Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms: Research and Application 9781800413047

Citation preview

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION Series Editors: Professor David Singleton, University of Pannonia, Hungary and Fellow Emeritus, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland and Professor Simone E. Pfenninger, University of Zurich, Switzerland This series brings together titles dealing with a variety of aspects of language acquisition and processing in situations where a language or languages other than the native language is involved. Second language is thus interpreted in its broadest possible sense. The volumes included in the series all offer in their different ways, on the one hand, exposition and discussion of empirical fi ndings and, on the other, some degree of theoretical reflection. In this latter connection, no particular theoretical stance is privileged in the series; nor is any relevant perspective – sociolinguistic, psycholinguistic, neurolinguistic, etc. – deemed out of place. The intended readership of the series includes fi nal-year undergraduates working on second language acquisition projects, postgraduate students involved in second language acquisition research, and researchers, teachers and policymakers in general whose interests include a second language acquisition component. All books in this series are externally peer-reviewed. Full details of all the books in this series and of all our other publications can be found on http://www.multilingual-matters.com, or by writing to Multilingual Matters, St Nicholas House, 31–34 High Street, Bristol, BS1 2AW, UK.

SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION: 161

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms Research and Application Edited by

Li Yang and Laura Valentín-Rivera

MULTILINGUAL MATTERS Bristol • Jackson

DOI https://doi.org/10.21832/YANG3030 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Names: Yang, Li, editor. | Valentín-Rivera, Laura, editor. Title: Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms: Research and Application/Edited by Li Yang and Laura Valentín-Rivera. Description: Bristol; Jackson: Multilingual Matters, [2023] | Series: Second Language Acquisition: 161 | Includes bibliographical references. | Summary: “This edited volume focuses on writing Chinese as a second language (L2). It provides readers with cutting-edge empirical research and insightful teaching methods and strategies for effectively developing L2 writing competence in L2 Chinese classroom contexts”—Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2022057530 (print) | LCCN 2022057531 (ebook) | ISBN 9781800413030 (hardback) | ISBN 9781800413047 (pdf) | ISBN 9781800413054 (epub) Subjects: LCSH: Chinese language—Rhetoric—Study and teaching—Foreign speakers. | Second language acquisition. Classification: LCC PL1271 .D48 2023 (print) | LCC PL1271 (ebook) | DDC 495.180071—dc23/eng/20230206 LC record available at https://lccn.loc. gov/2022057530 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022057531 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue entry for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN-13: 978-1-80041-303-0 (hbk) Multilingual Matters UK: St Nicholas House, 31–34 High Street, Bristol, BS1 2AW, UK. USA: Ingram, Jackson, TN, USA. Website: www.multilingual-matters.com Twitter: Multi_Ling_Mat Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/multilingualmatters Blog: www.channelviewpublications.wordpress.com Copyright © 2023 Li Yang, Laura Valentín-Rivera and the authors of individual chapters. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher. The policy of Multilingual Matters/Channel View Publications is to use papers that are natural, renewable and recyclable products, made from wood grown in sustainable forests. In the manufacturing process of our books, and to further support our policy, preference is given to printers that have FSC and PEFC Chain of Custody certification. The FSC and/or PEFC logos will appear on those books where full certification has been granted to the printer concerned. Typeset by Nova Techset Private Limited, Bengaluru and Chennai, India.

Contents

Contributors

vii

Acknowledgments

xi

Contextualizing the Importance of Writing: A Call for Action in L2 Chinese Classrooms 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1

Writing Processes and Products of Chinese as Heritage and Foreign Language Learners Shuyi Yang

20

Collaborative Writing in a Tertiary Chinese as a Foreign Language Classroom: Processes and Products Brian Olovson and Sha Huang

39

Learners’ Writing Strategies in L2 Chinese: A Cross-Sectional Study Li Yang and Zenan Zhao

59

Investigating Nominal Structures in L2 Chinese Writing: A Systemic Functional Linguistics Perspective Xiaofei Pan

77

Exploring L2 Chinese Learners’ Connective Usage in Writing: An Error Analysis Approach Jia Lin and Gengsong Gao

99

Facebook as a Mediator for L2 Chinese Writing: Practices and Perceptions Lijuan Ye

117

The Efficacy of Teachers’ Written Corrective Feedback in the L2 Chinese Classroom: Learner Perceptions and Preferences Laura Valentín-Rivera

134

L2 Writing under Pandemic Conditions: How Do Chinese and Spanish Instructors Adapt? Daniel Román-Zúñiga, Idoia Elola and Raychel Vasseur

152

Concluding Remarks

173

Index

176 v

Contributors

Idoia Elola is Professor of Spanish and Applied Linguistics in the Department of Classical and Modern Languages and Literatures at Texas Tech University in the United States. She is co editor-in-chief of the journal System. Her research focuses primarily on (digital) second language writing, specifically on areas such as collaborative and individual writing using social tools, digital literacies, feedback and the use of multimodal texts (digital stories, story maps, blogs) from cognitive and sociocultural perspectives. She also focuses on Spanish as foreign language and Spanish heritage language learners’ writing cognitive processes. Her work has been published nationally and internationally. Gengsong Gao is an Associate Professor of Chinese Studies at the University of Richmond in the United States. His research interests include Chinese literature, culture and Chinese language teaching. Sha Huang received a PhD in ESL and Foreign Language Education at the University of Iowa. She is currently Associate Professor of Chinese Studies and Coordinator of the Asian Studies program at Kennesaw State University in the United States. Her research interests include reading and writing Chinese as a foreign language, reading strategies of learners of Chinese and material development in classroom. Jia Lin is an Assistant Professor at Howard University School of Education in the United States. Her research interests include educational measurement, language testing, second language reading and language learning strategies. Brian Olovson holds a PhD in Second Language Acquisition from the University of Iowa. He currently is Assistant Professor of World Language Education/Spanish and Coordinator of the World Language Teacher Education program at Kennesaw State University in the United States. His research interests include instructed second language acquisition, world language teacher training and second language writing.

vii

viii Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

Xiaofei Pan is a lecturer of Chinese language in the Language and Culture Center at Duke Kunshan University in China. Her teaching and research interests include L2 writing development and assessment, authentic materials for language instruction, and innovative technology for language teaching and learning. She has a PhD in second language acquisition from the University of Iowa and has taught Chinese as a second language at various levels, both in China and in the US. Daniel Román-Zúñiga is a PhD candidate of Hispanic Linguistics at Texas Teach University in the United States. He completed his MA in Second Language Acquisition with a focus on Spanish at Kansas State University. His research focuses primarily on second language and Spanish heritage language digital writing. He is also interested in multimodality and multiliteracies. He has presented in national conferences such as Céfiro, at Texas State University, and Initials, at Kansas State University. Laura Valentín-Rivera is Associate Professor of Spanish in the Department of Modern Languages at Kansas State University in the United States. Her academic interests include Spanish applied linguistics, heritage language learners’ literacy skills and collaboration mediated by social tools, and Spanish in the United States. Raychel Vasseur (PhD, University of Iowa) is an independent scholar working in curriculum development for a startup. Previously, she was an Assistant Professor and Director of the Spanish Foundations Program at Texas Tech University in the United States. She taught courses in second language pedagogy, intercultural competence and Hispanic linguistics. Her research interests include language acquisition in the study abroad context, intercultural competence, willingness to communicate, L2 multiliteracies, the development and assessment of intercultural (communicative) competence and CALL. Li Yang is Associate Professor of Chinese in the Department of Modern Languages at Kansas State University in the United States. She conducts research in second language acquisition of Chinese, focused on interlanguage pragmatics and second language writing. She has published articles in refereed journals and edited volumes in both the United States and China. Shuyi Yang received a PhD in Second Language Acquisition at the University of Iowa and is currently a Chinese lecturer at Johns Hopkins University in the United States. Her research interests include cognitive processes in Chinese L2 reading comprehension, Chinese L2 reading and writing assessment, Chinese L2 vocabulary acquisition and Chinese L2 pragmatics acquisition. She has published papers in several outstanding

Contributors ix

journals including System, Foreign Language Annals, Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, Reading in a Foreign Language and Journal of Chinese Language Teachers Association, as well as contributed to chapters in books. Lijuan Ye is an associate professor of linguistics and Chinese in the Department of Language, Literature and Writing at Messiah University in the United States. She received her doctorate in applied linguistics from Georgia State University (US) and MA in TESOL from the University of Alabama (US). She has taught all levels of Chinese language and culture courses, undergraduate and graduate linguistics, and English grammar courses at different institutions in the US for more than 10 years. She has published journal articles on second language acquisition, Chinese as a foreign language pedagogy and Chinese character teaching strategies. Zenan Zhao is a PhD candidate in the Department of Chinese Studies at the University of Sydney in Australia. She conducts research in Chinese heritage learners’ identity and second language writing development.

Acknowledgments

First, my wholehearted thanks to my parents for their invaluable and constant support. I also would like to extend my gratitude to the authors who contributed to the volume. Without their wonderful work and kind cooperation, this volume could not have been completed so promptly. Many thanks as well to the anonymous reviewers and the series editors for their insightful suggestions and professional guidance to enhance the quality of the book. Last but not least, I am also very grateful for the editors and the publishing professionals who have assisted with and facilitated the production of the book. Li Yang To God for all the blessings. My biggest appreciation for my mother’s extraordinary sacrifices, bravery, spiritual guidance and deep love. My profound gratefulness to my dad who endlessly supported, cared and inquired about my career. I know he incessantly looks after me from Heaven, from where he cherishes an accomplishment that made him overly joyful. To my Mamá Elena, for her tender and unconditional love, enigmatic voice and playful spirit. To my mentor, one of the most kindhearted and brilliant women I know. To my aita, the best cook that feeds my soul. To my kitties who limitlessly stepped on my keyboard while working on this book. A los bellos luceros que guían mi recorrido. Laura Valentín-Rivera

xi

Contextualizing the Importance of Writing: A Call for Action in L2 Chinese Classrooms

Writing, alternatively referred to as textuality in this chapter, not only represents a significant means of communication in our society but also plays a key role in second language (L2) development. Specifically, the language learning potential of writing has been categorically conceptualized and systematized by Manchón’s (2011) bifold approach: learningto-write (L2R) and writing-to-learn (W2L). The L2R stance prioritizes the teaching of writing for learners to express themselves through textuality, while W2L focuses on L2 learning tasks that facilitate language development aside from assisting learners to become more adept writers. Williams (2012) also supports the notion of writing as a way to pave the attainment of L2 competence since it enables perpetuity, which consequently permits learners to unceasingly refer to the texts they have constructed, in addition to its slow pace that allows writers to draw on their explicit knowledge while composing. The compelling linguistic gains that writing as a skill can promote in L2 classrooms have driven several studies in the second language acquisition (SLA) arena beyond English settings (Reichelt, 2016; Yiğitoğlu & Reichelt, 2019). For Mandarin Chinese (hereafter Chinese) in particular, its logographic nature and unique features may potentially pose difficulties and challenges for L2 writers. Although studies in L2 Chinese writing have been emerging, more work is to be done to keep advancing and enhancing our theoretical knowledge and pedagogical practices related to textuality. This scholarly and pedagogical need is the core motivation for the conceptualization of the collection presented here. As such, the editors and contributors hope to direct the readers toward successful practices that promote the skills of L2 Chinese writers at various levels. The main objectives, content organization and contributions of each chapter featured in the volume are explained below. 1

2

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

About this Volume

This collection signifies a groundbreaking foundation of empirical knowledge and pedagogical recommendations to further the researching and teaching of textuality in L2 Chinese. Recent literature on several topics pertinent to L2 Chinese writers and their written output in different contexts have significantly contributed to our knowledge of writing as a key endeavor in the classroom. However, the evidence gleaned from the studies is not enough to draw firm conclusions due to several reasons. First, the contexts in which most of these studies have been rooted are more traditional, thus not investigating the role that writing is increasingly playing beyond private domains and in virtual contexts, such as social media (e.g. Facebook, see Chapter 6) and the numerous improvised online classes where diverse writing-related practices (e.g. collaborative writing) have emerged via Zoom and other digital tools as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic (see Chapter 2 and Chapter 8). Second, little attention has been dedicated to the broad spectrum of writing when approached as a process, especially when it comes to exploring how specific writing strategies employed by L2 Chinese learners affect the quality of messages that are textually conveyed (see Chapter 3), and the perceptions and degree of familiarity of written corrective feedback (hereafter WCF): a pivotal component of cyclical writing practices (see Chapter 7). Third, within the realm of writing as a process, barely any comparisons in terms of writers of different backgrounds (Chinese foreign language learners and heritage language learners) have been performed. Awareness on this matter can better equip learners as writers by identifying their limitations but also recognizing and building on their strengths (see Chapter 1). In addition, earlier research on many themes (e.g. syntactic development and textual cohesion) has been scarce and narrow in scope, thus necessitating more investigations within broader contexts to increase its applicability (see Chapter 4 and Chapter 5). These limitations have motivated the collection of eight empirical studies presented in this volume. In addition to contributing to the overall understanding of the scantly investigated scopes discussed above, this book was driven by the evident need to add to the knowledge concerning the Chinese writing instruction embedded in the writing-to-learn approach (Manchón, 2011). As such, each of the chapters featured in this edited volume not only provides an up-to-date review of previous key writing studies but also builds on pedagogical affordances achieved by novel research designs. The varied meaningful teaching implications and practices position writing in the L2 Chinese classroom as a vital component for language acquisition (Wigglesworth & Storch, 2012; Williams, 2012) and empower L2 Chinese learners as writers by no longer relegating textuality as a mere language practice (Williams & Cui, 2005). More importantly, with the practical, detailed and insightful pedagogical recommendations proposed by each chapter, our goal with this

Contextualizing the Importance of Writing

3

collection is to assist language teachers/educators, graduate students and future scholars in making well-informed decisions on writing instruction in L2 Chinese and to facilitate the implementation of writing-focused activities within classrooms. Thus, this volume contributes to moving beyond seeing textuality as ‘the most distant reflection of the developing interlanguage’ (Williams, 2012: 321). The Complexity of Writing in Chinese

Chinese possesses a logographic nature since characters communicate morphemes, as opposed to individual phonemes, in addition to being made up of different strokes that are combined with radicals to provide either phonological or semantic information (Lo-Philip, 2014). With this in mind, Suarez and Goh (2007) underscored the importance of visual and auditory resources for the memorization of Chinese words (e.g. character formation from a visual standpoint and connection between tone and pronunciation). Kessler et al. (2020: 680) also emphasized that ‘nonalphabetic writing systems may need to be considered differently when talking about the facilitative effects of writing on learning and how to best help L2 writers produce more (and better) language.’ In addition to its character-based writing system, Chinese is distinct from English in many respects (e.g. Chu, 1998; Yu, 2020). These Chinesespecific features include, but are not limited to, unclear sentence boundary, use of covert connectives, lack of rich morphology or subordination, as well as having no interword spacing in written texts. Especially, due to the predominance of topic-comment structures in Chinese, the subject nouns/pronouns relevant to the topic should be deleted to achieve textual coherence (Li & Thompson, 1981). Hence, the topic chains, formed by the sequence of clauses sharing a single topic, play important roles in Chinese discourse (Xiao, 2010). Focusing on four college learners enrolled in a beginning Chinese program in the United States, Xiao (2010) investigated the discourse features of their weekly diaries and observed noticeable differences between their usage and that of a native Chinese-speaker model. Specifically, the learners produced short, discrete simple sentences, excessive nouns/pronouns and a limited number of topic chains. Even if the topic chains were used, they were found to be shorter and less complex than in the native-speaker model. The fi ndings suggested that the characteristics of the Chinese language may increase the complexity and difficulty for L2 writers. Overview of the Volume

The academic works featured in this edited volume display the interpretation and pedagogical implications of data that were collected at the college level mainly across different regions of the United States. Chapter 4

4

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

goes beyond this geographical scope as the base study was carried out in China. Despite their settings, the eight chapters presented here align with six spheres that are crucial to develop a deep and up-to-date understanding of the complexities of L2 Chinese writing. These areas encompass: (1) differentiating how learners’ linguistic upbringing (i.e. heritage and foreign language learners) affect the quality of the text; (2) comprehending writing as a social endeavor regardless of the task mode (i.e. collaborative vs. individual); (3) conceptualizing the procedures and end goals of writing (i.e. processes and products); (4) assessing the impact of pedagogical interventions (e.g. instruction) on the efficiency of text production; (5) identifying the effectiveness of teacher or peer comments (i.e. WCF) for written accuracy; and (6) establishing the level of preparedness on writing as a consequence of an unexpected teaching mode shift due to COVID-19. Each of these themes are examined below along with a concise and critical review of recent and pertinent studies that provide a foundation of key findings on L2 Chinese writing and situate the eight chapters according to their foci and contribution to the field. Regarding the organization of the chapters, each firstly presents a research panorama of the topic of focus while also identifying the gaps that still exist in the field of L2 writing. This is followed by a review of previous studies on the matter and moves on to presenting the design, results and pedagogical implications and recommendations to keep advancing L2 Chinese writing in classroom contexts. Heritage and foreign language writers in L2 Chinese

When writing in L2, the linguistic upbringing of the writer may affect the construction and quality of the text (García, 2002). This can be the case for heritage language learners (HLLs), that is, individuals that have been raised ‘in a home where a non-English language is spoken, who speaks or merely understands the HL, and who is to some degree bilingual in English and the HL’ (Valdés, 2001: 38). Research on how this learner population’s linguistic background affects literacy practices (writing and/ or reading) in L2 Chinese classrooms, especially in comparison with their foreign language learners (FLLs) peers has been on the rise. Xiao’s work (2006), composed of two studies, is among the earliest research endeavors along this line. Study one comprised 36 high beginners (18 HLLs and 18 FLLs), who completed achievement tests, including weekly vocabulary quizzes and oral, written mid-term and fi nal exams. To better measure their proficiency, the participants also wrote a letter in Chinese within 20 minutes and took the Chinese SAT II. Study two examined the correlation between learners’ Chinese home background and syntactic development. Thus, 148 participants (94 HLLs and 54 FLLs) of three instructional levels (beginning, intermediate and advanced) completed a two-fold instrument composed of a 25-item grammaticality judgement test and a six-itemed English-to-Chinese translation task. The HLLs across all levels significantly

Contextualizing the Importance of Writing

5

outperformed their counterparts in the grammaticality judgment test while also producing more acceptable sentences in the translation task. Similarly, HLLs in Study one significantly outperformed FLLs in the midterm and final exams as well as listening and grammar in SAT II. However, no significant difference was observed between the two learner groups in the weekly vocabulary quizzes, letter writing and the reading comprehension on the SAT II. Based on the fi ndings, Xiao concluded that the learners’ Chinese home background did not guarantee a high level of reading and writing development. In 2017, Xiao-Desai and Wong investigated Chinese HLLs’ use of written epistemic markers (EMs), a crucial pragmatic resource to convey position, attitude, belief, evaluation or judgment accordingly. Specifically, three categories were explored: adverbs (e.g. 䛇䘬!!zhēnde ‘really’), modal verbs and I + cognitive verb constructions (e.g. ㆹ奱⼿ wǒ juéde ‘I feel/think’). The data comprised 6511 blog entries posted by 226 Chinese HLLs enrolled in a fi rst-year Chinese bilingual sequence course (BL) consisting of three consecutive quarters (1BL, 2BL and 3BL) in addition to an advanced Chinese class (AD). The fi ndings revealed three notable patterns. First, a fast rise of the use of EMs in frequency and variety during the fi rst quarter (1BL). Second, these markers became steady from the second quarter onward (2BL–3BL). Third, the learners in the AD class displayed divergence in their use of EMs, reflecting increased variety but steady frequency. The novelty of this study is not without limitations, such as the small range of EMs targeted and the error-tagged blogs. Future research should incorporate such qualitative data as follow-up interviews as well as discourse analysis to better understand HLLs as writers in terms of their EMs usage. Following a different approach, Gatti and O’Neill (2017) explored how the linguistic and family experiences of 187 HLLs of Chinese (n = 61), Korean (n = 49) and Spanish (n = 77) affected their writing proficiency, as measured by the ACTFL writing proficiency test (WPT). The participants completed a 37-item biographical questionnaire comprising (1) their age of arrival in the United States, (2) previous formal training in the HL, (3) the settings where the HL was used and (4) questions regarding their parents or caregivers’ language, education and occupational backgrounds. Overall, HLLs with higher writing proficiency displayed a late age of arrival, had received instruction in the HL in a country where the HL was dominant and constantly used the HL to interact with siblings and friends in varied contexts. In addition, they reported often reading in the HL (e.g. books and articles) in addition to communicating via text messages in said language. Conversely, long periods of receiving instruction in the HL within the United States and immersion in countries where the HL was the majority language did not statistically affect the participants’ proficiency. Gatti and O’Neill (2018) analyzed the writing samples obtained by the ACTFL WPT from the same group of 187 HLLs of Chinese, Korean and Spanish to establish their strengths and weaknesses as writers. It was

6

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

found that Chinese intermediate-level participants completed narrations satisfactorily but struggled when describing topics of general interest due to their limited lexical repertoires. Thus, it is recommended to take advantage of HLLs’ strengths by building on their familiar genre (narrations) and progressively incorporating relevant details to ultimately create efficient descriptions. Chinese advanced HLLs also struggled when presenting and supporting ideas, hypothesizing and treating issues abstractly. This may be because these functions are vastly reserved for academic settings in the majority language (English). Hence, scaffolding and engaging in varied communicative modalities (e.g. oral rehearsal of ideas) could further promote these aptitudes. Despite their contributions, Gatti and O’Neill’s works did not consider the participant’s English writing abilities, which prevented developing pedagogical strategies to promote biliteracy. In addition, further studies exclusively on Chinese are paramount to better understand HLLs as writers of said language. Chapter 1 in this volume, authored by S. Yang, furthers the scholarly endeavors to build on the knowledge in writing in Chinese HL contexts. More specifically, targeting 20 low-intermediate Chinese HLLs and FLLs at two American universities, the chapter compared their writing processes through think-aloud composing and writing quality in terms of complexity, accuracy and fluency (CAF). While both learner groups shared the same macro-stages of writing (planning, formulation and revision), HLLs were found to be more strategic in planning and revision in addition to employing problem-solving strategies in a more consistent and timely way than FLLs. With regard to writing products, overall, HLLs produced syntactically more complex, lexically and syntactically more accurate, and more fluent texts than FLLs, but no significant differences were observed in character accuracy and lexical complexity between the two groups. These advantages HLLs demonstrated over FLLs may be partially explained by their early exposure to Chinese. Considering the differential writing performances of the two groups, the chapter discusses the effective provision of writing instruction tailored for HLLs and FLLs respectively. Writing as a social endeavor: Individual versus collaborative writing

Efficiently designed collaborative writing tasks consistently promote dialogue, a key element for knowledge construction (Fernández-Dobao, 2012; Storch, 2013; Swain, 2001). Furthermore, the co-construction of knowledge is punctually facilitated by two inherent features of dialogic encounters: hypothesis testing and reflection. Through hypothesis testing, learners engage in a trial-and-error scheme to evaluate their conjectures regarding the use of the target language (Swain, 1985). Conversely, reflection may be afforded by noticing certain writing (e.g. the use of cohesive devices) and linguistic features (e.g. rhetorical aspects associated with

Contextualizing the Importance of Writing

7

specific genres) that otherwise may be overseen in oral interactions (Tocalli-Beller & Swain, 2005). It is worth noting that collaborative writing promptly refers to the shared responsibility to craft a text and should not be confused with ‘cooperation,’ a prearranged division of the workload that may not require discussion as the task unfolds (Storch, 2013). Much evidence regarding the potential benefits of collaborative writing in L2 English classrooms has been gathered (Elabdali, 2021; Zhang & Plonsky, 2020), but little attention has been paid to the application of collaborative tasks in L2 Chinese writing. Chapter 2 in this volume, coauthored by Olovson and Huang, builds on this knowledge by assessing the impact of individual and collaborative writing in a college-level, fi fth semester L2 Chinese writing course. Through a counterbalanced design, 11 learners enrolled in the course typed two compare-and-contrast compositions (one in pairs and the other individually) using Google Docs via Zoom. The language-related episodes (LREs), dialogic moments in which the participants negotiated their linguistic choices to produce their texts in pairs, were identified and examined by type, frequency and resolution. Furthermore, the texts written in pairs were compared with those individually produced in terms of complexity, fluency and accuracy. The results showed that lexical LREs were observed with the highest frequency during collaborative dialogue while character, syntactic and discourse LREs were much lower in frequency. Despite the varying frequencies, learners could correctly resolve at least 80% of all LREs. In addition, the collaborative texts were found to be longer, lexically more accurate and were of greater syntactic quality in terms of mean length of sentence than the individual texts. These observations shed light on the effective implementation of collaborative writing in L2 Chinese classrooms. Writing as process versus writing as product in L2 Chinese

Beyond exploring the significance of writing as a social endeavor, two other focus areas of study in L2 writing include the quality of the text as a whole (i.e. the product) and the actions that its construction undergoes (i.e. the process) (Roca de Larios et al., 2016). Unlike the significant observations yielded in L2 English, these seemingly contrastive areas have been under-explored in L2 Chinese, especially when it comes to processes and strategies. Lu (2021) explored the relationship of learners’ writing fluency, pausing and revision behaviors with respect to proficiency and text quality in L2 Chinese. To this end, 32 learners wrote two argumentative and two narrative essays in Chinese using the Pinyin input method within a couple of 50–60-minute sessions, with their keystrokes concurrently logged. Fluency was calculated by the number of Pinyin letters and Chinese characters typed per minute while pausing was measured by its frequency and duration. Regarding the revision, it was analyzed for frequency at two dimensions: (1) its location in the text (e.g. within the word, at the word,

8

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

below the clause, etc.) and (2) the addition, deletion, or substitution of a Pinyin or a Chinese character. Overall, higher-proficiency writers were observed to not only write more fluently than their lower-level counterparts but also make more revisions at the below-clause level. However, weak associations were identified between writing fluency, revision behaviors and text quality, which might be explained by the great variation among the individual writing behaviors. In the same year, Lu and Révész (2021) used the same pool of participants to examine learners’ revising behaviors in L2 Chinese. In addition to having their keystroke logged, all learners partook in a simulated recall session, thus sharing their thoughts while self-revising. In addition, 32 native Chinese speakers underwent the same procedures working as the control group. For the analysis of the data, all revisions were coded in terms of the level of transcription, context and linguistic domain, while the comments obtained by the stimulated recalls were classified based on the orientation of the corrections. The fi ndings showed that the learners primarily revised Pinyin instead of characters while focusing on superficial modifications (e.g. language-related matters). Furthermore, most corrections took place predominantly at the time when the text was being produced, as opposed to allocating attention to preceding sentences. When compared to the Chinese native speakers, L2 learners were observed to make more character and content revisions. Adding to the small body of research, L. Yang and Zhao (Chapter 3) worked with 59 undergraduates to examine the interface between writing strategy use and text quality at three instructional levels in a Chinese as a foreign language (CFL) context. All participants individually typed a Chinese letter within 30 minutes to narrate anything they wanted to share with their best friend and completed a questionnaire collecting the strategies they used at different writing stages (pre-writing, while-writing and post-writing). The letters were analyzed for fluency and accuracy while the type and frequency of the writing strategies used by the participants were coded and calculated. The results indicated that all participants reported employing strategies during the while-writing stage, regardless of their level. Though writing fluency and accuracy may be affected by specific writing strategies (e.g. re-reading strategy and the technique of fi nding synonyms), no significant relationships were observed. Hence, the mere use of writing strategies may not suffice to afford learners’ development of linguistic knowledge and efficient writing skills. Based on these fi ndings, the chapter provides meaningful insights on the integration of specific writing strategies into L2 Chinese curriculum to pave the way for learning. This is particularly applicable to pre- and post-writing phases, as these stages were highly associated with a very low degree of implementation of writing strategies. By contrast, the current investigations on writing products in L2 Chinese mainly explored learners’ textual features in terms of (1) their overall quality or (2) a variety of analytic measures (e.g. CAF and

Contextualizing the Importance of Writing

9

organization). Other studies have approached the product as the dependent variable to assess the impacts of some sort of intervention on learners’ writing (reviewed in the next section). The observations on learners’ written output in the latter group of studies are primarily the by-products or supplement to the key fi ndings. Owing to Chinese’s distinct features from alphabetical languages such as English (e.g. character-based writing system and topic-comment predominance), a major difficulty with the study of L2 Chinese texts is how to properly assess them, especially in the three dimensions of CAF measures (Yuan, 2009). Hence, despite its low level, the existing research has trialed different approaches to analyze learner texts and explored their development cross-sectionally or longitudinally (e.g. Jiang, 2013; Pan, 2018; Xiao, 2010; L. Yang & Zhao, 2018; Yu, 2020). Particularly, Jiang (2013) extended T-unit analysis to measure L2 Chinese writing development by defi ning what a Chinese T-unit is and identifying potentially valid measures. With a cross-sectional design, 116 L2 Chinese learners were assigned to three groups according to institutionally determined proficiency levels (Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3). In addition, a control group of 66 natives was incorporated. The 182 participants completed a letter-writing task in Chinese, and their written texts were analyzed for syntactic complexity and accuracy. The syntactic complexity was measured by words per T-unit (W/T) and characters per T-unit (Ch/T), while accuracy was assessed by words per error-free T-units (W/EFT) and error-free T-units per T-unit (EFT/T). The comparison of the four groups in the four measures showed that W/T and Ch/T alike presented similar patterns, with a general increase from Level 1 or Level 2 through Level 3 to native level. In addition, EFT/T was found to discriminate between all four levels, with the increase from Level 1 through native level. Hence, the scholar concluded that W/T and EFT/T are valid T-unit measures in assessing syntactic complexity and accuracy in L2 Chinese writing development respectively. However, considering the use of one single writing task, more investigations are needed to further explore the applicability of T-unit analysis to L2 Chinese writing. Later, L. Yang and Zhao (2018) trialed some non-T-unit measures (e.g. using characters per minute for fluency) to track the writing development of 20 intermediate-class CFL learners over five months. The writing data comprised both in-class timed essays (within 50 minutes) and out-of-class untimed written assignments on a variety of topics and genres (e.g. narrating traveling experience, introducing Chinese festivals, sharing thoughts on the criteria for ideal romantic partners), which were analyzed in terms of holistic ratings and analytic measures (CAF, content and organization). The results did not identify a significant increase in learners’ overall writing quality after the five-month observations. However, they revealed unbalanced development among the analytic writing measures (e.g. the increased fluency and complexity vs. the decreased accuracy) and great variation among individual learners’ writing performance.

10 Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

More recently, responding to the prominence of topic-comment structures, Yu (2020) employed a terminable topic-comment unit to measure Chinese syntactic complexity. Though her goal was not to investigate the syntactic development in L2 Chinese writing, the author collected 116 timed compositions written by native Chinese speakers and two Chinese learner groups with differing proficiencies (low vs. high) and employed the topic– comment–unit measures to analyze the syntactic complexity of the texts. The findings indicated that the topic–comment–unit measures could distinguish the written Chinese syntactic complexity among the three levels (low vs. high vs. native) with high efficiency; the written syntactic complexity in Chinese improves with participants’ increasing language proficiency. Informed by the Systemic Functional Linguistics, Pan (Chapter 4 in the volume) further examines the written syntactic complexity in L2 Chinese by delving into the expansion, functions and development of nominal structures (NSs) used to construe experience in writing. Twenty English-speaking students at an English-medium international university in China participated. They were enrolled in three Chinese classes designed to achieve Intermediate Mid (n = 8), Intermediate High (n = 7) and Advanced Low (n = 5) respectively. All participants completed two writing tasks on Zoom, one narrative essay on an accident as illustrated in a picture sequence and an expository essay writing about eating preferences. The results showed that the participants were able to form complex NSs through Epithet, Classifier, Qualifier and act clause in both writing tasks. The genre suggested being impactful as the expository essay displayed a higher frequency and density of NSs while also influencing the distribution of functional roles and formfunction mapping. In addition, the higher the learners’ proficiency, the more NSs were employed and the higher their density was. Lastly, the chapter discussed pedagogical suggestions for L2 writing instruction from lower to higher levels in terms of constructing NSs to make meaning. Moreover, L2 Chinese texts have been investigated in terms of organizational features to better understand their construction in relationship to cohesion (e.g. Li, 2014; Liao, 2020; C. Yang, 2013). Specifically, the most recent study conducted by Liao (2020) recruited 62 college learners participating in a study-abroad program in China to explore the development of textual organization features in descriptive writing. As part of the placement test administered by the program, all participants handwrote a descriptive essay within 30 minutes. The essays were rated on a 6-point holistic scale taking into consideration the quality of language, content and organization, based on which the participants were scored one of three score levels (low-, middle- and high-score levels). In addition, the organizational (e.g. interactive and interactional discourse markers) and linguistic features (accuracy and lexical, syntactic complexity) of the essays were coded. The fi ndings revealed that the participants across levels demonstrated differential use of organizational features. For example, the higher-score-level participants incorporated significantly more

Contextualizing the Importance of Writing

11

conditional/hypothetical markers, frame markers and engagement markers in their descriptive writing than the lower-score-level students. Furthermore, positive relationships were identified in the higher-scorelevel participants’ essays between organizational and linguistic features. Following this strand of research on textual cohesion, Chapter 5 in the volume, co-authored by Lin and Gao, drew on the error analysis approach to examine the connective usage in the essays produced by CFL learners enrolled in an advanced-level writing course at an American university. By analyzing 11 categories of connectives in 34 Chinese argumentative and narrative essays, the chapter identified three types of connectives with the highest frequency: causal, adversative and hypothetical. It also calculated the accuracy rates of connectives, reported nine types of errors the learners commonly committed, and discussed the factors that might explain the learners’ performance in connective usage. Based on the fi ndings, the chapter affords pedagogical implications for teaching connectives and developing discourse competence in CFL classrooms. Writing-focused intervention in L2 Chinese classrooms

Writing in L2 Chinese classrooms, especially within the CFL context, is mainly used as a means to practice language aspects (especially those recently taught) rather than a genuine meaning-making skill (Fang & Wang, 2019; Zhang, 2016). Most of the studies in this area, though limited in number, investigated the effects of some sort of pedagogical intervention on learners’ written output, including the incorporation of writing-focused instruction (Cheng, 2017; Cheng & Chiu, 2018; Zhang, 2016), comparison of different task (Yuan, 2010) or writing conditions (Kessler et  al., 2020; Liao, 2018) and the use of social media (Paul & Friginal, 2019; Wang & Vásquez, 2014). Among the studies integrating writing pedagogy into L2 Chinese classrooms, Zhang (2016) recruited 45 beginning and lower-intermediate CFL learners and invited them to write short picture books in Chinese during one semester, either individually or collaboratively. The participants could freely choose the topic and genre for the book but needed to follow certain requirements, such as the minimum length and the inclusion of illustrations and typed sentences in characters on each page. At the end of the semester, all participants fi lled out a survey and were interviewed about their writing experience. The books they created were read by another group of 44 students with similar proficiency. Although the participants acting as writers were limited in their Chinese abilities, the fi ndings revealed that they were able to create and write short books in the target language with guidance and assistance. Similar to Zhang (2016), the 16 postgraduate participants in Cheng (2017) and Cheng and Chiu (2018) also ranged from beginning to intermediate levels in their Chinese proficiency. The authors developed a five-unit multimedia

12 Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

writing program grounded in the Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), thus incorporating texts, photos, animations, audios, videos and interactive elements. The instructional treatment was one tri-fold lesson unit on food associated with the descriptive genre, which was taught over two three-class-hour sessions that unfolded in the following ways. First, assorted linguistic resources were presented through varied samples, thus bringing contextual and communicative awareness, in addition to presenting rhetorical resources associated with the targeted descriptive genre. Second, writing strategies pertaining to descriptive texts were presented. Third, the participants individually wrote one descriptive composition about food before and after the treatment respectively, categorized as the pre- and post-tests to assess the instructional effectiveness. The participants also completed a questionnaire to solicit their perceptions and evaluations of the writing pedagogy. Overall, significant progress was observed at the organization, content, lexical choice and grammar levels of the learner texts, suggesting the efficacy of the SLF-inspired writing instruction. Especially, the two selected writers for in-depth, qualitative analyses in Cheng and Chiu (2018) were observed to develop a greater ability to use the resources (e.g. ideational, interpersonal and textual) needed to effectively compose descriptive essays. To summarize, the positive fi ndings reported by the three studies showed that writers with limited L2 Chinese competence could engage in meaningful writing activities and benefit from direct instruction in writing. However, the conclusions were limited in generalizability due to either the small sample or exploratory nature of the studies. Another strand of research compared different task or writing conditions to examine their impacts on L2 Chinese written production. Yuan (2010) was the first to investigate the effects of task conditions on learners’ written output in L2 Chinese. Forty-two students enrolled in a third-year business Chinese course in the Unites States were assigned to three groups: control (n = 14), focus-on meaning (provision of writing guidelines) (n = 14) and focus-on form (provision and required use of a list of recently studied linguistic patterns) (n = 14). With different task conditions, all participants were given 50 minutes to complete a narrative task in Chinese. The essays were analyzed and compared among the three groups in CAF measures. The statistical results showed that the two experimental groups did not outperform the control group in all the three measures. However, the focus-on-meaning group produced a longer essay and wrote at a faster pace than the focus-on-form group, whereas the latter group used more advanced words in their essays. It is worth noting that the observations should be exercised with caution due to the limitations in the study, such as its small sample and the incorporation of only one narrative task. Rather than focusing on task conditions, Liao (2018) and Kessler et al. (2020) investigated the impacts of two different modes of pre-writing planning (face-to-face oral discussion vs. synchronous online text chat) on

Contextualizing the Importance of Writing

13

the quality of pre-task discussion and subsequent individually written compositions. The participants in Liao (2018) were six intermediate college learners studying abroad in China. They engaged in 10 sessions of 20-minute pair discussions (five face-to-face vs. five online) and individually handwrote a 30-minute composition on the same topic immediately after each session. Findings suggested that both modes were beneficial to learners’ subsequent individual writing by engaging them in content- and lexicon-related discussion. However, the text-chat mode seemed to facilitate a direct transfer from pair planning to individual writing, which may be especially helpful for less competent L2 writers, whereas the faceto-face discussion promoted a more selective transfer. As a conceptual replication of Liao’s (2018) study, Kessler et al. (2020) recruited 10 university students enrolled in a third-year intermediate-level CFL course and asked them to participate in the two modes of pair discussions and typed two subsequent individual compositions on computers. Different from Liao (2018), the results of the study showed an advantage in terms of mode as the face-to-face discussion suggested yielding to more satisfactory outcomes than the use of online text chat. The disparity might result from the differences in the participants’ writing proficiency between the two studies, the writing mode of the compositions (handwriting vs. typing), as well as the lack of inter-rater reliability for some measures used by Liao (2018). With the recurrent use of social media for written communication, it is not surprising that researchers also explored their use and facilitative role in L2 Chinese writing. Wang and Vásquez (2014) examined the effects of weekly, Facebook-mediated social communication on learners’ Chinese writing skills in a 14-week semester. Eighteen intermediate learners enrolled in a college-level CFL class in the United States were divided into an experimental group (n = 9) and a control group (n = 9). From the second week of the semester, participants in the experimental group posted in Chinese at least two entries and made at least four comments per week on a Facebook group page created for the study. Conversely, participants in the control group did not engage in the Facebook posting activity. As writing assessment measures, all participants completed three writing tasks at the beginning, middle and end of the semester, analyzed in terms of their quantity (the number of characters produced within a time frame) and quality (a holistic rubric with five rating categories). While the experimental group outperformed the control group in quantity, no significant difference was observed between the two groups in writing quality. The insignificant effects might be attributed to the less actual interaction the participants engaged in on Facebook, the short duration of the treatment and the small pool size of the study. Likewise, Paul and Friginal (2019) investigated the effects of Facebook and Twitter on the quantity and quality of CFL learners’ written production in both short-term and long-term settings. The participants were college level students learning Chinese in the United States for one to three semesters and were randomly assigned to

14 Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

the Facebook or Twitter group. In the short-term setting, participants posted one message daily in Chinese for two weeks; in the long-term setting, they daily posted a message for 10 weeks. The results showed that, overall, Facebook seemed to promote more interactions than Twitter and potentially facilitate more written corrective feedback among peers. However, while the authors claimed that the study was aimed at investigating the effects of Facebook and Twitter on learners’ written production, its research design only showed how learners’ posts on the two online social networking sites differed. The incorporation of a writing test before and after the treatment (i.e. pre-test and post-test) is essential to more efficiently investigate the impacts of Facebook and Twitter on written production. Built on the two studies, Chapter 6 in the volume, authored by Ye, further investigates the pedagogical usage of social media in the CFL classroom by integrating seven Facebook-mediated journal tasks into a third-year writing course at an American university in the Southeast. The online postings written by the nine students enrolled in the course were analyzed in terms of their quantity (the number of sentences and characters), quality (the number of simple, complex sentences and the number of grammatical errors) and focus (e.g. the type of interactions). The participants also fi lled out a survey and participated in a group interview to express their perceptions concerning the Facebook as a means to facilitate written production. Overall, the fi ndings showed enhanced quantity and quality of the participants’ online postings over time and revealed favorable perceptions concerning the use of social media in the classroom from most participants. Despite its constraints in scope, this chapter deepens our understanding of the application of Facebook in the CFL context and sheds light on the efficient incorporation of public and virtual spheres as an academic platform to promote written production. Written corrective feedback (WCF) in L2 Chinese classrooms

Although the potential efficacy of WCF for writing development has been extensively researched in L2 English (e.g. Bitchener, 2008; Riazi et al., 2018), the empirical investigation into its application in L2 Chinese classrooms has just started recently. For instance, the exploratory study conducted by Fang and Wang (2019) offered analytic descriptions for two WCF-related questions: (1) what type of feedback the instructor provided and (2) how students responded to the instructor’s feedback in revisions. The data were collected from six university students enrolled in an advanced CFL course. For each writing assignment, the students submitted the fi rst draft, received WCF (direct correction or indirect feedback) and had up to three revision opportunities before a grade was assigned. The teacher comments were coded into three categories (grammar, vocabulary and content), and the students’ subsequent revisions were also examined. The analysis identified some patterns for the WCF provision in

Contextualizing the Importance of Writing

15

the CFL course, such as its strong focus on accuracy (error correction) and predominance on direct feedback (especially on grammar-related errors), as well as a comprehensive feedback approach. It was also observed that the students could successfully self-correct most errors that were prompted by either direct or indirect feedback, thus improving the quality of the writings. However, because of its preliminary nature and narrow scope, the conclusion is tentative. Later, Ma (2020) investigated the effectiveness of direct versus indirect WCF in L2 Chinese and explored learners’ processing with the two types of feedback. The dissertation was conducted in an online CFL course with 38 beginners randomly assigned to two feedback conditions: direct-WCF group (n = 19, provision of explicit corrections) versus indirect-WCF group (n = 19, provision of metalinguistic explanations). All participants first wrote a composition in response to the provided scenario and then received their respective type of feedback. While reviewing the WCF they received, the participants completed thinkaloud protocols and the revisions. Two weeks later, they wrote a new composition and filled out a questionnaire eliciting their attitudes toward the WCF they received. The accuracy scores of their use of the particle Ḯ le and classifiers in the new composition were examined. The results revealed that the indirect-WCF group showed overall greater depth of processing than the direct-WCF group and achieved significantly higher accuracy scores in the new composition for the two grammatical items. In addition, most participants expressed their preference for more detailed feedback as it assisted them in locating the problem and solutions. Unlike the two studies on teacher comments, Xu and Zhu (2019) examined learners’ uptake and perceptions of online peer feedback in an eight-week advanced CFL class. All 10 students enrolled in the class completed four 30-minute, in-class news writing assignments via Google Docs, received peer feedback for each writing, and revised the fi rst draft of each assignment following the feedback. At the end of the eighth week, each participant also completed a retrospective interview eliciting their attitudes toward peer feedback and overall experience with it. The peer feedback was coded for type (e.g. suggestion, clarification and evaluation) and level (e.g. grammar, character and vocabulary), while students’ revisions were assigned to four categories: successful, unsuccessful, unattempted and self-initiated. The fi ndings showed that peer feedback was focused on the vocabulary, grammar and character of learners’ written texts, with the majority leading to successful revisions. While the participants expressed overall favorable perceptions of the feedback, they were autonomous and active in their choice and decision of uptakes. Being the fi rst effort examining the instructional effectiveness of peer feedback in CFL classrooms, this study explicitly indicated one of its major benefits over teacher comments for learners, namely comprehensibility. Feedback provision is more indirectly examined in this volume by Valentín-Rivera by promoting a deeper understanding concerning the

16 Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

efficacy of teachers’ WCF in L2 Chinese classrooms from the learner perspective. More specifically, Chapter 7 surveys learners’ familiarity and experience with WCF, expectations and perceptions of it, as well as their preference for the types of feedback. The results showed that L2 Chinese learners unanimously expected to receive WCF from their teachers and regarded it helpful. However, learners mostly considered WCF conducive to fixing form-related issues, possibly since the feedback they received in classrooms focused on language-related errors. While all learners reported being familiar with direct WCF, the majority expressed preference for indirect WCF as they believe it could help strengthen linguistic connections. In addition, learners offered their teachers several suggestions they believe may assist them in becoming efficient writers. Based on the observations, the chapter proposed recommendations regarding the enhancement of learners’ writing skills and effective WCF provision in L2 Chinese classrooms. Writing in other spheres: Preparedness in challenging times

Online teaching and learning appear to have become a new norm in L2 education since the breakout of the COVID-19 pandemic (Ma et al., 2021). For L2 writers and writing teachers, this brought about challenges in terms of their preparedness and adaptations necessary for effective writing practice and instruction in varied online contexts. To facilitate the course design for teachers and maximize students’ learning gains during and beyond the pandemic, several studies examining online writing pedagogy, though mostly on English, have been conducted. For example, Tercero (2021) proposed an adapted version of Casanave’s (2017) framework to guide the development of L2 online academic writing programs. She recommended several factors be considered, including teachers’ opinions and assumptions of teaching writing online, their knowledge, approaches and available resources for the implementation of online writing pedagogy, as well as the specific and practical realities of the remote teaching environment (e.g. institution, program and students). Since assessment constitutes a necessary component in course development, Zou et al. (2021) investigated three EFL writing teachers’ engagement with online formative assessment during COVID-19 in China. In contrast, from the students’ perspective, Ma et  al. (2021) explored the impact of learning-oriented assessment on students’ feedback literacy in an online EFL writing course under pandemic conditions in Hong Kong. The findings of the two studies better informed teachers’ assessing behaviors in fully online contexts both within and beyond the challenging times. Despite the increasing number of studies, little empirical research, especially concerning the Chinese language, has considered teachers’ perceptions of L2 writing during the pandemic. In Chapter 8, Román-Zúñiga, Elola and Vasseur offer an innovative and multilingual scope by examining how writing instruction was affected by the sudden shift to an online

Contextualizing the Importance of Writing

17

modality due to COVID-19 for two consecutive semesters (spring and fall 2020) in the Chinese and Spanish programs of a large US public university in the Southwest. A cross-sectional drop in the use of online tools to guide writing activities was observed. Moreover, both programs tended to implement short tasks, thus limiting writing practice opportunities. Distinctive approaches per language were also found. For instance, Chinese instructors mostly employed teacher-based and less innovative options (cloze activities), while Spanish teachers promoted digital writing through blogs, digital stories and Google Docs. These differences may be explained by the inadequate training in teaching L2 writing remotely, lack of time for transitioning to online instruction and differences between the writing systems of Chinese and Spanish, in addition to the restricted opportunities for Chinese teachers to collaborate with colleagues due to program size. Important considerations for L2 online writing pedagogy are provided accordingly. Conclusion

As Reichelt (2016) observed in her overview of non-English L2 writing studies, a clear research agenda as well as theoretically grounded guidelines on writing pedagogy will be impossible without a sufficient accumulation of empirical research on various themes. Hence, a call for more scholarly endeavors exclusively on writing in L2 Chinese and taking into account an up-to-date and critical review of the literature is needed. Considering this, our volume represents one step toward the direction, inspired by which we hope more research publications of high quality are forthcoming. References Bitchener, J. (2008) Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing 17 (2), 102–118. Casanave, C. (2017) Controversies in Second Language Writing: Dilemmas and Decisions in Research and Instruction (2nd edn). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. Cheng, F. (2017) Constructing CSL writing as meaning-making: A genre-based approach. In I. Kecskes (ed.) Explorations into Chinese as a Second Language (pp. 111–139). New York: Springer. Cheng, F. and Chiu, M. (2018) Scaffolding Chinese as a second language writing through a systemic functional linguistics approach. System 72, 99–113. Chu, C. (1998) A Discourse Grammar of Mandarin Chinese. New York: Peter Lang. Elabdali, R. (2021) Are two heads really better than one? A meta-analysis of the L2 learning benefits of collaborative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 52, 1–16. Fang, M. and Wang, A. (2019) Feedback to feed forward: Giving effective feedback in advanced Chinese writing. In N. Yiğitoğlu and M. Reichelt (eds) L2 Writing Beyond English (pp. 95–114). Bristol: Multilingual Matters Fernández Dobao, A. (2012) Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (1), 40–58. García, O. (2002) Teaching language minorities in the United States: From bilingualism as a deficit to bilingualism as a liability. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 155/156, 125–130.

18 Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

Gatti, A. and O’Neill, T. (2017) Who are heritage writers? Language experiences and writing proficiency. Foreign Language Annals 50 (4), 734–753. Gatti, A. and O’Neill, T. (2018) Writing profi ciency profi les of heritage learners of Chinese, Korean, and Spanish. Foreign Language Annals 51 (4), 719–737. Jiang, W. (2013) Measurements of development in L2 written production: The case of L2 Chinese. Applied Linguistics 34 (1), 1–24. Kessler, M., Polio, C., Xu, C. and Hao, X. (2020) The effects of oral discussion and text chat on L2 Chinese writing. Foreign Language Annals 53 (4), 666–685. Li, C.N. and Thompson, S.A. (1981) Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Li, S. (2014) The gap in the use of lexical cohesive devices in writing between native Chinese speakers and second language users. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 49, 25–47. Liao, J. (2018) The impact of face-to-face oral discussion and online text-chat on L2 Chinese writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 41, 27–40. Liao, J. (2020) Metadiscourse, cohesion, and engagement in L2 written discourse. Languages 5 (2), 1–21. Lo-Philip, S.W. (2014) Chinese L2 literacy practices: Material and sociocultural considerations. Language and Education 28 (3), 237–250. Lu, X. (2021) Second language Chinese computer-based writing by learners with alphabetic fi rst Languages: Writing behaviors, second language proficiency, genre, and text quality. Language Learning 72 (1). https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12469. Lu, X. and Révész, A. (2021) Revising in a non-alphabetic language: The multi-dimensional and dynamic nature of online revisions in Chinese as a second language. System 100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102544. Ma, M., Wang, C. and Feng, M. (2021) Using learning-oriented online assessment to foster students’ feedback literacy in L2 writing during Covid-19 pandemic: A case of misalignment between micro- and macro-contexts. Asia-Pacifi c Education Researcher 30 (6), 597–609. Ma, X. (2020) Writing in a task-based individualized curriculum: Effectiveness of direct and indirect written corrective feedback. PhD thesis, Georgetown University. Manchón, R.M. (2011) Learning-to-Write and Writing-to-Learn in an Additional Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pan, X. (2018) Investigating the development of syntactic complexity in L2 Chinese writing. PhD thesis, the University of Iowa. Paul, J. and Friginal, E. (2019) The effects of symmetric and asymmetric social networks on second language communication. Computer Assisted Language Learning 32 (5–6), 587–618. Reichelt, M. (2016) L2 writing in languages other than English. In R.M. Manchón and P.K. Matsuda (eds) Handbook of Second and Foreign Language Writing (pp. 181– 200). Berlin: De Gruyter. Riazi, M., Shi, L. and Haggerty, J. (2018) Analysis of the empirical research in the journal of second language writing at its 25th year (1992–2016). Journal of Second Language Writing 41, 41–54. Roca de Larios, J., Nicolás-Conesa, F. and Coyle, Y. (2016) Focus on writers: Processes and strategies. In R.M. Manchón and P.K. Matsuda (eds) Handbook of Second and Foreign Language Writing (pp. 267–286). Berlin: De Gruyter. Storch, N. (2013) Collaborative Writing in L2 Classrooms. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Suarez, L. and Goh, W.D. (2007) Phonological and visual short-term memory codification in English-Chinese bilinguals. In F. Mansouri (ed.) Second Language Acquisition Research (pp. 199–224). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Swain, M. (1985) Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass and C. Madden (eds) Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Contextualizing the Importance of Writing

19

Swain, M. (2001) Integrating language and content teaching through collaborative tasks. Canadian Modern Language Review 58, 44–63. Tercero, T. (2021) Adapting a framework for designing and teaching an online academic writing course for L2 writers. In L. Muresan and C. Orna-Montesinos (eds) Academic Literacy Development (pp. 309–328). New York: Springer. Tocalli-Beller, A. and Swain, M. (2005) Reformulation: The cognitive confl ict and L2 learning that it generates. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 15, 5–28. Valdés, G. (2001) Heritage languages students: Profi les and possibilities. In J.K. Peyton, D.A. Ranard and S. McGinnis (eds) Heritage Languages in America: Preserving a National Resource (pp. 37–77). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics/ Delta Systems. Wang, S. and Vásquez, C. (2014) The effect of target language use in social media on intermediate-level Chinese language learners’ writing performance. CALICO Journal 31 (1), 78–102. Wigglesworth, G. and Storch, N. (2012) Feedback and writing development through collaboration: A socio-cultural approach. In R.M. Manchón (ed.) L2 Writing Development: Multiple Perspectives (pp. 69–101). Berlin: De Gruyter. Williams, J. (2012) The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (4), 321–331. Williams, J. and Cui, G. (2005) Teaching Writing in Second and Foreign Language classrooms. New York: McGraw-Hill. Xiao, Y. (2006) Heritage learners in the Chinese language classroom: Home background. Heritage Language Journal 4 (1), 47–56. Xiao, Y. (2010) Discourse features and development in Chinese L2 writing. In M.E. Everson and H.H. Shen (eds) Research among Learners of Chinese as a Foreign Language (pp. 133–151). Honolulu, HI: National Foreign Language Resource Center. Xiao-Desai, Y. and Wong, K.F. (2017) Epistemic stance in Chinese heritage language writing - A developmental view. Chinese as a Second Language Research 6 (1), 73–102. Xu, Y. and Zhu, L. (2019) Online peer feedback in second language Chinese writing: From feedback, uptake, to perception. Chinese as a Second Language 54 (3), 257–286. Yang, C. (2013) Textual conjunctives and topic-fronting devices in CFL learners’ written summaries. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 48, 71–89. Yang, L. and Zhao, Z. (2018) Profi ling L2 writing development: The case of CFL learners in intermediate classes. Chinese as a Second Language Research 7 (2), 221–247. Yiğitoğlu, N. and Reichelt, M. (eds) (2019) L2 Writing Beyond English. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Yu, Q. (2020) An organic syntactic complexity measure for the Chinese language: The TC-unit. Applied Linguistics 41 (1), 1–34. Yuan, F. (2009) Measuring learner language in L2 Chinese in fluency, accuracy and complexity. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 44 (3), 109–130. Yuan, F. (2010) Impacts of task conditions on learners’ output in L2 Chinese narrative writing. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 45 (1), 67–88. Zhang, M. and Plonsky, L. (2020) Collaborative writing in face-to-face settings: A substantive and methodological review. Journal of Second Language Writing 49, 1–18. Zhang, S. (2016) Killing two birds with one stone? Turning CFL learners into book writers: An exploratory study. Chinese as a Second Language 51 (2) 164–190. Zou, M., Kong, D. and Lee, I. (2021) Teacher engagement with online formative assessment in EFL writing during Covid-19 pandemic: The case of China. Asia-Pacifi c Education Researcher 30 (6), 487–498.

1 Writing Processes and Products of Chinese as Heritage and Foreign Language Learners Shuyi Yang

Introduction

Writing in a second language (L2) entails expressing ideas in a lessdeveloped language (Gánem-Gutiérrez & Gilmore, 2018). It could encompass multiple stages (i.e. planning, formulation and monitoring) (Roca de Larios et al., 2001, 2008) and activate multiple languages (Gunnarsson, 2019). Meanwhile, being a heritage language learner (HLL) versus a foreign language learner (FLL) involves differences in early learning environments, which might affect writing. HLLs were raised in a home where a minority language is spoken, thereby speaking or at least understanding the language (Valdés, 2001). The heritage language (HL) usually was not continuously maintained through regular schooling as HLLs switched to the mainstream language of the society (English), which became their dominant language (Kim & Pyun, 2014). Nevertheless, the early immersion to the HL allows HLLs to develop robust verbal skills in a colloquial register, rich vocabulary, a relatively good command of grammar and an implicit sense of which language forms sound right and which do not (Kondo-Brown, 2005). Such advantages over FLLs with little early language exposure may be reflected in writing (Benmamoun et al., 2013). By contrast, because all or most of HL learning has taken place in daily, informal settings, HLLs have limited access to formal language use (Camus & Adrada-Rafael, 2015). The deficit in literacy is also manifested in writing, as HLLs’ composing could reflect some aspects of speaking, such as rehearsing ideas out loud (Schwartz, 2003). However, few studies have explored the engagement of both HLLs and FLLs when writing, and the studies available merely focused on writing products, namely, the texts produced (Camus & Adrada-Rafael, 20

Writing Processes and Products of Chinese as Heritage and Foreign Language Learners

21

2015). A comparison of HLLs and FLLs in both writing processes and products not only deepens the understanding of the early immersion effect on writing but also informs differentiated instruction to improve the writing performance of both groups. Hence, this chapter investigates and compares the writing processes and products of low-intermediate Chinese HLLs and FLLs. The writing processes are examined through writing stages, problem-solving strategies and languages activated during writing, while the writing products are measured by complexity, accuracy and fluency. For further insights into learners’ individual writing processes, please refer to Chapter 3 in the volume, co-authored by L. Yang and Zhao.

Literature Review Writing processes of HLLs and FLLs

With the increasing attention that writing processes have received recently, different writing process models (e.g. Hayes & Flower, 1980) have been developed. This chapter utilizes Kellogg’s (1996) model as the theoretical framework because it places greater emphasis on processes of transforming thoughts into written forms. This makes it particularly suitable for studying L2 writing, given that expressing ideas in accurate linguistic units requires more cognitive efforts for L2 writers due to their less-developed language competence (Michel et al., 2020). According to this model, writing comprises planning, formulation and monitoring, which take place simultaneously and cyclically. Planning involves retrieving and arranging ideas. The follow-up formulation translates the planned content into graphic forms through lexical and syntactic encoding. At the monitoring phase, writers check the produced text to ensure it maps onto the intended plan and operate revisions to solve discrepancies. Following Kellogg’s (1996) model, researchers have probed how writing unfolds mainly from two perspectives: the general macro-stages (e.g. Roca de Larios et al., 2001, 2008) and the specific actions consisting of implementing problem-solving strategies and activating multiple languages (e.g. Gunnarsson, 2019; Whalen & Ménard, 1995). Studies from the fi rst perspective (i.e. macro-stages) generally tracked writing activities throughout the whole writing process. Roca de Larios and colleagues (2001, 2008) followed think-aloud protocol to investigate time allocations of multiple stages of an argumentative writing task among English FLLs (EFLLs) at low, intermediate and advanced levels. Results showed that formulation occupied a proportionally longer period than the other stages. The predominance of formulation was particularly evident among novice EFLLs, who cut short planning and sacrificed revision to accommodate the urgent transcribing need (Roca de Larios et al., 2008). On the contrary, experienced EFLLs’ writing showed a more balanced distribution of planning, formulation and monitoring stages. Such

22 Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

patterns were confirmed by later studies that employed digital screen capturing, computer keystroke logging and eye-tracking techniques (GánemGutiérrez & Gilmore, 2018; Michel et al., 2020). Further empirical research sheds light on how FLLs grope their way through the planning, formulation and monitoring stages respectively. For planning, Sasaki et al. (2018) observed that EFLLs built a thorough pre-task plan more often in the later tasks of the four argumentative writing tasks over a 3.5-year period, aligned with the increased writing ability. Regarding formulation, a group of studies (Chukharev-Hudilainen et  al., 2019; Mohsen & Qassem, 2020) focused on pauses using the keystroke logging method. The findings suggested that unskilled EFLLs paused more frequently and longer within sentences, indicating constant online planning. Low-level EFLLs stopped to plan next each time finishing one semantically coherent unit and concentrated on specific language to be written down at the expense of higher-order concerns such as cohesion. In terms of monitoring, researchers adopted think-aloud, keystroke logging and eye-tracking approaches to analyze FLLs’ revising behaviors. Concerning the revision focus, Barkaoui (2016) reported that EFLLs’ revisions ranged from content alternation to grammatical/lexical modification and typographic correction. Revisions were also categorized into immediate and end revisions, with the former occurring during the ongoing formulation and the latter being initiated upon the completion of the main text (Xu, 2018). Xu (2018) demonstrated that EFLLs with limited skills made more immediate revisions that disrupted the production flow, whereas competent EFLLs were apt in deferring revisions to later periods. Finally, revisions were oriented toward either compensating for lack of language competence or upgrading previous expressions (López-Serrano et  al., 2019). The analyses (Roca de Larios et al., 2006) revealed that less-skilled EFLLs revised mainly to fi x errors while proficient EFLLs revised to discover better meaning-form matches. Thus far, only a handful of studies examined HLLs’ writing stages (Elola & Mikulski, 2013, 2016; Mikulski & Elola, 2011). Mikulski and Elola (2011) used screen-capturing tools to record the writing processes of advanced Spanish HLLs (SHLLs) and observed frequent within-sentence planning and formulation breakdowns. A further inspection on revisions (Elola & Mikulski, 2013) indicated that SHLLs addressed both meaning and surface (i.e. spelling) issues. Recently, Elola and Mikulski (2016) compared the composing behaviors of advanced SHLLs and SFLLs and found that the SHLLs invested more time in online planning and monitoring and made fewer surface revisions than SFLLs. The other strand of studies on micro-level writing activities generally investigated problem-solving strategies and languages activated during composition, with think-aloud or retrospective interviews as the main data collection method. It is worth mentioning that this chapter operationalizes strategies as conscious behaviors to bridge the gap between the intended meaning and the linguistic forms needed to express it.

Writing Processes and Products of Chinese as Heritage and Foreign Language Learners

23

Researchers (Manchón et al., 2007; Sasaki et al., 2018; Whalen & Ménard, 1995) reported that EFLLs often conveyed thoughts in fi rst language (L1) and then searched an equivalent in L2. Such dominant-to-non-dominantlanguage translation was also prevalent among SHLLs (Velasco & García, 2014). Other strategies that have been observed in FL writing included triggering and assessing alternatives, reformulating and postponing problem resolution to move forward text construction (Manchón et al., 2007). EFLLs also purposefully used dictionaries or other tools to resolve problems, although expert EFLLs consulted external resources less (Leijten et  al., 2014). Lastly, less proficient EFLLs tended to identify problems without solving attempts (Roca de Larios et al., 1999). As for SHLLs, rehearsal was commonly applied. SHLLs uttered aloud segments to test syntactic/lexical acceptability and determined the best expression based on intuitive, orally-based knowledge (Callahan, 2010; Schwartz, 2003). Among the few studies that compared the strategies by HLLs and FLLs, Silva’s (2011) inquiry showed that Portuguese HLLs utilized external resources to a lesser extent than FLLs. It is noteworthy that switching interactively among multiple languages is a salient characteristic of L2 writing (Wang, 2003). Grosjean (2008) proposed a concept of language mode, defi ned as the state of activation of multiple languages in a communicative event. A monolingual mode refers to when the main language functions as the base language and the other language is weakly activated as the guest language. Writers in an intermediate mode adopt the base language and meanwhile increasingly use the guest language. A bilingual mode is a mode where both languages are activated to an almost equal extent. Studies on language-switching during writing (Gunnarsson, 2019; Van Weijen et al., 2009) reported that novice FLLs extensively relied on their L1 across stages. As FLLs progressed in proficiency, they approximated the intermediate mode: L2 was activated for a greater range of writing activities such as planning content and assessing linguistic choices yet the L1 use remained dominant. To summarize, the body of research on HLLs’ writing processes is rather small, and the macro-level stages, problem-solving strategies and language switching have been understudied. Moreover, the direct comparison between HLLs’ and FLLs’ writing processes was sparse. This necessitates more explorations into whether and how the differences in early immersion are exhibited in the ways HLLs and FLLs approach writing. Writing products of HLLs and FLLs

Although much research has accumulated on the quality of FLLs’ writing products (e.g. Casal & Lee, 2019; Kalantari & Gholami, 2017; Lu & Ai, 2015), fewer studies have examined HLLs’ writing products. Among these investigations, Potowski (2007) evaluated SHLLs’ and SFLLs’ written narratives based on a holistic rubric and found that

24

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

SHLLs’ texts gained higher ratings than SFLLs’. Other studies have applied analytic measures of complexity, accuracy and fluency (CAF) to assess HLLs’ and FLLs’ writings. For example, Camus and Adrada-Rafael (2015) investigated advanced SHLLs’ and SFLLs’ written products and observed SHLLs’ superior performance in syntactic complexity, accuracy and fluency. Similarly, Elola and Mikulski (2016) reported that advanced SHLLs’ texts were linguistically more accurate than SFLLs’. Meanwhile, Belpoliti and Bermejo’s (2020) comprehensive analysis of beginning-level SHLLs’ writing demonstrated high syntactic complexity and fluency but low morpho-syntactic and lexical accuracy. Less research has probed the written output of Chinese HLLs (CHLLs) and FLLs (CFLLs). Within the CAF framework, researchers observed that higher-proficiency CFLLs produced syntactically and lexically more complex texts while the accuracy level remained low (An, 2015; Qi & Liao, 2019; Wu, 2016). Studies on CHLLs were even scarcer. Scholars (Chao, 1997; Gatti & O’Neill, 2017, 2018; Liu, 2009) explained that CHLLs lacked vocabulary for topics beyond familiar contexts and struggled with discourse structures that are typical of academic writing, thereby having difficulty in expressing content beyond casual topics (e.g. everyday events) and organizing texts in a conventional manner. Xiao (2006, 2010) examined CHLLs’ and CFLLs’ writing in terms of discourse features. The findings showed that both CHLLs and CFLLs used excessive pronouns and insufficient topic chains and conjunctions, rendering their texts redundant and choppy, albeit not necessarily ungrammatical. Compared with CFLLs, CHLLs committed more character errors. As briefly reviewed, most prior studies on writing products targeted FLLs, with scant attention paid to HLLs and the comparison between the two learner groups. In addition, CHLLs’ writing was rarely discussed, and the available analyses were limited to general description rather than objective measurements. Particularly, Chinese differs markedly from alphabetic languages in typology and therefore the results of previous alphabetic language research (i.e. English and Spanish) might not be generalized to Chinese. It remains unclear whether and how CHLLs’ writing products differ from CFLLs’ in complexity, accuracy and fluency. Research questions

A review of previous literature shows a lack of research on the comparison of writing processes and products between CHLLs and CFLLs. This chapter will attempt to move a step forward by addressing the following research questions: (1) Are there differences in writing stages, problem-solving strategies and languages activated between low-intermediate CHLLs and CFLLs? (2) Are there differences in text quality (i.e. complexity, accuracy and fluency) between low-intermediate CHLLs and CFLLs?

Writing Processes and Products of Chinese as Heritage and Foreign Language Learners

25

Method Participants

The participants were 20 English-speaking low-intermediate learners (male: 12, female: 8, mean age: 20.2 years) recruited from second-year Chinese classes at a Midwest and a Northeast US university. They studied Chinese for two semesters (250 hours) and their Chinese proficiency was determined according to the placement test performance. The placement tests at the two universities are both online, multiple-choice format exams including grammar, vocabulary and reading. The two universities also used the same textbooks and followed the same format of curriculum (i.e. lectures + conversation drills). None of the participants had been trained in composing Chinese texts at the time of data collection. The participants who were raised in a Chinese-speaking family but had not received formal language instruction before taking the course were classified as CHLLs (n = 10) while the rest were CFLLs (n = 10). Instruments

An untimed writing task was used to elicit participants’ written output and their writing processes were examined through think-aloud protocols. In the untimed writing task, the participants were asked to handwrite a 200-character description of a trip, including location, natural/ cultural attractions and activities. The topic was closely related to the textbook materials the participants had just learned and thus was contextually appropriate to them. When composing the text, participants were allowed to refer to dictionaries and textbooks. The instructions were written in English to ensure that participants fully understood the task requirements. The think-aloud protocols were selected because they have been extensively adopted in previous literature to capture observable traces of underlying cognitive processes without severe interference (López-Serrano et al., 2019). Participants were free to use either English or Chinese to verbalize what they were doing and thinking while composing the text. Procedure

All participants completed the writing task individually at the researcher’s office and the researcher kept record of each participant’s total time on the task (30–50 minutes). Five CHLLs (male: 2, female: 3) and five CFLLs (male: 3, female: 2) were randomly selected to implement think-aloud protocols while writing. They were given the opportunity to practice the think-aloud method with a mock task (describing a holiday activity). During the think-aloud composing, the researcher occasionally reminded participants to verbalize if they turned silent. Otherwise, no

26

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

interruption was given. Each think-aloud protocol lasted about 40 minutes and was audio-recorded. Data analysis Writing processes

Participants’ verbal reports were transcribed and then coded in three dimensions: writing stages, problem-solving strategies and languages activated. First, three writing stages were outlined following Roca de Larios et al. (2008): pre-task planning, formulation and (self-initiated) revision. Pre-task planning included two sub-processes: reading the prompt and building a global outline. Formulation consisted of two sub-processes: online planning that was interwoven with text production and translation that converted ideas to linguistic forms. Revision was classified in terms of its focus, distance and purpose according to previous research (Barkaoui, 2016; López-Serrano et al., 2019; Xu, 2018). Table 1.1 presents the revision types and corresponding examples. The frequency and percentage of each stage and its sub-processes were calculated. Second, the problem-solving strategies that the participants reported employing were identified and the categories were retrieved following Manchón et al. (2007) (see Table 1.2). The frequency and percentage of each type of strategy were calculated. Lastly, the languages the participants used (English or Chinese) in each stage (i.e. pre-task planning, formulation and revision) were identified. A second rater was recruited to code 120 randomly selected responses (15% of the data) together with the researcher. The inter-rater reliability was 0.88. The disagreed-upon instances were negotiated and resolved. Then the researcher coded the rest of data following the same coding scheme. Table 1.1 Types of revisions Dimension

Type

Examples

Revision focus

Content

I added 埿ᶲ㚱⮷⎫⸿ (There are snack stands on the street.)

Revision distance

Revision purpose

Language

I changed 㗗 (be) to a noun.

Spelling

The character looks wrong. I erase it and rewrite it.

Immediate

征᷒㗗⎓⟼ (This is called tower.) I changed it to 征᷒㤤⎓⟼ (This building is called tower.)

End

Now I read the whole text and I could add here or take this out.

Compensatory

I don’t know how to say place, so I changed it to 恋⃧ (there).

Upgrading

I changed it so it felt a little better.

Writing Processes and Products of Chinese as Heritage and Foreign Language Learners

27

Table 1.2 Categories of problem-solving strategies Category

Definition

Examples

Dominant language use

Switch to dominant language and translate

There is a scenic spot. So, 㚱ᶨ᷒ 㕭㷠⛘㕡 (there is a tourist place).

Linguistic rules

Recall linguistic rules to assess accuracy/appropriateness

⎓ (call) is a verb, so you shouldn’t say 㗗(be)⎓((call), because there are two verbs next to each other.

Reformulation

Paraphrase intended meaning

I didn’t know how to say it exactly, so I reworded it and thought of another way to say it.

Alternative evaluation

Retrieve a list of similar expressions and finalize one

⭞(home), ⭞⹕(family), ⭞⹕ (family) is more of people you live with, I want to say family, so I’m going to use ⭞⹕(family).

External resources

Use dictionaries and textbooks

I’m looking for the word ‘culture’. I don’t know how to write the character, so I look it up.

Intuitive knowledge

Utter aloud to test lexical/ syntactic acceptability

It just feels wrong, and I don’t always have specific reasons. I read the sentence repeatedly, does this sound right?

Postponing

Postpone and return to flagged items at later stage

It doesn’t sound right but I’ll keep moving on and come back to it later.

Writing products

Participants’ texts were analyzed in terms of complexity (syntactic, lexical), accuracy (syntactic, lexical and character) and fluency. Five measures of syntactic complexity were developed based on previous research (Casal & Lee, 2019; Lu & Ai, 2015), spanning global, clausal and phrasal tiers. At the global level, the mean length of T-unit, found to effectively distinguish CFLLs’ texts at different levels (An, 2015), was calculated by having the total number of characters divided by the total number of T-units. A Chinese T-unit was defi ned as ‘a single main clause that contains one independent predicate plus whatever other subordinate clauses or non-clauses are attached to, or embedded within, that one main clause’ (Jiang, 2013: 5). Regarding the clausal-level complexity, clauses per T-unit, mean clause length and conjunctions per clause were adopted. Clauses per T-unit and mean clause length prove reliable to discriminate high- and low-quality CFLL texts (An, 2015), and conjunctions are words that bind clauses together and are particularly essential in maintaining coherence in Chinese (Xiao, 2010), a language that relies on idea-joint rather than morphological inflection to express syntactic relationships. Lastly, the phrasal-level complexity was gauged by complex nominals per T-unit. A complex nominal referred to an extended noun phrase modified by adjectives, nouns, prepositions or relative clauses. Complex nominals

28

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

allow for the concise package of dense information, thereby signaling advanced-level syntactic complexity (Qi & Liao, 2019). Lexical complexity was assessed by three indices, representing the diversity, density and sophistication dimension (Kalantari & Gholami, 2017). In terms of diversity, square root of type-token ratio (i.e. the total number of unique words divided by the total number of words) was utilized to capture the range of vocabulary, with the impact of different text lengths minimized (Qi & Liao, 2019). Furthermore, density was measured by content word ratio (i.e. the ratio of nouns, verbs and adjectives to the total number of words). Finally, low-frequency word ratio was computed to indicate sophistication, following Wu (2016). The low-frequency words were operationalized as the 3rd- and 4th-level words in the Syllabus of the Graded Vocabulary for HSK (National Office of Teaching Chinese as a Second Language, 1992), a frequency list designed for L2 Chinese learners. As for accuracy, three measures that proved reliable and effective were selected (Qi & Liao, 2019; Wu, 2016; Xiao, 2006). Specifically, error-free T-unit ratio, correct word ratio and correct character ratio were calculated as indices of syntactic, lexical and character accuracy. In this chapter, an error-free T-unit is operationalized as a T-unit that did not contain deviations in grammar and vocabulary from the accurate usage accepted by Chinese native speakers. Likewise, a correct word refers to a word following its correct semantics, usage and collocation patterns, while a correct character refers to a character not deviating from its correct orthographic configuration (Institute of Linguistics, 2016). Concerning fluency, because the task time was recorded for each participant, the total number of characters per minute (Johnson, 2017) was counted as the index. A second rater coded the data for five CHLLS and five CFLLs together with the researcher. The inter-rater reliability ranged from 0.97 for content word ratio to 0.81 for complex nominals per T-unit, with only three below 0.90. CHLLs’ and CFLLs’ performance on the CAF measures was compared to check whether a significant difference (at 0.05 level) was observed. Considering the small sample size, non-parametric statistics, the Mann– Whitney U-tests, were conducted.

Results Writing processes of CHLLs and CFLLs

Table 1.3 presents the mean frequency and percentage of each writing stage and sub-process. As observed, CHLLs and CFLLs went through the same stages. They devoted most efforts to formulation, followed by revision, while pre-task planning was rather brief. It is also noticeable that CHLLs allocated more attention to revision than CFLLs.

Writing Processes and Products of Chinese as Heritage and Foreign Language Learners

29

Table 1.3 Descriptive statistics of stages and sub-processes for CHLLs and CFLLs Stage Pre-task planning

CHLL (n = 5)

CFLL (n = 5)

5.33 (5.04%)

8.33 (10.09%)

Reading prompt

1.67 (29.17%)

2.67 (55.46%)

Building global outline

3.67 (70.83%)

5.67 (44.54%)

59.33 (57.39%)

50.67 (67.08%)

Sub-process

Category

Formulation Planning

19.67 (33.7%)

21.67 (41.81%)

Content

14.67 (73.92%)

17.33 (78.82%)

Language

1 (5.78%)

2.33 (14.94%)

Cohesion

4 (20.30%)

2 (6.24%)

39.67 (66.3%)

29 (58.19%)

39.67 (37.56%)

17.67 (22.83%)

8.67 (21.86%)

8.33 (47.14%)

Translation Revision Focus

Distance

Purpose

Content Language

24 (60.5%)

7 (39.62%)

Spelling

7 (17.65%)

2.33 (13.19%)

Immediate

24.67 (62.18%)

16 (90.55%)

End

15 (37.81%)

1.66 (9.39%)

Compensatory

19 (47.9%)

14.66 (82.97%)

Upgrading

20.67 (52.1%)

3 (16.98%)

A closer inspection into each stage revealed both similarities and differences in the sub-processes CHLLs and CFLLs engaged in. At the pretask planning stage, CHLLs concentrated on constructing a global outline, whereas CFLLs spent more time reading the prompt. During the formulation phase, all participants dedicated more efforts to translation than planning. Besides the common focus on content when conducting online planning, CHLLs paid more attention to cohesion while CFLLs were more concerned about incorporating newly learned vocabulary and sentence structures. Some CFLLs’ planning was language-driven, namely, what was planned was determined by linguistic devices available instead of ideas intended to be expressed. For example, one CFLL explained that she ‘formed an idea about what to write based on words and patterns that [she] could handle’. As for the revision stage, CHLLs prioritized language edits while CFLLs largely altered content. In addition, CHLLs conducted extensive end revisions, as opposed to CFLLs’ predominant immediate revisions. Moreover, CHLLs’ modifications were equally triggered by compensating and upgrading needs, whereas CFLLs’ revisions were initiated generally to compensate for language deficiency. Regarding problem-solving strategies, Table 1.4 lists the mean frequency and percentage of strategies that CHLLs and CFLLs used.

30

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

Table 1.4 Descriptive statistics of problem-solving strategies for CHLLs and CFLLs Category

Sub-category

CHLL (n = 5)

CFLL (n = 5)

Type

Dominant language use

5.67 (10.35%)

2.67 (10.14%)

Linguistic rules

0.33 (1.19%)

0.67 (2.6%)

Reformulation

5 (10.91%)

1 (3.91%)

Alternative evaluation

7.33 (16.31%)

0.67 (2.9%)

External resources

12 (29.34%)

15 (56.97%)

Intuitive knowledge

10 (22.31%)

0 (0%)

Postponing

2.33 (5.79%)

1.67 (5.93%)

No problem-solving

1.34 (3.8%)

4.67 (19.85%)

44

26.33

Sum

As observed, CHLLs and CFLLs performed similarly in strategies of dominant language use, linguistic rules and postponing. Five additional strategies, however, demonstrated different patterns for the two groups. CHLLs tended to reformulate the intended content if they were uncertain about the linguistic accuracy, compare multiple alternatives before verifying the fi nal choice, and apply intuitive knowledge to judge the appropriateness of produced segments. Specifically, the intuitive knowledge strategy seemed to distinguish CHLLs and CFLLs, since only CHLLs reported using this strategy. In contrast, CFLLs were more likely to turn to external resources for help and left problems unsolved. Finally, the analysis of the languages the participants used at each stage (see Table 1.5) showed that English dominated across stages for CFLLs. By contrast, CHLLs activated the HL Chinese to a much stronger degree, particularly at translation and revision stages. It seems that CHLLs were better at composing directly in Chinese without the mediation of the dominant language English, as reflected in one participant’s statement: ‘Because I grew up with my family speaking Chinese, it’s easier for me to think of exactly what I want to say in Chinese, instead of thinking of English and translating it’. In addition, CHLLs relied more on Chinese when they evaluated the appropriateness of their output, as shown in another participant’s statement ‘I read it aloud to see if it feels right’. Table 1.5 Languages used at each stage by CHLLs and CFLLs Stages

CHLL (n = 5)

CFLL (n = 5)

English

Chinese

English

Chinese

Pre-task planning

95.24%

4.76%

95.28%

4.71%

Formulation: Planning

95.29%

4.71%

98.91%

1.09%

Formulation: Translation

50.1%

49.9%

83.95%

16.95%

Revision

65.81%

34.19%

98.96%

1.04%

Writing Processes and Products of Chinese as Heritage and Foreign Language Learners

31

Writing products of CHLLs and CFLLs

Table 1.6 summarizes the descriptive statistics of the 12 CAF measures of participants’ texts. CHLLs’ and CFLLs’ performance on the 12 CAF measures was compared, and the statistical analyses indicated that CHLLs maintained a significant higher level than CFLLs on four syntactic complexity measures Table 1.6 CAF indices of texts produced by CHLLs (n = 10) and CFLLs (n = 10) Indices

Group

M

SD

95% CI lower

90% CI upper

Mean T-unit length

CHLL

14.20

2.62

12.32

16.08

CFLL

12.40

1.15

11.58

13.22

Clauses/T-units

CHLL

1.40

0.16

1.28

1.51

CFLL

1.26

0.09

1.20

1.33

CHLL

11.28

2.24

9.68

12.88

CFLL

8.94

1.02

8.21

9.67

Conjunctions/clause

CHLL

0.34

0.16

0.23

0.46

CFLL

0.24

0.12

0.16

0.32

Complex nominals/T-units

CHLL

0.73

0.27

0.54

0.92

CFLL

0.21

0.09

0.15

0.28

CHLL

0.77

0.03

0.75

0.80

CFLL

0.76

0.02

0.74

0.78

CHLL

0.76

0.04

0.74

0.79

CFLL

0.79

0.06

0.75

0.84

CHLL

0.08

0.05

0.04

0.11

CFLL

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.04

CHLL

0.44

0.33

0.21

0.68

CFLL

0.23

0.16

0.11

0.34

CHLL

0.93

0.01

0.90

0.97

CFLL

0.87

0.02

0.83

0.91

CHLL

0.99

0.03

0.96

1.01

CFLL

0.97

0.05

0.93

1.00

6.79

3.31

4.42

Syntactic complexity

Mean clause length

Lexical complexity Type - token ratio Content words/words

Low frequency words/ words Syntactic accuracy Error-free T-units/T-units

Lexical accuracy Correct words/words

Character accuracy Correct characters/ characters Fluency Characters/min

CHLL CFLL

3.88

1.63

9.16 2.72

5.05

32

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

(mean T-unit length, U = 22.00, p = 0.034, η 2 = 0.24; clauses per T-unit: U = 20.00, p = 0.023, η 2 = 0.27; mean clause length, U = 14.00, p = 0.007, η 2 = 0.39; complex nominals per T-unit, U = 2.00, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.69). However, no significant difference was detected for conjunctions per clause (U = 30.00, p = 0.13). Regarding lexical complexity, CFLLs’ performance was comparable to CHLLs’ in diversity (square root of type-token ratio: U = 44.00, p = 0.65) and density (content word ratio, U = 32, p = 0.174). However, CHLLs’ texts were lexically more sophisticated, as manifested in the significantly higher low-frequency word ratio (U = 20.00, p = 0.023, η 2 = 0.27). For accuracy, CHLLs achieved significantly higher error-free T-unit ratio (U = 19.50, p = 0.021, η 2 = 0.28) and correct word ratio (U = 17.00, p = 0.013, η 2 = 0.33) than CFLLs. By contrast, CHLLs and CFLLs reached similar levels of character accuracy (correct character ratio: U = 25.00, p = 0.058). Finally, CHLLs produced significantly more characters per minute than CFLLs (U = 21.00, p = 0.028, η 2 = 0.26), and thus wrote more fluently. Discussion Writing processes of CHLLs and CFLLs

This chapter examined the writing processes of CHLLs and CFLLs in terms of the writing stages, problem-solving strategies and languages used during writing. The results showed that CHLLs and CFLLs went through the same cascade of stages, with most efforts dedicated to formulation. Such a concentration on formulation with relatively shortened planning and revision aligned well with previous studies on HLLs (Mikulski & Elola, 2011) and FLLs (Gánem-Gutiérrez & Gilmore, 2018; Michel et al., 2020; Roca de Larios et al., 2001, 2008). The participants in this chapter possessed a low-intermediate level, thereby having not yet mastered automatic control over linguistic resources. Due to the limited proficiency, composing might overload the participants’ attentional capacities and divert their attention from planning and revision (Gánem-Gutiérrez & Gilmore, 2018). Despite the similar overall temporal distribution among stages, CHLLs carried out more revisions than CFLLs, in line with Elola and Mikulski (2016). CHLLs’ extensive revisions reflected the versatility in pursuing and coordinating multiple processes (in this case, formulation and revision), which was probably underpinned by their higher familiarity to Chinese by virtue of the early immersion. Regarding planning, the fi ndings suggested that CHLLs were more advanced planners than CFLLs. First, CHLLs tended to build a pre-task global outline of what and how to write while CFLLs jumped to output after reading the prompt. As for the planning sub-process during the formulation stage, CHLLs were more concerned about establishing macro-level cohesion. By contrast, CFLLs focused on micro-level language issues,

Writing Processes and Products of Chinese as Heritage and Foreign Language Learners

33

consistent with previous studies reporting within-sentence planning (Chukharev-Hudilainen et  al., 2019; Mohsen & Qassem, 2020). The CFLLs’ language-centered planning might be explained by the fewer and less consolidated linguistic resources at their disposal, which forced them to either deliberate over how to use the readily accessible items or search external resources for language forms to convey thoughts. During the revision phase, CHLLs mainly edited grammar/lexis, whereas CFLLs mostly modified the content. This seemed contradictory to Elola and Mikulski’s (2013) fi ndings that SHLLs made fewer surface revisions than SFLLs. This discrepancy was probably attributed to the different writing systems of Spanish and Chinese. Spanish has an overall consistent script–sound correspondence that allows direct spelling of what is pronounced (Camus & Adrada-Rafael, 2015). By contrast, Chinese lacks script–sound correspondence and knowing the sound of a linguistic item does not contribute much to knowing how to write it (Shen, 2013). As stated earlier, HLLs often uttered aloud to evaluate linguistic acceptability and wrote down what sounded right. For CHLLs, the written transcription of the oral rehearsal was more prone to errors compared with SHLLs, because the pronunciation did not provide cues for the written form in Chinese. Therefore, CHLLs initiated more surface revisions. In terms of the revision distance, CHLLs tended to move revisions to the end, as opposed to CFLLs’ immediate revisions occurring throughout the composing process. CHLLs’ deferring revisions until fi nal period resembled the expert writers’ approaches as described by Xu (2018). By contrast, CFLLs did not adhere to formulation and were distracted by revisions. Finally, CHLLs operated many revisions to improve expressions, in contrast with CFLLs being preoccupied by the revisions to compensate for language deficiency. Such differential preferences corresponded to what Roca de Larios et al. (2006) observed in higher- and lower-proficiency writers respectively, suggesting CHLLs’ better capability of achieving linguistic accuracy beyond correctness than CFLLs. The analyses of problem-solving strategies revealed that CHLLs employed strategies in a more contingent and timely way than CFLLs. First, CHLLs favored reformulation and alternative evaluation that demanded a richer inventory of language resources. These sophisticated strategies were likely driven by CHLLs’ better mastery of Chinese through early immersion, which allowed them to flexibly reformulate the intended content and evaluate multiple expressions to find the best match. The early exposure to Chinese also equipped CHLLs with robust intuitive knowledge, consistent with the studies on SHLLs (Callahan, 2010; Schwartz, 2003). CHLLs rehearsed what they wanted to express and assessed the grammaticality of the linguistic devices used in rehearsal based on their implicit sense of what sounds right. Conversely, CFLLs more often left problems unsolved and even abandoned preconceived ideas to avoid using linguistic structures beyond their control, corroborating the results of Roca

34

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

de Larios et al. (1999). CFLLs also more frequently moved back and forth between external resources and the text they were developing, supporting previous observation regarding FLLs’ heavier reliance on external aid than HLLs (Silva, 2011). Finally, the examination of the languages activated during writing demonstrated that CHLLs drew on more diversified language repertoires than CFLLs. CHLLs largely wrote in an intermediate mode, whereby English dominated yet Chinese was adequately activated, especially during text construction. By contrast, CFLLs followed an overall monolingual mode, with English governing all the stages. The results indicated that CHLLs maintained a higher-level proficiency than CFLLs, compatible with previous fi ndings that intermediate mode was associated with enhanced writing skills (Gunnarsson, 2019; Van Weijen et  al., 2009). CHLLs’ early experiences with Chinese seemed to contribute to their Chinese competence, thereby reducing their reliance on English mediation during formulation. Writing products of CHLLs and CFLLs

The CAF analyses showed that the texts written by CHLLs were generally of higher quality than those of CFLLs. First, CHLLs’ texts were overall syntactically more complex, converging with Camus and AdradaRafael (2015). In their texts, CHLLs incorporated more hierarchical substructures and extended nominalization, displaying characteristics of elaborative, information-packaged discourse. The only syntactic complexity measure that CHLLs did not outperform CFLLs was conjunctions per clause, aligned with prior observations that CHLLs likewise encountered difficulties in connecting sentences via cohesive devices (Chao, 1997; Liu, 2009; Xiao, 2010). Regarding lexical complexity, CFLLs approximated CHLLs in diversity and density, probably because CFLLs intentionally incorporated various words and consulted external resources more often. Nevertheless, CHLLs’ texts contained more low-frequency words, showing higher sophistication. This seemed against the claim that HLLs’ lexicon was limited to familiar, colloquial contexts (Gatti & O’Neill, 2017, 2018). A possible explanation was that CHLLs’ early exposure to Chinese might give them an initial advantage over CFLLs so that they could develop sophisticated vocabulary faster. That said, this assumption should be interpreted with caution because this chapter did not examine developmental trends. Moreover, CHLLs composed more accurately and fluently than CFLLs, confirming the fi ndings of prior research in L2 Spanish (Camus & Adrada-Rafael, 2015; Elola & Mikulski, 2016). CHLLs’ superior performance in measures of fluency and accuracy was likely attributed to the in-depth revisions and effective problem-solving strategies they implemented. Conversely, CHLLs and CFLLs committed comparable numbers

Writing Processes and Products of Chinese as Heritage and Foreign Language Learners

35

of character errors, consistent with Xiao’s (2006) observations. The absence of CHLLs’ advantages in character accuracy seemed to suggest that CHLLs’ strong oral skills hardly transformed into the ability to produce written forms, probably due to the lack of script–sound correspondence in Chinese writing system that hinders accurate conversion of oral language to written symbols.

Pedagogical implications

The fi ndings of this chapter generated insights for how to effectively provide writing instruction tailored for CHLLs and CFLLs respectively. For CHLLs, awareness-raising activities should be afforded to help them reflect on their intuitive knowledge that they frequently used during writing. For example, CHLLs can be encouraged to compare their intuitive knowledge with the explicit linguistic rules and discuss the differences. For CFLLs, the emphasis should be placed on practicing writing as a stepby-step procedure with each stage having its own focus. As discussed previously, CFLLs usually started writing haphazardly without a pre-task plan and frequently shifted from the ongoing text production to revisions. Hence, instructors can explicitly divide the writing process into pre-task, formulation and revision stages and guide CFLLs to develop a pre-task global plan and delay thorough revisions to the end. It is also important to provide strategy instruction for CFLLs. CFLLs rarely used strategies of reformulation and alternative evaluation, so the focused training (e.g. paraphrasing the target content and trying out the best fit item among multiple alternatives) can be conducted. Lastly, CHLLs and CFLLs had similar performance on lexical diversity and density and character accuracy, and thus both groups would benefit from tasks designed to expand vocabulary and foster character writing abilities. Effective pedagogical approaches include, but are not limited to, building vocabulary networks, showcasing vocabulary in multiple contexts and analyzing characters into components.

Conclusion

This chapter investigated and compared the writing processes and products of CHLLs and CFLLs. While both groups shared the same macro-stages and similar character accuracy and lexical diversity and density, CHLLs were more strategic in planning, revision and problemsolving and constructed syntactically more complex, lexically and syntactically more accurate, and more fluent texts. This chapter contributed to a better understanding of how early immersion in the HL (Chinese) affected writing. Such early HL immersion seemed to facilitate better management of writing sub-processes (i.e. planning and revision) at least

36

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

partially and better handling of problems, as well as to promote higherquality products. This chapter has several limitations. First, the sample size was small. More participants should be recruited to test the validity of the fi ndings. Second, the calculation of the fluency measure was problematic for the participants who performed think-aloud because the recorded task time included both writing and think-aloud. Future studies could conduct retrospective interviews to obtain a more precise estimate of the writing time. In addition, only one descriptive writing task was utilized, and the fi ndings were tentative and exploratory. It would be valuable to adopt multiple writing tasks of diverse genres to further examine the writing processes and products of CHLLs and CFLLs. References An, F. (2015) Analysis of fluency, grammatical complexity, and accuracy of CSL writing: A study based on T-unit analysis. Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies 3, 11–20. Barkaoui, K. (2016) What and when second-language learners revise when responding to timed writing tasks on the computer: The roles of task type, second language profi ciency, and keyboarding skills. Modern Language Journal 100, 320–340. Belpoliti, F. and Bermejo, E. (2020) Spanish Heritage Learners’ Emerging Literacy: Empirical Research and Classroom Practice. London: Routledge. Benmamoun, E., Montrul, S. and Polinsky, M. (2013) Heritage languages and their speakers: Opportunities and challenges for linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics 39, 129–181. Callahan, L. (2010) U.S. Latinos’ use of written Spanish: Realities and aspirations. Heritage Language Journal 7, 1–27. Camus, P. and Adrada-Rafael, S. (2015) Spanish heritage language learners vs. L2 learners: What CAF reveals about written proficiency. EuroAmerican Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages 2, 32–51. Casal, J.E. and Lee, J.J. (2019) Syntactic complexity and writing quality in assessed fi rstyear L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 44, 51–62. Chao, D. (1997) Chinese for Chinese-Americans: A case study. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 32, 1–13. Chukharev-Hudilainen, E., Saricaoglu, A., Torrance, M. and Feng, H. (2019) Combined deployable keystroke logging and eye-tracking for investigating L2 writing fluency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 41, 583–604. Elola, I. and Mikulski, A. (2013) Revisions in real time: Spanish heritage language learners’ writing processes in English and Spanish. Foreign Language Annals 46, 646–660. Elola, I. and Mikulski, A. (2016) Similar and/or different writing processes? A study of Spanish foreign language and heritage language learners. Hispania 99, 87–102. Gánem-Gutiérrez, G.A. and Gilmore, A. (2018) Tracking the real-time evolution of a writing event: Second language writers at diff erent profi ciency levels. Language Learning 68, 469–506. Gatti, A. and O’Neill, T. (2017) Who are heritage writers? Language experiences and writing proficiency. Foreign Language Annals 50 (4), 734–753. Gatti, A. and O’Neill, T. (2018) Writing profi ciency profi les of heritage learners of Chinese, Korean, and Spanish. Foreign Language Annals 51, 719–737. Grosjean, F. (2008) Studying Bilinguals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Writing Processes and Products of Chinese as Heritage and Foreign Language Learners

37

Gunnarsson, T. (2019) Multilingual students’ use of their linguistic repertories while writing in L2 English. Lingua 224, 34–50. Hayes, J.R. and Flower, L. (1980) Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L.W. Gregg and E.R. Steinberg (eds) Cognitive Processes in Writing: An Interdisciplinary Approach (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Institute of Linguistics (2016) Modern Chinese Dictionary. Beijing: The Commercial Press. Jiang, W. (2013) Measurements of development in L2 written production: The case of L2 Chinese. Applied Linguistics 34, 1–24. Johnson, M.D. (2017) Cognitive task complexity and L2 written syntactic complexity, accuracy, lexical complexity, and fluency: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. Journal of Second Language Writing 37, 13–38. Kalantari, R. and Gholami, J. (2017) Lexical complexity development from dynamic systems theory perspective: Lexical density, diversity, and sophistication. International Journal of Instruction 10, 1–18. Kellogg, R.T. (1996) A model of working memory in writing. In M. Levy and S.E. Ransdell (eds) The Science of Writing: Theories, Methods, Individual Differences, and Applications (pp. 57–72). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Kim, C.E. and Pyun, D.O. (2014) Heritage language literacy maintenance: A study of Korean-American heritage learners. Language, Culture and Curriculum 27, 294–315. Kondo-Brown, K. (2005) Differences in language skills: Heritage language learner subgroups and foreign language learners. Modern Language Journal 89, 563–581. Leijten, M., Van Waes, L., Schriver, K. and Hayes, J.R. (2014) Writing in the workplace: Constructing documents using multiple digital sources. Journal of Writing Research 3, 285–337. Liu, H. (2009) Learning to compose: Characteristics of advanced Chinese heritage writers. Journal of Applied Linguistics 12, 63–80. López-Serrano, S., Roca de Larios, J. and Manchón, R.M. (2019) Language reflection fostered by individual L2 writing tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 41, 503–527. Lu, X. and Ai, H. (2015) Syntactic complexity in college-level English writing: Differences among writers with diverse L1 backgrounds. Journal of Second Language Writing 29, 16–27. Manchón, R., Roca de Larios, J. and Murphy, L. (2007) A review of writing strategies: Focus on conceptualizations and impact of fi rst language. In A. Cohen and E. Macaro (eds) Language Learner Strategies (pp. 229–250). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Michel, M., Révész, A., Lu, X., Kourtali, N., Lee, M. and Borges, L. (2020) Investigating L2 writing processes across independent and integrated tasks: A mixed-methods study. Second Language Research 36, 307–334. Mikulski, A. and Elola, I. (2011) Spanish heritage language learners’ allocation of time to writing processes in English and Spanish. Hispania 94, 715–733. Mohsen, M.A. and Qassem, M. (2020) Analyses of L2 learners’ text writing strategy: Process-oriented perspective. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 49, 435–451. National Office of Teaching Chinese as a Second Language (1992) Syllabus of the Graded Vocabulary for HSK. Beijing: Beijing Language Institute Press. Potowski, K. (2007) Characteristics of the Spanish grammar and sociolinguistic profi ciency of dual immersion graduates. Spanish in Context 4, 187–216. Qi, H. and Liao, J. (2019) An investigation into Chinese linguistic development in L2 narrative and argumentative writing. Chinese Teaching in the World 33, 563–576. Roca de Larios, J., Marín, J. and Murphy, L. (2001) A temporal analysis of formulation processes in L1 and L2 writing. Language Learning 51, 497–538. Roca de Larios, J., Murphy, L. and Manchón, R. (1999) The use of restructuring strategies in EFL writing: A study of Spanish learners of English as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing 8, 13–44.

38 Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

Roca de Larios, J., Manchón, R. and Murphy, L. (2006) Generating text in native and foreign language writing: A temporal analysis of formulation processes. Modern Language Journal 90, 100–114. Roca de Larios, J., Manchón, R., Murphy, L. and Marín, J. (2008) The foreign language writers’ strategic behavior in the allocation of time to writing processes. Journal of Second Language Writing 17, 30–47. Sasaki, M., Mizumoto, A. and Murakami, A. (2018) Developmental trajectories in L2 writing strategy use: A self-regulation perspective. Modern Language Journal 102, 292–309. Schwartz, A.M. (2003) No me suena! Heritage Spanish speakers’ writing strategies. In A. Roca and M. Colombi (eds) Mi Lengua: Spanish as a Heritage Language in the United States (pp. 235–256). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Shen, H.H. (2013) Chinese L2 literacy development: Cognitive characteristics, learning strategies, and pedagogical interventions. Language and Linguistics Compass 7, 371–387. Silva, G.V. (2011) Textbook activities among heritage and non-heritage Portuguese learners. Hispania 94, 734–750. Valdés, G. (2001) Heritage language students: Profi les and possibilities. In J.K. Peyton, D.A. Ranard and S. McGinnis (eds) Heritage Languages in America: Preserving a National Resource (pp. 37–77). McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics/Delta Systems. Van Weijen, D., van den Bergh, H., Rijlaarsdam, G. and Sanders, T. (2009) L1 use during L2 writing: An empirical study of a complex phenomenon. Journal of Second Language Writing 18, 235–250. Velasco, P. and García, O. (2014) Translanguaging and the writing of bilingual learners. Bilingual Research Journal 37, 6–23. Wang, L. (2003) Switching to fi rst language among writers with differing second language proficiency. Journal of Second Language Writing 12, 347–375. Whalen, K. and Ménard, N. (1995) L1 and L2 writers’ strategies and linguistic knowledge: Model of multiple-level discourse processing. Language Learning 45, 381–418. Wu, J. (2016) Research on lexical richness development in CSL writing by English native speakers. Chinese Teaching in the World 1, 129–142. Xiao, Y. (2006) Heritage learners in the Chinese language classroom: Home background. Heritage Language Journal 4, 47–56. Xiao, Y. (2010) Discourse features and development in Chinese L2 writing. In H. Shen and M. Everson (eds) Research among Learners of Chinese as a Foreign Language (pp. 133–151). Honolulu, HI: National Foreign Language Resource Center. Xu, C. (2018) Understanding online revisions in L2 writing: A computer keystroke-log perspective. System 78, 104–114.

2 Collaborative Writing in a Tertiary Chinese as a Foreign Language Classroom: Processes and Products Brian Olovson and Sha Huang

Introduction

Collaborative work in pairs or groups is a common practice in language classrooms around the globe. Over the past 20 years, researchers have become increasingly interested in the processes, products and learning outcomes of collaborative writing that involve jointly constructing a written text (Fernández Dobao, 2012, 2014; Malmqvist, 2005; Philp et al., 2014; Storch, 2013; Zhang & Plonsky, 2020). Collaboration in this context means that students work together in pairs or groups during all stages of the writing process to produce a single text. In addition, students share decision-making responsibility while writing and assume joint authorship of the co-produced text (Lunsford & Ede, 1991; Storch, 2013). This is different from cooperation, which is a defi ned as an intentional, premeditated division of labor among writers (Storch, 2013). Collaborative writing activities are a powerful tool in the repertoire of second language (L2) researchers and practitioners, because they afford students opportunities to compose better texts in their L2 (Fernández Dobao, 2012; Malmqvist, 2005; Olovson, 2018; Storch, 2005), to learn new vocabulary or grammar (Fernández Dobao & Blum, 2013; Kim, 2008), to consolidate linguistic knowledge (Swain & Lapkin, 1995, 1998), to improve ways of expressing ideas (Storch, 2005), to gain a greater understanding of writing conventions (Roskams, 1999) and to gain better control over the use of particular linguistic features (Shehadeh, 2011). Furthermore, Williams (2005) contends that collaborative writing can facilitate language acquisition in two ways. First, collaborative writing allows learners to modify their output toward the target forms they are 39

40

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

trying to produce. Second, it can draw learners’ attention to forms in the input from their partners that they may be unfamiliar with or highlight gaps between what they want to say and what they can produce. In addition, Wigglesworth and Storch (2009) argue that collaborative writing offers learners practice in discussing and deliberating their ideas, in giving and receiving peer feedback and in revising. Previous studies (e.g. Fernández Dobao, 2012, 2014; Malmqvist, 2005; Olovson, 2018; Storch, 2005) have examined the processes and products of collaborative writing, but little research has been conducted in these areas focusing on learners of Chinese as a foreign language (CFL) (Elabdali, 2021; Reichelt, 2016; Storch, 2013; Zhang & Plonsky, 2020). Acquiring writing skills in Chinese presents a unique set of challenges due to its character-based writing system, as well as its syntactic, lexical and prosodic rules for sentence formation (Fang & Wang, 2019; Po-Ching & Rimmington, 2004; Shei, 2014; Shi, 2000). The overarching aim of this chapter was to address this gap in the current body of literature on collaborative writing. Specifically, it uncovered how fi fth-semester collegelevel CFL learners enrolled in a Chinese writing course dealt with the language issues that arose while composing together, and the impact of their collaboration on the quality of their written products. In addition, it explored how texts written collaboratively were similar to or different from texts written individually by the members of the groups based on several different linguistic measures. This chapter sheds meaningful light on CFL learners’ writing through the lens of collaboration and adds new insights to what was observed in Chapters 1 and 3 in terms of composing processes and Chapters 4 and 5 when it comes to writing products.

Literature Review Languaging during collaborative writing

Collaborative writing involves opportunities for students to engage in verbalization to mediate the solution(s) to problems and tasks (Storch, 2013). Informed by Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory, which argues that through one’s verbalized and mediated interactions with a more knowledgeable other, cognition moves from being co-constructed to being internalized individually. Swain (2006: 89) popularized the term languaging to reflect this ‘process of making meaning and shaping knowledge and experience through language’. Languaging is most often operationalized by L2 researchers as language-related episodes (LREs), which are the instances where learners discuss, question and/or reflect on the language issues that arise while writing together (Tocalli-Beller & Swain, 2005). In sociocultural theory, LREs are seen as both engines and instances of learning. LREs better inform researchers on peer and group interactions by providing them with insights into how learners use language to attend to

Collaborative Writing in a Tertiary Chinese as a Foreign Language Classroom

41

linguistic features and language-related issues that arise through collaboration. Previous collaborative writing research utilizing learners of L2 English (Storch, 2005, 2013; Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009, 2012), L2 French (Swain & Lapkin, 1998) and L2 Spanish (Fernández Dobao, 2012, 2014; Olovson, 2018) has found that collaborative writing activities provide students with ample opportunities to engage in languaging of various types: form-based (i.e. discussions of grammatical form); lexicon-based (i.e. discussions of word/phrase meaning or word choice), mechanicsbased (i.e. discussions of punctuation and spelling); coherence-based (i.e. discussions of how ideas flow together); and discourse-based (i.e. discussions on the overarching structure). However, the majority of the LREs learners generated in each of these studies were related to either lexis or grammar, in almost equal proportions. Storch (2013) claims that there is some evidence to suggest that grammar-based tasks (e.g. passage editing) may elicit more form-based LREs than meaning-based tasks (e.g. picture descriptions or compositions), but regardless of task type, form-based and lexical-based LREs still received the most attention by learners. In terms of LRE resolution, while some LREs may not be resolved or resolved correctly by learners, Storch (2013) further argues that there is sufficient empirical evidence across languages and task types to establish that the majority of LREs learners generate while working collaboratively are not only resolved but resolved correctly. Comparing individual and collaborative texts

Comparing texts written individually with those written in pairs or small groups facilitates identifying the effects of different working modalities on the qualities of the texts. Storch (2005), for example, was a pioneer in using qualitative and quantitative measures to compare the data commentary texts produced individually and collaboratively by 23 L2 English participants. She found that pairs produced texts that were both more accurate (i.e. more error-free clauses and words) and more linguistically complex (i.e. more T-units). However, no statistically significant differences were found on a holistic measure of quality or on complexity, accuracy and fluency – a fact she attributed to the small sample size. In a larger follow up-study, Wigglesworth and Storch (2009) analyzed the argumentative essays written by 114 L2 English students. They did not find statistically significant differences in the texts produced by individuals versus pairs in terms of complexity and fluency; they did, however, note a positive correlation between grammatical accuracy and collaboration. Malmqvist’s (2005) study was the fi rst to compare individual and group texts written by students in a non-L2-English setting (hers were adult fi rst language speakers of Swedish learning German as a third language). Results suggested that dictogloss texts composed by groups of three tended to be longer (i.e. more words) and showed greater linguistic

42

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

complexity (i.e. more subordinate clauses) than those produced individually. Building on the studies of Malmqvist (2005) and Wigglesworth and Storch (2009), Fernández Dobao (2012) analyzed the texts of 111 secondyear learners of L2 Spanish who completed a jigsaw task. She assigned them to one of three groups: individuals, pairs or groups of four. In her analysis of accuracy and complexity, she found that texts produced by groups of four were significantly more accurate than those written by pairs or individuals, whereas the texts produced by pairs were more accurate than those produced individually, although this difference was not statistically significant. In terms of complexity, there were no significant differences among the three groups. In another study focusing on L2 learners of Spanish, Olovson (2018) compared the individual and collaborative narrative essays of 15 students enrolled in a third-year Spanish course that focused on developing writing skills. He found that texts written collaboratively were significantly more accurate, lexically dense and diverse, and holistically better than those written by the individuals. Elabdali (2021) conducted a meta-analysis of 33 studies from 1993– 2019 that examined the magnitude of the difference between individual and collaborative texts. Research fi ndings showed that collaboratively written texts were more accurate than individually written texts with an effect size of a medium magnitude. She also reported a large magnitude difference in holistic scores in favor of texts that had been written collaboratively, suggesting that collaborative writing results in globally better texts. Research questions

Although collaborative writing is common in first language (L1) settings and outside of academia in general, collaborative writing in L2 contexts – especially in foreign language contexts – is still in its infancy (Philp et al., 2014; Storch, 2013). Collaborative writing research on L2 Chinese is particularly understudied. In her synthesis of L2 writing research in languages other than English, Reichelt (2016) contends that non-English L2 writing is in the initial stages as an area of focused inquiry and that L2 Chinese writing in general is rarely studied in the existing body of research. Similarly, in their methodological review of 94 studies on collaborative writing, Zhang and Plonsky (2020) found that only 2% of them included CFL learners as participants. Only two studies to date, Kessler et al. (2020) and Liao (2018), have examined the composition processes of L2 Chinese learners by comparing how different modes of planning can affect the quality of the text learners produce. However, neither of these studies examined how learners attended to language they produced while writing collaboratively, and neither compared essays written individually with those written collaboratively. Lastly, Zhang and Plonsky (2020) also noted that while a variety of written task types have been utilized by

Collaborative Writing in a Tertiary Chinese as a Foreign Language Classroom

43

researchers, the majority of collaborative writing research has involved either dictogloss or narrative tasks. This chapter aims to address these gaps in the literature by examining the processes (i.e. interactions) and products (i.e. written output) during a collaborative writing activity carried out by CFL learners enrolled in a fi fth-semester college writing course. The following research questions guided this chapter: (1) What are the types and frequency of LREs produced during a collaborative writing activity carried out by university-level CFL learners enrolled in a fi fth-semester writing course, and are they resolved? (2) How do the texts that learners compose collaboratively compare with those they write individually in terms of complexity, accuracy and fluency? Method Context and participants

Participants were the 11 students enrolled in one section of a fi fthsemester Chinese writing course at a public university in the southeastern United States during Spring 2021. This course served as a bridge between the lower-level Chinese language and culture courses, and the more advanced courses in Chinese offered by the department. The instructor designed the course using a Learning to Write approach (Manchón, 2011; Severino & Gilchrist, 2010), which conceptualized course activities as a vehicle to learn content, critical thinking and language skills. Consequently, many of the writing tasks that learners completed throughout the semester involved writing reading responses, analyses of texts and arguments from or about sources. The participants comprised six females and four males (mean age = 20.6 years, SD = 1.29 years), representing various class ranks (four sophomores, five juniors and two seniors). They had studied Chinese for an average of 4.55 years (SD = 1.75 years). Table 2.1 presents the demographic information of the participants, identified by pseudonyms. Instruments

The writing tasks that yielded the data to be analyzed in this chapter were completed by all students as course requirements. The two compareand-contrast writing tasks, one collaborative and the other individual, were each worth 4.5% of the fi nal course grade. The participants in this chapter read articles in Chinese and wrote compare-and-contrast compositions about two topics: (1) New Year’s celebrations in China and the United States; and (2) romantic relationships in China and the United States (see Appendix). The tasks were designed to be as similar as

44 Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

Table 2.1 Student demographic information Group

Student name

Age

Number of years of Chinese study

Class rank

Gender

1

Stephanie

20

4

Junior

Female

Tyson

21

7

Senior

Male

Alex

24

3

Junior

Male

Nate

19

3

Sophomore

Male

Sarah

20

4

Sophomore

Female

2

3

4

5

Kelly

21

5

Junior

Female

Anna

20

6

Sophomore

Female

Jay

20

4

Sophomore

Male

Isaiah

21

8

Senior

Male

Amy

20

3

Junior

Female

Emily

21

3

Junior

Female

M

20.64

4.55

SD

1.29

1.75

possible, so that comparisons could be made between essays written individually and collaboratively. To this end, both tasks were of the same genre and used similar directions. There were no length requirements or word limits. Students completed a practice compare-and-contrast writing task about entrepreneurship in China and in the United States prior to carrying out the tasks analyzed in this chapter. The compare-and-contrast essay genre, rarely used in collaborative writing research, was chosen because it is another way to contribute to this body of research (Storch, 2013; Zhang & Plonsky, 2020). Students completed a demographic questionnaire after they wrote collaboratively. The purpose of the questionnaire was to collect general background information about the students, including their age, number of years studying L2 Chinese at the secondary and college levels, their L1 and whether they spoke any languages besides English and Chinese. Procedure

As in previous collaborative writing research (e.g. Fernández Dobao, 2012; McDonough et al., 2016; Olovson, 2018), the students in this course were considered to be similar in proficiency level. Consequently, the instructor assigned students in pairs or groups using a random pair generator tool included in the institution’s online course management software. In total, there were four pairs and, because of the odd number of students, one triad.

Collaborative Writing in a Tertiary Chinese as a Foreign Language Classroom

45

This chapter utilized a counterbalanced design varying the task (i.e. comparing celebrations vs. comparing romantic relationships), the condition (i.e. individual vs. collaborative) and the time when the writing tasks were completed (i.e. Week 13 vs. Week 16). During Week 13, some of the participants completed the fi rst task collaboratively in two class sessions of 75 minutes, whereas the others completed it individually. During the two class sessions of Week 16, the students who had completed the first task individually, completed the second task collaboratively, and vice versa. Table 2.2 illustrates this counterbalanced design. Students carried out the practice collaborative writing activity in a 75-minute class session, one week before completing the activities in the present chapter, so that they could get experience with the collaborative writing process before data collection began. This class was offered online via Zoom due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequently, when students participated in the collaborative writing task, they all wrote synchronously in a Google Doc file and recorded their interactions via Zoom. Synchronous discussion and writing were chosen because previous research (e.g. Oskoz & Elola, 2014; Storch, 2013) has found that they led to more frequent and more elaborate language-related discussions than asynchronous writing tools. When students wrote individually, they also did so in a Google Doc file, and only their completed texts were submitted. Data analysis

Following Tocalli-Beller and Swain (2005: 11), LREs were defi ned as ‘any part of the student discussion (with others or with themselves) where learners talk about the language they are producing or produced, question or reflect on their language use (and/or knowledge), or correct themselves or others’. Learner conversations were transcribed, and LREs were identified and coded based on their type: lexical, syntactic, discourse or character. Lexical LREs were defi ned as any episode where learners engaged in a discussion of word/phrase meaning or word choice. Syntactic LREs were operationalized as the episodes in which learners discussed sentence structure. Discourse LREs were the instances where learners discussed Table 2.2 Tasks and conditions (counterbalanced design) Participant groups

Week 13 Topic: celebrations

Week 16 Topic: relationships

1. Stephanie & Tyson

Collaboratively

Individually

2. Alex & Nate

Collaboratively

Individually

3. Sarah & Kelly

Collaboratively

Individually

4. Anna & Jay

Individually

Collaboratively

5. Isaiah, Amy & Emily

Individually

Collaboratively

46 Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

language issues at the sentence or paragraph level. Since Liao (2018) and Kessler et  al. (2020) reported character-based discussions, characterbased LREs were also identified in this chapter. Character-based LREs were further broken down into two subtypes: correct spelling of Pinyin (romanization writing system for Chinese) and appropriate character selection (to match the form/meaning participants wanted to express). It should be noted that when typing on the computer, CFL students often use a Pinyin input software to form Chinese characters. When using this tool, students fi rst type Pinyin syllables and the software subsequently gives them a list of all characters sharing these Pinyin sounds. They then select the appropriate character from the list. For example, to enter ⸛, students type ping, then select ⸛, which is second character in the list. Lastly, LREs were coded in terms of whether they were solved correctly, incorrectly, or left unresolved. Inter-rater reliability between one of the researchers of this chapter and another CFL instructor of the same course was 0.97 for LRE type and frequency, and 1.0 LRE for resolution. Table 2.3 presents the measures used to evaluate the quality of learner texts. These measures were taken from Kessler et al. (2020) due to their high validity and reliability. Text length, character accuracy and lexical accuracy were coded manually, while lexical complexity, syntactic richness and mean length of sentence were calculated using the LanguageData tool (Bo et al., 2019; Liu & Ma, 2010). Inter-rater reliability was 1.0 for text length and 0.98 for character accuracy and lexical accuracy. Table 2.3 Measures used to analyze learner texts (adapted from Kessler et  al., 2020: 674) Measures

Operationalization

Fluency • Writing length

Total number of characters in a text

Accuracy • Character accuracy

Number of character errors per character; errors defined as selection of wrong characters based on Pinyin homophone (e.g. 彯guò ‘pass’ and ⚥ guó ‘country’)

• Lexical accuracy

Number of lexical errors per words; lexical errors defined as semantic errors such as: ᷕ⚥␴伶⚥㕘⸜⸮䤅⛐ᶵ⎴䘬⣑ᷕ ‘day’ (Chinese and Americans celebrate New Year on different days) in which ⣑ tiān ‘day’ should be 㖍㛇 rìqī ‘date’

Complexity • Lexical complexity

Degree of sophistication of words in a text based on computation of frequency levels of words

• Syntactic richness

Calculated using the Chi-Editor function of the LanguageData tool which matches texts to levels specified in the International Curriculum for Chinese Language Education

Mean length of sentence

Average number of Chinese characters per sentence

Collaborative Writing in a Tertiary Chinese as a Foreign Language Classroom

47

Results Languaging during collaborative writing

The fi rst research question focused on how learners attended to language during the collaborative writing process. To address this question, the LREs that the groups produced were examined by type, frequency and resolution. LRE type and frequency

Table 2.4 shows the total number of LREs produced by each group by breaking them down into the four types of LREs: lexical, character, syntactic and discourse. The percentages in parentheses were represented by the number of each type of LRE produced by each group over the total number of LREs. In total, the five groups produced 285 LREs with a mean of 57 LREs. For the total group of participants, lexical LREs represented the most frequent type (66.63%). A look at the individual groups showed that Stephanie and Tyson produced both the most lexical LREs (44) and the highest percentage of lexical LREs to total LREs (75.86%). Ashley and Nate produced the fewest LREs (29), but they had the second highest percentage of lexical LREs to total LREs (74.36%). Isaiah, Amy and Emily produced the lowest ratio of lexical LREs to total LREs (55.24%). The learners focused much less on character-related issues (M = 8.6/14.55%), and even less, but almost equally on the syntactic (M = 5.2/9.13%) and discourse (M = 4.75/9.69%) issues that arose while writing. Excerpt 1 shows a combination of a lexical LRE and a syntactic LRE, both of which were correctly resolved. In this excerpt Tyson and Stephanie were discussing how to say the preposition on ⛐ (zài, on), as well as where to correctly express the time phrase ‘on New Year’s’ in a sentence. Table 2.4 Type and frequency of LREs produced Total LREs

Lexical

Character

Syntactic

Discourse

Stephanie & Tyson

58

44 (75.86%)

8 (13.79%)

2 (3.45%)

4 (6.90%)

Alex & Nate

39

29 (74.36%)

3 (7.69%)

5 (12.82%)

2 (5.13%)

Sarah & Kelly

72

42 (58.33%)

14 (19.44%)

6 (8.33%)

10 (13.89%)

Anna & Jay

49

34 (69.39%)

9 (18.37%)

3 (6.12%)

3 (6.12%)

Isaiah, Amy & Emily

67

37 (55.24%)

9 (13.43%)

10 (14.93%)

11 (16.42%)

Total

285

186

43

26

30

M

57

62 (66.63%)

8.6 (14.55%)

5.2 (9.13%)

4.75 (9.69%)

SD

13.36

6.06

3.91

3.11

4.18

48 Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

Excerpt 1

Combination Lexical LRE and Syntactic LRE 220 T I was going to say both Chinese people and American people… um… How do you say on, like on New Year’s? ⛐? 221 S ⛐. Yeah. 222 T Okay, good. 223 S Wait, wait though… Don’t you, don’t you say ⛐㕘⸜ and write ᷕ ⚥Ṣ? 224 T No, like… In traditional Chinese…it’s the subjects…that come first. 225 S Ohhh! Okay. 226 T So, ᷕ⚥Ṣ␴伶⚥Ṣ悥⛐㕘⸜…

On line 220, Tyson initiated a lexical LRE by asking for confirmation on whether ⛐ (zài, on) is the correct preposition for ‘on’ in Chinese. After expressing confi rmation, Stephanie initiated a syntactic LRE by asking whether the prepositional phrase ⛐㕘⸜ (zài xīnnián, on New Year’s) could be placed before the subject ᷕ⚥Ṣ (zhōngguó rén, Chinese people). Tyson corrected her in line 224 by saying that in Chinese, prepositional phrases come after the subject. In line 225, Stephanie signaled her acceptance. Of particular interest to L2 Chinese researchers and practitioners are the character-related LREs produced while writing, because they represent a particularly difficult feature of the language for students to acquire and use (Fang & Wang, 2019). The first type of character-related discussion concerned appropriate character selection, as illustrated in Excerpt 2. In this example of a correctly resolved character LRE, Kelly and Sarah were choosing the correct character forms for the compound word ⺨⥳ kāishǐ ‘begin.’ Excerpt 2

Character LRE Related to Character Choice 113 114 115 116 117 118

K S K S K S

How would we say start celebrating? Ummm… It should…侫孽…. oh no that’s test. ⺨…⥳? ⺨ something… No, I think it is ⺨⥳. But like it’s…different…a different character [types kāi shǐ into the Google doc] Number one? Yes, number one. [Kelly chooses the fi rst word ⺨⥳]

Kelly initiated the LRE by asking how to say, ‘start celebrating.’ Then, in her subsequent turn, she worked through how to say it. She first suggested 侫孽 (kǎoshì, test) but then realized that it meant ‘test.’ Next, she suggested ⺨⥳ (kāishǐ, begin). Although it seemed to Sarah that 侫孽 (kǎoshì, test) and ⺨⥳ (kāishǐ, begin) shared the same pronunciation, she pointed out that ⺨⥳ (kāishǐ, begin) contained different characters. Kelly typed

Collaborative Writing in a Tertiary Chinese as a Foreign Language Classroom

49

kāishǐ using the software, selected the correct character form from the options, and Sarah confi rmed that it was correct. The second type of character-related discussion concerned the spelling of Pinyin, as illustrated in Excerpt 3. In this example of a correctly resolved character LRE, Tyson and Stephanie discussed how to spell the character ‘roll’ (as in spring roll, i.e. ⌟) in Pinyin. Excerpt 3

Character LRE Related to Pinyin Spelling 287 288 289 290 291

T S T S T

Do I have zhuǎn right? No, no, no, it’s J-U-A-N, ⌟. Oh! Really? Yes, it’s ⌟. I got it now.

Tyson initiated the LRE by asking Stephanie if the Pinyin zhuǎn was correct for the character ⌟. In turn 288, Stephanie recognized that Tyson pronounced the character (and, hence, the spelling) wrong, so she spelled out the correct Pinyin, juǎn, letter by letter. Tyson’s utterance in the subsequent turn suggested that he was aware of his mistake. After Stephanie repeated the word, Tyson accepted it in his next turn and typed the correct Pinyin. Table 2.5 shows the respective number and percentage of the two subtypes of character LREs. The five groups produced a total of 43 character LREs, representing 14.55% of the total LREs produced. Of the two subtypes of characterrelated discussions, participants generated more LREs (24/55.81%) associated with character discussions on the spelling of Pinyin. They produced fewer LREs (19/44.19%) while deliberating character selection. Table 2.5 Character LREs and subtypes Total character LREs

Character LREs related to character choice

Character LREs related to spelling of Pinyin

Stephanie & Tyson

8

3 (37.50%)

5 (62.50%)

Ashley & Nate

3

2 (66.67%)

1 (33.33%)

Sarah & Kelly

14

8 (57.14%)

6 (42.86%)

Anna & Jay

9

2 (22.20%)

7 (77.78%)

Isaiah, Amy & Emily

9

4 (44.44%)

5 (55.56%)

Total

43

19

24

M

8.6

3.8 (44.19%)

4.8 (55.81%)

SD

3.91

2.49

2.28

50 Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

LRE resolution

In addition to their type and frequency, LREs were coded in terms of their resolution: correctly resolved, incorrectly resolved, or left unresolved. Three patterns were identified regarding how the groups of participants resolved the LREs, whether correctly or incorrectly: (1) one person confirmed what their partner said (e.g. Stephanie: Does yìqǐ mean ‘together’? / Tyson: Yeah, that’s a good one); (2) one person directly answered the questions posed by the partner (e.g. Jay: How do you say ‘gold’? / Anna: Gold is jīnzi); (3) languaging together to pool their knowledge and attempt to resolve the language issue (see Excerpt 1 above). Table 2.6 shows the respective number and percentage of the correctly resolved, incorrectly resolved and unsolved LREs. These data show that the participants were able to correctly resolve at least 80% of their LREs, with most groups doing so at least 85% of the time. Isaiah, Amy and Emily produced the most correctly resolved LREs in terms of both the raw number (64) and the proportion of correctly resolved LREs to total LREs (95.52%). Ashley and Nate correctly resolved the fewest LREs (32), while the 58 correctly resolved LREs by Sarah and Kelly represented the lowest overall percentage (80.56%) of any group. Another important fi nding is that the percentage of unresolved LREs overall was small (6.71%). None of the groups had more than five unresolved LREs (M = 3.6), and one group managed to leave only one unresolved, as indicated in Table 2.6. This suggests that the participants paid attention to each other’s contributions and worked together toward an accurate resolution. Comparing individual and collaborative products

The second research question compared individual and collaborative texts to examine the effects of collaboration on the textual qualities. Table 2.7 presents the descriptive statistics for the six measures used to evaluate the texts composed under the two conditions: individual and collaborative. Table 2.6 Resolution of learners’ LREs Total LREs

Correctly resolved

Incorrectly resolved

Unresolved

Stephanie & Tyson

58

52 (89.66%)

1 (1.72%)

Ashley & Nate

39

32 (82.05%)

4 (10.26%)

5 (8.62%) 3 (7.69%)

Sarah & Kelly

72

58 (80.56%)

10 (13.89%)

4 (5.56%)

Anna & Jay

49

42 (85.71%)

2 (4.08%)

5 (10.20%)

Isaiah, Amy & Emily

67

64 (95.52%)

2 (2.99%)

Total

285

M SD

1 (1.49%)

248

19

18

57

49.6 (86.70%)

3.8 (6.58%)

3.6 (6.71%)

13.36

12.76

3.63

1.67

Collaborative Writing in a Tertiary Chinese as a Foreign Language Classroom

51

Table 2.7 Performance data on the individually and collaboratively written compositions Measures

Writing length

Individual

Collaborative

M

SD

95% CIs

M

SD

95% CIs

385.36

80.73

331.13, 439.60

453.2

97.02

Character accuracy

99.64

0.46

99.33, 99.95

99.63

0.28

99.28, 99.98

Lexical accuracy

92.08

4.77

88.87, 95.28

94.02

2.41

91.02, 97.02

0.21

0.10

0.14, 0.28

0.18

0.07

0.09, 0.27

Lexical complexity Syntactic richness Mean length of sentence

2.36

0.62

1.95, 2.78

14.55

2.70

12.75, 16.37

332.74, 573.66

2.23

0.59

1.50, 2.96

15.93

3.05

12.14, 19.72

The qualitative comparison found that the collaborative texts were longer (i.e. more characters), more lexically accurate, and were of greater syntactic quality in terms of mean length of sentence, whereas the individual texts were found to be more (1) lexically complex and (2) syntactically rich. In addition, there was virtually no difference in terms of character accuracy between the two groups. Table 2.8 compares each student’s individual score with that of their respective collaborative group. Examining each measure individually, we can see that for all six measures, collaboration seemed beneficial to some of the writers: (1) for writing length, six (Stephanie & Tyson, Alex, Kelly, and Jay & Anna); (2) for character accuracy, four (Nate, Jay, Amy and Emily); (3) for lexical accuracy, seven (Stephanie, Nate & Alex, Sarah, Jay, Isaiah and Emily); (4) for lexical complexity, four (Nate & Alex, Isaiah and Emily); (5) for syntactic richness, five (Nate, Alex, Anna, Isaiah and Emily); and (6) for mean length of sentence, six (Stephanie, Kelly, Jay, Anna, Isaiah and Emily). This fi nding suggests a possible connection between learners’ successfully resolved language deliberations while writing collaboratively and the quality of the collaborative texts they composed. Discussion and Conclusion Languaging during collaborative writing

The fi ndings of this chapter suggest that the collaborative writing tasks were productive sites for co-constructed learning. Sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978) views learning as a collaborative process of moving from the social plane to the individual sphere through mediated assistance (i.e. scaffolding) offered by a more knowledgeable person. The high percentage of correctly resolved LREs observed here suggests that collaborative writing provided CFL learners with an ideal platform for students to engage in language-related deliberations and scaffold each

52

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

Table 2.8 Performance data of individual and group composition scores Writing length

Character accuracy

Lexical accuracy

Lexical complexity

Syntactic richness

Mean length of sentence

Stephanie

258

100.00%

85.04%

0.43

3.7

10.75

Tyson

483

99.81%

97.11%

0.18

2.19

17.15

Stephanie & Tyson

522

99.63%

96.90%

0.15

1.93

16.31

Nate

479

98.56%

91.07%

0.14

2.11

16.52

Alex

323

100.00%

92.00%

0.13

1.8

17

Nate & Alex

477

99.59%

93.89%

0.27

2.74

15.9

Kelly

285

99.65%

93.75%

0.15

1.97

10.96

Sarah

423

99.77%

88.50%

0.2

2.39

16.92

Kelly & Sarah

371

99.21%

92.67%

0.09

1.4

13.25

Jay

374

99.74%

85.30%

0.35

3.17

17.86

Anna

324

100.00%

98.42%

0.28

2.62

14.73

Jay & Anna

561

100.00%

90.85%

0.23

2.81

20.78

Isaiah

391

100.00%

94.63%

0.11

1.5

11.85

Amy

489

99.40%

97.93%

0.2

2.34

13.97

Emily

410

99.06%

89.10%

0.19

2.26

12.42

Isaiah, Amy & Emily

335

99.72%

95.79%

0.17

2.27

13.4

Individual M

385.36

99.64%

92.08%

0.21

2.37

14.56

Individual SD

80.73

0.46

4.77

0.10

0.62

2.70

99.63%

94.02%

0.18

2.23

15.93

0.38

2.41

0.07

0.59

3.05

Group M Group SD

453.2 97.02

other’s performance. The participants were able to give each other specific and timely peer feedback related to the language issues that arose during their interaction, and the peer feedback was readily accepted and incorporated into the text they co-authored. In total, the five groups produced 285 LREs. Lexical LREs (M = 66.6%) were the most frequent type of LRE that occurred in learners’ collaborative dialogue. The fi ndings suggest that the LREs produced while collaborating served primarily as a resource for learning new vocabulary, for making form – meaning connections, and for consolidating their linguistic knowledge. In other words, through scaffolded interactions with each other, learners were able to pool their linguistic resources as they worked together to co-construct knowledge related to the lexical issues that arose while writing collaboratively. The result that learners focused more on lexis both confi rms the observations of prior studies with learners of L2 English (Storch, 2005; Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009) and L2 Spanish (Fernández Dobao, 2012, 2014; Olovson, 2018), while also extending the fi ndings to the CFL classroom.

Collaborative Writing in a Tertiary Chinese as a Foreign Language Classroom

53

A trend in the type of character LREs learners generated was also noted. Of the 43-character LREs participants collectively produced, 24 (55.8%) revolved around Pinyin spelling and 19 (44.19%) were related to character selection. While other studies have noted character related discussions (Kessler et al., 2020; Liao, 2018), the current chapter is the first, to our knowledge, that examined these interactions using the LRE paradigm, which is especially relevant for classroom settings because LREs are understood to represent learning in action (Swain, 2006). The fi ndings suggest that compare-and-contrast writing tasks can facilitate languagerelated discussions connected to character formation and selection, which is a particularly challenging feature for L1 English learners of L2 Chinese to acquire (Fang & Wang, 2019). The collaborative groups in the current chapter resolved the vast majority of the LREs they produced, doing so correctly 86.7% of the time. This suggests that the collaborative group members paid attention to each other as they discussed the language issues that emerged during their interactions. It is also consistent with several other studies examining LRE resolution (Fernández Dobao, 2012, 2014; Olovson, 2018; Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009) and Storch (2013), which established that the current body of literature shows the majority of LREs learners generate while working together are resolved correctly. Comparing collaborative and individual products

When comparing the students’ individual performance with the collaborative performance of their respective groups, tentative results indicate that the collaborative texts were more fluent (i.e. contained more characters), were more lexically accurate (i.e. had fewer lexical errors per words), and were more complex (i.e. had longer sentences). However, it is important to note that when examining each measure individually, there were both individual students and groups whose collaborative essays were scored higher than those that the group members wrote individually. This suggests that collaboration may have had a positive effect on the novice member of the pair or group. Regarding the individual essays, they were observed to be of overall greater lexical complexity and greater syntactic richness than those produced by the groups. Finally, there was virtually no difference between the two conditions in terms of character accuracy. However, these results must be interpreted with caution. Self-reports in the reflection essays (not analyzed in this chapter) indicate that, despite instructions not to do so, all participants admitted to consulting Google Translate and/or an online dictionary while composing their individual essays. This unexpected occurrence, while a weakness of the current chapter, may explain why individual essays were found to be of better quality in terms of lexical complexity and syntactic richness. Furthermore, it raises important empirical questions about the potentially beneficial role of online tools

54 Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

in L2 writing (Deifell, 2018), especially in CFL classrooms. Online tools as a variable, however, are beyond the scope of this chapter. These results both confi rm and contradict previous collaborative writing research. While collaborative essays were observed more fluent (i.e. longer), others (e.g. Fernández Dobao, 2012; Olovson, 2018; Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009) have reported the opposite to be true. This could be attributed to the fact that previous studies employed rigid time constraints of 60 minutes or less for collaboration, while the participants in this chapter spent time writing over two, 75-minute class periods. This means that the participants probably had more time for the types of deliberations that the collaborative composition process entails, and thus, they likely had the time to produce longer discourse. These fi ndings also add to the body of literature comparing individual and collaborative texts based on complexity, which largely consists of confl icting results. Like some studies (e.g. Malmqvist, 2005; Storch, 2005), collaboration in this chapter resulted in more linguistically complex writing; however, other studies (e.g. Fernández Dobao, 2012; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2007; Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009) showed almost no differences between individual and collaborative conditions. It may be explained by the fact that 9.69% of the LREs that the participants produced were related to discourse issues, such as how to make the sentences they wrote together more complex. Finally, the accuracy results confi rm the fi ndings of other studies (e.g. Fernández Dobao, 2012; Storch, 2005; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2007; Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009), which have also noted an accuracy advantage for collaboration. In addition, the observations extend the beneficial results in terms of accuracy to a new context: character spelling and selection in L2 Chinese. This is especially important in relation to the fi nding that learners devoted a large percentage of their LREs to character discussions. Taken together, these results are especially relevant for teaching, given the major place that characters play in L2 Chinese language pedagogy. Pedagogical implications

Chinese instructors should consider integrating collaborative writing tasks into their curriculum to facilitate the development and internalization of learners’ linguistic knowledge; however, teachers may need more guidance in scaffolding these types of assignments. For example, Storch (2013) contends that teachers can model successful collaboration by showing a video-recording of the interaction between two learners who produced a high number of successfully resolved LREs. The teacher can also focus on different types of LREs present in the video, so that students have a model of the variety of language issues they might encounter while writing together. Lastly, teachers can select those LREs that take

Collaborative Writing in a Tertiary Chinese as a Foreign Language Classroom

55

several turns to resolve and result in elaborate language deliberations, so that students see what deeper-levels of engagement look like. These different interventions and ways of structing assignments may make collaborative writing more productive and a better learning experience for students. The successful implementation of collaborative writing tasks in this chapter also demonstrated that Zoom and Google Docs can be effective tools to facilitate learners’ interactions related to language and writing. Some researchers have already argued the value in online collaborative writing projects compared to those that are face to face, because they represent a more authentic, real-life representation of the group writing activities students are likely to encounter later in the workplace (Storch, 2013). However, when implementing online collaborative writing activities in their language courses, it is important for instructors to consider using tools that facilitate real-time discussion and writing. Synchronous tools have been linked to both more instances of language-related discussions and deeper levels of learner engagement than asynchronous writing tools (e.g. Oskoz & Elola, 2014; Storch, 2013). Limitations and Future Directions

This exploratory chapter has several limitations that should be acknowledged and considered in future research. The overall qualitative nature of this chapter means that the fi ndings are limited to the particular classroom context in which the data were collected. The small sample size and the research design (i.e. one language, one type of task and one level) also limited the generalizability of the fi ndings. Consequently, future research involving a replication of this chapter on a larger scale using inferential statistics would address this limitation by allowing researchers to make stronger claims about how collaborative processes and the resulting products are related. Another direction for future research would be to include more complexity, accuracy and fluency measures and holistic scales when examining writing products by CFL learners. The use of multiple measures would allow for a better understanding of both linguistic and global differences between the two conditions. An additional direction for future research is related to the development of L2 Chinese learners’ use of characters, viewed from an emic perspective. A future study employing a cross-sectional design could track the development of character-related languaging and its relationship to character acquisition. Building on the discovery in this chapter that all the participants reported using Google Translate and/or an online dictionary while composing their individual essays, a fi nal direction of future research would be to focus on the mediation function of online tools in individual writing in L2 Chinese (cf. Deifell, 2018, for L2 Spanish).

56

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

Appendix Writing Task 1: Comparing celebrations

In class we read about how Chinese people celebrate their New Year. Now please write an essay compare and contrast similarities and differences in the way that Chinese and American people celebrate New Year. What could be some of the reasons for each of the differences? Please use examples, quotes or statistics to support your points. The essay needs to have a clear structure and have at least five paragraphs. Writing Task 2: Comparing marriage and relationships

In class we read about Chinese people’s relationship and marriage life in the past and present. Compare and contrast Chinese and American marriage and relationship. What are the similarities and differences? What are the underlying reasons for the differences? Use examples, quotes and statistics to support your points. The essay needs to have a clear structure and have at least five paragraphs. References Bo, W., Chen, J., Guo, K. and Jin, T. (2019) Data-driven adapting for fi ne-tuning Chinese teaching materials: Using corpora as benchmarks. In X. Lu and B. Chen (eds) Computational and Corpus Approaches to Chinese Language Learning, Chinese Language Learning Sciences (pp. 99–118). Singapore: Springer. Deifell, E. (2018) Dynamic intertextuality and emergent second language microdevelopment in digital space. PhD thesis, University of Iowa. Elabdali, R. (2021) Are two heads really better than one? A meta-analysis of the L2 learning benefits of collaborative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 52, 1–16. Fang, M. and Wang, A. (2019) Feedback to feed forward: Giving effective feedback in advanced Chinese writing. In N. Yiğitoğlu and M. Reichelt (eds) L2 Writing Beyond English (pp. 95–114). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Fernández Dobao, A. (2012) Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (1), 40–58. Fernández Dobao, A. (2014) Attention to form in collaborative writing tasks: Comparing pair and small group interaction. Canadian Modern Language Review 70 (2), 158–187. Fernández Dobao, A. and Blum, A. (2013) Collaborative writing in pairs and small groups: Learners’ attitudes and perceptions. System 41 (2), 365–378. Kessler, M., Polio, C., Xu, C. and Hao, X. (2020) The effects of oral discussion and text chat on L2 Chinese writing. Foreign Language Annals 53, 666–685. Kim, Y. (2008) The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. The Modern Language Journal 92 (1), 114–130. Liao, J. (2018) The impact of face-to-face oral discussion and online text chat on L2 Chinese writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 41, 27–40. Liu, Y.L. and Ma, J.F. (2010) Yanzhi yinjie he hanzi cihui dengji huafen tanxun hanyu guoji jiaoyu xinsiwei [The development of the graded Chinese syllables, characters and words: Exploring the new perspective of global Chinese education]. Chinese Teaching in the World 24, 82–92.

Collaborative Writing in a Tertiary Chinese as a Foreign Language Classroom

57

Lunsford, A.A. and Ede, L. (1991) Collaborative authorship and the teaching of writing. Cardozo Arts Entertainment Law Journal 10 (2), 681–702. Malmqvist, A. (2005) How does group discussion in reconstruction tasks affect written language output? Language Awareness 14 (2–3), 128–141. Manchón, R. (ed.) (2011) Learning-to-Write and Writing-to-Learn in an Additional Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. McDonough, K., Crawford, W.J. and De Vleeschauwer, J. (2016) Thai EFL learners’ interaction during collaborative writing tasks. In M. Sato and S. Ballinger (eds) Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning: Pedagogical Potential and Research Agenda (pp. 185–208). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Olovson, B.M. (2018) Are two heads better than one? A process and product analysis of collaborative writing in the Spanish as a foreign language classroom. PhD thesis, University of Iowa. Oskoz, A. and Elola, I. (2014) Promoting FL collaborative writing through the use of Web 2.0 tools. In M. Lloret and L. Ortega (eds) Technology and Tasks: Exploring Technology-Mediated TBLT (pp. 115–147). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Philp, J., Adams, R. and Iwashita, N. (2014) Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning. New York: Routledge. Po-Ching, Y. and Rimmington, D. (2004) Chinese: A Comprehensive Grammar. New York: Routledge. Reichelt, M. (2016) L2 writing in languages other than English. In R. Manchón and P.K. Matsuda (eds) Handbook of Second and Foreign Language Writing (pp. 181–200). Berlin: De Gruyter. Roskams, T. (1999) Chinese EFL students’ attitudes to peer feedback and peer assessment in an extended pairwork setting. RELC Journal 30 (1), 79–123. Severino, C. and Gilchrist, M. (2010) A university’s writing practices from the inside perspective of the writing center. Iowa Journal of Cultural Studies 12 (1), 181–188. Shehadeh, A. (2011) Eff ects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing 20 (4), 286–305. Shei, C. (2014) Understanding the Chinese Language: A Comprehensive Linguistic Introduction. New York: Routledge. Shi, D. (2000) Topic and topic-comment constructions in Mandarin Chinese. Language 76 (2), 383–408. Storch, N. (2005) Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing 14 (3), 153–173. Storch, N. (2013) Collaborative Writing in L2 Classrooms. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Storch, N. and Wigglesworth, G. (2007) Writing tasks: The effects of collaboration. In M.P. García Mayo (ed.) Investigating Tasks in Formal Language Learning (pp. 157– 177). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Swain, M. (2006) Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (ed.) Advanced Language Learning: The Contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London: Continuum. Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (1995) Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics 16 (3), 371–391. Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (1998) Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal 82 (3), 320–337. Tocalli-Beller, A. and Swain, M. (2005) Reformulation: The cognitive confl ict and L2 learning it generates. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 15 (1), 5–28. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Mental Process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wigglesworth, G. and Storch, N. (2009) Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity, and accuracy. Language Testing 49 (4), 583–625.

58 Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

Wigglesworth, G. and Storch, N. (2012) Feedback and writing development through collaboration: A socio-cultural approach. In R. Manchón (ed.) L2 Writing Development: Multiple Perspectives (pp. 69–101). Berlin: De Gruyter. Williams, J. (2005) Teaching Writing in Second and Foreign Language Classrooms. New York: McGraw-Hill. Zhang, M. and Plonsky, L. (2020) Collaborative writing in face-to-face settings: A substantive and methodological review. Journal of Second Language Writing 49, 1–18.

3 Learners’ Writing Strategies in L2 Chinese: A Cross-Sectional Study Li Yang and Zenan Zhao

Introduction

The study of strategies has significant implications in second language (L2) writing. On the one hand, strategies are seen as a window through which researchers can probe learners’ writing processes (Manchón, 2011; Manchón et al., 2007). On the other hand, effective use of writing strategies has the potential to facilitate learners’ composing behavior and thus may lead to better writing performance (De Silva, 2015; Kao & Reynolds, 2017). Given its important role in L2 writing, strategies have been widely researched over the past few decades (see Manchón, 2018; Roca de Larios et al., 2016, for reviews). The investigations include the effects of interand intra-learner factors on L2 strategy use, the relationship between strategy deployment and writing quality, or the efficacy of strategy instruction, to name a few. However, most of these studies focused on English, so little is known about how writing strategies are used by learners in non-alphabetical languages like Mandarin Chinese. Especially, as Kessler et al. (2020) suggested, the fi ndings from alphabetical languages may not be well applied to those with non-alphabetical writing systems. Hence, there is a need for more research on learners’ writing strategy use in L2 Chinese. Similar to S. Yang’s contribution in Chapter 1 in the volume, this chapter is also aimed at unveiling the features of L2 Chinese learners’ individual writing processes; however, it adopts a cross-sectional approach to underscore (a) the effects of proficiency on learners’ strategy deployment and (b) the relationship between their strategy use and text quality. The fi ndings of the chapter look to provide novel insights into the efficient use of writing strategies to facilitate learners’ writing process and improve their writing quality in L2 Chinese.

59

60

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

Literature Review

This section begins with a brief description of the key issues concerning the investigation of L2 writing strategies, followed by an overview of the empirical studies relevant to the foci of the chapter and concludes by explicitly presenting the research questions.

L2 writing strategies: Definition, classification and methods

A brief review of the fast-growing studies on L2 writing strategies clearly shows diversity as a noticeable feature characterizing the current investigations. As Manchón (2018) explicitly indicated, this line of research has been varied in its approaches to defi ne and classify writing strategies as well as the methods to investigate the phenomena. In the field of L2 writing, the term ‘strategy’ has rarely been defi ned or operationalized consistently (Manchón, 1997; Manchón et  al., 2007). Some early research equated it with composing behavior (Raimes, 1985), production process (Whalen & Menard, 1995), or writing technique and procedure (Zamel, 1983). Other studies operationalized strategies regarding their facilitative effects on learners’ writing performance (e.g. Guo & Huang, 2018; Petrić & Czárl, 2003); for instance, Petrić and Czárl (2003: 189) defi ned writing strategies as writers’ conscious behaviors to ‘make their writing more efficient’. Recently, some researchers (e.g. De Silva, 2015; De Silva & Graham, 2015) followed Macaro (2006: 325) to describe writing strategies ‘in terms of a goal, a situation, and a mental action’. For example, De Silva (2015: 302) considered a writing strategy ‘a conscious mental activity’ with the aim to ‘solve a problem in writing within a learning situation’. To provide a holistic description of the diverse defi nitions and taxonomies of L2 writing strategies, Manchón (2001) and Manchón et al. (2007) proposed to conceptualize them from either a broad or a narrow perspective. The strategies from the broad perspective may be equated with the general macro-writing processes (planning/pre-writing, formulating/ while-writing and revising/post-writing) or just one macro-writing process. The clusters of strategies within each macro-writing process comprise the specific actions learners conduct during planning (e.g. outlining), formulating (e.g. re-reading and translating), or revising (e.g. editing), whereas the narrow conceptualization views the strategies as control mechanisms of learners’ writing behaviors and problem-solving devices (see Manchón et al., 2007, for more discussion). In addition, a few studies (e.g. Kao & Reynolds, 2017; Khaldieh, 2000) applied the taxonomies Oxford (1990) proposed to L2 writing, such as memory, cognitive, metacognitive, social, compensatory and affective strategies. Similar to strategy classifications, the methodology to empirically elicit learners’ strategy use is also varied. Three types of data collection

Learners’ Writing Strategies in L2 Chinese

61

methods have been commonly used (Manchón, 2018; Manchón et  al., 2007): concurrent verbal reports (e.g. think-aloud protocols), retrospective verbal reports (e.g. stimulated recall interviews) and surveys/ questionnaires. These methods are often used along with other procedures (e.g. direct observation, screen-casting or keystroke logging and text analysis) in research practice to incorporate more accurate and in-depth analyses. With reference to the defi nitions and classifications of writing strategies in prior research and taking into account the main issues addressed by this chapter, we defi ned writing strategies as actions or techniques learners consciously employ to complete a particular writing task. Unlike the studies collecting learners’ habitual strategy use, this chapter examines the actual strategies learners use when engaging in a timed writing task, since learners’ perceptions of the type and frequency of writing strategies they habitually use may deviate from what they are actually applying (Petrić & Czárl, 2003). Correspondingly, the clusters of writing strategies considered here were those actions or techniques used by learners when completing specific stages of the writing task (pre-writing, while-writing and post-writing). To address the issues targeted by this chapter, two types of methods, questionnaires and text analysis, were used. More information about the two methods is presented in the Method section. Empirical investigations into L2 writing strategies: Research findings

In line with the research questions of the chapter, this section reviews the empirical studies investigating the effects of proficiency on writing strategy use and reports the fi ndings regarding the relationship between writing strategies and text quality. Proficiency and L2 writing strategies

An extensive body of research in L2 writing has investigated the association between proficiency and strategy use. These studies mainly fall in two broad strands. One strand generally used questionnaires to collect learners’ habitual use of writing strategies to build its connection with their assessed (e.g. Maarof & Murat, 2013; Raoofi et al., 2017) or selfreported (e.g. Bailey, 2019; Kao & Reynolds, 2017) language/writing proficiency. However, the other strand commonly employed think-aloud protocols and/or retrospective interviews to elicit learners’ actual usage of strategies to differentiate more versus less successful writers (e.g. Chien, 2012; Guo & Huang, 2018; Raimes, 1987; Victori, 1999). The first questionnaire-based strand of studies yielded mixed fi ndings in terms of the link between habitual strategy use and overall language/ writing proficiency. For instance, Maarof and Murat (2013) examined the writing strategies used by 50 upper secondary school EFL learners in Malaysia. The participants were divided into two proficiency groups (low

62 Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

vs. high–intermediate) according to their grades obtained in a national standardized English examination. Their strategy use at different writing stages (pre-writing, while-writing and revising) was collected through a questionnaire adapted from the one validated by Petrić and Czárl (2003). The results showed that the while-writing strategies were more frequently employed than the pre-writing and revising ones. The data also indicated that ‘thinking and planning in mind’ was the most popular strategy during the pre-writing stage while ‘re-reading what is written to get ideas to continue’ was the most frequently used while-writing strategy. In addition, no significant relationship was detected between proficiency and strategy frequency. However, Raoofi et al. (2017) recruited 314 Malaysian collegelevel EFL learners and reported contradictory fi ndings between writing proficiency and strategy use. The participants were classified into three groups (low, middle and high) based on their performance in two English writing tasks, and their strategies were gathered through a writing strategy scale in five categories (effort regulation, affective, social, cognitive and metacognitive). The analysis showed that the participants in the high writing proficiency group used significantly more writing strategies than their counterparts in the middle and low proficiency groups. Similarly, Bailey (2019) reported a positive association between strategy use and writing proficiency. He recruited 227 EFL learners from two South Korean universities, collected their habitual use of strategies in three categories (planning/pre-writing, problem-solving/while-writing and corrective feedback/revising) through a writing strategy survey, and asked them to self-rate their English writing skill on a scale of 1 (low) – 10 (high). Results revealed that the problem-solving strategies were most frequently used by all participants, followed by the planning and corrective feedback ones. In addition, the participants’ self-reported writing skills were found positively correlated with the strategy use in all categories. The other strand of studies commonly investigated the effects of language/writing proficiency on learners’ actual use of writing strategies through think-aloud protocols and/or interviews. Their fi ndings also showed an inconclusive pattern. Some studies (e.g. Chien, 2012; Victori, 1999) revealed clear differences between more versus less successful writers in their strategy use. For example, Chien (2012) assigned 40 Taiwanese undergraduate EFL learners into high- (n = 20) and low-achieving (n = 20) groups according to the average scores they achieved in five English essays. He examined the learners’ writing strategy use through think-aloud protocols and interviews, fi nding that the high-achieving writers paid significantly more attention to formulating a position, generating the text and revising at both discourse and word levels than their low-achieving counterparts. However, other studies did not find an effect of language/writing proficiency on strategy deployment. For instance, Raimes (1987) explored the relationship between language proficiency and writing strategies of eight ESL college student writers in the United States. Their language

Learners’ Writing Strategies in L2 Chinese

63

proficiency was assessed by a standardized English proficiency test and writing strategies were elicited via think-aloud protocols. The results did not report any association between English proficiency and composing strategies. Specifically, the participant with the lowest English proficiency score was found to perform similarly in his use of writing strategies as one participant with a high proficiency score. Likewise, Guo and Huang (2018) studied the strategies used by 35 Chinese graduate students at a North American university via think-aloud composing and interviews. The participants were divided into lower- (n = 14) and higher-score (n = 21) groups based on the holistic grades they obtained in a writing task. However, no significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of writing strategy use. An overview of the current literature shows that the findings about the association between proficiency (language or writing proficiency) and writing strategy use have been far less straightforward and conclusive. This may largely result from the diff erences in the measurement of language/writing proficiency and the classification of writing strategies. Moreover, most of the research targeted L2 English learners in different learning contexts, with learners in other languages rarely discussed. Relationship between writing strategies and text quality

While many of the prior studies have examined the writing strategies used by learners at different proficiencies, relatively less research has explored the links between writing strategies and the quality of learner texts. Among the studies available, Chen (2011) investigated the correlation between the strategy use of 116 Chinese college-level EFL learners and their writing quality. The strategies that participants employed at different writing stages (pre-writing, while-writing and revising) were elicited through a questionnaire adapted from Petrić and Czárl (2003), while their writings were analyzed for content and language use, as well as the overall quality. The results indicated that the while-writing strategies were more frequently used than the pre-writing and revising ones, and compensation strategies such as approximating and using synonyms were the most popular while-writing strategies. However, only the prewriting and revising strategies were positively associated with the content, language use and overall quality of writing. Later, Guo and Huang (2018), previously referenced, also investigated the relationship between participants’ writing strategy use and the holistic score they obtained in the writing task but did not detect any significant correlation between them. More recently, Zhao and Liao (2021) investigated the issue by exploring the metacognitive strategies used by 189 EFL learners in completing an English writing task of a college placement test. The six categories of metacognitive writing strategies examined in the study were task interpretation, planning, translating, evaluating, monitoring and revising, collected through a questionnaire immediately after the writing task. And

64 Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

the quality of participants’ writings was assessed holistically according to the institutional in-house rubrics in four dimensions: content, organization, linguistic control and sociolinguistic control. The results showed weak or lack of associations between participants’ holistic writing scores and their use of metacognitive strategies at both strategy category and individual strategy levels. As reviewed above, the existing investigations addressing the relationship between writing strategies and text quality have predominantly focused on L2 English. The fi ndings were also mixed due to the different classification of writing strategies and varying criteria to evaluate text quality. In addition, few studies adopted analytical measures such as fluency and accuracy to assess the quality of L2 texts. Research questions

Due to the inconclusive evidence gleaned from prior studies and their heavy focus on English, it is impossible to draw a conclusion regarding the relationship between proficiency and strategy use and that between strategy deployment and text quality. To extend the exploration from English to non-alphabetical languages, this chapter targeted learners in a Chinese as a foreign language (CFL) context and addressed the questions below: (1) Is there any difference in the type and frequency of writing strategies used by CFL learners at three instructional levels? (2) Is there any relationship between CFL learners’ strategy use and the fluency and accuracy of their written texts?

Method Participants

The participants were 59 undergraduate students enrolled at three instructional levels (Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3) in the Chinese language program at a university on the east coast of the United States. Their ages ranged from 18 to 23, with a mean of 19. Among the participants, there were 31 males and 28 females. All spoke English as their first language. Level 1: This level roughly corresponds to Novice Low as outlined in the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines (ACTFL, 2012). The 21 participants had no previous knowledge of Chinese language before enrolling and had studied Chinese for 13 weeks at the time of data collection. Each week, they attended 3-hour lecture sessions and a 1-hour lab session, during which they received training in the Chinese Pinyin system, studied approximately 200 characters, and learned to converse on simple everyday topics such as greeting, family, time and shopping. Grammar-wise, they were taught the basic sentence order and different types of questions (e.g. yes/

Learners’ Writing Strategies in L2 Chinese

65

no questions, elliptical questions, questions using interrogative pronouns) in Chinese. None of them had experience in Chinese writing before or reported receiving instruction in Chinese writing or writing strategies. Level 2: This level is roughly equivalent to Intermediate Low on the ACTFL Proficiency Scale (ACTFL, 2012). It comprised 21 participants who were near the end of their third-semester college-level Chinese learning. As with those at Level 1, the Level 2 participants attended Chinese classes four hours per week, learning topics like Chinese painting, travelling, sports and climate. They studied nearly 650 characters and practiced grammar patterns such as ㈲ (bǎ, a particle used in Chinese disposal structures), 㭼 (bǐ, a Chinese preposition used for comparison), resultative and directional complements. The writing practice they engaged in was short compositions on familiar topics using learned vocabulary and structures. While one learner claimed having the knowledge of the Chinese essay structure (e.g. thesis statement and conclusion), none reported receiving direct instruction in Chinese writing strategies. Level 3: This level is comparable to Intermediate High to Advanced Low according to the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines (ACTFL, 2012). Among the 17 participants at this level, two had learned Chinese at university for five semesters, while 15 were placed to the level according to an institutional placement test. They studied at least 1300 Chinese characters and a variety of topics on Chinese culture and society. In addition, they were trained to describe and narrate on everyday situations and personal experiences in paragraph length. Three participants claimed learning about the Chinese essay structure, but no one received direct instruction in Chinese writing strategies. Instruments

This chapter collected participants’ written production via a timed writing task and solicited their background information and use of writing strategies through a questionnaire. The timed-writing task required them to make full use of 30 minutes to individually type a Chinese letter and narrate anything they wanted to share with their best friend. Without specific requirements on the content of the letter, participants at different instructional levels could write whatever they felt most comfortable to the best of their writing abilities. When composing the letter, participants were not allowed to use any resource or assistance. The task instructions were also written in English to ensure participants fully understood them. The questionnaire comprised two parts, with the first soliciting participants’ demographic information and previous Chinese learning experiences and the second eliciting their use of writing strategies at different stages (pre-writing, while-writing and post-writing) when composing the letter. The strategy part was adapted from the questionnaire developed by Petrić and Czárl (2003), validated and commonly referenced and used in prior

66 Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

research on writing strategies (e.g. Chen, 2011; Maarof & Murat, 2013). Since their original questionnaire was aimed at collecting the writing strategies EFL learners habitually used rather than what they were actually employing in a particular writing task, the statements not according with the research design of this chapter were either deleted (e.g. I use a bilingual dictionary) or rephrased (e.g. I simplify what I want to write if I don’t know how to express my thoughts in English). The final version of the strategy part of the questionnaire consisted of three sub-sections: six pre-writing strategies (e.g. I made a timetable for the writing process; I wrote down words and short notes related to the writing task), nine while-writing strategies (e.g. I stopped after each sentence to read it again; I simplified what I want to write when I didn’t know how to express my thoughts in Chinese) and eight post-writing strategies (e.g. I made changes in vocabulary; I made changes in sentence structure). For the pre-writing stage, participants were asked to report whether they had a planning stage before writing, and if yes to indicate whether they had used a particular strategy by circling the corresponding statement provided. For the while-writing stage, participants not only reported whether a particular strategy was used but also ranked the used ones according to their frequency, with 1 representing the most frequent and 9 indicating the least frequent. As for the revising stage, participants were first asked to report whether they had a revising stage in their writing process. If yes, they were prompted to choose all strategies they had used while ranking these strategies according to the frequency. Procedure

The data were collected in a 50-minute class. All participants fi rst wrote the Chinese letter in response to the same prompt using 30 minutes and then filled out the questionnaire within 20 minutes. When the participants completed the two tasks, one of the authors was present answering any questions they might have and ensuring that they did not use any resources while writing. Data analysis

The collected data comprised 59 compositions written by participants and the responses they provided to the strategy part in the questionnaire. The compositions were analyzed for fluency and accuracy. First, they were demarcated into T-units following Jiang’s (2013: 5) defi nition of a Chinese T-unit, ‘a single main clause that contains one independent predicate plus whatever other subordinate clauses or non-clauses are attached to, or embedded within, that one main clause’. Then fluency was measured by T-units per minute (the number of T-units in a composition divided by 30 minutes) according to Wolfe-Quintero et al.’s (1998: 117) defi nition of the term, ‘the rapid production of language’. By contrast,

Learners’ Writing Strategies in L2 Chinese

67

accuracy, the production of target-like, error-free texts (Housen et al., 2012; Wolfe-Quintero et al., 1998), was assessed by error-free T-units per T-unit (EFT/T), following the conclusion drawn by prior literature (e.g. Jiang, 2013; Polio & Shea, 2014). Errors in this chapter were operationalized as deviations in vocabulary or grammar from the correct/appropriate usages based on Polio’s (1997) review and discussion, and a Chinese T-unit including the use of English was considered incorrect. After the errors were identified, the number of T-units without errors was counted. Both the T-unit demarcation and the error identification were conducted by the two authors of the chapter, who are native Chinese speakers and received training in Chinese linguistics. After achieving satisfactory interrater agreements (91.7% for both), the two authors discussed the analysis to resolve the remaining differences. The writing strategies were analyzed in terms of their type and frequency, and the corresponding analysis procedures were explained below. First, for individual strategy at each writing stage (the statement in the questionnaire), the percentage of participants who reported using it at each instructional level (Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3) was calculated. The analysis revealed the type of writing strategies commonly used by participants at each instructional level. After the commonly used writing strategies across levels were identified, corresponding points were assigned according to the frequency rank provided by participants. For example, the questionnaire comprised nine while-writing strategies, so nine points were assigned when participants ranked a strategy as 1 (the most frequent), eight points when they ranked it as 2, and one point when they ranked it as 9 (the least frequent). In this way, as the frequency rank increased, the assigned points decreased. Then the frequencies of the common writing strategies employed by participants across levels were compared to examine whether significant differences were observed. Considering the small number of participants at each level and the ordinal nature of the dependent variable (the frequency of writing strategy), nonparametric statistical tests, Kruskal–Wallis H tests, were performed. Lastly, the frequencies of the writing strategies commonly used by participants were correlated with the mean scores of fluency and accuracy to examine the relationship between them. Since the frequency of writing strategies was ordinal and the analytic measures were continuous, Spearman’s rank-order correlation tests were applied. For all statistical tests, the significance level was set at 0.05.

Results L2 writing strategies at three instructional levels

Table 3.1 shows the number and percentage of participants who reported using writing strategies at each instructional level. As observed,

68 Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

Table 3.1 Number and percentage of participants reporting using writing strategies Instructional level

Pre-writing stage

While-writing stage

Post-writing stage

Number

Percentage

Number

Percentage

Number

Percentage

Level 1 (n = 21)

16

76%

21

100%

11

52%

Level 2 (n = 21)

10

48%

21

100%

7

33%

Level 3 (n = 17)

8

47%

17

100%

5

29%

all participants reported employing strategies during the while-writing stage, whereas the percentage of participants who reported using strategies during pre- or post-writing was relatively low, especially those at Level 2 and Level 3. Regarding the reasons that participants provided for no planning when writing the letter, all of them explained that they just wrote what came to their mind naturally in order to complete the task in a timely manner, whereas those who did not engage in any revision claimed that they were just busy writing as much as they could before the time was up. It was also found that the percentages of participants who reported using strategies during pre- and post-writing stages seemed to generally decrease with the instructional level. As shown in Table 3.1, more participants at Level 1 employed pre- and post-writing strategies than their counterparts at Level 2 or Level 3. However, a close look at the individual strategies that participants reported using during the prewriting stage revealed similarities across levels. Specifically, two pre-writing strategies were reported commonly used by all participants: ‘I wrote down words and short notes related to the writing task’ and ‘I thought about what I wanted to write and had a plan in mind, but not on paper.’ Conversely, the type of post-writing strategies that participants reported using varied across levels. For the participants at Level 1, the top three strategies used were ‘I checked my letter to see if my writing matched the requirement’ (38%), ‘I made changes in vocabulary’ (33%), and ‘I made changes in sentence structure’ (33%). By contrast, the two strategies most used by Level 2 participants were ‘I made changes in the content or ideas’ (29%) and ‘I made changes in sentence structure’ (29%). Lastly, while only five participants at Level 3 reported using post-writing strategies, the strategies ‘I made changes in sentence structure’ and ‘I made changes in vocabulary’ were observed with the same percentage of 24%. The analysis of the while-writing strategies showed that some types of strategies were favored and commonly used by participants, regardless of the instructional level. As seen in Table 3.2, the two strategies most used by participants across levels were ‘I re-read what I had written to get ideas how to continue’ and ‘When I did not know a word in Chinese, I found a similar word that I know’. Based on the analysis above, the two while-writing strategies and two post-writing strategies that were reported commonly used by

Learners’ Writing Strategies in L2 Chinese

69

Table 3.2 While-writing strategies favored by participants across instructional levels Instructional level

While-writing strategies

Percentage (of participants)

Level 1 (n = 21)

I reread what I had written to get ideas how to continue. When I did not know a word in Chinese, I found a similar word that I know. I stopped after each sentence to read it again.

91% 71%

I reread what I had written to get ideas how to continue. When I did not know a word in Chinese, I found a similar word that I know. I simplified what I want to write when I did not know how to express my thoughts in Chinese.

95% 86%

I reread what I had written to get ideas how to continue. When I did not know a word in Chinese, I found a similar word that I know. I simplified what I want to write when I did not know how to express my thoughts in Chinese.

77% 77%

Level 2 (n = 21)

Level 3 (n = 17)

71%

86%

71%

participants across levels were identified. The two while-writing strategies were ‘I re-read what I had written to get ideas how to continue’ (rereading) and ‘When I did not know a word in Chinese, I found a similar word that I know’ (fi nding similar words), while the two post-writing strategies were ‘I made changes in vocabulary’ (changing vocabulary) and ‘I made changes in sentence structure’ (changing sentence structure). Following the analysis methods explained previously, the frequencies of the four strategies were compared across instructional levels. The statistical tests showed no significant effects for the instructional level regarding the frequency of each of the four writing strategies (re-reading: H 3.81, p = 0.15; fi nding similar words: H = 3.93, p = 0.14; changing vocabulary: H = 0.42, p = 0.81; changing sentence structure: H = 0.39, p = 0. 82). However, it can be seen from Table 3.3 that Level 2 participants employed higher frequencies of the two while-writing strategies than their counterparts at both Level 1 and Level 3. Conversely, Level 1 participants used the two post-writing strategies more frequently than Level 2 and Level 3 participants. Table 3.3 Means and standard deviations of the frequencies of the four writing strategies Writing strategy

Level 1 Mean

Level 2 SD

Mean

Level 3 SD

Mean

SD

Re-reading

6.57

2.42

6.67

2.27

6.16

3.11

Finding similar words

4.57

2.98

6.00

2.85

5.53

3.32

Changing vocabulary

2.24

3.33

1.43

3.04

1.76

3.29

Changing sentence structure

2.62

3.80

1.86

3.10

2.06

3.33

70

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

Relationship between strategy frequency and analytic writing measures

Table 3.4 shows the means and standard deviations of the fluency and accuracy of the 59 compositions. As seen, the mean fluency score of the compositions was 0.86 while the mean accuracy score was 0.38. Then the Spearman’s rank-order correlation tests were performed to examine whether the frequencies of the four common writing strategies (two while-writing and two post-writing strategies) were correlated with the mean scores of fluency and accuracy respectively. As Table 3.5 shows, while no statistical significance was observed for all correlation tests, the frequency of re-reading strategy was negatively associated with fluency, but the association was weak. By contrast, the frequency of the other while-writing strategy (fi nding similar words) was positively correlated with fluency but negatively correlated with accuracy, both with a small correlation coefficient (0.26 and −0.24). Regarding the post-writing strategy of changing sentence structure, its frequency was found to have a negative association with fluency; however, the association was weak. In addition, no relationship was observed between re-reading strategy and accuracy, between the strategy of changing sentence structure and accuracy, between the strategy of changing vocabulary and fluency, as well as between the strategy of changing vocabulary and accuracy, since their correlation coefficients were very small and close to zero. Table 3.4 Means and standard deviations for fluency and accuracy measures Level 1

M

Level 2

SD

M

Level 3

SD

M

SD

M (total)

SD (total)

M

SD

Fluency (T-units/min)

0.61

0.16

0.84

0.21

1.21

0.39

0.86

0.35

Accuracy (EFT/T)

0.42

0.18

0.33

0.13

0.40

0.18

0.38

0.16

Table 3.5 Correlation coefficients and significance of correlation tests Correlation tests (n = 59) Correlation coefficient (ρ)

Significance (p)

Re-reading vs. Fluency

−0.15

0.38

Re-reading vs. Accuracy

−0.02

0.86

0.26

0.07

Finding similar words vs. Accuracy

−0.24

0.09

Changing vocabulary vs. Fluency

−0.07

0.56

0.03

0.88

Changing sentence structure vs. Fluency

−0.14

0.28

Changing sentence structure vs. Accuracy

0.06

0.66

Finding similar words vs. Fluency

Changing vocabulary vs. Accuracy

Learners’ Writing Strategies in L2 Chinese

71

Discussion

According to the research questions of this chapter, this section discusses the fi ndings with reference to prior studies and proposes pedagogical implications as to incorporating writing strategies into CFL curriculum.

L2 writing strategies at three instructional levels

The analysis showed that all participants reported using strategies during the while-writing stage, whereas the percentage of participants who reported using strategies during pre- or post-writing stages was relatively low. This supports the previous fi nding that the while-writing strategies were more frequently used than the pre- and post-writing ones (e.g. Bailey, 2019; Chen, 2011; Maarof & Murat, 2013). The results also showed that more participants at Level 1 reported using strategies during pre- and post-writing stages compared to their counterparts at Level 2 and Level 3. We suspect it is possibly related to the participants’ proficiency and their familiarity level with Chinese writing. As discussed previously, the participants at Level 1 only studied Chinese for 13 weeks and had no experience in Chinese writing. With limited ability in expressing ideas in Chinese and being unfamiliar with Chinese writing, they might need to spend some time planning before formulating the letter. Because of the same reasons, it is likely that they ran out of ideas before the time (30 minutes) was up and were thus able to spend time revising what they had formulated. However, the participants at upper levels, especially Level 3, had accumulated more vocabulary and sentence structures in Chinese and were also more familiar with Chinese writing. Hence, the 30-minute limit may not be enough for them to fully express their ideas. Consequently, they possibly allocated most and even all their time to formulating the composition and paid less attention to planning and revising. During the pre-writing stage, the two strategies, ‘I wrote down words and short notes related to the writing task’ and ‘I thought about what I wanted to write and had a plan in mind, but not on paper’, were favored by participants at all levels. This partially echoes the observation of Maarof and Murat (2013), who reported that ‘thinking and planning in mind’ was the most used pre-writing strategy. At the while-writing stage, the participants were found to favor two strategies the most, ‘I re-read what I had written to get ideas how to continue’ and ‘when I did not know a word in Chinese, I found a similar word that I know’, regardless of their instructional level. This is in line with prior fi ndings: the re-reading strategy was observed with the highest frequency in Maarof and Murat (2013), and the compensation strategies such as approximating and using synonyms were found most frequently used in Chen (2011). Although the type of post-writing strategies that participants reported using varied

72

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

across levels, ‘I made changes in sentence structure’ and ‘I made changes in vocabulary’ were favored by all participants. This probably results from the teaching foci of the CFL classes the participants attended. We confirmed with the instructors who taught the participants in the program that sentence structure and vocabulary were given primary attention in their instruction. Hence, it is conceivable that the participants’ attention was more directed to sentence structure and vocabulary instead of other aspects of language learning, which in turn might affect the allocation of their attention when writing the letter. Two commonly used while-writing strategies and two post-writing ones were selected to examine the relationship between their frequency and the instructional level, but no significant difference was detected. This is consistent with some studies (e.g. Maarof & Murat, 2013; Raimes, 1987) that reported no effect of language proficiency on writing strategy use. One possible explanation is the 30-minute time limit required by the letter-writing task. As the participants self-reported regarding the reasons for no planning or revising, their main concern seemed to be generating as much text as they could before the time was up. Hence, it is not surprising that the text-generating strategy of re-reading to get ideas to continue was commonly used. To generate more texts, the retrieval of vocabulary was also an important component. So the vocabulary strategy of fi nding similar words was favored by participants across levels. In contrast, the insignificant association between the frequencies of the two selected postwriting strategies and the instructional level may be related to the foci of the Chinese instruction received by the participants. As discussed previously, vocabulary and sentence structure were given primary attention in CFL classes, regardless of the instructional level. Consequently, the participants at all levels employed these two post-writing strategies more frequently than the others. When compared with the previous studies, however, the fi ndings were contradictory to those reported by Bailey (2019) and Raoofi et al. (2017), both detecting a significant relationship between proficiency and strategy deployment. It is worth noting that both studies examined the effects of writing proficiency (determined by either holistic writing scores or self-rated writing skills) rather than language proficiency on learners’ strategy use. Relationship between strategy frequency and analytic writing measures

The findings detected insignificant relationships between frequencies of selected writing strategies and writing fluency and accuracy. The observations echo the results of Guo and Huang (2018) and Zhao and Liao (2021), who found weak or lack of associations between learners’ writing strategy use and the holistic scores of their texts. We suspect the reason might be the complex relationship between strategy use and text quality in

Learners’ Writing Strategies in L2 Chinese

73

L2 writing. As Guo and Huang (2018) emphasized, the effect of writing strategy on writing performance is likely a result of the interplay of multiple variables related to the task, learner and context. That is, the use of writing strategy alone may not significantly affect the text quality. Considering this possibility, the insignificant results did not necessarily indicate that writing strategies do not play a role in writing performance. Instead, it calls for more research to investigate the issue so that a clearer understanding of the impact of strategy use on text quality may be achieved. Despite the insignificant fi ndings, the data showed some patterns that deserve our attention. Regarding the two while-writing strategies, the frequency of the re-reading strategy seemed negatively associated with fluency, while the frequency of the strategy of fi nding similar words was positively associated with fluency. These might be explained by how fluency was defi ned and operationalized in this chapter. Following WolfeQuintero et al. (1998: 117), fluency was defi ned as ‘rapid production of language’ and measured by T-units per minute. With the strategy of fi nding similar words, participants could spend less time struggling with a word they did not recall, which may facilitate their written production and in turn boost the writing fluency. By contrast, the strategy of re-reading, impeded writing fluency possibly because the more time the participants spent reading what they had produced, the less time they could allocate for further writing. The results also showed a weak, negative association between the strategy of fi nding similar words and accuracy. This observation may be explained by two factors. First, although the target word and its substitute may share similar meanings, the use of similar words could not guarantee that the original meaning was accurately expressed, thus possibly contributing negatively to writing accuracy. In addition, the use of synonyms likely led to problems like improper collocations or grammatical structures. Regarding the post-writing strategy of changing sentence structure, it was found to have a negative, weak association with fluency. When participants worked on the timed writing task, allocating time for revising sentence structure very likely reduced the amount of time they spent during the while-writing stage. Hence, with reduced time dedicated to formulating, the participants probably produced compositions of shorter length. Pedagogical implications

The fi ndings of this chapter shed insightful light on the integration of writing strategies into CFL curriculum. As discussed previously, quite a few participants reported not using any strategies during pre- and postwriting stages. Even those who reported using strategies, their employment, including both type and frequency, was overall limited. Especially, some of the pre- or post-writing strategies provided in the questionnaire, such as ‘I made a timetable for the writing process’ and ‘I made changes

74

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

in the essay structure/organization’, have great potential to assist participants in having a better control of time as well as improving the organization of their composition, but were reported rarely used. Hence, it is highly recommended that we instruct students about the repertoire of preand post-writing strategies that they can take advantage of and encourage them to incorporate them into writing. Considering the insignificant association between strategy use and text quality reported by this chapter and some prior research, it is advisable for us to make learners clearly aware of the possibly complex relationship between strategy use and text quality. That is, strategy use alone cannot guarantee successful writing. In addition to incorporating strategies into their writing, students should also promote their linguistic ability and engage in more writing practice to improve the quality of their written texts. In addition, the results showed that the frequencies of some strategies seemed positively or negatively correlated with writing fluency or accuracy. Though the correlations were weak, the fi ndings suggest that students may need to not only be equipped with the varied types of writing strategies but also learn about the appropriate correlations between strategies and fluency/accuracy of written texts. So that they can make informed decisions during their writing process, that is, to increase the frequency of strategies positively correlated with fluency/accuracy but decrease the employment of strategies with negative associations with fluency/accuracy. Conclusion

As part of a larger project, this chapter adopted a cross-sectional approach to examine CFL learners’ writing strategy use and explore the relationship between their strategy frequency and text quality. The findings not only increased our knowledge on how learners employ strategies when composing Chinese texts but also offered implications regarding how to facilitate learners’ writing process through employment of strategies in CFL classes. However, we should be careful when interpreting and applying the findings due to the limitations in this chapter. First, the number of participants at each instructional level is relatively small. With more participants recruited and the data normally distributed, we could apply parametric tests for inferential statistics and possibly obtain statistically significant results. While questionnaires have been commonly used to collect L2 writing strategies in prior research, one of its major flaws is that it is impossible to verify whether students indeed employ the strategies they report using, which may affect the validity of the findings. Future research should incorporate techniques such as screen-casting and/or keystroke logging to collect learners’ strategy use more accurately. In addition, quite a few participants claimed not using any pre- or post-writing strategies because they ran out of time. We could allocate more time (e.g. 50 minutes) for the completion of the task to see whether this may affect the strategy frequency. Last but not least, only

Learners’ Writing Strategies in L2 Chinese

75

the fluency and accuracy of learner texts were examined in this chapter. To better explore the relationship between strategy use and text quality, future research can adopt holistic or other analytic measures (e.g. complexity and character accuracy) to assess text quality.

References ACTFL (2012) ACTFL proficiency guidelines. https://www.actfl.org/sites/default/fi les/ guidelines/ACTFLProficiencyGuidelines2012.pdf Bailey, D.R. (2019) Conceptualization of second language writing strategies and their relation to student characteristics. The Journal of Asia TEFL 16 (1), 135–148. Chen, Y. (2011) Study of the writing strategies used by Chinese non-English majors. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 1 (3), 245–251. Chien, S.-C. (2012) Students’ use of writing strategies and their English writing achievement in Taiwan. Asia Pacifi c Journal of Education 32 (1), 93–112. De Silva, R. (2015) Writing strategy instruction: Its impact on writing in a second language for academic purposes. Language Teaching Research 19 (3), 301–323. De Silva, R. and Graham, S. (2015) The effects of strategy instruction on writing strategy use for students of different proficiency levels. System 53, 47–59. Guo, X. and Huang, L.-S. (2018) Are L1 and L2 strategies transferable? An exploration of the L1 and L2 writing strategies of Chinese graduate students. The Language Learning Journal 48 (6), 715–737. Housen, A., Kuiken. F. and Vedder, I. (2012) Complexity, accuracy and fluency: Defi nitions, measurement and research. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken and I. Vedder (eds) Dimensions of L2 Performance and Proficiency: Investigating Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in SLA (pp. 1–20). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Jiang, W. (2013) Measures of development in L2 written production: The case of L2 Chinese. Applied Linguistics 34 (1), 1–24. Kao, C.-W. and Reynolds, B.L. (2017) A study on the relationship among Taiwanese college students’ EFL writing strategy use, writing ability and writing difficulty. English Teaching & Learning 41 (4), 31–67. Kessler, M., Polio. C., Xu, C. and Hao, X. (2020) The effects of oral discussion and text chat on L2 Chinese writing. Foreign Language Annuals 53 (4), 666–685. Khaldieh, S.A. (2000) Learning strategies and writing processes of proficient vs. lessproficient learners of Arabic. Foreign Language Annals 33 (5), 522–533. Maarof, N. and Murat, M. (2013) Writing strategies used by ESL upper secondary school students. International Education Studies 6 (4), 47–55. Macaro, E. (2006) Strategies for language learning and for language use: Revising the theoretical framework. Modern Language Journal 90 (3), 320–337. Manchón, R.M. (1997) Learners’ strategies in L2 composing. Communication & Cognition 30, 91–114. Manchón, R.M. (2001) Trends in the conceptualizations of second language composing strategies: A critical analysis. International Journal of English Studies 1 (2), 47–70. Manchón, R.M. (2018) Past and future research agendas on writing strategies: Conceptualizations, inquiry methods, and research fi ndings. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 8 (2), 247–267. Manchón, R.M. and Roca de Larios, J. (2007) On the temporal nature of planning in L1 and L2 composing. Language Learning 27, 549–593. Manchón, R.M., Roca de Larios, J. and Murphy, L. (2007) A review of writing strategies: Focus on conceptualizations and impact of the fi rst language. In A. Cohen and E. Macaro (eds) Language Learner Strategies: Thirty Years of Research and Practice (pp. 229–250). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

76 Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

Oxford, R. (1990) Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. New York: Heinle and Heinle. Petrić, B. and Czárl, B. (2003) Validating a writing strategy questionnaire. System 31, 187–215. Polio, C. (1997) Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Language Learning 47, 101–143. Polio, C. and Shea, M.C. (2014) An investigation into current measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Journal of Second Language Writing 26, 10–27. Raimes, A. (1985) What unskilled ESL students do as they write: A classroom study of composing. TESOL Quarterly 19 (2), 229–258. Raimes, A. (1987) Language proficiency, writing ability, and composing strategies: A study of ESL college student writers. Language Learning, 37 (3), 439–468. Raoofi , S., Binandeh, M. and Rahmani, S. (2017) An investigation into writing strategies and writing proficiency of university students. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 8 (1), 191–198. Roca de Larios, J., Coyle, Y. and Nicolás-Conesa, F. (2016) Focus on writers: Processes and strategies. In R.M. Manchón and P.K. Matsuda (eds) The Handbook of Second and Foreign Language Writing (pp. 267–286). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Victori, M. (1999) An analysis of writing knowledge in EFL composing: A case study of two effective and two less effective writers. System 27, 537–555. Whalen, K. and Menard, N. (1995) L1 and L2 writers’ strategic and linguistic knowledge: A model of multiple-level discourse processing. Language Learning 45 (3), 381–418. Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S. and Kim, H. (1998) Second Language Development in Writing: Measures of Fluency, Accuracy, & Complexity. Honolulu, HI: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center, University of Hawai’i at Manoa. Zamel, V. (1983) The composing process of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly 17 (2), 165–187. Zhao, C. and Liao, L. (2021) Metacognitive strategy use in L2 writing assessment. System 98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102472.

4 Investigating Nominal Structures in L2 Chinese Writing: A Systemic Functional Linguistics Perspective Xiaofei Pan

Introduction

The relationship of nominal structures (hereafter NSs) to second language (L2) development in writing has received increasing attention. As an essential language form, NSs emerge earlier than other grammatical constructions and remain throughout learners’ interlanguage development (Y. Lu & Ke, 2018). In addition, learners’ use of complex NSs in writing starts from the inception of their learning (Vyatkina et al., 2015), and the frequency of complex NSs discriminates levels of writing development (e.g. Mazgutova & Kormos, 2015; Lan et al., 2019; X. Lu, 2011). The functional approach grounded in Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) ‘explains the forms of the language by referring to the functions they express’ (Halliday & Webster, 2003: 203). This approach regards NSs as key in writing for their role to construct a reality as ‘a world of things and structures’ (Halliday, 1996: 352) to be described, classified and commented upon (Schleppegrell, 2001). Moreover, syntactically complex NSs and lexically condensed nominalization increase preciseness, create abstractness and, more crucially, distill sophisticated meaning into concise forms and strengthen the textual organization in writing (Fang et  al., 2006; Schleppegrell, 2001). These characteristics of NSs distinguish the synoptic style of written language from the dynamic style of spoken language (Biber et al., 2011; Halliday, 1993; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2006), thus signaling the advancement in L2 development, especially in the academic writing (Byrnes, 2009; Liardét, 2013; Maxwell-Reid & Kartika-Ningsih, 2020; McCabe, 2017; McCabe & Gallagher, 2008; Ryshina-Pankova, 2006, 2010, 2015; Whittaker et al., 2011; Yasuda, 2015). 77

78

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

So far, studies on L2 Chinese writing development grounded in the SFL approach are still rare. Important issues such as the forms and functions of Chinese NSs, especially the influence of Chinese typological features on learners’ use of NSs in writing, need to be addressed. Similar to Lin and Gao, featured in Chapter 5, this chapter aims to fi ll the gaps concerning structural-related matters. The present study, however, focuses on how L2 Chinese learners across three course levels expand the forms of NSs to construe various experience in their narrative and expository essays. It also examines how complex NSs develop across the course levels and what advanced use of NSs emerges in both genres.

Literature Review Formal complexity of NSs

Nominal complexity is identified as a useful indicator to capture learners’ writing development. Biber et al. (2011) examined the grammatical complexities of academic writing in comparison to face-to-face conversation based on two large-scale corpora in English. Results showed that the most important characteristics of professional academic writing were noun-modifying phrasal features rather than clause constituents. The researchers further hypothesized L2 English learners’ five developmental stages for complexity features, ranking noun modifiers later than means for clausal complexity. Biber et al.’s (2011) fi ndings regarding the significance of complex NSs in writing were supported by X. Lu’s (2011) study on a corpus of 422 argumentative essays written by Chinese EFL learners across four university program levels. Among the 14 measures examined, the number of complex NSs per clause was identified to be the best developmental index because it discriminated the first three adjacent program levels, although not between the two highest levels. Mazgutova and Kormos (2015) argued that higher-level learners tended to rely more on lexically dense nominalization rather than syntactically complex NSs, given the decreasing tendency of nominal complexity they found in the post-essays written by 25 graduate students after a four-week EAP course at a British university. In contrast, the lower proficiency group of 14 pre-college students significantly increased nominal modification in their post-essays. The developmental patterns of various noun modifiers hypothesized in Biber et al. (2011) were examined by Parkinson and Musgrave (2014), who examined the academic writing of 21 EAP students preparing for graduate study and 16 MA students at a university in New Zealand. Results showed that the less proficient EAP students mainly relied on attributive adjectives, whereas the more proficient MA students used modifiers with greater frequency and variety, including premodifying nouns, prepositional phrases and relative clauses. This fi nding was

Investigating Nominal Structures in L2 Chinese Writing

79

partially corroborated by Lan et al.’s (2019) investigation of the association between L2 English writing proficiency (based on the TOEFL scores) and nominal complexity. In 100 argumentative essays written by undergraduate Chinese students in the US, attributive adjectives and relative clauses were used more than expected by the higher proficiency group of students but less than expected by the lower proficiency group. Besides, the lower proficiency group used a limited range of grammatical functions for noun modifiers. Unlike Parkinson and Musgrave (2014), Lan et al. (2019) found the higher-than-expected frequency of premodifying nouns and prepositional phrases (but limited to ‘of’) in the lower proficiency group, which might be attributed to the influence of essay topics. Moreover, Vyatkina et al.’s (2015) four-year longitudinal study on 185 texts written by 12 L2 German learners at a US university supported the later emergence of relative clauses compared to attributive adjectives, possibly due to their different cognitive challenges. SFL-based NSs

Regarding the language function, NSs mainly serve the role of Participant in the construing of experience within the SFL framework (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014). According to SFL, Participant, Process and Circumstance are elements to constitute a figure, which further constitutes a sequence (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2006). For example, the sentence below (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2006: 49) is a sequence consisting of two figures concerning rain and sunny. (1) Rain ending from the west, becoming partly sunny. In the first figure, Participant (rain) brings about the occurrence of the Process (end) and Circumstance (from the west) specifies the spatial location of the process. Participant gets involved in various types of Process (e.g. being or doing), covering a wide experience spectrum, such as Carrier and Attribute, Actor and Goal, Senser and Phenomenon, and Sayer and Verbiage (Fang et al., 2006). In terms of structural realization, the order of sequence, figure and element typically aligns with the hierarchical ranking of lexicogrammatical constituents, namely, clause complex, clause and group (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2006). Participant is typically construed by a nominal group comprising a Head noun expanded by zero, one or more modifiers (e.g. rain or the heavy rain). SFL uses more meaning-oriented terms to name noun modifiers (e.g. Epithet, Classifier, Qualifier, Deictic and Numerative), in contrast to the structure-oriented terms (e.g. attributive adjectives and fi nite/ non-fi nite dependent clauses) in traditional grammar. Participant can also be construed by nominalization of non-nominals. An action, event or phenomenon can be nominalized into an embedded clause (denoted by boundary markers [[ ]] according to the SFL convention) entailing no

80

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

Head noun but functioning as Head itself (e.g. [[feeling the rain]] makes me happy), which is called ‘act’ in SFL (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014: 503). Besides, a Process or Circumstance can be nominalized into a Head noun, which potentially realigns the congruent mapping of semantic units and lexicogrammatical constituents to create a ‘grammatical metaphor’ (GM) (Halliday, 1993; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2006). GM’s effect of expanding semantic domains is illustrated below: (2) the cast acted brilliantly so the audience applauded for a long time (3) the cast’s brilliant acting drew lengthy applause from the audience In (2), a sequence congruently realized by a clause complex illustrates dynamic, spoken interactions centered on reality as processes like acted and applauded. In (3), the same sequence is condensed in a clause, representing synoptic written texts foregrounding reality as objects. Thus, Participants in (3) are metaphorically reconstrued by nominalized Processes (acting, applause) and expanded by Epithet (brilliant, lengthy), Deictic (the cast’s) and Qualifier (from the audience) (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2006). Nominal expansion and nominalization are pervasive in academic writing, contributing to a high density of information, abstraction of experience and establishment of referential chains and cohesive linkages in the texts (Fang et al., 2006; Schleppegrell, 2001). As learners advance in schooling or language proficiency, nominal expansion and nominalization in writing increase in frequency (Fang et al., 2021). Functions of L2 NSs in the SFL approach

Studies on NSs in L2 writing rooted in SFL mostly connected the syntactic complexity of NSs with their experiential functions and textual effects. NSs placed at the thematic position (i.e. initial position) in a clause serve as a point of departure of information and build cohesion for the text (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014). Examining book reviews written by L2 German learners across three advanced course levels at a US university, Ryshina-Pankova (2006) found an increase toward higher levels in the use of lexically complex themes served by NSs and in the variety of nominal modification. These information-rich longer themes connected book content in the previous discourse with evaluation in the following discourse, thereby enhancing the logical reasoning of the review. McCabe and Gallagher (2008) examined the selection of Participant types and modifier types in argumentative history essays written by proficient (undergraduates from non-EFL courses) and novice writers (undergraduates from EFL writing courses) at English-medium universities in Spain and Japan. Results showed that while the novice writers construed Carrier and Attributes more often in relational processes to describe entities in their writing, the proficient writers used more dynamic verbs in material processes (i.e. process of doing and happening), involving Actors that were

Investigating Nominal Structures in L2 Chinese Writing

81

incongruently construed by nominalized abstract events and physical happening. Therefore, arguments were strengthened by more active and visual historical events. The proficient writers also buried textual organization and expressed attitudes by Post-deictics, Numerative and subtle choice of Epithets in the NSs, whereas the novice writers more often used overt clausal markings and modal adjuncts. Higher-proficient learners’ preference for NSs as a more sophisticated cohesive device over function words was corroborated by Whittaker et al.’s (2011) four-year longitudinal examination of EFL learners’ writing in their history classes at two secondary schools in Spain, besides the findings of increased nominal expansion with premodification in Year 3 and post-modification in Year 4. Maxwell-Reid and Kartika-Ningsih (2020) examined nominal expansion with embedded clauses in argumentative writing by secondary-school EFL learners in Hong Kong and reported the syntactic challenges learners struggled with. In learners’ attempts to use embedded clauses to condense messages in NSs to construct chains of reasoning, many remained in the form of ranking clauses and erroneously preceded the Head nouns (e.g. ‘We can change our living style to use less can’t recycle things’, italics originally used to indicate errors). Besides nominal expansion, increased use of abstract nouns and nominalization, especially GMs, signals writing development among highly proficient learners (Byrnes, 2009; Yasuda, 2015). Before achieving the realization of GMs, learners may undergo intermediary stages featured by errors in Head nouns and modifiers (Byrnes, 2009; Liardét, 2015; RyshinaPankova, 2010; Whittaker & McCabe, 2020). When reaching a particular threshold, it is the quality of GM, instead of frequency, that distinguishes success in academic writing (Ryshina-Pankova, 2018). As described in Liardét (2016), GM quality can be evaluated from multiple syntactic and functional constructs: accuracy, frequency, variation, metaphorical enrichment and logogenetic impact. GMs used in Chinese science texts were surveyed by Yang (2015), but how they were used in L2 Chinese writing remains uninvestigated. Chinese NSs

Among the few studies on L2 Chinese writing in the SFL approach, Mohan and Huang (2002) illustrated discourse analysis of form-meaning relations with two texts on one’s daily life written by a novice learner at a Canadian elementary school. Noun modifiers were found to be used frequently to realize classification relations in one text. In the other text, using nouns to realize time sequence (besides conjunctions and time adjuncts), as found in a Chinese adult’s writing, seemed beyond the young learner’s proficiency. Huang and Mohan (2009) further explored another learner’s growth in meaning construction and wording through her written description of her family from Year 1 to Year 3 within the same L2

82

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

Chinese program. Nominal modification was among the several features that contributed to the increased syntactic complexity in Year 3. Cheng (2017) and Cheng and Chiu (2018) examined the effects of SFLinformed writing instruction on novice L2 Chinese learners’ writing skills at a Taiwanese university. After receiving six hours of intensive instruction on contextual awareness, rhetorical stages and writing strategies, a cohort of 16 learners showed significant gains in essay quality. A close examination of two learners’ pre- and post-essays showed expansion of language resources, including NSs to name food taxonomy and other expressions for verbal acts, activities and attributes. Regarding the construction of Chinese NSs, a few typological characteristics need to be addressed. First, apart from a limited number of noun suffi xes (e.g. zhě indicating a person, xìng indicating a property), Chinese grammar does not differentiate or mark transfers between word classes morphologically (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2006). Nominalized verbs and adjectives keep the original forms (e.g. biànhuà means ‘to change’ and ‘change’; biànlì means ‘convenient’ and ‘convenience’). By the same token, an embedded clause in Chinese shares the same syntactic form with a ranking clause, as shown in the following examples: (4) Ranking clause: tā tōu dōngxi he steals things (5) Embedded clause (act clause) as Head: biérén kànjiàn [[tā tōu dōngxi]] other people see [[him stealing things]] (6) Embedded clause as Qualifier: [[tā tōu dōngxi]] de chǎngjǐng the scene of [[him stealing things]] Second, most modifiers (except for locatives) precede a Head noun in Chinese. Unlike Qualifier that follows Head in English, Qualifier in Chinese is a premodifier like Epithet and Classifier, connected to the Head noun by the subordinating de (C. Li & Thompson, 1989; E. Li, 2007). Embedded clauses that construe Qualifier are structurally equivalent to defining relative clauses, whereby rearrangement of the canonical SVO word order is necessary when the following Head noun serves as the subject (C. Li & Thompson, 1989; E. Li, 2007). The following examples compare the variation of word order in a ranking clause and two cases of Qualifier ^ Thing: (7) Ranking clause (SVO): shāngdiàn mài diànshì store sells TV (8) Qualifier ^ Thing (object in the clause; SV de O): [[shāngdiàn mài]] de diànshì the TV that the store sells (9) Qualifier ^ Thing (subject in the clause; VO de S): [[mài diànshì]] de shāngdiàn the store that sells TVs

Investigating Nominal Structures in L2 Chinese Writing

83

Research questions

Due to the scant attention on Chinese in prior studies, little is known about the features of NSs in L2 Chinese writing, regarding expansion, functions and development concerning the typological differences between said language and English. This chapter is grounded in SFL to further our understanding of L2 Chinese writing development by examining learners’ use of NSs as a language resource to construe experience. To this end, the means of expansion, distribution of functions and development of NSs in two genres written by L2 Chinese learners across three course levels from Intermediate to Advanced are examined through three research questions: (1) How do L2 Chinese learners expand NSs to construe experience in narrative and expository essays? (2) How do complex NSs develop across L2 Chinese learners’ course levels? (3) What advanced use of NSs beyond modification is shown in L2 Chinese learners’ writing?

Method Participants

As part of a larger project, the participants were recruited from the L2 Chinese program at an English-medium international university in China. Therein, international students who do not speak Mandarin Chinese as their first language are enrolled along with native Chinese students but are required to take two years of Chinese courses. The courses integrate language skills aiming to develop learners’ proficiency with intercultural communicative competence. The 20 participants in this chapter were from the Chinese courses at Levels 2, 3 and 4, designed to achieve the Intermediate Mid, Intermediate High and Advanced Low levels, respectively, per the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines (ACTFL, 2012). At the time of data collection, all participants had completed at least one 16-week semester of Chinese learning at the university. Demographic information is summarized in Table 4.1. Instruments

The instruments comprised two writing tasks collecting participants’ written production and a background survey eliciting their demographic information and Chinese learning experiences. Adapted from the Chinese Simulated Oral Proficiency Interview (SOPI) (CAL, 1992), the prompts of the two writing tasks were independent of schools, programs and curricula, not requiring prior knowledge or discipline-related language. Essay

84

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

Table 4.1 Participants’ demographic information Characteristics Chinese course levels

Gender

L1

Fields of study

Years in college

Learned Chinese before college

Frequency Level 2

8

Level 3

7

Level 4

5

Male

8

Female

12

English

8

Arabic

3

Korean

3

Bulgarian

1

Mongolian

1

Spanish

1

Uzbek

1

Unspecified

2

Arts and Humanities

2

Natural Science

10

Social Science

8

Freshman

3

Sophomore

9

Junior

8

Yes

11 (1–12 years)

No

9

1 asked participants to narrate a car accident as illustrated in a picture sequence while Essay 2 was an exploratory essay about personal eating preferences. Both tasks reflected different genres to elicit various linguistic features, e.g. nouns for naming characters, objects, time and places, adjectives for describing appearance, emotion and environment, verbs to specify actions and status, and connectives and conjunctions to indicate logic. Procedure

All participants met individually with the researcher via Zoom. After being instructed for the research, they fi rst completed the background survey and then independently typed the two essays on a shared document within 90 minutes. The average time of writing ranged from 15 to 48 minutes for Essay 1 (narrative), and 11 to 49 minutes for Essay 2 (expository). To counterbalance potential order effects, half of the learners were asked to write Essay 1 fi rst and then Essay 2, and the other half in a reversed sequence.

Investigating Nominal Structures in L2 Chinese Writing

85

Data analysis

Forty essays totaling 11,196 Chinese characters were collected. The process of coding was managed with Atlas.ti 9.0, a software for qualitative data analysis. Each targeted NS received two groups of codes: one for form and one for function. The frequencies of each code and the formfunction mapping were automatically generated by the software. Means of nominal expansion

Complex NSs involving attributive adjectives, premodifying nouns, prepositional phrases and embedded clauses, play a significant role in writing development and proficiency (Biber et al., 2011; Lan et al., 2019). Corresponding to these formal features, three means of nominal expansion were targeted in this chapter: Epithet/Classifier ^ Thing, Qualifier ^ Thing and act clause as Head. Figure 4.1 lists the description of each means with examples directly drawn from the data, where modifiers are underlined, and Heads are bolded. Function types

Considering the focus and scope of this chapter, a simplified coding scheme (see Figure 4.2) was developed to identify the Participant roles involved in five major Process types (material, mental, relational, existential and verbal) and Circumstantial Adjuncts in the data. A type named ‘Modifier’ was included in the coding scheme to identify instances where Epithet ^ Thing and Qualifier ^ Thing served as Epithet and Classifier for another Head instead of functioning as Participant directly. Detailed explanation, examples from the data, and the means of nominal expansion of each example are shown in Figure 4.2, where the structures serving as the corresponding function types are underlined. To answer RQ 1, three metrics were generated by Atlas.ti: (1) frequency of NSs expanded by each means, (2) frequency of functions and (3) frequency of mapping of functions and NSs. To answer RQ 2, CRIE

Figure 4.1 Means of nominal expansion

86 Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

Figure 4.2 Function types (based on Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014; Matthiessen et al., 2010)

3.0, an automated analyzer for Chinese texts (Sung et al., 2016) was used to obtain the number of clauses in the data. Frequencies of the total and three means of nominal expansion were normalized by the number of clauses in each essay, then compared across course levels to show developmental patterns. Non-parametric statistical tests, Kruskal–Wallis tests and Dunn’s tests with Bonferroni corrections were used for overall and pairwise comparisons due to the small size of the data and the convenience sampling procedure. R packages (R Core Team, 2017) were used for statistical analyses. To answer RQ 3, the Head nouns in the Epithet/

Investigating Nominal Structures in L2 Chinese Writing

87

Classifier ^ Thing and the Qualifier ^ Thing were examined to identify Thing abstraction and GM deployment as advanced use of NSs beyond modification. Results NSs and functions

A total of 564 complex NSs were identified. The distribution of nominal expansion in Essay 1 and Essay 2 was summarized in Table 4.2. As shown in Figure 4.3, while the NSs were overall more frequent in Essay 2 than in Essay 1, the distribution of the three means of nominal expansion showed the same pattern in both essays: Epithet/Classifier ^ Thing was used most frequently, followed by act clause as Head and Qualifier ^ Thing was used the least. Table 4.2 Frequencies and percentages of complex NSs Means

Essay 1 Frequency

Epithet/Classifier ^ Thing

81

Essay 2

Essays combined

Percentage

Frequency

Percentage

Frequency

14.36%

171

30.32%

252

Percentage 44.68%

Qualifier ^ Thing

41

7.27%

82

14.54%

123

21.81%

Act clause as Head

50

8.87%

139

24.65%

189

33.51%

172

30.50%

392

69.50%

564

100.00%

Total

Figure 4.2A Distributions of complex NSs in two essays

88 Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

As summarized in Table 4.3, these NSs served 13 function types. The top five functions – Carrier, Goal, Phenomenon, Attribute and Participant in Circumstance – were mapped with 90.43% of the total NSs. The other seven functions (Existent, Actor, Senser, Verbiage, Receiver, Range and Modifier) were mapped with the remaining 9.57% of the NSs, combined into ‘Others’ in Table 4.3 and Figure 4.4. Each means of nominal expansion played diverse functions with some distributional properties under the influence of essay topic. First, Carrier construed by act clause as Head in Essay 2 was strikingly more frequent (93 instances) than Epithet/Classifier ^ Thing (19 instances) and Qualifier ^ Thing (23 instances). Prompted by the topic of Essay 2, the participants frequently described and commented on the characteristics of actions such as eating at home/outside/restaurants and cooking by oneself (e.g. zài jiāli chīfàn zuìhǎo eating at home is the best; zìjǐ zuòfàn zuìhǎo cooking by oneself is the best). Similarly, among the only three functions construed by act clause as Head (50 instances) in Essay 1, Phenomenon took up 80% (40 instances), far outweighing Carrier and Attribute combined. The participants frequently used act clauses directly to describe crime scenes being watched by different characters in the narrative (e.g. fúwùyuán Table 4.3 Mapping of functions and NSs Means of nominal expansion

Epithet/Classifier ^ Thing

Function

E1

E2

1. Carrier

E1 + E2

Qualifier ^ Thing

E1

E2

E1 + E2

Act clause as Head

E1

E1 + E2

E2

Total

E1 + E2

4

19

23

3

23

26

5

93

98

147

2. Goal

31

74

105

9

27

36

0

4

4

145

3. Phenomenon

11

6

17

12

4

16

40

11

54

84

4. Attribute

12

39

51

1

9

10

5

13

18

79

5. Participant in Circumstance

10

15

25

8

8

16

0

14

14

55

Others

13

18

41

8

11

19

0

4

4

54

Total

81

171

252

41

82

123

50

139

189

564

Figure 4.3 Distribution of complex NSs and functions in two essays

Investigating Nominal Structures in L2 Chinese Writing

89

kànle yìtái diànshì bèi rén názǒu the shop assistant saw a TV being taken away by someone; yìzhí zài guānchá yǒuméiyǒu biéde rén kept observing whether there was anyone else). Phenomenon was the only function type more frequent in Essay 1 than Essay 2. Second, Goal was most frequently construed by Epithet/Classifier ^ Thing (105 instances) while minimally by act clause as Head (none in Essay 1 and 4 instances in Essay 2). That is, an NS comprising a nominal Head modified by an Adverbial group (or another noun) was preferred to collocate an action verb. (e.g. nònghuài le chāoshì de chuānghu broke the window of the supermarket; zuò xīn de cài to make new dishes). Moreover, Attribute was most frequently functioned by Epithet/Classifier ^ Thing (51 instances) (e.g. Xiǎojùn shì ge búdàodé de háizi Xiaojun is an immoral child; fàn yǒu tèshū de měiwèi the meal has special good taste), compared to Attribute construed by Qualifier ^ Thing (10 instances) and act clause as Head (18 instances). Finally, Qualifier ^ Thing did not show as noticeable preferences for functions as the other two means. In Essay 1, Qualifier ^ Thing construed Phenomenon (12 instances) and Goal (9 instances) more frequently than the other functions, while in Essay 2, the most frequent functions were Goal (27 instances) and Carrier (23 instances). Development of nominal expansion

The results of comparing complex NSs (normalized by clause numbers) across course levels are summarized in Tables 4.4 to 4.7, as illustrated in Figure 4.5. First, the Kruskal–Wallis tests showed statistically significant differences in the total NSs across levels for both essays. The follow-up Dunn’s tests showed that for Essay 1, there was sufficient evidence of differences between Level 4 and Level 2 as well as between Level 3 and Level 2. For Essay 2, significant differences were found between Level 4 and Level 2. Furthermore, the Kruskal–Wallis tests showed statistically significant differences across Table 4.4 Essay 1: Results of complex NSs compared across levels Level 2

Epithet/Classifier ^ Thing

Level 3

Level 4

Kruskal– Wallis X2

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

0.09

0.05

0.22

0.12

0.26

0.12

8.91

p value

η2

0.012*

.41

Qualifier ^ Thing

0.02

0.03

0.10

0.08

0.20

0.19

5.55

0.06

/

Act clause as Head

0.08

0.04

0.14

0.10

0.10

0.03

2.54

0.28

/

Total NSs

0.18

0.07

0.47

0.16

0.56

0.31

12.06

0.002**

0.59

p < 0.05*, p < 0.01**

90 Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

Table 4.5 Essay 1: Results of pairwise comparisons by level Level 2

Level 3

Difference in mean ranks Column-Row

p value

Level 3

−3.03

0.004**

Level 4

−2.82

0.007*

Level 3

−2.48

0.02*

Level 4

−2.55

0.02*

Difference in mean ranks Column-Row

p value

−0.07

1

−0.29

1

Total NSs

Epithet/Classifier ^ Thing

p < 0.05/2*, p < 0.01/2** (with Bonferroni corrections)

Table 4.6 Essay 2: Results of complex NSs compared across levels Level 2

Epithet/Classifier ^ Thing

Level 3

Level 4

Kruskal– Wallis X2

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

0.19

0.11

0.26

0.14

0.36

0.18

3.98

Qualifier ^ Thing

0.03

0.04

0.18

0.09

0.24

0.09

13.34

Act clause as Head

0.18

0.07

0.25

0.09

0.24

0.05

3.75

Total NSs

0.39

0.07

0.68

0.24

0.84

0.27

10.29

p value

η2

0.14

/

0.001**

0.67

0.15

/

0.006**

0.49

p < 0.05*, p < 0.01**

Table 4.7 Essay 2: Results of pairwise comparisons by level Level 2

Level 3

Difference in mean ranks Column-Row

p value

Level 3

−2.31

0.03

Level 4

−2.99

0.004**

Level 3

−2.81

0.007*

Level 4

−3.3

0.001**

Difference in mean ranks Column-Row

p value

−0.87

0.57

−0.73

0.7

Total NSs

Qualifier ^ Thing

p < .05/2*, p < .01/2** (with Bonferroni corrections)

levels in Epithet/Classifier ^ Thing for Essay 1 and in Qualifier ^ Thing for Essay 2. Significant evidence of pairwise differences in both means was found between Level 4 and Level 2 and between Level 3 and Level 2. In comparison, no significant difference in act clause as Head was found for either essay; nor was significant difference observed in the total or any means of nominal expansion between Level 4 and Level 3.

Investigating Nominal Structures in L2 Chinese Writing

91

Figure 4.4 Distribution of NSs across levels in two essays

Some patterns in the distribution of the NSs across levels can be observed in Figure 4.5. At Level 2, Epithet/Classifier ^ Thing was infrequent in Essay 1, limited to the description of people’s appearance in the picture (e.g. bù gānjìng de yīfu unclean clothes; yǒuhēi de tóufa black hair). In Essay 2, although the frequency was higher than in Essay 1, many of the Epithets homogenously indicated the quantity of Things, such as ‘hěnduō many’ and ‘tàiduō too many.’ At Levels 3 and 4, the variety of Epithets, as well as the scope of Things modified increased. Expressions such as ‘yuányuán de yuè round moon,’ ‘wánměi de jìhuà perfect plan,’ and ‘shíyòng de bànfǎ practical method’ construed the experience more vividly. Moreover, as Qualifier ^ Thing increased from Level 2 to Level 3, the distribution of the three means of nominal expansion grew more balanced, especially in Essay 2. Growing complexity in the Qualifiers was also observed, as shown by the following excerpts including the longest Qualifiers from the essays at Levels 2, 3 and 4 (with Qualifiers underlined and Things bolded). (10) bié chī nǐ bù zhīdào shì shénme de ròu (Level 2, Essay 2) do not eat the meat you do not know (11) chīfàn zài jiāli de wàimian gěi nǐ kěyǐ chī hěnduō de guójiā de cài de jīhuì (Level 3, Essay 2) eating outside home gives you chances of eating cousins from many countries (12) yě xiǎngqǐ le wèile bù diūshī zìxíngchē ér xiěxiàlái de míngzi hé dìzhǐ (Level 4, Essay 1) also remembered the name and address (he) wrote to prevent losing (his) bicycle Advanced use of NSs

A close examination of the Head nouns in the targeted NSs showed (1) an emerging trend of Thing abstraction at Level 3 and (2) the sporadic use of GMs at Level 4. At Level 2, only two abstract nouns (qíngkuàng

92 Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

Table 4.8 Frequency of abstract nouns in two essays across levels Essay 1 Level 2

Essay 2

0

2

Level 3

4

15

Level 4

12

17

situation and fāngfāngmiànmiàn all aspects) were found in one single essay. At Levels 3 and 4, all participants used at least one abstract noun in either essay (Table 4.8); especially, two of them used abstract nouns extensively, contributing 8 out of 19 instances at Level 3 and 15 out of 29 instances at Level 4, respectively. However, only a few GMs were identified among the 15 instances of abstract nouns, as illustrated in the following sentences (GMs are bolded). The corresponding congruent forms are provided under the original forms. (13) Dànshì tā de jìhuà fāshēng le jùdà de biànhuà. (Essay 1) But his plan underwent a great change. (13a) Congruent: Dànshì tā de jìhuà dàdà de biànhuà le. But his plan greatly changed. (14) Jīngjì de yuányīn hé biànlìxìng xīyǐn le zhèxiē jiātíng chūmén chīfàn. (Essay 2) Economic reasons and convenience attract these families to go out to eat. (14a) Congruent: Yīnwèi wàichū chīfàn jīngjì yòu biànlì, zhèxiē jiātíng chūmén chīfàn. Because eating outside is economical and convenient, these families go out to eat. Rather than using the congruent forms, which either emphasized the dynamic processes (biànhuà, to change; biànlì, convenient) or the overt function word to indicate logic (yīnwèi, because), the participant used nominalization to metaphorically objectify the happening (biànhuà, change) and condense the logic relation into a material process (xīyǐn, to attract). Discussion Functions of NSs

The results showed that the L2 Chinese learners at Intermediate to Advanced levels in this chapter were able to expand NSs with Epithet, Classifier, Qualifier and act clause in narrative and expository writing. These NSs were selectively used to construe various experience represented by Participant types. Except for Carrier, nominal expansion was mostly

Investigating Nominal Structures in L2 Chinese Writing

93

used to construe Participant in the latter part of a clause (e.g. Goal, Phenomenon and Attribute), which aligned with the ‘Given ^ New pattern’ of information structure in Chinese (Halliday & McDonald, 2004: 324). For example, in contrast to the minimal complex NSs as Actors, Goals as the receivers of action were of greater interest and thus more expanded by Epithets and Classifiers. Compared to McCabe and Gallagher (2008) where the proficient EFL writers construed metaphorical Sayers with inanimate entities (e.g. the paper says/explains/concludes) and Actors with abstract events and physical happenings (e.g. liberation and feminist theologies liberate people) in argument, the L2 Chinese learners in this chapter largely used act clauses as Head to construe Phenomena in narration (Essay 1) and Carriers in reasoning and evaluation (Essay 2). Since an act clause ‘involves a process as the nucleus’ (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014: 503) and functions ‘in an environment whose original defi ning occupant is a nominal group’ (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2006: 259), dynamic actions, happenings and practices were directly encoded as here-and-now experiences to be seen, heard, felt and commented on. Like the novice writers who relied much on the clausal encoding of experience in McCabe and Gallagher (2008), the L2 Chinese learners represented reality in a way distant from a synoptic expression which freezes the processes into a static status to be evaluated (Francis, 1990). Nonetheless, due to the differences in proficiency and writing task features between the EFL and L2 Chinese learners, these comparisons may be inconclusive and deserve further investigation. Development of nominal expansion and advanced use of NSs

The participants’ use of nominal expansion was found to increase with the course level, though the difference between Level 3 and Level 4 was not statistically significant. This generally echoed prior observations on EFL writing (X. Lu, 2011; Mazgutova & Kormos, 2015), indicating that complex NSs likely remain comparatively stable in frequency after learners have mastered nominal expansion to elaborate meaning in writing (e.g. Level 3 participants in this chapter), despite the increase of course/proficiency level. Besides, Epithet/Classifier ^ Thing in Essay 1 and Qualifier ^ Thing in Essay 2 followed a similarly growing pattern in the use of total complex NSs. The growth of Qualifier ^ Thing contributed to the increasingly balanced distribution of the three means of nominal expansion from Level 2 to Level 4. In line with Lan et al. (2019), the participants showed progress in the use of nominal resources at Levels 3 and 4 by adopting varied Epithets to construe more vivid and subtle descriptions. The lower frequency of Qualifier than Epithet/Classifier at Level 2 in both essays, along with its significant growth from Level 2 to Level 3 in Essay 2, partially supported the later emergence of relative clauses and prepositional phrases (as Qualifiers) in comparison to attributive adjectives (as Epithets). This

94 Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

was observed in some prior studies on L2 English and German writing (Biber et al., 2011; Parkinson & Musgrave, 2014; Vyatkina et al., 2015). The formation of Qualifier ^ Thing in Chinese often involves clause embedding, word order reorganization and the subordinating de (C. Li & Thompson, 1989; E. Li, 2007), which is structurally more complex than Epithet/Classifier ^ Thing. The clause embedding, without morphological inflection, shares the form of ranking clauses, thus not very challenging for learners. Considering that the Level 2 participants were found to competently use act clauses as Head to construe Participants, the obstacle for lower-level learners to construct Qualifier ^ Thing may come from word order reorganization, insertion of the subordinating de and/or the awareness of Qualifier as a premodifier. In contrast, erroneous use of ranking clauses as premodifying Qualifiers was common in Chinese EFL learners’ writing (Maxwell-Reid & Kartika-Ningsih, 2020). The learners’ development of NSs in writing was also manifested in the growth of abstract Things from Level 3 to Level 4 and the sporadic use of GMs realizing objectification and condensation at Level 4. However, compared to prior studies on L2 German and English writing (e.g. Byrne, 2009; Yasuda, 2015), the use of GM by the participants in this chapter was marginal. Most nominalization identified herein was not at the thematic position, which may mitigate GM’s potential to enhance textual cohesion (c.f. Ryshina-Pankova, 2006). Pedagogical implications

The fi ndings of this chapter shed light on L2 Chinese writing instruction in terms of constructing NSs to make meaning in diff erent contexts. Specifically, Chinese writing instruction from lower to higher levels can display increased potential mappings of nominal expansion and Participant types, therefore guiding students to compare their textual effects on different genres. Before the Advanced level, the instruction can be more devoted to the various means of nominal expansion by increasing learners’ lexical volume of adjectives and nouns as premodifiers. Taking advantage of the comparative ease of clause embedding in Chinese, the instruction can scaffold learners to construct act clause as Head and Qualifier ^ Thing from an early stage, exploring their effects of instilling dynamics into Participants in experience construing. Moreover, the variety and scope of nominal expansion and their contribution to information richness should be included when evaluating learners’ writing. Writing instruction at the Advanced level can focus more on the written lexical density featured by skillful uses of abstract nouns and nominalization, especially GMs. Like clause embedding, the grammatical transparency of nominalization in Chinese can make this resource more accessible to learners, and thus more pedagogical efforts may be allocated to its functions to present, track, distill and expand information in the

Investigating Nominal Structures in L2 Chinese Writing

95

text (Fang et al., 2006). As suggested by Byrnes (2009), Maxwell-Reid and Kartika-Ningsih (2020) and McCabe and Gallagher (2008), advanced learners should be presented with more model texts in broader genres, engaged in awareness-raising activities of the textual function of nominalization, and guided to transfer between congruent and metaphorical expressions appropriate to genres. For example, although pictureprompted narrative (Essay 1) may be associated with Intermediate-level instruction, the same prompt can be adapted for Advanced-level courses. From reading and comparing the model texts of a personal recount and a news story, learners identify nominalizations, discuss their functions and practice writing about a similar incident in an assigned or a selfselected genre. The two examples below are adapted from one participant’s essay to illustrate congruent-metaphorical comparison in model texts: (15) Personal recount (no use of GM): Tīngdào yǒu rén zhuàng chē, yuèláiyuèduō de rén kāishǐ guānzhù lùbiān fāshēng le shénme. Hearing that someone got hit by a vehicle, more and more people started to pay attention to what had happened at the roadside. (16) News story (with GMs bolded): Chēliàng xiāngzhuàng de jùxiǎng yǐnqǐ le rénmen de guānzhù. The bang of the car crash attracted people’s attention. Conclusion

Informed by SFL’s description of language, this chapter is a pioneer in exploring NSs as a significant meaning-making resource in L2 Chinese writing. The fi ndings contributed to a deeper understanding of the expansion, functions and development of NSs L2 Chinese learners use to construe experience in writing. Calling for more instructional focus on NSs in L2 Chinese writing, this chapter also provided pedagogical suggestions for lower and higher course levels, especially addressing GM as the most distinguishable written feature at the advanced level. Due to the small scale, the fi ndings and conclusions are tentative. First, the participants were from one Chinese program, representing a specific L2 Chinese learner sample and learning context. Second, the essay prompts may have limited learners’ use of language resources, especially advanced features like GM. In addition, by targeting complex NSs functioning as Participant in learners’ writing only, this chapter did not differentiate degrees of nominal expansion, including single Head nouns. Future studies should address these limitations and increase the understanding of L2 Chinese learners’ deployment of language resources to construe Participant and other essential elements of experience. Further exploration of SFL-informed instructional approaches could enhance learners’ meaning-making in L2 Chinese writing.

96 Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

Funding

This study was funded by the Teaching and Assessment Grant 2020 of Duke Kunshan University. References ACTFL (2012) ACTFL proficiency guidelines. https://www.actfl.org/sites/default/fi les/ guidelines/ACTFLProficiencyGuidelines2012.pdf. Biber, D., Gray, B. and Poonpon, K. (2011) Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly 45 (1), 5–35. Byrnes, H. (2009) Emergent L2 German writing ability in a curricular context: A longitudinal study of grammatical metaphor. Linguistics and Education 20 (1), 50–66. Center for Applied Linguistics (1992) Rater Training Manual for Simulated. Oral Profi ciency Interview (SOPI). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Cheng, F.W. (2017) Construing CSL writing as meaning-making: A genre-based approach. In I. Kecskes (ed.) Explorations into Chinese as a Second Language (pp. 111–139). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Cheng, F.W. and Chiu, M. (2018) Scaffolding Chinese as a second language writing through a Systemic Functional Linguistics approach. System 72, 99–113. Fang, Z., Schleppegrell, M.J. and Cox, B.E. (2006) Understanding the language demands of schooling: Nouns in academic registers. Journal of Literacy Research 38 (3), 247–273. Fang, Z., Gresser, V., Cao, P. and Zheng, J. (2021) Nominal complexities in school children’s informational writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 50, 1–15. Francis, G. (1990) Theme in the daily press. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics 4, 51–87. Halliday, M.A.K. (1993) Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education 5 (2), 93–116. Halliday, M.A.K. (1996) Literacy and linguistics: A functional perspective. In R. Hasan and G. William (eds) Literacy in Society (pp. 339–371). London: Longman. Halliday, M.A.K. and Webster, J. (2003) On Language and Linguistics (Vol. 3). New York: Continuum. Halliday, M.A.K. and McDonald, E. (2004) Metafunctional profi le of the grammar of Chinese. In A. Caffarel-Cayro, J.R. Martin and C. Matthiessen (eds) Language Typology: A Functional Perspective (pp. 305–396). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Halliday, M.A.K. and Matthiessen, C. (2006) Construing Experience Through Meaning: A Language-Based Approach to Cognition. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Halliday, M.A.K. and Matthiessen, C. (2014) Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar (4th edn). New York: Routledge. Huang, J. and Mohan, B. (2009) A functional approach to integrated assessment of teacher support and student discourse development in an elementary Chinese program. Linguistics and Education 20 (1), 22–38. Lan, G., Lucas, K. and Sun, Y. (2019) Does L2 writing proficiency influence noun phrase complexity? A case analysis of argumentative essays written by Chinese students in a fi rst-year composition course. System 85, 102–116. Li, C.N. and Thompson, S.A. (1989) Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Gramma. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Li, E.S. (2007) A Systemic Functional Grammar of Chinese. New York: Continuum. Liardét, C.L. (2013) An exploration of Chinese EFL learner’s deployment of grammatical metaphor: Learning to make academically valued meanings. Journal of Second Language Writing 22 (2), 161–178.

Investigating Nominal Structures in L2 Chinese Writing

97

Liardét, C.L. (2015) Academic literacy and grammatical metaphor: Mapping development. TESOL International Journal 10 (1), 29–46. Liardét, C.L. (2016) Nominalization and grammatical metaphor: Elaborating the theory. English for Specifi c Purposes 44, 16–29. Lu, X. (2011) A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers’ language development. TESOL Quarterly 45 (1), 36–62. Lu, Y. and Ke, C. (2018) L2 Chinese grammar development. In C. Ke (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Chinese Second Language Acquisition (pp. 151–216). New York: Routledge. Matthiessen, C., Teruya, K. and Lam, M. (2010) Key Terms in Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Maxwell-Reid, C. and Kartika-Ningsih, H. (2020) Nominal expansion in L2 adolescent writing: Functions and realizations of clausal embedding in argumentative texts. Journal of Second Language Writing 49, 1–12. Mazgutova, D. and Kormos, J. (2015) Syntactic and lexical development in an intensive English for Academic Purposes programme. Journal of Second Language Writing 29, 3–15. McCabe, A. (2017) Systemic functional linguistics and language teaching. In T. Bartlett and G. O’Grady (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. New York: Routledge. McCabe, A. and Gallagher, C. (2008) The role of the nominal groups in the undergraduate academic writing. In C. Jones and E. Ventola (eds) From Language to Multimodality: New Developments in the Study of Ideational Meaning (pp. 189–208). Sheffield: Equinox. Mohan, B. and Huang, J. (2002) Assessing the integration of language and content in a Mandarin as a foreign language classroom. Linguistics and Education 13 (3), 405–433. Parkinson, J. and Musgrave, J. (2014) Development of noun phrase complexity in the writing of English for Academic Purposes students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 14, 48–59. R Core (2017) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. https:// www.R-project.org/. Ryshina-Pankova, M. (2006) Creating textual worlds in advanced learner writing: The role of complex theme. In H. Byrnes (ed.) Advanced Language Learning: The Contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 164–183). London: Continuum. Ryshina-Pankova, M. (2010) Toward mastering the discourses of reasoning: Use of grammatical metaphor at advanced levels of foreign language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal 94 (2), 181–197. Ryshina-Pankova, M. (2015) A meaning-based approach to the study of complexity in L2 writing: The case of grammatical metaphor. Journal of Second Language Writing 29, 51–63. Ryshina-Pankova, M. (2018) Systemic functional linguistics and advanced second language proficiency. In P.A. Malovrh and A.G. Benati (eds) The Handbook of Advanced Profi ciency in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 7–29). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2001) Linguistic Features of the Language of Schooling. Linguistics and Education 12 (4), 431–459. Sung, Y.T., Chang, T.H., Lin, W.C., Hsieh, K.S. and Chang, K.E. (2016) CRIE: An automated analyzer for Chinese texts. Behavior Research Methods 48 (4), 1238–1251. Vyatkina, N., Hirschmann, H. and Golcher, F. (2015) Syntactic modification at early stages of L2 German writing development: A longitudinal learner corpus study. Journal of Second Language Writing 29, 28–50. Whittaker, R. and McCabe, A. (2020) Writing on history in a content and language integrated learning (CLIL) context: Development of grammatical metaphor and

98

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

abstraction as evidence of language learning. In R.M. Manchón (ed.) Language Learning and Language Teaching (pp. 309–332). Amsterdam: John Benjamin. Whittaker, R., Llinares, A. and McCabe, A. (2011) Written discourse development in CLIL at secondary school. Language Teaching Research 15 (3), 343–362. Yang, Y. (2015) Grammatical Metaphor in Chinese. Sheffield: Equinox. Yasuda, S. (2015) Exploring changes in FL writers’ meaning-making choices in summary writing: A systemic functional approach. Journal of Second Language Writing 27, 105–121.

5 Exploring L2 Chinese Learners’ Connective Usage in Writing: An Error Analysis Approach Jia Lin and Gengsong Gao

Introduction

Discourse competence, the ability to connect clauses, sentences and utterances into extended units of cohesive texts, is a central element of communicative competence (Canale, 1983; Canale & Swain, 1980). To construct and enhance local connectedness of discourse, second language (L2) learners need to know the correct use of connectives. Unlike English, which has clear sentence boundaries, Mandarin Chinese is discourseoriented, and its comprehension relies on all of the discourse information (Tsao, 1979). Therefore, the mastery of connectives, especially intersentence connectors, is crucial to L2 Chinese writing. Error analysis refers to the approach to analyze errors in L2 written and spoken performance (Richards & Schmidt, 2013) and has been commonly used for understanding how L2 Chinese learners use connectives in writing (e.g. Xu, 2001; Yang, 2013). As a branch of applied linguistics, error analysis emerged in the 1960s and has played an essential role in second language acquisition research and in L2 Chinese grammatical development studies since the 1970s (Lu, 2017; Richards, 1980). With the popularity of interlanguage corpora, this method has been subsequently used in the research of L2 Chinese connectives. Chinese connectives are challenging for L2 learners due to their complexity and flexibility (Lu, 2017). Research efforts have been made to examine how L2 Chinese learners used connectives in essay writing. However, previous studies have some flaws in research design that impedes the generalizations of the fi ndings (to be elaborated in the Literature Review section). In addition, although they qualitatively studied the errors that learners made in L2 writing, the frequency of specific types of errors and the accuracy rates of different connectives were rarely examined. 99

100

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

Establishing accuracy rates is important because it sheds light on the L2 learning difficulty and developmental patterns of Chinese connectives. This line of research can also reveal useful implications for classroom teaching and material development. Hence, furthering the current understanding of L2 Chinese learners’ production of written texts (similar to Chapter 4, written by Pan), this chapter examines how the writers from an advanced-level course employed connectives in argumentative and narrative writings. Apart from the types of errors writers committed, it addresses the limitations of prior research by investigating the accuracy rates of connectives denoting each semantic relationship through TargetLike Use (TLU) analysis procedures.

Literature Review Chinese connectives

Connectives are cohesive devices that connect clauses, phrases or words and express certain semantic relationships (Richards & Schmidt, 2013). Chinese connectives consist of conjunctions, linking adverbs and connecting ultra-word units (e.g. ⤪㝄……䘬宅, rúguǒ…de huà, if) (Lu, 2017). According to the semantic relationships denoted, connectives can be classified into 12 categories, including inferencing connectives and the other 11 categories shown in Table 5.1 (p. 105). According to the grammatical units that they connect, Chinese connectives can overall be grouped into three categories: (a) intra-sentence connectives, such as ␴ (hé, and) and ᶶ (yŭ, and), which can only connect words or phrases; (b) the connectives that connect clauses/sentences but not words/phrases (e.g. 㖊䃞, jìrán, since; ⌛ἧ, jíshǐ, even though); and (c) the connectives that connect words, phrases, clauses and sentences (e.g. ㆾ侭, huòzhě, or; ⚈ ᷢ, yīnwèi, because; ᶵ䭉0㖈孢, bùguǎn/wúlùn, no matter) (Huang & Liao, 2002). This chapter focuses on the second and third categories because they play a critical role in discourse building. Different from English connectives, Chinese connectives can be used in pairs. According to Zhang and Qiu’s corpus-based study (2007), first language (L1) Chinese speakers prefer to use such connectives in pairs as ᶵṭ……侴ᶼ…… (bùjǐn … érqiě…, not only … but also …), 㖊……⍰…… (jì … yòu…, not only … but also…), ⌛ἧ……ḇ…… (jíshǐ … yě…, even though … still…), 嘥䃞……Ữ㗗…… (suīrán … dànshì…, although … but…), 㖈孢……悥…… (wúlùn … dōu…, no matter … all…), ⎒ 㚱……ㇵ…… (zhǐyǒu … cái…, only if…then…), ⎒天……⯙…… (zhǐyào … jiù…, as long as … then…). For other connectives, the co-occurrence is optional. For example, connectives 㖊䃞 (jìrán, since), 㖈孢 (wúlùn, no matter) and ⚈ᷢ (yīnwèi, because) can be used alone or take another connective in the second clause, that is, ⯙ (jiù, then), 悥 (dōu, all), ㇨ẍ (suǒyǐ, so) respectively (Lu, 2017). Similarly, connectives (e.g. ㇨ẍ, suǒyǐ,

Exploring L2 Chinese Learners’ Connective Usage in Writing

101

so), which ought to appear in the second clause, can appear alone or cooccur with another connective in the first clause. Another difference between English and Chinese connectives is their position. The former is more flexible than the latter (Lu, 2017). Generally, no matter whether clauses share the same subject, Chinese connective conjunctions should be placed before the subjects (i.e. in the sentence- or clause-initial position, with examples provided in the Results section). However, if subjects of two clauses are the same, the one in the second clause can be omitted, and in this case connective conjunctions are usually placed after the subject of the fi rst clause (see Example 8 in the Results section). Studies on L2 Chinese connectives

Compared with the research on Indo-European languages, the studies on L2 Chinese connectives are scarce. Some of them (Cao, 2013; Xu, 2001; Yang, 2013) investigated L2 Chinese connectives using the error analysis approach. For instance, Xu (2001) studied conjunctions in 67 essays written by students with more than two years of Chinese learning experience. They were L2 Chinese learners studying abroad in China, coming from the United Kingdom, Japan, Korea and Ukraine. Xu (2001) reported multiple types of errors made by the participants, including mismatched pairs of connectives, misuse of connectives due to form similarity (e.g. 侴ᶼ, érqiě, also vs. 侴㗗, érshì, but), misuse of connectives due to similarity in meaning (e.g. ⚈ᷢ, yīnwèi, because vs. 䓙Ḷ, yóuyú, because) and absence of obligatory connectives. Besides, the participants overused some connectives that native Chinese speakers tended to omit (e.g. implicit causality). Furthermore, some unnecessary connectives were used. Particularly, the participants tended to overproduce causal connectives when there were no causal relationships between clauses. While Xu (2001) focused on study abroad students, Yang (2013) studied the usage of connectives by three college-level learners from a fourthyear Chinese course in the United States. Their usage of connectives in written summaries of lesson content was compared with that in the textbook. Yang’s fi ndings showed that the participants overused connectives, like in Xu (2001) and in prior L2 literature (e.g. Green et al., 2000; Hinkel, 2001). Specifically, the participants tended to overuse the connectives frequently used in their textbook, including Ữ0Ữ㗗 (dàn/dànshì, but), ⎗0⎗ 㗗 (kě/kěshì, but), 侴ᶼ (érqiě, also), Ḷ㗗 (yúshì, thus) and ⚈ᷢ (yīnwèi, because). However, the types of connectives used by the participants were much fewer than those that appeared in the textbook. This suggested that the connectives fully mastered by L2 Chinese learners were very limited. Another recent study, Cao (2013), focused on beginning-level Chinese as a foreign language learners’ use of four causal connectives: ᷢḮ (wèile, for), ⤪㝄 (rúgu ǒ, if), ⚈ᷢ (yīnwèi, because) and ㇨ẍ (su ǒy ǐ, so).

102

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

By analyzing 280 essays written by beginning learners, the author found that the learners preferred to use causal connectives in paired positions (i.e. Connective 1 + Sentence 1, Connective 2 + Sentence 2) and in the sentence-medial position (i.e. Sentence 1, Connective + Sentence 2). These two usages accounted for 46% and 40% respectively, whereas the use of connectives in the sentence-initial position only accounted for 14%. Compared with native speakers, beginning learners overused all four causal connectives in paired positions and also overused ⚈ᷢ (yīnwèi, because) in the sentence-medial position. However, they underused all four investigated causal connectives in the sentence-initial position (i.e. Connective + Sentence 1, Sentence 2) and underused ㇨ẍ (suǒyǐ, so) in the sentence-medial position. All the studies above identified the errors that L2 Chinese learners made in essay writing but did not calculate the accuracy rate of connectives. Lu (2017) was the only study that addressed this problem. He recruited 199 native Chinese speakers from a university in China and 263 L2 Chinese learners with at least one semester of college-level Chinese instruction in the United States. By investigating their connective usage through sentence completion tests (i.e. fi ll-in-the-blank) and multiple-choice questions, Lu (2017) observed that the L2 Chinese learners were more likely to underuse connectives than native speakers no matter whether their uses were preferable or optional. The study also calculated the accuracy rates of 12 pairs of connectives, fi nding that they decreased from 嘥䃞……Ữ㗗…… (suīrán … dànshì…, although…however…) to ⌛ἧ……ḇ…… (jíshǐ … yě…, even if…), as shown in Table 5.2 in the Results section (p. 106). Lastly, the learners were found to mismatch some pairs of connectives, which systematically occurred. For example, 还 (hái, still, also) or ⯙ (jiù, then) was systematically misused in substitution of 悥 (dōu, all) in 㖈孢……悥…… (wúlùn … dōu…, no matter … all…). In summary, prior studies on how learners used connectives in L2 Chinese writing were overall small in their samples and in the number of connectives investigated, so their findings were limited in generalizability. Great variability was also identified among these studies in terms of participants’ proficiency and the number of the essays they wrote. In addition, very few studies explored the frequency of each type of errors. The only study on accuracy rates of Chinese connectives, Lu (2017), was not a direct observation of how L2 Chinese learners used connectives in writing. Limited by data collection methods, some types of errors (e.g. misplacement of connectives and reversing the order of paired connectives) that only occurred in essay writing were missing in Lu (2017). Lastly, prior studies had contradictory findings regarding whether L2 learners overused connectives. This chapter aims to fill in these gaps by investigating how learners from an advanced-level Chinese course employed connectives in

Exploring L2 Chinese Learners’ Connective Usage in Writing

103

writing argumentative and narrative essays. The two research questions guiding this chapter are: (1) What are the accuracy rates in using Chinese connectives in L2 writing? (2) What types of errors do learners make when using Chinese connectives in writing?

Method Participants

Thirteen students (five females, eight males) enrolled in a non-heritage advanced-level Chinese class of an East Coast university in the United States participated. They varied in age from 18 to 24 with a mean of 20.7 and consisted of one Korean-English bilingual speaker and 12 English L1 speakers. They had completed seven semesters of Chinese learning before taking the course. Though the participants learned about the connectives through their exposure to textbooks, they did not receive explicit instruction on how to use Chinese connectives in essay writing. Data collection

All participants signed the University honor code and independently typed three 500-character essays as after-class assignments throughout one 16-week semester. The three essays, one submission for each, were completed in the 5th, 10th and 14th week of the semester respectively, right after the topic of the essay was discussed in class. Corresponding to the topic and genre of textbook articles, the fi rst and third essays were both argumentative writing. In particular, the fi rst essay asked participants to compare and contrast American and Chinese attitudes toward marriage, while the third essay solicited participants’ opinions on beauty economy. Unlike these two essays, the second one was a narrative, requiring participants to narrate a story about their fathers. The writing requirements were instructed to all participants in detail before they wrote each essay. As five students did not submit one of the three essays, researchers collected 34 essays in total for data analysis. Data analysis

Drawing on previous studies’ data analysis procedures (Cao, 2013; Xu, 2001; Yang, 2013), researchers analyzed the data as follows. First, sentences with connectives were identified to count the frequency of each single connective or each pair of connectives. The identified connectives were classified according to the semantic relationships they denoted. Then

104

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

the grammatical accuracy of each connective was evaluated by the two researchers of the chapter, who are native Chinese speakers and experienced Chinese teachers. The evaluation was based on the comparison with native-speaker norms as reflected in the Peking University Center for Chinese Linguistics Corpus (Zhan et  al., 2003) and in the Modern Chinese textbook (Huang & Liao, 2002). Next, the errors were identified and categorized using the taxonomy proposed by Xu (2001) while also adding previously unanalyzed types of errors. For the error analysis, both researchers first individually analyzed 16 essays (11 argumentative and five narrative essays) and achieved the inter-rater reliability of 88.9%. Then they reached agreements through discussion and each analyzed half of the remaining 18 essays. Lastly, the accuracy rates for connectives denoting each semantic relationship were calculated. The accuracy rate was quantified using the Target-Like Use (TLU) analysis procedure because it counts not only correct usage but also the over-suppliance of a pattern in inappropriate contexts (Pica, 1983), often observed in L2 Chinese learners’ use of connectives (Xu, 2001; Yang, 2013). As shown by the formula below, if causal connectives were used correctly four times but incorrectly five times in obligatory contexts, and if they were also overused six times in non-obligatory contexts, the accuracy rate was 4/(4 + 5 + 6). TLU =

n correct suppliance in obligatory contexts (n obligatory contexts) + (n overuse in nonobligatory contexts)

Results Frequency, semantic relationships and L2 characteristics

The results showed that the participants used connectives 329 times in obligatory (n = 260) and non-obligatory (n = 69) contexts. These connectives were classified into 11 categories according to the denoted semantic relationships. Table 5.1 shows each category and the respective frequency and percentage. The connectives denoting causal (44.68%), adversative (28.27%) and hypothetical (7.29%) were most frequently used, followed by those denoting progressive relationship (6.99%). Compared with native-speaker norms reflected in the Peking University Center for Chinese Linguistics Corpus (Zhan et al., 2003) and in the Modern Chinese textbook (Huang & Liao, 2002), some obvious L2 characteristics in using Chinese connectives were observed. First, while there are multiple connectives denoting the same semantic relationships, the participants tended to use only one or two familiar connectives. As shown in Table 5.1, the category of causal connectives included eight unpaired and four paired connectives, and were used 147 times in total. Among them, ⚈ᷢ (yīnwèi, because) and ㇨ẍ (suǒy ǐ, so), taught very

Exploring L2 Chinese Learners’ Connective Usage in Writing

105

Table 5.1 Chinese connectives used by L2 learners in writing Semantic relationship

Frequency (obligation + overuse)

Percentage

Connectives

Causal

147

44.68%

⚈ᷢ (yīnwèi, because); ㇨ẍ(suǒyǐ, so); 䓙Ḷ(yóuyú, because); ⚈侴 (yīn’ér, so); 㗗⚈ᷢ(shìyīnwèi, because); ⚈ᷢ!0䓙Ḷ……㇨ẍ…… (yīnwèi/ yóuyú…suǒyǐ…, because……so……); ⚈㬌 (yīncǐ, so); 㖊䃞……⯙!0恋ᷰ…… (jìrán…jiù/nàme…, since…then…); ⎗奩!(kějiàn, it can be seen that); 乻㝄 (jiéguǒ, as a result)

Adversative

93

28.27%

嘥䃞 /宂䃞 / ……Ữ0Ữ㗗0⎗㗗0䃞侴…… (suīrán/ chéngrán …dàn/dànshì/ kěshì/ búguò/rán’ér…, although…but…); ⏎⇁ (fǒuzé, otherwise); 天ᶵ䃞 (yàoburán, otherwise); Ữ0Ữ㗗0⎗㗗 (dàn/dànshì/ kěshì, but); ᶵ彯 (búguò, however); 嘥䃞 (suīrán, although); 侴 (ér, however); 䃞侴 (rán’ér, however)

Hypothetical

24

7.29%

⤪㝄 (rúguǒ, if); ⤪㝄……⯙ /恋…… (rúguǒ…jiù/ nà…, if…then…)

Progressive

23

6.99%

侴ᶼ (érqiě ,furthermore); ᶵỮ!0ᶵṭ……侴ᶼ…… (búdàn/bùjǐn …érqiě…, not only……but also…); ᶵỮ……ḇ0㚜…… (búdàn … yě /gèng…, not only…but also…); ℵ宜 (zàishuō, in addition); ⎎⢾ (lìngwài, in addition); 䓂军 (shènzhì, even)

Successive

12

3.65%

Ḷ㗗 (yúshì, then); 䃞⎶ (ránhòu, then); 侴 (ér, and)

Concessive

9

2.74%

⌛ἧ (jíshǐ, even if); ⯥䭉 (jǐnguǎn, even if); ⌛ ἧ……ḇ0还…… (jíshǐ…yě/ hái…, even if…still…); ⚢䃞……Ữ㗗…… (gùrán…dànshì…, of course… however…)

Conditional

8

2.43%

ᶵ䭉0㖈孢 (bùguǎn/wúlùn, no matter ……);㖈 孢……悥…… (wúlùn…dōu…, no matter…all…); ⎒ 天……⯙…… (zhǐyào…jiù …, as long as…then…)

Coordinate

6

1.82%

侴 (ér, and); 㖊……ḇ…… (jì…yě…, not only…but also…); ᶵ㗗……侴㗗…… (búshì…érshì…, not… but…)

Purposive

4

1.22%

ẍ⃵(yǐmiǎn, so as not to)

Selective

2

0.61%

ㆾ侭(huòzhě, or)

Other

1

0.30%

⿣ᷳ(zǒngzhī, in sum)

Total

329

100%

early (Liu et al., 2010) and the most familiar to the participants, were used 121 times. The other seven causal connectives were only used 22 times in total. Similarly, among hypothetical connectives, only ⤪㝄 (rúguǒ, if) and ⤪㝄……⯙ / 恋 (rúguǒ……jiù/nà, if……) were used, whereas other hypothetical connectives had not been used even once. The fi ndings suggested that the participants had a smaller repertoire of connectives than native speakers. In addition, as previously discussed, some Chinese connectives can only be followed by words/phrases, some connectives can only connect clauses and some can be followed by either words/phrases, or clauses.

106

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

However, the participants in this chapter mainly used connectives to interlink clauses but seldom used connectives to connect words/phrases.

Accuracy rates

Through the TLU analysis procedure (Pica, 1983), the accuracy rate of each category of connectives (i.e. connectives denoting each semantic relationship) was calculated and shown in Table 5.2. The last four categories of connectives in Table 5.1, including coordinate, purposive and selective connectives, were excluded from the investigation of accuracy rates since their frequencies were extremely low. The accuracy rate of the hypothetical connectives was the highest (TLU = 0.96), followed by the connectives denoting adversative and progressive relationship. The causal connectives, most frequently used by the participants, had the lowest accuracy rate (TLU = 0.41). Table 5.2 Accuracy rates and raking of Chinese connectives Category

Correct use

Obligatory use

Hypothetical

23

23

Adversative

77

77

Progressive

17

19

Concessive

6

Conditional

5

overuse

TLU

Ranking in this study

Accuracy rates and ranking in Lu (2017)

1

0.96

1

N.A.

16

0.83

2

嘥䃞……Ữ㗗…… (suīrán … dànshì…, although … but…): 6.1 (1)*

4

0.74

3

ᶵỮ……侴ᶼ…… (búdàn … érqiě…, not only … but also…): 5.7 (3)

8

1

0.67

4

⌛ἧ……ḇ (jíshǐ … yě…, even though … still…): 2.1 (12)

8

0

0.63

5

㖈孢……悥…… (wúlùn … dōu…, no matter … all…): 3.9 (5) ⎒天……⯙…… (zhǐyào … jiù…, as long as … then…): 3.8 (6)

Successive Causal

6

6

6

0.50

6

N.A.

60

108

39

0.41

7

⚈ᷢ……㇨ẍ…… (yīnwèi…suǒyǐ…, because…so…): 6.0 (2) 㖊䃞……⯙ /恋ᷰ…… (jìrán…jiù/nàme…, since…then…): 3.1 (9)

*Note: 6.1 (1) indicates that the average accuracy score of this item is 6.1 and it was ranked as the 1st in terms of accuracy rate.

Exploring L2 Chinese Learners’ Connective Usage in Writing

107

Since multiple connectives were included by some of the frequently used categories, the accuracy rate of each of these connectives was also analyzed, as reported in Tables 5.3–5.5. However, within each category, the connectives with extreme low occurrences were excluded from the calculation (e.g. ⚈侴, yīn’ér, thus; 天ᶵ䃞, yàobùrán, otherwise). Error analysis

The categories of errors are presented below, starting from those already examined by previous studies to the new types of errors identified by the present chapter. Table 5.3 Accuracy rates of causal connectives Correct use

㗗⚈ᷢ ( shìyīnwèi, because)

3.00

Obligatory use 3.00

Overuse 0.00

TLU 1.00

⚈㬌 (yīncǐ, so)

8.00

8.00

2.00

0.80

㇨ẍ ( suǒyǐ, so)

23.00

28.00

15.00

0.53

䓙Ḷ (yóuyú, because)

4.00

4.00

4.00

0.50

⚈ᷢ /䓙Ḷ……㇨ẍ…… (yīnwèi/ yóuyú…suǒyǐ…, because…so…)

1.00

4.00

0.00

0.25

17.00

57.00

16.00

0.23

⚈ᷢ (yīnwèi, because)

Table 5.4 Accuracy rates of adversative connectives Correct use

嘥䃞 (suīrán, although) 䃞侴 (rán’ér, however)

5

Obligatory use 5

Overuse

TLU

0

1.00

3

3

0

1.00

Ữ /Ữ㗗 (dàn/dànshì, but)

33

33

8

0.80

嘥䃞……Ữ /Ữ㗗…… (suīrán…dàn/ dànshì/ kěshì…, although…but…)

16

17

3

0.80

4

4

1

0.80

10

10

4

0.71

ᶵ彯 (búguò, however) ⎗㗗 (kěshì, but)

Table 5.5 Accuracy rates of progressive connectives Correct use

Obligatory use

Overuse

TLU

侴ᶼ (érqiě, furthermore)

3

3

0

1.00

⎎⢾ (lìngwài, in addition)

3

3

0

1.00

ᶵỮ /ᶵṭ……侴ᶼ/ḇ0㚜…… (búdàn/ bùjǐn …érqiě/ yě /gèng…, not only…… but also…)

8

10

2

0.67

ℵ宜 (zàishuō, in addition)

1

1

2

0.33

108

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

Overuse

The participants overused causal, adversative, progressive and successive connectives in their writing. Particularly, the causal connectives were overused in substitution of the hypothetical or successive connectives 39 times while the number of obligatory contexts was 109 (Table 5.2). As Example 1 shows, the causal connective ㇨ẍ (suǒyǐ, so) was used when no causal relationship existed between the clauses. Conversely, in sentences like Example 2, although there was a causal relationship, employing a causal connective 㗗⚈ᷢ (shìyīnwèi, is because) was redundant here since ……䘬乻㝄 (…dejiéguǒ, the result of) in the same sentence also denoted a causal relationship. (1) *ㆹẔ悥⏡⮷⎟,㓏ⅴ!ㆹ⚆⭞䘬㖞῁,ㆹẔᶨ崟⏡⮷⎟ˤ Wǒmen dōu chuī xiǎohào, suǒyǐ wǒ huíjiā de shíhòu, wǒmen yìqǐ chuī xiǎohào. We both play the trumpet, so we play the trumpet when we come back home. (2) *ㆹ㊩征᷒䚳㱽㢾⥯⃉!ㆹ⛐ᷕ⚥ỷḮ⋲⸜䤓兢㨫ˤ Wǒ chí zhègè kànfǎ shì yīnwèi wǒ zài zhōngguó zhù le bànnián de jiéguǒ. I have this opinion is because of the result of living in China for half a year. The adversative connectives were overused 16 times while the number of obligatory contexts was 78. In particular, the adversative connectives 嘥 䃞……Ữ㗗…… (suīrán…dànshì…, although…but…) or Ữ㗗 (dànshì, but) were used in substitution of successive, causal, or concessive connectives. For instance, the two clauses in the following example had successive relationship but not adversative relationship, so the use of 嘥䃞……Ữ 㗗…… (suīrán…dànshì…, although…but…) was not accurate. In addition, it was found that the progressive connectives were overused four times and the number of obligatory contexts was 19, while the successive connectives were overproduced six times and the number of obligatory contexts was six. (3) *夌䏅! 征悐䓝⼙堐䍘Ḯᷕ⚥⅄㮹⮡⨂⦣␴䇙ねᾅ⬰䚳㱽嶇ㆹẔᶵ ⎴炻⇕㢾⬫ḇ宜㖶ᷢṨᷰṾẔ㚱征ṃỈ亇ˤ Suīrán zhèbù diànyǐng biǎoxiàn le zhōngguó nóngmín duì hūnyīn hé àiqíng bǎoshǒu kànfǎ gēn wǒmen bùtóng, dànshì tā yě shuōmíng wèishénme tāmen yǒu zhèxiē chuántǒng. Although this movie expresses Chinese peasants’ conservative opinions towards marriage and love which are different from ours (Americans), it also explains why they have these traditions. Reversing the order of paired connectives

Clauses denoting causes in Chinese are generally placed before clauses denoting results (Huang & Liao, 2002). For example, ⚈ᷢ (yīnwèi, because) is often used in the sentence-initial position, followed by a clause

Exploring L2 Chinese Learners’ Connective Usage in Writing

109

displaying the result initiated by ㇨ẍ (suǒyǐ, so). However, the error analysis revealed that ⚈ᷢ (yīnwèi, because) was used in the sentence-medial (as illustrated in Example 4) in 68.4% of the 57 causal relationship sentences. Meanwhile, the participants placed ㇨ẍ (suǒyǐ, so) in sentenceinitial instead of sentence-medial positions. Similarly, the participants used ᶵ䭉0㖈孢! (bùguǎn/wúlùn, no matter, 25%) and ⌛ἧ (jíshǐ, even if, 20%) in sentence-medial positions, while native speakers tended to put them in sentence-initial positions (Huang & Liao, 2002). In the previous sentence, the percentages in the parentheses indicate that these types of errors existed in 25% and 20% of the sentences involving the two connectives respectively. The following percentages in parentheses mean the same if not otherwise indicated. (4) *嘥䃞ṾẔ䘬ⶍἄ␴䓇㳣㭼弫⋽宫,Ữ㗗ṾẔ⼰㺉シ⥯⃉ṾẔḺ䚠 䄏栦ˤ Suīrán tāmen de gōngzuò hé shēnghuó bǐjiào dāndiào, dànshì tāmen hěn mǎnyì yīnwèi tāmen hùxiāng zhàogù. Although their work and life are relatively simple, they are very satisfied becausethey take care of each other. Mismatched pairs of connectives

Chinese connectives can be used in pairs and the combinations are fi xed (Zhang & Qiu, 2007). The participants mismatched some connectives mainly due to their similarity in meaning or form, such as the case of Ữ㗗 (dànshì, but) and 侴㗗 (érshì, but). As such, some participants mistakenly combined ᶵ㗗 (búshì, not) with Ữ㗗 (dànshì, but, 33%) to substitute the right combination of ᶵ㗗……侴㗗…… (búshì…érshì…, not… but…). Similar errors included using ⻻䃞……Ữ㗗…… (dāngrán… dànshì…, of course…however…, 10%) and ᷢ……㇨ẍ…… (wèi.… su ǒ y ǐ…, in order to……so…, 20%) instead of 嘥䃞……Ữ㗗…… (suīrán…dànshì…, although…however…) and ⚈ᷢ……㇨ẍ …… (yīnwèi…suǒyǐ…, because…so…). Misuse of unpaired connectives

Due to the similarity in meaning or form, the participants also misused some unpaired connectives. For example, they interchangeably used ⎒㗗 (zhǐshì, only 3.3%) with Ữ㗗 (dànshì, but), and 侴 (ér, however, 11.1%) with 侴ᶼ (érqiě, in addition) due to the similarity of form. Another example was the misuse of successive connectives 侴ᶼ (érqiě, in addition) and ℵ宜 (zàishuō, in addition). Though both can be translated as ‘in addition’, ℵ宜 (zàishuō, in addition) introduces an extra reason for an action taken or a decision made, whereas the clause following 侴ᶼ (érqiě, in addition) may or may not be explanatory (Liu et al., 2010). In Example 5, 侴ᶼ (érqiě, in addition) and ℵ宜 (zàishuō, in addition) could be used interchangeably. However, in Example 6, 侴ᶼ (érqiě, in addition) could not be replaced with ℵ宜 (zàishuō, in addition). Among the sentences

110

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

with ℵ宜 (zàishuō, in addition) written by the participants in this chapter, 66% of them should be 侴ᶼ (érqiě, in addition) instead. (5) Q: ἈᷢṨᷰᶵ⍣乥乎!烎!A: ㆹ㱉㚱㖞斜,力₣!ḇ㱉㚱摙ˤ Q: Nǐ wèishénme bú qù niŭyuē? A: Wǒméi yǒu shíjiān, érqiě yě méi yǒu qiánˤ Q: Why don’t you go to New York? A: I don’t have time. In addition, I don’t have money. (6) 征㗗䌳⃰䓇炻ṾᶵỮ㗗ㆹ䘬侩ⶰ,力₣!ḇ㗗ㆹ䘬㚳⍳ˤ Zhè shì wángxiānshēng, tā búdàn shì wǒde lǎoshī, érqiě yě shì wǒde péngyǒuˤ This is Mr. Wang, he is not only my teacher, but also my friend. Missing a member from paired connectives

Native Chinese speakers showed preference for using some connectives in pairs (Zhang & Qiu, 2007), whereas for other connectives, the co-occurrence is optional (Lu, 2017). By contrast, the participants showed a strong tendency to use only one member from paired connectives. For instance, while native Chinese speakers tend to use 嘥䃞……Ữ㗗/ ⎗ 㗗…… (suīrán …dànshì/ kěshì…, although…but…) conjointly (Zhang & Qiu, 2007), the participants only use one of them in 38 out of 55 sentences. Similarly, among 89 sentences involving causal connectives ⚈ᷢ (yīnwèi, because) and ㇨ẍ (suǒyǐ, so), 56 of them only had ⚈ᷢ (yīnwèi, because) and 28 only displayed ㇨ẍ (suǒyǐ, so). Since some connectives are optionally used in pairs (Lu, 2017; Zhang & Qiu, 2007), the unpaired usage was regarded as a difference between native and non-native Chinese speakers in this chapter but was not counted as errors in the calculation of TLU. In addition to the types of errors observed in prior research, new error categories were also identified and are reported below. The frequency of these newly identified errors was very low. Piling up multiple semantic relationships illogically

Four occurrences showed that several semantic relationships were piled within one sentence in an illogical way. For instance, in Example 7 the adversative connective, ⎗㗗 (kěshì, but), was nested within a causal relationship denoted by ⚈ᷢ……㇨ẍ…… (yīnwèi…su ǒ y ǐ…, because…so…). Therefore, this sentence was poorly structured, and its meaning was unclear. (7) *⥯⃉! ⃧⫸㭼⤛⃧⤥,征᷒ℍ崀䘬≆㱽妋⅛Ḯ㱉㚱⃧⫸䘬斖桀,♾㢾! Ṿḇ䚠⻻Ḷℍ斐䘬⩛⤯,㓏ⅴṾ乷ⷠ⍿⇘䣦Ể⍲⤛㕡䘬㬏奮ˤ Yīnwèi érzǐ bǐ nǚér hǎo, zhègè rùzhuì de bànfǎ jiějué le méi yǒu érz ǐ de wèntí, kěshì tā yě xiāngdāngyú rùmén de xífù, suǒy ǐ tā jīngcháng shòudào shèhuì jí nǚfāng de qíshì. Because sons are better than daughters, matrilocal residence solves the problem of not having sons, but he is equivalent to the wife who lives upon her husband’s family, (so) he was often discriminated by the society and his wife’s family.

Exploring L2 Chinese Learners’ Connective Usage in Writing

111

Confusing conjunctions with adverbs

Observed three times in the data, adverbs such as ḇ (yě, also) and 㚜 (gèng, even more) were often placed before subjects, which was ungrammatical in Chinese. Chinese connective conjunctions usually appear before subjects, whereas connective adverbs should be used after subjects and before predicates (Liu et al., 2010; Lu, 2017). As in Example 8, the participants seemed to be unaware of this positioning difference in the target language and thus made this type of error. (8) *ᷕ⚥Ṣ孌ᷢ句⎞⻺㟡㗗ᶨ᷒Ỉ亇炻⃮!伶⚥Ṣ孌ᷢ㏔⭞㗗ᶨ᷒Ỉ亇ˤ Zhōngguórén rènwéi luòyèguīgēn shì yígè chuánt ǒ ng, yě měiguórén rènwéi bānjiā shì yígè chuántǒng. Chinese regard ‘fallen leaves return to the roots’ a tradition, also Americans regard moving as a tradition. Using wrong linguistic elements after connectives

For instance, the conditional connectives ᶵ䭉/㖈孢 (bùguǎn/wúlùn, no matter) should be followed by question pronouns (e.g. 宩, shuí, who; Ṩᷰ, shénme, what), alternative constructions (e.g. 㚱㱉㚱, yǒuméiyǒu, have or not), or other patterns indicating uncertainty (Liu et al., 2010). Not mastering this rule, the participants twice made errors like those displayed in Example 9. (9) *ᶵ䭉他ⅻ䤓ⷵ☕炻⣏ế天⃰䚳征ṃ⤛⿏䘬伶ᷥˤ Bùguǎn tāmende xuélì, dàzhòng yào xiān kàn zhèxiē n ǚxìng de měilì ˤ No matter their degrees, the public want to see these females’ beauty fi rst. Separating paired connectives in two sentences

The data also showed that some paired connectives (e.g. ⚈ᷢ ……㇨ ẍ……, yīnwèi…suǒyǐ…, because…so…) were separated in two successive sentences instead of one compound sentence. This usage seldom occurs in native speakers’ writing as shown in the Peking University Center for Chinese Linguistics Corpus of Chinese Texts (Zhan et al., 2003). Example 10 is an example illustrating this error, which appeared five times in the participants’ writing. (10) *⥯⃉!Ṿ⇅ᷕ䘬㖞῁，Ṿ䘬䇠䇠⍣ᶾ，Ṿ⍿Ḯ⼰⣂劎ˤ㓏ⅴṾᶨ䚳⇘ 峓⚘䘬Ṣ炻⯙⯥慷ⷖ≑ṾẔˤ Yīnwèi tā chūzhōng de shíhòu, tāde bàbà qùshì, tā shòule hěnduō kŭ. Su ǒ y ǐ tā yí kàndào pínkùn de rén, jiù jìnliàng bāngzhù tāmen. Because his father died when he was in junior high, he suffered a lot. So, once he sees poor people, he helps them as far as possible.

112

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

Discussion

This section discusses the results on accuracy rates and errors made by the participants and concludes with implications for the teaching and learning of Chinese connectives.

Accuracy rates

Table 5.2 shows that the connectives denoting hypothetical, adversative and progressive relationships achieved relatively higher accuracy rates (TLU equaled to 0.96, 0.83 and 0.74 respectively). The high frequency of these categories (see Table 5.1) might be one reason explaining their high accuracy rates, since the more often L2 learners used a specific connective, the more likely that they could receive corrective feedback and use it more accurately. In addition, they were similar to their English equivalents in terms of position and meaning. This might be another reason why their accuracy rates were high. By contrast, the TLU values of conditional and successive connectives were both lower than 0.65, indicating a higher degree of learning difficulty. This might be explained by the differences between Chinese conditional connectives and their English counterparts. As discussed previously, Chinese conditional connectives ᶵ䭉/㖈孢! (bùguǎn/wúlùn, no matter) must be followed by interrogative pronouns, alternative constructions, or patterns indicating uncertainty (Liu et al., 2010). This usage was different from that of English conditional connective ‘regardless of’. Such L1–L2 difference might contribute to the low accuracy rate in using Chinese conditional connectives. Chinese successive connectives such as Ḷ㗗 (yúshì, then) and 䃞⎶ (ránhòu, then) were similar to their English equivalents in meaning and position. However, their accuracy, as measured by TLU, was only 0.5, causing this category to be ranked as the second least accurate. It might be due to the major type of errors in using successive connectives: overuse; the participants overproduced successive connectives often omitted by native speakers. Lastly, the causal connectives, the most frequently used category, were observed with the lowest accuracy rate among the seven investigated categories. The main causes of their errors were misplacement and overuse. This point will be elaborated in the next sub-section. Compared with Lu (2017), some similarities and differences in fi ndings on the accuracy rates were identified, as shown in Table 5.2. First, the two studies reported similar observations regarding the high accuracy rates of the adversative and progressive connectives, as well as the rank of the conditional type (i.e. both ranked in the middle). However, the two studies reported contradictory findings on the accuracy rates of causal and concessive connectives. Lu (2017) found that ⚈ᷢ……㇨ẍ…… (yīnwèi… suǒy ǐ …, because…so…) achieved a high accuracy rate, ranked as the second among 12 pairs. However, the category of causal connectives in

Exploring L2 Chinese Learners’ Connective Usage in Writing

113

this chapter, the vast majority of which involved ⚈ᷢ (yīnwèi, because) and ㇨ẍ (suǒyǐ, so), was ranked as the lowest accurate. Such disparity might be attributed to the difference in sampling of connectives. Specifically, unlike Lu (2017) focusing on one or two pairs of connectives denoting a semantic relationship, the current chapter observed four to 10 unpaired or paired connectives for each semantic relationship. Another explanation lay in the data collection methods. As discussed previously, the sentence completion tests and multiple-choice questions employed in Lu (2017) could not elicit learners’ use of connectives in writing, thus not observing the misplacement, a major type of errors observed in this chapter. In other words, sentence completion tests, used to examine the use of connectives within discrete sentences, may not support the observation in longer discourses and therefore had limitations in investigating the impact of discourse constraints on L2 connectives use. The examination of accuracy rates within categories (Tables 5.3–5.5) showed that the unpaired connectives within casual, progressive and adversative categories were used more accurately than those in pairs. This phenomenon might be explained by L1 influence. Since English connectives are seldom used in pairs (e.g. ‘because’ and ‘so’), the participants might be more accustomed to the unpaired connectives and therefore used them more accurately. Error types

This chapter confi rms the existence of five types of errors reported in previous studies (Cao, 2013; Xu, 2001; Yang, 2013) while identifying four new error types. This sub-section discusses the most committed errors and their possible causes. The participants were found to overuse connectives, a phenomenon widely reported in L2 literature (e.g. Green et al., 2000; Hinkel, 2001). Since the overuse of connectives was also observed among Chinese EFL learners, Yang (2013: 76) claimed that ‘the overuse of cohesive devices in L2 writings may be more of a universal pattern than reflecting crosslinguistic differences’. The current study supported the fi ndings of previous studies that L2 Chinese learners overused the causal (Xu, 2001), progressive and adversative connectives (Yang, 2013). In particular, the causal connectives were the most overused type. One possible explanation was the difference in Chinese and American modes of thinking. For instance, the relationship perceived as ‘causal’ by American English speakers may not be perceived so by native Chinese speakers (see Example 1). Another explanation was that the participants might over-rely on familiar categories of connectives and were unwilling to experiment with unfamiliar ones. They overused familiar connectives in substitution of unfamiliar categories. Similarly, within each category of connectives, they over-relied on a few of the many options. As Yang (2013) pointed out, the types of

114

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

connectives that L2 learners used proficiently were much fewer than those introduced in textbooks and those used by native speakers. Previous studies supporting the overuse argument, Xu (2001) and Yang (2013), both collected data from essays written by L2 Chinese learners, the same methodology as in this chapter. However, Lu (2017), collecting data through sentence completion tests and multiple-choice questions, reported opposite results. As discussed previously, the differences in data collection and analyses may lead to contradictory fi ndings. Hence, we could tentatively conclude that in writing argumentative and narrative essays, L2 Chinese learners tended to overuse causal, progressive and adversative connectives. Although they were highly frequently used, the accuracy rate of the causal connectives was the lowest. The error analysis revealed that its main cause was reversing the order of paired connectives. The results supported Cao’s (2013) fi ndings that L2 Chinese learners overused ⚈ᷢ (yīnwèi, because) in the sentence-medial position and underused ㇨ẍ (suǒyǐ, so) in the sentence-medial position. Another major cause of the errors was overuse; the causal connectives were overused 39 times while the number of obligatory contexts was 109. Regarding the participants’ underuse of paired causal connectives, since they were still acceptable, it was not regarded as errors and were not included in the TLU calculation. However, Cao (2013), who examined the use of causal connectives by beginning L2 Chinese learners, reported opposite fi ndings. She observed that as compared with native speakers, beginning learners overused the causal connectives in paired positions. This contradiction could be explained by the difference in participants’ proficiency, since Cao (2013) focused on beginning learners while the participants of this chapter were from an advanced-level class. Besides causal connectives, the error of order-reversing also occurred in the use of conditional and concessive connectives, possibly attributable to the negative cross-linguistic influence. As explained previously, native Chinese speakers tend to use causal, conditional and concessive conjunctions in sentence-initial positions (Huang & Liao, 2002). However, the positions of causal connectives (e.g. because and so), conditional connectives (e.g. regardless of) and concessive connectives (e.g. even if) in English were flexible. They can appear either in the sentence-initial or sentencemedial positions. Due to the L1 influence, the participants possibly misplaced causal, conditional and concessive connectives in the sentence-medial positions. Pedagogical implications

The analysis of the participants’ errors in using Chinese connectives provided insightful instructional implications. First, L1–L2 differences and negative cross-linguistic influence were likely the major causes of

Exploring L2 Chinese Learners’ Connective Usage in Writing

115

some errors. Hence, it is necessary for teachers to make students clearly aware of the differences between Chinese connectives and their English equivalents in meanings, positions and functions. Particularly, Chinese connectives are often used in pairs (Zhang & Qiu, 2007) while English connectives are seldom used so. Through comparing Chinese and English connectives, teachers can predict learning difficulty and potential errors, thus better helping students to avoid possible negative L1 transfer. They can also raise students’ awareness of Chinese–English differences through the creation of explicit or implicit learning activities connected to grammar teaching, extensive reading and writing practice. Some errors were made because the participants confused the connectives that were similar in form or meaning. Therefore, teachers should assist students to correctly associate the meaning, form and sound for each connective. For instance, class activities, such as sorting connectives that denote the same semantic meanings and comparing connectives with similar meanings or forms, can draw students’ attention to the differences among connectives. In addition, teachers need to underscore where to use connectives in sentences (e.g. sentence-initial or sentence-medial positions) and what elements (e.g. words, phrases, or clauses, question words, alternative questions, etc.) can be used after each connective. Lastly, although conjunctions and linking adverbs both fall into the category of connectives, they are positioned differently in sentences. Thus, teachers should make special effort to make students aware of the part of speech of each connective. As discussed previously, for each category of connectives, participants tended to over-rely on familiar ones, not using the rest to avoid risks to make mistakes. Consequently, their use of connectives lacked variety. Teachers may want to guide students to summarize multiple connectives expressing the same semantic relationship and encourage students to go out of their comfort zone and try alternative connectives. Conclusion

Through the error analysis approach, this chapter examined how learners enrolled in an advanced-level Chinese course used connectives in argumentative and narrative essays. It generated empirical evidence concerning the frequency, typical errors and accuracy rate for connectives denoting each semantic relationship, while also revealing L2 learning difficulties associated with Chinese connectives. Accordingly, pedagogical implications for teaching Chinese connectives were proposed. Nonetheless, due to the small scale (i.e. 34 essays of two genres written by 13 participants), the empirical evidence gleaned from the chapter was solely based on descriptive data. Future studies may consider recruiting a large number of participants, using inferential statistics and investigating a greater variety of genres. Second, focusing on learners from an advancedlevel course, the fi ndings from this particular learner sample couldn’t

116

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

provide a comprehensive understanding of L2 Chinese learners’ use of connectives in writing. Future studies need to recruit participants from other proficiency levels. It would also be very interesting to compare how heritage and non-heritage learners use connectives in writing. Lastly, this chapter examined the accuracy rates of Chinese connectives but did not investigate the acquisition order through a longitudinal or cross-sectional design, which deserves more efforts in future research. References Canale, M. (1983) From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. C. Richards and R. W. Schmidt (eds) Language and Communication (pp. 2–27). London: Longman. Canale, M. and Swain, M. (1980) Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1, 1–47. Cao, F. (2013) Preference and constraints by beginning learners in the acquisition of causal textual markers. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 48 (2), 45–67. Green, C.F., Christopher, E.R. and Mei, J.L.K. (2000) The incidence and effects on coherence of marked themes in interlanguage texts: A corpus-based enquiry. English for Specifi c Purposes 19 (2), 99–113. Hinkel, E. (2001) Matters of cohesion in L2 academic texts. Applied Language Learning 12 (2), 111–132. Huang, B. and Liao, X. (2002) Xiàn Dài Hàn Yŭ [Modern Chinese]. Beijing: Higher Education Publishing House. Liu, Y., Yao, T., Bi, N., Shi, Y. and Ge, L. (2010) Integrated Chinese: Simplifi ed Characters Textbook (English and Chinese Edition). Boston, MA: Cheng & Tsui. Lu, Y. (2017) The acquisition of Chinese connectives by second language learners. PhD thesis, University of Iowa. Pica, T. (1983) Methods of morpheme quantification: Their effect on the interpretation of second language data. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 6 (1), 69–78. Richards, J.C. (1980) Second language acquisition: Error analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 1, 91–107. Richards, J.C. and Schmidt, R.W. (2013) Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. New York: Routledge. Tsao, F. (1979) A Functional Study of Topic in Chinese. Taipei: Student Book Co. Xu, L. (2001) Error analysis of Chinese connectives used by foreign language learners. Zhejinag Shida Xuebao [Zhejiang Normal University Journal] 3 (26), 91–95. Yang, C. (2013) Textual conjunctives and topic-fronting devices in CFL learners’ written summaries. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 48 (1), 71–89. Zhan, W., Guo, R. and Chen, Y. (2003) The Peking University Center for Chinese Linguistic Corpus of Chinese Texts. Beijing: Peking University. Retrieved from http://ccl.pku.edu. cn:8080/ccl_corpus. Zhang, W. and Qiu, L. (2007) A corpus-based study on the collocations of connectives in Mandarin Chinese. Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue [Chinese Teaching in the World] 21 (4), 64–74.

6 Facebook as a Mediator for L2 Chinese Writing: Practices and Perceptions Lijuan Ye

Introduction

Writing has been suggested to be an important skill in language learning (Manchón, 2011). Among the five ‘Cs’ − Communication, Cultures, Connections, Comparisons and Community (NSFLEP, 2006) − ‘Communication’, which takes place in different modalities (speaking and writing), makes possible the presentation of a variety of topics. Writing, however, entails a more complex endeavor (Norris & Manchón, 2012), thus inspiring the completion of several studies in second language (L2) English writing to find a common ground between its theory and effective application in the classroom (Manchón & Matsuda, 2016). The amount of research in non-English L2 writing has also started to increase recently (Reichelt, 2016; Yiğitoğlu & Reichelt, 2019). However, this is not the case for writing in Chinese as a foreign language (CFL) context. When searching the Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association (1966 − 2021), a key journal focusing on teaching CFL in North America, the author was only able to locate two articles from the journal, Mou (2003) and Zhang (2016), dedicated to CFL writing instruction. There is a consensus among researchers that the adoption of social media platform (e.g. Facebook) plays a positive role in language teaching and learning (Hamidah & Yanuarmawan, 2018; Ibarra, 2018; Tartari, 2015; Ulla & Perales, 2020). Understanding the impact that social media may have on L2 writing is crucial as these virtual tools are used on a daily basis to create content and communicate with others. Although the usage of Facebook in L2 writing has only been explored by a handful of studies in the last decade, these studies show that Facebook is overall favored as it not only promotes students’ motivation and interest to write (Friatin, 2018; Sakkir, 2016; Sakkir & Abrar, 2018) but also affords them a convenient online environment to engage in authentic communication outside of class (Wang & Kim, 2014; Zheng et  al., 2018). As a result, participation in

117

118

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

Facebook groups improves students’ writing skills, especially in brainstorming, vocabulary and grammar (Rodliyah, 2016; Yunus & Salehi, 2012). Research examining the implementation of Facebook to facilitate L2 writing practices in CFL contexts has been scant (e.g. Wang & Kim, 2014; Wang & Vasquez, 2014). However, understanding learners’ perceptions concerning the pedagogical decisions is pivotal for teachers to establish informed conversations between both parties, as well as to further understand learners’ expectations and needs (McMartin-Miller, 2014). To further the endeavors in the direction, this chapter explores the pedagogical usage of Facebook in an intermediate-level CFL writing course and examined students’ perceptions of its potential efficacy. Specifically, this chapter aims to investigate (a) whether nine students from an intact writing course show any gains as writers while completing seven journal entries via Facebook over a semester and (b) what the participant’s perceptions are toward their instructor’s use of this social platform. As such, like Chapter 7, authored by Valentín-Rivera, the current chapter delves into learners’ perceptions. Literature Review

Mandarin Chinese is considered to be an arduous language for English speakers to learn (Hu, 2010; Samimy & Lee, 1997; Wen, 1997) largely due to its logographic nature (Zhang, 2009); a sizable knowledge of characters is essential to complete reading and writing tasks in the language. Reichelt et al. (2012) specified that writing in foreign language settings does not involve real-life experiences beyond the classroom, thus potentially lowering learners’ motivation to practice this linguistic skill. Therefore, teaching writing in CFL contexts forms its own distinctive pedagogical nature and challenges (Bell, 1995; Dew, 2005; Everson, 1994; Guder, 2005; Tian, 2009; Wen, 1997; Ye, 2011), differing from the commonly taught languages like French and Spanish (Zhao, 2008). This partially explains why the writing instruction per se has been given insufficient attention in CFL research. As aforementioned, Mou (2003) and Zhang (2016) explored certain writing pedagogy in CFL courses. Aware of how writing is neglected among the four language skills in CFL teaching, Mou (2003) incorporated an assignment consisting of weekly journal entries into a fi rst-year Chinese class, with the assistance of a Chinese word processor, and reported promising potentials in improving learners’ writing skills from the beginning. Similarly, Zhang (2016) worked with 45 novice and low-intermediate CFL learners by guiding and assisting them to write a short picture book in Chinese. All students reported benefi ting from the writing project since the experience enhanced their linguistic ability, increased their culture immersion and gave them the opportunity to express ideas and thoughts as writers. Thus, the author suggested that ‘it is imperative to discover writing

Facebook as a Mediator for L2 Chinese Writing

119

activities that can personalize and contextualize beginning and lowerintermediate learners’ writing to make it meaningful’ (2016: 164). Prior research in L2 English writing has revealed various benefits of using Facebook as one of the major teaching tools in classroom contexts, such as motivating students to write and to carry out authentic interactions with their peers (Sakkir & Abrar, 2018). However, the empirical evidence on the impact of Facebook on CFL learning, especially the development of writing skills, has been limited. The case study of Wang and Kim (2014) recruited four undergraduate students in an intermediate CFL course at a southern US college and examined their perceptions of the application of Facebook. The participants could write whatever they wanted to share on Facebook but were required to post at least twice per week and to comment at least four times on their peers’ posts. The results showed that the free writing practice on Facebook was favored by students as they enjoyed authentic communications online. Nonetheless, because of the special backgrounds of the four participants (intentionally selected and relatively advanced in class) and the mere focus of their perceptions, the authors called for future studies to further explore the use of Facebook in CFL contexts, as well as specific areas of language development that learners benefited from using Facebook (Wang & Kim, 2014). To measure the potential efficacy of Facebook on writing performance specifically, Wang and Vasquez (2014) recruited 18 students who were in their fourth semester of Chinese learning at a US university and divided them into two groups: an experimental group (n = 9) versus a control group (n = 9). Starting the second week of the semester, the experimental group posted in Chinese at least two entries and four comments per week on a Facebook group page, whereas the control group did not engage in any posting activity. In addition, during the 1st, 9th and 16th week of the semester, each participant completed a writing assignment respectively, which was analyzed for writing quantity (the number of characters in each writing) and holistic quality. The results showed that the experimental group produced significantly more Chinese characters in their writing assignments, whereas no significant differences between the two groups in holistic quality were observed. More recently, Paul and Friginal (2019) examined the impact of Facebook versus that of Twitter on CFL learners’ written output in both short-term and long-term settings. All participants were beginning–intermediate CFL learners at a public university in the southeastern United States and were randomly assigned to the Facebook or Twitter group. The participants in the short-term setting posted a message in Chinese daily for two weeks while those in the long-term setting did the same for 10 weeks. The postings were analyzed for its nature (interactive vs. non-interactive), quantity (the number of sentences and characters) and quality (the number of grammar errors). Before and after the posting activities, each participant also completed a pre- and postquestionnaire eliciting their attitude toward the use of Facebook or

120

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

Twitter. The results showed that Facebook participants posted more sentences than Twitter participants each day, and their posts were more interactive. However, more grammar errors were identified on Facebook than on Twitter. In addition, evidence on prompting written corrective feedback from peers appeared to be observed on Facebook. Though Paul and Friginal’s (2019) study was not conclusive on the usage of Facebook, the fi ndings supported prior observations regarding the value of its application in facilitating L2 writing. While Facebook has been reported beneficial in L2 settings, only a few studies inform CFL pedagogy practices interlinked with writing. At the same time, researchers like Zheng et al. (2018: 1) echoed the importance of the term ‘multiliteracies – the literacies required of students amid the ever-changing landscape of emerging technologies’ proposed by literacy researchers in the New London Group (1996) and proposed the application of the multiliteracies in the field of writing.

Method Context: Third-year CFL writing course

This chapter was situated in a new Chinese program at a public southeastern US university. The faculty members of the program consisted of a director with a background in literature and two adjuncts with formal training in applied linguistics, one being the researcher and the other being the sole instructor of the writing class that was part of this study. Before joining the program, the instructor had gained five years of collegelevel CFL teaching experience while teaching fi rst- and second-year courses. This Chinese program offered three-years (six semesters) worth of Chinese language and culture courses and a Chinese minor. The fi rst two years focused on a consecutive language skill development including vocabulary, grammar, characters and culture. The fi fth semester focused on reading as a skill, and the sixth semester targeted writing. The data analyzed in this chapter were collected through the aforementioned writing course: a three-credit class taught for 75 minutes, twice a week. The instructors of the Spanish, German or French third year course usually focused on ‘real’ literacy practices, that is, reading a piece of literature in the target language and composing essay with multiple paragraphs following the required writing features interlinked with different genre. The CFL third year, by contrast, still focused on enhancing students’ linguistic abilities. Students still found it challenging to write a whole essay; their writings were usually short and contained various linguistic errors (e.g. wrong characters, incorrect word choice and inappropriate syntactic features). Facing these literacy challenges, the faculty members decided to adopt the process approach to teach writing, thus choosing the textbook:

Facebook as a Mediator for L2 Chinese Writing

121

Chinese Compositions: Sentences, Paragraphs, and Functional Writings (Deng & Chen, 2007). This was mainly because the book provided progressive writing practices that guided students from producing sentences to constructing texts. There were ten units with different topics, such as self-introductions, hobbies, means of transportation, introducing family members and talking about past and future experiences. To encourage students to use Chinese in everyday relatable situations, the instructor created a Facebook group for them to practice writing and communicate with each other. Two main rationales motivated this design. First, the instructor was aware that this social media platform was of common use among the students. Second, since the students were used to communicating with others via Facebook, the instructor believed that this tool could also be used to communicate about everyday situations in Chinese, the focus of the course. No specific topics were assigned, however. Instead, the students engaged in free journal writing, which in a way imitated Facebook daily communications. A total of seven Facebook writings were required throughout the semester and due every other Tuesday, while a minimum of five sentences were required per entry. The Facebook journal writing assignment took up 15% of the fi nal grade. For each journal entry, the teacher would copy the entry into a Word document, track changes on the corrections, grade the entry, print it and return it to students. Participants

The participants were nine students enrolled in the third year CFL writing class (see Table 6.1) at the time of data collection. All nine students had completed two years (approximately 200 hours) of Chinese instruction and had a Chinese name by the time the course started. The initials of their Chinese names were used throughout the chapter to protect their privacy, as displayed in Table 6.1. Except for GF, all participants were college students. Three of them, BF, HW and CX, came from a Chinese background family. They had come to the US when they were young, and they were exposed to Chinese at home. Thus, their levels of proficiency were higher than others’. Students’ purposes for studying Chinese varied, but most of them had chosen studying Chinese to increase future employment opportunities. The researcher was familiar with these students because they were in her fi fth semester reading course. Data collection

The data of this case study were collected through a threefold process. Firstly, as the researcher, I joined the Facebook group that was created by the instructor at the beginning of the class as a non-participant and collected all journal entries from every student. In addition, the researcher

122

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

Table 6.1 Participants information Name

Gender

Age

First language

Major

Length of learning Chinese

Motivation to learn Chinese

ZL

F

20–24

English

Modern Language & Culture

2–3 years

Cultural purposes

DW

M

20–24

English

Undecided

3–4 years

Employment

GF

F

Above 45

English

Social Work

3–4 years

Personal interest in Chinese culture

BF

M

20–24

Chinese +English

Business

3–4 years

Academic requirement Employment

HW

M

20–24

Chinese +English

Business

1–2 years

Employment

LQ

F

20–24

Vietnamese

Undecided

3–4 years

Personal interest in Chinese culture

ZY

F

20–24

English

Undecided

1–2 years

Academic requirement Employment

WZ

M

20–24

English

Humanities/ social science

1 year

Employment Christian proselytization in China

CX

M

20–24

Chinese +English

Business

More than 6 years

Academic requirement Personal interest in Chinese culture

obtained a copy of the instructor’s feedback and grading on all these tasks. Secondly, the written answers to an open-ended question survey from all nine students in the middle of the semester was collected by the researcher as well. This instrument inquired whether the journal entries via Facebook were helpful, allowing the participants to elaborate on their impressions. Lastly, toward the end of the semester, a semi-structured group interview was conducted, which was approximately 28 minutes long and transcribed. The purpose of the interview was to verify the participants’ feedback collected in Step 2, and to add or elaborate on aspects that the students may have missed in their written survey. In addition, to account for reliability, the author kept field notes and recorded various information, such as her observations and her conversations with the instructor, etc. Data analysis

Regarding the analysis of the data, for the fi rst research question, which examined how the design and implementation of the journals mediated via Facebook affected the writing skills of CFL learners, the researcher coded the information produced in all entries based on the quantity (i.e. number of sentences and number of characters) and quality

Facebook as a Mediator for L2 Chinese Writing

123

of the writing (i.e. number of simple, complex sentences and number of grammatical errors). Because of the logographic nature of Chinese, characters require students to recognize and select the correct option upon typing its Pinyin version (the Romanization system for Chinese). Thus, counting the number of sentences and characters is a suitable way to assess the quantity of students’ writing products (Paul & Friginal, 2019). In contrast, sentences and grammatical errors can indicate writing quality. Particularly, the higher number of simple sentences (McNamara et al., 2010) and grammatical errors (Witte & Faigley, 1981) the journals contained, the less quality they are, and vice versa. Based on the description above, for each chosen journal, the frequency for each of the elements related to quantity and quality were reported and discussed with the instructor so that an agreement could be reached, thus assuring reliability. More specifically, the standards for counting a complete sentence were a period, a question mark, or an exclamation mark, but not a comma. For example, the participant WZ wrote the following in the fi rst journal entry, which was counted as two complete sentences: Ṳ⣑ㆹ⬎ḈḮ，ḘḮ᷄大，ㇻḮ᷺᷻䎫，! 䚳Ḯ䓝奮，␴ᶲ仹ˤἈẔ␊? (Journal 1 by WZ) Today I studied, bought things, played table tennis, watched TV and surfed the Internet. What about you?

Concerning the differentiation between simple and complex sentences, the number of clauses in each sentence was determined. Namely, if a sentence only had one subject and one verb, it was considered a simple sentence (Diessel, 2004). For example, Ṳ⸜⢷⣑ἈẔ Ṩᷰ? (What did you do this summer?) from Journal 7 (by ZL) was classified as a simple sentence. In contrast, if a sentence contains a subordinate clause, it was considered a complex sentence (Diessel, 2004). For example, 嘥䃞ㆹ乫Ḯᶱ᷒ 㗇㛇Ḯ，Ữ㗗ㆹ往ᶵ傥䍑 (Although I have practiced three weeks, yet I still cannot play) in Journal 7 (by CX) was identified as a complex sentence. Furthermore, the number of grammatical errors was counted based on the instructor’s feedback, and they were associated with the grades assigned to the journals. Afterwards, the author selected the first and last journal entries per participant to carry out an overall comparison, and then evaluate whether any progress in terms of quantity and quality could be observed. Lastly, focus of the Facebook journal writings (e.g. whether they had commented on others’ posts, the type of interactions) was analyzed to identify any patterns. The written answers for the survey, the transcribed information shared during the group interview, and the field notes were holistically analyzed via a qualitative approach, to explore the participants’ perceptions of the use of Facebook to facilitate journal writing tasks. The data gathered by these measures were systematically categorized thus establishing common

124

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

themes that were mainly grouped by (1) the number of students who favor journal writing on Facebook and (2) those who did not, while also incorporating their rationales. Results Participants’ journal postings on Facebook

Table 6.2 shows the quantity and quality of all participants’ journal writings on Facebook, where the number of journals submitted and analyzed were also provided. As observed, while the earliest submission was the fi rst journal and the last was the seventh for most participants, a couple of students did not submit all of them. For example, the participant GF only submitted journals numbered 2, 3 and 6, so her second and sixth journals were compared instead. Regarding the quantity of Facebook postings, seven out of nine participants produced more sentences towards the end of the semester. Nonetheless, two participants, HW and ZY, didn’t type more sentences; both posted seven for Journal 1 and six in their last writing. Similarly, the number of characters increased for all participants except HW. For three participants in particular, their increased number of characters was more than 50, as indicated by bold highlights. For example, the participant WZ posted 25 characters for only two sentences in Journal 1, while produced 106 characters for Journal 7, as illustrated by the examples below. Journal 1: Ṳ⣑ㆹ⬎ḈḮ，ḘḮ᷄大，ㇻḮ᷺᷻䎫，䚳Ḯ䓝奮，␴ᶲ仹ˤἈẔ␊ Today I studied, bought things, played table tennis, watched TV and surfed the Internet. What about you? Journal 7: 征᷒㗇㛇ㆹ朆ⷠ⾁。ㆹᶵỮ⼿ᶲℕ刪宦，侴ᶼ往⼿ᶲ䎕。ㆹᶨ彡 ⼿⅁! ᷌䭯䞼䨞孢㔯，ᶨ彡⼿⢵Ḉ㛇㛓侫孽。嘥䃞ㆹ⼰⾁，ㆹ⌜⼰檀ℜ。ㆹ ⼰檀ℜ㗗!⚈ᷢ⬎㛇⾓天乻㜇Ḯ。ㆹㇻ䬿Ṳ⸜⋩Ḵ㚰㭽᷂，⎗㗗，㚱㖞Ṣ䬿ᶵ ⤪⣑䬿。⤪㝄!ㆹṲ⸜栢⇑㭽᷂，ㆹ⯙⎗ẍ㈦⇘㭼弫⤥䘬ⶍἄ This week I was very busy. I not only had to take six classes but also had to work. While writing two research papers, I was reviewing the final exam. Although I was very busy, I was very happy. I was very happy because the semester is about to end. I plan to graduate in December this year, but sometimes you never know. If I graduate this year, I can find a rather good job.

As previously discussed, the number of simple, complex sentences and grammatical errors were analyzed for measuring the quality of participants’ Facebook postings. Overall, the number of simple sentences decreased while the number of complex sentences increased for most participants, as indicated in Table 6.2. Especially, participants DW and ZY improved from not writing any complex sentence in the fi rst posting to incorporating five and three in the fi nal journal respectively. In addition, the participants were found to vary in their writing performance. For

Journals submitted

1,2,3,7

1,2,3,4,5,6,7

2,3,6

2,3,4,5,6,7

1,2,3,4,5,6,7

1, 2,3

1,2,3,5,6

1,2,3,4,5,6,7

2,3,4,5,6,7

Participant

ZL

DW

GF

BF

HW

LQ

ZY

WZ

CX

5 6

#2

#7

2 7

#1

6

#6

#7

7

5

#3

#1

4

#1

7 6

#1

#7

6 7

#2

#7

8

#6

7 2

#7

#2

5

#1

7 7

#1

Number of sentences

#7

Journals analyzed

68

59

106

25

57

40

45

31

52

62

64

52

80

23

93

38

78

47

Number of characters

4

5

1

1

3

7

4

4

4

5

6

5

5

1

2

5

4

6

Number of simple sentences

Table 6.2 Quality and quantity of participants’ journal postings on Facebook

2

0

6

1

3

0

1

0

2

2

1

1

3

1

5

0

3

1

Number of complex sentences

0

0

0

1

2

3

1

0

0

0

2

1

2

2

4

4

0

1

Number of grammatical errors

5

5

5

4

3

2

4

4

5

5

3.5

3

4

1

3

2

5

4

Teacher grading

Facebook as a Mediator for L2 Chinese Writing 125

126

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

instance, the participant GF produced more simple and complex sentences in her last posting, whereas BF produced more simple sentences but the same number of complex sentences in the last journal. Regarding the number of grammatical errors, most of them remained the same throughout the postings. However, a close look revealed great variations among participants. For the participants HW and CX, their good performance in terms of the use of language was observed as neither made any grammatical mistakes in the first or last Facebook entry. Conversely, the participants DW and GF made the same number of grammatical errors for both fi rst and fi nal postings. In such cases, the number of complex sentences should also be taken into consideration. For example, while the number of errors made by the participant DW remained unchanged (i.e. 4), the number of complex sentences increased from 0 to 5, as discussed previously. Hence, it is likely that the more complex sentences were, the higher the risk of making errors was. In addition to the quantity and quality of the participants’ Facebook writing, the focus of their postings was also investigated, and three patterns were identified. Firstly, participants rarely posted any feedback on their peers’ writings. The only one was from the participant CX to WZ’s third journal, and the comment was ⅁⼿⼰⤥, meaning ‘well written’ in English. The second pattern was participants’ frequent use of greetings and/or questions which were directed towards all peers in general. As shown in Figure 6.1, in Journal 5 by the participant BF, the first phrase ⣏ ⭞⤥ means ‘hello everyone’, indicating that BF was writing the journal in a way to address all others. This intention was more explicitly expressed through the second sentence ἈẔ䘬㗍`⾶ᷰ㟟@ (How is your spring break?).

Figure 6.1 Sample Facebook writing by participant BF

Facebook as a Mediator for L2 Chinese Writing

127

Similar to the participant BF, other students often started greeting all peers fi rst in their Facebook writing, as illustrated by the examples below selected from Journal 3. ZL: ZY: DW: HW: CX:

⣏⭞⤥炰㕘⸜⾓᷸炰 (Hello everyone! Happy New Year!) Ἀ⤥⎴⬎炰 (Hello classmate!) Ἀ⤥炰 (Hi!) ⣏⭞⤥。 (Hello everyone.) ⣏⭞⤥炰 (Hello everyone!)

In Journal 3 by HW, the participant even ended his writing with an interactive comment, ⼰㘂Ḯ- ⣏⭞㘂⬱ (It is very late, good night everyone). Thus, the beginning and ending of HW’s journal almost sounded like he was sharing what he did that week with the entire class in front of him. All these suggested the participants’ strong desires to communicate their journals with classmates. The third pattern of participants’ Facebook postings was that the main body of their writings were narrating and recording what they actually did that week. Thus, no intention of interacting with the audience seems to be conveyed. Below are two typical examples: ⣏⭞⤥。征ↈ⣑䘬⣑㮼⼰⅟，ㆹ悥ᶵ゛⍣斐。㗐⣑㘂ㆹ嶇㚳⍳⍣䚳䓝⼙Ḯ。 Ṳ⣑㗗㗇㛇ℕ。 㖑ᶲḅ䁡ㇵ崟⸲。ᶳ㖈ᶱ䁡⛐梸椮ᶲ䎕，ᶲ⇘㘂ᶲ⋩ᶨ䁡ㇵ⚆⭞。⼰㘂Ḯ， ⣏⭞㘂⬱。 (Journal 3 by HW) Hello everyone. The weather is very cold these days, I don’t want to go outdoors. I went to the movie with my friend last night. Today is Saturday. Didn’t get up until nine o’clock in the morning. I went to work at the restaurant at three o’clock in the afternoon, and didn’t go home until 11 o’clock in the evening. It’s late, good night everyone. ⣏⭞㗍`彯⼿⺨⽫⎿@ ㆹ征᷒㗍`彯⼿⼰⺨⽫。㗇㛇Ḽㆹ⍣⍪≈㚳⍳䘬⨂䣤，ㆹ䍑⼿⼰⺨⽫。㗇 㛇ℕㆹ嶇㚳⍳⍣䇔Ⱉ。㗇㛇㖍ㆹ嶇㚳⍳⺨弎℄桶俲⣑。 ㆹ㭷ᶨ⣑悥⼰⾁。㚨⎶䘬⚃⣑㗍`，ㆹ⛐⭞慴䚳Ḏ。㗍`䘬㚨⎶⚃⣑，ㆹ往 ⛐⭞慴䚳Ḏ。 (Journal 5 by CX) Did you all have a happy spring break? I had a very happy spring break. I went to my friend’s wedding on Friday, and I had a great time. On Saturday I went hiking with my friends. On Sunday I drove and chatted with my friends. I am very busy every day. For the last four days of spring break, I was reading at home. During the last four days of spring break, I was still reading at home. Participants’ perceptions of Facebook postings

The survey and the group discussion represented an opportunity for the participants to share their thoughts on the usefulness of Facebook as

128

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

an in-class mediator for writings tasks. As such, the participants’ perceptions and overall rationales and comments were reported in Table 6.3. The latter also shows the general perception per participant thus disclosing one of the three following responses: positive, negative or indifferent. As observed, five out of nine participants (55.55%) viewed the use of Facebook Table 6.3 Participants’ perceptions of Facebook postings Perception

Summaries of rationales with selected comments

ZL

Positive

• Learning from others • Authentic communication in the L2 ‘It encourages us to talk to each other in Chinese and to use Chinese outside of class in the real world.’

DW

Positive

• Interacting with other students • Authentic communication in the L2 ‘I prefer writing the journals on Facebook because other people can learn from what you write and vice versa.’

BF

Positive

• Learning from others ‘Yes, because it gives us a chance to see how the other students are doing and how they structure their sentences. We can learn a lot from other people’s journals.’ • Convenient ‘Yes, because it is easy and very convenient.’

LQ

Positive

• Learning from others ‘Yes, because not only you, but everyone in class will know if you write something wrong. It’s not a bad thing because you can really learn from your own and others’ mistakes.’

WZ

Positive

• Learning from others ‘I liked using Facebook for the journals, because I was not only able to have professional feedback but was also able to view the way other students communicated in Chinese.’

HW

Indifferent

‘I think the Facebook journal is indifferent. It does not matter where we write our journal. I think writing it on the internet is however a good choice because it could get a faster reply from the instructor. The internet does is not limited to one website where we could use it as a form of communication. So, I think it is good, but it does not necessarily have to be Facebook.’

GF

Negative

• Facebook is for social purposes • Interactions were lacking on Facebook ‘All I can say is that I’m an avid Facebook user. I love to post my status and read my friends’ statuses. There is no fun in putting together a paragraph in Chinese and posting it on Facebook, as if it were an actual attempt to communicate with friends – it isn’t.’ ‘If the journal entries had actually sparked a written discussion between classmates, it would have been helpful. I think it might have been better to introduce topics in the discussion board area and require every student to participate. That would have caused more interaction in written Chinese. As it was, we only needed to go to the Facebook wall, post our own journal entry, and there was no need to read anyone else’s.’

CX

Negative

• Facebook is private ‘No, don’t like to share privacy.’

ZY

Negative

• Not useful ‘I do not like the writing journals on face book because it does not help me. I just feel as though it is busy work but nothing that aids in my advancement of learning how to write in Chinese.’

Facebook as a Mediator for L2 Chinese Writing

129

for writing purposes positively. This was because they believed that this social media platform enabled learning from their peers, in addition to being a convenient means of communications. They also considered the interactions to be authentic. It is worth noting that there was a relationship between the acknowledgment of the importance of being able to convey written messages and the degree of effort in the task. That is, the more motivated and engaged participants, per the quality and the grades of the writing tasks, tended to display a positive attitude toward the use of Facebook as a writing facilitator. In contrast, one participant (11.11%) showed indifference, while the remaining three participants (33.33%) believed that Facebook was not useful. Particularly, the participant GF clearly stated being an avid Facebook user thus enjoying socializing with friends through said means, but she did not consider her classmates to be her friends. The participant CX also shared a similar concern as he thought that his privacy was invaded. By contrast, the participant ZY underscored the difficulty to construct Chinese sentences through Facebook.

Discussion

This section discusses the findings with reference to prior research and proposes pedagogical recommendations on effective use of Facebook as a mediator in facilitating learners’ writing practice in CFL classrooms. The analysis of participants’ Facebook postings showed general increases in both the number of sentences and the number of characters in their last journals, suggesting that the Facebook writing activity promoted the quantity of their written work. This is consistent with Wang and Vasquez’s (2014) observation that students who actively participated in the online writing activity would put in more effort to produce more characters in CFL writing. However, since the postings in this chapter were completed without a time limit, the finding did not necessarily indicate the improvement in learner’s writing fluency. Furthermore, most participants were observed to incorporate fewer simple sentences and more complex sentences in their last postings, suggesting a facilitative role that Facebook writing might have played in enhancing learners’ writing quality over time. However, no noticeable improvement in the number of grammatical errors was identified. As previously discussed, this might be due to the trade-off between complexity (the use of more complex sentences) and accuracy (the number of grammatical errors). In addition, it is worth noting that great variations were observed among participants’ writing quantity and quality, which might be related to the small sample of this chapter, the short duration of the treatment and the lack of specific instructions. Among the three patterns identified from the focus of participants’ Facebook writing, the lack of interactions among participants was the most noteworthy. This seemingly contradicts Paul and Friginal (2019),

130

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

who reported Facebook to be an interactive platform for students not only to engage with peers but also to receive written corrective feedback. The difference might be explained by two factors. Firstly, unlike prior research such as Wang and Vasquez (2014) and Paul and Friginal (2019), commenting on each other’s posts was not required in this chapter. Secondly, the analysis indicated that the participant’s postings were mostly their selfnarrative of what they did, which seemed not to encourage or prompt others to comment. However, the participants’ frequent use of greeting and closing phrases/sentences suggested their strong desires to communicate with peers. Hence, improved design of the Facebook writing activity should be implemented to promote interactions among participants so that the numerous benefits of Facebook as a teaching tool in classroom contexts (Sakkir & Abrar, 2018) can be achieved. Although not many interactions among the participants were recorded, there was an overall positive (55.55%) perception concerning the use of Facebook as a means to facilitate writing practices. This suggests that the students did pay attention to what others wrote, thus having learned from their peers’ postings. Part of the negative responses (33.33%) were associated with seeing Facebook as a platform to socialize instead of to carry out academic endeavors, which is in line with the observations of prior studies (Madge et al., 2009; Pempek et al., 2009; Reid, 2011). It is worth noting that the background or the linguistic performance of the participants may have also influenced their perceptions concerning the use of Facebook in the classroom. For instance, GF, one of the participants that viewed this social media platform poorly primarily because she reportedly had not much connection with the rest of the group members, was the only part-time student in class. This situation might have contributed to how she perceived the task. Meanwhile, as reported by ZY, the challenges to post in Chinese could have also stemmed from participants’ less-thanideal performance in class, as suggested in the grades seen in Table 6.2. Based on the results of this chapter, some pedagogical recommendations can be drawn. Firstly, the writing activities mediated through social media should be more structuralized. Thus, clear and specific requirements are needed to ensure students’ active participation. For example, Wang and Kim (2014) required students to post at least twice a week and to comment a specific number of times during the same time spam. Secondly, a sturdier presence from the teacher is suggested as the students expected more guidance to effectively create a Facebook learning community. Within the same idea, the activities and the directives must be more purposeful and interactive. For instance, if the students are asked to introduce themselves through a Facebook post, the rest of the class can be given three days and required to participate as active readers and comment on at least three posts. These comments, at the same time, should focus on what the class members find interesting, or on the similarities that they fi nd with the authors of the posts. If not required to find these connections, CFL students may not be motivated to comment on others’ posts, as seen in this chapter. After the

Facebook as a Mediator for L2 Chinese Writing

131

teacher provides feedback on language and content, the class members can be required to write a brief summary. This can focus on the connections they were able to make with their peers based on their reactions as seen in their classmates’ comments. This, in addition to practicing the target language, can create a sense of community, which in turn could enable openness toward the adoption of social media platforms for academic purposes. Lastly, the authenticity of communications on Facebook is necessary. As Vygotsky (1978: 289) mentioned that ‘writing should be incorporated into a task that is necessary and relevant for life,’ prompts connected with reallife events can encourage students to use daily vocabulary beyond the textbooks, in addition to promoting more engagement and confidence as they would write about relevant and personal matters.

Conclusion

This qualitative case study investigated the impact of Facebook as a mediator for L2 writing and the perception of nine CFL students concerning the usefulness of this social media platform. Overall, Facebook was found to have played a positive role in improving CFL students’ writings in terms of quantity and quality. Similarly, the survey and group interview also revealed that most students viewed Facebook to be helpful as this platform made learning from peers through authentic communications possible. However, these fi ndings should be interpreted with caution due to some limitations. Firstly, the pool of participants was small. Although the data were conducted holistically in one class setting, there were only nine participants. Secondly, due to the lack of specifications, the students’ written production was short and the number of comments per posting was not sufficient. Thirdly, fi ner-grained measures that can more accurately assess the quantity and quality of each Facebook entry as well as quantitative analyses should be included. These limitations should be considered in future research endeavors. Despite its constraints in scope, this is a novel study as it sheds light on a matter that we know very little of so far, namely using Facebook as a social media platform in a CFL writing course. In addition, this chapter provides relevant pedagogical recommendations concerning the use of social media as an academic platform to facilitate writing practices, thus taking advantage of accessible and popular means of communication in the public domain.

References Bell, J.S. (1995) Relationship between L1 and L2 literacy: Some complicating factors. TESOL Quarterly 29, 687–704. Dew, J.E. (2005) Language is primary, script is secondary: The importance of gaining a strong foundation in the language before devoting major efforts to character recognition. Paper presented at the International and Interdisciplinary Conference, University of Mainz in Germersheim, Germany.

132

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

Diessel, H. (2004) The Acquisition of Complex Sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Everson, M.E. (1994) Toward a process view of teaching reading in the second language Chinese curriculum. Theory into Practice 33 (1), 4–9. Friatin, L.Y. (2018) Students’ perception on teaching writing through Facebook group in EFL class. Vision: Journal for Language and Foreign Language Learning 7 (1), 57–66. Deng, X. and Chen, Z. (2007) Chinese Compositions: Sentences, Paragraphs, and Functional Writings. Beijing: The Higher Education Press of China. Guder, A. (2005) Struggling with Chinese: New dimensions in foreign language teaching. Paper presented at the International and Interdisciplinary Conference, University of Mainz in Germersheim, Germany. Hamidah, F.N. and Yanuarmawan, D. (2018) Using Facebook group in teaching writing of English for accounting classes. Advances in Social Science, Education, and Humanities Research 145, 302–307. Hu, B. (2010) The challenge of Chinese: A preliminary study of UK learners’ perception of difficulty. Language Learning Journal 38, 99–118. Ibarra, F.D.E. (2018) Is Facebook beneficial for writing practices? Ecuadorian polytechnic students speak up. Teaching English with Technology 18 (3), 3–17. Madge, C., Meek, J., Wellens, J. and Hooley, T. (2009) ‘Facebook’, social integration and informal learning at university: ‘It is more for socializing and talking to friends about work than for actually doing work’. Learning, Media and Technology 34, 141–155. Manchón, R.M. (2011) Learning-to-Write and Writing-to-Learn in an Additional Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Manchón, R.M. and Matsuda, P.K. (2016) Handbook of Second and Foreign Language Writing. Berlin: De Gruyter. McMartin-Miller, C. (2014) How much feedback is enough? Instructor practices and student attitudes toward error treatment in second language writing. Assessing Writing 19 (1), 24–35. McNamara D.S., Crossley S.A. and McCarthy P.M. (2010) Linguistic features of writing quality. Written Communication 27 (1), 57–86. Mou, S.J. (2003). Integrating writing into elementary Chinese. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 38 (2), 109–136. National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project (NSFLEP) (2006) Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century (SFLL). Lawrence, KS: Allen Press. New London Group (1996) A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review 66 (1), 60–92. Norris, J. and Manchón, R. (2012) Investigating L2 writing development from multiple perspectives: Issues in theory and research. In R.M. Manchón (ed.) L2 Writing Development: Multiple Perspectives (pp. 221–244). Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton. Paul, J.Z. and Friginal, E. (2019) The effects of symmetric and asymmetric social networks on second language communication. Computer Assisted Language Learning 32 (5–6), 587– 618. Pempek, T.A., Yermolayeva, Y.A. and Calvert, S.L. (2009) College students’ social networking experiences on Facebook. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 30, 227–238. Reichelt, M. (2016) L2 writing in languages other than English. In R.M. Manchón and P.K. Matsuda (eds) Handbook of Second and Foreign Language Writing (pp. 181– 200). Berlin: De Gruyter. Reichelt, M. (2019) Contextual factors impacting feedback practices for non-English L2 writing. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages 52, 744–752. Reichelt, M., Lefkowitz, N., Rinnert, C. and Schultz, J.M. (2012) Key issues in foreign language writing. Foreign Language Annals 45 (1), 22–41.

Facebook as a Mediator for L2 Chinese Writing

133

Reid, J. (2011) ‘We don’t Twitter, we Facebook’: An alternative pedagogical space that enables critical practices in relation to writing. English Teaching: Practice and Critique 10 (1), 58–80. Rodliyah, R.S. (2016) Using a Facebook closed group to improve EFL students’ writing. TEFLIN Journal 27 (1), 82–100. Sakkir, G. (2016) Interest and writing skill of the university students on using social mediaFacebook in writing class. The Asian EFL Journal, Second Language Acquisition – Academic Research 2, 178–188. Sakkir, G. and Abrar, A.E.Y. (2018) Students’ perception of the implementation Facebook group in learning writing skill. The 65th TEFLIN International Conference 12 (14), 30–34. Samimy, K. and Lee, Y. (1997) Beliefs about language learning: perspectives of fi rst-year learners and their instructors. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 32, 40–60. Tartari, E. (2015) The use of social media for academic purposes in student’s learning process. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 4 (2), 393–398. Tian, S. (2009) New experiment of teaching Chinese characters to study abroad students in China. China Academic Journal 2, 273–274. Ulla, M.B. and Perales, W.F. (2020) The adoption of Facebook as a virtual class whiteboard: Promoting EFL students’ engagement in language tasks. TESOL Journal 11, 1–4. Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wang, S. and Kim, D. (2014) Incorporating Facebook in an intermediate-level Chinese language course: A case study. The IALLT Journal 44 (1), 38–78. Wang, S. and Vasquez, C. (2014) The effect of target language use in social media on intermediate-level Chinese language learners’ writing Performance. CALICO Journal 31 (1), 78–102. Wen, X. (1997) Motivation and language learning with students of Chinese. Foreign Language Annals 30 (2), 235–251. Witte, S. and Faigley, L. (1981) College composition and communication. Language Studies and Composing 32 (2), 189–204. Ye, L. (2011) Shall we delay teaching characters in teaching Chinese as a foreign language? Foreign Language Annals 46 (4), 610–627. Yiğitoğlu, N. and Reichelt, M. (eds) (2019) L2 Writing Beyond English. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Yunus, M.M. and Salehi, H. (2012) The effectiveness of Facebook groups on teaching and improving writing: Students’ perceptions. International Journal of Education and Information Technologies 1 (6), 87–96. Zhang, D. (2009) Essay writing in a Mandarin Chinese WebCT discussion board. Foreign Language Annals 42 (4), 721–741. Zhang, S. (2016) Killing two birds with one Stone? Turning CFL learners into book writers. Chinese as a Second Language 51 (2), 164–190. Zhao, J. (2008) Concept and mode of teaching Chinese as a second language. Chinese Teaching in the World 22 (1), 93–107. Zheng, B., Yim, S. and Warschauer, M. (2018) Social media in the writing classroom and beyond. The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching 10, 1–5.

7 The Efficacy of Teachers’ Written Corrective Feedback in the L2 Chinese Classroom: Learner Perceptions and Preferences Laura Valentín-Rivera

Introduction

Despite the multiple linguistic benefits of writing, mastering this skill is highly complex due to the level of difficulty that resides in the need to manage numerous aspects to construct a text, such as rhetoric figures interwoven in different genres, grammatical accuracy, organization, cohesion and appropriateness when addressing the audience (Norris & Manchón, 2012). As such, to assist foreign language learners in becoming efficient writers, teachers’ written corrective feedback (WCF) must be implemented in the classroom as a common and frequent practice (Bitchener, 2008, 2012). Although no specific WCF type (i.e. direct vs. indirect) has proved infallible for all learners and contexts, Bitchener (2012: 359) suggested that ‘written CF does indeed have the potential to bring about learning – at least under certain conditions’. Some examples of these largely studied conditions include the degree of explicitness (i.e. direct vs. indirect), the types of errors (i.e. treatable vs. untreatable) and the focus on inaccuracies (i.e. focused vs. unfocused feedback). However, little attention has been paid to other writing conditions, such as the learners’ perceptions in terms of the efficacy of WCF (Storch, 2013; Valentín-Rivera, 2019). Carrying out studies on learners’ perceptions, defi ned as ‘a set of opinions that learners have’ (Storch, 2013: 1914), and their preferences regarding WCF is also essential. This is because ‘the relationship between perceptions, attitudes

134

The Efficacy of Teachers’ Written Corrective Feedback in the L2 Chinese Classroom

135

and actions is complex and unpredictable’ (Storch, 2013: 1986). In fact, learners’ perceptions often do not necessarily match their linguistic gains or struggles (Storch, 2013). Another mismatch can be found in teachers’ perspective regarding the type and frequency of WCF that they were providing (Montgomery & Baker, 2007). These discrepancies need to be known to create balanced teaching-learning affordances. Reportedly, L2 learners expect to receive WCF when producing a text while favoring assorted strategies (e.g. underlining, coding and receiving suggestions in the margins) that hold them accountable to fi x their own errors and promote linguistic independence. In other words, being able to avoid, edit and revise their own inaccuracies in the future. However, these fi ndings were yielded by studies in English-learning contexts (Mahfoodh, 2017). The present chapter furthered our understanding in this suggested line of research (i.e. L2 perceptions and preferences regarding WCF to promote writing development) in a scantly explored setting: Chinese as a foreign language (CFL). First, specific pedagogical recommendations applicable to the CFL classroom are provided. Second, the results presented here concerning learners’ perceptions and preferences will prevent practices that could harbor negative emotions (e.g. providing harsh comments) that may in turn compromise the understanding of the feedback itself (Mahfoodh, 2017). Third, the knowledge on learners’ views of teachers’ comments will fortify instructors’ WCF provision practices. For instance, recurring errors, despite continuous teachers’ comments, may be explained by a discrepancy between what teachers and learners understand as effective feedback (Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2005). This mismatch can subsequently hinder learners’ revision process (Leki, 1991) and inhibit their writing development (Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1996). For further introspection on the effect of teachers’ comments, refer to section ‘Written corrective feedback (WCF) in L2 Chinese classrooms’ in the Introductory chapter of this volume. Similarly, for more information on learners’ perceptions, please consult Ye’s work featured in Chapter 6. Literature Review

This section presents an overview of WCF in terms of types, focus and its efficacy in L2 classrooms, as well as the overall perceptions of language learners on its impact. Degree of explicitness, focus and types of Errors

The mastery of L2 writing is arduous due to the ‘multiple aspects of effective text construction’ (Norris & Manchón, 2012: 229), thus requiring the writer’s active participation. Learners’ involvement may be promoted by incorporating WCF practices, which vary based on the degree of explicitness (i.e. direct and indirect comments), the type of error that is

136

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

treated and the different foci of the corrections. As such, direct WCF consists of pointing out an error and straightforwardly providing the accurate L2 form (Bitchener et al., 2005). These direct linguistic adjustments may be accompanied by ‘information or data about what is not possible in a target language’ (Hyun-Souk, 2010: 582), known as negative evidence. Contrastively, indirect WCF comprises indicating to learners the location (e.g. by underlining) and the nature (Khatib & Bijani, 2012) of their errors. Subsequently, the nature of the error could be treatable (i.e. rulegoverned) or untreatable (i.e. idiosyncratic) (Ferris, 1999). Treatable errors can be resolved by consulting linguistic references (e.g. grammar handbooks), while the untreatable kind, such as word choice, unidiomatic sentence structures, unnecessary words, demands that learners use acquired knowledge to correct them (Bitchener et al., 2005). In terms of foci, WCF is considered focused when exclusively targeting one type of error (e.g. defi nite articles), while indicated errors displaying diverse linguistic properties are associated with unfocused feedback. The efficacy of WCF in L2 classrooms

Many studies in L2 learning contexts support the overall facilitative role of WCF in text quality enhancement (Bitchener et al., 2005; Chandler, 2003; Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Khatib & Bijani, 2012; Truscott & Hsu, 2008) and L2 development (Fang & Wang, 2019; Ferris, 2012). These affordances are viable when learners are required to react to WCF, by either studying the direct linguistic amends made by their teachers (Ellis, 2008) or self-revising their work following indirect feedback (Kang & Han, 2015; Shintani & Aubrey, 2016). Although direct feedback has been predominantly studied, Ferris (2014) proposed that indirect WCF is more beneficial over time (see Ellis (2009) and Ferris (2014) for a more detailed review of the effects of diverse WCF strategies). It is worth noting that some indirect WCF strategies are suggested to be particularly relevant for target languages beyond English (Best et al., 2015; Fang & Wang, 2019), which is the case of modeling; that is, exposing learners to a text that serves as a prototype reflecting efficiently incorporated linguistic, rhetorical and genre-related aspects. In terms of the type of errors, Van Beuningen et al. (2012) suggested that successful revision and writing accuracy in new pieces of writing are plausible when treatable errors are addressed by direct corrections, while untreatable ones are identified with indirect WCF. In addition, no significant difference was found when comparing focused versus unfocused WCF. Research on WCF in L2 Chinese settings

Although the impact of WCF in L2 Chinese contexts has been rarely studied, the scarce research on it pointed to teachers favoring lexical and grammatical aspects amended through direct corrections (Fang & Wang,

The Efficacy of Teachers’ Written Corrective Feedback in the L2 Chinese Classroom

137

2019), while fi nding both degrees of explicitness of WCF to be impactful. Fang and Wang (2019) explored teacher feedback and learners’ uptake in CFL settings when analyzing an advanced writing task related to food at the college level. The instructor of record provided three rounds of WCF, which was focused on language (84/92 comments) and content (8/92 comments). The language errors were primarily identified via indirect WCF (i.e. circling and adding questions) in the first draft, while both indirect (i.e. adding hints, such as listing synonyms or giving a sentence pattern) and direct feedback were offered for the second draft. The remaining errors in the third round of comments were amended via direct corrections. Overall, when addressing language errors, direct WCF was still predominant (60/84). Conversely, there was a high rate of successful selfrevisions, thus improving the quality of the text. The authors argued that direct WCF had a positive impact on learners, as the revisions suggested that they were still responsible for deciphering how to structure the sentence. In addition, some learners did not adopt the teacher’s direct feedback but rather made decisions based on said suggestions, thus showing autonomy and high proficiency, as some of these independent selections enhanced the text quality. Also in 2019, Han worked with six L2 Chinese learners to investigate (a) the effects of computer-mediated, coded indirect CF and (b) the factors that affected participants’ incorporation of WCF into their texts. To this end, the participants completed four Chinese essays, in which they summarized or introduced a topic based on written or audiovisual stories and provided opinions and examples. When working on each essay, the participants submitted two drafts and received WCF on nine types of errors. Hence, two independent raters scored the revised drafts. Based on these ratings, the errors that were successfully and unsuccessfully corrected were calculated, in addition to determining any patterns evidenced by the revisions. Overall, no significant difference was found in terms of error rates across the fi rst drafts of the four essays. Moreover, the type of errors may have played a role in whether students successfully or unsuccessfully incorporated self-revisions. For example, errors related to word substitution and incorrect chunks were more accurately revised than others (e.g. errors at the sentence-level). More recently, Ma (2020) investigated the processing and effect of two types of WCF on two linguistic items (i.e. the particle le and classifiers), while working with 38 college beginners who completed two narratives in an online CFL course. The participants completed a pretest to assess their knowledge on the particle le and classifiers and were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups: direct WCF (n = 19) and indirect WCF with metalinguistic explanations (n = 19). After completing the first narrative, corrective comments were provided accordingly by two teachers, one per cohort, who also delivered individually based mentoring sessions. The self-revised drafts of the first narrative served as an immediate posttest, while the second narrative functioned as a delayed post-test.

138

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

Furthermore, the participants’ processing of WCF was measured by thinkaloud protocols. In addition, they completed a questionnaire to express their attitudes toward feedback, while only eight participants were interviewed on learning motivation and the course efficacy. It was observed that, overall, indirect WCF accompanied by metalinguistic explanations seemed to have promoted a higher degree of grammatical accuracy, as measured by the immediate post-test. Greater accuracy and a deeper level of processing was also displayed in the delayed post-test, while yielding a high level of engagement. However, the direct WCF promoted linguistic awareness but was only processed at the noticing level. Lastly, the indirect WCF with metalinguistic explanations was favored among participants as they stated preferring more detailed feedback so that they could better understand their errors and how to better themselves as writers. Studies on learner perceptions regarding WCF

One of the pioneers in exploring learners’ perceptions and preferences concerning WCF was Leki (1991). She surveyed 100 ESL college freshmen enrolled in an L2 writing course in the US. The results revealed that learners (a) overwhelmingly expected receiving WCF as a measure to prevent making future errors and (b) preferred comments accompanied by metalinguistic clues, in addition to being referred to grammar handbooks by their teachers. Counterintuitively, most participants stated paying closer attention to content- and organization-related corrections because they were more memorable than those related to language use. Recently, McMartin-Miller (2014) interviewed 19 international college students’ perceptions of two types of WCF in L2 English: selective (i.e. focused) and comprehensive (i.e. unfocused). Instructors’ feedback provision differed in quantity, as their approaches to WCF were flexible, that is, their decisions on what and how to comment were defi ned by the topic of the task. By contrast, the students reported favoring comprehensive feedback but were still satisfied when receiving selective comments. Lee’s works (2005, 2008) have been insightful to appreciate the repercussions of learners’ perceptions and preferences linked to WCF and to disseminate this knowledge across the field. In 2005, 320 EFL secondary school students in Hong Kong, aged 12 to 18, composed two compositions while their errors were detected and fi xed by their teachers (i.e. direct WCF). Although the participants found the impact of WCF on linguistic development limited, they still believed that one of their teachers’ pedagogical duties was pointing out their errors. The participants also reported that ‘remedial grammar work, editing training, peer- and self-editing, the use of error logs and others’ (2005: 12) should be integrated into the classroom to develop a greater appreciation for WCF. Similarly, Lee (2008) focused on the factors that shaped 174 EFL learners’ perceptions concerning WCF. The results showed that learners expected explicit or direct

The Efficacy of Teachers’ Written Corrective Feedback in the L2 Chinese Classroom

139

corrections in high volumes. In addition, the proficiency level of the learners correlated with their degree of interest: the higher their level of linguistic command, the more interested they were in their teachers’ feedback. Comparably, Elwood and Bode (2014) investigated the preferred WCF provision strategies of 410 EFL Japanese fi rst-year college students and how these varied depending on the learners’ gender, levels of anxiety and proficiency. Overall, females responded favorably to WCF and expected detailed handwritten comments that were comprehensive (i.e. focused on content and form). Contrastively, males reported higher anxiety when receiving feedback. Furthermore, the participants with higher L2 English proficiency reported experiencing low levels of anxiety when receiving teachers’ comments. In 2017, Mahfoodh examined eight Yemenis EFL learners’ reactions to WCF provisions and how they affected the learners’ revisions. Overall, a wide range of emotions was observed, among which rejection of feedback, surprise, frustration and satisfaction prevailed. The negative reactions were caused by harsh criticism, negative evaluation and miscommunication between teachers and their students. Nonetheless, negative feelings were found to lead to more efficient corrections. Chen (2012) worked with three teachers and 38 college-level CFL learners from three intact classes (17 students from class A, 13 from class B and 8 from class C) who completed and revised, based on teacher feedback, seven writing tasks with three drafts each. The CFL learners’ views and preferences concerning WCF were gathered via a questionnaire and were contrasted with the teachers’ views on the matter, which were collected through an interview. The results suggested that the teacher, as opposed to others (e.g. peers, Chinese tutors, or speakers), was the main and most trustworthy source of feedback. Corrective feedback, subsequently, was positively perceived by the CFL learners. In addition, the participants reported willingness to receive more written comments, especially those focused on all aspects of writing (e.g. content and organization). Conversely, the three teachers shared students’ view of WCF as an essential component for writing development, especially throughout multiple drafts. Both parties also emphasized the value of student-teacher conferences on WCF. However, some discrepancies between the teachers’ feedback practices and the participants’ perceptions were observed. For example, the participants stated preferring direct WCF, as opposed to the type of corrections they usually received (i.e. indirect WCF through codes). Han (2019) also surveyed L2 Chinese learners’ perceptions on WCF, as discusses previously. Results suggested that the participants’ perceptions on WCF varied as some of them disliked the technique in use (i.e. computer-mediated, coded indirect CF) but gained an appreciation for it over time. This might be due to their limited familiarity with it, as well as the WCF types and techniques they previously worked with, such as direct corrections.

140

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

Limitations of previous research and research questions

Despite the novel contributions of the prior studies, they present some limitations. First, this body of research did not deeply examine learners’ (a) perceptions (i.e. helpfulness, challenges and suggestions for instructors to assist overcoming these difficulties) and (b) familiarity with diverse strategies pertaining to direct and indirect WCF. A deeper understanding of these two elements is key for instructors to maximize the benefits that learners can obtain from assorted corrections. This in turn can assist language instructors to avoid a common practice in CFL classes according to Fang and Wang (2019): relegating writing as a language practice, which prevents learners from focusing on ‘genuine meaning-producing communication’ (Fang & Wang, 2019: 98). A solution to this issue could be personalizing WCF according to learners’ individual needs, as suggested by Ferris (2014). A secondary issue is the lack of opportunities for learners to explain the reasons why they may prefer one type of WCF over the other (e.g. content versus form), hence missing important details to build a sturdier basis to engage in a well-informed two-way conversation with learners concerning the importance and positive impact of WCF. It has been pointed out that clear guidance regarding WCF provision is scarce (Martínez & Roca de Larios, 2010). Third, the studies in questions have predominantly focused on English. Considering this, this chapter addresses these limitations while focusing on learners’ perceptions and preferences concerning WCF. The aim is to better inform Chinese language instructors on how WCF provision could be linked with specific writing practices inside the classroom to ultimately enhance holistic learning opportunities for CFL learners. As such, the research questions addressed are: (1) What are CFL learners’ expectations (i.e. whether WCF and how frequently it is desired) and overall perceptions (i.e. helpfulness, challenges and suggestions for instructors) regarding WCF? (2) What are CFL learners’ degree of familiarity and preferences regarding different types (direct vs. indirect) and strategies (e.g. coding vs. metalinguistic explanations) of WCF?

Method Participants and context

The participants were 15 CFL learners (eight females and seven males) across two different geographic regions in the US (the Midwest and the East Coast), whose average age was 20. Fourteen participants were native speakers of English, while one of them identified himself as a heritage speaker with limited writing and oral production abilities. His reasoning was that he only spoke to his mother in Chinese during his childhood. Furthermore, most CFL learners were sophomores (33.33%) and juniors

The Efficacy of Teachers’ Written Corrective Feedback in the L2 Chinese Classroom

141

(26.7%), while the remaining 40% was equally divided into seniors and freshmen. In terms of proficiency, 14 participants reported themselves to be intermediate learners, while the remaining one self-reported being a novice. In addition, the average reported time span of instruction was three and a half years. Moreover, five participants reported having studied Chinese before college, either in high school or middle school, but no one had studied Chinese abroad. Among the reasons to learn Chinese, the participants mainly mentioned: finding the target language culturally interesting (46.66%); aiming to use their bilingual skills in the future for professional purposes (33.33%), such as becoming a translator and interpreter, carrying out international business in China and serving in the army; connecting more with family members (13%); and thinking that the language is unique and politically important (6.66%). In terms of known writing genres, the participants were overwhelmingly acquainted with description (12/15 = 80%). Summaries (10/15 = 66.7%) and comparisons (8/15 = 53.3%) were also highly known, while argumentative (7/15 = 46.7%) and cause–effect texts were the least known (3/15 = 2%). Furthermore, the number of writing assignments completed varied widely; however, the most response was two per semester. Instruments

A set of two instruments, including an online background questionnaire and an online survey that were written in English, accounted for the gathering of the data in different ways, as explained below. Background questionnaire

The 15 participants completed a background questionnaire composed of 12 items (i.e. eight closed-ended and four open-ended questions) designed to identify three domains. More specifically, domain one (i.e. circumstantial features) encompassed age, gender, the participants’ academic classification (i.e. freshmen, sophomore, junior or senior) and their motivations for studying Chinese. Contrastively, the overall linguistic training (i.e. domain two) embodied the participants’ self-reported proficiency level, length of time learning Chinese and prior experience with the target language. Lastly, the third domain delineated learners’ experiences as writers in the Chinese classroom (i.e. familiar genres and the number of texts produced per class). These three spheres were used to provide a detailed student profile, presented in the earlier Participants and Context sub-section. Online survey on WCF

The online survey, created via Google Forms, was specifically developed to collect the data used to answer both research questions. In it, 19 items (i.e. 10 open-ended and 9 closed-ended) were created based on four

142

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

Table 7.1 Surveyed specifications per realm Realm

Surveyed specification

(1) Expectations

• Whether receiving WCF is anticipated and why. • Frequency in which WCF from teachers is expected.

(2) Perceptions

• General perceptions in terms of helpfulness. • Different challenges when writing in Chinese:  Whether instructors are aware of these. ■ Recommendations associated with this awareness, if any. • Affording teachers insights on additional ways to assist learners to overcome these challenges.

(3) Familiarity

• Degree of familiarity with different types of WCF (i.e. direct vs. indirect). • Level of acquaintance with the different strategies of WCF provision (e.g. underlining, coding and metalinguistic observations). • Most used strategies learners observed when receiving WCF.

(4) Preferences associated with WCF

• Preferred type of WCF (i.e. direct or indirect) • Preferred strategies of WCF provision (e.g. underlining, coding and metalinguistic observations). • Areas that usually receive more attention (i.e. content and form)

realms concerning WCF and corresponded to the specifications reflected in Table 7.1. The online survey was estimated to be completed within 20 minutes. Procedure

After being piloted, the battery of data collection materials was distributed by sending them to two colleagues in L2 Chinese writing, who provided feedback in terms of relevance, clarity and purpose. Changes were made when needed to enhance both instruments in terms of these aspects. Afterwards, the distribution was completed via email through a link that also contained the consent form. This email was sent out to multiple Chinese professors and instructors at higher education institutions that were identified to have either an Asian Studies or Chinese program (i.e. as a minor or major) through an internet-based search.

Data analysis

Merriam’s (2009) work on designing and implementing qualitative research served as the base to analyze the data. Thus, the gathered information was fi rstly reviewed and broken down to establish an analytical coding system (Corbin & Strauss, 2007): that is, a classification or theme that ‘comes from interpretation and reflection on meaning’ (Richards, 2005: 94). This allowed the researcher to capture the recurring patterns across the collected responses. Some of the preliminary themes identified were ‘helpfulness of WCF’ or ‘challenges that receiving WCF represent’.

The Efficacy of Teachers’ Written Corrective Feedback in the L2 Chinese Classroom

143

After two weeks, the researcher conducted the same analytical coding process again to refi ne the themes in order to ensure precision in the interpretation of the data. As a result, some categories were slightly altered, while others were eliminated, such as ‘learners’ common writing practices when writing’, since this theme was beyond the scope of this chapter. An example of one of the modified themes was ‘helpfulness of WCF’, which was subdivided into two categories: ‘different degrees of helpfulness of WCF’ and ‘WCF helpfulness in terms of applicability’. This enabled a more detailed coding system, which was at the same time shared with a research colleague in L2 Chinese writing to achieve reliability. After coding, percentages per theme were calculated to specify the degree of relevance of the answers that the participants provided. That is, all the answers that were categorized under the same given theme were added and then divided by the total number of responses. This, in addition to all the details provided in this section, can serve as a base for replicability, thus solidifying the validity of the fi ndings. Although the sample size is overall limited compared to previous studies in L2 English (e.g. Elwood & Bode, 2014; Lee, 2005, 2008; Leki, 1991), the fi ndings of this chapter are expected to shed light on CFL learners’ perceptions concerning feedback and thus inspire future research in this direction.

Results Participants’ expectations and perceptions concerning WCF

When it came to the participants’ expectation of WCF, the answers were unequivocally consistent: everyone desired getting feedback from their teachers after completing each writing task, as language development and linguistic improvement was not possible when errors were not identified, as reported by 53.3% of the participants. Other reasons with a low percentage (6.66% to 13%) of responses included: avoiding bad language habits that affect the quality of the message (13.3%), wanting to become capable of fi xing grammatical errors without relying on anyone else (6.66%) and receiving useful information that is not found in textbooks (6.66%). Participants’ perceptions regarding the helpfulness of WCF and the different challenges faced when writing were also surveyed. Learners generally perceived teachers’ comments to be helpful. However, the degrees of usefulness of WCF varied. For 60% of the participants, teacher corrections were reported extremely useful, while 33.33% found these comments to be very useful. Only 6.6% reported WCF to be somewhat helpful. Furthermore, the participants were presented with five statements. These described the specific ways in which WCF had helped them to improve their skills as writers in terms of form and content. These statements and their respective percentage of frequency are reported in Table 7.2.

144

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

Table 7.2 WCF usefulness in terms of applicability Statement

Percentage of frequency

(1) Better understand and accurately use vocabulary that had been difficult to understand and employ in the past

93.3%

(2) Better understand and accurately use grammatical structures that had been difficult to understand and employ in the past

86.66%

(3) Better organize ideas

66.66%

(4) Learning new or more sophisticated vocabulary

53.3%

(5) Better understand the writing and rhetoric expectations behind different genres

20%

As observed, WCF was considered conducive to fi xing form-related issues (i.e. vocabulary and grammatical structures: 93.3% and 86.66%, respectively). Even when the participants did not seem to prioritize content-related matters, 66.66% of them recognized having improved their ways to present ideas based on their instructors’ written comments. In addition, participants were elicited and allowed to report as many challenges faced when writing as they could think of. Overall, the most complicated endeavor suggested being handwriting in Chinese (27.58%), especially due to (a) the difficulties with remembering the character structures and (b) the high time allocation that this manual activity required. Two additional common challenges were structuring sentences properly (20.68%) and accurately using grammar when communicating (17.24%). Other reported challenges were being able to incorporate new words (13.79%) and thinking of ideas directly in Chinese (6.89%). The remaining 13.82% was equally distributed among four additional challenges: maintaining a natural flow between lexicon and grammar, thinking of the audience, conveying a specific tone and adopting a formal register. Most participants (60%), however, reported that their instructors were able to notice their struggles, and had made recommendations such as using flashcards to study vocabulary, reviewing their notes, or becoming aware of the cultural context that the text needed to be embedded in. In response to their teachers’ suggestions, the participants were asked to provide counter-recommendations to their instructors, so that as language teachers they could enhance their pedagogical practices pertaining to feedback provision. These recommendations from the participants are shown in Table 7.3. The information reported in the table, which constitutes 50% of the responses, reflects the five most common provided suggestions. Most participants believed that to overcome challenges and be better equipped as writers, their instructors should mainly consider explaining the reasoning behind their errors (14.28%), in addition to facilitating further practice opportunities (14.28%). The remaining 50% of the recommendations were equally divided across nine ideas (i.e. 5.55% each), such as (1) adding

The Efficacy of Teachers’ Written Corrective Feedback in the L2 Chinese Classroom

145

Table 7.3 Learners’ recommendations to enhance instructors WCF practices Recommendations

Percentage

(1) Explaining why errors are wrong.

14.28%

(2) Assigning more essays per semester to make students feel more comfortable writing and to enable more opportunities to learn by making mistakes.

14.28%

(3) Including examples when offering comments, especially when the root of the issue is hard to explain or understand.

7.14%

(4) Providing an explanation regarding syntax and word order-related errors.

7.14%

(5) Suggesting alternative vocabulary, such as synonyms when applicable.

7.14%

culture-related notes to WCF, (2) including more details when offering comments, (3) delivering immediate comments and (4) adding a comparison illustrating what an accurate structure (i.e. syntactic errors) sounds like as compared to English when applicable. Concerning vocabulary use, they suggested (5) providing a list with relevant words for the task, (6) specifying if there are words or phrases that are more commonly used by native speakers than those used by the students and (7) assisting students in placing words into the context of cultural conventions or expectations. Other advice included (8) being referred to additional resources (e.g. practice websites) or exercises and (9) hosting one-on-one meetings, especially when errors are persistent, as verbal explanations are sometimes better than the written ones. Participants’ familiarity and preferences concerning WCF

In terms of familiarity, all participants reported being acquainted with direct WCF, while 93.33% of them were aware of its counterpart: indirect comments. This suggested that both types of feedback were amply used to address learner’s errors in CFL classrooms, although perhaps at different stages in their linguistic training. Among the three most recognized feedback strategies, 93.33% of the participants identified having errors crossed out and replaced with the correct form (i.e. direct corrections). Other two techniques that were known to the same degree (86.66%) were (1) a combination of having errors pointed out and accompanied by brief comments, and (2) receiving positive feedback (i.e. praising the linguistic performance that the students have displayed). Conversely, the least known strategies (i.e. 20%) were the use of codes (e.g. ‘VOC’) to display the linguistic nature of the error and being exposed to model texts. Model texts have been suggested to not be language specific (Best et al., 2015; Fang & Wang, 2019) and consist of texts that have been effectively composed in terms of form and content; thus, displaying a benchmark and an example to follow. The two techniques reported to be most frequently used by teachers were direct corrections (73.33%) and having their errors

146

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

located along with receiving brief comments (26.66%). This information aligned with the types of WCF that participants were most familiar with, as previously reported. Concerning their preferred WCF type and strategy, the participants favored indirect (53.33%) over direct comments (20%), because they considered that indirect WCF strengthened linguistic connections. The remaining 26.66% of the responses emphasized the desire to receive a combination of both types of WCF on their compositions. Conversely, three WCF strategies were emphasized. First, receiving recognition through positive feedback since this type of comments provided participants with a sense of linguistic progress. Second, being exposed to model texts – see previous explanation, which aligns with one of the recommendations included in Table 7.3 (i.e. ‘including examples when offering comments’). Third, receiving metalinguistic explanations, as metalinguistic cues were seen as guidance since this strategy allowed participants to understand why a change was required. Lastly, the areas (i.e. content and form) that received most attention from the participants when WCF was provided were overwhelmingly related to grammar-related issues (45.83%), word choice (25%) and sentence structure (8.33%). Also, 8.33% of the participants stated paying attention to all types of comments, while the remaining 12.51% consisted of punctuation, the organization of ideas, content and spelling. Discussion

The results of this chapter are in line with Leki (1991) and Lee’s (2005, 2008) as learners fi rmly expected to receive WCF. This is because of three main reasons. First, WCF provision was seen as a norm in the classroom. Second, the teacher was seen as the primary and most reliable feedback source (Chen, 2012). Third, WCF was considered useful by the participants (Elwood & Bode, 2014; McMartin-Miller, 2014). Nonetheless, most attention was devoted to form-related errors, thus confuting Leki’s (1991) observations. This is not surprising considering that WCF provision in the CFL setting tends to focus on language inaccuracies (Fang & Wang, 2019). This chapter also echoes two of Leki’s (1991) observations in terms of learner preferences. First, the participants expressed a desire to be referred to additional linguistic resources. Second, they favored indirect WCF (i.e. metalinguistic feedback and examples) because of its guiding nature. This predilection partially supports Ma’s (2020) observation as she reported fi nding metalinguistic feedback to display a deep level of processing, which accounted for accuracy in a delayed post-test in her study. Furthermore, the participants’ sturdy and constant petition for more writing practice (see Table 7.3) is worth mentioning, as this is suggestive of their deep desire to develop writing skills in parallel with their linguistic abilities. As such, it could be argued that the CFL learners in this chapter align with the writing-to-learn approach (Manchón, 2011).

The Efficacy of Teachers’ Written Corrective Feedback in the L2 Chinese Classroom

147

This chapter, however, contradicts some of Chen’s (2012) and Han’s (2019) conclusions in terms of learners’ preferred WCF. In their case, some participants were more inclined to embrace WCF types and techniques that they already knew, such as direct corrections, as opposed to the comments they received as part of the treatment (i.e. coded indirect feedback). By contrast in this chapter, what learners knew and were most familiar with was not necessarily what they favored. That is, regardless of their unanimous awareness of direct WCF, most of the participants requested either receiving indirect WCF (53.33%) or a combination of indirect and direct comments (26.66%). This speaks to the accountability that learners themselves wish to be held to. This accountability, other than a preference, could also be impactful in the overall learning process. In fact, Lee (2005) emphasized the limited impact on linguistic development if learners are not required to correct their errors based on WCF. Regarding pedagogical guidance, it is suggested to emphasize writing as a vital part of students’ learning experience by implementing additional and frequent practice. This can be achieved through weekly or biweekly endeavor in the shape of short writings that can be approached as a type of diary. This recommendation is supported by the participants’ request for more and frequent writing practice, as well as by Fang and Wang’s (2019: 98) observation: ‘Chinese courses become pivotal in providing [learners] with learning opportunities to practice important language skills’. Mainly, two benefits of the short writings practice can be mentioned. First, accommodating learners’ requests for more writing opportunities. Second, promoting a writing process approach, not only by encouraging self-revisions but also by equipping learners with developing habits that afford ample preparation related to content. This is achievable since frequent practice embedded in short writings would progressively make learners more adept at spontaneously generating ideas directly in Chinese, while also facilitating a more natural flow amongst lexical and grammatical areas. Several factors need to be considered regarding the implementation of short writings, however. For example, if the course curriculum is inflexible or has limited room for changes, these short writings can be assigned as after-class homework but be graded as part of the overall writing assignments. Williams (2012) suggests that this practice promotes the embracement of writing as a process, as opposed to a linear endeavor, in addition to recognizing the students’ engagement by allocating points for each writing endeavor they complete as part of a holistic task. An additional consideration is intertwining writing practice with familiar genres, such as descriptions and summaries, especially at the lower levels, to fortify learners’ confidence. In addition, an alternative to contemplate is pairing these familiar genres with culturally related matters, such as the food themes presented in Fang and Wang (2019). This approach accommodates two of the recommendations made by the participants to their teachers:

148

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

improve their vocabulary by using relevant words for the task and practicing how to place words into the context of cultural conventions or expectations. To further accommodate opportunities for higher-level learners, it is imperative to gradually increase the level of complexity of the short writings by (a) raising the stakes and (b) making emphasis on the audience. To accommodate both, the pieces created by the students can be exhibited (either by being read aloud or via blogs) with their peers to develop a sense of audience, as writing is inherently social (Hirverla, 1999). Language instructors can also serve as readers and judges of the best written piece. Audience awareness could subsequently help the students to convey a specific tone more efficiently in their writing, a need that was pointed out by the participants in this chapter. In addition, it redirects learners’ attention to content matters. Some recommendations on WCF provision based on the fi ndings of this chapter and previous research are also in order. First, the level of explicitness of the corrective feedback should be based on the needs of students enrolled in specific language courses (Ferris, 2014), in this case Chinese. However, accountability should still be encouraged by requiring active self-revisions so that autonomy and efficient writing can be achieved. When it comes to proficiency level, more guided indirect WCF should be provided when the overall linguistic knowledge of L2 Chinese learners is limited, such as metalinguistic cues accompanied by examples, as observed in Ma (2020). Examples have also been suggested to be effective in Chinese writing classes (Fang & Wang, 2019). The need and preference in receiving models was also mentioned by the participants of this chapter. This is emphasized in the recommendations the participants provided to their instructors so that the latter can further assist their students in becoming more adept writers (e.g. including examples especially when the root of the issue is hard to explain or understand, suggesting alternative vocabulary, such as synonyms if applicable). An additional alternative is giving learners access to model texts, that is, previously written compositions that display efficient writing in terms of form, content, an appropriately adopted tone and awareness of the audience. Although not explored in L2 Chinese contexts, modeling is relevant in non-English L2 classrooms (Best et al., 2015; Fang & Wang, 2019). As such, it is recommended that the texts that serve as prototypes are authored by previous or current members of the class. This would demonstrate that the preparation and practice in the classroom can afford efficient writing. By implementing these measures and those connected to short writing practices, a process approach will undeniably be solidified. Following the suggestions made by Leki (1991), Lee (2005) and McMartin-Miller (2014), it is also vital to have pedagogically informed two-way conversations with the students regarding the types and strategies of WCF that we, as language instructors, decide to implement. These dialogues must go over the benefits that the students anticipate experiencing in terms of different writing stages,

The Efficacy of Teachers’ Written Corrective Feedback in the L2 Chinese Classroom

149

such as composing and self-revising. Similarly, room should be given to learners for them to express their perceptions and preferences regarding teachers’ corrections. Conclusion

Due to its sample size, the results of this chapter are tentative. However, the outcomes observed here reinforce learners’ robust and unanimous expectations to receive teacher comments. This is because they perceived WCF to be a tool to improve their overall linguistic skills, expand their lexical repertoire and attest their current knowledge. In addition, there was a latent preference for indirect feedback as well as a conscious and selective attention to form-related errors when receiving WCF. The novelty of this chapter resides in exploring CFL learners’ elaborated thoughts on the efficacy of WCF usefulness, in addition to allowing them to voice their familiarity with different feedback provision strategies as this construct has not been soundly examined. However, some limitations are worth mentioning so that future research can address them and account for further directives on WCF practices in CFL settings. Other than expanding the number of participants to at least 40 for generalizability purposes, learners’ perceptions and preferences regarding WCF should be explored alongside the effects of assorted feedback strategies. In addition, the design of the study should also include a quantitative element to fortify the applicability of the results. References Best, K., Jones-Katz, I., Smolarek, B., Stolzenburg, M. and Williamson, D. (2015) Listening to our students: An explanatory practice study of ESL writing students view of feedback. TESOL Journal 6 (2), 332–357. Bitchener, J. (2008) Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing 17 (2), 69–124. Bitchener, J. (2012) A reflection on ‘the language learning potential’ of written CF. Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (4), 348–363. Bitchener, J., Young, S. and Cameron, D. (2005) The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 14 (3), 191–205. Chandler, J. (2003) The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (3), 267–296. Chen, J. (2012) Teachers’ practices and student views of written feedback: A case of TCFL students. Master’s thesis, Arizona State University. Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2007) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (3rd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ellis, R. (2008) Investigating grammatical diffi culty in second language learning: Implications for second language acquisition research and language testing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 18 (1), 4–22. Ellis, R. (2009) A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal 63 (2), 97 –107.

150

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

Elwood, J.A. and Bode, J. (2014) Student preferences vis-à-vis teacher feedback in university EFL writing classes in Japan. System 42 (1), 333–343. Fang, M. and Wang, A. (2019) Feedback to feed forward: Giving effective feedback in advanced Chinese writing. In N. Yiğitoğlu and M. Reichelt (eds) L2 Writing Beyond English (pp. 95–114). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Ferris, D. (1999) The Case of grammar correction in L2 Writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing 8 (1), 1–11. Ferris, D. (2012) Technology and corrective feedback for L2 writers: Principles, practices, and problems. In G. Kessler, A. Oskoz and I. Elola (eds) Technology Across Writing Contexts and Tasks (pp. 7–30). San Marcos, TX: Texas State University. Ferris, D. (2014) Responding to students’ writing: Teachers’ philosophies and practices. Assessing Writing 19, 6–23. Ferris, D. and Roberts, B. (2001) Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing 10 (3), 161–184. Han, J. (2019) The effects and students’ views of teachers’ coded written corrective feedback: A multiple-case study of online multiple-draft Chinese writing. PhD dissertation, University of South Florida. Hedgcock, J. and Lefkowitz, N. (1996) Some input on input: Two analyses of student response to expert feedback in L2 writing. Modern Language Journal 80 (3), 287–308. Hirvela, A. (1999) Collaborative writing instruction and communities of readers and writers. TESOL Journal 8 (2), 7–12. Hyun-Souk, K. (2010) Negative evidence and its explicitness positioning in the learning of Korean as a heritage language. The Modern Language Journal 94 (4), 582–599. Kang, E. and Han, Z. (2015) The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. The Modern Language Journal 99 (1), 1–18. Khatib, M. and Bijani, H. (2012) Evaluating the effectiveness of various types of error feedback. The Iranian EFL Journal 8, 102–116. Lasagabaster, D. and Sierra, J.M. (2005) Error correction: Students’ versus teachers’ perceptions. Language Awareness 14, 112–127. Lee, I. (2005) Error correction in the L2 writing classroom: What do students think? TESL Canada Journal 22, 1–16. Lee, I. (2008) Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing 17 (3), 144–164. Leki, I. (1991) The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annal 24 (3), 203–218. Ma, X. (2020) Writing in a task-based individualized curriculum: Effectiveness of direct and indirect written corrective feedback. PhD thesis, Georgetown University, Washington DC. Mahfoodh, O.H. (2017) ‘I feel disappointed’: EFL university students’ emotional responses towards teacher written feedback. Assessing Writing 31, 53–72. Manchón, R.M. (2011) Writing to learn the language: Issues in theory and research. In R.M. Manchón (ed.) Learning-to-Write and Writing-to-Learn in an Additional Language (pp. 61–82). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Martínez, N. and Roca de Larios, J. (2010) The use of models as a form of written feedback to secondary school pupils of English. International Journal of English Studies 10 (2), 143–170. McMartin-Miller, C. (2014) How much feedback is enough? Instructor practices and student attitudes toward error treatment in second language writing. Assessing Writing 19, 24–35. Merriam, S.B. (2009) Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons. Montgomery, J.L. and Baker, W. (2007) Teacher written feedback: Students’ perceptions, teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance. Journal of Second Language Writing 16 (2), 82–99.

The Efficacy of Teachers’ Written Corrective Feedback in the L2 Chinese Classroom

151

Norris, J. and Manchón, R.M. (2012) Investigating L2 writing development from multiple perspectives: Issues in theory and research. In R.M. Manchón (ed.) L2 Writing Development: Multiple Perspectives (pp. 221–244). Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton. Richards, L. (2005) Handling Qualitative Data. London: Sage. Shintani, N. and Aubrey, S. (2016) The effectiveness of synchronous and asynchronous written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in a computer-mediated environment. The Modern Language Journal 100 (1), 296–319. Storch, N. (2013) Collaborative Writing in L2 Classrooms. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Truscott, J. and Hsu, A.Y.P. (2008) Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing 17 (4), 292–305. Valentín-Rivera, L. (2019) Writing practices among Spanish mixed couples: An insight regarding the revision of labor and learners’ perceptions on collaboration. In N. Yiğitoğlu and M. Reichelt (eds) L2 Writing Beyond English (pp. 177–196). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Van Beuningen, C.G., De Jong, N.H. and Kuiken, F. (2012) Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning 62 (1), 1–41. Williams, J. (2012) The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (4), 321–331.

8 L2 Writing under Pandemic Conditions: How Do Chinese and Spanish Instructors Adapt? Daniel Román-Zúñiga, Idoia Elola and Raychel Vasseur

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic forced many higher education institutions to shift unexpectedly from face-to-face (F2F) instruction to remote online learning in the middle of the spring 2020 semester and, in many cases, maintain this teaching modality in the fall 2020 semester. This rapid shift to an online modality required language instructors to familiarize themselves with online tools (e.g. Zoom, blogs, Flipgrid and similar resources) and transition their second language (L2) curricula to one that considered the affordances of such tools in new and innovative ways. Even if instructors had previously incorporated some technology into their courses, the swift transition to remote online instruction required novel approaches to a curriculum previously designed for F2F instruction (Moser et al., 2021), often with little planning time, training and support. Online instruction typically requires six to nine months of preparation and instructional design specific to the online environment (Hodges et al., 2020). Emergency remote teaching, which occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, could not recreate the educational experience it was replacing; rather, its goal was to provide access to instruction quickly, reliably and safely during an emergency situation (Hodges et al., 2020). Despite developments in online pedagogy and calls for the inclusion of additional technological tools and multiliteracy components in L2 curricula (Kalantzis et al., 2016; Kern, 2000; Oskoz & Elola, 2020), the transition to remote online instruction was challenging, with some instructors dreading the introduction of digital tools and not perceiving them to be beneficial to L2 development (Manchón, 2017; Oskoz & Elola, 2020). During the transition to remote teaching, an enormous national effort began in the United States 152

L2 Writing under Pandemic Conditions

153

to help with the shift in instructional modality. For instance, two organizations dedicated to developing quality online instruction, the Online Learning Consortium (OLC) and Quality Matters (QM), published remote learning guides (OLC, 2020; QM, 2020). Furthermore, many universities and textbook publishers provided webinars and guides, for instance, about the use of Blackboard and how to adapt F2F teaching to online formats. Groups were formed on social media to assist and support educators with the transition. Although most such suggestions and guides were based on research and best practices, Russell (2020: 339) warned that most language instructors still ‘had little or no professional development in online language design, development and delivery’ and were not familiar with online language pedagogy. Thus, even with support, the shift was challenging, and oftentimes, technology training was scarce. Training focused specifically on L2 writing is even less common, considering that writing is still viewed as a language exercise relegated to cloze activities or short sentences for practicing grammatical aspects of L2 (Oskoz & Elola, 2020). Due to the technological and pedagogical challenges of teaching L2 writing, this chapter aims to provide a clear picture of how instructors managed the transition from a F2F to an online modality and how this shift affected their teaching practices. Specifically, it examines how instructors of Spanish and Mandarin Chinese perceived the incorporation (or lack thereof) of technological tools and the management of students’ writing development in their online courses. In addition, this chapter also investigates instructors’ affect while transitioning from one modality to another in a short time. Although not comparable in terms of its focus to the rest of the works featured in this collection, the current chapter makes important contributions to the field as it provides insights on the impact of a recent world-wide phenomenon on L2 writing. Literature Review

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, the popularity of the internet had triggered a digital era enabling the implementation of previously unimaginable tools and tasks (Elola & Oskoz, 2017). This era has changed how we use language and present information (Chen, 2013). Although writing is a common form of communication across cultures, writing systems are not the same in all societies (Lo-Philip, 2014). For example, Chinese is viewed as mainly logographic, with each character representing a semantic unit, such as a word or morpheme, whereas Spanish is alphabetic (Everson, 2011). The logographic nature of the Chinese language and the potential challenges relating to character production point to the impossibility of generalizing the results of studies on languages with Roman alphabets to logographic languages (Kessler et  al., 2020). Consequently, approaches to L2 writing in different language programs may differ.

154

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

L2 writing in a technological era

The proliferation of the internet, computer-mediated communication tools and Web 2.0 tools (e.g. blogs, wikis) (Chen, 2013) have changed the way in which language and information are used and presented. Traditionally, literacy was perceived as stable, fi xed, rule-governed, monomodal and static, with linguistic elements (Ware et al., 2016). Today, however, literacies ‘are practiced by individuals as parts of larger groups that follow the goals of both writers and readers and the social relationships between them’ (Elola & Oskoz, 2017: 2). Digital literacies, as Bawden (2008) explained, involve four components: (1) underpinnings (traditional literacy skills and computer literacy); (2) background knowledge (information accessed through [online] libraries); (3) central competencies (reading, understanding digital and non-digital modalities, developing and communicating digital information, assessment of information, knowledge gathering and media literacy); and (4) attitudes and perspectives (independent learning and moral/social literacy). Thus, digital literacy entails these four components as well as the ability to use technological resources effectively (Elola & Oskoz, 2017; Eshet, 2002); it involves merging ‘semiotic, communicative, cognitive and creative functions’ (Ferris & Hedgcock, 2013: 5) for the purpose of communication, requiring simultaneous knowledge of modalities, their context and their appropriate genres (Thorne & Reinhardt, 2008). The concern over adopting tools that can effectively affect L2 education and learning is more pressing than ever. Although a review of these tools lies outside the scope of this chapter (for such a review, see Oskoz & Elola, 2020), the present digital era offers new tools with diverse affordances that continuously evolve and provide new opportunities for L2 classroom instructors. For instance, in the case of L2 writing, Sauro et al. (2020) discussed online and digital environments in which to practice writing skills, such as fan fiction, multilingual storytelling and interactive fiction in videogame narratives. Although many tools are available, instructors are not always ready or willing to implement them into their curricula, even with ample preparation time (Oskoz & Elola, 2020). Therefore, implementing a variety of evolving technological tools and activities requires instructors’ pedagogical preparation, training and a rethinking of traditional notions of literacies (e.g. access and adaptation of multiple resources for classroom purposes) (Kalantzis et  al., 2016; Kern, 2000; Oskoz & Elola, 2020). Instructional decisions in L2 curricula during the pandemic

The pandemic has affected instruction in unprecedented ways. Since the spring of 2020, there have been recommendations regarding pandemicrelated adaptations (González-Lloret, 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic

L2 Writing under Pandemic Conditions

155

forced faculty to hastily establish online environments for courses originally intended for F2F environments, without time to fully consider course design (Gacs et al., 2020). Although instructors relied on technological tools with support from their institutions – for example, learning management systems (LMS) such as Blackboard and Canvas that can be used to facilitate a communicative environment (discussion forums/chats) – Zoom was most frequently adopted to imitate F2F communication, affording interactions that went beyond classroom walls (Guillén et al., 2020). The results of a survey conducted by Indiana University’s eLearning Research and Practice Lab (2020) following the transition from F2F to remote instruction reported that evaluations of teacher–student interactions during remote instruction revealed that 67% of instructors felt disconnected from students. These results support Jelinska and Paradowski’s (2021: 317) findings, suggesting that asynchronous communication creates barriers ‘in teacher–student interaction and the difficulty of seeing students’ reactions, which could have translated into problems with evaluation of learners’ activity.’ To palliate asynchronous communication issues, González-Lloret (2020) recommended tools such as VoiceThread (which allows individuals to share, create and comment on different media) to foster engagement, collaboration and connection among students. Given the importance of establishing a virtual language community where students feel engaged (Lomicka, 2020), building a sense of community is critical, in both online asynchronous courses and synchronous courses, for example, by having small groups communicate through tools such as Zoom (González-Lloret, 2020). Otherwise, students may feel isolated and demotivated, which may cause low achievement and retention issues (Rovai, 2000). Instructors’ experiences and opinions during the pandemic

Watermeyer et al. (2021) reported that about half of higher education instructors surveyed in the United Kingdom felt prepared to teach online. This included 65% of the computer sciences and education faculties and only 30.4% of language instructors. When asked about institutional support, 72.7% of the respondents indicated that their institutions supported them in the transition, but again, those in computer sciences and education felt much more supported (approximately 85%) versus those in language programs (53.7%). Similarly, Jelinska and Paradowski’s (2021) worldwide survey reported a correlation among the amount of instructor training, institutional support and confi dence in remote teaching: the more training and support instructors received, the more confident they felt about teaching remotely. Five instructors in a case study at a US university (Ghazi-Saidi et al., 2020) corroborated these fi ndings, reporting that the transition to remote learning was facilitated by previous online teaching experience, prepared online course materials, online/remote infrastructure and resources such as free hotspots.

156

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

Likewise, González-Lloret (2020) emphasized the importance of providing L2 instructors with extra training and support to avoid failures while delivering technology-mediated tasks. Nevertheless, regardless of the support and training provided, prior online teaching experience ‘correlated with educator satisfaction during planned online instruction’ (Moser et  al., 2021: 4), likely because these instructors acquired technology-related problem-solving skills, enabling them to overcome technical pedagogical-related challenges. A consequence of the shift to the online modality was increased anxiety among L2 instructors in the spring 2020 semester. MacIntyre et al. (2020) found that workload and family health concerns triggered the most stress. Conditions such as blurred home–work lines, pressures from online teaching, irregular hours and isolation also caused instructor stress, albeit to a lesser degree (MacIntyre et al., 2020). Similarly, Moser et al. (2021) pointed to the Chronicle of Higher Education report that instructors had trouble remaining focused and productive while dealing with burnout and depression. Disengagement, self-blame and venting were associated with negative outcomes. Nevertheless, MacIntyre et al. (2020) identified some coping strategies that elicited positive outcomes, including positive reframing of situations and avoiding self-blame. Despite the increasing number of studies examining pandemic-related issues, little research has considered instructors’ perceptions of L2 writing during the pandemic. Furthermore, no study (to our knowledge) has examined languages with distinct writing systems, such as Mandarin Chinese (hereafter Chinese) alongside Spanish. Therefore, this study explored the following research questions: (1) How did L2 Chinese and Spanish instructors adapt their approaches to teaching L2 writing during the spring and fall of 2020? Did these two disciplines approach L2 writing differently in this period due to the pandemic and instructional modality changes? (2) To what extent did instructional changes during the pandemic affect instructors’ implementation, preparedness, perceptions of technology and emotionality (i.e. confidence and anxiety), particularly regarding the L2 writing component of their courses? Method Participants and programs

The participants of the study, which was conducted in a large public university in the American Southwest, were graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) and faculty who taught first- and second-year foundation Spanish and Chinese language program courses. The selected programs represented the largest commonly taught language and the largest least commonly taught language in the language department. The two distinct writing

L2 Writing under Pandemic Conditions

157

systems, one alphabetic (Spanish) and one logographic (Chinese), also presented different challenges for learners when writing by hand or using technology. The courses followed a communicative approach that integrates four skills and a cultural component. The study sample comprised 22 participants (7 males and 15 females), 18 of whom were GTAs and 4 were faculty (19 taught Spanish and 3 taught Chinese). Their language teaching experience ranged from 1–5 years (7 participants), 6–10 years (8 participants) and 11 or more years (7 participants). Regarding online teaching, 13 participants had one year or less of teaching experience with hybrid or online courses, and 9 had 1–5 years of online teaching experience. In the spring of 2020, when the pandemic began, all F2F and hybrid Spanish courses moved to a completely asynchronous or synchronous online modality. Similarly, the Chinese classes (three online asynchronous, three F2F and three hybrid classes) moved to fully asynchronous or synchronous online modalities. Conversely, in the fall of 2020, 30.77% of the 69 Spanish courses were taught F2F, 23.08% asynchronously online and 46.15% synchronously online; more online synchronous courses than F2F courses were maintained in case of further abrupt closures. However, according to the Chinese program director, courses were offered through the F2F modality (eight classes total) in the fall of 2020 because of students’ preference for F2F (they perceived difficulties in learning Chinese online), and the program was too nascent to continue online. Furthermore, she indicated that F2F helped with student recruitment and program expansion. Data collection

Data were collected through an online questionnaire and interviews. The questionnaire, which was sent via email to all Spanish and Chinese GTAs, instructors and faculty of all levels, required approximately 25 minutes to fi nish and was completed first. Only instructors and GTAs of first- and second-year courses responded, except for one Chinese language faculty member who taught a higher-level course. The questionnaire was created and administered using Qualtrics during the fall of 2020 based on recommendations by González-Lloret (2020), Paesani (2020), Ross and DiSalvo (2020) and Russell (2020). The questions focused on technical support evaluation (two Qs), communication strategies (2 Qs), confidence using technology (1 Q), anxiety levels (2 Qs), adaptations to writing instruction (14 Qs) and the training instructors needed (3 Qs). There were 7 short-answer, 10 multiple-choice and 7 open-ended questions. At the end of the questionnaire, participants were invited to enter their email address if they wished to participate in a follow-up Zoom group interview. Four instructors were scheduled to participate in the Zoom group interview several weeks after completing the questionnaire; however, due to scheduling difficulties, one group interview was conducted with three Spanish instructors and the facilitator and one individual

158

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

interview with one Chinese instructor and the facilitator. To maintain anonymity, the trained external facilitator (an expert professor in L2 writing from a mid-Atlantic university) conducted these interactions. For both sessions, which lasted approximately one hour and were held in the spring of 2021, the facilitator asked six questions that helped the participants further reflect on their experiences and practices during the pandemic. Two sample questions from the group interview were: (1) How did the pandemic affect the move from F2F to online instruction? (2) How did the pandemic-era writing assignments in your class differ from those completed before the pandemic? Data analysis

The data from the questionnaire, group interview and individual interview were both analyzed as a whole (all participants from both programs) and by program. The quantitative results (multiple-choice questions) are presented in percentages. The qualitative data, (transcribed verbatim) were analyzed based on the comparison between emerging themes from the responses from the group and individual interviews with general themes from the questionnaire responses (Merriam, 2009) (e.g. anxiety and online teaching perception). The researchers categorized and discussed the emergent themes, obtained a reliability of 92% and further discussed the categories until a consensus was reached. The quantitative and qualitative data were then triangulated. Results

This section presents the results regarding how Chinese and Spanish language instructors changed their approaches to teaching L2 writing during the COVID-19 pandemic as well as their implementation, preparedness, emotionality and perceptions of technology in their courses during the transition. Instructors’ online instructional practices regarding writing during COVID-19

The sudden, mid-semester shift from F2F to online instruction forced instructors to familiarize themselves with diverse tools (e.g. Zoom) and platforms (e.g. Blackboard). This shift prompted the modification of their teaching approaches and strategies based on the affordances of available tools and the instructors’ familiarity with and preparedness to use them. In the spring, 68.18% of instructors used Blackboard LMS to provide guidance for writing activities, and 31.82% did not. In the fall, 62.5% used Blackboard LMS, while 37.5% did not (see Figure 8.1). This decrease reflects the instructors’ interview talk: returning to an F2F modality or

L2 Writing under Pandemic Conditions

159

Figure 8.1 Instructors’ use of LMS for L2 writing

working with students synchronously via Zoom limited the use of platforms and online tools. Instructors from both programs reported including L2 writing assignments in their courses, although writing was not the course focus: in the Spanish Foundations (lower-level) courses, writing was worth between 5% and 10% of the fi nal grade prior to COVID-19. By the spring, it was worth between 4% and 7.5%. In the fi rst- and second-year Chinese language program courses, no clear percentage was designated for the writing component per se. Considering the writing assignments in both programs (Figure 8.2), short compositions were most frequently assigned (spring, 25%; fall, 35%), followed by open-ended questions (spring, 16.67%; fall, 18.92%), cloze activities (spring, 16.67%; fall, 10.81%) and long compositions (spring, 13.33%; fall, 2.70%). A closer look at both programs indicates that during the pandemic, Spanish instructors assigned short compositions (spring, 24%; fall, 32.26%), cloze activities (spring, 16%; fall, 12.9%), open-ended questions (spring, 16%; fall, 16.13%) and long compositions (spring, 14%; fall, 3.23%). For Spanish instructors, digital writing (e.g. blogs and Google Docs), more multimodal in nature, was assigned by 30% and 35.44% of instructors in the spring and fall, respectively. These results correspond with the information reported in the group interviews: in the fall, the number of long compositions required and their impact on students’ grades were reduced. In the Chinese program, cloze activities were assigned more often (66.6%) in the spring, but only 12.9% of the participants assigned them in the fall. Short compositions were assigned by 33.3% of the Chinese instructors in both the spring and fall. During the interview, the Chinese program director clarified that the writing component of the Chinese language program focused on cloze activities (i.e. grammatical responses) and

160

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

Figure 8.2 Types of L2 writing assignments

short compositions, which were scripts prepared for oral role-plays. Thus, common to both Spanish and Chinese first- and second-year courses was the lack of a strong focus on writing. However, the Spanish instructors employed a much wider variety of assignments over the two semesters, with seemingly differing objectives from those of the Chinese instructors, who focused on learning the logographic system and writing scripts for role-play memorization. Beyond the types of assignments, we were interested in the approach to teaching writing. Overall, 75% of the Spanish and Chinese language instructors said that, in their spring 2020 courses, they approached writing as a process, dividing writing activities into stages, such as prewriting, fi rst draft for feedback, and second draft, whereas in the fall, the number increased to 80%. By program, 84.62% of the Spanish instructors reported using a process approach in the spring, while 79.92% did so in the fall (Figure 8.3). However, a contradiction in the Spanish program became evident in the group interview results, as the instructors mentioned reducing the number of long compositions and days allocated to compositions (from three in-class days to one, excluding prewriting and revision days). Thus, the time to complete the in-class composition (20 minutes) was probably expanded because students completed the composition at home. Because students did not write in class, the instructors prepared openended questions to help them develop the content of their compositions. In the Chinese program, 33.3% and 100% of the instructors reported using a writing process approach in the spring and fall semesters, respectively. Students completed the writing assignments (used for oral scripts)

L2 Writing under Pandemic Conditions

161

Figure 8.3 Employment of L2 writing approaches

individually and received corrections from their instructors in class (as reported in the individual interview), however, it is not clear whether other writing process such as planning were included in the writing approach. The instructors were asked how they assisted students during remote instruction to facilitate the writing process approach. In the spring and fall, an almost identical percentage of instructors (21.28% and 21.43%, respectively) of both programs reported scheduling individual meetings via Zoom. More instructors provided examples through Blackboard LMS in the spring than in the fall (19.15% and 14.29%, respectively). Similarly, the number of instructors providing help via Zoom during class time was much higher in the spring than in the fall (19.15% versus 7.14%). Likewise, more instructors provided group tutorials via Zoom in the spring (14.89%) than in the fall (7.14%), 4.26% provided pre-recorded tutorials via online platforms, and 8.51% provided other types of support, such as pre-writing activities and peer feedback via FeedbackFruits (a Blackboard tool for peer feedback) in the spring, while 28.57% did so in the fall. However, in the fall, 21.43% of them met F2F with students, while only 12.77% did so in the spring. The Spanish instructor data suggested that writing received more attention in the spring than in the fall (Figure 8.4). For instance, instructors provided more examples (spring, 23.07%; fall, 18.18%) and offered more in-class group Zoom sessions (spring, 23.07%; fall, 18.18%), although they utilized FeedbackFruits in Blackboard less often in the spring (2.56%) than in the fall (9.09%). However, they redesigned parts of their courses to accommodate the continued impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the fall: scheduling more individual (spring, 17.95%; fall, 36.36%) and group Zoom (not mentioned in spring; fall, 15.38%) meetings but fewer F2F meetings (spring, 10.26%; no mention of the fall) and

162

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

Figure 8.4 Types of support for L2 students’ writing

built-in tutorials in online platforms (spring, 5.13%; no mention of the fall). These numbers indicate that writing received less attention in the fall, which the instructors corroborated in the group interviews with reports that the number of long compositions assigned was reduced. The instructors also added that in future iterations of online courses, specific writing assignments designed for completion in an online environment would be beneficial. Regarding the Chinese program, in the spring, the instructors provided examples (14.02%), offered in-class group Zoom sessions (14.2%), and scheduled individual Zoom (28.5%), group Zoom (14.2%) and F2F (28.2%) meetings. None of the Chinese instructors relied on tutorials via online platforms or utilized FeedbackFruits. In the fall, all support was provided F2F. The survey queried the instructors’ use of feedback. In the spring, 66.67% of all instructors provided synchronous feedback (e.g. Zoom, Skype, F2F and FeedbackFruits), while in the fall, 53.33% did so (Figure 8.5). By language program, 60% and 58.3% of Spanish instructors provided synchronous feedback on form in the spring and fall, respectively. All Chinese program instructors provided synchronous feedback on form via Zoom meetings in the spring. In the fall, the Chinese instructors reported that they did not provide synchronous feedback; nevertheless, asynchronous feedback on form was offered (explained in the following

L2 Writing under Pandemic Conditions

163

Figure 8.5 Use of synchronous feedback

paragraph). These results show that, in the fall, the Chinese instructors resorted less to synchronous feedback than the Spanish instructors, perhaps due to course modality (Figure 8.5). When synchronous feedback was provided, the Chinese instructors reportedly used Zoom group meetings and the whiteboard feature in Zoom to help students correct sentences that would later be used in role-play performances. Asynchronous feedback was provided via video- or audio-recordings or through the track changes and comment functions in Microsoft Word (Figure 8.6). In the spring, 93.3% of all instructors provided asynchronous feedback, whereas in the fall, all participants did so. In the spring, 40% of the Spanish language instructors used track changes with comments, 20% used short video recordings, 20% commented on compositions, 13.3% used audio recordings and 6.67% provided no asynchronous feedback. In the fall, 50% used track changes with comments, 16.6% used short video recordings, 16.5% commented on compositions, 8.3% used audiorecordings and 8.3% used FeedbackFruits. All the Chinese instructors used track changes and comments during both the spring and fall semesters. To summarize, asynchronous feedback for writing assignments was approached through written comments (Chinese and Spanish), audio and audiovisual observations, and FeedbackFruits (Spanish).

Instructors’ preparedness and perceptions regarding L2 writing

To answer the second research question, the researchers assessed the degree to which the abrupt teaching modality change caused by the pandemic affected instructors’ implementation, preparedness, emotionality

164

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

Figure 8.6 Use of asynchronous feedback

(confidence and anxiety concerning remote L2 writing instruction) and overall technology-enhanced pedagogy training received. Thus, the instructors were asked whether they received any training on the use of online platforms during the pandemic: 93.33% responded affirmatively. All Chinese language instructors received training via Blackboard, while 92.3% of Spanish language instructors received training via Blackboard. They also received training via Zoom (27.7%), discussion boards (5.5%), and other platforms, such as video tutorials or Jamboards (a collaborative digital whiteboard) created by the department. The Chinese and Spanish instructors reported similar levels of confidence when teaching with technology during the fall semester. When asked whether they felt more confident using technology, 66.6% said yes because they ‘learned a lot during the previous semester,’ ‘were good with technology,’ or ‘had already taught asynchronous courses.’ The instructors’ responses about the support they received to teach writing online point to program differences. While the Chinese instructors indicated receiving no support, 38.4% of the Spanish instructors reported receiving some. Of the Spanish instructors who received support, 33.3% attended online workshops, 50% shared self-created materials and 16.6% attended a webinar about LMS use. The Spanish instructors in the group interview reported working in teams to share materials to foster connectedness and community. Although most instructors (Spanish and Chinese) had received support for online learning, specific support for

L2 Writing under Pandemic Conditions

165

online writing instruction was missing for both language programs, especially for the Chinese language instructors. This may be because writing as a skill was not emphasized in the courses taught by most of the instructors surveyed. The instructors’ views varied on whether the shift to online instruction changed how they taught writing: 33.3% said it changed, 33.3% said it did not and 33.3% answered ‘other.’ Participants who responded ‘other’ reported the following explanations: (a) strong concerns about students relying on Google Translate and other online resources; (b) concerns about not teaching writing as well as in the F2F modality, although students seemed to better edit and organize their writing with technology; (c) effective guidance on how to use technology; and (d) similar feedback provision techniques. By program, all Chinese instructors felt that the shift in modality had not changed how they approached writing, whereas the Spanish instructors responded yes (38.4%), no (23%), or provided additional answers (38.4%). During the group interview, the Spanish instructors commented that compared to writing assignments completed during the F2F classes, the online students produced higher quality and longer texts because they had access to more technological tools. The Spanish instructors believed that their students tended to use Google Translate more; some believed that this could have negative consequences. Moreover, the instructors reported that the students’ typed output was longer and better organized than when writing by hand, given that they could edit and make corrections more easily online before submitting their compositions. They also had more time to compose, unlike the 20-minute limit in class. However, other Spanish instructors felt that the approach to writing had not changed because, despite the pandemic, students still received feedback about their writing assignments. These results go hand-in-hand with whether instructors’ ability to teach writing had improved. Overall, 26.6% of the instructors said that this ability had improved, whereas 40% said that it had not, and 33.3% were unsure. In the Spanish program specifically, 30% of the instructors believed that their writing instruction had improved, 38.4% said that it had not and 30.7% reported neither an improvement nor a deterioration; they reported that every opportunity was meant for learning and growth. The Chinese instructors reported that their writing instruction had not improved, explaining that writing was not part of their teaching, as their instruction concentrated on recognizing Chinese characters and learning to write the characters first. An important part of teaching online during the pandemic, including the teaching of L2 writing, was how instructors felt about using technology; thus, the researchers investigated how the instructors fared emotionally. Altogether, 41.1% of them reported feeling anxious about moving from F2F to online learning due to their unfamiliarity with online tools,

166

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

which necessitated searching for the most effective online tools for teaching all four L2 skills and ways to create a community in the online classroom. However, 35.2% of them reported feeling no anxiety due to prior experience of asynchronous teaching, while for 23%, it was challenging. By program, half the Chinese instructors said that they were anxious, and half reported no anxiety. Forty percent of the Spanish instructors felt anxious, 33.3% did not, while 26.6% chose ‘other.’ After a semester of shifting modalities, 43% of Spanish instructors still felt anxious in the fall semester, observing that their anxiety was no different from that of the previous semester because of a seemingly unyielding pandemic. While they had adapted to the educational changes, most were not relieved about the shift to online instruction; they even mentioned that they saw curricular issues as anxiety-inducing rather than the pandemic Nevertheless, 27.7% of them also felt that they had gained instructional knowledge, had time for self-reflection and felt less anxious. Because the Chinese instructors had returned to F2F, online anxiety disappeared; however, 28% of them felt anxious for other reasons, such as teaching F2F without being vaccinated. Despite their anxieties, the instructors generally reported having learned a valuable lesson on how to survive during a difficult educational situation. However, the biggest impact was becoming more empathetic and caring toward their students, resulting in being more lenient with deadlines due to students’ lack of access to necessary technology. Instructors became more aware of students’ home situations, providing examples of a serious and realistic digital divide. Also, by familiarizing themselves with the technology, they gained a better understanding of the online student experience. Another benefit to this modality shift was the opportunity it provided instructors to have greater autonomy and confidence. One instructor mentioned that she felt that the course was ‘more hers.’ This process helped instructors approach their courses differently and recognize that some of their teaching strategies, such as including peer feedback via Feedback Fruits, could be improved by incorporating new technologies. The pandemic allowed them to fi nd alternative solutions and gave them the freedom to be more creative in their approach to writing assignments. Discussion

This study sought to gauge instructors’ approaches to L2 writing following a sudden transition to remote online teaching triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic. Regarding research question one, which sought to uncover how Spanish and Chinese L2 instructors adapted their approaches to teaching L2 writing, the Chinese language instructors seemed less familiar with online platforms and digital tools for teaching. Some Spanish language instructors were sufficiently comfortable with the online platforms and were therefore

L2 Writing under Pandemic Conditions

167

willing to experiment further with the tools available, thus providing support and feedback to students. For instance, one Spanish language instructor assigned pre-writing activities with peer feedback via FeedbackFruits in the fall, indicating Spanish instructors’ interest in becoming more familiar with multiple technological tools and developing instructional designs to implement digital writing effectively. The Spanish and Chinese instructors considered the affordances of institutionally supported tools to plan their interactions with learners (e.g. with FeedbackFruits), as suggested by Gacs et al. (2020). Alternatively, in the fall, the Chinese instructors supported their students through F2F interactions, mirroring the modality of their courses. The choice to return to F2F likely demonstrated a failure to create a sense of community during the online instructional modality, perhaps due to insufficient online support. Although the instructors’ understanding of what constituted a writing process approach was unclear, both programs seemed to follow such an approach before the pandemic, with COVID-19 prompting a shift to a more product-focused writing pedagogy. In the group interview, Spanish instructors noted that new and diverse writing assignments needed to be developed for future online courses. In the instructors’ attempts to support students’ writing, they still used corrective feedback as it allowed students to reflect on and become self-sufficient editors of their own writing (Ferris, 1999). Furthermore, the use of synchronous and/or asynchronous feedback guided students through assignments and helped the instructors connect with students, thereby enabling dialogue (Hatzipanagos & Warburton, 2009). The Spanish and Chinese language programs reported assigning different writing activities. The Spanish program incorporated a wider variety of writing assignments, such as digital stories and collaborative assignments in Google Docs, while the Chinese program offered limited types of assignments, favoring cloze activities and short compositions. Although the unexpected modality changes likely justified the temporary use of ‘teacher-based instructional resources,’ such as cloze activities (Egbert, 2020: 314), the program differences were primarily due to the specific language course goals and the weight of the writing component in each program. The decrease in the grade percentage and number and types of assignments in the fall highlighted that the shift in instructional modality negatively affected the writing component of the courses, indicating that writing is still not viewed as an essential literacy skill. It also suggested that instructors were not sufficiently familiar and therefore, felt anxious, with digital tools that foster multiliteracies (e.g. blogs and Twitter), were not trained to develop writing tasks that fit online modalities and did not know how to create a sense of community for students (Oskoz & Elola, 2020). While some instructors were concerned that students’ use of translation tools could explain the reduction in the weight of the writing

168

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

assignments, in the spirit of helping students develop 21st-century skills, we need to address the use of tools in productive and ethical ways (e.g. those that do not violate the academic integrity policy of the university). However, during the rapid transition to remote learning, such a change was unimaginable. Of note, writing was not emphasized in the fi rst- and second-year Chinese language courses because students had to fi rst learn to write Chinese characters. Teaching students to produce Chinese characters via Pinyin is very different from teaching them to write by hand. Kessler et al. (2020) provided early support for distinct pedagogical practices for L2 writing in nonalphabetic and alphabetic languages, but more research is needed to examine methods that best support multiliteracy acquisition, particularly in logographic languages. Regarding the second research question investigating the extent to which instructional changes affected instructors’ implementation, preparedness and perceptions regarding technology – particularly the L2 writing component of the courses – most instructors reported receiving support during the pandemic for online platform use; however, they likely had not received adequate training for teaching L2 writing online. These results confirm those of studies suggesting that instructors need pedagogical guidance to teach L2 writing online (Kalantzis et  al., 2016; Kern, 2000; Oskoz & Elola, 2020). The modality change back from online to F2F in the Chinese language program may also have been due to little or no instructor training in online instruction and tools, lack of preparation time and/or non-availability of online language instruction material. Relatedly, the Spanish program seemed to have a better control of, or more familiarity with, LMS and digital tools to address skill development and online community building than the Chinese program. An important impact of the experience with online platforms and digital tools was the anxiety that instructors felt during the transition from F2F to the online modality (Jelinska & Paradowski, 2021). Instructors with previous online teaching experience felt less stressed but experienced anxiety from other pandemic-related factors, such as workload, family health, blurred home–work lines, irregular hours, isolation and concerns about their students’ mental health (MacIntyre et al., 2020). Undoubtedly, limited knowledge about digital tools and platforms, combined with the lack of preparation time, affected not only instructors’ anxiety and confidence but also how they implemented technological tools in their general L2 curricula as well as instruction specific to L2 writing. Nevertheless, instructors from both language programs received some form of training in online instruction during the rapid transition, but only the Spanish program instructors received online writing instruction training and materials shared among department instructors. This difference may be explained by the differential roles that writing played in the programs and the differences in the size and longevity of the programs.

L2 Writing under Pandemic Conditions

169

Despite instructor anxiety, differences in or lack of training and community-building concerns, over half of the instructors became more confident using technology to teach L2 writing. This is beneficial for future iterations of online courses, considering that Jelinska and Paradowski (2021) suggested that with more instructor training and institutional support, instructors can gain more confidence teaching online. Conclusion

The pandemic forced higher education instructors to familiarize themselves with digital tools and platforms with the potential to promote learning. This transition directly and indirectly affected how they understood instruction and how to approach it. The Chinese instructors received less support through training and had fewer colleagues with whom to collaborate because of the program’s small size. Conversely, although the Spanish instructors received general training (e.g. how to transition to an online platform), they had not received training directly tied to how to teach L2 writing or use tools for these specific educational purposes. Unlike Paesani’s (2020) productive suggestions for online course preparation, the instructors did not have time for a needs analysis on technology access and training to ease the rapid transition to a non-F2F class modality, neither were they able to implement innovative writing assignments that trained students how to use technological tools (instead of punishing them for using such tools, e.g. Google Translate) or include digital competency and multiliteracy development as part of course learning outcomes (e.g. become multiliterate through use of digital stories). However, the resulting technological challenges and time constraints made the instructors aware of students’ online needs, and many became more lenient with deadlines and workload in response to pandemicrelated issues, such as lack of technological access that exacerbated the digital divide (Ortega, 2017). Institutions, professional organizations and textbook publishers need to provide more coordinated support and resources to instructors to help them face extraordinarily high levels of anxiety and stress for myriad reasons (e.g. teaching online) and provide enough time for instructors to familiarize themselves with technology so that it is not an added stressor. More than just adding workshops and webinars that consume time they do not have, textbook publishers should provide additional resources and grading scripts to assist with reprogramming activities, grading open-ended (writing) activities, communicating with students and assisting with exam writing. Other institutions are recognizing educators’ efforts and providing course releases to those who taught during the pandemic (Mickey et al., 2020). Some limitations of this study include its sample size and context: only two language programs from one institution – one novel and small

170

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

(Chinese program) and one established with many students (Spanish program) – were involved. Future research should investigate more language programs in different universities, including more languages, especially if different writing systems are being explored. Chinese, with its characterwriting system, requires language learners to master character writing in order to benefit from a process-oriented approach to writing. Therefore, tasks need to be tailored to students’ writing needs so that they can hopefully move from informal (e.g. virtual postcards and blogs) to more formal (e.g. short compositions) assignments. Thus, online Chinese instruction needs to assess how to develop writing skills while mastering character production. Moreover, integrating online peer-review and digital genres that reflect real-life situations can motivate students to write. Another limitation is that the interviews were held in the spring of 2021, later than intended, which might have affected the participants’ memory recall. Further research can integrate instructors from different languages in the same group interview to foster considerations of goals and practices of different programs, triggering perhaps more in-depth reflections. Finally, in future studies, research should be supplemented with artifacts (syllabi), recordings/observations and students’ perceptions to provide a more accurate triangulation of data. What’s next? While no one could have predicted the pandemic, including more technological training in graduate methodological courses for L2 writing, fi nding a balance between F2F and online approaches, and viewing writing as a multiliteracy to be developed and not just a skill that supports reading, for instance, are crucial goals for education. The integration of these aspects into the L2 classroom will ensure improvements in instructor and student preparation, allowing for flexibility in the use of digital tools and in teaching alternative approaches during uncertain times.

References Bawden, D. (2008) Origins and concepts of digital literacy. Digital Literacies: Concepts, Policies, and Practices 30, 17–32. Chen, H.I. (2013) Identity practices of multilingual writers in social networking spaces. Language Learning & Technology 17 (2), 143–170. Egbert, J. (2020) The new normal? A pandemic of task engagement in language learning. Foreign Language Annals 53 (2), 314–319. eLearning Research and Practice Lab (2020) Going remote: Actionable insights from Indiana University’s transition to remote instruction due to COVID-19. Indiana University Pervasive Technology Institute. Accessed April 15 2021. https://drive. google.com/fi le/d/1pN3ICAn7uJp3nQ6CpsEjJ7ZBgE0axoin/ Elola, I. and Oskoz, A. (2017) Writing with 21st century social tools in the L2 classroom: New literacies, genres, and writing practices. Journal of Second Language Writing 36, 52–60. Eshet, Y. (2002) Digital literacy: A new terminology framework and its application to the design of meaningful technology-based learning environments. In P. Barker and

L2 Writing under Pandemic Conditions

171

S.  Rebelsky (eds) Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2002 – World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 493–498). Denver, CO: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Everson, M.E. (2011) Best practices in teaching logographic and non-Roman writing systems to L2 learners. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31, 249–274. Ferris, D.R. (1999) The case of grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing 8 (1), 1–11. Ferris, D.R. and Hedgcock, J. (2013) Teaching L2 Composition: Purpose, Process, and Practice. New York: Routledge. Gacs, A., Goertler, S. and Spasova, S. (2020) Planned online language education versus crisis-prompted online language teaching: Lessons for the future. Foreign Language Annals 53 (2), 380–392. Ghazi-Saidi, L., Criffield, A., Kracl, C.L., McKelvey, M., Obasi, S.N. and Vu, P. (2020) Moving from face-to-face to remote instruction in a higher education institution during a pandemic: Multiple case studies. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science 4 (4), 370–383. González-Lloret, M. (2020) Collaborative tasks for online language teaching. Foreign Language Annals 53 (2), 260–269. Guillén, G., Sawin, T. and Avineri, N. (2020) Zooming out of the crisis: Language and human collaboration. Foreign Language Annals 53 (2), 320–328. Hatzipanagos, S. and Warburton, S. (2009) Feedback as dialogue: Exploring the links between formative assessment and social software in distance learning. Learning, Media, and Technology 34 (1), 45–59. Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T. and Bond, A. (2020) The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review 27, 1–12. Jelinska, M. and Paradowski, M.B. (2021) Teachers’ engagement in and coping with emergency remote instruction during COVID-19-induced school closures: A multinational contextual perspective. Online Learning 25 (1), 303–328. Kalantzis, M., Cope, B., Chan, E. and Dalley-Trim, L. (2016) Literacies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kern, R. (2000) Literacy and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kessler, M., Polio, C., Xu, C. and Hao, X. (2020) The effects of oral discussion and text chat on L2 Chinese writing. Foreign Language Annals 53 (4), 666–685. Lo-Philip, S.W. (2014) Chinese L2 literacy practices: Material and sociocultural considerations. Language and Education 28 (3), 237–250. Lomicka, L. (2020) Creating and sustaining virtual language communities. Foreign Language Annals 53 (2), 306–313. Manchón, R. (2017) The potential impact of multimodal composition on language learning. Journal of Second Language Writing 38, 94–95. MacIntyre, P.D., Gregersen, T. and Mercer, S. (2020) Language teachers’ coping strategies during the COVID-19 conversion to online teaching: Correlations with stress, wellbeing, and negative emotions. System 94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102352. Merriam, S.B. (2009) Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Interpretation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mickey, L., Clark D. and Misra J. (2020) Measures to support faculty during COVID-19. Washington, DC: Inside Higher Education. Moser, K.M., Wei, T. and Brenner, D. (2021) Remote teaching during COVID-19: Implications from a national survey of language educators. System 97. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102431. Online Learning Consortium (OLC) (2020) Continuity planning and emergency preparedness. https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/about/continu ity-planning-emer gency-preparedness-resources/. Ortega, L. (2017) New CALL-SLA research interfaces for the 21st century: Toward equitable multilingualism. CALICO Journal 34 (3), 285–316.

172

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

Oskoz, A. and Elola, I. (2020) Digital L2 Writing Literacies. Sheffield: Equinox Press. Paesani, K. (2020) Teacher professional development and online instruction: Cultivating coherence and sustainability. Foreign Language Annals 53 (2), 292–297. Quality Matters (QM) (2020) Emergency remote instruction checklist. https://www. qualitymatters.org/qaresources/resource-center/articles-resources/ERI-Checklist. Ross, A.F. and DiSalvo, M.L. (2020) Negotiating displacement, regaining community: The Harvard Language Center’s response to the COVID-19 crisis. Foreign Language Annals 53 (2), 371–379. Rovai, A.P. (2000) Building and sustaining community in asynchronous learning networks. The Internet and Higher Education 3 (4), 285–297. Russell, V. (2020) Language anxiety and the online learner. Foreign Language Annals 53 (2), 338–352. Sauro, S., Buendgens-Kosten, J. and Cornillie, F. (2020) Storytelling for the foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals 53 (2), 329–337. Thorne, S.L. and Reinhardt, J. (2008) ‘Bridging activities,’ new media literacies, and advanced foreign language proficiency. CALICO Journal 25 (3), 558–572. Ware, P., Kern, R. and Warschauer, M. (2016) The development of digital literacies. In R.M. Manchón and P.K. Matsuda (eds) Handbook of Second and Foreign Language Writing (pp. 307–328). Berlin: De Gruyter. Watermeyer, R., Crick, T., Knight, C. and Goodall, J. (2021) COVID-19 and digital disruption in U.K. universities: Affl ictions and affordances of emergency online migration. Higher Education 81 (3), 623–641.

Concluding Remarks

This edited volume focuses exclusively on writing Chinese as a second language (L2), serving as a reference for research-scholars, teacher-educators and practitioners, as well as graduate students in Chinese applied linguistics and second language acquisition (SLA) fields. As such, this collection provides cutting-edge empirical research and insightful teaching methods and strategies in how to effectively develop L2 Chinese learners’ writing competence in classroom contexts. The evidence gathered throughout the different chapters underscores the following. Chapter 1 uncovered the writing features of Chinese heritage and foreign language learners from both process and product perspectives. For instance, while both groups of writers were observed to conduct online planning during formulation, Chinese heritage language writers seemed to focus more on cohesion whereas their foreign language counterparts were more concerned about the incorporation of newly learned linguistic items. Furthering the understanding of learners’ writing processes in L2 Chinese, Chapter 3 explored the impact of proficiency on writers’ strategy deployment and identified some strategies (e.g. re-reading and making changes in vocabulary) that were favored and commonly used across instructional levels. Adding to the current knowledge of L2 Chinese writers’ textual features, Chapter 4 investigated the use of nominal structures in narrative and expository essays, observing a general increase in writers’ nominal expansion and advanced use of nominal structures with the promoted course level. Also focused on structure, but specifically targeting the text as a whole through connectives, Chapter 5 adopted an error analysis perspective while working with writers from an advancedlevel course who completed argumentative and narrative texts. As such, it identified four new error types, such as piling up multiple semantic relationships illogically and confusing conjunctions with adverbs. Built on the observations regarding individual writers’ behaviors, Chapter 2 highlighted the potential benefits that collaborative writing may bring for L2 Chinese writers. Especially, the high percentage of correctly resolved language-relate episodes observed while working together suggested collaborative writing as an ideal platform to engage in language-related deliberations aside from giving and receiving timely feedback. Conversely, Chapter 6, measured any development of writing as a skill as a result of 173

174

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

journaling facilitated through Facebook, in addition to analyzing L2 Chinese learners’ perceptions concerning the use of this social platform as a means for textuality. The fi ndings revealed learners’ improved performance in their journal postings, as evidenced by the increased number of characters and sentences, as well as more complex ideas upon the completion of their last entry. Moreover, the learners’ perceptions regarding the use of social media to complete academic texts were overall positive. Similarly, Chapter 7 examined learners’ perceptions but concentrated on written corrective feedback, while also shedding light on learners’ preferences for the types of teachers’ comments they received. Overall, written corrective feedback was deemed useful by the participants, who especially favored indirect comments as they promoted learning through accountability. Lastly, Chapter 8 surveyed the effects of an external factor, namely the COVID-19, over the preparedness of Chinese instructors to efficiently equip their students to become efficient writers while abruptly shifting their instruction modality to teach textuality (i.e. video conferences mediated by Zoom). Not surprisingly, because of the unexpectedness of such worldwide phenomenon, the instructors struggled with adapting to the pedagogical needs that the situation conveyed. However, the instructors managed to incorporate writing through short compositions and cloze tests. In terms of pedagogical practices, the findings of Chapter 1, especially the differential performances demonstrated by Chinese heritage and foreign language writers, can assist language teachers in adopting appropriate approaches to facilitate the text construction of the two groups of learners respectively. Similarly, the observations yielded by Chapter 3 shed light on the effective integration of writing strategy instruction into the L2 Chinese classroom, while the results concerning the use of nominal structures across course levels in Chapter 4 offered implications for the provision of writing instruction in terms of constructing nominal structures to make meaning in different contexts. In addition to the implementation of individual writing activities, Chapter 2 recommended the application of collaborative writing tasks in classroom contexts and discussed how to efficiently afford them for L2 Chinese writers. Furthermore, Chapter 5 suggested that the inaccurate use of connectives might be associated with the negative influence from the writers’ first language (English). Thus, the need to carry out activities to direct learners’ attention to form and meaning, especially contrasting English and Chinese, was emphasized. For writing tasks mediated through social media platforms to become successful endeavors, Chapter 6 recommended ensuring a high degree of structurization achieved by making writing requirements more specific and clearer. In addition, per the learners’ request, Chapter 7 proposed implementing more frequent writing opportunities by assigning short biweekly diaries, which could accommodate a process approach that facilitates the provision of written corrective feedback. Chapter 8 revealed how writing development

Concluding Remarks

175

could be threatened by a radical shift in teaching modality. For this reason, it is pivotal that academic institutions, and particularly textbook publishers, work closely with these language teachers to equip them with such resources as open-ended (writing) activities, grading scripts and tools for exam writing during and even beyond the pandemic. Based on the fi ndings and pedagogical recommendations in this collection, future work should explore some of the topics examined throughout the eight chapters with more depth. For instance, the impact of different types of written corrective feedback on various genres remains a topic of relevance in the field as it has been scarcely studied. In addition, a more significant number of participants should be incorporated to more soundly support or refute any of the fi ndings observed here. Another area of opportunity could be working with students of more varied linguistic backgrounds, such as Chinese heritage language writers or learners with widely different proficiency levels. There are other topics that could also be explored to keep building on our knowledge of the development of writing as a skill and its effects on the overall learning of L2 Chinese, such as the effects of immersion through study abroad affordances.

Index

academic writing, 16, 24, 77–78, 80–81 ACTFL, 5, 64–65, 83 adapt(ed), v, 16, 19, 46, 56, 62–63, 65, 83, 95, 152–154, 157, 166, 174 adversative (connectives), 104–108, 110, 112–114 affording, 142, 155 argumentative, 7, 11, 21–22, 37, 41, 78–81, 96–97, 100–104, 114–115, 141 asynchronous, 55, 57, 151, 155, 157, 162–164, 166–167, 172 audience, 80, 127, 134, 144, 148

COVID-19, 2, 4, 16–19, 45, 152– 154, 158–159, 161, 166–167, 170–172, 174 density, 10, 28, 32, 34, 35, 37, 80, 94 descriptive, 9–12, 29–31, 36, 50, 115, direct correction(s), 14, 136–137, 139, 145, 147 discourse analysis, 5, 81 Dunn’s Tests, 86, 89 eliciting, 15, 65, 83, 119 error analysis, 99, 101, 104, 107, 109, 114–115 ESL, vii, 62, 75–76, 97, 138, 149–150 expository, 10, 78, 83–84, 92, 173

background family, 121 Bonferroni corrections, 86, 90 brainstorming, 118 causal (connectives), 101–102, 104–108, 110, 112–114s Chinese as a foreign language (CFL), 8–9, 11, 13–15, 40, 42–43, 46, 51–52, 54–55, 64, 71–74, 101, 117–122, 129–131, 135, 137, 139–140, 143, 145–146 Chinese foreign language learners (CFLLs), 2, 24–25, 27–36 Chinese heritage language learners (CHLLs), 24–25, 28–36 Chinese T-unit(s), 9, 27, 66 cloze activities, 17, 153, 159, 167 collaboration, 39–41, 50–51, 53–54, 155 collaborative writing, 2, 6–7, 39–45, 47, 51, 54–55, 173–174 complexity, accuracy and fluency (CAF), 6, 8–9, 12, 24, 28, 31, 34, 41, 43, 55 concessive (connectives), 105–106, 108, 112 conditional (connectives), 105–106, 111–112, 114 connectives, 99–116 coordinate (connectives), 105–106 counterbalanced design, 7, 45

face-to-face, 12–13, 18–19, 56, 58, 78, 152, 171 Facebook, iv–v, 2, 13–14, 117–133, 174 familiarity, 2, 16, 32, 71, 139–140, 142, 145, 149, 158, 165, 168 Feedback Fruits, 166 foreign language learners (FLLs), 4–6, 20–24, 32, 34, 134, 173 form-related, 16, 144, 146, 149 formulation, 6, 20–22, 26, 28–30, 32–35, 173 foster, 18, 35, 37, 155, 164, 167, 170 Google Docs, 7, 15, 17, 55, 159, 167 heritage language learners (HLLs), 2, 4–6, 20–24, 32–34 hypothetical (connectives), 104–106, 108, 112, 114 indirect feedback, 14–15, 136, 147, 149 intact writing course, 118 interlanguage, 3, 77, 99

176

Index

Kruskal–Wallis tests (Kruskal–Wallis H tests), 67, 86, 89 L2 settings, 120 language-related episodes (LREs), 7, 40–41, 43, 45–54 languaging, 40–41, 47, 50–51, 55 learning-to-write (Learning to Write approach), 1, 43 logographic, 1, 3, 118, 123, 153, 157, 160, 168 make meaning (meaning-making), 10–11, 94–95, 174 Mann–Whitney U-tests, 28 modality, 8, 17, 152–153, 156–158, 163, 165–169, 174–175 monitoring, 20–22, 63 motivation, 1, 117–118, 122, 133, 138, 141 multiliteracy, viii, ix, 120, 132, 152, 167–170 narrative, 7, 10–12, 19, 23, 37, 42–43, 78, 83–84, 88, 92, 95, 100, 103–104, 114–115, 130, 137, 154, 173 negative influence (transfer), 114–115 nominal complexity, 78–79 nominal expansion, 80–81, 85–95 nominalization, 34, 77–81, 92, 94–95 nominal modification, 78, 80, 82 nominal structures (NSs), 77–83, 85, 87–95 non-English, 4, 17, 42, 75, 117, 132, 148 non-parametric, 28, 86 open-ended, 122, 141, 157, 159, 169, 175 output, 2, 7, 9, 11, 12, 18, 19, 24, 25, 30, 32, 39, 43, 57, 119, 165 pandemic, v, 2, 16, 18–19, 45, 152, 153–159, 161, 163–171, 175 perceptions, v, 2, 12, 14–16, 56–57, 61, 117–119, 123, 127–128, 130, 133, 134–135, 138–140, 142–143, 149–151, 156, 158, 163, 168, 170, 174 planning, 6, 12–13, 20–23, 26, 28–30, 32–33, 35, 42, 60, 62–63, 66, 68, 71–72, 161, 173 post-writing, 8, 60–61, 65–66, 68–74

177

posting, 13–14, 119, 124–131, 174 pre-writing, 8, 12, 60–63, 65–66, 68, 71, 73–74, 161, 167 preferences, v, 10, 33, 96, 101, 134–135,138–140, 142, 145–146, 149–150, 174 problem-solving strategies, 6, 21–24, 26–27, 29–30, 33–34, 62 process approach, 120, 147–148, 160–161, 167, 174 proficiency, 4–5, 7–11, 13, 23–25, 32–34, 44, 59, 61–65, 71–72, 78–81, 83, 85, 93, 102, 114, 116, 121, 137, 139, 141, 148, 173, 175 progressive (connectives), 105–108, 112–114 purposive (connectives), 105–106 reliability, 13, 26, 28, 46, 104, 122–123, 143, 158 remotely, 17, 155 revision(s) (revising), 6–8, 14–15, 21–22, 26, 28–30, 32–35, 40, 60, 62–63, 66, 68, 71–73, 135–137, 139, 147–149, 160 rhetoric (rhetorical), 6, 12, 82, 134, 136, 144 scaffold (scaffolding, scaffolded), 6, 51–52, 54 second language acquisition (SLA), 1, 99, 173 selective (connectives), 105–106 Simulated Oral Proficiency Interview (SOPI), 83 social media, 2, 11, 13–14, 19, 117, 121, 129–131, 133, 153, 174 sociocultural theory, 40, 51 Spearman’s rank-order correlation tests, 67, 70 study abroad, ix, 10–101, 133, 175 successive (connectives), 105–106, 108–109, 112 Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), 10, 12, 77–83, 95 T-unit(s), 9, 27–28, 31–32, 41, 66–67, 70, 73 Target-like Use (TLU), 100, 104, 106–107, 110, 112, 114 technological, 152–155, 165, 167–170

178

Developing Writing Competence in L2 Chinese Classrooms

technology-mediated, 57, 156 think-aloud (think-aloud protocol, think-aloud protocols), 6, 21–22, 25–26, 36, 61–63 treatable, 134, 136 unpaired (connectives), 104, 109–110, 113 while-writing, 8, 60–63, 65–73 writing process(es) (writing as process), 6, 21–26, 28, 32, 35, 39, 59, 66, 73–74, 147, 160–161, 167

writing products (writing as product), 6–8, 20–21, 23–24, 27, 31, 34, 40, 55, 123 writing strategies, 2, 8, 12, 59–74, 82 writing-to-learn, 1, 2, 146 written corrective feedback (WCF), 2, 4, 14–16, 120, 130, 134–149, 174–175 Zoom, 2, 7, 10, 45, 55, 84, 152, 155, 157–159, 161–164, 171, 174