scholarly journals What New Writing Teachers Talk about When They Talk about Teaching

Author(s):  
H. Estrem ◽  
E. S. Reid
Keyword(s):  
2021 ◽  
pp. 074108832110055
Author(s):  
Mary Ryan ◽  
Maryam Khosronejad ◽  
Georgina Barton ◽  
Lisa Kervin ◽  
Debra Myhill

Writing requires a high level of nuanced decision-making related to language, purpose, audience, and medium. Writing teachers thus need a deep understanding of language, process, and pedagogy, and of the interface between them. This article draws on reflexivity theory to interrogate the pedagogical priorities and perspectives of 19 writing teachers in primary classrooms across Australia. Data are composed of teacher interview transcripts and nuanced time analyses of classroom observation videos. Findings show that teachers experience both enabling and constraining conditions that emerge in different ways in different contexts. Enablements include high motivations to teach writing and a reflective and collaborative approach to practice. However, constraints were evident in areas of time management, dominance of teacher talk, teachers’ scope and confidence in their knowledge and practice, and a perceived lack of professional support for writing pedagogy. The article concludes with recommendations for a reflexive approach to managing these emergences in the teaching of writing.


2021 ◽  
pp. 136216882110576
Author(s):  
Xiaolong Cheng ◽  
Lawrence Jun Zhang ◽  
Qiaozhen Yan

As an important instructional affordance, teacher written feedback is widely used in second language (L2) writing contexts. While copious evidence has shown that such a pedagogical practice can facilitate L2 learners’ writing performance, especially their writing accuracy, little is known about how novice writing teachers conceptualize and enact written feedback in contexts of English as a foreign language (EFL). To fill this gap, we examined four novice writing teachers’ espoused written feedback beliefs and their actual practices in Chinese tertiary EFL writing classrooms. Based on data from semi-structured interviews and students’ writing samples, we found that they adopted a comprehensive approach to feedback provision, and were most concerned with errors in language, particularly grammar when providing feedback. These teachers almost reached a consensus in their beliefs about feedback scope and feedback focus, but they held varying beliefs about feedback strategies. Additionally, this study revealed the complexity of belief-practice relationships, in terms of the coexistence of consistencies and inconsistencies. Specifically, these teachers’ beliefs paralleled their practices in feedback scope, but their beliefs and practices mismatched with regard to feedback focus and feedback strategies. This article concludes with a discussion of the important pedagogical implications.


2010 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Norman W. Evans ◽  
K. James Hartshorn ◽  
Emily Allen Tuioti

Considerable attention has been given to written corrective feedback (WCF) in second language writing (L2) over the past several decades. One of the central questions has focused on the appropriateness of its use in L2 writing. In these academic discussions, scholars frequently describe how WCF is utilized in the classroom. However, many of these claims of teacher practice have no research base, since few studies have actually asked teachers what place WCF has in their writing classroom (Ferris, et al., in press/2011a; Ferris, et al., in press/2011b; Hyland, 2003; Lee, 2004). This paucity of data from teachers about their WCF practices is problematic. Understanding teacher perspectives on corrective feedback is integral to our understanding the place of WCF in L2 writing pedagogy. Accordingly, this article reports on a study that asks two fundamental research questions: (a) To what extent do current L2 writing teachers provide WCF? and (b) What determines whether or not practitioners choose to provide WCF? These questions were answered by means of an international survey completed by 1,053 L2 writing practitioners in 69 different countries. Results suggest that WCF is commonly practiced in L2 pedagogy by experienced and well-educated L2 practitioners for sound pedagogical reasons.


2017 ◽  
Vol 66 (1) ◽  
pp. 215-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Woodard ◽  
Andrea Vaughan ◽  
Emily Machado

We examine how culturally sustaining pedagogy that fosters linguistic and cultural pluralism might be taken up in writing instruction. Using data collected through semistructured interviews with nine urban elementary and middle school writing teachers, we document teachers’ conceptualizations and enactments of culturally sustaining writing pedagogy. Findings indicate that these teachers tended to make space for explicit discussions of language, culture, and power in the writing curriculum and to problematize expressions of dominant culture, such as an emphasis on official languages. We also explore the tensions that these teachers experienced in their pedagogy while engaging in culturally sustaining methods; for example, we documented teachers’ sense that writing needed to be more formal than speech and instances where their critical practices put them at odds with stakeholders in their schools. This work represents an emerging understanding of how culturally sustaining literacy pedagogy might be implemented in practice.


2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (9) ◽  
pp. 121
Author(s):  
Irda Haryani Tahir

Both students and teachers are environmentally challenged. Teachers are not well-heeled to do everything including giving feedback to students. Writing is a challenging area in teaching ESL. It was said that giving written feedback to students’ writing is the most time consuming and challenging job (Ferris, 2007). This paper reports on a study designed to investigate and identify the benefits and the challenges of peer review, to investigate the influence of content and form based feedback to students writing. Teachers should be more aware of the right techniques to use in a writing class to produce all-rounder future communities.Keywords: Environmentally challenged, future communities, influence, peer evaluation.eISSN 2398-4295 © 2018. The Authors. Published for AMER ABRA cE-Bs by e-International Publishing House, Ltd., UK. This is an open-access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer–review under responsibility of AMER (Association of Malaysian Environment-Behaviour Researchers), ABRA (Association of Behavioural Researchers on Asians) and cE-Bs (Centre for Environment-Behaviour Studies), Faculty of Architecture, Planning & Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document