Anthology Review

1
Goals for academic writing: An anthology review
Introduction

Cummings anthology, Goals for academic writing: ESL students and their
instructors (GAW), is a collection of articles based on a multi-year study conducted by
Cumming and his colleagues. The work is organized into four sections. The first section
is an introduction by Cumming. The second section, The Main Study, contains three
articles that outline the purpose of the study, which is the backbone of the anthology. It
includes information about the participants, instruments, main theories investigated,
methods of analysis and overall results of the research. The next section is titled Case
Studies and examines five case studies of individuals and groups who participated in the
study. The last section, Implications, explores the pedagogical consequences of the
research. Relying on the principles of activity theory outlined in the anthologys
introduction, this work focuses on both individual goals and the goals of instructors. The
setting and realizing of goals proved to be very different experiences in the pre-university
English as a Second Language (ESL) pathway program (referred to as Phase 1) and in the
university setting (referred to as Phase 2).
Purpose and Conceptual Foundations
Cumming begins the anthology by outlining the purpose and conceptual ideas
behind the study. The idea that explorative feedback on L2 writing development is
needed to understand ESL students writing experiences and how they differ after ESL
students enter university was the impetus for the study. Cumming states that one of the
main reasons for embarking on this research is the hope that understanding English
language learners (ELLs) and their instructors writing goals will help students to

Anthology Review

improve their writing and instructors to help facilitate that improvement. He illustrates
three main objectives for beginning the research: 1. To describe students goals for
writing improvement; 2. To compare students goals and their instructors goals for
writing; and 3. To examine changes between goals in a pre-university English pathways
program and goals during university studies a year later (Cumming, 2006).
Two theories Cumming introduces are the goal theory and the activity theory.
The goal theory has three parts: goals appear in phases, have content, and have structure
(Cumming, 2006a, p. 6-7). The goal theory is relevant to the study because it outlines the
idea that goals allow students to go beyond a simple regurgitation of information and that
goals push them to both tell their knowledge and transform their knowledge for a
deeper processing of information input and a more complex written output (Cumming,
2006a, p. 8). The activity theory resonates with Vygotskyan sociocultural theory because
it states that humans gain knowledge through structured social interactions. This theory is
relevant to the study because people act in reference to the knowledge they bring to the
task and the perceived objectives needed to achieve their goal(s) (Cumming, 2006a,
p.9). These two theories can be observed interdependently throughout the studies
included in this anthology. Cumming predicts that goals motivate action and that effective
action does not occur without goals. The anthologys introduction provides an outline of
the main purposes of the study: to document the changes, if any, in goals and activity of
students and instructors in a highly supportive pre-university English program versus a
more autonomous learning environment in a university setting.

Anthology Review

3
The Main Study

The first article, also by Cumming, describes the participants, how they were
selected and the design of the research and analysis methods. Cumming outlines that
students who were enrolled in an intensive, full-time, pre-university English program
focusing on speaking, listening, reading and writing were surveyed to join the study. The
English program had students from various places around the world who were trying to
improve their English so they could enter university. After two rounds of interviewing
participants, 15 students were selected for the study for both Phases 1 and 2. There were
10 Chinese, 2 Japanese, 1 Korean, 1 Iranian and 1 Russian participant and 5 ESL
instructors with at least 7 years of experience in Phase 1 (Cumming, 2006b). In Phase 2,
the same 15 students were followed and nine university instructors participated
(Cumming, 2006b). To collect data, Cumming and colleagues used interviews (with
transcriptions), stimulated recalls and writing samples. They used a coding scheme that
Cumming and colleagues developed, which stated that if Cumming and colleagues were
able to achieve 75-80% inter-coder agreement on interview information, then that
information was included in the study and distributed into categories of goals (Cumming,
2006b). If goals were not clearly stated and there was not enough inter-coder agreement,
the information was not included in the final data sets. Using statistical analysis, the
researchers provided a large segment of data presented as simple tallies to compare
goals between students, between instructors and between students and instructors
(Cumming, 2006b, p.28).
The section entitled Students goals for ESL and university courses outlines the
overall data set for the 15 students who participated in phase 1 (during their ESL

Anthology Review

program) and phase 2 (during their university experience). This article describes seven
main goal objectives, which emerged from this part of the research as language, rhetoric
or genres, composing processes, ideas and knowledge, affective states, learning and
transfer, identity and self-awareness (Zhou, Busch, Gentil, Eouanzoui & Cumming,
2006, p. 31). These goals related to five other categories: actions taken (for example
getting assistance from an instructor), context of actions (such as ESL classes or
university classes), aspirations (study, testing, career), origins of goals (students,
instructor, etc.) and responsibility for goals (student, instructor, etc.) (Zhou, Busch,
Gentil, Eouanzoui & Cumming, 2006). Across the data set, it was found that students
were primarily concerned with language, rhetoric, and knowledge in their writings (Zhou,
Busch, Gentil, Eouanzoui & Cumming, 2006). For students, goal setting, taking action,
and achievement worked interdependently and connect to the introduction that outlined
goal theory and activity theory. With these theories in mind, this article shows that
students goals, while remaining generally consistent with respect to their writing
improvement, were certainly affected by their social experiences addressed later in some
of the case studies.
As this anthology proposes, instructors goals played a significant role in shaping
the goals of their ELLs. Students indicated that most of their goals were related directly
to the contexts of instruction in which they were currently engaged (Zhou, Busch,
Gentil, Eouanzoui & Cumming, 2006, p.48). In other words, in Phase 1, students goals
mirrored the ESL program they were in, whereas in Phase 2, their goals mirrored the
university academic path they had chosen. Again, Vygotskyan sociocultural theory
applies to these students because the anthologys data supports the idea that through

Anthology Review

structured social interaction, students goals mirror their external environment in terms of
goal creation, action and achievement.
The last article in The Main Study section compares and contrasts the goals
ELLs set for themselves versus the goals instructors set for ELLs. A clear difference in
the monitoring of goals in the ESL program and a lack of monitoring of goals in the
university setting by instructors is evident from this article. Cummings, Erdosy and
Cumming (2006) show the difference between ESL instructors and university instructors
and their goals in this section. Also, they address the controversial issue of what kinds of
goals these two different types of instructors should be setting for their students.
On one side of the argument, Cummings, Erdosy and Cumming (2006) point to
the theories of Bazerman and Russel (2003) who state that writing goals should be made
discipline-specific, and thereby consistent with the actual goals and genuine academic
interests of students (as cited in Cummings, Erdosy & Cumming, 2006, p.53). This,
however, does not account for the fact that it is almost impossible for an ESL program
that focuses on English for academic purposes to also focus on the interest of any one
student. That is the objective of English for Special Purposes (ESP). On the other side of
the argument, Cummings, Erdosy and Cumming (2006) cite Widdowson (1983) who
argued for the benefits of a general approach to English language education to develop
capacities in students which they could later apply to future academic specificpurposes (as cited in Cummings, Erdosy & Cumming, p.54). Although these
researchers do not explicitly chose a side of this argument, I think it is fair to say that
most ESL programs try to prepare their students for the general challenges of university
writing (assuming that the special-purposes vocabulary, formatting and content will come

Anthology Review

naturally with time and exposure). While I agree with this position, I think there is a
disconnect between the writing goals of instructors for their students at the ESL level and
the university level. This disconnect is seen in the three categories of instructors typified
in this section.
Based on comment patterns in interviews, Cumming et. al. (2006) divided
university instructors into three categories reflecting the types of goals and attitudes
towards those goals instructors had in their courses. The first category was coded as
instructors in bridging coursesdistinct in their overt attention to English language,
critical thinking and writing, butlimited focus on background or subject matter
(p.57). Instructors in these courses were more sympathetic and understanding of ELLs
language abilities and L2 (second language) efforts. The second category included
instructors in, foundation coursestheir stated purpose was to introduce students [both
native and non-native English speakers] to the knowledge and writing conventions of
academic discourse (Cummings, Erdosy & Cumming, 2006, p.58). These courses
focused on both native and non-native English speakers and, while not specifically
catering toward ELLs writing goals and needs, still allowed them to grow as L2 writers.
The last category was instructors in mainstream university, focused entirely on academic
content representing the [non-native speakers] target environment for study
(Cummings, Erdosy & Cumming, 2006, p.58). These instructors felt they had no
responsibility to teach writing to their ELL students. Interestingly, stereotyping and
cultural ignorance seemed to appear within these mainstream courses. One quote by a
mainstream university instructor illustrates this:

Anthology Review

Some students are very capableof assimilating information and reproducing it,
and others didnt seem to. So I wondered about the level of their reading
comprehension, or their strategies, which we did talk aboutBut some of them
were much more competent than others. Theres a real range. (Bolding is mine)
(Cummings, Erdosy & Cumming, 2006, p.64.)
I believe this quote accurately sums up the problems between university instructors
writing goals for ELLs and ELLs personal writing goals. It also illustrates a lack of
understanding and an assumption on the instructors part of ELL incompetence.
Cumming and colleagues were able to illustrate an issue at the university level because
instructors were not taking into account the individual differences of their students and
were inaccurately correlating those differences with an overall incompetence of their ELL
students.
In the case studies presented in this anthology, there were numerous examples of
students flourishing in the university setting as they re-oriented their goals to those of
their instructors. However, it should be noted that those students mostly entered at the
level of the bridging and foundation courses. Conversely, students who went directly
from a highly scaffolded, nurturing ESL environment to a more autonomous, neglectful
mainstream university class fared differently. In these instances, ELL students felt they
were unable to meet the standards of university instructors and consequently changed
their entire goal set, and in one extreme case their entire major, to avoid writing too much
in English.

Anthology Review

8
Case Studies

There are five case studies included in this anthology. The first study focused on
the writing goals of nine Chinese students. The second study focused on the integrative
and instrumental aspects of goals from both the students and instructors point of view
and how those goals changed over time as students became more academically oriented.
The third study focused on the different metalinguistic terminologies that students used to
voice their intentions, actions and achievements in regard to their goals. The fourth study
focused on three students and their goals as they related to their identities, motivation and
overall individual differences. The final study deviated from the methods and research of
the previous studies by examining the goals of French and English bilingual students and
their goals in ESL or French as a Second Language (FSL) classes. Although this last case
study seems out of place, it was included in this anthology to shed light on the writing
goals and experiences of bilingual students in addition to ESL students. Of the five case
studies, two case studies best articulate what Cumming et. Al (2006) addressed in The
Main Study. The first article is entitled Nine Chinese students writing in Canadian
university courses and the second article is Goals, motivations, and identities of three
students writing in English.
Nine Chinese Students
The first article followed nine Chinese students through Phase 1 and Phase 2 of
the study and documented how they set writing goals, acted upon their goals and whether
they achieved their goals. In other words, this study combined the goal and activity
theories previously explained by Cumming et. al. (2006). Some of the themes that
emerged from this study were that all of the students found that ESP vocabulary and

Anthology Review

formatting were their biggest challenges. Additionally, because most of these courses fell
into the mainstream university category, instructors did not feel it was their duty to
teach ELLs how to write properly. According to this case study, while students appeared
to accept that university professors were not obliged to help them write well in English
[they] wished that the professors could point out both content and writing problems
[because students found that helpful in their ESL program] (Yang, 2006, p.85). Another
common theme in this article showed ELLs drawing on their previous English instruction
from their ESL programs, harking back to Widdowsons theory of teaching ELLs the
tools to be a better writer in English instead of more focused ESP writing techniques.
Kazuko and Riyoko
The second study focused on three students who participated in both Phase 1 and
Phase 2. The students were Riyoko and Kazuko (both Japanese) and Jina (Korean). By
examining the three students goals from their ESL program to their university studies,
many aspects of ESL writing goals previously mentioned became apparent. This article
juxtaposed these three students individual differences, motivations and goals with each
others and showed that each ELL in this study oriented herself in a range of instrumental
and integrative ways. The three main types of individual differences addressed were
marked as autobiographical self, discoursal self and self as author (Kim, Baba &
Cumming, 2006, p.130-132). In terms of these three types of self-expression and goal
setting in their writing the most notable difference in goal orientation and action can be
seen between Kazuko and Riyoko. These two subjects accurately present two extremes of
the ELL writing-experience spectrum.

Anthology Review

10

Kazuko often wrote with candor incorporating her autobiographical self into her
writing and drawing upon her identity as a Japanese woman (Kim, Baba & Cumming,
2006). From her ESL writing to her university writing, she was able to incorporate her
experiences and her personal identity lending her writing a sense of credibility and
authority. In her university essays, Kazuko presented herself as belonging to an
academic discourse communityshe cited [and] establish[ed] objectivity and her
vocabulary became more specialized towards her major (Kim, Baba & Cumming, 2006,
p.131). These things allowed her to show her discoursal identity. As self as author,
Kazuko frequently allowed her opinions to enter her writings. Based on this study, I
would argue that these types of orientations are integrative and allowed Kazuko to write
successfully in her university setting.
Conversely, Riyokos writing and goals were different. In her ESL curriculum, she
rarely allowed her autobiographical self to be expressed in her writing. This continued
into her studies at university, as well. She rarely, if at all, allowed her self as author to
come through in her writing. No trace of Riyokos autobiographical self as past
experiences, interests, or ideas/opinions/commitments appeared in her essays (Kim,
Baba & Cumming, 2006, p.133). Her discoursal self, unlike Kazukos, never allowed
the use of the first person. What is most interesting about Riyokos writing goals is that
this lack of self seemed to have had a large impact on the actions she took in her
university studies. Riyoko began her university studies in the field of architecture.
However, this quote about her experience is revealing:
One of Riyokos problems was how to include her subjective impression in her
writing about architecture while also maintaining a perspective of objectivity.

Anthology Review

11

Riyoko wanted to avoid expressing her personal voice in her texts, but detailing
her own impressions was mandatory for her course requirements. (Kim, Baba &
Cumming, 2006, p. 153)
Because of this requirement or goal that was set for her externally, Riyoko chose to
entirely change her education track. She changed her major from architecture to
chemistry, where less subjective writing was required of her. This result is a concern
because it illustrates the pressure that instructors and mainstream university courses
subject an ELL toenough to change their entire curriculum. In my opinion, Kazuko is
an exceptional case because she excelled in English writing using her personal
experiences for additional credibility. In English writing it is becoming more acceptable
to use the first person and to include experiential information in students work. However,
because of the acceptance and expectation of first person and experiential information,
Riyoko seemed to feel penalized for her unwillingness to include that part of herself as an
ELL writer. It is clear that the university situations that set goals for these two students
affected their actions significantly.
Implications
The final section of this anthology is called Implications and it details
suggestions for pedagogy, university policy and future research. However, suggestions
for pedagogy are so broad that they may not be realistic. For example, Design curricula
to make the setting and monitoring of individual goals for writing improvement a central
focus for students... or, Respond to and evaluate students writing directly in reference
to the goals students have individually specified, both in respect to drafts [as well as
writing tasks] (Cumming, 2006c, p.165). These are good suggestions, but they may not

Anthology Review

12

be feasible for every instructor in every university course type, as was evidenced by the
mainstream university instructors. Perhaps the most useful suggestion in this section is
that instructors should bear in mind the individual differences of their ELLs because
individual differences, contextual variability, and continuity as well as change are to be
expected, amongst ELLs (Cumming, 2006c, p.165).
In the section on Implications for university policy, Cumming et. al. (2006)
state that it has been made clear that pre-university ESL programs are of great help and
value to ELLs before entering university, regardless of their English language test scores.
Another main point in this section is the importance of bridging courses for ELLs to
begin their university writing experience successfully. Last, and perhaps most salient, is
the question of whether or not, coordination [is] desirable or even feasible between ESL
and university mainstream instructors (Cumming, 2006c, p. 169). That is to say, is it
possible for mainstream instructors to scaffold ELLs writing or even be as aware of
ELLs goals and actions as ESL instructors had been? Cumming et. al. (2006) recognize
that this is probably not possible because ESL courses and mainstream university courses
perform different functions and offer qualitatively different learning opportunities (p.
169). I concur with this conclusion that pre-university ESL classes can only prepare a
student so much before they must enter university to gain a more specialized vocabulary.
Finally, Cumming et. al (2006) suggest future research needs to be done to better
understand the writing goals of foreign language learners and their instructors. They
suggest further research to facilitate a [unification of] learning, teaching, curriculum,
and assessment in various contexts (Cumming, 2006c, p.169). Because, as this
anthology highlights, although there is some overlap for ELLs with their ESL courses and

Anthology Review

13

their university courses, there are still many challenging personal and social goals ELLs
must act upon and achieve to succeed in an English language university environment.
Conclusion
Cumming and his colleagues do not specifically state an intended-audience for
this anthology. However, I believe that it is mainly for the benefit of teachers in the
university setting. This anthology focuses on the different experiences of ELLs in their
pathway ESL programs as compared to their experiences in the university setting. A
major point is that the university experience can be much less forgiving than the ESL
pathway program and that instructors are more likely to expect ELLs to be able to write
with near-native abilities. This expectation is unrealistic and does not allow ELLs to
improve their writing for the sake of L2 writing, but rather forces them to make sacrifices
to excel (as in Riyokos situation). Therefore, I feel it is the objective of this anthology to
highlight the differences in goals between student and instructor and the actions that
ELLs will take to achieve those goals when pressured in certain directions.
I think this anthology is useful for instructors in both the ESL and university
environments. The goals of students often change to match the goals outlined by a
specific instructor. Therefore, instructors in the ESL setting can attempt to adequately
prepare their students for all types of writing and be aware that goals will be set for them
in the university setting. This may better prepare ELLs to enter university courses and
succeed. Similarly, if university instructors are made aware of the different goals that
ELLs have and the fact that ELLs will perform differently (not necessarily worse) than
their native English speaking students, it may change the view of instructors who believe

Anthology Review

14

ELLs are handicapped in the classroom and help create more realistic goals for their ELL
students.

Anthology Review

15
REFERENCES

Cumming, A. (2006a). Introduction, purpose, and conceptual foundations. In Cumming,

A. (Ed.), Goals for writing: ESL students and their instructors (p.1-17).
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Cumming, A. (2006b). Context and design of the research. In Cumming, A. (Ed.), Goals
for writing: ESL students and their instructors (p.21-28). Philadelphia: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Cumming, A. (2006c). Implications for pedagogy, policy, and research. In Cumming, A.
(Ed.), Goals for writing: ESL students and their instructors (p.159-173).
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Cummings, J., Erdosy, U., Cumming, A. (2006). A study of contrasts: ESL and university
instructors goals for writing improvement. In Cumming, A. (Ed.), Goals for
writing: ESL students and their instructors (p.50-69). Philadelphia: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Kim, T-Y., Baba, K. & Cumming A. (2006) Goals, motivations, and identities of three
students writing in English. In Cumming, A. (Ed.), Goals for writing: ESL
students and their instructors (p.126-141). Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Yang, L. (2006). Nine Chinese students writing in Canadian university courses. In
Cumming, A. (Ed.), Goals for writing: ESL students and their instructors (p.7389). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Zhou, A., Busch, M., Gentil, G., Eouanzoui, K., Cumming, A. (2006). Students goals for
ESL and university courses. In Cumming, A. (Ed.), Goals for writing: ESL

Anthology Review

16

students and their instructors (p.29-49). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing

Company.