Article published In:
Postgraduate Writing in a Globalised WorldEdited by Emmaline Lear and Elke Stracke
[Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 39:2] 2016
► pp. 181–200
Edited by Emmaline Lear and Elke Stracke
[Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 39:2] 2016
► pp. 181–200
Oral interactions in a writing group as mediating artefacts
The case of a multilingual international PhD student’s motives, scaffolding, and response
Writing groups have been gaining attention as a new approach to doctoral education to cater to students and supervisors’ diversified needs emerging from the globalisation of higher education. However, the relationships between the main activity of these groups, oral interactions, and participants’ learning remain unexplored. To fill this gap, this study investigates the processes of one multilingual PhD student’s genre learning through oral interaction in a 10-week writing group at an Australian university. Data were collected through observation and audio recordings of meetings, written drafts, and interviews with the student and a facilitator. As mediating artefacts, writing group oral interactions were closely examined with reference to the student’s motives and her subsequent writing. Specifically they were analysed for the means of scaffolding and the student’s response patterns. The findings suggest the influence of the student’s motives on her participation in the activity of the writing group as well as her decisions on how to deal with the scaffolding she received. The findings reveal dynamic relationships between motives, scaffolding, and the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), and shed new light on the facilitative role of learners’ responses to scaffolding. The article concludes with pedagogical implications for oral feedback sessions in classrooms and writing groups.
References
Aitchison, C
(2009) Writing groups for doctoral education. Studies in Higher Education, 34(8), 905–916. 
Aitchison, C., & Guerin, C
(2014) Writing groups, pedagogy, theory and practice. In C. Aitchison & C. Guerin (Eds.), Writing groups for doctoral education and beyond (pp. 27–54). London: Routledge.
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P
(1994) Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the Zone of Proximal Development. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465–483.
Caffarella, R. S., & Barnett, B. G
(2000) Teaching doctoral students to become scholarly writers: The importance of giving and receiving critiques. Studies in Higher Education, 25(1), 39–52.
Chang, G. C. L
(2014) Writing feedback as an exclusionary practice in higher education. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 37(3), 262–275.
Donato, R
(1994) Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Norwood, NJ: Abex.
Ewert, D. E
(2009) L2 writing conferences: Investigating teacher talk. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(4), 251–269.
Ferguson, T
(2009) The ‘write’ skills and more: A thesis writing group for doctoral students. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 33(2), 285–297.
Goldstein, L. M., & Conrad, S. M
(1990) Student input and negotiation of meaning in ESL writing conferences. TESOL Quarterly, 24(3), 443–460.
Green, B
(2009) Challenging perspectives, changing practices. In D. Boud & A. Lee (Eds.), Changing practices of doctoral education (pp. 239–248). London: Routledge.
Guerin, C., Xafis, V., Doda, D. V., Gillam, M. H., Larg, A. J., Luckner, H., Jahan, N., Widayati, A., & Xu, C
(2013) Diversity in collaborative research communities: A multicultural, multidisciplinary thesis writing group in public health. Studies in Continuing Education, 35(1), 65–81.
Guerrero, M. C. M. de, & Villamil, O. S
(1994) Social-cognitive dimensions of interaction in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 484–496.
(2000) Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 51–68.
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L
(2006) Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. New York: Oxford University Press.
Larcombe, W., McCosker, A., & O'Loughlin, K
(2007) Supporting education PhD and DEd students to become confident academic writers: An evaluation of thesis writers’ circles. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 4(1), 54–63.
Lee, A., & Boud, D
(2003) Writing groups, change and academic identity: Research development as local practice. Studies in Higher Education, 28(2), 187–200.
Leont'ev, A. N
(1978) Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall.
(1981).The problem of activity in psychology. In J.V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 37–70). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Li, L. Y
(2014) Scaffolding the thesis writing process. In C. Aitchison & C. Guerin (Eds.), Writing groups for doctoral education and beyond (pp. 145–161). London: Routledge.
Li, L. Y., & Vandermensbrugghe, J
(2011) Supporting the thesis writing process of international research students through an ongoing writing group. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 48(2), 195–205.
Lidz, C. S
(1991) Practitioner's guide to dynamic assessment. New York: Guilford Press.
Nelson, G. L., & Carson, J
(2006) Cultural issues in peer response: Revisiting "culture". In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 42–59). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Nelson, G. L., & Murphy, J. M
(1992) An L2 writing group: Task and social dimensions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3), 171–193.
(1993) Peer response groups: Do L2 writers use peer comments in revising their drafts? TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 135–141.
Patthey-Chavez, G. G., & Ferris, D. R
(1997) Writing conferences and the weaving of multi-voiced texts in college composition. Research in the Teaching of English, 31(1), 51–90.
Storch, N
(2002) Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–158.
(2004) Using activity theory to explain differences in patterns of dyadic interactions in an ESL class. Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 60(4), 457–480.
Thomas, D. R
(2006) A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237–246.
Thonus, T
(2004) What are the differences?: Tutor interactions with first-and second-language writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(3), 227–242.
Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J
(2010) Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–296.
Villamil, O. S., & Guerrero, M. C. M. de
(1996) Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 51–75.
(1998) Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 491–514.
(2006) Sociocultural theory: A framework for understanding the social-cognitive dimensions of peer feedback. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 23–41). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S
(1978) Mind in society : The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L.S
(1981) The genesis of higher mental functions. In J.V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 144–188). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Vygotsky, L. S
(2012) Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.
Weissberg, R
(2006) Scaffolded feedback: Tutorial conversations with advanced L2 writers. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 246–265). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, J
(2002) Undergraduate second language writers in the writing center. Journal of Basic Writing, 21(2), 73–91.
(2004) Tutoring and revision: Second language writers in the writing center. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(3), 173–201.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G
(1976) The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17(2), 89–100.
Yu, S., & Lee, I
(2015) Understanding EFL students' participation in group peer feedback of L2 writing: A case study from an activity theory perspective. Language Teaching Research, 19(5), 572–593.
Zhu, W., & Mitchell, D. A
(2012) Participation in peer response as activity: An examination of peer response stances from an activity theory perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), 362–386.
Cited by
Cited by 5 other publications
Mochizuki, Naoko
2017. Contingent Needs Analysis for Task Implementation: An Activity Systems Analysis of Group Writing Conferences. TESOL Quarterly 51:3 ► pp. 607 ff. 
Mochizuki, Naoko
2019. The lived experience of thesis writers in group writing conferences: The quest for “perfect” and “critical”. Journal of Second Language Writing 43 ► pp. 36 ff.
Mochizuki, Naoko
2021. Becoming a Scholarly Writer for Publication: An Autoethnography of Boundary Crossing, Linguistic Identity, and Revising. In Scholarly Publication Trajectories of Early-career Scholars, ► pp. 207 ff.
Starfield, Sue
2019. Student Writing in Higher Education. In Second Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education [Springer International Handbooks of Education, ], ► pp. 1 ff.
Starfield, Sue
2019. Student Writing in Higher Education. In Second Handbook of English Language Teaching [Springer International Handbooks of Education, ], ► pp. 861 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.