Utilising integral parts of diverse socio-academic interaction finders establishing virtual online environment incorporating a collection of computer advances as interaction-support e-models was assumed most adequate in the Saudi context, where research confirmed poorer writing proficiency level than the desired standards of university students studying EFL as their major (Hujailan, 2004; Jahin, 2007; Gahin & Idrees, 2012; and Al Asmari, 2013). This environment facilitates interactional communications aiming at (basically) enhancing peer/expert revision and feedback provision processes needed for writing (or other language skills), and (generally) supporting knowledge construction. However, educationalists are not sure whether the purported benefits claimed by advocates of such interactional approach to the teaching of Writing (IATW) and associated means and techniques are true. Research also revealed negative attitudes of the Saudi college students towards learning a second language (ibid). The fact that demanded investigation on those issues inquiring whether an IATW programme – a package carefully designed as per the constructs of the approach referred to above – can be an effective tool to enhance Arab university EFL students' proficiency in English writing; and produce more positive attitudes towards learning English (writing in particular)? Following a mixed method (positivistic and interpretive-constructivist) research framework on the above-determined research question, this study was conducted. As a pre-test-post-test control group design of experimentation, data collection method used two instruments: a) pre- and post-writing proficiency tests (WPTs) to measure improvement of (27) experimental group students' writing ability, compared with that of the control group (28); and b) interviews to measure the impact of an IATW environment on a sub-set of (22) students' attitudes towards their interactional English writing approach experience. An action plan was followed to do relevant tests, two writing instruction methods, and semi-structured interviews. Quantitative data analysis of the WPTs revealed that the IATW made statistically significant difference in the experimental students’ overall Writing proficiency, compared with the control group scoring. The programme did not make statistically significant improvement in all Writing sub-skills than the control group. It improved the IATW students’ performance in the sub-skills: ‘Evidence & Reasoning’, ‘Organisation’, ‘Cohesion & Logical Consistency’, and ‘Mechanics’ in different degrees. However, the results revealed non-significant effect of the approach on the Writing sub-skills: ‘L2-related or L1-related Grammar’ error reduction. Conversely, the interactional mode did not function better than the traditional (non-interaction-based) approach in ‘Vocabulary’ or ‘Range of Ideas’: the traditional method showed more effectiveness. The experiment showed weak effect sizes in all cases. Qualitative analysis of the interviews revealed that the participants exposed to the interactional activities have developed positive attitudinal disposition: quite considerable ‘motivational intensity’, and increased ‘desire to learn’. Further discussions with the interviewees generated more evaluative thoughts (both favourable and unfavourable). They appreciated the IATW as easy-to-reach, relevant, purposeful writing activities; and communicative mode that played a role in elimination of passive experience of learning, and learner autonomy. However, they placed priority to other schooling goods than the approach adopted, and highlighted major constraints of utilising computer and iB applications for supporting interaction: lack of expertise, internet access, and time consuming. The insight gained from the findings posed a set of implications highlighted, and recommendations for further research study areas suggested.

<p>This corpus-based study analyzes different types of epistemic markers used in argumentative essays by University students. More specifically it compares Swedish L2 writers and English L1 writers. The scope of the analysis covers epistemic modal verbs, lexical verbs and adverbs. A number of markers are counted to see which expressions are preferred by L1 and L2 writers respectively and if the frequency rates differ between the two groups. Further, it discusses whether the non-native writers use epistemic markers appropriate to an academic register, and an attempt is made to see whether the L1 and L2 writers show similar patterns of ‘committing’ to and ‘distancing’ themselves to their arguments. The results reveal a few notable differences between the Swedish and English writers. A tendency is seen among the L2 writers to ‘overuse’ certain expressions, particularly in the category of lexical verbs. Compared to the native writers, the L2 writers display higher frequency rates when it comes to markers that are most commonly found in spoken conversation. Further the L2 writers seem to display more ‘writer visibility’ than the L1 writers do, which could perhaps be due to differences in writing culture. The findings also suggest that Swedish L2 writers, even on a relatively advanced level, may have difficulties in mastering modal expressions in English.</p>

This study investigated the effects of planning on second-language written production with regard to proficiency level, and task type. The participants were 157 Korean learners of English as a foreign language attending a four-year university in Korea. They were asked to complete two different types of writing tasks (Expository writing task and Argumentative writing task) in different planned conditions (Individual Planned Condition and Collaborative Planned Condition) over a two-week period. In the Individual Planned Condition, learners were given 10 minutes for individual planning in the prestructured task sheet and then asked to write an essay for 30 minutes. In the Collaborative Planned Condition, learners were allowed to interact with a peer during planning and they required to independently complete an essay. Participants' written products were evaluated on five analytic measures covering the areas of Content, Organization, Language in Use, Grammar, and Mechanics. The results of MANOVA tests indicated that the planned condition had an impact on learners' written performance in both tasks. Individually considered, learners in the Collaborative Planned Condition were able to achieve significantly higher scores in all the analytic features in Task 1 (Expository writing task). In contrast, there were no significant mean differences between two conditions in Task 2 (Argumentative writing task). The results also indicated that proficiency had influenced learners' written performance in both tasks. The proficiency effect was consistently found throughout the analytic scores Task 1 and Task 2. However, the interaction between condition and proficiency was not found in the two tasks. The results of repeated measures for the effect of task type revealed that significant mean differences were only found in the Mechanics section. It is concluded that Korean EFL learners' written performance was affected by planned condition and proficiency, but to only a small degree by the nature of task type with regard to the five analytic features. The findings of this study help broaden the understanding of second language learners' cognitive writing process involving planning. In addition, the results have pedagogical implications as well as theoretical implications in second language writing and relevance to second language writing assessment.

In the field of L2 (second language) writing, a great number of studies have been done to explore learners’ writing processes and writing strategies since the last three decades. However, the relationship between learners’ strategy use and writing performance is still not clear-cut, and researchers still debate about whether L1 (first language) writing processes and strategies are similar to or different from L2 writing processes and strategies. To explore these controversial issues, this study has examined the L1 and L2 academic writing processes of 35 Chinese ESL (English-as-a-second-language) learners by using concurrent think-aloud protocols and retrospective interviews. In line with previous strategy studies, the findings of present study also revealed that learners selected, used, and evaluated a wide range of writing strategies (i.e., approach, rhetorical, communication, cognitive, metacognitive, affective, and social strategies) in both L1 and L2 tasks. Moreover, the results of qualitative and quantitative analyses indicated that the overall pattern of strategy use by learners was similar between L1 and L2. Specifically, learners tended to transfer their approach, rhetorical, communication, and cognitive strategies across languages. As for the correlations between writing strategies and writing scores, statistical tests did not detect any significant relationships between learners’ strategy use and their writing performance in either the L1 writing task or the L2 writing task. One main implication suggested by the present study is that learners should not only be encouraged to reflect on their L2 writing performance and strategy use, but also be provided with the opportunities to reconsider and reflect on how they usually approach and process L1 writing tasks. / Graduate

This report seeks to examine the literature related to written corrective feedback in second/foreign language classrooms in order to inform the most effective pedagogical practices related to this topic. I begin with an article by Truscott which would set the tone for the academic debate on whether or not to provide written corrective feedback in L2 classrooms. In his 1996 article Truscott claims that written corrective feedback a) is not helpful, b) is harmful, and c) should be eliminated entirely. Chapter 1 covers this debate, referred to as the Truscott Debate, reviewing the many articles that directly answer the challenge laid down by Truscott (1996). Following a review of this academic debate, I examine the literature that investigates the specific providers of feedback (teachers or peer feedback), the types of feedback (direct or indirect) and the degree of focus related to those feedback options. Chapter 4 reviews other factors that can also affect the efficacy of written corrective feedback, such as student motivation, learner levels, and oral feedback in conjunction with written feedback and online feedback. Chapter 5 puts forth particular circumstances in which each type of feedback can be efficacious, offering a guide for the provision of feedback in a variety of circumstances. / text

This study was conducted to compare the writing performance (writing products and writing processes) of the TOEFL iBT integrated writing task (writing from source texts) with that of the TOEFL iBT independent writing task (writing from prompt only). The study aimed to find out whether writing performance varies with task type, essay scores, and academic experience of test takers, thus clarifying the link between the expected scores and the underlying writing abilities being assessed. The data for the quantitative textual analysis of written products was provided by Educational Testing Service (ETS). The data consisted of scored integrated and independent essays produced by 240 test takers. Coh-Metrix (an automated text analysis tool) was used to analyze the linguistic features of the 480 essays. Statistic analysis results revealed the linguistic features of the essays varied with task type and essay scores. However, the study did not find significant impact of the academic experience of the test takers on most of the linguistic features investigated. In analyzing the writing process, 20 English as a second language students participated in think-aloud writing sessions. The writing tasks were the same tasks used in the textual analysis section. The writing processes of the 20 participants was coded for individual writing behaviors and compared across the two writing tasks. The writing behaviors identified were also examined in relation to the essay scores and the academic experience of the participants. Results indicated that the writing behaviors varied with task type but not with the essay scores or the academic experience of the participants in general. Therefore, the results of the study provided empirical evidence showing that the two tasks elicited different writing performance, thus justifying the concurrent use of them on a test. Furthermore, the study also validated the scoring rubrics used in evaluating the writing performance and clarified the score meaning. Implications of the current study were also discussed.

The purpose of this study was to investigate to what extent written corrective feedback (WCF) is a good way to treat errors that L2 (second language) pupils make and if they attend to the comments in future written assignments. WCF is the most used response on written assignments. Some research takes the perspective that it is fruitful (Chandler 2003, Ferris 2003) while other research argues that it is inefficient and unnecessary (e.g.Truscott 1996, 1999). This study presents the findings of a survey on the topic which was conducted at a small school in the south east of Sweden. A comparison between previous research and the findings of the present survey is made and the conclusion from this is that there are limitations in the efficacy of WCF and the results suggest that the type of feedback and how it is delivered are important. It is also likely to be beneficial that pupils revise their texts in order to improve in writing English.

The three studies reported in this thesis investigated the contributing factors of L2 writing among adult ESL learners in the academic setting. The major purpose of this research was to explore the relationship between L2 proficiency, writing strategies, writing attitude, writing errors and L2 writing performance. This thesis aimed to provide insights for the contributing factors that are predictive of L2 writing performance in adult ESL learners, studying in English and non-English dominant settings. Study 1 (reported in Chapter 3) focused on determining the appropriate measures for investigating the individual factors of writing performance; particularly learners’ writing strategies, learners’ second language proficiency, first language (L1) interference and their relation to writing performance. Thirty-one intermediate students of L2 served as participants. A measure of vocabulary size and a writing strategy questionnaire were administered to the students. Findings in this study indicated that most of the participants’ planning strategies were limited to having a mental or written plan whereas over half of the respondents reported that they always start with an introduction and were more likely to stop drafting after a few sentences. In terms of drafting strategies, it was found that most respondents reread what they had written to get ideas on how to continue but did not go back to their outline to make changes in it. With regard to L1 use, a majority of participants do not write bits of text in their native language. Nevertheless, quite a number of participants indicated that they would write in their L1 if they don’t know a word in English. Findings in this study also suggested that participants’ biggest concerns were related to grammar and vocabulary, which resulted in them making surface level changes and checking. An overall analysis of participants’ writing output and responses from the questionnaire also provided important insights to the improvement of the measures. The revision process included rewording and rephrasing ambiguous items, removing irrelevant items from the questionnaire and restructuring the writing task for the next study. In Study 2 (presented in Chapter 4), a follow-up study was conducted to examine L2 writers’ proficiency level, writing attitude, writing errors and writing strategies in an English-dominant setting. Nine research questions were designed to guide the study framework and gather specific data regarding the research aims. A writing measure, vocabulary tests and a questionnaire were administered to the students. Findings from Study 2 indicated that L2 proficiency, particularly vocabulary size, was related to writing performance. In addition, it was also discovered that L2 writers who performed poorly were prone to performing writing strategies related to surface level checking. Therefore, it was concluded that linguistic barriers in L2 affect both writing performance and students’ ability in applying the effective strategies in writing. Apart from that, Study 2 also found that the use of L1 and translation into L2 was associated with lower writing performance. Additionally, Study 2 found that pronoun, word and sentence errors were the most prevalent errors among ESL students. A possible reason for this is because L2 students need to work with two languages while writing, mainly the grammar rules in English which are not found in their L1 as well as their own native language. Thus, L2 students face the challenge of working out English grammar rules while writing. Overall, findings in this study suggest that prevalent writing errors in English may be a sign of L1 interference and that as the use of L1 increases, writing performance decreases. In Study 3 (reported in Chapter 5), the role of proficiency level, writing attitude, writing errors and writing strategies was explored by measuring the relationship between writing attitude scores, errors in writing, strategy use and essay scores. Additionally, the role of L2 proficiency in writing performance was also investigated by assessing the relationship between vocabulary size scores, writing errors and writing performance. Findings from Study 3 revealed unexpected findings with regard to the relationship between L1 use and writing performance among the three sample groups. L1 use was found to be correlated with writing performance for Group A but not Groups B and C. It was argued that L2 writers of different L2 proficiency level and academic experience may have different orientations of L1 use. Further work on the impact of L1 use on L2 writing will be needed in order to provide insights into this area. With regard to writing errors, a relationship between errors and writing performance was reported. It was found that subject verb agreement error appeared to be a common factor for the three groups in the study that was related to writing performance. In addition, errors were also significantly correlated with L2 proficiency, suggesting that as L2 proficiency increased, errors decreased. Overall, Study 3 argues for the importance of developing and enhancing learners’ L2 proficiency to reduce errors and improve learners’ writing performance. Additionally, Study 3 also argues for the need to emphasize effective writing strategies in the ESL writing classroom.

During the last few decades peer collaboration has been commonly practised in Second Language (L2) writing classrooms. Despite the conceptual shift towards process, student-centred orientation to writing pedagogy, there are still many L2 composition courses around the world which consider writing as a finished product and assign a central role to writing instructors. This qualitative case study research is one of the first attempts which have been set out to probe the interactional dynamics, revision behaviours, writing performance, and perceptions of Iranian English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students engaged in peer review and collaborative revision activities in two genres, process and argumentation, in light of sociocultural perspective of learning. The participants were 5 lower intermediate to intermediate English translation student dyads enrolled in a semester long essay writing course. Drawing on the data collected from audio-recordings, observations, written texts, and interviews, the study investigated how this group of L2 learners approached these two distinct tasks, how they reacted to the feedback they received either from their partners or teacher, how they used the comments to improve their writing performance, and how they viewed each of the tasks they were involved in. Analysis of audio-recorded data revealed that students stayed on task for most of the allocated time and employed three distinct dyadic negotiations; evaluative, social, and procedural with both partners being capable of pooling ideas and providing each other scaffolded help regardless of their level of L2 writing proficiency. However, the majority of conversations and scaffolding concentrated on surface level features of compositions. Further, examination of written texts produced by students during writing cycles demonstrated that they incorporated higher number of teacher‟s comments into their subsequent drafts than their peers‟ feedback and collaborative revision contributed to greater degree of improvement in the quality of the essays they developed compared to peer reviewing. Retrospective interviews also indicated that collaborative tasks were generally perceived as useful, yet the participants expressed scepticism about the validity of peer comments and did not feel competent enough to address their partners‟ papers. Nevertheless, they showed more favourable reactions towards collaborative revision activity than peer reviewing. The researcher concludes that collaborative revision can be used as an interim activity for the move from the traditional, product-based, teacher fronted L2 writing pedagogy to a more theoretically sound, process-based, student fronted approach to writing instruction in EFL contexts.

Informed by an interpretive framework of research, this study explores the challenges encountered by six Arab students enrolled at an English-medium American university in the UAE, who are all non-native speakers of English and share the common desire to develop fluent control of the academic literacy practices that will ensure their success in their undergraduate careers. In addition to exploring the nature of challenges the students encounter, the study also aims to illuminate the impact of going through these challenges and the role played by social context dynamics in the development of each participant’s identity. I used frequent in-depth interviews conducted regularly with each student participant throughout an entire academic year, document analysis, and interviews with the professors as the main methods of data collection for this study. The findings highlighted the importance of three factors in forming the students’ perspectives on the academic literacy requirements: the perceived significance of grades, weakness in reading and writing skills, and doubts about the contribution of these requirements to their general academic and professional development. Starting their academic journey with this perspective, the students faced a number of challenges such as lack of time, transition to English medium of instruction (EMI) at undergraduate level, adapting to the changing requirements of academic reading and writing practices across the curriculum, using the library and doing research, and building socio-academic relationships. They tried to cope with these challenges first through studying for extended periods of time, using several corner-cutting strategies, and finally consulting with knowledgeable others and developing assignment-specific study strategies. While going through these experiences did not change the students’ initial perspective on the academic literacy requirements, eventually they got better at responding to these requirements, though they continued to question their purpose. The findings also highlight the impact of the above mentioned experiences on the students’ construction of identity. Their declining academic standing and the difficulties they faced in building socio-academic relationships led the students to develop an identity of deficiency and incompetence, standing in contrast to their former view of self. This emerging identity was partly constructed by the real difficulties they faced and also reinforced by others in their new discourse community, directly or indirectly. Nonetheless, certain literacy practices that they could relate to and that supported their understanding and performance through pair/group work, regardless of the grades they received, helped many of the participants overcome this negative sense of self to some extent. However, the identity of deficiency and incompetence manifested itself throughout the whole study in the cases of two participants who were required to take a non-credit remedial course in spring. Finally, the analysis of the interviews with the professors highlighted the discrepancy between their expectations and students’ knowledge of the required academic literacy demands. It was also revealed that many of the professors were not fully aware of the struggles students go through to meet the expectations. These findings emphasize the significance of understanding the complex nature of challenges undergraduates face and the problem with a remedial approach. Based on the findings and their implications, it is suggested that an inclusive curriculum-integrated model of academic literacy instruction could help English-medium higher education institutions in the UAE to address students’ academic literacy development needs more effectively, thereby saving them from most of the challenges described earlier as well as the identity adjustments brought about by those challenges. Other recommendations include an increased emphasis on academic reading instruction, more effective reading and writing assignments, helping students build effective socio-academic relations and positive identities, enhancing communication and collaboration between English language/writing experts and academic staff in the disciplines, and eliminating non-credit, remedial course requirements for students who are on academic probation.