Research in the area of academic writing has demonstrated that writing varies significantly across disciplines and among genres within disciplines. Two important approaches to studying diversity in disciplinary academic writing have been the genre-based approach and the corpus-based approach. Genre studies have considered the situatedness of writing tasks, including the larger sociocultural context of the discourse community (e.g., Berkenkotter & Huckin, 1995; Bhatia, 2004) as well as the move structure in specific genres like the research article (e.g., Swales, 1990, 2004). Corpus- based studies of disciplinary writing have focused more closely on the linguistic variation across registers, with the re-search article being the most widely studied register (e.g., Cortes, 2004; Gray, 2011). Studies of under-graduate writing in the disciplines have tended to focus on task classification (e.g., Braine, 1989; Horowitz, 1986a), literacy demands (e.g.,Carson, Chase, Gibson, & Hargrove, 1992), or student development (e.g., Carroll, 2002; Leki, 2007). The purpose of the present study is to build on these previous lines of research to explore undergraduate disciplinary writing from multiple perspectives in order to better prepare English language learners for the writing tasks they might encounter in their majors at a US university. Specifically, this exploratory study examines two disciplines: psychology and chemistry. Through writing task classification (following Horowitz, 1986), qualitative interviews with faculty and students in each discipline, and a corpus-based text analysis of course readings and upper-division student writing, the study yielded several important findings. With regard to writing tasks, psychology writing tasks showed more variety than chemistry. In addition, lower division classes had fewer writing assignments than upper division courses, particularly in psychology. The findings also showed a mismatch between the expectations of instructors in each discipline and students’ understanding of such writing expectations. The linguistic analysis of course readings and student writing demonstrated differences in language use both between registers and across disciplines.

Prominent Feature Analysis (PFA) is a reliable and valid writing assessment tool, derived from the writing it is used to assess. PFA, used to assess on-demand expository essays in Grades 3-12, uncovers positive and negative characteristics of a sample. To extend PFA to a new academic level and genre, I assessed scientific writing of 208 undergraduates, identifying 35 linguistic and 20 scientific prominent features. An essay could earn up to 28 positive (24 linguistic and four scientific), and up to 27 negative marks (11 linguistic and 16 scientific). The minimum prominent features number in a paper was 3, the maximum was 25 (M = 12.45, SD = 3.88). The highest positive and negative prominent features numbers noted were 17 (M = 4.11, SD = 3.96), and 16 (M = 8.34, SD = 3.25) respectively. Rasch analysis revealed a good data-model fit, with item separation of 5.81 (.97 reliability). The estimated feature difficulty of items spanned over 10 logits; common errors were easier to avoid than “good writing” characteristics to exhibit. Significant correlations among linguistic, but not between linguistic and scientific features, suggest writing proficiency does not assure excellence in scientific writing in novices. Ten linguistic features significantly strongly and moderately inter-correlated with each other, appearing to represent writing proficiency. Student GPA correlated significantly with the raw prominent features scores (r = .37; p < .01), and negatively with the sum of negative linguistic features (r = -.40, p < .01), providing support for scale’s validity, and suggesting that good students are better at avoiding common writing errors than less able learners. Additionally, PFA scores positively significantly correlated with composite ACT scores. To investigate PFA’s ability to track change in writing over time, I compared 2 sets of prominent features scores of 25 students. In comparison with earlier essays, later (longer) essays exhibited significantly more positive, and more negative features. Prominent features scores did not correlate significantly between the sets. This suggests, that while PFA is a valid and appropriate tool for analysis of undergraduate scientific writing, it was not suitable for tracking change in writing ability in this small sample.