Investigating differences in the writing performance of international and Generation 1.5 students

Abstract

Practitioners working closely with second language (L2) writers in the US recognize at least two types of L2 students: international (IL2) and Generation 1.5 (G1.5) students. Some argue that specific differences in each group's writing performance are evident (cf. Harklau, 2003;Reid, 2006); however, investigations into observable and measurable differences have been minimal. Using a Rasch measurement model, this study offers empir ical evidence of how these students may differ in their writing performance, specifically with regard to grammatical, rhetorical, cohesive, sociolinguistic, and content control, in addition to essay length. Two separate statistical analyses were conducted: the first examined differences between IL2 and G1.5 students when modeled together as a single group; the second looked at how the groups compared when modeled separately. Results from the whole-group analysis showed the two groups differed only with regard to rhetorical control; the separate-group analysis revealed differences in length and in the difficulty rankings of the scoring components, with content control ranked at opposite extremes for the two groups. In neither analysis did the groups differ with regard to grammatical, cohesive, or sociolinguistic control as defined in this study. Results are interpreted in terms of students' strengths and weaknesses relevant to placement decisions and instruction.

Comparing Language Use in the Writing of Developmental Generation 1.5, L1, and L2 Tertiary Students

“…Furthermore, all significant differences between Generation 1.5 and L2 texts were also significant between L1 and L2 in the same direction (e.g., Generation 1.5/L1 fewer errors, L2 more errors). The similarities of error patterns between Generation 1.5 and L1 writers in the current study are surprising in light of previous research (e.g., di Gennaro, 2009;Ferris, 2009;Levi, 2004;Muchinsky & Tangren, 1999).…”

The Relationship between Writing Self-efficacy and Writing Performance of Iranian EFL Students

“…To check the reliability and validity of this rubric, the researchers referred to Knoch (2009) and Gennaro (2009) for the distinctions between holistic and analytic rating scales found in the literature because L2 students usually differ in their control of grammatical, cohesive, rhetorical, sociolinguistic and content components of essays in terms of the strengths and weaknesses relevant to placement decisions into college level composition courses. Based on Alderson's (2005) description of direct holistic assessment of students' writing, this rubric met the criteria because it (1) identified different strengths and weaknesses in the learner's knowledge and use of written language, and (2) enabled a detailed analysis of the student responses to specific elements of the writing task.…”

Searching for differences and discovering similarities: Why international and resident second-language learners’ grammatical errors cannot serve as a proxy for placement into writing courses

“…di Gennaro, 2012;Harklau, Losey, & Siegal, 1999;Reid, 2006;Roberge, Siegal, & Harklau, 2009). Initial claims, based primarily on anecdotal accounts, have been followed by empirical studies, some supporting and others disputing original assertions of differences across the two groups of learners in terms of their writing ability (di Gennaro, 2009(di Gennaro, , 2013Doolan, 2013Doolan, , 2014Doolan & Miller, 2012;Levi, 2004). While such discussions may seem esoteric outside the L2 writing community, findings from this body of research have direct implications for how students' writing is assessed for placement into college writing programs and, in turn, affect the type of support and services students are offered during their college careers.…”