Kristen di Gennaro

8 articles
Pace University ORCID: 0000-0003-3099-0538

Loading profile…

Publication Timeline

Co-Author Network

Research Topics

Who Reads Gennaro

Kristen di Gennaro's work travels primarily in Composition & Writing Studies (75% of indexed citations) · 8 total indexed citations from 3 clusters.

By cluster

  • Composition & Writing Studies — 6
  • Rhetoric — 1
  • Other / unclustered — 1

Top citing journals

Counts include only citations from indexed journals that deposit reference lists with CrossRef. Authors whose readers publish primarily in venues without reference deposits will appear less central than they are. See coverage notes →

  1. Linguistic Currents in Writing Studies Scholarship: Describing Variation in How Linguistic Terms Have Been Borrowed and (Re-)Interpreted in Writing Studies
    doi:10.37514/atd-j.2024.21.2-3.02
  2. Naming What We Don’t Know: Graduate Instructors and Declarative Knowledge about Language
    Abstract

    Data from a study of graduate instructors in a composition teaching practicum show that the neglect of declarative knowledgeaboutlanguage is something that they were conscious of and wished to remedy. This finding supports arguments calling for reinstating a focus on linguistic knowledge in composition and writing studies programs.

    doi:10.58680/ccc202231873
  3. Is Feedback on Grammar Harmful or Helpful? Questionable Answers and Unanswered Questions
    Abstract

    Current composition practice relies on a decades-old summary of research concluding that a focus on grammar in students’ writing is useless, or even harmful. Conversely, hundreds of recent studies from the fields of second-language writing and applied linguistics claim to provide evidence of the benefits to providing feedback on grammar in students’ writing. This article summarizes the arguments for and against such feedback and problematizes the results of previous research by describing a quasi-experimental study measuring the effects, both positive and negative, of providing students with grammar feedback on their writing. Results show that, while feedback on specific grammatical forms improved participants’ accuracy on those forms, it also led to decreased accuracy on other forms related to but not the focus of instruction. Furthermore, the control group’s accuracy equaled or surpassed that of the two feedback groups.

  4. Naming What We Feel: Hierarchical Microaggressions and the Relationship between Composition and English Studies
  5. Searching for differences and discovering similarities: Why international and resident second-language learners’ grammatical errors cannot serve as a proxy for placement into writing courses
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2016.05.001
  6. What Do They Mean?
    Abstract

    Writing scholars often note the heterogeneity of the second language (L2) student population in higher education writing courses, but only recently have researchers begun to carefully examine differences in the writing ability of international L2 learners and U.S. resident L2 learners. Most of the empirical research to date focuses on the two groups’ grammatical accuracy to the exclusion of other dimensions of writing ability. Such a limited focus not only underrepresents the multifaceted construct of writing ability, but also overlooks potential areas where noticeable differences across the two groups’ writing ability might surface. Although arguably less salient than grammatical (in)accuracy, and not as prevalent in scoring rubrics, students’ use of sociopragmatic features in writing offers an alternative approach for comparing the two groups of learners beyond their use of grammatical forms. Thus, the current study describes and compares how international and U.S. resident L2 learners used certain sociopragmatic markers in their writing. By focusing on the meanings associated with these markers, the study suggests that students’ use of such markers reflects their sociopragmatic awareness. Findings indicate that the two groups of writers may be more similar than different, contrary to previous research.

    doi:10.1558/wap.v7i1.24054
  7. How different are they? A comparison of Generation 1.5 and international L2 learners’ writing ability
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2013.01.003
  8. The Heterogeneous Second-Language Population in US Colleges and the Impact on Writing Program Design
    Abstract

    This article reviews various frameworks for defining second-language learner groups, as described in the literature, and summarizes relevant empirical studies based on these frameworks.

    doi:10.58680/tetyc201220842