Language matters: Examining the language-related needs and wants of writers in a first-year university writing course

Ferris, Dana R.; Eckstein, Grant

doi:10.17239/jowr-2020.12.02.02

Cited by 12 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A number of innovations can be proposed in this regard, such as the design of an assessment and classification system integrated into the ECM that offers immediate feedback to students in the text construction process [93], with a view to reinforcing the structuring of the argumentative essay [34], as well as the syntactic and lexical correction thereof. These changes are aimed at helping teachers to precisely identify student needs because, as demonstrated in this study, these do not result from a complete awareness of the writing dimension and, furthermore, as shown in the study by Ferris et al [94], linguistic backgrounds and levels of confidence may differ considerably. In addition, changes are proposed with the objective of offering more specific support with the design of mini sessions focused on specific dimensions of need.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Learning Effect in a Multilingual Web-Based Argumentative Writing Instruction Model, Called ECM, on Metacognition, Rhetorical Moves, and Self-Efficacy for Scientific Purposes

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study is to assess the learning effect of a multilingual web-based argumentative writing instruction model called the Ensayo Científico Multilingüe (ECM, Multilingual Scientific Essay) adapting the didactic model called Genre-based Writing Instruction (GBWI) in an experiment conducted over three months. For this purpose, a quasi-experimental research model was applied to 150 students in the experimental group and 150 in the control group, with two measurements, pre and post-test, for three dependent variables: (a) writing metacognition and its dimensions; (b) written argumentative self-efficacy; and (c) rhetorical moves and steps of an argumentative essay. The latter variable was measured by the content analysis method. Variables (a) and (b) were both measured with instruments validated in a population of 518 university students using structural equations. The findings demonstrate the positive effect of the ECM, which combines WBWI and GBWI in argumentative written learning in the students’ mother tongue in all variables measured, applying statistics such as the Shapiro–Wilk statistic, parametric contrast, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. In relation to the findings, with respect to the evaluated variables, it was discovered, specifically, that the rhetorical steps in which the students showed a significant improvement were innovations, quotes/research, definitions of concepts, refutations, definitive reasons, and bibliographical references. Likewise, the rhetorical steps that did not present significant differences following the application of the ECM were discovered, and they were: reason summary, formulation of premise, and reasons for. Furthermore, it can be stated that for the ECM there was an increase, above all, in awareness of the following metacognitive dimensions: (a) writing self-regulation; (b) writing planning; and (c) writing revision, as well as argumentative self-efficacy. The novelties of this research with respect to the precedents reside in that it offers valid and concrete results on the effect of a multilingual web design integrated into a well-defined didactic model of argumentative writing on writing metacognition and its dimensions, argumentative structuring and its rhetorical steps, and argumentative self-efficacy. The related studies consider only some of these variables, but not all of them together or their complexity. These results have allowed us to establish specific didactic–technological proposals for improving the ECM that are transferable to didactic designs to guide written argumentation at higher academic levels using multilingual web technologies and integrating the metacognitive, behavioral, and motivational dimensions of writing.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Learning Effect in a Multilingual Web-Based Argumentative Writing Instruction Model, Called ECM, on Metacognition, Rhetorical Moves, and Self-Efficacy for Scientific Purposes

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When viewed as a cooperative endeavor where teachers and students make requests of each other rather than demands, writing response becomes an interactive process wherein all stakeholders work together to meet the needs of others and to improve each student's writing. (p. 99) Along these lines, Ferris and Eckstein's (2020) findings suggest that instructors should "listen carefully to students' perceptions about their own writing and language needs in order to build students' writing self-efficacy levels" (p. 321).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A letter to my teacher: Interactive written teacher feedback

Keshavarz

Köseoǧlu

2021

TESOL Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Teacher-written feedback (TWF) serves a wide range of functions in second language writing (SLW), from informing students about their actual state of learning and performance (Narciss, 2008) to motivating them to produce more effective texts and become better writers (Macklin, 2016;Shvidko, 2015). Based on these functions, a large body of literature on TWF puts great emphasis on the fact that "there should be more than just a giver-receiver relationship with the teacher giving information and the student receiving it" (Shvidko, 2015, p. 55). In keeping with this view, the objective of TWF must be to establish interaction and cooperation between teachers and students to create meaning, rather than fixing students' errors. Research on TWF in the relevant literature indicates a few examples of such feedback by using interactive tools. For instance, students in Macklin's (2016) research submitted

show abstract

“…How writers develop proficiency in dominant linguistic forms remains quite variable as evinced by L2 learners in FYC who often display varied English language backgrounds (Ferris & Eckstein, 2020; Matsuda, 2006b). For instance, L1 language skills are assumed to develop intuitively (Hartwell, 1985), so explicit grammar instruction has not typically been a feature of U.S. high school and college English courses since the 1960s when researchers determined it was detrimental to writing instruction (see Eckstein & Ferris, 2018; Kolln & Hancock, 2005).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite often appearing in the same FYC classes together, incoming L1 and L2 FYC students can vary widely in their language and educational backgrounds (Costino & Hyon, 2007;Ortmeier-Hooper, 2008; see also Ferris & Eckstein, 2020;Matsuda, 2006b). Not only might they differ in their familiarity with standard edited English, but they may speak and write in any number of nonstandard varieties (Caraganajah, 2011), world English varieties (Kachru, 1990), or interlanguages (Tarone, 2006).…”

Section: Experiences Of Second Language Writers In Fycmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some scholars have investigated their specific learning needs (Matsuda, 2006b; Silva, 1988; Zamel, 1988). Others have investigated their classroom experiences (Braine, 1996; Costino & Hyon, 2007), the perceptions of their instructors about their abilities and needs (Ferris et al, 2015; Matsuda et al, 2013), and students’ own perceptions about their language learning and preferences (Eckstein & Ferris, 2018; Eckstein et al, 2021; Ferris & Eckstein, 2020). Very little research has directly compared L1 and L2 writers in FYC in terms of their language development over time.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How Does the Language Control of L1 and L2 Writers Develop Over Time in First-Year Composition?

Eckstein

Chang

2022

Written Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most U.S. colleges and universities expect students to improve their writing ability by taking first-year composition (FYC) courses. In such courses, non-native English (L2) writers with diverse language backgrounds study alongside their native English (L1) speaking peers. However, it is not clear how different these populations are in terms of their language development over time, leaving questions unanswered about whether L2 writers develop more or less than L1 writers in an FYC curriculum. To investigate, we compared 75 L1 and L2 students’ written accuracy, fluency, and lexical and syntactic complexity over the semester of an FYC course. Data showed that L2 students had significantly higher rates of language error and less fluent and lexically complex writing compared to L1 writers. Moreover, L2 student writing became less grammatically accurate over 14 weeks despite showing greater fluency and syntactic complexity. These results suggest a need for plurilingual pedagogies in FYC that embrace diversity and inclusion while also providing L2 writers with instruction on socially powerful and dominant linguistic forms.

show abstract

Language matters: Examining the language-related needs and wants of writers in a first-year university writing course

Cited by 12 publications

References 0 publications

Learning Effect in a Multilingual Web-Based Argumentative Writing Instruction Model, Called ECM, on Metacognition, Rhetorical Moves, and Self-Efficacy for Scientific Purposes

Learning Effect in a Multilingual Web-Based Argumentative Writing Instruction Model, Called ECM, on Metacognition, Rhetorical Moves, and Self-Efficacy for Scientific Purposes

A letter to my teacher: Interactive written teacher feedback

How Does the Language Control of L1 and L2 Writers Develop Over Time in First-Year Composition?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About