Sarah Joy Richards
Dr. Holmes
March 2014
Annotated Bibliography
Annotated Bibliography
Belcher, Diane. "Considering What We Know And Need To Know About Second Language
Writing." Applied Linguistics Review 3.1 (2012): 131-50. Communication & Mass Media
Complete. Web. In this text, the author presents research findings from several L2 writing
researchers and their respective studies. The findings support Belcher’s idea that there is
a “restrictive range” on L2 writing research due to a “vast majority” of studies being
conducted on small groups (144). Belcher effectively suggests that broadening the focus
group will help researchers in developing a universal standard for teaching L2 writing
(144). Conversely, the author also cites experts who believe the teaching of L2 writing
varies from student to student.
Belcher’s text is an excellent resource for not only identifying the weaker areas in L2
writing research, but identifying why they are weak. Belcher does not criticize the studies
cited in her work, but offers suggestions and guidance for how they could be improved or
altered to discover other facets of L2 writing research. The author also expertly advocates
for the need to study adults who pick up L2 writing outside of a classroom, in the
workforce. Belcher divides the information she presents into well-organized sections
which make the source ideal for quick referencing.
Richards 2
Ferris, Dana R. "The “Grammar Correction” Debate in L2 Writing: Where Are We, and Where
Do We Go from Here? (and What Do We Do in the Meantime …?)." Journal of Second
Language Writing 13.1 (2004): 49-62. Journal of Second Language Writing. Web. 21
Mar. 2014. In this work, Dana R. Ferris attempts to convince his readership that research
data on error feedback in L2 writing is virtually useless in telling if it is helpful or hurtful
to student learners (50). The work is part of an ongoing academic debate with John
Truscott who believes error feedback is harmful. The author’s intended audience is
instructors and researchers familiar with his and John Truscott’s articles about error
feedback in L2 writing.
The author emphasizes research that already exists in the field by compiling previous
findings into tables. Next, Ferris divides the research up into categories; however, these
seem too broad to be of any help in drawing a conclusion (51,53,57-59). Another
shortcoming is that Ferris has virtually no sources to back up his claims about his
interpretations from the tables. The same shortcoming can be said of his suggestions on
how research should be conducted in the future. A final mark against Ferris’ credibility is
the obvious slant towards his own work. Ferris states in the beginning of his work that the
publication is a direct product of a back and forth debate with John Truscott on the effects
of error feedback in L2 writing (51). The bias, coupled with the lack of sources in the
work, makes Ferris’ work less than ideal to be used as resource in relation to others in the
bibliography.
Kormos, Judit. "The Role Of Individual Differences In L2 Writing." Journal Of Second
Language Writing 21.4 (2012): 390-403. ERIC. Web. 23 Mar. 2014. Kormos, draws
Richards 3
attention to the importance of looking at the process of L2 writing rather than the finished
product (cite). The author examines the impact a student’s “difference factors aptitude,
working memory capacity, and motivation” can have on their L2 writing process
(Kormos, 400). To demonstrate this, parallels between the Kellogg Model’s three stages
(formulation, execution, and monitoring) and stages in the Model of Self-Regulated
learning behavior are demonstrated.
The author is transparent about the limitations of the paper due to its spotlight on only
one portion of the bigger L2 writing process picture. The author provides ample sources,
though few in-text examples to validate the paper’s claims. The sources used could be
found in other articles I used in this bibliography and some were articles read earlier in
the semester for class.
Matsuda, Paul K. "Composition Studies and ESL Writing: A Disciplinary Division of
Labor."Cross-talk in Comp Theory: A Reader. By Victor Villanueva. Urbana, IL:
National Council of Teachers of English, 2003. 673-92. Print.
Matsuda’s article points out the troubling truth that the learning needs of ESL students
are not being properly taken care of in universities due to lack of good communication
between TESL and English 101 course instructors (673-4).Speaking to an audience of
instructors and future instructors, Matsuda sums up how this communication fallout
happened, dating the source back to the 1940’s (685). The author spends the majority of
the article speaking of the history of how TESL came to be recognized as its own
Richards 4
professional unit in universities. Matsuda uses several excellent sources in his account
including records and roster lists of meetings during the time periods he speaks of (681).
There was no clear bias in the article; however, Matsuda seems adverse to the idea of not
training English 1101 instructors to work with ESL students (689). Matsuda’s works
cited was another great resource for tracking down other articles and furthered my trust in
his credibility. I felt Matsuda’s main points were properly backed up and, while most of
my other sources in this bibliography are about teacher feedback in ESL writing, this
article is essential for learning how ESL instruction was first implemented.
McMartin-Miller, Cristine. "How Much Feedback Is Enough?: Instructor Practices and Student
Attitudes toward Error Treatment in Second Language Writing." TOC: Assessing Writing 19
(2014): 24-35. Web. In this research study Cristine McMartin-Miller, speaking to an audience of
ESL writing instructors, strives to highlight the benefits and pitfalls of selective and
comprehensive corrective feedback for both students and teachers. These factors are
demonstrated by a research study conducted at a large American university with 3 writing
instructors and 19 volunteer students from their classrooms (27). There were two purposes to this
research study: to discover how these instructors’ teaching styles were different from each other
and suggested formats by experts in their field, and for seeing how their students felt about, and
used that feedback to better their writing.
The author spotlights the importance that instructors explain their feedback processes to their
students early on (33). This was backed up sufficiently with student feedback that came from
interviews conducted by McMartin-Miller that showed many students felt misled to learn that
Richards 5
their instructor was only “selectively” marking their paper (31). McMartin-Miller backed up her
findings with other credible sources (including some in this bibliography). The transparency of
her article (she admitted the limitations that come from so small a study group) helped her
credibility. There did seem to be a slight bias to selective feedback during the course of the
article yet, but both selective and comprehensive feedbacks were advocated for at different
points in the article. While an interesting starting point, I don’t feel this study alone could change
opinions on which type of feedback is better for ESL learners.