Reading and Writing Together

Invited Essay

Reading and Writing Together:A Critical Component of

English for Academic PurposesTeaching and Learning

WILLIAM GRABENorthern Arizona University

CUI ZHANGEastern Kentucky University

“As Kroll (1993), among others, has pointed out, reading hastraditionally been seen as a skill to be taught separately fromwriting, as well as something students are somehow expectedto already know about when they reach the writing course.Teaching reading in a writing course may seem like an oddidea, if not an entirely unnecessary one. It may also be the casethat second language writing teachers feel ill prepared to teachreading, especially in connection with writing. How many[teachers] have actually been taught to teach the two skillstogether?” (Hirvela, 2004, pp. 2–3)doi: 10.1002/tesj.65

In academic settings from secondary school to postgraduateinstruction, second language (L2) students face many challenges.These challenges include the need for a large, academicallyoriented vocabulary, the ability to communicate reasonablyeffectively, a set of strategies when working with difficult ideas,and ability to combine reading and writing (reading/writing)skills to learn and display content. In this article, we focus onreading/writing integration for L2 learners in academic contexts.Reading/writing integration is an area that is relativelyunderexplored even though it is commonplace in most academic

TESOL Journal 4.1, March 2013 9© 2013 TESOL International Association

contexts and critical for academic success (Ferris, 2009; Hirvela,2004; Horning & Kraemer, in press).

WHY IS READING AND WRITING TOGETHERSO IMPORTANT?Survey studies have shown that teachers, institutions, andstudents all recognize the importance of learning to write fromreading input of various types. In the 1980s, a survey by Horowitz(1986) identified a number of commonly assigned writing tasks inacademic settings, most of which were reading based. In the 1990s,surveys by Hedgcock and Atkinson (1993); Hale et al. (1996); andRosenfeld, Leung, and Oltman (2001) highlighted academic tasksthat required a combination of reading and writing skills as criticalfor academic success.

Learning to write from textual sources (e.g., integratingcomplementary sources of information, interpreting conceptuallydifficult information) is a challenging skill that even native-speaking students have to work hard to master. Using textualresources in academic writing tasks also represents a majorchallenge for L2 students, especially when these tasks are notpracticed sufficiently. Tasks that require reading/writingintegration, such as summarizing, synthesizing information,critically responding to text input, or writing a research paper,require a great deal of practice. Unfortunately, opportunities tolearn and practice reading/writing connections seldom happen inL2 settings (and often also not in first language [L1] settings;Hedgcock & Atkinson, 1993; Leki & Carson, 1994, 1997; Shanahan& Shanahan, 2008; Tardy, 2009).

WHAT SPECIFIC CHALLENGES DO L2 STUDENTSENCOUNTER WITH TASKS THAT REQUIRE READING/WRITING INTEGRATION?L2 students in academic contexts face a wide range ofdifficulties related to L2 reading/writing integration. Difficultiesstem from limited reading and writing proficiency, the challengeof reading long passages, a lack of fluency in reading and

10 TESOL Journal

writing, limited L2 background knowledge, and relatively littleexperience (and practice) integrating reading and writing skillsfor academic purposes. L2 students also face challenges with L2reading/writing tasks that require a large amount ofinferencing.

A number of studies have sought to identify the academicreading and writing challenges faced by L2 students by comparingtheir circumstances with those of L1 students (Ferris & Hedgcock,2005; Paltridge & Starfield, 2007; Silva, Leki, & Carson, 1997).These explorations are synthesized by Ferris (2009), with a fairlydetailed set of issues facing L2 students in academic settings. Welist nine of those key issues (drawn from Ferris, 2009, pp. 13–41) inTable 1 to highlight challenges for L2 English for academicpurposes (EAP) students.

All nine factors listed in Table 1 reflect the great, andsometimes overwhelming, demands placed on L2 students inacademic settings. Given these challenges, three key questions forEAP literacy instruction are addressed here:

1. What reading/writing tasks must EAP students learn to carry out success-fully (e.g., summaries, information synthesis)?

2. What have we learned from research on L2 reading/writing integration?3. What research implications and instructional practices can we work with to

provide L2 academic reading/writing support?

TABLE 1. L1/L2 Differences in Reading and Writing Tasks

1. Less writing practice with L2 academic writing tasks

2. Weaker and widely varying L2 reading skills in English

3. Limited experience with extensive reading and/or application of information from reading-

for-writing tasks

4. Limited vocabulary knowledge in comparison with L1 students

5. Limited grammatical accuracy

6. Differing motivations for being in a classroom requiring L2 reading/writing tasks

7. A relative lack of tacit knowledge about how L2 texts are organized and how they should

be organized while writing (i.e., L2 intuitive knowledge and extensive practice is

largely missing)

8. Limited fluency in English writing; thus, composing takes longer and proceeds with more

fits and starts, and L2 students do not produce longer automatic phrasings while writing

9. Less L2 cultural and background knowledge to draw on

Reading and Writing Together 11

WHAT TYPES OF COMMONLY ASSIGNED ACADEMICTASKS ARE CENTRAL TO READING/WRITINGINTEGRATION?Over the past 30 years, survey studies have shown that students atall postsecondary levels are expected to engage in a range ofcommon academic reading/writing tasks (Hale et al., 1996; Johns,1997; Leki & Carson, 1997; Rosenfeld et al., 2001). These surveyresults have been verified in qualitative studies indicating thatcommon reading/writing tasks were seen as extremely importantby both university faculty and students (Spack, 1997, 2004; Zhu,2004). Table 2 synthesizes findings of these surveys. The reading/writing tasks listed also reflect typical experiences of universityand preuniversity teachers in a number of contexts. These tasksare not expected of all L2 students in every context, but all doarise regularly in multiple academic settings (including secondaryschool contexts and intensive language program contexts).

WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM RESEARCH ON L2READING/WRITING INTEGRATION?In this brief article, we address two specific types of academicwriting tasks that require the use of textual resources,summarizing and synthesizing information across textualresources. (Space prevents us from exploring the research onadditional types of reading/writing tasks.) These two tasks (a) arecommon reading/writing tasks in university courses, (b) arecentral to a number of other reading/writing tasks identified inTable 2, (c) represent tasks that L2 students typically havedifficulty with, and (d) are tasks for which useful research has

TABLE 2. Integrated Reading/Writing Task in University Settings

1. Taking notes from a text (both at home and in class)

2. Summarizing text information

3. Paraphrasing textual resources

4. Combining information from multiple text sources in a synthesis task

5. Comparing multiple points of view from written texts and producing a critical synthesis

6. Answering essay exam questions in writing (both at home and in class)

7. Writing an extended research paper or literature review

8. Responding to assigned texts (summary and then critique)

12 TESOL Journal

been carried out in L2 contexts. These reading-based academicwriting tasks also raise issues of direct copying, citation use, andplagiarism as serious problems for L2 students, and we reviewcurrent research on these issues.

SummarizingEffective summarizing abilities turn out to be quite difficult for L2learners as they develop their EAP skills. L2 students often do nothave strong enough vocabulary knowledge to paraphraseeffectively. For English language learners, comprehension ofreading material in content courses creates a limitation onsummary performance. Their more limited composing skills posedifficulties when producing summaries (including extensive directcopying of sentences), and their more limited opportunities forpractice with summarizing lead to less effective summaries. All ofthese issues have been shown to affect L2 students’ summarywriting performance.

S. Kim (2001) studied the English summary writing of 70 SouthKorean university students who were asked to summarize twotexts at different levels of reading difficulty. Students producedsignificantly better summaries after reading the easier text. Yu(2008) studied English summary writing among 157 Chineseuniversity students studying English as a foreign language (EFL)and found that students’ summarizing abilities were significantlyrelated to their reading proficiency levels. Similarly, Baba (2009)studied 68 Japanese university students and found that students’English summarizing abilities were related to their readingcomprehension skills and also to their vocabulary knowledge. Oneof the consequences of limited vocabulary knowledge andcomprehension skills, as well as limited practice in related writingtasks, is that EAP students at lower proficiency levels commonlycopy much more than students at higher proficiency levels.

Keck (2006) studied 153 summaries written by English L1 andL2 university students. She found that English as a secondlanguage (ESL) students used significantly more long copiedstrings from the original text when they were paraphrasing.Similarly, C. Kim (2009) found that less proficient EFL studentsengaged in significantly more direct copying, whereas more


proficient EFL students made much greater use of moderaterevisions (see also Johns & Mayes, 1990; Petri�c, 2012). Thesestudies provide empirical evidence that less skilled ESL summarywriters employ direct copying as a means to complete summarywriting tasks. These results suggest that students do the best theycan with the skills and resources they have available to them.

Another issue associated with copying while summarizing iswhether direct copying of the appropriate main-idea sentences isan acceptable practice in students’ native cultures. For example,Shi (2006) interviewed 46 ESL students at a Canadian universityand found that the students from China, Japan, and South Koreadid not practice citation and quotation skills in their owncountries. Whereas the concept of plagiarism may have beenunderstood by these students, it may not have been reinforced bytheir L1 literacy practices. At the same time, copying sentencesduring a summary activity with a text known to both the teacherand the student is not the same act as intentionally handing insomeone else’s work as one’s own. It is likely, therefore, that manycases of direct copying while summarizing reflect difficulties incoping with the reading and writing demands of the summarytask. In many cases, L2 students may not see the harm in copyingsentences directly from source texts into their summaries.However, it is also clear that EAP students, as they become moreskilled, engage in much less direct copying of longer sequences ofwords from source texts.

Synthesizing InformationA more demanding reading/writing task that is commonlyassigned in academic settings is one that combines informationfrom two or more texts (Hirvela, 2004). This sort of task caninvolve, for example, a comparison of information or ideas frommultiple texts, a set of text-based solutions to address a set of text-based problems, a set of texts that identify multiple aspects of anissue, or a set of texts that require the writer to form an argument.The development of writing skills that allow students to usemultiple textual resources to synthesize and interpret textinformation is a quintessential academic task. It is also a difficult

14 TESOL Journal

writing task to master, even for many L1 students (Horning, 2010;Shanahan, 2009).

Empirical evidence for the development of synthesis writingskills among EAP students is quite limited (and deserves muchmore research attention). In a series of studies, Plakans (2008, 2009,2010) examined the synthesis writing of 12 ESL students in U.S.universities. In her 2009 study, she found that better students usedmore “mining” and global reading strategies than less skilledstudents did. That is, students who wrote more effectively lookedfor additional specific information that would be appropriate toinclude in their writing (a mining strategy); they also looked backover their writing and considered their goals for writing (globalstrategies). Plakans (2010) analyzed the same students’ taskrepresentations of independent personal opinion writing andsynthesis writing and found that many students did not interpretthe two types of tasks differently, suggesting that synthesis writingshould be explicitly taught to ESL students.

Qin (2009) carried out a study of argument writing from twosource texts among 242 university EFL students in China. Shefound that most of the students could explain the conflictingarguments from each of the two texts, but the more skilled writersused counter arguments and rebuttals, indicating moresophisticated use of text information in their synthesis writing.

Two key longitudinal qualitative studies of university-levelESL student writers were carried out by Spack (1997) and Leki(2007). Spack followed a Japanese university student for 3 years asthe student learned to write academic papers. Perhaps mostinteresting for the present review, the student believed that goodwriting in U.S. university contexts was opinion based rather than acareful interpretation of information from assigned texts, eventhough teachers were pleased with her more objective synthesiswriting. The student thought that she wrote poor-quality paperswhen she merely combined information from multiple texts. Thisfinding indicates that teachers need to be explicit about teachingwriting expectations in university contexts where personalopinions are not highly valued in synthesis writing assignmentsacross many disciplines.


Leki (2007) followed four ESL university students, from fourdifferent majors (engineering, nursing, business, and socialwork), through their 4 years of undergraduate studies.Although each student had a very different universityexperience, she found that the students’ writing assignmentscommonly involved a combination of reading/writing skills.Leki also found that the amount of writing done variedconsiderably across the four majors. In some cases, surprisinglylittle writing was required. She also noted that the fourstudents each experienced major problems with limitedvocabulary knowledge and limited reading comprehension skillsthroughout their 4 years.

The main issue for synthesis writing (as well as for summarywriting) is how students use and misuse source text information.Different terms have been used by researchers to refer to instancesof misuse, including plagiarism, text borrowing, textappropriation, and patchwriting, even though researchers havebeen cautious in accusing students of plagiarism when theymisused source information (Li & Casanave, 2012). Studies by Shi(2012) and Li and Casanave (2012) highlight the complexities thatstudents encounter in learning to paraphrase and refer to textualinformation appropriately. It is not viable simply to accusestudents of plagiarism when they misuse sources in their writing;rather, instructors need to (a) be consistent about what counts asappropriate vs. unacceptable source text use; (b) convey theirexpectations explicitly to students; and (c) devote more time toteaching students to quote, summarize, and paraphrase sourceinformation (Li & Casanave, 2012; Pecorari & Shaw, 2012; Petri�c,2012).

It is important to note that in neither research on summarywriting nor on synthesis writing have there been wellcontrolled training studies in which one group receivedextensive practice in one or more reading/writing tasks while acontrol group followed a more standard reading and/or writingcurriculum. Such controlled training studies are needed to helpconfirm insights from the cross-sectional studies and casestudies reviewed earlier.

16 TESOL Journal

WHAT RESEARCH EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THELEARNING OF L2 READING/WRITING SKILLSTHROUGH INSTRUCTION?The one recent study that we know of that has examined theeffects of synthesis writing instruction with EAP students wascarried out by Zhang (2012), the second author of this article.The goal was to see if direct explicit instruction in synthesiswriting, combined with extensive practice in the task over thecourse of a 15-week semester, would lead to significantdifferences in comparison with a matched group that followeda standard textbook curriculum for reading and writinginstruction.

Zhang (2012) taught both an experimental and a matchedcontrol ESL reading and writing class. The experimental classemphasized explicit instruction in synthesis-paper writing,provided examples and models of synthesis writing, and practicedfive cycles of the synthesis-paper process (while still followingmost of the reading and writing textbook curriculum). The controlgroup followed the reading and writing curriculum defined by thecourse textbook. Both classes completed a series of pre- andpostcourse measures of their reading and writing abilities. At theend of the training, the experimental group significantlyoutperformed the control group on overall quality of a synthesiswriting task as well as on measures of better organization inwriting and better use of text information from reading resourcematerials.

This study demonstrates that students can (a) be given explicitinstruction in how to synthesize information from two differenttexts effectively, (b) be given sufficiently intense practice to greatlyimprove their synthesis writing skills, and (c) be made more awareof the task demands and the writing processes involved insynthesis writing. The study accomplished these goals while alsocarrying out almost all of the tasks in the standard reading andwriting course curriculum. Additional training studies onreading/writing integration need to be carried out to strengthenthe argument and implications for more effective reading/writinginstruction.


WHAT IMPLICATIONS CAN WE DERIVE FROMRESEARCH FOR IMPROVING L2 STUDENTS’ ABILITIESTO INTEGRATE READING AND WRITING SKILLS?Based on the studies reviewed earlier, we note a number of usefulimplications that can lead to instructional applications. Multiplestudies have highlighted the need for well-developed readingcomprehension skills; students with better reading abilitiesperformed better on reading/writing tasks. Multiple studies havepointed out the serious limitations that L2 students experiencewith academic vocabulary knowledge. For more advancedreading/writing tasks, students need a large academic vocabularyto be successful. Multiple studies have also pointed out the needfor many opportunities to practice reading/writing tasks. All ofthe studies reviewed suggest that teachers and curricula need tofocus explicit attention on reading comprehension activities withthe texts that students must use in reading/writing tasks. Inaddition, students need many practice opportunities to becomemore comfortable with the expectations of EAP reading/writingtasks.

Studies have also highlighted the importance of studentawareness of tasks and corresponding expectations. Thus, studentsneed to become aware of the skills needed for reading/writingtasks and how to carry out writing processes effectively. Teacherscan raise students’ awareness by integrating models of writing-from-sources into their instruction, reinforcing the importance ofbeing responsible for text source information rather than relyingon personal opinions. Teachers can also raise awareness about theimportance of effective paraphrasing as they guide students indeveloping their writing skills.

In addition, awareness of relevant cultural, topical, and worldbackground knowledge helps students become successful withreading/writing tasks. In particular, students should learn to askabout cultural and topical information and reading/writingassumptions hidden in the task and texts (Johns, 1997). Teachersmust show students explicitly how to “interrogate” reading/writing tasks so that students make use of this skill in otherclasses. A loosely related awareness theme is the need for students

18 TESOL Journal

to have practice with discussions about text information as a wayto use information from texts more effectively.

A further implication of this review is the recognition that anumber of L2 students will have difficulties with the concept ofplagiarism. With L2 students, instruction on plagiarism shouldfocus more on proactive teaching that leads students toward thecorrect use of source texts than on postwriting punishment (Li &Casanave, 2012; Petri�c, 2012). Efforts should be made to workexplicitly on teaching paraphrasing skills to help L2 students usetext information more appropriately.

Running through much of this research review is the need forstudents to have the time to develop their reading/writingintegration skills. L2 students are simply not going to have thesame levels of exposure to reading and writing tasks that L1students have. As Tardy (2009) notes, students need both to betaught how to engage in academic writing tasks but also to havesufficient practice to make the task a skill that can be usedeffectively in academic settings. The best general approach toinstruction, therefore, is to begin instruction on reading/writingtasks much earlier, much more explicitly, and with much moreiterative practice. Such thinking requires some creativity on theparts of teachers, curriculum developers, and materials writers.Tardy (2010), for example, introduced students to academicliteracy through small research projects that involved writing aWikipedia entry. She demonstrated how students could learn toplan, research, locate information, evaluate sources, integratesource information, and develop greater audience awarenessthrough a teacher-guided step-by-step composing process.

WHAT INSTRUCTIONAL APPLICATIONS WILL HELPSTUDENTS CARRY OUT L2 READING/WRITING TASKSSUCCESSFULLY?To help EAP students succeed in their acquisition of academicliteracy (reading/writing together), we suggest a set of readingsupport activities, reading/writing support activities, andawareness-raising activities:

• Use reading guides to facilitate students’ reading comprehension. Areading guide might ask students to make a list of key ideas, identify


the author’s perspective or bias, offer an interpretation that requires“between the lines” thinking, identify the intended audience, and/orengage with a controversial issue that might also be a lead-in to classdiscussion.

• Focus students’ attention on text organization and the rhetorical patternsused in the text that signal main information.

• Focus some attention on key thematic vocabulary and unusual words ormetaphoric uses in the form of a student activity (e.g., making glosses forkey terms, underlining metaphoric forms in the text).

• Support L2 students’ vocabulary development (e.g., locate and identifykey words with students, preteach thematic words before writingresponses).

• Encourage students to engage in extensive reading with texts that theywould find interesting and that are related to course themes.

• Ask students to first generate a list of key ideas from a reading text andthen write summaries to support students’ reading/writing together (seealso Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008).

• Assign reading journals in which students write ideas from the text,respond to key information, reflect on issues in the text, or comment onways to use text material in their writing.

• Analyze model writing assignments explicitly, especially in relation toteacher and task expectations.

• Model and scaffold integrated reading/writing tasks leading to the evalua-tion, selection, integration, and citation of information from (multiple) texts.

• Provide many opportunities for students to practice reading/writing tasks(even if short tasks) so that they (a) build confidence and fluency and (b)receive consistent feedback on their writing.

• Use peer feedback guidelines that have explicit directions for what, how,and how much to attend to (see Grabe & Kaplan, 1996, pp. 382–392, for var-ious format options).

Writing teachers might justifiably say that teaching reading andwriting together creates complexities in their classes. One of themost useful ways to address this problem is for groups of teachersto explore how to integrate reading/writing tasks with largerinstructional goals. Teacher groups can begin with a set ofteaching issues (such as those listed in Table 1) and prioritizewhich ones are most important to address. They can experiment insmall ways with teaching ideas and report back to their group ondifficulties and successes. Discussions among teachers, over time,are likely to lead to useful techniques and tasks that will make adifference for L2 students who are struggling with both readingand writing.

20 TESOL Journal

THE AUTHORSWilliam Grabe is Regents Professor and vice president for researchat Northern Arizona University. He is interested in thedevelopment of second language reading skills and writing skills.

Cui Zhang is an assistant professor in the Department of Englishand Theatre at Eastern Kentucky University. She is interested insecond language writing, vocabulary acquisition, and reading–writing relations.

REFERENCESBaba, K. (2009). Aspects of lexical proficiency in writing

summaries in a foreign language. Journal of Second LanguageWriting, 18, 191–208. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2009.05.003

Ferris, D. (2009). Teaching college writing to diverse studentpopulations. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Ferris, D., & Hedgcock, J. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose,process, and practice (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing: Anapplied linguistic perspective. New York, NY: Longman.

Hale, G., Taylor, C., Bridgeman, B., Carson, J., Kroll, B., & Kantor,R. (1996). A study of writing tasks assigned in academic degreeprograms (TOEFL Research Report 54). Princeton, NJ:Educational Testing Service.

Hedgcock, J., & Atkinson, D. (1993). Differing reading-writingrelationships in L1 and L2 literacy development? TESOLQuarterly, 27, 329–333. doi:10.2307/3587155

Hirvela, A. (2004). Connecting reading and writing in second languagewriting instruction. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Horning, A. (2010). A potential solution to the plagiarism problem:Improving reading. Journal of Teaching Writing, 25, 143–175.

Horning, A., & Kraemer, B. (Eds.). (in press). Reconnecting readingand writing. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.

Horowitz, D. (1986). What professors actually require: Academictasks for the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 445–462.doi:10.2307/3586294


Johns, A. (1997). Text, role and context: Developing academic literacies.New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Johns, A., & Mayes, P. (1990). An analysis of summary protocolsof university ESL students. Applied Linguistics, 11, 253–271.doi:10.1093/applin/11.3.253

Keck, C. (2006). The use of paraphrase in summary writing: Acomparison of L1 and L2 writers. Journal of Second LanguageWriting, 15, 261–278. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.006

Kim, C. (2009, November). Improvements in L2 writers’paraphrasing skills for academic summary writing. Paperpresented at the Symposium on Second Language Writing,Tempe, AZ.

Kim, S. (2001). Characteristics of EFL readers’ summary writing: Astudy with Korean university students. Foreign LanguageAnnals, 34, 569–581. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2001.tb02104.x

Kroll, B. (1993). Teaching writing IS teaching reading: Training thenew teacher of ESL composition. In J.G. Carson, & I. Leki(Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom: Second languageperspectives (pp. 61–81). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Leki, I. (2007). Undergraduates in a second language. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Leki, I., & Carson, J. (1994). Students’ perceptions of EAP writinginstruction and writing needs across the disciplines. TESOLQuarterly, 28, 81–101. doi:10.2307/3587199

Leki, I., & Carson, J. (1997). “Completely different worlds”: EAPand the writing experiences of ESL students in universitycourses. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 39–69. doi:10.2307/3587974

Li, Y., & Casanave, C. (2012). Two first-year students’ strategies forwriting from sources: Patchwriting or plagiarism? Journal ofSecond Language Writing, 21, 165–180. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.002

Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (2007). Thesis and dissertation writing ina second language. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Pecorari, D., & Shaw, P. (2012). Types of student intertextualityand faculty attitudes. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21,149–164. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.006

22 TESOL Journal

Petri�c, B. (2012). Legitimate textual borrowing: Direct quotation inL2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21,102–117. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.005

Plakans, L. (2008). Comparing composing processes in writing-only and reading-to-write test tasks. Assessing Writing, 13,111–129. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2008.07.001

Plakans, L. (2009). The role of reading strategies in integrated L2writing tasks. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8,252–266. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2009.05.001

Plakans, L. (2010). Independent vs. integrated writing tasks: Acomparison of task representation. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 185–194. doi:10.5054/tq.2010.215251

Qin, J. (2009). The analysis of Toulmin elements and use of sources inChinese university EFL argumentative writing (Doctoraldissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertation and Thesesdatabase. (Accession No. 3370640)

Rosenfeld, M., Leung, S., & Oltman, P. (2001). The reading, writing,speaking, and listening tasks important for academic success at theundergraduate and graduate levels (TOEFL Monograph SeriesMS-21). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Shanahan, C. (2009). Disciplinary comprehension. In S. Israel &G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension(pp. 240–260). New York, NY: Routledge.

Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacyto adults. Harvard Educational Review, 78, 39–59.

Shi, L. (2006). Cultural backgrounds and textual appropriation.Language Awareness, 15, 264–282. doi:10.2167/la406.0

Shi, L. (2012). Rewriting and paraphrasing source texts in secondlanguage writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 134–148.doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.003

Silva, T., Leki, I., & Carson, J. (1997). Broadening the perspectiveof mainstream composition studies: Some thoughts from thedisciplinary margins. Written Communication, 14, 398–428.doi:10.1177/0741088397014003004

Spack, R. (1997). The acquisition of academic literacy in a secondlanguage: A longitudinal case study. Written Communication, 14,3–62. doi:10.1177/0741088397014001001


Spack, R. (2004). The acquisition of academic literacy in a secondlanguage: A longitudinal case study. In V. Zamel & R. Spack(Eds.), Crossing the curriculum: Multilingual learners in collegeclassrooms (pp. 19–46). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Tardy, C. (2009). Building genre knowledge. West Lafayette, IN:Parlor Press.

Tardy, C. (2010). Writing for the world: Wikipedia as anintroduction to academic writing. English Teaching Forum, 48,12–19.

Yu, G. (2008). Reading to summarize in English and Chinese:A tale of two languages? Language Testing, 25, 521–551.doi:10.1177/0265532208094275

Zhang, C. (2012). Effect of instruction on English as a second languagestudents’ discourse synthesis writing (Doctoral dissertation).Available from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database.(Accession No. 3370640)

Zhu, W. (2004). Faculty views on the importance of writing, thenature of academic writing, and teaching and responding towriting in the disciplines. Journal of Second Language Writing,13, 29–48. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.004

24 TESOL Journal

Documents

Reading and Writing Together