Search

An increasing number of studies have examined teachers' beliefs and practices regarding written corrective feedback (WCF) in recent years. However, the sample size in these previous studies tends to be small. Through questionnaires and teacher interviews, the present study explored the WCF beliefs and practices of 2,012 EFL teachers in Beijing, China. It found that the majority of teachers regarded error correction as a responsibility shared by both teachers and students, and they preferred selective WCF and integrative use of direct and indirect WCF methods. Also, they tended to have confidence in the effectiveness of their WCF. As for their practices, they would mostly underline the errors and point out the types or underline all errors with types indicated. In addition, most teachers would give feedback directly, and the number of teachers for and against delivering feedback on recurring errors seemed to be even. This study indicates the necessity of offering in-service EFL teachers training on WCF.

It is widely recognized that writing conferences benefit second or foreign language writers for the immediacy and the potential to address their needs and provide tailored and individualized support. However, limited attention has been given to the foci and interaction between teacher and student in writing conferences longitudinally. To address this need, this study examined writing conferences between five university English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) students and their instructor in an argumentative writing course over one semester in a key Chinese university. Multiple sources of data were collected, including conferences, students' essay drafts and written reflections, and interviews with the students and the instructor. Data analyses show that the conferences covered a large variety of topics such as varied aspects about argumentative writing, learning habits, and expectations about the course, which were related to English proficiency and English writing ability of each student. Second, the instructor took different approaches to communicate with each student in writing conferences considering their difficulties and needs. Finally, the conferences contribute to a deliberative process critical to the process of learning to write argumentation. The students found conversations with the instructor helpful in their subsequent revisions whereas the instructor gained a better understanding of students' difficulties in writing. This study suggests that more research is needed to examine the role of conferences in EFL writing instruction. This study supports that conferences, as an important aid, will facilitate EFL students in the process of learning to write in English in addition to teacher written feedback and peer review.

The present study examined the effects of languaging by asking four pairs of Chinese university English as a foreign language (EFL) students to rewrite a story from a different perspective through three stages (composing--comparing- revising). Multiple sources of data were collected, including pair discussions, co-constructed writings, individual revised texts, and interviews. Data analysis found that languaging, as an important meditational tool, helped the participants to co-construct meaning and solve problems (e.g. comprehending the original text, structuring their ideas, finding proper expressions) in the process of writing. Languaging was also observed to have immediate, delayed, and ongoing effects on joint writing and individual revision. This study suggests that an opportunity to engage in languaging with the support of source readings and models can facilitate the generation of students' ideas and expressions necessary for writing and allow them to reflect on their language knowledge in the process of writing and revising, resulting in the improvement of their L2 writing performance.

This study examined the effectiveness of reformulation and model text in a three-stage writing task (composing-comparison-revising) in an EFL writing class in a Beijing university. The study documented 10 university students' writing performance from the composing (Stage 1) and comparing (Stage 2, where students compare their own text to a reformulated version of it and a model text) to the improvement of the written product in the posttest (Stage 3). The findings suggest that the students made more effort in finding the proper language to express their ideas at Stage 1 and were able to notice most differences between their original text and the reformulated one at Stage 2. The students also showed their appreciation of having access to a native model text for a broad range of language input. Unlike most previous studies that examined the role of reformulations, pair discussions, or model texts independently, the present study integrated pair discussions, reformulations and a model text at the comparison stage, which allowed the participants to notice their improper language uses, be exposed to richer language input, and appropriate the noticed native-like language use, resulting in better performance in their revised writings at the posttest. (Contains 9 tables.)