CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 58EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningSecond Language Acquisition and LearningDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Teaching L2 Composition: Purpose, Process, and Practice

Ferris, Dana R., Hedgcock, John S.·2023·Routledge eBooks
DOI 10.4324/9781003004943
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This popular, comprehensive theory-to-practice text helps teachers understand the task of writing, L2 writers, the different pedagogical models used in current composition teaching, and reading-writing connections. Moving from general themes to specific pedagogical concerns, it includes practice-oriented chapters on the role of genre, task construction, course and lesson design, writing assessment, feedback, error treatment, and classroom language (grammar, vocabulary, style) instruction. Each chapter includes Questions for Reflection, Further Reading and Resources, Reflection and Review, and Application Activities. An ideal text for L2 teacher preparation courses and in-service writing instructors, the text offers an accessible synthesis of theory and research that enables readers to see the relevance of the field’s knowledge base to their own present or future classroom settings and student writers. New to the Fourth Edition: Updated with new research, theory, and developments in the field throughout the text Visually accessible layout and design for improved reader navigability Expanded attention to technological affordances for writing pedagogy Stand-alone reference list in each chapter Support Material with activities and resources from the text also available on the book’s webpage at www.routledge.com/9780367436780

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4324/9781003004943

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In EFL contexts, students frequently struggle with both language and logic in argumentative writing.

    “Writing a successful argumentative essay is a challenging task in EFL contexts, where students frequently struggle with both language and logic [10, 13].”

    From Evaluating the impact of using ChatGPT on EFL students’ argumentative skills (2026) · cites this paper as [10]

  • Writing development necessitates engagement with ideas, audience, and rhetorical context in addition to linguistic correctness.

    “writing development necessitates engagement with ideas, audience, and rhetorical context in addition to linguistic correctness [10].”

    From Evaluating the impact of using ChatGPT on EFL students’ argumentative skills (2026) · cites this paper as [10]

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. S.
Affiliations
University of California, Davis (US)
ORCID
Ferris, Dana R.
Venue
Routledge eBooks
Publisher
Routledge
Published
2023-02-23
DOI
10.4324/9781003004943
OpenAlex
W4321616005
Cited by
58
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 1
FWCI
29.51
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Routledge eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
Keywords
second language writing, writing instruction, genre pedagogy, task construction, writing assessment, feedback, error treatment, reading and writing, technology in writing instruction, teacher preparation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review