Written Communication Apr 2014

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

Stephen M. Doolan Texas A&M University – Corpus Christi

Abstract

Developmental composition courses serve a sizable and growing number of Generation 1.5 students, or long-term U.S. resident language learners, and it is believed that language challenges may be part of Generation 1.5 writers’ difficulty in controlling the academic register. The current study investigates possible similarities and differences between Generation 1.5 students ( n = 149) and two other student groups: mainstream first language (L1) writers ( n = 203) and more traditional second language (L2) writers ( n = 55), thus determining the extent to which language-use variables distinguish Generation 1.5 texts from those of their classmates. Results indicate significant differences between Generation 1.5 and L2 students on holistic writing quality, word errors, word class errors, verb errors, total identified errors, and spoken features of language. Generation 1.5 and L1 texts significantly differed on academic features of language. Implications are presented, suggesting that developmental Generation 1.5 writing may be more similar to L1 writing than has been previously reported.

Journal
Written Communication
Published
2014-04-01
DOI
10.1177/0741088314526352
CompPile
Open Access
Closed
Topics
Export
BibTeX RIS

Citation context

Cited by in this index (1)

  1. Gennaro (2016)
    Searching for differences and discovering similarities: Why international and r…
    Assessing Writing

References (54) · 5 in this index

  1. Allison H. (2009)
    Generation 1.5 in college composition
  2. 10.1017/CBO9780511621024
     ↗
  3. 10.1017/CBO9780511804489
     ↗
  4. Biber D. (1999)
    Longman grammar of spoken and written English
  5. Biber D. (2008)
    Handbook of research on writing: History, society, school, individual, text
Show all 54 →
  1. Celce-Murcia M. (2002)
    Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages
  2. CHENOWETH et al. (2001)
    Fluency in Writing: Generating Text in L1 and L2
    Written Communication
  3. Connerty M. (2009). Variation in academic writing among Generation 1.5 learners, native English-speaking lear…
  4. Connor (1990)
    Linguistic/Rhetorical Measures for International Persuasive Student Writing
    Research in the Teaching of English
  5. 10.1016/j.jslw.2009.02.002
     ↗
  6. 10.3998/mpub.770334
     ↗
  7. Cumming A. (2006)
    Analysis of discourse features and verification of scoring levels for independent and int…
  8. 10.1177/0265532209340190
     ↗
  9. Gennaro (2013)
    How different are they? A comparison of Generation 1.5 and international L2 lea…
    Assessing Writing
  10. Doolan S. M. (2011)
    CA-TESOL Journal
  11. Doolan S. M. (2011b). A comparison of Generation 1.5, L1, and L2 tertiary student writing (Unpublished doctor…
     ↗
  12. Doolan (2013)
    Generation 1.5 Writing Compared to L1 and L2 Writing in First-Year Composition
    Written Communication
  13. 10.1016/j.jslw.2011.09.001
     ↗
  14. Educational Testing Service (2004)
    Test of written English guide
  15. 10.2307/3587446
     ↗
  16. 10.3998/mpub.263445
     ↗
  17. Foin A. T. (2007)
    CATESOL Journal
  18. Frase L. (1999)
    Computer analysis of the TOEFL test of written English
  19. Frodesen J. (2009)
    Generation 1.5 in college composition
  20. Frodesen J. (1999)
    Generation 1.5 meets college composition: Issues in the teaching of writing to U.S.-educa…
  21. Goen-Salter S. (2002)
    CA-TESOL Journal
  22. Goen-Salter S. (2009)
    Generation 1.5 in college composition
  23. 10.3758/BF03195564
     ↗
  24. 10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00019-9
     ↗
  25. 10.4324/9781410603371
     ↗
  26. 10.4324/9781410602848
     ↗
  27. 10.2307/3586337
     ↗
  28. 10.1016/j.jslw.2003.09.001
     ↗
  29. Johnson R. A. (2007)
    Applied multivariate statistical analysis
  30. 10.1016/1060-3743(94)90018-3
     ↗
  31. Levi E. I. (2004). A study of linguistic and rhetorical features in the writing of non-English language backg…
  32. Lunsford et al. (2008)
    “Mistakes Are a Fact of Life”: A National Comparative Study
    College Composition and Communication
  33. 10.37514/JBW-J.2003.22.2.05
     ↗
  34. Matsuda P. K. (2008)
    Writing myths: Applying second language research to classroom teaching
  35. McNamara D. S., Louwerse M. M., Cai Z., Graesser A. (2005). Coh-Metrix version 1.4. Retrieved from http://coh…
  36. Mikesell L. (2007)
    10.5070/B5.36286
    CATESOL Journal  ↗
  37. Muchinsky D. (1999)
    Generation 1.5 meets college composition: Issues in the teaching of writing to U.S.-educa…
  38. Patthey G. (2009)
    Generation 1.5 in college composition
  39. 10.1111/0023-8333.31997003
     ↗
  40. 10.21832/9781853598500-012
     ↗
  41. Reppen R. (1994). Variation in elementary student language: A multi-dimensional perspective (Unpublished doct…
  42. Roberge M. (2009)
    Paper presented at the Symposium on Second Language Writing
  43. 10.4324/9780203885697
     ↗
  44. Rodby J. (1999)
    Generation 1.5 meets college composition: Issues in the teaching of writing to U.S.-educa…
  45. 10.1111/j.1747-7379.2004.tb00232.x
     ↗
  46. Rumbaut R. G. (1988)
    The adaptation of Southeast Asian refugee youth: A comparative study
  47. 10.1093/applin/19.2.225
     ↗
  48. Smith M. (2011)
    Accountability & continuous improvement in remedial education: Getting past go project
  49. Wolfe-Quintero K. (1998)
    Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, & complexity
CrossRef global citation count: 14 View in citation network → Build reading path →

Related articles

  1. Pedagogy Oct 2024
    Contributors ↗
    rhetorical criticism first-year composition writing pedagogy basic writing writing across the curriculum graduate education two-year college service learning teacher development revision argument collaborative writing assessment writing program administration multimodality multilingual writers literacy studies race and writing disability studies community literacy editorial matter
  2. Writing and Pedagogy Aug 2021
    ‘I do the peer review by myself’ ↗
    Magda Tigchelaar
    genre theory writing pedagogy basic writing graduate education qualitative research multilingual writers editorial matter
  3. Journal of Response to Writing Jan 2018
    Student Perceptions of Dynamic Written Corrective Feedback in Developmental Multilingual Writing Classes ↗
    Kurzer, Kendon
    writing pedagogy basic writing empirical research multilingual writers grammar and mechanics
  4. Basic Writing e-Journal 2018
    Graduate Writing is (Not) Basic Writing: The Politics of Developing Writing Courses for Graduate English Language Learners ↗
    Missy Watson
    writing pedagogy basic writing graduate education teacher development multilingual writers race and writing
  5. Teaching English in the Two-Year College Mar 2017
    Feature: Linking the Past to the Present: Using Literacy Narratives to Raise ESL Students’ Awareness about Reading and Writing Relationships ↗
    Heather B. Finn
    writing pedagogy basic writing multilingual writers literacy studies