Premium
Teaching writing to ESL graduate students: A model and an illustration
Author(s) -
Biggs John,
Lai Patrick,
Tang Catherine,
Lavelle Ellen
Publication year - 1999
Publication title -
british journal of educational psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.557
H-Index - 95
eISSN - 2044-8279
pISSN - 0007-0998
DOI - 10.1348/000709999157725
Subject(s) - psychology , writing process , mathematics education , graduate students , rhetorical question , academic writing , cognition , second language writing , professional writing , composition (language) , pedagogy , linguistics , second language , philosophy , neuroscience
Background. Graduate students, especially those writing in a second language, have specific writing needs. Previous research suggests that intervention might be more didactic than writing instruction frequently is. Aims. 1. To adapt a knowledge x levels x process model of writing (Biggs & Moore, 1993) to conceptualise the writing needs of graduate students. Students need to know certain rhetorical knowledge, and to apply cognitive space‐saving strategies at the appropriate place and level of ideation during writing. The model integrates the didactic and eclectic elements of Torrance, Thomas & Robinson's (1993) interventions with graduate students’ writing. 2. To develop and trial a workshop based on the model, addressing the writing needs of graduate students to whom English is a second language. Samples. Eighteen students from science‐related disciplines, and 16 from nonscience, participated in the workshop. All were enrolled in research higher degrees in a Hong Kong university where English is the required medium for the dissertation. Method. The workshops ran for 2 1/2 days each, focusing on dissertation writing, and writing for an academic journal. Before/after measures were taken on the Inventory of Processes in College Composition (IPIC) (Lavelle, 1993), and students completed an open‐ended questionnaire at the end of the workshop. Results. Three IPIC scales showed significant pre‐/post‐change: lower procedural and spontaneous/impulsive scores (surface‐related), higher elaborationist (deep‐related). Open‐ended feedback supported the view that