Home Incorporating peer feedback in writing instruction: examining its effects on Chinese English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) learners’ writing performance
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Incorporating peer feedback in writing instruction: examining its effects on Chinese English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) learners’ writing performance

  • Zhiqing Xu ORCID logo , Lawrence Jun Zhang ORCID logo EMAIL logo and Judy M. Parr ORCID logo
Published/Copyright: February 9, 2022
International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching
From the journal International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching Volume 61 Issue 4

Abstract

Peer feedback has been widely employed in writing instruction in various contexts. However, studies into its effects on improving students’ writing performance, particularly its long-term effects, are under-represented. To fill the research gap, we adopted a pre-, post-, and delayed post-test quasi-experimental design to investigate the long-term effects of a peer feedback intervention. Two intact classes of EFL students from a Chinese university were recruited, with one class participating in peer feedback activities and the other class receiving collective feedback from their teacher for one semester. Their compositions for the pre-, post-, delayed post-tests were compared in terms of the overall text quality, content, organization, complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF). The results show that the experimental group participants made significant improvements in the overall text quality, content, organization, and accuracy in the post-test and they retained the improvements 12 weeks after the intervention. In addition, they outperformed their counterparts receiving collective feedback in the overall text quality and organization in the post- and delayed post-tests, and in accuracy only in the delayed post-test. Results suggest that peer feedback could help Chinese EFL learners make progress in writing.

Keywords: CAF; collective feedback; EFL writing; long-term effects; peer feedback
Corresponding author: Lawrence Jun Zhang, School of Curriculum and Pedagogy, Faculty of Education and Social Work, The University of Auckland, 74 Epsom Avenue, 1023, Auckland, New Zealand, E-mail:

Funding source: Philosophy and Social Sciences Research Grant from Jilin University

Award Identifier / Grant number: No. 2018QY009

Funding source: Joint Research Grant from Jilin University and Daren Technology

Award Identifier / Grant number: No. 371219541434

  1. Research funding: This was supported by Philosophy and Social Sciences Research Grant from Jilin University, Grant No. 2018QY009 and Joint Research Grant from Jilin University and Daren Technology, Grant No. 371219541434.

Appendix A: Topics for the pre-, post-, and delayed post-tests

(Pre-test)

Directions: Suppose you have two options upon graduation: one is to take a job in a company and the other to go to a graduate school. You are to make a choice between the two. Write an essay to explain the reasons for your choice. You should write at least 200 words within the 45 min.

(Post-test)

Directions: Suppose you have two options upon graduation: one is to find a job somewhere and the other to start a business of your own. You are to make a decision. Write an essay to explain the reasons for your decision. You should write at least 200 words within the 45 min.

(Delayed post-test)

Directions: Suppose you have two options upon graduation: one is to work in a state-owned business and the other in a joint venture. You are to make a choice between the two. Write an essay to explain the reasons for your choice. You should write at least 200 words within the 45 min.

Appendix B: Peer feedback form for writing task 6

Draft written by___________ Draft reviewed by__________ Date__________

General guidelines

Before providing feedback for your partner, make sure you read the information about cohesion. Then you are required to read and comment on your partner’s draft guided by the questions. As a final step, you are required to FILL IN THE FORM. Meanwhile, you can also give in-text comments and/or end-of-the text comments.

When you provide feedback for your partner, please bear in mind the following two points: Firstly, keep your feedback specific and constructive: You should not only point out the problems, but also offer clear advice on how to fix them. Secondly, be honest and friendly with your partner. The purpose of peer feedback is to help each other improve the draft.

Cohesion and cohesive devices[1]

Creating cohesion means ‘tying’ our words, phrases, sentences and paragraphs together, to create a text where the relationships between these elements is clear and logical to the reader, giving the text ‘flow’. We create cohesion at all these levels (word, phrase, sentence and paragraph), in order to direct our readers’ attention to the development of our argument. Following are some of the cohesive devices (as shown in bold) you can make use of.

Repetition: Use a particular word or phrase across different sentences or paragraphs.

Example: Where does the designer get ideas and inspiration for new fashions? The fashion designer gets ideas and inspiration everywhere! Through television the designer experiences all the wonders of the entertainment world. In films the designer is exposed to the influences of all the arts and lifestyles throughout the world. Museum exhibits, art shows, world happenings, expositions, the theater, music, dance, and world travel are all sources of design inspiration to the fashion designer.

Synonyms: Use a word or phrase in a later sentence which has the same or similar meaning to a keyword in the first sentence.

Example: Excesses of fat beyond the body’s usual requirements become the storage fat that builds up as adipose or fatty tissue in many parts of the body. This is the type of fat that forms layers between the muscles and the skin and over the internal organs and other vital parts. These cushions do have some protective value, but this storage fat also contributes to obesity.

Pronouns: Use a pronoun to refer back to a phrase already used.

Example: When scientific experiments do not work out as expected, they are often considered failures until some other scientist tries them again. Those that work out better the second time around are the ones that promise the most rewards.

Transition words/expressions:

Adding similar ideas: “in addition…”, “another reason is…”, and “equally…”
Contrasting ideas: “in contrast…”, “on the other hand…”, and “on the contrary…”, and “although…”
Giving examples or evidence: “for example…”, “for instance…”, and “to illustrate this…”
Explaining results: “as a result…”, “for this reason…”, and “consequently…”
Sequencing: “firstly…”, “secondly…”, “next…”, and “to begin with…”
Providing explanations: “owing to…”, “because of…”, and “due to…”
Drawing conclusions: “in conclusion…” and “to sum up…”
Introducing your opinion: “in my opinion…”, “to my mind…”, and “it seems to me that …”

Important tips: Don’t over-use transition words or phrases, because you may confuse or irritate your readers. Show variety in cohesive devices.

Guiding questions for provision of feedback

  1. What are some strengths in this composition? Please list AT LEAST ONE strength and illustrate with examples from the composition.

  2. Feedback on cohesion

    1. List AT LEAST TWO transition devices used in this composition and comment on this use?

    2. Other questions to consider: What cohesive devices are used in this composition? Are they varied? What other devices can be used in this composition? Do the transition words/expressions in this composition help you understand the logic of the ideas? Comment on inappropriately-used transition words/expressions and make suggestions.

  3. Feedback on other aspects.

(You are not required to provide feedback on every aspects listed below, but you are required to generate a total of AT LEAST EIGHT pieces of feedback)

  1. Introductory paragraph: Is there a thesis statement in the introductory paragraph? Is the thesis statement congruent with the directions and well-developed through body paragraphs? Is the introductory paragraph appropriate in length?

  2. Body paragraphs: Is there a topic sentence within each body paragraph? Is the topic sentence in each body paragraph well-supported? Is any part within the paragraph not related to the topic sentence, or any part within the paragraph not logically ordered? Is each body paragraph appropriate in length?

  3. Concluding paragraph: Is there a conclusion in the composition? Does it echo to the thesis statement? Is the concluding paragraph appropriate in length?

  4. Clarity in content: Is any part of the composition confusing?

  5. Language use: What are some language problems in this composition?

  6. What are other problems in this composition?

Note. The definitions of cohesion and cohesive devices are quoted from http://www.writingcentre.uct.ac.za/sites/default/files/image_tool/images/167/Cohesion.pdf.

References

Armengol-Asparó, Carme, Cristina Mercader & Ion Georgeta. 2020. Making peer-feedback more efficient: What conditions of its delivery make the difference? Higher Eucation Research & Development. Online first. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1840527.Search in Google Scholar

Berggren, Jessica. 2014. Learning from giving feedback: A study of secondary-level students. ELT Journal 69(1). 58–70. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccu036.Search in Google Scholar

Birjandi, Parviz & Nasrin Hadidi Tamjid. 2012. The role of self-, peer and teacher assessment in promoting Iranian EFL learners’ writing performance. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 37(5). 513–533. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2010.549204.Search in Google Scholar

Bui, Gavin & Amy Kong. 2019. Metacognitive instruction for peer review interaction in L2 writing. Journal of Writing Research 11(2). 357–392. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2019.11.02.05.Search in Google Scholar

Cai, Jigang. 2017. Debates around the orientation of TEFL in Chinese tertiary education. In Hayo Reinders, David Nunan & Bin Zou (eds.), Innovation in Language learning and teaching, 115–153. London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/978-1-137-60092-9_6Search in Google Scholar

Casal, J. Elliot & Joseph J. Lee. 2019. Syntactic complexity and writing quality in assessed first-year L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 44. 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.03.005.Search in Google Scholar

Chang, Carrie Yea-huey. 2016. Two decades of research in L2 peer review. Journal of Writing Research 8(1). 81–117. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2016.08.01.03.Search in Google Scholar

Cheng, Xiaolong & Lawrence Jun Zhang. 2021. Sustaining university English as a Foreign Language Learners’ writing performance through provision of comprehensive written corrective feedback. Sustainability 13. 8192. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158192.Search in Google Scholar

Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

Crinon, Jacques. 2012. The dynamics of writing and peer review at primary school. Journal of Writing Research 4(2). 121–155. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2012.04.02.2.Search in Google Scholar

Crinon, Jacques & Brigitte Marin. 2010. The role of peer feedback in learning to write explanatory texts: Why the tutors learn the most. Language Awareness 19(2). 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658411003746604.Search in Google Scholar

Cui, Ying, Christian D. Schunn & Xiaosong Gai. 2021. Peer feedback and teacher feedback: A comparative study of revision effectiveness in writing instruction for EFL learners. Higher Education Research & Development. Online first https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1969541, In press.Search in Google Scholar

Diab, Nuwar Mawlawi. 2011. Assessing the relationship between different types of student feedback and the quality of revised writing. Assessing Writing 16(4). 274–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2011.08.001.Search in Google Scholar

Diab, Nuwar Mawlawi. 2016. A comparison of peer, teacher and self-feedback on the reduction of language errors in student essays. System 57. 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.12.014.Search in Google Scholar

Dressler, Roswita, Man-Wai Chu, Katie Crossman & Brianna Hilman. 2019. Quantity and quality of uptake: Examining surface and meaning-level feedback provided by peers and an instructor in a graduate research course. Assessing Writing 39. 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.11.001.Search in Google Scholar

Ellis, Rod & Gary Barkhuizen. 2005. Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Gao, Ying, Christian Dieter D. Schunn & Qiuying Yu. 2019. The alignment of written peer feedback with draft problems and its impact on revision in peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 44(2). 294–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1499075.Search in Google Scholar

Geng, Hua. 2017. The effects of written feedback and revision-focus direction on student revision and writing improvement. Auckland: University of Auckland PhD thesis.Search in Google Scholar

Gallien, Tara & Jody Oomen-Early. 2008. Personalized versus collective instructor feedback in the online classroom: Does types of feedback affect student satisfaction, academic performance and perceived connected ness with the instructor? International JI on E-learning 7(3). 463–476.Search in Google Scholar

Ghahari, Shima & Farzaneh Farokhnia. 2018. Peer versus teacher assessment: Implications for CAF triad language ability and critical reflections. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology 6(2). 124–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2016.1275991.Search in Google Scholar

Gielen, Sarah, Lies Tops, Dochy Filip, Patrick Onghena & Stijn Smeets. 2010. A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback and of various peer feedback forms in a secondary school writing curriculum. British Educational Research Journal 36(1). 143–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920902894070.Search in Google Scholar

Hamp-Lyons, Liz. 1990. Second language writing: Assessment issues. In Barbara Kroll (ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom, 69–87. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524551.009Search in Google Scholar

Harris, Justin & Paul Leeming. 2022. The impact of teaching approach on growth in L2 proficiency and self-efficacy: A longitudinal classroom-based study of TBLT and PPP. Journal of Second Language Studies 5(1). 114–143. https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.20014.har.10.1075/jsls.20014.harSearch in Google Scholar

Housen, Alex, Folkert Kuiken & Inke Vedder. 2012. Complexity, accuracy and fluency: Definitions, measurement, and research. In Alex Housen, Folkert Kuiken & Inke Vedder (eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA, 1–20. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.32.01houSearch in Google Scholar

Huang, Yu & Lawrence Jun Zhang. 2020. Does a process-genre approach help improve students’ argumentative writing in English as a Foreign Language? Findings from an intervention study. Reading & Writing Quarterly 36(4). 339–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2019.1649223.Search in Google Scholar

Huisman, Bart, Nadira Saab, Paul van den Broek & Jan van Driel. 2019. The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students’ academic writing: A meta-Analysis. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 44(6). 863–880. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1545896.Search in Google Scholar

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

Lee, Icy. 2017. Classroom writing assessment and feedback in L2 school context. Singapore: Springer.10.1007/978-981-10-3924-9Search in Google Scholar

Lundstrom, Kristi & Wendy Baker. 2009. To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 18(1). 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002.Search in Google Scholar

Min, Hui-Tzu. 2005. Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System 33(2). 293–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.11.003.Search in Google Scholar

Min, Hui-Tzu. 2006. The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing 15(2). 118–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.01.003.10.1016/j.jslw.2006.01.003Search in Google Scholar

Ong, Justina & Lawrence Jun Zhang. 2013. Effects of the manipulation of cognitive processes on EFL writers’ text quality. TESOL Quarterly 47(2). 375–398. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.55.10.1002/tesq.55Search in Google Scholar

Ortega, Lourdes & Gina Iberri-Shea. 2005. Longitudinal research in second language acquisition: Recent trends and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 25. 26–45. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0267190505000024.Search in Google Scholar

Rahimi, Mohammad. 2013. Is training student reviewers worth its while? A study of how training influences the quality of students’ feedback and writing. Language Teaching Research 17(1). 67–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168812459151.Search in Google Scholar

Rao, Zhenhui & Xin Li. 2017. Native and non-native teachers’ perceptions of error gravity: The effects of cultural and educational factors. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 26. 51–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-017-0326-5.Search in Google Scholar

Ruegg, Rachael. 2015. The relative effects of peer and teacher feedback on improvement in EFL students’ writing ability. Linguistics and Education 29. 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2014.12.001.Search in Google Scholar

Sasaki, Miyuki, Atushi Mizumoto & Akira Murakami. 2018. Developmental trajectories in L2 writing strategy use: A self-regulation perspective. Modern Language Journal 102(2). 292–309. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12469.Search in Google Scholar

Shang, Hui-Fang. 2019. Exploring online peer feedback and automated corrective feedback on EFL writing performance. Interactive Learning Environments 27. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1629601.Search in Google Scholar

Shen, Bin, Barry Bai & Weihe Xue. 2020. The effects of peer assessment on learner autonomy: An empirical study in a Chinese college English writing class. Studies in Educational Evaluation 64. 100821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.100821.Search in Google Scholar

Soleimani, Hassan & Mahboubeh Rahmanian. 2014. Self-, peer-, and teacher-assessments in writing improvement: A study of complexity, accuracy, and fluency. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics 5(2). 128–148.Search in Google Scholar

Stanley, Jane. 1992. Coaching student writers to be effective peer evaluators. Journal of Second Language Writing 1(3). 217–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(92)90004-9.Search in Google Scholar

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

Tsui, Amy B. M. & Maria Ng. 2000. Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing 9(2). 147–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(00)00022-9.Search in Google Scholar

Wigglesworth, Gillian & Neomy Storch. 2012. Feedback and writing development through collaboration: A socio-cultural approach. In Rosa Manchón (ed.), L2 writing development: Multiple perspectives, 69–100. Boston & Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.10.1515/9781934078303.69Search in Google Scholar

Wolfe-Quintero, Kate, Shunji Inagaki & Hae-Young Kim. 1998. Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, & complexity. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Search in Google Scholar

Wong, Hebe & Peter Storey. 2006. Knowing and doing in the ESL writing Class. Language Awareness 15(4). 283–300. https://doi.org/10.2167/la365/0.Search in Google Scholar

Xu, Ting, Lawrence, Jun & Janet, S. Gaffney. 2021. Examining the relative effectiveness of task complexity and cognitive demands on students’ writing in a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Online first. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263121000310.Search in Google Scholar

Yang, Miao, Richard Badger & Zhen Yu. 2006. A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing 15(3). 179–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.004.Search in Google Scholar

Yu, Shulin. 2019. Learning from giving peer feedback on postgraduate theses: Voices from Master’s students in the Macau EFL context. Assessing Writing 40. 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2019.03.004.Search in Google Scholar

Yu, Shulin & Icy Lee. 2016. Peer feedback in second language writing (2005–2014). Language Teaching 49(4). 461–493. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444816000161.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, Tiefu. 2021. The effect of highly focused versus mid-focused written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge development. System 99(102493). 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102493.10.1016/j.system.2021.102493Search in Google Scholar

Zhang, Lawrence Jun & Donglan Zhang. 2020. Dialogic discussion as a platform for constructing knowledge: Student-teachers’ interaction patterns and strategies in learning to teach English. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education 5(1). 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-020-00101-2.Search in Google Scholar

Zhang, Lawrence Jun & Xiaolong Cheng. 2020. A synthetic review of a decade of peer feedback research in China: Looking back and looking forward. Journal of Xi’an International Studies University 28(1). 48–56. https://doi.org/10.16362/j.cnki.cn61-1457/h.2020.01.010.Search 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.101043.Search in Google Scholar

Zhang, Xin & John E. McEneaney. 2020. What is the influence of peer feedback and author response on Chinese university students’ English writing performance? Reading Research Quarterly 55(1). 123–146. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.259.Search in Google Scholar

Zhang, Lawrence Jun, Xiaoqi Liu & Bing Liu. 2018. The effect of implementing analytic scoring as dynamic assessment on student writing in a College English writing class. The Fudan Forum on Foreign Languages and Literature 10(1). 3–10.Search in Google Scholar

Zhao, Huahui. 2014. Investigating teacher-supported peer assessment for EFL writing. ELT Journal 68(2). 155–168. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cct068.Search in Google Scholar

Zheng, Ying & Liying Cheng. 2008. College English Test (CET) in China. Language Testing 25(3). 408–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532208092433.Search in Google Scholar
Received: 2021-04-13
Accepted: 2022-01-24
Published Online: 2022-02-09
Published in Print: 2023-11-27

© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Investigating the impact of task complexity on uptake and noticing of corrective feedback recasts
  4. Consequences of the comparative fallacy for the acquisition of grammatical aspect in Spanish
  5. Incorporating peer feedback in writing instruction: examining its effects on Chinese English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) learners’ writing performance
  6. Listener engagement: the missing link in research on accented speech
  7. Enhancing English spatial prepositions acquisition among Spanish learners of English as L2 through an embodied approach
  8. Lexical and grammatical collocations in beginning and intermediate L2 argumentative essays: a bigram study
  9. When concept-based language instruction meets cognitive linguistics: teaching English phrasal verbs with up and out
  10. Validation of a multiple-choice implicature test: insights from Chinese EFL learners’ cognitive processes
  11. A longitudinal study of topic continuity in Chinese EFL learners’ written narratives
  12. Miscommunicated referent tracking in L2 English: a case-by-case analysis
  13. Rule-based or efficiency-driven processing of expletive there in English as a foreign language
  14. When are performance-approach goals more adaptive for Chinese EFL learners? It depends on their underlying reasons
  15. Teaching L2 Spanish idioms with semantic motivation: should this be done proactively or retroactively?
  16. Role of individual differences in incidental L2 vocabulary acquisition through listening to stories: metacognitive awareness and motivation
  17. Measuring and profiling Chinese secondary school English teachers’ language mindsets: an exploratory study of non-native teachers’ perceived L2 proficiency loss
  18. The role of working memory in the effects of models as a written corrective strategy
  19. Comparing motivational features between feedback givers and receivers in English speaking class
  20. Examining resilience in EFL contexts: a survey study of university students in China
  21. High school EFL teachers’ oral corrective feedback beliefs and practices, and the effects of lesson focus
  22. L3 acquisition of aspect: the influence of structural similarity, analytic L2 and general L3 proficiency
https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2021-0078
Keywords for this article
CAF; collective feedback; EFL writing; long-term effects; peer feedback

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Investigating the impact of task complexity on uptake and noticing of corrective feedback recasts
  4. Consequences of the comparative fallacy for the acquisition of grammatical aspect in Spanish
  5. Incorporating peer feedback in writing instruction: examining its effects on Chinese English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) learners’ writing performance
  6. Listener engagement: the missing link in research on accented speech
  7. Enhancing English spatial prepositions acquisition among Spanish learners of English as L2 through an embodied approach
  8. Lexical and grammatical collocations in beginning and intermediate L2 argumentative essays: a bigram study
  9. When concept-based language instruction meets cognitive linguistics: teaching English phrasal verbs with up and out
  10. Validation of a multiple-choice implicature test: insights from Chinese EFL learners’ cognitive processes
  11. A longitudinal study of topic continuity in Chinese EFL learners’ written narratives
  12. Miscommunicated referent tracking in L2 English: a case-by-case analysis
  13. Rule-based or efficiency-driven processing of expletive there in English as a foreign language
  14. When are performance-approach goals more adaptive for Chinese EFL learners? It depends on their underlying reasons
  15. Teaching L2 Spanish idioms with semantic motivation: should this be done proactively or retroactively?
  16. Role of individual differences in incidental L2 vocabulary acquisition through listening to stories: metacognitive awareness and motivation
  17. Measuring and profiling Chinese secondary school English teachers’ language mindsets: an exploratory study of non-native teachers’ perceived L2 proficiency loss
  18. The role of working memory in the effects of models as a written corrective strategy
  19. Comparing motivational features between feedback givers and receivers in English speaking class
  20. Examining resilience in EFL contexts: a survey study of university students in China
  21. High school EFL teachers’ oral corrective feedback beliefs and practices, and the effects of lesson focus
  22. L3 acquisition of aspect: the influence of structural similarity, analytic L2 and general L3 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 20.11.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/iral-2021-0078/html
Scroll to top button