Lui, Nga Kwan. / Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2007. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 164-170). / Abstracts in English and Chinese. / ABSTRACT --- p.i / ACKNOWLEDGEMENT --- p.iv / Chapter CHAPTER 1 --- INTRODUCTION --- p.1 / Chapter 1.1 --- Two Writing Approaches Practiced in Hong Kong Classrooms --- p.1 / Chapter 1.1.1 --- A Glimpse of the Situation of Hong Kong Secondary School Classrooms --- p.1 / Chapter 1.1.2 --- A Glimpse of the Situation of Hong Kong University Classrooms --- p.6 / Chapter 1.2 --- Different Roles of Teacher Feedback in the Two Writing Approaches --- p.8 / Chapter 1.2.1 --- The Content of Teacher Feedback --- p.8 / Chapter 1.2.2 --- The Timing of Teacher Feedback --- p.9 / Chapter 1.2.3 --- The Purpose of Teacher Feedback --- p.10 / Chapter 1.3 --- The Importance of Students' Views of Teacher Feedback in Process Writing --- p.11 / Chapter 1.4 --- Overview of the Thesis --- p.12 / Chapter CHAPTER 2 --- LITERATURE REVIEW --- p.14 / Chapter 2.1 --- From Product to Process: A Brief Account of the Change in Teaching Approach Towards Writing --- p.14 / Chapter 2.1.1 --- Product Writing --- p.14 / Chapter 2.1.2 --- Process Writing: The Overriding Concern over Writing Process --- p.15 / Chapter 2.1.3 --- Process Writing: The Method --- p.15 / Chapter 2.2 --- Teacher Feedback on Student Writing: Definition and Rationale --- p.16 / Chapter 2.3 --- From Error Feedback to All-round Teacher Feedback --- p.19 / Chapter 2.4 --- Importance of Acknowledging Students' Views: the Claims --- p.21 / Chapter 2.4.1 --- ESL Context --- p.21 / Chapter 2.4.2 --- EFL Context --- p.22 / Chapter 2.5 --- Importance of Acknowledging Students' Views: the Behaviour --- p.25 / Chapter 2.6 --- The Hong Kong Context --- p.27 / Chapter 2.7 --- Research Gaps: Triangulation in Understanding Students' Needs --- p.30 / Chapter CHAPTER 3 --- METHODOLOGY --- p.32 / Chapter 3.1 --- Research Questions --- p.32 / Chapter 3.2 --- Research Design: The Case Study Approach --- p.33 / Chapter 3.2.1 --- Definition of Case Study --- p.33 / Chapter 3.2.2 --- Rationale of Employing Case Study --- p.34 / Chapter 3.3 --- Instrumentation and Rationale Behind --- p.36 / Chapter 3.3.1 --- Questionnaires on Student Writers --- p.37 / Chapter 3.3.2 --- Interviews --- p.37 / Chapter 3.3.2.1 --- Interviews with Student Writers --- p.38 / Chapter 3.3.2.2 --- Interviews with Writing Instructors --- p.38 / Chapter 3.3.3 --- Text Analysis on the Marked Preliminary Drafts and Final Versions of Writing --- p.39 / Chapter 3.4 --- Pilot Study --- p.39 / Chapter 3.4.1 --- Modification of Text Analysis Guide --- p.40 / Chapter 3.4.2 --- Modification of Other Instruments --- p.40 / Chapter 3.5 --- Main Study --- p.41 / Chapter 3.5.1 --- The Writing Courses --- p.41 / Chapter 3.5.1.1 --- Writing Class A --- p.43 / Chapter 3.5.1.2 --- Writing Class B --- p.44 / Chapter 3.5.1.3 --- Writing Class C --- p.44 / Chapter 3.5.2 --- Profiles of Informants --- p.45 / Chapter 3.5.2.1 --- Profiles of Teacher Informants --- p.46 / Chapter 3.5.2.2 --- Profiles of Student Informants --- p.47 / Chapter 3.5.3 --- Data Collection Process --- p.48 / Chapter 3.5.4 --- Limitations --- p.49 / Chapter 3.5.5 --- Data Analysis --- p.51 / Chapter 3.6 --- Chapter Summary --- p.51 / Chapter CHAPTER 4 --- RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS --- p.53 / Chapter 4.1 --- Teacher Feedback on Preliminary Drafts and Final Version --- p.53 / Chapter 4.1.1 --- Teacher Feedback on Preliminary Drafts --- p.54 / Chapter 4.1.1.1 --- Student Views of Teacher Feedback on Preliminary Drafts: Questionnaires and Interviews --- p.54 / Chapter 4.1.1.2 --- Text Analysis on Preliminary Drafts --- p.57 / Chapter 4.1.2 --- Teacher Feedback on Final Version --- p.59 / Chapter 4.1.2.1 --- Students' Views of Teacher Feedback on Final Version --- p.60 / Chapter 4.1.2.2 --- Text Analysis on Teacher Feedback on Final Version --- p.62 / Chapter 4.1.3 --- Teacher Feedback on Preliminary Drafts and Final Version: Teachers' Rationale --- p.65 / Chapter 4.1.3.1 --- Teacher A's Rationale on Teacher Feedback --- p.66 / Chapter 4.1.3.2 --- Teacher B's Rationale on Teacher Feedback --- p.67 / Chapter 4.1.3.3 --- Teacher C's Rationale on Teacher Feedback --- p.69 / Chapter 4.1.4 --- Teacher Feedback on Preliminary Drafts and Final Version: A Comparison --- p.71 / Chapter 4.2 --- "Students' Response to Teacher Feedback: Attended, Deleted, and Ignored" --- p.73 / Chapter 4.2.1 --- Feedback Attended to and Received Positively --- p.73 / Chapter 4.2.1.1 --- Feedback Attended to: Student Questionnaires --- p.73 / Chapter 4.2.1.2 --- Feedback Attended to: General Picture From Text Analysis --- p.77 / Chapter 4.2.1.3 --- Feedback Attended to and Its Easiness and Difficulties: Student Interviews and Questionnaires --- p.78 / Chapter 4.2.1.3.1 --- Teacher Feedback Students Found Easy to Deal With --- p.79 / Chapter 4.2.1.3.2 --- Teacher Feedback Students Found Difficult to Deal With --- p.82 / Chapter 4.2.1.3.3 --- Summary of Feedback Students Attended to --- p.88 / Chapter 4.2.1.4 --- Feedback Received Positively --- p.89 / Chapter 4.2.1.5 --- Feedback Received Positively: Critical (Negative) Feedback --- p.90 / Chapter 4.2.1.6 --- Feedback Received Positively: Minimal Use of Symbols in Feedback --- p.91 / Chapter 4.2.1.7 --- Feedback Attended to and Received Positively: Summary --- p.93 / Chapter 4.2.2 --- Feedback Partially Attended to or Deleted --- p.94 / Chapter 4.2.2.1 --- Teacher Feedback Partially Attended to: Students' Views From Questionnaires --- p.94 / Chapter 4.2.2.2 --- Teacher Feedback Partially Attended to: Student Interviews and Text Analysis --- p.95 / Chapter 4.2.2.2.1 --- “I Delete to Condense´ح --- p.95 / Chapter 4.2.2.2.2 --- “I Delete to Clarify´ح --- p.96 / Chapter 4.2.2.2.3 --- "“I Delete to Save Myself Trouble""" --- p.96 / Chapter 4.2.2.3 --- Teacher Feedback Partially Attended to: General Picture From Text Analysis --- p.97 / Chapter 4.2.2.4 --- Feedback Partially Attended to or Deleted: Summary --- p.99 / Chapter 4.2.3 --- Feedback Ignored and Received Negatively --- p.99 / Chapter 4.2.3.1 --- Feedback Ignored: Students' Views From Questionnaires --- p.100 / Chapter 4.2.3.2 --- Feedback Ignored: Students' Views From Interviews --- p.100 / Chapter 4.2.3.2.1 --- Feedback Difficult to Revise Accordingly --- p.101 / Chapter 4.2.3.2.2 --- Feedback Obscure in Letting Students Know What the Problem Was --- p.102 / Chapter 4.2.3.2.3 --- Feedback on Earlier Drafts --- p.103 / Chapter 4.2.3.2.4 --- Feedback on “Minor´ح Things --- p.104 / Chapter 4.2.3.2.5 --- Feedback Not Unique to the Essay --- p.104 / Chapter 4.2.3.2.6 --- Feedback Violating the Expression of Personal Voice --- p.105 / Chapter 4.2.3.3 --- Teacher Feedback Ignored: General Picture From Text Analysis --- p.106 / Chapter 4.2.3.4 --- Feedback Ignored: Two Extreme Cases as Illustrations --- p.108 / Chapter 4.2.3.4.1 --- Case of Jeff --- p.108 / Chapter 4.2.3.4.2 --- Case of Dorothy --- p.109 / Chapter 4.2.3.5 --- Feedback Ignored: Teachers' Views --- p.111 / Chapter 4.2.3.6 --- Feedback Received Negatively --- p.112 / Chapter 4.2.3.6.1 --- Positive Feedback --- p.112 / Chapter 4.2.3.6.2 --- Feedback Without Explanations --- p.113 / Chapter 4.2.3.7 --- Feedback Ignored and Received Negatively: Summary --- p.115 / Chapter 4.2.4 --- Students' Response to Teacher Feedback: Summary --- p.115 / Chapter 4.3 --- Reasons Behind Students' Preferences --- p.116 / Chapter 4.3.1 --- Personal Factors --- p.116 / Chapter 4.3.1.1 --- Proficiency in English --- p.116 / Chapter 4.3.1.2 --- Repertoire of Revision Strategies --- p.119 / Chapter 4.3.1.3 --- "Balancing Between Personal Voice and the ""Standard""" --- p.121 / Chapter 4.3.2 --- Interpersonal Factors --- p.124 / Chapter 4.3.2.1 --- Communication Between Teachers and Students --- p.124 / Chapter 4.3.2.2 --- Sources for Support or Advice --- p.126 / Chapter 4.3.3 --- Reasons Behind Students' Preferences: Summary --- p.129 / Chapter 4.4 --- Students' Views and Teachers' Views --- p.130 / Chapter 4.4.1 --- Students' Use of Teacher Feedback During Revision Process --- p.130 / Chapter 4.4.1.1 --- A Brief Overview of the Revision Process Undertaken by Students --- p.131 / Chapter 4.4.1.1.1 --- Revision Process Undertaken by English Majors (Class A) --- p.131 / Chapter 4.4.1.1.2 --- Revision Process Undertaken by Non-English Majors (Classes B and C) --- p.133 / Chapter 4.4.1.1.3 --- Common Feature of Revision Process Shared by the Two Groups of Students --- p.134 / Chapter 4.4.1.2 --- Strategies Used in the Revision Process --- p.135 / Chapter 4.4.1.2.1 --- Contemplating on Their Own --- p.135 / Chapter 4.4.1.2.2 --- Consulting Their Peers --- p.136 / Chapter 4.4.1.2.3 --- Consulting Their Teachers --- p.136 / Chapter 4.4.1.2.4 --- Consulting Other Resources --- p.136 / Chapter 4.4.2 --- Teachers' Expectations on the Use of Teacher feedback in Revision Process --- p.137 / Chapter 4.4.2.1 --- Summary of Teachers' Recommendations of the Revision Process --- p.137 / Chapter 4.4.2.1.1 --- Teacher A's Recommendations --- p.137 / Chapter 4.4.2.1.2 --- Teacher B's Recommendations --- p.139 / Chapter 4.4.2.1.3 --- Teacher C's Recommendations --- p.139 / Chapter 4.4.2.2 --- Strategies Recommended in the Revision Process --- p.140 / Chapter 4.4.3 --- Students' Views and Teachers' Views: A Comparison --- p.141 / Chapter CHAPTER 5 --- CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS --- p.143 / Chapter 5.1 --- Conclusions --- p.143 / Chapter 5.2 --- Significance --- p.145 / Chapter 5.3 --- Pedagogical Implications --- p.147 / Chapter 5.3.1 --- Short-term Implications --- p.147 / Chapter 5.3.1.1 --- Make Teacher Feedback More Comprehensible and Specific --- p.148 / Chapter 5.3.1.2 --- Hold Teacher-student Conferences --- p.150 / Chapter 5.3.1.3 --- Introduce Peer Review --- p.151 / Chapter 5.3.1.4 --- Teach Revision Strategies --- p.151 / Chapter 5.3.2 --- Long-term Implications --- p.152 / Chapter 5.3.2.1 --- Read More! --- p.153 / Chapter 5.3.2.2 --- Think More! --- p.154 / Chapter 5.3.2.3 --- Write More! --- p.155 / Chapter 5.4 --- Limitations --- p.156 / Chapter 5.4.1 --- Insufficient Testing of the Instruments (Pilot Study) --- p.156 / Chapter 5.4.2 --- Uneven Distribution of Student Interviewees Among the Three Writing Classes (Main Study) --- p.157 / Chapter 5.4.3 --- Inconsistent Proportion of Writing Gathered From the Three Writing Classes (Main Study) --- p.158 / Chapter 5.4.4 --- Inconsistent Timing Between the Three Writing Classes (Main Study) --- p.158 / Chapter 5.4.5 --- The Scope of Teacher Feedback on Students' Writing (Main Study) --- p.159 / Chapter 5.5 --- Recommendations for Future Studies --- p.160 / Chapter 5.5.1 --- Comprehensive Testing of Instruments With Tailored Design --- p.160 / Chapter 5.5.2 --- More Even Distribution of Student Interviewees With Different Characteristics --- p.160 / Chapter 5.5.3 --- More Consistent Number of Papers Collected From Different Writing Classes --- p.161 / Chapter 5.5.4 --- More Consistent Schedule Among Writing Classes --- p.161 / Chapter 5.5.5 --- Wider Scope of Enquiry of Teacher Feedback --- p.162 / APPENDICES / Appendix A Student Questionnaire --- p.171 / Appendix B Student Interview Guide --- p.176 / Appendix C Teacher Interview Guide --- p.177 / Appendix D Text Analysis Guide --- p.178 / Appendix E Consent Letter (to students) --- p.179 / Appendix F Consent Letter (to instructors) --- p.181 / Appendix G Response Rate and Characteristics of Student Respondents of Student Questionnaires --- p.183

Over the past ten years, the use of student writing journals has become increasingly widespread in the TESOL field. Such journals serve a wide variety of purposes: a cultural diary, a free writing exercise, a forum for reaction or comment on readings or classroom discussions, in addition to a form of teacher/student dialogue. The main purpose of this study has been to determine the relationship of topic assignment to the quantity and quality of resulting entries. The data, 144 journal entries generated by ten adult ESL students over a period of ten weeks, were measured for length, in terms of total words and total number of T-units, and quality as assessed by the Jacobs profile (1981) which considers the following areas: content, organization, vocabulary, language use and mechanics. In addition, student reactions to instructor comments and attitudes toward journal keeping were explored in an end of term questionnaire. It was found that, on a group level, the assignment of four specified topic types (A. Topics relating to class lectures and discussions, B. Topics relating class discussions to the students' respective cultures, C. Topics relating to class or personal experiences and D. No topic assignment) did not appear to have any relationship with either the quality or quantity of writing. However, on an individual level, topic assignment did seem to have a relationship with the quantity of writing and in some cases, the quality as well. In considering student reaction to instructor comments, all students reported reading instructor comments, but rarely responded to them. When considering topic assignment, 74% of the students stated preferring an assigned topic, yet 60% actually wrote more when given a free choice of topic. Also, on the individual level, students stated a variety of topic type preferences that roughly corresponded with an increase in entry length. Finally, students seemed to have a positive attitude toward journal keeping as 80% stated they would like to keep a journal next term.

Student affairs professionals work directly with university students in various programs that provide services to these students. From these experiences, they collect daily valuable insights about how to serve students successfully. Yet, in general, they are not publishing about their work even though dissemination of such knowledge through publication could positively impact programs and services across many institutions. My dissertation explored what happens when mid-level student affairs professionals pursue scholarly writing during a structured program intended to help participants produce manuscripts for publication. In working with five professionals in student services at a large urban institution in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States, I learned about participants' identities as scholars as well as which writing strategies they found effective. I worked with participants using case study and action research methodologies and used writing coaching as an intervention to support the tenets of autonomy, competence, and relatedness as defined by Self-Determination Theory. Participants viewed strategies that created a habit of practice that fostered writing to be the most effective. Participants varied in how they viewed themselves professionally along the scholar-practitioner continuum. Leadership can create environments to foster scholarship among student affairs professionals. I give recommendations not only for senior student affairs officers but also for graduate programs in higher education as well as national student affairs organizations to promote research and writing in the profession. Lastly, I share recommendations for further research.