Language is a means of communication that is used to transfer information,

ideas, and feelings from one person to another. It is used to communicate both in
written and spoken form. Considering the importance of the language, our
government has drawn up English as a foreign language that should be mastered
by the students. In Indonesia, English teaching aims at mastering four basic skills
of language, which include listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills.
Nowadays, based on our newest curriculum that is KTSP, the students are
expected to master those four skills in order to be able to use English
communicatively. The aim of KTSP (Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan) will
not be successfully achieved if the language teaching does not consider the
language components such as grammatical structure, vocabulary, spelling, and
pronunciation. Therefore, grammar needs to be mastered by the students since it is
the basic rule of language.
Based on information obtained from the English teacher at SMP Satu
Atap 2 Batukandik, Nusa Penida, it was found that many students still had
difficulties in mastering grammar, especially in mastering Simple Present Tense.
Simple Present Tense is important as the basic rule for the students to make and
use sentences to communicate in daily life. Besides that, the students can identify
and make descriptive reports and procedure texts in which Simple Present Tense
is used. In the interview with the English teacher, it was known class VII B was
1
2
the class which had the lowest ability in using Simple Present Tense especially in
using subject-verb agreement, adverb and usage. Based on the information given

by the English teacher, the students of this class had low ability in mastering
grammar especially simple present tense when they were in elementary school.
They could not use the subject-verb agreement and usage; it was known that the
ability of the students in using Simple Present Tense was low. It was found that
many students often did not understand why some sentences used auxiliaries, is,
am, and are instead of auxiliaries do and does. Some students still chose My
mother is work in the supermarket instead of saying My mother works in
supermaket. Moreover, some students were confused in differentiating which
subject used auxiliaries do and which ones used does. All the problems above
arose since the students did not understand the right rule of Simple Present Tense.
Therefore, the researcher was encouraged to find out the causes of the problems
undergone by the students through interview. The students comments were as
follows: Simple present tense was still difficult, they felt bored to study grammar,
they did not understand what their teacher had taught about simple present tense
and they did not get enough practice in using simple present tense. And the most
significant reason of this was the way how the teacher taught Simple Present
Tense influenced the students motivation in learning. From the observation, the
researcher found that the English teacher tended to teach the grammar
deductively. The teacher taught Simple Present Tense by giving a note on the
whiteboard, gave some examples, and then asked the students to take a note. After
that the students were only given limited time to do some exercises. Here the
3
students easily felt bored of the teaching methods since there was no interesting
and attractive activity involved in their learning process.

Furthermore, the students also often thought that learning Simple Present
Tense was difficult. This assumption made the students afraid and not motivated
to study. As a result, most of the students were afraid to ask the points that they
did not understand to the teacher. This situation made the students passive in their
learning process. The students enthusiasm was much related to the technique
used by the teacher in transferring the lesson. The students would become not
interested in learning if the technique used was monotonous. It made the learning
process not effective. Based on this statement, English teachers should think
critically in order to find creative approach in teaching grammar so that the
students will take much participation during the learning process. One of the
creative approaches in teaching English grammar was games. Arif Saricoban and
Esen Metin (2000:3) stated that through well-planned games, learners can practice
and internalize vocabulary, grammar and structure extensively. Play and
competition that are provided by games enhance the motivation of the students
and reduce their stress. This will help them to acquire certain essential language
skills. One game that can be applied in classroom is Climbing Grammar Mountain
Game. According to Cindy Gunn and Ann McCallum in English Teaching Forum
(2005:39), Climbing Grammar Mountain Game helps improve the students
understanding of grammatical usage and helps the students learn from others
through peer review, team work, and group discussion. In relation to this, the
researcher was interested in conducting a study which was focused on improving
ability to use Simple Present Tense using mountain game teaching approach to
4
students of grade VII B of SMP Satu Atap 2 Batukandik, Nusa Penida. The writer

hoped that Climbing Grammar Mountain Game could improve the ability of the
students of grade VII B of SMP Satu Atap 2 Batukandik, Nusa Penida to use of
simple present tense.

Writing, together with its teaching in both first and second language contexts, is currently the
subject of a considerable amount of research and other educational endeavour. Papers on
aspects of writing can be found in almost any issue of applied linguistics or educational
journals, and there are currently a number of journals devoted to the subject.

This is, however, a fairly recent development, with writing and its teaching only emerging as
a scholarly discipline in the 1970s (Nystrand, Green, & Wiemelt 1993; Raimes 1991). Before
that time writing was seldom seen as something to be taught for its own sake and in the
second language classroom it was most often used as a way of demonstrating mastery of
the structures studied in class or for dictation.

Despite this huge increase in interest in writing and a considerable amount of work on
models of how people write (see e.g. Flower & Hayes 1981 and Hayes 1996 for L1 writing
and Zimmerman 2000 for L2 writing), there have been relatively few models developed of
the role of instruction in writing in a second language (Cumming & Riazi 2000; Grabe 2001).
This is, at least in part, due to the multifaceted nature of writing. The term writing refers both
to an act and the result of that act. This immediately sets up two possible perspectives on
acquiring writing: learning the process of composing and learning the form and organization
of the product. But writing also has a social dimension and purpose, which can lead to other
perspectives focussing on genre, voice, and audience (Swales 1990; Cope & Kalantzis
1993; Fairclough 2001; Ivanic 1998). There is overlap with reading skills in these areas: the

reader is required to decode the formal and social aspects of the text where the writer is
required to encode them.
Although proficiency in writing is somewhat related to overall language
proficiency, particularly at the lower end of the scale (Cumming 1989), improvements in
general language proficiency do not necessarily affect a students proficiency in writing in
their L2. However, as illustrated in the next section, writing instruction can be effective in
raising proficiency in a number of areas. Recent approaches to instruction have recognised
that, while weak areas can and should be specifically addressed, writing must always be
seen as culturally and socially situated. Cumming (2002) cautions writing teachers to be
wary of exercises that attempt to break writing down into component skills as such exercises
often eliminate portions of the task that are important to the personal and cultural
significance of the writing.

This more eclectic and holistic approach recognises that learners needs are different at
various stages in their learning and that teachers must develop tasks to accommodate this.
Grabe and Kaplan (1996) give a detailed discussion of teaching approaches at beginning,
intermediate and advanced levels of proficiency. At lower levels frequent, short writing
activities can help to build familiarity and develop a useful, productive vocabulary. The
variety and length of tasks can be extended for intermediate level students - developing
more complex themes and building a repertoire of strategies for effective writing. Advanced
level students need to develop a greater understanding of genres and the place of writing in
particular discourse communities. They also need to develop their strategies and establish
their own voice in the second language.

Home | Contact us | Join the mailing list

AboutEventsNewsResourcesProjectsServices
Papers and articlesMaterials Bank
Home Resources
Writing in a second language

Author: Alasdair Archibald

Dr Alasdair Archibald

Abstract

Writing is not only the process the writer uses to put words to paper but also the
resulting product of that process. This process and product are also conditioned by the
purpose and place of writing (its audience and genre). Writing in a second language is
further complicated by issues of proficiency in the target language, first language literacy,
and differences in culture and rhetorical approach to the text. Instruction in writing can
effectively improve student proficiency in a number of key areas. Approaches to instruction
have variously targeted process, product and purpose of writing. More recent approaches
both to its teaching and assessment recognise the need to integrate all aspects of writing.

Table of contents

1. Introduction
2. Writing
3. Teaching and learning
4. Concluding remarks
Bibliography
Related links
1. Introduction

Writing, together with its teaching in both first and second language contexts, is
currently the subject of a considerable amount of research and other educational endeavour.
Papers on aspects of writing can be found in almost any issue of applied linguistics or
educational journals, and there are currently a number of journals devoted to the subject
(see bibliography).

This is, however, a fairly recent development, with writing and its teaching only
emerging as a scholarly discipline in the 1970s (Nystrand, Green, & Wiemelt 1993; Raimes
1991). Before that time writing was seldom seen as something to be taught for its own sake
and in the second language classroom it was most often used as a way of demonstrating
mastery of the structures studied in class or for dictation.

Despite this huge increase in interest in writing and a considerable amount of work
on models of how people write (see e.g. Flower & Hayes 1981 and Hayes 1996 for L1
writing and Zimmerman 2000 for L2 writing), there have been relatively few models
developed of the role of instruction in writing in a second language (Cumming & Riazi 2000;
Grabe 2001). This is, at least in part, due to the multifaceted nature of writing. The term
writing refers both to an act and the result of that act. This immediately sets up two possible
perspectives on acquiring writing: learning the process of composing and learning the form
and organization of the product. But writing also has a social dimension and purpose, which
can lead to other perspectives focussing on genre, voice, and audience (Swales 1990; Cope
& Kalantzis 1993; Fairclough 2001; Ivanic 1998). There is overlap with reading skills in these
areas: the reader is required to decode the formal and social aspects of the text where the
writer is required to encode them.

2. Writing

2.1 The writer

When writers write, they bring to the task knowledge of the process of writing and of
the strategies they will use in composing. They bring knowledge of the subject matter to be
written about and plans for how it can be ordered and structured for presentation (Bereiter &
Scardamalia 1987; Faigley & Witte 1981; Flower & Hayes 1981; Hayes 1996). They bring
knowledge of the product of writing, of the formal structures of language and of discourse
structure and the construction of texts (Connor & Johns 1990; De Beaugrande 1980, 1984).
They bring knowledge of the situation within which the writing takes place, its social and
professional context, together with their experience of the expectations of the reader within
the discourse community and of the forms, social contexts, genres, and expectations of their
background culture (Bruffee 1986; Cope & Kalantzis 1993; Fairclough 2001; Ivanic & Camps
2001; Johns 1997).

2.2 Writing in a first and second language

A number of recent studies have suggested that the processes of L2 writing are in
many ways distinct from those of L1 writing. Silva evaluated 72 studies comparing L1 writing
with L2 writing and found a number of

salient differences between L1 and L2 writing with regard to both composing

processes (and subprocesses: planning, transcribing, and reviewing) and features of written

texts (fluency, accuracy, quality, and structure, i.e., discoursal, morphosyntactic, and
lexicosemantic). (Silva 1993)

The writers relative proficiency in the target language is also claimed to be a source
of differences between L1 and L2 writing (Bardovi-Harlig 1995; Cumming 1989), as is the
writers knowledge of the target language genres and associated sociocultural expectations
(Cope & Kalantzis 1993; Leki & Carson 1997; Silva 1997; Swales 1990), and the interaction
between the writers L1 experiences and the meaning of literacy in the target language
culture (Bell 1995; Connor 1996; Cope & Kalantzis 1993, 2000; Mohan & Lo 1985;
Pennycook 1996).

These differences clearly do exist between writers writing in their L1 and in their L2,
and particularly for writers with low levels of proficiency in their L2 who often rely heavily on
their first language resources (Manchn, Roca de Larios, & Murphy 2000; Zimmerman
2000). However, there is considerable variation among L2 writers. Weissberg (2000)
suggests that for L1 literate adults, writing plays an important role in second language
development, not only in the development of accuracy but also in the emergence of new
structures. The ways in which such individuals write, and use writing, in their L2 is likely to
be quite different from their colleagues for whom writing in their L1 plays a lesser role. For
writers who are more proficient in their L2, differences may be fewer. Matsumoto (1995)
found that proficient bilingual writers tend to use the same strategies when writing in both L1
and L2. A similar study by Beare (2002) supported this finding.

3. Teaching and learning

Teaching writing has, since the 1970s, reflected this same multiplicity of perspectives
as the research. Raimes (1991) outlined four approaches that dominated the teaching of
writing at different times. These have involved a focus on form, on the writer, on content, and
on the reader. A slightly later survey (Raimes 1998) added approaches that have focused on
more social issues such as genre and on critical approaches to writing pedagogy. One of
the key areas in growth of teaching writing over the past 20 years has been in English for
Academic Purposes. The recent sharp increase in the number of applicants to higher
education from countries without a strong background in the English language has
highlighted the need for specialised support (Jordan 1997; Bjrk, Bruer, Rienecker &
Jrgensen 2003).

3.1 Teaching writing

Although proficiency in writing is somewhat related to overall language proficiency,

particularly at the lower end of the scale (Cumming 1989), improvements in general
language proficiency do not necessarily affect a students proficiency in writing in their L2.
However, as illustrated in the next section, writing instruction can be effective in raising
proficiency in a number of areas. Recent approaches to instruction have recognised that,
while weak areas can and should be specifically addressed, writing must always be seen as
culturally and socially situated. Cumming (2002) cautions writing teachers to be wary of
exercises that attempt to break writing down into component skills as such exercises often
eliminate portions of the task that are important to the personal and cultural significance of
the writing.

This more eclectic and holistic approach recognises that learners needs are different
at various stages in their learning and that teachers must develop tasks to accommodate
this. Grabe and Kaplan (1996) give a detailed discussion of teaching approaches at
beginning, intermediate and advanced levels of proficiency. At lower levels frequent, short
writing activities can help to build familiarity and develop a useful, productive vocabulary.
The variety and length of tasks can be extended for intermediate level students - developing
more complex themes and building a repertoire of strategies for effective writing. Advanced
level students need to develop a greater understanding of genres and the place of writing in
particular discourse communities. They also need to develop their strategies and establish
their own voice in the second language.

3.2 Evidence of instructional effect

Despite the lack of models of learning to write, there is an assumption that instruction
in writing does have an effect and that the knowledge required of a writer is learnable and
the skills trainable. It is central to writing instruction that writers make progress as a direct
result of the instruction they receive. In a general second language learning context, a
students progress in writing is often assumed to be simply a part of the overall increase in
their language proficiency. Whilst it is clear that students ability to write clearly and
accurately depends to an extent on their general level of proficiency in the target language
(Bardovi-Harlig 1995; Cumming 1989) there are aspects of proficiency that are either
specific to students writing or that may be specifically seen to develop through writing
(Weissberg 2000).

Instruction affects student accuracy in the use of the target language in their writing
and also the range of choice of structure and vocabulary available to them for use in writing.
Tsang and Wong (2000) studied the effects of explicit grammar teaching on student writing.
They claim that there were indications that the students were able to write with greater
readiness and use more mature syntax.

Instruction affects the students understanding of the cultural and contextual

appropriacy of particular structures or vocabulary, their understanding of the norms and
expectations of the target genres regarding form, and their understanding of the norms of
the target genres regarding the choice of information and its sequencing and structuring.
Archibald (1994) investigated how the discourse proficiency of secondary school students
writing in English as a second language developed in different age groups. He found that
students improved in their use of discourse markers and links and that they developed a
better feel for the contextual appropriacy of their language. Shaw and Liu (1998) analysed
the ways in which the features associated with academic register changed over the period of
a pre-sessional course in English for academic purposes. They found an increase in areas
such as impersonality, formality, and hedging in the students writing at the end of the
course. They attribute this to an increased understanding of the norms of academic writing
and a move away from a single neutral variety of English that learners tend to use for all
purposes. Archibald (2001), also using pre-sessional course students, found that teaching
had a significant effect on the structure and organisation of the students writing.

Instruction in the processes of composition has an effect on the students ability to

reflect on their writing and to produce more effective and appropriate texts in the target
language. Sengupta (2000), working with secondary school students, describes the effects
of giving instruction in revision strategies to writers of English as a second language. He
found that explicit teaching of these strategies had a measurable effect on the quality of the
students final draft. Cresswell (2000) reported on the effects of students learning to selfmonitor their writing and to pay attention to the process and the organization of their writing.
He reported improvement in the students ability to pay attention to the content and
organization of their writing. Connor and Farmer (1990) found that teaching second
language writers topical structure analysis to use as a revision strategy had a positive effect
on the clarity of focus of the final texts. At a more general level, Akyel and Kamisli (1997)
reported on the effects of EFL writing instruction on composing in both first and second
languages. They found that the students used similar composing strategies in both their L1
(Turkish) and L2 (English) and that writing instruction in the L2 had a positive effect both on
their writing processes and on their attitudes to writing in the two languages.

The direct effects of different types of feedback on student writing have also been
analysed. Ferris (1997) found that changes made by students in response to teacher
comments did have a positive effect on the overall quality of their papers. Villamil and de
Guerrero (1998) investigated the impact of peer revision on L2 writing and found that it had a
positive effect on the quality of the final draft. Berg (1999) trained students in how to give
effective peer response to writing. She found that this training had a positive effect on the
students revision types and on the quality of their texts.

3.3 Assessing writing

Assessment in writing should ask students to demonstrate their membership in the

community of fluent writers of [English] (Hamp-Lyons & Kroll 1997:17). It should reflect not
only the stage of general linguistic proficiency of the student, but also their ability to use the
forms appropriately within the social and professional conventions of writing in the target
language. The assessment of students levels of proficiency in writing and of its change over
time has been the subject of a considerable amount of recent research (see Kroll 1998).
Assessment has tended to mirror instruction with new approaches to assessment
accompanying changes in teaching.

Assessment of the classroom work involved in writing has been carried out through
portfolios (Belanoff 1997). Feedback has been given on the written product through the
reader responding to the writers message (Ferris, Pezone, Tade & Tinti 1997) or through
directly evaluating the form of the product. Assessment of the product of writing has involved
assessments of the overall quality of the text, usually using a holistic or a primary or multiple
trait scoring system (Hamp-Lyons 1991b; Kroll 1998). Other assessments of the product of
writing have involved assessments of linguistic accuracy (Polio 1997).

Assessments of the quality of the text as a product using a variety of holistic and/or
multiple trait scales are perhaps the most common ways in which students writing is
assessed. Such scales are most easily applied to situations in which large numbers of
students need to be assessed simultaneously and are often associated with mass testing.

Holistic assessment became popular in the mid 1970s and is still one of the most
common forms of assessment for shorter pieces of writing. The rater or raters read the text
quickly and, based on guidelines, give an impressionistic mark. If the text being marked
shows a uniformity in the writers proficiency in language use, knowledge of the genre, skills
of text production, then this holistic mark may indeed be a fair representation of the writers
performance. The writing of second language learners, however, often displays marked
differences of proficiency in the various facets of writing, and holistic marking in these cases
becomes difficult and suspect. The problems relate both to the adequacy of the scheme to
represent the writers efforts (Hamp-Lyons 1995; Connor-Linton 1995) and, relatedly, to rater
reliability (Vaughan 1991).

Hamp-Lyons (1995) suggests that a multiple trait scheme - one that scores a number
of different facets or traits in a students writing - has advantages over holistic marking in that
it can highlight rather than cover differences in proficiencies within a students writing. She
claims that multiple trait schemes are more reliable than holistic approaches, that they
provide more diagnostic information to the student and the teacher, that they highlight salient
features of the text, and that they have greater validity (Hamp-Lyons 1991).

Certainly, multiple trait scoring has the attraction of at least recognising that student
writing in a second language often displays quite variable levels of proficiency in different
areas. There is a danger, however, of it being seen as reducing writing to a series of discreet
skill areas that can be quantified and assessed separately from one another. Traits are not
separate or separable features of a piece of writing, they are interwoven and interdependent
and their analysis provides different perspectives on the text. An important question is
whether the perspectives chosen in a particular scheme are really different enough from one
another to warrant being scored separately.

4. Concluding remarks

This article has highlighted areas in which research into writing in a second language
can and does inform classroom practice. It has focused on the complexity of writing and the
interplay of the various issues that must be addressed by teachers and learners who
approach writing in a second language. There has been considerable interplay in recent
years between research into writing and learning and instruction in writing. Much of the
research has direct relevance to the classroom, and classroom practice and observation are
the source of many research studies. The rising profile of second language writing and
particularly of writing for academic purposes has also led to a proliferation of resources
aimed at both teachers and students. Some useful Internet sites, journals, and published
overviews on writing are listed below.

Bibliography

Further reading

Grabe, W. & W. Kaplan (1996). Theory and Practice of Writing: An Applied Linguistic
Perspective . Harlow: Longman.

Hyland, K. (2002). Teaching and R esearching W riting . Harlow: Longman.

Kroll, B. (ed.) (2003). Exploring the Dynamics of Second Language Writing .

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Silva, T. & P. Matsuda (eds) (2001). On Second Language Writing . Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Earlbaum Erlbaum Associates.

Tribble, C. (1996). Writing . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bibliographic references

Akyel, A. & S. Kamisli (1997). Composing in first and second languages: Possible
effects of EFL writing instruction. In K. Pogner (ed.), Writing: Text and Interaction . Odense
Working Papers in Language and Communication 14, 69-105.

Archibald, A. (1994). The Acquisition of Discourse Proficiency: A Study of the Ability

of German School Students to Produce Written Texts in English as a Foreign Language .
Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Archibald, A. (2001). Targeting L2 writing proficiencies: Instruction and areas of

change in students' writing over time. International Journal of English Studies 1, 2:153-74.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1995). A narrative perspective on the development of the

tense/aspect system in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 17, 2:263-91.

Beare, S. (2002). Writing Strategies: Differences in L1 and L2 Writing. Proceedings of

the Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies in Higher Education Conference 24-26 June
2002, Manchester Conference Centre, UMIST.

Bell, J. S. (1995). The relationship between L1 & L2 Literacy: Some complicating

factors. TESOL Quarterly 29, 4:687-704.

Belanoff, P. (1997). Portfolios. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bereiter, C. & M. Scardamalia (1987). The Psychology of Written Composition .

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Berg, C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students' revision types
and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing 8, 3:215-41.

Bjrk, L., B. Bruer, L. Rienecker & P. Jrgensen (eds) (2003). Teaching Academic
Writing in European Education . A Collection of Papers from the First EATAW Conference
held in Gronigen, The Netherlands, 2001. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Bruffee, K. A. (1986). Social construction, language, and the authority of knowledge:

A bibliographical essay. College English 48:773-90.

Connor, U. & M. Farmer (1990). The teaching of topical structure analysis as a

revision strategy for ESL writers. In B. Kroll (ed.), Second Language Writing: Research and
Insights for the Classroom , 126-39. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Connor, U. & A. M. Johns (eds) (1990). Coherence in Writing . Alexandria Virginia:

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc..

Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural Aspects of Second-language

Writing . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Connor-Linton, J. (1995). Looking behind the curtain: What do L2 composition ratings

really mean? TESOL Quarterly 29, 4:762-65.

Cope, B. & M. Kalantzis (eds) (1993). The Powers of Literacy: A Genre Approach to
Teaching Writing . London: Falmer Press.

Cope, B. & M. Kalantzis (eds) (2000). Multiliteracies . London: Routledge.

Cresswell, A. (2000). Self-monitoring in student writing: developing learner

responsibility. ELT Journal 54, 3:235-44.

Cumming, A. & A, Riazi (2000). Building models of adult second-language writing

instruction. Learning and Instruction 10, 1:55-71.

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

Learning 39, 1:81-141.

Cumming, A. (1998). Theoretical perspectives on writing. Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics 18:61-78.

Cumming, A. (2002). If I had known twelve things. In L. L. Blanton & B. Kroll (eds) ,
ESL composition tales: Reflections on teaching , 123-34. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press .

De Beaugrande, R. (1980). Text, Discourse and Process . London: Longman.

De Beaugrande, R. (1984). Text Production: Towards a Science of Composition .

Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

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

Communication 32, 4:400-15.

Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and Power. 2 nd ed., London: Longman.

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

Quarterly 31, 2:315-39.

Ferris, D. R., S. Pezone, C. R. Tade & S. Tinti (1997). Teacher commentary on

student writing: descriptions and implications. Journal of Second Language Writing 6:155-82.

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

Composition and Communication 32:365-87.

Grabe, W. (2001). Notes toward a theory of second language writing. In T. Silva & P.
Matsuda (eds), On Second Language Writing, 39-57. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum
Erlbaum Associates.

Hamp-Lyons, L. & B. Kroll (1997). TOEFL 2000 - Writing: Composition, Community,

and Assessment (TOEFL Monograph Series 5). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Hamp-Lyons, L. (1991). Scoring procedures for ESL contexts. In Hamp-Lyons, L.

(ed.), Assessing Second Language Writing in Academic Contexts , 241-76. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.

Hamp-Lyons, L. (1995). Rating non-native writing: the trouble with holistic scoring.
TESOL Quarterly 29, 4:759-62.

Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in

writing. In C. M. Levy & S. R. Ransdell (eds), The Science of Writing, 1-27. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and I dentity: The D iscoursal C onstruction of I dentity in A

cademic W riting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins

Ivanic, R. & D. Camps ( 2001 1998 ) . Writing and Identity: The Discoursal
Construction of Identity in Academic Writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins . I am how I
sound: v oice as self-representation in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 10 ,
1-2:3-33 .

Johns, A. (1997). Text, Role and Context . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for Academic Purposes: A Guide and Resource Book
for Teachers . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kroll, B. (1998). Assessing writing abilities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics

18:219-40.

Leki, I. (1996). L2 composing: Strategies and perceptions. In B. Leeds (ed.), Writing

in a Second Language. Insights from First and Second Language Teaching and Research,
27-37. London: Longman.

Manchn, R., J. Roca de Larios & E. Murphy (2000). An approximation to the study
of backtracking in L2 writing. Learning and Instruction 10, 1:13-35.

Matsumoto, K. (1995). Research paper writing strategies of professional Japanese

EFL w riters. TESL Canada Journal 13 : 17-27.

Mohan, B. & W. Lo (1985). Academic writing and Chinese students: Transfer and
developmental factors. TESOL Quarterly 19, 4:515-34.

Nystrand, M., S. Green, & J. Wiemelt (1993). Where did composition studies come
from? An intellectual history. Written Communication 10, 3:267-333.

Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing others' words: Text, ownership, memory, and

plagiarism. TESOL Quarterly 30, 2:201-30.

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

research. Language Learning 47, 1:101-43.

Raimes, A. (1991). Out of the woods: Emerging traditions in the teaching of writing.
TESOL Quarterly 25, 3:407-30.

Raimes, A. (1998) Teaching writing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 18:142-67.

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

on L2 secondary school learners. System 28, 1:97-113.

Shaw, P. & E. T. K. Liu (1998). What develops in the development of secondlanguage writing? Applied Linguistics 19, 2:225-54.

Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The

ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly 27, 4:657-77.

Silva, T. (1997). Differences in ESL and native-English speaker writing: The research
and its implications. In C. Severino, J. C. Guerra & J. E. Butler (eds), Writing in Multicultural
Settings, 209-19. New York: The Modern Language Association of America.

Silva, T., I Leki & J. Carson (1997). Broadening the perspective of mainstream
composition studies. Written Communication 14:398-428.

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre Analysis . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tsang, W. K. & M. Wong (2000). Giving grammar the place it deserves in process
writing. Prospect 15, 1:34-45.

Vaughan, C. (1991). Holistic assessment: what goes on in the rater's mind? In HampLyons, L. (ed.), Assessing Second Language Writing in Academic Contexts, 111-25.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Villamil, O. S. & M. C. M. de Guerrero (1998). Assessing the impact of peer revision

on L2 writing. Applied Linguistics 19, 4:491-514.

Weissberg, B. (2000). Developmental relationships in the acquisition of English

syntax: Writing vs. speech, Learning and Instruction 10, 1:37-53.

Zimmerman, R. (2000). L2 writing: Subprocesses, a model of formulating and

empirical findings, Learning and Instruction 10, 1:73-99.

Related links

Online writing resources

Purdue University Online Writing Lab

http://owl.english.purdue.edu

Sentence Sense
http://webster.commnet.edu/sensen

Advice on Academic Writing

www.utoronto.ca/writing/advise.html

Literacy Education Online

http://leo.stcloudstate.edu

UW-Madison Writing Center

www.wisc.edu/writing

Using English for Academic Purposes

www.uefap.co.uk

Focus on Writing: Northwest Education, Winter 2002

www.nwrel.org/nwedu/08-02

Journals

Assessing Writing
www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/620369/description#descrip
tion

Journal of Second Language Writing

www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/620372/description#descrip
tion

College Composition and Communication

www.ncte.org/pubs/journals/ccc

Written Communication
www.sagepub.co.uk/journal.aspx?pid=105811

Referencing this article

Below are the possible formats for citing Good Practice Guide articles. If you are
writing for a journal, please check the author instructions for full details before submitting
your article.

MLA style:
Canning, John. "Disability and Residence Abroad". Southampton, 2004. Subject
Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies Guide to Good Practice. 7 October
2008. http://www.llas.ac.uk/resources/gpg/2241.
Author (Date) style:
Canning, J. (2004). "Disability and residence abroad." Subject Centre for Languages,
Linguistics and Area Studies Good Practice Guide. Retrieved 7 October 2008, from
http://www.llas.ac.uk/resources/gpg/2241.
HumBox
Humbox

The Humbox is a humanities teaching resource repository jointly managed by LLAS.

Online Resources

Resources

Papers and articles

Materials Bank
Event reports
700 reasons
Area Studies Library collections
Why study languages
Papers and articles

Papers & articles home

by Theme
by Title
by Author
by Date
Advanced search
Look for similar items by theme:

L1
L2
Language acquisition
Prose
Writing
Share

Enjoy the page so far?

Recommend it to your friends
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on Google+

Share on LinkedIn
Share by email
More about us

About LLAS
Contact us
Where to find us
Meet the team
Help

Site index
Advanced search
Search by theme
Privacy Policy
Join in

News blog

Join our mailing list

Contribute to our magazine
Syndicate and re-use

RSS feed iconRSS feeds

Sharing data
iCal feeds
More LLAS websites: Studying languages at university | Why study languages? |
Routes into Languages | Links into Languages

t: +44 (0)23 8059 4814 | f: +44 (0)23 8059 4815 | e: llas@soton.ac.uk

LLAS Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies, Avenue Campus,
Highfield, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BF

Copyright 2015 LLAS Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies,
University of Southampton