1

Aiding Language Acquisition in ESL Students through Recursive Writing

Lemuel Gary IV

B.A. English; B.S. Biology

Linguistics 237

Dr. Ellen Lipp

December 10th, 2010

 2
Aiding Language Acquisition in ESL Students through Recursive Writing

Abstract

As a key component to ESL course curriculum and pedagogy at the university level, there needs

be an increased and strengthened emphasis upon specifically recursive writing strategies, where the

object and primary goal of designated lesson plans and activities are individual discovery and meaning

making, primarily facilitated through engaging in the revision and reflective aspects of the writing

process. Focusing upon a recursive approach in teaching ESL writing-- meaning teaching academic

writing as a cyclical process of continuous development, as opposed to traditional linear, solution-

driven structure, will, ultimately, prove more conducive to the ultimate pedagogical goals of language

acquisition and proficiency of university ESL programs, provide better preparation for future academic

pursuit and course-work of students outside of ESL courses, and improve the future writing self-

efficacy of ESL learners.

Introduction

Recursive writing can be a benefit to ESL learners for many reasons. But centrally, the biggest

benefit comes from the nature of the writing itself. Writing tasks which are recursive may make better

use of beginning university writers already present cognitive abilities associated with the process of

writing, helping to integrate skills already possessed in L1, drawing upon previous experience in

writing, whether academic based or otherwise. Recursiveness, when discussing writing strategy, refers

only to an approach to writing, not a subcategory or genre of it. When proposing that recursive writing

become more of the focal point of the academic writing required of a student rather than traditional

models, I am really advocating a shift beyond traditional linear approaches to written assignments
 3
given in ESL courses. Linear approaches to writing, as I am referencing it, refers to academic models

of instruction whose primary goal in writing is the implementation of structure through linguistic rules:

grammar, etc. In the end, essentially, what I seek to address in this paper is the classic conflict between

product-based pedagogy of writing and the process-based pedagogy of writing, whereas my argument

is that ESL writing pedagogy can be improved by introducing a more process-based approach, which

includes promoting the sometimes complex, recursive, and creative set of behaviors associated with the

writing process.

There is much research which indicates that many of these traditional methods alone, without

supplementation with other approaches, can hamper a students learning and grasp of the language.

Given the central nature of many of the difficulties endemic to the ESL students experience it

would seem necessary to employ teaching approaches and pedagogy which strengthen and improve the

already present critical thinking skills, to lessen the burdensome nature of transitioning from one

language to another. The importance of understanding critical thinking, the role it plays in the

acquisition of language, and how it relates to recursive writing shall be relayed below.

ESL & The cultural tradition of critical thinking

For university ESL students, the process of becoming proficient and fluent in the English

language is an arduous journey that is as much about embracing and adopting the culture of English

language as it is about linguistic study. There is an obvious and significant cultural component to

learning any language (need quote); in courses teaching language, a discussion of culture is nearly

simultaneous to engaging in language study. Whether the transition proves large or small, difficult or

easy, achieving cultural literacy is the first step in the process of acquiring language. Central to

American academic culture, as reflected in the traditions of language and rhetorical discourse, is the

concept of critical thinking. It can be seen as early as high school with advanced placement courses,
 4
and evolves into institutions of higher learning. For example, in California, before any student can

earn wan Associates or Bachelor degree, he or she must complete both a lower and upper division

specifically designated critical thinking course as an undergraduate, no matter what the degree pathway

or major; or, in the absence of official course, pass with satisfactory score a competency test pertaining

to some aspect of critical response. Therefore, it can be gleamed that one's success in American

education system lies in the ability to critically respond to academic discourse.

Critical thinking assignments in traditional American discourse operates on at least one of the

following assumptions, all of which appear to be foundational in middle class/mainstream U.S. culture:

(1) that the survival of a democracy depends partly on raising critical questions about social issues

(Cederblom & Paulsen, 1987); (2) that the U.S. public should be prepared to take decisions on such

issues; and (3) that these are areas around which honest disagreement is possible (Ramanathan &

Atkinson, 1999). Essential to the idea of critical thinking in academia is individualism, defined as the

idea that an identity is developed or forged during the process of engaging discourse of academic study.

There are primarily four main pedagogical principles and practices taught in Ll oriented composition

which appear to incorporate a U.S. mainstream ideology of individualism: voice, peer review, critical

thinking, and textual ownership (Ramanathan & Atkinson, 1999). The ideas of critical thinking and

individualism share a direct, cognitive relationship in American education, with common ground in the

core pedagogy of progressivism, which relays that the all-important principle and purpose of education

to be the development of autonomous, self-actualized individuals (Pennycook, 1997). Cope and

Kalantzis (1993) see an intimate connection between educational progressivism and the metaphor of

personal voice: “The motivation in progressivism...is based entirely on the individual’s voice, the

individual’s sense of destiny.” A crucial goal, in the end, of education is to somehow develop,

manufacture, an academic voice and identity.

However, these very pedagogical concepts and the academic practices created from them

assume culturally specific norms of thought and expression which university ESL writers may have
 5
little social training in and difficulty accessing. Specifically, critical thinking, process writing, and the

academic voice may provide conflicts for ESL students because of their very focus upon individualism,

as it relates to the development of independent versus interdependent constructs of self when engaged

in critical thinking about academic discourse. What constitutes successful learning in traditional L1

cultures of university students in California will more often than not likely to differ from its counterpart

in L2. Specifically in regards to writing, ESL students socialized to the requirements of their L1

educational systems tend to write not so much to present an original, strong, individual self, to display

critical thinking, but to show how much they have internalized the traditions of their cultures

(Ramanathan & Atkinson, 1999). Piaget asserts that “individual independence is a social fact, a

product of civilization". What this boils down to is that beginning university ESL writers must

effectively learn how to create written academic discourse reflective of their own independent

evaluation of particular discourse: essentially, create an individualized academic persona. This post-

structuralist thought assumes that people have, by their very nature, multiple instead of unitary

personalities. This is accomplished in academic writing through the manifestation of voice.

Defining Voice

Each student is assumed, though, (almost required) to possess some sort of internal,

independent, unique “voice”. This underscores a particular ideological worldview where the individual

is foregrounded and valorized. “Voice” in this sense, can be seen to represent linguistic behavior

(Ramanathan & Atkinson, 1999).

Traditionally, Ll acompositionists have used the construct of voice in a variety of ways.

Historically, the genesis of the notion of written voice arrives as part of the larger 1960’s and 1970’s

reaction to social and educational systems that were emphasizing the impersonal over the personal, the
 6
technological over the natural. The most common use of this metaphorical notion appears to involve

linguistic (or near-linguistic) communication. Today, the most common and longest-standing usage is

the more active vehicle of personal style, presence on the page, which individuates a writer from all

other writers-- evidenced primarily through that writer’s texts (Ramanathan, Atkinsion pg 49).

Bowden (1995) attributes three fundamental characteristics to the original “personal” or “authentic”

view of written voice. First, it is (almost by definition) inward-centered-- it is fundamentally about

having contact with one’s essential “inner self.” Second, it assumes the primacy of oral over written

communication. That is, like the related metaphorical notion, “tone,” voice suggests that writing is in

some sense displaced or deficient speech. Third and finally, Bowden points out that the notion of

personal written voice is distinct and literary.

Luckily, the most compelling evidence of these widely differing notions of individuality across

cultures and their implications for written voice, comes from the personal stories of those who have

attempted to transplant themselves and become literate from one culture to another (Ramanathan &

Atkinson, 1999). This, quite literally, is what university ESL students are doing in the process of

gaining language acquisition and proficiency. Therein, the strategies undertaken to attain desirable

levels of proficiency cannot be underestimated.

The following excerpt from the Ramanthan & Atkinson (1999) relates clearly what rigorous

academic discourse truly requires of university ESL students:

“In order to write good English, I knew that I had to be myself, which actually meant

not to be my Chinese self. It meant that I had to create an English self and be that self.

And to be that English self. . . I had to accept the way a Westerner accepts himself in

relation to the universe and society”(pg 55/56).

It is important to examine identity again here, for it pertains directly to the relationship of
 7
individualism and voice. An undervalued aspect of ESL instruction is guarding against the potential

marginalization of one's students occurring in the process of language acquisition. The ESL students

struggle acquiring language, as aforementioned, mirrors the greater socio-political adjustments they

must undergo. In this respect, ESL students reflect better than others the ideological

conflict, struggle, and tensions of writing differences that dominate the

institutional bounds of school in the United States (Fernsten, 2008). Post-

structuralists view language as the site of both social and political struggle (Shor, 1992), but many

students lack the awareness that it is necessary and valuable to contest the voices of authority.

Awareness can be developed by writing. Much of this can be attributed to the traditions students carry

from their L1 ideologies. A writers’ opportunities, experiences, and encounters are shaped, enabled,

and constrained by the social, economic, and cultural factors that reflect different access to discourses

and identification with particular social groups (Fernsten, 2008). Language proficiency & development

clearly requires good critical thinking strategy. Although some educators would argue that attaining

proficiency in discourse is all that is important, part of learning for ESL speakers is understanding why

academic discourse is prompting them to think and write about complex ideas. Responses and

corrections that center only on grammatical differences, therefore, too often prove unproductive

(Fernsten, 2008).

As educators, we must consider when creating lesson plans how realistic it is to regularly expect

or demand our university ESL students to basically become someone else in their writing. The notions

of individualism and critical thinking, at least, for some students, may require this. And if we are to

require this of our students, what is the best way to aid them in the process of development? What can

we do to ease and enhance the transition? Considering the employment of basic and formal recursive

writing strategies may prove to be helpful in this respect.

Meta-cognition
 8

Writing isn't a neat linear set of steps one follows but a complex organic act of creation.

Specifically, the ability to critically think and then respond to academic discourse, in the way real

academic writing suggests, requires the development of sophisticated meta-cognitive skills-- skills

which, like the writing process itself, do not subscribe to clean, linear processing. Meta-cognitive

strategy refers to the abilities and skills that are used by learners as the means to manage, monitor and

evaluate their learning activities-- i.e critical thinking. To put it simply, meta-cognitive strategies are

skills, approaches, thinking and actions learners use to control and facilitate their own individual

cognition and learning process (Lu & Chen, 2010). Basically, they refer directly to how an individual

structures his or her critically thinking. According to O'Malley and Chamot (1990; 2001) meta-

cognitive critical thinking strategies are “higher order executive skills” which can be further classified

into three categories: (1) planning, (2) monitoring, (3) evaluation. Again, each of these categories is

central to critical thinking. Planning is a procedure for conflict resolution among competing action

statements that applies to the conditional clause in the production system. In other words, “planning”

involves in directing the course of language reception and production. Discovering what you will or

are interested in working towards writing. Monitoring is a response to ambiguity in comprehending

language where an individual selects a best guess of the message's meaning based on available

meaning. Monitoring can also be described as being aware of what one is doing. Evaluation is the

mental process of consciously inspecting learning outcomes, or arriving at an understanding of the

relevance of the ones discourse engaged in.

The relevance of discussing meta-cognitive strategy is that it remains the bedrock of how we

teach and approach, and understand critical thinking in both L1 and L2 writing pedagogy. It is here

that educators can diagnose and potentially rectify difficulties arising in language development-- for

how one thinks about, approaches writing directly affects how one ultimately performs and writes.

Helping university ESL students understand and discover how critical thinking skills are constructed in
 9
English language composition, and characteristics of these skills, will make them better writers.

Characteristics of both successful and unsuccessful university writers are common among LI

and L2 learners. According to Baroudy (2008), the positive traits of both L1/L2 learners intersect

favorably, with writing behaviors between them almost identical, globally universal and moreover,

interdependent. Therefore, methods used to teach writing and reading strategies in L1 can be applied

directly to L2. Successful language learners possess a great deal of awareness and are highly cognizant

of their learning strategies and learning styles, developing a dynamic, reflective approach to learning

tasks, while showing willingness to take risks, guess most appropriately and attend to form as well as

content (Baroudy, 2008). Furthermore, successful language learning, Rubin (1975) asserts, is

dependent primarily upon three fundamental variables: aptitude, motivation, and opportunity. Goal

setting is a behavior present in most effective student writers, as most effective student-writers are

motivated by goals beyond the actual text; ineffective student-writers are directed by the writing topic,

the lesson plan, and not guided by higher level goals (Baroudy, 2008). As one might expect,

unsuccessful student writers may be unaware of their unsuccessful traits, and, perhaps more

importantly, lack adequate exposure to positive writing behaviors. As university educators, this is

where we can potentially make our biggest impact.

The Recursive Writing Process & ESL

Writing is a recursive process that should be instructed in the same way. In academia, it is one

primary method by which an individual engages discourse, and the primary vehicle for the

development of individual voice so crucial to critical thinking. When defining the writing process as

recursive, I am referencing specifically pedagogical practices which focus on writing as a cyclical,

revolving structure, rather than a product-driven linear process. Recursive writing is defined, for the

purpose of this paper, as writing that is revisited over the course of a unit or lesson plan. Recursive
 10
writing, as a core component of any unit or curriculum, has the potential to promote, and likely will

lead to, improvement and development of proficiency and fluency in this primary way: it will make

students more prolific writers. The term "recursive" denotes writing practices and activities that are

deliberately revisited as a part of lesson plan and curriculum. The work of Vivian Zamel provides a

good base point to examine the process from both a student and teacher perspective. From an

instruction standpoint, teaching composition in a way which recognizes the importance of generating,

formulating, and refining one's ideas-- recursiveness-- is a great way of facilitating growth of your

students as a writer, because it emphasizes the need for writers to go back in order to move forward.

This implies that revision and reflection should become the main component of this instruction, that

writing teachers should intervene throughout the process, and that students should learn to view their

writing as someone else's reading-- components which go hand in hand with the aforementioned

concepts of critical thinking.

ESL teachers are generally concerned with language acquisition, error analysis emphasize, and

correctness and form, more than other writing teachers, for obvious reasons. Widdowson (1978) is

particularly critical of ESL teaching practices because they focus upon usage rather than real

communication. A cursory look at ESL composition texts indicates that, for the most part, writing

assignments are made for the sole purpose of testing the mastery of specific grammatical structures and

that few involve invention techniques or pre- writing strategies (Zamel, 1982). This seems to be in

conflict with the goals of critical thinking and the fundamental process of writing, which views

composition process as an extremely complex undertaking, the nature of which itself "militate[s]

against prescriptive approaches to the teaching of writing" (Witte &Faigley 1981: 202); (pg 196).

While composing, both L1/L2 students seem to exhibit a variety of behaviors, all of which indicate the

non-linear basis of learning to writing. Again, the writing process entails several recursive stages, such

as "rehearsing," "drafting" and "revising", which interact in a recursive cyclical fashion together and

repeatedly, in order to physically produce work, and explore/discover meaning. Writing when taught
 11
from this perspective, as the process of exploring one's thoughts and learning from the act of writing

itself what these thoughts are-- aids in enhancing critical thinking skills and improves actual writing

performance (Zamel, 1982).

Recursive Writing and Self-Efficacy

Teaching writing from a recursive perspective may lead students to physically compose more.

Writing, more than reading and speech, is affected by the mode of specified discourse. This means that

students tend to write more and with greater fluency and satisfaction when their writing involves them

personally, while writing with less facility when the writing was more objectified. Writing has no

subject matter of its own, and so taught as a recursive process implies discovery through revision.

Through revising a work, not only are critical thinking skills engaged and possibly enhanced, but

personal investment naturally facilitated, which may lead to increased motivation and improved

confidence.

Academic writing requires special attention to motivational conditions. According to Bruning

& Horn (2008), four clusters of conditions are proposed as keys to developing motivation: nurturing

functional beliefs about writing, fostering engagement using authentic writing tasks, and providing a

supportive context for writing, and creating a positive emotional environment. In addition, it is vital to

note that the teachers’ own conceptions of writing are seen as crucial to establishing these conditions in

most writing contexts. The development of self-efficacy for writing is closely linked to whether

students have adequate strategies for writing and to the kinds of feedback they receive when employing

them. Skilled writing is a tremendously complex problem-solving act involving memory, planning,

text generation, and revision (Flower et al., 1990,1994). When attempting to write, writers must juggle

multiple goals (Hayes, 1996) and satisfy many constraints— of topic, audience, purpose, and of

physically creating the text itself, often switching back and forth among a variety of frames of
 12
reference, including critical thinking (e.g., perspective, logic), rhetorical stances (e.g., description,

persuasion), and writing conventions. It is obvious therein that writers must and need to develop strong

beliefs in the relevance and importance of writing as they engage with the writing processess many

complexities and frustrations. Writing self-efficacy appears to follow a developmental course, at least

in children, that is most likely linked to growth in writing competence (Bruning & Horn, 2008)

Writing efficacy also increases as a result of interventions that provide students with tools for

improving their writing skills (Bruning & Horn, 2008). This would seem to argue for, again, paying

close attention to writing as a cyclical process, rather than a clear linear pathway. Developing writers

are challenged to do far more than simply set down a sequence of words. They must learn a new

communicational infra-structure involving an intricate set of formal language conventions and ideas

(grammar, syntax rules), all the while trying to spell out what their topics are about, organize

information, and provide explanations. The challenge is to help students see that writing’s benefits

outweigh its considerable effort and risks (Bruning & Horn, 2008). Clearly, their development is in the

hands of those who set the writing tasks and react to what has been written.

Bruning and Horn (2008) describe well several keys to understanding motivation when it

concerns writing. The list of motivation-enhancing conditions can be divided into three clusters,

beginning with (1) nurturing functional beliefs about the nature of writing and its outcomes. These

beliefs have multiple dimensions, starting with a realistic appraisal of the difficulties and challenges of

writing. They also include beliefs in writing’s potential, in one’s capabilities as a writer, and in having

control over writing tasks. A second cluster is designed to foster student engagement through authentic

goals and contexts— in other words, writing that students will see as meaningful, purposeful, and

allowing them to express their own voice. A third group of conditions involves providing a supportive

context to develop requisite writing skills. They include task framing, practice, and feedback conditions

likely to build skills and motivation. The final cluster of conditions focuses on creating a positive

emotional environment, where ideas and feelings can be expressed safely.

 13
In reference to self-efficacy, for the purposes of this paper's argument, it should be defined as an

individual's self-judgment or belief (or lack thereof) in their capabilities and the corresponding

motivation to perform academic tasks. Self-efficacy is most often associated with Bandura and

emerges from his social cognitive theory (Gorsuch 2009), in which people are viewed as ‘‘self-

organizing, proactive, self-reflecting, and self-regulating’’ (Pajares, 2008, p. 112). Self-efficacy is a

judgment on the part of a person of ‘‘their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action

required to attain designated performances’’ (Snow et al., 1995, p. 277)(pg 5 ). Graham & Weiner

(1995) defines self-efficacy as ‘‘..an ability construct that refers to individuals’ beliefs about their

capabilities to perform well’’. In education, self-efficacy has to do with learners’ beliefs about their

own academic capabilities. Students self efficacy is influenced by their learning performance and their

academic achievements are influenced by self-efficacy beliefs-- so one can see there is a direct

relationship between the two. One can imagine how much heightened all the variables involved

become when language acquisition and proficiency becomes a factor.

Self-efficacy leads to constructive traits that can be further utilized throughout one's educational

career. In specific regards to ESL learners and self-efficacy, Gorsuch (2009) asserts several important

links between it, meta-cognitive development, writing, and language development. According to

Gorsuch, the construction of confidence (self-efficacy) implicates many traits that on some level many

have assumed are needed for successful L2 learning: these include learner strategy use (e.g., Breen,

2001; Graham, 2006), use of meta-cognition (Gorsuch & Taguchi, in press), opportunities for

development of learner agency and identity (Lantolf & Pavlenko, 2001), development of motivation

(Dornyei, 2001; Dornyei & Skehan, 2003), and controlling debilitating language learning anxiety

(Mills, Pajares, & Herron, 2006).

Good language learners usually prefer to take charge of their own learning rather than to rely

upon the teacher. Additionally, higher self-perceived efficacy in language skills is associated with use

of learning strategies. Though teaching students different cognitive and self-regulatory strategies is
 14
important for improving their actual performance on classroom academic tasks, ultimately, improving

students self-efficacy beliefs may lead to more use of those cognitive strategies. It is also important to

note that students self-efficacy is not fixed but task-specific-- meaning helpful strategies learned tend to

stretch across disciplines. So one can see improving the way one thinks about writing and it's tasks

directly influences performance, both positively and negatively, in not only ESL learning, but after it

In reference to self-efficacy and identity, Gorsuch argues that self-efficacy seems implicated in

identity formation for learners at early stages in their lives, and that ‘‘the college classroom is an

important site for development, learning, and instruction’’ (Wigfield et al., 1995, p. 167). In this way,

self-efficacy can be seen as a worthwhile lens through which to view ways to help young adults

develop their identities as lifelong and successful language learners-- something ESL teachers should

consider very important and a core value of their ultimate goal in pedagogy.

Graham (2006) approached self-efficacy directly through meta-cognition, which, as

aforementioned, the ability of learners to plan, monitor, and evaluate their own learning. Graham

asserts that learners with high levels of self-efficacy also have more articulated meta-cognition. In

other words, ‘‘learners with positive self beliefs seem to have better control over and knowledge of

effective learner strategies.

Recursive writing provides ESL learners with much needed opportunities to display L2

acquisition, and thus, has potential to increase physical production of writing by providing a means of

motivation. According to Gorsuch (2008), there is some discussion regarding whether adequate

practice opportunities for skills development and language use are being provided within current ESL

programs The logic here is that for learners to become confident in using an L2 for specific tasks, they

must have sufficient opportunities to do those tasks in order to even develop an initial, realistic sense of

what knowledge and skills must be invoked to complete those tasks or activities. If such language

practice or use opportunities do not exist, learners cannot be realistically expected to develop self-

efficacy.
 15

Lesson Plan: Focused Journal Writing-- What does it mean to be an ESL student?

To make use of the more naturally recursive forms of the writing process, journal writing, as a

form of academic discourse, can help university ESL students improve the language acquisition and

proficiency goals of traditional curriculum while developing many of the critical thinking tools

necessary for academic achievement outside of ESL courses, employing a strategy that is more fluid

and less obtrusive than tradition compositional models. In traditional linear models of the writing

process, controlled composition is likely to discourage creative thinking and writing, and does not

engage the dynamic and recursive nature of writing as it naturally occurs (Yu, 2009). Journal writing is

a way teach recursive writing strategies, specifically because it employs reflection as the central vehicle

for examining, engaging ideas, texts and academic material. Reflection is important because it is a

self-affirming tool which can facilitate individual meaning making, both in the expository sense and in

the sense of composition. Reflection also supports non-linear models of thinking and learning. Journal

writing also supports the generative aspects of the recursive writing process, because through it, ESL

learners can come to utilize English as vehicle of personal expression, promoting the relationships

between language, personal expression, and proficiency.

Journal writing can easily be implemented into a normal university ESL course curriculum.

Seedhouse (2005) studied the inter-actional framework in language learning classroom, by analyzing

goals, pedagogical foci, and turn sequences. He claims the following basic inter-actional sequence

organization is common to all second language classrooms:

1. A pedagogical focus is introduced. Overwhelmingly in the data this focus is

introduced by the teacher, but it may be nominated by learners.
2. At least two persons speak in the L2 in normative orientation to the
pedagogical focus.
3. In all instances, the interaction involves participants' analyzing the pedagogical focus and
performing turns in the L2 which display their analyses of and normative orientation to
 16
this focus in relation to the interaction. Therefore, participants constantly display to each
other their analyses of the evolving relationship between pedagogy and interaction.

Organizational sequence does not dictate the content of what teachers say, but only suggests a

way of formatting how they say it (Yu, 2009).

6 Week Mini Unit (two class sessions a month devoted to discussing):

Focused Journal writing

What does it mean to be a L2 learner?

Students will compose/create a 6-8 page paper, based upon or taken directly from about what it

means to them, to be an L2 student; what it means to learn another language, and from that, explore

what it means to learn another culture, or way of life. The paper is designed completed in independent

stages, and can function as singular work or a collection of individual ones. The student will be given

the opportunity to develop his/her own idea's (this is strongly encouraged), and/or expound upon ideas

raised in class discussions regarding similar themes. Student instructor conferences will be conducted

at the end of the third week of the unit. Assignment due dates and discussions will be broken down

into six separate class meetings. Two class meetings will be devoted to the project each month before

finals. Students, can, if so desired, compose a portion or section of the assignment in first language.

Revision

Each student's writing or work must be revised after the third week required conference with the

instructor. In addition, students will be required to workshop their papers in small groups on the

assigned due days.

First month
 17
Writing Assignment #1

Why are you learning English? What reasons are you involved in ESL-- what are your goals-- besides

obvious gaining increased proficiency in English?

Second Month

Writing Assignment #2

How would you describe your relationship with your native language?

Third Month

Writing Assignment #3

What do you see as the relationship between language and culture?

18
 19
References

Atkinson, D. (1997). A critical approach to critical thinking in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly,

31,71-94.

Atkinson, Dwight; Ramanathan, Vai. (1999) Individualism, academic writing, and ESL writers Journal
Of Second Language Writing, 8 (l), 45-75sAtkinson, D., & Ramanathan, V. (1995). Cultures of writing:
An ethnographic comparison of Ll and L2 university writingilanguage programs. TESOL Quarterly, 29,
539-568.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

BAROUDY, I. (2008). Process writing: Successful and unsuccessful writers; discovering writing
behaviours. International Journal of English Studies, 8(2), 43-63.

Bowden, D. (1995). The rise of a metaphor: “Voice” in composition pedagogy. Rhetoric

Review, 14, 173-188. -. (1996). Stolen voices: Plagiarism and authentic voice. Composition Studies,
24, 5-18.

Breen, M. (2001). Introduction: Conceptualization, affect and action in context. In M.Breen (Ed.),
Learner contributions to language learning (pp. 1–11). Harlow, UK: Longman.

Bruning, Roger; Horn, Christy. (2000) Developing Motivation to Write Educational Psychologist;,
Winter Vol. 35 Issue 1, p25-37, 13p, 2 Charts

Cederblom, J., & Paulson, D. (1987). Critical reasoning. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing
Company.

Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.) (1993). The powers of literacy: A genre approach to teaching writing.
Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

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

Dornyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In C. Doughty &
M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 589–630). Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing.

Fernsten, L. (2008). Writer identity and esl learners. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(1), 44-
52.

Flower, L., Wallace, D. L., Norris, L.,&Burnett, R. A. (1994). Making thinking visible: Writing,
collaborative planning, and classroom inquiry. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Goen-Salter, S. , Porter, P. , & van Dommelen, D. (2009). Working with generation 1.5: Pedagogical
principles and practices. , 235-259.
 20
Gorsuch, G. J., & Taguchi, E. (in press 2010) Developing reading fluency and comprehension using
repeated reading: Evidence from longitudinal student reports. Language Teaching Research.

Graham, S. (2006). A study of students’ metacognitive beliefs about second language study and their
impact on learning. Foreign Language Annals, 39, 296–309.

Graham, S., & Weiner, B. (1995). Theories and principles of motivation. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee
(Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 63–84). New York: MacMillan Library Reference
USA.

Hamp-Lyons, L. & Heasly, B. (2006). Study Writing (2nd Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Harklau, L. (1994). ESL versus mainstream classes: Contrasting L2 learning environments. TESOL
Quarterly, 28,241-212.

Harklau, L. A., & Schecter, S. R. (1996). Sociocultural dimensions of voice in non-native language
writing. In L. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and language learning (vol. 7) (pp. 141- 152). Urbana:
University of Illinois Press.

Hayes, J. R. (1996). The science of writing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Hedge, T. (1991). Writing. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.

Kline, M. (2007). The relationship between motivational variables, anxiety, exposure to english, and
language learning strategies among adult esl learners. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A:
Humanities and Social Sciences, 67(10-A), Dissertati-A)37110419.

Lantolf, J., & Pavlenko, A. (2001). (S)econd (L)anguage (A)ctivity theory: Understanding second
language learners as people. In M. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New
directions (pp. 141–158). Harlow, UK: Longman.

Lv, Fenghua & Chen, H. (2010).. A study of metacognitive-strategies-based writing instruction for
vocational college students. English Language Teaching, 3(3), 136-144

Mills, N., Pajares, F., & Herron, C. (2006). A reevaluation of the role of anxiety: Self-efficacy, anxiety,
and their relation to reading and listening proficiency. Foreign Language Annals, 39, 276–295.

O'Malley, J. M. & Chamot, A. U, Stewner-Manzanares G. Kupper Land Russo R (1985a). Learning

Strategies Used by Beginning and Intermediate ESL Students. Language learning 35 (1):21-46.

Nunan, D. (1999). Second English Teaching and Learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Pennycook, A. (1994a). The cultural politics of English as an international language. London:

Longman.(1997). (1997) Cultural alternatives and autonomy. In P. Benson & I? Voller (Eds.),
Autonomy and independence in language learning. (pp. 35-53). London: Longman.

Raimes, A. (2001). What unskilled esl students do as they write: A classroom study of composing
 21
(1985). , 37-61.

Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis
perspective. Maiden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Silva, T. (1900). Second language composition instruction: developments, issues, and directions in
ESL. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 11-23).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Snow, R., Corno, L., & Jackson, D. (1995). Individual differences in affective and conative functions.
In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 243–310). New York:
MacMillan Library Reference USA.

Spack, Ruth. "Literature, Reading, Writing, and ESL: Bridging the Gaps." TESOL Quarterly, 19.4
(1985): 703-725.

Tho, L.N.M. (2000). A Survey of Writing Problems of USSH First-Year Students of English . Ho Chi
Minh City.

Tin, T.B. (2004). Creative Writing in EFL/ESL Classrooms. Universiti Putra Malaysia Press.

Tuan, L. (2010). Enhancing efl learners' writing skill via journal writing. English Language Teaching,
3(3), 81-88.

Widdowson, H. G. 1978. Teaching language as communication. New York: Oxford University Press

Wigfield, A., Eccles, J., & Pintrich, P. (1995). Development between the ages of 11 and 25. In D.
Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 148–185). New York:
MacMillan Library Reference USA.

Witte, Stephen P. and Lester Faigley. 1981. Coherence, cohesion and writing quality. College
Composition and Communication 32, 2:189-204.

Yu, H. (2009). Interactional structure in the writing process: A comparison of three esl writing classes.
Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 70(1-A), 171-1A).

Zamel, Vivian. "Responding to Student Writing." TESOL Quarterly, 19.1 (1985): 79-101.; "Writing:
The Process of Discovering Meaning." TESOL Quarterly, 16.2 (1982): 195-209.