DIFFERENCES IN MEN’S AND WOMEN’S ESL ACADEMIC WRITING AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE

Dana Waskita

Abstract


This study examines men’s and women’s ESL academic writing in their written assignments at the University of Melbourne. Three sets of men’s and women’s academic writing were analyzed for several common features of academic writing including syntactic complexity, means of integrating cited information, and methods of presenting arguments. The findings showed significant differences between the men’s and women’s texts in those three aspects. The structure of the women’s texts tended to be more complex than the men’s. The women also used more paraphrases to integrate cited information, and presented better organized arguments. Those characteristics of the women’s texts presumably would be advantages for their success in academic writing, and indicate a higher level of proficiency in ESL academic writing.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Brown, J.D. 1999. Understanding research in second language learning: A teacher’s guide to statistics and research design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brovsky, C. Colorado test score release. Retrieved Sept 30,1999 from Denver post Colorado

Campbell, C. 1993. Writing with others‘ words: using background reading text in academic compositions. In Kroll, B. (ed.) Second Language Writing: research insights for the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, R. 1994. The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press Hatch,

E. & Lazaraton, A. 1991. The research manual: Design and statistics for applied linguistics. New York: Newbury House Publishers

Hunt, K.W. 1970. Recent measures in syntactic development. In M. Lester (Ed.), Reading in applied transformational grammar (pp. 179-192). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Johns, A. M. (1997). Text, role and context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kanaris, A. 1999. Gendered journeys: Children‘s writing and the construction of gender. Language and Education 13,4: 254-268

Large, C. 1990. The clustering approach to a better essay. Cheltenham: Hawker Brownlow Education

Lilis, T. M. 2001. Student writing: access, regulation, desire. London: Routledge.

Lock, G. 1996. Functional English grammar: an introduction for second language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Meinhof, U.H. 1997. ‗The most important event of my life!‘ A comparison of male and female narratives. In Johnson, S. and U.H. Meinhof (eds), Language and masculinity. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.,208-239

Morris, L.A. 1998. Differences in men‘s and women‘s ESL writing at the junior college level: consequences for research on feedback. The Canadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Polio, C. G. 1997. Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Language Learning 47, 1: 101-143

Punter, A. and Burchell, H. 1996. Gender issues in GCSE English assessment. British Journal of Curriculum and Assessment, 6, 2: 20-4. Retrieved April, 23, 2004 from Education news & resources at the Times Educational Supplement.

Romatowski, J. A., & Trepanier-Street, M. L. (1987). Gender perceptions: An analysis of children's creative writing. Contemporary Education, 59 (1), 17-19.

Sunderland, J. (2000). Issues of language and gender in second and foreign language education. Language Teaching 33: 203-223

Swann, J. 1992. Girls, boys, and language. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers

Undergraduate English language requirements: Admission to the University of Melbourne. (2001). Retrieved July 5, 2004, from

http://www.services.unimelb.edu.au/admissions/guide/english_ug_reqs.htmlcanadienne des langues vivantes 55/2: 219-38

Paltridge, B. 2002. Genre, text type, and the English for academic purposes. In Johns, A. M. (Ed.), Genre in the classroom: multiple perspectives.











View My Stats

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.