Cover not available
Article published In:
Written Language & Literacy
Vol. 22:1 (2019) ► pp.67–94

Analyzing writing performance of L1, L2, and Generation 1.5 community college students through Coh-Metrix

| Houston Community College
| Texas A & M University
| The University of British Columbia

Proficient writing in English is a challenge for the linguistically diverse community college population. Writing research at the community college level is warranted in order to guide instruction and assist students in achieving higher levels of proficient writing. The current study examined the writing of three community college groups: native English Language students (L1, n = 146), English as a Second Language students primarily educated abroad (L2, n = 31), and English as a Second Language students who graduated from high school and lived in the United States for more than four years (Generation 1.5, n = 72). The writing samples were analyzed using Coh-Metrix to examine group differences in lexical, syntactic, and cohesion characteristics. Results indicated significant differences in syntactic and lexical measures among all groups, with small to large effect sizes. The majority of differences related to proficient writing characteristics were found between L1 and Generation 1.5 groups.

Keywords: Coh-Metrix, community college, generation 1.5, L2, writing
Article outline
  • L1, L2, and Generation 1.5 defined
  • Literature review of L1, L2 and generation 1.5 writers
  • Literature review of Coh-metrix with L2 and generation 1.5
  • Current investigation
  • Method
    • Participants
    • Materials and procedure
  • Results
    • Lexical measures
    • Syntactic measures
    • Cohesion measures
    • Word count
  • Discussion
    • Lexical measures
    • Syntactic measures
    • Cohesion measures
    • Limitations
    • Future research and conclusion
  • References
Published online: 20 November 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.00020.abb
References
Aryadoust, V.
(2014) Understanding the growth of ESL paragraph writing skills and its relationships with linguistic features. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beers, S. F., & Nagy, W. E.
(2009) Syntactic complexity as a predictor of adolescent writing quality: Which measures? Which genre? Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 221, 185–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benson, B., Deming, M. P., Denzer, D., & Valeri-Gold, M.
(1992) A combined basic writing/English as a second language class: Melting pot or mishmash? Journal of Basic Writing, 58–74. Retrieved from [URL]
Castro, C. D.
(2004) Cohesion and the social construction of meaning in the essays of Filipino college students writing in L2 English. Asia Pacific Education Review, 51, 215–225. Retrieved from [URL]
Cohen, J.
(1992) A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 1121, 155–159. Retrieved from [URL]
College Board
(2017) Writing scoring guide. Retrieved from [URL]
Crossley, S. A., Louwerse, M. M., McCarthy, P. M., & McNamara, D. S.
(2007) A linguistic analysis of simplified and authentic texts. The Modern Language Journal, 91(1), 15–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S.
(2009) Computational assessment of lexical differences in L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 181, 119–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Shared features of L2 writing: Intergroup homogeneity and text classification. Journal of Second Language Writing, 201, 271–285. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) Predicting second language writing proficiency: The roles of cohesion and linguistic sophistication. Journal of Research in Reading, 351, 115–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S., Salsbury, T., & McNamara, D.
(2009) Measuring L2 lexical growth using hypernymic relationships. Language Learning, 59(2), 307–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., & McNamara, D. S.
(2012) Predicting the proficiency level of language learners using lexical indices. Language Testing, 291, 243–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S. A., Weston, J. L., Sullivan, S. T. M., & McNamara, D. S.
(2011) The development of writing proficiency as a function of grade level: A linguistic analysis. Written Communication, 28(3), 282–311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cummins, J.
(2005, September). Teaching for cross-language transfer in dual language education: Possibilities and pitfalls. In J. Liu (Chair), Teaching and learning two languages in the EFL setting. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the TESOL, Istanbul, Turkey.
Dávila de Silva, A.
(2004) Emergent Spanish writing of a second grader in a whole language classroom. In B. Pérez (Ed.), Sociocultural contexts of language and literacy (2nd ed., pp. 247–274). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
di Gennaro, K.
(2008) Assessment of Generation 1.5 learners for placement into college writing courses. Journal of Basic Writing, 61–79. Retrieved from [URL]
(2009) Investigating differences in the writing performance of international and Generation 1.5 students. Language Testing. 261, 533–555. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) How different are they? A comparison of Generation 1.5 and international L2 learners’ writing ability. Assessing Writing, 181, 154–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doolan, S. M.
(2011) A language-related comparison of Generation 1.5 and L1 student writing. CATESOL Journal, 221, 1–88. Retrieved from [URL]
(2013) Generation 1.5 writing compared to L1 and L2 writing in first-year composition. Written Communication, 301, 135–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014) Comparing language use in the writing of developmental Generation 1.5, L1, and L2 tertiary students. Written Communication, 311, 215–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017) Comparing patterns of error in generation 1.5, L1, and L2 FYC writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 351, 1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doolan, S. M., & Miller, D.
(2012) Generation 1.5 written error patterns: A comparative study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 211, 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckstein, G., & Ferris, D.
(2017) Comparing L1 and L2 texts and writers in First-Year Composition. TESOL Quarterly. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
IRA/NCTE
(2013) Essay Rubric. ReadWriteThink. Retrieved from [URL]
Ferris, D. R.
(1994) Lexical and syntactic features of ESL writing by students at different levels of L2 proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 281, 414–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferris, D.
(2009) Defining L2 student audiences. Teaching college writing to diverse student populations (pp. 3–24). Retrieved from [URL]. DOI logo
Ferris, D., Brown, J., Liu, H. S., Eugenia, M., & Stine, A.
(2011) Responding to L2 students in college writing classes: Teacher perspectives. TESOL Quarterly, 451, 207–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M.
(2013) Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 221, 307–329. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Green, C.
(2012) A computational investigation of cohesion and lexical network density in L2 writing. English Language Teaching, 5(8), 57–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Green, C. F., Christopher, E. R., & Mei, J. L. K.
(2000) The incidence and effects on coherence of marked themes in interlanguage texts: A corpus-based enquiry. English for Specific Purposes, 191, 99–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ghrib, E. M.
(2001) Thinking and Writing in EFL. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 133(1), 243–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harklau, L.
(1994) ESL versus mainstream classes: Contrasting L2 learning environments. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 241–272. Retrieved from [URL]
Hayes, J., & Flower, L.
(1980) Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hinkel, E.
(2004) Tense, aspect and the passive voice in L1 and L2 academic texts. Language Teaching Research, 81, 5–29. Retrieved from [URL]
Hu, Z., Brown, D., & Brown, L.
(1982) Some linguistic differences in the written English of Chinese and Australian students. Language Learning and Communication, 11, 39–49.Google Scholar
Jenkins, D., & Fink, J.
(2015) What we know about transfer. New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center. Retrieved from: [URL]
Johnson, P.
(1992) Cohesion and coherence in compositions in Malay and English. RELC Journal, 23(2), 1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kormos, J.
(2011) Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 201, 148–161. Retrieved from [URL][URL]
Kubota, R.
(1998) An investigation of L1–L2 transfer in writing among Japanese university students: Implications for contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language writing, 71, 69–100. Retrieved from [URL]
Leki, I., Cumming, A., & Silva, T.
(2008) A synthesis of research on second language writing in English. New York, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Liu, M., & Braine, G.
(2005) Cohesive features in argumentative writing produced by Chinese undergraduates. System, 331, 623–636. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, S.
(1998) Learning to get along: “Language acquisition and literacy development in a new cultural setting”. Research in the Teaching of English, 8–47. Retrieved from [URL]
McCarthy, P. M., & Jarvis, S.
(2010) MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 421, 381–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., & McCarthy, P. M.
(2010) Linguistic features of writing quality. Written Communication, 271, 57–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., McCarthy, P. M., & Cai, Z.
(2014) Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., McCarthy, P. M., & Graesser, A. C.
(2010) Coh-Metrix: Capturing linguistic features of cohesion. Discourse Processes, 471, 292–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNamara, D. S., Ozuru, Y., Graesser, A. C., & Louwerse, M.
(2006) Validating Coh-Metrix. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 573–578). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Retrieved from [URL]
Meisuo, Z.
(2000) Cohesive features in the expository writing of undergraduates in two Chinese universities. RELC Journal, 31(1), 61–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mikesell, L.
(2007) Differences between Generation 1.5 and English as a second language writers: A corpus-based comparison of past participle use in academic writing. CATESOL Journal, 191, 7–29. Retrieved from [URL]
Nakamaru, S.
(2010) Lexical issues in writing center tutorials with international and US- educated multilingual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(2), 95–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
National Center for Education Statistics
(2012) The Nation’s Report Card: Writing 2011 (NCES 2012–470). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from [URL]
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education
(2011) Affordability and transfer: Critical to increasing baccalaureate degree completion. Retrieved from [URL]
Patthey, G., Thomas-Spiegel, J., & Dillon, P.
(2009) Educational pathways of generation 1.5 in community college writing courses. In M. Roberge, M. Siegal, & L. Harklau (Eds.) Generation 1.5 in college composition: Teaching academic writing to US-educate learners of ESL (pp. 135–149). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Roberge, Mark
(2009) A teacher’s perspective on Generation 1.5. In Mark Roberge, Meryl Siegal, & Linda Harklau (Eds.), Generation 1.5 in college composition (pp. 3–24). New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rumbaut, R. G. and Ima, K.
(1988) The adaptation of Southeast Asian refugee youth: A comparative study. Washington, D.C., U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement. Retrieved from [URL]
Silva, T.
(1993) Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 271, 657–677. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thonus, T.
(2003) Serving generation 1.5 learners in the university writing center. TESOL Journal, 12(1), 17–24. Retrieved from [URL]
Wang, P., & Machado, C.
(2015) Meeting the needs of Chinese English language learners at writing centers in America: A proposed culturally responsive model. Journal of International Students, 5(2), 143–160. Retrieved from [URL]
Yang, W., & Sun, Y.
(2012) The use of cohesive devices in argumentative writing by Chinese EFL learners at different proficiency levels. Linguistics and Education, 231, 31–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ye, D.
(2013) A Coh-Metrix analysis of language varieties between the journal articles of Chinese and American scientists. International Journal of English Linguistics, 3(4), 63–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, R.
(2015) A Coh-Metrix study of writings by majors of mechanic engineering in the vocational college. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 51, 1929–1934. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

de Kleine, Christa, Rachele Lawton & Mark Fenster
2022. Understanding Students’ Linguistic Histories at the Community College: The Effect of Age of Arrival on the Written Language of Resident L2 Students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Ferreira Mello, Rafael, Giuseppe Fiorentino, Hilário Oliveira, Péricles Miranda, Mladen Rakovic & Dragan Gasevic
2022. LAK22: 12th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference, ► pp. 404 ff. DOI logo
Mello, Rafael Ferreira, Giuseppe Fiorentino, Péricles Miranda, Hilário Oliveira, Mladen Raković & Dragan Gašević
2021. Towards Automatic Content Analysis of Rhetorical Structure in Brazilian College Entrance Essays. In Artificial Intelligence in Education [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 12749], ► pp. 162 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.