Home Development and validation of the questionnaire on EFL students’ perceptions of authorial stance in academic writing
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Development and validation of the questionnaire on EFL students’ perceptions of authorial stance in academic writing

  • Lu Zhang

    Lu Zhang, PhD, is a lecturer with the School of Foreign Languages, Ocean University of China, Tsingdao, China. She has completed her PhD degree in Education (Applied Linguistics & TESOL) in the Faculty of Education and Social Work, The University of Auckland, New Zealand and has an MA in Applied Linguistics from Wuhan University, China. Her research interests include English for academic purposes (EAP), second language writing development, especially EFL students’ understanding of authorial stance and stance-taking. She has published research in journals such as Sustainability, among other Chinese journals.

     ORCID logo     and Lawrence Jun Zhang

    Lawrence Jun Zhang, PhD, is Professor of Applied Linguistics and Associate Dean, Faculty of Education & Social Work, University of Auckland, New Zealand. He also holds a concurrent appointment as a Distinguished Visiting Professor at Xi’an Jiaotong University, China. His major interests and 100-plus publications are on learner metacognition, English academic writing, and language-teacher education. He is Co-Chief-editor for System and TESOL Quarterly’s Brief Research Reports, and an editorial board member for Applied Linguistics Review, Journal of Second Language Writing, Metacognition and Learning, and RELC Journal. He was honored by the TESOL International Association (USA) in 2016 with the award of “50 at 50”, acknowledging “50 Outstanding Leaders” when TESOL celebrated its 50th Anniversary. He was also officially installed as a newly elected member of the Board of Directors of the Association in 2017.

     ORCID logo EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: November 1, 2021
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill
Submit Manuscript Author Information
Applied Linguistics Review
From the journal Applied Linguistics Review Volume 14 Issue 5

Abstract

Studies on academic writing of EFL students have found that they have been less successful in presenting an effective stance. It has been assumed that how they perceive authorial stance may influence their stance deployment. Yet few studies have been conducted to assess student writers’ perceptions of stance. To fill the gap, this research intends to develop and validate an instrument, the Perceptions of Authorial Stance Questionnaire (PASQ), for assessing EFL students’ perceptions of authorial stance and further exploring their relationships with stance deployment and the overall quality of English academic writing. Taking a dialogic perspective, we designed the research with two studies in it. In Study 1, exploratory factor analysis with 197 respondents and subsequent confirmatory factor analysis with another sample of 191 respondents produced results of a 17 item scale with two-factors: dialogic contraction and dialogic expansion. In Study 2, scores for the two subscales of the PASQ were examined in relation to the frequencies of various stance types and writing scores. Results show that scores for the two subscales of perceptions were positively correlated with the frequencies of different stance types. However, no significant relationship was detected between students’ perceptions and their writing scores. Possible reasons of the findings and their pedagogical implications are discussed.

Keywords: academic writing; authorial stance; EFL learners; perceptions; questionnaire development
Corresponding author: Lawrence Jun Zhang, Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Auckland, 74 Epsom Avenue, Auckland 1023, New Zealand, E-mail:

About the authors

Lu Zhang

Lu Zhang, PhD, is a lecturer with the School of Foreign Languages, Ocean University of China, Tsingdao, China. She has completed her PhD degree in Education (Applied Linguistics & TESOL) in the Faculty of Education and Social Work, The University of Auckland, New Zealand and has an MA in Applied Linguistics from Wuhan University, China. Her research interests include English for academic purposes (EAP), second language writing development, especially EFL students’ understanding of authorial stance and stance-taking. She has published research in journals such as Sustainability, among other Chinese journals.

Lawrence Jun Zhang

Lawrence Jun Zhang, PhD, is Professor of Applied Linguistics and Associate Dean, Faculty of Education & Social Work, University of Auckland, New Zealand. He also holds a concurrent appointment as a Distinguished Visiting Professor at Xi’an Jiaotong University, China. His major interests and 100-plus publications are on learner metacognition, English academic writing, and language-teacher education. He is Co-Chief-editor for System and TESOL Quarterly’s Brief Research Reports, and an editorial board member for Applied Linguistics Review, Journal of Second Language Writing, Metacognition and Learning, and RELC Journal. He was honored by the TESOL International Association (USA) in 2016 with the award of “50 at 50”, acknowledging “50 Outstanding Leaders” when TESOL celebrated its 50th Anniversary. He was also officially installed as a newly elected member of the Board of Directors of the Association in 2017.

Perceptions of authorial stance questionnaire

In this questionnaire, we would like you to help us by answering the following questions concerning your perception of stance in English academic writing. To start with, there are some concepts that are helpful:

(1) The entry of woman into managerial positions has been profoundly slower. In South Africa, for example, gender discrimination in the workplace has been outlawed only recently. Similarly, in Taiwan there is anti-discrimination legislation, but it is indeed recent origin. Women obviously receive less frequent promotions than their male counterparts.

 (2) The issue of women’s work-related stress has received some attention, beginning in the 1980s. However, the results of the research in this area tended to be inconclusive. Future researchers can be advised not to spend time debating the nature of sex occupational stress relationship when it is now a salient issue.

Stance, or voice, refers to your opinion or attitude toward the issues you propose. To take your stance, you need to express what you think, not just what you know. Stance can be generally divided into two kinds: assertive and tentative stance. Assertive stance (A) expresses opinions in a strong and definite manner, while tentative stance (T) tends to be not definite. Here are two examples for them, in which stance words are italicized (斜体):

Please tell us how much you agree or disagree with the following statements by simply ticking (√) the corresponding number from 1 to 5. Please give your answers sincerely and do not leave out any of the items. Thank you very much for your help.

Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
2. An assertive text sounds like the writer is sure about what he or she is doing.
4. I should be assertive and certain in writing since I have done the research.
8. Assertive expressions are absolute so that they can arouse critics.
9. A strong stance can support my claims better.
10. A strong stance seems more certain, thus more academic and serious.
11. Tentative expressions are more academic and precise, because no one can be 100% sure.
12. A strong stance makes my research or report seem more valuable.
13. A strong stance reflects that the writer is confident.
15. A strong stance makes me feel that the writer is aggressive.
16. A weak stance sounds humble and cautious.
17. A strong stance is subjective and makes me feel that the writer is expressing personal opinions.
18. A strong stance is more convincing.
19. Tentative expressions are more convincing, because they are more polite and objective.
21. I will use a strong stance when expressing my own opinions.
22. I need to use strong stances when I want to persuade the reader.
24. Tentative expressions allow more room for writers to argue for a point.
27. Tentative expressions are better, because they leave some space for other views.

References

Abasi, Ali R., Nahal Akbari & Barbara Graves. 2006. Discourse appropriation, construction of identities, and the complex issue of plagiarism: ESL students writing in graduate school. Journal of Second Language Writing 15(2). 102–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.05.001.Search in Google Scholar

Aull, Laura L., Dineth Bandarage & Meredith R. Miller. 2017. Generality in student and expert epistemic stance: A corpus analysis of first-year, upper-level, and published academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 26. 29–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.01.005.Search in Google Scholar

Aull, Laura L. & Zak Lancaster. 2014. Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing. Written Communication 31(2). 151–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088314527055.Search in Google Scholar

Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 1981. The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Search in Google Scholar

Ballantine, Joan, Xin Guo & Patricia Larres. 2015. Psychometric evaluation of the student authorship questionnaire: A confirmatory factor analysis approach. Studies in Higher Education 40(4). 596–609. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.835910.Search in Google Scholar

Bentler, Peter M. 2006. EQS 6 structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.Search in Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 2006. Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5(2). 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001.Search in Google Scholar

Bryant, Fred B. 2000. Assessing the validity of measurement. In L. G. Grimm & P. R. Yarnold (eds.), Reading and understanding more multivariate statistics, 99–146. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Search in Google Scholar

Byrne, Barbara M. 2016. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming, 3rd edn. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315757421Search in Google Scholar

Chang, Peichin. 2012. Using a stance corpus to learn about effective authorial stance-taking: A textlinguistic approach. ReCALL 24(2). 209–236. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0958344012000079.Search in Google Scholar

Chang, Peichin. 2016. EFL doctoral students’ conceptions of authorial stance in academic research writing: An exploratory study. RELC Journal 47(2). 175–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688215609215.Search in Google Scholar

Chang, Peichin & Chin-Chung Tsai. 2014. EFL doctoral students’ conceptions of authorial stance in academic knowledge claims and the tie to epistemic beliefs. Teaching in Higher Education 19(5). 525–542. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2014.880682.Search in Google Scholar

Chang, Peichin & Mary Schleppegrell. 2011. Taking an effective authorial stance in academic writing: Making the linguistic resources explicit for L2 writers in the social sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 10(3). 140–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.05.005.Search in Google Scholar

Chang, Peichin & Mary Schleppegrell. 2016. Explicit learning of authorial stance-taking by L2 doctoral students. Journal of Writing Research 8(1). 49–80. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2016.08.01.02.Search in Google Scholar

Charles, Maggie. 2006. The construction of stance in reporting clauses: A cross-disciplinary study of theses. Applied Linguistics 27(3). 492–518. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml021.Search in Google Scholar

Charles, Maggie. 2007. Argument or evidence? Disciplinary variation in the use of the noun that pattern in stance construction. English for Specific Purposes 26(2). 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2006.08.004.Search in Google Scholar

Chen, Hsin-I. 2010. Contrastive learner corpus analysis of epistemic modality and interlanguage pragmatic competence in L2 writing. Arizona Working Papers in SLA and Teaching 17. 27–51.Search in Google Scholar

Chen, Chenghui & Lawrence Jun Zhang. 2017. An intercultural analysis of the use of hedging by Chinese and Anglophone academic English writers. Applied Linguistics Review 8(1). 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2016-2009.https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2016-2009Search in Google Scholar

Chen, Jing & Lawrence Jun Zhang. 2019. Assessing student-writers’ self-efficacy beliefs about text revision in EFL writing. Assessing Writing 40. 27–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2019.03.002.Search in Google Scholar

Cheng, Fei-Wen & Len Unsworth. 2016. Stance-taking as negotiating academic conflict in applied linguistics research article discussion sections. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 24. 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.09.001.Search in Google Scholar

Cheung, Kevin Yet Fong, Edward James Nairn Stupple & James Elander. 2017. Development and validation of the student attitudes and beliefs about authorship scale: A psychometrically robust measure of authorial identity. Studies in Higher Education 42(1). 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1034673.Search in Google Scholar

Coffin, Caroline, Ann Hewings & Sarah North. 2012. Arguing as an academic purpose: The role of asynchronous conferencing in supporting argumentative dialogue in school and university. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11(1). 38–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.005.Search in Google Scholar

Crosthwaite, Peter, Lisa Cheung & Feng (Kevin) Jiang. 2017. Writing with attitude: Stance expression in learner and professional dentistry research reports. English for Specific Purposes 46. 107–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.02.001.Search in Google Scholar

DeVellis, Robert F. 2016. Scale development: Theory and applications, 4th edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Search in Google Scholar

Dörnyei, Zoltán & Kata Csizér. 2012. How to design and analyze surveys in second language acquisition. In Alison Mackey & Susan Gass (eds.), Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide, 74–94. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781444347340.ch5Search in Google Scholar

Dörnyei, Zoltán & Tatsuya Taguchi. 2010. Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing, 2nd edn. New York, NY: Routledge.10.4324/9780203864739Search in Google Scholar

Elander, James, Gail Pittam, Joanne Lusher, Pauline Fox & Nicola Payne. 2010. Evaluation of an intervention to help students avoid unintentional plagiarism by improving their authorial identity. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 35(2). 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930802687745.Search in Google Scholar

Fabrigar, Leandre R., Duane T. Wegener, Robert C. MacCallum & Erin J. Strahan. 1999. Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods 4(3). 272–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.4.3.272.Search in Google Scholar

Fan, Xitao & Stephen A. Sivo. 2007. Sensitivity of fit indices to model misspecification and model types. Multivariate Behavioral Research 42(3). 509–529. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170701382864.Search in Google Scholar

Field, Andy. 2013. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics, 4th edn. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Search in Google Scholar

Gray, Bethany & Douglas Biber. 2012. Current conceptions of stance. In Ken Hyland & Carmen Sancho Guinda (eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres, 15–33. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9781137030825_2Search in Google Scholar

Graham, Steve, Shirley S. Schwartz & Charles A. MacArthur. 1993. Knowledge of writing and the composing process, attitude toward writing, and self-efficacy for students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities 26(4). 237–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949302600404.Search in Google Scholar

Hair, Joseph F., William C. Black, Black J. Babin & Rolph E. Anderson. 2010. Multivariate data analysis, 7th edn. New York, NY: Prentice-Hall.Search in Google Scholar

Hancock, Gregory R. & Min Liu. 2012. Bootstrapping standard errors and data-model fit statistics in structural equation modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling, 296–306. New York, NY: Guilford.Search in Google Scholar

Helms-Park, Rena & Paul Stapleton. 2003. Questioning the importance of individualized voice in undergraduate L2 argumentative writing: An empirical study with pedagogical implications. Journal of Second Language Writing 12(3). 245–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2003.08.001.Search in Google Scholar

Henson, Robin K. & J. Kyle Roberts. 2006. Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: Common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement 66(3). 393–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282485.Search in Google Scholar

Hood, Susan. 2004. Managing attitude in undergraduate academic writing: A focus on the introductions to research reports. In Louis Ravelli & Rod Ellis (eds.), Analysing academic writing: Contextualised frameworks, 24–44. New York, NY: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Hood, Susan. 2006. The persuasive power of prosodies: Radiating values in academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5(1). 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2005.11.001.Search in Google Scholar

Hood, Susan. 2010. Appraising research: Evaluation in academic writing. Basingstoke; New York, NY: Palgrave-Macmillan.10.1057/9780230274662Search in Google Scholar

Hu, Li-Tze & Peter M. Bentler. 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6(1). 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.Search in Google Scholar

Huerta, Margarita, Patricia Goodson, Mina Beigi & Dominique Chlup. 2017. Graduate students as academic writers: Writing anxiety, self-efficacy and emotional intelligence. Higher Education Research and Development 36(4). 716–729. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1238881.Search in Google Scholar

Hutcheson, Graeme & Nick Sofroniou. 1999. The multivariate social scientist: Introductory statistics using generalized linear models. London, England: Sage.Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 2004a. Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 2004b. Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 13(2). 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001.Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 2005. Representing readers in writing: Student and expert practices. Linguistics and Education 16(4). 363–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2006.05.002.Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 2008. Academic clusters: Text patterning in published and postgraduate writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 18(1). 41–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2008.00178.x.Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 2012. Undergraduate understandings: Stance and voice in final year reports. In Ken Hyland & Carmen Sancho Guinda (eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres, 134–150. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9781137030825_9Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 2016. Writing with attitude: Conveying a stance in academic texts. In Eli Hinkel (ed.), Teaching English Grammar to Speakers of other languages, 246–265. New York, NY: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken & Feng (Kevin) Jiang. 2016. “We must conclude that…”: A diachronic study of academic engagement. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 24. 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.09.003.Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken & John Milton. 1997. Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 6(2). 183–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(97)90033-3.Search in Google Scholar

Izutsu, Mitsuko Narita. 2008. Contrast, concessive, and corrective: Toward a comprehensive study of opposition relations. Journal of Pragmatics 40(4). 646–675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.07.001.Search in Google Scholar

Jacobs, Holly L., Stephen A. Zinkgraf, Deanna R. Wormuth, V. Faye Hartfiel & Jane B. Hughey. 1981. Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Search in Google Scholar

Jiang, Feng (Kevin) & Ken Hyland. 2015. “The fact that”: Stance nouns in disciplinary writing. Discourse Studies 17(5). 529–550. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445615590719.Search in Google Scholar

Jiang, Feng (Kevin) & Ken Hyland. 2016. Nouns and academic interactions: A neglected feature of metadiscourse. Applied Linguistics 39(4). 508–531. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw023.Search in Google Scholar

Kline, Rex B. 2011. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, 3rd edn. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Search in Google Scholar

Koutsantoni, Dimitra. 2006. Rhetorical strategies in engineering research articles and research theses: Advanced academic literacy and relations of power. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5(1). 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2005.11.002.Search in Google Scholar

Kuzborska, Irena & Bill Soden. 2018. The construction of opposition relations in high-, middle-, and low-rated postgraduate ESL Chinese students’ essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 34. 68–85.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.03.013.Search in Google Scholar

Lancaster, Zak. 2014. Exploring valued patterns of stance in upper- level student writing in the disciplines. Written Communication 31(1). 27–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088313515170.Search in Google Scholar

Lancaster, Zak. 2016a. Expressing stance in undergraduate writing: Discipline-specific and general qualities. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 23. 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.05.006.Search in Google Scholar

Lancaster, Zak. 2016b. Using corpus results to guide the discourse-based interview: A study of one student’s awareness of stance in academic writing in philosophy. Journal of Writing Research 8(1). 119–148. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2016.08.01.04.Search in Google Scholar

Lee, Joseph J. & Lydia Deakin. 2016. Interactions in L1 and L2 undergraduate student writing: Interactional metadiscourse in successful and less-successful argumentative essays. Journal of Second Language Writing 33. 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.06.004.Search in Google Scholar

Lee, Sook Hee. 2008. An integrative framework for the analyses of argumentative/persuasive essays from an interpersonal perspective. Text & Talk 28(2). 239–270. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2008.011.Search in Google Scholar

Lee, Sook Hee. 2010. Command strategies for balancing respect and authority in undergraduate expository essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9(1). 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2009.11.001.Search in Google Scholar

Li, Ting & Sue Wharton. 2012. Metadiscourse repertoire of L1 Mandarin undergraduates writing in English: A cross-contextual, cross-disciplinary study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11(4). 345–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.07.004.Search in Google Scholar

Loi, Chek-Kim, Jason Miin-Hwa Lim & Sue Wharton. 2016. Expressing an evaluative stance in English and Malay research article conclusions: International publications versus local publications. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 21. 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.08.004.Search in Google Scholar

Mardia, Kantilal V. 1970. Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika 57(3). 519–530. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/57.3.519.Search in Google Scholar

Martin, James R. 2000. Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse, 142–175. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198238546.003.0008Search in Google Scholar

Martin, James R. & Peter R. White. 2005. The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Search in Google Scholar

Martinez, Christy Teranishi, Ned Kock & Jeffrey Cass. 2011. Pain and pleasure in short essay writing: Factors pre-dicting university students’ writing anxiety and self-efficacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 54. 351–360. https://doi.org/10.1598/jaal.54.5.5.Search in Google Scholar

Mateos, Mar, Isabel Cuevas, Elena Martín, Ana Martín, Gerardo Echeita & María Luna. 2011. Reading to write an argumentation: The role of epistemological, reading and writing beliefs. Journal of Research in Reading 34(3). 281–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01437.x.Search in Google Scholar

Mateos, Mar & Isabel Solé. 2012. Undergraduate students’ conceptions and beliefs about academic writing. In Christiane Donahue & Montserrat Castelló (eds.), University writing: Selves and texts in academic societies, 53–67. UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.10.1163/9781780523873_005Search in Google Scholar

Matsuda, Paul Kei. 2015. Identity in written discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 35. 140–159. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0267190514000178.Search in Google Scholar

Miller, Ryan T., Thomas D. Mitchell & Silvia Pessoa. 2014. Valued voices: Students’ use of engagement in argumentative history writing. Linguistics and Education 28. 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2014.10.002.Search in Google Scholar

National Advisory Committee for Foreign Language Teaching. 2000. Syllabus for university English language teaching. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Search in Google Scholar

Neely, Michelle E. 2014. Epistemological and writing beliefs in a first-year college writing course: Exploring shifts across a semester and relationships with argument quality. Journal of Writing Research 6(2). 141–170. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2014.06.02.3.Search in Google Scholar

O’Connor, Brian P. 2000. SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 32(3). 396–402.10.3758/BF03200807Search in Google Scholar

O’Malley, J. Michael & Anna Uhl Chamot. 1990. Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524490Search in Google Scholar

Petrić, Bojana. 2010. Students’ conceptions of voice in academic writing. In Rosa Lorez-Sanz, Pilar Mur-Duenas & Enrique Lafuente-Millan (eds.), Constructing interpersonality: Multiple perspectives on written academic genres, 324–336. Newcastle upon Tyne, England: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

Pittam, Gail, James Elander, Joanne Lusher, Pauline Fox & Nicola Payne. 2009. Student beliefs and attitudes about authorial identity in academic writing. Studies in Higher Education 34(2). 153–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802528270.Search in Google Scholar

Rinnert, Carol & Hiroe Kobayashi. 2001. Differing perceptions of EFL writing among readers in Japan. The Modern Language Journal 85(2). 189–209. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00104.Search in Google Scholar

Ryshina-Pankova, Marianna. 2014. Exploring academic argumentation in course-related blogs through engagement. In Geoff Thompson & Laura Alba-Juez (eds.), Evaluation in context, 281–302. Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.242.14rysSearch in Google Scholar

Sawaki, Tomoko. 2014. On the function of stance-neutral formulations: Apparent neutrality as a powerful stance constructing resource. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 16. 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2014.10.001.Search in Google Scholar

Séror, Jérémie. 2005. Computers and qualitative data analysis: Paper, pens, and highlighters vs. screen, mouse, and keyboard. TESOL Quarterly 39(2). 321–328. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588315.Search in Google Scholar

Stevens, James P. 2009. Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences, 5th edn. New York, NY: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Sun, Qiyu, Lawrence Jun Zhang & Susan Carter. 2021. Investigating students’ metacognitive experiences: Insights from the English as a Foreign Language Learners’ Writing Metacognitive Experiences Questionnaire (EFLLWMEQ). Frontiers in Psychology 12(744842). 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.744842.Search in Google Scholar

Swales, John M. 2004. Research genres: Explorations and applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524827Search in Google Scholar

Tabachnick, Barbara G. & Linda S. Fidell. 2007. Using multivariate statistics, 5th edn. Boston, MA: Pearson.Search in Google Scholar

Tang, Ramona. 2009. A dialogic account of authority in academic writing. In Maggie Charles, Diane Pecorari & Susan Hunston (eds.), Academic writing: At the interface of corpus and discourse, 170–190. New York, NY: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Teng, Lin Sophie & Lawrence Jun Zhang. 2016. A Questionnaire-based validation of multidimensional models of self-regulated learning strategies. The Modern Language Journal 100(3). 674–701. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12339.Search in Google Scholar

Teng, Lin Sophie & Lawrence Jun Zhang. 2018. Effects of motivational regulation strategies on writing performance: A mediation model of self-regulated learning of writing in English as a second/foreign language. Metacognition and Learning 13. 213–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-017-9171-4.Search in Google Scholar

Villalón, Ruth & Mar Mateos. 2009. Secondary and university students’ conceptions about academic writing. Infancia y Aprendizaje 32(2). 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1174/021037009788001761.Search in Google Scholar

Weiten, Wayne. 2016. Psychology: Themes and variations, 10th edn. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.Search in Google Scholar

Wette, Rosemary. 2018. Source-based writing in a health sciences essay: Year 1 students’ perceptions, abilities and strategies. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 36. 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.09.006.Search in Google Scholar

Wharton, Sue. 2012. Epistemological and interpersonal stance in a data description task: Findings from a discipline-specific learner corpus. English for Specific Purposes 31(4). 261–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2012.05.005.Search in Google Scholar

White, Mary Jane & Roger Bruning. 2005. Implicit writing beliefs and their relation to writing quality. Contemporary Educational Psychology 30(2). 166–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.07.002.Search in Google Scholar

White, Peter R. 2003. Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text 23(2). 259–284. https://doi.org/10.12987/yale/9780300099270.003.0011.Search in Google Scholar

Wingate, Ursula. 2012. “Argument!” helping students understand what essay writing is about. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11(2). 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.001.Search in Google Scholar

Wu, Siew Mei. 2006. Creating a contrastive rhetorical stance: Investigating the strategy of problematization in students’ argumentation. RELC Journal 37(3). 329–353.10.1177/0033688206071316Search in Google Scholar

Wu, Siew Mei. 2007. The use of engagement resources in high-and low-rated undergraduate geography essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 6(3). 254–271.10.1016/j.jeap.2007.09.006Search in Google Scholar

Xu, Jinfen & Yumei Fan. 2017. The evolution of the college English curriculum in China (1985–2015): Changes, trends and conflicts. Language Policy 16. 267–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-016-9407-1.Search in Google Scholar

Xu, Linlin & Lawrence Jun Zhang. 2019. L2 doctoral students’ experiences in thesis writing in an English-medium university in New Zealand. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 41(100779). 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100779.Search in Google Scholar

Yousefpoori-Naeim, Mehrdad, Lawrence Jun Zhang & Sasan Baleghizadeh. 2018. Resolving the terminological mishmash in teaching link words in EFL writing. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics 41(3). 321–337. https://doi.org/10.1515/cjal-2018-0025.Search in Google Scholar

Zhang, Lawrence Jun. 2013. Second language writing as and for second language learning. Journal of Second Language Writing 22(4). 446–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.08.010.Search in Google Scholar

Zhang, Lawrence Jun. 2016. Reflections on the pedagogical imports of western practices for professionalizing ESL/EFL writing and writing-teacher education. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 39(3). 203–232. https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.39.3.01zha.Search in Google Scholar

Zhang, Lawrence Jun. 2021. Crossing literacy borders through writing: Transformational apprenticeship and repositioning of EAL learners. In A. Golden, L. A. Kulbrandstad & L. J. Zhang (eds.), Crossing borders, writing texts, being evaluated: Cultural and interdisciplinary norms in academic writing, 147–163. Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781788928571-011Search in Google Scholar

Zhang, Lawrence Jun & Xiaolong Cheng. 2021. Examining the effects of comprehensive written corrective feedback on L2 EAP students’ linguistic performance: A mixed-methods study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 54(101043). 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.101043.Search in Google Scholar

Zhang, Lu & Lawrence Jun Zhang. 2021a. Fostering stance-taking as a sustainable goal in developing EFL students’ academic writing skills: Exploring the effects of explicit instruction on academic writing skills and stance deployment. Sustainability 13(4270). 1–24. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084270.Search in Google Scholar

Zhang, Tingting & Lawrence Jun Zhang. 2021b. Taking stock of a genre-based pedagogy: Sustaining the development of EFL students’ knowledge of the elements in argumentation and writing improvement. Sustainability 13(11616). 1–25. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111616.Search in Google Scholar

Zhang, Zhe (Victor). 2020. Engaging with automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback on L2 writing: Student perceptions and revisions. Assessing Writing 43(100439). 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2019.100439.Search in Google Scholar
Received: 2021-01-07
Accepted: 2021-10-15
Published Online: 2021-11-01
Published in Print: 2023-09-26

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Deaf signing diversity and signed language translations
  4. ‘Smelling’ diasporic: bargaining interactions and the problem of politeness
  5. Discursive strategies of self-promotion by doctors in online medical consultations in China: an e-commercialised practice
  6. Learning semantic and thematic vocabulary clusters through embedded instruction: effects on very young English learners’ vocabulary acquisition and retention
  7. Towards an understanding of multilingual investment: multilingual learning experiences among mainland Chinese students in Hong Kong
  8. The cognitive-conceptual, planning-organizational, affective-social and linguistic-discursive affordances of translanguaging
  9. Development and validation of the questionnaire on EFL students’ perceptions of authorial stance in academic writing
  10. Emergent LOTE motivation? The L3 motivational dynamics of Japanese-major university students in China
  11. Study abroad, human capital development, language commodification, and social inequalities
  12. Exploring the impact of a teacher development programme using a digital application on linguistic interactions in the classroom: a multiple case study
  13. Boredom in practical English language classes: a longitudinal confirmatory factor analysis-curve of factors model
  14. Medical students’ attention in EFL class: roles of academic expectation stress and quality of sleep
  15. Foreign language peace of mind: a positive emotion drawn from the Chinese EFL learning context
  16. Mutual intelligibility of a Kurmanji and a Zazaki dialect spoken in the province of Elazığ, Turkey
  17. Investigating the relationship between linguistic changes in L2 writers’ paraphrasing, paraphrasing performance and L2 proficiency
https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2021-0003
Keywords for this article
academic writing; authorial stance; EFL learners; perceptions; questionnaire development

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Deaf signing diversity and signed language translations
  4. ‘Smelling’ diasporic: bargaining interactions and the problem of politeness
  5. Discursive strategies of self-promotion by doctors in online medical consultations in China: an e-commercialised practice
  6. Learning semantic and thematic vocabulary clusters through embedded instruction: effects on very young English learners’ vocabulary acquisition and retention
  7. Towards an understanding of multilingual investment: multilingual learning experiences among mainland Chinese students in Hong Kong
  8. The cognitive-conceptual, planning-organizational, affective-social and linguistic-discursive affordances of translanguaging
  9. Development and validation of the questionnaire on EFL students’ perceptions of authorial stance in academic writing
  10. Emergent LOTE motivation? The L3 motivational dynamics of Japanese-major university students in China
  11. Study abroad, human capital development, language commodification, and social inequalities
  12. Exploring the impact of a teacher development programme using a digital application on linguistic interactions in the classroom: a multiple case study
  13. Boredom in practical English language classes: a longitudinal confirmatory factor analysis-curve of factors model
  14. Medical students’ attention in EFL class: roles of academic expectation stress and quality of sleep
  15. Foreign language peace of mind: a positive emotion drawn from the Chinese EFL learning context
  16. Mutual intelligibility of a Kurmanji and a Zazaki dialect spoken in the province of Elazığ, Turkey
  17. Investigating the relationship between linguistic changes in L2 writers’ paraphrasing, paraphrasing performance and L2 proficiency
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 11.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/applirev-2021-0003/html
Scroll to top button