identifying effective english l2 writing interventions...

3

English Teaching, Vol. 67, No. 4, Winter 2012

Identifying Effective English L2 Writing Interventions: Emerging Trends and Issues in Recent Research

Soo Eun Chae

(Korean Educational Development Institute)

Chae, Soo Eun. (2012). Identifying effective English L2 writing interventions:

Emerging trends and issues in recent research. English Teaching, 67(4), 3-24.

The current study aimed to describe overall trends in recent English second

language (L2) academic writing research and to identify effective interventions. To

support drawing defensible conclusions based on the literature dealing with L2

writing, only recent empirical articles dealing with academic writing for English-L2

college students published in peer reviewed journals were included. Fifty five

English L2 writing articles met the criteria for inclusion. For the identification of

effective L2 writing interventions, I discriminated if the studies provided L2 writing

interventions and the relevance to L2 writing development. As a result of analyses

based on themes emerging in the English L2 academic writing literature, I noted

effective English L2 academic writing interventions. Those interventions were

teacher feedback, self-regulatory learning, peer feedback, and technology use. The

use of a variety of measures and incorporation of specificity about prompts into the

studies was recommended and the developmental trajectory of L2 writers was

suggested to be further studied.

I. INTRODUCTION

Teachers, students, and policymakers have raised many questions that are directly or

indirectly related to enhancing students’ actual L2 writing performances. In particular,

pedagogical activities aimed at creating better writing have been popular in both the

English-L2 and first language writing fields (Silva & Leki, 2004). This concern from the

field has focused L2 writing researchers’ lenses on empirical questions and pedagogical

concerns, such as whether there are specific strategies that can promote students’ writing

(Raimes, 1991) and whether teachers’ revision is more helpful than revision from peers

(Yang, Badger, & Yu, 2006). Studies of English-L2 writing have primarily focused on

exploring the relation between pedagogical activities and a good outcome (Makalela,

4 Soo Eun Chae

2004).

When considering the aforementioned empirical needs, a reflective question on L2

writing research can be raised. Many pedagogical suggestions have recently been made

for fostering L2 students’ writing skills, as a dramatic increase in the number of

international students in the U.S. has sharpened the need for effective L2 writing classes

(Kargbo & Yeager, 2007). The question, therefore, is what were the prevalent

interventions in recent and relevant studies for international English L2 writers? Various

interventions were implemented by researchers who sought to draw practical implications

for enhancing L2 writing skill. Patterns across many studies of the use of the same type

of intervention would tell us something about how the field as a whole is oriented. In

addition, findings from implementing interventions provide information about what

works for attaining a desired outcome effect. Looking at the outcomes of major

interventions across L2 writing studies suggests possible factors that might be effective

for fostering L2 writing skills.

1. Intervention in L2 Writing

Intervention often means the application of some treatment and then observation of its

effects. However, intervention in the current paper meant a broader concept encompassing

teaching and other pedagogical activities that might stimulate the observed outcome

effects. I exclusively included the studies that incorporated learning activities leading to L2

writing development. The current review aimed to identify effective L2 writing

interventions. Thus, it was critical to discriminate if the studies provided L2 writing

interventions and the relevance to L2 writing development. For example, Lee and Schallert

(2008) paid attention to effects of teacher’s relationship with students on development of

students’ written English skills. In the study, teacher’s trusting relation with students were

compared with troubled relationship. The teacher’s activities focusing on trusting

relationship was viewed as an intervention.

In contrast, a study (Montgomery & Baker, 2007) described epistemic agreements

between students and teachers regarding quality of teacher feedback. Although

Montgomery and Baker (2007) informed critical issues regarding a degree to which

students’ evaluation and teachers’ assessment coordinate each other, it was hard to

determine whether the teacher feedback might actually work for L2 writing development

in the study. Such studies were intentionally excluded because the study did not identify

effectiveness of teacher feedback for L2 writing development.

Effective ESL Writing 5

2. Research Inquiry and Question

The current review is an effort to identify emergent categories that support the

identification of viable interventions captured in current L2 writing studies. A research

question for the current study, thus, was “what interventions were found as being

effective for L2 writing development from the recent empirical studies?” The reflective

question will serve as a basis on which the emergent categories, that is, codings for the

literature, can be structured. The findings from this investigation will be of use to

educators seeking to promote L2 writing development.

II. METHODOLOGY

1. Inclusion Criteria

To support drawing defensible conclusions based on the literature dealing with L2

writing, only recent empirical articles dealing with academic writing for English-L2

college students published in peer reviewed journals were included.

1) Empirical Work in Contemporary Peer Reviewed Journals

The first criterion of this review was to find empirical studies no older than ten years so

as to capture contemporary trends in the field. I was particularly interested in their

measurement triangulation and consideration of developmental aspect. I was concerned

only with articles published in a peer-reviewed journal in English.

2) English as a Second Language

The selected articles dealt with English as a Second Language. This restriction meant

that first language (L1) writing studies and writing studies based on other L2s such as

French were excluded. Here, L2 is a broad concept encompassing foreign languages and

bilingualism. Given the ambiguous boundaries among similar concepts such as second

language, foreign language, and bilingualism, no constraints on writer characteristics other

than English as a second language were imposed. For example, the writers’ native

language and the length of years the writers were exposed to the English-use environment

were not used as inclusion criteria while screening the articles.

6 Soo Eun Chae

3) Academic Writing

The second criterion was academic writing. Academic writing refers to an extensive

subset of writing used in academic fields. One commonly used definition of academic

writing is “texts that state a point of view or thesis that is subsequently developed through

arguments” (Chandrasegaran, 2008, p. 238). In contrast to this “argument” oriented view,

another scholar has defined academic writing as a disciplined domain of “interpreting and

persuading the disciplinary community to accommodate new claims” (Chandrasegaran,

2008, p. 238).

Given these differently oriented definitions, what counted as academic writing in the

current review was a more broad definition encompassing both argument and narrative

claims, because even skilled academic writers frequently write claims in a narrative format.

For instance, professors, who are skilled in academic writing, often create a narrative

format such as describing procedural knowledge (Friedland, 1981). Even narrative writing

tasks that generally do not require explication of argumentative stances can elicit the

writer’s opinions versus the opinions of others. Therefore, academic writing is not

necessarily argumentative but is narrative.

Here, academic writing also meant writing to foster knowledge of a domain such as

mathematics, history, and biology (Griffin, 1983). Academic writing includes writing

in/for a specific discipline. Writing in an academic domain is particularly important

because, as Graff and Birkenstein states, academic writing helps writers “enter a

conversation about ideas” with others in certain academic communities (2006, p. 4).

4) College Students

In order to fulfill the research inquiry on L2 college students in writing research, I used

college as the fourth criterion. Needs of writing development for L2 college students were

addressed in the earlier part of this paper. Moreover, writing has its salience in college or

university level education rather than in the lower level education such as secondary or

primary education. Understanding of specific domain knowledge comes into play in an

academic writing. Instructions focusing on domain knowledge are provided more in the

higher education than in the secondary or the lower level education. All the participants in

the articles searched for the current review were college students or graduates. With regard

to participants’ characteristics, I used no additional constraint such as ethnicity or gender.

2. Search Process

To obtain articles meeting the criteria, I searched for articles in major search engines


(PsycINFO, Academic Search Premier, and ERIC) using the keywords second language

academic writing, L2 academic writing, English-L2 academic writing, and College. Using

this set of search results, I identified the articles that met the pre-defined inclusion criteria.

The final data pool from the search processes included 55 articles. The journals finally

concerned include Written Communication, Journal of English for Academic Purposes,

Applied Linguistics, Assessing Writing, Research in the Teaching of English, Journal of

Second Language Writing, Language Testing, System, English Language Teachers

Journal, Language Teaching Research, The Modern Language Journal, English Teaching

(Korean Journal), Studies in English Education, and Journal of Foreign Languages

Education (Korean Journal).

3. Obtained Pool of Studies

The selected pool of 55 articles was organized using the descriptive and analytic

categories in Table 1. The descriptive categories include the research design and sample

size. The study design showed a strikingly even distribution: 15 articles (28%) were

qualitative, 17 articles (31%) were quantitative, and 18 articles (41%) used a mixed

methods approach. Interestingly, three of the qualitative articles involved a one-sample

case study (Bloch, 2007; Cheng, 2006; Young & Miller, 2004). These articles focused on

tracing students’ more in-depth strategic processes. There were four articles that used

fewer than five students (Lee & Schallert, 2008; Liu, 2008; Ojima, 2006; Shin, 2008).

These studies with small sample size were based on a qualitative study design or a

qualitative design with a support of quantitative description. The average sample size for

mixed method design research was 42.37; mixed design research with no statistical

analyses was 35.33; qualitative design research was 15.73; and quantitative research

design was 81.76. It was apparent that qualitative studies were based on smaller-scale data

analyses than quantitative studies.

Most of the English-L2 writers in the pool of 55 studies were undergraduate or graduate

students, but some English-L2 writers in several studies were random adult ESL learners

(e.g., Bitchener, 2008). In terms of race and ethnicity, the participants were predominantly

Asian with some Hispanic. However, little research in the reviewed studies appears to

have used European and non-eastern Asian participants.

Another notable observation was that the studies mainly were conducted by teacher-

researchers. Because many of the studies were conducted by class teachers within natural

class room settings, experimental designs might be limited. In order to secure study

objectivity and validity, putting third-party researchers or systematic controls into studies

seems desirable.

8 Soo Eun Chae

4. Analysis

A synthesis of research in the current review is basically distinctive from the previous

works (i.e., meta-analysis). Although I also used literature as data or sources for

comparative analysis in this review, effectiveness of L2 writing interventions was

evaluated as the effects emerged in consideration of the focal interventions. The qualitative

approach to the literature review seems useful over traditional meta-analytic literature

review because of the natures seen in much of the L2 writing studies.

5. Coding Schemes for Identifying Emerging Interventions

Intervention often means the application of some treatment and then observation of its

effects. However, intervention in the current paper meant a broader concept encompassing

teaching and other pedagogical activities that might stimulate the observed outcome

effects.

The review involved two exploratory steps for intervention coding: first, short

descriptions were entered under a broad label “intervention and foci” in an initial summary

table. Later, convergent types of interventions were extracted from the initial short

descriptions so as to form a concrete coding scheme.

As a result of this extraction process, four types of interventions emerged as central in

recent L2 academic writing research: Teacher feedback (TF), Self-regulated learning

(SRL), Peer-feedback (PF), and Technology-use (TU) (see Table 1). Multiple types of

interventions could be included in a single study, which would therefore have multiple

codes under type of intervention. For example, Bloch (2007) used three different

interventions. While blogging could be used as a stand-alone activity, the participant in the

study received teacher’s feedback and peer responses in the blog space. This case was

coded both as Technology-use, Teacher feedback, and Peer feedback because the

interventions involved both the on-line environment, a type of technology-use, and

responses from teacher and friends.

Of the codes, SRL needs a definition because of its varying use as a concept by

researchers. Although the SRL articles did not explicitly define SRL, they assumed that

SRL is a strategic process for promoting students’ independent writing performance. The

actual terms that each study used to indicate some form of SRL included planning (Ellis &

Yuan, 2004; Manchón & de Larios, 2007), and formulating (de Larios, Manchón, &

Murphy, 2008). The current coding process used an umbrella term SRL incorporating these

various terms.

The logic for such a broad conceptualization of SRL is supported by L1 writing studies.

Graham (2006) has addressed SRL in his body of work on L1 writing development.


According to Graham, Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD), a type of SRL

strategy, is “an approach for helping students learn specific strategies for planning,

drafting, and revising a text” (Graham & Perin, 2007, p. 15). From his empirical studies

(Graham, 2006), he concluded that SRSD is a key element that dramatically impacts the

quality of L1 adolescent students’ writing.

There were also studies that used other interventions than the selected four major codes.

“O” under intervention in Table 1 indicates the studies fell under other than one of the

codes TF, SRL, PF, and TU. The actual intervention that was used other than the four

codes is presented in parentheses. For example, Lee (2005) used a free voluntary reading

session as an intervention to see if the students’ L2 writing ability was improved [coding

“O (reading)”].

TABLE 1

L2 Writing Literature Trends over the Recent Five years by Effects and Interventions

Author (Year) Effects Focus/Intervention Research Design N

Liu (2008) + TF Qualitative 5

Lee & Schallert

(2008) + TF Qualitative 3

Truscott & Hsu

(2008) + TF Quantitative 47

Young & Miller

(2004) + (Quality) TF Qualitative 1

Bitchener & Knoch

(2010) = TF Quantitative 63

Williams, Takaku, &

Bauman (2006) + TF Quantitative 256

Williams (2004) = TF (Tutor) Mixed (No stat) 9

Thonus (2002) DES TF (Tutor) Qualitative 12

Shin (2008) + TF (error correction) Qualitative 5

Bitchener (2008) + (articles) TF (Written corrective

feedback) Quantitative 75

Bitchener, Young, &

Cameron (2005) +

TF (Conference + Written

feedback) Quantitative 53

Yang, Badger, & Yu

(2006) + (TF>PF) TF, PF

Quantitative (No

stat) 12

Sheen (2007) +

(Knowledge)TF+PF Quantitative 116

Li & Flowerdew

(2007) DES TF+PF Qualitative 16

10 Soo Eun Chae

TABLE 1 (continued)

Author (Year) Effects Focus/Intervention Research Design N

Brine & Franken

(2006)

+

(Accuracy) TF+TU Qualitative 120

Jones, Garralda, Li, &

Lock (2006) + TF+TU Mixed 17

Matsumura & Hann

(2004) + TF+TU Mixed 207

Bloch (2007) DES TF+TU+ PF Qualitative 1

Watanabe & Swain

(2007) + PF Mixed (No stat) 12

Min (2006) + TU+PF Mixed 18

Liu (2003) +/- TU+PF Mixed 48

Yoon & Hirvela

(2004) + TU Mixed (No stat) 22

Stapleton (2005) DES TU Quantitative 43

Yoon (2008) + (Problem,

Perception)TU Qualitative 6

Radia & Stapleton

(2008) DES TU Mixed (No stat) 70

Suzuki (2008) + PF, SRL Mixed 24

Storch (2005) + (Task

fulfillment)PF, SRL Mixed 23

Lundstrom & Baker

(2008) + PF+SRL Quantitative 91

Kim (2011) DES PF+SRL Qualitative 20

Storch (2007) DES PF+SRL Mixed 66

Ellis & Yuan (2004) + SRL Mixed 42

de Larios, Manchón,

Murphy, Marin

(2008)

DES SRL Quantitative 21

Yasuda (2011) + SRL (Genre awareness) Mixed 70

Ojima (2006) + SRL (pre planning) Mixed 3

Okamura (2006) + SRL (strategies) Qualitative 13

Sachs & Polio (2007) + SRL Quantitative 69

Manchón & de Larios

(2007) NA SRL Quantitative 21

Negretti & Kuteeva

(2011) = SRL Qualitative 8

Sasaki (2004) + O (Oversea) Mixed 11


TABLE 1 (continued)

Author (Year) Effects Focus/Intervention Research

Design

N

Sasaki (2007) + O (Oversea) Mixed 13

Makalela (2004) + O (Written vs.

Oral Proficiency)Mixed 50

Ferenz (2005) + O (Social

network) Qualitative 6

Keck (2006) + (Near copies) O (Paraphrasing) Quantitative 153

Cheng (2006) + (Perception) O (Criticism) Qualitative 1

Lee, S-Y. (2005) + O (Reading) Quantitative 270

Baba (2009)

+

(semantic network,

meta-language)

O (Vocabulary) Quantitative 68

Eckstein, Chariton, &

McCollum (2011) +

O (Iterative

model) Mixed 14

James (2008) = O (Task similarity) Mixed 42

James (2009) + O (Task similarity) Mixed 30

Macbeth (2010) + O (Model) Qualitative 19

Plakans (2009) + O (Reading) Quantitative

(No stat) 12

Strauss & Xiang (2006) DES O (Conference) Mixed (No

stat) 21

van Weijen (2009) - O (L1 use) Quantitative 20

Wette (2010) + O (Sourcing) Mixed (No

stat) 78

Cho (2006) + O (Student Level) Qualitative NA

Note: The abbreviations indicate the followings:

TF: Teacher feedback, TU: Technology-use, PF: Peer-feedback, SRL: Self-regulated learning,

O: Others, N: None, No stat: No statistics used, NA: Not Answered,

+ : Positive effect, - : Negative effect, = : No effect, DES: Descriptive information.

III. RESULTS

An exploratory analysis of types of intervention resulted in four distinguishable codes

including teacher feedback, self-regulated learning, peer-feedback, and technology-use.

These four types emerged as major trends in the reviewed literature.

1. Teacher Feedback

The most frequently used pedagogical intervention in the English-L2 writing literature

12 Soo Eun Chae

was teacher feedback. Of the collected data, 18 studies used some form of teacher

feedback as an intervention. The feedback types included error corrections (Bitchener,

2008; Bitchener, Young, & Cameron, 2005), tutoring (Williams, 2004), and revision talk

(Young & Miller, 2004).

Most of these studies found that teacher feedback exerted a positive influence on certain

aspects of students’ writing development. For instance, Yang, Badger, and Yu (2006)

examined revision with or by teachers compared to revision with peers, finding teacher

feedback to be superior in improving writing accuracy and organization. More recently,

Lee and Schallert (2008) reported that teachers’ beliefs were positively related to

improvements in students’ writing drafts.

But, not all investigated aspects of teacher feedback yielded positive impacts on

academic L2 writing. Bitchener, Young, and Cameron (2005) found that teacher feedback

alone did not improve accuracy of writing. Based on this observation, they argued that

confounding factors are likely to exist in the relation between teacher feedback and L2

students’ writing products. According to the findings from Bitchener et al., the type of

teacher feedback (i.e., written or oral feedback) made a difference in enhancement of

students’ writing quality: a combination of written comments and verbal feedback was

effective in enhancing students’ writing performance.

In a similar vein, Bitchener (2008) revealed that students’ writing was influenced

differently by different types of teacher feedback. According to this finding, the teacher’s

written metalinguistic explanation was more effective than traditional corrective feedback

or an oral metalinguistic explanation. That is, students who received metalinguistic written

and oral feedback with direct comments on the incorrect sentences from the teacher

outperformed those who received teacher’s specific direct revision to the student’s writing.

For example, when the students’ writing was directly corrected by the teachers with

written and oral explanation of why the sentences were not correct, the students

subsequently produced more accurate writing than when they only received error

corrections on their writing or when they received only metalinguistic explanations from

teachers. However, the findings in this study were not clear in explaining the relative

merits of teachers’ written feedback versus oral feedback.

Interestingly, there was an investigation in which the teacher’s role changed from being

a mere teacher to being a co-participant over time in an L2 academic writing class. Young

and Miller (2004) investigated the acquisition of an unfamiliar discursive practice by an

adult Vietnamese learner in an English-L2 academic writing class. This practice included

revision talk in weekly English-L2 writing conferences between the student and the

English-L2 writing instructor. Observation of the student’s co-participation with the

instructor revealed a movement from peripheral to fuller participation. The analysis

presented a notable transformation in the instructor’s participation as well: The instructor


became a co-learner and changed his/her participation types to complement the student’s

learning. Young and Miller’s study was informative in that it provided an understanding of

language learning as “co-constructed development in situated discursive practices” (p.

519).

Overall, the literature dealing with teacher feedback emphasized the teacher’s timely

textual and oral feedback rather than mere frequency of feedback for fostering better

quality of students’ writing. Where comparisons were made, teacher feedback was

typically superior to peer-feedback in facilitating students’ writing accuracy and revisions

(Young & Miller, 2004).

2. Self-regulated Learning

The next most frequently used intervention was self-regulated learning (SRL) occupying

13 studies (24%) of the identified literature. Five SRL studies used peer-review together

with SRL for an intervention (e.g., Kim, 2011; Storch, 2007) or for a comparison (e.g.,

Suzuki, 2008).

Recent L2 writing literature supports a positive association between L2 writing

improvement and planning. For example, Ojima (2006) found pre-task planning is

positively related with overall quality of learners’ written production for three Japanese

English L2 writing learners. In particular, the students’ concept-mapping was used as a

pre-task planning instrument. On the other hand, Manchón and de Larios (2007)

investigated planning time allocation as it varied by L2 proficiency level and language use

(i.e., L1 versus L2) in compositions. The result suggested an L2 proficiency effect but no

language effect on planning time; that is, the more proficient writers tended to allocate

more time to planning, but there was no difference between L1 and L2 writing planning

time for the same persons. Ellis and Yuan (2004) found significant improvement in

students’ writing fluency and syntactic variety as a result of pre-task planning for 42

Chinese college students. However, on-line planning contributed to greater accuracy of L2

writing.

Many L2 writing studies fallen under the SRL category regarded planning as a type of

intervention. In the meantime, a study attempted (Negretti & Kuteeva, 2011) an

investigation of meta-cognitive genre awareness for eight Swedish college students. Based

on Schraw and Dennison’s (1994) framework for metacognitive knowledge, the study

classified pre-service English teachers’ dialogues and reflections on their own writing

processes into three groups: declarative knowledge (what); procedural knowledge (how);

and conditional knowledge (when). The summary of the study result indicated that

students predominantly developed declarative and procedural knowledge. Students’

conditional knowledge of genre occasionally appeared among the students’ verbal and

14 Soo Eun Chae

written transcripts. Findings were further expanded to that conditional knowledge

contributed to “manipulate generic features to suit their own purposes (e.g., select key

concepts to frame their arguments, modify the typical rhetorical moves and structural

features)” (p. 108). Negretti and Kuteeva (2011) argued that it is necessary to develop

conditional metacognitive awareness for application of the writing knowledge beyond the

given and expeirenced situations.

While the number of articles that used SRL as an intervention was limited, the collected

studies suggested benefits of inclusion of SRL in L2 writing and the relevant research. The

inventory of different SRL approaches to research seems warranted and consideration of

SRL in the research can strengthen its methods in order to cross-fertilize more. Typically,

frequency of planning and time allocation to planning appeared to be positively related to

better quality writing. The types of strategic process of organization (i.e., deductive or

inductive planning) were different between L1 and L2 writing. Mediators in the process of

the transfer from L1 to L2 were suggested to be further investigated.

3. Peer Feedback

Of the 55 articles reviewed, 12 articles covered some form of peer-feedback issues. In

quite a few studies in this category, peer feedback was compared to teacher feedback and

self-regulated learning. Overall, the results indicated that peer-feedback activities are

helpful for development of greater autonomy and to improve writing quality.

A comparison between peer feedback and teacher feedback was found in Yang, Badger,

and Yu’s (2006) study. In this study using 20- to 21-year-old 12 Chinese students in an

English-L2 academic writing class, Yang et al. found peer feedback to be less effective for

the students’ writing quality than teacher feedback, but more effective for greater

autonomy in writing. The students who received teacher feedback produced better writing

quality, but their writing procedure tended to rely on the teacher’s guidelines rather than

writing procedures they independently employed by themselves. In contrast, the students

getting peer feedback (or peer-collaboration) tended to write based on their independent

writing procedures, which were sometimes different from the teacher’s guidelines. Peer

feedback thus facilitated the students’ independent planning, writing, and revising, but

their actual writing competence was not significantly improved.

Meanwhile, peer feedback was revealed to be favorable in terms of task fulfillment,

grammatical accuracy, and complexity, although pairs produced shorter texts than did the

teacher-feedback receivers (Storch, 2005). In his follow-up study, Storch (2007) also

showed that pairs spent more time than individual writers but produced writing with fuller

vocabulary. This variation of word usage implies that the students were fluent in

generating words and held more potential to write a high quality essay. From his research,


Storch arrived at a positive conclusion about pair-collaboration in L2 writing because pairs

tended to engage in deliberate language-related discussion more actively and eventually

achieved more corrections for writing errors than individual writers.

Some scholars have focused on the effect of different contexts and types of collaborative

writing. For instance, Bloch (2007) examined peer collaboration in a blog space but he

failed to find a significant effect of the blog collaboration. In his case study of a student

who migrated from Somalia to the U.S. when he was a middle-school student, Bloch

reported there was no clear effect from peer collaboration in blog space to foster the

student’s writing development. There was also an interesting study that found that doing

peer review is more effective than receiving it in L2 writing development (Lundstrom &

Baker, 2008). From analyzing 91 students’ pre- and post- intervention written texts in nine

L2 academic writing classes at a university, Lundstrom and Baker concluded that the

student group solely reviewing other groups’ writing developed more in writing ability

than the group receiving peer reviews.

Other researchers concentrated their efforts on figuring out specific peer dialogue

patterns during L2 writing activities. Study of peer dialogues showed that peers were

frequently involved in talking about mechanics and organization rather than about the

ideas and topics of their writing (Watanabe & Swain, 2007). Yet, the changes the student

writers made to their own writing were different than what was discussed. Suzuki (2008)

argued that peer revision produced more changes in number of episodes (a unit of

frequency measurement of dialogues about corresponding topics in their discussion), and

meta-talk rather than text-specific changes such as grammar and words. The upshot of

these two studies is that there exists a gap between the most targeted dialogue topics

(language related topics) and the targeted end result (global changes) in collaborative L2

writing.

Overall, collaborating peers outperformed those who worked alone, but not those who

received teacher feedback, in producing better quality writing. But the superiority of peer

feedback should be interpreted carefully, because the quality of collaboration can also be

affected by various contexts. For example, the point was made that high-proficiency

learners may not benefit from paired collaboration with a lower level peer, because high-

low pairs performed worse than high-high pairs (Leeser, 2004). How students are

combined into peer groups is clearly important. It was also found that participants tended

to change their overall ideas rather than address specific mechanical problems, although

they discussed grammatical changes with peers more than the overall ideas. This gap

between discussion topics and behaviors necessitates further investigation for particular

behavioral or verbal patterns which may hinder effective discussion within pairs (or

between peers), and factors that might encourage or discourage effective peer discussion.

16 Soo Eun Chae

4. Technology Use

There were a considerable numbers of studies focusing on technology-use. Of the 55

articles, 10 articles were set in some form of technology-based learning environment. Six

of the seventeen articles used a combination of technology-use and some other one of the

major intervention types. The types of technology use varied from electronic dictionary-

use (Yoon & Hirvela, 2004) to blogs (Bloch, 2007). Seven articles in the identified

literature highlighted how technology-use can affect L2 writing development. In the

remaining three articles, technology-based environments were merely the class setting for

other focal factors. The latter articles employed very descriptive analysis including listing

often-visited websites (Stapleton, 2005) or reporting students’ perception about

technology-use (Yoon & Hirvela, 2004), rather than relational analysis.

A number of researchers found that technology was positively related to students’

emotional, motivational, and global changes as opposed to specific language-related

changes. For instance, Yoon and Hirvela (2004) documented that use of corpus was

associated with students’ positive motivation (i.e., self-efficacy). Matsumura and Hann

(2004) reported that giving a choice of computer use resulted in good writing performance

for students with either high or low computer-related anxiety. In the study by Ellis and

Yuan (2004), students’ planning was associated with better writing products than no

planning.

Several studies revealed that a technology-rich environment is beneficial to student’s L2

writing quality. Based on a 42-item survey instrument regarding corpus use and follow-up

interviews, Yoon and Hirvela (2004) reported 22 ESL students’ own assessment of

advantage and difficulties of corpus use. They concluded that corpus use is beneficial to

L2 writing development and contributes to increase confidence toward L2 writing. Brine

and Franken (2006) examined the effect of a teacher’s guiding questions in a web

conferencing environment (Web Crossing). Taking the findings from the two studies

together, it appears that an online environment with teacher’s guidance was effective in

enhancing L2 writing skills. Teachers played an important role in fostering the students’

writing performance.

In sum, the studies in this category showed that technology can be beneficial to L2

students because it interests and comforts the students and fosters good effects of teaching.

The studies, however, did not clearly reveal similar benefits for language-specific writing

development such as grammar and writing structure. Technology was instead tied more to

overall L2 writing quality and students’ motivation and identity rather than mechanical

correctness of their writing. Also, in combining technology-use with classical instruction,

it is still questionable whether technology would work for the students at all proficiency

levels or only for the students at a specific level. More studies are desirable for revealing


these refined associations between intervention and students’ proficiency level.

IV. CONCLUSION

The current review is an effort to elucidate the often overlooked relations among the

seemingly disparate pieces of the English-L2 writing literature. Looking at the patterns

interventions based on the descriptive analysis of the codes in the preceding section, would

help further understanding of this complex, and as yet, underdeveloped research venue.

Research on the effects of teacher feedback has appeared to dominate the literature over

the past ten years. As the current review began with the definition of academic writing as a

disciplinary domain, it is perhaps not surprising that teacher feedback was the most

significant intervention in the L2 academic writing literature. As a disciplinary domain is

often set by a corresponding domain community constituted of professionals, writing

within a disciplinary domain needs a conceptualization of who will accept the writing as a

viable format (i.e., the academic community). Student L2 writers perceive a classroom

teacher as a gatekeeper of the disciplinary community.

Regarding this connection between the teacher and the academic community, there can

be several important teacher roles specific to L2 writing. First, teachers can guide students’

away from more naïve to more scientific conceptions (Alexander, 1992). Typically, a

teacher becomes the one and only model of a good writer for L2 learners within a

classroom. So, learners may tend to take on the teacher’s writing styles and strategies by

referring to the teacher’s comments during feedback. Second, with regard to emotional

state, teachers can work as a motivator for the students to pursue ever-challenging tasks.

The emotional impact would be the same for L1 writers, but the impact can be amplified in

L2 because approval from teachers means approval from the English-language-using

society (Chae, Magda, & Alexander, 2009; Lee, 2005).

Further, discussions on what should be taught by the teachers were not specific enough

for what increases their writing development. There has been strong debate about the types

of teacher feedback appropriate for L2 writing. One of the topics investigated in earlier

literature was instruction on grammar and error correction. For instance, Truscott (1996)

stated that grammar instruction should be “abandoned” because of the negative results

from earlier studies on grammar correction. On the other hand, Ferris, who has been on the

opposing side of Truscott’s skepticism on grammar teaching, conducted several primary

and secondary analyses on the same question, and pointed out major weaknesses of

Truscott’s argument, such as that Truscott inappropriately synthesized study results based

on different research designs (Ferris, 2004). This debate on the effect of grammar

instruction suggests that, at a minimum, teachers’ correction of writing errors appears

18 Soo Eun Chae

effective for fostering students’ writing improvement (e.g., Bitchener, 2008). However,

further investigation needs to be conducted as to whether the relation between teacher

feedback and the development of student writing is mediated or moderated by other factors.

Examples include teachers’ beliefs or cultural backgrounds, well as the different roles of

teachers in classes.

Other interventional codes were not as notable as teacher feedback. Self-regulated

learning was the second most studied intervention in the current L2 writing literature. This

trend is similar with what has been seen in the L1 writing literature. Graham (2007), in his

recent meta-analysis of L1 writing, reported that teaching strategies for planning, revising,

and editing their compositions has a key effect on students’ writing development.

The overall findings from the literature indicated that peer-feedback interventions are

more effective for global changes (e.g., organization and structure) than for local changes

(e.g., accuracy and grammar). This is not surprising in that peers, being language learners

themselves, are unlikely to be experts in grammar. Technology use, the least emergent

issue in the reviewed literature, was found to be more effective when it was accompanied

by appropriate guidance from teachers than when it was implemented as a stand-alone

intervention. Typically, the studies in the literature revealed that technology use was

effective in promoting emotional, motivational, and structural and topic changes than

grammatical and linguistic changes. Technology use was accompanied with teacher

feedback or peer feedback as interventions in many studies. This trend seems natural that

technology is still a new intervention in writing pedagogy and needs more understanding

in comparison with other traditional interventions.

Despite the emergent prevalence of the four identified types of interventions in the

literature, the choice of these interventions should carefully be considered depending on

the participants’ condition and the goals. It may be necessary to investigate further what

might mediate or moderate the relation between L2 writing development and students’ L2

level.

Potential issues related to English-L2 writing development can also be found from the

literature in related domains. According to contemporary English-L2 reading literature, for

example, there are effects from language of instruction (Slavin & Cheng, 2005), students’

motivation (Takase, 2007), and beliefs (Kondo-Brown, 2006) on English-L2 reading

development. However, only a few researchers in the literature reviewed here investigated

students’ interest, motivation, and knowledge changes, and no studies examined students’

belief changes in L2 writing. By examining these additional factors, the English-L2

writing literature would refine conclusions regarding the essential conditions related to

writing development.


V. IMPLICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS

In order to capture convergence of findings from the collective studies, I focused on the

effectiveness of the interventions in the collected articles. When grouping studies in Table

1 by the effectiveness of the interventions, I found that most of the studies had positive

effects. This suggested that there is a need to look beyond just the effects to how they were

measured in order to see what is actually likely to be making a difference.

Synthesizing the trends related to intervention, the present review was intended to

provide English-L2 writing researchers with several implications. What has drawn

researchers’ attention in recent literature on English-L2 writing is teacher effects, self-

regulated learning, peer-feedback, and technology-use. Those who wish to design effective

L2 writing programs may need to consider the emergent interventions from the current

investigation into their programs. For example, programs including teacher feedback and/

or teaching self-regulated learning skills may better equip students’ L2 writing

development than programs without the correspondent interventions. At the same time,

teachers may need to leverage the various interventions identified as being effective in the

current studies to benefit L2 students in the field.

Regardless of the obtained pedagogical implications from this study, these descriptive

and simple analyses need more detailed evaluation with methodological considerations

such as measurement and inclusions of prompts. Also, for those who are planning to

undertake L2 academic writing research, summary and synthesis of the major review

components uncovered what was missing in the relevant literature. There remained

questions of how L2 writers would change along a developmental trajectory and how a

writer’s motivation, beliefs, and strategies would be intertwined with their writing

development. These last points may be related to a bigger picture of what good English-L2

writing should be and how writers develop in a disciplined learning process.

While the study attempts to capture emerging interventions in L2 writing articles, issues

still remained to be considered before interpreting and applying the findings from the

current study. The consideration is related to limitations in accessibility of the articles. I

unintentionally excluded the unpublished but possibly viable works regarding L2 writing

research. All the unpublished works could not be incorporated because access to the entire

L2 writing research was not permitted. Thus, this review may lead to a biased picture of

the research trends because many studies with negative outcomes do not get published.

Nevertheless, the current review still made contributions to establishing L2 writing

literature by depicting how the accessible L2 writing literature looks in terms of

interventions and factors of concern.

20 Soo Eun Chae

REFERENCES

Alexander, P. A. (1992). Domain knowledge: Evolving themes and emerging concerns.

Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 33-51.

Baba, K. (2009). Aspects of lexical proficiency in writing summaries in a foreign language.

Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(3), 191-208.

Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second

Language Writing, 17(2), 102-118.

Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective

feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3),

191-205.

Bloch, J. (2007). Abdullah’s blogging: A generation 1.5 student enters the blogosphere.

Language Learning and Technology, 11(2), 128-141.

Brine, J., & Franken, M. (2006). Students’ perceptions of a selected aspect of a computer

mediated academic writing program: An activity theory analysis. Australasian

Journal of Educational Technology, 22(1), 21-38.

Chae, S. E., Magda, J. P., & Alexander, P. A. (2009). In their own words: Korean college

students’ academic writing development in an English as a second language

writing class. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational

Research Association, San Diego, CA.

Chandrasegaran, A. (2008). NNS students’ arguments in English: Observations in formal

and informal contexts. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 237-254.

Cheng, A. (2006). Analyzing and enacting academic criticism: The case of an L2 graduate

learner of academic writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(4), 279-306.

Cho, D. (2006). A case study of a college freshman English program designed to boost

writing skills. Journal of Foreign Languages Education (Korean Journal), 13(2),

69-91.

Cox, J. W., & Hassard, J. (2005). Triangulation in organizational research: A re-

presentation. Organization, 12(1), 109-133.

de Larios, R. J., Manchón, R., Murphy, L., & Marin, J. (2008). The foreign language

writer’s strategic behavior in the allocation of time to writing processes. Journal of

Second Language Writing, 17(1), 30-47.

Eckstein, G., Chariton, J., & McCollum, R. M. (2011). Multi-draft composing: An

iterative model for academic argument writing. Journal of English for Academic

Purposes, 10(3), 162-172.

Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2004). The effects of pre-task planning on fluency, complexity, and

accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 26, 59-84.


Ferenz, O. (2005). EFL writers’ social networks: Impact on advanced academic literacy

development. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(4), 339-351.

Ferris, D. R. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and

where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime ...?). Journal of


Friedland, P. (1981). Acquisition of procedural knowledge from domain experts. Retrieved

on April 30, 2009 from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.

78.6887&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

Graff, G., & Birkenstein, C. (2006). They say I say: the moves that matter in academic

writing. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Graham, S. (2006). Writing. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of

educational psychology (pp. 457-478). Mahwah, NJ: American Psychological

Association.

Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: effective strategies to improve writing of

adolescents in middle and high schools. New York: Alliance of Excellence in

Education.

Griffin, C. W. (1983). Using writing to teach many disciplines. Improving College and

University Teaching, 31(3), 121-128.

James, M. A. (2008). The Influence of perceptions of task similarity/difference on learning

transfer in second language writing. Written Communication, 25(1), 76-103.

James, M. A. (2009). “Far” transfer of learning outcomes from an ESL writing course:

Can the gap be bridged? Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(2), 69-84.

Jones, R. H., Garralda, A., Li, D. C. S., & Lock, G. (2006). Interactional dynamics in on-

line and face-to-face peer-tutoring sessions for second language writers. Journal of


Kargbo, A., & Yeager, M. (2007). Charts you can trust: The race to attract international

students. Retrieved on October 2, 2008 from http://www.educationsector.org/

analysis/analysis_show.htm?doc_id=470283

Keck, C. (2006). The use of paraphrase in summary writing: A comparison of L1 and L2

writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(4), 261-278.

Kim, E.-Y. (2011). Using translation exercises in the communicative EFL writing

classroom. ELT Journal, 65(2), 154-160.

Kondo-Brown, K. (2006). Affective variables and Japanese L2 reading ability. Reading in

a Foreign Language, 18(1), 55-71.

Lee, G., & Schallert, D. L. (2008). Meeting in the margins: Effects of the teacher-student

relationship on revision processes of EFL college students taking a composition

course. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(3), 165-182.

Lee, S.-y. (2005). Facilitating and inhibiting factors in English as a foreign language

22 Soo Eun Chae

writing performance: A model testing with structural equation modeling. Language

Learning, 55(2), 335-374.

Leeser, M. J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue.

Language Teaching Research, 8, 55-81.

Liu, Y. (2008). Taiwanese students’ negotiations with academic writing: Becoming

“playwrights and film directors.” Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 86-

101.

Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2008). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer

review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1),

30-43.

Makalela, L. (2004). Differential error types in second-language students’ written and

spoken texts: Implications for instruction in writing. Written Communication, 22(4),

368-385.

Manchón, R. M., & de Larios, R. J. (2007). On the temporal nature of planning in L1 and

L2 composing. Language Learning, 57(4), 549-593.

Matsumura, S., & Hann, G. (2004). Computer anxiety and students’ preferred feedback

methods in EFL writing. The Modern Language Journal, 88(3), 403-415.

Min, H.-T. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and

writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(2), 118-141.

Montgomery, J. L., & Baker, W. (2007). Teacher-written feedback: Student perceptions,

teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance. Journal of Second


Negretti, R., & Kuteeva, M. (2011). Fostering meta-cognitive genre awareness in L2

academic reading and writing: A case study of pre-service English teachers.


Ojima, M. (2006). Concept mapping as pre-task planning: A case study of three Japanese

ESL writers. System, 34(4), 566-585.

Plakans, L. (2009). The role of reading strategies in integrated L2 writing tasks. Journal of

English for Academic Purposes, 8(4), 252-266.

Radia, P., & Stapleton, P. (2008). Unconventional Internet genres and their impact on

second language undergraduate students’ writing process. The Internet and Higher

Education, 11(1), 9-17.

Raimes, A. (1991). Out of the woods: Emerging traditions in the teaching of writing.

TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 407-430.

Sasaki, M. (2004). A multiple-data analysis of the 3.5-year development of EFL student

writers. Language Learning, 54(3), 525–582.

Sasaki, M. (2007). Effects of study-abroad experiences on EFL writers: A multiple-data

analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 602-620.


Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing meta-cognitive awareness.

Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460–475.

Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude

on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255-283.

Shin, S.-K. (2008). ‘Fire your proofreader!’ Grammar correction in the writing classroom.

ELT Journal, 62(4), 358-365.

Silva, T., & Leki, I. (2004). Family matters: The influence of applied linguistics and

composition studies on second language writing studies-past, present, and future.

The Modern Language Journal, 88(1), 1-13.

Slavin, R. E., & Cheng, A. (2005). A synthesis of research on language of reading

instruction for English language learners. Review of Educational Research, 75(2),

247-284.

Stapleton, P. (2005). Using the web as a research source: Implications for L2 academic

writing. The Modern Language Journal, 89(2), 177-189.

Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections.


Storch, N. (2007). Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL

classes. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 143-159.

Strauss, S., & Xiang, X. (2006). The writing conference as a locus of emergent agency.

Written Communication, 23(4), 355-396.

Suzuki, M. (2008). Japanese learners’ self revisions and peer revisions of their written

compositions in English. TESOL Quarterly, 42(2), 209-233.

Takase, A. (2007). Japanese high school students’ motivation for extensive L2 reading.

Reading in a Foreign Language, 19(1), 1-18.

Thonus, T. (2002). Tutor and student assessments of academic writing tutorials: What is

“success”? Assessing Writing, 8(2), 110-134.

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language

Learning, 46(2), 327-369.

Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y.-p. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of


Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair

interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult

ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 121-142.

Wette, R. (2010). Evaluating student learning in a university-level EAP unit on writing

using sources. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(3), 158-177.

Williams, J. (2004). Tutoring and revision: Second language writers in the writing center.


Williams, J. D., Takaku, S., & Bauman, K. (2006). Effects of self-regulatory behavior on

24 Soo Eun Chae

ESL student writing. Tohoku Psychologica Folia, 65, 24-36.

Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback

in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(3), 179-

200.

Yasuda, S. (2011). Genre-based tasks in foreign language writing: Developing writers’

genre awareness, linguistic knowledge, and writing competence. Journal of Second


Yoon, H. (2008). More than a linguistic reference: The influence of corpus technology on

L2 academic writing. Language Learning and Technology, 12(2), 31-48.

Yoon, H., & Hirvela, A. (2004). ESL student attitudes toward corpus use in L2 writing.


Young, R. F., & Miller, E. R. (2004). Learning as changing participation: Discourse roles

in ESL writing conferences. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 519-535.

Applicable levels: tertiary education

Keywords: L2 writing, intervention, English language, educational program

Chae, Soo Eun

Research Fellow, Korean Educational Development Institute

#503 Korean Federation of Teachers Associations Building 142, Umyen-dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 137-715,

Korea

Tel: (02) 3461-0848

Fax: (02) 579-4483

Email: [email protected]

Received in September, 2012

Reviewed in October, 2012

Revised version received in November, 2012

identifying effective english l2 writing interventions...

Documents