Computers and Composition 14, 45-58 (1997)

0 1997 Ablex Publishing Corporation

ISSN 8755-4615
All rights of reproduction reserved

Beyond Word Processing: Networked

Computers in ESL Writing Classes
GEORGE BRAINE
Chinese

University of Hong Kong

Networks were introduced to English as a second language (ESL) classes only recently.
Hence, to date, only a few empirical studies have investigated effects of networked
computers on ESL student writing. This study compared ESL students in first-year English
classes writing in two contexts: in a networked computer class and in a traditional lecturestyle class. The aim was to determine which setting promoted better writing,
more
improvement in writing, and more peer and teacher feedback. First and final drafts of
student papers were scored holistically, and the number of interactions during peer-review
sessions was analyzed. The networked setting was shown to promote better writing and
more peer and teacher feedback. The traditional setting was shown to promote more
improvement in writing. This was attributed to first drafts in the networked classes being
closer to students maximal performance.

computers
first-year

English

English

as a second language

holistic scores

networks

ESL
writina

When computers were first introduced to writing classes, they were stand-alone versions,
and students sat in relative isolation using word-processing programs. Although computers made revision easier, interaction with other students and with the teacher was minimal,
and feedback on student writing came mainly from the teacher.
The degree of student interaction increased dramatically
with the introduction
of
networked computers to writing classes, especially because networks permit real-time
conferencing,
the simultaneous
contributions
to a discussion from all the students
connected by the network. The lack of the usual turn-taking allows all participants to pick
up and comment on any topic mentioned in the discussion. The simultaneity also eliminates interruptions, which means that students who want to think over and revise their
ideas are no longer at a disadvantage. By allowing the teacher to quickly access the writing of all students in a class, networks also allow immediate feedback. The teacher and
students thus interact freely, sharing ideas, receiving feedback, and taking part in small
group discussions.
Hypothetically, network classes should have further advantages over traditional writing
classes, including those in which student interaction is actively encouraged. For instance,
during the usual face-to-face discussions in traditional classes, visual cues such as skin
color, gender, and age tend to privilege some students over others. English as a second
language (ESL) students, who are usually less articulate in speaking than in writing, take
more time to verbalize their thoughts, and are reluctant to interrupt others, are also at a
Directall correspondence
Kong.

E-mail:

to: George Braine, ELT Unit, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, NT, Hong
<georgebraine@cuhk.edu.hk>.

45

BRNNE

46

disadvantage. Probably the most common obstacle faced both by teachers and students in
traditional writing classes is the difficulty in understanding
accents (Braine, 1996;
Harklau, 1994). In such classes, students are often asked to repeat themselves, causing
anxiety among students and embarrassment
for both teachers and students. One of the
main advantages of electronic networks is the removal of accents (Bump, 1990). Overall,
networks encourage students to treat each other as peers, thereby minimizing the negative
effects of accent, skin color, gender, or age. In networked classes, what is written becomes
more important than who wrote it.
Although computers have been used in ESL writing classes for more than a decade,
they are mainly stand-alone versions, with the pedagogical focus being on word processing and revision. Networks were introduced to these classes only in the last five years;
consequently.
documented research showing their advantages over traditional writing
classes is rare. Further, the switch from traditional classes to networks is expensive and, at
least at the initial stages, requires a degree of technical sophistication. As a result, despite
the lack of clear evidence that word processing improves student writing (see Pennington,
1993). many ESL programs continue to teach writing in a traditional manner or use standalone computers only to facilitate word processing.

RESEARCH

ON NETWORKED

COMPUTERS

IN ESL WRITING

CLASSES

To date, only a few studies have investigated the effects of networks on ESL writing quality. As mentioned before. this may be because networks were introduced to ESL writing
classes only recently.
Some studies. such as those of Phillip Markley ( 1992) and Nancy Sullivan ( 1993), have
been largely anecdotal. Markley. who taught first-year composition to ESL students on a
network. analyzed interactions in two classes. During a typical SO-minute discussion in a
class of 21 students, Markley observed a total of 109 interactions, with each student writing an average of 18.9 lines (approximately
IS2 words at 7-9 words per line). The teacher
actively intervened in the discussion, contributing
18 interactions. The most interactions
(63) were directed by individual students to the class, and 19 interactions were between
individual students. In another class of 17 students, the teacher intervened less (14 interactions) and became more of a facilitator. The total number of interactions dropped to 87:
however. the average length of student writing increased to 18.87 lines (approximately
I88 words at 8- 12 words per line). Again, most interactions (46) were between individual
students and the class, and 16 interactions were between individual students.
To determine how network discussions could encourage student participation
and
reduce teacher talk, Sullivan (1993) analyzed the interactions of I9 students in a 40minute class. A total of I81 interactions were noted; 14 by the teacher, 46 from individual
students to the class, and a remarkable 107 interactions between individual students. Sullivan notes that, in many instances, students actively pursued information (p. 34), thought
critically, and negotiated meaning during these interactions.
One of the few empirical studies of ESL writers on a network was conducted by Mary
Ghaleb (1993). who compared two first-year ESL writing classes. one writing on a
network and the other in a traditional grammar-based setting. Specifically. she compared
the quantity of writing produced in a networked class and a traditional class. the percentage of grammatical errors (subject-verb agreement, run-on sentences, and sentence frag-

Networked

Computers

in ESL Writing

Classes

47

men&) in the first and final drafts of papers in the two classes, and the quality of student
papers as determined by the holistic scores awarded by three raters. As for the quantity of
writing in a 50-minute period, Ghaleb found that students in the networked class wrote an
average of 90 words, while students in the traditional class wrote an average of only 4
words. As for grammatical errors, the majority of students in the networked class
produced a lower percentage of errors between the first and final drafts, leading to an
average improvement of 2.2% in their papers. Although a majority of students in the
traditional class also produced a lower percentage of errors, their average improvement
was only 1.4%. In quality of writing, the networked class showed a mean improvement of
0.2 points on their first and final drafts, while the traditional class showed a mean
improvement of 0.8 points. Ghaleb speculates that the lower improvement rate of the
networked class may have been due to the students first drafts being closer to their maximal perfomlance.
Nancy Sullivan and Ellen Pratt (I 996) also compared two groups of ESL student writers, one writing on networked computers and the other in a traditional oral setting. The
aim of the study was to compare student attitudes toward writing with computers, their
writing apprehension, and improvement in writing quality. Sullivan and Pratt found that
students in the networked class began the semester with a more positive attitude toward
writing with computers. By the end of the 15-week semester, student attitudes were significantly more positive in both classes, although the networked class had a higher positive
attitude than did the traditional class. Writing apprehension decreased significantly @ <
.Ol) in both classes. At the beginning as well as at the end of the semester, the two classes
had similar levels of writing apprehension. Probably the most significant finding of the
study was in the improveinellt in student writing, as measured by the holistic scores of two
raters. At the end of the semester, the mean score of the traditional class decreased significantly (-.46), while that of the networked class increased significantly (+.07). Sullivan
and Pratt concluded that students in the [networked] classroom showed a significant gain
in writing due to the networked computers (p. 17).
While building on previous research, the present study aims to compare ESL student
writing in two settings: traditional classes and classes using networked computers. The
research questions are as follows:
I.
2.
3.

Which setting promotes better writing?

Which setting promotes more improvement in writing?
Which setting promotes more peer and teacher feedback?

BACKGROUND

TO THE STUDY

Location
This study was conducted at a medium-size state university in the southeast United States,
which had an enrollment of about 12,000, including 800 ESL students. The required freshmen English courses at the university are sequenced as Composition I and Composition II.
Students must pass a stringent exit exam at the end of the Composition I course in order to
move to Composition II. Three sections of each course are specially designated for ESL
students each quarter.

48

BRNNE

In 1991, the English Department established a computer lab consisting of 25 local-area

networked (LAN) computers. In addition to a word-processing
program, a software
program designed to teach writing on LANs was also installed in the lab. The computers
are arranged in typical classroom fashion, so that students face the teacher when they sit at
the computer terminals. A number of writing teachers conduct their classes in the lab
using either the word-processing
program or the networking program. In the quarterly
course schedule, classes that meet in the computer lab are clearly designated as using
computers; students enrolling in them are required to pay a $15 computer fee. At the
beginning of each quarter, students in these classes are given training in word processing
and, in classes using networking software, in using the network as well.
The Networking Software
This software program is capable of displaying two windows on each computer screenone for private editing and one for public viewing. The teacher and students write in the
private editing windows of their computers, and the writing then appears in the public
viewing window on every computer screen in the classroom. The writing appearing on the
public viewing window is also called the main conference. Because the writing appears
sequentially and can be scrolled on the computer screen, the teacher and students can be
involved in a simultaneous discussion. The software program is also capable of running
subconferences:
A third window allows smaller groups of students, with or without the
teacher, to hold simultaneous discussions separately from the main conference, with the
option of joining the main conference at any time. Thus, at any given time, the class can be
involved in discussions on the main conference and a number of subconferences.
METHOD
Participants
The participants in this study were 69 students enrolled in four sections of Composition II
specially designated for ESL students in the Winter and Spring quarters of 1994. Thirtyfour students were enrolled in classes that used the network, and thirty-five students were
in classes that were taught in the traditional manner and in which the students used the
computers for word processing. Students came from a variety of academic majors such as
business, the humanities, the natural sciences. engineering, computer science, and allied
health. Although Composition I1 was offered at the first-year level, many participants in
this study were juniors and seniors, a result of the tendency among ESL students to postpone the required first-year English courses to their final years. The students first
languages were Urdu, Chinese (both Mandarin and Cantonese), Japanese, Vietnamese,
Malay, Russian, Norwegian, Icelandic, and Spanish. Their TOEFL scores ranged from
520 to 645, the mean score being 582. The mean TOEFL score of the students in the
networked classes was higher by 6 points.
Pedagogical Context
Students wrote three major assignments during the academic quarter. The first was a short
paper based on personal experience (expressive writing); the second was a longer descrip-

Networked Camputers

in ESL Writing

Ciosses

49

tive paper (info~a~ve

writing) based on two library sources; and the third was a 1,250word persuasive paper based on more extensive library research, All three papers were
written on the same topic the students had chosen at the beginning of the quarter. The
process approach was followed throughout the course, with small group discussions, peer
reviews, teacher feedback, occasional teacher-student conferences, and multiple drafts of
papers.
In order to avoid the effects of variable teaching styles, the four sections of ESL
Composition II considered far this study were taught by the same teacher. The course
syllabus, textbook, writing assignments, and peer-review forms were identical in all four
sections: this was done in order to avoid the effects of variable instructional materials. The
classes met twice a week for 100 minutes per meeting. The only difference was that, each
quarter, one class used the network for discussions as well as for peer review of papers,
while the other class conducted discussions verbally and used pen and paper to provide
feedback during peer-review sessions.
For peer reviews in the networked classes, a number of subconferences were formed,
each consisting usually of three students. At the beginning of each class, students transferred word-processed first drafts to their respective subconferences to the network, Feedback, based on the instructions
in the peer-review form, was provided within the
subconference by the teacher as well as by other students in the group. In the traditional
classes, students sat together in groups of three or four for peer-review sessions. They
brought hard copies of their first drafts to class and provided feedback to classmates on
hard copies (in the form of marginal comments, etc.) and on peer-review forms that were
provided. At the end of the class, first drafts and peer reviews were handed over to the
teacher, who provided comments and suggestions with pen and paper.
Before the participants revised their first drafts, five students (two from the networked
cfasses and three from the traditional classes) met the teacher during office hours for brief
conferences. Twelve students, seven from the networked classes and five from the traditional classes, also visited the English Departments writing lab for 3Q-minute tutoring
sessions while they were writing the final versions of their papers,
At the time they wrote the first draft of assignment 1, the classes had met for three
weeks. All the class meetings, totaling approximately 10 hours per class, had taken place
in the computer lab. In the networked classes, most of the discussions centering on readings from the textbook, analyses of sample student papers, and feedback on in-class writing had occurred on the network. In the traditjonal classes, these interactions had occurred
verbally.
Data
The data consisted of first drafts and final versions of papers written on the same topic
(Appendix A) by students in response to assignment 1 of the Composition II course
(Appendix B). The total number of papers was 138, of which 68 papers were written on the
network and 70 were written in the traditional classes. Peer reviews and teacher comments
on student papers were also collected. For this purpose, transcripts of the subconferences
were obtained from the networked classes. In the traditional classes, marginal comments
written by students on classmates first drafts and on peer-review forms and comments and
suggestions made by the teacher on the first drafts were considered.

50

BRANE

Data Analysis
Three aspects of classroom discourse were examined during the study. The first two
aspects, writing quality and degree of improvement between first and final drafts, were
examined by holistically scoring first drafts and final versions of student papers. (The first
drafts and final versions were scored about three weeks apart.) This was done after names
of students and other identifiers were removed from all papers. Because the papers were
laser printed with the identical typeface, those written by students in networked and traditional classes were indistinguishable.
Holistic scoring was done by three experienced
readers of the Test of Written
English (TWE) according to the TWE Scoring Guide (see Appendix C). The TWE,
which is a direct measure of writing, is a 30-minute essay test administered along with
the multiple-choice
Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), which is used by
over 3,000 higher education institutions
to evaluate English proficiency of students
whose native language is not English. The TWE is criterion referenced and scored holistically according to a 6-point scoring guide. In use since 1986, it is probably the best
known, most widely used, and most reliable test of writing skills of nonnative speakers
of English. In the TWE, each paper is scored twice. each time by a different reader.
When the scoring differs by more than one point, the papers are sent to a third reader to
resolve

the discrepancy.

Because all participants in this study were ESL students and the basis of the study was
essay-length
discourse. the TWE Scoring Guide was deemed the most appropriate
measure of student writing quality.
The length of comments made by students and teachers was the third aspect to be
examined. For this, the number of words in peer reviews were counted. In networked
classes, transcripts of the subconferences
were used. In these classes, all feedback by
students was provided during the IOO-minute class meeting; the teacher also participated
actively in the session. Following
the peer-review
session, the teacher visited the
computer lab for a total of 140 minutes to read and comment on student papers in various
subconferences.
In traditional classes, comments written by students on peer-review forms
(Appendix D), the marginal comments made by students on classmates first drafts, and
feedback provided by the teacher were included in the word count. The teachers feedback
was provided after class hours; in order to track the amount of time spent on providing
feedback, the teacher kept a log indicating the time spent on each student paper.

RESULTS
Quality of Writing
The 34 first drafts written in networked classes had a mean score of 5.3, and the final
versions a mean score of 5.6 on the TWE scale. The 35 first drafts written in traditional
classes had a mean score of 4.8 and the final versions, 5.2. No paper scored less than 4 on
the scale. The interrater reliability was 0.80.
TWE Scoring Guide taken from the Test of Written English (1990). Reprinted by permission of the
Educational Testing Service, the copyright owner. The scores assigned are not actual (official) TWE
scores.

Networked

Computers

in ESL Writing

Classes

Improvement in Writing Quality

Papers from networked classes showed a mean improvement
tional classes showed a mean improvement of 0.4.

51

of 0.3. Papers from tradi-

Length of Comments
In networked classes, each student wrote an average of 480 words of comments during
peer-review sessions. In traditional classes, each student wrote an average of 197 words.
All feedback was provided during lOO-minute class meetings.
In networked classes, the teacher wrote an average of 152 words of comments and
suggestions per student during two lOO-minute class meetings and 140 minutes of followup visits to the computer lab. Thus, the total teacher time spent on the first drafts was 340
minutes, averaging 10 minutes per student. In traditional classes, the teacher wrote an
average of 148 words per student. The total time spent on providing feedback to the 3.5
students in traditional classes was 564 minutes, averaging 16 minutes per student.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to determine which ESL writing classes, computer
networked or traditional, promoted better writing and more improvement in writing and
produced more peer and teacher comments on student papers.
Holistic scores for first drafts and final versions of student papers clearly indicate
that writing quality in networked classes was better than in traditional classes. However,
papers in traditional classes showed a slightly higher mean improvement (0.4) between
the first final drafts, while papers in networked classes improved by 0.3. As Mary
Ghaleb (1993) noted, one can only speculate that papers in the networked classes may
have improved less because first drafts were closer to the students maximal performance.
A number of reasons could be attributed for the better quality of writing in
networked classes. Research has shown that anxiety can have a negative effect on
second language learning (Horwitz & Young, 1991). By providing a less threatening
environment
than traditional classes (Cooper & Selfe, 1990; Selfe & Meyer, 1991;
Wilkins, 1991), computer networks may have generated better student writing. In addition, when students observe their peers taking risks-requesting
clarifications from the
teacher and classmates, challenging classmates to justify opinions, getting away with
occasional spelling and grammatical errors, they are more likely to participate actively
in discussions.
If a less threatening environment leads to more writing, a networked classroom would
be the ideal context in which to develop writing quality. Research indicates that the only
way to learn writing is by writing and that quantity often equals quality in writing development (Briere, 1966; Bums & Culp, 1980; Homing, 1987; Keim, 1989; Shaughnessy,
1977). As mentioned earlier, in networked classes, most discussions, analyses of student
papers, and feedback on in-class writing occurred on the network. Although no attempt
was made to calculate the actual amount of writing done during these class meetings lasting about 10 hours, Ghalebs (1993) study indicated that students in a networked class
wrote considerably more (90 words per 50-minute class meeting) than did students in a
traditional class, who wrote only 4 words per class meeting. Further, in peer-review

BMINE

52

sessions monitored for this study, each student in networked classes wrote an average of
480 words during the sessions, more than twice the number of words written by students
in traditional classes.
In addition to a nonthreatening
environment and the extraordinary amount of writing
generated, the collaborative nature of the networked classes may also have enhanced writing quality. Interaction and group work have been shown to facilitate the acquisition of a
second language (see Long & Porter, 1985, for instance). In fact, methods that encourage
collaborative
activities rather than lectures or teacher-dominated
class discussions are
especially beneficial to writing classes (Gere, 1987).
CONCLUSION
This study supports the results of Ghalebs 1993 study comparing ESL students writing
on networked computers and in traditional writing classes. As Table 1 shows, in both
studies, first drafts written in networked classes scored higher holistic scores than did
first drafts written in the traditional classes. In addition, in both studies, students in
networked classes showed a similar degree of improvement
in their writing quality,
although the degree of improvement was slightly less than that of students in traditional
classes. Different results were observed in the Sullivan and Pratt (1996) study: The first
drafts in networked classes scored less than did the first drafts in traditional classes, and
the holistic scores of final drafts in traditional classes actually declined. However, in all
three studies, papers written in networked classes improved significantly
from first to
final draft.

TABLE 1
Changes

in Writing

Quality

Networked
Draft

Measured

by Holistic

Scores

Classes

Draft

Traditional
2

Draft

Classes

Draft

Ghaleb

(1993)

3.4

3.6

(+.2)

3.1

3.9

Sullivan

and Pratt (1996)

3.19

3.26

(+.07)

3.41

2.95

5.3

5.6

(+.3)

4.8

5.2

Braine

(this study)

TABLE 2
Quantity

of Student

Writing

and Degree

in Computer-Networked

of Student

Interaction

Classes

Between

Time,

Words/

min

Student

Total

Students

Markley

(1992)

50

152

109

82 (75%)

Markley

(1992)

50

188

87

62 (71%)

Sullivan

(1993)

40

95

181

153 (84%)

Ghaleb

(1993)

50

90

100

480

Sullivan
Braine

85%

and Pratt (1996)

(this study)*

* Peer reviews

in small

groups.

76%

2
(+.8)
(-.46)
(+.4)

Networked

Computers

in ESL Writing

Classes

53

In this study, the quantity of writing generated by students on the network was significantly more than the quantity generated in other studies. This may be because students in
this study were conducting small-group discussions in subconference
windows. The
smaller group size, three students as opposed to the full class in other studies, may have
generated more discussion. Further, the specificity of the task (peer reviews of papers
according to preset guidelines under time pressure) also may have generated more writing,
as opposed to the less focused discussions of the entire class.
The high degree of interaction between students in this study, as Table 2 shows, was
consistent with other studies. In all studies, students dominated class discussions, participating in at least 70% of the interactions. Research shows that authentic and appropriate
classroom interactions with teachers and classmates provide learners with the best opportunities to practice, hypothesize,
and receive advice on their language skills (see
Allwright, 1980; Ellis, 1984; Pica, 1987; Pica & Doughty, 1985). Gisela Ernst (1994),
who ethnographically
observed factors that enhance or constrain learning in an ESL classroom, stated that the quantity and quality of teacher talk can be decisive in language
learning. However, 65-75% of speech in traditional foreign language classes is attributed
to teachers, who initiate most interactions through direct questions and matters relating to
classroom discipline and management, thereby giving students fewer oppo~unities
for
meaningful interaction (see, for example, Chaudron, 1988; Long & Porter, 1985; Nunan,
1989). Thus, use of networked computers may be one of the most effective ways of reducing dominant teacher talk and increasing student interaction to ensure effective language
learning.
Janet Eldred and Gail Hawisher (1993, in a comprehensive
survey of research on
computers and composition, claimed that no empirical studies indicate that computer
networks enhance writing quality. Although not explicitly stated, the research surveyed by
them appears to cover native speakers of English. In contrast, this study as well as others
surveyed in this paper clearly indicate that ESL writers enhance the quality of their writing
when writing on networked computers. This may be explained by theories of and research
into second language acquisition. According to second language acquisition theories
(Bi~ystok,
1978; Burt & Dulay, 1981; Ellis, 1984, 1985, 1992; Krashen, 1982) and
research on second language acquisition (Hatch, 1978; Larsen-Freeman
& Long, 1990;
Pica, 1987; Pica, Young, & Doughty, 1987), conditions that promote successful language
learning are
l

A supportive, anxiety-free, motivating environment;

Practice in using language in real communicative
situations and oppo~unities for
negotiation of meaning; and
Sufficient exposure to language that is varied, is comprehensible,
and has real communicative value.

Networked computers clearly provide the supportive, anxiety-free environments

that
successful language learning requires. In addition, they provide many oppo~unities
to
practice language in truly communicative
situations, such as during class discussions
centering on a topic or a reading, and during peer reviews of papers. On the other hand, in
traditional writing classes, discussion is often stilted, information flowing mainly one
way-from
the teacher to students. Questions, mostly posed by the teacher, may seek only
pseudo-information
that has no real communicative value.

54

BRAINE

This study also indicates that networked computers may considerably

lessen the
amount of time teachers spend on providing feedback to students. In fact. the teacher in
this study provided more feedback to students in networked classes while spending less
time on the task. For teachers faced with heavy workloads in writing classes, networked
computers may provide a way to lessen the tedium of paper correction.
As mentioned at the beginning of this article, networked computers can be an expensive
investment for many ESL programs. Hence, more research of this nature is needed, both in
the United States and abroad. This study focused mainly on writing quality and quantity.
However, quality cannot be measured by holistic evaluation alone. Classroom learning
involves complex social and pedagogical contexts that are best viewed through close
ethnographic observation. In traditional classes, this can be accomplished only by video
and audio taping classroom interactions. Videotapes, which allow observers to reconstruct
and analyze situations, are especially useful in ethnographic
research. In networked
classes, textual analyses of classroom interactions to reveal turn taking and gender roles
would also provide salient information. When such studies have been conducted, we may
be able to more clearly explain why ESL students write better on networked computers.
George Braine is an associate professor at the English Language Teaching Unit of the
Chinese University of Hong Kong, where he coordinates the units computer writing lab.
He has taught writing on networked computers for 10 years, both in the United States and
in Hong Kong. His publications include Academic Writing in CISecond Lmguuge
(Ablex)
and Writing from Sources: A Guide jbt- ESL Students (Mayfield). His e-mail address is
<georgebraine~cuhk.edu.hk>.

REFERENCES
Allwright, Richard. (1980). Turns, topics, and tasks: Patterns of participation

in language learning
and teaching. In Diane Larsen-Freeman (Ed.), Discourse malwis in swond lcrnpqe rmearch
(pp. 165-187). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Bialystok, Ellen. (1978). A theoretical model of second language learning. f..rm,quage Learning, 28,
69-83.
Braine, George. (1996). ESL students in first year writing courses: ESL versus mainstream classes.
Journal ofSecond Language Writing, 5, 91-107.
Briere, Eugene. (1966). Quantity before quality in second language composition. Lan~qqq~ Letrrrzirq, 16, 141-151.
Bump, Jerome. (1990). Radical changes in class discussions using networked computers. C~~~z~~ff~~~s
and the Hu~~~?litie.~~24, 49-65.
Burns. Hugh, & Gulp, George. (1980, August). StimuIating invention in English composition through
computer-assisted
instruction. Educationul Technoiqy, 5-10.
Burt. Marina, & Dulay, Heidi. (1981). Optimal language learning environments. In James E. Alatis,
Howard B. Altman, & Penelope M. Alatis (Eds.), The srrmd kmpage claxsrootnt Directions
,for rhe 19HOs (pp. 175-192). New York: Oxford University Press.
Chaudron, Craig. (1988). Second Ianguuge classrooms: Research on teuching and learning.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cooper, Marilyn, & Selfe, Cynthia L. (1990). Computer conferences and learning: Authority, resistance, and internally persuasive discourse. College English, 52, 847-869.
Educational Testing Service (ETS). ( 1986, 1990). TWE Scoring Guide. In Test of Written En&h.
Princeton, NJ: Author.

Networked Computers in ESL Writing Classes

55

Eldred, Janet, & Hawisher, Gail. (1995). Researching electronic networks. Written Communication,
12,330-359.
Ellis, Rod. (1984). Classroom second language development. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.
Ellis, Rod. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, Rod. (1992). Second language acquisition and language pedagogy. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Ernst, Gisela. (1994). Talking circle: Conversation and negotiation in the ESL classroom. TESOL
Quarterly, 28, 293-322.
Gere, Ann. (1987). Wr~t~ng groups: History, theov, and irnpZicutions. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Ghaleb, Mary. (1993). Computer ne~arking in a universes fre.~~zman ESL meriting class: A descriptive study of the quantity and quality of writing in networking and traditional writing classes.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
Harklau, Linda. (1994). ESL versus mainstream classes: Contrasting L2 learning environments.
TESOL Quarterly, 28, 241-272.
Hatch, Evelyn. (1978). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In Evelyn M. Hatch
(Ed.), Sexmd language acquisition: A book ofreadings (pp. 401435). Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Horning, Alice. (1987). Teaching writing as a second language. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois
University Press.
Horwitz, Elaine, & Young, Dolly. (1991). ~nguage anxiety: From theory and research tu classroam
~rnpzicf~tiails.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Keim, William. (1989). The writing-grammar battle: Adventures of a teacher/administrator.
English
Journal, 78,66-70.
Krashen, Stephen. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Larsen-Freeman, Diane, & Long, Michael. (1990). An introduction to second language acquisition
research. London: Longman.
Long, Michael, & Porter, Patricia. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language
acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 207-227.
Markley, Phillip. (1992). Creating independent ESL writers and thinkers: Computer networking for
composition. CAELL Journal, 3, G-12.
Nunan. David. (1989). ~?~derstanding language classrooms. London: Prentice Hall.
Pennington. Martha. (1993). A critical examination of word processing effects in relation to L2 writers. J~)urnal of Second Language Writing, 2.227-256.
Pica, Teresa. (1987). Second language acquisition, social interaction, and the classroom. Applied
Linguistics, 8, 3-2 1.
Pica, Teresa, & Doughty, Catherine. (1985). The role of groupwork in classroom second language
acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 233-248.
Pica, Teresa, Young, Richard, & Doughty, Catherine. (1987). The impact of interaction on comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 737-758.
Selfe, Cynthia, & Meyer, Paul. (1991). Testing claims for on-line conferences. Written Communication, 8, 163-192.
Shaughnessy, Mina. (1977). Errors and expectations. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sullivan, Nancy. (1993). Teaching writing on a computer network. TESOL Journal, 3,34-35.
Sullivan, Nancy, & Pratt, Ellen. (1996). A comparative study of two ESL writing environments: A
computer-~sisted
classroom and a ~aditional oral classroom. System, 29(4), 491-501.
Wilkins, Harriet. (1991). Computer talk: Long distance conversation by computer. Written Communication, 8,56-78.

BFAINE

56

APPENDIX

Topic for Assignment

Coming to America. Thousands of international students arrive in the United States every
year. Many of these students are away from home for the first time, in an environment
quite different from theirs. What are the social and psychological problems that students
face? Why do some students experience culture shock? Have you experienced any problems? What can colleges and universities do to help these students?

APPENDIX

Assignment

In Assignment 1, you should describe your knowledge of the topic and express your opinions on it. Since the paper is based on your knowledge and opinions, you should not refer
to any sources in the library or elsewhere. Please make sure that you write a clear thesis
statement and topic sentences for each paragraph. You should also ensure proper organization and cohesion.
Assignment
1 should be word processed. The length should be two double-spaced
pages (about 500 words).
Your readers will be your classmates.

APPENDIX

Test of Written English (TWE) Scoring Guide

Readers will assign scores based on the following scoring guide. Though examinees are
asked to write on a specific topic, parts of the topic may be treated by implication. Readers
should focus on what the examinee does well.
Scores
6
Demonstrate clear competence in writin, 0 both at the rhetorical
levels, though it may have occasional errors.

and syntactic

A paper in this category

--effectively
addresses the writing task
-is well organized and well developed
-uses clearly appropriate details to support a thesis or illustrate ideas
-displays
consistent facility in the use of language
-demonstrates
syntactic variety and appropriate word choice
5

Demonstrates
competence
in writing
though it will probably have occasional

on both rhetorical
errors.

and syntactic

A paper in this category

-may
address some parts of the task more effectively
-is generally well organized and developed
-uses details to support a thesis or itlustrate an idea

than others

levels,

Networked

Computers

in ESL Writing

Classes

57

-displays
facility in the use of language
-demonstrates
some syntactic variety and range of vocabulary
4

Demonstrates
levels.

minimal

competence

in writing

on both rhetorical

and syntactic

A paper in this category

-addresses
the writing topic adequately but may slight parts of the task
-is adequately organized and developed
-uses some details to support a thesis or illustrate an idea
demonstrates
adequate but possibly inconsistent facility with syntax and
usage
-may contain some errors that occasionally obscure meaning
3

Demonstrates some developing competence in writing, but it remains flawed on

either the rhetorical or syntactic level, or both.
A paper in this category may reveal one or more of the following

weaknesses:

-inadequate
organization and development
-inappropriate
or insufficient details to support or illustrate generalizations
-a noticeably inappropriate choice of words or word forms
-an accumulation of errors in sentence structure and/or usage
2

Suggests incompetence

in writing.

A paper in this category is seriously flawed by one or more of the following

nesses:

weak-

-serious
disorganization or underdevelopment
-little
or no detail, or irrelevant specifics
-serious
and frequent errors in sentence structure or usage
-serious
problems with focus
1

Demonstrates

incompetence

in writing.

A paper in this category

-may
-may
-may

be incoherent
be undeveloped
contain severe and persistent writing errors

Papers that reject the assignment or fail to address the question must be given to the Table
Leader. Papers that exhibit absolutely no response at all must also be given to the Table
Leader.

NOTE
Copyright
reserved.

1986, 1990 by Educational

Testing Service, Princeton,

NJ, USA. All rights

APPENDIX
Assignment

l-Peer

D
Review

Author
Reviewed by
First, read the paper straight through to get a quick, general impression. On the second or
third reading. respond to the paper according to the guidelines given below. Please offer
specific comments.
I.

2.
3.

3.

5.

6.
7.
8.
9.

Did you enjoy the paper? Why, or why not? Please be specific.
Is the thesis statement clear? If not, how can the thesis be clarified?
What is the topic sentence of the second paragraph?
Do all the sentences in the paragraph relate to the topic sentence? Yes/No
If not, how can the author improve the paragraph?
What is the topic sentence of the third paragraph?
Do all the sentences in the paragraph relate to the topic sentence? Yes/No
If not, how can the author improve the paragraph?
Write five transitions (transitional
words or phrases. repetition of key words or
phrases, use of synonyms) you found in the paper.
Does the paper need additional transitions? Yes/No
If yes, where?
Find two places where the author has used specific examples to develop an idea.
Specify another place where you think examples are needed.
Is there any place in the paper where you were confused? Specify the confusing parts,
and explain why you were confused.
What are the strong points of the paper?
How can the paper be improved?