On the contrary, in an environment where English is L1, writers do not use first-person singular/plural pronouns with a high frequency. It means that in most Asian countries, authors do not commonly get themselves involved in order to take responsibilities (the same identity representation was shown by the students who were in different groups at the beginning of the semester), and it is a message for the teachers to impart knowledge regarding rhetorical patterns to their students (see Hyland, 2002). Moreover, it is not sufficient for teachers to make the students familiar with the written rhetorical organizations of the second language. Most importantly, they should provide instruction on all aspects of the second language they are teaching including using singular/plural pronouns which lead to identity representations. Care should be exercised by teachers before beginning a writing class, where students are supposed to engage in different types of activities, because group activities unconsciously and gradually influence students to construct individual or collective identities and represent them in subsequent turns. Notes on contributors
Formal grammar instruction (aka „corrective feedback‟ (CF)) in L2 classroom has been subject to painstaking debate among L2writing specialists and SLA theorists. vii Thus, while one venue of research claims that grammar error correction is necessary for successful L2 student writingdevelopment (e.g. Ferris), other line of research questions the efficacy of grammar instruction as a necessary component during SLA, including L2writingdevelopment (e.g., Truscott). viii , ix Nevertheless, no matter how wide this disagreement may be, researchers generally agree that L2 student writers can still benefit from appropriate feedback provided by language instructors. x In this respect, it is worth mentioning that results from a number of studies show that in the long run indirect teacher‟s feedback has proven superior over direct feedback due to more demanding cognitive involvement (see Lalande‟s study). xi Direct feedback is a type of feedback in
AgustínLlach (2011) sees a mutual relation between vocabulary and writing. Writing practice, on the one hand, contributes to the development of vocabulary. On the other hand, lexical performance is a good indicator of composition quality and communicative success of the text. Using a reference corpus to assess the collocational value of L2 bigrams in a longitudinal survey, Bestgen and Granger (2014) indicated the important role phraseology plays in L2writingdevelopment: the more usage of collgrams which combine lexis and grammar, the higher quality of text produced by ESL writers. Given that a lexical corpus should be employed for academic English pedagogy, Flowerdew (2015) notes that students‟ level of language proficiency should be taken into account. She suggests that frequency account should not form the base of findings, and learnability and teachability of lexical items are more important factors that compilers should consider. Another significant matter which should be considered is the incredible range of topic variation in any corpus of texts and the choice of specific words that have received scant attention applied linguistics literature. Miller and Biber (2015) believe corpus studies should not solely pursue the goal of generalizing to a discourse domain. Internal representativeness achieved through measures of lexical richness in a corpus which rest on the significance of words should also be taken into account. These statements do not cast discredit on frequency-oriented corpus studies but emphasize that students can utilize a collection of lexical items when they are goal oriented and have potential usability in productive tasks such as composition writing. Hu and Nassaji (2016) in an investigation into implications of vocabulary learning tasks came to conclusion that learner engagement, instantiation, and productive generation included in Technique Feature Analysis (Nation & Webb, 2011) are important features which help vocabularies be learned better.
The findings of this study revealed that in terms of both direct and indirect feedback, students’ beliefs and attitudes towards what written corrective feedback entailed affect how they perceive and respond to the feedback. However, for students who received indirect feedback, scaffolding by instructors, and scaffolding by collaborating with fellow students as well as self-initiative influence how these students act on the feedback in their subsequent revision of their writing. Hence, teachers should be made aware of the impact of these two types of WCF. Yet in general, neither direct nor indirect WCF was employed by teachers, thus many students were not aware of the benefits of these two feedback options. Furthermore, it seems that students in the indirect group need more time to learn to use the symbol guideline (i.e. the error chart). Students from the indirect group were initially given two weeks of treatment (week 4 to week 6) to enable them to be familiarized with the error chart. Nevertheless the students stated in the interviews that they still faced difficulties in understanding the feedback that contains error codes, which suggests that students need to be given longer period of training to enable them to understand what the error codes entail. In addition, one student from the direct group pointed out the needs of having a one-on-one conference feedback. In this study, a combination of WCF and one-on-one feedback would enable students to use the past tenses with improved accuracy, as the combined feedback option allows teachers to discuss with their students which linguistic errors should be focused on.
The purpose of research question was to find out whether using portfolio has any significant effect on the writing performance of EFL learners. To address this question, descriptive statistics of participants’ performance on writing pre-test and post-test is presented in table 1. Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of expository writing scores in both control and portfolio (experimental) groups of the study. According to table 1, a considerable difference between mean scores of control group and portfolio group in pretest cannot be seen which are 60.22 and 61.18 respectively; while there is a considerable difference between the mean scores of those groups in post-test, which are 73.11 and 78.14 respectively. Also, according to this table, the portfolio group received a higher mean score than the control one on both pretest and posttest, but there was not a considerable difference between the mean scores of portfolio and control groups in the pre-test as compared with those of the post-test. The two sets of compositions written by portfolio and control groups were also compared using an independent sample t-test. In order to see whether their performance is statistically significant, Table 1 represents the inferential statistics of the results of the writing post-test running on the scores. The table 1 indicates that there are statistically significant differences between the mean scores of the portfolio and control groups at p< .05 which are 73.11 and 78.14 respectively. In other words, the mean scores of portfolio group are higher than that of control group, which means that portfolio group outperformed the control group in writing. So, the null hypothesis of this study, which stated that the application of portfolio assessment technique has no significant effect on writing performance of EFL learners, was rejected.
These practice sessions were followed by the actual peer assessment experience. Three general topics were assigned for the next three successive sessions, one at a time. For each meeting, students were required to hand in their compositions and five copies of it to be marked by the teacher, two peers and two other raters. As mentioned before, the researcher had already identified friend and non-friend peers of each student. Ac- cordingly, names of peers (without mentioning their friendship relation) were read out so students knew whose papers they had to mark. After using the checklist to score the writing performances, the peer raters signed the papers and handed in the composi- tions and scoring tables to be recorded by the teacher. These papers were returned to the writers in the following sessions for discussion during which the teacher and peer corrections were reviewed and the subjects were given feedback regarding their errors in their writings and on parts which needed revision.
In order for teachers to understand how to recognize types of errors which incorporate multiple intelligences, they must be able to easily identify a student’s intelligence ranking. Significant relationships between MI and performance on writing performance has also been confirmed in the study undertaken by Hosseini (2012) within whose study the linguistic intelligence served as the best predictor of the writing performance of participants. In an attempt to discover whether there is any relationship between quantitative usage of logical connectors, in terms of both token and type, in Iranians' EFL essay writing and their logical/mathematical and linguistic intelligences was carried out by Rahimi and Qannadzadeh (2010). Overall, logical/mathematical intelligence was significantly related to the use of more logical-connectors in their essay writing.
Page | 164 This paper is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. attempting to put the ideas on the paper. She attributed this to two factors: (1) she was unable to think in English and (2) lack of practice. That is, although her academic study is in English, she rarely writes in English because her teachers of Latin American history gave her the permission to write in Spanish. Even if she had to write some papers in English, she tended to rely on her American friends who, at the same time, need her help in Spanish. Moreover, students' explanations suggest that their main problems in writing narrative texts were (1) finding a topic to write about, and (2) starting their essays (opening statements), once topics were found. However, the subjects were able to overcome these two problems by adopting certain strategies. These were (1) a brainstorming process, (2) a memory search for a topic, which resulted in finding one complete problem to write about, pieces of problems, or one's overall experience in the United States, and (3) activation of prior knowledge that appeared pertinent to the writing assignment. Relatedly, students' behaviors during writing the narrative essay lend tentative support to the knowledge telling model (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987). This model presents writing as a fairly natural task. And although the writing task may have its difficulties, writers can handle them by making maximum use of already existing knowledge structures. The composing process, according to this model, begins with a writing assignment. This model also allows for large differences in outcome depending on the writer's knowledge of the topic and on the writer's sophistication in the literary genre. Analyzing the subjects' explanations shows that their main difficulty during narrative writing was finding a problem to write about, and how to start their essays. Although
One language proficiency test (PET) which was run earlier than starting the program, a pre-test of which was conducted on subjects’ word knowledge. All of the words were chosen from the term book of the learners. And a post-test of which was for measuring the effectiveness of the diary writing.
On the final task, Organization scored the highest overall. This reflects a degree of acculturation to British academic norms and presumably a better understanding of the expectations of the task (although the final test did not form a part of the students' overall grade for the pre-sessional programme, so there should little washback from this task). The difference between band scores for the traits on the initial task and those on the final task represent a clear difference in the writing of the 'typical' student between the start and the end of their course. This difference represents an overall average increase over one band for of the traits combined. Individually, 45 of the students managed to increase their mean overall score over the two tasks. However, although increase and, by definition, improvement was the norm, 27 students failed to improve their band score in at least one of the traits; showed no improvement in any trait; and two actually recorded lower scores on at least one trait on the final task. At the other end of the scale, six students posted average overall increases
This study applies a multi-case study methodology. The purpose of the study is to investigate the L2writing strategies of four graduate students. The data were gathered using four different instruments: think-aloud protocols (TAPs), retrospective interviews, class observation, and semi-structured interviews. In L1 and L2writing research, the ‘think-aloud’ method is one of the most commonly used techniques; it has been extensively used by researchers to examine the role of strategies in writing. The direct observation was conducted at the time when the subjects were writing aloud their writing tasks. This activity was done in order to observe how the subject behaved, what they did when they came across any difficulty, what strategies they adopted to solve their writing problems, where they paused, repeated the words, used their L1 while writingL2, revised, rehearsed, or reread. All the activities that they did were noted down for later use. To triangulate the protocol data, I administered the retrospective interview on the same day right after the writing session was over to enhance the reliability of the data (Ericsson & Simon, 1984). I asked some questions based on the information I got from the direct observation. In this activity, I also conducted some interviews. I have prepared some questions to direct the interview according to a general idea of what I want to get from the interviewees, and what should come out from the interview.
amounts to various reasons among which lack of TL knowledge and con- ceptual transfer. The former was evidenced in the limited use of the signals, compared with the baseline groups, to realize the structure. The latter was evidenced by transferring of the correlative pairs common in L1 but not found in L2. To elaborate it, KLEs’ use of the signals ‘when … then/at that time/in the future’, which are considered the translation equivalent for ‘کاتێك ... ئەوا/لە داﻩاتوودا/ئەوکاتە’ in Kurdish language, implies that KLEs reverted to L1 conceptual knowledge and system. In other words, the way the future effect of the cause signaled by ‘when’ was in ß uenced by L1 temporal notion as it couldn’t be found in TL. Hence, temporal notions of L1 have been projected onto L2writing by KLEs. As a result, that projection might lead to produc- tion of a type of text that is not common in L2writing, and it might cause miscommunication or ambiguity. Similarly, the way the conditional relation was realized by the correlative pair vocabularies ‘if … so/in the future/at that time’ by KLEs is similar to “ئەگەر ... ئەوا/لە داﻩاتوودا/ئەوکاتە” and ‘if … then’ of both the baseline groups. Nevertheless, the way KLEs realized the structure through the correlative pair ‘if … at that time/in the future’ is similar to KNS group amounts to their L1 conceptual knowledge besides. The basic notion of conditional structure of L1 was used in forming the text structure. None- theless, KLEs’ use of the conditional ‘if’ separately was similar to ENSs as that was not found in KNSs’ realization of the structure. The projection of L1 conceptual knowledge onto L2writing is present which might cause ambi- guity and miscommunication. Hence, negative and positive types of transfer occurred in KLEs’ L2writing.
The second finding was that argument mapping showed significantly different effects across task types, i.e. learners‟ performance on descriptive writing was better than that of the expository task. The only explanation for the difference is perhaps the familiarity of learners with the descriptive mode and its easier organization compared with the expository mode because no previous study or theory directly supports this finding. In addition, most learners were familiar with description as the simplest and easiest approach in L2writing based on their experience from L1. As aforementioned, the majority of previous studies have examined the use of argument mapping techniques for teaching writing and its inherent components. As a result, the paucity of research about the impact of using these maps for teaching narrative, descriptive, expository, and argumentative paragraph and essay types as the four main writing modes as classified by Hyland (2003) discredits making robust claims and generalizations solely based on the findings of the current study. One of the rare references can be ascribed to Davies (2010) that has argued for the efficiency of using argument maps for enriching language leaners‟ description of events and phenomena in their writing tasks; however, he has not made any comparison among description and other writing functions.
The two studies documented above (Dellerman et al., 1996; Ellis & Yuan, 2004) have supported hypotheses that the presence of planned conditions results in improved written performance. These results are in line with earlier investigations of the effects of planning on L2 oral performance. As stated in Foster and Skehan (1999) this approach (i.e., individual planning) has some drawbacks. First, individual planning is not the only way that learners in classrooms utilize when they involve in planning. In the real classroom setting, it is natural that fellow students engage in the planning activity. Moreover, the use of small group and pair work is supported by the communicative approach to L2 instruction. Individual planning seems to be contrary to the central quality of communicative language teaching, i.e., the need for interaction. Second, the act of collaboration can be productive and the students who work in teams may achieve a higher order of thinking. Solitary planning may, on this basis, not be as efficient as other group-based methods of the planning phase.
Having set her specific goals, Sarah moved on to strategically plan the next step of achieving these goals. Strategic planning refers to the process in which learners are involved in “choosing or constructing advantageous learning methods that are appropriate for the task and the environment setting.” (Zimmerman & Moylan, 2009, p. 301). There was a clear change in Sarah’s strategic planning between the beginning and the end of the course. On the one hand, Sarah expressed her frustration at the beginning of the course about opportunities to plan her work by saying, “I don’t feel that our doctors or the university provide us with a good environment or help us to put goals or plans”. On the other hand, she could make a strategic plan later in the course in which she started a writing task by asking specific questions related to the writing task. She could create outlines for the written assignments in order to be specific in conveying the ideas. She also thought about which place and time would be suitable to write, “we have to know the reason of our sitting to write”. Those strategies helped her to generate ideas and information and to omit irrelevant sentences.
The finding on the indirect effect of writing approach and L2writing experience on L2writing performance led us to theorize that the effects of these variables on the composing processes of L1 writers may be different. It has already been established in previous findings that composing processes between L1 and L2 are different (Manch ο n & Roca 2007, Van Weijin 2009, Tillema 2012). Future research could provide a deeper understanding on this issue if it investigates as to whether writing approach and writing experience have direct or indirect effects on both L1 and L2writing. For now, the present study indicates that writing approach and writing experience need to enhance text production first before it can affect writing performance. Among L2 writers, idea generation can be both in L1 and in L2, but the generated ideas need to be translated in L2 before they go through the transcription process (Tavakoli, Ghadiri & Zabihi 2014). The cognitive constraints imposed by the incompatibility between idea encoding while composing and the target written output would require the facilitating effects of writing experience and writing approach, together with topic and linguistic knowledge, on text production processes for these two latent factors to influence writing performance.
information is collected about students‟ learning and is compared to teachers‟ expectations and ultimately action is taken to move students towards those goals. What most FA models have in common is the cyclic nature, where information from feedback is injected back into the instruction process and the main goal is to fill the gap between students‟ current level and expected goals. The construction of FAoW instrument based on the aforementioned model in three stages can probably correspond with task representation when Wolfersberger (2013) refines the construct of classroom-based writing assessment. He defines task representation as the “writer‟s conceptualization of the requirements of the assessment task … a mental model of the finished written product” (p. 50). He asserts that it is a process in which writers need to take the necessary steps to create the final written product that meets the assessment criteria which had been set prior to writing and assessment feedback based on which they performed. FAoW is similarly a construct which starts with setting criteria for success in prewriting stage, incorporating a set of feedback received through different sources during writing and ultimately achieving the expected goals autonomously by knowing the future trend for learning in post-writing stage. This is a cyclic process with feedback as its central component and can repeat for every writing task to lead to autonomy in writing (Hattie & Timperley, 2007).
Therefore, this small research using the subjects of 15-30 years of age hopefully can fill the existing gap, in terms of age only. However, age is not the only variable that Baker (2001) mentions as the variable that needs to be considered in research. Other variables, such as motivation, socioeconomic circumstances, school experience, and the culture at home and in the community, the kinds of bilinguals—balanced or limited— cannot be controlled in this small research. Bilinguals in this study mean the students who use two or more languages at home. This definition is based on the one given by Romaine (1995, p. 12) following Mackey that bilingualism is the alternate use of two or more languages, although she does not limit the domain, at home or somewhere else. Bilinguals in this paper are classified into two; first, those who are exposed to another local language (passive bilinguals), besides speaking Bahasa Indonesia at home; second, those who are exposed to and speak other language(s) and Bahasa Indonesia at home (active bilinguals), while monolinguals are those who are only exposed to and speak Bahasa Indonesia at home. How well the bilinguals can speak the other language(s)—that should be considered in research—was not taken into consideration in this research because of the limited time and possible chance to interview all the subjects. The term “bilinguals” also means “multilinguals” in this study. The fact that all students in Indonesia also study English at school, beginning in junior high school, if not elementary school, is also ignored. This paper does not try to prove the influence of bilingualism on cognition by measuring the intelligence through IQ test either, but it tries to see whether the subjects’ “monolingualism” and “bilingualism” influence their study on English, especially writing. Research has now talked about an individual learning an L3 and not only an L2. Therefore, it is not out of track if this research tries to see how different the monolinguals’ works in writing (monolinguals learning an L2) compared to the bilinguals (that are learning an L3), although the variables used to label the subjects as monolinguals and bilinguals are just the languages they use or are exposed to at a limited domain, which is at home.
However, there are still quite a number of students who seem to hold an imprecise comprehension of literature reviews which may account for some of the problematic practice in their literature review writing. For example, half of the survey respondents (see Figure 2) chose “introducing relevant theories and ideas in detail” and 32.8% of them selected “listing previous studies”, which can explain why quite a number of Chinese MAs turned their thesis literature reviews into pure descriptions of relevant theories and ideas in full details and gave a simple listing of previous studies without any synthesis or analysis as pointed by Xie (2016). As a matter of fact, some Chinese students consider the literature review as a mere description and summary of previous studies and theories, holding that writing literature review is to “list previous studies one by one, describe relevant theories and their development in details, and summarize the literature in the end” and thus making their literature reviews “overly descriptive” (Xie, 2016, p.13). It also deserves our attention that many Chinese MAs have developed a rigid pattern in organizing the literature: “I first review the foreign studies, then the domestic ones, and finally summarize the whole literature”. Though we cannot say that this pattern is wrong or inappropriate, more diversified overall structure deployment tailored for different research topics can and should be encouraged and taught in the teaching of literature review writing.
Towards the end of the 1980s, errors started to be understood as a developmental stage, which was an important turning point heralded already by Shaughnessy (1977). Making an error began to lose its highly negative connotation, which had previously often stigmatised students as being “illiterate”, “irremediable” and so on. Investigation turned to the question of what an error is and, consequently, to what extent it should be focused on (Santa 2006). Truscott (1996) suggested no error correction should occur at all. As a matter of fact, questions concerning the reasons for correcting errors, which errors should be corrected, when (in which phase of writing), how and who should correct them have been asked by researchers since the very beginnings of research into second language acquisition (Bitchener and Ferris 2012, 6).