This study explored how task complexity, writing behaviors (i.e., pausing and revision behaviors), and writing performance (i.e., task completion, coherence and cohesion, language use, and expression and tone) influence and relate to each other. Thirty advanced-level Korean EFL undergraduates completed writing tasks differing in complexity. A combination of keystroke logging and stimulated recall interview was employed. It was found that the simple task group showed a greater number of pauses and revisions related to lower-order writing processes, whereas the complex task group showed longer pauses related to higher-order writing processes. While task complexity had no influence on writing performance, writing behaviors revealed significant relationships with text quality. In the simple task group, pause length and revision were negatively related to writing scores, whereas pause frequency revealed mixed results. In the complex task group, consistent negative relations were found between pausing behaviors and text quality, and fewer revisions were related to better scores in expression and tone.

The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between students’ cognitive engagement with written corrective feedback (WCF) and their revision behavior. Based on the assumption that different levels of cognitive involvement are linked to learners’ use of the feedback, we investigated how different post-feedback activities (i.e., reading, copying, and explaining the feedback) would affect second language writers’ behavioral engagement with WCF during the revision phase. Ninety-eight students were divided into three experimental groups and one control group. Experimental groups performed one of the three post-feedback activities before revising their original writing. The participants’ revision behavior was examined by their uptake of WCF. Additionally, the change in writing quality between the first and the revised drafts was investigated. Results showed that activities that promote deeper cognitive processing generally led to higher uptake of WCF in revision. The effects of post-feedback activities, however, varied for error types. All the post-feedback activities were effective in improving the quality of writing.

Many empirical findings of previous studies have suggested a connection between motivational factors and L2 writing. Nonetheless, the impact of motivational factors on the genre-based L2 writing has not gained much attention. The present study explored the extent to which the characteristics of two writing tasks involving different genres interact with a learner’s motivational disposition (regulatory focus) and, further, affect language production of writing. 106 essays collected from 53 university EFL learners were assessed in terms of linguistic complexity and accuracy. 2X2 ANOVA results revealed significant main effects of genre on lexical complexity (lexical variation and MSTTR). More importantly, there were significant interaction effects between genre and regulatory focus on both measures of the syntactic complexity (mean length of T-unit and clause per T-unit) and lexical complexity (lexical density). The findings highlighted the significance of learners’ motivational dispositions in genre writing. Drawing on the findings, some pedagogical suggestions to ensure the effectiveness of writing tasks on L2 development were proposed.

This study investigated features of L2 classroom-based teacher-student writing conference and student subsequent revision from the perspective of languaging. A non-native teacher and four non-native students participated in the writing conference about two tasks of summary and critical review in an intact college ESL composition classroom. Eight video-recorded conference sessions were analyzed regarding discourse topics (language use vs. content/rhetoric), and configuration of negotiation and scaffolding. Discourse topics were found to interact with task types as more issues about content and rhetoric were addressed for critical review. Configurations of negotiation and scaffolding were found to be similar in both tasks. Scaffolding was dominant in language use talks while negotiation and scaffolding were balanced in content/rhetoric talks. As for making meaning and student revision, the quality of negotiation was more critical than the quantity. Non-extensive scaffolding also led to successful revision along with students’ background knowledge and classroom instruction. The findings demonstrate dynamics of writing tasks, conferences, and student revision.

This study surveys a total of 127 L2 writing-related articles published in English Teaching over the past 50 years (1965-2015) with reference to research methodology, participants, and themes. The key outcomes are as follows. These articles on L2 writing in English successfully embrace diverse methodological approaches, not displaying a heavy reliance on quantitative methods. Among the study participants, those in higher educational settings maintain a comfortable lead, calling for more articles with elementary and secondary school students. A notable proliferation has been observed since the mid-l990s along with a numerical grow山 in articles on L2 writing. The research theme of classroom instruction appears most often over the journal's 50-year history, followed by learner traits and characteristics of Korean students' writing. The topics of assessment and technology use have gradually evolved into two of the major content areas in L2 writing research, while the theme of skill integration has remained under-researched. Overall, L2 writing research produced in English Teaching seems to exhibit diversity in methodology, participants, and themes.

The purpose of this study is to explore L1 use in L2 writing from the perspective of Vygotskian Sociocultural Theory (SCT). We examine whether generating ideas in L1,compared to generating ideas in L2, results in inferior L2 writing. The participants were 42 Korean EFL students. As part of the course requirements, the students were required to hand in 400-word essays on a given topic. Once the writing was completed,they were asked to write down about what language(s) they used to prepare for the assignment and why they used this language or these languages. The data analysis used here stems from two ways in which the data were coded, use of language(s) during idea generation and a global-level essay analysis. This study has shown that more than half of students use their L1 while writing in L2 to some extent. Regarding the effect of L1use on L2 text quality, L1 use does not appear to be negatively related to L2 text quality. This does not confirm the results of earlier research, which suggested that L1use has a detrimental effect on L2 text quality. We argue that the L1 is an already internalized and very effective meditational means that learners will resort to,principally for discovering and shaping meaning and as support in moments of cognitive difficulty.

This study examined whether the English proficiency was a factor to determine how Korean EFL university students use language copied from a source without attribution. The unattributed copying from a source was analyzed using a quantitative measurement, and a questionnaire was administered to examine the students' perception of plagiarism. The results showed that the total amount of textual borrowing and the length of strings of words borrowed from a source demonstrated a significant relationship with proficiency levels. The participants' language proficiency also influenced their perceptions regarding plagiarism. The differences observed between the two groups in perceiving plagiarism suggest that students with low English proficiency may be somewhat less aware that their heavy reliance on direct copying of a source could be regarded as unacceptable in academics than those with high English proficiency. Implications of these findings are discussed focusing on preventing plagiarism.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the effectiveness of corrective feedback on second language (L2) composition from both theoretical and practical perspectives. While it has been claimed that corrective feedback on L2 composition should be provided to student writers to prevent their errors from becoming fossilized, it has also been claimed that corrective feedback on L2 composition is useless because student writers make the same mistakes repeatedly even when they are corrected. Before we conclude that corrective feedback is wholly ineffective, however, a close reexamination seems warranted. This paper will approach the issue of corrective feedback on L2 composition from the perspectives of both those in favor of and those against it. By clarifying various issues, this paper seeks to provide educators with a better understanding of L2 composition teaching and learning.