You are on page 1of 24

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.

(TESOL)

Initiating ESL Students into the Academic Discourse Community: How Far Should We Go?
Author(s): Ruth Spack
Source: TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Mar., 1988), pp. 29-51
Published by: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3587060
Accessed: 30-01-2016 13:46 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3587060?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley and Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to TESOL Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 148.88.244.239 on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:46:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TESOL QUARTERLY,Vol.22, No. 1, March1988

InitiatingESL StudentsInto the


AcademicDiscourse Community:
How Far Should We Go?
RUTH SPACK
and BostonUniversity
TuftsUniversity

In theinterest of findingways to help theirstudentssucceedin


universitystudies, college-levelL2 writingresearchersand
teachershave endeavoredfor years to define the natureof
academicwriting tasks.The effortto determine whatacademic
writingis and what ESL studentsneed to know in orderto
produceit has led to thedevelopment of a numberof different
approaches to the of
teaching writing. Most recently,thiseffort
has led to a problematic trendtowardhavingteachersofEnglish,
includingteachersof freshman composition, teach studentsto
writein otherdisciplines.Thistrendhas emergedin responseto
criticismof previouswritingprograms,analysesof surveysof
academicwriting tasks,andmovements suchas Writing Acrossthe
Curriculum and Englishforspecificpurposes.Thisarticlereviews
studiesof Li writing programs in whichstudents learnto writein
variousdisciplines, discussestheimplicationsof theresearchers'
findings,and argues that (a) the teachingof writingin the
disciplinesshouldbe leftto theteachersof thosedisciplinesand
(b) L2 Englishcompositionteachersshould focus on general
principles ofinquiryand rhetoric, withemphasison writing from
sources.

Withinthe last decade, numerousapproaches to the teachingof


writingin programsforESL college studentshave been tried,and
much discussionhas focused on the most appropriateapproach to
adopt (see the TESOL QuarterlyForum contributions of Horowitz,
1986c/Liebman-Kleine,1986/Horowitz,1986b/Hamp-Lyons,1986/
Horowitz, 1986a; Reid, 1984b/Spack, 1985a/Reid, 1985; Reid,
1984a/Zamel, 1984). Though a misleading process/product,or
process-centered/content-based, dichotomyhas characterizedthe
debate, ESL writingresearchersand teachershave generallyagreed
that the goal of college-level L2 writingprograms is to prepare
studentsto become betteracademic writers.

29

This content downloaded from 148.88.244.239 on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:46:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
However,theachievement ofthisgoalis complicatedby at least
two major factors.One is that we have not yet satisfactorily
determined, despitenumeroussurveys, whatacademicwritingis,
an issue thatthisarticleexamines.The otheris thatthereis most
oftena large gap betweenwhat studentsbringto the academic
community and whattheacademiccommunity expectsofthem.
In the case of nativeEnglish-speaking basic writers-academi-
callydisadvantagedstudents who have achievedonlyverymodest
standardsofhighschoolliteracy-Bizzell(1982)pointsoutthatthe
students'social situationand previoustraining may hampertheir
abilityto succeed in theacademy.In otherwords,theirproblems
withacademic writingmay not lie in a lack of innateabilitybut
ratherin thesocial and culturalfactorsthatinfluencecomposing.
The gap is even widerforESL studentswho can be classifiedas
basic writers, forit includesL2 linguisticand culturaldeficiencies.
Even for ESL studentswho are highlyliteratein theirnative
language,a similargap exists:The students' lackofL2 linguistic and
culturalknowledgecan standin thewayofacademicsuccess.
It is clearlythe obligationof the ESL college-levelwriting
teacher,whetherteachingbasic writersor highlyliteratestudents,
to finda waytonarrowthegap. As Bizzell(1982)suggests, we must
help students master thelanguage and culture of the university;the
roleof theuniversity writingteacheris to initiatestudents intothe
academicdiscoursecommunity. The issueof concernin thisarticle
is themeansthrough whichwe shouldfulfill ourrole.
My concern stems from what I perceive to be a disturbing trend
in L2 writing a trendthathas been influenced
instruction, bothby
theWriting AcrosstheCurriculum (WAC) movement in L1 writing
instruction and theEnglishforspecificpurposes(ESP) movement
in L2 instruction. This trendtowardhavingteachersof English,
including teachers of freshman composition, teachstudents towrite
in disciplinesotherthanEnglishmaylead manyin thecomposition
fieldto assignpapers thattheyare ill-equippedto handle.The
purposeof thisarticleis to remindteachersof Englishthatwe are
justified in teachinggeneralacademicwriting and to arguethatwe
shouldleave theteachingofwriting inthedisciplines totheteachers
of thosedisciplines.

DEFININGACADEMICWRITING
Determiningwhatacademic writingis and what ESL students
need to knowin orderto produceithas notbeen an easytaskfor
researchersand teachers. In fact, a number of L2 writing
instructors,including this author, have tried several different

30 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 148.88.244.239 on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:46:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
approaches,faithfully followingtextbookguidelines.Early ESL
writing textbooks were largelyworkbooksthatfostered controlled
composition and that did not satisfystudents' need to learn how to
produce theirown body of work for their other university courses.
Laterefforts tohavestudents createtheirownacademictextsoften
resultedin absurdassignments thatstudentscould not logically
fulfill.For example,one textbook(Bander,1978) suggestedthat
science studentsbegin with a topic sentence such as "The
importanceof oxygento mankindcannotbe-overstated" and that
humanities studentsshowhow "therevolutions thattookplace in
France,theUnitedStates,and Russiaresultedin majorchangesin
thosecountries" (p. 30). (This,accordingtothebook,couldbe done
in one paragraph!)
ESL writingtextbooksbegan at thistimeto be modeledafter
textbooksfornativespeakers(NSs) of English,whichemphasized
therhetorical patterns researchers claimedwerecommonlyfound
in Americanacademic prose. These books ask studentsto write
whole pieces of discourse by imitatingmodels (which are,
paradoxically, oftenexcerptsrather thanwholepiecesofdiscourse)
and to describe,compare,classify, define,and determine thecause
and effectofeverything fromreligion to Chinesefood.
Thoughstillpopularwithmanyteachers, thisapproachhas been
calledintoquestioninbothL2 and L1 fieldsbecause"starting from
and
givenpatterns asking studentsto find topics and produceessays
to fitthemis a reversalof thenormalwriting process"(Shih,1986,
p. 622) and turnsattentionaway fromthe meaningfulact of
communication in a socialcontext(Connors,1981).Furthermore, a
recent (though admittedlylimited) survey of actual writing
assignment handoutsgivento university studentsby teachersin
coursesotherthanwriting(Horowitz,1986d) revealsthatthese
assignments do notask students to startfrompatterns and produce
essays to fitthem. If further research bears thisout,itwill be safeto
say that thispattern-centered approach is not suitablefor a program
thatemphasizesacademicwriting.
In responseto some of thiscriticism, and again followingthe
modelof NS writing textbooks, the ESL field hasbegunto publish
textbooksthatemphasizethe cognitiveprocessof writing.This
approachis based on theresearchof composition specialistswho
have drawn on the theories of cognitive psychologistsand
psycholinguists to explorethe mentalprocedureswritersuse to
communicate ideas (see, forexample,theLi researchofFlower&
Hayes, 1977,1981; the L2 researchof Lay, 1982; Raimes,1985;
Zamel, 1982,1983). The thrustof theseESL textbooks(see, for
example,Hartfiel, Hughey,Warmuth, & Jacobs,1985) is to teach

THE ACADEMIC DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 31

This content downloaded from 148.88.244.239 on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:46:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
studentssystematicthinkingand writingskillsso thattheycan use
their own composing strategies effectively to explore ideas.
Emphasis is on self-generatedtopics, with thematicallyorganized
readingsusually,but not always, actingas springboardsforideas.
Yet the writingproduced in such courseshas notbeen universally
accepted as academic, even thoughit takes place in the academy.
Much of the writing is based solely on students' personal
experiences or interests.Although this provides studentswith a
drive to learn to writeby focusingon what reallymattersto them,
ithas itsdrawbacks. As Bazerman (1980) pointsout,in emphasizing
the writer'sindependentself,teachersignorethe factthatwritingis
"not contained entirelyin the envelope of experience, native
thought,and personalmotivationto communicate"(p. 657).
I would argue thatsince the personalessay as a genreinformsthe
discipline known as English literature,thiskind of writingcan be
considered academic. It also serves as a vehicle forreflectionand
self-expression forspecialistsin manyotherfields,includingscience
(e.g., Cole, 1985), medicine (e.g., Thomas, 1983), and engineering
(e.g., Petroski,1986). And thepersonalessay plays a role in students'
future academic success: When they apply for transfer,for
scholarships,or to graduate school, they are asked to write on
personal topics in order to sell themselves and presumably to
display theirwritingskills.Still,thereis no evidence thatthe skills
learned in thiskind of writingadequately provide studentswiththe
tools theyneed to produce the academic writingrequired in other
courses.
Althoughthe cognitiveprocess approach is admired because of
itsemphasison writingas a learningprocess and itsdevelopmentof
useful,teachable skills,MacDonald (1987) reveals itslimitations:Its
L1 research(e.g., Flower & Hayes, 1977,1981) is based on onlyone
kind of writing,whichMacDonald describesas "composingwithan
undefinedproblem,withthe writerforcedto create a problem for
him- or herself. . . a kind of composing traditionallyassociated
with English departments--whether interpretationsof literatureor
personal essays" (p. 328). Other kinds of writing,such as scientific
or social science writing, which have differentdemands and
constraints,are ignored. Raimes's (1985) L2 research, based on
students'personalexperienceessays,has been challengedon similar
grounds(Horowitz, 1986c).
A furthercriticismof a process approach thatpromotesstudent-
generated meaning and formis thatit does not acknowledge that
"most writingfor academic classes is in response to a specific
assignmentor prompt" (Johns,1986, p. 253). Shaughnessy(1977),
Bizzell (1982), and Rose (1985) thereforeclaim that it does not

32 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 148.88.244.239 on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:46:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
preparestudents tograpplewiththechallengesofacademiclifebut
ratherpostponestheirconfrontation withthe "complexlinguistic
and rhetorical expectationsoftheacademy"(Rose,1985,p. 357).
Bizzell (1982) arguesthatto succeedin theiruniversity studies,
studentsneedcriticaltraining and recommends a "social-contextual
approach" that "demystifiesthe institutionalstructureof
knowledge"(p. 196). Researchersand textbookwriters,Bizzell
contends,need to focuson theconventions of academicdiscourse,
emphasizingtherelationship betweendiscourse,community, and
knowledge.In findingways to "demystify" academic discourse,
ESP researchershave been at the forefront of genreanalysis,
identifying and analyzing"key genres,such as Case Studiesin
Business,Legislativedocumentsin Law, lab reportsin Science,
disease-descriptions in Medicineand Agriculture" (Swales, 1986,
p. 18).
L1 and L2 researchers have conducteda numberof surveysto
determine whatwriting tasksareactuallyassignedacrossacademic
disciplines.Horowitz(1986d) has foundfaultwithsome of the
studies(Bridgeman & Carlson,1984;Johns,1981,1985;Kroll,1979;
Ostler,1980),which,he pointsout,"beg thequestion"of whatthe
tasksare: "Insteadof tryingto discoverand classifyuniversity
writingtasks-a logicalpriorendeavor-theybeganwitha set of
preconceived classifications,forcingon 'the respondentsthe
particularschemeused in each survey"(p. 448). The surveysof
Behrens(1980),Rose (1983),and Horowitz(1986d) take a more
ethnographic view,creating classifications
afterexamining thedata.
Nevertheless,the Horowitz surveyhas been criticizedon the
groundsthat it is a limitedstudy (only 38 of the 750 faculty
members who were contacted responded; only 54 writing
assignments werecollected)(Raimes,1987)and thatitignoresthe
contextinwhichthetaskswereassigned(Zamel,1987).
Untilwe collectmoreassignments, interview theteacherstolearn
thepurposesoftheassignedtasks,observethecoursesinwhichthe
tasksareassigned,examinetheresulting studentessays,and analyze
theteacherresponsesto and evaluations ofthesepapers,we cannot
trulyunderstand thenatureof theacademicwritingstudentsare
asked to produce.Furthermore, we shouldnot forgetthatit is
important to takea critical
look at theseassignments. Havingseen
numerousexamplesof writingassignments for othercourses,I
suspectthatone reason so few facultymembersrespondedto
Horowitzis thattheymay have been reluctantto show English
teacherstheirownpoorlywritten orpoorlydesignedtexts.The fact
thatpapersassignedby teachersin otherdisciplinesare different
fromthose assigned in freshmancompositionclasses-the finding

THE ACADEMIC DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 33

This content downloaded from 148.88.244.239 on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:46:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
of several surveys-does not necessarilymean thatthe formerare
superior.
Still, it is impossible and perhaps foolish to ignore the
implicationsof thesurveys:The writingstudentsdo in coursesother
than English compositionis rarelydependent solely on theirown
generalknowledge base. Rather,"studentswill be confrontedwith
eitheracademic or professionalwritingtasksthatsurfacein relation
to textsof various kinds (literary,historical,psychological,legal,
managerial) or data (computer, laboratory-testing,statistical,
chemical)" (Scheiber,1987,p. 15). These assignmentsare viewed as
a means of promotingunderstandingof the contentpresented in
subject-matter courses (Shih,1986). Furthermore, writingacademic
papers involves the recursiveprocesses of drafting,revising,and
editing (Shih, 1986). Therefore,writingteachers can comfortably
design process-centeredcourses around text-basedor data-based
tasks in which writtenlanguage acts as a medium for learning
somethingelse. What thatsomethingelse should be is the focus of
thisarticle.

TEACHING WRITING IN THE DISCIPLINES


Until fairlyrecently,studentswrote the various kinds of papers
listed above only in classes other than English, with the obvious
exception of essays related to literarytexts.But therehas been a
growingtendencyin both L1 and L2 compositioninstruction to add
theresponsibility of teachingwritinginotherdisciplinesto theother
responsibilitiesof English department writing programs. It is
beyond the scope of thisarticleto examine all the reasons forthis
trend; only two of the influencesare touched on in this section:
WritingAcross the Curriculum,an L1 movement,and English for
specificor academic purposes,an L2 movement.

WritingAcrossthe Curriculum
For a number of years, faculty have complained about
weaknesses in students'abilityto produce papers of highqualityin
subject-area courses--weaknessesattributedin part to a loosening
of standardsin theacademy and in partto thechange in thestudent
population in the 1960s and 1970s from a somewhat elitist,
homogeneous group to an academically underprepared group
representingdiverse culturesand educational backgrounds.Partly
in response to thisconcern,a movementknown as WritingAcross
the Curriculum, modeled on a British program, took hold in
colleges and universitiesin the 1970s,its purpose to restorewriting

34 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 148.88.244.239 on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:46:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
to its centralplace in the curriculaof institutions of learning
(Maimon,1984). Thoughtherehave been severalWAC models,
they have shared the goal of encouraginginstructors in all
disciplinesto makewriting an inevitablepartof theteachingand
learningprocessin theircourses.In facultydevelopment seminars
teachersof Englishhave collaboratedwithsubject-area instructors
so thatthelattercan learnmoreaboutwriting.
ButWAC programshave notalwaysmetwithsuccess(Russell,
1987). Obstaclessuch as "increasedteachingloads, largeclasses,
administrative lack of collegialsupport,pressures
responsibilities,
to research,publish,writegrantsand the like" (Fulwiler,1984,
p. 119) on teachersin otherdisciplineshave caused someto refuse
the extraburdenof introducing the writingprocess into their
courses.Furthermore, the lack of understanding on the part of
Englishdepartment facultyof the processesinvolvedin writing
essaysthatare neitherpersonalnorinterpretive has led to counter-
productivefacultyworkshops(Applebee,1986; Fulwiler,1984).
Collaborativefaculty workshops haveonlyrecently begunto focus
on theprocessesand strategies involvedinscientific, technical, and
social science writing,perhaps because researchershave only
recentlybegun studyingthe writingprocessesof scientists(see
Gilbert& Mulkay,1984;Myers,1985;and,fora discussion ofthese
and otherstudies,Swales,1987),engineers (Selzer,1983),and social
scientists
(Becker,1986).
Facultydevelopmentseminarsnow bringteachersof English
together withsubject-area instructorsnotonlyso thatthelattercan
learnmoreaboutwriting, butalso so thattheformer canlearnmore
aboutthesubjectarea (Dick & Esch,1985).In writing and planning
linkedcourseswithcolleagues,the Englishcomposition teacher's
generalgoalofstrengthening students'
writing skillsis becomingthe
morespecificgoal of training studentsto handlethetasksof the
other disciplines.This goal has led today to the creationof
programssuch as thatat Beaver College (describedin Maimon,
Belcher,Hearn,Nodine,& O'Connor,1981),whicharebuilton the
foundation of a cross-disciplinary,
requiredfreshman composition
course.L1 textbooksdesignedforuse in suchEnglishcomposition
coursesincludeinstructions forwritingin otherdisciplines-case
studiesin the social sciences,laboratoryreportsin the natural
sciences,and so on (e.g.,Bazerman,1985;Maimonet al., 1981).

forSpecific
English forAcademicPurposes
Purposes/English
AtapproximatelythesametimetheWAC movement was gaining
prominenceinL1 writing theESP movement
instruction, had taken

THE ACADEMIC DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 35

This content downloaded from 148.88.244.239 on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:46:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
hold in the field of L2 acquisition. ESP programs arose as a
"practical alternative to the 'general' orientation of language
teaching:culturaland literaryemphases,educationforlife"(Maher,
1986,p. 113). Taking as itsfocusscience and technology-the fields
with the heaviest concentrationsof internationalstudents-ESP
creates courses,taughtby Englishlanguage teachers,whose aim is
generallyto fulfillthepracticalneeds of L2 learnersand specifically
to produce technicians and technocratswho are proficientin
English (Coffey,1984). Collaboration, or team teaching,between
the language instructorand the instructorin the otherdisciplineis
the preferredmethod of instructionbut is possible "only where
there is a high level of goodwill and mutual interest and
understanding"(Coffey,1984,p. 9).
When the students'needs consistof "the quick and economical
use of the Englishlanguage to pursue a course of academic study"
(Coffey, 1984, p. 3), English for academic purposes (EAP) is
offered. The incorporationof writinginto the EAP curriculum,
however, necessitatescollaborationwiththe instructorin the other
discipline,followingwhat Shih (1986) calls the "adjunct model" of
many universitycompositionprogramsfornative students.But the
developmentof such programsforESL studentshas been slow, and
Shih recommendsthatwe learn fromexistingprograms:
The potentialcontributionsand possiblelimitationsof theadjunct-
courseapproachforESL programsin general,and forpreparingESL
studentsto handleuniversitywritingtasksin particular,remainto be
evaluated.Whatis needed,minimally, is cooperationfromsubject-area
instructorsand ESL facultywillingnessto step into subject-area
classroomsandkeepup withclassevents.ForESL instructors seekingto
setup adjunctcourses,theexperiences
ofcomposition adjunctprograms
alreadyin place fornativestudentsare a richsourceof information.
(p.640)
The next section of this article examines studies of these NS
programsand discussestheimplicationsof theresearchers'findings.

STUDIES OF WRITING PROGRAMSIN THE DISCIPLINES


AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS
Several L1 programshave been instituted to introducestudentsto
the methods of inquiry various disciplines.In typicalprograms,
in
English teachers have collaborated with teachers in other
disciplines,such as biology (Wilkinson,1985), psychology(Faigley
& Hansen, 1985), and sociology (Faigley & Hansen, 1985), linking
the compositionsto subject matterin the other course. Investiga-
tions of these programsreveal some obvious advantages: Students

36 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 148.88.244.239 on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:46:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
learnnew formsof writingwhichas professionalstheymightneed;
theyhave more timeto write,since thereis less reading due to the
fact thatone subject matteris employed fortwo courses; and their
discussions of student papers are more informative, since
knowledge is sharedamong class members.
However, thedisadvantagesof such a programare equally,ifnot
more, significant,as Wilkinson(1985) and othersshow, and should
be of greatconcernto the Englishteacher.Firstof all, it is difficult
for a writingcourse to have a carefullyplanned pedagogical or
rhetoricalrationalewhen it is dependenton anothercontentcourse;
furthermore,the timing of assignmentsis not always optimal.
Second, theprogramcan raise falseexpectationsamong thefaculty
as well as among the students.English faculty,even when they
collaborate with content teachers,find they have little basis for
dealing with the content.They thereforefind themselvesin the
uncomfortableposition of being less knowledgeable than their
students. Students likewise can resent finding themselves in a
situationin which theirinstructorcannot fullyexplain or answer
questions about the subject matter. Faigley and Hansen (1985)
observed collaborative courses in which completely different
criteriaforevaluationwere applied to students'papers by the two
teachers because the English teacher did not recognize when a
studentfailedto demonstrateadequate knowledgeof a disciplineor
showed a good grasp of new knowledge.
The same phenomenoncan hold truein L2 writinginstruction.
Pearson (1983) findsthat"theinstructor cannotalways conveniently
divorce the teachingof formfromthe understandingof content"
(pp. 396-397).This drawback is oftenmentionedonlyin passing in
articles recommending that English teachers use technical and
scientificmaterialstheyare not familiarwith (see Hill, Soppelsa, &
West, 1982). But the lack of controlover contenton the part of
English teachers who teach in the other disciplines is a serious
problem. This concern is reflectedin a state-of-the-art article on
Englishformedical purposes (EMP):
A sense of insecurityand uncertainty can sometimesbe observed
amongstEMP teachersregardingtheireffectiverolesas lay persons
teaching'medicalEnglish'amongmedicalprofessionals. ...
Occasionally,the specialistinformant,who is co-opted on to a
teachingprogramme, harbourssuspicionsaboutthelanguageteacher's
motives.Considerthe view of the DUODECIM [FinnishMedical
Society]teamofdoctors:'We believethatitis essentialtohaveteachers
entirelyathomeinmedicineandEnglishandwhohavesomeexperience
in writingand lecturing'(Collan, 1974:629),and 'Too few teachers

THE ACADEMIC DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 37

This content downloaded from 148.88.244.239 on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:46:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
combineenoughexperience intheuseoftheEnglishlanguageingeneral
and knowledgeof thespecialityin particular'(Lock et al., 1975:cover).
'Is theteachertryingtoteachmysubject?''Whatifs/hegetsthemedical
bitswrongand misleadsthelearners?'(Maher,1986,p. 138)
In spite of these drawbacks, some investigatorsclaim that it is
possible foran Englishteacherto conduct a course thatfocuses on
writing in a particular discipline if the teacher learns how a
discipline creates and transmitsknowledge. This is accomplished
by examiningthe kinds of issues a disciplineconsidersimportant,
why certainmethodsof inquiryand not othersare sanctioned,how
the conventionsof a discipline shape text in that discipline,how
individualwritersrepresentthemselvesin a text,how textsare read
and disseminatedwithinthe discipline,and how one textinfluences
subsequent texts(Faigley & Hansen, 1985; Herrington,1985).
This exploration, of course, would involve a great deal of
commitment,as anyone who has studied a particular field or
discipline knows. Specialists in second language instruction,for
example, have spent years acquiring the knowledge and under-
standing that enable them to recognize the issues that dominate
discussion in the field (e.g., communicative competence), the
methods of inquiryemployed (e.g., ethnography),the structureof
manuscriptsfocusingon those issues (e.g., the TESOL Quarterly
format),the names associated with various issues (e.g., Krashen/
Input Hypothesis;Carrell/schematheory;Zamel/writingprocess),
and the impact a given articlemighthave on thinkingand research
in the field.
It seems that only the rare individualteacher can learn another
discipline, for each discipline offers a different system for
examining experience, a differentangle for looking at subject
matter, a differentkind of thinking (Maimon et al., 1981).
Furthermore,whereas the transmissionof a discipline within
contentcoursesprimarilyrequiresthatstudentscomprehend,recall,
and display informationin examinations,writingin the disciplines
requiresa complete,active,strugglingengagement withthefactsand
principlesofa discipline,
an encounter
withthediscipline's textsand the
incorporation of theminto one's own work, the framingof one's
knowledgewithinthemyriadconventions thathelp definea discipline,
thepersuading thatone'sknowledgeis legitimate.
ofotherinvestigators
(Rose,1985,p. 359)
The teaching of writingin a discipline,then,involves even more
specialized knowledge and skills than does the teaching of the
subject matteritself.
The difficultyof teaching writing in another discipline is
compounded when we realize thatwithineach discipline,such as

38 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 148.88.244.239 on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:46:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
the social sciences,thereare subdisciplines,each withitsown set of
conventions. Reflection on personal events, for example, is
considered legitimateevidence in sociologyand anthropology,but
not in behavioral psychology (Rose, 1983). Even withinsubdisci-
plines, such as anthropology,thereare other subdisciplineswith
theirown sets of conventions.The articlesof physicalanthropolo-
gists, for example, resemble those of natural scientists,whereas
those of cultural anthropologistssometimes resemble those of
literaryscholars(Faigley & Hansen, 1985).
To furthercomplicate matters,no disciplineis static.In virtually
all academic disciplinesthereis controversyconcerningthevalidity
of approaches, controversythatnonspecialistsare usuallyunaware
of untilit is covered in the popular media (see, for example, Silk,
1987, for a discussion of the recent debate between political and
anthropologicalhistorians).In addition,the principlesof reasoning
in a discipline may change over time, even in science, which is
affectedby the emergence of new mathematicaltechniques,new
itemsof apparatus,and even new philosophicalprecepts (Yearley,
1981). Formal scientificpapers, then,thoughoftenconsideredfinal
statementsof facts,are primarilycontributionsto scientificdebate
(Yearley, 1981).
And althoughwe may be able to read and studytextsfromother
disciplines,analyze genres, and therebylearn writingstylesand
conventionsto teach our students,we should also be aware of any
critical stance in relation to the texts. For example, Woodford
(1967), editorof a scholarlyscientificresearchjournal,has mocked
the stateof scientificwriting:
The articlesin our journals-even the journals with the highest
standards-are,by and large,poorlywritten. Some of theworstare
producedbythekindofauthorwhoconsciously pretends toa "scientific
scholarly" style.He takeswhatshouldbe lively,inspiring,
andbeautiful
and, in an attemptto makeit seem dignified, chokesit to deathwith
statelyabstractnouns;next,inthenameofscientific he fits
impartiality,
it witha completeset of passive constructions to drainaway any
remaining life'sblood or excitement;
thenhe embalmstheremainsin
molassesof polysyllable, wrapsthecorpsein an impenetrable veil of
vogue words,and buriesthestiffold mummywithmuchpomp and
circumstance inthemostdistinguishedjournalthatwilltakeit. (p. 743)
Woodford argues that this kind of writingis damaging to the
studentswho read it. In his experience as a teacher of graduate
studentsof science, he has found thatit adverselyaffectsstudents'
ability to read, write, and think well. (English teachers, who
traditionallyhave seen themselvesas purveyorsof effectiveprose,

THE ACADEMIC DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 39

This content downloaded from 148.88.244.239 on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:46:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
might do well to wonder why they should present such poorly
writtentextsto theirstudents.)
Even studyinga finishedproduct-whether well writtenor not-
cannot prepare English teachers to teach studentshow writersin
otherdisciplineswrite.A writtenproductsuch as a scientificreport
is merely a representationof a researchprocess, which is finally
summarizedforpeers; itis nota representation of a writingprocess.
To teach writing,writingteachersshould teach thewritingprocess;
and to teach the writingprocess, theyshould know how to write.
But English teachersare not necessarilyequipped to writein other
disciplines.Testimonyto thistruthappears in the ESP literature:
In theauthor'sexperience, everyattemptto writea passage,however
satisfactoryit seemedon pedagogicgrounds, was promptly vetoedby
solecismofsomekind
adviserbecausea technical
theProject'sscientific
had been committed. The ESP writer,howeverexperienced,simply
does notknowwhena mistakeofthiskindis beingcommitted. (Coffey,
1984,p. 8)
To learn to write in any discipline, students must become
immersed in the subject matter; this is accomplished through
reading,lectures,seminars,and so on. They learn by participating
in the field,by doing,by sharing,and by talkingabout it withthose
who know more. They can also learn by observing the process
throughwhich professionalacademic writersproduce textsor, if
thatis not possible, by studyingthatprocess in the typeof program
recommended by Swales (1987) forteachingthe researchpaper to
nonnative-speaking graduate students. They will learn most
efficiently fromteacherswho have a solid groundingin the subject
matterand who have been throughtheprocess themselves.
I do notdeny thatprogramsthatinstructstudentsto writein other
disciplines can work. But a review of the L1 literature(e.g.,
Herrington,1985) and the L2 literature(e.g., Swales, 1987) on
successful programs reveals that the teachers are themselves
immersedin the discipline.For example, Herrington's(1985) study
is an observation of senior-levelengineeringcourses taught by
engineeringfaculty. And Swales's list of publications reveals a
backgroundin scientificdiscoursedatingback at least to 1970.

ACADEMIC WRITING TASKS FOR


ESL COLLEGE STUDENTS
English teacherscannot and should not be held responsiblefor
teachingwritingin the disciplines.The best we can accomplishis to
create programs in which students can learn general inquiry

40 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 148.88.244.239 on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:46:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
rhetorical
strategies, and tasksthatcan transfer
principles, to other
coursework.Thishas been ourtraditional role,and it is a worthy
one. The materialswe use shouldbe thosewe can fullyunderstand.
The writing projectswe assignand evaluateshouldbe thosewe are
capable ofdoingourselves.The remainder ofthisarticleis devoted
to practicalsuggestions
forincorporating academicwriting intoan
English compositioncourse designedfor ESL undergraduates,
withouttheneed forlinkingthecoursewithanothersubject-area
program.

Working WithData
Accordingto a numberof surveysdiscussedearlier,students are
oftenaskedtoworkwithdata,eitheras observers oras participants.
These experiences can become a part of the writingclass
In theLi literature,
instruction. Hillocks(1984,1986)recommends
thatwe engagestudents in a processof examiningvariouskindsof
data-either objects such as shells or photographs, or sets of
information suchas arguments. Studentscan be led to formulate
and testexplanatorygeneralizations,observeand reportsignificant
details,and generatecriteriaforcontrasting
similarphenomena.
Such programshave been shownto workin L2 writing classes.
Zamel (1984)has reportedon a classprojectinwhichstudents read
published interviewswith workers, thenconducted and wrote up
theirown interviews, and later compared the data. Likewise,
studentshave become amateurethnographers, observingand
evaluatingthelanguagein theircommunities (Zamel,1986).Such
taskscan producewriting thatis "richand original"(Zamel,1984,
p.202).
But since composingin a second languageis an enormously
complexundertaking andbecause"itseemsthatthiscomplexity has
moreto do withtheconstraints imposedby thewritingtaskitself
thanwithlinguistic
difficulties"
(Zamel,1984,p. 198),studentsneed
consistentteacher input in the observationand interviewing
processes.Theyalso need regularin-classcollaborative
workshops
so thattheycan commenton and raisequestionsabouteach other's
writing.

WritingFromOtherTexts
Thoughtraining in observationand interviewing
can undoubt-
edly be usefulin students'academic career,perhapsthe most
important skill English teachers can engage students in is the

THE ACADEMIC DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 41

This content downloaded from 148.88.244.239 on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:46:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
complex ability to write from other texts,a major part of their
academic writingexperience. Students' "intellectualsocialization
may be accomplished not onlyby interactingwithpeople, but also
by encounteringthe writingof others" (Bizzell, 1986, p. 65). As
Bazerman (1980) says, "we must cultivatevarious techniques of
absorbing,reformulating, commentingon, and usingreading"ifwe
want to prepare ourstudentsto "enterthewrittenexchangesof their
chosen disciplines and the various discussions of personal and
public interest"(p. 658).
L1 and L2 research shows the interdependent relationship
between reading and writing processes (see Krashen, 1984;
Petrosky,1982; Salvatori,1983; Spack, 1985b): Both processes focus
on the making of meaning; they share the "act of constructing
meaning from words, text, prior knowledge, and feelings"
(Petrosky,1982, p. 22). To become betterwriters,then,students
need to become betterreaders.
Intelligentresponse to reading, Bazerman (1980) reminds us,
begins with an accurate understandingof a text-not just the facts
and ideas, but also what the authoris tryingto achieve. But thisis
not easy for second language readers. Even advanced, highly
literatestudentsstrugglein a way thattheirNS counterpartsdo not.
First, there are linguistic difficulties.Overcoming them is not
simplya matterof learningspecialists'language because oftenthe
more generaluse of language causes the greatestproblem,as one of
my freshmanstudentspointedout in a workingjournal(mechanical
errorscorrected):
DuringthelastfewdaysI had to readseveral(about150)pages formy
psychology inunderstanding
exam.I had greatdifficulties thematerial.
Therearedozens,maybehundreds ofwordsI'm unfamiliar with.It'snot
the actual scientificterms (such as "repression,""schizophrenia,"
"psychosis,"or "neurosis")that make the readingso hard,but it's
descriptive and elaborating terms (e.g., "to coax," "gnawing
discomfort," "remnants,""fervent appeal"),instead.To understand the
textfully,it oftentakesmorethanan hourto read justtenpages. And
eventhenI stilldidn'tlook up all thewordsI didn'tunderstand. It is a
veryfrustrating thingto read these kindsof texts, because one feels
incrediblyignorant and stupid.
And thereare culturalbarriers,best expressed by anotherstudent
(mechanical errorscorrected):
Mylastessaywas aboutbowingintheJapaneseculture.After discussing
my firstdraftwithmy classmates,Ramyand Luis, I feltI could get
abouthalfof themessageacross.ButI founditinteresting thatbothof
themwere stuckat the part where I mentionedBuddhism.I was
becauseI saw a similarity
interested withmyownexperience; i.e.,I am
alwaysstuckwhenanyessaymentions I am notBuddhistor
Christianity.

42 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 148.88.244.239 on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:46:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Shintoist,butJapanesecultureis so muchinfluenced by thosereligions
thatit is almostimpossibleto talk about Japanwithoutthem.The
problemis that many conceptsassociatedwith these religionsare
nonexistent in Christian-influenced
society(Westernsociety).I do not
knowhow to explainsomething whichdoes not existin theEnglish-
speakingworldin the Englishlanguage.And I do not knowhow to
understand something thatneverexistedin myframeof reference. To
me itis almostas hardas solvingcomplicated mathproblems.
Given the complexity of reading in a second language, it is
necessaryforL2 writingteachersto become familiarwiththeories
and techniquesof L2 readinginstruction(see, forexample, Dubin,
Eskey, & Grabe, 1986) iftheyare to guide theirstudentsto become
betteracademic writers.
Some of those techniques are already part of Li and L2
composition instruction.Marginal notes, note taking, working
journals (see Spack & Sadow, 1983), and response statements
(Petrosky,1982) can trainstudentsto discoverand recordtheirown
reactions to a text. Exercises that focus on the processes of
summarizing,paraphrasing,and quoting can encourage precise
understanding of an author's style and purpose. But these
techniquesshouldnotbe ends untothemselves.Rather,paraphrase,
summary,and quotation become part of students'textsas they
incorporatekey ideas and relevant facts from theirreading into
theirown writing.In thisway, studentscan develop informedviews
on the issues they pursue, building on what has already been
written.
Readings can be contentbased, grouped by themes,and can be
expressive or literaryas well as informative.They can be drawn
froma specificfield,if the area of studyis one thattheinstructor is
well versed in, or fromseveral fields,if the articlesare writtenby
professionalsfor a general audience. Althoughthese articlesmay
not be considered academic since they were not writtenfor
academic/professional audiences, they can give students an
understandingof how writersfromdifferentdisciplinesapproach
the same subject. Most important,they allow instructors to avoid
placing themselves in the awkward of
position presentingmaterials
they do not fullyunderstand.But whatever readings are chosen,
teachers of ESL studentsshould always consider the background
knowledge thatreadersare expected to bringto writtentexts(e.g.,
knowledge of Americanhistory,recognitionof the publicationsin
which the textsoriginallyappeared, discernmentof organizational
formats,etc.) and help theirstudentsestablisha frameof reference
thatwill facilitatecomprehension(Dubin et al., 1986).

THE ACADEMIC DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 43

This content downloaded from 148.88.244.239 on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:46:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Writingtasks should build upon knowledge students already
possess but should also be designed to allow new learningto occur.
Studentscan initiallywrite about theirown experiencesor views,
thenread, discuss,and respondinformally in writingto theassigned
readings.They can next be assigned the task of evaluating,testing
the truthof, or otherwiseilluminatingthe texts.Students can be
directed to compare the ideas discussed in one or more of the
readingswiththeirown experiences,or theycan be asked to agree
or disagree or take a mixed position toward one of the readings.
Making specificreferencesto the readings,theycan develop ideas
by givingexamples, citingexperiences,and/orprovidingevidence
fromothertextson the subject.
By sequencing assignments,the teacher can move the students
away from a primarilypersonal approach to a more critical
approach to the readings. The goal should not be regurgitationof
others'ideas, but the development of an independentviewpoint.
Studentscan develop the abilityto acknowledge the pointsof view
of othersbut still"question and critiqueestablishedauthoritiesin a
field of knowledge" (Coles & Wall, 1987, p. 299). This is a
particularlyimportantskillforforeignstudents,manyof whom are
"products of educational systemswhere unquestioningacceptance
of books and teachers as the ultimate authorityis the norm"
(Horowitz & McKee, 1984,p. 5).
Yet other assignments,such as research projects utilizing the
libraryand perhaps data frominterviewsand/or observations,can
ask studentsto evaluate and synthesizematerialfroma numberof
sourcesin orderto establisha perspectiveon a givensubjector area
of controversy.Like the assignmentsdiscussed above, thistype of
assignmentallows for demonstrationof knowledge and prompts
the "independentthinking,researching,and learning"(Shih, 1986,
p. 621) oftenrequiredwhen studentswritefortheirotheruniversity
courses. Such an assignmentalso builds on skills studentshave
already practiced:reading,note taking,summarizing,paraphrasing,
quoting,evaluating,comparing,agreeing/disagreeing, and so on.
These skillsare transferableto many writing tasks thatstudents
will be required to performin othercourses when theywrite for
academic audiences. The contentwill vary fromcourse to course,
and the formatwill vary fromdiscipline to discipline and within
disciplines, depending on the particularconstraintsof individual
assignmentsand the particularconcernsof individualteachers.But
studentsshould have a fairlygood sense of how to focus on a
subject, provide evidence to support a point or discovery, and
examine the implicationsof the materialdiscussed.

44 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 148.88.244.239 on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:46:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Process ofAcademicWriting
Althoughit mightappear at firstglance that asking studentsto
write from other texts-a common writing assignment before
research on the composing process gained prominence-is a
throwbackto traditionalteachingmethods,thatis farfromthecase.
The kindsof writingassignmentsdescribedabove take place within
the context of a process-centered approach, with students
employing appropriate inquiry strategies, planning, drafting,
consulting,revising,and editing.
The students'papers become teaching tools of the course. An
assigned paper is nota testof theirabilityto followprescribedrules
of writing,but a chance to examine and organize, and then
reexamine and reorganize,theirthinking.Because more than one
draftis read, it is not a matterof "betterluck nexttime,"but "try
again untilyou have communicatedyour ideas clearly." Students
can be trained to respond productivelyto each other'swork-in-
progress; thus,they can learn how collaborationamong scholars
evolves. These experiencesin collaborativelearninghelp students
become "socialized intothe academic community"(Maimon, 1983,
p. 122).
Student-teacherinteractionis almost always necessary,at least
initially,forlearningto take place. Over time,studentsinternalize
variousroutinesand proceduresand "take greaterresponsibility for
controlling the progress of an assigned task" (Applebee, 1986,
p. 110). But first,teacherfeedback on draftsguides studentstoward
producinga more tightlyorganized,well-focusedpaper thatfulfills
the assignment.The finalproduct of thiseffortshows them what
effectivewritingshouldlook like. Their own good work becomes a
model for futureacademic papers, includingessay examinations.
The writingclassroomis theplace wherestudentsare giventhetime
to learn how to write.
Witheach assignment,learningcan be structuredso thatstudents
are provided with useful strategiesfor fulfillingthe task at hand.
Assignmentscan be given in such a way thatstudentsunderstand
fromthe beginningwhat the task requiresand what its evaluative
criteria will be (Herrington,1981). Students can be helped to
" 'deconstruct'the
assignmentprompt"(Johns,1986,p. 247). After
they have done some informal writing, including invention
techniques(Spack, 1984), theycan be givena varietyof suggestions
on how to organize an academic paper that makes referenceto
anotherauthor'swork.For example,theycan be told whatmightgo
in the beginning (a summary of the author's article and an
identificationof the particularissue the studentwill respond to),

THE ACADEMIC DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 45

This content downloaded from 148.88.244.239 on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:46:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
middle (ideas and examples presentedin logical order,never
wanderingfirom thecentralissueand frequently referring back to
thereading),and ending(discussion oftheimplications ofwhathas
justbeen written).
The constraints oftheformare meantto benefit, nothamper,the
students'writing.Knowledge of what usually comes at the
beginning, in themiddle,and at theend of suchdiscoursecan give
students another writingstrategyor cognitive framework.
However,rigidadherenceto specificformulasis counterproduc-
tive. Students,especiallythosewho were trainedin a different
cultureand who are now enrichedby a secondculture,can create
textsthat may not follow explicitguidelinesbut that are still
effective.
Indeed,Lu's (1987) discussionof herexperiencein writing is an
exampleof thisphenomenon. Caughtbetweentherigid,imitative
formsrequiredat schoolin Chinaand theinner-directed approach
of the at-homeEnglish instruction given by her Westernized
parents,she wrotea book reportthatwas notacceptableto either
her school instructors(because she sentimentally focusedon the
internalconflictofa character)orherat-homeinstructors (because
she praiseda "Revolutionary" book). Yet the essaywas a highly
originaltext.
As Coe (1987) pointsout, an understanding of the purposeof
form-toenablewriters to communicate accuratelyandeffectively
to readers-can "empowerstudentsto understand, use, and even
inventnew formsfornew purposes"(p. 26). So, respectforformis
encouraged-and necessaryif studentsare to succeed in certain
othercourses-butflexibility is builtintothecourseto encourage
students to respectthecomposingprocessas well.

CONCLUSION
It is ironicthatthepressureon ESL/Englishteachersto teachthe
writing ofotherdisciplines is manifestingitselfat precisely
thetime
wheninfluential technological suchas theMassachusetts
institutes
Institute of Technologyare fundingprogramsto increasestudent
exposureto the humanitiesin an effortto produce more well-
rounded,open-minded students. The Englishcomposition courseis
and should be a humanitiescourse:a place wherestudentsare
provided the enrichment of readingand writingthatprovoke
thought and ethicaldevelopment.
and fostertheirintellectual
This approachincludesexploratory writingtasksthatdeal with
makingsenseof thoughts and experiences. As Rose (1983)reminds
us, "makingmeaningfortheself,orderingexperience, establishing

46 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 148.88.244.239 on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:46:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
one'sownrelationtoitis whatinforms anyseriouswriting"
(p. 118).
It also includesexpositorywritingtasksthatdirectstudents
to take
an evaluativeand analyticalstancetowardwhattheyread.Each of
these processes"makes a crucialcontribution to the whole of
intellectual (Zeiger,1985,p. 457).
activity"
Studentswill matureas writersas theyreceiveinvaluableinput
fromnumerousclassroomexperiencesand fromteacherswho are
conversantin other disciplines.To initiatestudentsinto the
academic discoursecommunity, we do not have to changeour
orientation completely,assigntaskswe ourselvescannotmaster,or
limitour assignments to prescribed,rule-governedtasks.We can
insteaddrawon ourownknowledgeand abilitiesas we strengthen
and expandtheknowledgeand abilitiesofourstudents.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This is a revisedversionof a paper presentedat the 21st AnnualTESOL
Convention inMiamiBeach,April1987.Theauthorwouldliketo thankCatherine
Sadow and threeanonymousTESOL Quarterlyreviewersfortheirvaluable
suggestionson earlierdrafts.

THE AUTHOR
RuthSpackis Adjunct Instructor
Lecturer/Special forForeignStudents
in the
English
DepartmentatTufts andLecturer
University intheEnglishDepartmentat
BostonUniversity.
Shehaspublished severalarticles
on theteaching
ofwriting,
serves
as a memberoftheEditorial
Advisory BoardoftheTESOLQuarterly, and
iscurrently
atworkona writing
textbookforstudents.

REFERENCES
Applebee, A.N. (1986). Problemsin process approaches:Toward a
reconceptualization of process instruction.In A.R. Petrosky & D.
Bartholomae
(Eds.), Theteachingofwriting
(pp. 95-113).Chicago:The
National Society forthe Studyof Education.
Bander,R.G. (1978). AmericanEnglishrhetoric.New York:Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.
Bazerman, C. (1980). A relationshipbetween reading and writing:The
conversationalmodel. College English,41, 656-661.

THE ACADEMIC DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 47

This content downloaded from 148.88.244.239 on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:46:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Bazerman,C. (1985).Theinformed writer:Usingsourcesinthedisciplines
(2nded.). Boston:HoughtonMifflin.
Becker,H.S. (1986).Writing forsocialscientists. Chicago:University of
ChicagoPress.
Behrens,L. (1980). Meditations, reminiscences, polemics:Composition
readersand theservicecourse.CollegeEnglish,41,561-570.
Bizzell, P. (1982). College composition:Initiationinto the academic
discoursecommunity. Curriculum Inquiry,12,191-207.
Bizzell,P. (1986).Composingprocesses:Anoverview.In A.R.Petrosky &
D. Bartholomae(Eds.), The teachingof writing(pp. 49-70.)Chicago:
The NationalSocietyfortheStudyofEducation.
Bridgeman, B., & Carlson,S.B. (1984).Surveyof academicwriting tasks.
Written Communication, 1, 247-280.
Coe, R.M. (1987).Anapologyforform;or,who tooktheformoutof the
process?CollegeEnglish,49, 13-28.
Coffey,B. (1984). ESP-English forspecificpurposes[State-of-the-art
article].LanguageTeaching:The International Journal
Abstracting for
LanguageTeachersand AppliedLinguists, 17,2-16.
Cole, K.C. (1985).Sympathetic vibrations:Reflectionson physicsas a way
oflife.New York:Bantam.
Coles,N., & Wall,S.V. (1987).Conflict and powerinthereader-responses
ofadultbasicwriters. CollegeEnglish,49,298-314.
Connors,R.J.(1981).The riseand fallofthemodesofdiscourse.College
Composition and Communication, 32,444-455.
Dick,J.A.R.,& Esch,R.M. (1985).Dialoguesamongdisciplines: A planfor
faculty discussions of writing across the curriculum. College
Composition and Communication, 36,178-182.
Dubin,F., Eskey,D.E., & Grabe,W. (1986). Teachingsecondlanguage
readingforacademicpurposes.Reading,MA: Addison-Wesley.
Faigley,L., & Hansen,K. (1985).Learningto writein thesocialsciences.
CollegeComposition and Communication, 36, 140-149.
Flower,L. S., & Hayes,J.R. (1977). Problem-solving strategiesand the
writing process.CollegeEnglish,39,449-461.
Flower,L., & Hayes,J.R.(1981). A cognitiveprocesstheoryof writing.
CollegeComposition and Communication, 32,365-387.
Fulwiler,T. (1984).How well does writing acrossthecurriculum work?
CollegeEnglish,46,113-125.
Gilbert,G.N.,& Mulkay,M. (1984).OpeningPandora'sbox:A sociological
analysisof scientists'discourse.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (1986).No newlampsforold yet,please[inThe Forum].
TESOL Quarterly, 20,790-796.
Hartfiel,V.F., Hughey,J.B.,Wormuth, D.R., & Jacobs,H.L. (1985).
LearningESL composition. Rowley,MA: NewburyHouse.
Herrington, A.J.(1981). Writing to learn:Writing acrossthedisciplines.
CollegeEnglish,43, 379-387.
Herrington, A.J.(1985).Classroomsas forumsforreasoning and writing.
College Compositionand Communication,36, 404-413.

48 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 148.88.244.239 on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:46:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Hill, S.S., Soppelsa, B.F., & West,G.K. (1982). Teaching ESL studentsto
read and write experimental-research papers. TESOL Quarterly,16,
333-347.
Hillocks, G., Jr. (1984). What works in teaching composition: A meta-
analysis of experimental treatment studies. American Journal of
Education,93, 133-170.
Hillocks,G., Jr.(1986).Researchon written New directions
composition:
for teaching.Urbana, IL: National Conferenceon Research in English/
ERIC Clearinghouseon Reading and CommunicationSkills.
Horowitz, D.M. (1986a). The authorrespondsto Hamp-Lyons ... [in The
20,796-797.
Forum].TESOL Quarterly,
Horowitz, D.M. (1986b). The authorresponds to Leibman-Kleine... [in
20,788-790.
The Forum].TESOL Quarterly,
Horowitz, D. (1986c). Process, not product: Less than meets the eye [in
The Forum]. TESOL Quarterly,20, 141-144.
Horowitz,D.M. (1986d). Whatprofessorsactuallyrequire:Academic tasks
forthe ESL classroom.TESOL Quarterly,20, 445-462.
Horowitz, D.M., & McKee, M.B. (1984). Methods forteachingacademic
writing.TECFORS, 7, 5-11.
Johns, A.M. (1981). Necessary English: A faculty survey. TESOL
15,51-57.
Quarterly,
Johns, A.M. (1985). Academic writing standards: A questionnaire.
TECFORS, 8, 11-14.
Johns,A.M. (1986). Coherence and academic writing:Some definitions
and suggestionsforteaching.TESOL Quarterly,20, 247-265.
Krashen,S.D. (1984).Writing:
Research,theoryand applications.
Oxford:
PergamonPress.
Kroll, B. (1979). A surveyof the writingneeds of foreignand American
collegefreshmen. 33,219-227.
EnglishLanguageTeachingJournal,
Lay, N.D.S. (1982). Composing processes of adult ESL learners:A case
study.TESOL Quarterly,
16,406.
Leibman-Kleine, J. (1986). In defense of teaching process in ESL
composition[in The Forum]. TESOL Quarterly,20, 783-788.
Lu, M. (1987). From silenceto words: Writingas struggle.College English,
49, 437-448.
MacDonald, S.P. (1987). Problem definitionin academic writing.College
English,49,315-331.
Maher, J. (1986). English formedical purposes. [State-of-the-art
article].
Language Teaching: The InternationalAbstractingJournalfor
LanguageTeachersandAppliedLinguists,
19,112-145.
Maimon, E.P. (1983). Maps and genres:Exploringconnectionsin the arts
and sciences. In W.B. Horner (Ed.), Composition and literature:
Bridgingthe gaps (pp. 110-125).Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.
Maimon,E.P. (1984). Writingacross the curriculum:
Knowledgeand
acknowledgment inan educatedcommunity. Unpublished
manuscript.
Maimon, E.P., Belcher, G.L., Hearn, G.W., Nodine, B.F., & O'Connor,
F.B. (1981). Writingin the artsand sciences. Boston: Little,Brown.

THE ACADEMIC DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 49

This content downloaded from 148.88.244.239 on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:46:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Myers,G. (1985).Textsas knowledgeclaims:The socialconstruction of
twobiologyarticles.SocialStudiesofScience,15,593-630.
Ostler,S.E. (1980). A surveyof academic needs for advanced ESL.
TESOL Quarterly, 14,489-502.
Pearson,S. (1983). The challengeof Mai Chung: Teachingtechnical
writing to theforeign-bornprofessional in industry.TESOL Quarterly,
17,383-399.
Petroski,H. (1986). Beyondengineering: Essays and otherattemptsto
figurewithout New
equations. York: St. Martin'sPress.
Petrosky, A.R. (1982).Fromstoryto essay:Readingand writing. College
English,46, 19-36.
Raimes,A. (1985). What unskilledESL studentsdo as theywrite:A
classroomstudyofcomposing.TESOL Quarterly, 19,229-258.
Raimes, A. (1987, April). Why write?Perspectivesin purpose and
pedagogy.Paper presentedat the 21stAnnualTESOL Convention,
MiamiBeach.
Reid,J.(1984a).Commentson VivianZamel's"The composingprocesses
of advancedESL students: Six case studies"[in The Forum].TESOL
Quarterly, 18,149-153.
Reid, J. (1984b). The radical outlinerand the radicalbrainstormer: A
perspective on composing processes[inThe Forum].TESOL Quarterly,
18,529-534.
Reid, J. (1985). The authorresponds... [in The Forum]. TESOL
Quarterly, 19,398-400.
Rose, M. (1983). Remedialwritingcourses:A critiqueand a proposal.
CollegeEnglish,45, 109-126.
Rose, M. (1985). The languageof exclusion:Writing instructionat the
university.CollegeEnglish,47,341-359.
Russell,D.R. (1987).Writing acrossthecurriculum and thecommunica-
tionsmovement: Some lessonsfromthepast.CollegeEnglish,38, 184-
194.
Salvatori,M. (1983). Readingand writinga text:Correlations between
readingand writing. CollegeEnglish,45,657-666.
Scheiber,H.J. (1987). Toward a text-basedpedagogyin the freshman
composition course-withtwoprocess-oriented writing tasks.Freshman
EnglishNews,15,15-18.
Seizer, J. (1983). The composingprocessesof an engineer.College
Composition and Communication, 34,178-187.
Shaughnessy, M. (1977). Errorsand expectations.New York: Oxford
University Press.
Shih,M. (1986).Content-based approachesto teachingacademicwriting.
TESOL Quarterly, 20,617-648.
Silk, M. (1987,April19). The hot historydepartment. The New York
TimesMagazine,pp. 41,43,46-47,50,56,62,64.
Spack, R. (1984). Inventionstrategiesand the ESL collegecomposition
student.TESOL Quarterly, 18,649-670.
Spack,R. (1985a).Commentson JoyReid's"The radicaloutliner and the
radicalbrainstormer: A perspectiveon composingprocesses"[in The
Forum]. TESOL Quarterly,19, 396-398.

50 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 148.88.244.239 on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:46:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Spack, R. (1985b). Literature,reading,writing, and ESL: Bridgingthe
gaps. TESOL Quarterly, 19,703-725.
Spack,R., & Sadow,C. (1983).Student-teacher workingjournalsin ESL
composition. TESOL Quarterly, 17,575-593.
Swales, J. (1986). A genre-basedapproach to language across the
curriculum.In M. Tuckoo (Ed.), Language across the curriculum
(pp. 10-22).Singapore:RELC.
Swales,J. (1987).Utilizingtheliteraturesin teachingtheresearchpaper.
TESOL Quarterly, 21,41-68.
Thomas,L. (1983). The youngest science:Notesof a medicine-watcher.
New York:VikingPress.
Wilkinson, A.M. (1985). A freshman writingcoursein parallelwitha
sciencecourse.CollegeComposition and Communication, 36, 160-165.
Woodford, F.P. (1967).Sounderthinking through clearerwriting. Science,
156,743-745.
Yearley,S. (1981).Textualpersuasion:The roleofsocialaccounting inthe
construction of scientific
arguments. Philosophy of SocialSciences,11,
409-435.
Zamel,V. (1982).Writing: The processof discovering meaning.TESOL
Quarterly, 16,195-209.
Zamel,V. (1983).The composingprocessesofadvancedESL students: Six
case studies.TESOL Quarterly, 17,165-187.
Zamel, V. (1984). In search of the key: Research and practice in
composition. In J.Handscombe,R. A. Orem,& B.P. Taylor(Eds.), On
TESOL '83 (pp. 195-207).Washington, DC: TESOL.
Zamel,V. (1986,March).Fromprocessto product.Paperpresented at the
20thAnnualTESOL Convention, Anaheim, CA.
Zamel, V. (1987). Teaching composition:Toward a pedagogy of
questions.Unpublished manuscript.
Zeiger,W. (1985). The exploratory essay: Enfranchising the spiritof
inquiryincollegecomposition. CollegeEnglish,47,454-466.

THE ACADEMIC DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 51

This content downloaded from 148.88.244.239 on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:46:57 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

You might also like