Atilgan1

1

Aylin Baris Atilgan-Sample Work Implicit and Explicit Theories underlying the pedagogy of the ENGL106i Syllabus

“ My attempts at writing in an L2 and my experiences in teaching ESL writers

have given me nothing but respect for ESL writers; I am frequently amazed and humbled

by their efforts and abilities” (Silva, 1993).

Historical Background of ENGL106i

In 1986, Purdue University English Department was running a handful of

freshman composition courses, ENG101, ENG102, ENG101-I and ENG102-I. The base

courses ENGL101 and ENGL102, were designed for students whose first language was

English, and ENGL101-I and ENGL102-I, were designed for international students, for

whom English was mostly likely not their first language. The letter “I” in the names of

these courses stood for International.

While the objectives of the ENGL101 and ENGL102 courses were to give writing

skills practice to domestic students, ENGL101-I, termed “Introduction to Writing

Course,” gave international students practice in personal writing, and ENGL102-I,

termed an “Academic Writing Course,” focused on research writing. The upper limit for

these courses designed for international students was around 20. This remained the

focuses of the courses until the early 90’s.

At this point, Purdue’s English Department revised its first year composition

courses ENGL101 and ENGL102 and merged them into ENGL106. ENG101-I and

ENGL102- I likewise merged into ENGL106i. Both ENGL106 and ENGL106i became

one term Freshman English Composition courses.

Atilgan2

2

Some, including Dr. Tony Silva, the program founder and coordinator of

ENGL106i, did not feel the courses were doing enough to target the specific needs of

international students. Dr. Silva felt the need to design a special composition course for

undergraduates who were second language writers at Purdue University. His intention

was to “treat second language writers effectively and fairly” in the educational context.

Therefore, he adapted a default syllabus year course using Iona Leki’s Sequenced

Writing Project for an English composition class for international students. He called this

course ENGL106i, an English composition course for international students.

In1993, Silva vocalized his philosophy of the need “to treat second language

writers effectively and fairly” in a much more comprehensive fashion in his seminal work “Toward an Understanding of the Distinct Nature of L2 Writing: The ESL Research and Its Implications,” which emphasized that second language writing has salient features that make it distinct from first language writing; therefore, second language learners deserve a syllabus that better suits their needs as well instructors with expertise who would better serve them in their academic endeavor.

Therefore, ENGL106i was designed differently than the ENGL106 Freshman Composition course which was designed for mainstream students, namely native speakers of English. The new ENGL106i syllabus aimed to facilitate writing in a second language by scaffolding the writers and helping them work on topics they liked in a longer period of time as well as building up their confidence in this challenging skill.

Currently the Introductory Composition at Purdue (ICAP) program runs the freshman composition courses. ICAP has come a long way from its small beginnings in what amounted two-course English composition offerings, to today, where the university

Atilgan3

3

is offering eight syllabi designed for mainstream composition courses as well as one course for international students.

All the ICAP syllabi are in accordance with the general objectives of ENGL106,

but the way they go about achieving these objectives differ. ENGL106i syllabus also

meets the ICAP objectives but also has its own objectives. The ENGL106i syllabus

resembles the ENGL106 academic writing syllabus in terms of its cognitive process

writing based, rhetorical theories, yet it has its own considerations in terms of content,

cultural underpinnings and educational pedagogy.

In an interview with Dr. Tony Silva, I asked him what his primary objective was

in designing the ENGL106i course. He replied “to help second language writers become more comfortable with writing. That’s all I can really promise students, to make them feel comfortable in writing” (Personal Interview, 2009). Simple as it may sound, this philosophy is deep and requires instructors to pay close attention to classroom teaching, tutoring and educational pedagogies.

Once again ‘simple’ as Silva’s objective may sound, there lies a deep philosophy behind the learner-friendly syllabus approach he put together. It is important to acknowledge that a second language writer who feels comfortable in writing has already made the biggest leap; in other words, has overcome the hardest barrier in composing in another language in the sense that he has opened up to the ‘nerve wrecking’ experience of composing in another language. This initial stage is very important for the composing process to begin and to continue. That is why ENGL106i’s pedagogy’s main objective of making students feel comfortable by taking into consideration affective factors is an important one.

Atilgan4

4

Dörnyei (2001) and Hurd (2008) define affect as the “emotions, feelings, and

attitudes that individuals bring to the learning experience and the role these play in motivation.” The importance that affect plays on learning has long been emphasized. As Hurd (2008) claims, “findings in neuroscience indicate that both affect and cognition are fundamental and interdependent aspects of human brain functioning.” This is why ENGL106I syllabus has focused on affective strategies with the belief that cognitive strategies can provide “cognitive benefits in terms of greater control over learning outcomes,” which can gradually facilitate second language writers’ production of writing in different genres (Benson, 2001).

While the notion of sociocultural and cognitive theories are the primary goal of ENGL106i syllabus, there are other theories underlying the pedagogy of ENGL106i syllabus. Silva (2011) states theories underlying ENG106i as “contemporary linguistic theories (formal and functional), Western (Greco-Roman-Anglo-American) rhetorical theories, and composing process theories (both social and cognitive). And student centered educational theory informs or classroom instruction and conferencing practices.”

This paper aims to first give information about the ENGL106i Composition Course and its syllabus at Purdue University. Second, it attempts to look into four main theories, genre-based writing theory, process approach writing, sequenced writing theory and learner-centeredness theory underlying the ENGL106i syllabus.

Information about the Course What is ENGL106i?

ENGL106i is a freshman English composition course specifically designed for

Atilgan5

5

international students at Purdue University. The course is offered by the English Department’s Second Language Studies and English as a Second Language Program. ENGL106i is aimed to the meet the needs of a specific subgroup, that is, international students “who might be disadvantaged in English 10600, the mainstream writing course, due to such factors as level of English proficiency, experience in writing in English, or familiarity with American culture or educational practices” (English as a Second Language10600-Iwebsite).

While it is not obligatory for undergraduate international students to take this

course, (they can also enroll in the mainstream ENGL106 course if they choose),

ENGL106i seems to be the choice of most international students for various reasons

which will be addressed.

Salient features of second language writing

Second language writing (L2) has certain features which make it different from writing composed in the first language (L1). Second language studies research shows composing in one’s first language and second language differ.

The first of three salient features of second language writing is the linguistic variation it entails. Linguistic variation has some variables: the proficiency level of the second language learner, intercultural rhetoric differences, length of exposure to the second language in an English-speaking environment and familiarity with the writing system one is expected to compose in.

The second salient feature of second language writing is the cross cultural

component. Writers’ cultures play an important role in shaping what the writer thinks and how the writer perceives the world. Therefore, it is inevitable that second language

Atilgan6

6

writers will bring culture into their writing, whether that be in forms of ideas or quotes or sayings, written expressions which may be hard to grasp for a native speaker, yet actually, with some attention to writing style add richness and diversity of opinions to their writing.

The last but not least feature of second language writing is the “composing and subprocesses: planning, transcribing and reviewing” processing activities (Silva,1993) involved in writing. As these differences employ different teaching, tutoring and grading considerations, Purdue English Composition curriculum needed to be supplemented in order to serve international students’ needs; therefore, a new English composition course for international students was needed.

Salient features of ENGL106i With these considerations in mind, Second Language Studies/ English as a Second Language Program Founder and Coordinator Dr. Tony Silva designed a special course for undergraduate international students at Purdue University. This course differs from the mainstream English106 composition course mainly offered to mainly domestic students in terms of its syllabus, instructors and class size.

ENGL 106i “allows more focus on language for multicultural learners” (English as a Second Language10600-I Website). Therefore, this course offers language help to second language writers and also allows a second language express themselves while preserving both idiolect and voice.

In order to help internationals students more, ENGL106i instructors are recruited with specific criteria. All instructors are required to “have [had] experience and expertise in teaching both ESL and composition, international experience, and an understanding of what it is like to write in a second language. In addition, these

Atilgan7

7

instructors are mentored and supervised by an ESL writing specialist” (English as a Second Language10600-I Website).

Another way to make sure that second language writers get scaffolding with language and writing is through providing instruction in small class sizes. Small class sizes consist of 15 people. This way the instructor has more time to cater to the needs of individual students. In addition, a small class size makes it easier for students to get to know each other, which helps create a cozy, family-like atmosphere which international students need especially those who are new to the country. In fact, this educational setting gives students a sense of belonging as they are with other students just like themselves.

ENGL106i Syllabus

There are explicit and implicit theories underlying the pedagogy of ENGL106i. The explicit theories underlying the pedagogy of ENGL106i syllabus are genre-based theory, process writing theory, sequenced writing theory and the implicit theory is learner-centeredness educational theory. Genre-Based Theory

One of the theories ENGL106i is based on is genre-based theory. Hyland (2003) in his work “Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process” gives an overview of genre-based approach. Unlike process models, genre-based pedagogies provide learners with a “contextual framework” for writing. The learners are provided with models of the expected genre. This is to ensure that the learner has an awareness as to which lexico- grammatical forms and organization patterns should be used in order to create an effective text.

Atilgan8

8

In the genre-based classroom, different methods are used. In ENGL106i, the

texts contexts of students’ target situations are investigated, reflection on writing practices, exploiting genre sets, and looking at the previously produced mixed-genre portfolios is encouraged (Johns, 1997; Paltridge, 2001).

Delpit (1988) defines the genre model as a ‘visible pedagogy’ as it makes what is to be learned and assessed visible to the learners.

The theoretical underpinning of this pedagogical approach that ENGL106i embraces is defined by Vygotsky (1987) as an “emphasis on the interactive collaboration between teacher and student, with the teacher taking an authoritative role to ‘scaffold’ or support learners as they move towards their potential level of performance.”

In ENG106i, students are given a mixed-genre portfolio at the beginning of the term. This portfolio includes previous student essays on four genres the students are expected to compose throughout the term: Narrative Essay, Literature Review, Interview Review and Argumentative Essay. Thus, students have a chance to view some models of the genres they may not be familiar with. This way they have an idea of what the texts look like, and this gives students relief as it saves them from the fear of the unknown. As the term progresses and the writer gets more equipped with more skills, student move away from the models and feel more comfortable producing their own work. Genre pedagogies assume that writing instruction will be more effective if target discourses are made visible to the writer at the beginning of the writing process. ENGL106i makes use of genre pedagogies with these thoughts in mind.

However, opponents of the genre pedagogies criticize it. Dixon and Raimes argue

Atilgan9

9

that “the explicit teaching of genres imposes restrictive formulae which can straightjacket creativity through conformity and prescriptivism; that genres might be taught as molds into which content is poured, rather than as ways of making meanings” (1987, 1991).

While that may hold true at times, Dr. Tony Silva (2011) states that he “sees the models as samples (some good, some not so good) to be analyzed rather than models to be imitated and believes this is not going to lead students to imitating the samples they are provided with. However, students have different approaches to learning. That some students may imitate the models without trying to construct their own model constitutes a valid concern.

Therefore, this term I as an ENGL106i instructor first ask my students to produce their first drafts and second drafts. Then I provide them with the model essay of the genre. This way, the composition is constructed genuinely by the students. In addition, they are provided with a model later in the writing process so they have a sample of the expected genre. Before they submit their final drafts, students can revise their work looking at the model. To conclude, genre based pedagogy that ENGL106 makes use of in its pedagogy is useful for international students who need to learn how to compose in different contextual frameworks.

Process Writing Theory

ENGL106i also makes use of Process writing theory which is a cognitive process which involves composing in a detailed fashion in writing. It is based on Flower and Hayes’ protocol analysis. Process writing theory consists of “a set of distinctive thinking processes which writers orchestrate or organize during the act of composing” (Flower and

Atilgan10

10

Hayes). It is also an embedded organization and a goal directed thinking process. High level and supporting goals can be generated in order to develop the writer’s purpose. These goals can be changed around in a discursive way to suit the needs’ of the writer. In ENGL106i, each assignment involves a process writing process which follows specific steps. Students brainstorm, outline, write first draft, second draft and final draft of their papers. Each paper is peer edited after the first draft and peer edited once again before the final draft is submitted. All drafts receive written and oral feedback from the teacher and peers. The first draft gets feedback on higher order concerns which are content and organization. The second draft gets feedback on use of language, mechanics and vocabulary. Each draft is returned to the student individually at the allocated conference time when the teacher and the student meet. This is a one-on-one tutorial opportunity for each and every student to talk about their paper with the instructor and raise any queries or concerns related to their written work. If extra help is needed in the composing and revision of the paper, students can consult the instructor during office hours and make use of the Purdue Writing Lab services. While the first two drafts get comprehensive feedback, they are not graded. The final paper is graded. This gives students a chance to draft, re-draft, revise, improve their written work in a discursive fashion before they are ready to share the final written work with the instructor with the ease of mind that their work is closer to being presentable to their audience in the final product. At the same time, knowing that they will not be assessed on their first draft reduces students’ anxiety.

Atilgan11

11

If the first draft was fully assessed and students were to get a grade on their first

draft, they would likely feel ‘caught off guard,’ especially when they are not familiar with

the academic conventions and requirements of a new academic writing system which

they are not familiar with.

As the process writing has numerous stages and is a lengthier process, the

students have many chances to ask questions, learn and make revisions to their written

work without the anxiety of getting a low or failing grade. This; therefore, reduces their

affective filter and allows them to produce ideas and written work without fear of failing

due to a lack of knowledge of technical, cultural or discourse skills. This is surely an

important educational goal for the ENGL106i instructor.

It is provides a very good chance for students to get higher grades than they otherwise would were they to submit only one final draft of the paper. This helps students succeed in their academic endeavor and also makes them feel better about their own capabilities. These factors contribute towards feeling comfortable in writing and composing. Last but not the least, the students may also build a ‘trust’ relationship with the instructor as they are getting continuous support as this is a collaborative learning environment. In the end, writers get better grades. Some important questions for an instructor to ask at the end of process writing are “Is the quality of writing better? Does the writer’s message communicate itself in a clear fashion as a result of this multi-drafting, revising process?” The answer is “Yes.” The final draft definitely is an improved and more comprehensible version. The first draft I claim is the writer’s soliloquy. It is “a dramatic or literary form of discourse in which a character talks to himself or herself or

Atilgan12

12

reveals his or her thoughts without addressing a listener” (The free dictionary). It is the conversation of the writer’s mind recorded on paper. Through peer and teacher editing process, the character finds ‘listeners’ which end up being his ‘audience’ in the end as they are the ones shaping the writing process and commenting on its comprehensibility and quality. In the end, the final draft is surely more comprehensible as the audience listens to the character and tells the reader if he understands him or not. The audience also tells him how to go about being understood if he was unclear. The soliloquy becomes a more interactive, social process of making meaning and finally a meaningful speech is delivered. In addition, the final draft still has its own voice as the instructor is not interfering with the expression of thoughts, idioms and proverbs specific to the writer’s culture. The instructors’ being second language writers themselves makes them sensitive to this issue. While it is not a requirement that the instructor be a native speaker of English, the fact that many of the instructors are L2 speakers and writers themselves, helps them better guide and address student needs. There are a few American instructors teaching ENGL106i. They have all lived in different countries before; therefore, they are familiar with second language learners and their cultures. Also, most of the instructors are teaching assistants in the Second Language Studies/English as a Second Language Program and they take some courses that raise awareness in being sensitive to respecting the idiolect of second language writers as well as their culture. These courses are second language writing courses and World Englishes courses.

What is more process writing gives student ample time and space to compose effective writing. It also helps to protect the writer’s voice as opposed to a strict genre-

Atilgan13

13

based pedagogy. Process writing does not provide the writers with molds nor prescribe rules for how to write but help writers create meaning in their unique pieces of writing. In addition, it doesn’t just assess the final product but focuses on composing and processing strategies which make an innovative experience for the learner. That is why it is beneficial for international students to experiment composing in this way.

Sequenced Writing Theory In the teaching of writing, one of the recent developments has been to encourage students to write as much as possible to fully develop their ideas (Edelsky, 1986). This is why ENGL106i is based on composing sequenced writing assignments. At university, in Freshman Composition courses academic writing is emphasized. Academic writing requires content knowledge. That’s why the idea of doing extensive reading on one subject and developing ideas on that topic by writing is gaining importance. This is especially important for inexperienced writers. Leki (1991) claims that “the question of authorial expertise is an important issue in all writing classes, including those for well-prepared native English speakers, but it is particularly pertinent for ESL and underprepared English writers.” In order to help writers develop this expertise, instructors are recommended to give students assignments which would help them talk about their topic beyond personal stories and approach issues in more scientific and objective way (Leki, 1989). With this idea in mind, Leki (1991) has introduced the sequenced assignment approach to help writers become authorities on a topic and handle it in a more scientific way. This approach basically recommends having writers choose a topic they are interested in and working on the topic throughout the term composing in different genres.

Atilgan14

14

Based on Leki’s ideas, increasing content knowledge on the topic being worked on is one of the fundamental objectives of ENGL106i. At the beginning of the year, students are asked to chose a topic they are interested in. In this class, they are told they would carry out a sequenced writing project; that is, they would write four papers on the same subject over the course of this semester. The idea of a series of assignments forming a sequenced writing project grows from the belief that students develop their writing skills best when each writing assignment they do can build quite directly on the experience and knowledge gained from completing the previous writing assignments.

In the sequenced writing project, students may write on a topic of their choice with the approval of their teacher. However, to do the sequenced writing project, they must select a topic that meets three requirements: First, learners must be very passionate about the topic and want to learn more about it, as they would spend much of the term writing four full papers on the same subject. Next, they must already have had some personal experience with the topic on. Finally, this must be a topic that will allow them to compose in four different genres required by the course.

Working on the same topic but approaching it in different ways make a writer look at the topic from different perspectives as accumulate deep knowledge on it. It also helps focus on a topic and specialize in it.

Learner-Centeredness

The educational philosophy of ENGL106i is learner centeredness. Richard (2001) defines learner centeredness as “a term that combines many of the educational philosophies that stresses the individual needs of learners, the role of individual experience, and the need to develop awareness, self- reflection, critical thinking, learner

Atilgan15

15

strategies, and other qualities and skills that are important for learners to develop.”

Marsh (1986, 2011) discusses learner centered curricula and claims that such a curricula would involve ‘individualized teaching, learning through practical operation or doing, laissez faire-no organized curricula at all but based on the momentary interests of children, creative self-expression by students, practically oriented activities directed toward the needs of society and a collective term that refers to the rejection of teaching-directed learning.” Clark sees this approach leading to “a focus on process, learner differences, learner strategies, and learner self-direction and autonomy.”

The objectives of this educational philosophy can be greatly observed in the ENGL106i syllabus. Learner centered instruction takes place in the following ways in the ENGL106i course.

When students register for the Freshman English composition course at the beginning of the term, they have the option of choosing between ENGL106-the mainstream composition course and ENGL106i-the international student composition course. Just the fact that learners have the choice to decide which composition course they want to take gives students the autonomy to take responsibility for their learning. Another example that this course aims at a self-autonomous learning course is the learner’s deciding on a topic of their own interest to write on and research all throughout the term. No topic is imposed on learners but learners get to chose what they would like to work on. Learners also chose their own interviewees for the interviews they are supposed to conduct, design their own interview questions and pick their own sources to do research for their argumentative paper.

Individualized teaching is an essential component of ENGL106i. Here are some

Atilgan16

16

examples how teaching is conducted in an individualized manner:

1. When the term starts, the instructor gives students a diagnostic test. This test

consists of two essay topics. The students write an essay in a 50-minute class

period and the teacher collects it. It is important that the essay is timed and it is

written in class, as when the instructor reads the essay, she needs to not only have

an idea of what the student is capable of producing in terms of language and

content but also an idea of how fast and how much writing a student can produce

in a given time. The diagnostic test roughly gives the instructor a data set of

content, organization, language use and mechanics of each student’s production.

Upon this evaluation of diagnostic tests, the instructor designs her lesson plans for

the rest of the term. While designing the lesson plans for lectures and conferences,

she takes into consideration both the teaching points the whole class is likely to

benefit from and each individual. This individualized teaching which is more

likely to benefit each learner.

2. Another good example of individualized teaching is the individualized feedback

learners get on their writing and class performance. The instructor holds arranged

conferences with each student. The conferences can be defined as 10-15 minute

one-on-tutorials held during class time with each learner. Learners get to meet

with the instructor three times during each assignment. In the first conference,

they get feedback on higher order skills of their paper, namely organization and

content. In the second conference, they get feedback on lower order skills; in

other words, language use and mechanics. In the third conference, they get

feedback on how well their essay has met the grading criteria. In all the feedback

Atilgan17

17

sessions, they get to hear about the strengths, the weaknesses of the writing as

well as suggestions on they can improve it. Corrective feedback on language is

supplied in order to help the learners communicate their ideas clearly based on the

assumption that the second language learner may have language problems related

to how to express himself in a second language. Corrective feedback organization

is also provided as contrastive rhetoric differs from language to language. In

addition, students may not have had sufficient training in academic writing

conventions here in the United States. As this training is a lengthy process and a

pretty challenging task for the second language leaner, it is important that the

learner gets sufficient feedback to guide him in the right direction. ENGL106i

instructors make sure to provide this written and oral feedback through

individualized teaching in conferences.

Another important feature of ENG10i syllabus is that it encourages activities

that are student-centered. Among these are peer editing, discussion and reading

tasks that the learners are asked to perform in pairs and groups. Learners take control of the learning situation and become ‘teachers’ for other learners and themselves.

It is important to note that the teacher also has an active role facilitating and guiding instruction as well as scaffolding during lectures and conferences. In addition, teachers provide information in lectures: scaffolding first and then leaving learners to take control of their autonomous learning which also seems to fit in with the ‘culture of learning’ theory.

Silva (1993) points out “there is no comprehensive theory of second language

Atilgan18

18

writing.” Yet second language writing has to be taught in one way or another. In order to make this happen, ENGL106i has based some of its theories on first language writing: genre-based theory, cognitive process writing theories come from first language writing devised under the influence of Greco-Roman-Anglo-American rhetorical theories. Then, it integrated a sequenced writing theory in which students could bring in their own culture and knowledge of the world should they chose to. The syllabus also emphasized learner centeredness to make the writing experience a unique and an individualized experience. It seems to be working well with international students so far. It is doing an “effective and fair treatment of the second language learner” as promised. My suggestions for the EGL106i syllabus would be to decrease the number of assignments, which has been five to four. As international students are not familiar with the genres, they need a lot more time getting to learn about the genres and the academic system in US. That will give instructors more time to scaffold writers with conventions of style guides, plagiarism, referencing and research techniques.

A second suggestion would be to design another course. For instance, ENGL106- i&I, an Integrated Skills English course for international students with low proficiency language skills as a prerequisite to ENGL106i. This course would provide mainly language instruction as well as integrated skills: reading, listening and speaking practice. Students with English low proficiency would be referred to this course based on a language proficiency exam Purdue University administers at the beginning of the academic term. Completing such a course not only would help second language writers in the ENGL106i composition class in the long run, but also would help students “to swim and not sink” throughout their education in an English medium university which is

Atilgan19

19

a big challenge.

Atilgan20

20

References Britton, James et al. (1975). The Writing Development of Writing Abilities. London:Macmillan. Faigley, Lester. Competing Theories of Process: A Critique and a Proposal. (1986). College English. 48(6), 527-542. Flower , Linda. Hayes, John R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition andCommunication, 32(4), 365-387. Hyland, Ken. (2003) "Genre-based pedagogies: a social response to process." Tesol journal. 12, 17-29. Leki, Ilona. (1991-1992) Building expertise through sequenced writing assignments." Tesol Journal, 1(2), 19-23. Leki, Ilona. Carson, Joan G. (1994). Students' Perceptions of EAP Writing Instruction and Writing Needs Across the Disciplines." Tesol quarterly, 28(1), 81-101. Silva, Tony. (2011) English as a second language. Purdue university, Web. 10/11/2011. <http://www.cla.purdue.edu/english/esl/106i.html>. Silva, Tony. (1997). On the Ethical Treatment of ESL writers." Tesol quarterly, 31(2): 359-363. Silva, Tony. (1993). Toward an Understanding of the Distinct Nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and Its Implications. Tesol quarterly, 27(4), 657-677. Valdivia, S., McLoughlin, D., & Mynard, J. (2011). The Importance of Affective Factors in Self-access Language Learning Courses. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 2(2), 91-96.

Atilgan21

21

Bibliography Bartholomae, David. (1985). Inventing the University. In Mike Ros (Ed.), When A Writer Can't Write, (pp. 134-65). New York, NY: Guilford. Berlin, James. (1984). Rhetoric and Reality: Writing in Nineteenth-Century American Colleges, 1900-1975. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP. Britton, James et al. (1975). The Writing Development of Writing Abilities. London: Macmillan. Bizzell, Patricia. (1982). Cognition, Convention, and Certainty: What We Need to Know about Writing. PREITEXT (3), 213-43. Braddock, Richard, Richard Lloyd-Jones, and Lowell Schoer. (1963). Research in Written Composition. NCTE, Urbana. Britton, James, Tony Burgess, Nancy Martin, Alex McLeod, and Harold Rosen (1975). The Development of Writing Abilities. (pp. 11-18). London: Macmillan. Bruffee, Kenneth A. (1984). Collaborative Learning and the Conversion of Man- Kind. College English 46, 635-52. Coles, William, Jr. (1969). Freshman Composition: The Circle of Unbelief. College English 3, 134-42. Connor, Ulla. (1996). Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross Cultural Aspects of Second Language Writing. Cambridge University Press. Cooper, Marilyn M. (1986). The Ecology of Writing. College English 48, 364-75. Elbow, Peter. (1973). Writing without Teachers. New York: Oxford UP. Writing with Power. (1981) New York: Oxford UP.

Atilgan22

22

Coles, William, Jr. (1969). Freshman Composition: The Circle of Unbelief. College English 3, 34-42. Faigley, Lester. (1986). Competing Theories of Process: A Critique and a Proposal. College English 48(6), 527-542. Faigley, Lester, Roger D. Cherry, David A. Jolliffe, and Anna M. Skinner. (1985). Assessing Writers' Knowledge and Processes of Composing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Faigley, Lester, and Stephen P. Witte. (1981) Analyzing Revision. College Com- position and Communication 32, 400-14. Flower, Linda. Hayes, John R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication 32(4), 365-387. Hairston, Maxine. (1982). The Winds of Change: Thomas Kuhn and the Revolution in the Teaching of Writing. College Composition and Communication 33, 76-88. Hayes, John R. , and Linda Flower. (1980). Identifying the Organization of Writing Processes. In Lee Gregg and Erwin Steinberg (Ed), Cognitive Processes in Writing: An Interdisciplinary Approach (pp. 3-30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hyland, Ken. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: a social response to process. Tesol Journal (12), 17-29. Kenneth A. Bruffee. (1984). Collaborative Learning and the "Conversation of Mankind. College English, 46 (7), 635-652. LaBrant, Lou. (1936) The Psychological Basis for Creative Writing. English Journal, 292-301.

Atilgan23

23

Lauer, Janice. (1970). Heuristics and Composition. College Composition and Com- munication 21, 396-404. Leki, Ilona. (1992). Building expertise through sequenced writing assigments. Tesol Journal, 1(2), 19-23. Leki, Ilona. Carson, Joan G. (1994). Students' Perceptions of EAP Writing Instruction and Writing Needs Across the Disciplines. Tesol quarterly, 28.1, 81-101. Linda Flower; John R. Hayes. (1981). A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387. Lunsford, Andrea. (1980). The Content of Basic Writers Essays. College Composi- tion and Communication 31, 278-90. Macrorie, Ken. (1968). To Be Read. English Journal 57, 686-92. Matsuda, P. K. (1997). The first five years of the JSLW: A retrospective. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), iv–v. Matsuda, P. K. (1998). Situating ESL writing in a cross-disciplinary context. Written Communication, 5, 99–121. Matsuda, P. K. (1999). Composition studies and ESL writing: A disciplinary division of labor. College Composition and Communication, 50, 699–721. Matsuda, P. K., & Jablonski, J. (2000). Beyond the L2 metaphor: Towards a mutually transformative model of ESL/WAC collaboration. Academic. Writing, 1. Available at: http://wac.colostate.edu/aw/articles/matsuda_jablonski2000.htm. Matsuda, P. K. (2001a). Reexamining audiolingualism: On the genesis of reading and writing in L2 studies. In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), Linking literacies: Perspectives on second language reading/writing connections (pp. 84–105). Ann Arbor,

Atilgan24

24

MI: University of Michigan Press. Matsuda, P. K. (2001b). Voice in Japanese written discourse: Implications for second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(1–2), 35–53. Matsuda, P. K. (2002). Alternative discourses: A synthesis. In C. Schroeder, H. Fox, & P. Bizzell (Eds.), ALT DIS: Alternative discourses and the academy (pp. 191–196). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Heinemann. Matsuda, P. K., & De Pew, K. E. (2002). Special issue on early L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(4). Matsuda, P. K. (2003a). Process and post-process: A discursive history. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(1). Matsuda, P. K. (2003b). Second language writing in the 20th century: A historical perspective. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 15–34). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Matsuda, Paul K (2005). Second Language Writing Research. Lawrence Erlbaum Association, Inc, Publishers: New Jersey. Moffett, James. (1982). Writing, Inner Speech, and Meditation. College English 44, 231-44. Reither, James A. (1985). Writing and Knowing: Toward Redefining the Writing Pro- cess. College English 4, 620-28. Rohman, D. Gordon. (1965). Pre-Writing: The Stage of Discovery in the Writing Pro- cess. College Composition and Communication 16, 106-12. Rohman, D. Gordon and Alfred 0.Wlecke. (1964). Pre-Writing: The Construction and Application of Models for Concept Formation in Writing. U.S. De-

Atilgan25

25

partment of Health, Education, and Welfare Cooperative Research Project 2174. East Lansing: Michigan State U. Scardamalia, Marlene, Carl Bereiter, and Hillel Goelman. (1964). The Role of Produc- tion Factors in Writing Ability. In Martin Nystrand (Ed.), What Writers Know: The Language, Pro-cess, and Structure of Written Discourse (pp. 173-210). New York: Academic. Stewart, Donald. (1969). Prose with Integrity: A Primary Objective. College Com- position and Communication 20, 223-27. Silva, Tony. (2011). English as a second language. Retrived from Purdue university, SLS/ESL Program Website http://www.cla.purdue.edu/english/esl/106i.html>. Silva, Tony. (1997). On the Ethical Treatment of ESL writers. Tesol quarterly 31 (2), 359-363. Silva, Tony, Paul K. Matsuda (2001). On Second Language Writing. Psychology Press. Silva, Tony. (1993). Toward an Understanding of the Distinct Nature of L2writing: The ESL research and Its Implications." Tesol quarterly, 27(4), 657-677. Valdivia, S., McLoughlin, D., & Mynard, J. (2011). The Importance of Affective Factors in Self-access Language Learning Courses. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 2(2), 91-96.