1. The objective of this research is to investigate writing process of second language writers. It specifically examines the writing strategies of post-graduate students.

    The research conducted is in an authentic context which Chinese students have writing strategies limitation.

    The participants were three Chinese post-graduate students who studied at the Faculty of Health at an Australian university. They were selected based on their writing experience both in Chinese and English as well as their depth of understanding of English and Chinese culture. Each of them was relevant to the characteristics. Roger had acquired two Masters’ degrees in China and the United States. At that time he was studying for Phd degree in Public Health. Ally worked as administrative assistant in the Ministry of Health in China, which means that he dealt with many reports in Chinese. Besides, she travelled and studied in some countries. She was taking Masters’ degree in Public Health. Susan completed her Masters’ degree in a well-known university in China and received a score of 6.5 on the IELTS. She was pursuing Phd in nursing. In other word, they have experienced with writing in Chinese and English. Their experience contacted with other countries help them to understand other countries’ cultures.

    There were two conflict theories in this research. The researcher tend to agree with Silva’s theory which is second language (L2) writing is strategically, rhetorically, and linguistically different in important ways from first language (L1) writing.

    The roles of researcher in this research were as an investigator and observer because she analyzed the data and observed what the participants did and found from their writings. I think she’s also a facilitator as the participants discussed their post-writing.

    The data-collection procedures used were preliminary question, semi-structured interviews, retrospective post-writing discussion, and document analysis. The data collection time spent were varied, it’s about five weeks to forty weeks.

    The data were analyzed based on three questions to examine the research in introduction section. For the first question, the research used a framework of four categories of writing strategies and a total of 12 micro-strategies were identified. The finding of first question was that they understand any kinds of writing strategies which were categorized into rhetorical strategies, cognitive strategies, meta-cognitive strategies, and affective strategies. Yet they have their different preference of writing strategies. The second question involved writing journals. At some point, there were no differences; except the result and the conclusion were usually mixed with each other. Each participant has their own observant opinion about it. The third question was based on the outline writing. Each participant found some different facts. Ally said that she needed to think about the organization of the paper and monitor the writing process. Susan said that she transferred her Chinese writing experience into English writing.

    The conclusions are:
    1. The participants have competence in using writing strategies. They get used to writing with writing strategies which are the foundation of second language writing.
    2. Silva’s theory was proved. The participants needed to make outline first when they write an English paper. On the contrary, they just plan the writing content in their mind when they make a Chinese paper.
    3. Since second language (L2) writing process is different from first language (L1) writing process, not all writing strategies can be transferred across languages and cultures positively.
    So, we can say that the conclusions are related to the descriptive data.

    The researcher’s contribution to this learning discipline is that there are some ways to minimize the obstacles in writing using second language and proper writing strategies.

    The implications are rooky writers must be taught language writing strategies explicitly; they need to practice, especially rhetorical strategies; and L2 writing course teachers need to be more sensitive to these difficulties in their writing.

  2. Hi sir this is my assignment

    The purpose of this reseaxch is to investigate the writing process of 2 language (L2) writers specifially examining the writing strategies of 3 chinese post-graduate studentds in an Australian higher education institution.

    The research conducted by the pacity of second language writing strategies of chinese students in authentic contect. Data collected from semi-structured interview, questionnaire, retrospective post-writing discussion, and written drafts of papers were analyzed. The findings indicate that 3 participants employed rhetorical, metacognitive, cognitive and social/affective strategies in their writing practice.

    The participants were in the study: 23 volunteers (given the pseudonyms ally, susan, roger) were studying at the faculty of health at an australian university.

    They were selected by invited to participate in the study for several reasons.

    The relevant of the characteristic: they were experienced writers both in chinese and english. Roger had acquired 2 masters in china and the united states, respectively. Ally as an administrative assistant in the ministry of health in china, wrote many reports in chinese. She had also studied and travelled to a variety of countries. Susan completed a master degree in well-known university in china, and received a score of 6,5 on the IELTS test. Therefore, 3 chinese and english. More importantly they all seemed to have a deep understanding of english and chinese writing might, therefore be meaningful for these other chinese overseas students. These could be exemplary cases for L2 writers.

    This study focuses on three chinese post-graduate students in public health at an australian university. In order to further the understanding of the above-mentioned controversial issues in L2 writing strategies of the 3 chinese post-graduate students in this study:
    a. which writing strategies do 3 chinese post-graduate students report using in writing academic papers in english?
    b. do these students perceive chinese writing process as different from english writing process?
    c. do these students transfer chinese writing strategies to english writing positively/negatively?

    The role of the researcher classified into:
    a. rhetorical strategy refer to the strategies that writers use to organize and to present their ideas in writing conventions acceptable to native speakers of that language.
    b. metacognitive strategy are those that writers use to control the writing process consciously.
    c. cognitive strategy refer to the strategies that writers use to implement the actual writing actions.
    d. social/affective strategy refer to those that writers use to interact with others to clarify some questions and to regulate emotions, motivation, and attitudes in the writing.

    The data collection procedures: sources of data included preliminary questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, retrospective post-writing discussions and document analysis. The questions have been tested by 2 chinese students’ and reviewed by 2 of my supervisors for its validity and reliability. This questionnaire was not used as a survey but as a warm-up exercise for the formal semi-structured interview. The students stimulated the participants to think about english and chinese writing so that they could report more about their writing strategies and deepen their understanding of english writing strategies. The participants were proficient english users, but if they had some difficulty with any words there was some explanation to ensure good understanding.

    The semi-structured interviews was conducted with the 3 participants in chinese to make cxommunication more effective. Each interview lasted over 1 hour. All the interviews were recorded fully transcribe in chinese and saved by computer. When each participant completed his/her writing task, a retrospective post-writing discussion followed that focused specifically on the proposal/paper the participant had just completed. During the period of the data collection, the participants were asked to keep all drafts of their assignments and then review their composing process and construct a description of how it worked during the retrospective post writing discussion.

    In length of observation, Ally needed 5 weeks to finished assigment, Susan needed 16 weeks, Roger needed 40 weeks.

    The conclusions from this study:
    a. 3 adults students writers employed a broad range of writing strategies for success in the target academic community. A taxonomy of their common writing strategies was established which provides some insights for future L2 writing researchs and practitioners.
    b. The L2 writing process is strategically, rhetorically and linguistically different from the L1 writing process. All 3 participants considered chinese writing process to be different from english writing process to be different from english writing process. When they wrote in english they said they adopted totaly different process.
    c. As the L2 writing process is different from the L1 writing process, not all writing strategies can be transferred across languages and culture positively. Among the 4 categories of L2 writing strategies, data demonstrates that for the participants in this study. Most of the metacognitive, cognitive, social/affective strategies can be transferred across languages positively at least from chinese writing to english writing. The rhetorical strategies don’t necessarily transfer positively in the context mentioned here. In particular the 3 chinese writers in this study were found to transfer organizing and cohesive strategies negatively and they had difficulties in utilizing rhetorical strategies.

    They are logically related to the descriptive data because from the descriptive data can get the conclusion to the reader.

    The contribution of the study to language learning discipline: the dominant english academic community needs to be open-minded to a plurality of communicative styles and ideas about knowledge and ways of writing about knowledge even radically suggest that even radically suggest that english L1 speakers will need to give-up their rights of imposing conventions on L2 speakers. However, it isn’t easy to make immediate policy changes in the english academic community. Neverthless, while designing the curriculum/the writing task, L2 teachers need to think over L2 students’ need and their background while designing the curriculum/the writing task, so that the task may be more motivating and substansial for L2 writers.

    The implication for teaching: first of all, notice L2 writers must be taught L2 writing strategies explicitly as these strategies can help them adapt to the target discourse community more quickly. As most of the metacognitive, cognitive, communicative and social/affective strategies can be transferred across language and cultural positively, L2 writing teachers can assist L2 writers to identify those strategies they have acquired in the mother tongue and employ them in their english writing to reduce L2 writers anxiety. L2 writing teachers may also inform L2 writers that L1 writers have some similar challenges they face in writing practice when they are novice writers. At the same time the functions of positively transferred strategies can be explicitly transmitted to L2 students writers.

    Next, as it is very difficult for L2 writers to master rhetorical strategies, those strategies should be regarded as the important points in the L2 writing classroom. In particular, a comparison of rhetorical conventions between 2 different languages may be helpful for teaching. Chinese students are weak in cohesive devices according to this investigation, so they need more practice in this respect.

  3. Dear all,
    Go to http://tesl-ej.org/ej41/a1.html to get the case study article entitled “An Investigation of Three Chinese Students’ English Writing Strategies”. Read the article and answer the following questions briefly but concisely for analyzing case studies.

    1. What was the research the objective?
    2. In what context was the research conducted?
    3. Who were the participants in the study? How were they selected?
    What were their relevant characteristics?
    4. What was the theoretical orientation of the researcher?
    5. What was the role of the researcher?
    6. What data-collection procedures were used? How much time was
    spent collecting data?
    7. How were data analyzed? What were the findings?
    8. What conclusions are drawn? Are they logically related to the descriptive
    9. What is the contribution of the study to language learning discipline?
    10. What are the stated implications for teaching?

    Good luck!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s