Practitioners working closely with second language (L2) writers in the US recognize at least two types of L2 students: international (IL2) and Generation 1.5 (G1.5) students. Some argue that specific differences in each group’s writing performance are evident (cf. Harklau, 2003; Reid, 2006); however, investigations into observable and measurable differences have been minimal. Using a Rasch measurement model, this study offers empiri cal evidence of how these students may differ in their writing performance, specifically with regard to grammatical, rhetorical, cohesive, sociolinguistic, and content c ontrol, in addition to essay length. Two separate statistical analyses were conducted: the first examined differences between IL2 and G1.5 students when modeled together as a single group; the second looked at how the groups compared when modeled separately. Results from the whole-group analysis showed the two groups differed only with regard to rhetorical control; the separate-group analysis revealed differences in length and in the difficulty rankings of the scoring components, with content control ranked at opposite extremes for the two groups. In neither analysis did the groups d iffer with regard to grammatical, cohesive, or sociolinguistic control as defined in this study. Results are interpreted in terms of students’ strengths and weaknesses relevant to placement decisions and instruction.
Angelova, M., & Riazantseva, A. (1999). “If you don’t tell me, how can I know?”: A case study of four international students learning to write the U.S. way. Written Communication, 16, 491—525.
2.
Bachman, L. ( 1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3.
Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. ( 1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
4.
Bhatia, V.K. ( 1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings . London: Longman.
5.
Bhatia, V.K. ( 2002). A generic view of academic discourse. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic Discourse (pp. 21—29). London: Pearson Education.
6.
Bond, T.G., & Fox, C.M. ( 2001). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in human sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7.
Bosher. S., & Rowekamp, J. ( 1998). The refugee/immigrant in higher education: The role of educational background. College ESL, 8, 23—42.
8.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S.C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9.
Canagarajah, A.S. ( 2006). Understanding critical writing. In P. K. Matsuda, M. Cox , J. Jordan, & C. Ortmeier-Hooper (Eds.), Second-language writing in the composition classroom: A critical sourcebook (pp. 210—224). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
10.
Chen, C-F. E. ( 2006). The development of e-mail literacy: From writing to peers to writing to authority figures. Language Learning & Technology , 10(2), 35—55.
11.
Chenoweth, N.A., & Hayes, J.R. ( 2001). Fluency in writing: Generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication, 18, 80—98.
12.
Cherry, R.D. ( 1988). Politeness in written persuasion. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 63—81.
13.
Connor, U. ( 2003). Changing currents in contrastive rhetoric: Implications for teaching and research. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 218—241). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
14.
Frodesen, J., & Starna, N. ( 1999). Distinguishing incipient and functional bilingual writers: Assessment and instructional insights gained through second-language writer profiles. In L. Harklau, K. Losey, & M. Siegal (Eds.) Generation 1.5 meets college composition: Issues in the teaching of writing to U.S.-educated learners of ESL (pp. 61—80). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15.
Grabowski, K. ( 2007). Reconsidering the measurement of pragmatic knowledge using a reciprocal written task format. Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics7, 1—29.
16.
Grant, L., & Ginther, A. ( 2000). Using computer-tagged linguistic features to describe L2 writing differences. Journal of Second Language Writing , 9, 123—145.
17.
Hagge, J., & Kostelnick, C. (1989). Linguistic politeness in professional prose: A discourse analysis of auditors’ suggestion letters, with implications for business communication pedagogy. Written Communication, 6, 312—339.
18.
Halliday, M.A.K. ( 1978). Language as social semiotic. Baltimore , MD: University Park Press.
19.
Harklau, L. ( 2000). From the ‘good kids’ to the ‘worst’: Representations of English language learners across educational settings. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 35—67.
20.
Harklau, L. ( 2003). Generation 1.5 students and college writing. Retrieved February 14, 2008, from http://www.ericdigests.org./2004—4/writing.html .
21.
Harklau, L., Losey, K. , & Siegal, M. (Eds.). ( 1999). Generation 1.5 meets college composition: Issues in the teaching of writing to U.S.-educated learners of ESL. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
22.
Hatch, E. ( 1994). Discourse and language education. New York: Cambridge University Press.
23.
Hinkel, E. ( 1997). Indirectness in L1 and L2 academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 361—386.
24.
Hyland, K. ( 2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education .
25.
Hyland, K. ( 2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process . Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 17—29.
26.
Hyland, K., & Milton, J. ( 1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 s tudents’ writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, 183—205.
27.
Hymes, D. ( 1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach . Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
28.
Intraprawat, P., & Steffensen, M.A. (1995). The use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL essays. Journal of Second Language Writing , 4, 253—273.
29.
Johns, A.M., Bawarshi, A., Coe, R.M., Hyland, K., Paltridge, B., Reiff, M.J., & Tardy, C. ( 2006). Crossing the boundaries of genre studies: Commentaries by experts. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 234—249.
30.
Kaplan, R.B. ( 1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education . Language Learning, 16, 1—20.
31.
Kobrin, J.L., Deng, H., & Shaw, E.J. ( 2007). Does quantity equal quality? The relationship between length of response and scores on the SAT essay. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 8, 1—15.
32.
Kroll, B. ( 1990). The rhetoric and syntax split: Designing a curriculum for ESL students. Journal of Basic Writing, 9, 40—55.
McNamara, T.F. ( 1996). Measuring second language performance. London: Longman.
37.
Muchinsky, D., & Tangren, N. ( 1999). Immigrant student performance in an academic intensive English program. In L. Harklau, K. Losey, & M. Siegal (Eds.) Generation 1.5 meets college composition: Issues in the teaching of writing to U.S.-educated learners of ESL (pp. 211—234). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
38.
Myford, C.M., & Dobria, L. ( 2006). FACETS introductory workshop. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, August 18—19, 2006.
39.
Nystrand, M. ( 1989). A social-interactive model of writing. Written Communication, 6(1), 66—85.
40.
Purpura, J.E. ( 2004). Assessing grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41.
Reid, J. ( 2006). ‘Eye’ learners and ‘ear’ learners: Identifying the language needs of international students and U.S. resident writers. In P. K. Matsuda, M. Cox, J. Jordan, & C. Ortmeier-Hooper (Eds.), Second-language writing in the composition classroom: A critical sourcebook (pp. 76—88). Boston, MA: Bedford/ St. Martin’s.
42.
Shaw, P., & Liu, E.T.-K. (1998). What develops in the development of second-language writing? Applied Linguistics, 19, 225—254.
43.
Swales, J.M. ( 1990). English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
44.
Widdowson, H.G. ( 1998). Communication and community: The pragmatics of ESP. English for Specific Purposes, 17, 3—14.
45.
Wishnoff, J.R. ( 2000). Hedging your bets: L2 learners’ acquisition of pragmatic devices in academic writing and computer-mediated discourse. Second Language Studies, 19, 119—148.
46.
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H-Y. ( 1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy and complexity. (Technical Report No. 17). Honolulu: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawai’i at Manoa.
