very put down. I thought everybody must be laughing at me. I wondered if people knew that I had a culture of my own” (3). Kamala seems to perceive professors' comments on her writing as a recognition of her ability as a person.
Zhang also argue the relationship between ESL students’ self-esteem and their written products. Zhang cites an essay written by an ESLstudent from the United Arab Emirates, who was a good writer in his home country. He writes, “I thought it would be easy to apply my previous writing skill…although in a different language. Besides…I thought that…I would be able to impress my English teachers in the same way as my elementary Arabic teacher.” However, his writing received a poor grade. He writes, “In my first paper, negative comments from my teacher were almost per word…[and] my English teacher couldn’t grasp the ideas as my Arabic teacher did.” He then explains his disappointment, writing that “despair and regret began to grow within my soul gradually. I believed firmly at some point that my writing ability had vanished forever” (11-12). The USresearchedwriting system, which has the different communicative style, prevented him from communicating with the audience, and this painful writing experience hurt his self-confidence.
Further, it has been established that the use of peer feedback in ESLwriting classes reduced associated errors and made the students critical readers. Rollinson (2005) found that by providing and receiving feedback, ESLstudentwriters build their critical abilities to a level where they can critically appraise their work as they write. Additionally, in a study carried out by Tsuiand Ng (2000), one of the participants reported that by reading fellow students’ written work, he was able to develop the ability to detect mistakes in his work. Considering that self-evaluation is a notable challenge to most writers, it is arguable that peer feedback fosters an important skill in those who use it.In fact, reading another person’s work does not only improve the ability to detect mistakes; it also boosts the reader’s vocabulary base, which is part of the process of learning how to write effectively. In summing up the role of peer feedback under the response and revision subtitle, it is apparent that this technique helps ESLwriting students in numerous ways. Learning how to write accurately and effectively in a foreign language can be extremely challenging, especially for those who start at an advanced level of their educational career. Younger people tend to learn new languages with more ease in comparison to their older counterparts (Oroji&Ghane, 2014). The use of peer feedback provides practical solutions to the different facets of writing that present non-native language learners with problems. It ameliorates their ability to edit, strengthens the meaning of a written text, and improves their capacity to appraise their own work critically. These three are some of the most important aspects of the writing process. The fact that they can be improved by peer review suggests that the technique is indispensable in the ESLwriting classroom.
In our class discussions, students also discover how research changes and evolves over time. Even Kaplan (1987) eventually admitted that the five cate- gories of rhetoric were too narrow and ignored the diversity among languages and sub-cultures. Never- theless, Kaplan maintained that the study of contras- tive rhetoric has provided important insights into L2 learners’ adjustment to challenges as they begin to write in English in the academic setting. Kaplan (2005) explained that studying rhetoric in non- English cultures and using the findings from rhetori- cal analyses provides teachers insight into how L2 writers need to adjust to write successfully in Eng- lish. For instance, Leki (1995) found that Chinese writers have difficulty inserting their own viewpoint in academic writing because their academic culture discouraged them from doing so. Leki also offers an example from Zimbabwe, in which a teacher told a student, “You put in too much of your own ideas. We are not interested in your ideas. Your ideas are not
In a study of student academic writing, Tang & John (2002) look at first person pronoun use across varying disciplines. Basing their work on Ivanič‘s (1998) distinction between discourse and genre, they create a taxonomy of six categories of the use of I that appear in the student essays, each representing a progressively more powerful authorial presence within the text (see Table 3.3). By examining the first person pronoun use in 27 essays of 1000 words written by first year university students in Singapore, they found that approximately 81% of the students used the first person pronouns in their writing, though sparingly. It is important to note here that the writing prompt for these essays asked the students to respond to a quote by referring to reading they had been doing in class. This is relevant as the prompt results in essays of substantial size which were to be based on reading references and not solely personal opinion. This is more representative of the kind of writing students are asked to do at the university level, unlike Hinkel‘s writing prompts, and therefore more likely to produce writing samples with relevant features. Of the 92 instances of first person pronoun usages, the majority of uses fell into the ‗less powerful‘ end of the spectrum (see Table 3.3), suggesting that students do in fact use first person pronouns but, unlike their professional counterparts, they tend to use pronouns to align themselves with membership in a discourse community and/or to take a non-threatening and inclusive role as guide through a process. Tang & John suggest that the low occurrences of I in the categories indicating a more powerful authorial presence indicates students‘ lack of confidence in aligning
Second, writing identities are constructed and shifted while ELLs engage in writing practices in the academic setting, and their writing challenges have a significant influence on the different aspects of their writing identities. ELLs’ language proficiency affects the shaping of their writing identities in terms of discoursal self. The ability to use the right words and phrases related to the field of the study and the topic of the writing which is acceptable in the academic setting is a part of constructing the discoursal self as a writer. Being aware of the sociocultural context of writing affects the autobiographical self. Students who cannot adapt to the new culture and are unable to find a balance between their previous abilities and backgrounds and the new context cannot construct a positive autobiographical self. Moreover, the inability to think critically causes ELLs to be unable to represent a strong authorial self as another aspect of their writing identity. To establish self as the author, ELLs need to show their ability in organizing and developing their ideas in written forms. They need to utilize their critical thinking skills to argue other authors’ ideas and defend their own views to show their voice in their writing. Without this ability, ELLs are not able to represent one of the important aspects of writing identity: self as the author.
Writers, particularly new writers, often find that letting otherwriters review their work is tremendously helpful. Most universities have writing centers, where students can have their essays reviewed for free by experienced studentwriters or tutors. These tutors can work with you one-on-one to help you improve your writing and earn better grades. You should realize that reviewing your work, like planning, drafting, or revising, is a recursive process. It is not something a writer does just at the end of his work. For instance, you may want to write an introduction to an essay and have it reviewed by a teacher or classmate before trudging forward. If you're on the wrong track, you'd be better off knowing about it sooner rather than later -- especially if a deadline or due date is looming.
Over the past decades, there has been considerable investigation into both the process and product aspects of ESL/EFL writing. As far as the process is concerned, it is now widely accepted that '[…] more skilled second-language writers tend to do more effective and extensive planning […], revising […] and/or editing […].' (Cumming, 2001, p. 5). On the product side, while there cannot be any universal model of a ‘good text’, ESL/EFL writing has been researched extensively at all levels, from syntax and lexis to culture and genre (see Hinkel, 2011, for a review). Due to the complexity of both process and product, however, much research has dealt with them in relatively separate terms (Cumming, 2001, p. 2) despite the fact that they are strongly interrelated. As a result, knowledge of these relations tends to be patchy, and ESL/EFL writing pedagogy could benefit from more insight into the interplay between composing processes and features of text product (Ortega, 2009, p. 238; Pennington & So, 1993, p. 45).
Providing constructive feedback can be an uphill task for ESLwriters with limited linguistic and content-based knowledge. However, if the student-writers are properly trained and provided support, the interactions during the peer-response activity and the comments generated can be beneficial for draft revision (Liu & Hansen, 2005). In fact, student-writers who are specifically trained before participating in peer-response can offer useful suggestions, point out problems related to content as well as rhetoric and provide usable solutions for draft improvements (Min, 2005). Thus, ESLstudent-writers need explicit training to assess drafts and use the peer feedback effectively (Beach & Friedrich, 2006). Some scholars have questioned the ESLstudent-writers’ ability to offer useful feedback and questioned the extent to which they are prepared to incorporate the peer feedback in their revisions. Therefore, peer-response should be explicitly taught to students in writing classes to avoid students trying to please the teacher through their comments to one another (Hall, 2009). Simmons (2003) suggested this requires a long-term commitment by teachers to model and scaffold feedback strategies.
The results section consists of three moves namely Restating Methodology (R1), Announcing results (R2) and Commenting on them (R3) as shown in Table 5. Move R1 Step 1 for Listing procedures was only found in one report while none was found for Step 2, Justifying methodology. This may be mainly because the ESLwriters were trying to avoid overlaps between Method and Result sections. In Move R2, Step 2 involving pointing to results with phrases such as „the table shows‟, surprisingly very few of the reports were found to implement this step which contrasts the high frequency found in Parkinson‟s work on the native English corpus. Step 2, Displaying result, however, was found to be prominent in that it existed in all reports. It can be seen as the main way of announcing results with figures and tables assumed as being self-explanatory. The lack of Step 1 and the prominence of Step 2 may relate to the writer-audience relationship in that writers often assume the results are well-understood by the instructors. In Step 3, Reporting results, unlike in Parkinson‟s finding of this being frequent, this step seems to be almost negligible in all reports except those in which a standard question-answer template was provided by instructors or modules. This is mainly because there are often overlaps between the results and discussion section. In contrast, Step 4, Calculating results/ stating Chemical equation was found in about half the reports owing to the nature of many of the courses requiring calculations. Move R3 with Steps 1 and 2 for explaining and commenting on results respectively were absent except for reports from the electrical engineering course. This finding was hardly surprising considering that a majority of the ESL students‟ writings suggest a self-explanatory approach to reporting results through the use of figures or tables, with many of the steps in the results section identified in the discussion section instead.
The most frequent errors learners committed were those involving determiners (e.g., missing or incorrect articles), verb forms (e.g., incorrect past tense form of an irregular verb), part of speech (adjectival instead of adverbial forms), plurals (e.g., using noncount nouns as countable nouns), prepositions (missing or wrong prepositions), missing words, and verb usage (e.g., inappropriate use of verbs) problems (see Table 5). Other, less frequent errors included wrong word choice, transitions, and sentence fragments. Of the more frequent mistakes, only the aver- age of determiner problems and verb form errors continue to decrease from paper 2 to paper 5. For all other errors (plural, part of speech, prepositions, missing words, and verb usage), the number of errors committed increased between the second and the ﬁfth paper. The implications of these results may be indicative of how focused work on speciﬁc persistent errors (determiner and verb form errors) can have an effect on studentwriting. This is particularly interesting in light of the different essay assignments; the ﬁrst two papers were written outside of the classroom as homework assignments, and the ﬁfth paper was written under a time constraint as an in-class essay.
2. Literature review
2.1. Stereotyping and writer identity
Spack  argued, one of the greatest setbacks ESL students experience emanates from stereotyping in the classroom. Stereotyping deters students from discovering their abilities as writers because of a negative learning environment. Quantitative research analysis carried out by Okagaki, Helling, and Bingham  highlighted that identity perceptions tend to alter students’ notions of academia. Their research on 171 American students suggested that stereotyping threatens not only students' identity, but also performance. Instructors and other English Native Language (ENL) learners tend to misinterpret the capabilities of ESL students. Many instructors believe that ESL students are incapable of good academic writing based on their culture, gender and linguistic background [6,9]. Thus, only ESL students with greater confidence are able to perform well in such classrooms. These ESL students tend to ask a myriad of questions, and they remain focused on their goals despite the prevalent stereotypes . Some instructors lack the ability to recognize the efforts of ESL students in classroom activities. When ESL students fail to achieve the expected levels of performance, instructors have a tendency to focus on the ENL students because they are less challenging to teach. Consequently, these stereotypes create huge impediments in academic progress for ESL students. Despite the potential to perform beyond their cultural and linguistic barriers, students feel hopeless in such negative environments. Fernsten  highlighted that stereotypes are dangerous labels that demoralize students from reaching their potential in the classroom. Nonetheless, identity is dynamic, and ESL students are capable of transforming depending on the
opportunities for supportive critique and peer review. As a result of these course activities, the online learning community can support an increase in confidence among its members. When increased confidence translates into better teaching, studentwriting achievement is positively impacted (Kaminski, Hunt-Barron, Hawkins, and Williams 27-28; Singer and Scollay 10).
Jang found in her study of teacher candidates that learning theory and practice in the field “online helped pre-service teachers gain a better understanding of the theories and stimulated each of them in their thinking…[and provided] an avenue to ask questions and obtain instant peers’ feedback” (862-863). Of particular interest for online courses that focus on the teaching of writing are the elements that require students to rely on written discourse to communicate ideas and negotiate understandings with peers and instructors. Considerable research has been done with online learning and English Language Learners (ELL), including the use of discussions to encourage language development and the construction of knowledge of theory and practice related to the use of language in writing and speaking. With regard to teaching writing online, Green and Tanner used multiple intelligence theory in an online course as a basis for pre-service teachers to develop an “appropriate metaphor for the ideal writing teacher” (317). This approach helped prospective writing teachers to think about the process of teaching writing including the nature of feedback for students as well as their preferences for responses to their own writing. Ferguson, Littleton, and Whitlock assert that online courses have the potential to help students develop “new literacy practices” via open and
clauses to prepositional or participial phrases, and increased subordination or changes in the pattern of subordination.
In order to achieve the course objectives in improving academic writing competence and preparing international students for various kinds of writing required at the university, ESL courses offer students plenty of opportunities to practice writing by giving several writing assignments. In terms of genre, most of these assignments can be classified as an essay, which, according to Gardner and Nesi (2013), contains the structure of introduction, series of arguments, and conclusion, and asks students to “demonstrate/develop the ability to construct a coherent argument and employ critical thinking skills” (p. 38). Also, the essay assignments in ESL courses are usually in the form of an isolated-mode paper where students are asked to focus on one or two rhetorical functions. For instance, the assignments in the ESL course at Iowa State University include compare/contrast, division/classification, and summary/response essay while those at Penn State University include analytic and argumentative essay. With regard to the object of inquiry, the assignments ask students to write about general topics that are familiar to students (Leki & Carson, 1997). Also, Costino and Hyon’s (2011) analysis of the assignment sheet in ESL courses found that instructions proceed straight to the task – “you will write a critique of one of Eric Schlosser’s chapters in Fast Food Nation” (p. 32) – without mentioning the purpose or audience of the wring task. Also, the assignment sheet highlights the structure and vocabulary students are encouraged to use and dictates that both positive and negative evaluation of the book should be included instead of letting students choose what to discuss.
Before conducting the think-aloud protocol, participants were briefly trained. Partici- pants were acquainted with think-aloud guidelines that instruct them to use Chinese or English to articulate their thinking, and not to over explain or analyze (Green, 1998; Perkins, 1981; Xu & Wu, 2012). Their verbalizations were recorded and transcribed in a word-for-word manner for the sake of further coding and analysis. The coding theme of the oral report was developed by borrowing reading strategies (Purpura, 1997), inte- grated writing strategies (Yang & Plakens, 2012), language learning strategies (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990), and paraphrasing strategies from writing centers of English-medium universities. In total, there are four types of strategies, which are cog- nitive, metacognitive, compensation, and affective strategies (see Table 2). In the cogni- tive strategy section, comprehending, repeating, memorizing, retrieving, summarizing, and analyzing are involved. In the metacognitive strategy section, planning, monitoring, and evaluating are included. In the compensation strategy part, guessing and approxi- mating are invoked. Encouraging yourself is regarded as the sole sub-variable of affective strategies. The report of the think-aloud protocol was coded by two coders. They initially coded the dataset independently and then discussed and settled any dis- crepancy to reach consensus.
in the study. The study used a mixed method design. The participants responded to SLWAI and a Writing Strategies Inventory. The results of the study indicated that writing apprehension had a significant negative correlation with writing achievement. Furthermore, the learners with low writing apprehension were users of writing strategies than the high anxious ones. Meanwhile, Noorzaina’s (2009)\ study indicated that 82 Pre-TESL learners in Universiti Islam Teknologi Malaysia (UiTM), Shah Alam generally had high anxiety level in L2 writing. The findings also indicated that most of them were not anxious to write in English but were more concerned if their compositions were evaluated and when writing under time constraint. Nevertheless, they were no statistical significance of learners‟ writing apprehension with regard to the learners’ gender, age, CGPA and MUET scores. Different from Asmari’s (2013), Foroutan (2012) conducted a study on the effect of dialogue journal writing through the use of conventional tools and E-mail on writing apprehension in the ESL context. 42 Universiti Putra Malaysia undergraduates with intermediate writing skill proficiencies from ESL programme were the participants of this study. She revealed that after going through seven weeks where learners wrote their dialogue journals (using two different tools) in dyadic groups, pre and post- test writing, SLWAI showed statistically no significant difference between groups in terms of writing apprehension. However, mean scores revealed that e-mail group’s writing apprehension was higher than their counterparts in conventional group.
Relating the desire of writing to the terrible repressions produced by the act of writing itself, King creates his monsters as the result of repressed desires and fears that are equivalent to the desire for the unrepresentable, so common in the gothic sublime, which sometimes leads the imagination to a crisis. This creative paradox of gothic fiction has a positive effect, because it uses the confrontation with the fear of language or with the terror of writing, so that an author could surpass them and obtain a deeper consciousness of his human condition and of his role as a writer. As Thad Beaumont well knows about his “dark side,” George Stark, “words on paper made him, and words on paper are the only things that will get rid of him.” 6 Consequently, Gothic transforms the aesthetics of sublime into an existential and psychological process, which is able to bring to consciousness the dark side of human psyche, so that it could be recognized as an integral part of its identity. Its essential cathartic function is once more described by Stephen King as a kind of exorcism. In Danse Macabre, he refers to gothic writing as a necessity of “lifting a trapdoor in the civilised forebrain and throwing a basket of raw meat to the hungry alligators swimming around in that subterranean river beneath.” 7
‘sociocultural theories represent the dominant paradigm for writing research today’ (p. 54). Such approaches have been informed by the notion of ‘social turn’ (Matsuda, 2003, p. 73) and ‘sociocognitive situatedness’ (Atkinson, 2003, p. 10) in SLA research overall. The post-process approach liberates L2 writing from the asocial ‘cognitive routines’ (Faigley. 1986, p. 537, cited in Matsuda, 2003); and as noted by Hyland (Matsuda, Canagarajah, Harklau, Hyland, and Warschauer, 2003), it sees ‘literacy as social interaction’ which further raises issues like ‘writer purpose, identity, audience expectations, cultural schemata’ (p. 166). This view is also reflected in Light’s (2002) understanding of students’ conceptions of creative writing in that they are not ‘independent cognitive entities’ but ‘socially constituted’ (p. 263). Again, the arrival of post-process writing research was accompanied by vehement criticism of its predecessor. However, as Matsuda (2003) warns, despite the shortcomings of the process-oriented approach, e.g. excessive concern with individuality and psychological and cognitive matters, we should not abandon it completely given its continuing popularity evidenced by the quantity of L2 writing studies examining cognitive writing processes in various contexts (see the Journal of Second Language Writing passim). Thus, the cognitive view of writing might be integrated with, instead of replaced by, the ‘social turn’ advocated by the post- process approach. In the following, I will discuss in more detail the application of process-oriented writing theories in the examination of cognitive activities enacted in L2 creative writing processes.
Textual ownership and the ownership of ideas are concepts that are culturally based and therefore not shared across cultures and educational systems. Further, "patchwriting," defined by Rebecca Moore Howard, as the copying of sections of texts, such as phrasings and sentence patterns, is a natural part of the process of learning to write in a second language. As with native English speaking students, second language students may plagiarize when they panic about getting an assignment completed in time or doubt their ability to complete the assignment competently. Plagiarism, at many universities across the nation, is attributed to practices that range from the wholesale taking of an entire text to the improper use of citation convention. To help second language writers avoid practices that violate these institutional policies, both first-year writing and writing-intensive instructors should teach and re-enforce U.S. expectations for textual borrowing and citation conventions so that these students are continuously learning this throughout their college careers. Instructors and administrators should not expect second language writers to philosophically grasp and perfectly execute these practices after a single lesson. We advocate that instructors take extra care when suspecting a second language writer of plagiarism, and take into consideration the student's cultural
enthusiastic as this particular story indicated. In discussing his own history as a writer, he also described times in his life when he doubted his writing abilities. For example, evident in his narration of his timeline was the rote nature of writing for him throughout much of his schooling and the significant shift in both content and craft that he had to face during his college years. It also came up in conversations around his teaching of writing, and the uncertainty that came with modeling writing for students. In our first interview, for example, Luis said, “I remember having anxiety like in teaching units where it’s like writing the piece alongside these kids, you’re like ‘Oh my goodness, I have to do the actual writing and I don’t necessarily know the keys,’ so it was hard.” Pairing this comment with Luis’s naming of his jealousy about the exposure his students have to wider writing opportunities than he did himself illuminated the ways in which Luis’s own writing history shaped his writing instruction as well as the tangled emotions these experiences infused into the expectation that a teacher be a “model writer” for his or her students. Luis was expected to model an experience for his students that he had not had as a student himself. Even for someone whose cover story asserted confidence, this expectation produced anxiety.
Any student with a documented disability who may need educational accommodations should notify the instructor or the disabled student programs and services (DSP&S) office as soon as possible. The DSP&S office is located in the health sciences building, room 2117, (760) 355-6312.