Investigating ESL Undergraduate Students' Composing Process of Source-Based Writing in an English for Academic Purposes Composition Course

• In Event: Moving Toward the Public Good: Collaborative Research on the Complexities of Multilingual Writing

Abstract

In English for academic purposes (EAP) context, reading and writing connections hold higher stakes, especially in second language (L2) writing instruction, because source-based writing ability is a threshold for L2 writers to become legitimate members in their academic disciplines (Polio & Shi, 2012). Due to this reason, researchers have investigated various source-based writing such as synthesis writing which requires writers to integrate selected content information from multiple sources with their critical thinking ability in order to achieve new insights (e.g., Solé et al., 2013). However, according to Hirvela (2016) synthesis writing and its composing process have not been researched rigorously unlike other source-based writing tasks (e.g., summary) and writing products such as plagiarism issues (Pecorari & Petrić, 2014).
Motivated by this research gap, classroom-based multiple case studies were conducted to investigate how a skilled and a less skilled English as a second language (ESL) undergraduate students composed source-based writing from multiple sources and what caused the different quality of their writings. I selected two Chinese students because they had the same first language (L1) and cultural backgrounds and were assigned to the same ESL composition course based on the ESL writing proficiency assessment results. However, they wrote very different quality of writings which they wrote to meet the course objectives despite the aforementioned similarities. Throughout a semester at a large public university in the U.S., various data was collected in the teacher-researcher’s class such as students’ synthesis writing samples, reading journals, stimulated recall protocols, and semi-structured interviews. The students’ composing process and their use of resources were analyzed by modifying composing process models (Spivey, 1990; Stein, 1990) which include various subprocesses (e.g., elaborating, organizing, selecting, connecting, etc.) to understand how they constructed meaning by engaging critically in academic reading and writing as they synthesized.
The findings indicated that both skilled and less skilled students were able to articulate similar notions of a well-written academic synthesis writing at the end of the semester. They also showed uses of similar resources (e.g., content knowledge, their L1 and L2 literacy skills, etc.) but different composing processes. The skilled student showed improved navigating skills between reading and writing, which represented a recursive and nonlinear cognitive process, as he understood how to use sources to strengthen his meaning construction process. On the other hand, the less skilled student relied heavily on one source and produced a list of summaries of sources, reflecting his limited L2 literacy skills, especially critical reading ability to organize and support his opinion. Thus, based on the findings, I, as a teacher-researcher, suggest the stakeholders (i.e., ESL composition programs and instructors) to collaborate on emphasizing critical reading and more explicit instruction on the composing process of source-based writing in EAP composing courses. Such collaborations would enhance ESL students’ engagement and involvement in academic contexts with their improved source-based writing skills as L2 writers.

Author

• Ju-A Hwang, The Ohio State University - Columbus