd ed.).
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Boynton/Cook.
Bruffee, K. A. (1984a). Collaborative learning and the “conversation of mankind.” College
English, 46, 635–652.
Bruffee, K. A. (1984b). Peer tutoring and the “conversation of mankind.” In G. A. Olson
(Ed.), Writing centers: Theory and administration (pp. 3–15). Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Bruffee, K. A. (1986). Social construction, language, and the authority of knowledge—A
bibliographical essay. College English, 48, 773–790.
Bruffee, K. A. (1993). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the au-
thority of knowledge. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Bruner, J. S. (1962). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruton, A. (2009). Designing research into the effect of error correction in L2 writing: Not
so straightforward. Journal of Second Language Writing 18, 136–140.
Buckingham, T. (1981). Needs assessment in ESL. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Burke, A., & Hammett, R. F. (Eds.). (2009). Assessing new literacies: Perspectives from the
classroom. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Burnham, C. (2001). Expressive pedagogy: Practice/theory, theory/practice. In G. Tate, A.
Rupiper, & K. Schick (Eds.), A guide to composition pedagogies (pp. 19–35). Oxford,
England: Oxford University Press.
Burnham, C. C., & French, M. G. (1999). Writing to learn in science journals: Help for the
“homeless in the universe.” In S. Gardner & T. Fulwiler (Eds.), The journal book for at-
risk college writers (pp. 73–89). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Burns, A., & Duran, J. (2007). Media literacy in schools: Practice, production, and progression.
London, England: Paul Chapman.
362 Bibliography
Burns, A., & Joyce, H. (1997). Focus on speaking. Sydney, Australia: NCELTR.
Burns, A., & Varshney, R. (2012). Doing qualitative research in TESOL: A guide for new re-
searchers. New York, NY: Routledge.
Byrd, P., & Bunting, J. (2008). Myth 3: Where grammar is concerned, one size fits all. In
J. Reid (Ed.), Writing myths: Applying second language research to classroom teaching (pp.
42–69). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Byrd, P., & Reid, J. M. (1998). Grammar in the composition classroom. Boston, MA: Heinle.
Byrd, P., & Schuemann, C. (2014). English as a second/foreign language textbooks: How
to choose them—How to use them. In M. Celce-Murcia, D. M. Brinton, & M. A. Snow
(Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (4th ed., pp. 380–393). Boston,
MA: National Geographic Learning.
Byrne, B. (1998). The foundation of literacy: The child’s acquisition of the alphabetic principle.
East Sussex, England: Psychology Press.
Cahill, D. (2009). Contrastive rhetoric: Orientalism and the Chinese second language writer.
Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag.
Calfee, R., & Perfumo, P. (1996). A national survey of writing portfolio practice: What
we learned and what it means. In R. Calfee & P. Perfumo (Eds.), Writing portfolios
in the classroom: Policy and practice, promise and peril (pp. 63–81). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Calkins, L., Ehrenworth, M., & Lehman, C. (2012). Pathways to the common core: Accelerat-
ing achievement. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Callahan, S. (1995). Portfolio expectations: Possibilities and limits. Assessing Writing, 2,
117–151.
Cambridge, D., Cambridge, B., & Yancey, K. B. (2009). Electronic portfolios 2.0: Emergent
research on implementation and impact. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Camp, R. (1993). Changing the model for direct assessment of writing. In M. Williamson
& B. Huot (Eds.), Holistic scoring: Theoretical foundations and validation research (pp.
56–69). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Campbell, K. H., & Latimer, K. (2012). Beyond the five-paragraphy essay. Portland, ME:
Stenhouse.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2002a). Critical academic writing and multilingual students. Ann Arbor,
MI: University of Michigan Press.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2002b). A geopolitics of academic writing. Pittsburgh, PA: University of
Pittsburgh Press.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2004). Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Canagarajah, S. (2010). Ideology and theory in second language writing: A dialogical treat-
ment. In T. Silva & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Practicing theory in second language writing (pp.
176–190). West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
Canagarajah, S. (2012). Translingual practices: Lingua franca English and global citizenship.
Candlin, C. N., & Hyland, K. (Ed.). (1999). Writing: Texts, processes, and practices. London,
England: Longman.
Caplan, N. (2012). Grammar choices for graduate and professional writers. Ann Arbor, MI:
Carnicelli, T. (1980). The writing conference: A one-to-one conversation. In T. Donovan &
B. McClelland (Eds.), Eight approaches to teaching composition (pp. 101–131). Urbana,
IL: NCTE.
Carrell, P. L. (1983a). Three components of background knowledge in reading comprehen-
sion. Language Learning, 33, 183–207.
Bibliography 363
Carrell, P. L. (1983b). Background knowledge in second language comprehension. Lan-

guage Learning and Communication, 2, 25–34.
Carrell, P. L. (1983c). Three components of background knowledge in reading comprehen-
sion. Language Learning, 33, 183–207.
Carrell, P. L. (1984a). The effects of rhetorical organization on ESL readers. TESOL Quar-
terly, 18, 441–469.
Carrell, P. L. (1984b). Evidence of formal schema in second language comprehension. Lan-
guage Learning, 34, 87–112.
Carrell, P. L. (1984c). Schema theory and ESL reading: Classroom implications and applica-
tions. Modern Language Journal, 68, 332–343.
Carrell, P. L. (1987). Content and formal schemata in ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 461–481.
Carrell, P. L. (1988). Some causes of text-boundedness and schema interference in ESL
reading. In P. L. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second
language reading (pp. 101–113). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Carrell, P. L. (1991). Second language reading: Reading ability or language proficiency? Ap-
plied Linguistics, 12, 159–179.
Carrell, P. L. (1993). Evidence of a formal schema in second language comprehension. In
J. W. Oller (Ed.), Methods that work: Ideas for literacy and language teachers (2nd ed., pp.
191–205). Boston, MA: Heinle.
Carrell, P., & Eisterhold, J. (1983). Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. TESOL Quar-
terly, 17, 553–573.
Carroll, L. A. (2002). Rehearsing new roles: How college students develop as writers. Carbon-
dale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Carson, J. E. (1993). Reading for writing: Cognitive perspectives. In J. G. Carson & I. Leki
(Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom: Second language perspectives (pp. 85–104).
Boston, MA: Heinle.
Carson, J. E. (2001). A task analysis of reading and writing in academic contexts. In
D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading-writing con-
nections (pp. 48–83). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Carson, J. E., Carrell, P. L., Silberstein, S., Kroll, B., & Kuehn, P. A. (1990). Reading-writing
relationships in first and second language. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 245–266.
Carson, J. E., & Kuehn, P. (1992). Evidence of transfer and loss in developing second lan-
guage writers. Language Learning, 42, 157–182.
Carson, J. E., & Leki, I. (Eds.). (1993). Reading in the composition classroom: Second language
perspectives. Boston, MA: Heinle.
Carson, J. E., & Nelson, G. L. (1994). Writing groups: Cross-cultural issues. Journal of Sec-
ond Language Writing, 3, 17–30.
Carson, J. E., & Nelson, G. L. (1996). Chinese students’ perceptions of ESL peer response
group interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 1–19.
Carter, A., Lillis, T., & Parkin, S. (Eds.). (2009). Why writing matters: Issues of access and identity in
writing research and pedagogy. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Carter, M. (2007). Ways of knowing, doing, and writing. College Composition and Com-
Casanave, C. P. (2002). Writing games: Multicultural case studies of academic literacy practices
in higher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Casanave, C. P. (2003). Looking ahead to more sociopolitically-oriented case study research
in L2 writing scholarship (But should it be called “post-process”?). Journal of Second
Casanave, C. P. (2004). Controversies in second language writing: Dilemmas and decisions in
research and instruction. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
364 Bibliography
Casanave, C. P. (2011). Journal writing in second language education. Ann Arbor, MI: Uni-
versity of Michigan Press.
Casanave, C. P. (2012). Controversy and change in how we view L2 writing in international
contexts. In L. Alsagoff, S. L., McKay, G. Hu, & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Principles and
practices for teaching English as an international language (pp. 282–298). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Casanave, C. P., & Li, X. (Eds.). (2008). Learning the literacy practices of graduate school:
Insiders’ reflections on academic enculturation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan
Press.
Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., & Snow, M. A. (Eds.). (2014). Teaching English as a second
or foreign language (4th ed.). Boston, MA: National Geographic Learning.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s
course (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Olshtain, E. (2000). Discourse and context in language teaching. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Chaiklin, S. (2003). The Zone of Proximal Development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning
and instruction. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s
educational theory in cultural context (pp. 39–63). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the
accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12,
267–296.
Chao, Y.-C. J. (2008). Contrastive rhetoric, lexico-grammatical knowledge, writing expertise,
and metacognitive knowledge. Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag.
Chapelle, C. (2011). Validation in language assessment. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of
research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. II, pp. 717–730). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Chen, H., & Graves, M. F. (1995). Effects of previewing and providing background knowl-
edge on Taiwanese college students’ comprehension of American short stories. TESOL
Quarterly, 29, 663–686.
Cherry, R. D., & Meyer, P. R. (1993). Reliability issues in holistic assessment. In M. M. Wil-
liamson & B. A. Huot (Eds.), Validating holistic scoring for writing assessment: Theoreti-
cal and empirical foundations (pp. 109–141). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Chiang, S. Y. (1999). Assessing grammatical and textual features in L2 writing samples: The
case of French as a foreign language. Modern Language Journal, 83, 219–232.
Chiang, Y.-S., & Schmida, M. (1999). Language identity and language ownership: Linguistic
conflicts of first-year university writing students. In L. Harklau, K. Losey, & M. Siegal
(Eds.), Generation 1.5 meets college composition (pp. 81–96). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Chikamatsu, N. (1996). The effects of L1 orthography on L2 word recognition: A study of Amer-
ican and Chinese learners of Japanese. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 403–432.
Ching, R., McKee, S., & Ford, R. (1996). Passages between the community college and the
California State University. CATESOL Journal, 9, 79–98.
Chitiri, H.-F., Sun, Y., Willows, D. M., & Taylor, I. (1992). Word recognition in second-
language reading. In R. J. Harris (Eds.), Cognitive processing in bilinguals (pp. 283–297).
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science.
Christel, M., & Sullivan, S. (2010). Lesson plans for developing digital literacies. Urbana, IL:
NCTE.
Christie, F. (1987). Genres as choice. In I. Reid (Ed.), The place of genre in learning: Current
debates (pp. 22–34). Deakin, Australia: Deakin University Press.
Bibliography 365
Christie, F. (1989). Language and education. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Christie, F., & Martin, J. R. (Eds.). (1997). Genre and institutions: Social processes in the work-
place and school. London, England: Continuum.
Chuy, M., Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2012). Development of ideational writing
through knowledge building: Theoretical and empirical bases. In E. L. Grigorenko,
E. Mambrino, & D. D. Preiss (Eds.), Handbook of writing: A mosaic of perspectives and
views (pp. 175–190). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Cimasko, T., & Reichelt, M. (2011a). Introduction. In T. Cimasko & M. Reichelt (Eds.),
Foreign language writing instruction: Principles and practices (pp. vii–xii). Anderson, SC:
Parlor Press.
Cimasko, T., & Reichelt, M. (Eds). (2011b). Foreign language writing instruction: Principles
and practices. Anderson, SC: Parlor Press.
Clachar, A. (1999). It’s not just cognition: The effect of emotion on multiple-level discourse
processing in second-language writing. Language Sciences, 21, 31–60.
Clark, I. (2012). Concepts in composition: Theory and practice in the teaching of writing (2nd
ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Clarke, D. F. (1991). The negotiated syllabus: What is it and how is it likely to work? Applied
Linguistics, 12, 13–28.
Clughen, L., & Hardy, C. (2012). Writing in the disciplines: Building supportive cultures for
student writing in UK higher education. Bingley, England: Emerald Group.
Coe, R. M. (1987). An apology for form: Or, who took the form out of process? College
English, 49, 13–28.
Cohen, A. (1987). Student processing of feedback on their compositions. In A. L. Wenden
& J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 57–69). Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Cohen, A. (1994). Assessing language ability in the classroom (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle.
Cohen, A., & Cavalcanti, M. (1990). Feedback on written compositions: Teacher and stu-
dent verbal reports. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the
classroom (pp. 155–177). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, A. D., & Robbins, M. (1976). Toward assessing interlanguage performance: The re-
lationship between selected errors, learners’ characteristics, and learners’ expectations.
Language Learning, 26, 45–66.
Cole, M., & Cole, J. (2006). Rethinking the Goody myth. In D. R. Olson & M. Cole (Eds.),
Technology, literacy, and the evolution of society: Implications of the work of Jack Goody
(pp. 305–324). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Comber, B., & Simpson, A. (Eds.). (2001). Negotiating critical literacies in classrooms.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English
language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Retrieved
from http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards
Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC). (2006). Writing assess-
ment: A position statement. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/cccc/resources/posi-
tions/writingassessment
Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC). (2009). Statement on
second-language writing and writers (revised version). Retrieved from http://www.ncte
.org/cccc/resources/positions/secondlangwriting
Connelly, F. M., He, M. F., & Phillion, J. (Eds.). (2008). SAGE handbook of curriculum and
instruction. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second-language writing.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
366 Bibliography
Connor, U. (2003). Changing currents in contrastive rhetoric: Implications for teaching and
research. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 218–241).
Connor, U. (2004). Intercultural rhetoric research: Beyond texts. Journal of English for Aca-
demic Purposes, 4, 291–304.
Connor, U. (2011). Intercultural rhetoric in the writing classroom. Ann Arbor, MI: University
of Michigan Press.
Connor, U., & Asenavage, K. (1994). Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How
much impact on revision? Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 257–276.
Connor, U., & Kaplan, R. B. (Eds.). (1987). Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Connor, U., Nagelhout, E., & Rozycki, W. V. (Eds.). (2008). Contrastive rhetoric: Reaching to
intercultural rhetoric. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Connor-Linton, J. (2006). Writing. In R. W. Fasold & J. Connor-Linton (Eds.), An introduc-
tion to language and linguistics (pp. 401–432). Cambridge, England: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Connors, R., & Lunsford, A.A. (1988). Frequency of formal errors in current college writing,
or Ma and Pa Kettle do research. College Composition and Communication, 39, 395–409.
Connors, R. J. (1997). Composition-rhetoric: Backgrounds, theory, and pedagogy. Pittsburgh,
PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Conrad, S. M. (1996). Investigating academic texts with corpus-based techniques: An exam-
ple from biology. Linguistics and Education, 8, 299–326.
Conrad, S. M. (2001). Variation among disciplinary texts: A comparison of textbooks
and journal articles in biology and history. In S. Conrad & D. Biber (Eds.), Multi-
dimensional studies of register variation in English (pp. 94–107). Harlow, England:
Pearson Education.
Conrad, S. M. (2005). Corpus linguistics and L2 teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of
research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 393–409). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Conrad, S. M. (2008). Myth 6: Corpus-based research is too complicated to be useful for
writing teachers. In J. Reid (Ed.), Writing myths: Applying second language research to
classroom teaching (pp. 115–139). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Conrad, S. M., & Goldstein, L. M. (1999). ESL student revision after teacher written com-
ments: Text, contexts, and individuals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 147–180.
Cook, V., & Bassetti, B. (Eds.). (2005). Second language writing systems. Clevedon, England:
Multilingual Matters.
Cook, V., & Newsom, M. (2007). Chomsky’s Universal Grammar: An introduction (3rd ed.).
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Coombe, C., Davidson, F., O’Sullivan, B., & Stoynoff, S. (Eds.). (2012). Cambridge guide to
second language assessment. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Coombe, C., Folse, K., & Hubley, N. (2007). A practical guide to assessing English language
learners. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Cooper, J. M., & Borich, G. D. (2003). An educator’s guide to field-based classroom observa-
tion. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (1993). The powers of literacy: A genre approach to teaching
writing. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of
social futures. London, England: Routledge.
Corbett, E. P. J., & Connors, R. J. (1999). Classical rhetoric for the modern student (4th ed.).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Bibliography 367
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied

Costino, K. A., & Hyon, S. (2007). “A class for students like me”: Reconsidering relationships
among identity labels, residency status, and students’ preferences for mainstream or
multilingual composition. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 63–81.
Costino, K. A., & Hyon, S. (2011). Sidestepping our “scare words”: Genre as a possible bridge
between L1 and L2 compositionists. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 24–44.
Coulmas, F. (1989). The writing systems of the world. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Coulmas, F. (1996). The Blackwell encyclopedia of writing systems. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Coulmas, F. (2003). Writing systems: An introduction to their linguistic analysis. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Courtney, J. (2008). Performing student, teacher, and tutor of writing: Negotiating ideas of
writing in first-year writing courses and writing center tutorials (Doctoral dissertation).
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Cox, M., Jordan, J., Ortmeier-Hooper, & Schwartz, G. G. (Eds.). (2010). Reinventing identi-
ties in second language writing. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Cox, M., & Myers Zawacki, T. (Eds.). (2011, December). WAC and second language writing:
Cross-field research, theory, and program development. Across the Disciplines, 8 (Spe-
cial Issue). Retrieved from http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/ell/index.cfm
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 213–238.
Coxhead, A. (2006). Essentials of teaching academic vocabulary. Boston, MA: Houghton
Mifflin.
Coxhead, A. (2011). The Academic Word List ten years on: Research and teaching implica-
tions. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 355–362.
Coxhead, A., & Byrd, P. (2007). Preparing writing teachers to teach the vocabulary and
grammar of academic prose. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 129–147.
Craig, J. (2013). Integrating writing strategies in EFL/ESL university contexts: A writing-
across-the-curriculum approach. New York, NY: Routledge.
Croll, P. (2007). Systematic classroom observation (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Crowhurst, M. (1991). Interrelationships between reading and writing persuasive discourse.
Research in the Teaching of English, 25, 314–338.
Cruickshank, D., Jenkins, D. B., & Metcalf, K. K. (2011). The act of teaching (6th ed.). New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Crusan, D. (2010). Assessment in the second language writing classroom. Ann Arbor, MI:
Crystal, D. (2006). How language works: How babies babble, words change meaning, and lan-
guages live or die. Woodstock, NY: Overlook.
Cumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second language proficiency. Language Learn-
ing, 39, 81–141.
Cumming, A. (2001). Learning to write in a second language: Two decades of research. In
R. M. Manchón (Ed.), International Journal of English Studies, 1(2), 1–23.
Cumming, A. (2003). Experienced ESL/EFL writing instructors’ conceptualizations of their
teaching: Curriculum options and their implications. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language
writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 71–92). Cambridge, England: Cam-
Cumming, A. (2010). Theories, frameworks, and heuristics: Some reflections on inquiry
and second language writing. In T. Silva & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Practicing theory in
second language writing (pp. 19–47). West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
Cumming, A., Kantor, R., & Powers, D. E. (2002). Decision making while rating ESL/EFL
writing tasks: A descriptive framework. Modern Language Journal, 86, 67–96.
368 Bibliography
Cumming, A., & Riazi, A. (2000). Building models of adult second-language writing in-
struction. Learning and Instruction, 10, 55–71.
Cummins, J. (1976). The influence of bilingualism on cognitive growth: A synthesis of re-
search findings and explanatory hypotheses. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 9, 1–43.
Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and educational development of bilingual
children. Review of Educational Research, 49, 222–251.
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational
success for language minority students. Schooling and language minority students: A the-
oretical framework (pp. 3–49). Los Angeles, CA: California State University Evaluation,
Dissemination, and Assessment Center.
Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education. San Diego, CA: College Hill.
Cummins, J. (1994). Primary language instruction and the education of language minority
students. Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework, 2, 3–46.
Cummins, J., Brown, K., & Sayers, D. (2007). Literacy, technology, and diversity: Teaching for
success in changing times. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Dadak, A. M. (2006). No ESL allowed: A case exploring university and college writing pro-
gram practices. In P. K. Matsuda, C. Ortmeier-Hooper, & X. You (Eds.), The politics of
second language writing: In search of the Promised Land (pp. 94–108). West Lafayette,
IN: Parlor Press.
Dale, H. (1994). Collaborative research on collaborative writing. English Journal, 83, 66–70.
Danielewicz, J., & Elbow, P. (2009). A unilateral grading contract to improve learning and
teaching. College Composition and Communication, 61, 244–268.
Daniell, B., & Mortensen, P. (Eds.). (2007). Women and literacy: Local and global inquiries for
a new century. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Daniels, H. (2001). Vygotsky and pedagogy. London, England: Routledge.
Daniels, P., & Bright, W. (Eds.). (1996). The world’s writing systems. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Daniels, P. T. (2009). Grammatology. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), Cambridge hand-
book of literacy (pp. 25–45). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Datta, M. (Ed.). (2007). Bilinguality and literacy: Principles and practice (2nd ed.). London,
England: Continuum.
Day, R. R., & Bamford, J. (1998). Extensive reading in the second language classroom. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Day, K., & Eodice, M. (2004). Coauthoring as place: A different ethos. In B. J. Moss, N. P.
Highberg, & M. Nicholas (Eds.), Writing groups inside and outside the classroom (pp.
113–131). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
de Beaugrande, R. (1997). Theory and practice in applied linguistics: Disconnection, con-
flict, or dialectic? Applied Linguistics, 18, 279–313.
Defior, S., Cary, L., & Martos, F. (2002). Differences in reading acquisition development in two
shallow orthographies: Portuguese and Spanish. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23, 135–148.
Dehaene, S. (2009). Reading in the brain: The new science of how we read. New York, NY: Penguin.
de Larios, J., Murphy, L., & Marín, J. (2002). A critical examination of L2 writing process
research. In S. Ransdell & M.-L. Barbier (Eds.), New directions for research in L2 writing
(pp. 11–47). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s
children. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 280–298.
DeLuca, G., Fox, L., Johnson, M. A., & Kogen, M. (Eds.). (2001). Dialogue on writing: Rethinking
ESL, basic ESL writing, and first-year composition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
DePew, K. E., & Lettner-Rust, H. (2009). Mediating power: Distance learning interfaces,
classroom epistemology, and the gaze. Computers and Composition, 26, 174–189.
Bibliography 369
DeRemer, M. (1998). Writing assessment: Raters’ elaboration of the rating task. Assessing
Writing, 5, 7–29.
de Saussure, F. (1986). Course in general linguistics (3rd ed.). (R. Harris, Trans.). Chicago, IL:
Open Court. (Original work published 1972)
Devine, J. (1993). The role of metacognition in second language reading and writing. In
J. G. Carson & I. Leki (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom: Second language
perspectives (pp. 105–127). Boston, MA: Heinle.
Devitt, A. (1991). Intertextuality in tax accounting. In C. Bazerman & J. Paradis (Eds.), Tex-
tual dynamics of the professions (pp. 336–357). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin
Press.
Devitt, A. (1997). Genre as a language standard. In W. Bishop & H. Ostrum (Eds.), Genre
and writing (pp. 45–55). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Devitt, A. (2004). Writing genres. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Devitt, A., Reiff, M. J., & Bawarshi, A. (2004). Scenes of writing: Strategies for composing with
genres. New York, NY: Pearson/Longman.
DeVoss, D. N., McKee, H., & Selfe, R. (Eds.). (2009). Technological ecologies and sustainabil-
ity. Logan, UT: Computers and Composition Digital Press and Utah State University
Press. Retrieved from http://ccdigitalpress.org/tes/index2.html
Dias, P., & Paré, A. (Eds.). (2000). Transitions: Writing in academic and workplace settings.
Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Dias, P., Freedman, A., Medway, P., & Paré, A. (Eds.). (1999). Worlds apart: Acting and writ-
ing in academic and workplace contexts. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dimmitt, N., & Dantas-Whitney, M. (Eds.). (2002). Intensive English programs in post-
secondary settings. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
DiPardo, A., & Sperling, M. (2005). Theories we live by: Editors’ introduction. Research in
the Teaching of English, 40, 137–139.
Diringer, D. (1968). The alphabet: A key to the history of mankind (3rd ed.). London, Eng-
land: Hutchinson.
Dobrin, S. I., Rice, J. A., & Vastola, M. (Eds.). (2011). Beyond postprocess. Logan, UT: Utah
State University Press.
Dobson, B., & Feak, C. (2001). A cognitive modeling approach to teaching critique writing
to nonnative speakers. In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), Linking literacies: Perspec-
tives on L2 reading-writing connections (pp. 186–199). Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan Press.
Dolgin, J., Kelly, K., & Zelkha, S. (2010). Authentic assessments for the English classroom.
Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Dollesin, S. (2003). English 215B assignment. Sacramento, CA: California State University,
Sacramento, Department of English.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second
language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dörnyei, Z. (2006). Individual differences in second language acquisition. AILA Review, 19, 42–68.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.
Dörnyei, Z., & Taguchi, T. (2009). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction,
administration, and processing (2nd ed.) New York, NY: Routledge.
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Wil-
liams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom SLA (pp. 114–138). Cambridge, England: Cam-
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.) (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acqui-
sition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
370 Bibliography
Douglas, D. (2000). Assessing languages for specific purposes. New York, NY: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Downs, D., & Wardle, E. (2007). Teaching about writing, righting misconceptions: (Re)en-
visioning “First-Year Composition” as “Introduction to Writing Studies.” College Com-
position and Communication, 58, 552–584.
Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 52, 159–199.
Dressler, C., & Kamil, M. L. (2006). First- and second-language literacy. In D. August & T.
Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National
Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth (pp. 137–238). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dudley-Evans, T. (1997). Genre models for the teaching of academic writing to second lan-
guage speakers: Advantages and disadvantages. In T. Miller (Ed.), Functional approaches
to written text: Classroom applications (pp. 150–159). Washington, DC: United States
Information Service.
Dudley-Evans, T. (2001). English for specific purposes. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.),
Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 131–136). Cam-
Dudley-Evans, T., & St. John, M. J. (1998). Developments in English for specific purposes: A
multidisciplinary approach. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Duin, A. H. (1986). Implementing cooperative learning groups in the writing curriculum.
Journal of Teaching Writing, 5, 315–326.
Durst, R. K. (2006). Writing at the postsecondary level. In P. Smagorinsky (Ed.), Research
on composition: Multiple perspectives on two decades of change (pp. 78–107). New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
Durst, R. K., Roemer, M., & Schultz, L. M. (1994). Portfolio negotiations: Acts in speech. In
L. Black, D. A. Daiker, J. Sommers, & G. Stygall (Eds.), New directions in portfolio assess-
ment (pp. 286–300). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Eagleton, M. B., & Dobler, E. (2007). Reading the web: Strategies for Internet inquiry. New
York, NY: Guilford.
Earle, C. B., & Zimmermann, C. (2002). The reading/writing connection. Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Ede, L., & Lunsford, A. (1990). Singular texts/plural authors: Perspectives on collaborative
writing. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Edge, J., & Richards, J. (1998). Why best practice is not good enough. TESOL Quarterly, 32,
569–576.
Edgington, A. (2012). Bringing new perspectives to a common practice: A plan for review.
In K. M. Hunzer (Ed.), Collaborative learning and writing: Essays on using small groups
in teaching English and composition (pp. 17–29). Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Educational Testing Service. (2012). Frequently asked questions about the e-rater® technol-
ogy. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/erater/about/faq
Eisterhold, J. C. (1990). Reading-writing connections: Toward a description for second lan-
guage learners. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the class-
room (pp. 88–101). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Elbow, P. (1973). Writing without teachers. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Elbow, P. (1981). Embracing contraries: Explorations in learning and teaching. New York, NY:
Elbow, P. (1993). Ranking, evaluating, and liking: Sorting out three forms of judgment.
College English, 55, 187–206.
Elbow, P. (1998a). Writing without teachers (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Bibliography 371
Elbow, P. (1998b). Writing with power: Techniques for mastering the writing process (2nd ed.).
Elbow, P. (1999). Individualism and the teaching of writing: Response to Vai Ramanathan
and Dwight Atkinson. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 327–338.
Elbow, P. (2000). Everyone can write: Essays toward a hopeful theory of writing and teaching
writing. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Elbow, P. (2012). Vernacular eloquence: What speech can bring to writing. New York, NY:
Elbow, P., & Belanoff, P. (1997). Reflections on an explosion: Portfolios in the 90s and be-
yond. In K. Yancey & I. Weiser (Eds.), Situating portfolios: Four perspectives (pp. 21–33).
Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.
Elbow, P., & Belanoff, P. (1999). A community of writers: A workshop course in writing. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Elley, W. (1991). Acquiring literacy in a second language: The effect of book-based pro-
grams. Language Learning, 41, 375–411.
Elley, W., & Mangubhai, F. (1983). The impact of reading on second language learning.
Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 53–67.
Elliot, N. (2005). On a scale: A social history of writing assessment. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Elliot, N., & Perelman, L. (2012). Writing assessment in the 21st century: Essays in honor of
Edward M. White. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Ellis, R. (1998). Teaching and research: Options in grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly,
32, 39–60.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Ellis, R. (2006). The methodology of task-based teaching. Asian EFL Journal, 8(3). Retrieved
from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/Sept_06_re.php
Ellis, R. (2009). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL les-
sons. Language Learning, 51, 281–318.
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and un-
focused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System,
36, 353–371.
Emig, J. (1971). The composing processes of twelfth graders. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Emig, J. (1983). The web of meaning. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.
Enginarlar, H. (1993). Student response to teacher feedback in EFL writing. System, 21,
193–204.
English, F. (2011). Student writing and genre: Reconfiguring academic knowledge. London,
England: Continuum.
Enkvist, N. E. (1997). Why we need contrastive rhetoric. Alternation, 4, 188–206.
Enos, R. L. (2012). Ancient Greek writing and its oral antecedents. In J. J. Murphy (Ed.), A
short history of writing instruction from ancient Greece to contemporary America (3rd ed.,
pp. 1–35). New York, NY: Routledge.
Erdosy, M. U. (2001). The influence of prior experience on the construction of scoring cri-
teria for ESL composition: A case study. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), International Journal
of English Studies, 1 (2), 175–196.
Ericsson, P. F., & Haswell, R. (Eds.). (2006). Machine scoring of student essays: Truth and
consequences. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.
Erten, I. H., & Razi, S. (2009). The effects of cultural familiarity on reading comprehension.
Reading in a Foreign Language, 21, 60–77.
372 Bibliography
Eskey, D. E. (1983). Meanwhile, back in the real world . . . Accuracy and fluency in second
language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 315–323.
Eskey, D. E. (1993). Reading and writing as cognitive process and social behavior. In J. Carson,
& I. Leki (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom: Second language perspectives (pp.
221–233). Boston, MA: Heinle.
Evans, D. J., & Bunting, B. S., Jr. (2012). Cooperative and collaborative writing with Google
Docs. In K. M. Hunzer (Ed.), Collaborative learning and writing: Essays on using small
groups in teaching English and composition (pp. 109–129). Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., & Anderson, N. J. (2010). A principled approach to content-
based materials development for reading. In N. Harwood (Ed.), English language teach-
ing materials: Theory and practice (pp. 131–156). Cambridge, England: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Evans, N., Hartshorn, J., McCollum, R., & Wolfersberger, M. (2010). Contextualizing cor-
rective feedback in second language writing pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 14,
445–464.
Evensen, L. (1997). Applied linguistics within a principled framework for characterizing
disciplines and transdisciplines. AILA Review, 12, 31–41.
Ewert, D. (2009). L2 writing conferences: Investigating teacher talk. Journal of Second Lan-
Faigley, L. (1986). Competing theories of process: A critique and a proposal. College English,
48, 527–542.
Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication,
32, 400–414.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse. London, England: Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. White Plains,
NY: Pearson/Longman.
Fakhri, A. (1994). Text organization and transfer: The case of Arab ESL learners. Interna-
tional Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 78–86.
Falk, E. (2012). Becoming a new instructor: A guide for college adjuncts and graduate students.
Fanetti, S., Bushrow, K. M., & DeWeese, D. L. (2010). Closing the gap between high school
writing instruction and college writing expectations. English Journal, 99 (4), 77–83.
Fathman, A., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form ver-
sus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom
(pp. 178–190). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Feez, S. (1998). Text-based syllabus design. Sydney, Australia: NCELTR Publications, Mac-
quarie University.
Feez, S. (2002). Heritage and innovation in second language education. In A. M. Johns
(Ed.), Genre in the classroom (pp. 47–68). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ferris, D. R. (1994). Lexical and syntactic features of ESL writing by students at different
levels of L2 proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 414–420.
Ferris, D. R. (1995a). Can advanced ESL students be taught to correct their most serious and
frequent errors? CATESOL Journal, 8, 41–62.
Ferris, D. R. (1995b). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition
classrooms, TESOL Quarterly, 29, 33–53.
Ferris, D. R. (1995c). Teaching ESL composition students to become independent self-
editors. TESOL Journal, 4 (4), 18–22.
Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL
Quarterly, 31, 315–339.
Bibliography 373
Ferris, D. R. (1999a). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to
Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1–10.
Ferris, D. R. (1999b). One size does not fit all: Response and revision issues for immigrant
student writers. In L. Harklau, K. Losey, & M. Siegal (Eds.), Generation 1.5 meets college
composition (pp. 143–157). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ferris, D. R. (2001a). Teaching writing for academic purposes. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock
(Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes (pp. 298–314). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. R. (2001b). Teaching “writing for proficiency” in summer school: Lessons from a fox-
hole. In J. Murphy & P. Byrd (Eds.), Understanding the courses we teach: Local perspectives
on English language teaching (pp. 328–345). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Ferris, D. R. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor, MI:
Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Research implications for second language
students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ferris, D. R. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and
where do we go from here? (And what do we do in the meantime . . . ?). Journal of Sec-
Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short-
and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.),
Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81–104). Cambridge, Eng-
land: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. R. (2008a). Myth 5: Students must learn to correct all their writing errors. In
J. Reid (Ed.), Writing myths: Applying second language research to classroom teaching (pp.
Ferris, D. R. (2008b). Feedback: Issues and options. In P. Friedrich (Ed.), Teaching academic
writing (pp. 93–124). London, England: Continuum.
Ferris, D. R. (2009). Teaching college writing to diverse student populations. Ann Arbor, MI:
Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Inter-
sections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 181–201.
Ferris, D. R. (2011a). Treatment of error in second language student writing (2nd ed.). Ann
Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Ferris, D. R. (2011b). Written discourse analysis and L2 teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Hand-
book of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. II, pp. 643–662). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Ferris, D. R. (2012). Technology and corrective feedback for L2 writers: Principles, practices,
and problems. In G. Kessler, A. Oskoz, & I. Elola (Eds.), Technology across writing con-
texts and tasks (pp. 7–29). San Marcos, TX: CALICO.
Ferris, D. R. (2014). Language power: Tutorials for writers. Boston, MA: Bedford St. Martin’s.
Ferris, D. R., Brown, J., Liu, H., & Stine, M. E. A. (2011). Responding to L2 students in col-
lege writing classes: What teachers say and what they do. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 207–234.
Ferris, D. R., Kennedy, C., & Senna, M. (2004). Generations 1.5 and 2.0 in college composi-
tion. Paper presented at the 38th Annual TESOL Convention, Long Beach, CA.
Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., & Rabie, B. (2011). “The job of teaching writing”: Teacher views of
responding to writing. Writing and Pedagogy, 3, 39–77.
Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013). Written corrective feedback for indi-
vidual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.009
Ferris, D. R., Pezone, S., Tade, C. R., & Tinti, S. (1997). Teacher commentary on student
writing: Descriptions and implications. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, 155–182.
374 Bibliography
Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. J. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does
it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161–184.
Finnegan, R. (1988). Literacy and orality: Studies in the technology of communication. Ox-
ford, England: Blackwell.
Fischer, S. R. (2001). A history of writing. London, England: Reaktion.
Fischer, S. R. (2003). A history of reading. London, England: Reaktion.
Fitzgerald, J., & Shanahan, T. (2000). Reading and writing relations and their development.
Educational Psychologist, 35, 39–50.
Flahive, D., & Bailey, N. (1993). Exploring reading/writing relationships in adult second
language learners. In J. G. Carson & I. Leki (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom:
Second language perspectives (pp. 128–140). Boston, MA: Heinle.
Flower, L. (1979). Writer-based prose: A cognitive basis for problems in writing. College
English, 41, 19–38.
Flower, L. (1985). Problem-solving strategies for writing (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich.
Flower, L. (1989). Problem-solving strategies for writing (3rd ed.). San Diego, CA: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich.
Flower, L. (1994). The construction of negotiated meaning: A social cognitive theory of writing.
Flower, L. (2003). Talking across difference: Intercultural rhetoric and the search for situ-
ated knowledge. College Composition and Communication, 55, 36–68.
Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical prob-
lem. College Composition and Communication, 31, 21–32.
Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composi-
tion and Communication, 32, 365–387.
Flower, L. S., Long, E., & Higgins, L. (2000). Learning to rival: A literate practice for intercul-
tural inquiry. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Flower, L. S., Stein, V., Ackerman, J., Kantz, M., McCormick, K., & Peck, W. (1990). Reading-
to-write: Exploring a cognitive and social process. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Floyd, P., & Carrell, P. L. (2006). Effects on ESL reading of teaching cultural content sche-
mata. Language Learning, 18, 89–108.
Folse, K., & Azar, B. (2009). Keys to teaching grammar to English language learners: A Practi-
cal Handbook. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Folse, K., Solomon, E., & Smith-Palinkas, B. (2003). Top 20: Great grammar for great writing.
Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Folse, K. S. (2004). Vocabulary myths. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Folse, K. S. (2008). Myth 1: Teaching vocabulary is not the writing teacher’s job. In J. Reid
(Ed.), Writing myths: Applying second language research to classroom teaching (pp. 1–17).
Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Foster, D., & Russell, D. R. (Eds.). (2002). Writing and learning in cross-national perspective:
Transitions from secondary to higher education. New York, NY: Routledge.
Fox, L. (1992). Focus on editing. London, England: Longman.
Freedman, A. (1987). Learning to write again: Discipline-specific writing at university. Car-
leton Papers in Applied Language Studies, 4, 95–116.
Freedman, A., & Adam, C. (2000). Bridging the gap: University-based writing that is more
than simulation. In P. Dias & A. Paré (Eds.), Transitions: Writing in academic and work-
place settings (pp. 129–144). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Freedman, A., & Medway, P. (Eds.). (1994a). Learning and teaching genre. Portsmouth, NH:
Boynton/Cook.
Bibliography 375
Freedman, A., & Medway, P. (1994b). Locating genre studies: Antecedents and prospects.
In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 1–20). London,
England: Routledge.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.
Freire, P. (1985). The politics of education. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.
Freire, P. (1994). Pedagogy of hope. New York, NY: Continuum.
Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. South Hadley, MA:
Bergin & Garvey.
Friedrich, P. (Ed.). (2008). Teaching academic writing. London, England: Continuum.
Fries, C. (1945). Teaching and learning English as a second language. Ann Arbor, MI: Univer-
sity of Michigan Press.
Frodesen, J. (2001). Grammar in writing. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a
second or foreign language (3rd ed., pp. 233–248). Boston, MA: Heinle.
Frodesen, J., & Holten, C. (2003). Grammar and the ESL writing class. In B. Kroll (Ed.),
Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 141–161). Cambridge, England:
Fulcher, G. (2010). Practical language testing. London, England: Hodder Education.
Fulcher, G., & Davidson, F. (2007). Language testing and assessment: An advanced resource
book. London, England: Routledge.
Fulcher, G., & Davidson, F. (Eds.). (2012). Routledge handbook of language testing. London,
England: Routledge.
Fulkerson, R. (2005). Composition at the turn of the 21st century. College Composition and
Communication, 56, 654–687.
Gage, J. T. (2011a). Introduction. In J. T. Gage (Ed.), The promise of reason: Studies in the
New Rhetoric (pp. 1–7). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Gage, J. T. (Ed.). (2011b). The promise of reason: Studies in the New Rhetoric. Carbondale, IL:
Southern Illinois University Press.
Gallagher, C. W. (2007). Reclaiming assessment: A better alternative to the accountability
agenda. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Gardner, T. (2008). Designing writing assignments. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Garrison, R. (1974). One-to-one tutorial instruction in freshman composition. New Direc-
tions for Community Colleges, 2, 55–84.
Gass, S., with Behney, J., & Plonsky, L. (2013). Second language acquisition: An introductory
course (4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. New
Gee, J. P. (2011). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (3rd ed.). New
Gee, J. P. (2012). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideologies in discourses (4th ed.). London,
England: Routledge.
Gee, J. P., & Hayes, E. R. (2011). Language and learning in the digital age. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Geertz, C. (1983). Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology. New York,
NY: Basic Books.
Geisler, C. (1994). Academic literacy and the nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Geisler, C. (1995). Writing and learning at cross purposes in the academy. In J. Petraglia
(Ed.), Reconceiving writing, rethinking writing instruction (pp. 101–120). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
376 Bibliography
Gelb, I. J. (1963). A study of writing: The foundations of grammatology (2nd ed.). Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
George, A. (2001). Critical pedagogy: Dreaming of democracy. In G. Tate, A. Rupiper, &
K. Schick, K. (Eds.), A guide to composition pedagogies (pp. 92–112). Oxford, England:
George, G., & Trimbur, J. (2001). Cultural studies and composition. In G. Tate, A. Rupiper,
& K. Schick, K. (Eds.), A guide to composition pedagogies (pp. 71–91). Oxford, England:
Gere, A. R. (1987). Writing groups: History, theory, and implications. Carbondale, IL: South-
ern Illinois University Press.
Gilabert, R. (2005). Evaluating the use of multiple sources and methods in needs analysis:
A case study of journalists in the Autonomous Community of Catalonia (Spain). In
M. H. Long (Ed.), Second language needs analysis (pp. 182–199). Cambridge, England:
Giles, S. L. (2010). “Reflective writing and the revision process: What were you thinking?”
Writing Spaces (Vol. I, pp. 191–204). Retrieved from http://writingspaces.org
Gilliland, E. A. (2012). Talking about writing: Culturally and linguistically diverse adolescents’
socialization into academic literacy. University of California, Davis). ProQuest Disserta-
tions and Theses, 255. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1234551468
?accountid=27140. (1234551468).
Glanz, J. (2009). Teaching 101: Classroom strategies for the beginning teacher (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Glenn, C., Goldthwaite, M. A., & Connors, R. (2007). St. Martin’s guide to teaching writing
(6th ed.). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Gol, D., Hobbs, C. L., & Berlin, J. A. (2012). Writing instruction in school and college English:
The twentieth century and the new millennium. In J. J. Murphy (Ed.), A short history of
writing instruction from ancient Greece to contemporary America (3rd ed., pp. 232–272).
Gold, D. (2008). Rhetoric at the margins: Revising the history of writing instruction in Ameri-
can colleges, 1873–1947. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Goldman, S. (1997). Learning from text: Reflections on the past and suggestions for the
future. Discourse Processes, 23, 357–398.
Goldstein, L. (2001). For Kyla: What does the research say about responding to ESL writers?
In T. Silva & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), On second language writing (pp. 73–90). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Goldstein, L. (2005). Teacher written commentary in second language writing classrooms.
Goldstein, L. (2006) Feedback and revision in second language writing: Contextual, teacher,
and student variables. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writ-
ing: Contexts and issues (pp. 185–205). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Goldstein, L. & Conrad, S. (1990). Student input and the negotiation of meaning in ESL
writing conferences. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 443–460.
Golub, J. N. (Ed.). (2005). More ways to handle the paper load on paper and online. Urbana,
IL: NCTE.
Gonzalez, A., & Tanno, D. V. (Eds.). (2000). Rhetoric in intercultural contexts. Los Angeles,
CA: Sage.
Goody, J., & Watt, I. P. (1968). The consequences of literacy. In J. Goody (Ed.), Literacy in
traditional societies (pp. 27–68). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Gottlieb, M. (2000). Portfolio practices in elementary and secondary schools: Toward
learner-directed assessment. In G. Ekbatani & H. Pierson (Eds.), Learner-directed as-
sessment in ESL (pp. 89–104). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bibliography 377
Gottlieb, M., Katz, A., & Ernst-Savit, G. (2008). Paper to practice: Using the TESOL English
language proficiency standards in PreK–12 classrooms. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Gottschalk, K., & Hjortshoj, K. (2004). Elements of teaching writing: A resource for instructors
in all disciplines. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Grabe, W. (2001). Reading-writing relations: Theoretical perspectives and instructional
practices. In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading-
writing connections (pp. 15–47). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Grabe, W. (2002). Narrative and expository macro-genres. In A. M. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the
classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 249–267). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Grabe, W. (2003). Reading and writing relations: Second language perspectives on research
and practice. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp.
242–262). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Grabe, W. (2004). Research on teaching reading. In M. McGroarty (Ed.), Annual review of
applied linguistics, X (pp. 44–69). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. Cambridge,
Grabe, W. (2011). Teaching and testing reading. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.),
Handbook of language teaching (pp. 441–462). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. London, England: Longman.
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. (1997). The writing course. In K. Bardovi-Harlig & B. Hartford
(Eds.), Beyond methods: Components of second language teacher education (pp. 172–197).
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. (2011). Teaching and researching reading (2nd ed.). Harlow, England:
Longman/Pearson Education.
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. (2014). Teaching reading for academic purposes. In M. Celce-Mur-
cia, D. M. Brinton, & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language
(4th ed., pp. 189–205). Boston, MA: National Geographic Learning.
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent stu-
dents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 445–476. doi: 10.1037/0022–0663.99.3.445
Graves, K. (2000). Designing language courses: A guide for teachers. Boston, MA: Heinle.
Graves, R. L. (Ed.). (1999). Writing, teaching, learning: A sourcebook. Portsmouth, NH:
Boynton/Cook.
Griffin, P., McGaw, B., & Care, E. (Eds.). (2012). Assessment and teaching of 21st century
skills. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Grigorenko, E. (2009). Dynamic assessment and response to intervention. Journal of Learn-
ing Disabilities, 42, 111–132.
Grigorenko, E., Mambrino, E., & Preiss, D. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of writing: A mosaic of
perspectives and views. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Guénette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of
feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 40–53.
Guleff, V. (2002). Approaching genre: Prewriting as apprenticeship to communities of prac-
tice. In A. M. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 211–223).
Gunderson, L. (2009). ESL (ELL) literacy instruction: A guidebook to theory and practice (2nd
ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Gunderson, L., Odo, D. M., & D’Silva, R. (2011). Second language literacy. In E. Hinkel
(Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. II, pp.
Ha, P. L., & Baurain, B. (Eds.). (2011). Voices, identities, negotiations, and conflicts: Writing
academic English across cultures. Bingley, England: Emerald.
378 Bibliography
Hafernik, J. J., Messerschmitt, D. S., & Vandrick, S. (2002). Ethical issues for ESL faculty:
Social justice in practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language
and meaning. London, England: Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. London, England: Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2007a). Language and education. London, England: Continuum.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2007b). Language and society. London, England: Continuum.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power.
London, England: Falmer.
Hairston, M. (1986). On not being a composition slave. In C. W. Bridges (Ed.), Training the
new teacher of college composition (pp. 117–124). Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Hale, G., Taylor, C. Bridgeman, B., Carson, J., Kroll, B., & Kantor, R. (1996). A study of
writing tasks assigned in academic degree programs (TOEFL Research Report No. 54).
Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Halliday, M.A.K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Lon-
don: Falmer.
Hammond, J., & Macken-Horarik, M. (1999). Critical literacy: Challenges and questions for
ESL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 528–544.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (Ed.). (1991a). Assessing second language writing in academic contexts. Nor-
wood, NJ: Ablex.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (1991b). Basic concepts. In L. Hamp-Lyons (Ed.), Assessing second language
writing in academic contexts (pp. 5–15). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (1991c). Scoring procedures for ESL contexts. In L. Hamp-Lyons (Ed.), As-
sessing second language writing in academic contexts (pp. 241–276). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (1996). The challenges of second-language writing assessment. In E. M.
White, W. D. Lutz, & S. Kamusikiri (Eds.), Assessment of writing: Politics, policies, and
practices (pp. 271–283). New York, NY: Modern Language Association.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (2002). The scope of writing assessment. Assessing Writing, 8, 5–16.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (2003). Writing teachers as assessors of writing. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second
language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 162–189). Cambridge, Eng-
Hamp-Lyons, L. (2006). Feedback in portfolio-based writing courses. In K. Hyland &
F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 140–
161). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (2011). English for academic purposes. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of
research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. II, pp. 89–105). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Hamp-Lyons, L., & Condon, W. (2000). Assessing the portfolio: Principles for practice, theory,
and research. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Hamp-Lyons, L., & Kroll, B. (1996). Issues in ESL writing assessment. College ESL, 6 (1), 52–72.
Han, Z., & Anderson, N. J. (Eds.). (2009). Second language reading research and instruction:
Crossing the boundaries. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Harklau, L. (2000). From the “good kids” to the “worst”: Representations of English lan-
guage learners across educational settings. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 35–67.
Harklau, L., Losey, K., & Siegal, M. (Eds.). (1999). Generation 1.5 meets college composition: Issues
in the teaching of writing to U.S.-educated learners of ESL. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Harris, J. (1999). Toward a working definition of collaborative writing. In J. S. Leonard,
C. E. Wharton, R. M. Davis, & J. Harris (Eds.), Authority and textuality: Current views
of collaborative writing (pp. 77–84). West Cornwall, CT: Locust Hill.
Harris, M. (1986). Teaching one-to-one: The writing conference. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Bibliography 379
Harste, J. C. (2009). Multimodality in perspective. In J. V. Hoffman & Y. M. Goodman

(Eds.), Changing literacies for changing times (pp. 34–48). New York, NY: Rout-
ledge.
Hartshorn, J. K., Evans, N. W., Merrill, P. F., Sudweeks, R. R., Strong-Krause, D., & Ander-
son, N. J. (2010). The effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy.
TESOL Quarterly, 44, 84–109.
Hartwell, P. (1985). Grammar, grammars, and the teaching of grammar. College English, 47,
105–127.
Harwood, N. (Ed.). (2010). English language teaching materials: Theory and practice. Cam-
Hasan, R. (1996). Literacy, everyday talk and society. In R. Hasan & G. Williams (Eds.),
Literacy in society (pp. 394–424). London, England: Longman.
Haswell, R. H. (1983). Minimal marking. College English, 45, 600–604.
Haswell, R. H. (2008). Teaching of writing in higher education. In C. Bazerman (Ed.),
Havelock, E. (1982). The literate revolution in Greece and its cultural consequences. Prince-
ton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hawisher, G. E., & Selfe, C. L. (Eds.). (2007). Global literacies and the World-Wide Web.
London, England: Routledge.
Hawkins, M., & Norton, B. (2009). Critical language teacher education. In A. Burns, & J. C.
Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education (pp. 30–39).
Hayakawa, S. I., & Hayakawa, A. R. (1990). Language in thought and action (5th ed.). San
Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Hayashi, N. (2004). Investigating the threshold hypothesis: The influence of EFL profi-
ciency on the relationship between EFL reading ability and L1 reading ability. JABAET
Journal, 8, 21–44.
Hayashi, N. (2009). Reexamining the existence of three levels of linguistic threshold in EFL
reading. JABAET Journal, 13, 89–106.
Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing.
In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual
differences, and applications (pp. 1–27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In
L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31–50). Hills-
dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. (1983). Uncovering cognitive processes in writing: An introduc-
tion to protocol analysis. In P. Mosenthal, L. Tamar, & S. A. Walmsley (Eds.), Research in
writing (pp. 206–220). New York, NY: Longman.
Hayes, J. R., & Nash, J. G. (1996). On the nature of planning in writing. In C. M. Levy &
S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and
applications (pp. 121–142). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hedgcock, J. S. (2002). Toward a socioliterate approach to language teacher education.
Modern Language Journal, 86, 299–317.
Hedgcock, J. S. (2005). Taking stock of research and pedagogy in L2 writing. In E. Hinkel
(Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 597–613).
Hedgcock, J. S. (2008). Lessons I must have missed: Implicit literacy practices in graduate
education. In C. P. Casanave & X. Li (Eds.), Learning the literacy practices of graduate
school (pp. 32–45). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
380 Bibliography
Hedgcock, J. S. (2009). Acquiring knowledge of discourse conventions in teacher education.

In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher
education (pp. 144–152). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Hedgcock, J. S. (2010). Theory-and-practice and other questionable dualisms in L2 writ-
ing. In T. Silva & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Practicing theory in second language writing (pp.
Hedgcock, J. S. (2012). Second language writing processes among adolescent and adult
learners. In E. L. Grigorenko, E. Mambrino, & D. D. Preiss (Eds.), Handbook of writ-
ing: A mosaic of perspectives and views (pp. 219–237). New York, NY: Psychology
Press.
Hedgcock, J., & Atkinson, D. (1993). Differing reading-writing relationships in L1 and L2
literacy development. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 329–333.
Hedgcock, J. S., & Ferris, D. R. (2009). Teaching readers of English: Students, texts, and con-
texts. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity in
second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 141–163.
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1996). Some input on input: Two analyses of student re-
sponse to expert feedback on L2 writing. Modern Language Journal, 80, 287–308.
Hefflin, B. R., & Hartman, D. K. (2002). Using writing to improve comprehension. In
C. C. Block, L. B. Gambrell, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Improving comprehension instruction:
Rethinking research, theory, and classroom practice (pp. 199–228). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Heigham, J., & Croker, R. (Eds.). (2009). Qualitative research in applied linguistics: A practi-
cal introduction. London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Heller, M. F. (1999). Reading-writing connections: From theory to practice (2nd ed.). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hélot, C., & Ó Laoire, M. (Eds.). (2011). Language policy for the multilingual classroom:
Pedagogy of the possible. Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
Hendrickson, J.M. (1980). The treatment of error in written work. Modern Language Jour-
nal, 64, 216–221.
Herrington, A., Hodgson, K., & Moran, C. (Eds.). (2009). Teaching the new writing: Tech-
nology, change, and assessment in the 21st-century classroom. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Hewett, B. L., & Ehmann, C. (2004). Preparing educators for online writing instruction: Prin-
ciples and processes. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Hewings, M. (2010). Materials for university essay writing. In N. Harwood (Ed.), English
language teaching materials: Theory and practice (pp. 251–278). Cambridge, England:
Higgs, T., & Clifford, R. (1982). The push toward communication. In T. Higgs (Ed.), Cur-
riculum, competence, and the foreign language teacher (pp. 57–79). Skokie, IL: National
Textbook Company.
Hilles, S., & Sutton, A. (2001). Teaching adults. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English
as a second or foreign language (3rd ed., pp. 385–399). Boston, MA: Heinle.
Hillocks, G. (2008). Writing in secondary schools. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of re-
search on writing: History, society, school, individual, text (pp. 311–329). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Hillocks, G., Jr. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. Urbana,
IL: NCTE.
Hillocks, G., Jr. (1995). Teaching writing as reflective practice. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Bibliography 381
Hinds, J. (1984). Retention of information using a Japanese style of presentation. Studies in

Language, 8, 45–69.
Hinds, J. (1987). Reader vs. writer responsibility: A new typology. In U. Connor & R. B.
Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 141–152). Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Hinds, J. (1990). Inductive, deductive, quasi-inductive: Expository writing in Japanese, Ko-
rean, Chinese, and Thai. In U. Connor & A. Johns (Eds.), Coherence in writing (pp.
87–110). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Hinkel, E. (2002). Second language writers’ text: Linguistic and rhetorical features. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hinkel, E. (2004). Teaching academic ESL writing: Practical techniques in vocabulary and
grammar. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hinkel, E. (2005). Analyses of L2 text and what can be learned from them. In E. Hinkel
(Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 615–628).
Hinkel, E. (2011a). Effective curriculum for teaching ESL writing and language building. Lon-
don, England: Routledge.
Hinkel, E. (2011b). What research on second language writing tells us and what it doesn’t.
In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol.
II, pp. 523–538). New York, NY: Routledge.
Hirai, D. L. C., Borrego, I., Garza, E., & Kloock, C. T. (2010). Academic language/literacy
strategies for adolescents: A “how-to” manual for educators. London, England: Routledge.
Hirose, K. (2003). Comparing L1 and L2 organizational patterns in the argumentative writ-
ing of Japanese EFL students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 203–181–209.
Hirose, K., & Sasaki, M. (1994). Explanatory variables for Japanese students’ expository
writing in English: An exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3,
203–229.
Hirvela, A. (1999). Collaborative writing instruction and communities of readers and writ-
ers. TESOL Journal, 8 (2), 7–12.
Hirvela, A. (2001). Connecting reading and writing through literature. In D. Belcher & A. Hir-
vela (Eds.), Linking literacies: Perspective on L2 reading-writing connections (pp. 109–134).
Hirvela, A. (2004). Connecting reading and writing in second language writing instruction.
Hirvela, A. (2011). Writing to learn in content areas: Research insights. In R. M. Manchón
(Ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 37–59).
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Hirvela, A., & Belcher, D. (2001). Coming back to voice: The multiple voices and identities
of mature multilingual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 83–106.
Hirvela, A., & Pierson, H. (2000). Portfolios: Vehicles for authentic self-assessment. In
G. Ekbatani & H. Pierson (Eds.), Learner-directed assessment in ESL (pp. 105–126).
Hirvela, A., & Sweetland, Y. L. (2005). Two case studies of L2 writers’ experiences across
learner-directed portfolio contexts. Assessing Writing 10, 192–213.
Ho, C. M. L., Anderson, K. L., & Leong, A. P. (Eds.). (2010). Transforming literacies and lan-
guage: Multimodality and literacy in the new media age. London, England: Continuum.
Hoffman, J. V., & Goodman, Y. M. (Eds.). (2009). Changing literacies for changing times.
Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate methodology and social context. Cambridge, England: Cam-
382 Bibliography
Holmes, V. L., & Moulton, M. R. (1995). A contrarian view of dialogue journals: The case of
a reluctant participant. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 223–251.
Holt, M., & Rouzie, A. (2006). Electronic versions of collaborative pedagogy: A brief survey.
In P. Bizzell (Ed.), Rhetorical agendas: Political, ethical, spiritual (pp. 199–204). Mahwah,
Hoon, T. B., Emerson, L., & White, C. (2006). Reforming ESL writing instruction in tertiary
education: The writing centre approach. The English Teacher, 35, 1–14.
Horner, B., Matsuda, P., K., & Lu, M-Z. (Eds.). (2010). Cross-language relations in composi-
tion. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Horowitz, D. (1986a). The author responds to Liebman-Kleine. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 788–790.
Horowitz, D. (1986b). Process, not product: Less than meets the eye. TESOL Quarterly, 20,
141–144.
Horowitz, D. (1986c). What professors actually require: Academic tasks for the ESL class-
room. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 445–462.
Howard, R. M. (2001). Collaborative pedagogy. In G. Tate, A. Rupiper, & K. Schick (Eds.), A
guide to composition pedagogies (pp. 54–70). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Hu, G. (2012). Assessing English as an international language. In L. Alsagoff, S. L. McKay,
G. Hu, & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Principles and practices for teaching English as an inter-
national language (pp. 123–143). New York, NY: Routledge.
Hubert, M. D., & Bonzo, J. D. (2010). Does second language writing research impact U.S.
university foreign language instruction? System, 38, 517–528.
Hudson, T. (2007). Teaching second language reading. Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.
Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers (2nd ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Hull, G., Rose, M., Fraser, K. L., & Castellano, M. (1991). Remediation as social construct:
Perspectives from an analysis of classroom discourse. College Composition and Com-
Hulstijn, J. (1991). How is reading in a second language related to reading in a first lan-
guage? AILA Review, 8, 5–14.
Hulstijn, J. H., & Bossers, B. (1992). Individual differences in L2 proficiency as a function of
L1 proficiency. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 4, 341–353.
Hunzer, K. M. (Ed.). (2012). Collaborative learning and writing: Essays on using small groups
in teaching English and composition. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Huot, B. (1993). The influence of holistic scoring procedures on reading and rating student
essays. In M. Williamson & B. Huot (Eds.), Validating holistic scoring for writing assess-
ment (pp. 206–236). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Huot, B. (2002). (Re)articulating writing assessment for teaching and learning. Logan, UT:
Huot, B., & Neal, M. (2006). Writing assessment: A techno-history. In C. A. MacArthur,
S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 417–433). New
York, NY: Guilford.
Huot, B., & O’Neill, P. (Eds.). (2009). Assessing writing: A critical sourcebook. Urbana, IL:
NCTE.
Hurd, S., & Lewis, T. (Eds.). (2008). Language learning strategies in independent settings.
Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for specific purposes. Cambridge, England:
Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback.
Bibliography 383
Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific
Purposes, 13, 239–256.
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John
Benjamins.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London,
England: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2002). Teaching and researching writing. Harlow, England: Pearson Education.
Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second
Hyland, K. (2004a). Genre and second language writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michi-
gan Press.
Hyland, K. (2004b). Second language writing. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Hyland, K. (2006). English for academic purposes: An advanced resource book. London, Eng-
land: Routledge.
Hyland, K. (2008). Myth 4: Make your academic writing assertive and certain. In J. Reid
(Ed.), Writing myths: Applying second language research to classroom teaching (pp. 70–89).
Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourses. London, England: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2010). Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and professional
science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 116–127.
Hyland, K. (2011). Learning to write: Issues in theory, research, and pedagogy. In R. M.
Manchón (Ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp.
17–36). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Hyland, K. (2012). Disciplinary identities: Individuality and community in academic writing.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006a). Interpersonal aspects of response: Constructing and in-
terpreting written teacher feedback. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second
language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 206–224). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (Eds.) (2006b). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and
issues. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K., & Milton, J. (1997). Hedging in L1 and L2 student writing. Journal of Second
Hyon, S. (1996). Genre in three traditions: Implications for ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 30,
693–722.
Hyon, S. (2002). Genre and ESL reading: A classroom study. In A. M. Johns (Ed.), Genre
in the classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 121–141). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ingalls, R. (2011). Writing “eyeball to eyeball”: Building a successful collaboration. Writ-
ing Spaces: Readings on Writing, 2, 122–140. Retrieved from http://wac.colostate.edu/
books/writingspaces2/ingalls—writing-eyeball-to-eyeball.pdf
Institute of International Education (IIE). (2011). Open doors 2011. Retrieved from http://
www.iie.org/Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors
Ito, F. (2004). The interrelationship among first language writing skills, second language
writing skills, and second language proficiency of EFL university students. JACET Bul-
letin, 39, 43–58.
Ito, F. (2011). L2 reading-writing correlation in Japanese EFL high school students. The
Language Teacher, 35(5), 23–29.
Ivaniþ, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic
writing. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
384 Bibliography
Ivaniþ, R., & Camps, D. (2002). I am how I sound: Voice as self-representation in L2 writing.
Jabbour, G. (2001). Lexis and grammar in second language reading and writing. In D. Belcher
& A. Hirvela (Eds.), Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading-writing connections (pp.
Jackson, R. J. (2011). Genre process writing and testing. Journal of Education and Practice,
2, 12–19.
Jacobs, H. L., Zingraf, S., Wormuth, D., Hartfiel, V., & Hughey, J. (1981). Testing ESL compo-
sition: A practical approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Jacobs, G. M., Curtis, A., Braine, G., & Huang, S. (1998). Feedback on student writing: Tak-
ing the middle path. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 307–318.
James, C. (1998). Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis. London, Eng-
land: Longman.
James, D. C. S. (1997). Coping with a new society: The psychosocial problems of immigrant
youth. Journal of School Health, 67, 98–101.
James, M. A. (2009). “Far” transfer of learning outcomes from an ESL writing course: Can
the gap be bridged? Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 69–84.
Jamieson, J. (2011). Assessment of classroom language learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Hand-
book of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. II, pp. 768–785). New
Janks, H. (2009). Literacy and power. New York, NY: Routledge.
Janopoulos, M. (1986). The relationship of pleasure reading and second language writing
proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 763–768.
Jansinski, J. (2001). Sourcebook on rhetoric. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Janson, T. (2012). The history of languages: An introduction. Oxford, England: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Jarvis, S., Grant, L., Bikowski, D., & Ferris, D. R. (2003). Exploring multiple profiles of learn-
ers’ writing proficiency. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 377–403.
Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2007). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. London,
England: Routledge.
Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Jensen, K. (2011). Old questions, new media: Theorizing writing in a digital age. In S. I.
Dobrin, J. A. Rice, & M. Vastola (Eds.), Beyond postprocess (p. 132–144). Logan, UT:
Jewitt, C. (2006). Technology, literacy, and learning: A multimodal approach. London, England:
Routledge.
Jewitt, C. (Ed.). (2009). Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis. London, England:
Routledge.
Jin, L., & Cortazzi, M. (2011). Re-evaluating traditional approaches to second language
teaching and learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teach-
ing and learning (Vol. II, pp. 558–575). New York, NY: Routledge.
Johns, A. M. (1995a). Genre and pedagogical purposes. Journal of Second Language Writing,
4, 181–190.
Johns, A. M. (1995b). The reading/writing relationship: Implications for ESL teaching. In
P. Hashemipour, R. Maldonado, & M. van Naerssen (Eds.), Studies in language learning and
Spanish linguistics in honor of Tracy D. Terrell (pp. 185–200). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Johns, A. M. (1995c). Teaching classroom and authentic genres: Initiating students into
academic cultures and discourses. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in
a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy (pp. 277–291). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Bibliography 385
Johns, A. M. (1997). Text, role, and context: Developing academic literacies. New York, NY:
Johns, A. M. (1999). Opening our doors: Applying socioliterate approaches to language mi-
nority classrooms. In L. Harklau, K. M. Losey, & M. Siegal (Eds.), Generation 1.5 meets
college composition: Issues in the teaching of writing to U.S.-educated learners of ESL (pp.
191–209). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Johns, A. M. (2002a). Destabilizing and enriching novice students’ genre theories. In A. M.
Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 237–246). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Johns, A. M. (Ed.). (2002b). Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum.
Johns, A. M. (2003). Genre and ESL/EFL composition instruction. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Ex-
ploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 195–217). Cambridge, England:
Johns, A. M. (2008). Genre awareness and the novice student: An ongoing quest. Language
Teaching, 41, 239–254.
Johns, A. M. (2009a). Situated invention and genres: Assisting Generation 1.5 students in
developing rhetorical flexibility. In M. Roberge, M. Siegal, & L. Harklau (Eds.), Genera-
tion 1.5 in college composition (pp. 203–220). New York, NY: Routledge.
Johns, A. M. (2009b). Tertiary undergraduate EAP: Problems and possibilities. In D. Belcher
(Ed.), English for specific purposes in theory and practice (pp. 41–59). Ann Arbor, MI:
Johns, A. M., & Price, D. (2014). English for specific purposes: International in scope, spe-
cific in purpose. In M. Celce-Murcia, D. M. Brinton, & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching
English as a second or foreign language (4th ed., pp. 471–487). Boston, MA: National
Geographic Learning.
Johns, A. M., & Price-Machado, D. (2001). English for specific purposes: Tailoring courses
to student needs—and to the outside world. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English
as a second or foreign language (3rd ed., pp. 43–54). Boston, MA: Heinle.
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Johnson, T. R. (Ed.). (2007). Teaching composition: Background readings (3rd ed.). New
York, NY: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Joint Task Force on Assessment of the International Reading Association and the National
Council of Teachers of English. (2009). Standards for the assessment of reading and writ-
ing (Rev. ed.). Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Jones, C., Turner, J., & Street, B. (Eds.). (1999). Students writing in the university: Cultural
and epistemological issues. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Jones, S. (1985). Problems with monitor use in second language composing. In M. Rose
(Ed.), Studies in writer’s block and other composing process problems (pp. 96–118). New
York, NY: Guilford.
Jones, 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.
Jordan, J. (2012). Redesigning composition for multilingual realities. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for academic purposes: A guide and resource book for teachers.
Joseph, P. B., Bravmann, S. L., Windschitl, M. A., Mikel, E. R., & Green, N. S. (2000). Cultures
of curriculum. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1987). The psychology of reading and language comprehension.
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
386 Bibliography
Kabuto, B. (2010). Becoming biliterate: Identity, ideology, and learning to read and write in
two languages. London, England: Routledge.
Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2012). Literacies. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Kamimura, T. (2001). Japanese students’ L1-L2 writing connections: Written texts, writing
competence, composing processes, and writing attitudes. Bulletin of the Kanto-Koshin-Etsu
English Language Society, 15, 165–183.
Kane, L. S. (2005). A developmental approach to investigating differences in the way high
school students of varying performance levels conceptualize academic essay writing (Doc-
toral dissertation). University of California, Berkeley.
Kanno, Y., & Harklau, L. (Eds.). (2012). Linguistic minority students go to college: Prepara-
tion, access, and persistence. New York, NY: Routledge.
Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural communication. Language
Learning, 16, 1–20.
Kaplan, R. B. (2001). Foreword. In C. G. Panetta (Ed.), Contrastive rhetoric revisited and
redefined (pp. vii–xx). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kassabgy, N., Ibrahim, Z., & Aydelott, S. (2004). Contrastive rhetoric: Issues, insights, and
pedagogy. Cairo, Egypt: University of Cairo Press.
Katz, A. (2014). Assessment in second language classrooms. In M. Celce-Murcia, D. M.
Brinton, & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (4th ed.,
pp. 320–337). Boston, MA: National Geographic Learning.
Katz, L., & Frost, R. (1992). Reading in different orthographies: The orthographic depth hy-
pothesis. In L. Katz & R. Frost (Eds.), Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning
(pp. 67–84). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
Kay, H., & Dudley-Evans, T. (1998). Genre: What teachers think. ELT Journal, 52, 308–314.
Keller, R. D. (1999). Aims and options: A thematic approach to writing (2nd ed.). Boston,
MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Kellogg, R. T. (1999). The psychology of writing. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Kellogg, R. T., & Whiteford, A. P. (2012). The development of writing expertise. In E. L.
Grigorenko, E. Mambrino, & D. D. Preiss (Eds.), Handbook of writing: A mosaic of per-
spectives and views (pp. 109–124). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Kennedy, G. A. (1998). Comparative rhetoric: An historical and cross-cultural introduction.
Kennedy, M. L. (Ed.). (1998). Theorizing composition: A critical sourcebook of theory and
scholarship in contemporary composition studies. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Kent, T. (Ed.). (1999). Post-process theory: Beyond the writing-process paradigm. Carbondale,
IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the
development of second-language writing skills. Modern Language Journal, 75, 305–313.
Kern, R. (2000). Literacy and language teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Keshavarz, M. H., Atai, M. R., & Ahmadi, H. (2007). Content schemata, linguistic simplifi-
cation, and EFL readers’ comprehension and recall. Reading in a Foreign Language, 19,
19–33.
Kessler, G., Oskoz, A., & Elola, I. (Eds.). (2012). Technology across writing contexts and tasks.
San Marcos, TX: CALICO.
Kessler, N. (2011). Writing for an authentic audience. In M. C. Pennington & P. Burton
(Eds.), The college writing toolkit: Tried and tested ideas for teaching college writing (pp.
255–270). London, England: Equinox.
Ketchum, E. M. (2006). The cultural baggage of second language reading: An approach to
understanding. Foreign Language Annals, 39, 22–42.
Bibliography 387
Kinsella, K., & Sherak, K. (1995). Classroom work style survey. In J. M. Reid (Ed.), Learning
styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp. 235–237). Boston, MA: Heinle.
Kirby, D., Kirby, D. L., & Liner, T. (2004). Inside out: Strategies for teaching writing (3rd ed.).
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Kirkpatrick, A. (1997). Using contrastive rhetoric to teach writing: Seven principles. Aus-
tralian Review of Applied Linguistics, 14, 89–102.
Kirkpatrick, A. (Ed.). (2010). The Routledge handbook of World Englishes. London, England:
Routledge.
Kittle, P., & Hicks, T. (2010). Transforming the group paper with collaborative online writ-
ing. Pedagogy, 12, 525–538.
Knoblauch, C. H., & Brannon, L. (1981). Teacher commentary on student writing: The state
of the art. Freshman English News, 10 (Fall), 1–4.
Knoblauch, C. H., & Brannon, L. (1984). Rhetorical traditions and the teaching of writing.
Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.
Knoblauch, C. H., & Brannon, L. (2006). Introduction: The emperor (still) has no clothes. In
R. Straub (Ed.), Key works on teacher response (pp. 94–111). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Kobayashi, H., & Rinnert, C. (1996). Factors affecting composition evaluation in an EFL
context: Cultural rhetorical pattern and readers’ background. Language Learning, 46,
397–437.
Koda, K. (1995). Cognitive consequences of L1 and L2 orthographies. In I. Taylor & D. R.
Olson (Eds.), Scripts and literacy: Reading and learning to read alphabets, syllabaries, and
characters (pp. 311–326). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Koda, K. (1999). Development of L2 intraword orthographic sensitivity and decoding skills.
Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading: A cross-linguistic approach. Cam-
Koda, K. (Ed.). (2007a). Reading and language learning. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Koda, K. (2007b). Reading and language learning: Crosslinguistic constraints on second
language reading development. Language Learning, 57, 1–44.
Koda, K. (2011). Learning to read in new writing systems. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty
(Eds.), Handbook of language teaching (pp. 463–485). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Koda, K., & Zehler, A. M. (Eds.). (2007). Learning to read across languages: Cross-linguistic
relationships in first- and second-language literacy development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Kolln, M. (2007). Rhetorical grammar: Grammatical choices, rhetorical effects (5th ed.). New
York, NY: Longman.
Komura, K. (1999). Student response to error correction in ESL classrooms (Master’s thesis).
California State University, Sacramento.
Kozulin, A., Gindis, B., Ageyev, V. S., & Miller, S. M. (Eds.). (2003). Vygotsky’s educational
theory in cultural context. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Krapels, A. R. (1990). An overview of second language writing process research. In B. Kroll
(Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 37–56). Cam-
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. Oxford, Eng-
land: Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1984). Writing: Research, theory, and application. Oxford, England: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). Inquiries and insights. Menlo Park, CA: Alemany Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1988). Do we learn to read by reading? The relationship between free read-
ing and reading ability. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Linguistics in context: Connecting observation
and understanding (pp. 269–298). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
388 Bibliography
Krashen, S. D. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence

for the Input Hypothesis. Modern Language Journal, 73, 440–464.
Krashen, S. D. (2004). The power of reading (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Krashen, S. D. (2011). Free voluntary reading. Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited.
Kress, G. (1993). Genre as social process. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), The powers of
literacy: A genre approach to teaching writing (pp. 22–37). Pittsburgh, PA: University of
Pittsburgh Press.
Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London, England: Routledge.
Kroll, B. (1998). Assessing writing abilities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18,
219–240.
Kroll, B. (2001). Considerations for teaching an ESL/EFL writing course. In M. Celce-Murcia
(Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed., pp. 219–232). Boston,
MA: Heinle.
Kroll, B. (Ed.). (2003a). Exploring the dynamics of second language writing. Cambridge, Eng-
Kroll, B. (2003b). Introduction: Teaching the next generation of second language writers. In
B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 1–10). Cambridge,
Kroll, B. M., & Schafer, J. C. (1978). Error-analysis and the teaching of composition. College
Composition and Communication, 29, 242–248.
Kubota, R. (1997). A reevaluation of the uniqueness of Japanese written discourse. Written
Communication, 14, 460–480.
Kubota, R. (1998). An investigation of L1-L2 transfer in writing among Japanese university
students: Implications for contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7,
69–100.
Kubota, R. (1999). Japanese culture constructed by discourses: Implications for applied lin-
guistics research and ELT. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 9–35.
Kubota, R. (2010). Critical approaches to theory in second language writing: A case of criti-
cal contrastive rhetoric. In T. Silva & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Practicing theory in second
language writing (pp. 191–208). West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
Kubota, R., & Abels, K. (2006). Improving institutional ESL/EAP support for international
students: Seeking the promised land. In P. K. Matsuda, C. Ortmeier-Hooper, & X. You
(Eds.), The politics of second language writing: In search of the promised land (pp. 75–93).
West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
Kubota, R., & Lin, A. (Eds.). (2009). Race, culture, and identities in second language educa-
tion: Exploring critically engaged practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
Kubota, R., & McKay, S. L. (2009). Globalization and language learning in rural Japan: The
role of English in the local linguistic ecology. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 593–619.
Kucer, S. B. (2009). Dimensions of literacy: A conceptual base for teaching reading and writing
in school settings (3rd ed.). London, England: Routledge.
Kucer, S. B., & Silva, C. (2013). Teaching the dimensions of literacy (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Macrostrategies for language teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale Uni-
versity Press.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2012). Language teacher education for a global society: A modular model
for knowing, analyzing, recognizing, doing, and seeing. New York, NY: Routledge.
Kunnan, A. J. (2000). Fairness and validation in language assessment. Cambridge, England:
Bibliography 389
Kunnan, A. J., & Grabowski, K. (2014). Large-scale second language assessment. In

M. Celce-Murcia, D. M. Brinton, & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or
foreign language (4th ed., pp. 304–319). Boston, MA: National Geographic Learning.
Kuta, K. W. (2008). Reading and writing to learn: Strategies across the curriculum. Westport,
CT: Teacher Ideas Press.
Lalande, J. F., II (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language
Journal, 66, 140–149.
Lally, C. G. (2000a). First language influences in second language composition: The effect of
pre-writing. Foreign Language Annals, 33, 428–432.
Lally, C. G. (2000b). Writing across English and French: An examination of strategy use. The
French Review, 73, 525–538.
Lambirth, A., & Gouch, K. (2006). Golden times of writing: The creative compliance of
writing journals. Literacy, 40, 146–152.
Lane, J., & Lange, E. (2011). Writing clearly: An editing guide (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle.
Langer, J. A., & Applebee, A. N. (1987). How writing shapes thinking: A study of teaching and
learning. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Langer, J. A., & Flihan, S. (2000). Writing and reading relationships: Constructive tasks. In
R. Indrisano & J. Squire (Eds.), Perspectives on writing: Research, theory, and practice (pp.
112–139). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Language Etc. (2011, February 3). English Language Learners in classrooms: A big change
for US schools. Retrieved from http://letcteachers.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/english-
language-learners-in-classrooms-a-big-change-for-us-schools
Lapp, D., Flood, J., Heath, S. B., & Langer, J. (2009). The communicative, visual, and
performative arts: Core components of literacy education. In J. V. Hoffman & Y. M.
Goodman (Eds.), Changing literacies for changing times (pp. 3–16). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring. Boston, MA:
Heinle/Cengage.
Lauer, J. (2004). Invention in rhetoric and composition. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cam-
Lay, N. D. S., Carro, G., Tien, S., Niemann, T. C., & Leong, S. (1999). Connections: High
school to college. In L. Harklau, K. Losey, & M. Siegal (Eds.), Generation 1.5 meets college
composition (pp. 175–190). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lea, M. R. (2004). Academic literacies: A pedagogy for course design. Studies in Higher
Education, 29, 739–756.
Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary
classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 69–85.
Lee, I. (2009). Ten mismatches between teachers’ beliefs and written feedback practice. ELT
Journal, 63, 13–22.
Lee, J., & Schallert, D. L. (1997). The relative contribution of L2 language proficiency and L1
reading ability to L2 reading performance: A test of the threshold hypothesis in an EFL
context. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 713–739.
Leki, I. (1990a). Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response. In B. Kroll (Ed.),
Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 57–68). Cambridge,
Leki, I. (1990b). Potential problems with peer responding in ESL writing classes. CATESOL
Journal, 3, 5–19.
Leki, I. (1991a). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing
classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24, 203–218.
390 Bibliography
Leki, I. (1991b). Twenty-five years of contrastive rhetoric: Text analysis and writing pedago-
gies. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 123–143.
Leki, I. (1992). Understanding ESL writers: A guide for teachers. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/
Cook.
Leki, I. (1995). Coping strategies of ESL students in writing tasks across the curriculum.
Leki, I. (1997). Cross-talk: ESL issues and contrastive rhetoric. In C. Severino, J. C. Guerra,
& J. E. Butler (Eds.), Writing in multicultural settings (pp. 234–244). New York, NY:
Modern Language Association.
Leki, I. (2000). Writing, literacy, and applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguis-
tics, 20, 99–115.
Leki, I. (2003). A challenge second language writing professionals: Is writing overrated? In
B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 315–332). Cam-
Leki, I. (2007). Undergraduates in a second language: Challenges and complexities of academic
literacy development. New York, NY: Routledge.
Leki, I. (2009). Before the conversation: A sketch of some possible backgrounds, experienc-
es, and attitudes among ESL students visiting a writing center. In S. Bruce & B. Rafoth
(Eds.), ESL writers: A guide for writing center tutors (2nd ed., pp. 1–17). Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann Boynton/Cook.
Leki, I. (2011). Learning to write in a second language: Multilingual graduates and un-
dergraduates expanding genre repertoires. In R. Manchón (Ed.), Learning-to-write and
writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 85–109). Amsterdam, The Netherlands:
John Benjamins.
Leki, I., Cumming, A., & Silva, T. (2008). A synthesis of research on second language writing
in English. New York, NY: Routledge.
Lent, R. (1993). “I can relate to that . . . ”: Reading and responding in the writing classroom.
College Composition and Communication, 44, 232–240.
Leong, C. K. (1995). Orthographic and psycholinguistic considerations in developing lit-
eracy in Chinese. In I. Taylor & D. R. Olson (Eds.), Scripts and literacy: Reading and
learning to read alphabets, syllabaries, and characters (pp. 163–183). Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York, NY: Harper Torchbooks.
Li, W., Gaffiney, J. S., & Packard, J. L. (Eds.). (2002). Chinese children’s reading acquisition:
Theoretical and pedagogical issues. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Lightbown, P. (1998). The importance of timing in focus on form. In C. Doughty &
J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom SLA (pp. 177–196). Cambridge, England:
Lindemann, E. (2001). A rhetoric for writing teachers. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Liu, J., & Hansen, J. G. (2002). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Ann Ar-
bor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Lock, A., & Gers, M. (2012). The cultural evolution of written language and its effects. In
E. L. Grigorenko, E. Mambrino, & D. D. D. Preiss (Eds.), Handbook of writing: A mosaic
of perspectives and views (pp. 11–35). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1995). Analyzing talk in ESL peer response groups: Stances, func-
tions, and content. Language Learning, 45, 605–655.
Long, M. H. (2005a). Methodological issues in learner needs analysis. In M. H. Long (Ed.), Sec-
ond language needs analysis (pp. 19–76). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Long, M. H. (Ed.). (2005b). Second language needs analysis. Cambridge, England: Cam-
Bibliography 391
Long, M. H., & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language
acquisition, TESOL Quarterly, 19, 207–227.
Luke, A. (1996). Genres of power? Literacy education and the production of capital. In
R. Hasan & A. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 308–338). London, England:
Longman.
Luke, A., & Dooley, K. (2011). Critical literacy and second language learning. In E. Hin-
kel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. II, pp.
Luke, A., Woods, A., & Weir, K. (Eds.). (2012). Curriculum, syllabus design, and equity: A
primer and model. New York, NY: Routledge.
Lumley, T., & McNamara, T. (1995). Rater characteristics and rater bias: Implications for
training. Language Testing, 12, 54–71.
Lundin, R. W. (2008). Teaching with wikis: Toward a networked pedagogy. Computers and
Composition, 25, 132–438.
Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer
review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 30–43.
Lunsford, A. A. (2006). Writing, technologies, and the fifth canon. Computers and Composi-
tion, 23, 169–177.
Lunsford, A. A. (2011). The St. Martin’s handbook (7th ed.). New York, NY: St. Martin’s.
Lunsford, A. A., & Ede, L. (2012). Writing together: Collaboration in theory and practice.
Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Lunsford, A. A., & Lunsford, K. J. (2008). “Mistakes are a fact of life”: A national compara-
tive study. College Composition and Communication, 59, 781–806.
Lunsford, A. A., Wilson, K. H., & Eberly, R. A. (Eds.). (2008). SAGE handbook of rhetorical
studies. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Luoma, S., & Tarnanen, M. (2003). Creating a self-rating instrument for second language
writing: From idea to implementation. Language Testing, 20, 440–465.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form
in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.
Ma, G., & Wen, Q. (1999). The relationship of second language learners’ linguistic variables
to second language writing ability. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 4, 34–39.
Mabry, L. (1999). Portfolios plus a critical guide to alternative assessment. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin.
MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of writing research.
New York, NY: Guilford.
Macaulay, R. K. S. (2011). Seven ways of looking at language. London, England: Palgrave
Macmillan.
MacDonald, S. P. (1994). Professional academic writing in the humanities and social sciences.
MacDonald, S. P. (2007). The erasure of language. College Composition and Communication,
58, 585–625.
Macken-Horarik, M. (1996). Construing the invisible: Specialised literacy practices in junior
secondary English (Ph.D. dissertation). University of Sydney, Australia.
Macken-Horarik, M. (2002). “Something to shoot for”: A systematic functional approach
to teaching genre in secondary school science. In A. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom:
Multiple perspectives (pp. 17–42). Mahwah, MJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Macrorie, K. (1984). Writing to be read (3rd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Heinemann.
Mahn, H. (2008). A dialogic approach to teaching L2 writing. In J. P. Lantolf & M. E. Po-
ehner (Eds.). Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages (pp. 115–138).
London, England: Equinox.
392 Bibliography
Mailloux, S. (2006). Disciplinary identities: Rhetorical paths of English, speech, and composi-
tion. New York, NY: Modern Language Association.
Mair, V. (1996). Modern Chinese writing. In P. Daniels & W. Bright (Eds.), The world’s writ-
ing systems (pp. 200–208). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Malatesha Joshi, R., & Aaron, P. G. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of orthography and literacy.
Manchón, R. M. (2001a). Trends in the conceptualizations of second language composing
strategies: A critical analysis. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), International Journal of English
Studies, 1, 47–70.
Manchón, R. M. (Issue Ed.). (2001b). Writing in the L2 classroom: Issues in research and
pedagogy [Monograph]. International Journal of English Studies, 1 (2).
Manchón, R. M. (Ed.). (2009). Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and
research. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Manchón, R. M. (Ed.). (2011a). Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional lan-
guage. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Manchón, R. M. (2011b). Situating the learning-to-write and writing-to-learn dimensions
of L2 writing. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an ad-
ditional language (pp. 3–16). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Manchón, R. M. (2011c). Writing to learn the language: Issues in theory and research. In
R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language
(pp. 61–84). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Manchón, R. M., & de Haan, P. (2008). Writing in foreign language contexts: An introduc-
tion. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 1–6.
Manchón, R. M., Roca de Larios, J., & Murphy, L. (2009). The temporal dimension and
problem-solving nature of foreign language composing processes: Implications for the-
ory. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching,
and research (pp. 77–101). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
Manchón-Ruiz, R. (1997). Learners’ strategies in L2 composing. Communication and Cog-
nition, 30, 91–114.
Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What do the stu-
dents think? ELT Journal, 46, 274–284.
Markee, N. (1997). Managing curricular innovation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John
Benjamins.
Martin, J. R. (1997). Analyzing genres: Functional parameters. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin
(Eds.), Genres and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school (pp. 1–40).
Herndon, VA: Cassell Academic.
Martin, J. R. (2000). Close reading: Functional linguistics as a tool for critical analysis. In
L. Unsworth (Ed.), Researching language in schools and communities: Functional linguis-
tics approaches (pp. 275–303). London, England: Cassell.
Martin, J. R. (2001). Language, register, and genre. In A. Burns & C. Coffin (Eds.), Analysing
English in a global context: A reader (pp. 149–166). London, England: Routledge.
Martin, J. R. (2002). A universe of meaning—How many practices? In A. M. Johns (Ed.),
Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 269–283). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse. London, England: Continuum.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. London, England: Equinox.
Masny, D., & Cole, D. R. (Eds.). (2009). Multiple literacies theory: A Deleuzian perspective.
Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
Bibliography 393
Matsuda, P. K. (1998). Situating ESL writing in a cross-disciplinary context. Written Com-

Matsuda, P. K. (1999). Composition studies and ESL writing: A disciplinary division of
labor. College Composition and Communication, 50, 699–721.
Matsuda, P. K. (2003a). Process and post-process: A discursive history. Journal of Second
Matsuda, P. K. (2003b). Second language writing in the twentieth century: A situated his-
torical perspective. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing
Matsuda, P. K. (2008). Myth 8: International and U.S. resident ESL writers cannot be taught
in the same class. In J. M. Reid (Ed.), Writing myths: Applying second language research to
classroom teaching (pp. 159–176). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Matsuda, P. K., Cox, M., Jordan, J., & Ortmeier-Hooper, C. (Eds.). (2010). Second-language
writing in the composition classroom: A critical sourcebook. New York, NY: Bedford/St.
Martin’s.
Matsuda, P. K., & Matsuda, A. (2009). The erasure of resident ESL writers. In M. Roberge,
M. Siegal, & L. Harklau (Eds.), Generation 1.5 in college composition: Teaching academic
writing to U.S.-educated learners of ESL (pp. 50–64). New York, NY: Routledge.
Matsuda, P. K., Ortmeier-Hooper, C., & You, X. (Eds.). (2006). The politics of second lan-
guage writing: In search of the promised land. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
Matsuda, P. K., & Silva, T. (1999). Cross-cultural composition: Mediated integration of U.S.
and international students. Composition Studies, 27, 15–30.
Matsuda, P. K., & Silva, T. (Eds.). (2005). Second language writing research: Perspectives on
the process of knowledge construction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
McCarthey, S., & Garcia, G. (2005). English language learners’ writing practices and atti-
tudes. Written Communication, 22, 36–75.
McCarthey, S., Guo, Y., & Cummins, S. (2005). Understanding changes in elementary Man-
darin students’ L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 71–104.
McCutchen, D., Teske, P., & Bankston, C. (2008). Writing and cognition: Implications of the
cognitive architecture for learning to write and writing to learn. In C. Bazerman (Ed.),
McGinley, W., & Tierney, R. J. (1989). Traversing the topical landscape: Reading and writing
as ways of knowing. Written Communication, 6, 243–269.
McKay, S. L. (1994). Developing ESL writing materials. System, 22, 195–203.
McKay, S. L. (2012). Principles of teaching English as an international language. In
L. Alsagoff, S. L. McKay, G. Hu, & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Principles and practices for
teaching English as an international language (pp. 28–46). New York, NY: Routledge.
McKay, S. L. (2014). Literature as content for ESL/EFL. In M. Celce-Murcia, D. M. Brin-
ton, & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (4th ed., pp.
488–500). Boston, MA: National Geographic Learning.
McKay, S. L., & Wong, S. C. (Eds.). (2000). New immigrants in the United States: Readings for
second language educators. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
McLeod, S. (2001). The pedagogy of writing across the curriculum. In G. Tate, A. Rupiper,
& K. Schick (Eds.), A guide to composition pedagogies (pp. 149–164). Oxford, England:
McLeod, S. H., & Maimon, E. (2000). Clearing the air: WAC myths and realities. College
English, 62, 573–583.
McLeod, S. H., Miraglia, E., Soven, M., & Thaiss, C. (Eds.). (2001). WAC for the new millen-
nium: Strategies for continuing writing-across-the-curriculum. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
394 Bibliography
McLeod, S. H., & Soven, M. (Eds.). (2006). Composing a community: A history of writing
across the curriculum. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
McLuhan, M. (1962). The Gutenberg galaxy: The making of typographic man. Toronto, On-
tario: University of Toronto Press.
McNamara, T. (2000). Language testing. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
McQuillan, J. (1994). Reading versus grammar: What students think is pleasurable for lan-
guage acquisition. Applied Language Learning, 5, 95–100.
McVee, M. B., Dunsmore, K., & Gavelek, J. R. (2005). Schema theory revisited. Review of
Educational Research, 75, 531–566.
Melzer, D. (2003). Assignments across the curriculum: A survey of college writing. Lan-
guage and Learning Across the Disciplines, 6, 86–110.
Mendonça, C. O., & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in
ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 745–769.
Messick, S. (1996). Validity and washback in language testing. Language Testing, 13,
241–256.
Mesthrie, R., Swann, J., Deumert, A., & Leap, W. L. (2009). Introducing sociolinguistics (2nd ed.).
Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Mezeske, B. A. (2005). Handling the paper load: Three strategies. In J. N. Golub (Ed.), More
ways to handle the paper load on paper and online (pp. 3–6). Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Mikulecky, B. S. (2011). A short course in teaching reading: Practical techniques for building
reading power (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Longman.
Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 157–178.
Miller, C. R. (1994a). Genre as social action. In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.), Genre and
the new rhetoric (pp. 23–42). London, England: Routledge.
Miller, C. R. (1994b). Rhetorical community: The cultural basis of genre. In A. Freedman &
P. Medway (Eds.). Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 67–78). London, England: Routledge.
Miller, M. D., Linn, R. L., & Gronlund, N. E. (2013). Measurement and assessment in teaching
(11th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Miller, S. (Ed.). (2009). The Norton book of composition studies. New York, NY: W. W.
Norton.
Milton, J. (2006). Resource-rich web-based feedback: Helping learners become independ-
ent writers. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Con-
texts and issues (pp. 123–140). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mitchell, R., Myles, F., & Marsden (2013). Second language learning theories (3rd ed.). New
Mittan, R. (1989). The peer review process: Harnessing students’ communicative power. In
D. M. Johnson & D. H. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp.
207–219). New York, NY: Longman.
Mohan, B. (1986). Language and content. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Moline, M. A. (2012). Increasing student participation and accountability in group produc-
tion of text through speed interviews. In K. M. Hunzer (Ed.), Collaborative learning and
writing: Essays on using small groups in teaching English and composition (pp. 55–64).
Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Molle, D., & Prior, P. (2008). Multimodal genre systems in EAP writing pedagogy: Reflect-
ing on a needs analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 541–566.
Montgomery, J. L., & Baker, W. (2007). Teacher-written feedback: Student perceptions,
teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 16, 82–99.
Moore, L. (1986). Teaching students how to evaluate writing. TESOL Newsletter, 20 (5),
23–24.
Bibliography 395
Morgan, B., & Clarke, M. (2011). Identity in second language teaching and learning. In
E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. II,
pp. 817–836). New York, NY: Routledge.
Mori, Y. (1998). Effects of first language and phonological accessibility on Kanji recogni-
tion. British Journal of Psychology, 55, 165–180.
Morrison, J. D. (2005). “Ungrading” writing to achieve freedom for all. In J. N. Golub (Ed.),
More ways to handle the paper load on paper and online (pp. 7–12). Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Moss, B. J., Highberg, N. P., & Nicholas M. (Eds.). (2004). Writing groups inside and outside
the classroom. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Moss, P. A. A. (1994). Can there be validity without reliability? Educational Researcher, 23,
5–12.
Murphy, C., & Sherwood, S. (2003). The St. Martin’s sourcebook for writing tutors (2nd ed.).
Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Murphy, J. J. (Ed.). (2012). A short history of writing instruction from ancient Greece to con-
temporary America (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Murphy, J. M. (2014). Reflective teaching: Principles and practices. In M. Celce-Murcia,
D. M. Brinton, & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (4th
ed., pp. 613–629). Boston, MA: National Geographic Learning.
Murphy, S., & Yancey, K. B. (2008). Construct and consequence: Validity in writing assess-
ment. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), A handbook of research on writing: History, society, school,
individual, text (pp. 365–386). New York, NY: Routledge.
Murray, D. E. (1992). Collaborative writing as a literacy event: Implications for ESL instruc-
tion. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Collaborative language learning and teaching (pp. 100–117).
Murray, D. M. (1985). A writer teaches writing (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Murray, D. M. (1987). Write to learn. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Mustafa, Z. (1995). The effect of genre awareness on linguistic transfer. English for Specific
Purposes, 14, 247–256.
Myers, G. (1990). Writing biology: Texts in the social construction of scientific knowledge.
Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Nassaji, H. (2002). Schema theory and knowledge-based processes in second language
reading comprehension: A need for alternative perspectives. Language Learning, 52,
439–481.
Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating
form-focused instruction in communicative context. New York, NY: Routledge.
Nation, I. S. P. (1997). The language learning benefits of extensive reading. The Language
Teacher, 2 (5), 13–16.
Nation, I. S. P. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL reading and writing. New York, NY: Routledge.
Nation, I. S. P., & Macalister, J. (2010). Language curriculum design. New York, NY: Rout-
ledge.
National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE). (2008). Writing now: A policy research
brief produced by the National Council of Teachers of English. Urbana, IL: NCTE. Re-
trieved from http://www.ncte.org/policy-research/briefs
National Writing Project (with Nagin, C.) (2006). Because writing matters: Improving stu-
dent writing in our schools (Rev. ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
National Writing Project (with DeVoss, D. N., Eidman-Aadahl, E., & Hicks, T.) (2010). Be-
cause digital writing matters: Improving student writing in online and multimedia envi-
ronments. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Neff, J. M., & Whithaus, C. (2008). Writing across distances and disciplines: Research and
pedagogy in distributed learning. New York, NY: Routledge.
396 Bibliography
Nelson, C. D. (2009). Sexual identities in English language education: Classroom conversa-

tions. New York, NY: Routledge.
Nelson, G., & Carson, J. (2006). Cultural issues in peer response: Revisiting “culture.” In
K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues
Nelson, G., & Schmid, T. (1989). ESL reading: Schema theory and standardized tests. TESOL
Quarterly, 23, 539–543.
Nelson, G. L., & Murphy, J. M. (1992). An L2 writing group: Task and social dimensions.
Nelson, G. L., & Murphy, J. M. (1992/1993). Writing groups and the less proficient ESL
student. TESOL Journal, 2 (2), 23–26.
Nelson, G. L. & Murphy, J. M. (1993). Peer response groups: Do L2 writers use peer com-
ments in revising their drafts? TESOL Quarterly, 27, 135–142.
Nelson, N., & Calfee, R. (Eds.). (1998). The reading-writing connection. Chicago, IL: Na-
tional Society for the Study of Education.
Nesi, H., & Gardner, S. (2012). Genres across the disciplines. Cambridge, England: Cam-
New, E. (1999). Computer-aided writing in French as a foreign language: A qualitative and
quantitative look at the process of revision. Modern Language Journal, 83, 80–97.
Newell, G., Garriga, M. C., & Peterson, S. S. (2001). Learning to assume the role of au-
thor: A study of reading-to-write one’s own ideas in an undergraduate ESL composi-
tion course. In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2
reading-writing connections (pp. 164–185). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan
Press.
Newkirk, T. (1995). The writing conference as performance. Research in the Teaching of
English, 29, 193–215.
Nickoson, L., & Sheridan, M. P. (Eds.). (2012). Writing studies research in practice: Methods
and methodologies. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Nichols, S. L., & Berliner, D.C. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts
America’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Nicolas, L. (2011). The function of the “universal audience” in Perelman’s rhetoric: Looking
back on a theoretical issue. In J. T. Gage (Ed.), The promise of reason: Studies in the New
Rhetoric (pp. 48–54). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Nieto, S. (2002). Language, culture, and teaching: Critical perspectives for a new century.
Nieto, S., & Bode, P. (2008). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural
education (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Nieto, S., Bode, P., Kang, E., & Raible, J. (2008). Identity, community, and diversity: Retheo-
rizing multicultural curriculum for the postmodern era. In F. M. Connelly, M. F. He,
& J. Phillion (Eds.), SAGE handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 176–197). Los
Angeles, CA: Sage.
North, S. (1987). The making of knowledge in composition: Portrait of an emerging field. Up-
per Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.
Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity, and the ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 31,
409–429.
Null, J. W. (2008). Curriculum development in historical perspective. In F. M. Connelly,
M. F. He, & J. Phillion (Eds.), SAGE handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 478–490).
Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Nunan, D. (1992). Collaborative language learning and teaching. Cambridge, England: Cam-
Bibliography 397
Nunan, D. (2001). Syllabus design. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second

or foreign language (3rd ed., pp. 55–65). Boston, MA: Heinle.
O’Halloran, K. L., & Smith, B. A. (Eds.). (2011). Multimodal studies: Exploring issues and
domains. London, England: Routledge.
Olsen, S. (1999). Errors and compensatory strategies: A study of grammar and vocabulary
in texts written by Norwegian learners of English. System, 27, 191–205.
Olson, C. B. (2010). The reading/writing connection: Strategies for teaching and learning in
the secondary classroom (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Olson, C. B., & Land, R. (2007). A cognitive strategies approach to reading and writing
instruction for English language learners in secondary school. Research in the Teaching
of English, 41, 269–303.
Olson, D. R. (1994). The world on paper. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Olson, D. R. (2012). Language, literacy and mind: The literacy hypothesis. In E. L. Grigoren-
ko, E. Mambrino, & D. D. Preiss (Eds.), Handbook of writing: A mosaic of perspectives and
views (pp. 37–43). New York, NY: Psychology Press. (Reprinted from Psykhe, 18, 2009)
Olson, D. R., & Torrance, N. (Eds.). (2009). Cambridge handbook of literacy. New York, NY:
Olson, G. A. (Ed.). (2002). Rhetoric and composition as intellectual work. Carbondale, IL:
Southern Illinois University Press.
O’Malley, J. M., & Valdez-Pierce, L. (1996). Authentic assessment for English language learn-
ers: Practical approaches for teachers. New York, NY: Addison-Wesley.
O’Neill, P., Moore, C., & Huot, B. (2009). A guide to college writing assessment. Logan, UT:
Ong, W. (1976). The presence of the world. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Ortega, L. (2004). L2 writing research in EFL contexts: Some challenges and opportunities
for EFL researcher. Applied Linguistic Association of Korea Newsletter, Spring, 1–10.
Ortega, L. (2009a). Studying writing across EFL contexts: Looking back and moving for-
ward. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching,
and research (pp. 232–255). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
Ortega, L. (2009b). Understanding second language acquisition. London, England: Hodder
Education.
Ortega, L. (Ed.). (2010). Second-language acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge.
Ortmeier-Hooper, C. (2008). English may be my second language—but I’m not “ESL.” Col-
lege Composition and Communication, 59, 389–419.
Ortmeier-Hooper, C., & Enright, K.A. (Eds.). (2011, September). Adolescent L2 writing in
U.S. contexts. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20 (Special Issue).
O’Sullivan, B. (2011). Language testing: Theories and practices. New York, NY: Palgrave Mac-
millan.
Oxford, O. (2009). The influence of technology on second-language writing. In R. Oxford
& J. Oxford (Eds.), Second language teaching and learning in the net generation (pp.
85–100). Honolulu: National Foreign Language Resource Center, University of Hawai’i
at Manoa.
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online: Learning together in community. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Palmeri, J. (2012). Remixing composition: A history of multimodal writing pedagogy. Urbana,
IL: NCTE.
Paltridge, B. (2001). Genre and the language learning classroom. Ann Arbor, MI: University
of Michigan Press.
Paltridge, B. (2004). State of the art review: Academic writing. Language Teaching, 37,
87–105.
398 Bibliography
Paltridge, B. (2006). Discourse analysis: An introduction. London, England: Continuum.

Paltridge, B., Harbon, L., Hirsh, D., Shen, H., Stevenson, M., Phakiti, A., & Woodrow,
L. (2009). Teaching academic writing: An introduction for teachers of second language
writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Panetta, C. G. (2001). Contrastive rhetoric revisited and redefined. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Pang, T. T. T. (2002). Textual analysis and contextual awareness building: A comparison of
two approaches to teaching genre. In A. M. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom: Multiple
perspectives (pp. 145–161). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Panofsky, C., Pacheco, M., Smith, S., Santos, J., Fogelman, C., Harrington, M., & Kenney,
E. (2005). Approaches to writing instruction for adolescent English language learners: A
discussion of recent research and practice literature in relation to nationwide standards on
writing. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
Park, K. (1999). “I really do feel I’m 1.5”: The construction of self and community by young
Korean Americans. Amerasia Journal, 25, 139–163.
Pasquarelli, S. L. (2006a). Expository summary writing: Comprehension and composition.
In S. L. Pasquarelli (Ed.), Teaching writing genres across the curriculum: Strategies for
middle teachers (pp. 105–119). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Pasquarelli, S. L. (Ed.). (2006b). Teaching writing genres across the curriculum: Strategies for
middle teachers. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Patthey, G. G., Thomas-Spiegel, J., & Dillon, P. (2009). Educational pathways of Genera-
tion 1.5 students in community college courses. In M. Roberge, M. Siegal, & L. Harklau
(Eds.), Generation 1.5 in college composition (pp. 135–149). New York, NY: Routledge.
Patthey-Chavez, G. G., & Ferris, D. R. (1997). Writing conferences and the weaving of
multi-voiced texts in college composition. Research in the Teaching of English, 31, 51–90.
Patton, M. D. (2011). Mapping the gaps in services for L2 writers. Across the Disciplines, 8.
Retrieved from http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/ell/patton.cfm
Paulus, T. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 8, 265–289.
Pearson. (2012). Pearson Test of English. Retrieved from http://www.pearsonpte.com
Pecorari, D. (2001). Plagiarism and international students: How the English-speaking uni-
versity responds. In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2
reading-writing connections (pp. 229–245). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Pecorari, D. (2008). Academic writing and plagiarism: A linguistic analysis. London, Eng-
land: Continuum.
Pennington, M. C., & Burton, P. (Eds.). (2011). The college writing toolkit: Tried and tested
ideas for teaching college writing. London, England: Equinox.
Pennington, M. C., & So, S. (1993). Comparing writing process and product across two
languages: A study of six Singaporean university student writers. Journal of Second Lan-
Pennycook, A. (1996a). Borrowing others’ words: Text, ownership, memory, and plagiarism.
Pennycook, A. (1996b). TESOL and critical literacies: Modern, post, or neo? TESOL Quar-
terly, 30, 163–171.
Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A ^critical^ introduction. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Penrod, D. (2005). Composition in convergence: The impact of new media on writing assess-
ment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Perelman, C. (2001). The new rhetoric: A theory of practical reasoning. In P. Bizzell &
B. Herzberg (Eds.), The rhetorical tradition (pp. 1384–1409). New York, NY: Bedford Books.
Bibliography 399
Perelman, C. (2003). First philosophies and regressive philosophy. Philosophy and Rhetoric,
36, 189–206.
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumenta-
tion. (J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver, Trans.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame
Press.
Pérez, B. (2004). Writing across writing systems. In B. Pérez (Ed.). Sociocultural contexts of
language and literacy (2nd ed., pp. 57–75). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Perfetti, C., Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M. (1999). Toward a theory of document representation.
In H. van Oostendorp & S. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations
during reading (pp. 99–122). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Peterson, S. S., & Daniels, H. (2008). Writing across the curriculum: All teachers teach writing
(Rev. ed.). Winnipeg, Manitoba: Portage & Main.
Peyton, J. K., & Reed, L. (1990). Dialogue journal writing with nonnative English speakers: A
handbook for teachers. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Pica, T. (1984). Second language acquisition theory in the teaching of writing. TESOL
Newsletter, 18, 5–6.
Pincas, A. (1982). Teaching English writing. London, England: Macmillan.
Pinto, M. (2004). Looking at reading and writing through language. In G. Rijlaarsdam, H.
van den Bergh, & M. Couzijn (Eds.), Effective learning and teaching in writing (2nd ed.,
pp. 31–46). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Piontek, T. K. H. (2004). Wrestling with the angels: Writing groups, messy texts, and truly
collaborative writing. In B. J. Moss, N. P. Highberg, & M. Nicholas (Eds.), Writing groups
inside and outside the classroom (pp. 31–46). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Poehner, M. (2010). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and pro-
moting L2 development. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Polio, C. (2003). Research on second language writing: An overview of what we investi-
gate and how. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp.
35–65). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Polio, C. (1997). Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Lan-
guage Learning, 47, 101–143.
Polio, C., Fleck, C., & Leder, N. (1998). “If only I had more time”: ESL learners’ changes
in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 43–68.
Polio, C., & Williams, J. (2011). Teaching and testing writing. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty
(Eds.), Handbook of language teaching (pp. 486–517). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Powell, B. B. (2012). Writing: Theory and history of the technology of civilization. Malden,
MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Powell, R., & Rightmyer, E. (Eds.). (2011). Literacy for all students: An instructional frame-
work for closing the gap. New York, NY: Routledge.
Pratt, D. (1980). Curriculum design and development. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jo-
vanovich.
Pressley, M. (1998). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching. New York,
NY: Guilford.
Pressley, M., Billman, A., Perry, K., Reffitt, K., & Reynolds, J. (Eds.). (2007). Shaping literacy
achievement: Research we have, research we need (pp. 129–156). New York, NY: Guilford.
Prior, P. (2006). A sociocultural theory of writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, &
J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 54–66). New York, NY: Guilford.
Prior, P. A. (1998). Writing/disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the
academy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Prior, P. A. (2001). Voices in text, mind, and society: Sociohistoric accounts of discourse
acquisition and use. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 55–81.
400 Bibliography
Purdue Online Writing Lab. (n.d.). Writing across the curriculum: An introduction. Retrieved
from http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/671/1
Purgason, K. B. (2014). Lesson planning in second/foreign language teaching. In
M. Celce-Murcia, D. M. Brinton, & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or
foreign language (4th ed., pp. 362–379). Boston, MA: National Geographic Learning.
Purves, A. C., Soter, A., Takala, S., & Vähäpässi, A. (1984). Towards a domain-referenced
system for classifying assignments. Research in the Teaching of English, 18, 385–416.
Radecki, P., & Swales, J. (1988). ESL student reaction to written comments on their written
work. System, 16, 355–365.
Radford, A., Atkinson, M., Britain, D., Clahsen, H., & Spencer, A. (2009). Linguistics: An
introduction (2nd ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Raimes, A. (1983). Techniques in teaching writing. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled ESL students do as they write: A classroom study of
composing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 229–258.
Raimes, A. (1991). Out of the woods: Emerging traditions in the teaching of writing. TESOL
Quarterly, 25, 407–430.
Raimes, A. (1998). Teaching writing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 142–167.
Raimes, A. (2004). Grammar troublespots (3rd ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Rajagopalan, K. (2004). The philosophy of applied linguistics. In A. Davies & C. Elder
(Eds.), Handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 397–420). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Ramanathan, V., & Atkinson, D. (1999a). Ethnographic approaches and methods in L2
writing research: A critical guide and review. Applied Linguistics, 20, 44–70.
Ramanathan, V., & Atkinson, D. (1999b). Individualism, academic writing, and ESL writers.
Ramanathan, V., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996a). Audience and voice in current composition text-
books: Implications for L2 student-writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 21–34.
Ramanthan, V., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996b). Some problematic channels in the teaching of crit-
ical thinking in current L1 composition textbooks: Implications for L2 student-writers.
Issues in Applied Linguistics, 7, 225–249.
Ransdell, S., & Berbier, M.-L. (2002a). Introduction. In S. Ransdell & M.-L. Barbier (Eds.),
New directions for research in L2 writing (pp. 1–10). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Ransdell, S., & Barbier, M.-L. (Eds.). (2002b). New directions for research in L2 writing.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Reichelt, M. (2011). Foreign language writing: An overview. In T. Cimasko & M. Reichelt
(Eds.), Foreign language writing instruction: Principles and practices (pp. 3–21). Ander-
son, SC: Parlor Press.
Reid, J. (1994). Responding to ESL students’ texts: The myths of appropriation. TESOL
Quarterly, 28, 273–292.
Reid, J. M. (Ed.). (1995). Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. Boston, MA: Heinle.
Reid, J. (1998a). “Eye” learners and “ear” learners: Identifying the language needs of inter-
national students and U.S. resident writers. In P. Byrd & J. M. Reid (Eds.), Grammar in
the composition classroom: Essays on teaching ESL for college-bound students (pp. 3–17).
Boston, MA: Heinle.
Reid, J. (1998b). Responding to ESL student language problems: Error analysis and revision
plans. In P. Byrd & J.M. Reid, Grammar in the composition classroom: Essays on teaching
ESL for college-bound students (pp. 118–137). Boston, MA: Heinle.
Reid, J. (2006). Essentials of teaching academic writing. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Bibliography 401
Reid, J. M. (1989). English as a second language composition in higher education: The

expectations of the academic audience. In D. Johnson & D. Roen (Eds.), Richness in
writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 220–234). New York, NY: Longman.
Reid, J. M. (1993). Teaching ESL writing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Regents/Prentice Hall.
Reid, J. M., & Kroll, B. (1995). Designing and assessing effective classroom writing assign-
ments for NES and ESL students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 17–41.
Reilly, R. (2012, July). The sins of the father. Retrieved from http://espn.go.com/espn/
story/_/id/8162972/joe-paterno-true-legacy
Reinders, H., & White, C. (2010). The theory and practice of technology in materials de-
velopment and task design. In N. Harwood (Ed.), English language teaching materials:
Theory and practice (pp. 58–80). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Rennie, C. (2000). Error feedback in ESL writing classes: What do students really want? (Mas-
ter’s thesis). California State University, Sacramento.
Reppen, R. (2010). Using corpora in the language classroom. Cambridge, England: Cam-
Reynolds, D. (2009). One on one with second language writers: A guide for writing tutors,
teachers, and consultants. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Reynolds, N. (2000). Portfolio teaching: A guide for instructors. Boston, MA: Bedford/St.
Martin’s.
Ribble, M., & Bailey, G. (2007). Digital citizenship in schools. Eugene, OR: International
Society of Technology in Education.
Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge, England:
Richards, J. C., & Farrell, T. S. C. (2005). Professional development for language teachers:
Strategies for teacher learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Rijlaarsdam, G., & van den Bergh, H. (2006). Writing process theory: A functional dynamic
approach. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing
research (pp. 41–53). New York, NY: Guilford.
Ritter, K., & Matsuda, P. K. (Eds.). (2012). Exploring composition studies: Sites, issues, per-
spectives. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.
Rivers, W. (1968). Teaching foreign language skills. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL
writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83–93.
Roberge, M. M. (2002). California’s Generation 1.5 immigrants: What experiences, charac-
teristics, and needs do they bring to our English classes? CATESOL Journal, 14, 107–129.
Roberge, M. M. (2009). A teacher’s perspective on Generation 1.5. In M. M. Roberge,
M. Siegal, & L. Harklau (Eds.), Generation 1.5 in college composition (pp. 3–24). New
Roberge, M. M., Siegal, M., & Harklau, L. (Eds.). (2009). Generation 1.5 in college composi-
tion. New York, NY: Routledge.
Roberts, B. J. (1999). Can error logs raise more than consciousness? The effects of error logs
and grammar feedback on ESL students’ final drafts (Master’s thesis). California State
University, Sacramento.
Robinson, A. (1999). The story of writing: Alphabets, hieroglyphs, and pictograms. London,
England: Thames and Hudson.
Robinson, D. W. (2000). Building consensus on the scoring of students’ writing: A compar-
ison of teacher scores versus native informants’ scores. The French Review, 73, 667–688.
Robinson, P. (2011). Syllabus design. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), Handbook of
language teaching (pp. 294–310). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
402 Bibliography
Roca de Larios, J., Manchón, R., & Murphy, L. (2008). Generating text in native and foreign
language writing: A temporal analysis of problem-solving formulation processes. Mod-
ern Language Journal, 90, 100–114.
Roca de Larios, J., Manchón, R., Murphy, L., & Marín, J. (2008). The foreign language writ-
er’s strategic behaviour in the allocation of time to writing processes. Journal of Second
Roen, D., Pantoja, V., Yena, L., Miller, S. K., & Waggoner, E. (Eds.). (2002). Strategies for
teaching first-year composition. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Romano, T. (2000). The living legacy of Donald Murray. English Journal, 89 (3), 74–79.
Rorschach, E. (2004). The five-paragraph theme redux. The Quarterly, 26, 17–19, 25.
Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Rose, D., & Martin, J. R. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge, and
pedagogy in the Sydney school. London, England: Equinox.
Rouse, J. (1979). The politics of composition. College Composition and Communication, 41,
1–12.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.).
Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Ruiz-Garrido, M. F., Palmer-Silveira, J. C., & Fortanet-Gómez, I. (Eds.). (2010). English for
professional and academic purposes. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Rodopi.
Rumbaut, R. G., & Ima, K. (1988). The adaptation of Southeast Asian refugee youth: A com-
parative study. Final Report to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Office of Refugee Resettlement, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Hu-
man Services.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of language. In R. J. Spiro, B. Bruce,
& W. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues on reading comprehension (pp. 33–58). Hillsdale,
Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1982). An interactive activation model of the effects
of context in perception. Psychological Review, 89, 60–94.
Rumelhart, D. E., Smolensky, P., McClelland, J. L., & Hinton, G. E. (1986). Schemata and
sequential thought processes in PDP models. In J. L. McClelland, D. E. Rumelhart, & the
PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the micro-
structure of cognition: Psychological and biological models (Vol. II: pp. 7–57). Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Russell, D. R. (1992). American origins of writing-across-the-curriculum movement. In
A. Herrington, & C. Moran, Writing, teaching, and learning in the disciplines (pp. 22–42).
New York, NY: Modern Language Association.
Russell, D. R. (2002). Writing in the academic disciplines: A curricular history (2nd ed.). Car-
bondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Saginor, N. (2008). Diagnostic classroom observation: Moving beyond best practice. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Saito, H. (1994). Teachers’ practices and students’ preferences for feedback on second lan-
guage writing: A case study of adult ESL learners. TESL Canada Journal, 11, 46–70.
Sakyi, A. (2000). Validation of holistic scoring for ESL writing assessment: How raters eval-
uate ESL compositions. In A. Kunnan (Ed.), Fairness and validation in language assess-
ment (pp. 129–152). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Salvatori, M. (1996). Conversations with texts: Reading in the teaching of composition.
Bibliography 403
Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. London, England: Pal-
grave Macmillan.
Santa, T. (2006). Dead letters: Error in composition, 1873–2004. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Sasaki, M. (2000). Toward an empirical model for EFL writing processes: An exploratory
study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 259–291.
Sasaki, M. (2002). Building an empirically based model of EFL learners’ writing processes.
In S. Ransdell & M.-L. Barbier (Eds.), New directions for research in L2 writing (pp.
49–80). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Sasaki, M., & Hirose, K. (1996). Explanatory variables for EFL students’ expository writing.
Language Learning, 46, 137–174.
Saville-Troike, M. (2012). Introducing second language acquisition. Cambridge, England:
Sax, G. (1974). Principles of educational measurement and evaluation. Belmont, CA: Wads-
worth.
Scarcella, R. (1996). Secondary education in California and second language research.
CATESOL Journal, 9, 129–152.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1987). Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming in
written composition. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics: Read-
ing, writing, and language learning (Vol. 2, pp. 142–175). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Steinbach, R. (1984). Teachability of reflective processes in
written composition. Cognitive Science, 8, 173–190.
Schellekens, P. (2007). The Oxford ESOL handbook. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Schleppegrell, M. (2001). Linguistic features of the language of schooling. Language and
Education, 12, 431–459.
Schleppegrell, M. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistic perspective.
Schleppegrell, M. J., & Colombi, M. C. (Eds.). (2002). Developing advanced literacy in first
and second languages: Meaning with power. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schmandt-Besserat, D. (2012). Tokens as precursors of writing. In E. L. Grigorenko,
E. Mambrino, & D. D. Preiss (Eds.), Handbook of writing: A mosaic of perspectives and
views (pp. 3–10). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Schmitt, N., Jiang, X., & Grabe, W. (2011). The percentage of words known in a text and
reading comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 95, 26–43.
Schoonen, R., Snellings, P., Stevenson, M., & van Gelderen, A. (2009). Towards a blueprint
of the foreign language writer: The linguistic and cognitive demands of foreign lan-
guage writing. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning,
teaching, and research (pp. 49–76). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
Schreiner, C. S. (Ed.). (2009). Handbook of research on assessment technologies, methods, and
applications in higher education. Hershey, PA: Information Science.
Schuemann, C. (2008). Myth 2: Teaching citation is someone else’s job. In J. Reid (Ed.),
Writing myths: Applying second language research to classroom teaching (pp. 18–41). Ann
Scollon, R. (1997). Contrastive rhetoric, contrastive poetics, or perhaps something else?
Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. London, England: Routledge.
Semke, H. (1984). The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195–202.
Seo, K. (2012). Using social media effectively in the classroom: Blogs, wikis, twitter, and more.
404 Bibliography
Sevilla, M. (2013). Write to learn (ePub): Strategies to improve writing across the curriculum.
Retrieved from http://www.lulu.com/shop/monica-sevilla/write-to-learn-epub/ebook/
product-20898756.html
Seymour, S., & Walsh, L. (2006). Essentials of teaching academic reading. Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin.
Shanahan, T. (1984). Nature of the reading-writing relation: An exploratory multivariate
analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 466–477.
Shanahan, T., & Tierney, R. (1990). Reading-writing connections: The relations among three
perspectives. In J. Zutell & S. McCormick (Eds.), Literacy theory and research: Analyses
from multiple paradigms (pp. 13–34). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.
Sharples, M. (1999). How we write: Writing as creative design. London, England: Routledge.
Shaughnessy, M. P. (1977). Errors and expectations. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Shaw, P. A. (2009). The syllabus is dead, long live the syllabus: Thoughts on the state of
language curriculum, content, language, tasks, projects, materials, wikis, blogs, and the
World Wide Web. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3, 1266–1283.
Shaw, S. D., & Weir, C. J. (2007). Examining writing: Research and practice in assessing second
language writing (Vol. 26). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on
ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255–283.
Sheen, Y., Wright, D. & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused
written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners.
System, 37, 556–569.
Shermis, M. D., & Burstein, J. C. (Eds.). (2003). Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary
perspective. New York, NY: Routledge.
Shi, L. (2001). Native- and nonnative-speaking EFL teachers’ evaluation of Chinese stu-
dents’ English writing. Language Testing, 18, 303–325.
Shih, M. (1998). ESL writers’ grammar editing strategies. College ESL, 8, 64–86.
Shokrpour, N., & Gibbons, J. (2000). Low second language proficiency and register com-
plexity as influence on L2 reading: A reassessment of the threshold hypothesis. Indian
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 26, 21–38.
Shor, I. (1992). Empowering education: Critical teaching for social change. Chicago, IL: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
Shrum, J. L., & Glisan, E. W. (2010). Teacher’s handbook: Contextualized language instruction
(4th ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle/Cengage.
Shute, V. J., & Becker, B. J. (Eds.). (2010). Innovative assessment for the 21st century: Support-
ing educational needs. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Sidler, M., Morris, R., & Overman-Smith, E. (Eds.). (2008). Computers in the composition
classroom: A critical sourcebook. New York, NY: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction: Developments, issues, and di-
rections in ESL. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the class-
room (pp. 11–23). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL
research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 657–677.
Silva, T., & Brice, C. (2004). Research in teaching writing. Annual Review of Applied Linguis-
tics, 24, 70–106.
Silva, T., & Leki, I. (2004). Family matters: The influence of applied linguistics and compo-
sition studies on second language writing studies—past, present, and future. Modern
Language Journal, 88, 1–13.
Silva, T., Leki, I., & Carson, J. G. (1997). Broadening the perspective of mainstream compo-
sition studies. Written Communication, 14, 398–428.
Bibliography 405
Silva, T., & Matsuda, P. K. (Eds.). (2001). Landmark essays on ESL writing. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Silva, T., & Matsuda, P. K. (Eds.). (2010). Practicing theory in second language writing. West
Singhal, M. (2006). Teaching reading to adult second language learners: Theoretical founda-
tions, pedagogical applications, and current issues (2nd ed.). Lowell, MA: The Reading
Matrix.
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied
Sloane, T. O. (2001). Encyclopedia of rhetoric (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Smagorinsky, P. (Ed.). (2006). Research on composition: Multiple perspectives on two decades
of change. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Smagorinsky, P. (2008). Teaching English by design: How to create and carry out instructional
units. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Smagorinsky, P., Cook, L. S., & Johnson, T. S. (2003). The twisting path of concept develop-
ment in learning to teach. Teachers College Record, 105, 1399–1436.
Smagorinsky, P., Johannessen, L. R., Kahn, E. A., & McCann, T. M. (2010). The dynamics
of writing instruction: A structured process approach for middle and high school. Ports-
mouth, NH: Heinemann.
Smart, R., Hudd, S., & Delohery, A. (2011). Using writing across the curriculum exercises to
teach critical thinking and writing. In M. C. Pennington & P. Burton (Eds.), The college
writing toolkit: Tried and tested ideas for teaching college writing (pp. 219–238). London,
England: Equinox.
Smith, A. D. (2005). How sharing evaluation in the writing class can lighten the paper load.
In J. N. Golub (Ed.), More ways to handle the paper load on paper and online (pp. 83–89).
Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Smith, D. (2000). Rater judgments in the direct assessment of competency-based second
language writing ability. In G. Brindley (Ed.), Studies in immigrant English language as-
sessment (pp. 159–189). Sydney, Australia: National Centre for English Language Teach-
ing and Research, Macquarie University.
Smith, F. (1984). Reading like a writer. Victoria, British Columbia: Abel Press.
Smith, F. (1988). Joining the literacy club: Further essays into education. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Smith, F. (2004). Understanding reading (6th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Snyder, I. (Ed.). (2007). Silicon literacies: Communication, innovation, and education in the
electronic age. London, England: Routledge.
Soliday, M. (2011). Everyday genres: Writing assignments across the disciplines. Urbana, IL:
NCTE.
Sommers, N. (1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers.
Sommers, N. (1982). Responding to student writing. College Composition and Communica-
tion, 33, 148–156.
Soven, M. I. (1999). Teaching writing in middle and secondary schools: Theory, research, and
practice. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Spack, R. (1993). Student meets text, text meets student: Finding a way into academic dis-
course. In J. Carson & I. Leki (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom: Second lan-
guage perspectives (pp. 183–196). Boston, MA: Heinle.
Spack, R. (1997). The acquisition of academic literacy in a second language. Written Com-
406 Bibliography
Spector, J. M. (2012). Foundations of educational technology: Integrative approaches and in-

terdisciplinary perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.
Sperling, M., & Freedman, S. W. (1987). A good girl writes like a good girl: Written re-
sponses to student writing. Written Communication, 4, 343–369.
Stahl, K. A. D., & McKenna, M. C. (Eds.). (2006). Reading research at work: Foundations of
effective practice. New York, NY: Guilford.
Stanley, J. (1992). Coaching student writers to be effective peer evaluators. Journal of Second
Stapleton, P. (2003). Critiquing voice as a viable pedagogical tool in L2 writing: Returning
the spotlight to ideas. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 177–190.
Stapleton, P. (2010). Writing in an electronic age: A case study of L2 composing processes.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 295–307.
Stenberg, S., & Lee, A. (2002). Developing pedagogies: Learning and the teaching of English.
Stern, B. S., & Kysilka, M L. (Eds.). (2008). Contemporary readings in curriculum. Los An-
geles, CA: Sage.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). Dynamic testing: The nature and measurement of
learning potential. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Stewart, D. C. (1988). Collaborative learning and composition: Boon or bane? Rhetoric Re-
view, 7, 58–83.
Stotsky, S. (1983). Research on reading/writing relationships: A synthesis and suggested
directions. Language Arts, 60, 627–642.
Stoynoff, S., & Chapelle, C. A. (2005). ESOL tests and testing. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of
English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Straub, R. (1997). Students’ reactions to teacher comments: An exploratory study. Research
in the Teaching of English, 31, 91–119.
Straub, R. (1999). A sourcebook for responding to student writing. Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Straub, R. (Ed.). (2006). Key works in teacher response. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook
Heinemann.
Straub, R. & Lunsford, R.F. (1995). Twelve readers reading: Responding to college student
writing. Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Street, B. (2010). Academic literacies: New directions in theory and practice. In J. Maybin
& J. Swann (Eds.), The Routledge companion to English language studies (pp. 232–242).
London, England: Routledge.
Street, B. V. (2003). What’s “new” in new literacy studies? Critical approaches to literacy
in theory and practice. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 5 (2). Retrieved from
http//:www.tc.columbia.edu/coce/articles/bs152.htm
Sullivan, P., & Porter, J. E. (1997). Opening spaces: Writing technologies and critical research
practices. Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
Sullivan, P., Tinberg, H., & Blau, S. (Eds.). (2010). What is “college-level” writing? (Vol. 2).
Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Sullivan, P. A. (1994). Revisiting the myth of the independent scholar. In S. B. Reagan,
T. Fox, & D. Bleich (Eds.), Writing with: New directions in collaborative teaching, learn-
ing, and research (pp. 11–30). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Swales, J. M. (1981). Aspects of article introductions. Birmingham, England: Aston Univer-
sity, Language Studies Unit.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge,
Swales, J. M. (1998). Other floors, other voices: A textography of a small university building.
Bibliography 407
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Exploration and applications. New York, NY: Cam-
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2000). English in today’s research world: A writing guide. Ann
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2012). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and
skills (3rd ed.). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: Theory into practice (4th ed.). New York, NY:
Harcourt, Brace, & World.
Tang, R. (Ed.). (2012). Academic writing in a second or foreign language: Issues and chal-
lenges facing ESL/EFL academic writers in higher education contexts. London, England:
Continuum.
Tanner, D., & Tanner, L. (2007). Curriculum development: Theory into practice (4th ed.). Up-
per Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Tardy, C. M. (2005). “It’s like a story”: Rhetorical knowledge development in advanced aca-
demic literacy. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4, 325–338.
Tardy, C. M. (2008). Multimodality and the teaching of advanced academic writing: A genre
systems perspective on speaking-writing connections. In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.),
The oral-literate connection: Perspectives on L2 speaking, writing, and other media inter-
actions (pp. 191–208). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Tardy, C. M. (2009). Building genre knowledge. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
Tardy, C. M., & Swales, J. (2008). Form, text organization, genre, coherence, and cohesion.
In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing: History, society, school, indi-
vidual, text (pp. 565–582). New York, NY: Routledge.
Tate, G., Rupiper, A., & Schick, K. (Eds.). (2001). A guide to composition pedagogies. Oxford,
England: Oxford University Press.
Taylor, I., & Olson, D. R. (Eds.). (1995). Scripts and literacy: Reading and learning to read
alphabets, syllabaries, and characters. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Teale, W., & Yokota, J. (2000). Beginning reading and writing: Perspectives on instruction.
In D. S. Strickland & L. M. Morrow (Eds.), Beginning reading and writing: Language and
literacy series (pp. 3–21). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Tekobbe, C., Lazcano-Pry, Y., & Roen, D. (2012). Collaborative learning and writing in digital
environments. In K. M. Hunzer (Ed.), Collaborative learning and writing: Essays on using
small groups in teaching English and composition (pp. 87–98). Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Tessmer, M. (1990). Environment analysis: A neglected stage of instructional design. Edu-
cational Technology Research and Development, 38, 55–64.
Thatcher, B. (2011). Intercultural rhetoric and professional communication: Technological ad-
vances and organizational behavior. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Thatcher, B., & St. Amant, K. (Eds.). (2010). Teaching intercultural rhetoric and technical com-
munication: Theories, curriculum, pedagogies, and practices. Amityville, NY: Baywood.
Thonus, T. (2002). Tutor and student assessments of academic writing tutorials: What is
“success?” Assessing Writing, 8, 110–134.
Thonus, T. (2003). Serving Generation 1. 5 learners in the university writing center. TESOL
Journal, 12, 17–24.
Thorson, H. (2000). Using the computer to compare foreign and native language writing
processes. A statistical and case study approach. Modern Language Journal, 84, 155–169.
Thralls, C. (1992). Bakhtin, collaborative partners, and published discourse: A collaborative
view of composing. In J. Forman (Ed.), New visions of collaborative writing (pp. 63–81).
Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Tierney, R. J., & Pearson, P. D. (1983). Toward a composing model of reading. Language
Arts, 60, 568–579.
408 Bibliography
Tobin, L. (Ed.). (1994). Taking stock: The writing process movement in the ‘90s. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Tobin, L. (2001). Process pedagogy. In G. Tate, A. Rupiper, & K. Schick, K. (Eds.), A guide to
composition pedagogies (pp. 1–18). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Toledo, P. F. (2005). Genre analysis and reading of English as a foreign language: Genre
schemata beyond text typologies. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1059–1079.
Tomasello, M., & Herron, C. (1989). Feedback for language transfer errors. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 11, 385–395.
Tomlinson, B. (2010). Principles of effective materials development. In N. Harwood (Ed.),
English language teaching materials (pp. 81–108). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Tompkins, G. E. (2011). Teaching writing: Balancing process and product (6th ed.). Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Tribble, C. (2010). A genre-based approach to developing materials for writing. In N. Harwood
(Ed.), English language teaching materials (pp. 157–178). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Trifonas, P. P. (Ed.). (2011). Learning the virtual life: Public pedagogy in a digital world. New
Trimbur, J. (1994). Taking the social turn: Teaching writing post-process. College Composi-
tion and Communication, 45, 108–118.
Troia, G. (2007). Research in writing instruction: What we know and what we need to know.
In M. Pressley, A. Billman, K. Perry, K. Reffitt, & J. Reynolds (Eds.), Shaping literacy
achievement: Research we have, research we need (pp. 129–156). New York, NY: Guilford.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language
Learning, 46, 327–369.
Truscott, J. (1999). The case for “the case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: A
response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 111–122.
Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Lan-
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately.
Truscott, J. (2009). Arguments and appearances: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second
Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y.-P. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Sec-
Tsai, J.-M. (2006). Connecting reading and writing in college EFL courses. Internet TESL
Journal, 12 (12). Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Tsai-ReadingWritingConnec-
tion.html
Tsang, W. (1996). Comparing the effects of reading and writing on writing performance.
Applied Linguistics, 17, 210–233.
Tsui, A. B. M. (2009). Teaching expertise: Approaches, perspectives, and characterizations.
In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher
education (pp. 190–198). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010, November 21). U.S. Census Bureau announces 2010 Census popu-
lation counts—Apportionment counts delivered to president. Retrieved from http://2010.
census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb10-cn93.html
Valdés, G. (1992). Bilingual minorities and language issues in writing: Toward profession-
wide responses to a new challenge. Written Communication, 9, 85–136.
Bibliography 409
Valdez-Pierce, L. (2003). Assessing English language learners. Washington, DC: National

Education Association.
van Beuningen, C., de Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of com-
prehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62, 1–41.
Vandenberg, P., Hum, S., & Clary-Lemon, J. (Eds.). (2006). Relations, locations, positions:
Composition theory for writing teachers (pp. 103–137). Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Vandrick, S. (1994). Feminist pedagogy and ESL. College ESL, 4 (2), 69–82.
Vandrick, S. (1995). Privileged ESL university students. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 375–380.
Vandrick, S. (2003). Literature in the teaching of second language composition. In B. Kroll
(Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 263–283). Cambridge,
van Lier, L. (1994). Some features of a theory of practice. TESOL Journal, 4 (1), 6–10.
Vaughan, C. (1991). Holistic assessment: What goes on in the rater’s mind? In L. Hamp-
Lyons (Ed.), Assessing second language writing in academic contexts (pp. 111–125). Nor-
wood, NJ: Ablex.
Vause, D. J., & Amberg, J. S. (2013). Making language matter: Teaching resources for meeting
the English language arts common core standards in grades 9–12. New York, NY: Rout-
ledge.
Venezky, R. L. (1995). How English is read: Grapheme-phoneme regularity and ortho-
graphic structure in word recognition. In I. Taylor & D. R. Olson (Eds.), Scripts and lit-
eracy: Reading and learning to read alphabets, syllabaries, and characters (pp. 111–130).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Vieregge, Q. D., Stedman, K. D., Mitchell, T. J., & Moxley, J. M. (2012). Agency in the age of
peer production. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Viggiano, E. (n.d.). Teaching tip sheet: Collaborative writing. Retrieved from http://wac.gmu
.edu/supporting/tip_sheet_collaboration.pdf
Villamil, O. S., & de Guerrero, M. C. M. (2006). Sociocultural theory: A framework for un-
derstanding the social-cognitive dimensions of peer feedback. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland
(Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 23–41). Cambridge,
Villanueva, V., & Arola, K. L. (Eds.). (2011). Cross-talk in comp theory: A reader. Urbana, IL:
NCTE.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes
(M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.) Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (2012). Thought and language: Revised and expanded edition (A. Kozulin,
Ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
WAC Clearinghouse. (n.d.). Basic principles of WAC. Retrieved from http://wac.colostate
.edu/intro/pop3a.cfm
Wajnryb, R. (1992). Classroom observation tasks. Cambridge, England: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Waldo, M. L. (2004). Demythologizing language difference in the academy: Establishing
discipline-based programs. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Walker, D. F. (2003). Fundamentals of curriculum: Passion and professionalism. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Walters, N. P., & Trevelyan, E. N. (2011, November). The newly arrived foreign-born popu-
lation of the United States: 2010. American Community Survey Briefs (ACSBR/10–16).
Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/population/foreign
Ware, P. (2011). Computer-generated feedback and assessment of student writing. TESOL
Quarterly, 45, 769–774.
410 Bibliography
Ware, P., & Warschauer, M. (2006). Electronic feedback and second language writing. In
K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues
(pp. 105–122). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Warnick, B. (2002). Critical literacy in a digital era: Technology, rhetoric, and the public inter-
est. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Warnock, S. (2009). Teaching writing online: How and why. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice.
Waters, A. (2011). Advances in materials design. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.),
Handbook of language teaching (pp. 311–326). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Waugh, C. K., & Gronlund, N. E. (2012). Assessment of student achievement (10th ed.). Bos-
ton, MA: Pearson.
Way, D., Joiner, E., & Seaman, M. (2000). Writing in the secondary foreign language class-
room: The effects of prompts and tasks on novice learners of French. Modern Language
Journal, 84, 171–184.
Weaver, C. (2002). Reading process and practice: From socio-psycholinguistics to whole lan-
guage (3rd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., Chizhik, A. W., & Sugurue, B. (1998). Equity issues in collabo-
rative group assessment: Group composition and performance. American Educational
Research Journal, 35, 607–651.
Weber, J.-J., & Horner, K. (2012). Introducing multilingualism: A social approach. London,
England: Routledge.
Weigle, S. C. (1999). Investigating rater/prompt interactions in writing assessment: Quan-
titative and qualitative approaches. Assessing Writing, 6, 145–178.
Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Weigle, S. C. (2007). Teaching writing teachers about assessment. Journal of Second Lan-
Weigle, S. C. (2014). Considerations for teaching second language writing. In M. Celce-
Murcia, D. M. Brinton, & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign
language (4th ed., pp. 222–237). Boston, MA: National Geographic Learning.
Weiser, E. M., Fehler, B. M., & González, A. M. (Eds.). (2009). Engaging audience: Writing in
an age of new literacies. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Weiss, G., & Wodak, R. (Eds.). (2003). Critical discourse analysis: Theory and interdiscipli-
narity. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Weissberg, R. (1998). Acquiring English syntax through journal writing. College ESL, 8, 1–22.
Weissberg, R. (2006). Connecting speaking and writing in second language writing instruc-
tion. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge,
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Wesley, K. (2000). The ill effects of the five-paragraph theme. English Journal, 90 (1), 57–60.
White, E. M. (1995). An apologia for the timed impromptu essay test. College Composition
and Communication, 46, 30–45.
White, E. M. (1998). Teaching and assessing writing: Understanding, evaluating and improv-
ing student performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
White, E. M. (2007). Assigning, responding, evaluating: A writing teacher’s guide (4th ed.).
New York, NY: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
White, R. (1988). The ELT curriculum. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Widdowson, H. (1990). Aspects of language teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.
Bibliography 411
Widdowson, H. (2005). Applied linguistics, interdisciplinarity, and disparate realities.

In P. Bruthiaux, D. Atkinson, W. G. Eggington, W. Grabe, & V. Ramanathan (Eds.),
Directions in applied linguistics: Essays in honor of Robert B. Kaplan (pp. 12–26).
Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Wilbur, D. (2010). iWrite: Using blogs, wikis, and digital stories in the English classroom.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Wiley, M. (2000). The popularity of formulaic writing (and why we need to resist). English
Journal, 90 (1), 61–67.
Williams, J. (2005). Teaching writing in second and foreign language classrooms. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Williams, J. D. (2000). Identity and reliability in portfolio assessment. In B. Sunstein &
J. Lovell (Eds.), The portfolio standard (pp. 135–148). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Williams, J. D. (2003). Preparing to teach writing: Research, theory, and practice (3rd ed.).
Williams, J. M. (1981). The phenomenology of error. College Composition and Communica-
tion, 32, 152–168.
Williams, N. B. (2005). When will you stop correcting student writing if you don’t stop
now? In J. N. Golub (Ed.), More ways to handle the paper load on paper and online (pp.
19–22). Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Williamson, M., & Huot, B. (Eds.). (1993). Validating holistic scoring for writing assessment.
Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Williamson, M. M. (2003). Validity of automated scoring: Prologue for a continuing discus-
sion of machine scoring student writing. Journal of Writing Assessment, 1, 85–104.
Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Wirtz, J. (2012). Writing courses live and die by the quality of peer review. In K. M. Hunzer
(Ed.), Collaborative learning and writing: Essays on using small groups in teaching English
and composition (pp. 5–16). Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Witbeck, M. C. (1976). Peer correction procedures for intermediate and advanced ESL
composition lessons. TESOL Quarterly, 10, 321–326.
Wolf, M. (2007). Proust and the squid: The story and science of the reading brain. New York,
NY: HarperCollins.
Wolfe-Quintero, K., & Segade, G. (1999). University support for second-language writers
across the curriculum. In L. Harklau, K. Losey, & M. Siegal (Eds.), Generation 1.5 meets
college composition (pp. 191–209). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wragg, E. C. (2012). An introduction to classroom observation (Classic ed.). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Wu, S.-Y., & Rubin, D. L. (2000). Evaluating the impact of collectivism and individualism
on argumentative writing by Chinese and North American college students. Research in
the Teaching of English, 35, 148–178.
Wyse, D., Andrews, R., & Hoffman, J. (Eds.). (2010). The Routledge international handbook
of English language and literacy teaching. London, England: Routledge.
Yancey, K. B. (Ed.). (1992). Portfolios in the writing classroom. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Yancey, K. B. (1999). Looking back as we look forward: Historicizing writing assessment.
Yancey, K. B. (2004). Looking for sources of coherence in a fragmented world: Notes toward
a new assessment design. Computers and Composition, 21, 89–102.
Yancey, K. B. (2006). Delivering college composition: The fifth canon. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
412 Bibliography
Yancey, K. B. (2009). Portfolios, circulation, ecology, and the development of literacy. In

D. N. DeVoss, H. McKee, & R. Selfe (Eds.), Technological ecologies and sustainability.
Logan, UT: Computers and Composition Digital Press and Utah State University Press.
Retrieved from http://ccdigitalpress.org/tes/index2.html
Yancey, K. B., & Weiser, I. (Eds.). (1999). Situating portfolios: Four perspectives. Logan, UT:
Yates, R., & Muchisky, D. (2003). On reconceptualizing teacher education. TESOL Quar-
terly, 37, 135–146.
You, X. (2006). Globalization and the politics of teaching EFL writing. In P. K. Matsuda,
C. Ortmeier-Hooper, & X. You (Eds.), The politics of second language writing: In search
of the promised land (pp. 188–202). West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
Yule, G. (2010). The study of language (4th ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Zacharias, N. T. (2012). Qualitative research methods for second language education: A
coursebook. Newcastle upon Tyne, England: Cambridge Scholars.
Zacher, J. (2008). Social hierarchies and identity politics. In J. Albright & A. Luke (Eds.),
Pierre Bourdieu and literacy education (pp. 252–278). New York, NY: Routledge.
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, 195–209.
Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies.
Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 79–102.
Zamel, V. (1987). Recent research on writing pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 697–715.
Zamel, V. (1992). Writing one’s way into reading. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 463–485.
Zamel, V. (1993). Questioning academic discourse. College ESL, 3 (1), 28–39.
Zamel, V. (1997). Toward a model of transculturation. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 341–352.
Zamel, V., & Spack, R. (Eds.). (1998). Negotiating academic literacies: Teaching and learning
across languages and cultures. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Zawacki, T. M., & Rogers, P.M. (2011). Writing across the curriculum: A critical sourcebook.
New York, NY: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Zebroski, J. (1986). The uses of theory: A Vygotskian approach to composition. The Writing
Instructor, 5, 57–67.
Zellermayer, M. (1997). When we talk about collaborative curriculum-making, what are we
talking about? Curriculum Inquiry, 27, 187–214.
Zhang, L. J. (2010). A dynamic metacognitive systems account of Chinese university stu-
dents’ knowledge about EFL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 320–353.
Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing
class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 209–222.
Zhu, W. (1995). Effects of training for peer response on students’ comments and interac-
tion. Written Communication, 12, 492–528.
Zhu, W. (2001). Interaction and feedback in mixed peer response groups. Journal of Second
Zhu, W. (2010). Theory and practice in second language writing: How and where do they
meet? In T. Silva & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Practicing theory in second language writing (pp.
Zimmerman, C. B. (2008). Word knowledge: A vocabulary teacher’s handbook. Oxford, Eng-
land: Oxford University Press.
Index
AAAL see American Association for American Association for Applied

Applied Linguistics Linguistics (AAAL) 61
abjads (consonantal alphabets) 14, 15 American Council on the Teaching of
absolute approach 225 Foreign Languages (ACTFL) 162
abstract schemata 17 analysis: constraints 149; contrastive 19;
abugidas 14 environment 149–51, 153; errors 304–5,
academic genres 117 313–16; genres 115, 116–17, 118, 138–9;
academic journal article 330 grammar 335–9, 350; institutional data
Academic Word List (AWL) 312, 319, 327, collection and 150; introspective process
332, 341 89–90; research review 303; schematic
achievement assessments 198 and rhetorical text 26–7; situation 149;
acrophony principle 10 stage 323–4; student writing samples
ACTFL see American Council on the 19, 39–40, 51–5, 243, 267–8; textbooks
Teaching of Foreign Languages analysis and comparison 91–2; text
action verbs 158, 331–2 analysis and discovery 121, 137–8, 322,
adjectives 332 323, 339, 350; vocabulary 323–5, 326,
adult and vocational programs 43–4, 46 327; see also needs analysis
adverbs 332 analytic scoring 208–12, 234–5
AILA see International Association for anchor standards 160–1, 172
Applied Linguistics Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 61
Aliakbari, M. 73 Anson, C. M. 81
align 95 applied linguistics 59, 60–1
alphabetic principle 14, 28 Applied Linguistics journal 61
alphabetic-syllabaries 13 apprenticeship 108
alphabetic writing 13–14 aptitude assessments 197
alphabets (alphabetic scripts) 11; Arabic language 12, 14, 15, 19
consonantal 14, 15; Cyrillic 12, 14; Aristotle 59
Greek 12, 15; invention of 10; Roman assessments: achievement 198; diagnostic
10, 14, 15 198; direct 199–200; dynamic 197, 236;
alphasyllabaries 14 indirect 199–200, 248; lesson plans 183;
Amberg, J. S. 100 placement 197; proficiency 197; progress
414 Index
198; student performance 225–32; Canvas® 230

summative 199; syllabus 182; see also L2 Caplan, N. 341, 342
writing assessment; needs assessment; Carro, G. 44
portfolio assessment; self-evaluation CARS see Create a Research Space
and assessment Carson, J. E. 73
assignments: checklist 127; classroom cave paintings of Lascaux, France 7
observation 90–1; EAP sample op-ed CBI see Content-Based Instruction
129–30; formulaic 131–3; university CCCC see Conference on College
essay examination 130; writing from Composition and Communication
sources 136; see also task and assignment CCR see College and Career Readiness
design CCSS see Common Core State Standards
Atkinson, D. 3–4, 44 chain, genre 145
audience 21, 25, 27, 44, 66, 70 characters, Chinese (sinograms) 12–13
audiolingualism 75 Check My Words 342
audio-recorded teacher feedback 245, 291–2 Cherokee syllabaries 13
authenticity 250; genres and 131–3; Chikamatsu, N. 14
portfolio assessment and 218, 219 Chinese language 12, 27; CR and 20; hanzi
AWL see Academic Word List 12–13, 15; logograms 12, 14; regional
AWL Highlighter 319 dialects 12; sinograms (characters)
12–13
backward design planning 158, 170 Chitiri, H.-F. 14
Bakhtin, M. 111 choices: constraints and 114–15;
bands, scoring 204, 207, 208, 230 morphosyntactic 319; of prompts 105,
Bawarshi, A. 110 130–1; syntactic, influencing meaning
Bazerman, C. 106 and style 337–9; word choice problems
behaviorism 60, 75 350–1
Belanoff, P. 216, 221 Chomsky, N. 60
Belcher, D. 85 Christie, F. 80
benchmarks 160–1, 204 Cimasko, T. 33
Benesch, S. 80, 85, 115 circumstantial bilinguals 36, 37
Bennett, G. 343 citizenship, naturalization and 34
Bhatia, V. K. 116 class reading activities 317–20
Biber, D. 16, 313, 319, classroom observation assignment 90–1
bidirectional hypothesis 96, 100 class size 42
bilingual dictionaries 326 CLIL see Content and Language Integrated
bilinguals: circumstantial 36, 37; elective Language Learning
31, 33 clusters, genre 113–14, 118, 145
Birch, B. M. 5, 12–16, 28, 43, 96, 359 CMS see course management systems
BlackBoard® 84, 230 coefficients (weights) 200, 209, 229–30, 232
Braine, G. 85 cognitivism 66–8, 76, 103
Brannon, L. 132, 242 coherence 123, 166, 177, 207, 212, 286
Brazilian didactic approach 111 collaborative learning 82, 254
British National Corpus 341 collaborative pedagogies 82–5
Brown, D. 291 collection 150, 216
Brown, H. D. 294 College and Career Readiness (CCR)
Brown, J. D. 158 160–1, 172
Bruffee, K. A. 82 College Composition and Communication
Buckingham, T. 154 60
Bulgarian language 14 colleges: entrance examinations 34, 153;
bullæ 9 four-year colleges and universities 46;
open admissions and financial aid
CA see contrastive analysis policies 35; two-year 46
calendar 167, 170 collocations 287, 335, 341, 342
Campbell, K. H. 105, 131 comments: electronic comment boxes
Canagarajah, A. S. 42, 62, 65, 70, 80, 115 244; marginal 246, 259–60, 274, 277;
Index 415
Microsoft® Word® 274, 278, 290; see also controlled-response prompts 155
teacher commentary corpus: definition of 342; genres and
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) 320–1; research for writers 342–3; tools
160–2 for language instruction 341–3
common errors mini-lessons 314, 322, 344, Corpus of Contemporary American
350–1 English 341
common terms or phrases 319 Coulmas, F. 5–6
communication: in portfolio assessment counting tokens 9
217; reading, writing and 107–8 course design 147; cyclical model for
community of practice 108–9 167–8; flexibility in 169–70; genre
comparison 119; comparing and families for 165; matrix model for 167,
contrasting texts 50–1; textbooks 169; online or hybrid course 171; peer
analysis and 91–2 response in 256–7; reading in 171;
Compleat Lexical Tutor 332 timetable in 169–70; see also syllabus
The Composing Processes of Twelfth Graders course management systems (CMS) 84,
(Emig) 64 150, 154, 230
composition studies 59, 60–2 course outlines 164–71; sample 186–92
computer writing lab 253 course websites 176
concurrent validity 202 CR see contrastive rhetoric
Condon, W. 200, 216, 217, 220, 221 Create a Research Space (CARS) 116–17
Conference on College Composition and creoles 10
Communication (CCCC) 30, 60, 162, Criterion® 264
345 criterion-referenced approach 225, 236
conferences 292, 293; see also writing criterion validity 202
conferences critical literacy 85–6
Connor, U. 19, 21, 22 criticism: in peer feedback 248; in written
Connor-Linton, J. 6, 7, 9, 10, 12–14, 25 teacher feedback 242, 248–9
Conrad, S. M. 248 Crusan, D. 128, 130, 132, 200, 215, 219, 221
consciousness-raising exercise 296, 297 Crystal, D. 6
consequential validity 202 cultural schemata 18, 28
consonantal alphabets (abjads) 14, 15 culture: language and, in FL contexts
consonant-vowel (CV) 13 41–2; short-term language or culture
consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) 13 programs 44–5
constitutive intertextuality 114 Cumming, A. 58, 73
constraints: analysis 149; choice and 114–15 Cummins, J. 73
constructed or open-response prompts 155 Cummins, S. 73
“Constructing Proximity” 318 cuneiform, Sumerian 9
construct validity 202 current-traditional rhetoric 75–6
content: disciplinary 76–7; experiential curriculum: defensible 158; development
content domains 165; or form, 148–9, 157; see also writing across the
in written teacher feedback 249; curriculum
-generating stage of writing process 330; curriculum design 147–8, 180
schemata 18; validity 202 CV see consonant-vowel
Content and Language Integrated CVC see consonant-vowel-consonant
Language Learning (CLIL) 82 cyclical model for course design 167–8
Content-Based Instruction (CBI) 82 Cyrillic alphabet 12, 14
context: richness, in portfolio assessment
217; -setting 119; sociocultural 78, DA see dynamic assessment
80; see also foreign language contexts; Danish language 15
L2 writing contexts; second language Dantas-Whitney, M. 44
contexts decode 95
contrastive analysis (CA) 19 deductive essay 76
contrastive rhetoric (CR) 19; genesis of deductive learning styles 322; verb tense
19–20; research 20–2 exercise 324
controlled composition 75 deductive rhetorical pattern 20, 22
416 Index
defensible curriculum 158 ELLs see English language learners

de Saussure, F. 60 Emig, J. 64
descriptive-representational device 7, 8 end notes: sandwich approach to 246–7; in
descriptive studies 238–9 written teacher feedback 245–6, 277
determinatives 9 English as a foreign language (EFL):
development 166; curriculum 148–9, definitions 2, 28, 33; general
157; teacher 344–5; see also language characteristics 33–4; students 33–4
development English as an additional language (EAL) 2, 27
developmental, remedial language, and English as a second language (ESL) 2, 27;
literacy programs 44–5 Composition Profile 209; programs
Devitt, A. 115, 145 37–8; writing 29, 33, 72–3, 75
diacritical marks 14 English for academic purposes (EAP)
diagnostic assessments 198 72–3, 77; definition of 92; sample op-ed
Dickson, M. 221 assignment 129–30; scoring for 206, 208;
dictionaries 13, 59, 326, 332, 333 summary exercise 106, 141–3
didactic approach, Brazilian 111 English for Specific Purposes (ESP) 72, 92,
digital literacies 79 110, 111
digital spaces 108–9 English language 12, 14; determiner system
digital tools 84, 105, 120, 171 284, 308; idiosyncrasies and exceptions in
Dimmitt, N. 44 297; as official language 31; opacity of 15;
DiPardo, A. 4 proficiency 35, 45; as requirement 33, 42
direct assessment 199–200 English language learners (ELLs) 35
direct feedback 287, 289 environment analysis 149–51, 153
directional hypothesis 96 e-portfolios 189–91, 219–20, 221–4
disciplinary content 76–7 error correction: conferences 292, 293;
discourse communities 70, 77; see also direct and indirect feedback with 287,
literacies 289; effectiveness of 282, 283; electronic
Discourses 70–2, 76, 107–8 306; history of 279–81; labeled or
discursive form 75–6 located 287–9; larger or smaller
discursive practices 76–7 categories for 286–7; location for 289–
double-entry or dialectal notebooks 105 90; macros for 291; marking lexical and
draft 95; final, written teacher feedback syntactic 249; marking style or 282–3;
on 246, 277; multi-drafting approach questions, issues, and options regarding
170, 171; preliminary, written teacher 281–93; responding to language errors
feedback on 246 306; selective or comprehensive 284,
Dudley-Evans, T. 92 286; self-editing strategies 292, 293–9,
dynamic assessment (DA) 197, 236 308; student writing samples for 307–8;
summary for 300–1; tools for 290–2
EAL see English as an additional language errors: analysis 304–5, 313–16; categories
EAP see English for academic purposes key 315; collocations 287, 335, 341,
ear learners 36, 37, 288–9 342; common errors mini-lessons 314,
e-books 105 322, 344, 350–1; definition of 282–3;
editing: editing phase of writing 330; peer grammar 53, 334–5; log 298; mistakes
editing workshop 306–7; self-editing compared to 308; patterns 286, 291, 294,
strategies 292, 293–9, 308, 318, 331; 297, 314; sample chart for error analysis
teaching techniques 294–9 exercise 316; thesaurus 326; types
EFL see English as a foreign language of 283–4, 285–8, 294, 297, 308, 317;
Egypt: hieroglyphs in 7, 9–10; logograms in untreatable 336; verbs 284, 286
9–10, 13; Narmer Palette in 7 Eskey, D. E. 107
Elbow, P. 66, 216, 221, 227 ESL see English as a second language
elective bilinguals 31, 33 ESP see English for Specific Purposes
electronic bulletin boards 176 ESPN Magazine 319
electronic error correction 306 Essay Rating Profile 209, 210–11
electronic feedback 245, 290–1 essays: deductive 76; for error correction
electronic translators 326–7, 352 practice 307–8; five-paragraph
Index 417
131–2; focus 140; formulaic 106; key formulaic assignments 131–3

passage 140; personal 66; response formulaic essay 106
106–7; university essay examination fossilization 282, 284
assignments 130 FPT see five-paragraph theme
ethos 59 Freedman, A. 107
ETS’s e-rater® 236 Freire, P. 85
evaluation: portfolio assessment and 217; French language 12, 14, 15, 19
student, of teachers 277–8 Frodesen, J. 286, 294
examinations: college entrance 34, 153;
high-stakes 42, 198, 205, 208, 236; gateway states 35
university writing proficiency 32–3 Gee, J. P. 70
experiential content domains 165 Geisler, C. 106, 122
expressivism 65–6, 76 Gelb, I. J. 6–7
eye learners 31–2, 33, 288 Generation 1.5 learners: definitions 36–7;
general characteristics 37–8
face validity 201 genres: academic 117; analysis 115, 116–17,
Fairclough, N. 114 118, 138–9; approaches to 109–11;
feedback: direct 287, 289; electronic 245, authenticity and 131–3; awareness
290–1; formative 199, 246; generic 247; 114–19, 310; chain 145; clusters 113–14,
harsh or negative 257, 262; indirect 118, 145; corpus and 320–1; defining
252, 287, 289; online paper submission 111–14; families, for course design 165;
with 264; oral 252–3, 291–2; outside Hyland, on 114, 115, 165–7; list of 113,
sources for 263–4, 269–70; points 121, 143–4; sequence of 166–7; set 145;
243–4; summary of 264–5; text-specific socioliterate approach and 64, 78, 80, 82,
247, 260; see also error correction; peer 114, 117–19
feedback; self-evaluation and assessment; German language 14
teacher feedback; writing conferences Giles, S. 278
Feez, S. 119 Glanz, J. 173, 178
felt needs 153 glyphs 9–10
Ferris, D. R. 100, 292, 295, 336, 352 goals and objectives 125–6, 157–62;
field 78 categories 195; flexibility in 159–60;
Finnegan, R. 16 guidelines for 162; lesson objectives
Finnish language 15 172–3; tasks 162
first language 37 Goldstein, L. M. 248
Fischer, S. R. 5–6 Google 341–2
five-paragraph essay 131–2 Google Docs 84
five-paragraph theme (FPT) 131–3 Google Scholar 341
FL see foreign language contexts Grabe, W. 3–4, 58, 100
Flood, J. 77 grades: assigning 229–32; grading anxiety
Flower, L. S. 66 227–9; Microsoft® Excel® worksheet
focus essay 140 231, 232; numeric conversion scale 230
follow-up: in peer review 260–2; in written graduate programs: professional and 47;
teacher feedback 249–51 requirements 31
foreign language (FL) contexts 33, 41–3; Graduate Record Exam (GRE®) 198
expectations in 42; L2 status and grammar 59; analysis 335–9, 350; checker
resources in 42; language and culture 298–9; correction 212, 282, 308; errors
in 41–2; practical issues in 42; writing 53, 334–5; knowledge about 28, 315–16;
approaches in 42 principles for instruction 312; rhetorical
form: content or, in written teacher feedback 310; rule reminders or codes 288, 291;
249; discursive 75–6; focus on 295–6, 343; vocabulary and 321–45
meaning and 59; office visit 254 graphemes 9, 11, 13, 14
formality levels in writing 320, 335, 339–41 graphs (symbols) 11, 12
formal schemata 18 GRE® see Graduate Record Exam
formal task and assignment design 124–6 Greek alphabet 10, 15
formative feedback 199, 246 Greek civilization 28, 59
418 Index
Grigorenko, E. 236 inductive rhetorical pattern 20

groups: peer review dyads and 258; writing Institute for International Education (IIE)
83–4, 120–1, 250, 313 31
guided compositions 75 institutional data collection and analysis
guided retrospection 88–9 150
guiding questions approach 259–60, 273–4 instructional design 147–8; backward
Guo, Y. 73 design planning 158, 170; guidelines
for 180; prioritizing, sequencing and
Halliday, M. 78 planning for writing 164–71; see also
Hamp-Lyons, L. 200, 201, 207, 216, 217, course design; lesson plans
220, 221 intensive English programs (IEPs) 151
hangul (Korean script) 13, 15 intensive language programs (ILPs) 44–5
hanzi (Chinese script) 12–13, 15 intercultural rhetoric (IR) 19, 21–4
Harris, M. 252 interdiscursivity 114
Harste, J. C. 79 interlingual transfer: negative 21; with SLA
Hayes, J. R. 66 73
Heath, S. B. 77 International Association for Applied
Hebrew script 14 Linguistics (AILA) 61
Hedgcock, J. S. 4, 22, 100 International English Language Testing
hedge markers 342 System (IELTS®) 34, 153, 198
hieroglyphs 7, 9–10 international (visa) students: definitions
high-stakes examinations 42, 198, 205, 208, 30–1; general characteristics of 31–3;
236 statistics 31
Hillocks, G. 167, 173–4, 180 interpret 95
Hinds, J. 20 interrater agreement 200, 236
Hinkel, E. 20, 24, 147 interrater reliability 200
hiragana (Japanese script) 13 intertextuality 83; constitutive 114;
Hirose, K. 21 manifest 114
Hirvela, A. 216 interviews 150, 154
holistic scoring 204–8, 234 introductions, research paper 116–17
holistic wave 204 introspective process analysis 89–90
Holten, C. 286 IR see intercultural rhetoric
homophones 9
Horowitz, D. 76, 77 Jacobs, G. 254
Howard, R. M. 83 Jacobs, H. L. 209
Hudson, T. 14, 98 Japanese language 12, 13, 20–2
humanistic therapy 77 Japanese students 98, 151
Hutchinson, T. 151 Joe (student) 39–40, 53–4
Hyland, K. 1–2, 80, 92, 114, 115, 165–7, 318 Johns, A. M. 78, 110, 117–21, 131
Hyon, S. 110 joint construction 119
hypothesis 96, 100 Journal of Second Language Writing 33, 46,
61, 281
identification stage 323–4 journals 66, 103; academic journal article
identifying-mnemonic device 7–8 330; reading response 104–5; style 339;
IELTS® see International English Language vocabulary 325, 328
Testing System
IEPs see intensive English programs kana 13
IIE see Institute for International Education kanji 12, 13, 15
ILPs see intensive language programs Kaplan, R. 3–4, 20–1, 58
Ima, K. 36 katakana 13
immigrants: first- and second-generation Ketchum, E. M. 17
36; Generation 1.5 learners 36–8; key passage essay 140
refugees 35; resident 34–6; students 151; key word repetition 331
undocumented 56; voluntary 35 Knoblauch, C. H. 242
indirect assessment 199–200, 248 knowledge: base components for teachers
indirect feedback 252, 287, 289 345–6; about grammar 28, 315–16; L2
Index 419
literacy and 94–5; linguistic 59, 292, learners 149–50; differences 195; ear
310, 349–50; prior 17–18, 315–17; about learners 36, 37, 288–9; eye learners 31–2,
vocabulary 28, 327 33, 288; Generation 1.5 36–8; see also
Korean language 12, 13, 15, 20 English language learners
Kroll, B. 201 learning: collaborative 82, 254; needs 151;
Kubota, R. 21 situated 68, 108; teaching-learning cycle
Kuehn, P. 73 119; trivium of 59; to write 32
learning outcomes: achievement of 165;
L1 reading 97–8 predetermination of 159; procedures for
L1 writing 16–17, 19, 23, 24, 61–2, 66–7, articulating 126
72–8, 97 Lee, I. 34
L2 literacy: challenges for 14; knowledge legal writing 329, 332–3
and 94–5; prior knowledge influence on Leki, I. 58, 59, 60, 147
17–18; students' abilities 38–40 length 166
L2 reading 97–8 Leong, S. 44
L2 writers 30–40; peer response for 254–6; lesson objectives 172–3
profile 50, 182 lesson outlines 169, 171
L2 writing: L1 writing compared to 16–17, lesson plans 172–80; assessment 183;
19, 23, 24, 61–2, 66–7, 72–8, 97; parent checklist 175; flexibility in 179; lesson
and grandparent disciplines of 59; sequence 176, 178; mechanics of 174–80;
pedagogical focus shifts with 74–5 peer response in 256–7; sample 193–4;
L2 writing assessment 196–236; bias in sequencing and organizing 173–4; time
228; coefficients (weights) in 200, 209, management in 176–7; working with 183
229–30, 232; major points for 232; letters: persuasive letter prompt 128;
measurement tools and participant portfolio letter prompt 276
roles in 198–9; portfolio assessment 202, Lewin, K. 4
215–25; prompts for 204; purposes for lexical bundles 319, 342
197–8; reliability in 200–1, 204; student lexical cohesion 337
performance and 225–32; validity in lexical density 332–3
201–2, 204; see also grades; scoring lexical variety 310; action verbs for
L2 writing contexts 41–8; FL 33, 41–3; 331–2; adjectives or adverbs for 332;
institutional context research project 51 application activities for evaluating 333;
labeled or located error correction 287–9 discovering 328, 329; importance of 328;
lacks 151, 152–3, 154 improving 325–8; key word repetition
Lakota Indians 8 for 331; problems regarding 333–5;
Langer, J. 77 pronouns and 332; strategies and tools
language development: mini-lessons for 323– for 328–35
8, 343, 350; subtopics for 347; usefulness lexigraphic memory 13
of 311–12; in writing class 309–21 lexigraphic writing 8, 10–12
language instruction: corpus tools for Likert-type scale 155
342–3; principles for 312; structures and lingua franca 10
strategies for 312–21, 349 linguistic enclave communities 37
Language Learning 61, 280 linguistic knowledge 59, 292, 310, 349–50
languages: erasure of 310; first 37; formal linguistics: applied 59, 60–1; rhetoric and
and informal 320, 335, 339–40; ILPs 44–5; 59–60
needs analysis 349; prior knowledge about linguistic schemata 18, 28
315–17; reading-writing relationship literacies 77–9, 107–8; building 96; digital
within and across 97–8; short-term 79; situated 81
language and culture programs 44–5; literacy: abilities, of students 38–40; clubs
status 31; texts and 78; for writing tasks 108–9; critical 85–6; developmental,
320–1; see also specific languages remedial language, and literacy
langue 60 programs 44–5; events 18; Olson on
Lapp, D. 77 16, 28; primary language 73; resources,
Latimer, K. 105, 131 maximizing 120–1; see also L2 literacy
Lave, J. 109 literacy tasks: guidelines for designing 101–
Lay, N. D. S. 44 2; labor-intensive 171; reciprocal 104–7
420 Index
literate communities 77–80 monitor 95

literature logs 104 Moodle® 84, 230
located or labeled error correction 287–9 morphosyntactic choices 319
Lockhart, C. 259 multi-drafting approach 170, 171
logograms 9–10; Chinese 12, 14; in Egypt multilingualism 37; monolingual writers
9–10, 13; see also characters; sonograms compared to 2; types of 27
logographic systems (or logographies) 11 multimodality 79
logographic writing 12–13 multiple trait scoring 212–15
logos 59 Murphy, J. M. 259
logs: errors 298; reading 104 Murray, D. M. 252
Longman Grammar of Written and Spoken
English 313 NA see needs analysis; needs assessment
Luan (student) 39, 52–3 NAEP see National Assessment of
Educational Progress
Macalister, J. 149, 151–3, 167 Narmer Palette 7
McCarthey, S. 73 narratives 320
Macken-Horarik, M. 165 Nation, I. S. P. 149, 151–3, 167
macros for error correction 291 National Assessment of Educational
Manchón, R. M. 33 Progress (NAEP) 162
manifest intertextuality 114 National Council of Teachers of English
marginal comments: in peer response (NCTE) 60, 162
259–60, 274; in written teacher feedback National Writing Project (NWP) 162, 195,
245–6, 277 220, 221
marginal notations 105 NCTE see National Council of Teachers of
Martin, J. R. 110 English
matrix model for course design 167, 169 necessities 151–2, 154
Matsuda, P. K. 75 needs analysis (NA) 149, 151–4; language
meaning 11; construction of 95; form and 349
59; syntactic choices influencing style needs assessment (NA) 149; guidelines
and 337–9 for 157; instruments 154–7; tools 150;
memory: lexigraphic 13; short- and long- variables in 155
term 94; see also mnemonic (memory) negative feedback 257, 262
tools negative interlingual transfer 21
Mesopotamia 8–9, 10 negative washback 197, 207
metalanguage, rhetorical and grammatical Nelson, G. L. 259
249 Newkirk, T. 252
Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken New Rhetoric (NR) 78, 110–11, 116
English (MICASE) 341 Ng, P. 259
Michigan Corpus of Upper-Level Students’ Niemann, T. C. 44
Papers (MICUSP) 341 nondirectional hypothesis 96, 100
Microsoft® Excel® worksheet 231, 232 norm-referencing 236
Microsoft® Word®: comments feature 274, notebooks, double-entry or dialectal 105
278, 290; track changes in 251, 291 NR see New Rhetoric
MICUSP see Michigan Corpus of Upper- Null, J. W. 148
Level Students’ Papers NWP see National Writing Project
Milton, J. 343
mini-lessons: common errors 314, 322, 344, objectives see goals and objectives
350–1; for language development 323–8, observation 150, 156–7
343, 350–1; principles for 322–3, 347 ODH see Orthographic Depth Hypothesis
mistakes 308 office visit form 254
mnemonic (memory) tools 6–7; Olson, D. R. 7, 16, 27
identifying-mnemonic device 7–8 Omniglot website 11, 26
mode 78 online writing labs (OWLs) 263
modeling 119 opacity or transparency of scripts 12, 15
Modern Language Journal 61 Open Doors report 31
Index 421
open-response prompts, constructed or 155 phonographic systems (or phonographies) 11

operant conditioning 60 pictorial systems 6–10; see also glyphs;
oral feedback 252–3, 291–2 protowriting
Ortega, L. 33, 73 pidgins 10
Orthographic Depth Hypothesis (ODH) Pierson, H. 216
14–15 placement assessments 197
orthographies 6; shallow and deep 15; plagiarism 106, 327
syllabic 12; transfer across 11 plan 95
outcome 166 planning: backward design 158, 170;
outlines: course 164–71, 186–92; lesson portfolio plan 236; prioritizing,
169, 171; for portfolio assessment 220–5 sequencing and 164–71; see also course
OWLs see online writing labs design; lesson plans
Polio, C. 80
pacing 166 polishing 330
papers: online submission with feedback portfolio assessment 202, 215–25;
264; student, with teacher commentary authenticity and 218, 219; collection
246, 270–2 in 216; communication in 217;
parole (speech) 59 context richness in 217; e-portfolios
participatory mechanisms 71 189–91, 219–20, 221–4; evaluation
Paterno, Joe 319, 338 and 218; evolution over time and 218;
pathos 59 measured progress and 218; outline for
patterns: deductive rhetorical 20, 22; errors 220–5; range in 217; reflection and 218;
286, 291, 294, 297–8, 314; inductive selection in 216–17; writer-centered
rhetorical 20; sentence 336–7 control in 217
Paul (student) 40, 54–5 portfolio letter prompt 276
Pearson, P. D. 95 portfolio plan, designing 236
Pearson’s Intelligent Essay Assessor™ 236 positive washback 197
Pearson Test of English (PTE®) 153, 198 post-process era 68–72
peer editing workshop 306–7 postsecondary academic settings 46–7;
peer feedback 83; giving and receiving 269; four-year colleges and universities 46;
praise or criticism in 247–8; writing support services in 47; two-year colleges
groups and 250, 313 46; university graduate and professional
peer response: concerns about 255–6; in programs 47
course and lesson design 256–7; guiding Powell, B. B. 5–6, 8, 9, 27
questions approach 259–60, 273–4; praise: in peer feedback 248; in written
interpersonal problems in 262; for L2 teacher feedback 242, 248–9
writers 254–6; marginal comments Pratt, D. 151
in 259–60, 274; practical benefits of preacademic language programs 44–5
254–5; sample tasks 272–4; task design predictive entries 105
268–9; theoretical frameworks for 254; predictive validity 202
worksheet approach 259–60, 272–3; see primary language literacy 73
also peer feedback primary symbolization 6
peer review: blind 250; dyads and groups primary trait scoring 212–15
258; follow-up in 260–2; reflection prior knowledge: L2 literacy influenced by
and 261; student preparation for 257; 14, 15, 17–18; about language 315–17
summary of 262; tasks 259–60; videos problem solving 66
and transcripts of sessions 257 process approaches 45, 64–8, 76, 205, 279–80
personal essays 66 process movement 64–5
persuasive letter prompt 128 product approach 63–4, 198
petroglyphs 6–7 proficiency: assessments 197; English
phoneme-grapheme correspondence language 35, 45; writing, university
(sound-symbol) 11, 14 examinations 32–3
phonemes 11 progress assessments 198
phonemic principle 14 prompts: choice of 105, 131; clarity of
phonograms 9 204; constructed or open-response
422 Index
155; controlled-response 155; critique research: corpus, for writers 342–3; CR

139–40; guidelines for 128–30; interest 21–4; review, analyzing 303; stage 323–4;
of 204; for L2 writing assessment 204; writing 3–5
persuasive letter 128; portfolio letter research paper (RP) introductions 116–17
276; reliability of 204; validity of 204 resident immigrants: definitions 34–5;
pronouns 332 general characteristics 35–6; statistics
pronunciation: homophones 9; writing 35, 56
origins and 9 resources: L2 status and 42; literacy,
proofreading 297 maximizing 120–1
protowriting 6–10 response essays 106–7
psychometric theory 201, 203 revisions: strategies 250–1, 343; track
PTE® see Pearson Test of English changes in 308
punctuation 340–1, 343 rhetoric: current-traditional 75–6;
Purdue Online Writing Lab 81 definition of 22; linguistics and
59–60; see also contrastive rhetoric;
questionnaires 150, 154–6; student intercultural rhetoric; New Rhetoric
background 49; writing skills, styles, and rhetorical and grammatical metalanguage
preferences 184–6 249
questions: regarding error correction 281– rhetorical grammar 310
93; guiding 259–60, 273–4; in written Riazi, A. 58
teacher feedback 248–9 Roberge, M. M. 36
Robinson, P. 162
radical 12 Roman alphabet 10, 14, 15
Raimes, A. 75 Roman civilization 28, 59
Ramanathan, V. 44 Rose, D. 110
range 217 RP see research paper
readability measures 333 Rubistar 215
readers 77–80 rubrics, scoring 51, 204–8, 210, 214–15, 235
reading: class reading activities 317–20; Rumbaut, R. G. 36
competencies, microskills and strategies Russian language 12, 14
99; in course design 171; instruction
98–100; L2 compared to L1 97–8; logs sandwich approach, to end notes 246–7
104; response journals 104–5; to write 96, SAT® see Scholastic Aptitude Test
102; writing, communication and 107–8 scales: Likert-type 155; scoring 200, 204,
reading-writing relationship 94–5, 317–18; 208–9, 214–15, 235
integration and 100–2; within and schema 17–18, 96–7
across languages 97–8; parallel processes schemata 17–18, 28
and 95; reciprocity of 96–7, 133; see also schematic and rhetorical text analysis 26–7
literacy tasks Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT®) 198
rebus principle 9 scoring 202–15; analytic 208–12, 234–5;
recipe 18 automated 208, 236; bands 204, 207,
recording stage 323–4 208, 230; critical variables for 203; for
red pen 290 EAP course 206, 208; holistic 204–8,
reflection 262, 278; memo 275–6; peer 234; for informative texts 205; multistep
review and 260–1; portfolio assessment process for 227–8; primary and multiple
and 218; see also self-evaluation and trait 212–15; rubrics 204–8, 210, 214–15,
assessment 235; scales 200, 204, 208–9, 214–15, 235
refugees 35 scripts: comparison of 11–12; hangul 13,
register 78, 335, 341 15; hanzi 12–13, 15; Hebrew 14; hiragana
Reichelt, M. 32, 33, 34 13; origins of 6; transparency or opacity
Reid, J. 31 of 12, 15; see also alphabets
Reiff, M. 110 secondary academic programs 45–6
Reilly, Rick 319, 338 secondary symbolization 9, 16
reliability 200–1, 204 second language acquisition (SLA) 61,
Reppen, R. 343 125, 254; interlingual transfer with 73;
Index 423
studies 282, 284, 308; see also English as statements 248–9

a second language Sternberg, R. J. 236
second language (SL) contexts 35, 43–8, 56; Stoller, F. 100
ILPs 44–5; nonacademic settings 43–4; structuralism 59–60
postsecondary academic settings 46–7; student needs 313–17; error analyses and
secondary academic programs 45–6 313–16
Segade, G. 30 student performance: assessment 225–32;
selection: in portfolio assessment 216–17; records of 230
textbooks 121–4; texts 121–4, 171; students 29–56; autonomy of 260,
vocabulary 312 292; background questionnaire 49;
self-editing strategies 292, 293–9, 308, 318, EFL 33–4; evaluation of teachers
331 277–8; Generation 1.5 learners 36–8;
self-evaluation and assessment 262–3; immigrants 151; international (visa)
online tools 226, 263–4; sample 30–3; Japanese 98, 151; literacy abilities
activities 275–6 of 38–40; peer review preparation 257;
semasiography 6 perceptions 153; -related reliability
sentence: patterns 336–7; variety and style 200; resident immigrants 34–6; sample
339 student texts 51–5; school district
Serbian language 15 policies for 45; on teacher feedback 240,
set, genre 145 277–8, 290; textual characteristics of
SFL see Systemic-Functional Linguistics 38–40; undocumented immigrants 56;
Shor, I. 85 see also specific individuals
short-term language and culture programs Students will be able to (SWBAT) stem 159
44–5 student writing samples: analysis 19, 39–40,
signific 12 51–5, 243, 267–8; for error analyses 313–
Silva, T. 24, 58, 59, 60, 86–7 16; essay for error correction practice
sinograms, Chinese (characters) 12–13 307–8; paper for responding practice
“Sins of the Father” 319 276–7; paper with teacher commentary
situated learning 68, 108 246, 270–2
situated literacies 81 study abroad programs 31
situation analysis 149, 152 style: journal 339; marking error or 282–3;
SLA see second language acquisition punctuation and 340–1, 343; syntactic
SL contexts see second language contexts choices influencing meaning and 337–9;
Smagorinsky, P. 105, 131, 164–5, 172 writing skills, styles, and preferences
Smith, F. 16, 98 questionnaire 184–6
social constructionism 77–80, 125, 250, 254 subject-verb agreement 336–7, 352
sociocultural contexts 78, 80 Sumerian writing: cuneiform and counting
sociocultural orientation 24, 87 tokens 9; glyphs 9; pictograms 6–7, 9, 10
sociocultural theory 68, 164, 197 summaries 106; EAP exercise 106, 141–3
socioliterate approach 78–80, 164; genres summative assessments 199
and 64, 78, 80, 82, 114, 117–19; reading, Sun, Y. 14
writing, and communication in 107–8 surface credibility 201
software, interactive 174 SurveyMonkey™ 150
sonograms 12 surveys 150, 154–6, 267
sound-symbol see phoneme-grapheme Swales, J. M. 70, 110, 113, 145
correspondence SWBAT see Students will be able to stem
Spanish language 12, 14, 19 Sydney School 110
speech: constructing 59; parole 60; writing syllabic orthographies (or syllabaries) 11, 13
compared to 5, 9, 14–16 syllabic writing 9, 13–14
spell checker 298–9 syllabus 162–4, 167, 221; assessment
Sperling, M. 4 182; checklist 163–4; flexibility in 229;
stance 342 negotiated 169; sample 186–92
standards: anchor 160–1, 172; CCSS 160–2; symbols (graphs) 11, 12; see also phoneme-
external and internalized 228 grapheme correspondence
Stapleton, P. 70 synonyms 331, 332, 334
424 Index
syntactic choices: influencing meaning and contrasting 50–1; comprehension 18;

style 337–9; morphosyntactic 319 informative, scoring for 205; language
Systemic-Functional Linguistics (SFL) 78, and 78; sample student texts 51–5;
110, 111 schematic and rhetorical text analysis
26–7; selection 121–4, 171; -specific
Taba, H. 148, 157 feedback 247, 260; students' textual
Tamil syllabaries 13 characteristics 38–40; writing from 135;
Tardy, C. M. 114 written, focus on 166; see also corpus;
target needs 151 student writing samples
task and assignment design: formal 124–6; Thai language 12, 13–14
goals of 125–6, 133; mechanics of 126–7; themes: examples 171; five-paragraph
peer response 268–9; for socioliterate 131–3; see also essay
instruction 119–20 thesaurus 332, 333; errors 326
tasks: definitions of 124–5; goals and Tien, S. 44
objectives 162; peer response sample Tierney, R. J. 95
272–4; peer review 259–60; see also TOEFLiBT® see Test of English as a
literacy tasks; writing tasks Foreign Language Internet-Based Test
Taylor, I. 14 tokening reality 7
teachable moment 300, 315 topic-specific vocabulary 330
teacher commentary: effects of 267; track changes 291; in revisions 308; written
student paper with 246, 270–2; see also teacher feedback and 245–6, 251
teacher feedback traditional paradigm 63–4; see also
teacher feedback: audio-recorded 245, product approach
291–2; descriptive studies on 238–9; translators, electronic 326–7, 352
effects of 239–40; electronic 245, 290–1; transnationals 37
perspectives on 237–8; research on transparency and opacity of scripts 11, 15
238–41; self-evaluation and midterm trial brief 329
response to 275; students on 240, 277–8, triangulation 154, 156
290; summary and caveats on 240–1; Truscott, J. 280–1, 282, 308, 336
workshops on 238, 277; see also written Turkish language 15
teacher feedback tutors 263–4, 292
teachers: development 345–7; environment Tyler, R. W. 148
analysis and 150; going abroad 42–3; type-token ratios 332–3
knowledge base components for 346–7;
office hours 253; role of 68, 153, 199, Ukranian language 14
228; student evaluation of 277–8; as undocumented immigrants 56
surrogates 109; workshops for 347 units of work, designing 166–7
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other universities: essay examination assignments
Languages (TESOL) 58, 61, 147, 162 130; four-year colleges and universities
TeacherVision 215 46; graduate and professional programs
teaching-learning cycle 119 47; writing proficiency examination 32–3
tenor 78 untreatable errors 336
tenses, verbs 320, 324, 325
tertium quid procedure 208, 222 Valdés, G. 31
TESOL see Teachers of English to Speakers validity 201–2, 204
of Other Languages Vause, D. J. 79, 100
TESOL Quarterly 61 verbs: action 158, 331–2; errors 284, 286;
Test of English as a Foreign Language subject-verb agreement 336–7, 352;
Internet-Based Test (TOEFLiBT®) 34, tenses 320, 324, 325
153, 198, 236 visa students 30–3
tests 200; see also examinations vocabulary: analysis 323–5, 326, 327;
textbooks: analysis and comparison 91–2; exercise for understanding 326;
benefits and drawbacks of relying on grammar and 321–45; inaccurate
122–3; selection 121–4 substitutions for 334; journals 325, 328;
texts: analysis and discovery 121, 137–8, knowledge about 28, 327; selection 312;
322, 323, 339, 351; comparing and topic-specific 330
Index 425
Vocabulary Profiler 332, 342 writing across the curriculum (WAC) 47,
voice 66, 69–70 81–2, 103
voluntary immigrants 35 Writing Across the Disciplines 47
Vygotsky, L. S. 68, 111, 164, 197, 254 writing centers 263–4, 292
writing conferences: implementing 252–3,
WAC see writing across the curriculum 278; logistics of 253; office visit form for
“WAC and Second Language Writing” 47 254; topics covered in 253–4, 292
wants 151, 153–4 writing groups 83–4, 120–1; peer feedback
washback 197, 202, 207 and 250, 313
Waters, A. 151 writing in the disciplines (WID) 46–7, 82
websites: course 176; Omniglot 11, 26 writing program administrators (WPAs)
weights (coefficients) 200, 209, 229–30, 232 82
Weigle, S. C. 227 writing skills 73; styles, and preferences
Wenger, E. 109 questionnaire 184–6
WID see writing in the disciplines writing systems: application activity for
Widdowson, H. 164 26–7; fundamentals of 5–6; socially
Wikis 84 mediated processes for 16; see also
Williams, J. 80 orthographies; scripts
Williams, J. D. 65, 225, 227 writing tasks: construction 140–1; language
Willows, D. M. 14 for 320–1
Winnebago Indians 8 writing theory: practice and 3–4, 58, 61–2;
Wolfe-Quintero, K. 30 writing research and 3–5
word choice problems 350–1 writing-to-learn (WTL) 32, 43, 81–2, 106
word-processing tools 251, 290–1, 298–9, written teacher feedback 241–52;
333, 342 approach stage in 243–4; content or
workload management 225–7 form in 249; end notes in 246, 277;
worksheet approach 259–60, 272–3 on final draft 246, 277; follow-up
workshops: peer editing 306–7; on teacher stage in 249–51; guidelines for
feedback 238, 277; for teachers 347 243–52; marginal comments in 246,
World War II 61 277; mechanics of 245; oral feedback
WPAs see writing program administrators compared to 252–3, 291–2; philosophy
writer-centered control 217 and strategy in 244; praise or criticism
writers: corpus research for 342–3; focus in 242, 246–8; on preliminary draft
on 76; good, pedagogical steps for 246; principles for 241–2; questions
64–5; multilingualism compared to or statements in 248–9; response stage
monolingual 2; see also L2 writers in 244–9; summary of 251–2; tools
writing: alphabetic 13–14; class, language of 245–6; track changes and 245, 251;
development in 309–21; definition of unhelpful 249, 250, 278
5–6; ESL 29, 33, 72–3, 75; exercises 294, WTL see writing-to-learn
295; formality levels in 320, 335, 339–41;
fundamentals of 5–6; good, rules for Yancey, K. B. 216
64; learning to write 32; lexigraphic Yates, R. 3
8, 10–12; logographic 12–13; origins You, X. 34
of 6–10, 16; prioritizing, sequencing Youngjoo (student) 39, 51–2
and planning for 164–71; proficiency, Yule, G. 17
university examinations 32–3; reading to
write 96, 102; research 3–5; from sources Zamel, V. 73, 85, 100, 104, 280
assignment 136; speech compared to 5, 9, Zawacki, T. M. 48, 82, 87
14–16; stages 66; strategy 166; successful, Zebroski, J. 3
definition of 310; syllabic 13–14; test Zellermayer, M. 84
of 200; from text 135–6; writing to Zhu, W. 58
read 96, 103; see also reading-writing zone of proximal development (ZPD) 120,
relationship; texts; specific writing types 164
Taylor & Francis
eBooks
FO R LIBRARIES
O v e r 22,000 eB ook title s in th e H u m an ities,
Social Sciences, STM and Law fro m som e o f the
w o rld 's le ading im p rin ts .
Choose from a range of subject packages or create your own!
► Free M A R C re c o rd s
► C O U N T K R -c o m p lia n t usage s ta tis tic s
► F le x ib le p u rc h a s e a n d p r ic in g o p tio n s
► O ff-s ite , a n y tim e access via A th e n s o r r e fe rrin g URL

► P rin t o r c o p y pages o r c h a p te rs
► F ull c o n te n t search
► B o o k m a rk , h ig h lig h t a n d a n n o ta te te xt
► A ccess to th o u s a n d s o f pages o f q u a lity rese arch
at th e c lic k o f a b u tto n
For m ore in fo rm atio n, pricing enquiries o r to o rd e r

a free trial, contact you r local o n lin e sales team.
UK and Rest o f W orld: online.sales# tandf.co.uk
US, Canada and Latin America:
e-referencee"taylorandfrancis.com
www.ebooksubscriptions.com
A MFSTAMvdfar I / —\ M l
A Taylor & Francis
\~ y T<>4c*i>F(«KbCroip

Teaching L2 Composition - Nodrm PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Teaching L2 Composition - Nodrm PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

This popular, comprehensive theory-to-practice text is designed to help teachers

Changes in the Third Edition

Dana R. Ferris is professor in the University Writing Program at the University of

John S. Hedgcock is professor of Applied Linguistics at the Monterey Institute of

ISBN: 978-0-415-89471-5 (hbk)

1 Concepts in Writing and Learning to Write in a Second

2 Understanding Student Populations and Instructional Contexts . . . . . . . . . . 29

3 Composition Pedagogies: Theory, Principle, and Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

4 Reading, Genre Awareness, and Task Design in the L2 Composition

6 Classroom Assessment of L2 Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

7 Response to Student Writing: Issues and Options for Giving

8 Improving Accuracy in Student Writing: Error Treatment

9 Developing Language Skills in the Writing Class:

1 Concepts in Writing and Learning to Write in a Second Language . . . . . . . . . 1

2 Understanding Student Populations and Instructional Contexts . . . . . . . . . . 29

3 Composition Pedagogies: Theory, Principle, and Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

4 Reading, Genre Awareness, and Task Design in the

Maximizing Literacy Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

6 Classroom Assessment of L2 Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

Portfolio Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215

7 Response to Student Writing: Issues and Options for Giving

Application Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267

8 Improving Accuracy in Student Writing: Error Treatment

9 Developing Language Skills in the Writing Class: Why, What,

Using Corpus Tools for Language Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341

1. Teacher-educators and their students in pre-service TESOL and composition

it is appropriate as a primary or supplementary text for courses focused on L2

Changes to the Third Edition

little or no training in composition pedagogy but who nonetheless find themselves

State University, Sacramento. I continue to acknowledge my gratitude for the oppor-

Questions for Reflection

One of our primary activities as teachers of writing involves conceptualizing our

as “an application of practical professional knowledge, gained through hands-on

Everything we do in the classroom, the methods and materials we adopt,

Theoretical Knowledge in L2 Writing Instruction

a simple theory-practice distinction is not a productive way to think in L2

Whether we perceive theory as a spark, an irritant, or a guiding force, we should

In this chapter, we will sketch a background against which subsequent chapters

Fundamentals of Writing and Writing Systems

Powell’s (2012) characterization of writing evokes a powerful set of meanings.

a set of visible or tactile signs used to represent units of language in a

Fischer (2003) similarly held that writing must

j have as its purpose communication;

Although the description proposed by Coulmas and the criteria posited by

FIGURE 1.1 Sample Sumerian pictograms.

FIGURE 1.2 Descriptive-representational illustration.

in a narrative, or symbolic depictions of events. For example, the Winnebago

Egyptian hieroglyphs similarly took form as pictograms (glyphs)(cf. Figure 1.1),

msh (crocodile) m s h crocodile m i w cat

FIGURE 1.3 Egyptian glyphs for crocodile and cat.

Category Language Script Name Sample Transcription

Alphabetic (Opaque) English Roman alphabet I know a teacher.

FIGURE 1.4 Comparison of selected scripts.

Logographic writing. In contrast to logograms that can be used alongside a wide

Syllabic writing. In contrast to logographic scripts, which rely largely on

symbols. These scripts are sometimes called alphasyllabaries or abugidas. “Pure”

Distinct Dimensions of L2 Writing Development

this chapter introduces and discusses dimensions of L2 literacy that distinguish

Prior Knowledge: Implications for Teaching L2 Writing

often inextricably intertwined. That is, in order to understand a text or participate

Intercultural Rhetoric and Its Implications

The genesis of contrastive rhetoric. Kaplan’s (1966) pioneering study is frequent-

_ Need or Challenge____ Most Relevant Group(s)_