วันศุกร์ที่ 29 ตุลาคม พ.ศ. 2553

Understanding Expertisein Teaching [Case Studies of Second Language Teachers] {Amy B. M. Tsui} (ตอนที่ 1)

(ตอนที่ 1)
Writing teachers as assessors of writing 165
time, and predictive validity, in which the criterion performance will be compared with another performance at a future time. As with all such studies, the key problem when we try to look at the criterion validity of a writing test is identifying a reasonable criterion measure against which the writing test is to be compared. Studies over the years have shown that writing tests often correlate highly with concurrent "objective" measures, and this was the argument used by ETS (Educational Testing Service) for many years as the reason for not testing writing directly. But few ESL professionals these days are prepared to believe that we can test writing by any means other than having students actually write. The arguments for including direct performances in any assessment relate to construct validity and to washback and impact, which are discussed later. But it is worth noting that the new computer-based TOEFL, administered by ETS, accepts such arguments and includes a writing sample.
Construct validity and the "new" validities
Attitudes and priorities in language testing have changed significantly since 1990. Reliability and the traditional validities still have importance, but it is better understood that a good test demands more than this. Traditionally, if a test has construct validity it appropriately represents or reflects the reality of behavior in the area being tested. A construct-valid test is designed to measure certain human responses. The actual "constructs" themselves are rather abstract things, like "ability to write." Constructs cannot be seen but have to be measured -by capturing some examples of behavior that tap that construct. However reliable a test is, it cannot be valid if it isn't capturing information about the right construct. The example often used to explain the difference between a reliable test and a construct valid one is as follows: Imagine a target. If you shoot three arrows and they all hit the same spot, your aim is very reliable. But suppose those three arrows hit the edge of the target? Your aim is reliable, but not effective. Suppose one arrow hits the bullseye and the other two go in different directions? You have some effectiveness but no reliability. Now suppose all three arrows hit the bullseye? Your aim is both effective and reliable. Construct validity demands that you not only hit the same spot most of the time, but that it's the right spot.
The new, integrated view of validity includes content validity, quality assurance over test development, the traditional construct validity de¬scribed above, test usefulness, the ability of the test to have meaning and re-levance in more than one context ("validity generalization"), and one that appeals most to writing teachers and researchers: consequential va¬lidity. This current sense of validity is drawn mainly from the work of Messick, especially his seminal 1989 paper (Messick, 1989) and his rein-terpretation of his ideas for a specific second language (L2) testing

166 Liz Hamp-Lyons
audience (Messick, 1996). Whereas many of these elements, such as content and construct validity, are not new, a less familiar component is "validity generalization" (Messick, 1994), which is essentially a com-monsense quality: the scores generated by a test should make sense to people likely to look at them without too much explanatory information being provided. Not only is this economical, but it also helps ensure that the meaning of a test score is not misinterpreted to the disadvantage of test-takers. The key requirement of test validity is in the interpretation and use of scores, so if test scores are misinterpreted and therefore wrongly used, the test will be invalid. This is a particular issue in specific purpose testing (Douglas, 2000), such as a test of English for medical doctors in which there was no speaking component: test scores could not be interpreted as information about whether the doctor could communicate effectively with staff or patients.
Consequential validity addresses concerns that tests should not be used in ways that are biased, are unfair, or encourage the unjust treatment of certain individuals or groups of people. The first "new" expectation subsumed within consequential validity is that the assessment should as a minimum do no harm to instruction or to learning (Hamp-Lyons, 1989a). This expectation is found in discussions of test "washback" (e.g., Wall &C Alderson, 1993).1 Claims about negative consequences of tests are very familiar to writing teachers who have worked hard to teach students to write with confidence and enjoyment and to do so sufficiently well to succeed in academic assignments, only to have their students' "writing ability" judged by a standardized multiple-choice test (Erickson, 1992).
Teachers' instinctive distrust of what are usually called "indirect" tests of writing is theoretically supported by Messick (1996). He stresses the importance of tests having the two characteristics of "construct represen-tation" and "construct relevance." Construct representation means that the test should be as like the real ability as is possible, and this is usu¬ally judged by the test's authenticity and directness. Construct relevance means that the test should test only skills that are part of the construct: there should be no difficulties in the test that are not part of the abil¬ity/skill itself. We can easily see that multiple-choice tests do not meet the construct representation requirement of either authenticity or direct¬ness. Multiple-choice tests also might introduce some construct irrelevant difficulty since students would have to learn the skills of standardized test-taking, which are not part of a writing curriculum.
All of these aspects that contribute to optimal writing assessment procedures are of direct importance to teachers who have long under¬stood, without necessarily being aware of the vocabulary of testing, that tests failing to meet expectations of construct representation and con¬struct relevance are likely to have negative washback into teaching and learning.

Writing teachers as assessors of writing 167
But even when the test is authentic, direct, and designed very well, there are other concerns we must all be very aware of. Messick (1996) reminds us that it is not the test itself that might do good or harm to people and institutions, but the ways that tests, especially test scores, are used. For example, it is fairly common for TOEFL "practice tests" to be used repeatedly and for changes in individuals' scores on TOEFL practice tests or institutional TOEFLs to be the basis for their placement into a course level, or for pre- and post-"TOEFL" scores to be used to prove or disprove learning.2 The fact that ETS states that TOEFL cannot be validly used in those ways does not prevent it from happening. Worse still, test scores are sometimes used to judge the teaching competence of teachers as well as the abilities of learners. Not only is this not the pur¬pose of the test, and therefore is construct invalid, but it can also be deeply harmful to those teachers, their students, and the wider society. This concern with uses of tests and their scores beyond the classroom and the understanding of the power for good or bad that test scores carry is known to language testers as "impact" (Wall, 1998a). Because tests, especially large-scale tests run by international agencies, hold such power, those who run the agencies and those who choose to be employed in those agencies must take their power and the responsibility it carries very seriously (Hamp-Lyons, 2000). Messick (1981) made this point over twenty years ago, but it has taken this long for his view to become widely accepted: that testing agencies (by which I mean whoever holds the moral responsibility for the existence and use of the test) must take responsi¬bility for "the critical value contexts in which (their tests) are embedded and... a provisional reckoning of the potential social consequences of alternative uses" (Messick, 1981, p. 19).
Seeing construct validity as an integrative and demanding way of eval-uating the quality of a test instrument, its appropriacy for its intended purpose, and the potential for misuse of the test means that we can bring together all our questions and concerns about any test, or any kind of testing - such as the assessment of writing - within a construct validation approach, and this is what I do in the rest of this chapter.
Assessing the constructs of writing ability
In earlier work (Hamp-Lyons, 1990) I said that it is convenient to think of four components of a direct test of writing for which validity must be established: the task, the writer, the scoring procedure, and the reader(s). As our perceptions of the task of assessing writing and our expectations of excellence and accountability in assessment have expanded, those four components have remained relevant. However, in the next section of this chapter, I discuss each of these components in turn but in a different

168 Liz Hamp-Lyons
order. Here I put the writer first, recognizing that in the present critical humanist orientation of applied linguistics and language teaching, greater attention is on the people at the heart of assessments. Additionally, I have added a fifth component that focuses specifically on the text, recogniz¬ing the growth of research into text structure and text characteristics. I then argue for an approach to writing assessment that takes account of who the learner is, the context the learner has come from, and the context in which the learner must work toward educational success. The chapter closes with a consideration of writing assessment, an activitynec-essarily concerned with written products, in the light of current thinking about composing processes.
The writer
In writing assessment research the writer has too often been forgotten, probably because researchers are more distant from actual writing class-rooms than they should be. Classroom teachers, when they prepare essay tests or other kinds of writing tests and assignments for their students, do not forget the human beings they work with and who will be taking the test. Their consciousness of the people being tested shapes teachers' responses to choices of topics and of reading material (if any) to be used for content input; it gives them clear views on the amount of time writers will need to carry out a task and the criteria by which the writing should be judged. For a long time, writing assessment researchers, most of whom are university professors or employees of large-scale test agencies such as ETS and ACT (American College Testing), have lost themselves in the obscurities of different ways of judging test reliability, in the debate about construct validity versus reliability, and in the difficulties and con¬troversies surrounding such issues as topic choice. Research focusing on students who take writing tests, including students' responses and pref¬erences, has been lacking.
This lack is regrettable and problematic in all contexts. Of primary significance, lack of student-focused research means that we cannot with any confidence (other than by a quantitative comparison of actual score patterns) advise teachers or education authorities on whether L2 students' writing should be assessed separately from that of first language (LI) writers. Yet this is a major question for school districts in English-speaking countries with large non-native-speaking immigrant populations such as the United States, Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom. Opinions on this vary; in Britain, all school students are tested together; in Australia, practice varies, and in some states special, complex L2 assessments exist. In the United States, the current trend is toward no "special treatment" for L2 students; in Canada, the trend seems to be the opposite. Clearly, we need to understand whether L2

Writing teachers as assessors of writing 169
writers are really disadvantaged by generic assessments and then consider the sociopolitical implications of any disadvantage.
What we already know is that L2 learners are tremendously varied in language background and degree of cultural integration as well as socioeconomic status, personality, learning style, and all the other fac¬tors that apply equally to LI learners. If a writing assessment is to be humanistically as well as psychometrically defensible, all of these fac¬tors should be accounted for. As Basham and Kwachka (1991) showed in their work with the Athabaskan people of Alaska, and Ballard and Clanchy (1991) with Asian learners in Australia, we do not yet possess sufficient knowledge of culturally determined writing behaviors to be able to teach students what to change in their writing in order to con¬form to expectations, should they wish to do so. Although it is now fairly well accepted that written text production is in part culturally determined (e.g., see Connor, 1996; Connor & Kaplan, 1987; Hamp-Lyons, 1989b), there is still far too little research to make assertions about the "usual" cultural patterns and/or problems of writers from any particular back¬ground (Hamp-Lyons & Zhang, 2001).
However, for the classroom teacher/assessor of writing, the details of research on differences is unimportant. What matters is the understand¬ing that all writers are influenced by who they are and how they became this person: xace, gender, ethnicity, culture, language background, level of education in LI and in L2, stage of cognitive development, learning style, motivation, degree of support in the home background - all these contribute to individuality: Because of the complexity and the intimacy of writing, even writing on tests and exams, each writer brings the whole of himself or herself to the writing. In classroom assessment it is diffi¬cult to forget this, because the teacher knows the writers personally. If, in large-scale testing, test developers forget this, readers (raters) do not. The essay reader, bringing his or her own expectations, is coming in on a dialogue of sorts between the test setter and the writer.
But writers bring expectations to this dialogue too, born of the educa¬tion they have up to this point as well as their life experiences. Those re¬sponsible for conducting writing assessments, whether at the classroom, school, district, national, or international level, must ensure that there is as close a fit as possible between the expectations and understanding of the writers and those of the testers. This means that it is essential to provide writers with full information about the test they are taking. Examples of satisfactorily detailed candidate information include that for the Test of Written English (TWE 1985-1999) and the GSLPA (Graduat¬ing Students'Language Proficiency Assessment-Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 1999). Candidate information should include test format, in¬cluding number of tasks, possible task types, length of time for each task, specific parameters, such as minimum or maximum amount that must be

170 Liz Hamp-Lyons
written, and the criteria that will be used in scoring the writing. These seem like simple requirements, but many testing programs do not meet them. If we are serious about respecting the rights of writers and ensuring that our assessments do no harm and allow writers to show the best they are capable of, these standards of informativeness must be met.
An additional writer issue is that in interpreting a task and creating a response to it, each writer must create a "fit" between his or her world and the world of the essay test topic. Very little work has been done in this area, but Weaver (1973) suggests that each writer needs to take the other-initiated test task and transform it into a "self-initiated" topic -that is, make it his or her own. In order to match her or his response to the tester's expectations, the writer must follow the steps of attending to, understanding, and valuing the task (and must hope that the task is well designed!). If this process breaks down, the writer will replace the task with a related or a different one but will not respond to the topic intended. The problem here is that it may not be clear to the rater whether the writer has done this deliberately (creating what I previously [Hamp-Lyons, 1988] called a "challenge") or accidentally through lack of topic knowledge or linguistic incompetence. In observing and recording a num¬ber of second-language writers reading a prompt on a large-scale essay test (Hamp-Lyons, 1997), I reported four cases as examples of the ways in which individual writers "read" a prompt. Of the four writers, only one "read" in the expected way and wrote an essay that wholly "fit" the test setter's and the reader's expectations. Not surprisingly, this writer was rewarded, while the other three suffered to various degrees for their inability to match the test setter's expectations.
Additionally, the other four elements (discussed in the next sections) significantly influence the writer, either through the task the writer has to perform or through the judgment and the consequences of that judgment. Thus, even when I am not discussing the writer directly in discussing other key constructs in writing assessments, the writer should never be perceived as a forgotten element.
The task
The number of variables that have been found to measurably affect writers' performance is lengthy and includes those that relate to the nature of the writing task itself. Research into issues of prompt devel¬opment undertaken in the past decade indicates no additional insights than were available ten years earlier (Wolcott 6c Legg, 1998); if any¬thing, further research has raised rather than answered questions. For instance, we are more aware that since an essay question requires some¬thing to write about, the subject matter of the prompt is critical. When students are asked to write about unfamiliar content, they may be at a


Writing teachers as assessors ofivriting 171
disadvantage. Some of the difficulties that surface from various studies include the following:
• Haviland and Clark (1992) found that it was difficult to determine what students from a wide range of cultures would know.
• Hale et ah (1996), looking at a large number of actual writing tasks assigned at a number of North American universities, found that the assignments were quite unlike the TWE test prompts in various ways.
• Lewis and Starks (1997) found that expected genres and formats as well as content vary from discipline to discipline, so that students are differently prepared to write in different genres. (For more on the issue of genre, see Johns, Chapter 8 this volume.)
Exhaustive guidelines for writing prompts that try to take account of some of the many task variables and to provide a basis for writing equiv-alent prompts can be found in Ruth and Murphy (1988); in writing about the LI situation, they take the view that difficulty resides almost wholly in the writer as opposed to the task.
Research into the effect of the task is difficult because we can never be sure how much we are separating the writer's writing ability from the other influences on a score, such as the test method, the scoring categories, and the raters' backgrounds, knowledge, and skills. This confusion makes it difficult to answer one of the most frequently asked questions about writing assessment: whether writers should have a choice of prompts to write on. (See Polio & Glew, 1996, for an excellent overview of this issue; see also Brossell & Hoetker Ash, 1984; Freedman St Calfee, 1983; Pollitt et ah, 1985; Wolcott Sc Legg, 1998).
Goldberg, Roswell, and Michaels (1998) found a choice of writing task valid and fair, but this was in a low-stakes context (no major educational decisions were based on it), and they recommended much fuller work on scoring instrument development and rater training if choices are to be given; thus, they see difficulty as at least partly residing in the rater. Such a study was carried out by Spaan (1993), who chose two MELAB (Michigan English Language Battery) prompts of the same task type: her study also showed no significant effect for the prompt. On balance, a choice of prompts is likely to help students, as long as the prompts are very carefully developed to be as parallel as possible in difficulty and accessibility.
In an earlier study, Reid (1990) analyzed a corpus of TWE essays using the computer series Writer's Workbench. Because she found signif-icant quantitative variations on several features of student texts written across topic types, Reid raised important questions about whether lack of score differences across topics and topic types is a feature of the topics themselves or of some aspect of the scoring procedure. A study by Weigle

172 Liz Hamp-Lyons
(1994), with a focus on essay raters, found that raters do score writing on different prompts differently. I argued (Hamp-Lyons, 1991) that the scoring procedure and, indeed, the raters themselves, do in fact account for the lack of differences in scores across prompts, a view partly sup¬ported by this writer's empirical work with Mathias (Hamp-Lyons & Mathias, 1994).
New validities emphasize, among other things, the importance of learners' and test-takers' views of instruction and assessment, and the impact that variations in these things have on them. Looking at the tasks/topics on writing tests from the writer's point of view, we may see writing tests quite differently, as Hamp-Lyons (1996) did. Jennings, Fox, Graves, and Shohamy (1999) found that a choice of topic affected neither scores nor text characteristics; they also found that low-proficiency writ¬ers made different choices from those made by high-proficiency writers. But they also found that test-takers were very anxious to have a choice of topics, and point out that alleviating students' anxiety may itself have a positive effect on scores (a finding similar to that in a study by Polio Sc Glew, 1996). From the available evidence, it would seem that a choice of topics to write on should be given in any classroom or other low-stakes assessment. This will ensure that students feel comfortable in the test¬ing situation, and the majority will have a better chance to show what they are best capable of. In large-scale, high-stakes testing situations the decision is more difficult.
Kroll and Reid (1994) provide very practical guidance on prompt de-velopment following a step-by-step approach based on their experience with the TWE. But what they and all writing test developers have been unable to do is to devise writing test prompts that are "authentic." The very situation of a test makes the writing inauthentic, even if the task is based closely on real-life situations. What writers themselves feel is "authentic" is to create their own "prompt" and write about something that interests them and they know about. This is increasingly common in writing courses; but it meets with tremendous resistance in writing assess¬ment. Tedick (1989) looked at the writing of university graduate students who, in a classroom assessment, were given a very broad prompt, within which all were able to write about their own interest and experience, and she recommended this approach. This could work in classroom assess¬ment, but in a formal, large-scale test it could not because the task itself would be very easy to remember and after one administration any stu¬dent could prepare a "stock answer." Very soon the results would have no meaning. There is increasing experimentation with "reading to write" prompts, which carry at least the semblance of "authenticity"; there are some indications that such elaborated prompts are helpful - but also, that they bring their own scoring problems.
We have seen in this section that deciding what test-takers should write about on an essay test is no easy task. We have also seen some indications

Writing teachers as assessors of writing 173
that it is not an isolated or independent issue: questions of task choice and task difficulty are closely bound up with decisions about how a test should be scored, and who should read and judge the writing, topics to be addressed later in this chapter.
The text
Probably the aspect of writing assessment that has changed least in the past fifty years is the text itself (with the exception of the portfolio assess¬ment, as discussed later). The texts produced in most writing assessments are written products that were planned and composed in no more than one hour and that were written on a more or less expository topic. And the text-related issues that have caused the most debate and therefore have received the most research attention are (1) the nature and signif¬icance of "error"; (2) the notion of appropriate genre or register; and (3) the influence of cross-cultural rhetoric. These three are, of course, interconnected, relating at least as much to what aspects/characteristics of texts readers respond to as to any notion of "real" error.
The role of error, specifically error identified by raters as being "second-language error," is complex3 and difficult to separate out of the many other aspects of the writing and reading of assessment texts. Among many studies in this area, Carlisle and McKenna (1991) found that even ESL-trained essay scorers could not reliably identify ESL essays by their error pattern. Janopoulos (1993) conducted a reader-recall study of ESL essays judged to be at different score levels and found that readers recalled more from higher-scored essays, showing, he claims, that scores were influenced more by content than lower-level attributes such as mechanics. Sweedler-Brown (1993) also looked at the influences of "ESL errors" On the scores given by English composition raters and found that these raters were able to look beyond them at higher-order qualities of writing. Kobayashi (1992) considered whether ESL and English college teachers rate writing by ESL and native-speaker students differently; he found that while the groups of raters gave similar scores to both student groups, the ESL writers tended to be scored lower on syntax and mechanics and higher on content. This is a finding that will sound familiar to many college ESL teachers. On the other hand, Vann, Lorenz, and Meyer (1991) looked at error from the point of view of faculty members' responses to it and found that faculty in non-English subjects were more tolerant of some forms of error than were English faculty, but less tolerant of "error" at high levels, such as in content accuracy and formal conventions.
Formal assessments inevitably carry with them a weight of expecta¬tions, not only for excellence, but also for excellence of certain kinds.

174 Liz Hamp-Lyons
Even in so-called general test contexts, the types of tasks set have broad genre/register patterns associated with them, and test-takers are often penalized if they do not write within those expectations. For example, on the Cambridge FCE (First Certificate in English) a letter is often set; test-takers are marked down if they do not follow the conventions of a letter, even though the hypothesized context/audience is informal. When the assessment context lies within a college setting or is used to assess college readiness, the conventions are more stringent.
Shaw and Liu (1998) report a study that looked at Elbow's (1991) des-criptions of "academic writing" and Biber's (1988) corpus-based char-acterization of academic prose to see whether change in student writing could be found over the period of a summer (less than three-month) writing course. Shaw and Liu (1998) report in detail on finding writ¬ing that demonstrated increasing impersonality, increasing formality, in¬creasing explicitness, increased hedging, and more-complex syntax and rich, varied, and subtle modification. However, they did not find im¬provement in the proportion of error-free T-units (a measure of syn¬tactic complexity); they hypothesize that this is because the writers were "advancing into new territory" (Shaw & Liu, 1998, p. 246) while perfect¬ing their knowledge of certain academic conventions. As we shall see later, this is important because raters on writing tests in academic contexts vary considerably in their tolerance of unconventional genre/register as well as of sentence and morphological level error. It would seem from this de¬tailed study, as well as from others (e.g., Rifkin 8c Roberts, 1995), that increasing control over genre and register is not necessarily related to reducing error frequencies.
Another area that has frequently been related to measures of quality in second-language writing is cross-cultural or "contrastive" rhetoric (in-troduced by Kaplan, 1966,1987; and reviewed by Connor, Chapter 9 this volume). Contrastive rhetoric theory claims that rhetorical conventions vary across language in predictable and noticeable ways. Proponents of contrastive rhetoric in writing assessment claim that these contrasts of rhetoric influence readers to make judgments of writing that are less¬or more - favorable than they perhaps should be, because of their per¬sonal preferences for some rhetorical forms and conventions over others. Contrastive rhetoric studies have been carried out on test essays written by Japanese students (Connor-Linton, 1995; Hinds, 1983, 1987, 1990; Kobayashi 8c Rinnert, 1996; Sasaki 8c Hirose, 1996), Chinese students (Hinds, 1990; Shi, 2001; Tsao, 1983; Zhang, 1999), Korean students (Chang, 1983; Eggington, 1987; Hinds, 1990), Spanish-speaking stu¬dents (Chelala, 1981; Edelsky, 1982; Lux, 1991), and students speaking a number of other languages. Although this work is extremely interesting,

Writing teachers as assessors of writing 175
to date it has not been able to explain the kinds of variations we see in text quality or overall writing proficiency among L2 writers, or devel¬opment (or lack of it) within a single writer - or indeed, among raters' reactions to texts.
The scoring procedure
The last thirty years have produced a great many developments in scoring procedures for writing assessments. Most, however, can be placed into one of the following three categories: (1) holistic scoring, (2) multiple trait or analytic scoring, and (3) primary trait scoring.
A true holistic reading of an essay involves reading for an individual impression of the quality of the writing, by comparison with all other writing the reader sees on that occasion. Holistic scoring is based on the view that the construct of writing is a single entity that can be captured by a single scale that integrates the inherent qualities of the writing, and that this quality can be recognized only by carefully selected and expe¬rienced readers using their skilled impressions, not by any objectifiable means (White, 1985). And yet study after study, the earliest and best known of which is Diederich, French, and Carlton (1961), has found that the judgments made by essay readers under these conditions are un¬reliable, and that considerable effort must be expended to establish and maintain reliable judgment. Indeed, Diederich (1974) claimed that until holistic scoring procedures were codified and refined, the score an essay received could depend more on who the rater was than on any qualities inherent in the text itself. But an equally serious problem with holistic assessments is that the context in which they are carried out - where the average time to score a single two-page handwritten essay of about 500 words may be less than one minute - means that it is not possible to capture performance data from raters as they are doing the rating task, and therefore it is impossible to get far enough into that performance to be able to understand fully what is going on. Without research that enables us to understand the processes actually used by individual raters, we shall never be able to find ways to make judgments more reliable and at the same time more valid (i.e., the "new validities" described above). We turn to raters in the final section of this part of the chapter.
Primary trait scoring (Lloyd-Jones, 1977; Mullen, 1980) involves decid¬ing which one aspect of writing is key to success on this task, developing a highly detailed set of descriptors for performance on that aspect ("trait"), and training teachers/raters in its use. Primary trait scoring has not been

176 Liz Hamp-Lyons
often used because its key element, the development of a single scale on a single feature of writing seen to be most salient for a very specific task, makes it very resource intensive. Primary trait scoring scales have to be developed afresh for every context. However, the primary trait approach was the source for Hamp-Lyons's (1986,1991) development of multiple trait scoring, discussed next.
In striking contrast to holistic assessment, multiple trait assessment df writing defines a procedure that is context sensitive at all stages and in all dimensions of the test development, implementation, scoring, and score reporting. As its name implies, multiple trait scoring4 treats the con¬struct of writing as complex and multifaceted, it allows teachers or test developers to identify the qualities or traits of writing that are important in a particular context or task type and to evaluate writing according to the salient traits in a specific context. Multiple trait scoring also allows raters to pay attention to the relative strengths and weaknesses in an in¬dividual writer's text and score some traits higher than others. There may be some arguments in favor of holistic scoring of the writing of fairly ad¬vanced native users of a language - cost and practicality being the main ones - but when we turn to the specific problems and needs of assess¬ing second language writing, those arguments are much weaker than the arguments in favor of multiple trait assessment. Furthermore, multiple • trait scoring is a useful tool for researching what is going on inside a writing assessment because of the detailed way it opens up the process; it is also a vital tool for teachers of L2 writers because it provides teachers, placement officers, and admission program personnel with rich infor¬mation that will facilitate decisions about remedial courses, selection of course types, and other choices.
Since the work of Jacobs et al. (1981) on the ESL Composition Profile and of myself (Hamp-Lyons, 1986,1987,1991) on the English Language Testing Service (ELTS) and then International English Language Testing System (IELTS) writing assessment scales, it has become increasingly common for test developers designing new L2 writing assessments to use multiple trait scoring. This approach has become the dominant one in the United Kingdom (Fulcher, 1997; Weir 1993), Canada (Cumming & Mellow, 1996), and Australia (Lumley, 2000), whereas in the United States holistic scoring is still quite common.
Scale length
The most common practice, in such major U.S. postsecondary institutions as the City University of New York system, the University of Michigan, and the University of California system, and in many other parts of the

Writing teachers as assessors of writing 177
world, is to have a scale with six scale steps seen as having equal distances between them. However, the IELTS writing test has a nine-step scale, and the MELAB scale has ten steps. Many writing assessments that have developed from specific practices in schools have longer "scales" - even up to 100 - but there is no statistical evidence to prove that raters can reliably distinguish more than ten levels of writing quality. In fact, I would discourage any teacher or test developer from using a scale longer than nine steps.
The complexities of scoring
In the past ten years or so, research has certainly helped to identify ways in which the scoring of writing can be made more reliable and more valid; but it has also uncovered many new complexities. As specialists in writing assessment have increasingly turned their attention to scoring, to what qualities of writing are judged, how they are judged, who the judges are, and many other issues (Connor-Linton, 1995; Lumley, 2000; Shohamy, Gordon, & Kraemer, 1992; Weigle, 1994; Zhang, 1999), it has become more and more evident that scoring is a far more complex process than was ever imagined. In the research of the last decade the strength and complexity of the link between the scoring procedure and the human beings who apply the procedure (or seem to) has become strikingly clear.
The reader
A large body of research investigating the work of readers' practices in writing assessment led to the emphasis on reader training that became so common in writing assessment programs from the early 1980s on. Over forty years ago, Diederich, French, and Carlton (1961) had shown that different readers responded to different facets of writing, and did so with some internal consistency. Hake (1973), looking at raters' responses to native speakers' essays, showed that where raters deviated from their own typical response patterns, these deviations could be explained by affective interactions between the rater and the text. Newcomb (1977), also looking at raters' responses to native speakers' essays, found that raters' behaviors varied and could to some degree be predicted by back¬ground characteristics of the rater, such as sex, race, and geographic origin within the United States. Similar findings from a variety of studies resulted in a concern to create training procedures to counteract the pos¬sibility that readers would bring different agendas to the reading and assessing of the same text.
In the L2 context, Vaughan (1991), using ethnographic methods, found results that were similar to Diederich et al.'s (1961) findings related to individual reader agendas. I found (Hamp-Lyons, 1989b) found that

178 Liz Hamp-Lyons
readers of ESL essays responded to cultural differences in them, and did so differentially in ways that appeared to be partially attributable to their experiential backgrounds and to their response to the stu¬dents' linguistic/rhetorical backgrounds. Cumming (1990) looked at the decision-making behaviors of expert and novice raters rating ESL writing and found that the expert raters spent more of their attention on higher-order aspects of the writing and were more reflective about their own processes, whereas novice raters focused more on lower-order aspects of the writing, and practiced on-line editing of the texts as a way to help themselves make sense of the texts and reach judgments of quality. Vann, Lorenz, and Meyer (1991) found that faculty's responses to error in L2 writing could be partially attributed to their discipline and sex as well as to the amount of exposure they had to the writing of nonnative users of English.
Among the surprisingly few controlled studies of rater training ef¬fects are Freedman (1977), Newcomb (1977), and Stalnaker (1936), and in the ESL context, Lumley (2000) and Weigle (1994). The work of Robinson (1985) and Vaughan (1991) questions the commonly heard claim that training is effective in bringing readers' responses together, although Weigle's study is more encouraging in this regard. This ques¬tion may be of lesser interest to large-scale testing agencies, who will be satisfied that scores are brought together even if the bases for the scores are not. But teachers will find this of significance because in judg¬ing writing in the classroom context, each teacher acts as the sole judge and arbiter of grades and therefore of consequences, and wants to feel -reasonably confident that students' work would receive similar responses from other teachers.
By the early 1980s, White (1985, p. 32), writing about LI settings, felt able to celebrate the effectiveness of holistic assessments of writing and to assert not only the reliability of the holistically derived scores but also the validity of holistic reading processes. In the L2 context, we have learned a great deal more in the past ten years about the behavior of read¬ers through quantitative scoring comparisons (Brown, 1991; Janopoulos, 1989) and detailed ethnographic studies of essay raters (Lumley, 2000; O'Loughlin, 1993; Shi, 2001; Weigle, 1994; Zhang, 1999). The evidence from such studies suggests that, left to their own judgments, raters can¬not agree on the absolute quality or the relative quality of essays, nor can they agree on the specific qualities in essays that make them good, worse, or worst. But more interestingly, these rich studies have shown the com¬plexity of the rating process that White (1985) asserted, and have taken it further. Zhang (1999) shows that raters are influenced by their own cultural contexts and learning/teaching experiences perhaps as much as by the variation in quality of student essays; Lumley (2000) shows that even the most experienced and skilled raters act as individuals, using their

Writing teachers as assessors of writing 179
own values, even in situations with good and extensive rater training and well-defined criteria. Clearly, we are a long way yet from being able to characterize what raters do and explain when, how, and why they are able to do it consistently.
Alternative ways of assessing writing
The alternative assessment movement has been largely driven by, and certainly powerfully guided by, developments in writing assessment. As long ago as 1987, Bizzell was able to say:
Locally developed, holistically scored writing tests enable participating academic communities to define standards of "good" writing that can be responsive to the particular strengths of their own student population, rather than crushing such particularities and the creative spirits of the students who express them under the yoke of nationally imposed standards of correctness. (Bizzell, 1987, p. 579)
Since then we have increasingly come to realize that local development and implementation, when done well, is a powerful force for positive educational change. This is one benefit of portfolios that has made them so popular in LI literacy assessment, and there are strong reasons that the argument would be equally or more relevant in ESL/EFL contexts. But as we shall see in the following sections, when we move into alternative ways of assessing writing, it becomes even more important to be explicit to ourselves, our students, the readers, and the people who receive and use the scores or other forms of judgments that come out of these assessments.
Portfolio assessment is the best-known and now most popular form of alternative writing assessment (Belanoff 8c Dickson, 1991; Hamp-Lyons & Condon, 2000; Yancey & Weiser, 1997). A portfolio is a collection of the writer's own work over a period of time, usually a semester or school year. The writers, perhaps aided by classmates or the teacher, make selec¬tions from their collected work through a process of reflection on what they have done and what it shows about what they have learned. These three elements - collection, selection, and reflection - are the core of a portfolio, but if a portfolio assessment is to be authentic it must involve more than a representation of the writer's own work. It must use criteria and a means of arriving at scores or grades that make ecological sense -that is, that make sense in the eyes of the writers and their teachers, and in the context for which an assessment is required. Early portfolio as¬sessment programs did not demonstrate that the requirements of good

180 Liz Hamp-Lyons
assessment practice apply to performance assessments also, and a num¬ber of studies uncovered problems with portfolio assessments in practice (e.g., Callahan, 1995; Despain & Hilgers, 1992; Hamp-Lyons, 1996; Hamp-Lyons & Condon, 1993) while others proposed means of reme¬dying or reconciling the difficulties (e.g., Calfee tk. Perfumo, 1996; Elbow 8C Belanoff, 1997; Herman, Gearhart, & Aschbacher, 1996). But all com¬mentators on portfolio assessment agree that it is an excellent, if not the best, form of professional development activity for teachers. Smith and Murphy (1992) make this point strongly in the case of school-level staff development programs within the United States; in Hong Kong, in a pro¬fessional development program on portfolios, working with mainly non-native writing teachers and focusing on college prep and college freshman EFL students, I have found the same benefits and the same enthusiasm (Hamp-Lyons, 1999).
However, as Smith and Murphy (1992, p. 14) caution, portfolios "do not lend themselves to a drive-through workshop." Developing a writing course based on the students building up a portfolio of their work is a skilled teaching activity, but one that teachers find extremely rewarding because it brings them so close to their students and the best aspects of the teacher role. But building a portfolio assessment is an equally skilled activity. Making the transfer from portfolios for teaching to portfolios for assessment requires, for most teachers, good professional development support (one option for which is peer support). Taking responsibility for assessment makes some teachers uncomfortable, because it puts assess¬ment at the heart of their teaching, whereas many teachers would like to put assessment as far away as possible. But learners can't escape as¬sessments; why should teachers? Portfolios let students show what they can do by showing what they have done. A portfolio often also shows the weak points in a student's mastery, but this is an opportunity for the teacher or the program to use the information to provide the right kind of teaching, the right kind of environment, for the learner. This is particularly important for writers using a language that is not their own, as I have argued elsewhere (Hamp-Lyons, 1996), because the opportu¬nities for improvement are often much greater, and the skills they have already mastered may not be well balanced. A well-planned portfolio can show the teacher and the learner where the high and low points of the skills are.
Computer-based writing tests
A very new development, brought about through new ways in which computers contribute to the teaching of writing (see Pennington, Chapter 12 this volume) is the possibility of assessing writing on-line. At least in theory, on-line writing assessment allows the development

Writing teachers as assessors ofivriting 181
of tests that fit the levels, purposes, and needs of test-takers, as well as of future employers, admissions officers, and others. It allows the de¬sign of writing tasks that can be built out of multiple elements previ¬ously identified, ensuring authenticity and task variety. A really "smart" computer-based writing assessment system would enable each writer to build a portfolio of writing and select from it according to a particular purpose. A computer-based writing assessment would enable multiple pathways for writers through the many pitfalls of tests; but this flexibility to choose pathways, like all advanced options, will benefit skilled writers and thinkers more than their less-developed counterparts. In considering the possibilities for computer-based writing assessment directed specifi¬cally toward ESL writers, it would be possible not only to offer spelling and grammar checkers but to query unclear content references, suggest synonyms for learners with limited vocabularies, and so on through mul¬tiple dialogue possibilities. The problems and limitations here are not in the computer software but in what "the system" will allow.
Usually, when assessment specialists think about the possibilities of computer applications they think about the scoring of writing. Because human scoring is very time-consuming and therefore expensive, it is tempting to look for ways to take the scoring away from humans and give it to machines, as was done in the 1930s with multiple-choice testing. Of the several such essay scoring systems that have been designed, the most advanced is probably Page's Project Essay Grader (Page &c Petersen, 1995; Shermis, Koch, Page, Keith, & Harrington, 1999). PEG (Project Essay Grader) claims to simulate human ratings through counts of text features related to content; it does this by recording the content fre¬quency in actual student essays and building its scoring around that. This is a promising beginning, but there are many other characteristics that contribute to the strength and weakness of any essay that have not been captured by the program. Computerized scoring is not yet mature enough to satisfy the expectations of writing teachers, but it will deserve our serious attention over the next decade.
Enduring questions
In the brief closing chapter of an edited collection on writing assessment from over a decade ago (Hamp-Lyons, 1991), I considered issues for the future, and it seems appropriate to look at those questions again here. The first issue was the acknowledgment that those who plan and conduct writing assessments know too little about the writers who are the. test-takers, and I do not see that this has changed much in the past ten years or so. While there has been a fair amount of further re¬search on prompts, it remains contradictory and serves to caution us

182 Liz Hamp-Lyons
that prompt equivalency may be unobtainable. We are also more aware that assessment prompts do poorly in terms of authenticity than was claimed in the 1980s. Work on texts continues, but apart from some developments in contrastive analysis, it seems that such work has lit¬tle to contribute in writing assessment, partly or even primarily be¬cause of the greater awareness we have of the role of reader/raters in judgments of writing. Indeed, the area where the most research on L2 writing assessment has been done in the last decade or so is probably this one: as a result of the studies of Lumley (2000), Vaughan (1991), Weigle (1994), and others, we are increasingly aware of what readers do and why, and that readers are truly in charge of the rating process. Even in writing assessment programs with very draconian rater training and monitoring systems, such as those run by ETS, the reader factor is stronger than the prompt factor and may be almost as strong as the writer factor.
But the areas attracting most of our attention these days concern the effects of assessments and the relationship between assessment and power.
One of the most important lessons that people who work in the field of educational assessment/measurement have learned in the past decade is that no assessment is value-free. Nor is any assessment free of ef¬fects that reach beyond the narrow confines of the assessment event itself. This is true of multiple-choice tests and of national and state tests; but it is equally true of "good" tests like direct writing tests, and even of classroom assessments. We call the effects that a test or assess¬ment has on instruction and learning "washback." There is now plenty of evidence that the existence of tests changes the curriculum and the ways that teachers behave (Cheng, 1997; Smith, 1991; Wall, 1998b). But increasingly we realize that the effects of tests extend well beyond the classroom: tests affect students' lives, sometimes critically, opening or closing the opportunities on which their entire futures depend - in "exam cultures" like Hong Kong, Singapore, and Japan, testing pres¬sures have led to suicides. When a society values test results more than abilities and potentials, and when tests/assessments become the only or primary route to higher education, careers, status, and wealth, inevitably there is a great impact on families' lives and there is danger that infor¬mation resulting from these assessments will be liable to educational, administrative, and political abuses (Shohamy, 1999). The individual teacher and the individual testing specialist cannot prevent such pres¬sures or abuses. However, both can work within their own context to make sure that the assessments they are involved in are the best pos¬sible, developed and administered with the best interests of the test-takers in mind. Each can help students, parents, and teachers' groups to understand the limitations of test-based information and to encourage

Writing teachers as assessors of writing 183
decision-making based on a range of information, not just assessment information.
In the final chapter of an early but influential collection on (primarily LI) writing assessment, Brossell (1986) emphasized that writing assess¬ments should
reflect our best knowledge of how writing occurs and how it is best taught. That is, it ought to proceed from an understanding of writing as a complex process of discovering and conveying meaning, a process that involves
rhetorical, structural and mechanical choices [It] ought to reinforce and
even extend our instructional programs, (p. 180)
He continued:
At the heart of the relationship between the assessment of writing and its teaching is the question of how to create the conditions of assessment that approximate the conditions under which good writing occurs. (Brossell, 1986, p. 180)
As many chapters in this volume show, we have learned a great deal about the development of writing skill in the past fifteen years - and perhaps more within L2 than LI contexts. We have also learned a great deal about how to assess writing in meaningful ways. Yet there is still a gap between best practice in teaching and responding to writing (see Ferris, 2002; Chapter 5 this volume), and best practice in writing assessment, which are related topics. Furthermore, there are few contexts worldwide where best practice in either teaching or assessment of writing is actually taking place.
Researchers play their part in uncovering the elements that lead to good practice; teacher education programs play their part in building models of curriculum that can help implement good instructional prac¬tice. But the burden of effective teaching is on the teacher, as it has al¬ways been. In the rising demand for "accountability" that marks the turn of "the millennium, the burden on teachers in many countries is heav-ier than ever before. A firm understanding of how assessment works, what it can do, and what it cannot do, is an essential tool for today's teachers.
1. "Washback" is the effect a test or assessment instrument has on the teaching and learning that precede it; washback can be either beneficial or detrimental.
2. In a related discussion, Silva (1997) argues for the ethical treatment of ESL writers. He reports on the potential for negative impact when programs fail to take the specific situations of L2 writers into account in both classroom and testing situations.
3. For more about error, see the chapter by Frodesen and Holten, Chapter 6 this volume.

184 Liz Hamp-Lyons
4. In fact, the term "analytic" was used for a similar approach to scoring in the 1970s by those who argued against it and in favor of holistic scoring. However, I have argued that the term carries a behaviorist baggage with it that the more fully developed and construct-relevant multiple trait proce¬dures do not deserve (see Hamp-Lyons, 1986, 1991, 1995).
Ballard, B., & Clanchy, J. (1991). Assessment by misconception: Cultural in¬fluences and intellectual traditions. In L. Hamp-Lyons (Ed.), Assessing se¬cond language writing in academic contexts (pp. 19-35). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Basham, C, & Kwachka, P. (1991). Reading the world differently: A cross-cultural approach to writing assessment. In L. Hamp-Lyons (Ed.), Assessing second language writing in academic contexts (pp. 37-49). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Belanoff, P., & Dickson, M. (Eds.). (1991). Portfolios: Process and product. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bizzell, P. (1987). What can we know, what must we do, what may we hope? Writing assessment. College English, 49, 575-584. .
Brossell, G. (1986). Current research and unanswered questions in writing as-sessment. In K. Greenberg, H. Wiener, & R. Donovan (Eds.), Writing as-sessment: Issues and strategies (pp. 168-182). New York: Longman.
Brossell, G., & Hoetker Ash, B. (1984). An experiment with the wording of essay topics. College Composition and Communication, 35, 423-425.
Brown, J. D. (1991). Do ESL and English faculties rate writing samples differ¬ently? TESOL Quarterly, 25, 587-603.
Calfee, R., & Perfumo, P. (1996). Writing portfolios in the classroom: Policy and practice, promise and peril. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Callahan, S. (1995). Portfolio expectations: Possibilities and limits. Assessing . Writing, 2,117-151.
Carlisle, R., & McKenna, E. (1991). Placement of ESL/EFL undergraduate writ¬ers in college-level writing programs. In L. Hamp-Lyons (Ed.), Assessing second language writing in academic contexts (pp. 197-211). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Chang, S. J. (1983). English and Korean. In R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), Annual review of applied linguistics (pp. 85-98). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Chelala, S. (1981). The composing process of two Spanish speakers and the coherence of their texts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University.
Cheng, L-y. (1997). How does washback influence teaching? Implications for Hong Kong. Language and Education, 11, 38-54.
Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Connor, U., 6c Kaplan, R. B. (Eds.). (1987). Writing across languages: Analysis ofL2 text. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Connor-Linton, J. (1995). Cross-cultural comparisons of writing standards: American ESL and Japanese EFL. World Englishes, 14, 99-115.

Writing teachers as assessors of writing 185
Cumming, A. (1990). Expertise in evaluating second language compositions. Language Testing, 7, 31-51.
Cumming, A., 8c Mellow, D. (1996). An investigation into the validity of writ¬ten indicators of second language proficiency. In A. Cumming & R. Berwick (Eds.), Validation in language testing (pp. 72-93). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Despain, L., & Hilgers, T. L. (1992). Readers' responses to the rating of non-uniform portfolios: Are there limits on portfolios' utility? Validity and re¬liability issues in the direct assessment of writing. WPA: Writing Program Administration, 16, 24-37.
Diederich, P. B. (1974). Measuring growth in English. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Diederich, P. B., French, J., & Carlton, S. (1961). Factors in judgments of writing ability. ETS Research Bulletin 61-15. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Douglas, D. (2000). Assessing languages for specific purposes. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Edelsky, C. (1982). Writing in a bilingual program: The relation of LI and L2 texts. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 211-228.
Eggington, W. G. (1987). Written academic discourse in Korean: Implications for effective communication. In U. Connor &c R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across cultures: Analysis ofL2 text (pp. 153-168). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Elbow, P. (1991). Reflections on academic discourse: How it relates to freshmen and our colleagues. College English, 53, 135-155.
Elbow, P., & Belanoff, P. (1997). Reflections on an explosion: Portfolios in the '90s and beyond. In K. B. Yancey & I. Weiser (Eds.), Situating portfolios: Four perspectives (pp. 19-33). Logan: Utah State University Press.
Erickson, M. (1992). Developing student confidence to evaluate writing. The Quarterly of the National Writing Project and the Center for the Study of Writing and Literacy, 14(1), 7-9.
Ferris, D. (2002). Responding to L2 student writing: Research and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Freedman, S. W. (1977). Influences on the evaluators of student writing. Unpub¬lished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.
Freedman, S.W., & Calfee, R. (1983). Holistic assessment of writing: Experimen¬tal design and cognitive theory. In P. Mosenthal, L. Tamor, & S. Walmsley (Eds.), Research in writing: Principles and methods (pp. 75-98). New York: Longman.
Fulcher, G. (1997). Writing in the English language classroom. Hemel Hemstead, England: Prentice Hall Europe ELT.
Goldberg, G. L., Roswell, B. S., & Michaels, H. (1998). A question of choice: The implications of assessing expressive writing in multiple genres. Assessing Writing, 5, 39-70.
Hake, R. (1973). Composition theory in identifying and evaluating essay writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.
Hale, G., Taylor, C, Bridgeman, B., Carson, J., Kroll, B., & Kantor, R. (1996). A study of writing tasks assigned in academic degree programs, TOEFL -Research Report #54. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (1986). Testing second language writing in academic settings. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.

186 Liz Hamp-Lyons
Hamp-Lyons, L. (1987). Performance profiles for academic writing. In K. Bailey, H
R. Clifford, & E. Dale (Eds.), Papers from the ninth annual Language
Testi?ig Research Colloquium (pp. 78-92). Monterey, CA: Defense Lan- H
guage Institute.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (1988). The product before: Task-related influences on the
writer. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Academic writing: Process and product H
(pp. 35-46). London: Macmillan/British Council.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (1989a). Language testing and ethics. Prospect, 5, 7-15.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (1989b). Raters respond to rhetoric in writing. In H. Dechert Ja
& C. Raupach (Eds.), Interlingual processes (pp. 229-244). Tubingen,
Germany: Gunter Narr Verlag. Ja
Hamp-Lyons, L. (1990). Second language writing: Assessment issues. In
B. Kxoll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom
(pp. 69-87). New York: Cambridge University Press. Ja
Hamp-Lyons, L. (Ed.). (1991). Assessing second language writing in academic contexts. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (1995). Rating nonnative writing: The trouble with holistic Je
scoring. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 759-762.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (1996). Applying ethical standards to portfolio assessment of
writing in English as second language. In M. Milanovich & N. Saville (Eds.), K.
Performance testing and assessment: Selected papers from the 15th Lan¬
guage Testing Research Colloquium (pp. 151-164). New York: Cambridge K
University Press.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (1997). Exploring bias in essay tests through student interviews.
In C. Severino, J. Guerra, & J. Butler (Eds.), Writing in multicultural settings K
(pp. 51-66). New York: Modern Language Association.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (1999). Efficacy and ethical issues of portfolios as assessments
of nonnative students' writing. Research Project Report June 1999. Hong K
Kong: Hong Kong Polytechnic University: Research and Postgraduate Stud¬
ies Office. K
Hamp-Lyons, L. (2000). Social, professional, and individual responsibility in language testing. System, 28, 579-591.
Hamp-Lyons, L., &C Condon, W. (1993). Questioning assumptions about Li
portfolio-based writing assessment. College Composition and Communi¬
cation, 44, 176-190. L
Hamp-Lyons, L., & Condon, W. (2000). Assessing the portfolio: Practice, theory
and research. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. L
Hamp-Lyons, L., 8t Mathias, S. P. (1994). Examining expert judgments of task difficulty on essay tests. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 49-68.
Hamp-Lyons, L., & Zhang, B. (2001). World Englishes: Issues in and from aca- L
demic writing assessment. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research
perspectives on English for academic purposes (pp. 101-116). New York:
Cambridge University Press. L
Haviland, C. P., & Clark, J. M. (1992). What can our students tell us about
essay examination designs and practices? Journal of Basic Writing, 11(2), N
Herman, J. L., Gearhart, M., & Aschbacher, P. R. (1996). Portfolios for class- \
room assessment: Design and implementation issues. In R. Calfee & P.
Perfumo (Eds.), Writing portfolios in the classroom: Policy and practice, h
promise and peril (pp. 27-59). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Writing teachers as assessors of writing 187
Hinds, J. (1983). English and Japanese. In R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), Annual review of applied linguistics (pp. 78-84). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Hinds, J. (1987). Reader vs. writer responsibility: A new typology. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 141-152). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hinds, J. (1990). Inductive, deductive, quasi-inductive: Expository writing in Japanese, Korean, Chinese and Thai. In U. Connor & A. M. Johns (Eds.), Coherence in writing (pp. 87-109). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Jacobs, H., Zinkgraf, A., Wormuth, D., Hartfiel, V., & Hughey, J. (1981). Testing ESL composition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Janopoulos, M. (1989). Reader comprehension and holistic assessment of second language writing proficiency. Written Communication, 6, 218-237.
Janopoulos, M. (1993). Comprehension, communicative competence, and con¬struct validity. In M. A. Williamson & B. Huot (Eds.), Validating holistic scoring for writing assessment (pp. 303-325). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Jennings, M., Fox, J., Graves, B., & Shohamy, E. (1999). The test-takers' choice: An investigation of the effect of topic on language test performance. Lan¬guage Testing, 16, 426-456.
Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Lan¬guage Learning, 16,1-20.
Kaplan, R. B. (1987). Cultural thought patterns revisited. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 9-21). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Kobayashi, H., & Rinnert, C. (1996). Factors affecting composition evaluation in an EFL context: Cultural rhetorical patterns and readers' background. Language Learning, 46, 397-437.
Kobayashi, T. (1992). Native and nonnative reactions to ESL compositions. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 81-110.
Kroll, B., 8c Reid, J. (1994). Guidelines for designing writing prompts: Clar-ifications, caveats and cautions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 231-255.
Lemann, N. (1999). The big test: The secret history of the American meritocracy. New York: Farrar, Straus 6c Giroux.
Lewis, M., & Starks, D. (1997). Revisiting examination questions in tertiary academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 16,197-210.
Lloyd-Jones, R. (1977). Primary trait scoring. In C. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Evaluating writing: Describing, measuring, judging (pp. 33-66). Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Lumley, T. (2000). The process of the assessment of writing performance: The rater's perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Melbourne.
Lux, P. (1991). Discourse styles of Anglo and Latin American college student writers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University.
Messick, S. (1981). Evidence and ethics in the evaluation of tests. Educational Researcher, 10, 9-20.
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13-103). New York: Macmillan.
Messick, S. (1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Educational Researcher, 23(2), 13-23.

188 Liz Hamp-Lyons
Messick, S. (1996). Validity and washback in language testing. Language Testing,
13,241-256. Mullen, K. (1980). Evaluating writing proficiency in ESL. In J. Oiler & K. Perkins
(Eds.), Research in language testing (pp. 91-101). Rowley, MA: Newbury
House. Newcomb, J. S. (1977). The influence of readers on the holistic grading of essays.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan. O'Loughlin, K. (1993, August). The assessment of writing by English and ESL
teachers. Paper presented at the International Language Testing Collo¬quium, Cambridge, England. Page, E. B., & Petersen, N. S. (1995). The computer moves into essay grading:
Updating the ancient test. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 561-565. Polio, C, & Glew, M. (1996). ESL writing assessment tasks: How students
choose. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 35-49. Pollitt, A., Hutchinson, C, Entwhistle, K, &C DeLuca, C. (1985). What makes
exam questions dtfficidt? An analysis of 'O' grade questions and answers.
Research Report for Teachers No. 2. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press. Reid, J. (1990). Responding to different topic types: A quantitative analysis from
a contrastive rhetoric perspective. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing:
Research insights for the classroom (pp. 191-210 ). New York: Cambridge
University Press. Rifkin, B., &c Roberts, F. D. (1995). Error gravity: A critical review of research
design. Language Learning, 45, 511-537. Robinson, E (1985). Evaluating foreign students' compositions: The effects of
rater background and of handivriting, spelling and grammar. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. Ruth, L., & Murphy, S. (1988). Designing writing tasks for the assessment of
writing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Sasaki, M,, & Hirose, K. (1996). Explanatory variables for EFL students' ex¬pository writing. Language Learning, 46, 137-174. Shaw, P., & Liu, E. T-k. (1998). What develops in the development of second-language writing? Applied Linguistics, 19, 225-254. Shermis, M. D., Kock, C. M., Page, E. B., Keith, T. Z., & Harrington, S. (1999).
Trait ratings for automated essay scoring. Unpublished manuscript. Indiana
University-Purdue University, Indianapolis. Shi, L. (2001). Native and nonnative-speaking EFL teachers' evaluation of
Chinese students' English writing. Language Testing, 18, 303-325. Shohamy, E. (1999, April). Critical language testing, responsibilities of testers
and rights of testtakers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of American
Educational Research Association. Shohamy, E., Gordon, C, 6c Kraemer, R. (1992). The effect of raters' background
and training on the reliability of direct writing tests. Modern Language
Journal, 76, 27-33. Silva, T. (1997). On the ethical treatment of ESL writers. TESOL Quarterly, 31,
359-363. Smith, M. A., & Murphy, S. (1992). "Could you please come and do portfolio
assessment for us?" The Quarterly of the National Writing Project and the
Center for the Study of Writing and Literacy, 14(1), 14-17. Smith, M. L. (1991). Put to the test: The effects of external testing on teachers.
Educational Researcher, 20(5), 8-11.

Writing teachers as assessors of writing 189
Spaan, M. (1993). The effect of prompt in essay examinations. In D. Douglas & C. Chapelle (Eds.), A new decade of language testing research: Selected papers from the twelfth annual Language Testing Research Colloquium (pp. 98-122). Washington, DC: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Stalnaker, J. M. (1936). The measurement of the ability to write. In W. S. Gray (Ed.), Tests and measurement in higher education (pp. 203-215). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sweedler-Brown, C. O. (1993). ESL essay evaluation: The influence of sentence-level and rhetorical features. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2, 3-17.
Tedick, D. (1989). The effect of topic familiarity on the writing performance of: normative writers of English at the graduate level Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University.
Tsao, F-f. (1983). English and Mandarin. In R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), Annual review of applied linguistics (pp. 99-117). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Vann, R. J., Lorenz, F. O., & Meyer, D. M. (1991). Error gravity: Faculty response to errors in the written discourse of nonnative speakers of English. In L. Hamp-Lyons (Ed.), Assessing second language writing in academic contexts (pp. 181-195). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Vaughan, C. (1991). Holistic assessment: What goes on in the raters' minds? In L. Hamp-Lyons (Ed.), Assessing second language writing in academic contexts (pp. 111-125). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Wall, D. (1998a). Impact and washback in language testing. In C. Clapham (Ed.), The Kluwer encyclopedia of language in education, Vol. 7: Testing and assessment (pp. 334-343). Dordrecht, Germany: Kluwer.
Wall, D. (1998b). Introducing new tests into traditional systems: Insights from general education and innovation theory. Language Testing, 13, 334-354.
Wall, D.,& Alderson, J. C. (1993)> Examining washback: The Sri Lankan impact study. Language Testing, 10, 41-70.
Weaver, F. (1973). The composing processes of English teacher candidates: Re-sponding to freedom and constraint. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois.
Weigle, S. C. (1994). Effects of training on raters of English as a second language compositions: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Unpublished doc¬toral dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.
Weir, C. (1993). Understanding and developing language tests. Hemel Hempstead, England: Prentice Hall Europe.
White, E. M. (1985). Teaching and assessing writing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wiseman, S. (1949). The marking of English compositions in grammar school selection. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 19(3), 200-209.
Wolcott, W., & Legg, S. (1998). An overview of writing assessment theory, re¬search and practice. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Yancey, K. B., tk. Weiser, I. (Eds.). (1997). Situating portfolios: Four perspectives. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.
Zhang, W-x. (1999). The rhetorical patterns found in Chinese EEL student writ¬ers' examination essays in English and the influence of these patterns on rater response. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

r i c
s] t! d a
si fc
g c
c 1
P v
a a t t s i:
i: t
t c

As mentioned previously in this volume, writing courses are situated in specific places and contexts, accounting for some of the variation in how they are structured and what students are expected to learn or accomplish during their period of study. Having considered the voices of teachers and students in Part II of this volume and addressed issues surrounding student texts in Part III, we now, in Part IV, take up several additional factors that teachers and researchers must investigate in order to expand their understanding of what it means to teach second language writing.
Moving beyond an exploration of students, teachers, and texts, many writing theorists in both native language (LI) and second lan¬guage (L2) studies call attention to the critical notion of "disciplinary communities," recognizing that it is necessary to identify the ways writing is used to create knowledge in potentially different ways in different dis¬ciplines (see, for example, Berkenkotter & Huckin, 1995; Lea &C Street, 1999; Prior, 1998; Swales, 1990). A key challenge for learners is that as they "move from one discipline to another... they are faced with the problem of reconciling differences and even contradictions associated with varying disciplinary practices" (Bhatia, 2002, p. 38). From this per¬spective, it becomes critical for writing teachers to understand genre, the topic of Chapter 8.
The extent to which discourse and rhetorical styles are culturally situ¬ated is another contextual factor that is specifically applicable in talking about L2 writing (as opposed to LI writing). This is the focus of con-trastive rhetoric, explored in Chapter 9. Understanding how "to write the U.S. way" (Angelova 3c Riazantseva, 1999) or any other culturally specific way is important not just for students but also for many people in academia, business, industry, and politics.
Another context that both illuminates and complicates explorations into L2 writing is a full consideration of reading and writing connections, the topic of Chapter 10. It is hard to imagine a setting in which academic writing could be seen as divorced from source texts (reading), though in the late 1960s and early 1970s, popular LI pedagogy promoted a writing-only class in which the only "reading" was to be the texts generated by

192 PartIV
student writers, exemplified in the expressionist movement (Burnham, 2001).
The final context addressed in this section is the use of one very partic-ular kind of reading material of potential value in structuring L2 writing courses, namely literature, the topic of Chapter 11.
What exactly is "genre" and how does it relate to the L2 writing course?
"Genre" is a word that does not easily lend itself to simple definition as its meaning seems to vary enormously by context. As it has come to be used in composition studies, however, it typically refers to textual prop¬erties that can be identified to distinguish one text type from another. Furthermore, L2 writing teachers, as Freedman (1999) points out, "must attend not only to the texts but to the ways in which texts respond to the complex discursive, ideological, social, cultural, institutional context within which they are set" (p. 766; emphasis mine). Given the impor¬tance for students of understanding the role(s) that genre plays in the academy, "[heightening genre awareness among L2 writing instructors is one way of ensuring that... genre sensitivity gets passed down the line... to their students" (Ramanathan & Kaplan, 2000, p. 185).
Chapter 8 by Ann Johns reviews the history of the term, provides a thorough discussion of research studies on genre, and then discusses three prominent genre-based approaches to teaching composition, comparing and contrasting the ways each approach translates into rather different views of how to help student writers learn to improve. While Johns ac¬knowledges that genre-based pedagogies are perhaps more complex than some other (earlier) approaches to teaching composition, genre is an area that cannot be ignored, especially in programs oriented toward English for academic purposes (EAP) (Jordan, 1997).
What are some implications for the role of culture in how writing gets created and valued?
It's been over 35 years since Robert Kaplan (1966) first introduced the idea of "contrastive rhetoric" to discussions of L2 writing, and its basic concept that specific cultures favor particular ways to structure texts re¬mains compelling though not without controversy. Examining discourse from a contrastive rhetoric perspective provides specific insights into the complex relationships between language, national culture, and genre in L2 writing (see also Ostler, 2002).

Exploring contextualities of texts 193
Chapter 9 by Ulla Connor presents highlights of the field to novices and shows the evolving nature of what we mean when we talk about the potential interference or transfer of cultural rhetoric from one language to another. Her chapter takes an especially close look at work in Europe, reviewing the impact of the growing internationalization of English, and provides some detailed examples from Africa and Japan as well. Connor also specifically addresses some of the criticisms of contrastive rhetoric and offers cogent arguments as to how we can reconcile concerns for in¬dividualism with broad-based notions derived from studying the impact of cultural notions on writing.
How can understanding the connections between reading and writing serve to promote improved mastery of writing?
Although the texts that are central to a writing course should be the ones that student writers produce, it is not completely possible nor is it appropriate to separate reading from writing. Readings are not only able to serve as exemplars of well-constructed texts (a role beyond the mere notion of models), but they also serve as input that contributes to the acquisition of writing skills. The interactions between these two skills are multidirectional and complex. Chapter 10 by William Grabe investigates these numerous relationships by providing a thorough dis¬cussion of a large body of research on the topic in both LI and L2 settings. He points out ways in which the relationships between reading and writing can work together to promote the development of literacy skills, particularly in EAP settings. The development of L2 writing skills and the development of L2 language skills can be and have been studied apart from each other, but looking at them together provides teachers with a more thorough grounding for meeting the needs of their students. Throughout the review and interpretation of research, Grabe explores its implications for instructional practices, and he concludes with some suggested future directions for both research and instruction.
Is there a role for literature in the L2 writing course?
For decades, the standard approach for teaching LI composition was for students to read and write about works of literature. In foreign language settings, language study typically was oriented toward providing learners with enough knowledge of grammar and vocabulary to be able to read (and appreciate) literary works in the target language. With changing

194 Part IV
philosophies of teaching composition in both LI and L2 settings, lit¬erature was often cast aside as an outdated if not to say inappropriate methodology for achieving course goals. In more recent times, the discus¬sion of the possible uses of literature in teaching both LI and L2 writing has become a vibrant and controversial debate topic in the field (Belcher 8c Hirvela, 2000). Chapter 11 by Stephanie Vandrick details the claims in this debate, providing a rich discussion of the arguments that have been marshaled on both sides. In settings where L2 writing courses have no fixed "content" that instructors are required to cover in the service of helping students gain increased proficiency in writing, Vandrick offers a cogent and compelling case for the use of literature, discussing in some detail the possible use of multicultural texts. Her chapter provides nu¬merous specific suggestions for how to choose and use literary texts as the reading material for the L2 writing course.
Angelova, M., & Riazantseva, A. (1999). "If you don't tell me, how can I know?" A case study of four international students learning to write the U.S. way. Written Communication, 16, 491-525.
Belcher, D., & Hirvela, A. (2000). Literature and L2 composition: Revisiting the debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 21-39.
Berkenkotter, C, & Huckin, T. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary com-munication. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bhatia, V. K. (2002). A generic^view of academic discourse. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 21-39). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
Burnham, C. (2001). Expressive pedagogy: Practice/theory, theory/practice. In G. Tate, A. Rupiper, & K. Schick (Eds.), A guide to composition pedagogies (pp. 19-35). New York: Oxford University Press.
Freedman, A. (1999). Beyond the text: Towards understanding the teaching and learning of genres. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 763-767.
Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for academic purposes. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16,1-20.
Lea, M. R., & Street, B. (1999). Writing as academic literacies: Understanding textual practices in higher education. In C. N. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp. 62-81). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Ostler, S. (2002). Contrastive rhetoric: An expanding paradigm. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 167-181). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
Prior, P. (1998). Writing/disciplinarity: A sociobistoric account of literate activity in the academy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ramanathan, V., & Kaplan, R. B. (2000). Genres, authors, discourse communi¬ties: Theory and application for (LI and) L2 writing instructors. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 171-191.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.

L/EFL composition
nre" is used for many forms of expression s refer to certain types of films as "genres"; nd roll" and "rap" as "genres." There are y of art forms, and there are artists of all i generic rules. In literacy studies through-,o become an increasingly popular term. In term "genre" is currently used in composi-ous theories of genre influence approaches ilarly as applicable in English as a second language (ESL/EFL) contexts.
f the term
ithin our cultures, "genre" has a variety ic settings, "genre studies" has tradition-orks of literature, such as different types y essays. In these analyses, conventions n, plot structure, and other features that
■ are analyzed, as are variations in con-
■ across time.1 Today, many literature de-courses around this concept and all that it
has been used to capture the social nature e by various theorists and practitioners ially those working in Systemic Functional fie Purposes, and, in North America, the rich theoretical discussions (e.g., Bakhtin, 1984; Swales, 1990). They note that most n school, in the workplace, and at home,
F. Christie (1990), "The Changing Face of y for a Changing World: A Fresh Look at the rom ACER Press. Material in this chapter quoted /sis of the Results Section of Sociology Articles," eprinted with permission from Elsevier Science.

196 Ann M. Johns
are produced and negotiated in social contexts and thus result, at least in part, from social practices. In the case of written discourses, many factors, including the purposes or functions of a text, the roles and relationships of readers and writers, the context in which the text is produced and processed, the formal text features, the use of content, and even what the text is called are determined in and by the culture or community in which these texts are produced or processed. Thus, the term "genre" has been expanded in literacy studies to "refer to a distinctive category of discourse of any type.. .with or without literary aspirations" (Swales, 1990, p. 33).
One of the most interesting aspects of current literacy studies is that all types of genres are the subjects of research and discussion - "vernacular" (Barton & Hamilton, 1998) discourses as well as high-culture texts. An example of a "vernacular" genre that appears in newspapers throughout the world is the "obituary," a very interesting object for cross-cultural study. One semester, my diverse graduate students studied obituaries from their hometown newspapers. They found several conventions in the genre - the purpose (to report the death of an individual) and con¬text (a special section of a newspaper) - but the variations in the texts themselves depended very much on cultural norms. Thus, though the genre name "obituary" brings to readers' minds prior knowledge or schemata, particular purposes and situations, the realizations of this genre in specific texts are very much shaped by local circumstances and cultural norms. (For more detail and multiple examples, see Johns, 1997, pp. 41-45.)
Experts argue that we must think of "genre" as a concept that is both cultural and cognitive (see Berkenkotter & Huckin, 1995) because, in fact, it is an abstraction developed from experiences with our own cul¬tures and their texts. Elsewhere, I described an individual's genre knowl¬edge as composed of many elements:
It is, at the same time, cognitive (integral to schemata, or prior knowledge) and social (shared with readers and writers who have experienced the same genre). It is "repeated" (Miller, 1984) in that it evokes previous, analogous contexts in which similar texts appeared; yet it is evolving... because few, if any, rhetorical situations are exactly the same. Genre knowledge is systematic... and conventional in that features of form and style may be repeated in texts. Yet a person's knowledge of conventions... must be open to change..., constantly subject to revision as situations are transformed. (Johns, 1997, pp. 21-22)
Genres are particularly useful to individuals and to teachers of compo¬sition because those who become familiar with common genres develop shortcuts to the successful processing and production of written texts. If we have already written a memo, a letter to the editor, a political brief, or an invitation within our culture, we are able to draw from that prior knowledge to produce a second, socially accepted text from the same

Genre and ESL/EFL composition instruction 197
genre. Thus, teaching within a framework that draws explicit attention to genres provides students a concrete opportunity to acquire knowledge that they can use in undertaking writing tasks beyond the course in which such teaching occurs.
Genre theory and research
Genre pedagogies are solidly grounded in theory and research, so it is important to examine what has been studied before proceeding to a dis-cussion of classroom approaches. All theories, and the research that re¬sults from them, must begin somewhere; they must have a basic focus or core, though the applications may differ given that researchers begin at different places and with different foci (cf. Polio, Chapter 2 this volume). Candlin and Hyland (1999, p. 1) speak of approaching genre studies on one of three bases: "as text, as process, or as social practice." Many ap¬plied linguists and English for Specific Purposes researchers focus their interest primarily on the texts themselves, analyzing written discourses from a given genre to draw conclusions about the functions of language as well as the conventions and sometimes the values of a community or culture. They ask questions such as the following:
1. What types of genres are valued, or "elemental," within a community and thus are part of its "cultural capital," and what are the features of these genres? (Feez, 2002)
2. What basic features give a specific genre its "integrity," that is, what conventions seem to be relatively stable, or highly valued, across texts within a genre? (Bhatia, 1999)
3. How are valued genres organized, and what does this organizational structure tell us about a community's cultures and belief systems? (Martin, 1984; Swales, 1990, 1998)
4. How is metadiscourse2 used in academic genres from various cultures and disciplinary communities? (Hyland, 1999; Mauranen, 1993)
5. What language (register) points to the relationships between read¬ers and writers and their roles? For example, how do scientists use "hedging" in their research articles? (Hyland, 1998)
6. What features of texts indicate the immediate rhetorical context, such as the specific classroom? What features may reflect the values of the discipline, or profession, as a whole? (Samraj, 2002)
7. How are texts in one situation (e.g., the classroom) influenced by texts in another (e.g., the workplace)? (Samraj, 2002)
8. How does one genre - for example, the ubiquitous North American five-paragraph essay - influence the nature of teaching and testing in schools? (Coe, 1987)

198 Ann M.Johns
9. How do genres blur and interact? How do writers incorporate other texts, through intertextuality, by citation or other means? (Flowerdew, 2002)
The more text-driven researchers and theorists, then, "locate the various norms, standards and conventions [in texts}... which may show com¬munity ownership" (Myers, 1999, p. 46). From close text analyses, they draw conclusions about the complex features of the communities and contexts in which the texts are valued. The pedagogical implications of this approach are major: in many classrooms throughout the world, stu¬dents are encouraged to analyze text features and to use this knowledge to develop hypotheses about textual functions, communities, and their genres.
When genre theorists and researchers refer to the ways in which gen¬res are processed, the second Candlin and Hyland focus, they are not referring to some idealized process over which the writer can develop considerable, or absolute, control as has been often assumed in the peda¬gogical realizations of the Process Movement (see Johns, 1997; Matsuda, Chapter 1 this volume). Acknowledging that discourses are situated and social, genre theorists view writers' processes as varied, dependent on their past writing experiences, the demands of the context, writers' roles vis-a-vis the readers, and the socially determined constraints of the genre itself. Thus, there is no one "process" for writing, but many, as writers juggle the various responsibilities they have to the genre, to the situation, to their roles, to the language, or to themselves as thinking, negotiat¬ing participants in the production and revision of texts. Of course, this complex view of process has major pedagogical implications: students must be provided with a variety of rhetorical situations (genres, audi¬ences, roles, and contexts) in which to write and with opportunities to reflect on the various processes that are employed to produce texts within differing contexts.
Those genre theorists who focus on writing processes, while mindful of social practices, ask questions such as the following:
1. How do writers from one language group (e.g., Spanish) write texts in a second language (e.g., English)? Do their second language processes differ from their first language ones? (Bosher, 1998; Chenoweth 5c Hayes, 2001; Silva et al., Chapter 4 this volume; St. John, 1987)
2. What particular aspects of a rhetorical situation are foregrounded when a person is writing for identified audiences or communities? (Wright, 1999)
3. How do processes differ depending on the timing and pressures involved in the task? Do individuals process texts differently

Genre and ESL/EFL composition instruction 199
when they have sufficient time to revise, for example? (Horowitz, 1986)
4. How do writers' cultures and past experiences influence the ways in which they approach a writing task? (Connor, Chapter 9 this volume; Leki, 1995)
5. How can students successfully process assigned texts while contin¬uing to value the oral and writing practices in their first cultures? (Malcolm, 1999)
6. How do students vary, or fail to vary, their writing processes when enrolled in classes from different disciplines? (Leki & Carson, 1994)
7. What theories about texts and processes do students bring to writing tasks, and how can these theories be expanded or become more flexible? (Johns, 2002)
8. What social and contextual elements of tasks do novice and advanced students consider in their initial planning as they prepare to write a text? (Coe, 1994)
Thus, for practitioners working from this perspective, research questions about writing processes are dependent on a number of social factors: the values of cultures and the constraints of specific rhetorical situations as well as individual writer purposes and proclivities.
Finally, there are those theorists and researchers, especially in the New Rhetoric School in North America, whose principal interests revolve around social practice - and the contexts in which social practices take place. The first questions thfese researchers pose relate to the social forces that impinge on text production and the ways writers negotiate these forces. Their concern is not so much with text features3 but with con¬textual elements that influence genres, especially in the workplace and professional world. Another strong interest of this group is in textual hegemony, i.e., the dominance of particular genres over the lives of indi¬viduals within a culture (see, e.g., Fairclough, 1992). These researchers ask questions such as the following:
1. What historical events within a community influence changes in genres overtime? (Bazerman, 1998, 1999)
2. What factors engender conflict among genres, and what conflicts and negotiations influence texts? (Bhatia, 1999; Schryer, 1994)
3. How are writing tasks in a classroom revised and negotiated over time, and what influences these changes? (Prior, 1994)
4. How are "our perceptions [of genres] shaped by habitual, culture-specific uses of language, with its semantic categories and grammatical role systems?" (Lemke, 1995, p. 96)
5. What situational factors motivate, or demotivate, students to revise or otherwise improve their writing? (Rodby, 1999)

200 Ann M. Johns
6. In what ways do literacies of home communities influence professional and academic literacies? Where do these literacies interact or come into conflict? What happens when hegemonic genres overwhelm home culture literacies? (Barton 6c Hamilton, 1998)
The pedagogical applications of this third theoretical focus, social prac¬tice, are less concretely stated in the literature except by a few critical pedagogues (see especially Benesch, 2001); however, these practitioners would agree that we should enable students to consider the rich envi-ronments in which texts are produced and encourage them to analyze and critique texts and institutions as part of their engagement in literacy studies.
Three approaches to the teaching of composition
Not surprisingly, the foci in theory and research discussed above are re-flected in a variety of approaches to composition. In this section, I discuss the three most prominent genre-based approaches, classified according to theory, practice, and in some cases, geography. (For a more thorough discussion, see Hyon, 1996.)
The Sydney School
Undoubtedly the most sophisticated and mature genre pedagogies have been designed for three populations in Australia: primary and secondary school children (Macken, Martin, Kress, Kalantzis, Rothery, & Cope, 1989) and adult migrant second language learners (Feez, 2002). These pedagogies are based on the theoretical work of M. A. K. Halliday and Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL)4 and additional work by other, local genre theorists. This statement by Christie (1990) provides a theo¬retical overview of the "Sydney School" and SFL:
A text is understood as functioning in a context, where a context is said to operate at two levels: at the level of register, where field (social activity), tenor (the interpersonal relationships among people using language), and mode (the part played by language in building communication) all have consequences for the choices made in the linguistic system; and at the level of genre, where social purpose in using language also has consequences for linguistic choices made. For any given instance of language use, a genre'is selected (be that a report, a narrative, a trade encounter, etc.) and particular choices are made with respect to field, tenor, and mode, all of which are realized in language choices, (p. 2)
Thus, the purposes of research and pedagogy stemming from SFL are to show "how the organization of language is related to its use since... language construes, is construed by, and (over time) reconstrues

Genre and ESL/EFL composition instruction 201
social context" (Martin, 1997, p. 2). Systemic Functional Linguists, like most genre theorists, envision perpetual interaction between the culture and social context, and the purposes, organization, and language of texts.
How, then, is language organized within a culture? The Sydney School linguists and practitioners have devoted more than two decades to iden-tifying and analyzing the common, "elemental" genres of the general Australian culture and of the government-supported schools; and they have amassed a large body of research literature, most of which has im¬plications for the teaching of composition (see, e.g., Cope, Kalantzis, Kress, & Martin, 1993). Theirs is a principled effort, for they believe that understanding the public, "elemental" genres of the culture will en¬able "disadvantaged" students, in particular, to enter academic life and develop textual "cultural capital" with some confidence.
Sydney School research and pedagogies have been designed, at least initially, for younger students and for ESL/EFL immigrants whose cul¬tural norms and valued genres are most distant from the norms of the mainstream culture. These populations benefit from a pedagogical fo¬cus that provides explicit instruction in developing "cultural capital." Sydney School pedagogies include clearly outlined, straightforward el¬emental genre descriptions for teachers at a number of levels and in a variety of academic content areas. They also have guides and textbooks derived from research and theory in SFL. What do these pedagogical descriptions of elemental genres look like? Figure 8.1 shows a typical de¬scription, taken from a secondary school curriculum (Macken-Horarik, 2002).5
In Figure 8.1, the first column lists the names of elemental genres, identified by researchers as common across various educational and workplace cultures.6 The second column describes the genres' social purposes - the principal function of a text within schools and the general culture. The third column, "social location," identifies contexts in which the genre is found. The next column outlines the text macro-structure, the organizational overview of the genre. Finally, the various moves, or stages, of the text are outlined.
An important element of curriculum design and implementation in the Sydney School is needs assessment. Teachers are encouraged to survey student needs in order to select the specific genres that are most relevant; then they are given considerable pedagogical guidance for working with the selected genres (Feez, 2002). In addition, teachers consider contexts of use and the particular language and other features that are typical of the situations in which students need literacy. Common to almost all Sydney School curricula is the "genre-based cycle of teaching and learning" based. on the work of Vygotsky (1934/1978). The cycle supports, or "scaffolds," the learner through an interactive process of analysis, discussion, and

202 Ann M. Johns

Genre Social Purpose Social Location Schematic Structure Description of Stages
Discussion Discusses an issue in the light of some kind of "frame" or position. Provides more than one point of view on an issue. Discussions are found in essays, editorials, and public forums, which canvass a range of views on issues. They also occur in panel
discussions and research summaries. [Issue A Arguments for and againstA Conclusion] Issue: gives information about the issue and how it is to be framed. Arguments for and against: canvasses points of view on the issue (similarities and differences or advantages and disadvantages). Conclusion: recommends a final position on the issue.
Procedure Instructs in how to do something through a sequence of steps. Procedures can be found in science experiments and in instructional manuals such as gardening books,
cookbooks, and technical instruction sheets. [GoalA Steps l-nA (Results)] Goal: gives information about the purpose of the activity (might be in the title or in the opening paragraphs). Steps 1-n: presents the activities needed to achieve the goal. They need to be put in right order. Results: optional stage describing the final state or "look" of activity.
Narrative Entertains and instructs via reflection on experience. Deals with problematic events that individuals have to resolve for better or worse. Narratives are found across all aspects of cultural life, in novels, short stories, movies, sit-coms, and radio dramas. They are important in subjects such as English. [Orientation A (Complication, Evaluation) A Resolution] Orientation: provides relevant information about the characters' situation. Complication: introduces one or more problems for characters to solve. Evaluation: highlights the significance of the events for characters. Resolution: sorts out the problems for better or worse.
Figure 8.1. Elemental genres and their features (Macken-Horarik, 2002). Note: " = followed by. Reprinted with permission from Lawrence Erlbaum Associates and the author.

Genre and ESL/EFL composition instruction 203
/ \ 2 X
/ \ Modeling and / \
/ \ deconstructing the / \
/ \ text / \
1 \ / 3
Building the context \/ Joint construction of
^^^T\ the text
Linking related ^dependent
texts | construction of the
I text
Figure 8.2. The cycle of teaching and learning (Feez, 2002, p. 65). Reprinted with permission from Lawrence Erlbaum Associates and NSW AMES Publications.
joint and individual construction of texts (Feez, 2002). It consists of the steps shown in Figure 8.2.
The first step involves assisting students in understanding the context for writing. For example, if students in the sciences were to prepare a pro¬cedure, they might visit a laboratory and view a video in which an expert works through this genre orally. Students are supported ("scaffolded") during this step by teacher questioning, direct instruction, vocabulary building exercises, role-plays, and jigsaw or other reading exercises.. In the second step of the cycle, "modeling and deconstructing the text," students make use of various textual models of the chosen genre writ¬ten by their contemporaries. The models are labeled according to stages (see Figure 8.1), ensuring that students can understand and appreciate how stages, purposes, and language interact. With the assistance of the teacher, the students study and analyze these models, using the genre de¬scriptions. If the students are young, new to a discipline or profession, or less proficient in English (as are many ESL/EFL students), considerable care is given to discussion and practice of syntax, grammar, and lexicon found in the model texts. However, these features are always considered as functionally related to the genre and its purposes; no grammar or lexicon is practiced in isolation.
The next step, again consistent with Vygotsky (1934/78), is the joint construction of texts. Students work together or with their teacher

\ texts irom the assigned genre, using data or
context-building smo or from other sources. In
■arn to write co] la bora lively, an important skill
culture. In die fourth step, students write texts
d move Involves ic-king the students' written texts
r; ! !Lhm * dm mm; re \tuality and acknowledging
■res. St LuJcpis ma;/ rerd other texts and cite them
/ ekn ccmpc.re dmm texts with others of the same
u■■■■■ ' oxkmm lo x cl md comment on their texts
in -■?<-.,ia;t'^ v -ii'if 1 practitioners, using the- ^ : :; i\-:;t..'( ■■■■! Linguistics (Halliday, 1985) :m ' x' dec' ,■ ' ;',' ;r, principled sets of genre '•mm.xmhxx ; c p.mstic and organizational fea- ■■- i .mm m .■ . gooses. Practitioners are en- m ■> '",A\ die ' - »i -- ; mid teaching cycle that or-
-h.,i; . IV, o i.-i d ,: i ;;(..-:■ t important aspects of this
'y ^Lmmmemxh m im rial within texts and social
m■ mmc n of a v :m ;./ of elemental genre descrip-
\ 'i"'. -■:. o L ro O'-.A • oo; dull repetition of the clas-
m Am-. ; in '!-c--'V.r; praph Essay in the Sydney
;A! : d xx '■".! h ' x; used, of course. Novice or
i. • mm descriptions in Figure 8.1
; . m ex ; } ; to begin the discussion of
, ex.x, m ■.: soc'm x mm interact, thus returning to
exm; dx: mxm re m I more than 30 years ago
.■'/). 'there e.ohoo- m;' t forget the first important
"' xmm; g cycle: mkird mm\ersion into and discussion
Another possible problem is that individual or
/.monies might not be recognized and discussed by
... g thus precluding a Uioue and student negotiation
; c (See comments in o- nesch, 2001, on the impor-
lodier possibility for misusing the Sydney School
"■ die apparent emghe-;s on text product. Martin
■ onvincinghp, that the Process Approach to writing,
mdents to make their o vn meaning and find their
'insidiously benevolent" in that it favors those stu-
kmre and language are similar to those of the cultures
k ss, process writing practices — peer editing, revising,
s- - should not be forgotten in the effort to encourage
■dents to understand and produce texts from various

Genre and ESL/EFL composition instruction 205
English for specific purposes
A second genre "school" identified by Hyon (1996) is English for Spe¬cific Purposes (ESP), an international movement that has, since the early 1960s, been considerably more popular in English as a foreign language contexts than in English as a second language ones. Though based on considerable applied linguistics research, ESP, like the Sydney School, has always been proud of its practical bent (Swales, 1988), with a perpetual interest in course design and pedagogies. The basic principles of ESP are needs assessment, situational analysis, and discourse analysis (Johns 8c Dudley-Evans, 1991); thus the movement has long been positioned to move toward genre analysis through the interest in contexts of use and written discourses.
Undoubtedly the most famous research in ESP genre analysis has been conducted by John Swales. His analyses of "moves," or functional sections, in academic research articles, which began in the 1980s (sum¬marized in Swales, 1990), have engendered a remarkable collection of publications and curricula throughout the world.7 In fact, for some ESP scholars (see, e.g., Brett, 1994), moves analyses are synonymous with genre analysis. Swales's argument, consistent with Systemic Functional Linguistics, is that texts are conventionally divided into elements (or "stages," in the Sydney School model) that serve functions for both writer and community. Here is one incarnation of his model for moves in re¬search article introductions (shown below in italics), with the examples taken from Brett (1994, p« 47), an article based on Swales's work:
Move 1: Establishing the research field (introducing the topic, discussing its importance). "Genre analysis has been of growing interest to applied linguists (Hopkins & Dudley-Evans, 1988; Swales, 1990). It offers a system of analysis that allows observations to be made on the repeated communicative functions found in genres and the linguistic exponents of these functions. This type of discourse analysis readily lends itself to the pedagogic concerns of those involved in the communicative ESP and EAP classroom."
Move 2: Briefly summarizing the previous research. "Genre analysts have largely concentrated their investigations on texts for the 'hard' or 'applied' sciences, for example, neuroscience (Belanger, 1982), electronics (Cooper, 1985), and biology (Swales, 1990)."
Move 3: Preparing for present research (in many cases, showing the gap between the research reported in this article and previous research). "Swales (1990), in an overview of moves analysis, says that 'it is easy to see that some fields are much less well

206 Ann M. Johns
represented than others; for example, there is very little on dis¬ciplines such as economics or sociology' (p. 132)." Move 4: Introducing the present research. "The purpose of this inves¬tigation was to examine 20 sociology research articles, using genre analysis, to be able to provide a pedagogically useful de¬scription of the writing of this discourse community." (Brett, 1994, p. 47.)
What makes ESP different from the Sydney School, then? One differ¬ence, certainly, is found in the ways in which genres are identified. There seems to be considerably less overlap in ESP between what Kiniry and Rose (1993) call strategies for achieving particular goals ("definition, narration, exemplification, comparison/contrast") and the genre names themselves than there is overlap in the Sydney School. ESP analysts iden¬tify genres with discourse communities, such as academic disciplines or particular professions, and use the nomenclature of these communities, such as "research article," "court order," or "lab report," to identify valued genres.
Rather than identify elemental genres of the general culture (Candlin & Hyland, 1999) or the broad genres of schooling, ESP re¬searchers tend to relate texts to more specific communities that use genres to promote their ends. Rafoth (1990) says this about the relations among discourse communities, language, and texts:
If there is one thing that most of [the discourse community definitions] have in common, it is an idea of language [and genres] as a basis for sharing and holding in common: shared expectations, shared participation, commonly (or communicably) held ways of expressing. Like audience, discourse community entails assumptions about conformity and convention, (p. 144)
Another important difference between the Sydney School and ESP re¬lates to the populations for whom curricula are written. For the most part, ESP curricula have been designed for adults, people who are mo¬tivated to learn quickly about specific language registers and discourse communities so that they can progress rapidly in their work and study. The fastest growing ESP population in the world is in the area of busi¬ness (St. John, 1996), but there is also considerable need for ESP courses in science and technology (see Swales & Feak, 1994) and for courses in other academic disciplines, especially at the graduate level. A final im¬portant difference is that ESP is becoming increasingly context-driven, and the overlap between the New Rhetoric, discussed below, and ESP research and theory, becomes greater every year.
The fact that ESP course curricula are designed for specific populations with specific needs, often in EFL contexts, influences the types of courses that result. For advanced students in business, for example, one obvious

Genre and ESL/EFL composition instruction 207
curricular approach is case studies, with the genres of business, resumes, different types of letters, and memoranda as the focus for writing practice (see, e.g., Rogers, 1995). Law students, on the other hand, might study legal cases and briefs (Bhatia, 1993). Graduate students benefit from studying the specific genres of their graduate work, generally the values and language that drive research articles or grant proposals (Swales & Feak, 1994), as well as theses, dissertations, and professional presenta-. tions (Swales &c Feak, 2000). Thus, although practitioners, researchers, and theorists from both ESP and the Sydney School are concerned with the language, structures, and contexts of texts, there are considerable differences in their views of culture, in specificity in genre names, age and interest of student populations, the influences of other theories, and in curricula.
English for Specific Purposes, and its related field, English for Academic Purposes (EAP) become remarkably fuzzy and controversial in their literacy curricula for undergraduate students, in programs for students enrolled in general-purpose composition classes so common to universities, and some secondary schools, in North America. EAP students, below what Geisler (1994) calls "the Great Divide," are not yet considered initiates into disciplinary communities or professions. In¬stead, they are involved in their "general education" or breadth courses designed to give them a disciplinary overview or to prepare them for life in the university and in modern society. The controversies about what purposes these classes should serve and how they should be struc¬tured provide some of the major foci in articles and presentations at various professional conferences (and see also Leki, Chapter 13 this volume). Here are some of the controversial questions posed in EAP discussions:
1, Is there a general academic English?
2. Can teachers teach to certain general concepts, skills, or understand¬
ings that can be introduced in composition classes for novice students?
Numerous scholars argue that although academic writing is not mono¬lithic, there definitely are conventions in all forms of this writing that we should be introducing to students at the undergraduate level. For example, Linton, Madigan, and Johnson (1994, p. 66) claim that three discourse categories are found in all academic genres: conventions of structure that control the flow of argument, conventions of reference that establish standard ways of addressing the work of other scholars, and conventions of language that reflect characteristic choices of syntax and diction.
Combining comments by Elbow (1991), Geertz (1983), and Purves (1991), and my own research, I also argue that most expository

208 Ann M. Johns
academic texts have some features in common:
1. Academic texts must be explicit in both argumentation and vocabu¬lary use.
2. Topic and argument should be prerevealed in the introduction or as the genre requires.
3. Writers should provide "maps" or "signposts" for the readers throughout the texts, telling them where they have been and where they are going.
4. The language of texts should create a distance between the writer and topic to give the appearance of objectivity.
5. Writers should maintain a "rubber-gloved" quality of voice and reg¬ister; "I" should be used sparingly and only in certain sections serving particular functions.
6. Writers should hedge (see Hyland, 1998), taking a guarded stance, especially when presenting their research work.
7. Texts should display an understanding of the reality shared by the reader or by members of the discourse community to which the text is addressed.
8. Texts should display an understanding of social and authority rela-tionships, such as the roles of readers and writers.
9. Texts should acknowledge the complex and important influence of intertextuality, the exploitation of texts and data to promote argu-mentation and discussion.
10. Texts should comply with the genre requirements of a community or classroom. (Johns, 1997, pp. 58-64)
Most critics of ESP approaches focus on the undergraduate English for Academic Purposes dilemma discussed above. Benesch (1995, 2001) refers to much EAP curricula as "assimilative," requiring students to take on the genres and values of disciplinary communities without question¬ing the hegemonic nature of these powerful texts. Instead, she favors a "critical pedagogy," in which the focus is on "sociocultural aware¬ness," stressing the "political, historical and economic factors that shape discourses" (1995, p. 192). Spack, another EAP critic, favors EAP ap¬proaches that draw from the composition instructor's own expertise and student motivations rather than from the genres and values of the students' chosen disciplines - which composition teachers may not un¬derstand themselves. This is one of her claims about academic writing and student engagement:
Academic writing is not detached and impersonal, as some of its products suggest. Rather, it is an engaging and personal - sometimes exuberant - process of seeking knowledge and understanding. Academic writing presupposes

Genre and ESL/EFL composition instruction 209
concern, curiosity, commitment, a need to know, and a need to tell. (1993, p. 185)
Spack outlines an EAP class that draws from students' own experiences and encourages writing about these experiences before reading. When they read, students annotate texts with their own comments and keep reading journals. Whereas other EAP courses tend to emphasize a variety of genres and rhetorical experiences, Spack devotes most of her class to student responses and student-generated texts. (See also Spack, 1988.)
The New Rhetoric
A third group of genre theorists and researchers, concentrated princi¬pally in North America, are the New Rhetoricians (NR). As the name indicates, this group consists of rhetoricians and composition theorists who have been educated in rhetorical theory and composition studies (drawn principally from the perspective of English as LI), a background that generally does not include studies in linguistics or second language acquisition. The New Rhetoricians' values, concepts, arguments, and conclusions stem from rhetorical, social, and ideological stances rather than from detailed analyses of language and text organization. Most of the rich, and very interesting, NR research involves studies of "specific genres as social actions within particular social and historical contexts" (Freedman & Medway, 1994a, p. 3). Research is devoted to investigat¬ing the ideological, social, and physical surroundings in which genres are produced and also to studying the ways in which genres evolve, are nego¬tiated, and fall out of favor. In the New Rhetoric, genres are, most impor¬tantly, "inherently dynamic rhetorical structures that can be manipulated according to conditions of use" (Berkenkotter & Huckin, 1995, p. 3).
What NR genre theorists have discovered, not surprisingly, is that genre knowledge among experts in a discipline or profession is tacit, that even many who are full members of a discourse community and use a genre successfully cannot discuss the schematic/social knowledge they have that enables them to recognize, situate, understand, and produce a text in a genre. This tacit knowledge involves uses of content as well as a variety of other abilities to exploit prior knowledge and negotiate rhetorical situations (Johns, 1997, pp. 20-37; Purves, 1991).
Thus, the NR theoreticians argue that texts used in classroom study are no longer authentic when removed from their original contexts and purposes. What can teachers do then to expose students to issues that genre theory raises? How can students become sensitive to the variety of texts from a variety of ever-evolving rhetorical contexts? Freedman (1994) argues that the amount of explicit teaching of genres should be severely limited to "overall features of format or organization... and a

210 Ann M. Johns
limited set of rules regarding usage and punctuation" (p. 200). She also suggests that instead of explicitly teaching texts as genre exemplars, teachers need to "set up facilitative environments" for genre acquisition (p. 200), contexts that more closely approximate genuine, and varied, rhetorical situations. However, she does concede that under some circumstances additional explicit teaching might be appropriate:
If learners are developmentally ready and involved in authentic tasks, explicit
teaching may result in acquisition in very specific instances [When] learners
are immersed in meaningful, authentic reading and writing tasks, explicit teaching which focuses on linguistic features of the discourse ... being read ... may raise the consciousness of some learners... [so] that they will be sensitized to, and notice the occurrence of such features at a subsidiary, attentional level, thereby acquiring that rule as part of their implicit knowledge so that it can be activated in future output. (Freedman, 1994, p. 205)8
One of my favorite NR theorists, Richard Coe, has provided some of the most sensible comments on the relationship between NR theory and pedagogy. In two useful and convincing essays he relates issues of genre and process, showing that considering a particular genre will provide a heuristic for student writing (Coe, 1987,1994,2002). As students repre¬sent a writing task, they might say, "This is a business letter, so I should begin by stating my reason for writing." Or "This is an essay, so I should state my thesis" (1994, p. 159). A second way in which a writer can exploit genre during the writing process is by considering reader expec¬tations. Because genres are situated, the reader may be known or under¬stood, and expectations may influence form, content, and register of the writer's text. The student writers must know that genres are social and not autonomous. All elements of a particular context have to be con¬sidered while writing and revising. Students might ask questions such as, "What purposes does this genre serve? How do its particular generic structures serve those purposes?9 How is it adapted to its particular read¬ers for this rhetorical situation?" "How is it appropriate to its context or situation?" (Coe, 1994, p. 160).
Though Coe, Freedman, and a few others in the New Rhetoric group work with issues of pedagogy, NR studies are not generally directed to the classroom. Instead, the focus is on issues of negotiation, or evolution of genres in the workplace or disciplines (see Bazerman, 1988; Schryer, 1994). Most NR theorists view the composition classroom as inauthentic; the authentic genres are produced in situations in which there is complex negotiation and often multiple audiences.
Certainly ESL/EFL composition instructors should acquaint them¬selves with the literature in the New Rhetoric, if for no other reason than to provide cautions against reductionist pedagogies that portray text descriptions as fixed templates instead of opportunities for studying

Genre and ESL/EFL composition instruction 211
evolving, negotiated, situated discourses. For "genres are not just text types; they imply/invoke/create/(re)construct situations (and contexts), communities, writers and readers" (Coe, 2002).
In this chapter, I have discussed issues of research and theory in genre-based composition instruction, and I have outlined the theoretical and pedagogical stances of the three "schools" described in Hyon (1996). There are considerable differences among the schools; however, the agreement on significant core principles can provide guidance for the ESL/EFL composition instructor as well. On what do genre theorists and practitioners seem to agree?
1. Non-literary texts are socially constructed. The influence of commu¬nity or culture, however these are defined, is considerable - not only on text product but also on reading and writing processes.
2. Texts are purposeful; the functions of texts are often determined by the community long before the writer (or reader) begins to process them. Texts are written to get things done within a community and context.
3. Some texts, and registers, are valued more than others within a community. Some are dominant and hegemonic; others, like some student texts, have little effect. This is a reality that can be accepted or critiqued by teachers, researchers, and students.
4. Text organization, or macrostructure, is often not original with the writer. Form, as well as other text features, is often strongly influenced by the conventions of a genre and the immediate situation in which the text is being produced.
5. The grammar of texts, including its metadiscourse, is functional; it serves community and writer purposes within a genre and context.
6. What is present, or absent, in texts - such as content and argumen¬tation - is often defined by the community or the particular situation in which the text is found.
7. Genres are ideologically driven; even in schools, there are no texts that are free from the values and beliefs of those involved in producing and processing them.
8. And finally, the language of texts, whether it be vocabulary, grammar, metadiscourse, or other features, should never be taught separately from rhetorical function. Language is purposeful, as are the texts themselves, though the purposes may sometimes be many - or hidden.
Certainly, genre-based pedagogies are complex, much more so than some of the earlier approaches to teaching composition. However, they

212 Ann M. Johns
have proved to be quite successful in several types of pedagogical situa¬tions throughout the world. For example, for the past 15 years or so, my colleagues and I have been teaching in an adjunct (linked) program for diverse, first-year university students who are enrolled in both a breadth class (biology, sociology, anthropology, etc.) and composition classes. In the composition classes, students become researchers into, and critics of, the rhetorical and generic situations of the breadth classes. They inter¬view the breadth class teacher and analyze texts; they explore ways to negotiate their assignments to make them more personal or manageable; they view language and texts as integral to communities, but evolving and subject to negotiation. And perhaps fully as important, they expand their repertoire of text understandings and reflect on their varied processes as they attempt texts in a number of genres (see, e.g., Johns, 2001). They know that texts are not autonomous and that there are many literacies, even if their professors do not (see Johns, 1997, pp. 72-73), and they are grateful for the assistance their composition instructors give in enabling them to compete with others within academic contexts. Benesch (2001) also teaches literacy classes of this type (i.e., linked); however, she empha¬sizes the political nature of pedagogical efforts, helping students to orga¬nize to change their classroom conditions (p. 141), taking students a step farther in recognizing and opposing the hegemony of texts and contexts. Teachers of genre-based curricula cannot forget what came before, as Coe (1987,1994) and others have noted. The Process Movement changed everything in composition teaching, and its tremendous benefits should continue to be exploited. However, process instruction alone may not provide enough direction or situational focus for the ESL/EFL student who needs models, who needs to discuss cultures and cultural conflicts, and who needs practice in writing under a variety of conditions and in a variety of genres.
1. Multiple other potential roles for literature are discussed in Vandrick (Chapter 11 this volume), especially as they apply to teaching ESL/EFL students.
2. Metadiscourse refers to
writing about reading and writing. When we communicate, we use metadiscourse to name rhetorical actions: explain, show, argue, claim, deny, suggest, add, expand, summarize; to name a part of our discourse, first, second ...in conclusion; to reveal logical connections, therefore, for example; and to guide our readers, Now we will move to the issue o/.... (Williams, 1989, p. 28)
See also Hyland, 1999.
3. In fact, in some New Rhetoric research, the textual features are ignored.

Genre and ESL/EFL composition instruction 2
4. Because of the influence of Chomsky, SFL may be a mystery to some No< American readers. For an excellent introduction, see Butt, Fahey, Fe Spinks, and Yallop (2000). 5. For a much more complete description of elemental genres and explanatic for teaching, see Teaching about Texts, English K-6 (1999). 6. Genre naming is a controversial topic in research, theory, and pedago Are some of these terms referring to "text types" as discussed by Paltrid (2002)? Are they "strategies" for producing texts, as Kiniry and Rose (19r argue? What they appear to be in this context is pedagogic names - tl is, convenient ways for teachers and students to understand the purpose-organization, and language of texts. 7. Though Swales has moved on to other things (see Swales, 199 8), the resear on "moves" continues. In the summer of 1999, I attended a conference the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology at which a gradu; student reported her research on moves in scientific articles. 8. Is this a concession to the applied linguists in ESP and the Sydney Schoi Perhaps. 9. Does this sound like the Sydney School so far? There is overlap amr-"schools," certainly. References Bahktin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (V. W. McGee, Tran C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Eds.). Austin: University of Texas Press. Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (1998). Local literacies: Reading & writing in c community. London: Routledge. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of t experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Bazerman, C. (1998). The languages of Edison's light. Chicago: University Chicago Press. Bazerman, C. (1999). Letters and the social grounding of differentiated gem In D. Barton & N. Hall (Eds.), Letter ivriting as social practice (pp. 15—J" Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Belanger, M. (1982). A preliminary analysis of the structure of the discussioi ten neuroscience journal articles, (mimeo). Benesch, S. (1995). Genres and processes in sociocultural contexts. Journal Second Language Writing, 4, 191-96. Benesch, S. (2001). Critical English for academic purposes: Theory, politics, a- practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Berkenkotter, C, 8c Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplin, communities. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bhatia, V. (1993). Analyzing genre: Language use in professional settin London: Longman. Bhatia, V. K. (1999). Integrating products, processes, purposes, and participa - in professional writing. In C. N. Candlin &K. Hyland (Eds.),Writing: Ter processes, and practices (pp. 21-39). London: Longman. Bosher, S. (1998). The composing processes of Southeast Asian writers at post-secondary level: An exploratory study. Journal of Second Langt . Writing, 7, 205-240. 214 Ann M. Johns Brett, P. (1994). A genre analysis of the results section of soc! English for Specific Purposes, 13, 47-59. Butt, D., Faye, R., Feez, S., Spinks, S., & Yallop, C. (2000.) tional grammar: An explorer's guide (2nd ed.). Sydney, NS University, National Centre for English Language Teaching ; Candlin, C, & Hyland, K. (Eds.). (1999). Writing: Texts, proccsk >
London: Longman. Chenoweth, N. A., & Hayes, J. R. (2001). Fluency in writirr: ("'
in LI and L2. Written Communication, 18, 80-? 8. Christie, F. (1990). The changing face of literacy, h: F. Cliri;.:
for a changing world: A fresh look at the basics (pp, 1 /5.
Victoria: The Australian Council for Educations! llos.-< : . Coe, R. M. (1987). An apology for form, or who to<.1: ilk* f . . College English, 49, 13-28. Coe, R. M. (1994). Teaching genre as process. In /.. Yi.::cc (Eds.), Learning and teaching genre (pp. 15/--KA';, ; Heinemann/Boynton-Cook. Coe, R. M. (2002). The New Rhetoric of genre: VYu^ f- ' A. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom: Muh't'■!.■ i:e;-sr>.
206). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cooper, C. (1985). Aspects of article introductions i. / T.r /
published M.Sc. dissertation, University of Asto ... \'.'... Cope, B., Kalantzis, M., Kress, G., & Martin, J. (15 •'... i. I
Developing the theory and practice of genre-b< ; M. Kalantzis (Eds.), The powers of literacy: A g ing of writing (pp. 231-247). London: Falmer I Elbow, P. (1991). Reflections on academic discor. >. . t \ .",
135-155. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social chang . ('-, n? : '
Press. Feez, S. (2002). Heritage and innovation in second T
Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom: Multiple / . _ >\
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Flowerdew, J. (2002). Genre In the classroom: Alingii ' ;.,-
(Ed.), Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspecth- ; .
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Freedman, A. (1994). "Do as I say": The relations: 1 i
learning new genres. In A. Freedman Sc P. Med. • ( ",.
new rhetoric (pp. 191-210). London: Taylor & 1. ; Freedman, A., & Medway, P. (Eds.). (1994). hem. \ ,.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Geertz, C. (1983). Local knowledge: Turther essay sin i.:.
New York: Basic Books. Geisler, C. (1994). Literacy and expertise in the acadenv / . '.v-
Across the Disciplines, 1, 35-57. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to fund:?. . ,r,
London: Edward Arnold. Hopkins, A., & Dudley-Evans, T. (1988). A genre-bas;-J in\;
cussion sections in articles and dissertations. Eng!;. !:■ /o? ,':,
7, 113-121.

Genre and ESL/EFL composition instruction 215
Horowitz, D. M. (1986). Essay examination prompts and the teaching of aca¬demic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 5, 107-120.
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Erdenheim, PA: John Benjamins.
Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory course-books. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 3-26.
Hyon, S. (1996). Genre in three traditions: Implications for ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 693-722.
Johns, A. M. (1990). LI composition theories: Implications for developing theo¬ries of L2 composition. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing; Research insights for the classroom (pp. 24-36). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Johns, A. M. (1997). Text, role, and context: Developing academic literacies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Johns, A. M. (2001). An interdisciplinary, interinstitutional learning communi¬ties program: Student involvement and student success. In I. Leki (Ed.), Aca¬demic writing programs (Case Studies in TESOL Practice Series, pp. 61-72). Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL).
Johns, A. M. (2002). Destabilizing and enriching novice students' genre theo¬ries. In A. M. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 237-246). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Johns, A. M., &C Dudley-Evans, T. (1991). English for Specific Purposes: International in scope, specific in purpose. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 291-314.
Kiniry, M., & Rose, M, (1993). Critical strategies for academic thinking and writing. Boston: Bedford Books/St. Martin's Press.
Leki, I. (1995) Coping strategies-, of ESL students in writing tasks across the curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 235-260.
Leki, L, & Carson, J. G. (1994). Students* perceptions of EAP writing instruction and writing needs across the disciplines. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 81-101.
Lemke, J. (1995). Textual politics: Discourse and social dynamics. London: Taylor &c Francis.
Linton, P., Madigan, R., 6c Johnson, S. (1994). Introducing students to disci¬plinary genres: The role of the general composition course. Language and Learning Across the Disciplines, 1(2), 63-78.
Macken, M., Martin, J. R., Kress, G., Kalantzis, M., Rothery, J., &c Cope, B. (1989). An approach to writing, K-12: The theory and practice of genre-based writing, years 3-6. Sydney: Literacy and Education Research Network of the N.S.W. Department of Education, Directorate of Studies.
Macken-Horarik, M. (2002). "Something to shoot for": A systemic functional approach to teaching genre in secondary school science. In A. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 17-46). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Malcolm, I. (1999). Writing as an intercultural process. In C. N. & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes, and practices (pp. 122-142). London: Longman.
Martin, J. R. (1984). Language, register, and genre. In F. Christie (Ed.), Language studies; Children writing (pp. 21-30). Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press.

216 Ann M.Johns
Martin, J. R. (1985). Factual writing: Exploring and challenging social reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Martin, J. R. (1997). Analyzing genres: Functional parameters. In V. Christie 8c J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genres and institutions: Social processes in the work¬place and school (pp. 1—40). Herndon, VA: Cassell Academic.
Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 12, 3-22.
Miller, C. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151-167.
Myers, G. (1999). Interaction in writing: Principles and problems, hi C. N. & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes, and practices. (pp, 40-61). London: Longman.
Paltridge, B. (2002). Genre, text type, and English for Academic Pi ' oses. In A. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 71-88). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Prior, P. (1994). Response, revision, disciplinarily: A microhistory of a disserta¬tion prospectus in sociology. Written Communication, 11, 483-S V>.
Purves, A. C. (1991). The textual contract: Literacy as common knew'-, ige and conventional wisdom. In E. M. Jennings & A. C. Purves (Ed;>.), Literate systems and individual lives: Perspectives on literacy and schooling (pp. 51-72). Albany: State University of New York.
Rafoth, B. A. (1990). The concept of discourse community: Desc;.;psive and explanatory adequacy. In G. Kirsch Sc D. H. Roen (Eds.), A sense of audience in written communication (pp. 140-152). Written Communication Annual, Vol. 5. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Rodby, J. (1999). Contingent literacy: The social construction of wriang for nonnative English-speaking college freshmen. In L. Harklan, K. XL Losey, 6c M. Siegal (Eds.), Generation 1.5 meets college composition: Issues in the teaching of writing to U.S.-educated learners ofESL (pp. 45-60). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rogers, D. (1995). Business communications: International cose studies in English. New York: St. Martin's Press.
St. John, M. J. (1987). Writing processes of Spanish scientists publishing in English. English for Specific Purposes, 6, 113-120.
St. John, M. J. (1996). Business is booming: Business English in die 1990s. English for Specific Purposes, 15, 3-18.
Samraj, B. (2002). Texts and multiple contexts: Academic writing in content classes. In A. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 161-174). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schryer, C. (1994). Records as genre. Written Communication, 10, 200-234.
Spack, R. (1988). Initiating ESL students into academic discourse communities: How far should we go? TESOL Quarterly, 22, 29-52.
Spack, R. (1993). Student meets text, text meets student: Finding a way into academic discourse. In J. G. Carson & I. Leki (Eds.), Reading in the com-position classroom: Second language perspectives (pp. 183-196). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Swales, J. M. (1988). Episodes in ESP: A source and reference book on the de-velopment of English for science and technology. New York: Prentice Hall.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Genre and ESL/EFL composition instruction 217
Swales, J. M. (1998). Other floors, other voices: A textography of a small uni¬versity building. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2000). English in today's research world: A writing guide. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Teaching about texts: English K-6. (2001). Sydney: Board of Studies, Sydney, NSW.
Vygotsky, L. (1934/78). Mind in society: The development of higher psycholog¬ical processes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, J. (1989). Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Wright, P. (1999). Writing and information design of healthcare materials. In C. N. Candlin &c K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes, and practices (pp. 85-98). London: Longman.


Changing currents in contrastive rhetoric: Implications for teaching and research
Ulla Connor

Broadly considered, contrastive rhetoric examines differences and simi-larities in writing across cultures. The underlying premise of the field is that any given language is likely to have written texts that are constructed using identifiable discourse features, and these features may differ across languages or be coded using different linguistic configurations. Con¬trastive rhetoric dates back to the seminal work of Robert Kaplan, whose early work within an applied linguistics framework (Kaplan, 1966) sug¬gested that to the degree that language and writing are cultural phenom¬ena, different cultures have different rhetorical tendencies. Furthermore, Kaplan's early work, arising out of an extensive examination of writ¬ing produced by university students of English as a second language (ESL), focused on the claim that the linguistic patterns and rhetorical conventions of a first (or native) language (LI) often transfer to writing in ESL and thus cause interference. Although mainly concerned in its first 20 years with student essay writing, today contrastive rhetoric con¬tributes to knowledge about preferred patterns of writing with the goal of helping teachers and students (and writers) around the world in many situations, especially as regards English for specific purposes.
Undeniably, in its first decades, contrastive rhetoric has had an appre-ciable impact on our understanding of cultural differences in writing, and it continues to spawn interest internationally with such venues as the bi¬ennial International Conference on Contrastive Rhetoric at the American University of Cairo and a roundtable seminar on contrastive rhetoric, titled "Contrastive Rhetoric in the 21st Century," organized by Paul Kei Matsuda and me, following Purdue University's third international conference on second-language (L2) writing in October 2002.
In a volume of selected conference papers published subsequent to the first Cairo conference (Ibrahim, Kassabgy, & Aydelott, 2000), 13 chapters discuss studies that dealt with distinctive features of Arabic, Arabic and English contrasts, and contrastive rhetorical studies of Arabic native students' writing in English, The second Cairo conference, held in March 2001, attracted presenters in contrastive rhetoric from Europe and Asia as well as from Arabic-speaking countries.1 As part of the pro¬gram, a teleconference was held with Professor Kaplan, who spoke about

Changing currents in contrastive rhetoric 219
the evolution of contrastive rhetoric from his retirement in Port Angeles, Washington (U.S.A). In addition to special conferences organized around the topic of contrastive rhetoric like the ones mentioned above, the ap¬peal of contrastive rhetoric as a topic of inquiry by graduate students and practicing teachers in English as a foreign language (EFL) situations is demonstrated by the large number of dissertations being written in vari¬ous parts of the world on topics in the field of contrastive rhetoric. Recent dissertations by Aymerou Mbaye (2001), a Senegalese EFL teacher, and Toshiko Yoshimura (2001), a teacher in Japan, are described later in this chapter. These teacher/researchers have found contrastive rhetoric a powerful research tool and a useful theory for teaching.
Contrastive rhetoric has had and will continue to have an effect on teaching. In addition to being useful for raising teachers' awareness about LI influence in their L2 students' English writing, contrastive rhetoric can offer specific activities for the ESL teacher of writing. Several recent treatments have discussed ways contrastive rhetoric can be used in the classroom. Johnson and Duver (1996) provide a number of classroom ac¬tivities to help students understand contrastive rhetoric, including using model essays to contrast organizational patterns and encouraging jour¬nal writing to help students explore cultural differences in L2 writing. Panetta (2001a) contains several chapters dealing with specific implica¬tions of contrastive rhetoric for teachers. For example, Panetta's (2001b) own chapter in the volume addresses the importance of making L2 writ¬ing conventions explicit to L2 learners. Scoggins's (2001) chapter shows how ESL students in computer classes can use their LI rhetorics to their advantage by suspending rather than excluding them from rhetorical choices. And Woolever's (2001) chapter provides an important discus¬sion of the use of contrastive rhetoric theory to the teaching of business and technical writing and shows how translation, the use of illustrations and numbers, the development of Web sites, and oral presentations will benefit from the insights of contrastive rhetoric.
I begin the chapter by providing some examples to illustrate how a contrastive rhetoric perspective can illuminate distinctions in the fea¬tures of texts produced by writers who come from different languages and cultures. Then I briefly review the goals and accomplishments of re¬search in contrastive rhetoric during the past 30 years. In a book on this subject (Connor, 1996), I showed how the discipline expanded from its early beginnings as the study of paragraph organization in ESL student essay writing (Kaplan, 1966) to an interdisciplinary domain of second-language acquisition with rich theoretical underpinnings in both linguis¬tics and rhetoric; this is briefly revisited here. Second, I discuss how con¬trastive rhetoric has been pursued with varying aims and methods within different types of institutions outside of and in addition to its initial ap¬plications in the field of composition studies. Examples are given from

220 Ulla Connor
research conducted in EFL situations in Europe and elsewhere. Finally, I discuss recent criticisms of contrastive rhetoric and their effects on changing currents in contrastive rhetoric. The new currents deal with culture, literacy, and critical pedagogy and their influence on contrastive rhetoric.
Text analysis using a contrastive rhetoric perspective
To orient new teachers to the type of writing addressed by this field, it may be helpful to look first at some concrete examples of what con¬trastive rhetoric has actually examined before discussing how the field has evolved and grown.
Examples abound of differences in writing across cultures; however, the following examples come from just two different genres in profes¬sional writing: job application letters and grant proposals. The first set consists of (1) a job application letter written in English for a simu¬lated job by a Flemish-speaking college student and (2) a letter written by a U.S. college student in the same simulated job application process (Figure 9.1). (See Connor, Davis, & DeRycker, 1995, for a description of the study.)
The Flemish applicant's letter is shorter, more to the point. The first sentence performs the speech act of application using few words; the next sentence mentions the student's university status and states that the applicant's credentials are listed on an attached resume; and the last sen-tence expresses a desire for an interview. The U.S. applicant's letter, on the other hand, uses a large number of words to perform the same functions; the most noteworthy part is the lengthy discussion of the candidate's credentials applicable to the job even though a resume is enclosed with this application as well. Furthermore, the applicant adds various types of information not seen in the Flemish letter: thus, in the first paragraph the applicant describes how he or she is especially suited for the position and how his or her background would benefit the job; this line of rea¬soning is expanded in the third paragraph of the letter. Finally, the U.S. applicant includes information on how to be contacted for an interview. Also noteworthy is the polite expression of thanks at the end of the letter.
The second example of cross-cultural differences in writing comes from European Union grant proposals written by Finnish and Swedish scientists (Figure 9.2). Instead of focusing on the scientific content of the proposals, this example highlights another section in the proposals, namely, the personnel section, in which the competence of the researchers is emphasized. The first example is a short autobiographical statement written by a Finnish scientist in the third person. Here, the scientist lists his appointments as well as the numbers of theses and dissertations

[Flemish applicant]
Dear Dr. Davis
In reply to your advertisement in wich [sic] you offer a business education Internship at your Indiana University, I would like to apply for the job.
I am doing my second year the Antwerp University of Economics and you will find a full account of my qualifications on the attached personal record sheet.
If you feel that my qualifications meet with your requirements, I shall be pleased to be called for an interview.
Sincerely yours
[U.S. applicant]
Dear Sirs:
Dr. Ken Davis, Professor of English W-331 at Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis, has provided me with your job description for the position of Assistant to the Tourist Information Manager for the City of Antwerp, Belgium. This position greatly interests me because in [sic] encompasses both my work experience and my interest in international culture, as indicated on the attached resume.
I have had over twelve years experience in the public relations/marketing field. During that time, Ihave served as the Marketing Director for a major Indianapolis chiropractic clinic with responsibilities for developing mar¬keting plans and public relatioris venues for four clinics. I also assisted with, produced and directed a local radio talk show for the clinic. My employ¬ment duties have included a variety of coordination duties for clients and dignitaries, including travel and hotel accommodations. As an assistant to the Practice Development Director at a major Indianapolis law firm, my duties included organization of client receptions, travel arrangements for attorneys and clients, and intercommunication with attorneys and clients, some of whom have been in foreign countries.
I have a special personal interest in European culture, based upon my experience as a host parent for Youth for Understanding international youth exchange program. During my involvement with this group, I have hosted children from Denmark, Finland and Germany, as well as Chile and Japan.
I will be available for interviews at any time. I may be reached at my place of business at (317) XXX-XXXX from 8:00 a.m. (USA time) until 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, or at home at (317) XXX-XXXX at any time.
Thank you for your review of this application.
Figure 9.1. Sample letters

222 Vila Connor
1. Prof. N. N. joined the Department of... in 19xx. He has been involved in X in Finland and abroad since 19xx. During 19xx-19xx he acted as the head of... On joining U University, N. N. initiated a research and teaching program focused mainly on the effects of E on the qual¬ity of Y. He has recently been appointed Assisting Co-leader of the UNESCO-sponsored project, which is aimed at... At present two Ph.D. theses and five Mse thesis projects are being carried. A number of ab¬stracts have been published, some of which are mentioned in the list of publications below and the manuscripts of some of these are be¬ing in different stages of preparation for publication in international journals.
2. Professor N. N. has a very distinguished academic record with over 150 publications in scientific journals, books, and conference proceed¬ings since 19xx including 80 publications in the last eight years. He has made over 65 presentations (oral and posters) at international meet¬ings and over 20 at national scientific symposia, conferences and work¬shops, including several invited and plenary lectures since 19xx. He has led over 20 research grants and contracts as principal investiga¬tor and is a member of over 12 boards and scientific and technical committees. He has also undertaken consulting activities in relation to industrial problems of P. His teaching activities include courses in chemistry, processes in P and population control since 19xx. He has supervised 20 graduate students (Phd) since 19xx. The Depart¬ment has excellent facilities for experimental studies of environmen-tal systems, presently focused on... 25 theses have been submitted in the last x years. Additional members of the proposer's team will include Dr. A. A., Professor B. B., Dr. C. C, and Polish and German Contacts.
Figure 9.2. Sample competence claims in European Union grant proposals
supervised and papers published. No evaluation of the candidate's back¬ground and experience relative to the project is apparent.
In contrast, the second illustration in Figure 9.2 is a biography of a Swedish researcher. The statement is not a mere list; instead, two strong positive appraisals are included: "a very distinguished academic record," "the department has excellent facilities."
These examples illustrate differences in the content as well as in the style of writing of these genres in their respective cultures, and numer¬ous other examples have been published to demonstrate differences in writing across cultures (e.g., see Brauer, 2000, among many such pub¬lications). Although its primary goal was not to advance contrastive rhetoric, a recent collection of literacy autobiographies of accomplished EFL writers (Belcher 8c Connor, 2001) provides convincing evidence of

Changing currents in contrastive rhetoric 223
differences in writing norms among cultures. One of the authors, Soter (2001), writes:
Nevertheless, my early encounters with writing American Academic discourse revealed that a natural form of expression that I had taken for granted as acceptable and indeed, had been a vehicle for success in Australian educational contexts, was suddenly a "problem" and that in order to continue to be successful, I would have to "clean up" my discourse, get rid of the embedding, become direct, get to the point, bare my thoughts and assert my views, {p. 69)
The examples in this section have shown differences in English writing by learners from varying cultural and linguistic backgrounds, writing for a number of different purposes.
Contrastive rhetoric in the United States during the past 30 years
As can be seen from the examples discussed in the previous section, con-trastive rhetoric is an area of research in second-language acquisition that identifies problems in composition encountered by second-language writ¬ers, explaining these problems by referring to the rhetorical strategies of the first language (Connor, 1996, p. 5). It's important to distinguish this concern from issues of translation and potential interference at the level of grammar.2 In contrastive rhetoric, the interference manifests itself - as we have seen in the earlier examples - in the choice of rhetorical strate¬gies, including content.
Kaplan's (1966) study was the first serious attempt by a U.S. applied linguist to explain the written styles of ESL students, as opposed to pat¬terns of L2 speech. His pioneering work analyzed the organization of paragraphs in ESL student essays and identified five types of paragraph development, each of which he characterized with a graphic symbol that he himself later referred to as "doodles" (Kaplan, 1987). He claimed that Anglo-European expository essays follow a linear development; Semitic languages use parallel coordinate clauses; Oriental languages prefer an indirect approach and come to the point at the end; in Romance languages and in Russian, essays employ a degree of digressiveness and extraneous material that would seem excessive to a writer of English.
As is well known, Kaplan's contrastive rhetoric has been criticized as being too ethnocentric and as privileging the writing of native English speakers, as well as for dismissing linguistic and cultural differences in writing among different languages, e.g., lumping Chinese, Thai, and Korean speakers in one Oriental group. It has also been criticized for drawing conclusions on the basis of writing samples written by develop¬mental writers (Noor, 2001). Kaplan (1987) modified his earlier position

224 Ulla Connor
himself, moving away from what could be described as a Whorfian in-terpretation, namely, that rhetorical patterns reflect patterns of thinking in LI. Instead, he holds that cross-cultural differences in writing can be explained by different conventions of writing, which are learned, rather than acquired (cf. Krashen, 1982).
At a Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) colloquium in honor of Kaplan's work in 1996, I proposed new dia¬grams to supplement Kaplan's 1966 "doodles." Those playfully drawn "squiggles," here presented in Figure 9.3, show that the writing of na¬tive English speakers, such as article introductions, does not follow a straight line. Letters of job application vary greatly in their linearity among U.S., Belgian, and Asian samples. Finally, the research by Ventola and Mauranen (1991) and Mauranen (1993) has suggested that the writ¬ing of Finns, either in Finnish or English, follows a circular pattern of organization.
These diagrams are meant to show that coherence lies in the eye of the beholder and that one needs to exercise care in attaching identifying labels to others' writing.
In any case, Kaplan's earlier model, being concerned with paragraph organization, was useful in explaining essays written by college students for academic purposes. It also introduced the linguistic world to a real, if basic, insight: writing was culturally influenced in interesting and com¬plex ways. However, the model was not particularly successful in de¬scribing writing for academic and professional purposes. Neither was it successful in describing composing processes across cultures. In fact, the original contrastive rhetoric was never intended to describe L2 writing for purposes other than essay writing.
Significant changes have taken place in contrastive rhetoric in the past 30-odd years. In my 1996 book, I suggested that contrastive rhetoric has taken new directions in the following domains: (1) contrastive text linguistics, (2) the study of writing as a cultural-educational activity, (3) classroom-based studies of writing, and (4) contrastive genre-specific studies, including a variety of genres composed for a variety of purposes such as journal articles, business reports, letters of application, grant proposals, and editorials.
Figure 9.4 summarizes studies in the four domains. A sample study from each of the above listed sub-genres of contrastive rhetoric illustrates the focus of each domain.
1. In text linguistics in the 1980s, perhaps the work with the most im¬pact was by the late John Hinds, who compared patterns of coher¬ence across Japanese texts and texts in English. Hinds found that many newspaper columns in Japan followed the ancient organiza¬tional pattern of ki-shoo-ten-ketsu, a four-step process that roughly

English Article Introductions
(Swales, 1990)
1. Establish territory
2. Summarize previous research
3. Indicate a gap
4. Introduce present research

Finnish Expository Paragraph
(Mauranen, 1993)

"Moves" in Letters of Job Application

Apply for position
Include resume
Apply for position
Include resume
Explain qualifications
Express desire for interview
Explain how to be reached
Express pleasantries ("*"
Figure 9.3. New diagrams

Apply for position Include resume Ask for pity Express apology

226 Vila Connor
1. Contrastive text linguistic studies examine, compare, and contrast how texts are formed and interpreted in different languages and cultures using methods of written discourse analysis. (See Clyne, 1987; Connor & Kaplan, 1987; Eggington, 1987; Hinds, 1983, 1987, 1990.)
2. Studies of writing as cultural and educational activity investigate literacy development on LI language and culture and examine effects on the development of L2 literacy. (See Carson, 1992; Purves, 1988.)
3. Classroom-based contrastive studies examine cross-cultural patterns in process writing, collaborative revisions, and student-teacher confer¬ences. (See Allaei & Connor, 1990; Goldstein & Conrad, 1990; Hull, Rose, Fraser, & Castellano, 1991; Nelson & Murphy, 1992.)
4. Genre-specific investigations are applied to academic and professional writing. (See Bhatia, 1993; Connor, Davis, &DeRycker, 1995; Jenkins & Hinds, 1987; Mauranen, 1993; Swales, 1990; Tirkkonen-Condit, 1996; Ventola & Mauranen, 1991.)
Figure 9.4. Summary of contrastive rhetoric studies in applied linguistics
translates (1) begin your argument, (2) develop it, (3) turn to mate¬rial with a connection but not direct association with the text, and (4) conclude. In reading direct translations of Japanese writing in various genres, native English speakers found the introduction of the "ten" component of the ki-shoo-ten-ketsu pattern incoherent. Based on this research, Hinds (1987) suggested that Japanese writ¬ing is more "reader responsible," meaning that readers need to work harder to get the meaning of a text than in "writer responsible" writ¬ing such as English. In numerous publications, Hinds also argued that native English speakers prefer a deductive type of argument. Al-though English speakers are familiar with induction, they are not used to reading prose organized in ways other than induction and deduction. 2. Among studies investigating the development of academic literacy in LI language and culture, the most comprehensive research was conducted by the late Alan Purves (1988) and others in the Interna¬tional Education Achievement (IEA) research group. Fourteen coun¬tries were included in an ambitious international study of writing achievement. The research yielded significant findings about the writ¬ing patterns of students at three age levels (12,16, and 18) writing for three different purposes: narration, exposition, and argumentation. One major contribution was an increased understanding about the importance of the tertium comparationis, or the common platform of

Changing currents in contrastive rhetoric 227
comparison. One should compare only texts that are comparable by virtue of some shared equivalence. For example, expectations about what an argumentative essay entails vary from culture to culture. Thus, in some cultures, a good argumentative essay is a story. There¬fore, insisting on exactly the same prompts - either in genre expec¬tation (e.g., story vs. essay) or in content - may not be appropriate in cross-cultural research; and texts chosen for contrastive research should share comparable prompts.
3. Classroom studies have been conducted to study patterns of collab¬oration in writing groups in writing classes. The research of Joan Carson and Gayle Nelson at Georgia State University is the most ex¬tensive. Through text analyses and transcripts of collaborative writing sessions, Nelson and Carson (1998) have found, among other things, that Chinese-speaking ESL writers are more concerned about main¬taining harmonious group relations than providing critical input on others' drafts, whereas Spanish-speaking students in the groups in the United States used more or less an opposite approach. (Peer interac¬tion is discussed more fully by Ferris, Chapter 5 this volume.)
4. Genre-specific contrastive studies have extended the framework of contrastive studies. Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit (1996), for example, has contrasted the discourse of newspaper editorials in Finland, England, and the United States and has found, using various textual analyses, that editorials in Finnish newspapers are typically written to build consensus while in the United States they argue for a particular point of view.
What have we learned about writing across cultures in these 30 years of contrastive rhetoric research? We have found that all groups engage in a variety of types of writing, each with its own conventions and tenden¬cies. Also, preferred patterns of writing depend on the genre (see Johns, Chapter 8 this volume, for a fuller discussion of genre conventions). We have also found that what constitutes straightforward writing depends on reader expectation. Thus, Kaplan's diagram of the linear line of ar¬gument preferred by native English speakers may represent what such speakers view as straightforward, but speakers of other languages do not necessarily interpret the features of English argument texts the same way.
Applications of contrastive rhetoric in English as a foreign language (EFL) situations
As the previous sections have shown, contrastive rhetoric has had an im¬pact on the teaching of English as a second language in the United States

228 Ulla Connor

theory of rhetoric

text and discourse contrastive
linguistics ^~~ ► linguistics

studies **~


anthropology & etlinography

teaching of teaching of translation
composition pragmatic skills
in business
Figure 9.5. Applications of contrastive rhetoric in Europe (adapted from Enkvist, 1997). Used with permission from the University of Durban Westviile.
since its beginning 30 years ago. Recently, its influence is being recog¬nized in the teaching of EFL in a number of countries. The Finnish text linguist Nils Erik Enkvist, in his 1997 article "Why We Need Contrastive Rhetoric," suggests that contrastive rhetoric could be pursued with vary¬ing aims and methods within different institutions at universities and outside EFL situations. He shows how contrastive rhetoric is of inter¬est to many programs involved in training in foreign language skills at universities in the small country of Finland. First, Finnish universities, of course, have language departments, which teach language, literature, linguistic and literary theory, and applied linguistics. Second, for the past 25 years, Finland has had language centers at universities that teach languages for specific purposes and provide translation and edit¬ing services. A third type of language teaching establishment in Finland with potential for contrastive rhetoric is the School of International Communication. A fourth type of institution interested in contrastive rhetoric is the School of Economics. Figure 9.5 includes a diagram (adapted from Enkvist) to show the applications of contrastive rhetoric in Europe.
The following examples illustrate the use of the contrastive rhetoric framework in research relevant to academic and professional settings in Europe, including institutions mentioned by Enkvist. Following that is a discussion of the relevance of contrastive rhetoric for teachers of school

Changing currents in contrastive rhetoric 229
and college students in many other EFL settings, in which the teaching of the school essay form is still very important.
Academic and professional writing in EFL
Research conducted in the contrastive framework appears in two aca¬demic genres: research articles and grant proposals. The research on EFL writing in Finland by Ventola and Mauranen (1991) has convincingly shown the value of text analyses in a contrastive framework. Their research relates to cultural differences between Finnish- and English-speaking research writers. Their contrastive text linguistic project inves¬tigated language revision practices by native English speakers in Finnish scientists' articles written in English and also compared those texts to articles by native English-speaking writers. A contrastive systemic lin¬guistic study found that Finnish writers used connectors less frequently and In a less varied fashion than native English-speaking writers. In ref¬erence use, the Finnish writers tended to use the article system inappro¬priately, and there were also differences in thematic progression. Other research by Mauranen (1993) found that in addition, Finnish writers employed less text about text, or "metatext," and also preferred placing the statement of their main point later in the text than do native English speakers.
In a project titled "Milking Brussels,"3 in which analyses were done of research grant proposals written by Finnish scientists for the European Union research funds, the researchers discovered that Finnish writers had these same difficulties when writing grant proposals - such as not stating their theses at the beginning of the writing but preferring to delay the introduction of the purpose (Connor et al., 1995). Other textual differ¬ences in the Finnish writers' proposals included a lack of transitions and other metatext to guide the reader, differences similar to the ones found in Ventola's and Mauranen's research on academic research articles dis¬cussed above.
Differences between American English and Finnish were reinforced while my colleagues and I were producing a Finnish-language guidebook for grant writers (Connor et al., 1995) based on the team's research. Writing the guidebook using a team approach was an illustrative expe¬rience in contrastive rhetoric. In an intense discussion, I made the point that the guidebook describes how English writing differs from Finnish; therefore, it was important to state right at the start what the purpose of the book is and how important it is for Finns to learn to state their main points at the beginning, give examples, and provide transitions throughout the text and then to repeat the main point. The Finnish re¬search assistant in the team wrote the first draft, which I as a Finnish-American found incoherent. I made suggestions in the margins, such as

230 Ulla Connor
"we need to state the main point at the beginning of the paragraph," and "we shouldn't jump around with ideas, and leave the most impor¬tant thing as the very last in the book." My summary comments on the draft to the Finnish research assistant and the team read (translated from Finnish): "Perhaps I'm reading this text as an American. It's all fine text but I find it incoherent in places, hard to follow. I expect the main point at the beginning of the paragraph. I expect a paragraph to contain examples about the main point - no jumping between several points. If others [the other researchers in the project] don't object to the current presentation, I must be completely Americanized."
With the globalization of business and professional communication, writing in such genres as letters, resumes, and job applications for readers with a different language and cultural background from their own is a reality for more and more people. Researchers have found that in these contexts, too, second language writers transfer patterns and styles from the first language to the second (Upton &; Connor, 2001; Ypsilandis, 1994).
Predictably, differing reader expectations cause misunderstandings. For example, requests in letters can be interpreted as being too direct when directness is more valued in the first language than in the second. Resumes also differ in style cross-culturally and even intra-culturally, as in the difference between the functional resume and traditional resume in the United States.
The studies cited earlier, conducted in the contrastive framework in Europe in academic and professional writing, show how the contrastive rhetorical framework, originally developed for U.S. ESL settings, can be helpful in analyzing and teaching EFL writing in academic and profes¬sional contexts as well.
School essay writing in EFL: Examples from Japan and Senegal
Despite the increasing importance of academic and professional writing for increasing numbers of internationals around the world, the most fre¬quently required writing for hundreds of thousands of students in the world is the school essay. The school essay in the mother tongue and in English is the most commonly used assessment instrument to measure writing achievement and performance. It is used in matriculation exam¬inations at the end of high school years, and large-scale tests of English language proficiency, such as the TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language), now include an essay task. Since no universally agreed-on assessments of writing processes exist, assessments focus on written products. The five-paragraph essay, much maligned in U.S. composition circles, is one of the most significant writing tasks that many, especially

Changing currents in contrastive rhetoric 231
beginning-level students, can learn to produce in response to many as-sessment prompts.
Yoshimura (2001), a teacher/researcher in Kyoto, Japan, conducted an experimental study and taught the organizational pattern, coherence structure, and argumentative patterns of an English argumentative es¬say to beginning-intermediate level students in a private college in Japan. The experimental groups (one taught in English, the other taught to write the essay in Japanese first and translate it into English) outperformed the control group on a task of writing a "take a position and support it" argu¬mentative essay. The treatment consisted of teaching paragraph and essay organization for a short period of each class during one semester; in many respects the study replicated the published work of Oi and Kamimura (1997) on the importance of explicit teaching of Western argumentative essay patterns to Japanese students.
Yoshimura reports that she is well aware of the criticisms raised against teaching the form of an essay instead of focusing on the process and content. However, the results confirm her belief after years of teaching English to Japanese students that these students benefit from being com¬fortable with a form of writing. She believes that the success students gain in the beginning stages of their writing can be transferred to future writing situations, such as writing a business letter or a company report.
In another dissertation, Mbaye (2001) examined the English essay writing styles of 22 international students from Senegal in ESL classes at a U.S. university through interviews and text analyses. He provides a fascinating discussion about the transport of the essay genre, originated by the writer Montaigne, 1533-1592, to England, to America, and to the current traditional rhetoric method of teaching writing in the United States in the last decades. He also describes the context of French LI writ¬ing instruction in Senegal, which is characterized by the predominance of the "dissertation" (French equivalent of the essay) in pre-university schooling. The structure of the "dissertation" is totally different from the five-paragraph essay. First, the "dissertation" typically consists of four parts: introduction, "thesis," "antithesis" and "synthesis" (i.e., conclu¬sion). Second, the introduction of the "dissertation" restates the essay topic in the form of a question rather than including a thesis statement and a controlling idea, as called for in the five-paragraph essay. Third, the writer may not take a position even though the prompt might require it. Finally, because "dissertations" are considered exercises in reasoned thinking, they tend to be longer than school essays written in English. A translation from French of a typical "dissertation" was shown by Mbaye and appears here in Appendix A.
The method of teaching essay writing in English emphasizes form, lin-earity, and final textual product. Mbaye argues for the importance of es¬say writing in English for Senegalese students and, based on a contrastive

232 Vila Connor
study, shows difficulties Senegalese students encounter when faced with the task. Learners of English in Senegal come to the writing task with two major obstacles: (1) many students' first languages are oral whereas English essay writing requires an Aristotelian, Western mode of thinking with a focus on style and organization; this includes a need for adequate supporting evidence and distinct beginning, middle, and end pieces of discourse with few digressions; and (2) students' first school language is French, through which they learn to write "dissertations." After learn¬ing the form of the "dissertation," students may transfer this structure to the writing of the English essay, which results in an unsatisfactory performance.
The results of Mbaye's study showed students had problems in relation to the basic paragraph and the structure of the concluding paragraph along with the absence of a thesis; these had been contributing reasons for the students in the study not to be tested out of ESL classes at the U.S. university they attended. Mbaye is cognizant of criticisms directed at teaching the essay form - for example, it discourages concern with process and content - but based on the results of the study, he strongly advocates using the essay as a practical instructional tool as it is "more adequate than anything the school may have for testing validly non-discrete items of knowledge" (p. 41). He also views the school essay as "a vehicle for an important function of language and literacy, i.e. the transaction of information" (p. 41). Finally, Mbaye makes a strong case for the essay as helping students from oral cultures in his country to develop some of the necessary skills for acquiring literacy. He writes: "By mandating a standard rhetorical structure, emphasizing linear logic, and the objectifying of language and thought, schooling and essay are laying the foundations for higher order cognitive skills" (p. 42).
In the past, I have stressed the importance of having bilingual re¬searchers conduct contrastive rhetorical studies. Yoshimura and Mbaye are good examples of devoted, experienced EFL teachers and competent L2 writing researchers. Their viewpoints are valuable. In our Western, postmodern ideologies, we should not devalue the insights about essay problems that these teacher-researchers report on firsthand; nor should we insist on banishing the teaching of patterns and the essay form as form. Let us keep such issues in mind when we read the following section.
Criticisms and advances in contrastive rhetoric concerning culture, literacy, and critical pedagogy
Despite new developments in contrastive rhetoric and its contributions to teaching in ESL and EFL settings, both in instruction at the beginning and in the specialized writing instruction in the examples from Europe,

Changing currents in contrastive rhetoric 233
the discipline has become the target of criticisms by researchers with varied disciplinary affiliations.
It is important for future teachers to find ways to tap into the real potential for classroom use suggested in previous sections. Future teach¬ers should not be discouraged by recent criticisms of contrastive rhetoric but should treat them with a balanced perspective, as I attempt to show below.
In 1997, three published works in the TESOL Quarterly focused on the criticism of contrastive rhetoric. Two U.S.-born specialists, Ruth Spack and Vivian Zamel, who work with ESL students in the United States, were concerned about the labeling of students by their LI back¬grounds and the tendency of contrastive rhetoric to view cultures as "discrete, discontinuous, and predictable" (Zamel, 1997). Ron Scollon, in the same issue of the journal, criticized contrastive rhetoric research for being too concerned about texts and too neglectful of oral influ¬ences on literacy to consider EFL situations like the one in Hong Kong (Scollon, 1997). In an issue of the TESOL Quarterly in 1999, Ryuko Kubota is critical of the perception of a cultural dichotomy between the East and West (Kubota, 1999). According to her, researchers tend to cre¬ate cultural differences that promote the superiority of Western writing -its supposed linearity, clarity, and coherence - and ignore the dynamic, more fluid nature of Japanese writing.
One could view all of these criticisms as stemming from different dis-ciplinary backgrounds of the writers, somewhat apart from the main¬stream of second language writing as a field. Zamel and Spack could be described as being closely aligned to LI writing traditions with emphasis on process writing and individual expression (Ramanathan $C Atkinson, 1999). Scollon comes from anthropology, a discipline whose major fo¬cus is not pedagogical applications, unlike contrastive rhetoric, which does address pedagogical concerns. Kubota, a Japanese native applied linguist, takes a position stemming from critical pedagogy and questions the teaching of Western norms of academic writing.
Instead of viewing their work primarily from an adversarial perspec¬tive (Belcher, 1997), I would like to use it to develop a more generous conception of the contrastive rhetoric framework, especially regarding changing definitions of culture. Both Spack and Zamel bring up the changing definitions of culture, in which forces of heterogeneity and homogeneity are juxtaposed, and the latter seriously questioned. In the last couple of years, the concept of culture has been discussed widely in applied linguistics with relevance to contrastive rhetoric. Atkinson (1999) provides a comprehensive review of competing definitions of cul¬ture as they relate to TESOL. According to Atkinson, two competitive views of culture in TESOL are (1) the "received view" and (2) alternative, nonstandard views. The received view refers to a notion of culture based

234 Vila Connor
largely on geographically and often nationally distinct entities that are relatively unchanging and homogeneous (e.g., Japan, Japanese). The al¬ternative, nonstandard views stem from postmodernist-influenced con¬cepts and have evolved from critiques of the traditional, received view of culture. In the latter camp, Atkinson discusses concepts such as those of "identity," "hybridity," "essentialism," and "power," all of which have been used to criticize traditional views of culture:
These terms indicate the shared perspective that cultures are anything but homogeneous, all-encompassing entities, and represent important concepts in the larger project: the unveiling of the fissures, discontinuities, disagreements, and cross-cutting influences that exist in and around all cultural scenes, in order to banish once and for all the idea that cultures are monolithic entities, or in some cases anything substantial at all. (p. 627)
Following Atkinson (1999), it can be argued that contrastive rhetoric largely adopted the notion of "received culture." For example, I defined culture as "a set of patterns and rules shared by a particular commu¬nity" (Connor, 1996, p. 101). A great deal of traditional contrastive rhetoric has similarly viewed ESL students as members of separate, iden¬tifiable cultural groups and, as discussed by Deborah Tannen (1985), can come under the current criticisms directed at any research on cross-cultural communication. Tannen thus notes that "some people object to any research documenting cross-cultural differences, which they see as buttressing stereotypes and hence exacerbating discrimination" (p. 212). She argues, however, that ignoring cultural differences leads to misinter¬pretation and "hence discrimination of another sort" (p. 212).
Although contrastive rhetoric has often defined national cultures in the "received" mode, researchers in contrastive rhetoric have not inter¬preted all differences in writing as stemming from the first language or the national culture. Instead, they have tried to explain such differences in written communication as often arising from multiple sources includ¬ing LI national culture, LI educational background, disciplinary culture, genre characteristics, and mismatched expectations between readers and writers. In this respect, contrastive rhetoric is similar to spoken inter-cultural research or intercultural pragmatics analysis, as described by the spoken discourse analyst Srikant Sarangi (1994). Sarangi suggests the term "intercultural" to refer to migrants' fluid identities and recom¬mends that we consider reasons of language proficiency, native culture, and interlocutors' accommodation in explaining miscommunication be¬tween native and non-native speakers in immigrant language situations.4
Nevertheless, future contrastive rhetoric research needs to develop greater sensitivity to the view that sees writers not as parts of separate, identifiable cultural groups but as individuals in social groups that are undergoing continuous change.

Changing currents in contrastive rhetoric 235
Related to the discussion about culture is the issue of standards and norms. A major question in contrastive rhetoric deals with an ideological problem about whose norms and standards to teach and the danger of perpetuating established power roles. This has been raised as an issue in postmodern discussion about discourse and the teaching of writing (Kubota, 1999; Ramanathan & Atkinson, 1999). The discussion has, of course, been in the forefront in contrastive rhetoric; recent critics of contrastive rhetoric have blamed contrastive rhetoricians for teaching students to write for native speaker expectations instead of expressing their own native lingual and cultural identities.
Researchers working in the current contrastive rhetoric paradigm have maintained that cultural differences need to be explicitly taught in order to acculturate EFL writers to the target discourse community. Hence, they maintain that teachers of English and others, such as consultants in grant proposal writing, need to educate students or clients about the expectations of their readers. Thus, at workshops for Finnish scientists about how to write proposals in English, I taught a Western, generic style of grant proposal writing using a set of rhetorical moves (a la Swales, 1990) we had developed (Connor et al., 1995). I instructed the Finnish scientists that if they wished to get European Union (EU) research grants, they needed to follow EU norms and expectations, which, at least in the late 1990s, were based on an Anglo-American scientific and promo¬tional discourse. When, on the other hand, Finnish scientists write grant applications in Finnish, I suggested that they would do well to follow the expectations of the Finnish agencies. Although the decision about language choice seems straightforward in the case of grant proposals in the project described above, it may be more complex with student writers in undergraduate colleges in the United States. Encouraging the preservation of the first language and style may be perfectly acceptable in an effort to preserve the national identity of immigrant students, for example.
In the EU project we became aware of another issue facing contrastive rhetoric - namely, that there may not be an English-language norm for the writing of EU grant proposals. It seems clear that there may be changes in the norms and standards of English in grant proposals because the raters of grant proposals for the EU in Brussels are not solely native speakers of English but are scientists from all EU countries with many different first languages and many different rhetorical orientations. In fact, something like a "Eurorhetoric" has probably emerged. This blur¬ring of standards and norms in written language in this case is consistent with recent developments in spoken language. David Crystal (1997), for example, suggests that a new kind of English, World Standard Spoken English (WSSE), may be arising for use when the need is to communicate in English with people from other countries for purposes of business,

236 Ulla Connor
industry, and diplomacy. Little, however, has yet been conjectured about the nature of this world English, and no theoretical model, as is the case with "Eurorhetoric," has been established.
Major changes are taking place in contrastive rhetoric. The influence of contrastive rhetorical theories has expanded beyond the teaching of ESL and EFL writing, as the Finnish, Japanese, and Senegalese examples show. Contrastive rhetoric is affecting teaching not only of business and tech¬nical writing in L2 situations overseas but also of "mainstream writing" in the United States. Woolever (2001), for example, recommends using contrastive rhetorical theory in teaching business and technical writing in non-ESL U.S. classrooms.
In addition to the expansion of contrastive rhetoric to classrooms outside traditional ESL and EFL classes, contrastive rhetoric itself is em¬bracing new influences and thus revising its goals and methods. No doubt it will need to become even more responsive to new currents in critical approaches to culture, writing, and the internationalization of English. Consistent with postmodern indications, contrastive rhetoric needs to promote further research-situated reflexivity, to be more sensitive to lo¬cal characteristics and particularity of writing activity, and to become more conscious, of the influences of power and ideology in any setting.
Contrastive rhetoric also needs to become sensitive to feminist and minority concerns. Too often, contrastive rhetoric proceeds as if differ¬ences in gender did not make any difference in text, as was true even in the monumental and valuable IEA project. Various chapters in the previously mentioned collection by Panetta (2001a) present reflections about the usefulness of contrastive rhetorical theories for the research and teaching of writing to other "marginalized groups," such as African American and women writers. (See also Fox, 1994.)
In conclusion, contrastive rhetoric research continues to provide em-pirically testable models of cross-cultural texts and writing behaviors. Barton (2000) has noted that in the case of first language writing empiri¬cal discourse analysis is needed along with the current popular emphasis on theorizing about culture and cultural diversity. It is especially im¬portant for contrastive purposes. I would add that there is a continuing need, which I have stressed elsewhere (Connor, 1996, p. 163), to de¬velop models for empirical comparisons and contrasts that would ensure impartiality. The goal would be a tertium comparationis, an inclusive frame of genre significant features drawn from the compared texts, from whose unbiased perspective local differences in individual texts could be measured.5

Changing currents in contrastive rhetoric 237
1. A third such conference is scheduled in 2003, and the organizers again expect to attract an international set of presenters and participants.
2. In an article arguing for the importance of including training in contrastive rhetoric for teachers in TESL programs, for example, Johnson and Duver (1996) illustrate the ways that cultural differences sometimes account for grammatical choices that create writing problems for learners. They note "people's cognitive interpretation of the external world differs and ... these cultural thought patterns affect [second language learners'] production and understanding of.. .writing a second language" (Johnson & Duver, 1996, p. 117), but their examples all derive from a linguistic rather than a rhetorical perspective.
3. The European Union is based in Brussels.
4. The notion of "interculture" is suggested by Sarangi to describe the migrants' fluid identities of native and target cultures in immigrant situations, remi¬niscent of Selinker's (1972) concept of interlanguage, which refers to shared features of a speaker's native and target languages.
5. There is a directly analogous procedure in computer science (Langley et al., 1987), which employs the interpolation of inclusive frames of significant fea¬tures in which the same comparable data sets can be mapped approximately well and from whose necessarily neutral perspective the distinctive features of such sets can be distinguished and thus contrasted (p. 53). This mathematical procedure might be developed into a model for some comparisons/contrasts in empirical contrastive rhetoric research such as the national or cultural dif¬ferences in grant proposals noted above.
Allaei, S. K., & Connor, U. M. (1990). Exploring the dynamics of cross-cultural collaborations in writing classrooms. The Writing Instructor, 10{1), 19-28.
Atkinson, D. (1999). Culture in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 625-654.
Barton, E. (2000). More methodological matters: Against negative argumenta¬tion. College Composition and Communication, 51, 399—416.
Belcher, D. D. (1997). An argument for nonadversial argumentation: On the rele-vance of the feminist critique of academic discourse to L2 writing pedagogy. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, 1-21.
Belcher, D., &c Connor, U. (Eds.). (2001). Reflections on multiliterate lives, Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analyzing genre: Language use in professional settings. New York: Longman.
Brauer, G. (Ed.). (2000). Writing across languages. Stamford, CT: Ablex.
Carson, J. G. (1992). Becoming biliterate: First language influences. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 37-60.
Clyne, M. G. (1987). Cultural differences in the organization of academic texts: English and German. Journal of Pragmatics, 11,211-247.
Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second lan¬guage writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.

238 Ulla Connor
Connor, U., Davis, K., Sc DeRycker, T. (1995). Correctness and clarity in applying
for overseas jobs: A cross-cultural analysis of U.S. and Flemish applications
Text, 15,457-475. Connor, U., Helle, T., Mauranen, A., Ringbom, H., Tirkkonen-Condit, S.,
& Yli-Antola, M. (1995). Tekokkaita EU-projektiehdotuksia [Successful
grant proposals for European Union research funds]. Helsinki, Finland:
TEKES. Connor, U., & Kaplan, R. B. (Eds.). (1987). Writing across languages: Analysis
of L2 text. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. Eggington, W. G. (1987). Written academic discourse in Korean: Implication for
effective communication. In U. Connor &C R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing
across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 153-168). Reading, MA:
Addis on-Wesley. Enkvist, N. E. (1997). Why we need contrastive rhetoric. Alternation, 4, 188-
206. Fox, H. (1994). Listening to the world: Cultural issues in academic writing.
Urbana, IL: NCTE. Goldstein, L. M., & Conrad, S. M. (1990). Student input and negotiation
of meaning in ESL writing conferences. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 443-
460. Hinds, J. (1983). Contrastive rhetoric: Japanese and English. Text, 3, 183-195. Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In
U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of
L2 text (pp. 141-152). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Hinds,.J. (1990). Inductive, deductive, quasi-inductive: Expository writing in
Japanese, Korean, Chinese,'and Thai. In U. Connor 6c A. M. Johns (Eds.),
Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 87-110).
Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Hull, G., Rose, M., Fraser, K. L., & Castellano, M. (1991). Remediation as
a social construct: Perspectives from an analysis of classroom discourse.
College Composition and Communication, 42, 299-329. Ibrahim, Z., Kassabgy, N., & Aydelott, S. (Eds.). (2000). Diversity in language:
Contrastive studies in Arabic and English theoretical and applied linguistics.
Cairo, Egypt: American University of Cairo Press. Jenkins, S., &C Hinds, J. (1987). Business letter writing: English, French and
Japanese. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 327-354. Johnson, R., & Duver, M. (1996). The usefulness of contrastive rhetoric theory
in training TESOL teachers and English-as-a-second-Ianguage students. The
Teacher Educator, 32, 107-121. Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education.
Language Learning, 16(1), 1-20. Kaplan, R. B. (1987). Cultural thought patterns revisited. In U. Connor &
R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 9-
21). Reading, MA: Addis on-Wesley. Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition.
Oxford: Pergamon. Kubota, R. (1999). Japanese culture constructed by discourses: Implications for
applied linguistics research and ELT. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 9-64.

Changing currents in contrastive rhetoric 239
Langley, P., Simon, H. A., Bradshaw, G. L., 8c Zytow, J. M. (1987). Sci¬entific discovery: Computational explorations of the creative processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mauranen, A. (1993). Cultural differences in academic rhetoric. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Mbaye, A. (2001). A contrastive study ofEEL-ESL writing problems: Case stud¬ies of five Senegalese students in U.S. colleges. Unpublished doctoral disser¬tation, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma.
Nelson, G. L., & Carson, J. G. (1998). ESL students'perceptions of effectiveness in peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 113-132.
Nelson, G. L., 8c Murphy, J. M. (1992). An ESL writing group: Task and social dimensions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2, 171-194.
Noor, R. (2001). Contrastive rhetoric in expository prose: Approaches and achievements. Journal of Pragmatics, 33> 255-269.
Oi, K., &c Kamimura, T. (1997). A pedagogical application of research in con¬trastive rhetoric. JACELBulletin, 28> 65-82.
Panetta, C. G. (Ed.). (2001a). Contrastive rhetoric theory revisited and redefined. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Panetta, C. G. (2001b). Understanding cultural differences in the rhetoric and composition classroom: Contrastive rhetoric as answer to ESL dilemmas. In C. G. Panetta (Ed.), Contrastive rhetoric theory revisited and redefined (pp. 3-13). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Purves, A. C. (Ed.). (1988). Writing across languages and cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ramanathan, V., 8c Atkinson, D. (1999). Individualism, academic writing, and ESL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 45-75.
Sarangi, S. (1994). Intercultural or not? Beyond celebration of cultural differ¬ences in miscommunication Analysis. Pragmatics, 4, 409^127.
Scoggins, D. (2001). Contrastive rhetoric theory in an electronic medium: Teach¬ing ESL writers to become bricoleurs in a computer-assisted classroom. In C. G. Panetta (Ed.), Contrastive rhetoric theory revisited and redefined (pp. 65-74). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Scollon, R. (1997). Contrastive rhetoric, contrastive poetics, or perhaps some¬thing else? TESOL Quarterly, 31, 352-363.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics (1RAL), 20,209-231.
Soter, A. (2001). Straddling three worlds. In D. Belcher 8c U. Connor (Eds.), Reflections on multiliterate lives (pp. 74-78). Clevedon, England: Multi¬lingual Matters.
Spack, R. (1997). The rhetorical construction of multilingual students. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 765-774.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tannen, D. (1985). Cross-cultural communication. In T. A. Van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 203-216). New York: Academic Press.
Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (1996). Explicitness vs. implicitness of argumentation: An intercultural comparison. Multilingua, IS, 274-275.
Upton, T, 8c Connor, U. (2001). Using computerized corpus analysis to in¬vestigate the textlinguistic discourse moves of a genre. English for Specific Purposes, 20,313-329.

240 Vila Connor
Ventola, E., &C Mauranen, A. (1991). Non-native writing and native revisiting of scientific articles. In E. Ventola (Ed.), Functional and systematic linguistics (pp. 457-492). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Woolever, K. R. (2001). Doing global business in the information age: Rhetorical contrasts in the business and technical professions. In C. G. Panetta (Ed.), Contrastive rhetoric theory revisited and redefined (pp. 47-64). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Yoshimura,T. (2001). Formal instruction of rhetorical patterns and the effective¬ness of using LI in argumentative writing in an EFL setting. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Japan.
Ypsilandis, G. S. (1994). Logomachia: Pragmatic failure in letters of application. In E. Douka-Kasitoglu (Ed.), Logomachia: Forms of opposition in English language/literature (pp. 331-346). Thessaloniki, Greece: Hellenic Associa¬tion for the Study of English.
Zamel, V. (1997). Toward a model of transculturation. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 341-352.
Appendix A: Translation of a French-language "dissertation," as it appeared in Mbaye (2001)
Topic: Should one agree to baptism of offspring when personal convic¬tions are against this tradition?
Convenience baptism
In every society, clashes of values are usual, since these values are of¬ten not shared by all the members of the society. The case in point is representative of this situation while highlighting another problem. The question at hand is tantamount to deciding whether it is preferable to act according to one's own principles, or whether, under given circum¬stances, it is better to repress one's standards, and sacrifice to a certain social conformism. This question is very important, because in this case, the potential victims of ostracism are innocent third parties, and our children, in this adult debate! This problem is an ethical one, for the freedom of worship is guaranteed by the law. Yet one cannot force oth¬ers to be open minded toward our choices, and our children may well suffer from the exercise of our agnostic beliefs, by becoming laughing stocks at school and in the neighborhood, for that matter. Shouldn't we in this case compromise our convictions as the saying goes, in order to preserve appearances?
David Hume's moral philosophy may offer guidelines in this situation. For him, reason alone cannot guide our moral decisions, for even if it can be of help in making reasoned decisions, it does not establish our goals, which are essentially dependent on feelings. The only standard in terms of

Changing currents in contrastive rhetoric 241
morals is the approval or disapproval of those around us. Consequently, any moral sense does not make sense unless it refers to a culture. This is why moral judgment can differ considerably from epoch to epoch or culture to culture. However, there are common points: the love for our children is an example. It is clear that in such a case, the love for one's children and the wish for them not to be ostracized should inspire a prudent conformism in us. For Hume, belonging to a community is an important value, and if one has to camouflage one's religious convictions to live up to the community, it is not a problem, for nothing in our deepest convictions can be affected by this attitude. We may, by the way, suspect that many in the community are already acting in this way.
Nonetheless, such a solution contains some part of hypocrisy. Being truthful to oneself and living one's own convictions are principles dear to us. Hasn't Nietzsche shown that conformism is the cause of the stifling moral of the herd? Is it good to transmit to one's children values of duplic¬ity and of submission to the moral order of the majority? By acting in this way, are we condemning them to mediocrity, fear, and self-repression? Individualism is at the origin of all great inventions. It reinforces charac¬ter and allows each to express their intrinsic will of power. Individualism substitutes hypocrisy for frankness and full self-affirmation. It develops autonomy, although this latter involves suffering. Under these particu¬lar circumstances, such a choice implies imposing something to one's children, but after all, isn't this what all parents do?
Put in such a situation, we realize that morals are social in character. To get one's children baptized is required from a good Catholic. Catholics will tend to believe that those who don't baptize children are ignorant or mean: only malevolent people may deprive their children of salvation. This is at least how the logic of the believer goes. But, as Nietzsche pointed out, it is fortunate that believers are not as strict as religion would demand, and cheat occasionally. In this way religious dissidence will be accepted by some of them.
It seems then that the best choice, the most honest, and also the most affirmative consists in defying public opinion and affirming one's differ¬ence. One however needs to be aware that such a choice implies courage and constant vigilance, so as to face up to the frustrations that may affect the family, and particularly the children. One also will have to depend on the more tolerant people in the hope that mentalities will change gradually.


Reading and writing relations: Second language perspectives on research and practice
William Grabe

In the past two decades, the role of reading-writing relationships has been a topic of increasing interest to both reading and writing special¬ists. Researchers from a variety of fields (e.g., education, composition, reading, learning psychology, and applied linguistics) have become inter¬ested in the ways that reading and writing might reinforce or accelerate the learning of content, the development of literacy skills, and the acqui¬sition of language abilities. Interaction between reading and writing is thus a topic of concern in the academy as it relates to students studying in their first language (LI) as well as students studying in their second language (L2). Writing teachers in particular need to understand what has been learned through a variety of research studies on a range of topics related to the multiple ways in which reading and writing interconnect so that these teachers can develop a broad-based view to help them guide student learning.
In LI contexts, a number of seminal studies on reading-writing relations appeared in the 1980s. In these studies, researchers examined correlations between learners' reading and writing abilities, the roles of author and audience in reading and writing contexts, and the ways in which students improve their learning by reading and writing together. By 1990, there was a solid body of research on these topics in LI contexts that allowed researchers to ask more probing questions and extend the earlier work, and this range of research has continued into this century. Cumulative insights from this body of research have contributed to helping teachers find a variety of ways to exploit reading and writing connections in the composition classroom.
In L2 contexts, the study of reading-writing relationships has evolved more slowly. Through much of the 1980s, L2 researchers assumed that most LI findings would apply to L2 learning contexts, with suit¬able modifications. At the same time, however, L2 researchers pointed out that cultural and language differences among L2 students create com¬plexities that are not be accounted for by LI research, including at least the following:
1. Differing senses of audience and author 242

Reading and writing relations 243
2. Differing preferences for organizing texts
3. Differing ways to use texts as learning resources
4. Differing cultural socializations and belief systems
5. Differing functional uses for writing (Leki, 1991; Silva, Leki, Sc Carson, 1997)
In addition, L2 learning itself, involving knowledge resources from two languages, creates both problems and strengths for L2 learners en¬gaged in writing from texts. These issues have led to a growing body of work on L2 learners, particularly since the 1990s. Two important re¬views of reading-writing relations by Carson (1990, 1993) summarize much of the relevant research for L2 contexts up until the early 1990s. A recent collection of papers (Belcher & Hirvela, 2001) provides numerous individual perspectives on the topic.
This chapter provides an orientation to the earlier research as well as an outline of further developments from the 1990s onward, focusing on the type of information most critical for teachers to know. It also explores implications of this research for instructional practices and concludes by suggesting future directions for both research and instruction. For the most part, this chapter addresses post-secondary contexts because teachers in elementary and secondary settings often have considerable control over real academic tasks and reading-writing demands. However, much of what is reported on and interpreted in this chapter is applicable to many contexts other than university settings.
Before examining reading-writing relations in greater detail, however, I should comment on the relative roles of reading and writing as seen separately in research on reading-writing relations. Reading-writing re-lationships is an area that has more typically focused on the writing side of the relationship, both historically and currently. That is, this relation¬ship is most commonly discussed in terms of the impact of reading on writing, the uses of readings to help students carry out writing tasks, and the ways in which student learning from texts is reflected in writing tasks. It is less common to assume that students, and most other people, write in order to read, though this is possible and occurs from time to time (cf. Zamel, 1992). Reading researchers also generally assume that students learn information from texts and, aside from summary writ¬ing, do not generally require extended writing from students in order for them to demonstrate this learning. The reverse position - that students learn content information from writing without involving the reading of text materials - is less easily accepted. Certainly, one of the most com¬mon tasks in school and academic settings is to read texts and then use that information for writing purposes. These trends highlight the real interest among writing researchers in issues of reading-writing relations; writing researchers who consider academic writing have to address these

244 William Grabe
relations more directly in both theory and practice than do most reading researchers. In line with these trends, the present chapter places greater emphasis on writing issues associated with reading-writing relations.
Theories of reading, writing, and reading-writing relations
The study of reading-writing relations must be grounded in theories of reading and writing that can stand independently. Reading-writing rela¬tions should then build on these theories and offer a framework that ex¬plains the ways in which reading and writing together enhance language, literacy, and content learning. Such a framework can offer teachers a richer understanding of how to assemble a course designed to promote literacy and language skills.
The ability to read is typically assumed in many discussions of reading-writing relations. However, even in LI settings, limited reading abilities sometimes make it difficult for students to carry out tasks that combine reading and writing. It is not possible to outline here a theory of reading that would provide all the background assumptions relevant to students' learning how to read and write in combination. However, some com¬ments on L2 reading should be highlighted to point out the distinct L2 contexts in which L2 students engage in reading and writing together. In particular, L2 readers may have difficulties writing from textual sources simply because of weaker language skills and reading comprehension abilities, and these possible limitations need to be taken into account when students are asked to use text resources for writing tasks. Thus, it is not enough to apply LI research about reading (and writing) to L2 con¬texts (Grabe, 2000; Grabe & Stoller, 2002; Silva et al., 1997; Urquhart & Weir, 1998).
A theory of L2 writing, in addition, must account for students' abili¬ties across a range of tasks and writing contexts. Consideration needs to be given to the roles of language knowledge and background knowledge, cognitive processing, motivation, social context factors, and learning op¬portunities (Grabe, 2001; Grabe & Kaplan, 1997). The processing and problem-solving components of writing development can make intense demands on students, particularly when students are reading difficult L2 texts in order to collect or glean new information for their writing. In many reading-writing tasks, students are forced to make a number of complex decisions. Students need to decide the following:
1. How much information should be taken from the text; which information should be taken
2. How the information taken will fit with task and writer goals

Reading and writing relations 245
3. How accurately the information should be represented when going from text source to student writing
4. What formal mechanisms should be used for transforming or using the textual information
All of these choices call for both writing skills and reading skills. As a final complexity, writing from multiple texts requires even more demanding planning, processing, and revising. The interpretation of task demands and the integration of textual information force critical decision making that requires much practice and consistent efforts to "traverse the topical landscape" from multiple directions (McGinley & Tierney, 1989). Simply put, students need a lot of practice with these types of tasks.
Reading and writing together: LI research
Reading-writing relations have been a topic of LI research for the past two decades (Tierney 8c Shanahan, 1991), and some familiarity with LI findings can help L2 teachers develop greater awareness of the challenges that all learners face in accomplishing their reading and writing goals. Early work in the 1980s pointed out the importance of learning from reading and from writing, though demonstrating learning from writing has been somewhat harder to verify. This early research base has also argued that reading and writing together can lead to effective learning, though again the research studies are relatively few (cf. Perfetti, Britt, 8c Georgi, 1995; Tierney et al., 1989).
A set of articles by Shanahan and Tierney (1990; Shanahan, 1990; Tierney & Shanahan, 1991) summarize the 1980s decade of work and highlights three fundamental directions in LI research on reading-writing relations: (1) shared processing and knowledge resources in reading and writing, (2) reading and writing as interaction, and (3) reading and writ¬ing to learn content. First, the goal of "shared processing" examines the overlap of processing skills. Students are tested in various reading abilities and writing abilities, and then they are compared on these abil¬ities. Study results have generally shown that reading and writing abil¬ities correlate between .50 and .70 (25% to 50% overlap). This line of research has demonstrated a moderate overlap in abilities; at the same time, it reveals considerable room for differences between read¬ing and writing. Second, "reading and writing as interaction" high¬lights the notion of dialogue at a distance through the medium of the written text. Research studies have shown that envisioning an audi¬ence can improve writing, and to a lesser extent, considering the author assists critical reading (Tierney & Shanahan, 1991). Third, "learning content from reading and writing together" has been less thoroughly

246 William Grabe
demonstrated, though early work by Langer and Applebee (1987) made persuasive arguments about such a connection (see also Tierney et al., 1989).
The LI work on reading-writing relationships has continued under two major organizing issues: (1) reading to write, and (2) writing to learn from multiple texts. This organizing frame is intended to serve as a guideline only, since there is much overlap across these categories. In the area of reading to write, three issues play major roles: (1) the continuing observation that better readers tend to be better writers across a range of writing tasks; (2) the argument that recognizing and using the organization framework of the text leads to better writing; and (3) the argument that extensive exposure to print can lead to better writing over time. On the first topic, McGinley (1992) has demonstrated that better readers are, in general, better able to collect, organize, and connect information in their writing. On the second topic, studies have shown that the use of relevant models of task assignments leads to better writing (Charney & Carlson, 1995; Smagorinsky, 1992; Stoiarek, 1994). On the third topic, there is now a range of evidence that extensive reading (over a long period of time) leads indirectly to better writing (Elley, 1991; Wagner & Stanovich, 1996).
Work on writing from multiple texts also suggests two interesting lines of research: (1) the cognitive processing required for such tasks (and the resultant learning), and (2) the interaction of reading and writing as tasks are carried out. Recent research on reading-writing interactions has demonstrated that students use the first reading to form a framework for summarizing when working with multiple texts, and they add relatively few main ideas after the second text (Gradwohl-Nash, Schumacher, 6c Carlson, 1993; Perfetti, Britt, St Georgi, 1995). Rouet et al. (1997) have demonstrated that expert readers in a discipline integrate and use multiple texts in very different ways from more novice students when composing an argument. A number of studies have reported that work with multiple texts forces students to become more flexible in their interpretation of information presented (McCarthy-Young 6c Leinhardt, 1998; Stahl et al., 1996).
Reading and writing together: L2 research
Second language research on reading-writing relations can be traced back to the 1980s, though this research tends to be tied to very specific is¬sues, as is noted below. These issues remain important concerns for un¬derstanding reading-writing relations today, though more-recent studies have expanded that range considerably. Two early topics of research involved the Interdependence Hypothesis (or the Common Underlying

Reading and writing relations 247
Proficiency Hypothesis), a theory proposing literacy transfer from the LI to the L2, and the Language Threshold Hypothesis, a theory ar¬guing against supportive transfer until a certain (variable) level of L2 proficiency is attained. Two further topics have also been sources of con¬tinued discussions. One is the argument that extensive reading directly improves writing abilities (Krashen, 1984, 1993). The second involves the role of directionality between reading and writing. (Is it better to go from reading to writing or from writing to reading for the most effective instruction?) Together, these four issues have dominated discussions of L2 reading-writing relations in the 1980s and 1990s, and they are ex¬plored in a number of sources (Campbell, 1990; Carson, 1990, 1993; Ferris & Hedgcock, 1998).
The Interdependence Hypothesis
The Interdependence Hypothesis, the notion that there is an underlying common proficiency across languages, was first proposed by Cummins (1979,1981) and has been influential for more than two decades. The no¬tion is actually quite complex since Cummins also suggested that students need a reasonable L2 proficiency to allow transfer of common literacy abilities. Moreover, while it is typically assumed that this hypothesis sup¬ports LI literacy development that then transfers, there is also evidence that L2 literacy abilities can transfer back to a later developing LI literacy (Wagner, 1998). Overall, there appears to be considerable evidence that certain types of literacy skills transfer to support L2 literacy development. For the most part, these abilities relate more to reading than to writing (see, e.g., Durgunoglu & Verhoeven, 1998), though contrastive rhetoric research is built on the assumption of LI transfer in writing (e.g., Connor, 1996), and some of the L2 writers reporting on their case histories in the chapter by Silva et al. (Chapter 4 this volume) discuss this phenomenon. Research on writing that would support the Interdependence Hypothesis typically involves similarities in writing processes and strategies based on small groups of students engaged in think-aloud tasks, and a number of studies support this view (see Grabe 8c Kaplan, 1996).
At the same time, for both L2 reading and L2 writing, there are conflicting research results that limit the claims of the Interdependence Hypothesis. Carson et ah (1990), for example, found conflicting patterns of LI influences on L2 performance. In addition, both Silva (1993) and Raimes (1987) have argued that certain aspects of L2 writing should not be directly attributable to LI writing abilities. A reasonable position to adopt is that transfer is an important aspect of L2 literacy development, but it is not always clear which aspects of literacy abilities transfer read¬ily, nor do we know which abilities do not transfer readily. This area of research is still open to much more exploration.

248 William Grabe
The Language Threshold Hypothesis
The Language Threshold Hypothesis has provided one of the strongest arguments that transfer is not the whole story for L2 literacy develop¬ment and is probably not even the major influence on L2 literacy develop¬ment. In its early formulation, this hypothesis argued that students must develop a reasonable L2 language proficiency before they will transfer LI reading processes and strategies. Alderson (1984) formulated the is¬sue for L2 reading in the form of a basic question: Is L2 reading more dependent on L2 proficiency or LI reading skills?
In the 1990s, cumulative research evidence has persuasively supported the Language Threshold Hypothesis. Beginning with a study by Carrell (1991), a number of studies have converged across different student pop-ulations, tasks, texts, and general proficiency levels to show that L2 pro-ficiency is a far more powerful predictor of student reading performance up to a level of reasonable L2 proficiency (Bernhardt & Kamil, 1995; Bossers, 1992; Lee & Schallert, 1997). Generally, L2 proficiency tends to account for 30% to 50% of the variance in L2 reading comprehen¬sion measures, while LI reading often accounts for less than 20% of the shared variance. So, one could say that the relationship between L2 proficiency and L2 reading abilities is about twice as strong as the rela¬tionship between LI reading abilities and L2 reading abilities. It is also important to note that the concept of a language threshold is a variable one. L2 researchers do not assume that there are specific structures or vocabulary that represent a fixed threshold for all settings and learners, or that a language threshold is suddenly passed, never again to be an obstacle to understanding,
In the field of L2 writing, there is less evidence of an L2 language threshold, though two studies provide persuasive support to the read¬ing research. In one study, Johns and Mayes (1990) demonstrated that students with better L2 language proficiency wrote better summaries. In another, Sasaki and Hirose (1996) found that L2 language proficiency accounted for 52% of the variance with an L2 writing task, while LI writing abilities accounted for 18% of the shared variance. Overall, it is fair to say that L2 language proficiency is a crucial element of L2 liter¬acy abilities. Moreover, this language proficiency factor is central to L2 reading-writing relations.
The Extensive Reading Hypothesis
The Extensive Reading Hypothesis and its impact on L2 writing abil¬ities is an area that continues to generate interesting research, arguing that considerable extensive reading, over time, will lead to better writ¬ing abilities. This argument was proposed early in the 1980s by Krashen

Reading and writing relations 249
(1984), reiterated in Krashen (1993), and supported by further research (see Elley, 1991, 1996; cf. Flahive &C Bailey, 1993). In parallel with the L2 perspectives, Ll-based research on exposure to print has argued that extensive reading leads to language knowledge that supports better writ¬ing abilities. For example, research has shown that extensive reading leads to better vocabulary knowledge, better verbal fluency, better syntac¬tic knowledge, better semantic memory, better metalinguistic awareness, and broader knowledge of the world (see Stanovich et al., 1996; Wagner 8c Stanovich, 1996). Based on a decade of persuasive empirical studies, Stanovich and his colleagues have argued that students who have much greater exposure to print over years develop a range of literacy-related skills and abilities. A major implication for reading and writing rela¬tions, for both LI and L2 contexts, is that connections between reading and writing may be variable, but they can be interconnected more effi¬ciently through extensive reading in combination with consistent writing practice.
An L2 study from Hong Kong adds further support to the argument that extensive reading contributes to better writing abilities. Tsang (1996) reported on a treatment study involving 144 Hong Kong secondary school students at four grade levels. Three groups at each grade level received 24 weeks of instruction: Group one received regular instruction plus math instruction as a control group; group two received regular instruction plus frequent writing practice; group three received regular instruction plus extensive reading. At the end of the six-month period, the group (at each grade level) with extensive reading wrote significantly better essays on a post-treatment task. The extensive reading group also learned significantly more content information. With further replica¬tions of studies such as this one, it would be possible to make claims about the impact of extensive reading on literacy development equally as strong as those that can now be made for the Language Threshold Hypothesis.
The directionality issue
Much of the discussion of L2 reading and writing research does not specifically address reading-writing relations, at least not in the ways that are common in LI research (with the exception of the influence of exposure to print on writing). One early research area that drew more specifically on issues of reading-writing relations examined di¬rectionality; that is, either (1) reading improves writing, or (2) writ¬ing improves reading, or (3) reading and writing improve each other (bidirectionality), or (4) there is no direct relationship (no direction¬ality). Current research seems to have reached a consensus on this is¬sue: Without reviewing the details of this discussion, most researchers

250 William Grabe
see reading-writing relations as mutually supportive for literacy de-velopment and content learning (Carson, 1990; Ferris &c Hedgcock 1998).
Writing from multiple texts and writing to learn
The LI issues that have attracted the most interest in the past decade -reading and writing to learn content and writing from multiple source texts - have received much less attention to date in L2 contexts. The exception to this gap in L2 research is in the growing area of EAP (English for academic purposes) writing research. The best examples of this newly emerging emphasis in L2 settings are Carson and Leki's (1993) Reading in the Composition Classroom, the first L2 volume devoted to reading-writing relations, and the more recent Belcher and Hirvela (2001) volume (see also Campbell, 1990; Carson, 1990; Hirvela, 2001; Johns & Mayes, 1990).
In Carson and Leki's book, Flahive and Bailey (1993), for example, explored reading and writing correlations and found that the relation¬ships are only modest, accounting for 12% of variance among measures used (leaving almost 90% of the relationship unexplained). They noted that L2 students may be much more variable in their reading and writ¬ing abilities; one cannot assume that a good reader is a good writer, and vice versa (cf. 25%-50% shared variance in LI research studies). In another study, Basham, Ray, and Whalley (1993) found that students sometimes interpret texts froni their own LI cultural frameworks. Draw¬ing on a small sample, they argued that their Chinese students studied the text closely and followed the text information very carefully; Latino students used the reading as a jumping-off point for their own personal experiences on the topic; and Native American students developed a personal orientation to the information in the text. These studies de¬serve to be replicated to determine the validity and the strength of their conclusions.
A key concern for teachers in academic environments relates to teach¬ing reading and writing skills together. In a chapter on this topic, Johns (1993) makes a very strong argument for centering EAP literacy devel¬opment on reading-writing relations. Surveys by faculty and students in EAP contexts demonstrate that teaching advanced students to write from text resources is essential for academic success. Johns's chapter highlights the need to examine disciplinary classes in universities and determine the most genuine academic tasks (via faculty surveys, classroom ethno¬graphies), deconstruct tasks assigned to students for their reading and writing demands (analyze prompts, develop strategies), and compile re¬sources that will help students complete these reading and writing tasks successfully (collect models and analyze them, use peer reviews, work

Reading and writing relations 251
with support groups). This approach is developed much more extensively in Johns (1997).
More recently, Carson (2001) provides an extensive description of the reading and writing tasks required in six different college courses at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. Her findings lead her to conclude that "an increased emphasis on reading and writing related to task preparation, not just production, [seems to be] in order" (Carson, 2001, p. 81), an important insight for teachers.-
Needs analyses for reading-writing relationships in EAP settings
A final topic of concern for L2 reading-writing relations, and particu¬larly for EAP, involves surveying L2 student perceptions, their own ESL classes, university content classes, and writing expectations in univer¬sity EAP settings to understand the reading and writing demands placed on L2 students. This approach takes into account EAP literacy envi¬ronments, the range of tasks that L2 students need to perform, and the need for both students and faculty to become more aware of L1-L2 differences. It should also lead to a rethinking and refinement of EAP instruction so that reading and writing are combined to reflect authentic demands.
Leki and Carson (1994) used student surveys to explore student ex-pectations for EAP performance in university settings. They found that students expected more-challenging literacy tasks, a wider range of tasks, tasks that combined reading and writing abilities, and assistance with deconstructing tasks and writing models. A second study by Leki and Carson (1997) argued strongly that L2 students need more prac¬tice with tasks that involve reader-responsible writing - that is, writ¬ing from texts in which the content is considered an important part of evaluation.
Both of the Leki and Carson studies complement recent work on ana-lyzing EAP settings from the perspectives of language minority students in U.S. universities and deriving appropriate instructional approaches. Thus, Johns (1993, 1997) highlights many of the same points noted by Leki and Carson, stressing the need to determine genuine tasks for students to practice, promoting careful analyses of task prompts, ex¬amining models of successful task performance, and providing much practice and assistance with texts and genres that students will need to work with (cf. Johns, Chapter 8 this volume; and Spack, 1998). Carson (2000) offers a similar translation-to-practice through an ex¬tensive task-based EAP curriculum. In both cases, instruction is centered around the reading and writing of many texts that fit university expec¬tations. Practical implications of reading and writing interactions have

252 William Grabe
also been a long-standing concern of Swales (1990,1998) as he expands from an ESP perspective into advanced EAP needs of L2 students who are engaged in graduate-level work. It should also be noted that Zamel (1992) provides a unique practical perspective on L2 reading and writing relations, adopting the position that these relations can lead to effective learning when students begin from writing tasks rather than from the reading of texts.
Further research issues
Two additional topics not typically addressed from a reading-writing perspective represent important areas for future research and synthesis. First, summarizing has been relatively neglected as a research area as applied to reading to write, writing to learn, and writing from multiple source texts. Johns and Mayes (1990) offer one important L2 study in this area, but many more are needed. Perhaps there is a perception among L2 researchers that summarization is no longer an appropriate issue to examine in detail. However, reading-writing relations in EAP contexts strongly suggest that summarization is a major issue for literacy devel¬opment and content learning. The same can be said for synthesis writing (Spivey, 1990; Spivey 8c King, 1989), a topic that is virtually unexplored in L2 contexts.
Second is the role of cross-cultural expectations and assumptions for reading comprehension and writing performance. Particularly for L2 writing, the notion of contrastive rhetoric needs to be incorpo¬rated more fully into discussions of reading-writing relations. The fundamental claim of contrastive rhetoric is that L2 writing is influ¬enced by LI discourse preferences for organizing information in texts (Connor, 1996, Chapter 9 this volume; Grabe 8c Kaplan, 1996). How¬ever, contrastive rhetoric issues have not been associated with specific research on reading to write, writing to learn, or writing from mul¬tiple source texts. Over the past decade, it has been associated more with genre differences and genre expectations in differing disciplinary and professional writing contexts (for a recent review, see Hyland, 2002). These topics provide a natural bridge to reading-writing rela¬tions in advanced EAP contexts (e.g., Johns, 1997; Swales 1990,1998). Contrastive rhetoric is also easily associated with the role of genre knowl-edge in writing, though less so for reading implications (see Johns, Chapter 8 this volume). The study of genre variation and its implica¬tions for writing offer additional major connections with reading-writing relations.
Reading-writing relations in L2 contexts are quickly becoming an im-portant subfield for L2 writing and for EAP instruction in particular. There are many issues that deserve further exploration and many research


Reading and ivriting relations 253
questions that need to be addressed. The following list suggests some of these L2 issues that merit more attention:
1. A current synthesis of research findings on transfer
2. A detailed examination of the exposure to print argument
3. A greater exploration of reading and writing to learn
4. An expanded exploration of writing from multiple source texts
5. A reexamination of summarization from a reading-writing perspective
6. A synthesis of reading-writing relations with contrastive rhetoric issues
7. A stronger linkage of reading-writing relations with research on aca¬demic genre knowledge and its uses in academic writing
8. A detailed examination of reading-writing relations and its relation to academic success in various EAP contexts
These issues provide a partial list of opportunities for researchers as well as for teachers who might wish to engage in action research. One of the final research issues that remains involves ways to translate theory to practice in contexts that emphasize reading-writing relations so that pedagogical decisions can be derived from empirical findings.
Reading-writing instruction in L2 settings
From theory to practice
Reading-writing relations have taken on greater importance with the recognition that students must be prepared to engage in academically appropriate tasks and do so successfully. Research exploring academic settings and tasks has demonstrated that students are commonly asked to combine reading and writing activities. While these writing activities connected to reading are not universal across academic contexts or disci-plines, they are sufficiently general to be a major component of advanced EAP curricula. Thus, apart from any intrinsic value that derives from lit¬eracy development through reading and writing interactions, there is a documented need for teaching specific instructional genres (e.g., summa¬rizing, writing a response to a reading) keyed to a variety of academic contexts.
The development of students' language and literacy skills for academic success is not an easy task in itself. Student success requires a combina¬tion of factors: (1) extensive practice in the tasks that reflect literacy demands in disciplinary courses, (2) appropriate and effective guidance and support to carry out these tasks successfully, (3) student engagement in the learning process, (4) focused discussions around academic read¬ing and writing tasks, and (5) critical reflection on the processes and

254 William Grabe
tasks involved in language and content learning. A number of curricular approaches and instructional practices have been proposed and imple-mented for these purposes. The next two sections briefly review several of these options.
Curricular issues in L2 reading-writing development
Curricula for language and literacy learning require, at a minimum, a needs analysis and a coherent framework for meeting student needs. A needs analysis should identify student and institutional goals; academic task demands that represent an endpoint to instruction; tasks, texts, and topics that should be included in instruction; time and resources needed to ensure effective instruction; and appropriate means to assess effectiveness of learning and make adjustments as needed. At the level of curricular frameworks, four general options exist for implementing EAP instruction: (1) a language-emphasis program, focusing on specific language skills (generally disconnected from specific EAP needs analysis); (2) a program with a reading-and-writing emphasis (generally taught as separate courses with little coordination); (3) content-based instruction (emphasizing EAP contexts); and (4) task-based instruction (again em¬phasizing EAP contexts). Other possible options can be listed as variants under one of these four frameworks. The two frameworks that offer the best opportunities to incorporate reading and writing within realistic academic demands are content-based instruction and task-based instruc¬tion. In both cases, there are possibilities to build the foundational skills for reading and writing noted at the outset of this chapter and also to develop literacy abilities to advanced levels in a coherent curriculum, reflecting realistic academic expectations.
Content-based instruction can be implemented in many different ways (and with varying levels of success). When set up well in response to stu¬dent needs and institutional goals, it offers an effective way to provide a coherent set of reading and writing experiences, and it can provide much practice in the specific literacy tasks expected in advanced academic set¬tings. Content-based instruction, whether set up as thematic units or in an adjunct configuration, builds student motivation, offers a degree of student autonomy, allows for group planning and project work, and pro¬vides opportunities for many realistic reading-writing tasks. Frameworks for theme-based instruction that can support reading-writing interaction are presented in Johns (1997) and Snow and Brinton (1997). Kasper (2000) also presents chapters dealing with the theory and practice of providing college-level content-based instruction.
Much like content-based learning, task-based learning operates un¬der various guises. The approach considered here assumes advanced academic contexts and tasks that work well to support reading-writing

Reading and writing relations 255
integration. Many discussions of task-based learning focus on lower lev¬els of language learning and do not propose intensive reading-writing in-teractions for advanced academic purposes (see Skehan 1998a, 1998b). However, the approach proposed by Carson (2000) strongly emphasizes reading and writing tasks developed for students in transition to aca¬demic work in university settings. She notes the following as a set of goals for EAP task-based instruction:
1. Establish tasks that support real academic learning goals.
2. Cycle across fluency, accuracy, and complexity.
3. Vary familiar and unfamiliar tasks, more formal and less formal language.
4. Focus on meaning, form-control, and form restructuring.
5. Use tasks that reflect real-world language uses.
There are many options for organizing an EAP curriculum that will em-phasize reading-writing relations, learning from texts and writing tasks, and working from multiple text resources. Even in curricula that are less innovative or focused less directly on academic task demands, numerous tasks and activities can prepare students for academic demands through reading and writing interactions. A number of these tasks are fairly tradi-tional (e.g., summaries, writing responses, in-class essay writing, report writing), but they hold up well in developing skills needed for academic success; others are somewhat more innovative and directly responsive to academic demands and text-responsible writing (Hale et al., 1996; Johns, 1997).
Instructional practices in L2 contexts
Any discussion of important instructional tasks and activities to promote reading-writing relations can result in a catalogue of hundreds of ideas for writing instruction (cf. Ferris Sc Hedgcock, 1998; Grabe Sc Kaplan, 1996; Grabe Sc Stoller, 2002; Reid, 1993; White, 1995). Rather than repeat readily available techniques for instruction, this final section will offer ten general guidelines for instruction. This list is not intended to be comprehensive or universally applicable; rather, it suggests a start¬ing point for building reading and writing foundations for academic success.
1. Reading and writing instruction should begin from task analyses. This perspective is the complement to creating effective prompts for writing (see Reid & Kroll, 1995). Both teachers and students need to collect tasks used in various courses and contexts and then analyze task expectations, plans for completing the tasks, and critical evalu¬ations of what would be seen as an effective performance (and why).

256 William Grabe
2. Students need to practice writing many types of relevant genres and tasks (e.g., instructional genres: summaries, timed essay-exam writ¬ing, literature reviews, reading responses, research reports). The ac¬tual tasks and genres can reflect assignments in disciplinary courses or they can promote foundational skills for more advanced task de¬mands. Important skills, instructional genres, and realistic tasks need to be recycled regularly so that students build effective and increas¬ingly more complex problem-solving routines. Students need exten¬sive practice - in particular, in writing from text resources if they are to develop this ability.
3. Students need to develop rhetorical stances to tasks and texts that will build reading-writing relations. Taking a rhetorical stance as a reader requires analyzing texts in at least the following ways:

• Adopting critical perspectives on text resources
• Becoming aware of author and textual choices for conveying information
• Recognizing how a writer is shaping the text through linguistic choices to establish a position
• Reflecting on the stances and perspectives taken in their own writ¬ing and connecting these positions to task expectations in appro¬priate ways

4. Students need to develop an awareness of text structure itself. They have to understand how written discourse is organized to communi¬cate within genre and task expectations. They should be aware of the ways that coherence is signaled in texts, the ways that ideas are se-quenced and linked effectively, the ways that larger units of informa¬tion are combined to achieve the overall task goal, and the ways that texts open and end. Students also need to develop an awareness of how the language itself serves important communicative and writer goals; rhetorical goals and informational goals are not completely separable.
5. Helping students become strategic readers and strategic writers should be a major goal for any EAP curriculum. Accomplishing this goal requires extended attention to strategic processing and continual student awareness of planning, monitoring, and repair¬ing. Student attention and awareness need to be built steadily and consistently by learning, modeling, and using many types of strate¬gies: strategies for planning, for learning information, for monitoring comprehension and writing, for re-evaluating goals and plans, and for repairing and revising.
6. Helping students to collect and use feedback from peers and teachers is an essential component of any curriculum focusing on reading

Reading and writing relations 257
and writing. There are many discussions of writing feedback, but the concepts also apply to reading comprehension and criti¬cal reading tasks. Both aspects need to be incorporated in EAP instruction.
7. Teaching students to collect and interpret data on interesting is¬sues and topics may seem a bit unusual as an instructional prior¬ity, but in EAP settings there are many contexts in which simple data collection through surveys, interviews, observations, and peer canvassing provides resources to organize information, compare information to textual sources, and provide new information for writing tasks. In a curriculum that emphasizes reading-writing in¬teractions, data collection and analysis provide important prac¬tice for analyzing information, critiquing content from texts, and planning ways to present information and make persuasive arguments.
8. A fundamental goal for an EAP curriculum should be to use tex¬tual resources appropriately in writing tasks. Aside from formatting, quoting, and plagiarism issues that are commonly noted in discus¬sions of writing from resources, other important skills are needed for determining the strength of arguments, inferring the author's position, incorporating strong examples and illustrations, making effective links between ideas across texts, and presenting critical comparisons of conflicting information. The development of these abilities requires a considerable commitment to writing from texts. Part of the difficulties that students have with these skills is that they are not asked to practice them on a regular basis. Without consistent efforts to work out effective plans for writing from texts, they can¬not be expected to achieve success regularly. However, being able to write effectively from texts is a major expectation in many academic settings.
9. An important early step for students to take in learning to work from texts is being able to summarize main ideas from a text and synthesize main information across two or more texts. These skills can be devel-oped initially from fairly simple tasks and can be practiced enough times in varying settings to allow for the development of effective practices and problem-solving routines. They allow for reasonably straightforward feedback and support, and these skills are essential aspects of larger tasks requiring writing from text resources.
10. Finally, any reading and writing curriculum will need to incorpo¬rate effective ongoing assessment practices for reading and writing integration. This goal can be carried out partly through continual feedback on reading and writing tasks as well as discussion about

258 William Grabe
texts and writing tasks. Students also need more formal feedback mechanisms that will reflect the expectations of academic settings. Effective assessment can be provided by means of writing portfolios, timed essay writing that is graded (and then discussed), and larger projects (posters, reports, term papers, etc.) in which formal feed¬back mechanisms are used at stages along the way. Formal feedback approaches are often seen as punitive or discriminating, but they are serious components of the academic world that students will en¬ter. Students are done a disservice if they are not fully aware of how their reading and writing abilities will be assessed in future academic settings. Formal feedback and assessment practices also provide ex-ceptionally good opportunities for later discussions around texts and tasks (see Ferris, Chapter 5 this volume).
Many topics, research studies, and instructional implications could be addressed in a chapter on reading-writing relations, but the key to any discussion of reading-writing relations is to establish linkages across the many issues that drive research in reading, writing, and reading-writing interactions. These three areas form a complex network of information, theories, positions taken and arguments made, and collectively they pro¬vide a large body of curricular and instructional implications. In par¬ticular, since the focus of much student writing involves writing from text resources, informed decision making by teachers requires a thor¬ough understanding of the instructional implications provided by the accumulation of research findings.
Attempts to teach students to write from texts is complex. Teachers and researchers must recognize that many layers of knowledge and skills are being combined in these tasks. Language knowledge, topi¬cal knowledge, and background knowledge are being called on; com¬plex processing abilities are expected; L1/L2 differences will affect planning and production; individual differences, motivations, and so¬cial contexts will shape student performances; and the accumulation of experiences from engaging in such tasks is critical for successful performance.
In the final analysis, the importance of reading-writing relations de¬pends on the varying goals of students. In academic settings, the literacy demands made in a range of real academic contexts should drive in¬structional planning. That can best be accomplished when teachers are aware of many of the issues that have been presented and reviewed in this chapter.

Reading and writing relations 259
Alderson, J. C. (1984). Reading in a foreign language: A reading problem or a language problem? In J. C. Alderson & A. H. Urquhart (Eds.), Reading in a foreign language (pp. 1-24). New York: Longman.
Basham, C, Ray, R., &C Whalley, E. (1993). Cross-cultural perspectives on task representation in reading to write. In J. Carson &c I. Leki (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom (pp. 299-314). New York: Newbury House.
Belcher, D., & Hirvela, A. (Eds.). (2001). Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading-writing connections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Bernhardt, E., & Kami!, M. (1995). Interpreting relationships between LI and L2 reading: Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the linguistic inter-dependence hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 16, 15-34.
Bossers, B. (1992). Reading in two languages: A study of reading comprehension in Dutch as a second language and in Turkish as a first language. Rotterdam: Drukkerij Van Driel.
Campbell, C. (1990). Writing with others' words: Using background reading text in academic compositions. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 211-230). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Carrell, P. (1991). Second language reading: Reading ability or language profi-ciency? Applied Linguistics, 12, 159-179.
Carson, J. (1990). Reading-writing connections: Toward a description for sec¬ond language learners. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 88-107). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Carson, J. (1993). Reading for writing: Cognitive perspectives. In J. Carson & I. Leki (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom (pp. 299-314). New York: Newbury House.
Carson, J. G. (2000). Reading and writing for academic purposes. In M. Pally (Ed.), Sustained content teaching in academic ESL/EFL (pp. 19-34).Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Carson, J. G. (2001). A task analysis of reading and writing in academic contexts. In D. Belcher 6c A. Hirvela (Eds.), Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading-writing connections (pp. 48-83). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Carson, J., Carrell, P., Silberstein, S., Kroll, B., & Kuehn, P. (1990). Reading-writing relationships in first and second langauges. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 245-266.
Carson, J., & Leki, I. (Eds.). (1993). Reading in the composition classroom. Boston, MA: Heinle 8c Heinle.
Charney, D., Sc Carlson, R. (1995). Learning to write in a genre: What student writers take from model texts. Research in the Teaching of English, 29, 88-125.
Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational develop¬ment of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49, 222-251.
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promot¬ing educational success for language minority students. In Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework (pp. 3-49). Office

260 William Grabe
of Bilingual Bicultural Education, California State Department of Educa¬tion, Sacramento. Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University.
Durgunoglu, A., 8c Verhoeven, L. (Eds,). (1998). Literacy development in a multilingual context: Cross-cultural perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Elley, W. (1991). Acquiring literacy in a second language: The effect of book-based programs. Language Learning, 41, 375-411.
Elley, W. (1996). Using book floods to raise literacy levels in developing countries. In V. Greaney (Ed.), Promoting reading in developing countries (pp. 148-162). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Ferris, D., 8c Hedgcock, J. (1998). TeachingESL composition: Purposes, process, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Flahive, D., 8c Bailey, N. (1993). Exploring reading/writing relationships in adult second language learners. In J. Carson 8c I. Leki (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom (pp. 128-140). Boston, MA: Heinle 8c Heinle.
Grabe, W. (2000). Reading research and its implications for reading assessment. In A. Kunnan (Ed.), Fairness and validation in language assessment (pp. 226-262). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Grabe, W. (2001). Notes towards a theory of second language writing. InT. Silva 8c P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), On second language writing (pp. 39-57). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Grabe, W., 8c Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. New York: Longman.
Grabe, W., 8c Kaplan, R. B. (1997). Teaching the writing course. In K. Bardovi-Harlig 8c B. Hartmann (Eds.), Beyond methods: Compo¬nents of second language teacher education (pp. 172-197). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Grabe, W., 8c Stoller, F. (2001). Reading for academic purposes: Guidelines for the ESL/EFL teacher. InM. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed., pp. 187-203). Boston: Heinle 8c Heinle.
Grabe, W., 8c Stoller, F. (2002). Teaching and researching reading. Harlow, UK: Longman.
Gradwohl-Nash, J., Schumacher, G., 8c Carlson, B. (1993). Writing from sources: A structure mapping model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85,159-170.
Hale, G., Taylor, C, Bridgeman, B., Carson, J., Kroll, B., 8c Kantor, R. (1996). A study of writing tasks assigned in academic degree programs (TOEFL Research Report No. 54). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Hirvela, A. (2001). Incorporating reading into EAP writing courses. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes (pp. 330-346). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K. (2002). Teaching and researching writing. Harlow, UK: Longman.
Johns, A. (1993). Reading and writing tasks in English for academic purposes classes: Products, processes and resources. In J. Carson 8c I. Leki (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom (pp. 274-289). New York: Newbury House.
Johns, A. (1997). Text, role, and context. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Johns, A., 8c Mayes, P. (1990). An analysis of summary protocols of university ESL students. Applied Linguistics, 11, 253-271.

Reading and writing relations 261
Kasper, L. R (2000). Content-based college ESL instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erfbaum.
Krashen, S. (1984). Writing: Research, theory, and applications. Torrance, CA: Laredo Publishing.
Krashen, S. (1993). The power of reading. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Langer, J., & Applebee, A. (1987). How writing shapes thinking. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Lee, J-W., & Schallert, D. (1997). The relative contribution of L2 language pro-ficiency and LI reading ability to L2 reading performance: A test of the threshold hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 713-739.
Leki, I. (1991).Twenty-five years of contrastive rhetoric: Text analysis and writ¬ing pedagogies. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 123-143.
Leki, L, & Carson, J. (1994). Students' perceptions of EAP writing instruc¬tion and writing needs across the disciplines. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 81-101.
Leki, L, & Carson, J. (1997). "Completely different worlds": EAP and the writ¬ing experiences of ESL students in university courses. TESOL Quarterly, 31,39-69.
McCarthy-Young, K., &C Leinhardt, G. (1998). Writing from primary documents: A way of knowing history. Written Communication, 15, 25-68.
McGinley, W. (1992). The role of reading and writing while composing from sources. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 226-248.
McGinley, W., &C Tierney, R. (1989). Traversing the topical landscape: Reading and writing as ways of knowing. Written Communication, 6, 243-269.
Perfetti, C, Britt, M., & Georgi, M. (1995). Text-based learning and reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Raimes, A. (1987). Language proficiency, writing ability and composing strategies: A study of ESL college student writers. Language Learning, 37, 439-468.
Reid, J. (1993). Teaching ESL writing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Regents Prentice Hall.
Reid, J., & Kroll, B. (1995). Designing and assessing effective classroom writ¬ing assignments for NES and ESL students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 17-41.
Rouet, J.-E, Favart, M., Britt, M., & Perfetti, C. (1997). Studying and using multiple documents in history: Effects of discipline expertise. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 85-106.
Sasaki, M., 8c Hirose, K. (1996). Explanatory variables for EFL students' ex¬pository writing. Language Learning, 46, 137-174.
Shanahan, T. (Ed.). (1990). Reading and writing together: New perspectives for the classroom. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
Shanahan, X, & Tierney, R. (1990). Reading-writing connections: The relations among three perspectives. In J. Zutell & S. McCormick (Eds.), Literacy theory and research: Analyses from multiple paradigms (pp. 13-34). 39th yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Chicago: National Reading Conference.
Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 757-67.
Silva, T., Leki, I., & Carson, J. (1997). Broadening the perspective of mainstream composition studies. Written Communication, 14, 398-428.

262 William Grabe
Skehan, P. (1998a). A cognitive approach to language learning. New York: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. (1998b). Task-based instruction. In W. Grabe et al. (Eds.), Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18: Foundations of second language learning (pp. 268-286). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Smagorinsky, P. (1992). How reading model essays affect writers. In J. Irwin 8c M. Doyle (Eds.), Reading/writing connections (pp. 160-176). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Snow, A., & Brinton, D. (Eds.). (1997). The content based classroom: Perspec¬tives on integrating language and content. New York: Longman.
Spack, R. (1988). Initiating ESL students into the academic discourse community: How far should they go? TESOL Quarterly, 22, 29-51.
Spivey, N. (1990). Transforming texts: Constructive processes in reading and writing. Written Communication, 7, 256-287.
Spivey, N., & King, J. (1989). Readers and writers composing from sources. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 7-26.
Stahl, S., Hynd, C, Britton, B., McNish, M., & Bosquet, D. (1996). What hap¬pens when students read multiple source documents in history? Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 430-456.
Stanovich, K., West, R., Cunningham, A., Cipielewski, J., & Siddiqui, S. (1996). The role of inadequate print exposure as a determinant of reading com-prehension problems. In C. Cornoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading compre-hension difficulties: Processes and intervention (pp. 15-32). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Stolarek, E. (1994). Prose modeling and metacognition: The effect of model¬ing on developing a metacognitive stance toward writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 28, 154-174.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. (1998, July). Teaching the literature review to international grad¬uate students. Paper presented at the Second Language Reading/Writing Connections Conference, Columbus, OH.
Tierney, R., &C Shanahan, T. (1991). Research on the reading-writing relationship: Interactions, transactions, and outcomes. In R. Barr et al. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 246-280). New York: Longman.
Tierney, R., Soter, A., O'Flavahan, J., & McGinley, W (1989). The effects of reading and writing upon thinking critically. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 134-173.
Tsang, W.-K. (1996). Comparing the effects of reading and writing on writing proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 17, 210-233.
Urquhart, S., & Weir, C. (1998). Reading in a second language: Process, product and practice. New York: Longman.
Wagner, D. (1998). Putting second language first: Language and literacy learning in Morocco. In A. Durgunoglu & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Literacy development in a multilingual context (pp. 169-183). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wagner, R., & Stanovich, K. (1996). Expertise in reading. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The road to excellence (pp. 189-225). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
White, R. (Ed.). (1995). New ways in teaching writing. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Zamel, V. (1992). Writing one's way into reading. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 463-485.

1 1 Literature in the teaching of second language composition
Stephanie Vandrick
Writing instructors constantly face curricular decisions about which types of approaches, methods, and materials should be used to teach writing most effectively. Instructors have to explore many curricular possibili¬ties and make conscious decisions based on their own prior training, the educational setting in which they teach, their goals for the classes, and the needs of their students. One such decision concerns whether, and how, to use literature in writing classes. These particular questions reflect an ongoing controversy in professional conversations in both first language (LI) and second language (L2) settings. This chapter summarizes argu¬ments for and against the use of literature in writing classes, outlines the history of the controversy in both fields, and explores questions that arise when a choice is made to use literature, including the following concerns: Which genres of literature are appropriate in the L2 writing class? What is the place of multicultural and international literature in the L2 writing class? How can literature best be used to enhance writing instruction? Exploring these types of questions should prove helpful to teachers in training as well as to experienced teachers, all of whom want to make informed and productive decisions about the curricula and goals of their writing classes.
While the focus in this chapter is on adults, particularly college stu¬dents, much of what is said also applies to younger students, especially high school students. Further, although the focus here is primarily on ESL writing classes in universities in North America, many of the points made could be generalized, with modifications, to academic English as a second language/English as a foreign language (ESL/EFL) settings in other countries, and thus any discussion regarding the use of literature in the composition classroom applies wherever there are composition classrooms.
Before turning to the question of the use of literature, we need to back up a step and address the question of the use of reading - whether literature or other types of materials - in writing classes. To some, writing is a separate skill, and spending "too much" time on read¬ing merely detracts from the time and energy that could be devoted to the teaching and learning of writing skills. To others, it is clearly

264 Stephanie Vandrick
impossible and undesirable to teach writing without reading. The two
skills are inseparable. Carson and Leki (1993) point out that "for many
years reading and writing in ESL classrooms were taught separately and
as technical skills," but in recent years, the field has recognized "the
extent to which reading can be, and in academic settings nearly always
is, the basis for writing Reading and writing abilities are inextri¬
cably linked" (p. 1). Morrow (1997) points out that there is little re¬
search to "prove" that reading enhances writing skills, but she concludes
that "as a teacher... my overarching goal is to demonstrate the vari¬
ety of ways in which readers and writers negotiate meaning" (p. 470).
Readings serve as models of good writing, and even more important,
serve as sources of information and ideas that stimulate thinking, dis¬
cussion, and responses, all of which are essential foundations of writing.
(For more on reading in the writing classroom, see Grabe, Chapter 10
this volume.)
Although this chapter outlines arguments that can be and have been presented both for and against the use of literature in the L2 writing classroom, and further addresses potential problems in using literature, the main thrust of the argument is that literature has an important role to play in the writing classroom. (See Hirvela, 2001, for a similar argument constructed along somewhat different lines.)
Arguments for using literature in L2 writing classes
The reasons for, or benefits of, the use of literature in L2 writing classes can be summarized as follows. First, literature is intrinsically enjoyable. Most people naturally are drawn to story, to narrative. They like to read about human situations, concerns, problems, solutions, and emotions. Sometimes people (including students) like stories because they cover universal themes, such as family, work, loneliness, love, and mortality, and readers can thus identify with the stories and their characters. Some¬times people like stories that they, the readers, can identify with in a particular way, such as when the characters are the same age or of the same ethnic background as the readers or experience problems similar to those of the readers. For example, students of traditional college age often enjoy stories about the relationship between children and parents, and stories about romantic love, as these are subjects they are often dealing with in their own lives. Other times, readers enjoy stories that intro¬duce them to new settings, new experiences; this literature expands their worlds, and they are hungry for such learning and expansion. In any case, when reading is enjoyable, pleasurable, it arouses interest and a sense of connection'and in turn motivates students to respond in discussions and in writing. This kind of motivation is extremely important in facilitating

Literature in the teaching of second language composition 265
students' investment in, and progress made in, improving their writing abilities.
Second, literature gives students information about other cultures, in-cluding the culture(s) of the country where they currently live. It also gives students a way to engage with cultural differences. Willoquet-Maricondi (1991/1992) states that "the natural tensions that arise when cultures meet can be dealt with productively in a literary context" (p. 11). Liter¬ature also educates students about "culture" in the sense of knowledge about the arts. This type of information is useful in and of itself, and in addition it is useful because it helps prepare international and immigrant students for other academic classes in which such cultural knowledge may be assumed and expected. For example, when an ESL student who has been exposed to some literature in her or his writing class takes a humanities, literature, or psychology class, and the professor men¬tions "Hemingway," "the Victorian novel," "metaphor," or "motive," perhaps the student will at least have some idea what the professor is alluding to, rather than failing to understand the references at all.
Now coming more specifically to the benefits of literature for learn¬ing writing, it seems that the complexity of fiction is a feature that will help students think and write in a more multidimensional and analyti¬cal way. Practice in analyzing and interpreting literature, teasing out its multilayered meanings and aspects, cannot help but make students more sophisticated in their own thinking and writing. Students responding in writing to literature also practice the important academic skill of support¬ing their opinions with information gained by a close reading of the text (McKay, 2001). Closely related to this contention is the argument that reading literature promotes critical thinking. After all, "ideas, language, readings are not cut-and-dried in their meanings; a thinking person must analyze, question, interpret, synthesize what she or he hears and reads" (Vandrick, 1996b, p. 27), and a good writer must be a good critical thinker. As I pointed out elsewhere (Vandrick, 1997b), an important part of this process is helping students to see that a piece of literature, such as a novel,
doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's a living, breathing entity, one with which the reader interacts, one which comes to life when read by a particular reader. Each individual reader brings her or his experience, knowledge, and feelings to the novel, and creates a unique relationship, a unique reality, as she or he reads and responds to it. (p. 106)
In addition, students can learn very precise, nuanced, and useful vocabulary in literature. They are also exposed to language patterns that help students see the many and complex ways that sentences and paragraphs can be put together. Grammatical patterns can be absorbed unconsciously in the course of reading literature as readers

266 Stephanie Vandrick
are exposed to complexity, variety, and subtlety in grammatical patterns. And Sage (1987) points out that in literature "the student encounters nearly every kind of communicative technique speakers use or think of using. Literature displays a broader range of such communication strate¬gies than any other single ESL teaching component" (p. 6). Related to these points is the appeal to the aesthetic reason for using literature in ESL writing classrooms: literature provides texts that often show the English language in ways that non-literary texts do not.
Students who read literature are reading creative work, and exposure to creative work enhances the students' own creativity, which in turn enhances their writing ability. Reading good literature teaches them the importance of sensory and descriptive details, of close observation and reporting, of imaginatively entering into the mind and motivation of a character, and of creating with language a new way of expressing an idea or feeling.
Instructors in writing classes typically have a choice about which read-ings to offer students; there is generally no set "content" that must be covered in the sense that certain material must be covered in a biology or history class; therefore, at the very least, the use of literature should be one of the very acceptable options for those readings. My colleague Mary Burns (Personal communication, May, 2002) asks, "Why wouldn't we use literature in writing classes? Why wouldn't we want to share with them the best that our language has to offer?"
Arguments against literature in L2 writing classes
Several reasons have been given and arguments made against the use of literature in the writing class, and in particular in the L2 writing class. Here I summarize those arguments and offer counter-arguments as well as possible solutions to the difficulties some have outlined.
One common concern, as Spack (1985) points out, is the assumption by some instructors that students majoring in science and engineering will not want to read literature; however, she says, research shows that this is not necessarily true. These students need and often want to be exposed to the best that the language has to offer, and the best is often found in literature.
Others argue that literary English is not everyday English or practical English; it is not the English that students will generally be required to know and use. But surely being familiar with the language as it is used by its most creative and imaginative practitioners can only be positive. Students should, of course, not be expected to speak or write in the same way or as well as well-known writers of literary works. But they can learn a lot about the language from these models and the ways language

Literature in the teaching of second language composition 267
can be used and can be effective. They can enjoy and savor these works, be motivated by them, and even be inspired by them when they are doing their own writing.
Another concern is that reading literature may be "too hard" for stu¬dents. Some instructors fear that students in L2 writing classes will find the literature too difficult, will become discouraged, and will not be able to learn from the literature or the class. Clearly instructors must be aware of their students' language levels, choose appropriate literature for those levels, and adjust assignments accordingly. There are certainly many works of literature that are quite accessible, even to intermediate learners. Even students at fairly low levels can understand and enjoy very short stories with good support, such as glossaries and the provi¬sion of background pre-reading information. Although literature may be a "stretch," students need to be, and even relish being, challenged and stimulated by their assigned readings. And they generally feel proud of and gratified by being able to read "real" literature; literature is recog¬nized in most languages as the "best" a language has to offer, something that L2 students who are highly literate in their LI are most likely to be aware of.
Yet another concern raised by some, especially those who fear that some L2 composition instructors are merely frustrated literature instruc¬tors, is that all the class time will be taken up by literary analysis, criticism, and theory. This assumes that the focus of the class will be the same as that of a literature class. In fact, in a writing class, literature is generally read for enjoyment, exposure to good writing, and provision of ideas and information that students can then write about and/or respond to. Any literary analysis will generally be fairly straightforward - to help students discuss and understand the literature and in turn to understand and practice good writing. Good writing does not generally, in L2 writing classes, mean that the students themselves write literature or even write in a "literary" style.
In addition, because it is very unlikely that students, particularly stu¬dents still learning a second language, could write as well as the literary writers, some instructors feel that it would be too discouraging for stu¬dents to read these works. The literary works cannot be direct models for their writing, and they will become discouraged by the large gap between the unattainable level of the literary works and the lowly level of their own writing. This concern can be addressed by the instructor's talking to the students about the reasons for reading literature and explicitly telling them that the writings are for enjoyment, learning, the provok¬ing of thoughtful discussions and analysis and response, and inspiration. Students already understand this; even in their own languages they are aware that, with very rare exceptions, they will not be able to write as well as their countries' great authors of fiction and poetry.

268 Stephanie Vandrick
It is also true that some writing instructors prefer not to feature liter¬ature in their writing classes because they themselves were not literature majors or do not read much literature, and therefore they feel uncomfort¬able about or ill-equipped to teach literature. But as mentioned above, literature in these classes is not taught as literature but is used to facili¬tate the learning and practicing of writing. So instructors do not have to be very familiar with literary or critical theory or terminology to bring literature into their classrooms effectively. Of course, if an instructor feels a strong antipathy to using literature, then perhaps it is better for that person not to do so. Students of a teacher who is unenthusiastic about the literature he or she teaches will soon catch on to that lack of enthusiasm and will be unlikely to respond positively to the literature. All writing classes do not have to feature literature, but instructors can at least seriously consider the potential benefits of its use in their classes.
Perhaps the most common, most substantive, and most contentious reason given by some L2 writing professionals (as well as some LI writ¬ing professionals) for not using literature in writing classrooms is their strong belief that the major goal of writing classes should be to prepare students for academic writing, or writing in their particular disciplines or discourse communities. For those who make this argument, literature is often considered a distraction from the work at hand. They believe that readings in a writing class should, for example, consist of selections from college textbooks, articles from journals and high-quality magazines and newspapers, and classic essays. Some advocate even more specificity, urg¬ing that students take writingdasses particularly for their majors, such as "Writing for Biology Majors," and learn how to write reports and other types of writing specific to their disciplines. (See Johns, Chapter 8 this volume, for some discussion on this issue of disciplinary reading materi¬als in writing courses.) Of course, it is appropriate that students should be prepared for the kinds of writing they will actually be doing, and it would be helpful to them to read selections that are examples of that type of discourse. But writing well cannot be easily pigeonholed into categories. And university students will be writing for many types of classes in the university, not just classes in their major. Furthermore, after their aca¬demic experience, they will be writing in many types of situations, not just situations directly related to their major field of study. As Knight (1993) puts it, "a characteristic of an educated person is the ability to transfer learning. Thus, those of us who teach the basics of composition do not have to teach different writing courses for every discipline within 'the academy'" (p. 676). So yes, writing students should be exposed to academic discourse of various sorts, but they should also be exposed to literature. And again, the kind of thinking, analysis, and interpretation they do when responding to literature will also be very helpful in any kind of advanced writing.

Literature in the teaching of second language composition 269
History of the controversy in LI writing
Several of the arguments outlined above, for and against using literature in writing classes, have been threads in ongoing discussions in both LI and L2 writing venues. First, let's examine the discussion that has taken place in LI writing venues. Although there has been a particularly heated discussion in LI composition in the past decade on whether literature belongs in the freshman composition class, the issue has actually been debated for at least six decades: Steinberg's historical research shows that "imaginative literature has not had a secure place in composition class¬rooms since at least the 1930s" (1995, p. 271). Tate (1995) states that surveys of freshman composition programs by both Albert Kitzhaber, in 1959-60, and Richard Larson, in the early 1990s, showed that only about one in five contained any literature.
The argument was reignited famously in 1993 when Erika Lindemann and Gary Tate debated the issue in their paired articles in the jour¬nal, College English. Lindemann (1993) argued that academic discourse, not literature, should be the focus of writing classes; that classes based on literature focus on consuming texts, not producing them; that study¬ing literature requires students to assume an abstruse critical style, and silences students' own voices; and that focusing on literature slights the study of the discourses and natures of other disciplines. Tate (1993) coun¬tered that because literature was often misused in the writing classroom, rhetoric took its place there and in professional conversations in the 1960s and has stayed in ascendance ever since, causing the neglect of an essential element of the writing class and of life, namely literature. He believes that students should be trained not just to become good writers in their own fields but to write as educated people in the broader sense, "as people whose most important conversations will take place outside the academy, as they struggle to figure out how to live their lives... as individual human beings who will have private and maybe public lives that transcend whatever disciplines they associate themselves with while in college" (Tate, 1993, pp. 320-321), and this kind of broad education should include literature.
Lindemann's and Tate's exchange elicited a number of impas¬sioned responses (Crain, 1993; Gamer, 1995; Jay, 1993; Knight, 1993; Latosi-Swain, 1993; Peterson, 1995; Steinberg, 1995) and reprise pieces from Lindemann (1995) and Tate (1995). Issues that were addressed included the different needs of different levels and types of composition classes; the question of whether teaching literature in composition classes is elitist; the increasingly blurred line between fiction and expository prose; the need to focus on the nature of reading rather than on the materials being read; and the value of literary texts in helping students understand multidisciplinarity.

270 Stephanie Vandrick
In these interchanges, arguments for using literature in writing classes included the following. Latosi-Swain (1993) argues that the literature-versus-academic discourse dichotomy is a false one and that these "extreme positions are unnecessary given the creative compromises al¬ready in the field. The question is no longer whether there is or isn't a place for literature in a composition program, but how literature on occasion is to be defined, selected, and used" (p. 675). She says that "literature can lead students naturally into the discourse of the academy" and that in fact "literature is being used to study human life in fields as varied as business, management and abnormal psychology" (p. 675). Knight (1993) agrees that reading literature is in fact "practical" and that
because literature is the subject matter that deals most directly with learning through metaphors, learning to read literature properly is the most direct (and, therefore, the most practical) way of learning to image properly what is read. The person who is able to read literature well will have the skills to read computer manuals, (p. 677)
Similarly, Gamer (1995) compares using literary texts to employing the case study method in education and other classes; "imaginative texts provide us with particularized material with which students can interact, and from which they can discuss ideas" (p. 284). Knight (1993) also makes the point that reading literature is one of the best and most efficient ways for students to learn critical thinking, a necessity for good writing. Crain (1993) puts the controversy in perspective when she reminds us that just because literature is used in a class does not mean it will take over, and that "we should not allow the misuse of literature to discourage us from 'right use' "; she further says, sensibly, that "all of us probably agree that writing should be taught in a writing course, and once the emphasis is on writing, what literature we use should be a matter of teacher and student choice" (p. 679). And Koller (quoted in Tate, 1995) reminds us of something many writing instructors know intuitively: "Our experience in freshman composition has shown over and over again that the freshman writes much better papers after he has been studying great literature than before he has begun to read, experience, and look at the works of great writers" (p. 307). My own experience teaching both LI and L2 students confirms this point.
History of the controversy in ESL/L2 writing
In the ESL/L2 writing field as well, over the years there has been spir¬ited discussion of the use of literature. Initial discussion of this topic was about the use of literature in ESL classes in general, rather than specifi¬cally about the role of literature in L2/ESL writing/composition classes.

Literature in the teaching of second language composition 271
The prominence of literature in ESL in general has ebbed and flowed through the years. In the very early years of ESL teaching, literature was commonly included in the curriculum. Then the linguistics emphasis be¬came predominant, and literature waned (Widdowson, 1982). Di Pietro (1982) expresses his disappointment that
we concentrate so intently on the formal properties of language ... that we have nothing significant to say about the use of literature for higher levels of
learning Hardly ever does an article that deals with literary themes or with
the use of literature in the classroom appear in the TESOL Quarterly or in any of the other journals we read regularly, (p. 216)
Until recently, there were very few exceptions to Di Pietro's claims; however, some ESL scholars throughout have argued persuasively for the use of literature in ESL classes. Povey (1967) and Marckwardt (1978) asserted that reading literary texts provides models of good writ¬ing as well as cultural information and understanding. Marshall (1979) writes of teaching ESL students about the joys of English literature, and how such literature contains universal themes that cross cultures. Widdowson (1982) decries the banality of many ESL lessons and recom¬mends that literature be used more frequently in teaching ESL. McKay (1982) also advocates the use of literature in ESL classes, listing the following benefits: it develops linguistic knowledge; students enjoy it and therefore are more motivated to read and ultimately increase their reading proficiency; students learn more about other cultures; and stu¬dents develop their own creativity and imagination, which will improve their writing ability. Although these scholars do not specifically advocate the use of literature in ESL writing (as opposed to reading or general ESL) classes, many of their arguments apply in the context of writing classes. The controversy about the usefulness of literature in general lan¬guage classes is still very much alive; Edmondson (1995/6), for example, attempts to demolish, one by one, all the claims that literature promotes language learning.
The use of literature specifically to teach writing - as opposed to, more generally, teaching language - is finally addressed in two 1985 TESOL Quarterly articles. In the first, McConochie (1985) discusses ways to teach literary texts and argues that writing about literature will enhance the understanding and enjoyment of the literature; however, she does not state whether the reverse is true (i.e., that reading literature enhances writing skill). In the second article, Spack (1985) writes specifi¬cally about the positive effects of reading literature on students' writing. She states that "ESL students have much to gain when literature is the reading content of their composition course and the subject matter for their compositions" (p. 703), and she gives very specific examples of ways to incorporate literature into the teaching of writing. She lists the

272 Stephanie Vandrick
following benefits: studying and responding to literature in writing im¬proves the ability to interpret, analyze, and think critically; it enhances vocabulary acquisition; and it helps students to absorb the linguistic and intellectual structure of the language. Oster (1989) further states that reading literature can help students understand and take varying points of view, thus leading to more-flexible writing and thinking and at the same time encouraging more-imaginative use of the language. Willoquet-Maricondi (1991-1992) writes about using short stories to promote better writing, and Nash and Yun~Pi (1992/1993) describe their research showing that extensive reading, including reading of literature, improves student writing. Gajdusek and van Dommelen (1993) advocate the use of literature to promote interest in writing topics as well as critical thinking.
Although writing of the benefits of literature for ESL students in gen¬eral language acquisition rather than specifically about development of writing ability, Lazar (1996) includes some important benefits for stu¬dents: literature is motivating, absorbing, and emotionally engaging; it is authentic language; it helps students understand different cultures; it develops students' interpretive abilities; it is enjoyable for students; it is highly valued by students and faculty and has high status, which in turn is motivating; and it develops language awareness, including sophisti¬cated language. Maley (2001), also writing about literature in a broader framework than just the writing course, categorizes the typical reasons given for teaching literature in language classes: for cultural purposes, as a language model, and for personal growth. All of these, as suggested in this chapter, feed directly into a writing course. (For a more extensive, detailed discussion of the history of the controversy in both LI and L2 settings, see Belcher & Hirvela, 2000.)
Choosing the literature
Which genres?
Writing instructors who decide to use literature in their classes still have several broad curricular decisions to make before choosing spe¬cific texts, specific literature. One important question concerns which genres of literature are most appropriately and effectively used in the ESL writing class. My own definition of literature is quite broad and includes not only novels, short stories, plays, and poems, but also es¬says, memoirs, and other variations of belletristic rather than expository prose, such as the "nonfiction novel" and "autobiographical fiction." It is useful to explain the differences among these genres to students, as well as what they have in common, and to discuss what makes them literature.

Literature in the teaching of second language composition 273
Short stories are the most commonly used form of literature in classes, as they are both interesting to students and "manageable." Because they are short, they can be read and discussed in a reasonable amount of class time and students can get a feeling of achievement and satisfaction quickly. Most of the literary analysis that can be done with novels can also and perhaps more easily be done with short stories, e.g., analysis regarding theme, setting, plot, characters, symbolism, and so forth. Short stories are very accessible; many textbooks feature them, and they are also available in many anthologies. Stories generally have many themes and topics packed into their few short pages, so there is much to discuss. They also provide useful vocabulary practice.
Poetry is also often effectively used, although students sometimes have trouble understanding poems and often are less interested in poems than in fiction. Reading poems aloud and having students read them aloud of¬ten markedly increase students' interest in and understanding of poetry. Discussing poetry provides useful lessons for writers, lessons about the importance of each word, about imagery, about brevity and density, about interpretation, and about expressing the universal in the partic¬ular. Even students who will never write their own poems can benefit from these lessons in all of their writing.
Novels, although long, can also be incorporated into ESL writing classes. Meloni (1994) advocates students' reading short novels, stat¬ing that they are interesting and motivating, provide continuity in a way a collection of short pieces cannot, and yet are short enough to be man-. ageable for the L2 student. By short novels, she means those of about 100-150 pages, such as George Orwell's Animal Farm, John Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men, and Amy Tan's The Joy Luck Club.
Longer novels can also be read by advanced ESL students. In many cases, the instructor will have the whole class read the same novel, over a period of time, discussing it and writing about it as they go along. Alternatively, each student can choose a different novel and give periodic written and oral reports to the class. The instructor may want to provide students with a list of recommended novels but also allow them to choose their own, only asking them to check titles with the instructor so that she or he can steer them away from inappropriate novels (those that are too long, too short, too obscure, too difficult, or lacking in any literary value). For students of traditional college age, coming-of-age novels have particular meaning and thus are especially popular; examples include J. D. Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye, John Knowles's A Separate Feace, Betty Smith's A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, Elizabeth Bowen's The Death of the Heart, Carson McCullers' The Member of the Wedding, and Gish Jen's Typical American.
The essay is the most obvious form of literature to use in writing classes (although, as discussed above, some do not consider essays "literature").

274 Stephanie Vandrick
These provide the closest "model" for the kinds of writing students are most likely to do. They incorporate many of the elements of any good literature: originality, vision, careful and creative use of the language, awareness of the reader (audience), purposeful organization and shaping of the material, and experimentation with style and tone.
Some have suggested the use of children's literature for adult students in ESL writing classes. Khodabakhshi and Lagos (1993) state that "carefully selected children's literature arouses interest and stimulates ESL students' oral and written expression." It can also be used to introduce more complex reading material" (p. 55). They caution that teachers need to point out to adult students that many authors intend "children's" literature for all ages. They believe that through this litera¬ture, "students re-examine their own experiences through the medium of powerful, meaningful stories, making connections to their own as well as their classmates' lives and to the human truths embodied in children's classics" (p. 52). Instructors should not dismiss such literature without investigating it; they may be surprised at the high quality, expressiveness, and power of many children's books.
A related question regarding which kind of literature to use is the question of whether to use abridged fiction. Some instructors, and pub-lishers, favor abridged works as a way to make literature available to students with limited English, and perhaps with limited time. Other instructors argue that if students are to truly experience the benefits of lit-erature, they should experience it in its undiluted form; cutting a writer's words seems disrespectful. Although abridged works should in general probably be avoided, it may be that in low-level classes, abridged stories can provide a useful preliminary stage to students' being able to read "the real thing."
The canon or multicultural literature?
Another important curricular question faced by instructors regarding which kind of literature to choose for L2 writing classes is whether to read literature from the "canon" (works that have traditionally been considered the "best" in a given language and have withstood the test of time) or from a more diverse multicultural body of literature. There are good arguments for each position.
Teaching students about the traditional great works of English and American literature gives students at least a little of the background that students who have attended school in the United States or another English-speaking country will already have, and thus helps ESL students be more prepared for their other university classes where such knowledge might be presupposed, and even for living in countries where this is the dominant literature. Also, most works in the canon are there because they

Literature in the teaching of second language composition 275
represent a consensus (at least until recently) about which works are the best in English; thus students reading these works will be exposed to high-quality literature, with all the benefits that exposure entails. On the other hand, the United States and the world are becoming more multicultural, more diverse, more mixed, and it is entirely appropriate that students read literature by authors from various national, ethnic, and class back¬grounds, and by women as well as men. It is also important that students, at least some of the time, read literature about settings, characters, and situations that they can relate to and even identify with, and that they may thus find sympathetic and validating. A carefully chosen mixture of literature, partially from the "canon" and partially from more recent, more multicultural literature, is probably the best solution.
In fact, in ESL textbooks and classes, in the past 15 to 20 years there has been a decided move toward increasing use of multicultural literature. Until the 1980s, when ESL scholars advocated the use of liter¬ature in L2 reading/writing classes, they generally referred to mainstream literature, literature mostly by white male writers. ESL textbooks featur¬ing literature tended to focus on "classic" pieces that were part of the mainly European and European-American, mostly male canon. Di Pietro (19 82) called for the use of multi-ethnic literature, but the literature read¬ily available at that time was still quite limited, so the authors he rec¬ommended were still predominantly white males of European ancestry: Italian Americans, Russian Americans, Jewish Americans. The works of these authors did broaden the "canon," and they were especially effective in that they often portrayed immigrant lives and lives other than those of mainstream middle-class white America.
In the late 1980s, the selections in ESL reading/writing textbooks became much more multicultural. Fortunately, there was an increas¬ing variety of literature in print and available to draw from. Diversity, multiculturalism, and multicultural literature were now popular, even trendy. Currently, textbook authors/editors clearly seek out literature by women and by writers from various countries and from various ethnic groups. They include stories and other literary selections by, for example, African, Asian, South American, and Middle Eastern writers as well as (in the United States) by African American, Asian American, Hispanic American, and other minority group authors. Unfortunately, however, virtually no commercially produced ESL reading/writing textbooks to date include literature portraying the lives of lesbian and gay charac¬ters or disabled characters (although there may well be locally produced exceptions).
Not only does multicultural literature help students learn about other cultures and allow them to identify with characters and situations that may be from their own or related cultures, but such literature also may promote tolerance and understanding. By learning from the literature

276 Stephanie Vandrick
about both similarities among cultures and people and differences among cultures and peoples, students can understand and write about what con-nects all people and what divides them. Reading multicultural literature also helps counter stereotypes that students may have about, for example, "the United States"; when they read literature by and about various ethnic and other groups, they will begin to realize that the United States and its culture(s) are far from monolithic. Reading literature about the themes described leads to deeper and more engaged thinking and writing.
In addition, as I have argued elsewhere (Vandrick, 1996a, 1997a), multicultural and diaspora literature serves as a kind of mirror to ESL students and is experienced by many of them as validating. Not only does this feeling of validation enhance students' comfort, but it also enhances their ability to focus on and succeed in their writing. Just one exam¬ple of this occurred in a writing class where students read well-written descriptions in literature from their own country or one geographically nearby. These students were able to understand the concept of vivid de¬scriptive details better, and this understanding translated into the use of more and better details in their own essays {Vandrick, 1996a).
Despite the value of multicultural literature, it is important for instruc¬tors to be critical in choosing such literature and textbooks that feature it for L2 writing classes. First, the principles of selection should be clear from the title and from the prefatory material. For example, a book of stories from around the world has a different emphasis and obviously will include different selections from those in a book of pieces from various cultures and groups within the United States. Then within those goals and limits, the selections in the book should be balanced, including liter¬ary selections by writers from a wide variety of backgrounds. Female and male authors should be approximately equally represented. The discus¬sion questions and other apparatus in the books should be informative and sensitive about cultural differences portrayed. There should be atten¬tion to both differences and universal themes. Focus should not always be on "problems"; although it is important to discuss these, there should also be attention to positive aspects of each culture.
Teachers should also be careful about how they teach this multicul¬tural literature. It is probably not enough simply to expose students to literature from various backgrounds; such exposure may simply rein¬force students' preconceptions and prejudices. Shapiro (1991) suggests that there may be a danger of including selections from so many different cultures that "we risk trading depth for breadth" (p. 526) and at the same time risk "stereotyping a culture by limiting its exposure through single, short, excerpts" (p. 526). Sadarangani (1994) has a similar concern, feel¬ing that some multicultural textbooks "suggest that foreign cultures are easily knowable through short pieces of writing, often ignoring the com¬plexities of those cultures" (p. 48). Although selection of pieces included

Literature in the teaching of second language composition 277
in the text is the responsibility of authors, editors, and publishers, it is also the responsibility of instructors to choose their class texts carefully and to guide students through them in a sensitive and positive way. This responsibility is one reason that teachers in training - and afterward -should learn as much as they can about the possibilities for incorporating literature into their curricula.
Literature and social issues
An issue related to choosing and using multicultural literature is choos¬ing literature that focuses on social issues of various types. One of the many benefits of using literature in a writing class is that literature so of¬ten deals with social, political, and economic questions. Literary purists may question instructors' and readers' focusing on these questions, but they provide built-in interest-building and discussion-stimulating mate¬rials that are invaluable in writing classes. Spack (1994), in her textbook The International Story, points out that stories
provide a sense of social history.... Many of the stories reflect the concerns of the times: class distinctions, roles of women, immigration and acculturation, the American dream, social and economic limitations, World War I, racism and colonialism, post-World War II materialism, religious and cultural identity, Communism, poverty, violence, and effects of the Vietnam War. (p. 44}
Zandy (1998) points out a related benefit that might not spring to mind as quickly but is also invaluable: literature often serves to teach issues of class, including working-class issues, such as the heavy toll that hard physical work takes. For just one example, consider the class issues so exquisitely delineated in de Maupassant's short story "The Necklace" (collected in Spack, 1994). The main character longs to rise to a higher class, yet circumstance forces her to pay for her ambitions with the painful hard work of the poor. This story elicits students' knowledge and feelings about social class in a very visceral way, and the discussions and writing elicited by this story can be impressively analytical and complex.
There is a clear connection here to recent interest by ESL profes¬sionals in peace education, meaning teaching about issues related to social justice, issues relating to peace and war, violence, the environ¬ment, civil rights, gender, race, and so on (Birch, ,1993; Vandrick, 1994, 1996b). Some instructors might be concerned that discussing so¬cial issues is somehow ideological, promoting certain political or social views, but surely examining stereotypes and increasing understanding is beneficial. Besides, Benesch and others have made the point that all teaching is in fact ideological "whether or not we are conscious of the political implications. Educators who do not acknowledge or discuss their ideology are not politically neutral; they simply do not highlight

278 Stephanie Vandrick
their ideology" (1993, p. 706). The beauty of literature is that it power¬fully portrays social problems as they play out in people's lives; the issues are no longer abstract.
Using the literature
Instructors new to using literature in the L2 writing class may wonder how to employ it effectively. Its most important use is as a prelude and stimulus to writing. But before students read short stories, for exam¬ple, they might benefit from learning some basic literary terms, such as plot, theme, conflict, resolution, character, protagonist, antagonist, set¬ting, symbolism, metaphor, simile, and flashback. These terms are tools that will aid students in analyzing, understanding, discussing, and writ¬ing about the stories. Some textbooks provide useful descriptions of these terms (e.g., Spack, 1994).
Before students read each story, it is useful for them to do some pre-reading activities, such as learning at least a little about the author, the time period, and the literary genre. Students can look at the title and speculate on what it might mean or predict. They can glance over the story to see how long it is and whether it has a lot of dialogue. They can read the first paragraph or two and then stop and discuss the material with classmates, perhaps identifying the setting and main characters and again speculating on what might happen. The instructor can urge stu¬dents to read the story at least twice. She can also urge them not to look up too many words in the dictionary, especially during the first reading, but instead to try to immerse themselves in the story and not worry if they don't understand every word or every detail. Otherwise they will become too caught up with frequent stops to look up words and won't enjoy the story; in addition, they will lose the flow of the story and not see the forest for the trees.
This is not to imply that learning new vocabulary is not, for ESL stu¬dents, an important part of reading literature. The teacher certainly can answer questions about vocabulary. In fact, it is helpful for the instruc¬tor to identify and provide the students with a list of some of the most useful new words in each selection. In this way, students receive some guidance about which words of the many new words in any given piece they should focus on. Learning the words on the list can be enhanced by vocabulary exercises and perhaps quizzes.
Reading literature also exposes students to a rich variety of sentence structures and other syntactical and linguistic complexities. Although students' attention should be drawn to certain structures, this should be part of their understanding of the piece, rather than a sort of grammar exercise in isolation. (See Frodesen & Holten, Chapter 6 this volume,

Literature in the teaching of second language composition 279
for a discussion of how this awareness promotes increased proficiency.) McKay (1982) makes the point that literature should not primarily be treated as a source of examples of usage; the aesthetic experience should be paramount, and "language usage should be explored only to the extent that it is relevant to that experience" (p. 533).
Class discussion should focus not only on "what happened" (although it is important to ascertain that students have in fact understood the ba¬sics of the plot). Discussion can include such questions as the following: What theme or themes are addressed in this piece? Who are the main char¬acters, and what do you learn about them? Which details and dialogue help you understand these characters? Do you relate to any of the charac¬ters? Do they remind you of anyone you know? Do you have any strong reactions to any of the characters? Is the story believable? Which parts of the story and its themes are universal, and which parts are culturally bound? What do you learn about the culture of the time and place of the story? What is the tone of the story or piece? What do you notice about the type of language used? Is it dense, ornate, simple, complex? Is there a lot of dialogue? What is the role of dialogue in this story? Is there a lot of description? How much is explained and how much is left to the reader's imagination? Can you find symbols in the story? What do they repre¬sent? (See McKay, 2001, for an illuminating, detailed example of how classroom analysis of two specific stories might fruitfully be carried out.)
In discussion of a piece in class, it is often useful to have students read aloud selected passages, either chosen by the instructor or by-the students. These might be passages that are particularly revealing about certain characters or particularly dramatic. Passages with a lot of dialogue can be read aloud almost as a dramatic play. Sometimes it is interesting to ask each student to pick a short passage - perhaps only a sentence or two - that is particularly meaningful to her or him, to read it aloud, and perhaps tell why she or he chose that passage. Other times it is helpful to have students pick out particularly vivid details and discuss how these details reveal setting, character, theme, and plot. This last exercise is helpful in reminding students of the importance of providing vivid details in their own writing. Reading passages aloud is not only useful but enjoyable; language read aloud comes alive in a way that it may not when read silently. As mentioned earlier, this is particularly true when reading poetry.
An extension of reading aloud can be role play. Students may imagine the characters after the story is finished, for example, and act out what they think might happen next. Or they can act out the story with the roles of the main characters reversed or with the characters older, or younger, or in a different time or place. Depending on the story, the instructor can design role play situations that help students to further explore the implications of the story.

280 Stephanie Vandrick
After the students have read and discussed the literary selections, they are ready to write. Writing assignments based on such selections can range from response journals to short response pieces to reports to tra¬ditional "English papers" offering literary analysis and interpretation. Many writing instructors have found the response journal extremely useful. In its most common form, students divide pages in half, copy selected passages of interest on one half of the page, and write their own personal responses on the facing side of the page. Another variation is the 15-minute response paper in class, generally after a discussion. Students may be given a rather specific question to address, or they may be given freedom to address any aspect of the reading in any way they choose. Typical types of responses relate to such questions and directions as the following: What is the theme of this story? Describe one of the characters in detail. Does something in the story remind you of some aspect of your own life and experience? What did you particularly like or dislike about the story? Write a letter to one of the characters, giving the character your opinion and/or advice about her or his situation and actions.
Most of the activities discussed apply to literary selections that all the students in class have read. Regarding full novels, an instructor may also want to ask each student to choose a novel to read and report on. One way of organizing assignments on the novel is as follows. The stu¬dents receive a loose format for reporting on the book, emphasizing not only summary and analysis but also personal responses. They can com¬plete about three oral and three written reports during the course of the semester, thus keeping a steady pace in reading while being asked to stop and reflect regularly. Sharing their novels with their classmates in oral reports also widens the cultural knowledge of the students in the class, preparing them for future academic work and sometimes even motivat¬ing them to later read a novel recommended by a classmate. Students then respond in writing to one of their classmate's oral reports, thus pro¬voking another layer of analysis and interpretation. (For a more detailed description of this assignment, see Vandrick, 1997b.) Thus, there is a strong interconnection between reading and writing with literature used as a base. Finally, various ESL researchers (e.g., Dupuy, Tse, & Cook, 1996; Nash & Yun-Pi, 1992/1993) have advocated "extensive reading," in which students read various materials individually, inside and out¬side class - materials that are generally literary selections such as novels. The point of this reading is to develop the habit of reading for pleasure, though Grabe (2001) cautions that there is need for much more empirical evidence to support a claim for improved writing skills resulting simply from pleasure reading in L2. Except for the benefits of group discussion of a particular selection that all have read, extensive reading provides many of the same benefits as a whole class reading selections together. This can be somewhat addressed by book reviews or reports, literature

Literature in the teaching of second language composition 281
circles, and other small-group activities in which students share their readings and their responses to the readings.
It would be unfortunate if L2 writing instructors were to dismiss the use of literature in their classrooms without investigating the many important benefits of such use. Ideally the use of literature can be integrated with the use of other types of readings, all of which in combination provide students with a rich and challenging stimulus to good writing. In addition, exposure to literature helps students enter into and become part of the world of academe, of intellectual life, and of the life of the educated person.
Belcher, D., 6c Hirvela, A. (2000). Literature and L2 composition: Revisiting the debate. Journal of Second Language Writings 9, 21-39.
Benesch, S. (1993). ESL, ideology, and the politics of pragmatism. TESOL Quarterly, 27,705-717.
Birch, B. (1993). ESL techniques for peace. CATESOL Journal, 6, 7-16.
Carson, J. G., 6c Leki, I. (1993). Introduction. In J. G. Carson 6c I. Leki (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom: Second language perspec¬tives (pp. 1-7). Boston: Heinle 6c Heinle/Wads worth.
Crain, J. C. (1993). Comment on "Two views on the use of literature in compo¬sition." [Letter to the editor]. College English, 55, 678-679.
Di Pietro, R. (1982). The multi-ethnicity of American literature: A neglected resource for the EFL teacher. In M. Hines 6c W. Rutherford (Eds.), On TESOL '81 (pp. 215-229). Washington, DC: TESOL.
Dupuy, B., Tse, L., 6c Cook, T. (1996). Bringing books into the classroom: First steps in turning college-level ESL students into readers. TESOL Journal, 5(4), 10-15.
Edmondson, W. (1995/6). The role of literature in foreign language learning and teaching: Some valid assumptions and invalid arguments. AILA Review, 12, 42-55.
Gajdusek, L., 6c van Dommelen, D. (1993). Literature and critical thinking in the composition classroom. In J. G. Carson 6c I. Leki (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom: Second language perspectives (pp. 197-217). Boston: Heinle 6c Heinle/Wads worth.
Gamer, M. (1995). Fictionalizing the disciplines: Literature and the boundaries of knowledge. College English, 57, 281-286.
Grabe, W. (2001). Reading-writing relations: Theoretical perspectives and instructional practices. In D. Belcher 6c A. Hirvela (Eds.), Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading-writing connections (pp. 15^7). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

282 Stephanie Vandrick
Hirvela, A. (2001). Connecting reading and writing through literature. In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading-writing connections (pp. 109-134). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Jay, G. S. (1993). Comment on "Two views on the use of literature in composi¬tion." [Letter to the editor]. College English, 55, 673-675.
Khodabakhshi, S. C, &c Lagos, D. C. (1993). Reading aloud: Children's literature in college ESL classes. Journal of the Imagination in Language Learning, 1 52-55.
Knight, L. (1993). Comment on "Two views on the use of literature in compo¬sition." [Letter to the editor]. College English, 55, 676-678.
Latosi-Swain, E. (1993). Comment on "Two views on the use of literature in composition." [Letter to the editor]. College English, 55, 675-676.
Lazar, G. (1996). Exploring literary texts with the language learner. TESOJ, Quarterly, 30, 773-776.
Lindemann, E. (1993). Freshman composition: No place for literature. College English, 55, 311-316.
Lindemann, E. (1995). Three views of English 101. College English, 57, 287-302.
Maley, A. (2001). Literature in the language classroom. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 180-185). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Marckwardt, A. H. (1978). The place of literature in teaching English as a second or foreign language. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Marshall, M. (1979). Love and death in Eden: Teaching English literature to ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 13, 331-338.
McConochie, J. (1985). "Musing on the lamp-flame": Teaching a narrative poem in a college-level ESOL class. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 125-136.
McKay, S. (1982). Literature in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 529-536.
McKay, S. (2001). Literature as content for ESL/EFL. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed., pp. 319-332). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Meloni, C. E (1994). Reading for pleasure: Short novels in academic university ESL programs. Journal of the Imagination in Language Learning, 2, 50-54.
Morrow, N. (1997). The role of reading in the composition classroom. JAC: A Journal of Composition Theory, 17, 453-472.
Nash, T., & Yun-Pi, Y. (1992/1993). Extensive reading for learning and enjoy¬ment. TESOL Journal, 2(2), 27-31.
Oster, J. (1989). Seeing with different eyes: Another view of literature in the ESL class. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 85-103.
Peterson, J. (1995). Through the looking-glass: A response. College English, 57, 310-318.
Povey, J. F. (1967). Literature in TESOL programs: The language and the culture. TESOL Quarterly, 1, 40-46.
Sadarangani, U. (1994). Teaching multicultural issues in the composition class¬room: A review of recent practice. Journal of Teaching Writing, 13, 33-54.
Sage, H. (1987). Incorporating literature in ESL instruction, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Literature in the teaching of second language composition 283
Shapiro, N. (1991). [Review of Across cultures: A reader for writers; American
mosaic: Multicultural readings in context; Emerging voices: A cross cultural
reader; Intercultural journeys through reading and writing; and Writing
about the world]. College Composition and Communication, 42, 524-530. Spack, R. (1985). Literature, reading, writing, and ESL: Bridging the gaps.
TESOL Quarterly, 19, 703-725. Spack, R. (1994). The international story: An anthology with guidelines for
reading and writing about fiction. New York: St. Martin's. Steinberg, E. R. (1995). Imaginative literature in composition classrooms?
College English, 57, 266-280. Tate, G. (1993). A place for literature in freshman composition. College English,
55,317-321. Tate, G. (1995). Notes on the dying of a conversation. College English, 57,
303-309. Vandrick, S. (1994). Teaching social justice issues through literature. CATESOL
Journal, 7{2), 113-119. Vandrick, S. (1996a). Issues in using multicultural literature in college ESL
classes. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 253-269. Vandrick, S. (1996b). Teaching critical thinking and reading for peace education.
College ESL, 6{2), 27-36. Vandrick, S. (1997a). Diaspora literature: A mirror for ESL students. College
ESL, 7(2), 53-69. Vandrick, S. (1997b). Reading and responding to novels in the university ESL
classroom. The Journal of the Imagination in Language Learning, 4, 104-
107. Widdowson, H. G. (1982). The use of literature. In M. Hines & W. Rutherford
(Eds.), On TESOL '81 (pp. 203-214). Washington,-DC: TESOL. Willoquet-Maricondi, P. (1991/1992). Integrating ESOL skills through literature.
TESOL Journal, 1(2), 11-14. Zandy, J. (1998). The job, the job: The risks of work and the uses of texts.
In A. Shepard, J. McMillan, & G. Tate (Eds.), Coming to class: Pedagogy
and the social class of teachers (pp. 281-308). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/


The wri as . as 1 wit vas act
bai coi 20 ths
ex ex id. les
re th
[c ei re a r; ii

There can be little doubt that computers have vastly altered how writers produce texts. From the obvious use of computer keyboards as alternatives to the typewriters that earlier replaced pen and paper as the most typical means of transcribing ideas into words, to the ease with which electronic mail facilitates communication across near and vast distances, technological advances continue to shape people's literate activities (see Kern, 2000, pp. 223-266).
The contributions of technology to the field of language learning go back a long way and extend well beyond the role of computers in writing courses (for brief overviews of numerous possibilities, see Hanson-Smith, 2001; Sokolik, 2001). Still, it is critical for writing teachers to remember that they have a vital role to play in helping their students find (new) ways to use computers effectively for writing and research purposes. For example, information available via the World Wide Web has altered and expanded the ways in which student researchers can access data and ideas (Slaouti, 2002), offering a path to greater control over their own learning.
For some teachers and students, creating an expanding role for computers will involve overcoming computer anxiety; this leads to a kind of resistance that can prove counter-productive to achieving improvement in academic writing skills (cf. Davidson 8c Tomic, 1994). In an online review of Jane Ward Schofield's book Computers and Class¬room Culture (Cambridge University Press, 1995), Bump (2000) notes that "teacher resistance remains the primary obstacle to the advance of [computer use] in English," echoing Schofield's finding that many teach¬ers enrolled in university courses reported fear, anxiety, and phobia in regard to computer use. Teachers need to see that computers are not a threat to the key role they themselves play in classroom interactions; rather, the computer is a tool of most value to those who can learn to tap into its potential.

286 Exploring technology
How do computers and technology enhance (or hinder) the delivery of writing courses to second language writers?
To foster a broader understanding of how computers contribute to the second language (L2) writing class, and to counter potential insecurity on the part of novice teachers, Chapter 12, by Martha Pennington, addresses the role of computers and technology as specifically relevant in L2 writ¬ing contexts. In numerous settings, teachers of both first language (LI) and L2 writing courses make assumptions - or possibly require - that students will hand in computer-mediated written work using their own choice of word processing programs. In some settings, particularly in North America, many freshman composition courses are specifically de¬signed to take place in a computer lab with the dual goal of (1) helping students become more proficient at using the computer to produce texts and (2) utilizing computer capabilities for interactive peer response, mas¬tering research skills, and so on. Regrettably, in many other settings, some teachers might feel ill-trained or disinclined to address the issue of the computer in their writing class. Pennington's chapter shows how important it is for teachers to find ways to include a computer com¬ponent in their pedagogical repertoire. She discusses various computer media, including word processing, networked computers, and hyperme¬dia, suggesting that L2 teachers have a responsibility to be proactive in ensuring the optimal use of technology not only in promoting but also in transforming literacy.
Bump, J. (2000). [Review of Janet Ward Schofield, Computers and classroom culture}. Currents in Electronic Literacy, Spring 2000, 3. Available at http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/currents/sprOO/cuIture.html
Davidson, C, & Tomic, A. (1994). Removing computer phobia from the writing classroom. ELT Journal, 48> 205-214.
Hanson-Smith, E. (2001). Computer-assisted language learning. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 107-113). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kern, R. (2000). Literacy and language teaching. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Slaouti, D. (2002). The World Wide Web for academic purposes: Old study skills for new? English for Specific Purposes, 21y 105-124.
Sokolik, M. (2001). Computers in language teaching. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second/foreign language (3rd ed., pp. 477-488). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

The impact of the computer in second language writing
Martha C. Pennington
The computer in its many guises as writing tool and communications medium is changing the way we interact with information and with each other. Whether in the form of a word processor installed on a personal computer (PC), a group of PCs linked in a computer lab or a university network, or the Internet connecting people and electronic information sources around the globe, the computer is having a profound effect on literacy practices in the present age. It is, at the same time, contributing to an ongoing expansion of information and communication resources that has put English in the hands of more and more people around the globe.
These trends have created a great demand for literacy in English as a second language (ESL) as well as for literacy in computer writing tools, issues that are sometimes hard to separate. Many of our literacy practices in education, work, and social life have moved off the page and onto the screen: more and more people are doing the majority of their writing and reading on computer and transmitting messages electronically rather than on paper (Warschauer, 1999).
As the communicator of the present day and especially of the future is inevitably linked to electronic media, those charged with instructing ESL students in writing cannot afford to remain outside these develop¬ments, teaching without regard to the communication technologies that are increasingly at the center of their students' world; teachers should be prepared to bring computers into the center of their own pedagogical practice. The modern ESL writing teacher needs to understand the na¬ture of electronic writing media, the kinds of impacts these media have on students' writing, and the ways they can best be employed in the teach¬ing of writing. This chapter aims to raise the awareness of ESL writing teachers regarding electronic writing media, their effects on ESL writ¬ers, and their pedagogical applications, beginning with a review of some critical issues in word processing and then moving on to networking, hypermedia, and the use of the Internet as a research tool/assistant for writers.

288 Martha C. Pennington Word processing
The basic writing tool provided by the computer is a word proces¬sor, with most word processors including a spellchecker and many including a grammar checker as well. Most people agree that word processors are useful for writing because they facilitate the mechan¬ical processes of putting words on paper; revising text by substitu¬tions, deletions, additions, and block moves; and producing attractive and readable finished copy. The word processor is not only a conve¬nient tool combining an automated typewriter, editor, and printer; it is also a composing medium that with time and practice can signif¬icantly change the writer's process and product. Many studies have shown that beyond their facilitating effects, word processors have an impact on student writers' attitudes, the characteristics of their texts, their revising behavior and the attention they pay to form and mechan¬ics, and the order and the type of writing activities in which they en¬gage (for reviews and discussions of research, see Bangert-Drowns, 1993; Cochran-Smith, 1991; Pennington, 1996b, 1996c, 1999a, 1999b; Snyder, 1993).
Student attitudes
Most students have a good initial reaction to the computer and feel that it can help them in their work, though some users, especially older students, may be uncomfortable with the technology or may even be "computer-phobic. " Another minority of users may have their enthusiasm dampened if they experience technical problems early on, have difficulty typing or mastering computer commands, or have limited access to computers and to experienced users who can offer assistance when things go wrong. As a result, a few who try word processing will give up in frustration. Typ¬ically, however, after a period of weeks or months spent improving their keyboarding skills, most students persist and become regular computer users.
The mechanical capabilities of a word processor are especially valu¬able in a second language (L2) context, where the physical processes of putting words on paper and revising text to a finished product, and the cognitive processes underlying these, are more effortful and less automa¬tized (Jones ScTetroe, 1987) than when writing in the first language (LI). Not only the actual capabilities of the machine but also the students' view of these as helpful for their writing are significant for L2 writ¬ers, who may, even more than inexperienced LI writers, lack confidence in their writing ability (Betancourt & Phinney, 1988). Word processors can relieve the anxiety some L2 writers feel about writing the L2 script,

The impact of the computer in second language writing 289
about producing academic work in their L2, and about writing in general (Pennington, 1999a; Phinney, 1989).
Many studies conducted with L2 writers report positive attitudes as-sociated with word processing (e.g., Neu & Scarcella, 1991; Pennington & Brock, 1992; Phinney, 1991; Phinney Sc Mathis, 1990). For example, in their comparison of word processing and pen-and-paper composing in English by Turkish university students, Akyel and Kamisli (1999) report that the use of the computer improved student attitudes toward writing and built up their confidence. In a longitudinal investigation of a group of mature ESL writers in Hong Kong who were able to use the computer as much or as little as they wished in their written work for a course (Rusmin, 1999), the majority of the students were positive toward the computer and adopted it for their writing from the beginning of the term or increasingly as the course progressed. On the basis of the different patterns of attitudes and computer use, Rusmin (1999) classified the 27 students in the class into six categories, which she labeled "devotees," "enthusiasts," "rededicateds," "positives," "converts," and "skeptics," categories that may be applicable to a host of students in a wide variety of locales.
Textual properties
Also related to attitude is self-consciousness. The student writer working in a computer medium is led to write in a less self-conscious way and with greater engagement, thus writing with a freer mind and less "rewriting anxiety." As a result, the student's greater involvement may lead him or her to write for longer periods of time and produce longer texts. Several studies with L2 writers (e.g., Brock & Pennington, 1999; Chadwick & Bruce, 1989; Pennington &C Brock, 1992) document that longer texts are a general effect of word processing.
In addition to the production of longer texts, the physical easing of the writing process that results in a less constrained, more relaxed writing process may produce texts that are in a sense also "more relaxed." Written products generated on a word processor "are often uncon¬strained and experimental, being more likely to be in a non-generic form that sometimes amounts to what has been called 'train of thought' or 'spaghetti writing' - long strings of loosely connected strands of ideas" (Pennington, 2000, p. 14). In some cases, computer-produced text rep¬resents an unfinished, intermediate work that given sufficient time for continued development will result in a high-quality product (Pennington, 1996b, 1996c). In other cases, it may represent a new type of work, as when writing in hypertext - fqr example, for a Web page or in an e-mail context.

290 Martha C. Pennington
Revision strategies and accuracy concerns
Surface-level editing for spelling and mechanics is encouraged in a word processing environment, where the small size of text visible on one screen may engender an especially focused type of revision at word, phrase, and sentence level (Pennington, 1996b, 1999b). At the same time, the ease with which individual words can be searched and whole sections of text deleted, added, or moved suggests that word processing may have value as a macro-level revision tool. Rather than being a separate activity following the generation of a draft, revision in a computer context is closely linked to text generation. Pedagogical intervention aimed at increasing students' awareness of and ability to apply revision strategies in their own writing (e.g., Steelman, 1994) has demonstrated the value of the computer medium for helping learners increase the type and depth of their revisions.
In other research, L2 writers have been found to revise more when writing with a computer than when writing by traditional means (e.g., Chadwick & Bruce, 1989; Li & Cumming, 2001; Phinney & Khouri, 1993); to revise more dynamically and continuously (Phinney 6c Khouri, 1993); and to spend more time revising in a computer context, where they may "continue revising after planned changes [have] been made" (Phinney Sc Khouri, 1993, p. 271). Writers also make more revi¬sions beyond the surface level. There is some evidence that word pro¬cessing is more effective in stimulating meaning-level revision when aligned to a process approach to writing (Daiute, 1985; Susser, 1993) than when used without process support or with other computer writing aids such as grammar checkers (Brock & Pennington, 1999; Pennington & Brock, 1992). The research thus supports an approach that teaches the writing process in the context of learning to write and revise using a word processor.
Implications for planning
In pen-and-paper composing, writers often spend a lot of time in in¬tensive planning before writing to avoid making mistakes or changing their minds about what they want to say and then having to undertake the tedious chore of rewriting or recopying text already written down. Under such conditions, pen-and-paper writers may habitually write a paper without any revision or with only a minimum amount of revi¬sion to avoid producing more than one draft. In sharp contrast to this paper-based mode of composing, the automated text-generation and re¬vision tools provided on computer, coupled with the malleability of text on screen or disk, encourage a very different computer-based writing mode (Bernhardt, Edwards, & Wojahn, 1989; Haas, 1989; Williamson & Pence, 1989). In a contrasting "computer writing style," the writer

The impact of the computer in second language writing 291
generally begins writing immediately, soon after a topic is decided - or even before it is decided.
Instead of writing to fit a plan, computer writers plan as they are writ¬ing (Haas, 1989), an effect also documented for L2 writers (Akyel 6c Kamisli, 1999; Li & Cumming, 2001). Planning thus becomes more of a middle stage than a beginning stage activity, and the time and inten¬sive cognitive activity that would have been involved in pre-planning is instead involved in writing itself. The sharp division of composing into the three stages of planning, writing, and revising breaks down in a com¬puter context, in which planning as well as revision occurs as part of the writing process. In the computer-engendered approach to writing, cog¬nitive effort is distributed throughout the writing process and writing is developed more on the basis of concrete text already generated than on an abstract plan; this procedure would seem to be especially valuable for L2 writers, who have less cognitive capacity available for writing than do LI writers.
Weighing the advantages and disadvantages
In spite of the obvious advantages of the computer over pen-and-paper writing in terms of automation, flexibility, and cognitive demands, the results of research on the quality of writing produced in a computer context are not all favorable, as only some studies have yielded positive effects for student compositions produced by word processing in contrast to pen and paper (see Pennington, 1996b, 1996c, 1999a, 1999b, for reviews). A mixed pattern of findings can be seen in the L2 literature: in some studies, word processing gave writers an advantage in terms of writing quality (e.g., Lam & Pennington, 1995; McGarrell, 1993), while in others, word processing gave no advantage over pen and paper (e.g., Benesch, 1987; Chadwick & Bruce, 1989).
These mixed results from individual studies have often been used to caution teachers against an easy acceptance of word processing; how¬ever, three summative (meta-analytical) reviews of research results com¬paring word processing to pen-and-paper composing have demonstrated an advantage for computer-produced over pen-produced text in terms of traditional measures of writing quality (Bangert-Drowns, 1993; Roblyer, Castine, & King, 1988; Schramm, 1989). In addition, most studies show¬ing negative results for word processing were carried out from the late 1970s to the mid 1980s, and some of the negative findings may have been related to the characteristics of early word processors, subjects' unfamiliarity with computers, the context of research, or the ways in which effects were measured in these early studies. Teachers are there¬fore cautioned against placing too much weight on the older studies of word processing; they are advised instead to base their decisions about

292 Martha C. Pennington
computer use on more recent findings and the accumulated comparative evidence, which generally show a positive impact of word processing on students' writing. At the same time, teachers should always keep an eye out for the latest trends in computer use and research findings, bearing in mind that the focus and the results of research are likely to change as the context for writing on computers also changes - from word processed compositions to e-mail and Web pages.
As in all other cases in which new technologies or teaching approaches are introduced, teachers' and learners' behavior is dictated by their knowledge and understanding of the innovation. As students learn how to apply their word processing capabilities in their writing, they are likely to develop positive attitudes toward the computer writing medium and the context of writing, which may in the case of L2 writers extend also to their attitudes toward the English language. When the learners' knowl¬edge and attitudes are favorable, that is, when their "cognitive-affective response" to word processing is positive, in the process of learning about the medium they will gradually experience effects on their writing behav¬ior of three types (Pennington, 1996b, 1996c, 1999a, 1999b):
Manner Effects. A sense of the ease of writing and revising in a fluid writing process involving continuous and recursive write-revise cycles
Quantity Effects. Writing for extended periods of time, producing long texts with much content and many revisions
Quality Effects. Writing to a high standard in terms of topic development, formal characteristics, and writing goal
Given enough time and favorable circumstances for learning, these three types of effects, represented in Figure 12.1, may ultimately result in high-quality written products.
Under less favorable conditions, learners may not experience a pos¬itive cognitive-affective response to word processing if they have low awareness of computer potential that can help them in their writing, if they are intimidated by the computer or find it difficult to use, or if they experience frequent mechanical breakdowns. Consequently, under such conditions, their behavioral response is essentially the opposite of the learners' response found in more positive circumstances. This negative response consists of
Anti-Manner Effects. A sense of the difficulty of writing and revising,
reinforcing a one-shot linear plan-write process Anti-Quantity Effects. Limited time spent writing, producing short texts
with restricted content and few revisions Anti-Quality Effects. Writing to a minimal standard in terms of topic
development, formal characteristics, and writing goal

The impact of the computer in second language writing 293

Cognitive-Affective Response
Awareness Positive
of computer Attitudes
capabilities to computer
for writing and writing
as positive (sense of
potentials optimism and
for own motivation to
writing write, sense
process of control
and self-

Behavioral Response
(physical and
f cognitive
easing of
writing process,
and recursively)

(writing at
length, many
revisions, high
content coverage)
■ '
\ Quality
\ Effects
\ (thorough
\ topic
\ development,
* good match
of form and
writing goal)

Figure 12.1. The positive path in computer writing effects (adapted from Pennington 1999a, p. 283). Used with permission from Swets & Zeitlinger.
These three types of behavioral effects, illustrated in Figure 12.2, repre¬sent disfavoring conditions that predict poor written products.
Whatever the research findings, the inevitable presence of word pro-cessors in L2 contexts and in the future of most of our students is undeni-able, and any teacher who ignores this reality is avoiding a responsibility to teach to student needs.
Another way in which ESL writing teachers find that computers can play a key role in instruction is when they have the opportunity to teach in or have their students participate in a networked environment. A lo¬cal area network (LAN or intranet), such as in a computer lab, or a wide area network (WAN), such as the Internet or World Wide Web,

294 Martha C. Pennington
Behavioral Response

Cognitive-Affective Response

Anti-Manner Effects
(physical and cognitive strain of writing process, one-shot linear plan-write process)

Unawareness .
or low Attitudes
awareness of computer to computer and writing

potentials (sense of
for own intimidation,
writing difficulty,
process dislike of

Anti-Quantity Effects
(limited writing, revision, and content coverage)

Anti-Quality Effects (limited topic development,
matching of form and meaning, and writing goal)

Figure 12.2. The negative path in computer writing effects (adapted from Pennington 1999a, p. 285). Used with permission from Swets & Zeitlinger.
makes it possible to extend the computer writing environment by linking student writers to other people with whom they may interact to develop their writing. Through a computer network, students' computers may be linked to those of their teachers as well as other students as a way to develop collaborative work or to gain input on their writing other than by face-to-face interaction (Bruce, Peyton, & Batson, 1993; Bruce &C Rubin, 1993; Mabrito, 1991; Palmquist, 1993). All types of network arrangements have the potential for motivating L2 students to write and to revise in response to a real audience, for helping them to gain more input on their writing, for encouraging them to experiment in their writ¬ing, and for empowering them to seek out the resources they need for developing their ideas.
Within a computer network, students may participate in such novel activities as online feedback on classmates' work or "team editing" (Kaufer & Neuwirth, 1995) as well as the sending and receiving of e-mail "letters" or other sorts of messages (Howard, 1992). Where the students' computers are linked in a network, the potentials for collaboration

The impact of the computer in second language writing 295
and participatory interaction are increased (Warschauer, 1997). Some of this collaboration and interaction takes place around the computer; but increasingly it takes place in cyberspace, with the interactors being phys-ically removed - often at great distances - from one another. As a result, the writer may be encouraged to experiment with ideas and with lan¬guage because of the risk-free social access afforded by electronic con¬nectivity. At the same time networks bring writers together to increase shared knowledge and produce collaborative work, they also seem to help student writers to create an individual voice. Moran and Hawisher (1998) observe that writers can use online space to create alternative selves and to experiment with roles that they might not assume in face-to-face interaction.
E-mail exchanges
In a departmental or university-wide network, writing teachers can use e-mail to contact their students, and students can have easy access to their teachers to ask questions about their work and to receive feed¬back on drafts. As a further advantage, e-mail aids students work¬ing together on team projects to fulfill written assignments (Hoffman, 1996). With a university-wide network, L2 students can be linked to LI partners or more experienced L2 students on campus (Nabors & Swartley, 1999). With Internet access, L2 students can participate in information exchange with sister classes and e-mail partners over¬seas (Sayers, 1989; Slater 5c Carpenter, 1999; Woodin, 1997), such as via the International Tandem Network (available at: http://www.slf. ruhr-uni-bochum.de/email/stats-eng.html) or via the Intercultural E-mail Classroom Connections (IECC) service (http://www.teaching.com/iecc/). Woodin (1997) points out that in providing an opportunity for real com-munication one-on-one with speakers of the target language, e-mail func-tions "as a bridge between the language classroom and the natural setting. There is the opportunity for contact with a variety of native speakers, but from within the safety of one's own environment" (p. 31). In either type of partnering arrangement, the e-mail contact may allow writers to obtain information or input from a real audience in relation to their written assignments. Or the contact with other communicators over a network may itself function as stimulation for students' writing.
Lists, newsgroups, and bulletin boards
An additional possibility is to join a group that communicates by e-mail through a discussion list. Within each of these lists, many of which are available via Listserv, there is a wide range of topics that subscribers may access or participate in. Lists often serve the purpose of providing

296 Martha C. Fennington
specialized information or the answers to questions in a field. For example, students or teachers might request information about language teaching from the ESL list, TESL-L (listserv@cunyvm.cuny.edu); about teaching ESL on a network from NETEACH-L (listserv@raven.cc.ukans.edu); or about linguistics, language acqui¬sition, or a specific language such as English from the applied linguistics list, LINGUIST (listserv@tamvml.tamu.edu). Such specialized lists can be used to locate experts and other sources of information in a specific field or on a specific topic. They also often serve the purpose of debating issues, generating different points of view, and comparing different (well-known or unknown) people's information or points of view. Windeatt, Hardisty, and Eastment (2000) have activities for introducing students to discussion lists (Activity 1.9, pp. 43-45) and for setting up an electronic list (Activity 1.11, pp. 47-49).
A newsgroup is a group of users networked by e-mail for spe¬cialized discussions through a service called Usenet, which has news¬groups of various kinds for different countries, such as in the UK (http://www.usenet.org.uk/) or Norway (http://www.usenet.no/). A bulletin board is like a list except that instead of receiving information via e-mail, the user goes to a specific Web site to read messages posted on the bulletin board. Bulletin boards thus allow for individual access to information and individual choice as to whether and when to partic¬ipate. Students might visit bulletin boards as part of Internet searches (see Windeatt, Hardisty, Sc Eastment, 2000, for suggestions). A bulletin board can also be set up for a specific class or group of students (e.g., at a site called BeSeen, http://www.beseen.com/board/index.html), as a way to encourage their independence, full participation, and sharing of infor¬mation. Bulletin boards are also of value to teachers for sharing resources and expertise and for building a sense of community. For example, in a study of students in a TESOL (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages) methods course interacting on a World Wide Web bulletin board, Kamhi-Stein (2000) found that the electronic medium encouraged participants to take responsibility for learning both collectively and indi¬vidually, as shown by a high level of student-led interaction, collaborative learning, and equal participation by native and non-native students alike.
Synchronous communication: Chat, MUDs, and MOO$
In addition to the asynchronous, or saved and time-delayed transmis¬sion of messages via e-mail and e-mail lists, networked communication includes several types of synchronous, or nearly immediate, real-time communication. One interactive writing program, Daedalus Interchange (Daedalus, Inc.), allows students in a networked class to send a message related to a writing task to other students simultaneously.

The impact of the computer in second language writing 297
Teleconferencing and videoconferencing, though not widely used in instruction, are other examples of synchronous communication. An increasingly popular type of program is text-conferencing software, most commonly in the form of Internet relay chat (IRC) programs, such as Microsoft Chat (Microsoft Corp.) or mIRC (available free at: http://www.mirc.com/), which makes it possible for participants to have an online discussion or "chat" by typing at the computer keyboard while others who are also logged on to the same site can watch the interaction evolve. There are many open IRC "chat rooms," and a closed chat room can also be set up for selected participants.
An advantage is the equality of the interaction, as every participant has the same chance to initiate a topic and/or to respond to another's turn. There is also the possibility of any number of people composing input at the same time. These discussion programs therefore offer possibilities for expanding student writers' ability to gather and refine their ideas in interaction with others. They can also, like e-mail and other forms of net¬worked communication, stimulate creativity and personalization. There are some disadvantages, however, as Windeatt, Hardisty, and Eastment (2000) observe:
Unfortunately, the more people join in a 'chat', the more disjointed the discussion is. In addition, the contributions to the discussion are often short and people tend to use abbreviations, and make a lot of typing mistakes. Nevertheless ... IRC can be useful for discussion among a small number of people, especially as the discussion can be 'logged', i.e. a copy can be saved on disk, to look at more carefully later, (p. 113)
Such functions have utility for writing, for example, in interacting about ideas for writing and giving feedback on writing, and in general, for establishing and maintaining contact with a community of writers not only in a networked classroom but also beyond the confines of a classroom. Note, however, that IRC software (unlike, for example, the Daedalus package) is not specifically designed for composing-related use and in fact seems to promote a type of spontaneous playfulness that encourages the breaking of conventions.
Two additional types of synchronous communication are MUDs (multi-user domains) and MOOs (multi-user domains, object-oriented). Like text-conferencing, these involve multiple users interacting online by going to a specific Web site and typing information on a keyboard. Rather than chat sites, these are Internet-based specialized environments or virtual worlds where participants can interact with each other or ac¬cess information. Unlike chat rooms, in which the interaction exists only as long as .users remain online, these environments are structured to have continuity of characters, spaces (e.g., "rooms"), and objects from one session to another.

298 Martha C. Pennington
A MOO is similar to a simulation in which participants interact on¬line. Since participants are generally linked from all over the globe, a MOO can be seen as a type of "global village" in which students can be linked with an international group of participants as resources for their ideas and their writing. MOO interactions have the special characteristic that users can assume one or more imaginary identities and keep their real identity hidden, thus encouraging playfulness and experimentation, MOO interactions may therefore have some value in stimulating student writers to develop ideas and "freeing" them to experiment with different authorial voices and writing styles.
An example of a MOO that incorporates properties of other sorts of Web sites is schMOOze University (http://schmooze.hunter. cuny.edu:8888/), which is described on the opening page of the Web site as
a small, friendly college known for its hospitality and the diversity of the student population... established as a place where people studying English as a second or foreign language could practice English while sharing ideas and experiences with other learners and practitioners of English. Students have opportunities for one-on-one and group conversations as well as access to language games, an online dictionary, virtual stockbroker and many language games.
The schMOOze University Web site includes an introduction to the MOO environment and the schMOOze University, a Virtual English Lan¬guage Center, Internet TESL Journal pages for ESL students, a collabo¬rative MOO project, teacher discussions on NETEACH-L, and a link to Dave's ESL Cafe (an ESL Web site run by Dave Sperling, an ESL instruc¬tor based in the United States).
Expanding peer response
Communication in a networked environment can change some of the dynamics of peer feedback sessions as found in traditional classrooms (discussed by Ferris, Chapter 5 this volume). Sullivan and Pratt (1996) discovered that the communication that occurred as peer feedback over the computer network was of a type that might have been especially valuable for students in improving their writing. They summarize some of the contrasts as follows:
[Face-to-face peer] discussions were often filled with personal narratives (students focusing on themselves rather than the task at hand) and short interjections of agreement (uh-huh) or repetition... [whereas, over the network]... the responses followed a pattern that consisted of a positive comment about the essay followed by one or more suggestions for revision. (p. 499)

The impact of the computer in second language writing 299
Moreover, the networked feedback from more than one student tended to reinforce the same points and the same suggestions for revision, thereby perhaps focusing the writer's attention on certain points for revision. However, in a study carried out with EFL writing students in Hong Kong, Braine (2001) reports that the feedback given in a networked environment did not result in better written texts. He found that final draft essays written by students who engaged in traditional face-to-face classroom peer interaction received higher holistic scores and showed greater gains than final drafts written by students who carried out 'peer discussions via a LAN (Braine, 2001, p. 283). Thus, networking student writers electronically does not guarantee better writing.
Changing patterns of communication
There is some evidence that more focused use of language is a general effect of networked communication: "With more opportunities and dif¬ferent opportunities to negotiate input in a computer environment come not only a greater quantity of language, particularly, the second lan¬guage, but also more focused, explicit, and specific uses of language" (Pennington, 1996a, p. 2). This is probably because the relatively "cueless environment" (Spears & Lea, 1992) of the computer context makes it necessary to invoke the context of the speech event more explicitly than would be required in. face-to-face communication. In a study of ESL learners exchanging information by e-mail in Canada, Esling (1991) found that "in the initial exchange of notes, the communication is char¬acterized by revelation of information about local setting which would not normally be exchanged but which would rather be taken for granted and left unsaid in face-to-face conversation" (pp. 126-127). A similar finding is reported by Nabors and Swartley (1999) in a study in which e-mail partners were provided for ESL students on an American univer¬sity campus. Thus, the relatively cueless environment, coupled with the anonymity and ease of communication in an electronic network, may promote both a more content-rich and a more individual and creative form of writing.
Discourse implications
Writing over a network can add real audiences, input, and motivation to write; also, the online context changes the writing task to one that has some of the attributes of spoken interaction. Thus, for example, Nabors and Swartley (1999) found that the ESL e-mail penpals in their study used a range of strategies to build a relationship with their partner, many of which, such as giving personal information and sharing feelings, are also common in face-to-face relationships. As Moran (1995) notes:

300 Martha C. Pennington
"E-mail is, simultaneously, the most intimate and the most public form of correspondence" (p. 16). In consequence, discourse produced in an e-mail context shares characteristics with both personal and professional letters, as well as with some speech genres, particularly, public interviews (Collot & Belmore, 1996). At the same time, based on its unique contex¬tual attributes, e-mail communication appears to be evolving as a new genre, which Baron (2000) describes as a "creole" that merges some properties of both speech and writing. The e-mail context may therefore contribute to improving the student's fluency and willingness to write even as it contributes to a breakdown of established writing conventions and genres. This breakdown of conventions appears to be even greater in synchronous network communication.
Hypertext / hypermedia
Another development of import to writers is the possibilities for creating hypertext, a computer tool for building "layered text":
Like Chinese boxes, text can be nested within text, and huge texts can reside within tiny fragments. "With the combination of both hierarchical subordination and lateral links from any point to any point, hypertext offers greatly expanded possibilities for new structures characterized by layering and flexibility. (Bernhardt, 1993, p. 164)
In hypertext, writers create "mosaics of information" (Marcus, 1993) made up of chunks of information arranged on computer "pages." These chunks of information, which may be textual, visual, auditory, or any combination of these, are connected by electronic links in a Web page format. Users are then free to create their own paths to negotiate the information from one part of the screen to another or from one screen to another.
The possibility of linking a chunk of text to another to create "infor-mation layers" encourages a new mode of "layered thinking" and "lay¬ered composing." Because of its nonlinear properties, "hypertext... may help support an enriched network of thoughts and associations that as¬sists writers to explore and develop their ideas, thereby enhancing the cognitive potentials of [the computer]" (Pennington, 1996b, p. 23). The possibility of combining chunks of text with "sound bites," "video bites," and other "media chunks" adds creative potential for illustrating written work while also encouraging the creation of new modes of presentation using text, other visual media, and sound media. When all these poten¬tials are combined with Internet access, the computer offers a distributed set of links and a highly creative, all-purpose hypermedia or multimedia communication tool.

The impact of the computer in second language writing 301 Web pages and Web sites
The World Wide Web (generally referred to as "the Web") is a sector of the Internet made up of linked hypertext sites that can be accessed by mouse clicks. A Web browser such as Internet Explorer or Netscape Navigator is needed to read Web pages. Web searches can be conducted online using search engines such as Google (http://www.google.com/) and AltaVista (http://www.altavista.com/), which, among other things, allow the user to type in a word or phrase to find Web pages that contain all or some of the desired words or that match these most closely. Web pages can be created using various tools and then put up on a local-area network or placed on a public drive. Software such as Microsoft Inc.'s FrontPage or Macromedia's Dreamweaver will allow a teacher to manage a Web site (and also to author Web pages). In ad¬dition, Windeat, Hardisty, and Eastment (2000) have a Web site linked to their book with useful information for teachers regarding Web pages and anything to do with the Internet (available via the Oxford Teachers' Club at http://www.oup.com/elt/global/teachersclub/). Another useful re¬source is the WebCT (World-Wide-Web Course Tools) program (avail¬able at: http://www.webct.com/) used by Kamhi-Stein (2000) in her TESOL teacher education course. It offers Web-based bulletin board systems, group presentation and chat areas, conferencing tools, and e-mail.
Increasingly, hypermedia tools and the Web are defining new domains of communication and literacy, including a new emphasis on visual and combined-media literacy (Kress, 1998), extending to new dimensions some of the more conventional reading and writing connections impor¬tant to L2 students (see Grabe, Chapter 10 this volume). An investigation comparing texts written by L2 French students in pen-and-paper, word processing, and hypertext modes (Marcoul Sc Pennington, 1999) found that the latter medium, when aligned to a student newspaper Web site, sparked students' creativity and drew their attention to visual aspects of design at the same time that it drew their attention away from surface cor¬rection of language. Interestingly, although the students in the Marcoul and Pennington (1999) study made fewer surface revisions, they made more content and paragraph-level revisions in hypertext than in the other two modes. This comparative study of writing media suggests that hav¬ing students write in hypertext for a Web page may encourage therri to spend more time refining their texts in terms of content and organiza¬tion of information at the same time that it encourages them to focus on other aspects of presentation that take time away from the writing 'process per se.
In the instructional project investigated by Marcoul and Pennington (1999), readers could interact with student creators of Web pages to add

302 Martha C. Pennington
comments to their text and to visit the links that writers had created to their Web pages. In this way, readers interacted with writers by collab¬orating in the ongoing development of texts and by exploring a part of the writer's world. The interactive creation of text, which is greatly fa¬cilitated by network and Web-based communication, is a major area of literacy innovation that has value for L2 writers.
In a study that involved Web explorations by junior high school stu¬dents in Mexico, Romano, Field, and de Huergo (2000) report on the students' engagement with knowledge outside their community, includ¬ing their engagement with the English language, finding "a strong ten¬dency for Web literacy and literacy in English to converge, becoming nearly one and the same" (p. 204). An investigation by Lam (2000) of the e-mail and text-conferencing chat activities of a Chinese adolescent immigrant to the United States revealed that "the English he controlled on the Internet enabled him to develop a sense of belonging and connected¬ness to a global English-speaking community" (p. 476). In a discussion of Web communication in Australia, McConaghy and Snyder (2000) stress the interaction of local and global knowledge and perspectives that result from this type of communication. As they conclude: "Per¬haps, in the final analysis, the possibilities for engaging the local in the global through the World Wide Web represent the new medium's greatest potential" (McConaghy St Snyder, 2000, p. 89).
The Internet and World Wide Web as resources
The Internet and World Wide Web provide students access to electronic resources online that may be helpful for their writing, such as journals, library catalogs, topical databases, search ser¬vices, and resources on English language. Most journals' Web sites give access to contents and abstracts and in some cases, to ar¬ticles in past issues. Bibliomania (http://www.bibliomania.com/) is a resource for searching reference materials and works of fiction, drama, poetry, and religious texts. Project Gutenberg Electronic Library (http://promo.net/pg/index.html/) offers free download of a variety of electronic texts, and Kidon Media-Link (http://www.kidon.com/media-link/) provides links to Web editions of thousands of newspapers. Online dictionaries are available for English and other languages at http://www.dictionary.com/, a Web site that includes a language discussion forum, Rogefs Thesaurus, and writing resources such as grammar, usage, and style guides, including some for writing on the Internet. Many grammar references are also available online, such as Charles Darling's Guide to Grammar and Writing (http://cctc2.commnet. edu/grammar/), and Professional Training Company's Good Grammar,

The impact of the computer in second language writing 303
Good Style TM Archive (http://www.protrainco.com/grammar.htm). The text by Windeatt, Hardisty, and Eastment (2000) contains a variety of structured activities for students to learn how to negotiate the Internet and to use different types of resources available on the World Wide Web, such as English language stories, films, and new sources.
The Web is also an excellent resource for teachers, offering quick ac¬cess to professional organizations such as TESOL (http://www.tesol.org/) and IATEFL (the international Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language) (http://www.iatefl.org/); teaching materials and articles, such as those through ERIC Educational Resources Infor¬mation Center (http:/www.askeric.org/); online journals, such as the monthly Internet TESL Journal (http://www.aitech.ac.jp/~itesij/), and the quarterly TESL E-J (http://www-writing.berkeIey.edu/TESL-EJ/); teaching sites, such as the Beaumont Publishers' Virtual Learning Community site for K-12 projects (http://www.cyberjourneys.net/), the English Through the Internet projects of Elaine Hoter (http://web.macam98.ac.il/~elaine/eti/), the Email Projects Home Page by Susan Gaer (http://www.otan.us/webfarm/emailproject/email.htm), and the Linguistic Funland TESL Page (http://www.linguistic-funland.com/tesl.html/), a rich site including everything from listings of job opportunities and graduate programs in TESL to teaching and testing materials and services for students. There are also useful individually-sponsored Web pages with information oriented toward teaching English as a second language, such as those of Dave Sperling (http://www.eslcafe.com/), Ruth Vilmi (http://www.ruthvilmi.net/hut/), or Mark Warschauer (http://www.gse.uci.edu/markw/). In addition, a good annotated compilation called "Internet Projects for Learners and Teachers of English" is available at http://www.wfi.fr/ volterre/ inetpro.html/.
Other electronic resources include concordancing programs, such as TACT (available at http://tactweb.humanities.mcmaster.ca/) or Athelstan, Inc.'s MonoConc (available at http://www.athel.com/); these allow student writers and their teachers to search their own or others' texts for the occurrence and contexts of specific words or phrases. With Internet access, they can search online corpora such as the British National Corpus Online (available at http://www. hcu.ox.ac.uk/bnc) and find out about others, such as those listed at the University of Lancaster UCREL (University Centre for Computer Corpus Research on Language) Web site (http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/ computing/research/ucrel/corpora.html). There are also online re¬sources for preventing and detecting plagiarism, such as Plagiarism. 'org (http://www.plagiarism.org/) and the Indiana University Writing Resources Web page (http://www.indiana.edu/~wts/wts/plagiarism. html).

304 Martha C. Pennington
Potentials and issues
The computer offers a wide variety of literacy and communication tools that may assist more people to achieve literacy in one or more languages than ever before. At the same time, "the result of writing in an electronic medium may not be the written products of a pen-and-paper age but more ephemeral forms of think-text and talk-text" (Pennington, 2000, p. 21). In addition, in the contexts of computer-mediated communication, writing is moving in the direction of, on the one hand, a more social construction of the activity and interactivity of writing and, on the other, a more media-saturated construction of text as existing within a rich nexus of other resources.
The value of the computer for the L2 writer is considerable for helping to automate the production and revision of text, to encode ideas, and to spark and energize the writing process. With the additional resources of networking and hypermedia, it offers a veritable banquet of media and communication options. Figure 12.3 summarizes some potentials of the computer to aid L2 student writers.
In addition, as Warschauer (2000b) notes, computer media empower students and give them greater control over their own learning, thus increasing their agency:
Agency is really what makes students so excited about using computers in the classroom: the computer provides them a powerful means to make their stamp on the world. Think, for example, of the difference between authoring a paper (i.e., writing a text for the teacher), and authoring a multimedia document (i.e., creatively bringing together several media to share with a wide international audience), and even helping to author the very rules by which multimedia is
created By allowing and helping our students to carry out all these types of
authoring - toward fulfilling a meaningful purpose for a real audience - we are helping them exercise their agency. The purpose of studying English is thus not just to "know it" as an internal system, but to be able to use it to have a real impact on the world, (p. 7)
At the same time the computer offers all of these potentials to student writers, certain issues of literacy on the computer remain to be resolved, as summarized in Figure 12.4.
Those of us involved in teaching L2 writing can help to ensure com¬puter access for all to avoid a division of the world into computer "haves" and "have-nots" that Warschauer (2000a) terms the "digital divide."
At the same time, we need to consider what effective limits might be on students' computer access, so as to keep work on the computer from taking up too much of their time and attention and from replacing hu¬man contact. There are also issues we need to address about how to assess the new types of work produced in computer contexts, such as group-produced essays, Web pages, and the illustrated texts and texted

The impact of the computer in second language writing 305
Computer assistance in the way of mechanical tools and an environment to help with writing, revising, and dissemination of text
Increased writing efficiency and effectiveness
Increased motivation
Increased amount of writing
More effective use of language
Creative potential
Interactivity and collaboration
New modes and genres of writing
Flexibility of access to tools, texts, helps, and partners
Expanded access to writing resources, information, and the world
Figure 123. Computer potentials for L2 writers
illustrations made possible by multimedia and hypertext. It is also impor¬tant to consider what values should be stressed in evaluating students' computer-produced work. For example, should originality be empha¬sized over correctness and quality of layout emphasized as much as quality of content and linguistic form? Finally, there are important mat¬ters we need to consider about whether and how to control students' use of others' work and "unsuitable information" (e.g., pornography or violent material) available electronically.
Issues of access and control in computer contexts are matters that we in ESL need to be concerned about. As observed by Hawisher and Selfe (2000):
The Web is a complicated and contested site for postmodern literacy practices. This site is characterized by a strongly influential set of tendential cultural forces, primarily oriented toward the values of the white, western industrialized nations that were responsible for designing and building the network and that continue to exert power within it. Hence, this system of networked computers is far from world-wide; it does not provide a culturally neutral conduit for the transmission of information; it is not a culturally

306 Martha C. Fennington
How to ensure computer access for all?
What (if any) is a reasonable limit to computer access? Assessment
How to assess group-produced essays?
How to assess writing in hypertext / Web pages?
How to assess illustrated text / texted illustrations? Control
How / whether to keep students from "using" the work of others available on Internet?
How / whether to keep students from "surfing" the net to find "inappropriate" material?
Figure 12.4. Issues of literacy on computer
neutral or innocent communication landscape open to the literacy practices and values of all global citizens. But the site is also far from totalizing in its effects ..., [as] [t]he Web also provides a site for transgressive literary practices that express and value difference; that cling to historical, cultural, and racial diversity; and that help groups and individuals constitute their own multiple identities through language, (p. 15)
How we make use of computer potentials with our L2 learners and how we resolve the issues surrounding the use of electronic me¬dia are matters of great interest and concern. Even more important than how these matters are resolved is that we take an active role in computer-affected outcomes, that we are directly involved in resolving computer issues and deciding the best ways to make use of computer potentials for our own population of students, that is, L2 writers. In the present day, no ESL teacher can afford to remain on the sidelines of these developments, which have transformed and are continuing to transform literacy, language, and all communication in very significant ways.

The impact of the computer in second language writing 307
Akyel, A., & Kamisli, S. (1999). Word processing in the EFL classroom: Effects on writing strategies, attitudes, and products. In M. C. Pennington (Ed.), Writing in an electronic medium: Research with language learners (pp. 27™ 60). Houston: Athelstan.
Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1993). The word processor as an instructional tool: A meta-analysis of word processing in writing instruction. Review of Educa¬tional Research, 63, 69-93.
Baron, N. S. (2000). Alphabet to email: How written English evolved and where it's heading. London: Routledge.
Benesch, S. (1987). Word processing in English as a second language: A case study of three non-native college students. Paper presented at the confer¬ence on College Composition and Communication, Atlanta, GA. (ERIC Document No. ED 281383)
Bernhardt, S. A. (1993). The shape of text to come: The texture of print on screens. College Co?nposition and Communication, 44, 151-175.
Bernhardt, S. A., Edwards, P. G., & Wojahn, P. R. (1989). Teaching col¬lege composition with computers: A program evaluation study. Written Communication, 6,108-133.
Betancourt, R, &c Phinney, M. (1988). Sources of writing block in bilingual writers. Written Communication, 5, 461-478.
Braine, G. (2001). A study of English as a foreign language (EFL) writers on a local-area network (LAN) and in traditional classes. Computers and Com-position, 18,275-292.
Brock, M. N., & Pennington, M. C. (1999). A comparative study of text analysis and peer tutoring as input to writing on computer in an ESL context. In M. C. Pennington (Ed.), Writing in an electronic medium: Research with language learners (pp. 61-94). Houston: Athelstan.
Bruce, B., Peyton, J. K., & Batson, T. (Eds.). (1993). Network-based classrooms: Promises and realities. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bruce, B. C, & Rubin, A. (1993). Electronic quills: A situated evaluation of using computers for writing in classrooms. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Chadwick, S., & Bruce, N. (1989). The revision process in academic writing: From pen and paper to word processor. Hongkong Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching, 12, April, 1-27.
Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Word processing and writing in elementary class¬rooms: A critical review of related literature. Review of Educational Research, 61, 107-155.
Collot, M., & Belmore, N. (1996). Electronic language: A new variety of English. In S. Herring (Ed.), Computer mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 13-28). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Daiute, C. (1985). Writ'mg and computers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Esling, J. H. (1991). Researching the effects of networking: Evaluating the spoken and written discourse generated by working with CALL. In P. Dunkel (Ed.), Computer-assisted language learning and testing: Research issues and practice (pp. 111-131). New York: Newbury House/ HarperCollins.

308 Martha C. Pennington
Haas, C. (1989). How the writing medium shapes the writing process: Effects of word processing on planning. Research in the Teaching of English, 23, 181-207.
Hawisher, G. E., & Selfe, C. L. (2000). Introduction: Testing the claims. In G. E. Hawisher & C. L. Selfe (Eds.), Global literacies and the World-Wide Web (pp. 1-18). London: Routledge.
Hoffman, R. (1996). Computer networks: Webs of communication for language teaching. In M. C. Pennington (Ed.), The power of CALL (pp. 55-78). Houston: Athelstan.
Howard, T. (1992). WANs, connectivity, and computer literacy: An introduction and glossary. Computers and Composition, 9(3), 41-57.
Jones, S., & Tetroe, J. (1987). Composing in a second language. In A. Matsuhashi (Ed.), Writing in real time: Modelling production processes (pp. 34-57). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Kamhi-Stein, L. D. (2000). Looking at the future of TESOL teacher educa¬tion: Web-based bulletin board discussion in a methods course. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 423-455.
Kaufer, D. S., &C Neuwirth, C. (1995). Supporting online team editing: Using technology to shape performance and to monitor individual and group action. Computers and Composition, 12, 113-124.
Kress, G. (1998). Visual and verbal modes of representation in electronically mediated communication: The potentials of new forms of text. In I. Synder (Ed.), Page to screen: Taking literacy into the electronic era (pp. 53-79). London: Routledge.
Lam, E S., & Pennington, M. G. (1995). The computer vs. the pen: A comparative study of word processing in a Hong Kong secondary classroom. Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 7, 75-92.
Lam, W. S. E. (2000). L2 literacy and the design of the self: A case study of a teenager writing on the Internet. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 457-482.
Li, J., &c Cumming, A. (2001). Word processing and second language writing: A longitudinal case study. International Journal of English Studies, 1 (2), 127-152.
Mabrito, M. (1991). Electronic mail as a vehicle for peer response. Written Communication, 8, 509-532.
Marcoul, L, & Pennington, M. C. (1999). Composing with computer technol¬ogy: A case study of a group of students in computer studies learning French as a second language. In M. C. Pennington (Ed.), Writing in an elec¬tronic medium: Research with language learners (pp. 285-318). Houston: Athelstan.
Marcus, S. (1993). Multimedia, hypermedia and the teaching of English. In M. Monteith (Ed.), Computers and language (pp. 21^3). Oxford: Intellect Books.
McConaghy, C, & Snyder, I. (2000). Working the Web in postcolonial Australia. In G. E. Hawisher &c C. L. Selfe (Eds.), Global literacies and the World-Wide Web (pp. 74-92). London: Routledge.
McGarrell, H. M. (1993, August). Perceived and actual impact of computer use in second language writing classes. Paper presented at the Congress of the Association de Linguistique Appliquee (AILA), Frije University, Amsterdam.

The impact of the computer in second language writing 309
Moran, C. (1995). Notes toward a rhetoric of e-mail. Computers and Compo¬sition, 12,15-21.
Moran, C, 6c Hawisher, G. E. (1998). The rhetorics and languages of electronic mail. In I. Snyder (Ed.), Page to screen: Taking literacy into the electronic era (pp. 80-101). London: Routledge.
Nabors, L. K., 6c Swartley, E. C. (1999). Student email letters: Negotiating mean-ing, gathering information, building relationships. In M. C. Pennington (Ed.), Writing in an electronic medium: Research with language learners (pp. 229-266). Houston: Athelstan.
Neu, J., 6c Scarcella, R. (1991). Word processing in the ESL writing classroom: A survey of student attitudes. In P. Dunkel (Ed.), Computer-assisted language learning and testing: Research issues and practice (pp. 169-187). New York: Newbury House/HarperCollins.
Palmquist, M. E. (1993). Network-supported interaction in two writing class¬rooms. Computers and Composition, 10, 25-57.
Pennington, M. C. (1996a). The power of the computer in language education. The power of CALL (pp. 1-14). Houston: Athelstan.
Pennington, M. C. (1996b). The computer and the non-native writer: A natural partnership. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Pennington, M. C. (1996c). Writing the natural way: On computer. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 9, 125-142.
Pennington, M. C. (1999a). The missing link in computer-assisted writing. In K. Cameron (Ed.), CALL: Media, design & applications (pp. 271-292). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Pennington, M. C. (1999b). Word processing and beyond: Writing in an elec¬tronic medium. In M. C. Pennington (Ed.), Writing in an electronic medium: Research with language learners (pp. 1-26). Houston: Athelstan.
Pennington, M. C. (2000). Writing minds and talking fingers: Doing literacy in an electronic age. In P. Brett (Ed.), CALL in the 21st century [CD-ROM]. Whitstable, UK: IATEFL.
Pennington, M. C, 6c Brock, M. N. (1992). Process and product approaches to computer-assisted composition. In M. C. Pennington 6c V. Stevens (Eds.), Computers in applied linguistics: An international perspective (pp. 79-109). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Phinney, M. (1989). Computers, composition, and second language teaching. In M. C. Pennington (Ed.), Teaching languages with computers: The state of the art (pp. 81-96). La Jolla, CA: Athelstan.
Phinney, M. (1991). Word processing and writing apprehension in first and sec¬ond language writers. Computers and Composition, 9, 65-82.
Phinney, M., 6c Khouri, S. (1993). Computers, revision, and ESL writers: The role of experience. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2, 257-277.
Phinney, M., 6c Mathis, C. (1990). ESL student responses to writing with com-puters. TESOL Newsletter, 24(2), 30-31.
Roblyer, M. D., Castine, W. H., 6c King, F. J. (1988). Assessing the impact of computer-based instruction: A review of recent research. New York: Ha worth.
Romano, S., Field, B., 6c Huergo, E. W. de. (2000). Web literacies of the already accessed and technically inclined: Schooling in Monterrey, Mexico. In G. E. Hawisher 6c C L. Selfe (Eds.), Global literacies and the World-Wide Web (pp. 189-216). London: Routledge.

310 Martha C. Pennington
Rusmin, R. S. (1999). Patterns of adaptation to a new writing environment: The experience of word processing by mature second language writers. In M. C. Pennington (Ed.), Writing in an electronic medium: Research with language learners (pp. 183-227). Houston: Athelstan.
Sayers, D. (1989). Bilingual sister classes in computer writing networks. In D. M. Johnson & D. H. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 120-133). New York: Longman.
Schramm, R. M. (1989). The effects of using word-processing equipment in writing instruction: A meta-analysis. (Doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois University, 1990). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50, 2463A.
Slater, P., & Carpenter, C. (1999). Introducing e-mail into a course in French as a second language In M. C. Pennington (Ed.), Writing in an elec¬tronic medium: Research with language learners (pp. 267-283). Houston: Athelstan.
Snyder, I. (1993). Writing with word processors: A research overview. Educa¬tional Research, 35, 49-68.
Spears, R., 6c Lea, M. (1992). Social influence and the influence of the "social" in computer-mediated communication. In R. Spears & M. Lea (Eds.), Contexts of computer-mediated communication (pp. 30-65). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Steelman, J. D. (1994). Revision strategies employed by middle level stu¬dents using computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 11, 141-152.
Sullivan, N., & Pratt, E. (1996). A comparative study of two ESL writing envi-ronments: A computer-assisted classroom and a traditional oral classroom. System, 24, 491-501.
Susser, B. (1993). ESL/EFL process writing with computers. CAELL Journal, 4(2), 16-22.
Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. Modern Language Journal, 81, 470-481.
Warschauer, M. (1999). Electronic literacies: Language, culture, and power in online education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Warschauer, M. (2000a). Language, identity, and the internet. In B. Kolko, L. Kakamura, Sc G. Rodman (Eds.), Race in cyberspace (pp. 151-170). London: Routledge.
Warschauer, M. (2000b). The death of cyberspace and the rebirth of CALL. In P. Brett (Ed.), CALL in the 21st century [CD-ROM]. Whitstable, UK: IATEFL.
Williamson, M. M., & Pence, P. (1989). Word processing and student writers. In B. Britton & S. M. Giynn (Eds.), Computer writing environments: Theory, research, and design (pp. 93-127). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Windeatt, S., Hardisty, D., & Eastment, D. (2000). The internet. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Woodin, J. (1997). E-mail tandem learning and the communicative curriculum. ReCALL, 9(1), 22-33.

Historically, in language classrooms of about 50 years ago, writing was once seen as the "handmaid" of the other skills (Rivers, 1968), suggesting its purpose was to reinforce the "real" purpose of learning a language, namely, mastery of its grammar system. This issue is still subject to debate in foreign language (FL) classrooms (Kern, 2000), and some continue to argue that FL writing should be promoted as a tool in the service of other aspects of language learning (Homstad 8c Thorson, 2000).
However, specialized English-language writing courses for foreign stu-dents at American universities, for example, date back at least to the 1960s, with one of the early pioneer teacher-researchers being Nancy Arapoff-Cramer, who was based at the University of Hawaii. Around the same time that Rivers was relegating writing to the back bench, Arapoff-Cramer published numerous articles discussing the importance of teach¬ing writing as a specific skill to EFL students (e.g., Arapoff, 1967,1969; Arapoff-Cramer, 1971), as well as one of the earliest specialized text¬books in the field (Arapoff, 1970). In that era of first establishing a field of inquiry known as second language (L2) writing, it became important to point to ways in which L2 writers could be served by offering courses tai¬lored to their special needs as both language learners and novice writers.
Today, rather than focusing merely on pointing to and identifying the distinct needs of L2 learners in terms of writing courses, specialists continue to expand their territories of investigation into such issues as research design, textual properties, and other broad-based issues, several of which have been addressed in this volume. A new line of inquiry is suggested by the work of Katznelson, Perpignan, and Rubin (2001); they suggest that enrollment in writing courses includes some positive by-products for students that have nothing to do with their writing but more specifically with changes that alter their "affective and behavioral processes" (p. 155). What is not often questioned, perhaps, is the extent to which the skills promoted in L2 writing courses actually assist the students enrolled in them with their long-term needs.
The final chapter in this volume, written by Hona Leki, serves as a kind of epilogue to the entire book. The collective message of the previous

312 Epilogue
12 chapters is that the field of second language writing is a dynamic one with many facets to explore. Rather than closing with a chapter that exhorts teachers and scholars to go forth in their explorations of writers, writing classrooms, programs, and contexts for writing - all laudable goals - the final chapter sounds a note of caution. To truly serve our students best in terms of their academic needs, Leki suggests, we must also be prepared to question the value of what we do. This stance is similar to the premise behind a recent major study undertaken by Lillis (2001), in which she calls into question some of the pedagogical approaches used in the United Kingdom to address academic writing needs of non-traditional students (including non-native speakers of English) there. The voices of several other practitioners concerned about their institutions' difficulties in finding optimum ways to help student writers improve are anthologized in a volume designed both to "write [the] wrongs, and, then, to right [the] wrongs" (Wallace, Jackson, & Wallace, 2000, p. xii).
Writing teachers are sometimes so concerned with delivering what they perceive to be the best-designed course that they sometimes appear to have forgotten the importance of continually reviewing why we believe students need to take writing courses in the first place. Further, writing teachers, "content" area instructors, and L2 students do not necessarily agree on the desired outcomes of courses targeted to improve L2 student writing (Tait, 1999). Leki's,chapter suggests that we have much to learn by working with our students to find out more about how writing serves their individual academic purposes.
Leki has been doing close case studies of individual writers, collecting large amounts of survey data, and paying especially close attention to what the students themselves say over a period of many years (Leki, 2001; Leki & Carson, 1994, 1997). With this chapter, she stands out as one of the first senior people in L2 writing to openly challenge some of the foundational ideas of curriculum planning. She asks us to consider the potential usefulness of material presented in our L2 writing courses and not to accept without question the importance of writing itself in the lives of our students. By encouraging all of us to take a close look at what we do so that we might learn to take a critical stance toward our beliefs and practices, Leki is not suggesting that writing is unimportant or that our courses do not serve a variety of student needs. She instead asks us to review our thinking so that we may better serve our students.
Arapoff, N. (1967). Writing: A thinking process. TESOL Quarterly, 1, 33-
39. Arapoff, N. (1969). Discover and transform: A method of teaching writing to
foreign students. TESOL Quarterly, 3, 297-304.

Exploring ourselves 313
Arapoff, N. (1970). Writing through understanding. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston. Arap off-Cramer, N. (1971). A survey of university writing assignments. College
Composition and Communication, 22, 161-168. Homstad, T., & Thorson, H. (2000). Writing and foreign language pedagogy:
Theories and implications. In G. Brauer (Ed.), Writing across languages
(pp. 3-14). Stamford, CT: Ablex. Katznelson, H., Perpignan, H., & Rubin, B. (2001). What develops along with
the development of second language writing? Exploring the "by-products."
Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 141-159. Kern, R. (2000). Literacy and language teaching. New York and Oxford: Oxford
University Press. Leki, I. (2001). Hearing voices: L2 students' experiences in L2 writing courses.
In T. Silva & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), On second language writing (pp. 17-28).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Leki, I., &; Carson, J. (1994). Students' perceptions of EAP writing instruction
and writing needs across the disciplines. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 81-101. Leki, I., & Carson, J. (1997). "Completely different worlds": EAP and the writ¬ing experiences of ESL students in university courses. TESOL Quarterly,
31, 39-69. Lillis, T. (2001). Student writing; Access, regulation, desire. London: Routledge. Rivers, W. M. (1968). Teaching foreign language skills. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press. Tait, J. (1999, March). Multiple perspectives on academic writing needs. Paper
presented at the 33rd Annual TESOL Convention, New York. (Available
through ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED432157.) Wallace, R., Jackson, A., & Wallace, S. (2000). Introduction. In R. Wallace,
A. Jackson, 8c S. L. Wallace (Eds.), Reforming college composition: Writing
the ivrongs (pp. xi~-xxx).Westport, CT: Greenwood.


1 ^ A challenge to second language writing professionals: Is writing overrated?
Uona Leki
Writing researchers and practitioners in English as a first language (LI) have long assumed that writing does or should play a central role in ter-tiary education, and indeed in the lives of educated citizens in a democ¬racy. In the case of English as a second language (L2), the argument for a privileged role for writing in L2 learning had to be specifically made in the 1960s and 1970s as a challenge to audiolingual methods of language teaching, which had relegated writing to the position of least important of language skills. (See Matsuda, 2001, and this volume, for a somewhat different account.) The place of writing continued to rise through the mid 1970s up to the present, as textbooks, teacher education materials, and other published work on L2 writing have obligatorily listed the benefits to L2 learners of developing writing skills and explained the overrid¬ing importance of writing in academic contexts. In the mid 1980s, as a tangible sign of the increasing significance of writing, the Test of Written English was added to the TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language) battery of tests, increasing the number of possible hoops for L2 English learners to jump through to gain access to English medium universities.1 Further underscoring the importance of writing, since the mid 1980s many tertiary institutions in the United States have required writing en-trance, proficiency, and/or exit exams to ensure that those with weak writing skills would be weeded out of academic institutions, prevented from progressing within those institutions, or barred from graduating from them. Every indication is that L2 writing has arrived and that the development of skill in writing is considered to be extremely important, But important for what? Are we now in fact overvaluing writing ? What are the consequences, particularly for L2 English students, of placing such a high value on writing? Is writing overrated? These questions arose for me in the course of reading about writing and about how painful we make it for some students through our writing exams and through our insistence on certain ways of writing. In this chapter I would like to examine some of the claims we make for writing and then to note some of the consequences of those claims for our L2 writing students. That is, each claim that a teacher makes to students in a writing class about the importance of that course, or even of a particular assignment, and each

316 Ilona Leki
claim a program makes about its writing courses to students, faculty, or the administration derives from a network of assumptions that are not without ramifications for these students.
Precisely because many L2 writing teachers and researchers function within an institutional power structure that can dramatically impact our students' lives and futures, I would argue that we have an ethical obliga¬tion to scrutinize our assumptions about what we do. It may be that, as Shor (1998) has remarked about LI English basic writing courses, "Smart people with good intentions often find themselves working in structures with bad functions" (p. 107). We cannot move toward decisions about whether and/or how to work against those bad functions or structures until we first think through our foundational beliefs that undergird and support them. It is not my intention here to create a manifesto for doing away with writing courses. Rather my purpose is to ask, have we been so intent on winning a place of respect for writing in L2 education (and for those who teach it) that we make claims incommensurate with reality?
Our core, and I would argue insufficiently challenged, belief appears to be in the importance that writing will have in our L2 students' lives. In our courses and through our institutions, we insist on the impor¬tance of writing because, as we tell our L2 English students, they will have to pass writing entrance exams (Sternglass, 1997; Tucker, 1995) or they will face writing assignments in college (Losey, 1997) or on the job (Spilka, 2001). Or we suggest to students that their lives would be richer if only they would open themselves up and use writing to explore their thoughts and feelings (Mlynarczyk, 1998). Our apparent belief in the overriding importance of writing comes out even in written re¬search portrayals that provide descriptions of successful/unsuccessful or experienced/novice student writers. The successful, experienced writers come off as robust, alert, sensitive while the unsuccessful/novice writers seem befuddled and pathetic (e.g., Murray &c Nichols, 1992; Patton & Nagelhout, 1998), as though the totality of these people can be reduced to their writing skills.
Perhaps as L2 writing teachers and researchers, we might be expected to place great stock in the written word. As Roen (1989) states, for example, "We are, after all, professional wordsmiths - people with a special affection for writing. Most people do not share our affection for the written word" (pp. 194-195). In order to make a more con¬vincing case for the importance of writing, we have recruited the tes¬timony of others, particularly students. Examples of such testimonials appear in Sternglass's (1997) account of the long-term writing develop¬ment of a group of college students, some of whom had begun their educations in languages other than English. In her account, as I read it, Sternglass asserts that it is writing - not reading, not attending classes, not talking to others - that became the prevailing promoter of her research

A challenge to second language tenting professionals 317
participants' intellectual growth: "Their most significant development occurred through., .writing" (p. 293); "Writing promoted the truest method for learning" (p. 293); and "Only through writing... did they achieve the insights that moved them to complex reasoning" (p. 295). In fact, speaking of one student (Jacob), Sternglass maintains, "Writing was his real life" (p. 74).
Sternglass's account was a turning point for me. The over-arching the¬sis of her study is that we should not give up on students our institutions initially designate as academically underprepared; with this assessment I completely agree, and I applaud Sternglass's project to keep a space open for these students at the university. But in reading her descriptions of the students in her study, students so motivated and so personally rewarded by their academic writing experiences, I simply could not recognize these students. Sternglass's descriptions were entirely discontinuous with my own experience with L2 writing students - in talking to them informally, as their teacher in writing classes, and in my ongoing case study re¬search on the literacy experiences of English L2 writers at the university (Leki, 1998).
The students I encountered had a much broader range of reactions to writing requirements in courses than the students Sternglass worked with. My L2 students found their writing requirements occasionally sat¬isfying and sometimes frustrating, but most often they regarded writing assignments as necessary evils they would have preferred to avoid. This disjuncture between my own experiences and those of Sternglass caused me to begin to see nearly everywhere in the literature on both LI and L2 writing an unspoken baseline assumption that writing is so important, potentially so meaningful, so powerful that almost no amount of sacri¬fice is too much to ask our students to make for the sake of learning to write. And underlying that article of faith is perhaps another: Learning to write takes place once and for all, and it will happen, or must happen, in our classes - our basic writing course, our English Language Institute, or our freshman writing course.2
My hope is that after having considered the detailed features of L2 writing instruction and research discussed in this volume, such as the his¬tory of the field, the role of feedback, contrastive rhetoric, reading/writing links, and so on, the reader will use this chapter as a means of stepping back from the enterprise to view it as a whole. The point of this chapter, however, is not to argue that writing is unimportant, that L2 English writers should not be offered the opportunity to learn to write in English in ways that will promote their well-being in their academic, personal, and professional lives, nor that writing instruction should be abolished. The point of the argument presented here, rather, is to challenge the un-examined assumption of the centrality of writing in the lives of educated people and to examine what our belief in its centrality buys us. The point

318 Ilona Leki
of the challenge is to encourage us as L2 writing professionals to take a more critical stance in relation to what we do and what we ask our students to do.
The claims we make
To judge by writing textbooks in both LI and L2, far from seeing writing as their "real life," our students need to be convinced of the importance of writing by reading in their writing textbook or hearing on the first day of the writing class a litany of claims about how important writing already is to them in their daily lives (to write grocery lists, notes to friends and family, letters of complaint to landlords, e-mail messages) and how important writing will certainly be eventually to do such things as take an exam in a management course, write a biology lab report, work as an engineer, and participate in democracy by writing letters to the editor or to elected representatives.
We seem to make these claims for writing:
1. Writing can be, is, or should be personally fulfilling
2. Writing helps students to learn disciplinary content
3. Students will have to do a lot of writing in other courses in college
4. In the work world, employers look for or demand good writing skills and/or since English is the language of international communication, moving up in various professions will require writing well in English
5. In a democracy, writing is a powerful tool for justice
We make these claims repeatedly to our students, to our institutions, and to each other in the professional literature. The remainder of this chapter will examine each of them in turn.
1. Writing is personally fulfilling
My sister-in-law, who also teaches writing, teaches an elective course in writing as healing. She writes easily and well, and writing is personally fulfilling for her and probably also becomes so for the students who enroll in her courses. However, for many L2 English students, learning to write in English is probably less likely to become much of a source of personal fulfillment; it is more likely that if they turn to writing for self-exploration at all, they will turn to writing in their Lls (see, for example, several of the accounts in Belcher & Connor, 2001). Nevertheless, some of our writing classes do ask L2 students to open themselves up to us or to try to think through personal issues publicly by writing in a language that is not transparent to them, that they may still be struggling with. Perhaps we ask

A challenge to second language writing professionals 319
them to do this partly under the assumption that eventually this kind of writing may be cathartic. And in fact, even for some L2 students, writing in English actually does sometimes permit an exploration of personal questions that might be more difficult to explore in the writer's LI, but such an experience seems limited to a relatively small number. Even in LI English, those who do not write easily or well or those from an orally oriented home culture turn to writing, as Brodkey (1996) says, only when for some reason our first line of healing, conversation, fails us (p. 140). But from reading the professional literature on writing, it is possible to get the impression that no one talks, listens, or even reads, for personal growth, only writes. In the introduction to a recent LI writing text, the authors state "We believe there is no better way to come to know your¬self than through the process of writing" (Bridwell-Bowles, 1998, p. 1 [italics mine]). No better way? Given how hard it is for some, particularly L2, students to write and how negative some students' experiences with writing have been, it certainly seems that the power of writing to explore personal issues is exaggerated here. The argument that learning to write is important because writing serves a few people so well is reminiscent of parents' argument to coerce children into practicing violin - someday the learner will be grateful. But we are not dealing with children, and we are not our students' parents.
2. Writing helps students learn disciplinary content
"Writing to learn" has become an important concept in the field of writing (discussed in the L2 field by Zamel, 2000, among others). Unfortunately, the assertion that writing aids in learning course content has been asserted more often than demonstrated. In his review of 35 dif¬ferent studies that attempted to assess the impact of LI English writing on learning, Ackerman (1993) concludes that writing has never been convincingly shown to be more effective than other methods of focusing students' attention on content matter, and in some cases students actually remembered more of the content they were trying to learn when they were asked to do something other than write about it. Writing about content appeared to focus students' attention on only a narrow band of the mate¬rial to be learned, although Ackerman acknowledges that writing might in fact be conferring advantages that the research methodologies used in these studies were simply unable to capture. But if these studies were unable to capture what exact advantage writing conferred, it was not for lack of trying. As Ackerman points out, sometimes the researchers whose work he reviewed would come to unwarranted and overly opti¬mistic conclusions about the power of writing to aid learning in the face of their own research evidence to the contrary; such is the force of the belief in the centrality of writing.

320 Ilona Leki
Furthermore, in research by Chenoweth et al. (1999) using pre- and post-testing, we find that the LI English students in their study who took a lower-division writing course did not do better on the material to be learned in the course, such as critical reading skills and the ability to identify argument strategies, than did the control group of students who had not taken the writing course. Apparently, then, writing was not helping the students, at least in these courses, to learn the material even in the writing course, let alone the material in other disciplinary courses.
In fact, Geisler (1995) comments that "writing is a fairly poor tool" (p. 102) for students to use in "learning... knowledge made by others" (p. 102), suggesting instead that taking notes and working on study questions might be tasks that are better suited for preparing students to perform the "knowledge displays routinely required in academic settings" (p. 112).
In the area of upper-division writing courses, results have sometimes been more positive though not always in ways that were expected. Hilgers, Hussey, and Stitt-Bergh (1999) found that students in required upper-division writing-intensive courses reported that engaging in writ¬ing tasks was helpful to them more often to learn the research method¬ologies appropriate to their fields than to learn content and key concepts.
Finally, studies by Smagorinsky (1994) result in his contention that a variety of artistic and creative activities confer the same kinds of bene¬fits for learning or understanding that appear to be claimed exclusively for writing. Students who dance, draw, create architectural construc¬tions or music, for example, engage in the discovery of meaning, develop new understandings through these activities, and learn from dialectical interactions with peer viewers/listeners. Smagorinsky argues that if we continue to assume that such growth is reserved for the domain of writ¬ing alone, we ignore and implicitly devalue a rich "multiplicity of sign systems" (p. 31) that diverse students bring to classrooms.
A further problem with blind faith in the idea that writing helps stu¬dents learn relates to what we do with that belief. Do we, in our writing classes, ever teach students how, exactly, to use writing to learn content? If we wanted to do so, it would appear necessary to actually ask stu¬dents to learn content in writing classes. Some writing classes may well do that, but it seems more typical that we ask writing students not to learn but only to explore certain issues and then write about them, in the worst case scenario using relatively little information beyond what comes from an anthologized essay or two on euthanasia or sex-linked genetic traits or such. Then, when that writing is evaluated, the evalua¬tion is most likely to be based on how well the material has been used in the writing, not on how well it has been learned. In fact, it is difficult to imagine a poorly written paper in a writing class that would receive a high evaluation based on the student's demonstration of having learned

A challenge to second language writing professionals 321
the content. What this amounts to, then, is that we say writing to learn is very important; but in our writing classes, we do not ask students to write to learn, and we do not show them how to do it. This is not to say that self-initiated note taking or thinking on paper does not help L2 students learn. It may well. But that kind of writing is hardly the obliga¬tory English department, sustained essay writing taught in most writing classes.
3. College students do a great deal of writing
This reason for emphasizing the importance of writing (college students must write a lot) and the next reason (the need to write on the job) both bring up the issue of student need. But need as defined by whom? On one hand, we tell students they need to become prepared for all the writing that they will be assigned to do in other classes, and then on the other hand, we lament among ourselves and to other faculty that other disciplinary courses do not take responsibility for teaching writing, that they do not have students do enough writing; we complain that teaching writing should be everyone's job at the university, not just the job of the writing teacher. In other words, we tell our students they need to learn how to write because they will do a lot of writing beyond our writing courses, but apparently we do not actually believe that is the case!
Is writing as central to L2 English undergraduate education as we say? My own case studies of four L2 English students throughout their undergraduate careers (Leki, 1998) suggest that writing, in the sense of composing long stretches of text for an audience as we teach it in com¬position classes, was not a prominent feature of their first two years (except in the writing classes they took), at least for these four bilingual students. Reading and listening were far more important to their de¬velopment. Lamentably, these first two years were mostly filled with the kind of general education classes that enroll dozens of students in a single class; presumably the size of these classes discourages instructors from assigning much sustained writing. This means that for students who take freshman writing during their freshman year (or at language institutes before admission to college), all the information they get and skills they learn in the writing classes are unlikely to be put to use until two years later! My case study students' lived experience in courses outside the writing class directly contradicted what their writing teachers told them about how prevalent writing would be in their other courses. (However, see Reid, 2001, for counter-examples and reference to studies reporting ways in which some schools or departments do require writing.)
For the students in my case studies, once they entered courses in their majors that did include writing, one of two things happened. Either the disciplinary faculty began initiating students into the type of writing

322 Ilona Leki
common or necessary in that major or they assigned papers that were entirely unlike anything that anyone practicing that discipline would ever do. In the first instance of specialized disciplinary writing, for example, a major part of the writing done by my research participant in the nursing curriculum consisted primarily of long, detailed, time-consuming nurs¬ing care plans requiring filling in matrixes with abbreviations, symbols, shorthand notations on patients' symptoms, and numbers. It was hardly the kind of extended prose we think of when we talk about writing in writing courses: something with an introduction, some central point, and arguments or evidence to support the point. There were barely any recognizable English words in these nursing care plans and almost no sentences. No writing class outside her major could have begun to pre¬pare her for this writing, though preparing her for writing in college is, of course, one of the justifications for requiring writing classes.
For another of my case study participants, the writing assigned in his marketing major was nearly always group work projects, and my research participant, not liking to write and not feeling secure about his writing ability, made a point of getting himself assigned roles within the group that would allow him to avoid writing.
This is not to say that these students never wrote anything of the type that writing professionals have in mind when they refer to the power of writing, but rather just to suggest that much of the learning these students experienced came through a variety of sources and that writing cannot be privileged as the main source of their expanding knowledge and familiarity with their fields. Furthermore, if university students do not actually do much writing (outside their freshman writing courses) until they get to courses in their majors, whatever writing skills these students develop may not be engaged until some time down the road and so may degrade before they can be used. Finally, it becomes somewhat difficult to see how writing teachers can prepare students for that down-the-road disciplinary writing since we may not know enough about it. Perhaps writing across the curriculum (WAC) programs that work closely with disciplinary courses are better able to deal with disciplinary genres, but general writing courses do not appear to be very well positioned for overcoming this obstacle to making writing instruction relevant to students' academic lives.3
In addition to the specialized disciplinary writing assignments, the sec¬ond type of writing assignment in the major that I found in my research was standard school-sponsored writing. This writing bore no relationship to anything disciplinary professionals might ever do outside of school, although it did have as its subject matter issues related to the major. It was the faculty themselves in these disciplinary courses who offered this characterization of their assignments as being unlike anything a nurse or social worker or engineer would ever do. When asked why they assigned

A challenge to second language writing professionals 323
such writing if it was unrelated to any real-world disciplinary writing, the instructors justified their assignments either as offering another eval¬uative measure of the students' progress in the course besides exams or as offering an opportunity for these students just to write because, as they said, they believed that writing in and of itself is very important. That is, writing for writing's sake, as an end in itself, is beneficial; it is the sign of an educated person, one who, in a kind of nineteenth-century notion of the educated elite, knows both how to write and play the harp.4
4. Employers demand good writing skills
The justification for (over)valuing writing because employers demand good writing skills begs the question of whether it is the job of the uni¬versity to train people for the benefit of business and industry. But that ideological question aside, another question arises of what these em¬ployers mean when they say they want employees with good writing skills. According to Charney (1998), employers mean they do not want spelling and grammar errors, items not high on the list of most writing teachers these days. It seems demeaning, to say the least, to think that we are training students to spell correctly to make their employers happy. Furthermore, according to Belcher's (1991) research, although the L2 English writers she worked with were perceived by their employer, co-workers, and even themselves as needing to improve their writing skills, what proved to be more critical to their success than improved writing skills on the job was how they positioned themselves among co-workers -that is, their social interactions.
Even when writing is an important constituent of a particular work setting, writing for the job is the quintessential embedded activity, a skill that must be learned on the job,as we can see so clearly in Winsor's (1996) book-length study of four young LI English engineering students in their work-study programs. In writing on the job successfully, what was central and crucial was, again, not the writing but a thorough familiarity with the history of the work site and with all the personalities there and their histories with each other, none of which, of course, can be known during the time we have these students in decontextualized writing classes and are telling them how important writing is.
Finally, it is not so clear how well we can actually estimate the amount of writing done at various work sites. When writing researchers go to a job site to investigate writing because they are researching writing, it is only logical that they would highlight the writing over the many other kinds of activities that take place at the work site. Because in these instances writing is such a focus of attention and described in great de¬tail, it is possible that we inadvertently develop a distorted and exagger¬ated sense of the importance of writing in the workplace, coming to see

324 Tlona Leki
practicing engineers, physicists, and biologists as spending most of their professional time writing. For example, in Winsor's (1996) study of the rhetorical education of the engineering students, although she notes that the amount of writing they did is probably more than practicing engi¬neers would be doing, there still was not very much of it in the course of the five years she studied them. Nevertheless, because her book focuses entirely on writing, it is possible to come away with the impression that writing was much more central to their experience than it might in fact have been. As a result of this kind of predictable distortion, we may not have a very firm sense of how much writing professionals do in relation to other job-related tasks.
Even in academics, where writing does play a major gate-keeping role in professional advancement, surely faculty spend a great deal of time doing things other than writing, though much of that might be in prepa¬ration for writing. And, as we know from genre researchers, both biolo¬gists and physicists, to take these two disciplines as examples, certainly do write and must employ a complex set of rhetorical skills in order to position themselves and their work to their best advantage (Bazerman, 1985; Myers, 1985). But it is an open question whether these researchers might consider writing something of a necessary evil in their work, with the interesting or important part of the work already completed by the time they get to writing it down.5
What of the claim that increasing amounts of scientific and techni¬cal writing internationally is done in English (Connor, Chapter 9 this volume; Flowerdew, 1999; Swales, 1997)? According to Gosden's (1992) survey of editors of international scientific journals published in English, the suggestion that a scientist will be prevented from participating in journal-mediated professional discussions solely by the lack of writing skills may be an exaggeration, overemphasizing writing skills and un-deremphasizing such issues as material conditions in the writer's home country (Canagarajah, 1996), quality of the science reported, and preju¬dice on the part of editors and reviewers against submissions from certain regions. Gosden reports, however, that this bias is based not so much on linguistic grounds as on "the science culture" (p. 130). This means that although editors of journals with large submission rates may be looking for reasons to reject a submission, it would be disingenuous, to say the least, to suggest to L2 writers that good writing will save them from rejection and overcome prejudices.
5. In a democracy^ writing is a powerful tool for justice
At end of his chapter in the Roen, Brown, and Enos (1999) collection of autobiographies of prominent members of the discipline, Trimbur says that he wants his work to "bear witness to the 'appalling power' of late

A challenge to second language writing professionals 325
capitalism at a moment when the bosses are winning the class struggle on a global scale and working people everywhere need the intellectual and moral resources of literacy to find hope" (p. 141). I am moved by the statement and struck by the faith in literacy expressed here. I cannot tell for sure whether Trimbur means that literacy itself somehow brings hope for change, perhaps through solidarity with others who are struggling, or whether he means that reading and writing can actually be a means of successfully resisting the bosses. Nevertheless, I cannot help but wonder, when we link political power with the ability to write well, whether we are not telling our students another version of our standard lie about equality of opportunity: If you work hard and apply yourself - that is, if you learn to write powerfully - some day, Jose or Tyrunia or Shao Lin, all of this can be yours. In other words, we are telling them, in effect, that their success is in their own hands, they command their own fates; and logically, therefore, we are suggesting that if they do not some day succeed, the fault lies with them. Yet as Benesch (1996) has so cogently argued, language and writing alone will not bring power to the powerless irrespective of other factors, such as race, gender, and socioeconomic status.
To give students in writing classes a sense of a real audience, we some-times encourage them to write a letter to the editor or maybe to a legis¬lative representative, saying also that such writing constitutes active democratic participation. Yet, is it really people's facility with writing, their brilliant rhetoric, their ability to adjust their writing to the audi¬ence that convinces political officials and causes political roadblocks to melt away? My experience has been that it does not matter how rhetor¬ically, logically, grammatically, orthographically excellent the letter is; what matters, if anything, is how many people write letters on the same issue. And do letters to the editor really ever sway a public? Ervin (1999) recounts an interesting town-and-gown battle over creationism in the letters to the editor section of the Wilmington, North Carolina, news¬paper. After several rounds of exchanges, one of the participants said he was throwing a party for all those who had changed their minds on the issue as a result of the letter exchanges; he calculated that a phone booth would be big enough to handle the crowd. My point is not that writing letters has no role, but that it is one tool among others, and maybe we should not exaggerate what this tool can and cannot do.
Furthermore, there may be reason to believe that people develop the language and the level of literacy necessary for them to do what they need and want to do. For example, Cushman (1999) reported how a group of impoverished, LI English-speaking women who were about to be evicted from their homes were able to defend themselves against the bureaucracy by learning and using the language of the oppressor (more oral than written, in this case). They did not take writing, or speaking,

326 Ilona Leki
or vocabulary development classes. Rather, knowing very precisely what they wanted to get from the bureaucracy helped them figure out a means for trying to get it. The problem for writing teachers is that real needs and wants of the type that stimulated the kind of learning these women en¬gaged in cannot be described and handed over to students before the fact in a writing course. Much like the development of language used in work settings and in fact like language acquisition in general, the language that is needed and wanted may be best and most easily learned on the spot through interaction with other participants in authentic speech events.
What you get for your money
When we buy into the idea of writing as the core of education, we generate at least two material and pernicious results: required writing courses like freshman composition and writing exams. The logic seems to be that if writing is so important we had better have a course in which we teach it; and to show how important we feel it is for people to learn how to write, we had better test students to make sure they can do it correctly. Crowley (1998) explores in great detail the reasons for getting rid of LI freshman composition as a required course; Russell (1991) explores, also in great detail, the reasons that the freshman composition course cannot successfully teach writing, namely because the very existence of freshman composition implies that writing is a single generalizable skill that can be learned once and for all, rather than a situated social process and activity embedded in epistemological, ethical, personal, and historical contingencies that must be experienced in real time to be understood. The failure to understand writing as such an ongoing and continuing process accounts for many of the complaints on the part of non-writing faculty, and perhaps employers, that students cannot write.6
And with this misunderstanding comes the call for and acceptance of the validity of writing exams, the material evidence for and a logical consequence of our inflated views of writing, our belief in the centrality of writing, our love of words. The argument here is not that inflated views of the importance of writing are the primary reasons that writing exams exist; they are merely good excuses, easily swallowed justifications for these exams. Writing exams are convenient gate keepers with the political purpose of sorting and categorizing those who will and those who will not enjoy the privileges that may come with education. Nevertheless, emphasizing the importance of a decontextualized skill that leaves the test taker so particularly vulnerable to criticism, failure, and mockery makes it easier and more palatable for otherwise decent people to become complicit in the existence and sometimes ruinous results of these exams. It is important to recognize this complicity.

A challenge to second language writing professionals 327
Writing exams have a high potential to be discriminatory, especially against L2 and language minority students, denying people an education in the name of the crucial importance of writing. They can also be capri¬cious and illogical, exemplifying incomprehensible views of literacy. For example, at some West Coast institutions, apparently the working defi¬nition of "literate enough to be allowed to pursue a college education" is "able to produce a personal essay." At institutions in New York, the defi¬nition is "able to write an argument in 30 minutes on a topic the writer has not seen before, does not know about, and may not care about." Not only do these tests represent questionable choices for determining literacy, but potentially, a student literate enough to go to school in California might not be literate enough in New York and vice versa.
Furthermore, we need to be clear in our understanding that both the personal essay and the argument that define literacy in the two exam types mentioned above are English department genres. Why are they privi¬leged? Why are they considered superordinate over other disciplinary genres? Are all those who knock at the door of the university planning to be English majors? Certainly that is not the case with most L2 English learners. Then how do we justify preventing someone from getting an education because he or she cannot write an English department genre? This makes about as much sense as it would to require future English majors to prove they are literate enough to be allowed to study English by showing that they can write a successful biology lab report.
Those who love writing, place it at the center of their intellectual lives, and want others to do the same have won out at the moment. Writing exams and required freshman composition courses are accepted by the educational community and by the public. But what do these courses and exams do to the people subjected to them? Over the last five years I have asked students to think of a writing experience that stands out in their minds and talk about it - actually, write about it. The majority of the stories they have told recount tales of trauma and cruel exposure of fragile egos. Those who did the hurting did so in the name of the importance of writing.7
I am hardly the first to say that there is tyranny in academic literacy. The challenge I wish to put to L2 writing professionals is not to discover how to avoid such destructiveness by building a better mousetrap, be it a writing course or writing exam. The challenge is rather an attempt to encourage some distance, a critical perspective that would allow us to ask ourselves if we are exaggerating the importance of writing and, if so, with what consequences to learners. We need, perhaps, to step back a bit to remember writing is a tool, not an end in itself. After all, in other academic settings - for example, in Europe - oral discourse, not written, plays the bigger role (Ivanic, 1998). Again, it is not that writing has no role to play in educational or professional or civic life; rather, because

328 llona Leki
our professional interests as writing researchers and teachers lead us to focus on writing, we may ignore our own critical faculties and come to think of writing as rightfully occupying center stage for everyone. This seems particularly unjust toward L2 English writers, whose life agendas may or may not ever again include writing in English.
Writing is only one among several ways of becoming educated, doing our jobs, or making the world a better place to live. For most people, even some who lead perfectly fulfilling lives, writing is not the core activity to any of these ends. For this reason, those of us who teach L2 writing must keep what we do in proper perspective, not exaggerate the importance in our students' academic, work, or personal lives of what we have to offer, and perhaps think of our work more modestly in terms of its potential usefulness.
1. A particular composite score on the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) is often required of English learners seeking admission to institu¬tions of higher education in North America.
2. Over the years, in thinking through these issues, I have often asked (usually LI English) graduate students in my classes whether they consider themselves good writers and, if so, where they learned to write. Writing classes are rarely mentioned as the source of their skill development.
3. Currie (1999) offers suggestions on organizing academic writing courses that focus on skills that might transfer from L2 writing courses to meet specific disciplinary requirements. For further discussion of this topic, see the chapter by Johns, Chapter 8 this volume.
4. It is true, however, that even when writing for writing's sake was assigned, the disciplinary instructors typically provided quite detailed instructions for completing these assignments and thereby did, in that sense, model elements of disciplinary discourse, perhaps most notably what the discipline values in its discourse.
Furthermore, while these writing assignments did not reflect non-school-sponsored disciplinary writing tasks, obviously, this does not mean that they were without educational merit or effect. Assigning papers on an issue related to the courses certainly caused the students to spend time thinking, reading, talking - and writing - about the topic, although how they benefited from the time spent varied by student and by task. Arguably, it was the time spent focused on the topic, rather than the specific medium of writing, that promoted any learning that took place.
5. This may be why, according to interviews with graduate students, parts of the writing in these disciplines are left to the graduate students to do, partly to train them and partly to allow the faculty to avoid having to do the more pedestrian writing tasks, such as literature reviews, themselves (Leki, 1996).
6. Petraglia (1995) refers to the freshman composition course as offering "gen¬eral writing skills instruction (GWSI)" (p. xi) and assembles an edited volume of chapters discussing its various inadequacies. Also see Lillis (2001).

A challenge to second language writing professionals 329
7. This is not to say that no one has positive memories or experiences of learn¬ing to write (and read); see, for example, Brandt (2001). On the other hand, for an elaborate glorification of the possibilities writing can/should open up juxtaposed against how he assumes students experience writing, writing classes, and school generally, see Johnson (2001), whose article is, interest¬ingly, entitled "School sucks."
Ackerman, J. (1993). The promise of writing to learn. Written Communication,
JO, 334-370. Bazerman, C. (1985). Physicists reading physics: Schema-laden purposes and
purpose-laden schema. Written Communication, 2, 3-24. Belcher, D. (1991). Nonnative writing in a corporate setting. The Technical
Writing Teacher, 18, 104-115. Belcher, D., & Connor, U. (Eds.). (2001). Reflections on multiliterate lives.
Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Benesch, S. (1996). Needs analysis and curriculum development in EAP:
An example of a critical approach. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 723-
738. Brandt, D. (2001). Literacy in American lives. New York: Cambridge University
Press. Bridwell-Bowles, L. (1998). Identity matters. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall. Brodkey, L. (1996). Writing permitted in designated areas only. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press. Canagarajah, S. (1996). "Nondiscursive" requirements in academic publishing,
material resources of periphery scholars, and the politics of knowledge pro¬duction. Written Communication, 13, 435-472. Charney, D. (1998, October). Workplace literacies. Watson Conference on
Rhetoric and Composition, Louisville, KY. Chenoweth, N., Hayes, J., Gripp, P., Littleton, E., Steinberg, E,, & van Every,
D. (1999). Are our courses working? Measuring student learning. Written
Communication, 16, 29-50. Crowley, S. (1998). Composition in the university. Pittsburgh, PA: University of
Pittsburgh Press. Currie, P. (1999). Transferable skills: Promoting student research. English for
Specific Purposes, 18, 329-345. Cushman, E. (1999). Critical literacy and institutional language. Research in the
Teaching of English, 33, 245-274. Ervin, E. (1999). Academics and the negotiation of local knowledge. College
English, 61, 448-470. Flowerdew, J. (1999). Writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of
Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 123-145. Geisler, C. (1995). Writing and learning at cross purposes in the academy.
In J. Petraglia (Ed.), Reconceiving writing, rethinking writing instruction
(pp. 101-120). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gosden, H. (1992). Research writing and NNSs: From the editors. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 1, 123-139.

330 llona Leki
Hilgers, T. L., Hussey, E. L., & Stitt-Bergh, M. (1999). "As you're writing you
have these epiphanies": What college students say about writing and learn¬ing in their majors. Written Communication, 16, 317-353. Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity
in academic writing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Johnson, T. R. (2001). School sucks. College Composition and Communication,
52, 620-658. Leki, I. (1996, March). Getting inside: Graduate NNES students' perceptions
of academic literacy development in their disciplines. TESOL Conference,
Chicago, IL. Leki, I. (1998, March). Socialization into academic and pre-professional literacy
among four NNES university students. AAAL Conference, Seattle, WA. Lillis, T. M. (2001). Student writing: Access, regulation, desire. London:
Routledge. Losey, K. (1997). Listen to the silences. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Matsuda, P. (2001). Reexamining audiolingualism: On the genesis of reading and
writing in L2 studies. In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), Linking literacies:
Perspectives on L2 reading-writing connections (pp. 84-105). Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press. Mlynarczyk, R. (1998). Conversations of the mind. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Murray, D., & Nichols, P. (1992). Literacy practices and their effect on academic
writing: Vietnamese case studies. In F. Dubin & N. Kuhlman (Eds.), Cross-cultural literacy: Global perspectives on reading and writing (pp. 175-187).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Myers, G. (1985). The social construction of two biologists' proposals. Written
Communication, 2, 219-245. Patton, M., &c Nagelhout, E. (1998, October). Literacy and learning in context:
Biology students in the classroom and lab. Watson Conference on Rhetoric
and Composition, Louisville, KY. Petraglia, J. (Ed.). (1995). Reconceiving writing, rethinking writing instruction.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Reid, J. (2001). Advanced EAP writing and curriculum design: What do we need
to know? In T. Silva & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), On second language writing
(pp. 143-160). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Roen, D. (1989). Developing effective assignments for second language writers.
In D. Johnson & D. Roen (Eds,), Richness in writing (pp. 193-206). New
York: Longman. Roen, D., Brown, S., & Enos, T. (Eds.). (1999). Living rhetoric and composition.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Russell, D. (1991). Writing in the academic disciplines 1870-1990. Carbondale,
IL: SIU Press. Shor, I. (1998). Inequality (still) rules: Reply to Collins and Greenberg./o«n?tf/
of Basic Writing, 17, 104-108. Smagorinsky, P. (1994). Constructing meaning in the disciplines: Reconceptu-
alizing writing across the curriculum as composing across the curriculum.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED366954) Spilka, R. (2001). Workplace literacy. New York: Addison Wesley Longman. Sternglass, M. (1997). Time to know them. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Swales, J. (1997). English as Tyrannosaurus rex. World Englishes, 16, 373-

A challenge to second language writing professionals 331
Trimbur, J. (1999). Close reading: Accounting for my life teaching writing. In D. Roen, S. Brown, & T. Enos (Eds.), Living rhetoric and composition (pp. 129-141). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tucker, A. (1995). Decoding ESL. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Winsor, D. (1996). Writing like an engineer, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Zamel, V. (2000). Engaging students in writing-to-Iearn: Promoting language and literacy across the curriculum. Journal of Basic Writing, 19, 3-21.


abridged fiction, 274
academic writing: assessment and, 174; contrastive rhetoric and, 226-7, 229-30; genre and, 207-9
American College Testing (ACT), 168
American Sign Language (ASL), 104-7
analytic scales, 42
APA style, 95
Applebee, Arthur, 4
appropriation, 124-5, 129
Army Specialized Training Program (ASTP), 17
article system (English), 96, 154, 156, 225
assessment: 184-9; alternative methods for, 179-81; changes in field of, 162-3; computerized testing and, 180-1; constructs and, 165-79; cross-cultural rhetoric and, 174-5; curriculum and, 81-4; direct v. indirect, 162-4, 167; error role and, 173; exam cultures and, 182; expectations of, 163-7; familiarity with students and, 168, 181-2; genre and, 173-4; peer support and, 180; portfolio, 179-80; rater training effects and, 178-9; readers and, 177-9, 257-8; reliability and, 163-4; scale length and, 176-7; scoring procedure for, 175-6; task variables and, 170-3; teachers' view of, 162; test performance v. potential, 182-3; text analysis and, 173-9; validities and, 164-7; washback and, 182, 183nl; writer and, 168-70, 257-8

Atkinson, D., 233-4 autobiographic fiction, 272
Biber, D., 154
Bibliomania, 302
Bizzell,P., 179
Bloomfield, Leonard, 16-17
Braddock, R., 142
British National Corpus Online, 303
Britton, James, 143
Brossell, G., 183
bulletin boards, 295-6
Cambridge FCE (First Certificate of English), 174
canonical literature, 274-7
Carson, Joan, 227, 250-2, 255
categorization schemes, 61 n3
causal-comparative research, 38, 43^4
chat rooms, 296-8
Chenoweth, N., 320
Chinese, 99-101, 223-4, 227, 250
Christensen, Francis, 20
Christie, E, 200
City University of New York (CUNY), 23-5
classroom: college environment and, 321-3; computers and, 285-306; contrastive rhetoric and, 227; essays and, 230-2; grammar instruction and, 148-56; historical perspective on, 311; IECC service and, 295; literature use and, 263-81; TOEFL and, 230-2
Coe, Richard, 210
cognition, 1, 169
coherence, 42

334 Index

College Composition and Communication, 26
College English^ 269
College ESL, 25
Collins COBUILD English Language Dictionary, 154
Common Underlying Proficiency Hypothesis, 246-7
composition: 1, 18, 101-2;
appropriation and, 124-5, 129; computers and, 285-306; context and, 22; contrastive rhetoric and, 218-39; curriculum influence and, 75; discourse-level structure and, 20-1; feedback and, 119-36; form-function relationships and, 151-2; French and, 98; genre and, 195-213 {see also genre); grammar and, 141-61 {see also grammar); multiple drafts and, 144-6; native-born students and, 24; North American issues in, 23-5; pedagogical limitations and, 22-3; process theory and, 6, 21-2; Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and, 20; sentence-level structure and, 19-20; social context and, 58; Sydney School and, 200-4, 213n8, 213n9; teaching literature for, 263-83;
computers: 285-6, 307-10; accuracy and, 289; agency and, 304; chat and, 296-7; communication patterns and, 299; composition and, 285-306; digital literacy and, 1-2; discourse and, 299-300; e-mail and, 295, 299-300; feedback and, 298-9; grammar software, 154; hypertext and, 300; influence of, 287; Internet resources and, 302-3; manner effects of, 292-3; MOOs and, 297-8; MUDs and, 297-8; networking and, 293-300; potential of, 304-6; quality and, 292-3; revision and, 289; rewriting anxiety and, 289; student attitudes and, 288-9; team editing and, 294-5; textual properties and, 289; usage issues and, 304-6;

Web sites, 295-8, 301-3; word
processing and, 288-93 Computers and Classroom Culture
(Schofield), 285 conceptualizations: curriculum effects
and, 71, 74-89; influences of,
86-7; teachers', 71-92 Conference on College Composition
and Communication (CCCC), 18,
25 construct validity: 165-6; assessment
of, 167-79 content: 320; curriculum influence
and, 71-92; feedback and, 123-4;
multiple drafts and, 144-6;
reading/writing relationships and,
254-5; text research and, 41-2 context: 22, 37, 55, 191, 194;
assessment and, 173-5; classroom
environment and, 56, 58;
composition programs and, 58;
contrastive rhetoric and, 218-39;
cultural effects on, 192-3;
feedback and, 120-1, 125-7; genre
and, 192, 195-213; goals and,
56-8; grammar and, 143; issues in,
58-9; reading/writing relationships
and, 242-62; task analyses and,
255-6 contrastive rhetoric: 53-4, 192-3,
239-41; academic writing and,
229-30; advances in, 232-6;
computer science and, 238n5;
criticisms of, 232-6; cultural
effects and, 220, 222-3;
description of, 218; discourse and,
235; EFL applications of, 227-32;
essays and, 226-7, 230-2;
European Union and, 235-6;
examples of, 221-2, 226, 237-8;
future directions for, 233-4, 236;
impact of, 218-9; tertium
comparationis for, 236; TESOL
and, 224, 233-4; text analysis and,
220-3; U.S. history of, 223-7;
Whorfian interpretation and, 224; correlational research, 38, 43-4 Crain, J. C, 270 creativity: curriculum influence
and, 77; diversity and, 87-8;

Index 335

professional networks and, 86
criterion validity, 164-5
critical thinking, 141
Crystal, David, 235-6
culture: computers and, 301-2; contrastive rhetoric and, 218-39; immigrant students and, 53-4, 72, 94-104, 126; literature use and, 265, 277-8; Tannen on, 234
curriculum: case studies and, 207; college environment and, 321-3; competency-based, 90n5; composition and, 75; concepts defining, 74-9; diversity and, 87-9; ESP, 205-9; generality and, 79-81; genres and, 75-6; global differences in, 71-92; independent courses and, 77-8; integrated, 77-9; New Rhetoricians and, 195, 199, 209-11, 212n3; personal creativity and, 77; professional networks and, 86; reading/writing relationships and, 254-5; specificity and, 79-81; student achievement and, 81-4; Sydney School, 200-4, 231n8, 231n9; text functions and, 76; topical themes and, 76-7; uniformity issues and, 84-9
Darling, Charles, 302
Dave's ESL Cafe, 298
deafness, 104-7
democracy, 324-6
Devon method, 164
dictionaries, 46, 99-101, 278, 302
digital literacy, 1-2
DiPietro, R., 271, 275
Directory of Professional Preparation
Programs in TESOL in the United
States, 27 disciplinary communities, 191 discourse: computers and, 299-300;
contrastive rhetoric and, 235;
metadiscourse, 212n2; structure
levels and, 20-1; text research and,
41-2 diversity: feedback and, 126-7;
literature use and, 275-7

drafting process: 21-2, 122-3; grammar and, 141, 144-6
Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), 303
Educational Testing Service (ETS), 165, 168
e-mail, 289, 295-300, 303
Email Projects Home Page, 303
empirical approaches: 60;
categorization schemes and, 61n3; causal-comparative, 38; correlational, 38; experimental, 38; qualitative, 38-9; surveys, 38
English: academic, 207-9; APA style and, 95; basic literary skills in, 78; career options of, 1-2; contrastive rhetoric and, 218-39; dictionary use and, 46, 99-101, 278, 302; Finnish and, 229-30; globalization and, 1-3; grammar and, 141-61 (see also grammar); immersion approach, 102; independent courses and, 77-8; integrated curricula and, 77-9; Japan and, 2; linguistic structure of, 98; literature use and, 263-81; need for teachers of, 1-3; New Rhetoricians and, 195, 199, 209-11, 212n3; noun clauses and, 155; political issues and, 16-17; sentence structure and, 95; Sydney School and, 200-4, 213n8, 213n9; U.S. higher education and, 16-18; WSSE, 235-6
English as a foreign language (EFL) writing, 49; academic writing and, 229-30; contrastive rhetoric and, 218-39; course differences and, 67-8; diversity and, 87-8; essay writing and, 230-2; general approach and, 79-81, 83^4; genre and, 195-217 (see also genre); global differences in, 71-92; specificity and, 79-80, 82-3; uniformity issues and, 84-9;
English as a second language (ESL) , writing: 8-10, 30-4, 60-65; appropriation and, 124-5, 129; ASL and, 104-7; assessment and,

336 Index

English {cont.)
117, 162-89; behavior coding and, 47; case studies of, 93-112; categorization schemes and, 61n3; commercial textbook influence and, $6; composition and, 23-5 (see also composition); computers and, 285-306; conferences and, 128-9; context and, 22,-55-59; contrastive rhetoric and, 218-39; course differences and, 67-8; curriculum implications and, 71-92; dictionary use and, 46, 99-101, 278, 302; disciplinary communities and, 191; discourse-level structure and, 20-1; diversity and, 87-9; empirical approaches to, 38-9; English departments and, 18; ESP and, 205—9; experimental studies in, 48-50; feedback and, 46, 50, 119-40 (see also feedback); fluency and, 45-6; form-function relationships and, 151-2; foundational knowledge for, 4; future directions for, 28-9; general approach and, 79-81, 83-4; genre and, 192,195-217 [see also genre); global differences in, 1-3, 71-92; grammar and, 116-17, 141-61 (see also grammar); historical perspective on, 15-34, 311; independent courses and, 77-8; instructional settings and, 253-8; integrated curricula and, 77-9; interdisciplinary emergence of, 25-8; intervention effects and, 48; learning and, 115; literature use in, 264-8; methodological factors in, 6-7; multiple drafts and, 122-4, 127-8, 144-6; native language differences and, 24, 68-9; network lists and, 295-6; New Rhetoricians and, 195, 199, 209-11, 212n3; origins of, 12; overvaluing of, 315-31; pedagogical limitations of, 22-3; peer review and, 46; perceptions of, 110-11; post-graduate influences on, 86; preparing for, 11-14; process

theory and, 21-2, 44-50; professional networks and, 86; raters and, 54; reader relationships and, 242-62; response analysis and, 119-40; revision and, 45, 49, 124-5, 127-8; sentence-level structure and, 19-20; single drafts and, 127; specificity and, 79-80, 82-3; students and, 53^1 (see also students); success stories for, 93-114; Sydney School and, 200-4, 213n8,213n9; as symbiotic field, 28-9; talk aloud protocols and, 47; teachers and, 3-5, 50-3 (see also teachers); as TESL subdiscipline, 19-23; text research and, 37, 39^14; theory building and, 5—7; uniformity issues and, 84-9; U.S. higher education and, 16-18; writing controversies in, 270-2
English for Academic Purposes (EAP): context and, 22; curricular issues in, 254-5; genre and, 207; grammar and, 153-5; needs analyses and, 251-2; reading/writing relationships and, 251-2,254-8
English for Special Purposes (ESP): 25, 213n8; case studies and, 207; context and, 22; functional sections of, 205-6; genre and, 205-9; New Rhetoricians and, 195, 199, 209-11, 212n3; Swales and,205-6
English Language Institute (ELI), 17-18
English Language Testing Service (ELTS), 176
English Through the Internet, 303
Enkvist, Nils Erik, 228
Erazmus, Edward, 19
Error, 152-3, 173^
Errors and Expectations (Shaughnessy), 143
essays: assessment and, 163-4, 168, 170-5; contrastive rhetoric and, 226-7; educational literature and, 273-4; Japan and, 230-2; Senegal and, 230-2; TOEFL and, 230-2;

Index 337

ethnographic methods, 177-8 European Union, 235-6, 238n3 exam cultures, 182 experimental research, 38, 43-4 Extensive Reading Hypothesis, 248-9
face validity, 164
feedback: 46, 115, 137-40; appreciation for, 133-4; appropriation and, 124-5; computers and, 298-9; conferences and, 121, 128-9; context and, 120-1, 125-7; contradiction in, 120-1; diversity and, 126-7; effective criteria for, 122-9; face-to-face, 120-1; forms of, 119-20, 131, 136n3; grammar and, 123-4, 126, 146-7, 152-3; individual, 120-1, 125-7, 146-7; LI barriers to, 119-20; multiple drafts and, 122-4, 127-8; peer response and, 129-34; perspectives on, 119-22; reading/writing relationships and, 256-7; research limitations in, 134-6; response-and-revision dynamic and, 120-1; single drafts and, 127; teachers and, 122-9
fiction, 274
Finnish, 228-30, 235-6
Flemish, 221
fluency, 45-6
form-function relationships, 151-2
foundational knowledge, 4
Freedman, A., 209-10
French, 96-9
Fries, Charles C, 16-17
Gaer, Susan, 303
Geisler, C, 320
"Generative Rhetoric of the Paragraph" (Christensen), 20
genre: 192, 213-7; abridged fiction, 274; assessment and, 155-6, 173-4; children's literature and, 274; curriculum influence and, 75-6; defined, 195-7; ESP and, 205-9; grammar and, 153-6; literature and, 264, 272-8; New Rhetoricians and, 209-11; novels,

272-3; poetry, 273; Process Movement and, 212; reading/ writing relationships and, 256; research in, 197-200; short stories, 272-3; Sydney School and, 200^1, 213n8, 213n9; theory and, 197-200,211-12
globalization: 1-3, 230; course differences and, 67-8; curriculum influences and, 71-92
grammar: 116-17, 157-61;
assessment and, 162; context and, 143; critical thinking and, 141; drafting and, 141, 144-6; feedback and, 123-4, 126, 146-7, 152-3; genre and, 153-6; integration of, 157; language accuracy and, 143; literature and, 265-6; New Rhetoricians and, 212n3; noninterventionist approach and, 144; online resources for, 302-3; revision and, 142; sentence-level structure and, 19-20; student perspective and, 148-51, 155-6; syntactic complexity and, 40, 42
"Grammar, Grammars and the
Teaching of Grammar" (Hartwell), 143
Halliday, M. A. K., 200 Hartwell, P., 142-3 Hawisher, G. E., 305-6 holistic scoring, 175 Hoter, Elaine, 303 Hyland, K., 154 hypertext, 287, 300
individual attention: assessment and, 168, 181-2; feedback and, 120-1, 125-7, 146-7
Institute of International Education
(IIE), 2
integrated curricula, 77-9 Intercultural E-mail Classroom
Connections (IECC), 295 Interdependence Hypothesis,
246-7 International Association of Teachers
of English as a Foreign Language
(IATEFL), 303

338 Index

International English Language Testing Service (IELTS), 176-7
Internet, 1, 298, 302-3. See also computers
"Internet Projects for Learners and Teachers of English," 303
Internet TESL Journal, 298, 303
invention strategies, 21-2
Japanese: contrastive rhetoric and, 224, 226, 236; essay writing and, 230-2
Johns, Ann, 250-2
Journal of Basic Writing (JBW), 24-5
Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 26, 36
Kaplan, Robert, 20, 218-9, 223 Kidon Media-Link, 302 Kitzhaber, Albert, 269 Knight, L., 268, 270 Korean, 223^
Krashen, Stephen, 143-4, 248-9 Kubota, Ryuko, 233
Language Learning, 25-6
Language Threshold Hypothesis, 247-9
Larson, Richard, 269
Latosi-Swain, E., 269-70
Leki, Ilona, 125, 250-2
Lindemann, Erika, 269
Linguistic Funland TESL, 303
linguistics: 16, 20-21, 40, 42;
contrastive rhetoric and, 218-39; genre and, 195-213 (see also genre); grammar and, 141-56; network lists and, 295-6; reading/writing relationships and, 242-62; SFL and, 200
LINGUIST list, 296
literature: 193-4, 282-3; canonical, 274-7; genre and, 264, 272-4; grammar and, 265-6; historical controversies in, 269-72; multicultural, 274-7; novels, 272-3, 280; poetry, 273; pros/cons of using, 264-8; reading and, 263-4, 279; short stories and, 272-3; social issues and, 277-8

Lloyd-Jones, R., 142
local area networks (LANs). See
computers Longman Grammar of Spoken and
Written English, 154
McKay, S., 271
Macromedia, 301
Matsuda, Paul Kei, 218
Mauranan, A., 229
Mbaye, A., 231-2
metadiscourse, 212n2
models, 5-7
Modern Language Journal, 35
MonoConc, 303
Moran, C, 299-300
multiple drafts: 21-2; composition and, 144-6; feedback and, 122-4, 127-8; grammar and, 141
multiple texts, 246, 250-1
multiple trait scoring, 176
multi-user domains, object oriented (MOOs), 297-8
multi-user domains (MUDs), 297-8
native English speakers (NES) teachers, 54
native language (LI): 5; contrastive rhetoric and, 218-39; negative" feedback and, 119-20; perceptions of, 68-9; reading relationships and, 242-6; writing controversies in, 269-70
Nelson, Gayle, 227
NETEACH-L list, 296, 298
networking, 293-300
New Rhetoricians, 195, 199, 209-11, 212n3
newsgroups, 295-6
nonfiction novels, 272
noninterventionism, 144
noun clauses, 155
novels, 272-3, 280
online writing labs (OWLs), 112n3 Oxford Teachers' Club, 301
pedagogical approaches: 15; common conceptualization influence and, 86-7; composition and, 23-5;

Index 339

contrastive rhetoric and, 218—39; curriculum influences and, 71-81; discourse-level structure and, 20-1; English departments and, 18; ESP and, 205-9; feedback and, 119-36; future directions for, 28-9; genre and, 195-213; grammar instruction and, 141-61; interdisciplinary emergence and, 25-8; New Rhetoricians and, 195, 199, 209-11, 212n3; process theory and, 21-2; reading/writing relationships and, 242-62; sentence-level structure and, 19-20; student achievement and, 81-4; Sydney School and, 200^1, 213n8,213n9; teacher conceptualizations and, 71, 74-81, 86-9; uniformity issues and, 84-9; U.S. higher education issues and, 16-18
peer review: 46, 180; pros/cons of 129-30; research on, 130^
plagiarism, 303
poetry, 273
portfolios, 179-80
post-graduate education, 86
Pratt, E., 298
primary trait scoring, 175-6
process theory: 6, 21—2; behavior coding and, 47; genre and, 195-213; information use and, 49-50; intervention effects and, 48; research on, 37, 44-50; talk aloud protocol and, 47; techniques used, 44, 47
professional networks, 86
Project Gutenberg Electronic Library, 302
punctuation, 164
qualitative research: 38-9; students and, 53-5; teachers and, 50-5
Raforth, B. A., 206
raters, 54,178
reading: aloud, 279; assessment and, 177-9; directionality issue and, 249-50; ethnographic methods and, 177-8; extensive reading

hypothesis and, 248-9;
instructional settings and, 253-8;
interdependence hypothesis and,
246-7; LI research into, 245-6;
L2 research into, 246-53; language
threshold hypothesis and, 247-8;
literature use and, 263^; needs
analyses for, 251-2; rater training
effects and, 178; role of, 243-4;
sense of audience and, 242;
strategic, 256; theories for, 244-5,
253-4; writing relations and, 193,
242-62 Reading in the Composition
Classroom (Carson &c Leki), 250 Reid,J., 121 revision, 45, 49, 124-5 rhetoric: 1, 103 {See also contrastive
rhetoric); assessment and, 174-5;
cross-cultural influences of, 174-5;
genre and, 195-213; New
Rhetoricians and, 195, 199,
209-11, 212n3; reading/writing
relationships and, 256;
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and, 20;
textual influence and, 111 Roen,D.s 316, 324-5 Russian, 223, 275
Sadarangani, U., 276 Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, 20 scale length, 176-7 schMOOze University, 298 Schoer, L., 142 Schofield, Jane Ward, 285 Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), 163 Scollon, Ron, 233 second language acquisition (SLA),
153 Selfe, C. L., 305-6 Semitic languages, 223 Senegal, 230-2, 236 sentence-level structure, 19-20 Shapiro, N., 276 Shaughnessy, Mina, 24, 143 short stories, 272-3 Smagorinski, P., 320 software. See computers Soter, A., 223 Spack, Ruth, 233, 271-2, 277

340 Index

Spanish, 17,97, 101-4, 126
Sperling, Dave, 298, 303
Stanovich, K., 249
Sternglass, M., 317
students: 35, 111; appropriation and, 124-5, 129; assessment and, 81-4, 162-89 (see also assessment); classroom environment and, 67; cognitive factors and, 1, 169; college environment and, 321-3; commercial textbook influence and, 86; computers and, 285-306; context and, 55-9; deaf, 104-7; empowerment of, 129; feedback and, 119-36 {see also feedback); globalization and, 1-3; grammar and, 148-51; immigrant, 53-4, 72, 94-104, 126; individual attention and, 125-7, 146-7; LI perceptions and, 68-9; literature and, 263-8; network lists and, 295-6; online resources for, 302-3; peer review and, 46,129-34, 180; post-graduate influences on, 86; progress of, 162; reading/writing relationships and, 244-6, 256-7; research on, 53-5; role playing and, 279; success stones for, 93-114; word processing and, 288-9
Sullivan, N., 298
survey research, 38, 55
Swales, John, 205-6
Sweet, Henry, 16-17
Sydney School, 200-4, 213n8, 213n9
syntax. See grammar
Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), 195,200-4
TACT, 303
talk aloud protocols, 47
Tannen, Deborah, 234
Tate, Gary, 269
teachers: appropriation and, 124-5, 129; assessment and, 162-89 {see also assessment); ASTP Method and, 17; best practices and, 5; CCCC and, 18; classroom environment and, 67; cognitive factors and, 1, 169; commercial

textbook influence and, 86; computers and, 285-306; conceptualization influences and, 71, 74-81, 86-9; context and, 55-9; contrastive rhetoric and, 218-39; current-traditional paradigm and, 127; curriculum implications and, 71-92; diversity in, 87-9; feedback and, 119, 122-9 (see also feedback); general approach and, 79-81, 83-4; global differences in, 67-8, 71-89; grammar instruction and, 141-61; growing need for, 1-3; immigrants and, 24-5; individual attention and, 125-7, 146-7; lesson plans and, 3-4; methods for, 110-12; noninterventionist approach and, 144; online resources for, 302-3; overvaluing and, 315-31; post-graduate influences and, 86; professional networks and, S6; reading/writing relationships and, 256-8; research and, 35-59; role playing and, 279; success stories for, 93-114; training of, 3-5
Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 26
Teaching of English as a second language (TESL): 18; context and, 22; discourse-level structure and, 20-1; formative feedback and, 21-2; future directions of, 28-9; invention strategies and, 21; L2 as subdiscipline of, 19-23; multiple drafts and, 21-2; pedagogical limitations and, 22-3; process theory and, 21—2; sentence-level structure and, 19-20
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), 18, 224,233-4,301,303
team editing, 294-5
technology. See computers
TESL-L list, 296
TESOL Quarterly, 26, 35, 233, 271
testing: 327 (see also assessment); computer-based, 162-3, 165, 180-1; Devon method, 164; direct v. indirect, 162-3, 167; error

Index 341

significance and, 173; essay, 163-4, 168, 170-5; multiple-choice and, 162-3; rater training effects and, 178-9; SAT, 163; scoring and, 175-7; statisticians and, 163; stock answers and, 172; TOEFL, 162-3; topic effects and, 170-3
Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL): 315, 328nl; essays and, 230-2; writing teachers and, 162-3,167,169
Test of Written English (TWE), 42, 162-3
text: 37; academic, 207-9; analysis activities and, 155-6; assessment of, 117, 173-5; computers and, 304-6; contrastive rhetoric and, 218-39; curriculum influence and, 75-6; ESP and, 205-9; expository, 153-4; feedback and, 123-4; finished text analysis and, 115-18; genre and, 195-213; grammar and, 153-6; hypertext and, 287, 300; layered, 300; metatext and, 229-30; multiple, 246, 250-1; production activities and, 155-6; reading/writing relationships and, 242-62; rewriting anxiety and, 289; rhetoric emphasis and, 111; Sydney School and, 200-4, 213n8, 213n9; word processing and, 288-93
textbooks. See literature
text research: content and, 40-2; discourse and, 41; focus of, 39-42; independent/dependent variables and, 43-4; intervention effects and, 43; lexical sophistication and, 40; linguistic accuracy and, 40, 42; measurement choice in, 42; quality and, 42; syntactic complexity and, 40, 42; techniques for, 39, 43-4
Thai, 223-4
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja, 227
topical themes, 76-7
Trimbur, J., 324-5
Truscott,J., 146-7
T-units, 174
tutoring, 46

University of Lancaster UCREL, 303
Ventola, E., 229
Vilmi, Ruth, 303
Virtual English Language Center, 298
Virtual Learning Community, 303
Warschauer, Mark, 303-4
washback, 182, 183nl
WebCT, 301
Web sites, 295-8, 301-3
Whorfian interpretation, 224
wide area networks (WANs). See computers
Willoquet-Maricondi, P., 265, 272
word processing, 288-93
World Standard Spoken English (WSSE), 235-6
World Wide Web. See computers
WPA: Writing Program Administration, 26
Writer's Workbench, 171
writing: general, 259-62, 294-5 [see also English as a second language (ESL) writing); academic, 174, 207-9, 226-7, 229-30; assessment of, 162-84; college environment and, 321-3; complexity of, 163^; computers and, 285-306; contrastive rhetoric and, 218-39; criterion validity and, 164-5; democracy and, 324-6; directionality issue and, 249-50; disciplinary content and, 319-21; employment and, 323^1; error significance and, 173; essay, 230-2; extensive reading hypothesis and, 248-9; genre and, 195-213; historical perspective on, 311; instructional settings and, 253-8; interdependence hypothesis and, 246-7; justice and, 324-6; language threshold hypothesis and, 247-8; to learn, 250-1; literature use and, 263-81; multiple texts and, 246, 250-1; needs analyses for, 251-2; New Rhetoricians and, 195, 199,209-11, 212n3; overvaluing of, 315-31; personal fulfillment and, 318-19;

342 Index

writing (cont.)
plagiarism and, 303; potential of, 328; prompt subjects and, 170-3, 181-2; punctuation and, 164; rater training effects and, 178-9; reading relationships and, 242-62; revision and, 290; rewriting anxiety and, 289; role of, 243-4; sense of audience and, 242; spelling and, 164; strategic, 256; subject matter and, 170-1; task

analysis and, 170-3; team editing and, 294-5; testing and, 163-4, 327 {see also testing); word processing and, 288-93;
writing research, 44-9
Written Communication, 26, 36
Yoshimura, T., 231
Zamel, Vivian, 21, 233, 252

Understanding Expertisein Teaching [Case Studies of Second Language Teachers] {Amy B. M. Tsui} (ตอนที่ 1)
Understanding Expertisein Teaching [Case Studies of Second Language Teachers] {Amy B. M. Tsui} (ตอนที่ 2)

(ตอนที่ 1)