<p><a>A translingual approach to writing as a new paradigm has been proposed to challenge English monolingualism, question traditional ideas on language difference, advocate for writer agency in shaping their own language, and legitimize additional languages/varieties as resources rather than deficits in the target language teaching, learning, and using. Though these central tenets are broadly valorized, the notion of “translingual” has elicited a number of concerns, such as the partial representation of language mixture ideas in sociolinguistics and second language studies, the pedagogical implications for language learners, the discouragement of discussion about similarities and differences among languages, and the missing discussion of language development. Given these concerns, a translingual approach has not been well-represented in the field of L2 writing. </a></p> <p>In this dissertation, I introduced the development of the notion of a translingual approach to writing, summarized its conceptual debates, outlined its practical enactment, conducted a case study to examine a L2 writing process from a translingual approach, and discussed the possibilities and challenges of a translingual approach to L2 writing. To be specific, the notion of a translingual approach to writing has been continually extended by incorporating various concepts, such as a temporal-spatial approach, translation, spatial repertoires, and an ecological approach. This extension has elicited some debates on its conceptualization, e.g., code-switching vs. code-meshing vs. rhetorical sensibility, language competence vs. language performance, a multilingual approach vs. a translingual approach, and a translingual approach to writing and L2 writing. Despite these debates, a translingual approach to writing has been implemented in different contexts (such as EFL, ESL, ENL, and cross-cultural contexts) with different writer groups (e.g., K-12 students, college students, and professional writers) and for different purposes (such as, improving teaching, motivating learning, and being more creative in writing).</p> <p>The results from the conceptual debate synthesis, enactment summary, and the case study indicated that a translingual approach is possible to benefit L2 writing theoretically, ideologically, and pedagogically. However, the findings also showed the challenges of a translingual approach to L2 writing, such as the confusing definition of “translingual writing” with L2 writing, the resistance of language norms by a translingual approach, and the blurring differences between languages and language users. Hopefully, this dissertation could be a bridge between a translingual approach to writing and L2 writing. </p>

Studies have shown that composition and L2 writing teachers give different scores (Golombek, Weigle, Boldt, & Valsecchi, 2003) and focus on different features (Brown, 1991) when assessing student writing, which is assumed to be due to the differences in their background and training (Santos, 1992; Atkinson & Ramanathan, 1995). Error gravity is thought to be one reason why composition and L2 writing teachers give different scores (Rifkin & Roberts, 1995). Common methods for examining error gravity were to analyze scores and responses given by the raters and to have raters reflect on the rating process and analyze their responses. Only one study had used eye-tracking methodology to explore the raters’ reading behaviors (Eckstein, Briney, Chan & Blackwell, 2018). The current study built on Eckstein et al.’s study to examine how composition and L2 writing teachers rate grammar errors differently. The researchers identified three native-like errors and three nonnative-like errors and introduced them into eight paragraphs written by students in a first-year composition class. The researchers asked composition and L2 writing teachers to read and assess the eight paragraphs while an eye-tracker measured their eye-movements. We assume that what raters look at while assessing the paragraphs reflects what they are cognitively processing (Rayner, 1998). The results indicate that composition and L2 writing teachers assign significantly different scores to grammar (L2 writing teachers assign higher scores), yet their reading behaviors are similar. This indicates that teachers with different backgrounds do not process grammar errors differently, but rather reach different scores based on other differences.

No description available.

Being a competent writer is an important skill in academic education. However, second language (L2) writers often struggle to be linguistically and lexically competent. This project explored the most frequent linguistic writing errors made by 343 English as a second language (ESL) students when Dynamic Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) was applied as an instructional methodology. These errors were also classified by language groups based on the students' first language (L1). These students were enrolled in an intensive English program at the English Language Center (ELC), Brigham Young University. The first languages of these students were Spanish, Korean, Portuguese, Chinese, Japanese, and Russian. The students' writing samples were collected to compile the most frequent linguistic error types. The results of this project show that the most frequent linguistic errors for ESL students are spelling, word choice, determiner, preposition, singular/plural, and word form. Among these errors, spelling and word choice were the most common errors for all ESL students no matter their L1. The principal aim of this project was to take the data collected in the error analysis and create a booklet to be used as a reference guide to frequent ESL linguistic writing errors. With this booklet, teachers should be more aware of frequent errors to better assist their students since this could help them anticipate some of the linguistic difficulties that L2 learners may encounter. This booklet could also help L2 learners attain writing linguistic competence.

No description available.

This study evaluated the efficacy of Dynamic Written Corrective Feedback (DWCF) on advanced students' writing accuracy of Spanish. This method focuses on manageable, meaningful, timely and constant feedback. Previously, DWCF was studied in the context of English as a second language. The current study investigated the efficacy of DWCF in the context of students who were enrolled in an advanced Spanish grammar class at the university level. A comparative study was conducted measuring students' writing accuracy who received the DWCF against students' writing accuracy who did not receive this feedback methodology. Results showed that there was not a significant difference in writing accuracy between these two groups of students. However, both groups improved their writing accuracy over time. This study also provided a list of the most frequent writing errors made by 28 students in an advanced Spanish class. The results show that the most frequent linguistic errors for learners of Spanish are accent marks, prepositions, gender and number, punctuation, and word choice.

Face-to-face interaction with target language (TL) group members can provide the intensive second language (L2) exposure required to enhance motivation; it improves attitudes towards L2 development, and promotes achievement (Freed, 1995; Warden, Lapkin, Swain, & Hart, 1995). However, face-to-face interaction with TL group members is not always possible. This is especially true for former core French (CF) students who have enrolled in beginner French as a Second Language (FSL) courses at universities in predominantly Anglophone regions of Canada. To address this issue, I designed a mixed-method case study to examine opportunities for providing intensive FSL exposure and enhancing motivation for beginner FSL university learners. The participants were 55 beginning learners of FSL studying at an Anglophone university in Atlantic Canada. To examine intensive FSL exposure, I compared the overall writing achievement over time of 2 groups interacting in a telecollaborative context: (a) a group interacting with younger Francophone Acadians in another province; and (b) a group interacting with classroom peers of similar L2 proficiency. To gain indepth insight into the effects of the telecollaboration, I explored 4 learners’ L2 motivational self-system: (a) perceptions of their prior and current language-learning experiences; and (b) how language-learner identity was shaped by the experiences. The study is based on 5 data sources: writing samples, background questionnaires, stimulated-recall interviews, language-learning autobiographies, and ongoing observations. It is grounded in 5 bodies of knowledge: the Input-Interaction-Output hypothesis within a socio-cultural perspective (Block, 2003), current L2 writing theory, collaborative learning theory, telecollaborative research, and Dörnyei’s (2005) L2 Motivational Self-System Theory. Quantitative comparison of overall writing achievement in the 2 telecollaborative writing contexts (using Mann-Whitney U tests) revealed that the comparison group performed better than the treatment group. Qualitative findings, however, demonstrated that the treatment group had more positive perceptions of their language-learning experiences with respect to L2 writing achievement at university, as well as more positive language-learner identities than did the comparison group. Further exploration of language-learner identities from an L2 motivational self-system perspective identified 3 identity shaping characteristics: evolution, demotivation and amotivation, and self-regulation.

Face-to-face interaction with target language (TL) group members can provide the intensive second language (L2) exposure required to enhance motivation; it improves attitudes towards L2 development, and promotes achievement (Freed, 1995; Warden, Lapkin, Swain, & Hart, 1995). However, face-to-face interaction with TL group members is not always possible. This is especially true for former core French (CF) students who have enrolled in beginner French as a Second Language (FSL) courses at universities in predominantly Anglophone regions of Canada. To address this issue, I designed a mixed-method case study to examine opportunities for providing intensive FSL exposure and enhancing motivation for beginner FSL university learners. The participants were 55 beginning learners of FSL studying at an Anglophone university in Atlantic Canada. To examine intensive FSL exposure, I compared the overall writing achievement over time of 2 groups interacting in a telecollaborative context: (a) a group interacting with younger Francophone Acadians in another province; and (b) a group interacting with classroom peers of similar L2 proficiency. To gain indepth insight into the effects of the telecollaboration, I explored 4 learners’ L2 motivational self-system: (a) perceptions of their prior and current language-learning experiences; and (b) how language-learner identity was shaped by the experiences. The study is based on 5 data sources: writing samples, background questionnaires, stimulated-recall interviews, language-learning autobiographies, and ongoing observations. It is grounded in 5 bodies of knowledge: the Input-Interaction-Output hypothesis within a socio-cultural perspective (Block, 2003), current L2 writing theory, collaborative learning theory, telecollaborative research, and Dörnyei’s (2005) L2 Motivational Self-System Theory. Quantitative comparison of overall writing achievement in the 2 telecollaborative writing contexts (using Mann-Whitney U tests) revealed that the comparison group performed better than the treatment group. Qualitative findings, however, demonstrated that the treatment group had more positive perceptions of their language-learning experiences with respect to L2 writing achievement at university, as well as more positive language-learner identities than did the comparison group. Further exploration of language-learner identities from an L2 motivational self-system perspective identified 3 identity shaping characteristics: evolution, demotivation and amotivation, and self-regulation.

This study investigated cognitive factors that might influence Chinese EFL learners’ argumentative essay writing in English. The factors that were explored included English (L2) language proficiency, Chinese (L1) writing ability, genre knowledge, use of writing strategies, and working memory capacity in L1 and L2. Data were collected from 136 university students who received a battery of tests in two sessions. The tests consisted of timed essay writing tasks in L1 and L2, post-writing questionnaires for genre knowledge and use of strategies in the writing process, a timed grammaticality judgment task for L2 grammar knowledge, a receptive vocabulary test and a controlled-production vocabulary test for L2 vocabulary knowledge, and working memory span tasks in L1 and L2. Quantitative analyses using correlations, paired-samples t-test, analysis of variance and multiple regression revealed that L2 language proficiency is the most important predictor of L2 writing, followed by genre knowledge and L2 writing strategies. L1 writing ability and working memory capacity have slight impact as explanatory variables for L2 writing performance in the timed essay writing task.

This study aimed at developing a complementary peer-teacher feedback model, in which students and teachers share the responsibility of providing feedback in a systematic way and testing its effectiveness. The effectiveness of the developed feedback model on improving students&amp / #8217 / writing ability was tested in the context of a multiple draft writing course which followed a process approach with 57 preparatory class students at Karadeniz Technical University, Department of English Language and Literature for a period of 15 weeks (a semester). The study was designed as an experimental study in which the experimental group students were provided feedback through a complementary peer-teacher feedback model and the control group students were provided feedback through full teacher feedback. The two groups were compared in terms of their revisions, their essay scores and their attitudes towards feedback and writing. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected through revision coding, a pretest and posttest on writing ability, two questionnaires and student reflections. The results revealed that although the traditional full teacher feedback model created more revisions on the whole, the two models did not create a difference in terms of revision quality or writing improvement between the two groups. On the other hand, the complementary peer-feedback model was found more successful in creating positive attitudes towards peer feedback and self-correction but no differences were observed in students&amp / #8217 / perceptions of the difficulty of writing skill. Some recommendations are made for the design and implementation of feedback activities in writing classes.