Exploring the Dynamics of Second Language Writing 2003
DOI: 10.1017/cbo9781139524810.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Second language writing in the twentieth century: A situated historical perspective

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
99
0
4

Year Published

2007
2007
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6
4

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 108 publications
(112 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
99
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…More recently, some researchers have presented the post-process approach for L2 writing (Atkinson, 2003;Matsuda, 2003), which adds more social dimensions to writers (Fujieda, 2006), but the process approach seems to remain preferred and approved approach. Currently, the process approach to writing has been generally accepted, and has been widely used, even though many researchers are still doubtful of its effectiveness.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…More recently, some researchers have presented the post-process approach for L2 writing (Atkinson, 2003;Matsuda, 2003), which adds more social dimensions to writers (Fujieda, 2006), but the process approach seems to remain preferred and approved approach. Currently, the process approach to writing has been generally accepted, and has been widely used, even though many researchers are still doubtful of its effectiveness.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recognizing the multiple challenges that academic genres may have for university learners in general, and university learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) in particular, many universities across the globe offer writing courses in which learners receive instruction on how to write these genres in English (Defazio, Jones, Tennat, & Hook, 2010;Matsuda, 1999Matsuda, , 2006. Unfortunately, in many of these courses, teachers often take a cognitive (Johns, 1997;Silva & Matsuda, 2002) as opposed to a situated sociocultural approach (Gebhard & Harman, 2011;Hyland, 2003Hyland, , 2004Johns, 2002;Martin, 2009).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the late 20th century, studies on the writing of English as a second language gradually developed, and, with its own theories, objects of study, research methods and research teams, it slowly became an independent discipline that carried the clear study scope (Hyland, 2003(Hyland, , 2009Kroll, 2003;Leki, Cumming, & Silva, 2008;Silva & Matsuda, 2012). Currently, the study of second language writing covers the following four areas (Archibald & Jeffery, 2000;Atkinson, 2003;Matsuda, 2003aMatsuda, , 2003b): (1) second language writing as process, including cognitive model, strategies of writing planning, learner's individual differences and the stages in writing process; (2) second language writing as product, including text analysis, error correction, comparative analysis, rhetoric analysis, and corpus analysis; (3) second language writing context, including social structure, register analysis and the investigations in knowledge, motivation, needs and other individual differences; (4) second language writing teaching, including the learning process, learning strategies, language development, classroom teaching, writing tests, and web courseware development. These four areas cover almost all fields in second language writing research, incorporating topics such as automatic scoring system (Lu, 2010;Warschauer & Ware, 2006), genre writing (Hyland, 2004b(Hyland, , 2007, cooperative writing (Dobao, 2015;Storch, 2005), grammar correction (D. Ferris, 1999; D. R. Ferris, 2011), writing motivation (Sasaki, 2011), writer's characteristics and differences (Ivanič & (Hyland, 2007), mother tongue transfer (Wolfersberger, 2003), interlanguage fossilization (Han & Odlin, 2006) and so on.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%