Journal of Second Language Writing最新文献

英文中文

The development and interactions of complexity and accuracy in L2 Chinese writing 二语汉语写作中复杂性和准确性的发展及其相互作用

IF 4.5 1区文学 Q1 LINGUISTICS

Journal of Second Language Writing

Pub Date : 2025-12-19 DOI: 10.1016/j.jslw.2025.101275

Yilei Li

From the perspective of Complex Dynamic Systems Theory, this study tracked the weekly writing of 12 L2 Chinese learners over one study-abroad semester. 11 measures and mixed-effects modeling were employed to capture group trends and detect subgroups in a fine-grained way. Interviews were conducted to reveal the interplay between writing development and learners’ strategies, beliefs, and emotions. Results showed that most linguistic dimensions experienced an uptrend, with the lexical system and complex phrases exhibiting greater variability. Syntactic development progressed more slowly, particularly in predicate phrases. There was a growing supportive relationship within the complexity system, but learners eventually prioritized accuracy over complexity. Interviews evidenced these changes and showed distinct patterns of two subgroups. The more sophisticated writers not only took the lead in phrasal complexity, but also mobilized diverse resources and developed further metalinguistic awareness, approaching writing with more positive emotions. Implications for intermediate-level Chinese instruction are also discussed.

本研究从复杂动力系统理论的角度，对12名中国第二语言学习者一个学期的每周写作进行了跟踪研究。采用11种测量方法和混合效应建模来捕捉群体趋势，并以细粒度的方式检测子群体。访谈揭示了写作发展与学习者策略、信念和情绪之间的相互作用。结果表明，大多数语言维度呈现上升趋势，词汇系统和复杂短语表现出更大的变化。句法发展更缓慢，尤其是谓语短语。在复杂性系统中存在一种日益增长的支持关系，但学习者最终将准确性置于复杂性之上。访谈证明了这些变化，并显示出两个亚组的不同模式。越成熟的作家不仅在短语的复杂性上走在了前面，而且调动了多种资源，进一步发展了元语言意识，以更积极的情绪来写作。本文还讨论了对中级汉语教学的启示。

引用次数: 0

Linking writing processes to argument elements: Insights from keystroke logging in L1 and L2 writers 将写作过程与论点元素联系起来：从L1和L2写作者的击键记录中获得的见解

IF 4.5 1区文学 Q1 LINGUISTICS

Journal of Second Language Writing

Pub Date : 2025-12-17 DOI: 10.1016/j.jslw.2025.101276

Yu Tian , Scott Crossley

Recent studies leveraging keystroke logging have identified associations between features of the writing process and the written product (e.g., writing quality, text cohesion). However, a more comprehensive understanding of how the temporal and behavioral dynamics of writing relate to the development of argument elements is still needed. This study examined the relationship between writing behaviors captured through keystroke features (e.g., pauses, revisions, bursts, process variance) and the construction of argument elements (e.g., positions, claims, evidence, counterclaims, rebuttals) among adult first-language (L1) and second language (L2) English writers. The dataset consisted of 400 argumentative essays (200 from L1 writers and 200 from L2 writers) with accompanying keystroke logs. Each essay was manually annotated for argument elements, and keystroke measures were computed for each element. Multinomial mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to identify distinct keystroke patterns associated with different argument elements and with native language. Results revealed that writers behaved differently in P-burst length, pause duration, and proportion of deletions when formulating different argument elements. Additionally, L1 and L2 writers exhibited distinct patterns when composing claims (relative to evidence) and when constructing counterclaims and rebuttals (relative to other elements), suggesting differing cognitive demands and rhetorical strategies between the two groups.

最近利用击键记录的研究已经确定了写作过程的特征和书面产品之间的联系（例如，写作质量，文本衔接）。然而，更全面地了解写作的时间和行为动态如何与论点元素的发展有关，仍然需要。本研究考察了成年第一语言（L1）和第二语言（L2）英语作家通过击键特征（如停顿、修改、爆发、过程差异）捕获的写作行为与论点元素（如立场、主张、证据、反诉、反驳）的构建之间的关系。该数据集由400篇议论文（200篇来自L1作者，200篇来自L2作者）和附带的击键日志组成。每篇文章都为论点元素手工注释，并且计算每个元素的击键度量。多项混合效应逻辑回归模型用于识别与不同参数元素和母语相关的不同击键模式。结果表明，作者在表达不同论点元素时，在P-burst长度、暂停时间和删除比例方面表现不同。此外，第一语言和第二语言作者在撰写主张（相对于证据）和构建反诉和反驳（相对于其他元素）时表现出不同的模式，这表明两组作者在认知需求和修辞策略上存在差异。

{"title":"Linking writing processes to argument elements: Insights from keystroke logging in L1 and L2 writers","authors":"Yu Tian , Scott Crossley","doi":"10.1016/j.jslw.2025.101276","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jslw.2025.101276","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Recent studies leveraging keystroke logging have identified associations between features of the writing process and the written product (e.g., writing quality, text cohesion). However, a more comprehensive understanding of how the temporal and behavioral dynamics of writing relate to the development of argument elements is still needed. This study examined the relationship between writing behaviors captured through keystroke features (e.g., pauses, revisions, bursts, process variance) and the construction of argument elements (e.g., positions, claims, evidence, counterclaims, rebuttals) among adult first-language (L1) and second language (L2) English writers. The dataset consisted of 400 argumentative essays (200 from L1 writers and 200 from L2 writers) with accompanying keystroke logs. Each essay was manually annotated for argument elements, and keystroke measures were computed for each element. Multinomial mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to identify distinct keystroke patterns associated with different argument elements and with native language. Results revealed that writers behaved differently in P-burst length, pause duration, and proportion of deletions when formulating different argument elements. Additionally, L1 and L2 writers exhibited distinct patterns when composing claims (relative to evidence) and when constructing counterclaims and rebuttals (relative to other elements), suggesting differing cognitive demands and rhetorical strategies between the two groups.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47934,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Second Language Writing","volume":"71 ","pages":"Article 101276"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2025-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145789854","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

IF 4.5 1区文学 Q1 LINGUISTICS

Journal of Second Language Writing

Pub Date : 2025-12-17 DOI: 10.1016/j.jslw.2025.101277

Bee Chamcharatsri

引用次数: 0

Developing and validating a scale for assessing EFL learners’ co-regulation strategies for collaborative writing: A multi-layered perspective 开发和验证一个评估英语学习者协作写作协同调节策略的量表：一个多层次的视角

IF 4.5 1区文学 Q1 LINGUISTICS

Journal of Second Language Writing

Pub Date : 2025-12-15 DOI: 10.1016/j.jslw.2025.101280

You Su , Zeting Yuan , Jyh-Chong Liang

As collaborative writing gains prominence in second language education, the need for reliable instruments to assess students’ collaborative processes is critical, especially in understanding their co-regulation during team interactions. While existing scales primarily focus on self-regulation in individual writing, this study develops and validates a Co-regulation Strategies (CRS) scale for collaborative writing activities. Through validation with 471 college students engaged in collaborative English writing tasks, we employed exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses to establish a 21-item scale comprising six distinct dimensions. The scale incorporates core regulatory dimensions of co-planning, co-monitoring, co-evaluation, and effort regulation, and identifies help‑giving as an independent factor separate from help-seeking, revealing the bidirectional nature of peer support in collaborative contexts. Across five theoretically motivated models, four showed acceptable fit. For general reporting, a three-factor higher-order structure (metacognitive, motivational, social) is recommended as a parsimonious default. The six-factor correlated model supports fine-grained diagnosis, a single higher-order factor yields a holistic index, and a cyclical three-phase model informs phase-specific interventions. Together, these models offer analytical flexibility for diagnosis and reporting across domains and phases. The CRS scale addresses a notable gap in assessing co‑regulation during collaborative writing.

随着合作写作在第二语言教育中的地位日益突出，需要可靠的工具来评估学生的合作过程是至关重要的，特别是在理解他们在团队互动中的共同调节方面。虽然现有的量表主要关注个人写作中的自我调节，但本研究开发并验证了协作写作活动的共同调节策略（CRS）量表。通过对471名大学生英语协作写作任务的验证，我们采用探索性和验证性因素分析建立了包含6个不同维度的21项量表。该量表纳入了共同规划、共同监测、共同评估和努力调节的核心调节维度，并将帮助给予确定为与寻求帮助分离的独立因素，揭示了协作环境中同伴支持的双向性。在五个理论驱动的模型中，有四个显示出可接受的契合度。对于一般报告，建议使用三因素高阶结构（元认知、动机、社会）作为简洁的默认值。六因素相关模型支持细粒度诊断，单个高阶因素产生整体指数，周期性三相模型为特定阶段的干预提供信息。总之，这些模型为跨领域和阶段的诊断和报告提供了分析灵活性。CRS量表解决了在协作写作过程中评估共同调节的显着差距。

{"title":"Developing and validating a scale for assessing EFL learners’ co-regulation strategies for collaborative writing: A multi-layered perspective","authors":"You Su , Zeting Yuan , Jyh-Chong Liang","doi":"10.1016/j.jslw.2025.101280","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jslw.2025.101280","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>As collaborative writing gains prominence in second language education, the need for reliable instruments to assess students’ collaborative processes is critical, especially in understanding their co-regulation during team interactions. While existing scales primarily focus on self-regulation in individual writing, this study develops and validates a Co-regulation Strategies (CRS) scale for collaborative writing activities. Through validation with 471 college students engaged in collaborative English writing tasks, we employed exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses to establish a 21-item scale comprising six distinct dimensions. The scale incorporates core regulatory dimensions of co-planning, co-monitoring, co-evaluation, and effort regulation, and identifies help‑giving as an independent factor separate from help-seeking, revealing the bidirectional nature of peer support in collaborative contexts. Across five theoretically motivated models, four showed acceptable fit. For general reporting, a three-factor higher-order structure (metacognitive, motivational, social) is recommended as a parsimonious default. The six-factor correlated model supports fine-grained diagnosis, a single higher-order factor yields a holistic index, and a cyclical three-phase model informs phase-specific interventions. Together, these models offer analytical flexibility for diagnosis and reporting across domains and phases. The CRS scale addresses a notable gap in assessing co‑regulation during collaborative writing.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47934,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Second Language Writing","volume":"71 ","pages":"Article 101280"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2025-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145789853","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Constructing discoursal scholarly identities in research writing over time and across space: A case study of Chinese transnational scholars 跨时空建构研究写作中的话语学术身份：以中国跨国学者为例

IF 4.5 1区文学 Q1 LINGUISTICS

Journal of Second Language Writing

Pub Date : 2025-12-12 DOI: 10.1016/j.jslw.2025.101279

Qi Qi , Cecilia Guanfang Zhao

While interest in identity issues continues to grow in second language writing research, the construction of discoursal scholarly identity in research writing remains underexplored, particularly for transnational scholars. This case study, grounded in Ivanič’s (1998) framework of discoursal construction of writer identity, examined two Chinese transnational scholars’ perceptions and constructions of their discoursal scholarly identities in academic publishing over time and across space. Analysis of their self-identified representative works, relevant text histories, and reported writing experiences revealed that as the scholars’ academic experiences evolved, they developed a deeper understanding of discoursal scholarly identity, and negotiated an intended scholarly identity by navigating complex relationships with community members, rather than passively meeting gatekeepers’ expectations. While adapting to the local academic environment, they also leveraged international knowledge and resources to shape and develop their desired discoursal scholarly identity. Theoretically, these findings refine our understanding of discoursal identity construction in relation to concepts of time and space. Practically, the study provides pedagogical guidance to writing instructors and educators on how they could best support transnational and multilingual writers in developing their scholarly identities while navigating relationships with various stakeholders across different contexts and career stages.

虽然在第二语言写作研究中对身份问题的兴趣持续增长，但研究性写作中话语学术身份的构建仍未得到充分探索，特别是对于跨国学者而言。本研究以伊凡尼斯基（1998）的作家身份话语建构框架为基础，考察了两位中国跨国学者在跨时空的学术出版中对其话语学术身份的认知和建构。通过对他们自我认同的代表作品、相关文本历史和写作经历的分析表明，随着学者学术经历的发展，他们对话语学术身份有了更深的理解，并通过与社区成员的复杂关系来协商学术身份，而不是被动地满足看门人的期望。在适应当地学术环境的同时，他们也利用国际知识和资源来塑造和发展他们想要的话语学术身份。从理论上讲，这些发现完善了我们对话语认同建构与时间和空间概念的关系的理解。实际上，该研究为写作教师和教育工作者提供了教学指导，指导他们如何在与不同背景和职业阶段的各种利益相关者建立关系的同时，最好地支持跨国和多语种作家发展他们的学术身份。

{"title":"Constructing discoursal scholarly identities in research writing over time and across space: A case study of Chinese transnational scholars","authors":"Qi Qi , Cecilia Guanfang Zhao","doi":"10.1016/j.jslw.2025.101279","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jslw.2025.101279","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>While interest in identity issues continues to grow in second language writing research, the construction of discoursal scholarly identity in research writing remains underexplored, particularly for transnational scholars. This case study, grounded in Ivanič’s (1998) framework of discoursal construction of writer identity, examined two Chinese transnational scholars’ perceptions and constructions of their discoursal scholarly identities in academic publishing over time and across space. Analysis of their self-identified representative works, relevant text histories, and reported writing experiences revealed that as the scholars’ academic experiences evolved, they developed a deeper understanding of discoursal scholarly identity, and negotiated an intended scholarly identity by navigating complex relationships with community members, rather than passively meeting gatekeepers’ expectations. While adapting to the local academic environment, they also leveraged international knowledge and resources to shape and develop their desired discoursal scholarly identity. Theoretically, these findings refine our understanding of discoursal identity construction in relation to concepts of time and space. Practically, the study provides pedagogical guidance to writing instructors and educators on how they could best support transnational and multilingual writers in developing their scholarly identities while navigating relationships with various stakeholders across different contexts and career stages.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47934,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Second Language Writing","volume":"71 ","pages":"Article 101279"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2025-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145737059","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

A theoretical framework of collaborative authorial voice: Cognitive, social, and textual dimensions 协作作者声音的理论框架：认知、社会和文本维度

IF 4.5 1区文学 Q1 LINGUISTICS

Journal of Second Language Writing

Pub Date : 2025-12-12 DOI: 10.1016/j.jslw.2025.101278

Baraa Khuder , Bojana Petric

Authorial voice in academic writing reflects how writers construct and assert authority within their disciplinary communities. While voice has so far been examined through linguistic, sociocultural, metadiscourse and other perspectives, existing frameworks have largely focused on individual authorship, overlooking the complexities of collaborative writing. This study introduces a comprehensive multidimensional theoretical framework that integrates intrapersonal (cognitive, metacognitive, and emotional), interactional (negotiation and power dynamics), and behavioral (textual enactment) dimensions to trace how authorial voice is constructed in collaboration. Through a longitudinal case study, this paper examines how voice is shaped through distributed cognitive processes, feedback negotiations, and textual positioning. Findings reveal that authorial voice is not a fixed attribute but a cognitively developmental, socially situated, and rhetorically negotiated construct. Co-authors and gatekeepers play a central role in shaping voice, sometimes enabling agency, other times constraining it. By applying this theoretical framework to collaborative writing for publication, this study offers a novel lens for analyzing voice as a distributed and dialogic developmental phenomenon. The framework advances theorizing beyond individual-centered accounts and offers methodological guidance for studying voice across drafts, actors, and feedback channels in collaborative research contexts.

学术写作中的权威声音反映了作者如何在其学科社区中构建和维护权威。到目前为止，人们已经从语言学、社会文化、元话语和其他角度对声音进行了研究，但现有的框架主要集中在个人作者身上，忽视了合作写作的复杂性。本研究引入了一个综合的多维理论框架，该框架整合了个人（认知、元认知和情感）、互动（谈判和权力动力学）和行为（文本制定）维度，以追踪作者在合作中如何构建声音。通过纵向案例研究，本文探讨了语音是如何通过分布式认知过程、反馈谈判和文本定位形成的。研究结果表明，作者的声音不是一种固定的属性，而是一种认知发展、社会地位和修辞协商的结构。共同作者和看门人在塑造声音方面发挥着核心作用，有时是促成代理，有时是限制代理。通过将这一理论框架应用于出版合作写作，本研究提供了一个新的视角来分析声音作为一种分布的、对话的发展现象。该框架在以个人为中心的叙述之外推进了理论化，并为在合作研究背景下跨草案、行动者和反馈渠道研究声音提供了方法论指导。

{"title":"A theoretical framework of collaborative authorial voice: Cognitive, social, and textual dimensions","authors":"Baraa Khuder , Bojana Petric","doi":"10.1016/j.jslw.2025.101278","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jslw.2025.101278","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Authorial voice in academic writing reflects how writers construct and assert authority within their disciplinary communities. While voice has so far been examined through linguistic, sociocultural, metadiscourse and other perspectives, existing frameworks have largely focused on individual authorship, overlooking the complexities of collaborative writing. This study introduces a comprehensive multidimensional theoretical framework that integrates intrapersonal (cognitive, metacognitive, and emotional), interactional (negotiation and power dynamics), and behavioral (textual enactment) dimensions to trace how authorial voice is constructed in collaboration. Through a longitudinal case study, this paper examines how voice is shaped through distributed cognitive processes, feedback negotiations, and textual positioning. Findings reveal that authorial voice is not a fixed attribute but a cognitively developmental, socially situated, and rhetorically negotiated construct. Co-authors and gatekeepers play a central role in shaping voice, sometimes enabling agency, other times constraining it. By applying this theoretical framework to collaborative writing for publication, this study offers a novel lens for analyzing voice as a distributed and dialogic developmental phenomenon. The framework advances theorizing beyond individual-centered accounts and offers methodological guidance for studying voice across drafts, actors, and feedback channels in collaborative research contexts.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47934,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Second Language Writing","volume":"71 ","pages":"Article 101278"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2025-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145737058","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Global Englishes language teaching and second language writing: A disciplinary dialogue 全球英语教学与第二语言写作：学科对话

IF 4.5 1区文学 Q1 LINGUISTICS

Journal of Second Language Writing

Pub Date : 2025-12-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.jslw.2025.101257

Icy Lee , Pauline Mak

引用次数: 0

Selected bibliography of recent scholarship in second language writing 最近第二语言写作奖学金的参考书目

IF 4.5 1区文学 Q1 LINGUISTICS

Journal of Second Language Writing

Pub Date : 2025-12-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.jslw.2025.101266

Carolina Pelaez-Morales , Colleen Brice

引用次数: 0

JSLW Editorial for December 2025 2025年12月JSLW社论

IF 4.5 1区文学 Q1 LINGUISTICS

Journal of Second Language Writing

Pub Date : 2025-12-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.jslw.2025.101267

YouJin Kim, Stephen Doolan

引用次数: 0

Developing a feedback framework for English for Research and Publication Purposes (ERPP) in L2 writing 为研究和出版用英语（ERPP）的第二语言写作建立一个反馈框架

IF 4.5 1区文学 Q1 LINGUISTICS

Journal of Second Language Writing

Pub Date : 2025-11-18 DOI: 10.1016/j.jslw.2025.101265

Xingyu Zhang, Yaqiong Cui, Hui Jin, Yuan Gao

The growing pressure on graduate students to publish papers in international journals has intensified the need for effective English for Research and Publication Purposes (ERPP) feedback. However, existing research features a lack of a comprehensive framework incorporating feedback from different providers and systematic comparisons of feedback practices across provider groups and disciplines. To address these gaps, guided by Evidence-centered Design model, this study developed and validated an integrated framework to capture the feedback foci of the academic support ecosystem, including writing center tutors (EFL teachers and international instructors), academic supervisors, and journal reviewers, based on their written feedback on 62 manuscripts across disciplines. Constructed through an iterative process that linked theoretical constructs with empirical evidence, the framework was validated via expert deliberations, EAP teachers’ evaluations on manuscripts blinded to prior feedback, and effectiveness testing with student users. Its application revealed a clear tripartite functional specialization among providers and a strong cross-disciplinary consensus on fundamental standards of academic writing. This ECD-grounded framework provides a structured yet adaptable tool to enhance EFL teachers’ and learners’ feedback literacy, enabling more targeted instruction and informed collaborative ERPP feedback strategies.

研究生在国际期刊上发表论文的压力越来越大，因此更需要有效的研究和出版英语（ERPP）反馈。然而，现有研究的特点是缺乏一个综合框架，包括来自不同提供者的反馈，以及跨提供者群体和学科的反馈实践的系统比较。为了解决这些差距，在以证据为中心的设计模型的指导下，本研究开发并验证了一个综合框架，以捕捉学术支持生态系统的反馈焦点，包括写作中心导师（英语教师和国际讲师）、学术主管和期刊审稿人，基于他们对62篇跨学科手稿的书面反馈。通过将理论结构与经验证据联系起来的迭代过程构建，该框架通过专家审议、EAP教师对不考虑先前反馈的手稿的评估以及学生用户的有效性测试来验证。它的应用揭示了提供者之间明确的三方职能专业化和对学术写作基本标准的强烈跨学科共识。这个基于ecd的框架提供了一个结构化但适应性强的工具，以提高英语教师和学习者的反馈素养，实现更有针对性的教学和知情的协同ERPP反馈策略。

{"title":"Developing a feedback framework for English for Research and Publication Purposes (ERPP) in L2 writing","authors":"Xingyu Zhang, Yaqiong Cui, Hui Jin, Yuan Gao","doi":"10.1016/j.jslw.2025.101265","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jslw.2025.101265","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The growing pressure on graduate students to publish papers in international journals has intensified the need for effective English for Research and Publication Purposes (ERPP) feedback. However, existing research features a lack of a comprehensive framework incorporating feedback from different providers and systematic comparisons of feedback practices across provider groups and disciplines. To address these gaps, guided by Evidence-centered Design model, this study developed and validated an integrated framework to capture the feedback foci of the academic support ecosystem, including writing center tutors (EFL teachers and international instructors), academic supervisors, and journal reviewers, based on their written feedback on 62 manuscripts across disciplines. Constructed through an iterative process that linked theoretical constructs with empirical evidence, the framework was validated via expert deliberations, EAP teachers’ evaluations on manuscripts blinded to prior feedback, and effectiveness testing with student users. Its application revealed a clear tripartite functional specialization among providers and a strong cross-disciplinary consensus on fundamental standards of academic writing. This ECD-grounded framework provides a structured yet adaptable tool to enhance EFL teachers’ and learners’ feedback literacy, enabling more targeted instruction and informed collaborative ERPP feedback strategies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47934,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Second Language Writing","volume":"71 ","pages":"Article 101265"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2025-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145537066","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

下一页尾页

类型

全部化学•材料生命科学医学物理工程技术环境•农林材料科学地球科学法学管理学化学环境科学与生态学计算机科学教育学经济学农林科学人文科学生物学数学物理与天体物理心理学综合性期刊其他工业工程理学历史学农学文学信息工程

数据库

全部 ACS Publications Elsevier ieeexplore Springer The Royal Society of Chemistry Wiley

期刊

Journal of Second Language Writing

全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.

﹀