Journal of Second Language Writing最新文献

The number of Latinx students enrolling in Spanish language courses in the United States has been steadily increasing in the last decades. Many of these students, referred to as heritage language (HL) learners, use linguistic forms and practices that are often stigmatized in academic communities for purportedly being “incorrect” or “inappropriate.” The current investigation explores whether a group of Spanish high school teachers (n = 48) perceives some of the lexical items HL learners produce as “errors” and examines the type of written corrective feedback (CF) that they provide. Their CF on target items was coded as indirect, direct, or metalinguistic, and their metalinguistic CF was further coded as eradication-oriented, appropriateness-oriented, or expansion-oriented. The most common CF types in our results were direct and metalinguistic, and the metalinguistic CF offered was classified primarily as eradication-oriented. Our discussion centers around what is generally deemed “erroneous” in HL learners’ productions, and hence a trigger for written CF, and how a critical reconceptualization of the construct of “error” eliciting this CF may help educators more effectively advance a critical language awareness pedagogy, thereby promoting self-reflection, social justice, and rhetorical agency.

Adopting a critical collaborative autoethnographic narrative lens, we, two transnational multilingual scholars, examine our own journeys as L2 writers from learning English to learning how to teach and publish as academics that disseminate most of our scholarship in English. We critically reflect upon our respective educational journeys and professional experiences in and with academic English writing in relation to our own critical language awareness (CLA). Our perspective is that in order for us to critically look backward, outward, and forward in L2 writing, we must start inward, desde la autorreflexión, 自我反省 (zì wǒ fǎn xǐng). By engaging in this introspective exercise, and later engaging in CLA practices ourselves, we seek to initiate a movement in which we actively blur the fronteras 边界 (biān jiè) in our linguistic and scholarly practice and advocate for our languaging processes to be normalized in our publishing. In doing so, we can legitimize our translingual pedagogies. We conclude with some discussion points and implications for the fields of composition, literacy studies, and second language writing.

Collaborating with peers enables learners to face up to challenges in argumentative writing. Leadership constitutes an integral part of peer collaboration. Nevertheless, putting learners in groups cannot ensure fruitful teamwork, especially in a blended learning context. To probe into peer leadership in blended collaborative argumentative writing, the current study adopted a qualitative approach and focused on leadership performances of five EFL learners. By analyzing group discussions, written products and semi-structured interviews, this case study examined how EFL learners performed leadership behaviors to facilitate collaborative argumentative writing during offline and online learning. Offline leadership was mainly employed to generate and develop claims, and elaborate upon sub-arguments, while online leadership helped clarify claims, pinpoint evidence and reasoning, synthesize sub-arguments and revise argument. Peer leadership fluctuated in terms of type, agent and argumentative focus across the offline and online contexts. Leadership performances in the two contexts intersected with and complemented each other to contribute to collaborative argumentative writing. These findings unpack the nature of leadership in collaborative argumentative writing, and reveal its fluidity within a blended learning design.

Second language (L2) integrated argumentative writing is a complex process, where writers need to integrate sources to make effective arguments to demonstrate their writing proficiency. While abundant research has examined essay performance features in relation to proficiency scores, our understanding of the nature of L2 argumentation and the impact of source use on argumentation quality remains relatively limited. This short communication investigates how source use characteristics were manifested in 300 argumentative writing performances of an integrated writing test. The essays were coded and analyzed in terms of integration style, interpretation accuracy, and integration purpose along with their argumentation effectiveness, operationalized as argument structure and reasoning quality. The results showed that while source use characteristics did not show a direct relationship with score level, certain features displayed systematic differences across levels of argumentation effectiveness, which are significantly related to writing scores. The findings suggest a potential complex, indirect relationship between source use, argumentation, and writing proficiency that warrants a more thorough analysis in L2 writing research.

Second language specialists are often called on to advocate for multilingual learners (MLs), particularly in response to deficit views of MLs’ writing. Such advocacy necessitates critical language awareness (CLA) in regard to issues of equity, power, and ideology that intersect with the lives of MLs on a daily basis. However, little is known about how advocacy interactions actually occur in real time. To document advocacy-related discourse, our study explores an innovative virtual simulation approach in which participants discuss ML writing samples with a teacher-colleague (in the form of an avatar) who is extremely focused on “errors” and employs deficit-oriented discourses about ML student work. Focusing on discursive approaches and footings, we documented how 42 English as a Second Language endorsement candidates engaged with this simulation and leveraged (or not) critical language awareness in their advocacy efforts. We identified three main approaches participants took up in these interactions: (1) conceptual, (2) strategic, and (3) developmental. We illustrate these approaches through case studies of three focal participants, documenting how CLA can be operationalized across different approaches to ML writing advocacy.

General indices of syntactic complexity (e.g. mean length of T-unit, clauses per T-Unit) have long been used to measure the writing proficiency of adult language learners (Bulté & Housen, 2012; Norris & Ortega, 2006; Ortega, 2003; Wolfe-Quintero et al., 1998). In contrast, a number of recent studies have focused on measuring adult second language writing proficiency using methods rooted in usage-based theories of language learning. The present study extends previous research (e.g., Kyle & Crossley, 2017) by comparing usage-based and general indices of syntactic and lexicogrammatical use in learners of Mandarin. It also extends previous work by investigating whether meaningful, but non-linear trends exist. To do this, it first compares multiple linear regression models to polynomial models for general and usage-based indices respectively. Then it compares the strongest model for each type of index to determine which is better. Consistent with Kyle and Crossley (2017), it finds that in Mandarin usage-based indices are better predictors of proficiency than general indices and that the frequency of the verb decreases over time while the strength of association between verb and VAC increases. Furthermore, non-linear trajectories were found to exist in general indices while usage-based indices were linear.

Building on the Attentional Control Theory proposed by Eysenck et al. (2007), this study aims to investigate the potential effect of L2 writing anxiety on the syntactic complexity of English learners' written texts by accounting for working memory as a potential mediator, while also examining the impact of L2 writing anxiety on learner texts’ syntactic complexity under high and low cognitive demands, and testing whether syntactic complexity is reduced in written texts produced under high cognitive demand. The participants were 126 learners of English as a Foreign Language, divided into low and high-writing anxiety groups while their reading anxiety, working memory capacity, and previous writing scores were kept equal. Each participant completed two integrated L2 writing tasks with varying cognitive loads. Empirical findings of this study show that high L2 writing anxiety may play a suppressive role on learners' working memory, thereby resulting in reduced syntactic complexity in written texts produced. Furthermore, consistent with previous research, this study documents the negative impact of L2 writing anxiety and highlights the influence of high cognitive load tasks on L2 learners' syntactic complexity in text production.

Adopting the framework of Dynamic Assessment (DA), this study investigates the effectiveness of a DA-informed writing enrichment program in promoting L2 English learners’ academic writing development. Thirteen ESL students recruited from a U.S. university were randomly assigned to a DA-informed enrichment program group (n = 6) or a standard writing instruction group (n = 7). Prior to and following the 5-week instructional programs (Time 1 and Time 2), each participant completed a source-based essay independently, engaged in interactionist DA with a mediator to jointly review the writing while referencing an analytic rubric, and then revised their essay. All drafts were blindly scored by independent raters. Results revealed that the enrichment group outperformed the standard instruction group in the independent writing performed at Time 2, indicating their differential level of development. Although both groups showed enhanced writing performance following the DA procedures at both Time 1 and Time 2, the enrichment learners responded more favorably to mediation during DA at Time 2, indicating their greater emerging abilities. Implications for tying DA results to an instructional program targeting learner emerging writing abilities are discussed.