Presentation of article of research related to writing instruction in second language learners

TESL Reporter 40, 1 (2007), pp. 35-48 35

Teaching Writing to Second Language

Learners: Insights from Theory and

Research

Khaled Barkaoui

University of Toronto, Canada

Writing is one of the most difficult skills that second-language (L2) learners are

expected to acquire, requiring the mastery of a variety of linguistic, cognitive, and

sociocultural competencies. As many teachers attest, teaching L2 writing is a

challenging task as well. This paper aims to summarize the main findings of L2 writing

theory and research concerning the nature of the writing competencies that learners

need to develop in order to be able to write effectively in L2 and how instruction can

help them attain these competencies.

What L2 Learners Need to Learn

Different theoretical orientations tend to focus on different aspects of L2 writing

competencies and to emphasize the importance of learning and teaching them in

different ways (Cumming, 2001; Hyland, 2002). Here I review findings from three

orientations—text-focused, process-focused, and sociocultural—with the aim of

answering the question, what do students need to learn to become effective L2 writers?

The focus in this paper is on teaching writing for academic purposes to intermediate

and advanced second and foreign language learners (e.g., English for Academic

Purposes, EAP).

Text-oriented research sees L2 writing development in terms of the features of the

texts that L2 learners produce. According to this orientation, to be able to write in an L2

effectively, writers need to learn the orthography, morphology, lexicon, syntax, as well

as the discourse and rhetorical conventions of the L2. For instance, among the

competencies that L2 learners need to attain to achieve proficiency in L2 writing are the

ability to produce lengthy texts that have appropriate metadiscourse features (e.g.,

exemplifiers, connectives, hedges) and varied and sophisticated vocabulary and

syntactic structures (e.g., see Buckwalter & Lo, 2002; Grant & Ginther, 2000), to

employ different patterns of overall text organization (e.g., description, narration,

argument), and to incorporate others’ ideas and texts in their own writing effectively

(Cumming, 2001).

TESL Reporter36

Process-oriented research sees learning L2 writing as the acquisition of

successful writing strategies. From this perspective, learning L2 writing is seen as the

acquisition of both macro strategies such as planning, drafting and revising, and

micro strategies such as attending to content and form concurrently and automatic

searches for words and syntax (Cumming, 2001). For example, in their review of the

literature, Roca De Larios, Murphy, and Marin (2002) list five major behaviours that

L2 writers need to acquire:

The ability to manage complex mental representations, the ability to

construct rhetorical and organizational goals and hold them in mind while

composing, the efficient use of problem-solving procedures in order to

formulate their texts, the ability to distinguish between editing and revision

as two different operations distributed in different stages of the composition

process, and the adoption of a flexible attitude toward the use of rhetorical

devices (p. 27).

It should be noted here that knowledge of L2 linguistic and discourse aspects, the

type of knowledge that text-oriented research tends to emphasize, affects these

processes. Thus, knowledge of these L2 linguistic and textual aspects allows writers to

use their linguistic resources more fluently and to plan, draft, and revise more

effectively (Chenowith & Hayes, 2001; Cumming, 2001; Sasaki, 2000).

Finally, sociocultural research sees writing development as the learning of the

genres, values, and practices of the target community. This research emphasizes the role

of context and audience in learning L2 writing. According to this orientation, proficient

L2 writers are those who can “act effectively in new cultural settings” (Hyland, 2002, p.

60). Such writers go through a socialization process in which they learn the values (i.e.,

how to see, value, and do things), expectations, knowledge, and genres (i.e., what, how,

and why to write) of their target communities, whether professional or academic (Parks

& Maguire, 1999; Spack, 1997). This socialization process involves also adopting a new

identity and conforming to the prevailing norms of the target community (Parks &

Maguire, 1999). During this process learners master such macro features as the ability

to tailor both information and the interpersonal aspects of the message to recipient needs

and knowledge, and micro-discursive acts such as negotiating, formulating, and

mediating (Candlin, 1999, as cited in Hyland, 2002; Cumming, 2002). For instance,

Parks and Maguire’s (1999) Francophone nurses, who learnt to write English nursing

notes appropriately, and Spack’s (1997) Japanese student, Yuko, who learnt the

“American way” of writing at university, all internalized the rules of their L2

communities and underwent both individual development and shifts in self-image and

identity (Cumming, 2001).

Barkaoui—Teaching Writing to Second Language Learners 37

Obviously, full proficiency in L2 writing entails mastery of all the writing competencies and aspects mentioned above. The different theories and studies discussed

above draw attention to the multiple competencies that students need to attain to be able

to write in a second language effectively (i.e., what to teach). Given these findings, how

can we best teach writing in the L2 classroom?

The literature suggests several instructional practices that may help learners attain

the competencies outlined above. Process-oriented research emphasizes the importance

of explicitly teaching effective writing processes. Text-focused and sociocultural

orientations highlight the value of modelling target texts, with the latter orientation

advocating a broader focus on text forms as well as the contexts, audiences, purposes,

and functions of texts. The three orientations emphasize the importance of encouraging

learners to engage in writing frequently and of providing them with useful and

appropriate feedback and support. In addition to addressing the linguistic, cognitive, and

sociocultural aspects of learning, L2 writing teachers need to attend to affective factors

as well. This paper, as a result, discusses also several strategies for generating and

maintaining student motivation in the L2 writing classroom, such as holding positive

teacher attitudes and expectations and promoting learner autonomy and self-assessment.

Process Modelling

Process-oriented research suggests that we can help students become more

competent L2 writers by describing and modelling for them the processes and strategies

that underlie effective writing (e.g., generating ideas, planning, drafting, and revising)

and providing them with feedback on their performance until they are able to apply these

processes and strategies independently and flexibly in relation to their goals and task

requirements (Chenoweth & Hayes, 2001; Cumming, 2002; Ferris & Hedgcock, 1998;

Hyland, 2002; Roen, 1989; Sasaki, 2000; Sengupta, 2000). As Roen (1989) has argued,

“when [students] understand the processes in which effective writers engage, [they] will

be better able to engage in them, recursively, on their own” (p. 199). One model that

teachers can adopt to improve their students’ writing and self-regulatory skills is

Zimmerman and Kitsantas’s (2002) four-step social-cognitive model which involves

students in observing how a skill is performed, emulating or enacting the skill, using

self-control to achieve automaticity in the skill, and developing self-regulation where

students learn to adapt and transfer the skill to different contexts. In stage one, teachers

can, for example, think aloud while responding to a writing task in front of their students

or show their students videos of “coping models” (e.g., a student struggling to

implement a writing strategy). In stage two, teachers can ask students to verbalize their

thoughts while composing in a conference or in pairs and give them feedback on their

writing processes and strategies. In stage three, teachers need to raise students’

TESL Reporter38

awareness about their writing strategies and teach and model procedures to regulate

these and other strategies (i.e., why and when to use them). As several studies have

shown (e.g., see Devine, 1993; Kasper, 1997), extensive instruction, practice, and

assistance with such self-regulation strategies as goal setting, self-monitoring, and self-

evaluation (e.g., using checklists) have positive effects on students’ L2 writing

motivation, learning, and performance.

Text Modelling

Text-focused and sociocultural orientations highlight the value of providing explicit

instruction about, exposure to, and practice of the target L2 texts. However, while the

former orientation focuses mainly on text forms (e.g., grammar, vocabulary,

organization), the latter advocates a broader approach that focuses on text forms as well

as the contexts, audiences, purposes, and functions of these texts (e.g., see Feez, 1998;

Flowerdew, 2000; Hyland, 2002, 2003; Paltridge, 2001).

As Hyland (2002) argues, such a broad approach can help students learn “strategies

of engagement and response to a community’s discourses” as well as “how to structure

their writing experiences according to the demands and constraints of target contexts”

(p. 81). This knowledge can be achieved through explicit instruction about how and why texts are written the ways they are, integration of reading and writing tasks that are

related to the texts and contexts that the learners will have to deal with, and target text

modelling. Text modelling involves introducing, negotiating, researching, modeling,

and practicing the target text-types (e.g., reports, abstracts, proposals). The approach

moves gradually from a teacher-centred mode (i.e., teacher modeling, analyzing, and

discussing texts), to joint negotiation and construction of texts by the entire class, to peer

discussion, to independent individual work when the learner attains the necessary

knowledge and skills (Feez, 1998; Hyland, 2002). During this process, teachers can

investigate the texts and contexts of students’ target situations, encourage students to

reflect on the writing practices of their target situations, and use group analyses of

authentic texts in order to provide students with the necessary language to describe and

discuss target texts. The use of authentic target texts and tasks in the L2 writing

classroom can also help familiarize the students with different text types and rhetorical

and linguistic conventions and strategies to realize different text stages, achieve

cohesion, adopt appropriate tone, manage information flow, and achieve specific

purposes (Hyland, 2002). Teachers should be careful, however, not to ignore the writing

process and learners’ experiences and not to give students the false impression that

target text types are static and decontextualized, rather than dynamic and varied

(Hyland, 2002, 2003; see also Feez, 1998; Flowerdew, 2000; Myles, 2002; Paltridge,

2001; Raimes, 1998).

Barkaoui—Teaching Writing to Second Language Learners 39

It has been argued that text and process modelling are more effective when

combined (Ferris & Hedgcock, 1998; Hyland, 2002; Myles, 2002; Yeh, 1998). Yeh

(1998), for instance, has demonstrated how combining explicit instruction about target

text types (e.g., structures, content, functions, audience expectations, and criteria used

to evaluate text) and practice (e.g., appropriate writing strategies, discussion, peer

feedback, drafting) in the L2 writing classroom helps L2 learners acquire the necessary

skills to write argumentative texts and empowers them by preparing them to function

effectively in their target communities. As Myles (2002) argues, combining process

training and text models in the L2 writing classroom connects strategic effort and

outcomes and enables learners to use the new language as a tool in the process of

becoming self-regulatory.

Audience Awareness

In addition to text modelling, sociocultural orientations emphasize the importance

of raising students’ awareness about target audience expectations. Hyland (2002), for

example, maintains that “effective writing instruction involves guiding students to an

awareness of their readers, and the interactional strategies, background understandings

and rhetorical conventions these readers are likely to expect” (p. 83). Johns (1996) also

emphasizes the importance of raising students’ awareness about L2-speakers’

expectations of topic organization and development so that students can produce

coherent “reader-considerate” texts (p. 137; see also Reid, 1989). Beach and Liebman-

Kleine (1986) add that teachers should encourage their students to think as, rather than about, readers when writing and help them develop schemata about readers and how readers read. This includes also raising students’ awareness about L2 conventions

concerning how to use others’ ideas and texts in one’s own writing and how these

conventions differ across cultures (Casanave, 2004; Hyland & Hyland, 2001). To help

students anticipate L2 readers’ needs and expectations, teachers can discuss with their

students the expectations of L2 audiences and how these expectations differ from those

of readers in other languages such as those of the students. They can also ask students

to research real audiences and to write to different audiences. Other strategies to help

students develop audience awareness include integrating reading and writing skills and

tasks in the classroom, using reader think-aloud protocols of students’ texts, and

encouraging students to imagine reader attributes and use those attributes in creating

hypothetical rhetorical contexts and assessing their own texts accordingly (Beach &

Liebman-Kleine, 1986; Cumming, 2002; Hyland, 2002; Ferris & Hedgcock, 1998;

Johns, 1996; Reid, 1989).

TESL Reporter40

Feedback

In addition to modelling and raising students’ awareness about L2 writing processes

and conventions, teachers should provide learners with constructive feedback on their

L2 writing (Hyland & Hyland, 2001; Ferris & Roberts, 2001). As Casanave (2004)

cautions, however, research findings concerning feedback practices are mixed. While

some studies (e.g., see Fazio, 2001) found no significant effects, others (e.g., see Ferris

& Roberts, 2001) reported positive effects for correcting students’ errors. In addition,

while some practitioners (e.g., see Elbow, 1996; Leki, 1992) argue against correcting

students’ errors if we want to encourage students to write fluently and help them build

confidence, others (e.g., see Myles, 2002; Ferris & Roberts, 2001) argue that feedback

is necessary because students expect it and it improves accuracy. Roca De Larios,

Murphy, and Marin (2002) point out that research suggests that the development of

accuracy and complexity in the use of the L2 appears to not be amenable to explicit

instruction and is probably more dependent on the acquisition of higher levels of L2

proficiency. Ferris and Roberts (2001), on the other hand, found significant positive

effects for both explicit and implicit error correction on students’ texts. Qi and Lapkin

(2001) also found that “noticing,” or drawing learners’ attention to such areas as lexis,

grammar, and discourse, has a positive impact on their L2 writing.

The mixed findings outlined above about feedback effectiveness concern mainly

teacher comments on form (i.e., grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics). There is less

disagreement about the value of feedback on content (e.g., ideas, coherence, use of

others’ texts, but see Ashwell, 2000) and on writing processes and strategies.

Zimmerman and Kitsantas (2002), for example, found that social feedback on writing

processes (i.e., feedback given to a learner by others about his/her writing

performance) promotes both learning and motivation. This seems to suggest that we

need to accustom ourselves to responding to L2 learners’ writing as readers, rather than as language sticklers.

We also need to consider how and when to provide feedback. It is important to

provide feedback on work in progress to help students understand how they can perform

the writing task (Hyland & Hyland, 2001; Williams, 2003). This feedback should be

neither so detailed that it overwhelms L2 writers and discourages substantive revision,

nor so sketchy that it leads to surface text modifications only (Myles, 2002). Myles also

warns that the effectiveness of teacher response may depend on students’ levels of

motivation, current L2 proficiency, cognitive style, learning experiences, and attitudes

to teacher and class, as well as the clarity of the feedback itself (e.g., see Hyland, 1998;

Hyland & Hyland, 2001). Teachers need also to be sensitive to issues related to text

ownership. Cumming (personal communication, February, 2004), for example,

Barkaoui—Teaching Writing to Second Language Learners 41

emphasizes the importance of nurturing students’ ownership of (and pride and identity

in) their writing when helping them by ensuring that students, themselves, take the

primary responsibility for what they want to say and how to organize it.

Finally, in order to enhance the effectiveness of feedback, teachers can encourage

learners to discuss, analyze, and evaluate feedback, discuss why it is given, and how it

is intended to affect their writing. Teachers can also reformulate a student’s draft and

then discuss and compare the reformulated and original drafts in the class. Another

strategy to enhance the effectiveness of feedback is to use such tools as revision and

editing checklists to help students develop self-correction and self-revision strategies

(Ashwell, 2000; Hyland, 1998; Hyland & Hyland, 2001; Myles, 2002; Qi & Lapkin,

2001). Teacher-student conferences can provide another effective tool for teachers to

identify, discuss, and address students’ problems, provided that students do most of the

talking, only a small number of points are dealt with at a time (e.g., most serious and/or

common problems), and teachers adopt “a questioning strategy that directs students’ attention to features that need improvement” (Williams, 2003, p. 149; Cumming, 2002).

As Williams argues, questioning “engages students in the processes of critical inquiry

and problem solving that are essential to continued improvement in writing

performance, because they are discovering things about their writing for themselves. As

a result, the revisions they make are their revisions, not the teacher’s” (p. 150).

Frequent Practice

The three theoretical orientations suggest also that we can help students learn L2

writing by providing them with opportunities, support, and encouragement to write

frequently even before they master the necessary skills. Chenoweth and Hayes (2001),

for instance, found that fluency in writing increased as the writer’s experience with the

language increased. As a result, they argue that in addition to guiding students to

practice effective writing strategies, teachers need to give students many opportunities

to practice L2 writing, so that processes such as lexical retrieval can become more

automatic (e.g., see Myles, 2002). Integrating reading and writing and encouraging

students to read and write extensively in and outside the classroom can provide

opportunities for practice, help raise students’ awareness about the conventions of L2

texts, and compensate for the often short time of instruction (Ferris & Hedgcock, 1998).

Another strategy to support and encourage students to write frequently is to use writing

workshops, where students are actively involved in researching, talking, and writing

about texts (Williams, 2003).

TESL Reporter42

Motivating Students

Motivating students to write frequently can be a tricky task, however. As Hyland

(2002) emphasizes, teachers need to attend to both cognitive and motivational factors in

the L2 writing classroom. Motivational factors include learners’ beliefs about the nature

and importance of writing, the differences between L1 and L2, their attitude to the L2,

and about their writing competence, which in turn influence learners’ engagement,

effort, and learning in the L2 writing classroom (Dornyei, 2001; Victori, 1999).

Teachers need to be aware of these affective factors and to help their students become

more motivated. Motivation should help learners want to increase their practice time and

to set new writing goals for themselves (Dornyei, 2001).

The motivation literature suggests several strategies and techniques that teachers

can use to create and maintain learner motivation in the L2 writing classroom (Dornyei,

2001). First, teachers should identify and discuss learners’ writing experiences, beliefs,

needs, and goals with the aim of rectifying misconceptions (e.g., that writing is a gift)

and enhancing positive attitudes towards writing. Second, teachers should help students

see themselves as successful writers by providing them with positive experiences with

writing activities; emphasizing that they can be successful in these activities through

their own efforts; praising them on work well done; and helping them “start seeing

themselves as writers, [rather than as students], who can get things done with written

discourse” (Williams, 2003, p. 121). Williams warns, however, against “hollow praise”

which “applauds students whether they succeed or fail and which, consequently, leads

many students not even to try” (p. 128; cf. Hyland & Hyland, 2001). Third, teachers

should ensure a pleasant and supportive atmosphere in the classroom where the students

can feel safe and trusting (Dornyei, 2001). Fourth, as Ferris and Hedgcock (1998) have

argued, teachers should take the different backgrounds, experiences, and expectations

that students bring to the writing classroom into account when selecting teaching

materials and approaches, developing reading and writing assignments, constructing

assessment instruments, and providing feedback. Fifth, the reading and writing tasks

and activities used should be meaningful, relevant, and varied in terms of content and

genre. Finally, teachers should be explicit about the goals of the learning and assessment

tasks they use, provide learners with clear goals and strategies to make writing tasks

manageable, and allow students choice (Cumming, 2002; Dornyei, 2001; Ferris &

Hedgcock, 1998; Hyland, 2002; Raimes, 1998; Williams, 2003).

Teacher Attitudes and Expectations

An important set of factors in the L2 writing classroom relates to teacher attitudes

and expectations (Dornyei, 2001; Hyland & Hyland, 2001; Williams, 2003). Williams

Barkaoui—Teaching Writing to Second Language Learners 43

(2003) cites research indicating that sound teaching methods could fail to produce

significant improvement in performance if the teachers do not believe that they can

make a difference in the classroom and/or view students as having little or no

competence. As Proctor (1984) has argued, to be effective, teachers must:

a. Feel good about teaching and about students;

b. View class work as meaningful and important;

c. Believe that they can influence student learning;

d. Expect student progress;

e. Accept accountability and show a willingness to examine performance;

f. Plan for student learning, set goals, and identify strategies to achieve them;

g. Develop joint ventures with students to accomplish goals; and

h. Involve students in making decisions regarding goals and strategies.

(Cited in Williams, 2003, p. 127)

Furthermore, teachers should hold appropriate, high expectations and take a firm

position on them in the classroom. Citing Vygotsky’s notion of the zone of proximal development, Williams (2003) argues that “students should always be expected to perform beyond their comfort level” (p. 130). For example, teachers should insist on

papers that are totally free of surface errors (e.g., spelling) because students often have

time to revise repeatedly. Teachers should also insist that students rewrite their texts in

response to feedback they receive from them and from their peers.

Learner Autonomy and Self Assessment

Another strategy to both motivate learners and help them become more competent

L2 writers is promoting learner autonomy and self-assessment (Dornyei, 2001; Myles,

2002; Ross, Rolheiser, & Hogaboam-Gray, 1999). In first-language writing, both Foster

(1996) and Huot (2002) have argued for the value of student self-assessment as a

powerful tool for the development of learner motivation, autonomy, and writing ability.

Huot (2002), for instance, encourages teachers to engage their students in reflective writing (writing about one’s own writing) and self-assessment, which, he contends, can enhance learning, effective revising, and the ability to respond to others’ feedback. By

engaging students in self-assessing their own work, Huot argues, we make them aware

of what it is they are trying to achieve and how well their current drafts match the

linguistic and rhetorical targets they have set for themselves.

For L2 writing, Ross et al. (1999) report that students who received training in

self-assessment became more accurate in their self-evaluations and performed better on

narrative writing than those who did not receive such training. Myers (2001) also

TESL Reporter44

shows how encouraging students to reflect on their texts and writing processes, using

journal writing and guided questionnaires, helped them identify their writing

strengths and weaknesses, become more conscious of their writing processes, and

achieve autonomy.

Promoting learner autonomy can be achieved by gradually delegating responsibility

to students (i.e., increasingly moving from a teacher-centred to a learner-centred mode),

and enhancing the self-assessment skills of students (Myles, 2002). Teachers can teach

students self-assessment by demonstrating to them various self-assessment and

problem-solving strategies. Teachers can, for example, develop scoring guidelines with

students so that students know what to look for and expect from teacher assessment of

their work. Or they can encourage and help students develop and discuss (with teacher

and/or peers) specific assessment criteria for each piece they write. Another strategy will

be to encourage students to apply discussions of writing quality to their own texts.

Teachers can also use student-teacher conferences to discuss texts of students that they

identify as strong or weak (Foster, 1996; Huot, 2002). Elbow (1996) suggests another

strategy, teacher “liking” of student writing, to promote student motivation, self-

assessment, and learning in the writing classroom. Elbow contends that people need first

to like their texts to improve them, as “only if we like what we write will we write again

and again by choice—which is the only way we get better” (p. 210). As Elbow

emphasizes, the role of the teacher is critical in this process, as “we learn to like our

writing when we have a respected reader who likes it. Therefore, it’s the mark of good

teachers to like students and their writing” (p. 214).

Conclusion

Learning and teaching writing in a second language are very challenging tasks, not

least because of the myriad of affective, linguistic, cognitive, and sociocultural factors

involved. The goal of this paper has been to review L2 writing research and theories to

draw out some practical pedagogical implications about what writing to teach and how

to teach it to L2 learners. Several teaching practices have been suggested. Teachers need

to raise learners’ awareness about successful writing processes, L2 reader expectations,

and L2 linguistic and textual conventions. They need also to support learners by

providing them with models, clear and specific learning goals, meaningful contexts to

practice writing, carefully structured activities, clear presentation of materials, useful

feedback, encouragement, and high standards. Finally, teachers need to promote learner

autonomy in and outside the L2 writing classroom. It is hoped that this paper provides

a set of potentially useful insights and suggestions from which teachers can select

according to their actual priorities and concerns and the characteristics, needs, and

Barkaoui—Teaching Writing to Second Language Learners

composition of their students. As Hyland (2002) has repeatedly emphasised,

“fundamentally, writing is learned, rather than taught … the teacher’s best methods are

flexibility and support” (p. 78).

References

Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft

composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best

method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 227-257.

Beach, R., & Liehman-Kleine, J. (1986). The writing/reading relationship: Becoming

one’s own best reader. In B. T. Petersen (Ed.), Convergences: Transactions in reading and writing (pp. 64-81). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Buckwalter, J. K., & Lo, Y. G. (2002). Emergent biliteracy in Chinese and English.

Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 4, 269-293.

Candlin, C. N. (1999, April). How can discourse be a measure of expertise? Paper presented at the meeting of the International Association for Dialogue Analysis.

Birmingham, UK: University of Birmingham.

Casanave, C. P. (2004). Controversies in second language writing: Dilemmas and decisions in research and instruction. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Chenoweth, N., & Hayes, J.R. (2001). Fluency in writing: Generating text in L1 and

L2. Written Communication, 18, 1, 80-98.

Cumming, A. (2001). Learning to write in a second language: Two decades of

research. International Journal of English Studies, 1(2), 1-23.

Cumming, A. (2002). If I had known 12 things... In L. Blanton, & B. Kroll (Eds.),

ESL composition tales: Reflections on teaching (pp. 123-134). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Devine, J. (1993). The role of metacognition in second language reading and writing.

In J. Carson, & I. Leki (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom: Second language perspectives (pp. 105-127). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Dornyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. NY: Longman.

Elbow, P. (1996). Ranking, evaluating, and liking: Sorting out three forms of

judgment. In B. Leeds (Ed.), Writing in a second language: Insights from first and second language teaching and research (pp. 200-214). NY: Longman.

Fazio, L. L. (2001). The effect of corrections and commentaries on the journal writing

accuracy of minority- and majority-language students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 235-249.

45

TESL Reporter46

Feez, S. (1998). Text-based syllabus design. Sydney, Australia: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research, Macquarie University.

Ferris, D., & Hedgcock, J. S. (1998). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit

does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161-184.

Flowerdew, L. (2000). Using a genre-based framework to teach organizational

structure in academic writing. ELT Journal, 54, 369-378.

Foster, G. (1996). Student self-assessment: A powerful process for helping students revise their writing. Markham, Ontario: Pembroke.

Grant, L., & Ginther, A. (2000). Using computer-tagged linguistic features to describe

L2 writing differences. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 123-145.

Huot, B. (2002). (Re)Articulating writing assessment for teaching and learning. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.

Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written

feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 185-212.

Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers.

Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 255-286.

Hyland, K. (2002). Teaching and researching writing. New York: Longman.

Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 17-29.

Johns, A. M. (1996). The ESL student and the revision process: Some insights from

schema theory. In B. Leeds (Ed.), Writing in a second language: Insights from first and second language teaching and research (pp. 137-1145). New York:: Longman.

Kasper, L. F. (1997). Assessing the metacognitive growth of ESL student writers.

TESL-EJ 3 (1). Retrieved January 11, 2007, from http://www.writing.berkeley.edu/ TESL-EJ/ej09/a1.html

Leki, I. (1992). Understanding ESL writers: A guide for teachers. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Heinemann.

Myers, J. L. (2001). Self-evaluations of the ‘’stream of thought’’ in journal writing.

System, 29, 481-488.

Myles, J. (2002). Second language writing and research: The writing process and error

analysis in student texts. TESL-EJ, 6(2). Retrieved January 11, 2007, from http://www-writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej22/toc.html

Barkaoui—Teaching Writing to Second Language Learners 47

Paltridge, B. (2001). Genre and the language learning classroom. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Parks, S., & Maguire, M. (1999). Coping with on-the-job writing in ESL: A

constructivist-semiotic perspective. Language Learning, 49(1), 143-175.

Proctor, C. (1984, March). Teacher expectations: A model for school improvement.

Elementary School Journal, 84(4), 469-481.

Qi, D. S., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second

language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 277-303.

Raimes, A. (1998) Teaching writing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 142-167.

Reid, J. (1989). English as a second language composing in the higher education: The

expectations of the academic audience. In D. M. Johnson, & D. H. Roen (Eds.),

Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 220-234). NY: Longman.

Roca De Larios, J., Murphy, L., & Marin, 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 Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Roen, D. H. (1989) Developing effective assignments for second language writers. In

D. M. Johnson, & D. H. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 193-206). NY: Longman.

Ross, J. A., Rolheiser, C., & Hogaboam-Gray, A. (1999). Effects of self-evaluation

training on narrative writing. Assessing Writing, 6, 107-132.

Sasaki, M. (2000). Toward an empirical model of EFL writing processes: An

exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 3, 259-291.

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

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

Spack, R. (1997). The acquisition of academic literacy in a second language: A

longitudinal case study. Written Communication, 14(1), 3-62.

Victori, M. (1999). An analysis of writing knowledge in EFL composing: A case study

of two effective and two less effective writers. System, 27, 537-555.

Williams, J. D. (2003). Preparing to teach writing: Research, theory, and practice (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Yeh, S. (1998). Empowering education: Teaching argumentative writing to cultural

minority middle-school students. Research in the Teaching of English, 33, 49-83.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A (2002). Acquiring writing revision and self-

regulatory skill through observation and emulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 660-668.

TESL Reporter48

About the Author

Khaled Barkaoui is a Ph.D. candidate in Second Language Education at the University of Toronto, Canada. He has taught EFL reading and writing to university students in Tunisia for three years. His research interests include second language writing, second language assessment, and English for academic purposes.

Acknowledgment

The author wishes to thank Alister Cumming, Ibtissem Knouzi, and an anonymous reviewer

for their comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this manuscript.

JALT CALL. June 1-3, 2007. “CALL: Integration or Disintegration?”, Waseda

University, Topkyo, Japan.. Web site http://www.jaltcall.org.

Applied Linguistics Association of Australia. July 1-3, 2007. “Making a Difference:

Challenges for Applied Linguistics,” University of Wollongong, NSW Australia. Web

site http://www.uow.edu.au/conferences/ALAA/home.html.

EUROCALL. September 5-8, 2007. “Mastering Multimedia; Teaching Through

Techonology,” Coleraine, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom. Web site http://www.

eurocall-languages.org.

AMEP National Conference. October 4-6, 2007. “Changing Identity: Changing

Needs,” Mooloolaba Centre, Sunshine Coast Institute of TAFE, Queensland, Australia.

Telephone 61-2-9850-7592, Fax: 61-2-9850-7849, E-mail [email protected].

Web site http://www.nceltr.mq.edu.au/conference/index.html.

AMEP Research Centre. October 5-7, 2007. “Cultures of Learning,” Central TAFE,

Perth, Australia. Contact AMEP Coordinator, AMEP Research Center, NCELTR,

Macquarie University, North Ryde 2109, Australia, Telephone 61-2-9850-7592, Fax 61-

2-9850-7849, E-mail [email protected]. Web site http://www.nceltr.mq.edu.

au/conference/index.html.

Independent Learning Association. October 5-8, 2007. “Learner Autonomy Across

the Disciplines,” Kanda University of International Studies, Chiba, Japan. E-mail

[email protected]. Web site http://www.independentlearning.org.

MEXICO TESOL. November 8-11, 2007. “Where To From here?,” World Trade

Center, Veracruz, Mexico. E-mail [email protected]. Web site

http://www.mextesol.org.mx.

Conference Announcements