Jun 30, 2017 - computer-generated CF in improving L2 learners' writing accuracy. ..... classes. This study uses the onli
C
Sy mpos i um onSe c ondLa ngua geWr i t i ng2 0 1 7
As s e s s i ngS e c ondLa ng u a g eWr i t i ng
Chu l a l ong k or nUni v e r s i t y Ba ng k ok , Tha i l a nd J u ne3 0 J u l y2 , 2 0 1 7
Schedule at a Glance Thursday, June 29 18:00-20:00
Pre-Symposium Social
Friday, June 30 08:00-17:00 09:00-17:00
Registration (101 Lobby) Exhibits (401)
8:45-09:15 09:15-10:15 10:15-10:45 10:45-11:45 11:45-12:30 12:30-14:00 14:00-14:15 14:15-15:45 15:45-16:15 16:15-17:35 17:35-18:00 18:00-20:00 Saturday, July 1 08:00-17:00 09:00-17:00 08:45-09:45 09:45-10:15 10:15-11:45 11:45-12:30 12:30-14:00 14:00-14:15 14:15-15:45 15:45-16:15 16:15-17:35 17:35-18:00 Sunday, July 2 08:00-12:00 09:00-12:00 08:45-09:45 09:45-10:15 10:15-11:45 11:45-12:30 12:30-14:00 14:00-14:15 14:15-15:45 15:45-17:00
Opening Ceremony (101 Lecture Hall) Local Keynote: Suchada Nimmannit (101 Lecture Hall) Coffee Break (101 Lobby) Keynote: Liz Hamp-Lyons (101 Lecture Hall) Lunch (401 Lobby) Session A Break Session B Refreshments (401 Lobby) Session C Roundtables Reflections (Room 6) Opening Reception (Building 2, 3F)
Registration (101 Lobby) Exhibits (401) Plenary: Sara Cushing (101 Lecture Hall) Coffee Break (101 Lobby) Session D Lunch (401 Lobby) Session E Break Session F Refreshments (401 Lobby) Session G Roundtables Reflections (Room 6)
Registration (101 Lobby) Exhibits (401) Plenary: Deborah Crusan (101 Lecture Hall) Coffee Break (101 Lobby) Session H Lunch (401 Lobby) Session I Break Session J Reflections and Closing Ceremony (Room 6)
Table of Contents
Table of Contents Welcome ..............................................................................................................................2 Getting the Most Out of SSLW 2017 ...............................................................................3 SSLW 2017 Organizing Committee ................................................................................4 Keynote and Plenary Speakers .........................................................................................5 Friday, June 30 ....................................................................................................................9 Opening Ceremony ................................................................................................9 Local Keynote: Suchada Nimmannit ...................................................................9 Keynote: Liz Hamp-Lyons .....................................................................................9 Session A ................................................................................................................10 Session B .................................................................................................................13 Session C (Roundtables) ......................................................................................16 Reflections ..............................................................................................................20 Opening Reception ...............................................................................................20 Saturday, July 1 .................................................................................................................21 Plenary: Sara Cushing ..........................................................................................21 Session D ................................................................................................................21 Session E .................................................................................................................25 Session F .................................................................................................................28 Session G (Roundtables) ......................................................................................31 Reflections ..............................................................................................................34 Sunday, July 2 ...................................................................................................................35 Plenary: Deborah Crusan.....................................................................................35 Session H ................................................................................................................35 Session I ..................................................................................................................39 Session J ..................................................................................................................41 Reflections and Closing Ceremony ....................................................................42 Presenter Index .................................................................................................................43 Conference Site Maps ......................................................................................................48 Meetings Friday, June 30, 11:45–12:30, Room 8 (4th Floor) JSLW Editorial Board Meeting (Closed Meeting) Saturday, July 1, 11:45–12:30, Room 8 (4th Floor) Assessing Writing Editorial Board Meeting (Closed Meeting)
1
Symposium on Second Language Writing 2017
Welcome to SSLW 2017 Welcome to the 16th Symposium on Second Language Writing (SSLW)! This year, SSLW is hosted by the Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn University. One of the most prestigious universities in Thailand and Southeast Asia, Chulalongkorn University (aka Chula) is located at the heart of Bangkok and Southeast Asia. Writing has become an important concern among language teachers and researchers in Asia because of the widespread interest in integrating English into all levels of education and because of the importance of literacy in academic work—both for students and faculty. By bringing the Symposium here, we hope to stimulate the conversation about L2 writing and writing instruction in Thailand and in ASEAN countries. This year’s SSLW highlights the importance of assessing L2 writing. Although assessment plays an important role in L2 writing research and instruction, it is sometimes seen as a concern for specialists rather than something all teachers and researchers should understand and engage with. By focusing on this theme, we seeks to promote a field-wide conversation about issues related to assessment, including (but certainly not limited to) these questions: • • • • • •
What do teachers need to know about assessment? How can we get students to see beyond the test? How can teachers use assessment to facilitate learning rather than merely teach to the test? What does a reasonable and realistic assessment look like for students at various levels and circumstances? What should L2 writing assessment look like in light of the global spread and diversification of languages, their uses and users? How should L2 writing researchers assess writing in ways that facilitate comparative analysis of findings across studies?
More broadly, this theme highlights the importance of assessing the field of second language writing as well as teachers and researchers as we continue to grow as a field and as L2 writing professionals. We will explore these and many other important topics by featuring internationally known experts in L2 writing assessment—Liz Hamp-Lyons, Sara Cushing and Deborah Crusan—and by bringing together local and international teachers and researchers of language, writing and assessment with various areas of expertise. Let the conversations begin! Paul Kei Matsuda, Founding Chair Symposium on Second Language Writing
2
Getting the Most Out of SSLW 2017
Getting the Most Out of SSLW 2017 Session Information
All sessions take place in Room 101 Lecture Hall or the 4th floor of Education Building 3 unless otherwise noted. This year’s symposium includes the following session formats: Plenary talks, colloquia, papers, roundtables and reflections. • A paper is a 20-minute presentation followed by a 10-minute question and answer or discussion period. • A colloquium is a 90 minute session including three or more presenters addressing different aspects of the same topic or representing different perspectives. • A roundtable is a 20-minute session starting with a 10- to 15-minute presentation followed by an informal discussion. It provides opportunities for intensive discussion of the presenter's work in a small, friendly environment. It is also appropriate for work-in-progress or preliminary discussion of a project. • A workshop is a 90-minute professional development session related to teaching, research, administration or other aspects of L2 writing-related work. • An open meeting is for a business or planning meeting that are relevant to SSLW participants in general • A closed meeting is for L2-writing related business for a specific group (e.g., editorial board meetings). The space is provided as a service to the profession. The session code indicates the time slot, room, and order of presentation. For example, A.2.1 means the first concurrent session (Session A, 12:30-14:00), Room 2 (4th Floor) on the 4th floor, and the first presentation. (Special sessions and meetings that are scheduled outside the regular session slots are not numbered.)
A.2.1 Session Room Order There are no session chairs. Each presenter is responsible for presenting only during the designated presentation time, and for starting and finishing the presentation on time. For smooth transitions, presenters are encouraged to communicate with other presenters in the session to share a laptop computer. Technology
WiFi is available at the conference venue. The guest login information will be provided in the Registration Area (101 Lobby). We encourage the use of social media to extend the discussion (hashtag: #sslw2017). During sessions, please put device to silent mode and be courteous to the presenter and other participatns. To receive updates, reminders and other announcements during the conference, follow SSLW social media accounts: @sslwtg (twitter); @L2Writing (Facebook).
3
Symposium on Second Language Writing 2017
SSLW 2017 Organizing Committee Local Committee (Cont’d) Maneerat Ekkayokkaya, Ph.D. Arunee Hongsiriwat, Ph.D. Jaitip Na-Songkhla, Ph.D. Wittaya Laithong, Ph.D Pornsook Tantrarungroj, Ph.D. Rattikorn Eksamanon Sumamarn Rattana-akornsin Suda Pratheepsuwan Kanya Ounthaithae Porntip Fuangfoo Pranee Khummuenkul Kumpon Kosantimukkhang Theerada Khongprasert Tossapon Khongkhew
Founding Chair Paul Kei Matsuda, Ph.D. Local Chairs Sumalee Chinokul, Ph.D. Pornpimol Sukavatee, Ph.D Executive Local Commitee Siridej Sujiva, Ph.D Wichai Sawekngam, Ph.D. Yotsawee Saifah, Ph.D. Local Committee Surapee Rujopakarn, Ph.D. Chansongklod Gajaseni, Ph.D Apasara Chinwonno, Ph.D. Prannapha Modehiran, Ph.D Major Ra-shane Meesri, Ph.D. Jutarat Vibulphol, Ph.D. Ruedeerath Chusanachoti, Ph.D.
Additional Committee Members SSLW Assistants and additional committee members are announced on a separate sheet and at http://sslw.asu.edu/2017.
SSLW 2017 Proposal Reviewers Dumrong Adunyarittigun Dwight Atkinson Diane Belcher John Bitchener Colleen Brice Chris Casanave Pisarn Chamcharatsri Deborah Crusan Alister Cumming Sara Cushing Darunee Dujsik Norm Evans Dana Ferris Guillaume Gentil
Betsy Gilliland Lynn Goldstein Liz Hamp-Lyons Soomin Jwa Soo Hyon Kim Ute Knoch Supanit Kulsiri Icy Lee Yichun Liu Rosa Manchon Min Huitzu Lia Plakans Issra Pramoolsuk Melinda Reichelt
Todd Ruecker Tanita Saenkhum Miyuki Sasaki Neomy Storch Supong Tangkiengsirisin Christine Tardy Punchalee Wasanasomsithi Rosemary Wette Jirada Wudthayagorn Fang Xu Lawrence Zhang Cecilia Zha
Special Thanks The SSLW 2017 Organizing Committee thanks the Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn University, and Elsevier for their generous sponsorship. We are grateful to Debora Crusan and Tanita Saenkhum for sponsoring graduate student registrations. Kobpun krub!
4
Keynote and Plenary Speakers
Keynote and Plenary Speakers Local Plenary
Self-assessment as a tool to improve writing assessment Suchada Nimmannit Rangsit English Language Institute, Thailand Friday, June 30, 9:15–10:15, Lecture Hall (101)
Writing in a second language can be extremely challenging as students not only need to conceptualize and organize ideas before writing and editing. Self-assessment has increasingly been used to help students check their writing to see if it has met the criteria required by the teacher, Moreover, selfassessment helps students identify their strength and weakness, thus improving their writing. This presentation reports an in-progress study in which self-assessment has been applied to the students in the first year English class. The presenter will discuss the process from the teacher’s scaffolding writing and self-assessment rubric to the submission of the assignments. Suchada Nimmannit is an associate professor and Director of Rangsit English Language Institute. Prior to that, she taught business communication, presentation and TESOL methodology at Chulalongkorn University Language Institute where she served as Deputy Director for International Affairs, Chair of Business English Program, Director of Academic Services for State Departments. Suchada taught and designed two webinar courses for the US-Thai sponsored Lower Mekhong Initiatives, English Support (2011-2013). She served as President of Thailand TESOL (2000–2003) and member of TESOL International’s Board of Directors (2004–2007). In 2016, she has been honored by TESOL as one of the 50th international professionals who have contributed to the field of TESOL. Suchada's interest is in using technology to enhance students' learning.
5
Symposium on Second Language Writing 2017 Keynote
Writing assessment through time and space Liz Hamp-Lyons University of Bedfordshire, UK Friday, June 30, 10:45-11:45, Lecture Hall (101)
Writing has been formally assessed for several thousand years, and yet there remains a great distance to travel if a goal is to achieve some sort of consensus about the characteristics and behaviours that represent ‘good writing assessment’. In this talk I identify several key issues which have endured over time and across distances. The ‘distances’ I refer to are partly literal but also metaphorical, referring not only to the differing traditions and beliefs about how writing should and can be assessed in different regions of the world, but also to differing beliefs and values among those who make the assessment of learners’ written texts and writing performances their profession. The concept of ‘time’ is also more than literal: it is also cultural. Nations at various developmental stages of what is broadly called ‘nationhood’ will prioritize different academic disciplines during different times of their growth. A nation building a cohesive set of communal values will likely prioritize government and political matters, while a nation that is settled within its own core values may reach out further to find new ideas and intellectual disciplines that resonate with its settled beliefs. All this may sound both vague and daunting: but the intent is that the talk will also be concrete and practical, highlighting some enduring key issues as well as identifying some of the differences we should be attentive to at this ‘time’ and in this ‘space’. Liz Hamp-Lyons is a Visiting Professor in the Centre for Research in English Language Learning and Assessment (CRELLA) at the University of Bedfordshire, UK, Honorary Professor in Language and Education at the Open University of Hong Kong, and Guest Professor at Shanghai Jiao Tong University, where she is the senior academic consultant to the College English Test (CET). Her research interests include development and validation of English language performance (i.e. writing and speaking) assessments, assessment for academic and specific purposes, assessment for learning, learning-oriented language assessment and language teacher assessment literacy. She was founding Editor of the Journal of English for Academic Purposes and Editor 2002-2015, and is Editor of Assessing Writing.
6
Keynote and Plenary Speakers Plenary
A new apologia for the timed impromptu writing test Sara Cushing Georgia State University, USA Saturday, July 1, 8:45-9:45, Lecture Hall (101)
In 1995, Edward White wrote that the timed impromptu writing test was “under attack from all sides as formulaic, unresponsive to the nature of writing, and destructive to the curriculum” (p. 30). Despite numerous critiques of timed impromptu writing, this form of writing assessment is still frequent in classroom and large-scale assessment alike. In this talk I will discuss the history of the timed impromptu essay from the perspectives of composition teaching and second language assessment, placing second language writing assessment at the intersection of these two disciplines. Important considerations in deciding whether and when writing should be assessed through a timed impromptu test include considerations of reliability, validity, practicality, and impact (i.e., consequences to students, teachers, and other stakeholders), and, most importantly, test purpose. Following Manchon's (2011) distinction of learning-to-write and writing-to-learn language, I distinguish between assessing writing and assessing language through writing, focusing in particular on the implications of this distinction for justifying the use of timed impromptu writing vis-à-vis its alternatives for four main test purposes: proficiency, placement, achievement, and diagnosis. I also discuss the implications of the distinction between assessing writing and assessing language through writing for task design and scoring methods, including the computer scoring of writing. Sara Cushing is Professor of Applied Linguistics at Georgia State University. She received her Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics from UCLA. She has published research in the areas of assessment, second language writing, and teacher education, and is the author of Assessing Writing (2002, Cambridge University Press). She has been invited to speak and conduct workshops on second language writing assessment throughout the world, most recently in Norway, the United Kingdom, South Korea, and Thailand. Her current research focuses on assessing integrated skills and the use of automated scoring for second language writing.
7
Symposium on Second Language Writing 2017 Plenary
Writing assessment: Do we practice what we preach? Deborah Crusan Wright State University, USA Sunday, July 2, 8:45-9:45, Lecture Hall (101)
Assessing student writing represents a large share of second language writing teachers’ workloads and is considered by some to be one of the most daunting of teacher tasks. Good assessment practices, while not always formally taught to prospective English language teachers, are essential to the teaching of second language writing. Teachers may have received instruction in giving feedback to students, but they also need guidance in assessment involving scoring, grading, and making ethically and pedagogically sound judgments about student work. In short, teachers need to understand the fundamentals of writing assessment – to be cognizant of writing assessment practices. This knowledge of writing assessment has been termed writing assessment literacy and refers to what teachers know, believe, and practice regarding writing assessment. In this plenary session, I will discuss the results of a survey regarding writing assessment literacy that examined the following questions: • • •
How do second language writing teachers obtain assessment knowledge? What do second language writing teachers believe about writing assessment? What are the assessment practices of second language writing teachers? (Crusan, Plakans, & Gebril, 2016).
In the past, I have consistently argued for the inclusion of assessment training in teacher education courses. This talk focuses on the idea that few teachers are prepared to assess the writing their students do. The results of the study point to the need for better preparation of teachers in MATESOL and ESL certification programs to be effective assessors of writing. I will provide suggestions and strategies for doing so. Crusan, D., Plakans, L., & Gebril, A. (2016). Writing assessment literacy: Surveying second language teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and practices. Assessing Writing, 28, 43-56. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2016.03.001. Deborah Crusan is professor of TESOL/Applied Linguistics at Wright State University, Dayton, OH. Her work has appeared in Across the Disciplines, Assessing Writing, The Companion to Language Assessment, The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, English for Specific Purposes, Language Testing, TESOL Quarterly, The Norton Field Guide, and edited collections on second language writing. Her research interests include writing placement, writing teacher education, and the politics of assessment. Her book, Assessment in the Second Language Writing Classroom, was published by University of Michigan Press. Currently, she serves on the TESOL International Association Board of Directors and as Board Liaison to the Publishing Professional Committee.
8
Day 1, Friday, June 30
Day 1, Friday, June 30 Friday, June 30, 8:45–9:15, Lecture Hall (101) Opening Ceremony Friday, June 30, 9:15–10:15, Lecture Hall (101) Self-assessment as a tool to improve writing (Local Keynote) Suchada Nimmannit Writing in a second language can be extremely challenging as students not only need to conceptualize and organize ideas before writing and editing. Self-assessment has increasingly been used to help students check their writing to see if it has met the criteria required by the teacher, Moreover, self-assessment helps students identify their strength and weakness, thus improving their writing. This presentation reports an in-progress study in which self-assessment has been applied to the students in the first year English class. The presenter will discuss the process from the teacher’s scaffolding writing and self-assessment rubric to the submission of the assignments. Friday, June 30, 10:15–10:45, 101 Lobby Coffee Break Friday, June 30, 10:45–11:45, Lecture Hall (101) Writing assessment through time and space (Keynote) Liz Hamp-Lyons Writing has been formally assessed for several thousand years, and yet there remains a great distance to travel if a goal is to achieve some sort of consensus about the characteristics and behaviours that represent ‘good writing assessment'. In this talk I identify several key issues which have endured over time and across distances. The ‘distances' I refer to are partly literal but also metaphorical, referring not only to the differing traditions and beliefs about how writing should and can be assessed in different regions of the world, but also to differing beliefs and values among those who make the assessment of learners' written texts and writing performances their profession. The concept of ‘time' is also more than literal: it is also cultural. Nations at various developmental stages of what is broadly called ‘nationhood' will prioritize different academic disciplines during different times of their growth. A nation building a cohesive set of communal values will likely prioritize government and political matters, while a nation that is settled within its own core values may reach out further to find new ideas and intellectual disciplines that resonate with its settled beliefs. All this may sound both vague and daunting: but the intent is that the talk will also be concrete and practical, highlighting some enduring key issues as well as identifying some of the differences we should be attentive to at this ‘time' and in this ‘space'. Friday, June 30, 11:45–12:30, 401 Lobby Lunch Friday, June 30, 11:45–12:30, Room 8 (4th Floor) JSLW Editorial Board Meeting (Closed Meeting) This meeting is for the Journal of Second Language Writing Editorial Board members only.
9
Symposium on Second Language Writing 2017 A.2.1 Friday, June 30, 12:30–13:00, Room 2 (4th Floor) Awareness of writing assessment of Thai university instructors in Thailand (Paper) Bee Chamcharatsri, Suthathip Thirakunkovit and Pornpimol Sukavatee Due to limited research on the awareness of Thai university instructors on writing assessment, this paper aims to present the initial findings based on survey data and interviews we have collected. We argue that the instructors need to have better understandings and preparations in assessing students' writing. A.2.2 Friday, June 30, 13:00–13:30, Room 2 (4th Floor) Assessing EFL Writers' Pragmatic Competence through Metaphor Analysis: An Investigation of GEPT Writing Tests (Paper) Yi-Chen Chen Being able to use figurative language appropriately to suit communicative purposes is regarded a display of pragmatic competence. However, such competence is rarely mentioned as defining levels of language proficiency. The study investigates 442 Taiwanese learners' writings of General English Proficiency Test to add proper description of figurative language use. A.2.3 Friday, June 30, 13:30–14:00, Room 2 (4th Floor) Teachers' accountability to English language learners in a time of high-stakes assessment (Paper) Shannon Pella and Betsy Gilliland Teachers have a dual challenge of instructing their school-age multilingual students in academic language and grade-level literacy, while simultaneously preparing them for success on high-stakes assessments. A genre-centered approach with an emphasis on the functional language of texts engages learners in text analysis while supporting real-world writing and test preparation. A.3.1 Friday, June 30, 12:30–13:00, Room 3 (4th Floor) The development of L2 writing complexity during study abroad: A meta-analysis (Paper) Yiran Xu The results of 15 studies were identified, systematically coded, and meta-analyzed. Modest gains in L2 writing complexity during SA were identified: d = 0.34. L2 Proficiency, the length of stay, and language pledges were found to moderate writing complexity development in SA contexts. Practical and methodological implications are discussed. A.3.2 Friday, June 30, 13:00–13:30, Room 3 (4th Floor) A Meta-analysis of Rater Background Effects on Writing Performance Assessment (Paper) Amy I. Kim This meta-analysis examines ten rater background variables (e.g., L1, academic discipline) drawn from 20 primary studies to address the magnitude of rater effects in L2 writing assessment. Results indicate that rater background accounts for a relatively small (d = .37) amount of the variability in L2 writing scores. A.3.3 Friday, June 30, 13:30–14:00, Room 3 (4th Floor) EFL Learner's Noticing and Written Output: Model, Error Correction, and Reformulation (Paper) Yi-Chun Christine Yang The current study investigated EFL learners' noticing and written output of three treatments, models, reformulation, and error correction. The results indicated that comparisons promoted learners' noticing of writing problems and models casted a more positive and enduring impact on EFL writing than error correction and reformulation between the two posttests. 10
Day 1, Friday, June 30 A.4.1 Friday, June 30, 12:30–13:00, Room 4 (4th Floor) Critical Thinking and L2 Academic Writing: Connections and Challenges (Paper) Parva Panahi Lazarjani The aim of this essay is to discuss the strong, reciprocal connection between critical thinking and academic writing, provide a consensual definition for critical thinking in academic writing in general and in L2 writing in particular, suggest ways of operationalizing these definitions and implementing them in writing classrooms by using a set of practical recommendations for students, particularly nonWestern students, as to how to implement critical thinking in writing through argumentation. A.4.2 Friday, June 30, 13:00–13:30, Room 4 (4th Floor) Translingual creativity in academic writing assessment: Voices from Vietnam and Australia (Paper) Thuy Dinh and Trung Nguyen This paper reports on a study about teachers' and students' reflections on how translingual creativity is evidenced and how it should be assessed in EFL and university academic writing in Vietnam and Australia. It discloses how the current evaluating frameworks should be revisited to better recognise and promote translingual creativity in writing education. A.4.3 Friday, June 30, 13:30–14:00, Room 4 (4th Floor) Investigating the impact and transferability of an academic writing course on first year students in an international branch campus (Paper) Ida Fatimawati Adi Badiozaman and Cynthia Aling Academic writing is an integral part of tertiary education in Malaysia. However, among Malaysian L2 writers, academic writing is often described as challenging, and often linked to writing anxiety. This study aims to explore the impact of an academic writing course on the writing development of these ESL undergraduate students. A.5.1 Friday, June 30, 12:30–13:00, Room 5 (4th Floor) Assessing Bilingual Students' Research Writing Anxiety (Paper) Ma Joahna Estacio The study explores the experience of writing anxiety in a second language using quantitative and qualitative techniques. Results reveal the factors that affect and the consequences of writing anxiety on students' attitudes and output. Findings disclose that attitudes related to the task difficulty and effort required to complete this task, and students' feelings about their ability to complete the task played a crucial role in the completion of the research project. A.5.2 Friday, June 30, 13:00–13:30, Room 5 (4th Floor) Untying the Gordian Knot: Does Writer's Block Influence Text Easability and Readability? (Paper) John Paul Dela Rosa and Cecilia Genuino This second language writing research aimed at determining whether writer's block influences the levels of easability and readability of essays written by secondary level ESL students. Specifically, it describes the degree of relationship between blocking phenomenon and the quality of texts measured using Coh-Metrix T.E.R.A., an online computational tool.
11
Symposium on Second Language Writing 2017 A.5.3 Friday, June 30, 13:30–14:00, Room 5 (4th Floor) Teachers' Challenges in Teaching Writing in Rural Junior High Schools in Indonesia (Paper) Supiani Innovative and creative teaching are required in teaching writing in rural junior high schools Indonesia because knowledgeable teachers can overcome the challenges. The process approach absolutely must be provided so that the students can understand how to write well. Finally the students' ability in composing a text will be better. A.6.1 Friday, June 30, 12:30–13:00, Room 6 (4th Floor) Taiwan's academic evaluation regime: A politics of citation indexes (Paper) Cheryl Sheridan This study investigates scholarly publishing experiences of multilingual Taiwan-based researchers regarding their publication choices under an academic evaluation regime point system privileging English-medium internationally indexed journals. Results show that the primary indexical scale under a globalization of scholarly publishing framework is a "politics of citation indexes" rather than publication location. A.6.2 Friday, June 30, 13:00–13:30, Room 6 (4th Floor) Discursive Challenges in Academic Publishing by Multilingual Novice Writers (Paper) Fang Xu A recent discussion is about whether L1 and L2 writers face different degrees of challenges as they write for publication. The paper thus explores discursive challenges faced by multilingual novice writers. The findings bring to light the role of lexico-grammatical competence in the manifestation of genre awareness in academic writing. A.6.3 Friday, June 30, 13:30–14:00, Room 6 (4th Floor) Assessing multilingual students' perceptions on plagiarism: Recapturing their voices while avoiding plagiarism (Paper) Minsun Kim This study intends to assess or understand multilingual or multicultural students' perceptions on plagiarism and try to find practices and strategies to engage those students in working with sources in a first year composition course so that they can reclaim their voices as a competent student researcherwriter. A.7.1 Friday, June 30, 12:30–13:00, Room 7 (4th Floor) Portfolio Assessment in Elementary Writing Classroom: Realizing Sustainability (Paper) Pauline Mak This research study investigates how portfolio assessment in an EFL elementary writing classroom in Hong Kong can be effectively implemented and sustained, as well as the support teachers need to realize change in assessment in their teaching context. A.7.2 Friday, June 30, 13:00–13:30, Room 7 (4th Floor) Second Language Writing Instruction and Teacher Education in Thailand: Perspectives from the Primary and Secondary Schools (Paper) Tanita Saenkhum This presentation reports on a study of English writing instruction and teacher education and preparation at the primary and secondary levels in Thailand, aiming at generating an understanding of what and how writing is taught/approached, elucidating how teachers are (not) prepared to teach writing, and revealing their professional development needs.
12
Day 1, Friday, June 30 A.7.3 Friday, June 30, 13:30–14:00, Room 7 (4th Floor) Understanding Interpersonal Meaning-making in Chinese Adolescent ESL Writing: A Systemic Functional Perspective (Paper) Winfred Wenhui Xuan Utilizing the framework of modality from systemic functional linguistics, this paper investigates the interpersonal meaning-making in adolescent ESL writing by junior secondary three students in China. A.8 Friday, June 30, 12:30–14:00, Room 8 (4th Floor) Writing Portfolio Assessment: Principles, Issues and Recommendations (Workshop) Ricky Lam Using portfolios to evaluate writing is conceptually exacting. The workshop aims to equip attendees with knowledge and skills in assessing writing with the portfolio-based approach. In the workshop, I will introduce portfolio assessment principles to the attendees; present common implementation issues, and then invite them to evaluate two case studies. Friday, June 30, 14:00–14:15, Break B.2.1 Friday, June 30, 14:15–14:45, Room 2 (4th Floor) Twice Assessing Placement Procedures for L2 Writers: An Institutional Case Study (Paper) Joseph Wilson and Tanita Saenkhum Writing program administrators consider a variety of factors—standardized test scores, placement exams, student choice—when determining placement procedures for L2 students. Through an institutional case study, the presenters will propose a framework for continual assessment of these practices based on the twice assessment of their university's placement procedures. B.2.2 Friday, June 30, 14:45–15:15, Room 2 (4th Floor) Implementing a rater certification program for a post-admission ESL writing placement test (Paper) Xun Yan, Ha Ram Kim and John Kotnarowski This presentation describes the process and outcome of a rater certification program implemented to align raters to a profile-based writing scale used for both placement and diagnostic purposes. Benefits, challenges, and recommendations for the development and implementation of a similar scale and training program will be discussed. B.2.3 Friday, June 30, 15:15–15:45, Room 2 (4th Floor) Evaluating Fairness of the SFT Writing Test for Female and Male Students at Three Japanese Universities (Paper) Kristy King Takagi The current project is a follow-up to previous presentations regarding steps carried out using Rasch analysis in the development of the Sentence Form Test (SFT) of English writing, particularly designed for use in university entrance examinations and writing placement tests in Japanese universities. This follow-up study examines how well the SFT performs for female and male students at three Japanese universities.
13
Symposium on Second Language Writing 2017 B.3.1 Friday, June 30, 14:15–14:45, Room 3 (4th Floor) Computer-mediated vs. computer-generated written corrective feedback: the role of L2 learners' attitude, grammar strategy use, and computer literacy in feedback retention. (Paper) Mohammad Rahimi and Mohaddeseh Mehrzad This study compares the efficacy of computer-mediated teacher corrective feedback (CF) and computer-generated CF in improving L2 learners' writing accuracy. The study also investigates the impact of learners' attitude toward the CF mode, their grammar strategy use, and their level of computer literacy on their retention of CF. B.3.2 Friday, June 30, 14:45–15:15, Room 3 (4th Floor) Metareflective Self-Assessment in Computer Assisted Language Learning (Paper) Sabina Aleksandra Nowak The presentation deals with metareflective self-assessment in CALL environment. The aim is to display the use of peer-shared reflective journals in tertiary education and to assign their role in learning-oriented assessment. It outlines some implications concerning the development of students' cognitive, affective and psychomotor skills. B.3.3 Friday, June 30, 15:15–15:45, Room 3 (4th Floor) Situated Practice and Informal Assessment on Digital Platforms for Second Language Writers (Paper) Trevor Duson Students are already engaging in language practices online, perhaps in the target language and may not be thinking about connecting these practices to their linguistic repertoire. This presentation will demonstrate how to utilize digital social capital to enhance language learning. Instructors will learn about tools and previous research demonstrating pedagogical tools for their students. B.4.1 Friday, June 30, 14:15–14:45, Room 4 (4th Floor) How does effective collaboration emerge? Investigating the effect of teacher feedback on collaborative L2 writing in the Japanese EFL context. (Paper) Michiko Ueki and Osamu Takeuchi This study examines, in the Japanese EFL context, the effect of teacher feedback on the quality of the written texts produced in a collaborative L2 writing task. It also ascertains changes in nature of the oral interaction patterns between pairs as they collaborate through the writing process. B.4.2 Friday, June 30, 14:45–15:15, Room 4 (4th Floor) Teacher-Guided Collaborative Writing in a Linguistically Diverse Secondary School Classroom (Paper) Didem Aydin This study investigates the application of a teacher-guided collaborative writing activity in a state secondary school classroom. The findings demonstrate that both EAL and non-EAL students benefited from this activity by engaging in lively discussions around academic language. It also provided an opportunity for the teacher to make visible the assessment criteria. B.4.3 Friday, June 30, 15:15–15:45, Room 4 (4th Floor) What do learners take away from teacher feedback? (Paper) Kristen Sullivan This paper will discuss a postwriting reflection assignment used within a tertiary-level EFL composition course in Japan. Its objectives were to create an additional opportunity to have learners engage with teacher feedback and learning, and to collect information to investigate what students claimed to have learned from teacher feedback.
14
Day 1, Friday, June 30 B.5.1 Friday, June 30, 14:15–14:45, Room 5 (4th Floor) Identity and Genre Knowledge: Chinese EFL Graduate Students' Thesis Writing (Paper) Yingliang Liu and Jun Zhao This multiple-case study presentation examines how six Chinese EFL graduate students' developing/changing disciplinary identity as novice researchers and deepened genre knowledge of research writing factor in their MA theses composing process with advisor input. Pedagogical implications for EAP professionals working with graduate students in EFL contexts are discussed. B.5.2 Friday, June 30, 14:45–15:15, Room 5 (4th Floor) Voice-focused Feedback and Student Revision (Paper) Anna Yujie Peng and Fang Xu The study traces the influences of voice-focused feedback on a Chinese graduate student's perception of voice and the corresponding strategies she employed for revision in an academic writing class. By incorporating voice perception in teacher and peer feedback, the study has implications for both feedback studies and development of voice. B.5.3 Friday, June 30, 15:15–15:45, Room 5 (4th Floor) The role of voice in high-stakes L2 academic writing assessment: Implications for genre-based writing evaluation (Paper) Maryam Homayounzadeh and Mohammad Rahimi This study, using a mixed method, aimed at investigating the extent to which voice is credited in evaluating academic writing ability through IELTS. The results suggested that, to estimate test-takers' ability to fulfill the given generic demands, a genre-based evaluation system that has voice at its core is needed. B.6.1 Friday, June 30, 14:15–14:45, Room 6 (4th Floor) What is not present is not what is not in my mind: Case Study of Korean EFL Writers' Intercultural Rhetoric (Paper) Jae-Hyun Im This study, based on expanded notions of "small" cultures, explored how Korean EFL writers employ intercultural rhetorical patterns from different communities in L2 English writing. The results showed the writers can creatively codemesh and intentionally include and exclude certain rhetoric. Evaluation should contain multilingual intercultural rhetoric to foster creative writing. B.6.2 Friday, June 30, 14:45–15:15, Room 6 (4th Floor) Academic Freedom in Writing - A Misfortune in Disguise for Chinese Graduate Students? (Paper) Hairong Shang-Butler and Qin Lin This qualitative study investigates how Chinese graduate students experience academic freedom in the U.S. Drawing on social practices theory and capital theory, we found that academic freedom constituted an academic culture shock for Chinese students. Students associated it with lack of mentoring, but could manage it through mobilizing various capitals. B.6.3 Friday, June 30, 15:15–15:45, Room 6 (4th Floor) Chinese writers in the U.S. Classroom: Marrying Cultures of Learning (Paper) Aylin Baris Atilgan Culture is a determining factor when second language writers are learning to write in new academic contexts and genres. This study examines how Chinese students in an R1 university in the U.S. perceive the Chinese and American cultures of learning and how they feel about being in the new system. 15
Symposium on Second Language Writing 2017 B.7.1 Friday, June 30, 14:15–14:45, Room 7 (4th Floor) A Teacher's Integrated Scaffolded Written and Verbal Feedback and the Development of Textual Coherence in Students' L2 Writing (Paper) Jet Saengngoen This practitioner research study examines the use of integrated scaffolded written and verbal feedback provided by a non-native English speaking ESL teacher, and its effects on the development of textual coherence in academic writing by advanced ESL learners. Pedagogical implications for the use of integrated scaffolded feedback will be discussed. B.7.2 Friday, June 30, 14:45–15:15, Room 7 (4th Floor) Comparing L1 and L2 Feedback Preferences: Pedagogical Recommendations and a Note on Translingual Approaches (Paper) Suthathip Thirakunkovit This study investigates differences between L1 and L2 writers in terms of their feedback preferences. Based on the results, we argue that the translingual approach might not be effective for some L2 writers because it assumes a desire to negotiate power that may not be present in their learning styles. B.7.3 Friday, June 30, 15:15–15:45, Room 7 (4th Floor) Assessing Writing in the Secondary EFL Classroom: Vocabulary Integration in Student Essays (Paper) Nathan Thomas and Christopher Osment A learner corpus was compiled to explore the ways in which upper secondary EFL students in Bangkok, Thailand integrated vocabulary from taught units of study into their mid-term and final writing examinations. This study investigates the correlation between approaches to vocabulary instruction and its subsequent usage in student writing. B.8 Friday, June 30, 14:15–15:45, Room 8 (4th Floor) Using Steller to Motivate EFL Students to Write (Workshop) Luluk Iswati and Lanoke Intan Paradita For EFL students, writing is often considered difficult due to its requirements such as grammar accuracy, organization, etc.—which demotivate them in writing practices. This workshop will introduce Steller, a storytelling application, to be integrated into writing classes and activities to induce students' motivation in writing. Friday, June 30, 15:45–16:15, 401 Lobby Refreshments C.2.1 Friday, June 30, 16:15–16:35, Room 2 (4th Floor) An Analysis of Argumentative Essays of Tunisian Third Year English Majors (Roundtable) Besma Allagui It is widely believed that university students still struggle with argumentative writing. Nevertheless, very little research has specifically examined the quality of argumentative essays at a university context. This descriptive study aims to analyze the quality of argument structures of 24 student papers using both holistic and analytic scoring techniques.
16
Day 1, Friday, June 30 C.2.2 Friday, June 30, 16:35–16:55, Room 2 (4th Floor) Academic criticism in Chinese EFL graduate students' writing: A diachronic perspective (Roundtable) Xinren Chen and Mengxin Li This study examines Chinese EFL learners' performance of academic criticism in their academic writing from a diachronic perspective. Our findings lend support to the hypothesis that while basically sharing the same culture, later EFL learner writers perform academic criticism significantly better than their earlier counterparts as a result of the enhancement of EFL academic writing and the internalization of the Chinese academic community concerned. C.2.3 Friday, June 30, 16:55–17:15, Room 2 (4th Floor) EFL Writing Instruction in Japan From a Teacher Education Perspective (Roundtable) Keiko Hirose and Chris Harwood Using contextually situated views of writing as the framework, this study reviews EFL writing instruction in Japan from a teacher education perspective. Factors influencing Japanese students' perceptions and future Japanese English teachers' writing pedagogy are discussed and several challenges faced in L2 English writing teacher education are considered. C.3.1 Friday, June 30, 16:15–16:35, Room 3 (4th Floor) Developing L2 writers' voice through life writing (Roundtable) Shizhou Yang L2 writers often struggle with constrained voices, defined as their ability to textually articulate and sustain personal understandings and perspectives, as rooted in their social experiences. To develop their voices, opportunities should be given for these writers to textualize and re-consider the relevance of their previous life and literacy experiences. C.3.2 Friday, June 30, 16:35–16:55, Room 3 (4th Floor) The Effects of Extensive Reading on Students' Writing Performance: A Meta-Analysis (Roundtable) Meng-Hsun Lee The current meta-analysis synthesizes 14 unique samples from 10 primary studies published between 1980 and 2016 to explore the connections between extensive reading and students' writing performance. A small overall effect is found, and several moderators, including research contexts, students' educational levels, and length of the ER treatment, are examined. C.3.3 Friday, June 30, 16:55–17:15, Room 3 (4th Floor) Designing Writing Courses for a New BEd in Early Childhood Education (Roundtable) Suzan Stamper In this roundtable, the presenter describes a Hong Kong community college's development of English courses in a new Bachelor of Education in Early Childhood Education (BEdECE) programme, including three writing courses designed to support an action research capstone project. Participants are invited to give feedback on course design and assessments. C.4.1 Friday, June 30, 16:15–16:35, Room 4 (4th Floor) L2 graduate writing instruction for science students: An activity theory perspective (Roundtable) Mayumi Fujioka This study reports on L2 English writing instruction based on Activity Theory (AT) (Engeström, 1999). Difficulties of teaching science research writing to graduate students were lessened by effectively utilizing AT principles for teaching practices, which included genre knowledge as a mediational means and assignment of disciplinary expert roles to students. 17
Symposium on Second Language Writing 2017 C.4.2 Friday, June 30, 16:35–16:55, Room 4 (4th Floor) An Analysis of Linguistic Revisions by an Author' Editor to Medical Research Manuscripts Published in International Journals (Roundtable) Hao Guo This study focuses on linguistic revisions made by an author's editor to a corpus of medical research manuscripts by Chinese postgraduates and young scholars in three universities leading to eventual publication. Through text analysis, questionnaires and interview, related factors and causes of these linguistic revisions are analyzed. C.4.3 Friday, June 30, 16:55–17:15, Room 4 (4th Floor) Collaboratively Creating Writing Rubrics (Roundtable) Amanda Thompson and Steve Kopec Drawing on research into the use of rubrics as instructional tools and the use of student-generated rubrics in writing courses, this roundtable presentation explores preliminary research into the potential value of collaboratively created rubrics for both ESL students and instructors in an intensive English language program writing course. C.4.4 Friday, June 30, 17:15–17:35, Room 4 (4th Floor) Academic Writing Partnerships: The Assessment of Academic Writing Skills of L2 Students in a Blended Learning Environment based on Collaborative Learning (Roundtable) Annett Mudoh Our goal is to generate a discussion about the assessment of academic writing projects in a blended learning environment based on collaborative learning via face-to-face discussions and asynchronous online exchanges among L2 students, peer-tutors and the teacher. These two forms of assessment should lead to "help for self-help" for L2 students. C.5.1 Friday, June 30, 16:15–16:35, Room 5 (4th Floor) Genre Pedagogy and Transfer in L2 Writing (Roundtable) Yichun Liu This study attempts to explore whether genre pedagogy facilitates learning transfer to EFL writers. Think-aloud protocols and retrospective interview will be conducted to glimpse EFL novice writers' cognitive transferring process. C.5.2 Friday, June 30, 16:35–16:55, Room 5 (4th Floor) Why some individuals did not show improved accuracy after receiving written CF? (Roundtable) Qi Guo The evidence for the effectiveness of written corrective feedback has been mainly found in quantitative studies, in which a group of students' performance before and after receiving WCF is measured. My study has found more valuable information behind the figures and displayed a fuller picture of WCF. C.5.3 Friday, June 30, 16:55–17:15, Room 5 (4th Floor) Composing and Assessing Transnational Identities (Roundtable) Tika Lamsal This presentation demonstrates how international students negotiate their academic writing in U.S. universities by utilizing their prior language and cultural resources and argues that recognizing students' language differences and encouraging them to explore their home culture literate practices proves more effective in teaching writing to help them learn academic discourses.
18
Day 1, Friday, June 30 C.5.4 Friday, June 30, 17:15–17:35, Room 5 (4th Floor) When One Teaches, How Many Learn? Effects of Student-Led Grammar Instruction (Roundtable) Pamela Stacey This study examines the efficacy of student-led grammar instruction in an adult ESL writing class. Students were guided to correct their errors, select meaningful errors to research, and present findings to their classmates. Coding of written errors in essay assessments will be used to demonstrate improvements in students' written accuracy. C.6.1 Friday, June 30, 16:15–16:35, Room 6 (4th Floor) A Classroom Action Research: The Intensive Grammar Instruction and Errors Analysis in Essay Writing of Undergraduate Students (Roundtable) Weerasak Thaweemueang This presentation explores grammatically writing as one of the ways of presenting communicative competence to convey thought through text. C.6.2 Friday, June 30, 16:35–16:55, Room 6 (4th Floor) Transplanting First-year Writing: Can Assessment Be Transplanted As Well? (Roundtable) Ming Fang and Andie Wang With the growth of internationalization of U.S. higher education, transplanting first-year writing to the EFL context emerges. This presentation, by discussing a case of first-year writing courses implemented in a U.S off-shore program in China, explores effective assessments on L2 student writing, including the assessment criteria and the assessment procedures. C.6.3 Friday, June 30, 16:55–17:15, Room 6 (4th Floor) Polish EFL Learners' Perceptions of Learning Writing for High-Stakes Secondary School Graduation Examinations (Roundtable) Katarzyna Hryniuk This study presents the results of a survey conducted among 70 Polish high school graduates. It includes their views on learning writing in EFL for high-stakes secondary school graduation examinations, perceptions of the writing task on the exam, and reflections on the usefulness of the knowledge and skills gained in university education. C.6.4 Friday, June 30, 17:15–17:35, Room 6 (4th Floor) Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Searching for SLW in Decade 2 of the 21st Century (Roundtable) Dwight Atkinson and Christine Tardy The presenters dialogue regarding the state and possibilities of the SLW field. They focus particularly on 1) responses to the question "What is SLW?" by 11 scholars in Journal of Second Language Writing 2013; and 2) critique of two seemingly opposing SLW movements—grammatical accuracy/development and translingualism. C.7.1 Friday, June 30, 16:15–16:35, Room 7 (4th Floor) Investment and Aspirational Identities: Research Alternatives for the Future of Identity Studies (Roundtable) Hannah Soblo This presentation envisages an alternative methodological framework for research on second language writer identity, focusing on those identities the writer seeks beyond the learning context. The proposed framework is intended to provide new research directions for identity scholars, as well as strategies for teachers and administrators to increase student investment. 19
Symposium on Second Language Writing 2017 C.7.2 Friday, June 30, 16:35–16:55, Room 7 (4th Floor) Instructor Perceptions of Required Textbooks' Effectiveness in Writing Courses for L2 Writers (Roundtable) Paige Walker This discussion concerns a survey into whether L2 writing textbooks are effective resources in their presentation of content, if they help reach course outcomes, why instructors perceive supplementary materials as necessary, and who provides the most referenced input in L2 writing textbook adoption. C.7.3 Friday, June 30, 16:55–17:15, Room 7 (4th Floor) Helping Learners Take Control of Their Own Writing (Roundtable) Jing Huang, Yan Mei Song and Chunbo Zhang This discussion intends to explore how to design an EFL writing course and manage to activate students' autonomy in and out of the classroom. C.7.4 Friday, June 30, 17:15–17:35, Room 7 (4th Floor) Meaning making through Negotiating Language Differences in Second Language Writing (Roundtable) Gul Nahar This qualitative case study, through semi-structured interviews, intends to explore how monolingual and multilingual instructors perceive the content and form of their multilingual students' writing. Moreover, the intent of this study is also to gain the perception of international multilingual writers of the content and form of their own writing. Friday, June 30, 17:35–18:00, Room 6 (4th Floor) Reflections Paul Kei Matsuda Friday, June 30, 18:00–20:00, Building 2 Meeting Room (3rd Floor) Opening Reception
20
Day 2, Saturday, July 1
Day 2, Saturday, July 1 Saturday, July 1, 8:45–9:45, Lecture Hall (101) A new apologia for the timed impromptu writing test (Plenary) Sara Cushing In 1995, Edward White wrote that the timed impromptu writing test was "under attack from all sides as formulaic, unresponsive to the nature of writing, and destructive to the curriculum" (p. 30). Despite numerous critiques of timed impromptu writing, this form of writing assessment is still frequent in classroom and large-scale assessment alike. In this talk I will discuss the history of the timed impromptu essay from the perspectives of composition teaching and second language assessment, placing second language writing assessment at the intersection of these two disciplines. Important considerations in deciding whether and when writing should be assessed through a timed impromptu test include considerations of reliability, validity, practicality, and impact (i.e., consequences to students, teachers, and other stakeholders), and, most importantly, test purpose. Following Manchon's (2011) distinction of learning-to-write and writing-to-learn language, I distinguish between assessing writing and assessing language through writing, focusing in particular on the implications of this distinction for justifying the use of timed impromptu writing vis-à-vis its alternatives for four main test purposes: proficiency, placement, achievement, and diagnosis. I also discuss the implications of the distinction between assessing writing and assessing language through writing for task design and scoring methods, including the computer scoring of writing. Saturday, July 1, 9:45–10:15, 101 Lobby Coffee Break D.1 Saturday, July 1, 10:15–11:45, Lecture Hall (101) A Review and Analysis of L2 Writing Scholarship as Represented in the Journal of Second Language Writing (JSLW) (Colloquium) Mehdi Riazi, Ling Shi, John Haggerty and Icy Lee In this colloquium, three presenters will report on a comprehensive review and analysis of the empirical articles published in the Journal of Second Language Writing from 1992-2015. The presenters report on the analysis of the contexts of the empirical studies, their theoretical orientation and research focus, and their methodological approaches. D.2.1 Saturday, July 1, 10:15–10:45, Room 2 (4th Floor) What causes scoring discrepancies between trained raters? Comparing rating mechanisms in L1 Japanese and L2 English composition assessment (Paper) Miyuki Sasaki This study investigates what factors influenced unexpected discrepancies in the ratings by two trained raters of L1 and L2 compositions written by the same university students. Results show that such discrepancies occur despite rigorous norming and may be explained by several factors, including the raters' professional beliefs and educational background. D.2.2 Saturday, July 1, 10:45–11:15, Room 2 (4th Floor) Rater Variability in Assessing Japanese EFL Essays (Paper) Masumi Narita and Rie Koizumi This study employed multifaceted Rasch measurement to explore rater variability in assessments of Japanese EFL essays. Results showed that ratings mostly matched Rasch model predictions and that raters were self-consistent despite varying degrees of severity. Rater questionnaire responses also showed variation in perceptions of rating categories.
21
Symposium on Second Language Writing 2017 D.2.3 Saturday, July 1, 11:15–11:45, Room 2 (4th Floor) How Peers' Commenting Skills Improve: Perspectives from Peer Reviewers (Paper) Hui-Tzu Min This paper reports student reviewers' perceptions about what helped enhance their peer reviewing skills. Preliminary results show that both experienced and less experienced peer reviewers considered explicit instructional interventions helpful. But more peer reviewers deemed reading others' comments helpful while fewer mentioned reading the instructor's comments helpful. D.3.1 Saturday, July 1, 10:15–10:45, Room 3 (4th Floor) Teachers' and Students' Beliefs about Effective English Writing Instruction in a Chinese University (Paper) Fengjuan Zhang and Ju Zhan This study presents a comparative analysis of teachers' and students' beliefs about effective English writing instruction in a Chinese university. It examines the matches and mismatches in teachers' and students' beliefs about effective writing instruction as well as various factors that may influence the relationship between teachers' and students' beliefs. D.3.2 Saturday, July 1, 10:45–11:15, Room 3 (4th Floor) Professors' Attitudes Towards L2 Writing Resources (Paper) Youmie Kim and Matthew Hammill This presentation describes the results of a qualitative study investigating attitudes stakeholders of L2 writing (e.g., composition instructors, discipline-specific professors, and L2 writers) had toward various resources (e.g., Google Translate, writing center, peer editors) used to facilitate writing practices. The presenter discusses potential factors influencing stakeholders' attitudes and pedagogical implications. D.3.3 Saturday, July 1, 11:15–11:45, Room 3 (4th Floor) The "Rhetoric" of Contrastive Rhetoric: A Corpus-Enabled Study (Paper) Jay Jordan This presentation traces “rhetoric” through roughly forty-two years of scholarship in L2 writing, employing corpus-enabled analysis to provide an overview of rhetoric’s circulation in the field. While uses of “rhetoric” reflect changes in the field’s emphases since the advent of CR, L2 writing literature has consistetly employed the term to name a collection of pedagogically realizable targets. D.4.1 Saturday, July 1, 10:15–10:45, Room 4 (4th Floor) WCF from an ecological perspective: The interaction between contextual factors and learner factors (Paper) Ye Han and Yingying Li Informed by the ecological perspective on language learning, the naturalistic multiple-case study explored the dynamic interaction between contextual factors and learner factors that mediate Chinese EFL college students' engagement with written corrective feedback. Findings suggest that the fit between contextual affordances and learner agency is central to learner engagement. D.4.2 Saturday, July 1, 10:45–11:15, Room 4 (4th Floor) Investigating the differential effects of direct and coded written corrective feedback: A sociocognitive perspective (Paper) Yingying Li and Ye Han The mixed-method study, taking a socio-cognitive perspective, investigated the differential effects of direct and coded WCF. It focused on students' cognitive processing and utilization of WCF in a Chinese EFL context and explored the individual and contextual factors that influenced students' reactions to WCF and decisions when making revision.
22
Day 2, Saturday, July 1 D.5.1 Saturday, July 1, 10:15–10:45, Room 5 (4th Floor) The Effect of the Genre Awareness Approach on Development of Writing Ability (Paper) Chayata Viriya and Punchalee Wasanasomsithi The study examines the effectiveness of the genre awareness approach, a new writing instruction approach adapted from the genre-based approach, on the development of EFL undergraduate students' writing ability. Based on the findings, students' writing ability was developed with positive attitudes. Recommendations for teaching practices and further research are discussed. D.5.2 Saturday, July 1, 10:45–11:15, Room 5 (4th Floor) A genre analysis of position papers from Model United Nations: Move patterns and stance markers (Paper) Xiao Tan The present study examines 75 position papers from the 2017 Model United Nations activity in terms of move structures and use of stances.The study not only looks into the relatively unexplore genre, but also provides useful pedagogical implications. D.5.3 Saturday, July 1, 11:15–11:45, Room 5 (4th Floor) Stance in a second language first-year composition course: genre, process, and writers (Paper) Ji-Young Shin This study investigates stance in a corpus of first-year L2 writing and analyzes the distribution by different genres, writing process, and writers' profiles. The preliminary results show students' dominant use of modals and strong positive correlations between their stance use and general writing proficiency and first language. D.6.1 Saturday, July 1, 10:15–10:45, Room 6 (4th Floor) Reviewers' L1 use in L2 computer-mediated peer review (Paper) Carrie Yea-Huey Chang This exploratory study aims examine EFL Taiwanese students' perception and performance of the communicative language (L1 vs. L2) in computer-mediated peer review. D.6.2 Saturday, July 1, 10:45–11:15, Room 6 (4th Floor) Computer-assisted Peer Review and Multilingual Students' Critical Literacy in ESL Writing Class (Paper) Xin Chen The motivation of students' implementation of peer-review skills is under researched in ESL writing classes. This study uses the online instructional tool (Canvas) to compare the outcome of students' anonymous computer-assisted and face-to-face peer review thus investigating what make multilingual students more accountable for peer review activities in class. D.6.3 Saturday, July 1, 11:15–11:45, Room 6 (4th Floor) Developing Student Writing through Technology-enhanced Peer Feedback (Paper) Nutchayaporn Jaritngarm and Tanyaporn Arya Technology has been recently incorporated into writing instruction. Student-to-student interaction in computer-mediated learning environment is a vital part of peer response activity. This presentation aims to share ideas on how to implement a collaboration online platform to enhance the effectiveness of peer feedback.
23
Symposium on Second Language Writing 2017 D.7.1 Saturday, July 1, 10:15–10:45, Room 7 (4th Floor) Deconstruction of Summary Writing: An Exploration of the Relationship Between L2 Reading and Writing (Paper) Timothy Groombridge and Jingjing Qin This study examines the quality of summaries by 54 Arabic-speaking university students in conjunction with Think Aloud Interviews conducted immediately afterwards. Their reading, writing, and proficiency were ascertained using the IELTS examination. Correlational analyses were conducted between the quality of summary writing, and their reading, writing, and proficiency levels respectively. D.7.2 Saturday, July 1, 10:45–11:15, Room 7 (4th Floor) Assessing source-based writing in English for Academic Purpose Classroom: What are L2 writing teachers missing? How to assess the domain of reading-writing connections? (Paper) Heon Jeon Influenced by the framework of "assessment for learning" (Assessment Reform Group, 2002), this study explored the use of transfer journals as a pedagogical tool for assessing the domain of readingwriting connections in graduate-level source-based writing course. D.7.3 Saturday, July 1, 11:15–11:45, Room 7 (4th Floor) Essay Type and Source Incorporation by ESL Undergraduate Writers (Paper) Jun Zhao This study compares how first-year undergraduate ESL writers incorporate external sources in their analysis and argumentative essays. Findings indicate more effective use of source texts in the analysis but not in the argumentative essay. Pedagogical suggestions are provided to embed close reading activities to help ESL writers better integrate sources. D.8.1 Saturday, July 1, 10:15–10:45, Room 8 (4th Floor) Referrals, Language Proficiency, and Academic Performance of L2 Writers in Writing Tutorials (Paper) Cristine McMartin-Miller and Whitney Wotkyns To whom are writing tutorials recommended? Which students actually go? This presentation will compare the results of a questionnaire of faculty, advisors, and staff with the English language proficiency and academic performance of second language writers who voluntarily visit a tutoring center for international students at an American research university. D.8.2 Saturday, July 1, 10:45–11:15, Room 8 (4th Floor) Error Feedback and L2 Writing: Case Studies at the Writing Center (Paper) Phuong Tran This study examines how different types of feedback in Writing Center tutorials – Error Correction, Noticing, and Consciousness-raising - affected the revision of grammatical errors in ESL writing. Results showed that Noticing and Consciousness-raising were more effective for ESL seniors than for ESL freshmen while Error Correction led to the most revision in both groups. D.8.3 Saturday, July 1, 11:15–11:45, Room 8 (4th Floor) Use of Lexical Chunks by EFL Learners on a Writing Test (Paper) Chia-Hui Chiu This study examines lexical chunks used by 150 EFL learners on a standardized writing test. Lexical chunks were categorized into polywords, collocations, institutionalized expressions, phrasal constraints, and sentence builders. The results show that the proportions of collocations and sentence builders increased significantly from low to high scoring groups of writers.
24
Day 2, Saturday, July 1 Saturday, July 1, 11:45–12:30, 401 Lobby Lunch Saturday, July 1, 11:45–12:30, Room 8 (4th Floor) Assessing Writing Editorial Board Meeting (Closed Meeting) This meeting is for Assessing Writing Editorial Board members only. E.2.1 Saturday, July 1, 12:30–13:00, Room 2 (4th Floor) The Impact of Rater Experience and Essay Quality on Rater Behavior and Scoring (Paper) Özgür Şahan and Salim Razı This study investigates the impact of rater experience and essay quality on the variability of essay scores. Furthermore, think-aloud protocols are used to determine the decision-making behaviors displayed by the raters. The findings suggest a strategy-based rater training model based on raters who display the highest degree of inter-rater reliability. E.2.2 Saturday, July 1, 13:00–13:30, Room 2 (4th Floor) Using Profession-Specific Criteria to Inform Rating Scale Development on a Specific Purpose Writing Test: A Way Forward for Test Developers? (Paper) Ute Knoch, Cathie Elder, Robyn Woodward-Kron, Eleanor Flynn, Elizabeth Manias and Annemiek Huisman The paper describes the process of developing a professionally-relevant rating scale for a LSP writing assessment for health professionals. The process of converting the insights of health professionals into descriptors are described and some of the challenges encountered by the project team and their implications for LSP assessments are discussed. E.2.3 Saturday, July 1, 13:30–14:00, Room 2 (4th Floor) Assessing Writing: Realities of Weight Allocation in Teacher-made Tests (Paper) Radhika De Silva This study investigated the weighting given for writing in a sample of teacher-made tests by Sri Lankan school teachers and attempted to discover the reasons behind teachers' decisions for allocating the given weighting .The content of sixty teacher-made test papers were analyzed and a sub-sample of setters were interviewed. The findings revealed factors affecting teachers' decisions on weight allocation for writing. E.3.1 Saturday, July 1, 12:30–13:00, Room 3 (4th Floor) Teaching Writing Through Partner Talk: Its Effects on the Writing Proficiency (Paper) Lloyd Anton Von Colita This study sought to provide empirical evidence on the effect of partner talk on the writing proficiency of students of University of Southern Mindanao. The result revealed that the posttest scores of the experimental group registered a significant increase on the writing proficiency of the students. E.3.2 Saturday, July 1, 13:00–13:30, Room 3 (4th Floor) Understanding university students' peer assessment practices in EFL writing (Paper) Shulin Yu This study examines two Chinese EFL university students' peer assessment practices and the factors influencing their assessment practices. The findings show that the students took markedly different approaches when assessing their peers' writing, and their peer assessment practices were situated in their own distinct sociocultural context.
25
Symposium on Second Language Writing 2017 E.3.3 Saturday, July 1, 13:30–14:00, Room 3 (4th Floor) Integrating peer and self-review skills in the assessment of writing (Paper) Salim Razi and Özgür Şahan This study suggests a procedure to be followed in the assessment of process writing in line with the anonymous multi-mediated writing model where students provide peer and self-feedback. The assessment formula recommends that teachers distribute the weight of the final score according to the learners' workload. E.4.1 Saturday, July 1, 12:30–13:00, Room 4 (4th Floor) "A Corpus-based Study on the Use of Demonstratives: A Focus on this in ESL Academic Writing" (Paper) Haeyun Jin Using a corpus of student essays from the ESL English Placement Test, this study examines how the choice of demonstrative this in academic writing differs across the placement level. The finding that students display meaningfully divergent patterns across level provides important implications for teaching and testing ESL academic writing. E.4.2 Saturday, July 1, 13:00–13:30, Room 4 (4th Floor) The Construction of Authorial Voice in Writing Research Articles: A Corpus-Based Study from an APPRAISAL Theory Perspective (Paper) Weiyu Zhang and Yin Ling Cheung The study investigates how expert writers deploy ATTITUDE and GRADUATION resources to express a novel viewpoint in reviewing literature and argue for the relevance and value of their own research. It has advanced knowledge about voice construction by providing a reference for writers who wish to publish in SSCI journals. E.4.3 Saturday, July 1, 13:30–14:00, Room 4 (4th Floor) Grammatical Proficiency in Second Language: Intuition, Production, and Error Correction (Paper) Muhammad Qureshi This study pilots two instruments: (a) a coding scheme for assessing morphosyntactic proficiency in L2 writing and (b) an editing task containing morphosyntactic errors to be corrected by L2 learners. Both instruments yielded acceptable reliability scores and may, therefore, be used to assess the construct of morphosyntactic proficiency. E.5.1 Saturday, July 1, 12:30–13:00, Room 5 (4th Floor) Assessing Metalinguistic Reflection: A Case Study of a Science Communication Module in Singapore (Paper) Jonathan Kum Khuan Tang and Sirinut Sawatdeenarunat This paper investigates the development and use of a reflective commentary assignment to assess undergraduates' metalinguistic reflection in a popular science writing course. Anchored in sociocognitive and assessment-for-learning perspectives of writing and writing instruction, the study yields findings that have implications for teaching reflection literacy to undergraduate L2 writers. E.5.2 Saturday, July 1, 13:00–13:30, Room 5 (4th Floor) Writing like an engineer: Assessing specificity in university writing over time (Paper) Wing-Shan Ivy Chan This study reports a cross-sectional investigation of academic writing practices over time from engineering students in Hong Kong to decode both the linguistic and disciplinary practices of attributions in engineering over time. This may advance our understandings of how students write like an engineer.
26
Day 2, Saturday, July 1 E.6 Saturday, July 1, 12:30–14:00, Room 6 (4th Floor) The Politics of English Second Language Writing Assessment Around the World (Colloquium) Estela Ene, Katarzyna Hryniuk, Mira Bekar, Hadi Banat, Fahimeh Marefat, Mojtaba Heydari, Todd Ruecker, Betsy Gilliland, Katterine Pavez Bravo, Andrea Muñoz Galleguillos and Mark Chapman Reporting on work based in 10 different countries, the presenters in this colloquium consider the way political considerations shape assessment in a variety of contexts while offering ways to develop welldesigned, context-driven assessments for improving the teaching and assessment of L2 writing around the world. E.7.1 Saturday, July 1, 12:30–13:00, Room 7 (4th Floor) The Implementation of Assessment for Learning of EFL Students' Multimodal Composing Projects (Paper) Ming-I Lydia Tseng This presentation reports an in-depth qualitative study which aims to investigate how multimodal assessment for learning (AFL) is implemented in EFL university-level writing classrooms in Taiwan, and possible factors which might enhance or inhibit Taiwanese EFL students' learning of writing, specifically students' motivation, products, and processes of multimodal composing. E.7.2 Saturday, July 1, 13:00–13:30, Room 7 (4th Floor) Tracing the Contours of Literacy Learning in Transnational Contexts (Paper) Xiqiao Wang This longitudinal study takes a connective ethnographic approach to explore two international Chinese student's literacy learning across formal, informal and digital spaces, revealing important ways that writing classrooms fail to leverage students' rich multilingual, transnational expertise. E.7.3 Saturday, July 1, 13:30–14:00, Room 7 (4th Floor) Disclosing the Challenges in Assessing ESL/EFL Writing at Tertiary Levels: An Investigation in Asian Context (Paper) Kieu Van Le Thi, Hanh Nguyen Ly and Quoc Tung Nguyen The study discusses the deficiencies of Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) and its asymmetry with learning L2 writing in Vietnam. By employing a mixed method of quantitative and qualitative approaches, it seeks to gain an insight of how L2 learners make sense of their learning and how CEFR becomes their impediment rather than motivations. E.8.1 Saturday, July 1, 12:30–13:00, Room 8 (4th Floor) L2 Learners' Engagement with Re(source)-Rich Feedback Context Through the Lens of Activity Theory (Paper) Omid Mehrabi-Yazdi This paper adopted socio-cultural theory of the mind (Activity Theory G2) to help explain the interplay of individual and contextual factors and their influence on L2 learners' behavioural and cognitive engagement with the type and focus of formative feedback from various (re)-sources to fulfil the object of the revision activity. E.8.2 Saturday, July 1, 13:00–13:30, Room 8 (4th Floor) Interaction between EFL Learner's L2 Writing Motivation and Engagement with Teacher Written Feedback (Paper) Han-Chung Wang and Hui-Tzu Min This multi-case study aims to explore the interaction between three EFL learner's L2 writing motivation and their engagement with teacher written feedback in a college writing class in Taiwan within a writing task. The results show how different L2 writing motivation shapes one's cognitive, meta-cognitive, and affective engagement with feedback. 27
Symposium on Second Language Writing 2017 E.8.3 Saturday, July 1, 13:30–14:00, Room 8 (4th Floor) An Exploratory Investigation into the Metacognitive Knowledge and Metacognitive Strategies of University EFL Writers in China (Paper) Yuehai Xiao and Fang Qi This study examined 167 Chinese students' metacognitive knowledge about EFL expository writing and their metacognitive strategies. It was found that the higher-level writers were significantly more aware of the person, task, and strategy variables in writing and used a higher degree of metacognitive strategies, particularly planning and self-evaluating. Saturday, July 1, 14:00–14:15, Break F.2.1 Saturday, July 1, 14:15–14:45, Room 2 (4th Floor) Elements beyond Prompts and Rubrics in Assessing L2 Writing Quality: The Case of Verbal Working Memory (Paper) Mansoor Al-Surmi Prompts and rubrics are part of many L2 writing standardized assessment, which is deemed unfair by many as such assessment may not cater for individual differences such as verbal working memory. Does verbal working memory really matter in L2 writing assessment? Join the discussion. F.2.2 Saturday, July 1, 14:45–15:15, Room 2 (4th Floor) Developing and validating an assessment rubric for science article writing (Paper) Brenda Yuen and Sirinut Sawatdeenarunat This paper presents the development of an analytic assessment rubric for assessing students' performance on science article writing for an undergraduate science communication course and illustrates its validation based on the quantitative analysis of rating scores using the Many-facet Rasch Model and qualitative analysis of raters' comments. F.2.3 Saturday, July 1, 15:15–15:45, Room 2 (4th Floor) Development and Analysis of a Writing Rubric for an IEP (Paper) Kristin Rock The presenter will describe a study applying FACETS analysis and G theory to improve an IEP's writing placement exam, the reliability of which is of interest to relevant stakeholders. Suggestions will also be provided for how to utilize placement test scores to inform instruction in academic writing. F.3.1 Saturday, July 1, 14:15–14:45, Room 3 (4th Floor) The Impact of the Essay Writing Instruction at the Different Stages of the Writing Process on Japanese L2 Argumentative Essay (Paper) Zeinab Shekarabi In this study, the effect of essay writing instruction at the pre-writing and writing stages of the writing process on the quality of JSL argumentative essays will be considered. Result concerning the impact of the instruction of writing focused on the different stages of the writing process will be discussed. F.3.2 Saturday, July 1, 14:45–15:15, Room 3 (4th Floor) The effect of assessment of process on improvement in process and written product (Paper) Rachael Ruegg This presentation reports on two studies, focused on assessment of process in the context of both teacher feedback and peer feedback. The results of both studies show that assessment of feedback given by students is pedagogically effective, whereas assessment of improvement between drafts may give more negative effects than positive.
28
Day 2, Saturday, July 1 F.3.3 Saturday, July 1, 15:15–15:45, Room 3 (4th Floor) Developing a powerful model of the teaching writing process along with an 'assessment-forlearning' instrument for evaluating students' writing abilities (Paper) Nattawut Nakkaew Effective teaching methods and assessments for learning are core requirement to develop students' writing skills. This study aims to propose a practical model for teaching the writing process and develop rubrics for assessing students' both final outputs and the writing process itself. Methodological concerns and pedagogical implications will be shared. F.4.1 Saturday, July 1, 14:15–14:45, Room 4 (4th Floor) What's the matter? Evaluating L1 and L2 argumentative writings based on the same standards (Paper) Jungyeon Koo and Hyejeong Nam This study aims at comparing and discussing the differences in assessing L1-L2 writings based on the same standards of rubrics. F.4.2 Saturday, July 1, 14:45–15:15, Room 4 (4th Floor) On the Logical Integrity of Chinese EFL Learners' Written Arguments (Paper) Xiaoyan Xia, Ying Yue and Xiaojing Wang Having resorted to the Toulmin's argument pattern (2003) and the argument analysis approach developed by Schwarz, Neuman, Gil, and Ilya (2003), the authors proposed an analytical framework for analyzing the general features and salient problems in Chinese EFL learners' written arguments. F.4.3 Saturday, July 1, 15:15–15:45, Room 4 (4th Floor) Predictive associations between text features and L2 writing quality: Application of Random Forests (Paper) Ngan Vu The purpose of the study was to investigate predictive relationships between written discourse features and writing quality judgments in an English Writing Placement Test at a Midwest university in the U.S. This study can provide implications for research by expanding a statistical framework like Random Forests for essay quality analysis. F.5.1 Saturday, July 1, 14:15–14:45, Room 5 (4th Floor) Developing L2 (English) Writing Tasks: Building a Bridge to Business Writing (Paper) Yukiko Kuru, Hiroyuki Yamanishi, Kayoko Kinshi, Junko Otoshi and Michiko Masaki This presentation explores the development of L2 (English) writing tasks teaching Japanese college students to write for business purposes. The empirical data were collected on the context and condition of writing in the workplace as well as on the strategies and tools used there. Sample tasks are introduced. F.6.1 Saturday, July 1, 14:15–14:45, Room 6 (4th Floor) Breaking Her Mother's Spell: Life writing as a practice to gain confidence and autonomy (Paper) Mika Toff This presentation considers a case study of a young writer in a Life Writing seminar, who overcame her shyness by gaining confidence in her ability to express herself. This presentation will discuss the self-transformative effects of her writing project, using examples from her work, "Breaking My Mother's Spell."
29
Symposium on Second Language Writing 2017 F.6.2 Saturday, July 1, 14:45–15:15, Room 6 (4th Floor) Comparison Between Intra- and Inter-Sentential Code-Switching from L1 Japanese to L2 English in Diary Entries (Paper) Nobuhiro Kamiya This study examined the choice and development of L2 vocabulary in a diary written by a Japanese high school student while studying abroad in the U.S. for a year, which showed two types of codeswitching: intra-sentential (within a sentence) and inter-sentential (across sentences), from his L1 (Japanese) to L2 (English). F.6.3 Saturday, July 1, 15:15–15:45, Room 6 (4th Floor) Assessing second language poetry writing: Issues and challenges of designing rubrics (Paper) Atsushi Iida Poetry writing is viewed as an effective L2 literacy practice, but very little research has discussed how poetry written by L2 learners can be assessed. This presentation addresses this issue by exploring some issues and challenges of designing rubrics for assessing L2 poetry writing. F.7.1 Saturday, July 1, 14:15–14:45, Room 7 (4th Floor) The effects of Thai phonology on writing journals in Spanish (Paper) Daniel Izquierdo The Analysis of errors made by Thai students when learning Spanish can improve our understanding of their Errors in a sencond language. Compared to English Spanish grammar depends much on morphology and morphology, which is about discrimination of small parts of words. Therefore we can predict that Spanish language can show a different extent in which the mastery on listening can affect other skills. In this paper we look for stronger evidence of this correlation than those found when Thais learn English. F.7.2 Saturday, July 1, 14:45–15:15, Room 7 (4th Floor) Assessing Language Writing of Bhutanese and Thai BBA Learners (Paper) Annabel Bhamani Kajornboon This research is to assess writing in learners of various ability. It was conducted with first year learners at RMUTP. This study was based on the process of writing. Learner's errors were analyzed and categorized, that included spelling mistakes, misuse of tenses, articles, and vocabulary. This study will contribute to future research on similar topics. F.8.1 Saturday, July 1, 14:15–14:45, Room 8 (4th Floor) CDA as an Analytical Tool in EFL Writing Textbook Analysis: A Methodological Inquiry (Paper) Kiatipong Rerkwanchai and Savitri Gadavanij Given the scarcity of concrete tools in critical L2 writing research to analyze written texts, this presentation aims to propose the use of critical discourse analysis (CDA) as a viable framework to explore and critique ideologies prevalent in EFL writing textbooks. Both theoretical framework and its application will be discussed. F.8.2 Saturday, July 1, 14:45–15:15, Room 8 (4th Floor) A comparative study of lexical bundles in quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research articles (Paper) Feng Cao This paper reports a corpus-driven study of four-word lexical bundles in 180 quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research papers. The findings showed much variation in the distribution and form of these multiword patterns in the three paradigms. These differences can be explained by the paradigm-specific assumptions and knowledge-making practices.
30
Day 2, Saturday, July 1 Saturday, July 1, 15:45–16:15, 401 Lobby Refreshments G.2.1 Saturday, July 1, 16:15–16:35, Room 2 (4th Floor) The Impact of the Integrated Machine and Human Feedback on Students' Writing Performance and Perception: A Case Study (Roundtable) Wenlin Ye and Jing Huang This study explores how to integrate machine and human (teacher, peer and self) feedback and its impact on students' writing performance and perception. Through triangulation of data collection, 5 students' writing texts, reflective journals and interviews are analyzed. G.2.2 Saturday, July 1, 16:35–16:55, Room 2 (4th Floor) Man, Not Machine: Assessing values in Taiwanese and Chinese mainland students' L2 compositions (Roundtable) Renshuang Song, Meng Moeko Chen, Fredrick Henley and Hannah Smith This study attempts to explore learner value in L2 writing by comparing the difference in rhetoric between Chinese students' essays and the work of their Taiwan peers. The role of learner value is unique in Chinese contexts for assessment and pedagogy of L2 writing. G.2.3 Saturday, July 1, 16:55–17:15, Room 2 (4th Floor) Building a learners Corpus (Roundtable) Richard Davis, Chan-Chia Hsu and Yu-Chi Wang At Feng Chia University (Taichung, Taiwan), we are undertaking the task of developing a developmental learner's corpus of all incoming freshmen writing in English. The corpus will allow us to identify and study writing characteristics across the different levels, and to have a better system in place to promote learning. G.3.1 Saturday, July 1, 16:15–16:35, Room 3 (4th Floor) Associations Between Perfectionism and Writing Anxiety Across Gender (Roundtable) Yung-Nan Chiang This presentation reports the preliminary findings of a study examining the associations between perfectionism and writing anxiety across gender in a group of college students learning English as a foreign language. G.3.2 Saturday, July 1, 16:35–16:55, Room 3 (4th Floor) Constructing Two-Way Channels of Feedback: A Case Study on Generating Students' Motivation in L2 Writing (Roundtable) Ying Pi, Xiaomeng Cao and Lihui Shi This paper intends to investigate ways of improving students' motivation in L2 writing through constructing two-way channels of feedback. The case study in Southwest Forestry University shows that giving feedback to feedback offered by students themselves, peers, and teachers will greatly generate students' motivation of doing better jobs in writing tasks. G.3.3 Saturday, July 1, 16:55–17:15, Room 3 (4th Floor) Contextualizing the principles of genre-based approach, dynamic corrective feedback, student's identity, and e-portfolio in English writing course (Roundtable) Gatot Prasetyo This proposal presents a 14-week lesson plan for Genre-based Writing course in an English education program in Indonesia. Inserting students' identity and using web-blogs as the formative assessment are among strategies in this course. Peer and teacher feedback using the dynamic corrective feedback principles will also be incorporated. 31
Symposium on Second Language Writing 2017 G.3.4 Saturday, July 1, 17:15–17:35, Room 3 (4th Floor) A Comparative Analysis of Textbooks (Korean and English Norm Contexts) for Undergraduate Writing Courses (Roundtable) Dongkeun Han This study seeks to identify the salient rhetorical conventions currently preferred by the Korean academic community as well as how different they are from those expected from the contemporary English academic community. Two sets of written materials used for undergraduate writing courses at Korean and North American universities were compared. G.4.1 Saturday, July 1, 16:15–16:35, Room 4 (4th Floor) Assessing Upper Division Writing Proficiency Exam: Should there be a Native/Nonnative Divide? (Roundtable) Santosh Khadka Should we separate native and nonnative student exams while scoring the exit writing test? Should we have a separate assessment criteria for evaluating nonnative student exams? Should we have a different set of readers? This presentation addresses some of these questions drawing on experience and the relevant published scholarship. G.4.2 Saturday, July 1, 16:35–16:55, Room 4 (4th Floor) Technology-facilitated Integrated Teacher and Student Feedback on Students' Writing Practice (Roundtable) Xiaodong Hao This paper intends to explore how to implement the integrated teaching and assessment framework to design course and manage classroom in and out to activate students' autonomy. The presenter also will talk about how student voice is heard in the course and the function of criteria in the course management. G.4.3 Saturday, July 1, 16:55–17:15, Room 4 (4th Floor) Investigating use of engagement metadiscourse markers in Asian Englishes (Roundtable) Tara McIlroy This paper reports on an investigation of Asian Englishes in the International Corpus Network of Asian Learners of English (ICNALE), reporting on differences between rhetorical preferences in their writing. The method of analysis was POS tagging and semantic category analysis, revealing differences between types of positioning and learner language background. G.5.1 Saturday, July 1, 16:15–16:35, Room 5 (4th Floor) Reexamining Authorial Voice from the Perspective of Dynamic Systems Theory (Roundtable) Gary Fogal The roundtable will address issues—for example, construct validity and rater training—related to an ongoing project aimed at conceptualizing and consolidating preexisting and complementary concepts of authorial voice. Discussion central to understanding voice as, among others, a single complex and dynamic construct will be invited. G.5.2 Saturday, July 1, 16:35–16:55, Room 5 (4th Floor) Embracing Voice in EFL College Writing Instruction (Roundtable) Kewalin Pawabunsiriwong and Saneh Thongrin This study provides guidance and an analytic voice rubric specifically designed for EFL undergraduate students. In the session, we discuss possible way that voice can be integrated in writing instruction, focusing on the elements needed on a rubric used in instruction to encourage students' creativity and voice in writing.
32
Day 2, Saturday, July 1 G.5.3 Saturday, July 1, 16:55–17:15, Room 5 (4th Floor) A Discourse Analytic Approach to Identity and Community in Language Learning (Roundtable) Matthew Hammill and Youmie Kim This presentation is a discourse-based study of EAP students' challenges in becoming part of various communities, both academic and non-academic. The presenters will discuss the limitations of the construct "community", while focusing on the role of imagination, emotion, and identity in language learning. G.5.4 Saturday, July 1, 17:15–17:35, Room 5 (4th Floor) A Comparative Study of the Thematic Structure of Topic Sentences in Expository Writing between Chinese English Learners and Professional English Speakers (Roundtable) David Wang A comparative study of the thematic structure of topic sentences in expository writing between professional native English speakers and Chinese English learners indicates different choice of the themes of topic sentences between professional English speakers and English learners, and reveals different strategies of organizing the text between professional English speakers and Chinese English learners. G.6.1 Saturday, July 1, 16:15–16:35, Room 6 (4th Floor) What Difference Does It Make?: Prompt Text Type and L2 Written Response (Roundtable) Paul Hullah Three research questions will be addressed in this paper: 1) Do literary texts elicit more superior performance than non-literary texts?; 2) Is this superiority reflected in scores awarded on currently used rating scales?; 3) Does familiarity with literary texts lead to superior performance when such a text is employed as a prompt? G.6.2 Saturday, July 1, 16:35–16:55, Room 6 (4th Floor) The Effect of Teaching Experience on Rater's Rating of Handwritten Essays (Roundtable) Marione Anne Foo The study investigates the effect of ESL teaching experience on rating of hand-written overall scores and scores by criteria. The findings also point to the need for rater training to be included as a crucial part of assessment procedure in educational institutions. G.6.3 Saturday, July 1, 16:55–17:15, Room 6 (4th Floor) Effects of Background Information on Students' Written Performance (Roundtable) Aran Choi and Pamela Stacey This roundtable examines the role that background information, given in either the L1 or L2, plays in students' performance on a writing prompt, with implications for the design of future L2 writing assessments. G.6.4 Saturday, July 1, 17:15–17:35, Room 6 (4th Floor) Using the Rhetorical Situation to Foreground Assumptions and Recast Standardized Tests in Terms of Critical Literacy (Roundtable) Pearl Pang Standardized tests perpetuate the belief that language use is reified. Examining, analyzing, and interpreting standardized test reading passages in terms of the rhetorical situation (exigence, context, rhetor, and audience) not only allows students to question dominant narratives of language fluency but empower them to redefine their relationship with English.
33
Symposium on Second Language Writing 2017 G.7.1 Saturday, July 1, 16:15–16:35, Room 7 (4th Floor) Academic Word Lists: A Synthesis (Roundtable) Nosheen Malik and Muhammad Qureshi Academic vocabulary is considered as the basic component of writing ability and a good command on it represents advanced proficiency. Teachers have always been on the hunt for a core vocabulary list to help their students. This paper provides a synthesis of the major academic vocabulary lists for L2 learners. G.7.2 Saturday, July 1, 16:35–16:55, Room 7 (4th Floor) Teaching Syntactic Complexity in English writing to Chinese ESL Students (Roundtable) Xin Chen Writing instructors in American universities and colleges are finding more and more Chinese students in their classes. A good understanding of those student's syntactic features of English writing with a responsive pedagogy to avoid the negative transfer of their L1 writing will help Chinese ESL learners achieve CALP more efficiently. G.7.3 Saturday, July 1, 16:55–17:15, Room 7 (4th Floor) Understanding teachers' agency in using rubrics as a mediational means in teaching and assessing EFL college writing (Roundtable) Peisha Wu This study looks into EFL college teachers' agency in using rubrics as a mediational means in teaching of writing and writing assessment. The investigation is focused on the interaction between the rubric as the mediational means and the teacher as the mediational agent both to enhance learning of college writing. G.7.4 Saturday, July 1, 17:15–17:35, Room 7 (4th Floor) Assessing Coherence in Literature Review (Roundtable) Aimon La-O-Vorakiat and Woravut Jaroongkhongdach Lack of coherence in the literature review is one major problem for many researchers, especially second language speakers, when submitting their draft to a journal. Nonetheless, how coherence in the literature review is assessed seems implicit. This paper then aims to systematically review the existing literature with an attempt to find out an explicit ground for assessing coherence in the literature review. G.8 Saturday, July 1, 16:15–17:15, Room 8 (4th Floor) An Integrated Approach to Assessing Writing (Workshop) Jose Ricardo-Osorio An integrated performance assessment (IPA) approach regards language skills in terms of three interconnected modes of communication: Interpretive, Interpersonal and Presentational. This assessment is based on authentic materials framed within a real-world task. Saturday, July 1, 17:35–18:00, Room 6 (4th Floor) Reflections Paul Kei Matsuda
34
Day 3, Sunday, July 2
Day 3, Sunday, July 2 Sunday, July 2, 8:45–9:45, Lecture Hall (101) Writing assessment: Do we practice what we preach? (Plenary) Deborah Crusan Assessing student writing represents a large share of second language writing teachers' workloads and is considered by some to be one of the most daunting of teacher tasks. Good assessment practices, while not always formally taught to prospective English language teachers, are essential to the teaching of second language writing. Teachers may have received instruction in giving feedback to students, but they also need guidance in assessment involving scoring, grading, and making ethically and pedagogically sound judgments about student work. In short, teachers need to understand the fundamentals of writing assessment – to be cognizant of writing assessment practices. This knowledge of writing assessment has been termed writing assessment literacy and refers to what teachers know, believe, and practice regarding writing assessment. In this plenary session, I will discuss the results of a survey regarding writing assessment literacy that examined the following questions: —How do second language writing teachers obtain assessment knowledge? —What do second language writing teachers believe about writing assessment? —What are the assessment practices of second language writing teachers? (Crusan, Plakans, & Gebril, 2016). In the past, I have consistently argued for the inclusion of assessment training in teacher education courses. This talk focuses on the idea that few teachers are prepared to assess the writing their students do. The results of the study point to the need for better preparation of teachers in MATESOL and ESL certification programs to be effective assessors of writing. I will provide suggestions and strategies for doing so. Sunday, July 2, 9:45–10:15, 101 Lobby Coffee Break H.1 Sunday, July 2, 10:15–11:45, Lecture Hall (101) Developing Abilities to Write from Sources in English at Universities in China (Colloquium) Alister Cumming, Luxin Yang, Ling Shi, Ju Zhan, Fengjuan Zhang, Lian Zhang and Lu Yu This colloquium reports on multiple aspects of a long-term research project that examined the abilities of 103 students at four universities in China to write from sources in English, analyzing differences that appeared (longitudinally and cross-sectionally) between students' abilities in their first and second years of Bachelors' and Masters' programs. H.2.1 Sunday, July 2, 10:15–10:45, Room 2 (4th Floor) How Much and What do Students Write in the Classroom? A Cross-National Survey in East Asia (Paper) Sachiko Yasuda In this project, we conducted a cross-national questionnaire study of EFL learners in four East Asian countries to ascertain their previous writing experiences in the classroom. Results indicated that although the common trends were manifest, there were also differences in the types of writing tasks they experienced in instructional contexts.
35
Symposium on Second Language Writing 2017 H.2.2 Sunday, July 2, 10:45–11:15, Room 2 (4th Floor) Profiling Lexical Diversity in College-Level Writing (Paper) Melanie Gonzalez This presentation reports on a study that examined the contribution of word frequency to lexical diversity in first year composition writing tasks. Findings suggest that mid-frequency vocabulary assists writers to achieve the lexical diversity needed to write more proficiently in academic contexts. Implications for pedagogy and research are discussed. H.2.3 Sunday, July 2, 11:15–11:45, Room 2 (4th Floor) An Examination of the Status Quo of ESL Writing Programs: Configuration, Placement, and Curricula (Paper) Zhaozhe Wang The study examines the current configurations of selected ESL writing programs and provides insights into the means through which second language (L2) writers are placed into composition courses and through which they are instructed to fulfill first-year composition requirements. H.3.1 Sunday, July 2, 10:15–10:45, Room 3 (4th Floor) Writing Conferences Beyond Grammar (Paper) Junko Imai This paper explored how L1 English graduate student tutors helped L2 learners revise tourism papers through writing conferences in an EAP program. Examining various data revealed that, while responding to the learners' request for help on grammar, some tutors skillfully re-directed their attention to contents and negotiated meaning and experiences. H.3.2 Sunday, July 2, 10:45–11:15, Room 3 (4th Floor) Understanding the Roles of Teachers' Gestures and Classrooms' Multimodal Resources in the Socio-Cognitive Approach to Teaching Writing (Paper) Yin Ling Cheung This study investigated how teachers used gesture in cooperation with other multimodal resources to improve the learning outcomes of students in writing classrooms. Our study confirms that teachers' gestures serve an important pedagogical function of drawing students into a desirable participation framework, thereby enhancing their understanding of target learning points. H.3.3 Sunday, July 2, 11:15–11:45, Room 3 (4th Floor) Relating Through Instructing: Creating Solidarity with Students in Writing Conferences (Paper) Elena Shvidko This session discusses how writing conferences can be venues for both delivering feedback and maintaining positive relationships with students. The author uses two video episodes to demonstrate how a composition instructor created moments of solidarity with her student through expressing empathy toward student's writing challenges. H.4.1 Sunday, July 2, 10:15–10:45, Room 4 (4th Floor) Self-regulatory strategies among university EAP writers and their self-assessment of writing proficiency (Paper) Daniel O. Jackson and Siwon Park Based on survey research, we present results concerning university EAP writers' self-regulatory control strategies. The pilot study found significant, positive correlations between two types of strategies and these students' self-assessments of writing proficiency. These results will be discussed alongside plans for further research on EAP writers' self-motivating strategies.
36
Day 3, Sunday, July 2 H.4.2 Sunday, July 2, 10:45–11:15, Room 4 (4th Floor) The relationship between Gender, Self-Assessment of Writing, and Subsequent Writing Performance (Paper) Huan Liu, Cindy Brantmeier and Wei-Chieh Fang With 107 adolescent Chinese learners of English at the beginning level in China, the study revealed a significant interaction effect between gender and self-assessment (SA) of writing on subsequent writing performance. Pedagogically, SA writing can be a tool for language learners to self-identify their strengths and weaknesses in writing. H.4.3 Sunday, July 2, 11:15–11:45, Room 4 (4th Floor) Facilitating Self- and Peer-Assessment: The Use of Moodle Workshop (Paper) Kai-Lin Wu This study explored the use of Moodle Workshop for self- and peer-assessment in an English composition class. It involved 19 Chinese-speaking English majors in three cycles of writing assessments online. The findings showed students' favorable attitudes toward online assessment for it helped them identify their strengths and weaknesses, and improve writing. H.5.1 Sunday, July 2, 10:15–10:45, Room 5 (4th Floor) Language Learning Strategies and Teacher Feedback : Two Shots at Lexical Errors (Paper) Nuwar Mawlawi Diab Students receive instruction in language learning strategies (LLS) and in editing word choice errors in response to teacher corrective feedback (TCF). The frequency of specific word choice errors on students' immediate and delayed post-tests are monitored. Students reflect on the LLS and TCF they used when revising their errors. H.5.2 Sunday, July 2, 10:45–11:15, Room 5 (4th Floor) Assessing Translingual Academic Writing (Paper) Melanie Brinkschulte The presentation discusses how portfolio assessment facilitates reflection on students' translingual academic writing practice. This type of assessment is embedded in a pedagogy of translingual academic writing offered at the University of Goettingen, Germany. A mixed methods study delivers insight into how students are encouraged to activate translingualism for academic writing. H.5.3 Sunday, July 2, 11:15–11:45, Room 5 (4th Floor) Challenging Translingual Writing (Paper) Tony Silva As L2 writing professionals have become increasingly familiar with the notion of translingual writing, it is only natural that we sometimes raise questions that challenge some of its basic assumptions and tenets. This presentation will raise such questions with regard to the nature of language, code alternation, and disciplinary politics. H.6.1 Sunday, July 2, 10:15–10:45, Room 6 (4th Floor) Dynamic Development of L2 Academic Writing: A Longitudinal Study into Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency (Paper) Rosmawati This presentation reports on the longitudinal development of complexity, accuracy and fluency (CAF) in second language (L2) academic writing. Underpinned by the Dynamic Systems Theory (DST), this study scrutinizes the dynamics of L2 academic writing and re-evaluates the contemporary practice of L2 writing assessments in light of these new findings.
37
Symposium on Second Language Writing 2017 H.6.2 Sunday, July 2, 10:45–11:15, Room 6 (4th Floor) Development of Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency Features in Individual vs. Pair Writing Performance of Selected EFL Cases (Paper) Mahboobeh Saadat and Sahar Zahed Alavi This study investigates the development of complexity, accuracy and fluency features in individual vs. pair writing performances of selected EFL cases. In order to do so, two learners are purposively selected from an intact class writing individually, and two pairs of learners from another intact class writing in pairs and their performances are analyzed. H.6.3 Sunday, July 2, 11:15–11:45, Room 6 (4th Floor) Assessing grammatical complexity in second language writing (Paper) Ji-Hyun Park This study investigates whether the complexity measures that have been used in SLA can be indicative of grammatical competence as judged by human raters. The study also investigates how human raters interpret the notion of syntactic complexity that appear on the language use category of an analytic rubric. H.7.1 Sunday, July 2, 10:15–10:45, Room 7 (4th Floor) A Metatext Analysis of the Schematic Structure of Thesis Introductions and Literature Reviews (Paper) Guangsa Jin This presentation reports a content analysis of the metatexts of 30 Master's Theses Introductions and Literature Reviews collected from two New Zealand Universities. The study aims to explore the feasibility of using metatexts to identify rhetorical moves in genre analysis. H.7.2 Sunday, July 2, 10:45–11:15, Room 7 (4th Floor) NNEST Doctoral students' views about Academic English Writing Support (Paper) Donglan Zhang This study aimed to find out whether NNEST doctoral students view DELNA as an effective tool to locate their strengths and weaknesses in academic English writing and how they view the support resulted from the assessment. The participants were ten international doctoral students in a leading university in New Zealand. H.7.3 Sunday, July 2, 11:15–11:45, Room 7 (4th Floor) Negotiating the Methodology Chapter of the Dissertation: An Ethnographic Perspective (Paper) Yushiang Jou, Sarut Supasiraprapa and Peter De Costa In this ethnographic case study, we explored how two L2 doctoral writers developed their genre knowledge of the methodology chapter of their dissertations. Our data illustrated that their writing was influenced by individual choices and their academic community. The study also demystifies the process of writing this crucial dissertation chapter. H.8 Sunday, July 2, 10:15–11:45, Room 8 (4th Floor) Using Peer Review, L1, and a Clarity of Idea in Second Language Writing Assessments (Workshop) Rebecca Maldonado and Maria Muñoz Educators will experience a written peer review process that uses L1 and focuses on the clarity of idea in L2 writing. Clarity of idea looks at what the L2 writer intends to say versus how the reader interprets what has been written.
38
Day 3, Sunday, July 2 Sunday, July 2, 11:45–12:30, 401 Lobby Lunch I.2.1 Sunday, July 2, 12:30–13:00, Room 2 (4th Floor) "A- isn't an Asian F": Using Peer Review to Help L2 Students See Beyond the Test in the L2 Composition Classroom (Paper) Titcha Kedsri Ho With the pressure of having to get an A in a writing class where the assessment process is more nuanced than a math class, using peer review training and student-generated scoring rubrics can help L2 students see beyond the grade, and thereby promote learning. I.2.2 Sunday, July 2, 13:00–13:30, Room 2 (4th Floor) From performance definitions to rating scales: evaluating the second language writing proficiency of K-12 ELLs (Paper) Mark Chapman and Heather Elliott Writing assessments are created in many different educational contexts. The WIDA Consortium uses a systematic and standards-based approach to develop large-scale assessments of second language academic writing proficiency. This presentation will provide an overview of WIDA's approach, from defining the construct to interpreting test scores. I.2.3 Sunday, July 2, 13:30–14:00, Room 2 (4th Floor) Explaining and interpreting writing test scores for students and teachers: what can students do? (Paper) Heather Elliott and Mark Chapman A writing assessment typically results in a score, but what does the score mean? How can it be used in the classroom? This presentation will describe resources developed by the WIDA Consortium to help students and educators interpret writing scores and assist teachers in using test scores to inform instruction. I.3.1 Sunday, July 2, 12:30–13:00, Room 3 (4th Floor) Same Approach, Different Contexts: Insights and Reflections of ESL/EFL Writing Teaching (Paper) Cong Zhang and Junju Wang The authors will present a teaching experiment that they made by introducing the teaching approach used in ESL writing classes in US to EFL students in China. The rationale for, challenges in, and outcomes of this teaching experiment will be discussed; reflections and implications for ESL/EFL teaching will be provided. I.3.2 Sunday, July 2, 13:00–13:30, Room 3 (4th Floor) The Teacher of L2 Writing in the Era of Public Private Partnerships in US Higher Education and Pathway Programs (Paper) Fabiola Ehlers-Zavala This paper is intended to highlight the critical role of the L2 writing teacher and researcher in an era of US public private partnerships and pathway programs both at the undergraduate and graduate levels.
39
Symposium on Second Language Writing 2017 I.3.3 Sunday, July 2, 13:30–14:00, Room 3 (4th Floor) Effects of continuation task condition on grammatical structure acquisition: Take subjunctive mood as an example (Paper) Sheng Xin This study explores L2 learners' acquisition of subjunctive mood under two different conditions of the continuation task (Wang & Wang 2015). The results showed that the ordinary continuation task could not promote the acquisition of subjunctive mood, while under the enhanced edition of continuation task, a significant learning effect was observed. I.4.1 Sunday, July 2, 12:30–13:00, Room 4 (4th Floor) From correction to appropriateness: Formative assessment targeted on discourse features (Paper) Amy Zhenjing Wang This paper presentation will address formative assessment by describing what is in teachers' feedback on discourse, how it is given, what underlying beliefs make teachers provide feedback in the way they do, with a view to provide recommendations/guidelines assisting education trainers or EFL writing teachers who may consider adopting. I.4.2 Sunday, July 2, 13:00–13:30, Room 4 (4th Floor) Closing The Gap: Formative Assessment and Women in the IEP? (Paper) Catherine Jade Grandorff, Stacey Jean Johnson and Erin Renee Schall This paper seeks to locate connections between formative assessment and future academic successes of women from multiple countries recently enrolled in a university IEP. Through a case study and narrative reflection, the paper will discuss how immediate, reflective, and collaborative feedback can provide a platform for a democratic language acquisition. I.4.3 Sunday, July 2, 13:30–14:00, Room 4 (4th Floor) Feedback provision and response: A space of negotiation in writing assessment (Paper) Linlin Xu and Lawrence Zhang This paper reports a study exploring how Chinese international doctoral students and their nonChinese supervisors negotiate writing assessment through feedback provision and response. The outcomes and approaches of the negotiation in terms of different foci and standards of writing assessment are discussed. I.5.1 Sunday, July 2, 12:30–13:00, Room 5 (4th Floor) Voice in Second Language Argumentative Writing (Paper) Cecilia Guanfang Zhao The presentation reports on the development and validation of an analytic rubric that captures voice in L2 argumentative writing, and the subsequent examination of the association between voice and text quality. Results showed that voice was realized through three major dimensions, and was a significant predictor of argumentative text quality. I.5.2 Sunday, July 2, 13:00–13:30, Room 5 (4th Floor) Role language analysis: how language in Manga can help L2 writing (Paper) Takako Yasuta This study shows how linguistic analysis of virtual language in Manga comics as a prewriting activity can positively influence EFL writing skills. Results of the study show some positive effects: Role language analysis motivated learners, and they were encouraged to use various expressions and sentence patterns in writing activities.
40
Day 3, Sunday, July 2 I.5.3 Sunday, July 2, 13:30–14:00, Room 5 (4th Floor) Construction of Potential Professional Identity in Job Application Letter Writing: From the Perspectives of the Applicants and the Employers (Paper) Xiaoling Chang By analyzing 6 job application letters and interviewing the applicants and the employers, the study explores the dynamic and complex process of writer identity construction in a specific institutional setting from the perspectives of the writers, the readers and the interaction between them. Sunday, July 2, 14:00–14:15, Break J.2.1 Sunday, July 2, 14:15–14:45, Room 2 (4th Floor) Portfolios: An Effective Tool for Evaluating ESL Students' Written Improvement and Linguistic Performance (Paper) Lan Wang This Presentation introduces why and how a portfolio approach is employed and proved to be effective as a major assessment tool in assessing short-term (four-five week) ESL students' linguistic, and writing improvement, rather than only utilizing a proficiency test in evaluating the students. J.2.2 Sunday, July 2, 14:45–15:15, Room 2 (4th Floor) The "Burden" of Designing Writing Portfolio Assessment Rubrics (Paper) Mira Bekar This study explored the process of designing writing portfolio assessment rubrics for L2 writers. Selfdeveloped rubrics were aimed at assessing not only the language proficiency and student final written products but also their personal growth "measured" through the quality of revision and quality of reflection. J.2.3 Sunday, July 2, 15:15–15:45, Room 2 (4th Floor) Coding engagement with written corrective feedback in L2 writing (Paper) Ryuichi Sato This presentation features a case study on the process of coding learners' engagement with written corrective feedback. Examples of the process, challenges, and future implication for the coding are discussed. J.3.1 Sunday, July 2, 14:15–14:45, Room 3 (4th Floor) Understanding the Impact of Language Mindset on Second Language Learning and Writing Development (Paper) Tina Matuchniak and Robin Scarcella This study examines the effect of a Mindset intervention—a quarter-long writing curriculum—on the language development and academic writing achievement of 750 international students who were enrolled in English for Academic Purposes courses in their first year at a public university in California. J.3.2 Sunday, July 2, 14:45–15:15, Room 3 (4th Floor) An Experimental Scaffolding Method for Paragraph Writing: Writing a Short Paragraph Using a Single-Sentence List Created by Classmates (Paper) Takahiko Yamamori This presentation introduces an experimental scaffolding approach of passage writing for first-year medical students: choosing a sentence from a list and adding their own sentences to create a story. The list was a collection of classmate-generated sentences, consisting of syntactical example sentences which described a variety of typical medical scenes. 41
Symposium on Second Language Writing 2017 J.3.3 Sunday, July 2, 15:15–15:45, Room 3 (4th Floor) Beyond Teacher's Written Corrective Feedback: Employing Think-Aloud Protocols to See Teacher's Cognition in Feedback Provision (Paper) Nanang Zubaidi The aim of this presentation is to describe Indonesian EFL teacher's actual written corrective feedback (WCF) on students' essay drafts in university EAP classes, particularly what they think and perform while providing feedback. Six university EFL teachers participated in think-aloud protocols (TAP) and post-interview tasks. J.4.1 Sunday, July 2, 14:15–14:45, Room 4 (4th Floor) Measuring effectiveness of peer feedback training (Paper) Jennie Roloff Rothman Peer feedback is often criticized because its effectiveness is sometimes intangible; however, training can justify its use. This research explores the efficacy of peer feedback training in a university academic writing course. It documented the frequency with which learners used writing metalanguage and how feedback quality changed over one year. J.4.2 Sunday, July 2, 14:45–15:15, Room 4 (4th Floor) Scaffolded Peer Feedback in EFL Writing Tutorials: A Case Study (Paper) Junko Otoshi, Garold Murray and Mariko Uzuka This presentation reports on a case study examining the dialogue between a peer writing tutor and tutee at a Japanese university. Triangulating multiple data sources, the study identifies three categories of scaffolded feedback: affirmation, making suggestions, and reader response comments. Suggestions are offered for training peer tutors in EFL contexts. J.5.1 Sunday, July 2, 14:15–14:45, Room 5 (4th Floor) Beyond accuracy: Promoting critical thinking through teacher written feedback in EFL writing (Paper) Min Zou Based on the feedback data and interview data from two EFL writing teachers in China, the present study examines the problems underlying teachers' written feedback practices and concludes with suggestions to help teachers maximize the potential of written feedback to promote students' critical thinking in EFL writing. J.5.2 Sunday, July 2, 14:45–15:15, Room 5 (4th Floor) The Impact of an Integrated Teaching, Learning and Assessment Framework on Students' Performance and Perceptions (Paper) Huang Jing, Meiqi Li and Dan Yang This paper attempts to propose an integrated teaching, learning and assessment framework and further explore its impact on students' performance and perceptions. A mixed-method case study research design in a longitudinal manner was employed to study twenty-five students how to learn to write in English in a naturalistic classroom setting over a semester. Sunday, July 2, 15:45–17:00, Room 6 (4th Floor) Reflections and Closing Ceremony
42
Presenter Index
Presenter Index Adi Badiozaman, Ida Fatimawati (
[email protected]) ................................................................ A.4.3 Al-Surmi, Mansoor (
[email protected]) ................................................................................................F.2.1 Aling, Cynthia (
[email protected]) .......................................................................................... A.4.3 Allagui, Besma (
[email protected]) ......................................................................................................... C.2.1 Arya, Tanyaporn (
[email protected])..................................................................................................... D.6.3 Atilgan, Aylin Baris (
[email protected]) ...................................................................................... B.6.3 Atkinson, Dwight (
[email protected]) ........................................................................................... C.6.4 Aydin, Didem (
[email protected]) ...................................................................................... B.4.2 Banat, Hadi (
[email protected]) ...............................................................................................................E.6 Bekar, Mira (
[email protected]) ......................................................................................... E.6, J.2.2 Brantmeier, Cindy (
[email protected]) .............................................................................................. H.4.2 Brinkschulte, Melanie (
[email protected]) ........................................................................................... H.5.2 Cao, Feng (
[email protected])....................................................................................................................F.8.2 Cao, Xiaomeng (
[email protected]) ................................................................................................... G.3.3 Chamcharatsri, Bee (
[email protected]) ........................................................................................................ A.2.1 Chan, Wing-Shan Ivy (
[email protected]) ............................................................................ E.5.2 Chang, Carrie Yea-Huey (
[email protected]) .......................................................................... D.6.1 Chang, Xiaoling (
[email protected]) ...............................................................................................I.5.3 Chapman, Mark (
[email protected]) ......................................................................... E.6, I.2.2, I.2.3 Chen, Meng Moeko (
[email protected]) ......................................................................................... G.2.2 Chen, Xin (
[email protected]) ............................................................................................. D.6.2, G.7.2 Chen, Xinren (
[email protected]) .................................................................................................... C.2.2 Chen, Yi-Chen (
[email protected]) ............................................................................................... A.2.2 Cheung, Yin Ling (
[email protected]) .........................................................................E.4.2, H.3.2 Chiang, Yung-Nan (
[email protected]) .......................................................................................... G.3.1 Chiu, Chia-Hui (
[email protected]) .......................................................................................... D.8.3 Colita, Lloyd Anton Von (
[email protected])............................................................................. E.3.1 Costa, Peter De (
[email protected]) ...................................................................................................... H.7.3 Crusan, Deborah (
[email protected]) .................................................................. Plenary (Day 3) Cumming, Alister (
[email protected]) ................................................................................... H.1 Cushing, Sara (
[email protected]) .......................................................................................... Plenary (Day 2) Davis, Richard (
[email protected]) ...................................................................................................... G.2.3 De Silva, Radhika (
[email protected]) .......................................................................................................... E.2.3 Dela Rosa, John Paul (
[email protected]) ..................................................................................... A.5.2 Dinh, Thuy (
[email protected]) ................................................................................................ A.4.2 Duson, Trevor (
[email protected]) ............................................................................................................ B.3.3 Ehlers-Zavala, Fabiola (
[email protected])...................................................................................I.3.2 Elder, Cathie (
[email protected]) ................................................................................................. E.2.2 Elliott, Heather (
[email protected]) .....................................................................................I.2.2, I.2.3 Ene, Estela (
[email protected]) .......................................................................................................................E.6 Estacio, Ma Joahna (
[email protected]) ........................................................................... A.5.1 Fang, Ming (
[email protected]) ........................................................................................................ C.6.2 Fang, Wei-Chieh (
[email protected]) ..................................................................................................... H.4.2 Flynn, Eleanor (
[email protected]) .............................................................................................. E.2.2 Fogal, Gary (
[email protected])........................................................................................................... G.5.1 Foo, Marione Anne (
[email protected]) .................................................................................... G.6.2 Fujioka, Mayumi (
[email protected])................................................................................. C.4.1 Gadavanij, Savitri (
[email protected]) .........................................................................................F.8.1 Genuino, Cecilia (
[email protected]) .............................................................................................. A.5.2 43
Symposium on Second Language Writing 2017 Gilliland, Betsy (
[email protected])............................................................................................. A.2.3, E.6 Gonzalez, Melanie (
[email protected]) .................................................................................. H.2.2 Grandorff, Catherine Jade (
[email protected]) .....................................................................................I.4.2 Groombridge, Timothy (
[email protected]) .............................................................................................. D.7.1 Guanfang Zhao, Cecilia (
[email protected]) ...............................................................................................I.5.1 Guo, Hao (
[email protected]) ................................................................................................. C.4.2 Guo, Qi (
[email protected]) .......................................................................................................... C.5.2 Haggerty, John (
[email protected]) .................................................................................................. D.1 Hammill, Matthew (
[email protected]) .................................................................................... D.3.2, G.5.3 Hamp-Lyons, Liz (
[email protected]) ................................................................ Keynote (Day 1) Han, Dongkeun (
[email protected]) ............................................................................ G.3.4 Han, Ye (
[email protected]) ......................................................................................... D.4.1, D.4.2 Hao, Xiaodong (
[email protected]) ...................................................................................................... G.4.2 Harwood, Chris (
[email protected]) ...................................................................................... C.2.3 Henley, Fredrick (
[email protected])............................................................................... G.2.2 Heydari, Mojtaba (
[email protected]) ................................................................................................E.6 Hirose, Keiko (
[email protected]) ............................................................................................ C.2.3 Ho, Titcha Kedsri (
[email protected]) .....................................................................................................I.2.1 Homayounzadeh, Maryam (
[email protected]) ................................................... B.5.3 Hryniuk, Katarzyna (
[email protected]) ..................................................................................... C.6.3, E.6 Hsu, Chan-Chia (
[email protected]) ............................................................................................... G.2.3 Huang, Jing (
[email protected]) ................................................................................... C.7.3, G.2.1 Huisman, Annemiek (
[email protected]) ............................................................... E.2.2 Hullah, Paul (
[email protected])............................................................................................ G.6.1 Iida, Atsushi (
[email protected]) .......................................................................................................F.6.3 Im, Jae-Hyun (
[email protected]) ...................................................................................................... B.6.1 Imai, Junko (
[email protected]) ....................................................................................................... H.3.1 Iswati, Luluk (
[email protected]) ......................................................................................................... B.8 Izquierdo, Daniel (
[email protected]) ...................................................................................................F.7.1 Jackson, Daniel O. (
[email protected]) ................................................................................. H.4.1 Jaritngarm, Nutchayaporn (
[email protected])................................................................................... D.6.3 Jaroongkhongdach, Woravut (
[email protected])............................................................. G.7.4 Jeon, Heon (
[email protected]) ................................................................................................................. D.7.2 Jin, Guangsa (
[email protected]) ....................................................................................................... H.7.1 Jin, Haeyun (
[email protected]) ........................................................................................................ E.4.1 Jing, Huang (
[email protected]) ................................................................................................ J.5.2 Johnson, Stacey Jean (
[email protected]) ..............................................................................................I.4.2 Jou, Yushiang (
[email protected])................................................................................................ H.7.3 Kajornboon, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Annabel Bhamani (
[email protected]) ........................................F.7.2 Kamiya, Nobuhiro (
[email protected]) ..........................................................................................F.6.2 Khadka, Santosh (
[email protected])........................................................................................ G.4.1 Kim, Amy I. (
[email protected])...................................................................................................... A.3.2 Kim, Ha Ram (
[email protected]) .................................................................................................... B.2.2 Kim, Minsun (
[email protected]) ...................................................................................................... A.6.3 Kim, Youmie (
[email protected]) .................................................................................................. D.3.2, G.5.3 Kinshi, Kayoko (
[email protected])............................................................................................F.5.1 Knoch, Ute (
[email protected]) ................................................................................................... E.2.2 Koizumi, Rie (
[email protected]) ................................................................................... D.2.2 Koo, Jungyeon (
[email protected]) ........................................................................................................F.4.1 Kopec, Steve (
[email protected]) ................................................................................................. C.4.3 Kotnarowski, John (
[email protected]) .......................................................................................... B.2.2
44
Presenter Index Kuru, Yukiko (
[email protected]) ..................................................................................................F.5.1 La-O-Vorakiat, Aimon (
[email protected]) .......................................................................... G.7.4 Lam, Ricky (
[email protected]) ......................................................................................................... A.8 Lamsal, Tika (
[email protected]) ........................................................................................................... C.5.3 Le Thi, Kieu Van (
[email protected])......................................................................................... E.7.3 Lee, Icy (
[email protected]) .................................................................................................................... D.1 Lee, Meng-Hsun (
[email protected]) ................................................................................. C.3.2 Li, Meiqi (
[email protected]) ............................................................................................................... J.5.2 Li, Mengxin (
[email protected]) ........................................................................................................... C.2.2 Li, Yingying (
[email protected]) ....................................................................................... D.4.1, D.4.2 Lin, Qin (
[email protected]) ............................................................................................................. B.6.2 Liu, Huan (
[email protected]) ............................................................................................................... H.4.2 Liu, Yichun (
[email protected]) .................................................................................................. C.5.1 Liu, Yingliang (
[email protected]) .......................................................................................................... B.5.1 Ly, Hanh Nguyen (
[email protected]) ....................................................................................... E.7.3 Mak, Pauline (
[email protected]) ........................................................................................................ A.7.1 Maldonado, Rebecca (
[email protected]) .............................................................................................. H.8 Malik, Nosheen (
[email protected]) ............................................................................................................ G.7.1 Manias, Elizabeth (
[email protected]) ......................................................................................... E.2.2 Marefat, Fahimeh (
[email protected]) .....................................................................................E.6 Masaki, Michiko (
[email protected]) ...................................................................F.5.1 Matsuda, Paul Kei (
[email protected]) ....................................................................................... Reflections Matuchniak, Tina (
[email protected]) ........................................................................................................ J.3.1 Mawlawi Diab, Nuwar (
[email protected]) ................................................................................... H.5.1 McIlroy, Tara (
[email protected]) ............................................................................................... G.4.3 McMartin-Miller, Cristine (
[email protected]) ...................................................... D.8.1 Mehrabi-Yazdi, Omid (
[email protected]) ................................................... E.8.1 Mehrzad, Mohaddeseh (
[email protected]).......................................................................... B.3.1 Min, Hui-Tzu (
[email protected]) ..............................................................................D.2.3, E.8.2 Mudoh, Annett (
[email protected]) ........................................................................................................ C.4.4 Murray, Garold (
[email protected]) ........................................................................................ J.4.2 Muñoz Galleguillos, Andrea (
[email protected]) ..............................................................................E.6 Muñoz, Maria (
[email protected]) ..................................................................................................................... H.8 Nahar, Gul (
[email protected]) ...................................................................................................... C.7.4 Nakkaew, Nattawut (
[email protected]) ..............................................................................F.3.3 Nam, Hyejeong (
[email protected])...................................................................................................F.4.1 Narita, Masumi (
[email protected])......................................................................................................... D.2.2 Nguyen, Quoc Tung (
[email protected]) .................................................................................... E.7.3 Nguyen, Trung (
[email protected]) ..................................................................................... A.4.2 Nimmannit, Suchada (
[email protected]) ............................................................ Local Keynote (Day 1) Nowak, Sabina Aleksandra (
[email protected])...................................................................... B.3.2 Osment, Christopher (
[email protected]) ........................................................................ B.7.3 Otoshi, Junko (
[email protected]) ................................................................................... F.5.1, J.4.2 Panahi Lazarjani, Parva (
[email protected]) ................................................................................... A.4.1 Pang, Pearl (
[email protected]).......................................................................................................... G.6.4 Paradita, Lanoke Intan (
[email protected]) ....................................................................................... B.8 Park, Ji-Hyun (
[email protected]) ............................................................................................. H.6.3 Park, Siwon (
[email protected]) ................................................................................................... H.4.1 Pavez Bravo, Katterine (
[email protected])......................................................................................E.6 Pawabunsiriwong, Kewalin (
[email protected]) .................................................................................. G.5.2 Pella, Shannon (
[email protected]) ................................................................................................... A.2.3 45
Symposium on Second Language Writing 2017 Peng, Anna Yujie (
[email protected]) ................................................................................ B.5.2 Pi, Ying (
[email protected]) .............................................................................................................. G.3.2 Prasetyo, Gatot (
[email protected]) ..................................................................................................... G.3.3 Qi, Fang (
[email protected]) .............................................................................................................. E.8.3 Qin, Jingjing (
[email protected]) ..................................................................................................... D.7.1 Qureshi, Muhammad (
[email protected]) .............................................................................E.4.3, G.7.1 Rahimi, Mohammad (
[email protected]) ............................................................................B.3.1, B.5.3 Razı, Salim (
[email protected]) ............................................................................................. E.2.1, E.3.3 Rerkwanchai, Kiatipong (
[email protected]) ..............................................................................F.8.1 Riazi, Mehdi (
[email protected])...................................................................................................... D.1 Ricardo-Osorio, Jose (
[email protected]) ..................................................................................................... G.8 Rock, Kristin (
[email protected]) ............................................................................................................F.2.3 Roloff Rothman, Jennie (
[email protected])............................................................................ J.4.1 Rosmawati, (
[email protected]) ............................................................................................. H.6.1 Ruecker, Todd (
[email protected]) ............................................................................................................E.6 Ruegg, Rachael (
[email protected])............................................................................................F.3.2 Saadat, Mahboobeh (
[email protected])................................................................................. H.6.2 Saengngoen, Jet (
[email protected]) ........................................................................................... B.7.1 Saenkhum, Tanita (
[email protected]) .................................................................................... A.7.2, B.2.1 Sasaki, Miyuki (
[email protected]) ................................................................................. D.2.1 Sato, Ryuichi (
[email protected]) .............................................................................................................. J.2.3 Sawatdeenarunat, Sirinut (
[email protected]) ............................................................................. E.5.1, F.2.2 Scarcella, Robin (
[email protected]) ........................................................................................................ J.3.1 Schall, Erin Renee (
[email protected]) .....................................................................................................I.4.2 Shang-Butler, Hairong (
[email protected]) ....................................................................... B.6.2 Shekarabi, Zeinab (
[email protected])...........................................................................................F.3.1 Sheridan, Cheryl (
[email protected]) .................................................................................................... A.6.1 Shi, Lihui (
[email protected])................................................................................................................ G.3.3 Shi, Ling (
[email protected]) ................................................................................................................. D.1, H.1 Shin, Ji-Young (
[email protected]) .................................................................................................... D.5.3 Shvidko, Elena (
[email protected]) ........................................................................................... H.3.3 Silva, Tony (
[email protected]) ................................................................................................................ H.5.3 Smith, Hannah (
[email protected]) ................................................................................................. G.2.2 Soblo, Hannah (
[email protected]) .................................................................................................... C.7.1 Song, Renshuang (
[email protected]) .......................................................................................... G.2.2 Song, Yan Mei (
[email protected])..................................................................................................... C.7.3 Stacey, Pamela (
[email protected])..................................................................................................... C.5.4 Stamper, Suzan (
[email protected]) ...................................................................................... C.3.3 Sukavatee, Pornpimol (
[email protected]).................................................................................. A.2.1 Sullivan, Kristen (
[email protected]) ...................................................................................... B.4.3 Supasiraprapa, Sarut (
[email protected]) .............................................................................................. H.7.3 Supiani, (
[email protected]) ..................................................................................................... A.5.3 Takagi, Kristy King (
[email protected]) ...................................................................................... B.2.3 Takeuchi, Osamu (
[email protected]) .......................................................................................... B.4.1 Tan, Xiao (
[email protected]) ....................................................................................................... D.5.2 Tang, Jonathan Kum Khuan (
[email protected]) ................................................................................. E.5.1 Tardy, Christine (
[email protected]) ......................................................................................... C.6.4 Thaweemueang, Weerasak (
[email protected])................................................................. C.6.1 Thirakunkovit, Suthathip (
[email protected];
[email protected]) .................... A.2.1, B.7.2 Thomas, Nathan (
[email protected]) ........................................................................................... B.7.3 Thompson, Amanda (
[email protected]) ............................................................................................ C.4.3
46
Presenter Index Thongrin, Saneh (
[email protected]) ............................................................................................... G.5.2 Toff, Mika (
[email protected]) ............................................................................................................F.6.1 Tran, Phuong (
[email protected]) ....................................................................................................... D.8.2 Tseng, Ming-I Lydia (
[email protected]) .............................................................................. E.7.1 Ueki, Michiko (
[email protected]) ............................................................................................... B.4.1 Uzuka, Mariko (
[email protected]) ........................................................................................... J.4.2 Viriya, Chayata (
[email protected]) .......................................................................................... D.5.1 Vu, Ngan (
[email protected]) ..........................................................................................................F.4.3 Walker, Paige (
[email protected]) ................................................................................................. C.7.2 Wang, Amy Zhenjing (
[email protected]) .................................................................................I.4.1 Wang, Andie (
[email protected]) ............................................................................................................. C.6.2 Wang, David (
[email protected]) ..................................................................................... G.5.4 Wang, Han-Chung (
[email protected]) ............................................................................. E.8.2 Wang, Junju (
[email protected]).......................................................................................................I.3.1 Wang, Lan (
[email protected]) ............................................................................................................ J.2.1 Wang, Xiaojing (
[email protected]) ..........................................................................................F.4.2 Wang, Xiqiao (
[email protected])......................................................................................................... E.7.2 Wang, Yu-Chi (
[email protected]) ................................................................................................... G.2.3 Wang, Zhaozhe (
[email protected]) .............................................................................................. H.2.3 Wasanasomsithi, Punchalee (
[email protected]) ...................................................................... D.5.1 Wilson, Joseph (
[email protected]) ................................................................................................ B.2.1 Woodward-Kron, Robyn (
[email protected]) ......................................................................... E.2.2 Wotkyns, Whitney (
[email protected]) ............................................................................... D.8.1 Wu, Kai-Lin (
[email protected])........................................................................................................ H.4.3 Wu, Peisha (
[email protected]) .................................................................................................... G.7.3 Xia, Xiaoyan (
[email protected]) ...........................................................................................F.4.2 Xiao, Yuehai (
[email protected]) ........................................................................................................ E.8.3 Xin, Sheng (
[email protected]) ....................................................................................................................I.3.3 Xu, Fang (
[email protected]) ..................................................................................................... A.6.2, B.5.2 Xu, Linlin (
[email protected]).......................................................................................................I.4.3 Xu, Yiran (
[email protected]) ....................................................................................................... A.3.1 Xuan, Winfred Wenhui (
[email protected])........................................................................... A.7.3 Yamamori, Takahiko (
[email protected]) ........................................................................................ J.3.2 Yamanishi, Hiroyuki (
[email protected]) ....................................................................................F.5.1 Yan, Xun (
[email protected]) ................................................................................................... B.2.2 Yang, Dan (
[email protected]) ........................................................................................................... J.5.2 Yang, Luxin (
[email protected]) ....................................................................................................... H.1 Yang, Shizhou (
[email protected]) .......................................................................................... C.3.1 Yang, Yi-Chun Christine (
[email protected]) ....................................................................................... A.3.3 Yasuda, Sachiko (
[email protected]) ...................................................................................................... H.2.1 Yasuta, Takako (
[email protected]) .......................................................................................................I.5.2 Ye, Wenlin (
[email protected]) ........................................................................................................... G.2.1 Yu, Lu (
[email protected]) ........................................................................................................................... H.1 Yu, Shulin (
[email protected]) .............................................................................................................. E.3.2 Yue, Ying (
[email protected]) ..............................................................................................................F.4.2 Yuen, Brenda (
[email protected]) .........................................................................................................F.2.2 Zahed Alavi, Sahar (
[email protected]) .................................................................................. H.6.2 Zhan, Ju (
[email protected]) ............................................................................................................. D.3.1, H.1 Zhang, Chunbo (
[email protected]) .................................................................................................... C.7.3 Zhang, Cong (
[email protected]) ...............................................................................................I.3.1 Zhang, Donglan (
[email protected]) ............................................................................... H.7.2 47
Symposium on Second Language Writing 2017 Zhang, Fengjuan (
[email protected]) ............................................................................................ D.3.1, H.1 Zhang, Lawrence (
[email protected]) ...........................................................................................I.4.3 Zhang, Lian (
[email protected]) ........................................................................................................ H.1 Zhang, Weiyu (
[email protected]) ........................................................................................................ E.4.2 Zhao, Jun (
[email protected]) .................................................................................................. B.5.1, D.7.3 Zou, Min (
[email protected]) .................................................................................................... J.5.1 Zubaidi, Nanang (
[email protected])................................................................................... J.3.3 Şahan, Özgür (
[email protected]) .............................................................................. E.2.1, E.3.3
SITE MAPS Area Map
48
! Faculty of Education Buildings
Education Building 4
Lecture Hall 101
Education Building 2
Building 3—4th Floor
401 Lobby
%*! !
