June 2007 — Volume 11, Number 1
An Investigation of Three Chinese Students’ English Writing Strategies
Congjun Mu
<c.mustudent.qut.edu.au>
Shanghai Institute of Technology
Suzanne Carrington
<sx.carringtonqut.edu.au>
Queensland University of Technology
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to investigate the writing processes of second language (L2) writers, specifically examining the writing strategies of three Chinese post-graduate students in an Australian higher education institution. The study was prompted by the paucity of second language writing strategies of Chinese students in an authentic context. Data collected from a semi-structured interview, questionnaire, retrospective post-writing discussion, and written drafts of papers were analysed. The findings indicate that the three participants employed rhetorical strategies, metacognitive strategies, cognitive strategies and social/affective strategies in their writing practice. This study supports Silva’s finding that L2 writing process is strategically, rhetorically, linguistically different from first language (L1) writing process (1993). Data demonstrated that metacognitive, cognitive, and social/affective strategies except rhetorical strategies (organisation of paragraphs) transferred across languages positively.
Introduction
There are a series of controversial issues in second language (L2) writing research (Casanave, 2004). For example, some researchers (for example, Bitchener & Basturkmen, 2006; Hinkel, 2004; Lee, 2005; McCarthey, Guo & Cummins, 2005; Martínez, 2005; Silva, 1993; Thorson, 2000) assert that L1 (first language) writing processes are different from L2 writing processes, but others (for example, Jones & Tetroe, 1987; Matsumoto, 1995; Schoonen et al., 2003) emphasise the similarities of the two processes. Some researchers (for example, Kaplan, 1966; Norment, 1982; Scollon, 1999) argue that it is the cultural difference that results in L2 students’ rhetorical organisation problems, while others (for example, Mohan & Lo, 1985; Hirose, 2003) negate this claim. It is acknowledged that culture influences L2 writing, but the genre of the writing task completed by L2 writers, cognitive development and interlanguage development should also be taken into account. Another contradictory issue is that, some researchers (for example, Arndt, 1987; Friedlander, 1990; Woodall, 2002) contend that L1 writing strategies can be transferred into L2 writing positively, others (for example, Wu, 1995) maintain negative transfer from L1 to L2 writing. A simple conclusion should not be made in this case because it is important to consider the different stages of the L2 writing processes. For instance, Chinese writers were found to use L1 in generating ideas and controlling the whole process positively, but they utilised L2 to generate sentences in English writing (Wang & Wen, 2002).
This study looks at three Chinese postgraduate students’ English writing processes and attempts to provide some insights for the above-mentioned controversial issues. In this study, L2 writing strategies are defined as conscious decisions made by the writers to solve a writing problem. Writing strategies are classified into rhetorical strategies, metacognitive strategies, cognitive strategies, and social/affective strategies (Riazi, 1997; Wenden, 1991).
- Rhetorical strategies refer to the strategies that writers use to organise and to present their ideas in writing conventions acceptable to native speakers of that language.
- Metacognitive strategies are those that writers use to control the writing process consciously.
- Cognitive strategies refer to the strategies that writers use to implement the actual writing actions.
- Social/affective strategies refer to those that writers use to interact with others to clarify some questions and to regulate emotions, motivation, and attitudes in the writing.
Whether L1 writing processes are different from L2 writing processes has long been a controversial issue in L2 writing research (Casanave, 2004). This issue is important because the idea of using L1 theory in L2 writing may be inappropriate if the L1 writing processes are different from L2 writing processes. Otherwise, L1 writing theory may be a relevant model for L2 writing (Beare, 2000). Generally, there are two conflicting areas of thought with regard to this issue. Silva (1993) stresses that “L2 writing is strategically, rhetorically, and linguistically different in important ways from L1 writing” (p. 669). In contrast, Friedlander (1990), Lay (1982) and Matsumoto (1995) maintain there are no differences between L1 and L2 writing processes.
There are numerous studies on L2 writing strategies, but few are carried out in an authentic context (Leki, 1995; Wong, 2005). This study focuses on three Chinese post-graduate students in public health at an Australian university. In order to further the understanding of the above-mentioned controversial issues in L2 writing research, the following questions were examined in relation to L2 writing strategies of the three Chinese postgraduate students in this study:
- Which writing strategies do three Chinese post-graduate students report using in writing academic papers in English?
- Do these students perceive Chinese writing processes as different from English writing processes?
- Do these students transfer Chinese writing strategies to English writing positively or negatively?
Methodology
Participants
All three volunteers (given the pseudonyms Ally, Susan and Roger) were studying at the Faculty of Health at an Australian university at the time of the study. The University Ethics Committee approved the research and participants received an information and consent package. All participants signed consent forms. Ally was a female Chinese visiting scholar funded by the World Health Organisation, but she was later enrolled as a graduate student majoring in public health. Susan was a female Chinese doctoral student in nursing. Roger was a male Chinese doctoral student in the field of public health starting early in 2004. The information concerning these participants is listed in Table 1.
Table 1. Background Information of the Participants
Name Age Sex Major Degree prospect Duration of
stay at university when the investigation startedAlly 41 Female Public health MS 6 months Susan 28 Female Nursing PhD 6 months Roger 42 Male Public health PhD 8 months
The three students were invited to participate in the study for several reasons. Most importantly, they were experienced writers both in Chinese and English. Roger had acquired two Masters degrees in China and the United States, respectively. Ally, as an administrative assistant in the Ministry of Health in China, wrote many reports in Chinese. She had also studied and travelled to a variety of countries. Susan completed a Masters degree in a well-known university in China and received a score of 6.5 on the IELTS (International English Language Testing System) test. Therefore, these three participants could be regarded as proficient writers both in Chinese and English. More importantly, they all seemed to have a deep understanding of English and Chinese culture and their experiences in English and Chinese writing might, therefore, be meaningful for other Chinese overseas students. These could be “exemplary” cases for L2 writers (Yin, 2003, p. 10).
Data Collection
Sources of data included preliminary questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, retrospective post-writing discussions, and document analysis. The 100 items in the questionnaire on a 5-point-Likert-scale (see Appendix A) were developed based on Victori’s (1995) study which investigated Spanish students’ writing strategies. These questions have been tested by two Chinese students and reviewed by two of my supervisors for its validity and reliability. This questionnaire was not used as a survey but as a warm-up exercise for the formal semi-structured interview. The survey stimulated the participants to think about English and Chinese writing so that they could report more about their writing strategies and deepen their understanding of English writing strategies. The participants were proficient English users, but if they had some difficulty with any words, there was some explanation to ensure good understanding.
The semi-structured interview was conducted with the three participants in Chinese to make communication more effective. Each interview lasted over one hour. All the interviews were recorded, fully transcribed in Chinese and saved by computer. When each participant completed his or her writing task, a retrospective post-writing discussion followed that focused specifically on the proposal or paper the participant had just completed. During the period of data collection, the participants were asked to keep all drafts of their assignments and then review their composing processes and construct a description of how it worked during the retrospective post-writing discussion. Table 2 is a summary of data collected from the three participants.
Table 2. Summary of Data Collected from the Three Participants
Ally | Susan | Roger | |
Preliminary questionnaire and followed interview |
1 answer sheet to the questionnaire and 1 transcript for interview with 5,626 Chinese characters |
1 answer sheet to the questionnaire and 1 transcript for interview with 22,677 Chinese characters |
1 answer sheet to the questionnaire and 1 transcript for interview with 4,561 Chinese characters |
Semi-structured interview |
1 transcript with 9,718 Chinese characters |
1 transcript with 14,295 Chinese characters |
1 transcript with 15,977 Chinese characters |
Retrospective post-writing discussion |
1 transcript with 10,190 Chinese characters |
1 transcript with 10,289 Chinese characters |
1 transcript with 10,190 Chinese characters |
Documents | 1 outline, 4 drafts, 1 final assignment paper (2,430 words) |
6 drafts, 1 final proposal (11,121 words) |
2 drafts, 1 final paper (3,625 words) |
Length of observation |
5 weeks | 16 weeks | 40 weeks |
Data Analysis
In keeping with qualitative research methods, analytic induction (Goetz & LeCompte, 1984; Leki, 1995) was used to analyse the transcribed interview data, preliminary questionnaire, participants’ papers and their drafts. In this approach, the researcher returned repeatedly to transcripts or questionnaires to read and examine the data, searching for salient or recurring themes. Merriam (1988) acknowledged that categorisation of qualitative data was an intuitive performance. In this study, previous experience and the conceptual framework informed the generation of patterns of meaning or themes. In the following section, the study results and discussion of the key issues will be organised together for each research question.
Research Question 1: What Writing Strategies Do the Three Chinese Post-graduate Students Report Using in Writing Academic Papers in English?
Using a framework of four categories of writing strategies (macro-strategies), a total of twelve micro-strategies were identified (see Table 3).
Table 3 Writing Strategies Identified from the Data
Macro-strategies | Micro-strategies |
Rhetorical strategies |
Organising strategies
Cohesive strategies Genre awareness |
Metacognitive strategies |
Planning strategies
Evaluating and monitoring strategies |
Cognitive strategies |
Generating strategies
Revising strategies Imitating strategies |
Social/Affective strategies |
Reducing anxiety
Drawing on previous experience Keeping high motivation and |