| Summary: | This study describes the products, processes and perceptions of
Japanese ESL students with varying degrees of writing expertise in their L1 as
they engaged in English composition tasks. Case studies were
impressionistically chosen from profiles which included the writers' range of
experience in L1 writing, their attitude toward L1 writing, their self-ratings of
their L1 writing ability and holistically assessed samples of their L1 writing. Of
the six chosen, three had relatively strong backgrounds in Japanese writing;
three did not. Writers were observed across two ESL compositions tasks — a
description and an argument. Written products were holistically assessed
using the ESL Composition Profile (Jacobs, Zinkgraf, Wormuth, Hartfiel and
Hughey, 1981). Protocols of the writers' "thinking-aloud" during composing
sessions and retrospective interviews held immediately afterward yielded
qualitative data concerning the types of processes - which writers engaged in
as they composed. Descriptions of the writers' perceptions of the task demands
and their previous writing instruction in Japanese and English (L2) are
considered in interpreting the findings.
On the first task (the argument), writers with more LI writing
expertise performed better than writers with less expertise in L1 writing; on
the second task (the description), they performed better than two of the three
less expert L1 writers. Better performance of the stronger L1 writers was
observed across all categories of the ESL Composition profile: content,
organization, language use, vocabulary and mechanics. Process data showed
that stronger L1 writers exhibited more control over the planning of their
texts. Their "think-aloud" protocols were more often done in English and
generally provided a richer source of data than those of less proficient L1
writers. No correspondence was found between second language proficiency,
according to either measure, and written products or writing processes. Data
from interviews held with the writers suggested that they had received little
explicit writing instruction in L1 or L2. Writers appeared to lack familiarity
with various modes of English discourse organization which led them to view
the task demands as similar.
|
|---|
