This introductory chapter to the book serves to set the scene for both the three strands of research reviewed in Part I (learning to write, writing to learn content, and writing to learn language), and for the empirical studies contained in Part II. It does so by situating the learning-to-write and writing-to-learn perspectives explored in the book in second language (L2) writing and second language acquisition (SLA) scholarship. The aims of the book are accounted for against this background, emphasizing the way in which the collections helps to expand the L2 writing and SLA research agendas. This is complemented with an overview of the structure of the book and of the different chapters in it.
This chapter explores the main theories for understanding learning to write in adult contexts, briefly discussing their research underpinnings and showing how they translate into pedagogic practice. Making a broad distinction between theories concerned with texts, with writers and with readers, I will show briefly what each approach offers and neglects and what each means for teachers. The categorisation implies no rigid divisions, and, in fact the approaches respond to, critique, and draw on each other in a variety of ways so that classroom practice often involves a combination of them. I believe, however, this offers a useful way of comparing and evaluating the research each approach has produced and the pedagogic practices they have generated.
This chapter discusses several studies of second language (L2) writers’ experiences using writing as a means of learning about content areas. Though some research of this kind has demonstrated success with writing to learn, collectively these studies suggest that using writing in this way is often difficult for L2 writers and that a key component in the process of learning to use writing for this purpose is the kind of support provided by both writing instructors and content area teachers. The examination of these studies also points out complexities in the linkage between theories of writing to learn and implementation of them. The analysis of these studies also lends support to a recent call from some L2 writing researchers for an increased emphasis on longitudinal studies of L2 writing, including writing to learn, in light of the complex nature of learning how to write, and how to use writing to mediate or enrich learning, in another language.
This chapter offers an overview of several strands of existing research addressing various aspects of L2 writing and SLA so as to be able to trace signs, both overtly provided by the authors or implicitly emerging from their arguments, of a shared interest in what I call the language learning potential of writing. I review theoretical frameworks informing this body of research, the most prominent themes investigated, and its main research methodology characteristics. Key findings of the studies reviewed are then synthesized and critically discussed from the perspective of the light they shed on the relationship between written output practice and second language development. The chapter concludes with a call for research into the writing-to-learn the language dimension of L2 writing.
This chapter reports on empirical research intended to gauge the type, extent, and source of genre knowledge of international students newly arrived at an English medium university and to trace these students’ reliance on and evolving assumptions about those genres and about the constraints and affordances of the novel genres they face. Data for the study came from surveys and text-based interviews. Results suggest that English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students have experience with and understanding of a wide range of genres in English and are able to adapt to new genre demands flexibly. Key issues include how and what knowledge is transferred, or not, to these new settings and how learning to write intersects with writing to learn.
This chapter considers how multilingual students might learn to write in different genres for different audiences and write to learn different ways of exploring and representing knowledge by shuttling between languages. It illustrates this possibility by analyzing how an advanced scholar from Sri Lanka switches discourses in recognition of the context of writing in his published research articles in both the vernacular and English, in local and foreign publishing contexts. The switches have implications for the knowledge represented in these articles. The author moves between different levels of descriptiveness, reflexive awareness, and analytical explicitness by moving between the genres and languages. He also adopts different ideological positions in these articles to critically negotiate the expectations of the respective audience and context, demonstrating his agency and voice.
The chapter argues that one way to advance the L2 writing agenda is to conceptualize learning-to-write and writing-to-learn as inseparable. The paper draws on Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) as developed by Halliday for its conceptual and analytical apparatus. In particular, it highlights the construct of grammatical metaphor (GM) to elucidate how L2 writers can develop advanced L2 textual abilities. To illustrate evolving ways of knowing through languaging, the paper presents a single-case study of a curriculum-embedded task of summary writing at the early advanced stage of learning L2 German. Through diverse forms of GM use the writer is able to capture the multivoicedness of the source text and recreate it in the multivoicedness of her own authoritative summary.
This chapter uses a case study approach to look at students’ and teacher’s perceptions of the language learning potential of form-focused feedback on writing. It explores the ways in which motivated students used form-focused feedback on their writing by purposefully exploiting the opportunities for consciousness-raising, noticing and further practice that it provided. It is argued that feedback use was not a passive process of teachers giving feedback and students using it to correct their papers. Instead students were actively engaged in defining their own learning needs and deciding how the feedback could best be utilised to achieve their language learning goals. It is suggested that such active student participation and engagement is crucial if the language learning potential of feedback is to be fully exploited in learning-to-write contexts.
The study reported in this chapter set out to investigate 18 EFL learners’ own perceptions of the language learning potential of L2 writing, and the actions they reported taking to make the most of the learning opportunities afforded by their engagement with writing. Data for the study came from self-reflection journals and in-depth semi-structured interviews conducted at two points in time 9 months apart. Our results shed light on the role played by self-initiated and teacher-led noticing processes and associated learning actions, extensive and challenging output practice, and the availability of tailor-made form-focused instruction in bringing about learning through writing. The participants’ own perceptions of the language learning potential of writing was also found to be both a powerful motivating factor in their literacy experience and one of the goals that guided their writing activity. Several implications of these findings for future research will be discussed.
This chapter examines writing-to-learn practices in a U.S. university foreign language (FL) setting that serves both Anglophone learners of Spanish as a FL and heritage language (HL) students. The HL participants in this study, adults with biliterate knowledge in Spanish and English, exhibit skills, needs, and expectations that diverge considerably from those of their (monolingual) FL counterparts. Evidence gathered from interviews with instructors, student surveys, and instructional materials points toward an approach in which writing serves merely as a means of enhancing language proficiency (a writing-to-learn approach). Findings suggest that traditional writing-to-learn practices are ill-suited to addressing HL students’ literacy needs, which include developing rhetorical skills and genre knowledge that have currency beyond the FL classroom. Accordingly, the chapter adds to the theme explored in the book with its analysis of the potential misalignments between the learning-to-write and writing-to-learn dimensions of L2 writing that may exist in a given instructional setting.
This final chapter explores main themes in the book and offers readers some critical points to ponder. I first highlight the intellectual and disciplinary influences which converge into the three dimensions that motivate the book – learning to write (LW) and writing to learn content (WLC) or language (WLL) – and which also cohere with broad professional and contextual locations for each. I then turn to possible interconnections among the three dimensions. In some cases, LW, WLC, and WLL can become dividing lines that feed into compartmentalized professional or scholarly cultures and create misalignments between teacher and student understandings of the value and roles of second language (L2) writing. More often than not, however, the present collection demonstrates that the three views of LW, WLC, and WLL are closely related and can synergistically support instruction as well as enhance research insights. I then reflect on the importance of authenticity, needs, and writerly selves in the conceptualizations of LW, WLC, and WLL offered by authors across chapters. I close my reflections with some questions that are likely to spur future research capable of deepening our understanding of capable of deepening our understanding of the roles that L2 writing instruction plays in uniquely supporting the synergistic learning of writing, content, and language.
This introductory chapter to the book serves to set the scene for both the three strands of research reviewed in Part I (learning to write, writing to learn content, and writing to learn language), and for the empirical studies contained in Part II. It does so by situating the learning-to-write and writing-to-learn perspectives explored in the book in second language (L2) writing and second language acquisition (SLA) scholarship. The aims of the book are accounted for against this background, emphasizing the way in which the collections helps to expand the L2 writing and SLA research agendas. This is complemented with an overview of the structure of the book and of the different chapters in it.
This chapter explores the main theories for understanding learning to write in adult contexts, briefly discussing their research underpinnings and showing how they translate into pedagogic practice. Making a broad distinction between theories concerned with texts, with writers and with readers, I will show briefly what each approach offers and neglects and what each means for teachers. The categorisation implies no rigid divisions, and, in fact the approaches respond to, critique, and draw on each other in a variety of ways so that classroom practice often involves a combination of them. I believe, however, this offers a useful way of comparing and evaluating the research each approach has produced and the pedagogic practices they have generated.
This chapter discusses several studies of second language (L2) writers’ experiences using writing as a means of learning about content areas. Though some research of this kind has demonstrated success with writing to learn, collectively these studies suggest that using writing in this way is often difficult for L2 writers and that a key component in the process of learning to use writing for this purpose is the kind of support provided by both writing instructors and content area teachers. The examination of these studies also points out complexities in the linkage between theories of writing to learn and implementation of them. The analysis of these studies also lends support to a recent call from some L2 writing researchers for an increased emphasis on longitudinal studies of L2 writing, including writing to learn, in light of the complex nature of learning how to write, and how to use writing to mediate or enrich learning, in another language.
This chapter offers an overview of several strands of existing research addressing various aspects of L2 writing and SLA so as to be able to trace signs, both overtly provided by the authors or implicitly emerging from their arguments, of a shared interest in what I call the language learning potential of writing. I review theoretical frameworks informing this body of research, the most prominent themes investigated, and its main research methodology characteristics. Key findings of the studies reviewed are then synthesized and critically discussed from the perspective of the light they shed on the relationship between written output practice and second language development. The chapter concludes with a call for research into the writing-to-learn the language dimension of L2 writing.
This chapter reports on empirical research intended to gauge the type, extent, and source of genre knowledge of international students newly arrived at an English medium university and to trace these students’ reliance on and evolving assumptions about those genres and about the constraints and affordances of the novel genres they face. Data for the study came from surveys and text-based interviews. Results suggest that English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students have experience with and understanding of a wide range of genres in English and are able to adapt to new genre demands flexibly. Key issues include how and what knowledge is transferred, or not, to these new settings and how learning to write intersects with writing to learn.
This chapter considers how multilingual students might learn to write in different genres for different audiences and write to learn different ways of exploring and representing knowledge by shuttling between languages. It illustrates this possibility by analyzing how an advanced scholar from Sri Lanka switches discourses in recognition of the context of writing in his published research articles in both the vernacular and English, in local and foreign publishing contexts. The switches have implications for the knowledge represented in these articles. The author moves between different levels of descriptiveness, reflexive awareness, and analytical explicitness by moving between the genres and languages. He also adopts different ideological positions in these articles to critically negotiate the expectations of the respective audience and context, demonstrating his agency and voice.
The chapter argues that one way to advance the L2 writing agenda is to conceptualize learning-to-write and writing-to-learn as inseparable. The paper draws on Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) as developed by Halliday for its conceptual and analytical apparatus. In particular, it highlights the construct of grammatical metaphor (GM) to elucidate how L2 writers can develop advanced L2 textual abilities. To illustrate evolving ways of knowing through languaging, the paper presents a single-case study of a curriculum-embedded task of summary writing at the early advanced stage of learning L2 German. Through diverse forms of GM use the writer is able to capture the multivoicedness of the source text and recreate it in the multivoicedness of her own authoritative summary.
This chapter uses a case study approach to look at students’ and teacher’s perceptions of the language learning potential of form-focused feedback on writing. It explores the ways in which motivated students used form-focused feedback on their writing by purposefully exploiting the opportunities for consciousness-raising, noticing and further practice that it provided. It is argued that feedback use was not a passive process of teachers giving feedback and students using it to correct their papers. Instead students were actively engaged in defining their own learning needs and deciding how the feedback could best be utilised to achieve their language learning goals. It is suggested that such active student participation and engagement is crucial if the language learning potential of feedback is to be fully exploited in learning-to-write contexts.
The study reported in this chapter set out to investigate 18 EFL learners’ own perceptions of the language learning potential of L2 writing, and the actions they reported taking to make the most of the learning opportunities afforded by their engagement with writing. Data for the study came from self-reflection journals and in-depth semi-structured interviews conducted at two points in time 9 months apart. Our results shed light on the role played by self-initiated and teacher-led noticing processes and associated learning actions, extensive and challenging output practice, and the availability of tailor-made form-focused instruction in bringing about learning through writing. The participants’ own perceptions of the language learning potential of writing was also found to be both a powerful motivating factor in their literacy experience and one of the goals that guided their writing activity. Several implications of these findings for future research will be discussed.
This chapter examines writing-to-learn practices in a U.S. university foreign language (FL) setting that serves both Anglophone learners of Spanish as a FL and heritage language (HL) students. The HL participants in this study, adults with biliterate knowledge in Spanish and English, exhibit skills, needs, and expectations that diverge considerably from those of their (monolingual) FL counterparts. Evidence gathered from interviews with instructors, student surveys, and instructional materials points toward an approach in which writing serves merely as a means of enhancing language proficiency (a writing-to-learn approach). Findings suggest that traditional writing-to-learn practices are ill-suited to addressing HL students’ literacy needs, which include developing rhetorical skills and genre knowledge that have currency beyond the FL classroom. Accordingly, the chapter adds to the theme explored in the book with its analysis of the potential misalignments between the learning-to-write and writing-to-learn dimensions of L2 writing that may exist in a given instructional setting.
This final chapter explores main themes in the book and offers readers some critical points to ponder. I first highlight the intellectual and disciplinary influences which converge into the three dimensions that motivate the book – learning to write (LW) and writing to learn content (WLC) or language (WLL) – and which also cohere with broad professional and contextual locations for each. I then turn to possible interconnections among the three dimensions. In some cases, LW, WLC, and WLL can become dividing lines that feed into compartmentalized professional or scholarly cultures and create misalignments between teacher and student understandings of the value and roles of second language (L2) writing. More often than not, however, the present collection demonstrates that the three views of LW, WLC, and WLL are closely related and can synergistically support instruction as well as enhance research insights. I then reflect on the importance of authenticity, needs, and writerly selves in the conceptualizations of LW, WLC, and WLL offered by authors across chapters. I close my reflections with some questions that are likely to spur future research capable of deepening our understanding of capable of deepening our understanding of the roles that L2 writing instruction plays in uniquely supporting the synergistic learning of writing, content, and language.
This introductory chapter to the book serves to set the scene for both the three strands of research reviewed in Part I (learning to write, writing to learn content, and writing to learn language), and for the empirical studies contained in Part II. It does so by situating the learning-to-write and writing-to-learn perspectives explored in the book in second language (L2) writing and second language acquisition (SLA) scholarship. The aims of the book are accounted for against this background, emphasizing the way in which the collections helps to expand the L2 writing and SLA research agendas. This is complemented with an overview of the structure of the book and of the different chapters in it.
This chapter explores the main theories for understanding learning to write in adult contexts, briefly discussing their research underpinnings and showing how they translate into pedagogic practice. Making a broad distinction between theories concerned with texts, with writers and with readers, I will show briefly what each approach offers and neglects and what each means for teachers. The categorisation implies no rigid divisions, and, in fact the approaches respond to, critique, and draw on each other in a variety of ways so that classroom practice often involves a combination of them. I believe, however, this offers a useful way of comparing and evaluating the research each approach has produced and the pedagogic practices they have generated.
This chapter discusses several studies of second language (L2) writers’ experiences using writing as a means of learning about content areas. Though some research of this kind has demonstrated success with writing to learn, collectively these studies suggest that using writing in this way is often difficult for L2 writers and that a key component in the process of learning to use writing for this purpose is the kind of support provided by both writing instructors and content area teachers. The examination of these studies also points out complexities in the linkage between theories of writing to learn and implementation of them. The analysis of these studies also lends support to a recent call from some L2 writing researchers for an increased emphasis on longitudinal studies of L2 writing, including writing to learn, in light of the complex nature of learning how to write, and how to use writing to mediate or enrich learning, in another language.
This chapter offers an overview of several strands of existing research addressing various aspects of L2 writing and SLA so as to be able to trace signs, both overtly provided by the authors or implicitly emerging from their arguments, of a shared interest in what I call the language learning potential of writing. I review theoretical frameworks informing this body of research, the most prominent themes investigated, and its main research methodology characteristics. Key findings of the studies reviewed are then synthesized and critically discussed from the perspective of the light they shed on the relationship between written output practice and second language development. The chapter concludes with a call for research into the writing-to-learn the language dimension of L2 writing.
This chapter reports on empirical research intended to gauge the type, extent, and source of genre knowledge of international students newly arrived at an English medium university and to trace these students’ reliance on and evolving assumptions about those genres and about the constraints and affordances of the novel genres they face. Data for the study came from surveys and text-based interviews. Results suggest that English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students have experience with and understanding of a wide range of genres in English and are able to adapt to new genre demands flexibly. Key issues include how and what knowledge is transferred, or not, to these new settings and how learning to write intersects with writing to learn.
This chapter considers how multilingual students might learn to write in different genres for different audiences and write to learn different ways of exploring and representing knowledge by shuttling between languages. It illustrates this possibility by analyzing how an advanced scholar from Sri Lanka switches discourses in recognition of the context of writing in his published research articles in both the vernacular and English, in local and foreign publishing contexts. The switches have implications for the knowledge represented in these articles. The author moves between different levels of descriptiveness, reflexive awareness, and analytical explicitness by moving between the genres and languages. He also adopts different ideological positions in these articles to critically negotiate the expectations of the respective audience and context, demonstrating his agency and voice.
The chapter argues that one way to advance the L2 writing agenda is to conceptualize learning-to-write and writing-to-learn as inseparable. The paper draws on Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) as developed by Halliday for its conceptual and analytical apparatus. In particular, it highlights the construct of grammatical metaphor (GM) to elucidate how L2 writers can develop advanced L2 textual abilities. To illustrate evolving ways of knowing through languaging, the paper presents a single-case study of a curriculum-embedded task of summary writing at the early advanced stage of learning L2 German. Through diverse forms of GM use the writer is able to capture the multivoicedness of the source text and recreate it in the multivoicedness of her own authoritative summary.
This chapter uses a case study approach to look at students’ and teacher’s perceptions of the language learning potential of form-focused feedback on writing. It explores the ways in which motivated students used form-focused feedback on their writing by purposefully exploiting the opportunities for consciousness-raising, noticing and further practice that it provided. It is argued that feedback use was not a passive process of teachers giving feedback and students using it to correct their papers. Instead students were actively engaged in defining their own learning needs and deciding how the feedback could best be utilised to achieve their language learning goals. It is suggested that such active student participation and engagement is crucial if the language learning potential of feedback is to be fully exploited in learning-to-write contexts.
The study reported in this chapter set out to investigate 18 EFL learners’ own perceptions of the language learning potential of L2 writing, and the actions they reported taking to make the most of the learning opportunities afforded by their engagement with writing. Data for the study came from self-reflection journals and in-depth semi-structured interviews conducted at two points in time 9 months apart. Our results shed light on the role played by self-initiated and teacher-led noticing processes and associated learning actions, extensive and challenging output practice, and the availability of tailor-made form-focused instruction in bringing about learning through writing. The participants’ own perceptions of the language learning potential of writing was also found to be both a powerful motivating factor in their literacy experience and one of the goals that guided their writing activity. Several implications of these findings for future research will be discussed.
This chapter examines writing-to-learn practices in a U.S. university foreign language (FL) setting that serves both Anglophone learners of Spanish as a FL and heritage language (HL) students. The HL participants in this study, adults with biliterate knowledge in Spanish and English, exhibit skills, needs, and expectations that diverge considerably from those of their (monolingual) FL counterparts. Evidence gathered from interviews with instructors, student surveys, and instructional materials points toward an approach in which writing serves merely as a means of enhancing language proficiency (a writing-to-learn approach). Findings suggest that traditional writing-to-learn practices are ill-suited to addressing HL students’ literacy needs, which include developing rhetorical skills and genre knowledge that have currency beyond the FL classroom. Accordingly, the chapter adds to the theme explored in the book with its analysis of the potential misalignments between the learning-to-write and writing-to-learn dimensions of L2 writing that may exist in a given instructional setting.
This final chapter explores main themes in the book and offers readers some critical points to ponder. I first highlight the intellectual and disciplinary influences which converge into the three dimensions that motivate the book – learning to write (LW) and writing to learn content (WLC) or language (WLL) – and which also cohere with broad professional and contextual locations for each. I then turn to possible interconnections among the three dimensions. In some cases, LW, WLC, and WLL can become dividing lines that feed into compartmentalized professional or scholarly cultures and create misalignments between teacher and student understandings of the value and roles of second language (L2) writing. More often than not, however, the present collection demonstrates that the three views of LW, WLC, and WLL are closely related and can synergistically support instruction as well as enhance research insights. I then reflect on the importance of authenticity, needs, and writerly selves in the conceptualizations of LW, WLC, and WLL offered by authors across chapters. I close my reflections with some questions that are likely to spur future research capable of deepening our understanding of capable of deepening our understanding of the roles that L2 writing instruction plays in uniquely supporting the synergistic learning of writing, content, and language.