Ideology in composition: L1 and ESL

Santos, Terry

doi:10.1016/1060-3743(92)90017-j

Cited by 79 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Like the highly proficient essay raters studied by Wolfe, Kao, and Ranney (1998), most of the present EMT raters (except for Lucy and Kathy) tended to distance themselves from the compositions when making their evaluative decisions, reviewing their impressions of the writing overall and in general terms, rather than formulating their decisions online while they read. 5 Overall, distinctions between the two groups of raters may reflect some of the differences between the ideologies that Santos (1992) argued exist between the respective fields of ESL/EFL composition, which focuses more on pragmatic aims and concepts from applied linguistics, and of EMT composition, which focuses more on literary and creative qualities of writing.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These tendencies in the mean percentages in Table 2 were also evident in our qualitative impressions of the think-aloud data, reported above, and probably reflect slightly different orientations in the practices and values of the professional fields from which the two groups of raters were selected (cf. Santos, 1992). The ESL/EFL raters also devoted slightly more attention than did the EMT raters to reading or rereading the compositions and to articulating or revising their scoring decisions, which may reflect their relative lack of experience, compared to the EMT raters, or it may have been that they approached the rating tasks with more deliberation and greater expectations, because they were involved in the research team.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Decision Making while Rating ESL/EFL Writing Tasks: A Descriptive Framework

Cumming

Kantor

Powers

2002

The Modern Language Journal

175

144

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article documents 3 coordinated, exploratory studies that developed empirically a framework to describe the decisions that experienced writing assessors make when evaluating ESL/EFL written compositions. The studies are part of ongoing research to prepare a new scoring scheme and tasks for the writing component of the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). In Study 1 a research team of 10 experienced ESL/EFL raters developed a preliminary descriptive framework from their own think‐aloud protocols while each rating (without any predefined scoring criteria) 60 TOEFL essays at 6 different score points on 4 different essay topics. Study 2 applied the framework to verbal report data from 7 highly experienced English‐mother‐tongue (EMT) composition raters while each rated 40 TOEFL essays. In Study 3 we refined the framework by analyzing think‐aloud protocols from 7 of the same ESL/EFL raters who rated compositions from 6 ESL students on 5 different writing tasks involving writing in response to reading or listening material. In each study, participants completed a questionnaire to profile their individual characteristics and relevant background variables. In addition to documenting and analyzing in detail the thinking processes of these raters, we found that both groups of raters used similar decision‐making behaviors, in similar proportions of frequency, while assessing both the TOEFL essays and the new writing tasks, thus verifying the appropriateness of our descriptive framework. Raters attended more extensively to rhetoric and ideas (compared to language) in compositions they scored high than in compositions they scored low. The ESL/EFL raters attended more extensively, though, to language than to rhetoric and ideas overall, whereas the EMT raters balanced more evenly their attention to these main features of the written compositions. Most participants perceived that their previous experiences rating compositions and teaching English had influenced their criteria and their processes for rating the compositions.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decision Making while Rating ESL/EFL Writing Tasks: A Descriptive Framework

Cumming

Kantor

Powers

2002

The Modern Language Journal

175

144

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…11 With the emphasis on wanting to solve language-related problems, one would expect to find in the applied linguistics literature on L2 writing a fair number of publications confronting controversial political issues (e.g., gender, race, class, power relations) and discussion of how these issues intersect with issues related to L2 writing, but, in fact, the number of publications that take on such issues are thus far limited and have appeared fairly recently (Benesch, 2001;Canagarajah, 2002;Pennycook, 1996Pennycook, , 1997Ramanathan, 2003). Certainly, the effect of a critical applied linguistics has as yet been far less influential in L2 writing than critical approaches have been in composition studies (see Santos, 1992). Instead, the L2 writing literature in applied linguistics mostly exhibits a kind of cautious apolitical conservatism, arising perhaps out of an attempt to be sensitive to the great varieties of social, cultural, and political contexts in which L2 writing takes place.…”

Section: Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Family Matters: The Influence of Applied Linguistics and Composition Studies on Second Language Writing Studies—Past, Present, and Future

Silva

Leki

2004

The Modern Language Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This intellectual history of the disciplinary roots of second language (L2) writing research and pedagogy in English examines the influences of its feeder disciplines, composition studies and applied linguistics, and their parent disciplines, rhetoric and linguistics. After a brief history of L2 writing's two grandparent disciplines (rhetoric and linguistics) and its two parent disciplines (composition studies and applied linguistics), the article focuses on the effect of the two parent disciplines' conflicting identities. Whereas L2 writing benefits from its invigorating position at the confluence of these two intellectual streams, it has also been pulled in different incompatible directions resulting from differences, and even similarities, between applied linguistics' and composition studies' inquiry paradigms and traditions, their intellectual identities, and the material disciplinary manifestations of their organizations, conferences, and publications. A brief history of L2 writing pedagogy and research demonstrates the push and pull of the conflicting influences of its feeder disciplines.AS SCHOLARSHIP ON SECOND LANGUAGE (L2) writing 1 reaches critical mass, we believe it is necessary to step back and reflect on the area's current situation, to look at its theories, research, and classroom practices in their historical, philosophical, and professional contexts, to figure out where the field comes from, and, on the basis of this understanding, to try to guide its trajectory.In our view, L2 writing lies at the crossroads of composition studies and applied linguistics. Therefore, looking into the histories of both these parent disciplines, we realize that to understand composition studies and applied linguistics, we need to look also at their development in the context of their parent (and our grandparent) disciplines: rhetoric and linguistics.This article is not an attempt to produce historical primers on linguistics, applied linguistics, rhetoric, and composition; excellent histories of these disciplines abound (see notes 5 and 6). Nor is it our purpose to chronicle the history of L2 writing as a profession or to provide a pedagogical history of L2 writing; insightful work in both these areas already exists. 2 Instead, we will explore the intellectual inheritance of L2 writing in order to enhance understanding of how it has been and continues to be shaped by its parent and grandparent disciplines-what they have (and have not) done and what they can (and cannot) do for L2 writing. On the basis of this exploration, we conclude with a consideration of how the discipline of L2 writing studies might develop an improved, symbiotic relationship (Matsuda, 2003) with its parent disciplines. We hope that our article will be of interest not only to those scholars who are already invested in L2 writing studies, but also to those who are new to the area and to those with general interests in

show abstract

“…In the premier issue of the Journal of Second Language Writing, Santos (1992) contrasts L1 and L2 composition. L1 composition theory, she argues, is based on the "political orientation of social constructionist" (p. 6), which "sees itself ideologically" (p. 2), while ESL composition "see[s] itself pragmatically," thus "avoiding ideology" (p. 8).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%