Comparing L1 and L2 Texts and Writers in First‐Year Composition

Abstract

Scholars have at various points discussed the needs of second language (L2) writers enrolled in "mainstream" composition courses where they are mixed with native (L1) English speakers. Other researchers have investigated the experiences of L2 writers in mainstream classes and the perceptions of their instructors about their abilities and needs. Little research, however, has directly compared L1 and L2 students (mostly Generation 1.5) taking composition classes together. For this article, the researchers collected writing samples from 56 L1 and 74 L2 students enrolled in a university (mainstream) first-year composition course. Using a mixed-methods design, they analyzed the texts for language error counts as well as measures of lexical and syntactic complexity; they juxtaposed these with insights from survey responses of both groups of writers and in-depth interviews. They conclude that, although L1 and L2 students have much in common, the L2 students had observed and (self-)perceived language needs that were significantly different from those of the L1 students. These included differences in linguistic accuracy, lexical diversity, and language-related anxiety. Implications for pedagogy include recommendations for teaching L2 writers to self-edit for common patterns of errors and sensitize students to the value of nuanced and purposeful lexical variety in their writing. S ince the 1980s, scholars of second language (L2) writing have debated whether the differences between first language (L1) writers and L2 writers are substantial enough to separate these learners into different courses and/or teach them differently in mixed or sheltered classes-for example, the TESOL Quarterly Forum discussion between

Technologies for Learning Writing in L1 and L2 for the 21st Century: Effects on Writing Metacognition, Self-Efficacy and Argumentative Structuring

“…To this end, learning to write in L1 is promoted and a sufficient level of L2 writing is required from the first year of university (Bychkovska & Lee, 2017;Karnal, 2013). In this regard, Eckstein and Ferris (2018), highlight that argumentative writing in L2 presents more needs for attention than in L1 and, therefore, Ranalli et al (2018) insist on the potential of ICTs to help students to manage and acquire better writing competences in different languages. Finally, shared scenarios are proposed for teaching in L1 and L2 (Costino & Hyon, 2011).…”

“…However, Arroyo et al (2021) and Arroyo et al (in press), show that the use of technological resources, applications, and tools, integrated into a well-structured digital system, favour writing metacognition. For its part, studies in L2 highlight the application of didactic strategies for learning writing metacognition (Eckstein & Ferris, 2018;Sasaki et al, 2018), in order to respond to the needs detected in university students. Some of these needs are dedication of more time to read, think, formulate, review, and edit texts, or the lack of a lexicon and a varied syntax (Kwon, 2009;Mu & Matsuda, 2016).…”

“…Source: Adapted from Arroyo et al (2016, p. 407) With this System of Categories, two researchers score the information. The reliability between the evaluators' scores is higher than 90%, applying Kappa, and in cases where there is no agreement, a third researcher resolves the discrepancies (Eckstein & Ferris, 2018).…”

Vocabulary of L1 and L2 Graduation Theses Written by English Philology Students: Academic Writing of Montenegrin and US Students Compared

“…L2 writing has been found to vary significantly from L1 writing (Troia 2007). In terms of vocabulary, L2 writing was found to feature a lower lexical variation (Linnarud 1986), use fewer words (Staples and Reppen 2016) and contain errors arising from an inadequate selection of words (Sonomura 1996;Eckstein and Ferris 2018). Nation (2013) finds that there are approximately 70,000 word families in English, and that an average high-school graduate will know about 20,000 of them.…”

A Lexical Profile Analysis of a Diagnostic Writing Assessment: The Relationship between Lexical Profiles and Writing Proficiency

“…According to Raimes (1985), when comparing native and non-native writers, non-native writers require "more of everything" (p. 250), which includes more time to read, compose, think, edit, and review English writing texts. This is further supported by Eckstein and Ferris (2018), who compared native and nonnative speakers' written texts. They found that there was a significant difference between the two groups' holistic scores -non-native speakers received lower writing scores in comparison to native speakers.…”