1887
Volume 22, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1387-6732
  • E-ISSN: 1570-6001
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Proficient writing in English is a challenge for the linguistically diverse community college population. Writing research at the community college level is warranted in order to guide instruction and assist students in achieving higher levels of proficient writing. The current study examined the writing of three community college groups: native English Language students (L1,  = 146), English as a Second Language students primarily educated abroad (L2,  = 31), and English as a Second Language students who graduated from high school and lived in the United States for more than four years (Generation 1.5,  = 72). The writing samples were analyzed using Coh-Metrix to examine group differences in lexical, syntactic, and cohesion characteristics. Results indicated significant differences in syntactic and lexical measures among all groups, with small to large effect sizes. The majority of differences related to proficient writing characteristics were found between L1 and Generation 1.5 groups.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/wll.00020.abb
2019-11-20
2020-04-08
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aryadoust, V.
    (2014) Understanding the growth of ESL paragraph writing skills and its relationships with linguistic features. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 1–29. doi:  10.1080/01443410.2014.950946
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2014.950946 [Google Scholar]
  2. Beers, S. F., & Nagy, W. E.
    (2009) Syntactic complexity as a predictor of adolescent writing quality: Which measures? Which genre?Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22, 185–200. doi:  10.1007/s11145‑007‑9107‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9107-5 [Google Scholar]
  3. Benson, B., Deming, M. P., Denzer, D., & Valeri-Gold, M.
    (1992) A combined basic writing/English as a second language class: Melting pot or mishmash?Journal of Basic Writing, 58–74. Retrieved fromhttps://wac.colostate.edu/jbw/v11n1/v11n1.pdf#page=69
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Castro, C. D.
    (2004) Cohesion and the social construction of meaning in the essays of Filipino college students writing in L2 English. Asia Pacific Education Review, 5, 215–225. Retrieved fromfiles.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ720542.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Cohen, J. [Google Scholar]
  6. College Board
    College Board (2017) Writing scoring guide. Retrieved fromhttps://collegereadiness.collegeboard.org/sat/scores/understanding-scores/essay
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Crossley, S. A., Louwerse, M. M., McCarthy, P. M., & McNamara, D. S.
    (2007) A linguistic analysis of simplified and authentic texts. The Modern Language Journal, 91(1), 15–30. doi:  10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2007.00507.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00507.x [Google Scholar]
  8. Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S.
    (2009) Computational assessment of lexical differences in L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 119–135. doi:  10.1016/j.jslw.2009.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2009.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  9. (2011) Shared features of L2 writing: Intergroup homogeneity and text classification. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 271–285. doi:  10.1016/j.jslw.2011.05.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.05.007 [Google Scholar]
  10. (2012) Predicting second language writing proficiency: The roles of cohesion and linguistic sophistication. Journal of Research in Reading, 35, 115–135. doi:  10.1111/j.1467‑9817.2010.01449.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01449.x [Google Scholar]
  11. Crossley, S., Salsbury, T., & McNamara, D.
    (2009) Measuring L2 lexical growth using hypernymic relationships. Language Learning, 59(2), 307–334. doi:  10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2009.00508.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00508.x [Google Scholar]
  12. Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., & McNamara, D. S.
    (2012) Predicting the proficiency level of language learners using lexical indices. Language Testing, 29, 243–263. doi:  10.1177/0265532211419331
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532211419331 [Google Scholar]
  13. Crossley, S. A., Weston, J. L., Sullivan, S. T. M., & McNamara, D. S.
    (2011) The development of writing proficiency as a function of grade level: A linguistic analysis. Written Communication, 28(3), 282–311. doi:  10.1177/0741088311410188
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088311410188 [Google Scholar]
  14. Cummins, J.
    (2005, September). Teaching for cross-language transfer in dual language education: Possibilities and pitfalls. InJ. Liu (Chair), Teaching and learning two languages in the EFL setting. Symposium conducted at themeeting of the TESOL, Istanbul, Turkey.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Dávila de Silva, A.
    (2004) Emergent Spanish writing of a second grader in a whole language classroom. InB. Pérez (Ed.), Sociocultural contexts of language and literacy (2nd ed., pp.247–274). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. di Gennaro, K.
    (2008) Assessment of Generation 1.5 learners for placement into college writing courses. Journal of Basic Writing, 61–79. Retrieved fromhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/43443855
    [Google Scholar]
  17. (2009) Investigating differences in the writing performance of international and Generation 1.5 students. Language Testing. 26, 533–555. doi: 10.1177/026553220934019
    https://doi.org/10.1177/026553220934019 [Google Scholar]
  18. (2013) How different are they? A comparison of Generation 1.5 and international L2 learners’ writing ability. Assessing Writing, 18, 154–172. doi:  10.1016/j.asw.2013.01.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.01.003 [Google Scholar]
  19. Doolan, S. M.
    (2011) A language-related comparison of Generation 1.5 and L1 student writing. CATESOL Journal, 22, 1–88. Retrieved fromweb.a.ebscohost.com.lib-ezproxy.tamu.edu:2048/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=d6e1e419-30b0-4ecd-8f53-e9a5db78ab84%40sessionmgr4003&vid=2&hid=4206
    [Google Scholar]
  20. (2013) Generation 1.5 writing compared to L1 and L2 writing in first-year composition. Written Communication, 30, 135–163. doi:  10.1177/0741088313480823
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088313480823 [Google Scholar]
  21. (2014) Comparing language use in the writing of developmental Generation 1.5, L1, and L2 tertiary students. Written Communication, 31, 215–247. doi:  10.1177/0741088314526352
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088314526352 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2017) Comparing patterns of error in generation 1.5, L1, and L2 FYC writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 35, 1–17. doi:  10.1016/j.jslw.2016.11.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.11.002 [Google Scholar]
  23. Doolan, S. M., & Miller, D.
    (2012) Generation 1.5 written error patterns: A comparative study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 1–22. doi:  10.1016/j.jslw.2011.09.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.09.001 [Google Scholar]
  24. Eckstein, G., & Ferris, D.
    (2017) Comparing L1 and L2 texts and writers in First-Year Composition. TESOL Quarterly. doi:  10.1002/tesq.376
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.376 [Google Scholar]
  25. IRA/NCTE
    IRA/NCTE (2013) Essay Rubric. ReadWriteThink. Retrieved fromwww.readwritethink.org/classroom-resources/printouts/essay-rubric-30230.html
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Ferris, D. R.
    (1994) Lexical and syntactic features of ESL writing by students at different levels of L2 proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 414–420. doi:  10.2307/3587446
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3587446 [Google Scholar]
  27. Ferris, D.
    (2009) Defining L2 student audiences. Teaching college writing to diverse student populations (pp.3–24). Retrieved fromhttps://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/9780472033379-ch1.pdf. 10.3998/mpub.263445
    https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.263445 [Google Scholar]
  28. Ferris, D., Brown, J., Liu, H. S., Eugenia, M., & Stine, A.
    (2011) Responding to L2 students in college writing classes: Teacher perspectives. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 207–234. doi:  10.5054/tq.2011.247706
    https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.247706 [Google Scholar]
  29. Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M.
    (2013) Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 307–329. doi:  10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.009 [Google Scholar]
  30. Green, C.
    (2012) A computational investigation of cohesion and lexical network density in L2 writing. English Language Teaching, 5(8), 57–69. doi:  10.5539/elt.v5n8p57
    https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n8p57 [Google Scholar]
  31. Green, C. F., Christopher, E. R., & Mei, J. L. K.
    (2000) The incidence and effects on coherence of marked themes in interlanguage texts: A corpus-based enquiry. English for Specific Purposes, 19, 99–113. doi:  10.1016/S0889‑4906(98)00014‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(98)00014-3 [Google Scholar]
  32. Ghrib, E. M.
    (2001) Thinking and Writing in EFL. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 133(1), 243–269. doi:  10.1075/itl.133‑134.04maa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.133-134.04maa [Google Scholar]
  33. Harklau, L.
    (1994) ESL versus mainstream classes: Contrasting L2 learning environments. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 241–272. Retrieved fromtesol.aua.am/tq_digital/tq_digit/Vol_28_2.pdf#page=10
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Hayes, J., & Flower, L.
    (1980) Identifying the organization of writing processes. InL. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp.3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Hinkel, E.
    (2004) Tense, aspect and the passive voice in L1 and L2 academic texts. Language Teaching Research, 8, 5–29. Retrieved fromltr.sagepub.com.libezproxy.tamu.edu:2048/content/8/1/5.full.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Hu, Z., Brown, D., & Brown, L.
    (1982) Some linguistic differences in the written English of Chinese and Australian students. Language Learning and Communication, 1, 39–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Jenkins, D., & Fink, J.
    (2015) What we know about transfer. New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center. Retrieved from: ccrc.tc.columbia.edu
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Johnson, P.
    (1992) Cohesion and coherence in compositions in Malay and English. RELC Journal, 23(2), 1–17. doi:  10.1177/003368829202300201
    https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829202300201 [Google Scholar]
  39. Kormos, J.
    (2011) Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 148–161. Retrieved fromezproxy.tamu.edu:2048/login?url=search.proquest.com/docview/870287432?accountid=7082
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Kubota, R.
    (1998) An investigation of L1–L2 transfer in writing among Japanese university students: Implications for contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language writing, 7, 69–100. Retrieved fromhttps://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/36271134/Kubota_1998_JSLW.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1503256830&Signature=uOZzWIwn7OhdLV7ALMGYJo3JNyI%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DAn_investigation_of_L1_L2_transfer_in_wr.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Leki, I., Cumming, A., & Silva, T.
    (2008) A synthesis of research on second language writing in English. New York, New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Liu, M., & Braine, G.
    (2005) Cohesive features in argumentative writing produced by Chinese undergraduates. System, 33, 623–636. doi:  10.1016/j.system.2005.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  43. Long, S.
    (1998) Learning to get along: “Language acquisition and literacy development in a new cultural setting”. Research in the Teaching of English, 8–47. Retrieved fromwww.jstor.org/stable/40171571
    [Google Scholar]
  44. McCarthy, P. M., & Jarvis, S.
    (2010) MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 381–392. doi:  10.3758/BRM.42.2.381
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.2.381 [Google Scholar]
  45. McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., & McCarthy, P. M.
    (2010) Linguistic features of writing quality. Written Communication, 27, 57–86. doi:  10.1177/0741088309351547
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088309351547 [Google Scholar]
  46. McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., McCarthy, P. M., & Cai, Z.
    (2014) Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511894664
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511894664 [Google Scholar]
  47. McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., McCarthy, P. M., & Graesser, A. C.
    (2010) Coh-Metrix: Capturing linguistic features of cohesion. Discourse Processes, 47, 292–330. doi:  10.1080/01638530902959943
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902959943 [Google Scholar]
  48. McNamara, D. S., Ozuru, Y., Graesser, A. C., & Louwerse, M.
    (2006) Validating Coh-Metrix. InProceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp.573–578). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Retrieved fromftp://129.219.222.66/Publish/pdf/fpo444-mcnamara.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Meisuo, Z.
    (2000) Cohesive features in the expository writing of undergraduates in two Chinese universities. RELC Journal, 31(1), 61–95. doi:  10.1177/003368820003100104
    https://doi.org/10.1177/003368820003100104 [Google Scholar]
  50. Mikesell, L.
    (2007) Differences between Generation 1.5 and English as a second language writers: A corpus-based comparison of past participle use in academic writing. CATESOL Journal, 19, 7–29. Retrieved fromwww.catesoljournal.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/07/CJ19_mikesell.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Nakamaru, S.
    (2010) Lexical issues in writing center tutorials with international and US- educated multilingual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(2), 95–113. doi:  10.1016/j.jslw.2010.01.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  52. National Center for Education Statistics
    National Center for Education Statistics (2012) The Nation’s Report Card: Writing 2011 (NCES 2012–470). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.Retrieved fromnces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2012470.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  53. National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education
    National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (2011) Affordability and transfer: Critical to increasing baccalaureate degree completion. Retrieved fromwww.highereducation.org/reports/pa_at/PolicyAlert_06-2011.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Patthey, G., Thomas-Spiegel, J., & Dillon, P.
    (2009) Educational pathways of generation 1.5 in community college writing courses. InM. Roberge, M. Siegal, & L. Harklau (Eds.) Generation 1.5 in college composition: Teaching academic writing to US-educate learners of ESL (pp.135–149). New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Roberge, Mark
    (2009) A teacher’s perspective on Generation 1.5. InMark Roberge, Meryl Siegal, & Linda Harklau (Eds.), Generation 1.5 in college composition (pp.3–24). New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203885697
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203885697 [Google Scholar]
  56. Rumbaut, R. G. and Ima, K.
    (1988) The adaptation of Southeast Asian refugee youth: A comparative study. Washington, D.C., U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement. Retrieved fromfiles.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED299372.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Silva, T.
    (1993) Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 657–677. doi:  10.2307/3587400
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3587400 [Google Scholar]
  58. Thonus, T.
    (2003) Serving generation 1.5 learners in the university writing center. TESOL Journal, 12(1), 17–24. Retrieved fromhttps://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/8799/Thonus%202003.pdf;sequence=1
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Wang, P., & Machado, C.
    (2015) Meeting the needs of Chinese English language learners at writing centers in America: A proposed culturally responsive model. Journal of International Students, 5(2), 143–160. Retrieved fromfiles.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1060052.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Yang, W., & Sun, Y.
    (2012) The use of cohesive devices in argumentative writing by Chinese EFL learners at different proficiency levels. Linguistics and Education, 23, 31–48. doi:  10.1016/j.linged.2011.09.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2011.09.004 [Google Scholar]
  61. Ye, D.
    (2013) A Coh-Metrix analysis of language varieties between the journal articles of Chinese and American scientists. International Journal of English Linguistics, 3(4), 63–70. doi:  10.5539/ijel.v3n4p63
    https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v3n4p63 [Google Scholar]
  62. Zhang, R.
    (2015) A Coh-Metrix study of writings by majors of mechanic engineering in the vocational college. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5, 1929–1934. doi:  10.17507/tpls.0509.23
    https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0509.23 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/wll.00020.abb
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/wll.00020.abb
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Coh-Metrix , community college , generation 1.5 , L2 and writing

Most Cited This Month

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error