Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Journal of Second Language Writing 17 (2008) 217236

Exploring a sociocultural approach to writing strategy research: Mediated actions in writing activities
Xiao Lei *
Centre for Applied English Studies, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, China

Abstract In contrast to the traditional cognitive view of writing strategies, this study explores English as a foreign language (EFL) learners writing strategy use within the Activity Theory framework, adding to the growing body of writing strategy research and sociocultural research on writing and second language acquisition (SLA). Drawing on data collected from interviews, stimulated recall, and process logs completed by two procient English majors in a Chinese university, the study investigates how these two learners strategically mediated their writing processes with diverse resources and identies four types of writing strategies, namely, artifact-mediated, rule-mediated, community-mediated, and role-mediated strategies. Subcategories are specied within each category to further explicate the learners strategy use. These categories and subcategories, though by no means exhaustive, reconceptualize writing strategies from a sociocultural perspective. Moreover, contradictions in strategy use, writers agency, writing goals, and interactions between strategies are discussed. Finally, the study suggests implications for writing instruction and future directions of writing strategy research. # 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Writing strategies; Sociocultural approach; Activity Theory; Mediated actions; EFL learners

Introduction Based on the premise that understanding writing strategies is indispensable to helping EFL learners develop their writing abilities, strategy studies have been robust in the past two or three decades (Bosher, 1998; Casanave, 2002; Cohen & Brooks-Carson, 2001; Cumming, 1989; Leki, 1995, 1998; Raimes, 1987; Roca de Larios, Manchon, Murphy, & Marn, 2008; Roca de Larios, Murphy, & Manchon, 1999; Sasaki, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2007; Villamil & de Guerrero, 1996; Wong, 2000, 2005; Zamel, 1982, 1983). As writing strategy research takes on greater breadth and

* Tel.: +852 2859 2034; fax: +852 2547 3409. E-mail address: Leixiao@hkusua.hku.hk. 1060-3743/$ see front matter # 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2008.04.001

218

X. Lei / Journal of Second Language Writing 17 (2008) 217236

depth, the importance of context in strategy use gains increasing recognition (Casanave, 2002; Leki, 1995, 1998; Sasaki, 2004, 2007; Villamil & de Guerrero, 1996; Wong, 2000, 2005). With the recent shift from the cognitive to the sociocultural paradigm in both SLA and writing studies shedding new light on second language (L2) writing and its relationship with context (Block, 2003; Lantolf, 2006; Prior, 1998, 2006; Russell, 1997; van Lier, 2004), the necessity of reconceptualizing writing strategies within the sociocultural framework is brought into prominence. In response to this need, the present study aims to explore a sociocultural approach to writing strategy research by drawing on Activity Theory (Engestrom, 1987, 1999) and capturing writers mediated actions in writing activities. Why a sociocultural framework for writing strategy research? Within the traditional cognitive framework, writing is regarded as a non-linear, exploratory and generative process whereby writers discover and reformulate their ideas as they attempt to approximate meaning (Zamel, 1983, p. 165), and during writing, writers use strategies such as planning, translating, reviewing, monitoring, generating ideas, organizing, goal-setting, evaluating, and revising (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987; Flower & Hayes, 1980, 1981; Grabe & Kaplan, 1996). However, as Prior (2006) points out, the cognitive paradigm is too narrow in its understanding of context and was eclipsed by studies that attended to social, historical, and political contexts of writing (p. 54). To better study writing strategy use in context, some researchers (Cumming, Busch, & Zhou, 2002; Hyland, 2003) suggested adding more elements to the cognitive framework. For example, Cumming et al. (2002) argued that strategies should be analyzed in reference to the goals people have to motivate and guide their task performance as well as other essential aspects of these activity structures and the contexts in which they are embedded (p. 193). Hyland (2003) proposed a synthetic model, including writing processes, writing purposes, rhetorical text choices, and contexts, for writing strategy research. Although these changes might yield new ndings, writing strategies are still studied as internal cognitive processing within the connes of the brain, which interacts with the outside context in a bidirectional manner (cognition $ context). This understanding of writing strategies is, however, at odds with the recent development of cognition research in at least three ways. Firstly, as revealed in neuroscience research (Miller, 2000; Schwartz & Begley, 2002; Varela, Thompson, & Bosch, 2000), all cognitive processes are embodied, and we can understand the world in a unique way because we have the physical potential for neural development in a human way. According to Watson-Gegeo, Even our scientic instruments are an extension of our bodily capacities . . . and [are] based on our bodys ways of detecting and relating to the world. All cognitive processes are thus embodied (2004, p. 332). For this reason, it is necessary to take a whole-person approach in studies of cognition in context, instead of an exclusively brain-based perspective predicated on the Cartesian dualism between body and mind. Secondly, the few contextual factors dened in the above cognitive frameworks (e.g., participants, setting, task, text, topic) are insufcient to encompass the dynamic and heterogeneous nature of context as it has consistently been described in recent research on language learning (Bazerman, 1994; Casanave, 1995, 2002; Russell, 1997; van Lier, 2004). For instance, Casanave (1995) proposes that learners learning-to-write processes should be understood across three levels of context: the local, historical, and interactive levels. Russells (1997) investigation into a university intermediate cell biology course shows that students

X. Lei / Journal of Second Language Writing 17 (2008) 217236

219

academic writing for the course is situated both in the micro-level school context (e.g., the professors research lab, the course, the university administration, and related disciplines) and in the macro-level social and political structures (e.g., drug companies, families, government research agencies). Van Lier (2004) argues from an ecological perspective that context for language learning potentially involves the whole world and needs to be studied as a process, across the micromacro scale, from spatial and temporal dimensions, and by means of the physical, social, and symbolic affordances that provide grounds for activity. These studies, though in different manifestations, all allude to the complexity of context in language learning and the necessity for a more comprehensive approach to studying context. Thirdly, the dichotomous relationship between cognition and context, which derives from a two-part stimulus ! response scheme, is also found inadequate to explain human cognitive activities in the social world because it isolates cognition from context and postulates the immediacy of cognition in response to context (Leontev, 1981). Research in cultural psychology shows that cognition is distributed in the medium culture, in the social world, and in time (e.g., CHAT & DWR, 2007; Cole & Engestrom, 1993; Engestrom, 1987, 1999). According to Lave and Wenger (1991), learning is a way of being in the social world; learners acquire knowledge and skills through actual practice and, in this way, gain access to their communities. Prior and Shipka (2003) argue that writing is deeply laminated by the dispersed, uid chains of writing places, time, people, and artifacts. From these studies we can see that cognition, as applied in writing, and context are intertwined and interact so closely that their boundaries are blurred, and we need a dialectical approach to studying them in a holistic way. Triggered by the aspiration to address the above problems, the present study explores a sociocultural approach to studying writing strategies, an approach whose fundamental tenet is that in order to understand the inner mental processes of human beings, we must look at human beings in their sociocultural context (van der Veer, 2007, p. 21). A sociocultural approach to writing strategy research Vygotskys idea of mediation is a key to this approach. According to Vygotsky, humans are not restricted to simple stimulusresponse reexes; they are able to make indirect connections between incoming stimulation and their responses through various links (Luria, 1976). Such indirect connections are referred to as mediation, which is accomplished via two means: technical tools or tools (e.g., a saw) and psychological tools or signs (e.g., language) (Vygotsky, 1978). By means of tools, humans can control their behavior from the outside, and through the use of signs, which represent the ideal forms of the world, humans have the possibility of regulating their minds from the inside. In this way, society and culture empower humans to intentionally regulate their minds from both the outside world of objects and situations and the inside mental world. The idea of mediation by tools and signs postulates a dialectical relationship between humans and society and culture, thus breaking down the Cartesian walls that isolate the individual mind from society and culture (Cole & Engestrom, 1993; Engestrom, 1999). Moreover, when exploring the concepts of tools, signs, and mediation, Vygotsky saw humans as agents who regulate their minds, rather than the other way around. As stated by Vygotsky, I only want to say . . . that without man (=operator) as a whole the activity of his apparatus (brain) cannot be explained, that man controls his brain and not the brain the man . . . that without man his behavior cannot be explained (as cited in Yaroshevsky, 1989, p. 230). By embodying cognitive processes in the whole person instead of only in the brain, Vygotsky again transcended

220

X. Lei / Journal of Second Language Writing 17 (2008) 217236

Fig. 1. Activity system (based on Engestrom, 1987, 1999).

the dichotomous relationships of mind and body and saw the whole person as the full agent of his activities. The concept of mediation was further developed into Activity Theory (Engestrom, 1987, 1999) by situating individuals actions in collective activities and thus comprising three additional types of mediators: community, rules, and division of labor (or roles). In activity systems, all mediators and their mediation are interrelated and should be perceived holistically, as illustrated in Fig. 1. Thus, in a writing activity, subjects actions towards objects are mediated by four interrelated factors: mediating artifacts (e.g., computers and languages); rules (e.g., norms and sanctions); community (e.g., disciplinary community and discourse community); and division of labor (e.g., writers and readers). Application of mediation analysis and Activity Theory has recently mushroomed in writing research (e.g., Prior, 1998, 2001, 2006; Prior & Shipka, 2003; Russell, 1995, 1997; Villamil & de Guerrero, 1996), in tandem with the increasing popularity of sociocultural research in SLA and language learning strategies (e.g., Donato & McCormick, 1994; Lantolf, 2000, 2006; Parks & Raymond, 2004). For example, Prior (1998) studied writing as a situated, distributed, and mediated literate activity whose functional systems involve co-genesis of persons, practices, artifacts, institutions, and communities (p. 32). Russell (1995, 1997) conducted an Activity Theory analysis of genre to link classroom writing with writing in wider social practices. Villamil and de Guerrero (1996) used the notion of mediation to study peer revision in Spanish-speaking students L2 writing and identied ve types of mediating strategies: employing symbols and external resources; using the rst language (L1); providing scaffolding; resorting to interlanguage knowledge; and vocalizing private speech. To further extend sociocultural research in L2 writing, the present study explores EFL learners writing strategy use in a general academic setting by drawing on Activity Theory. According to Activity Theory, writing strategies, as a kind of higher mental function, are mediated. To distinguish them from other higher mental functions and capture their peculiar features, writing strategies are dened as mediated actions which are consciously taken to facilitate writers practices in communities. The study Considering the scant research about writing strategies on the China mainland (Wang & Wen, 2002) and implications of procient language learners strategy use, the present study was undertaken to answer the following research question: What writing strategies do procient Chinese EFL learners use in writing activities? The procient learners investigated in the study were two English major students in a Chinese university.

X. Lei / Journal of Second Language Writing 17 (2008) 217236

221

Context of study According to Lam (2002, 2005, 2007), English has been the most important foreign language in China since the late 1950s, and with the communication between China and the world escalating in recent years (e.g., Chinas entry into the World Trade Organization and Beijings hosting of the 2008 Olympics), the importance of English continues to be enhanced in schools and universities. The university where the two participants were studying was an elite one in South China. It enrolled about 60 English major undergraduates annually, and these English majors needed to complete language- or culture-focused courses, such as listening, speaking, intensive and extensive reading, writing, literature, intercultural communication, stylistics, and an introduction to linguistics, to develop language skills and knowledge of English and English-speaking countries during their 4-year university studies. The writing course for them, totaling about 144 teaching hours, was guided by the requirements of the National Teaching Syllabus for College English Majors in the Peoples Republic of China (Ministry of Education, 2000) and was compulsory from the third academic semester to the sixth over Years 2 and 3. Course materials included a textbook entitled A Handbook of Writing (Ding, Wu, Zhong, & Guo, 1994) and teachers handouts, together covering ve aspects of writing: (1) manuscript form; (2) fundamentals of diction, the sentence, the paragraph, and the whole composition; (3) practical writing (e.g., business and personal letters, resumes, notices, and notes); (4) four types of writing: narration, description, argumentation, and exposition; and (5) writing about literary works (e.g., book reports and literary criticism). In the writing course, students were required to do assignments, that is, to hand in 400-word after-class essays on a given topic every month. The task adopted for the present study was: Nowadays people can travel a long distance in a short period of time, perform their everyday activities such as shopping, banking, and chatting without meeting people faceto-face, and depend on computers and machines to do a lot of ofce and household work. What is your opinion of THE IMPACT OF MODERN TECHNOLOGY ON OUR LIFE AND SOCIETY? State your ideas with evidence and relevant examples. The assessment criteria for their writing assignments consisted of ve parts: content, organization, vocabulary, language, and rhetoric, which were developed from Jacobs, Zinkgraf, Wormuth, Hartel, and Hugheys (1981) 100-point scoring prole. Participants The two participants were identied through the authors personal contact with a friend who had been teaching writing at the university for six years. The three classes from which the participants were selected had been taught by the teacher for about two years, and they were considered generally procient classes in English. At the time of the investigation, all the 60 students in the classes were approaching the end of their third year in college. Having obtained consent to access students writing assignments, the author read all the students writing assignments that had recently been completed in Year 3 to gain an overview of their writing ability. The author then consulted the teacher about students writing ability and identied six candidates with good writing ability. After an individual meeting with each of them, explaining the purpose of the research, two of them agreed to participate. They are hereafter referred to as Henry and Jenny (pseudonyms).

222

X. Lei / Journal of Second Language Writing 17 (2008) 217236

Henry and Jenny were born in 1984 and 1985 in China. Their native language is Chinese, and neither of them had been abroad. Before entering the university, Henry and Jenny had learned English as a compulsory course for six years in high school, and they were interested in English. After the National Matriculation Test, they applied to the university, chose English studies, and were admitted. In the writing course at the university, the average scores of their writing assignments in Year 3 were above the 90th percentile among the 60 students. Method of study To identify what writing strategies the participants were aware of and how they actually used strategies in writing activities, data were collected using three methods: interviews, stimulated recall, and process logs. Interviews Participants were invited to participate in semi-structured individual interviews to elicit their writing experience, writing strategy use, process of writing assignments, and evaluation criteria for writing. (See Appendix A for interview questions.) The two interviews were conducted in Chinese and were recorded. Stimulated recall To nd out their actual strategy use during writing, the participants were asked to recall their writing of the above task. Upon their agreement to be videotaped, Henry and Jenny wrote their rst drafts individually in a room equipped with their familiar resources such as dictionaries, a computer, and Internet access. As they wrote on the computer, AutoScreenRecorder software was activated to monitor their writing processes, and the author was sitting somewhere behind them to note the actions that could not be recorded by the software program (e.g., consulting dictionaries and reading handouts). Henry and Jennys writing lasted about 2 and 2.5 hours, respectively. Immediately after they had nished writing, the recorded processes were replayed on the computer. Guided by Gass and Mackeys (2000) suggestions about stimulated recall, questions were asked about their pauses, revisions, and recorded actions during their writing process. Participants were then encouraged to revise their drafts before submission. After Henry and Jenny had completed their nal drafts, the author met with them again to ask them to recall their revision process by comparing their rst and nal drafts. Participants recall of writing the rst draft and revision was mainly conducted in Chinese and was recorded. Process logs To keep track of participants writing-related actions before and after writing the rst drafts, they were requested to keep process logs which consisted of two sections: preparation for writing to be lled in before writing their rst drafts and writing an essay to be completed after writing their rst drafts and before the submission of their nal essays. (See Appendix B, adapted from Wong, 2000.) After the participants had nished their logs in English, the logs were examined by the author and ambiguities in their answers were claried orally in Chinese, which was again recorded.

X. Lei / Journal of Second Language Writing 17 (2008) 217236 Table 1 Proles of participants data Participants Phases of data collection Dates Time consumed (in minutes)

223

Number of Chinese characters and English words (in text or transcribed) 11,142 260 7,992 300 2,420 3,939 26,053 12,540 310 11,189 280 4,869 3,250 32,438 58,491

Henry

Interview Task assigned by the writing teacher Section 1 of his process log (written by Henry) Stimulated recall of writing the rst draft Section 2 of his process log (written by Henry) Stimulated recall of revision Clarication of his process log Submission of his essay Subtotal Interview Task assigned by the writing teacher Section 1 of her process log (written by Jenny) Stimulated recall of writing the rst draft Section 2 of her process log (written by Jenny) Stimulated recall of revision Clarication of her process log Submission of her essay Subtotal Total

April 5th April 30th May 1st12th May 12th May 12th31st May 31st May 31st June 4th April 6th April 30th May 1st23rd May 23rd May 23rdJune 1st June 1st June 1st June 4th

65 30 * 152 30 * 46 36 359 70 40 * 186 30 * 18 25 369 728

Jenny

Note: Unlike other data which were recorded by the author, time marked by an asterisk (*) was reported by participants.

Data analysis The recorded audio data were transcribed by the author, and all the data proles for the study are presented chronologically in Table 1. Following Miles and Hubermans procedures (1994), each participants data were rst summarized and coded manually to arrive at a category set of writing strategies to t the data, with their multiple sources triangulated. Themes and trends in strategy use were then identied in categories, and the category set was reorganized accordingly. Next, data were recoded based on the new categories. Revision of the categories and recoding of the data was repeated until a satisfactory framework was proposed to explain the data. During this analysis process, participants writing strategy use was identied, described, and categorized as data were recursively examined within each case and across cases. Findings Four types of writing strategies were identied: artifact-mediated, rule-mediated, communitymediated, and role-mediated strategies, which are rened and explicated in this section with extracts from the two participants data. All extracts are labeled by participants names, their sources (i.e., interviews, stimulated recall, or process logs) and numbered sequentially (preceded by E for extract), as some of them are discussed more than once.

224

X. Lei / Journal of Second Language Writing 17 (2008) 217236

Artifact-mediated strategies Henry and Jenny used numerous artifacts to mediate their writing, such as the Internet, dictionaries, English literary works, writing textbooks, writing tasks, Chinese, and English. Since the artifacts include both tools and signs, artifact-mediated strategies were further categorized as tool-mediated strategies and sign-mediated strategies. As for tool-mediated strategies, two subcategories were found to be important in the data: the Internet-mediated and literary workmediated strategies. With regard to sign-mediated strategies, two other subcategories were found to be prominent: L1-mediated strategies and L2-mediated strategies. All the four subcategories are explored in this subsection. The Internet-mediated strategies Henry and Jenny reported the use of the Internet for their assignments in interviews, and this use was repeatedly conrmed in their process logs and recall. For example, in her preparation, Jenny wrote that she googled phrases such as modern technology and human life and the impact of science and technology on human life and the society in both English and Chinese on the Internet and read some online sample essays to brainstorm ideas and useful expressions for the topic. The Internet is fast, convenient, up-to-date, and full of resources. (Jenny, process log, E1) Besides searching for information online, Henry and Jenny used online dictionaries extensively when they were writing. Henry liked consulting an online bilingual dictionary, which he thought was cool, handier, and faster than a non-electronic dictionary. Jenny used not only the same bilingual dictionary but also an online thesaurus. The functions of repeatedly consulting dictionaries mentioned in the data were summarized as follows: to pinpoint vague words in their minds, to check the spelling and usage of some words they knew, to explore new words or new meanings of old words, to rene their thoughts, and to capture accurate meanings. Literary work-mediated strategies English native speakers literary works were another type of artifact that Henry and Jenny actively used to mediate their writing. Jenny liked reading original novels and short stories and imitated professional writers styles in her writing. For example, When I was writing, I imitated Charles Dickens parallel structure at the beginning of A Tale of Two Cities, which can, hopefully, enhance my essays power of persuasion, literary grace, and logic. (Jenny, stimulated recall, E2) Henry liked reading English poems, newspapers, and magazines. Like Jenny, he also tried to apply what he had learned from reading to writing: I like to extract some beautiful sentences and words from literary works, keep them in my notebook, review, recite, and remember them. Afterwards I will try to use them in writing. Sometimes those words and sentences pop up in my mind when I am writing. (Henry, interview, E3) When he was recalling his writing process, Henry gave an example of adapting an expression from literary works to a sentence in the essay:

X. Lei / Journal of Second Language Writing 17 (2008) 217236

225

I made this sentence many people are still wandering lonely like clouds in the real world from a poem of Wordsworths, which I read yesterday. (Henry, stimulated recall, E4) Through appreciating and imitating literary works, Henry and Jenny felt that they could be temporarily immersed in an English environment while living in a Chinese-speaking society, and they felt that they could write real English, that is, create a natural English avor and remedy Chinglish expressions. L1-mediated strategies Henry and Jenny reported extensive use of their L1 when they were preparing for the writing task. As Jenny explained, Chinese is the major language of my daily interactions and I got ideas for writing from my life experience in China. . . . When I prepared for the assignment, I used Chinese to think for the theme and my argument. (Jenny, process log, E5) According to Jenny, compared with English, Chinese was an easier and more sophisticated tool for her to gather information, to organize ideas, to express thoughts, and to think profoundly. In stimulated recall, Jenny also described how she depended on Chinese to capture accurate meanings when she could not think clearly in English and how she tracked down the right English words through translation from Chinese. However, the constraints of L1 on L2 writing were not negligible, as expressed by Henry in his dissatisfaction with his Chinese way of thinking: If I rely too much on Chinese and translation, my essays will always look Chinglish, not English. . . . For example, I will probably use the wrong tense, miss articles, and write redundantly. (Henry, interview, E6) According to Henry, to consciously differentiate English from Chinese could help him to avoid Chinglish expressions, and this idea was further exemplied in E7 and E8. L2-mediated strategies Henry and Jenny underscored their strenuous efforts to acquire English grammar and vocabulary so that they could strategically mediate writing with higher English prociency. For example, Henrys discussion about his strategic use of motion verbs in English was impressive: I usually take heed of those English verbs, such as trudge and scamper, which tell not only the motion, but also the manner of an action in writing. You know, in Chinese, it is quite common to employ quite a few characters including both verbs and adverbs to express similar meanings. If I write English in a Chinese way, I probably use some simple motion verbs (e.g., go, come, and do) with adverbs modifying them. (Henry, interview, E7) During writing, Henrys use of trigger as a verb was another example of his L2-mediated strategy use: I used trigger as a verb here with the hope that it might look fresh to the reader because we had only learned its usage as a noun from our textbooks. . . . Sometimes we are too familiar with some words meanings as nouns in both English and Chinese, such as color, channel, duck, eld, and sweat, to give a thought of their use as verbs in English because their noun counterparts in Chinese cannot be used as verbs at all. However, I prefer to use them in a creative way. (Henry, stimulated recall, E8)

226

X. Lei / Journal of Second Language Writing 17 (2008) 217236

Henry believed that through his strategic use of verbs, he could shake off some Chinese negative transfer, use fewer words to convey vivid and rich information, and create a succinct, original, and natural style. Rule-mediated strategies Three types of rule-mediated strategies emerged from the data: rhetoric-mediated, evaluation criteria-mediated, and time-mediated strategies. Rhetoric-mediated strategies Henry and Jenny strategically mediated their writing with different forms of rhetoric from the lexical to the textual level. They referred to the generic features of argumentation such as the thesis, the argument, the conclusion, induction, and deduction to organize paragraphs and the whole text. Moreover, Jennys argumentative essay was avored with the description genre. For example, after writing the rst draft, she recalled: Here, to illustrate how the invisible wall between people has been built together with the development of modern technology, I described and contrasted what people do on the Internet and what they do in their real life in six parallel clauses to support the theme. (Jenny, stimulated recall, E9) As a result, by substantiating her theme with well-selected and detailed descriptions, Jennys essay looked more profound and convincing. In order to improve the literary quality of her writing, Jenny used parallelism extensively in her essay: Through parallels between similar phenomena, I can accumulate the evidence to emphasize the theme and persuade the reader. If one fact parallels its opposite, I can create a sharp contrast. (Jenny, stimulated recall, E10) For Jenny, parallelism was a suitable rhetorical skill to create emphasis, comparison, and contrast in reasoning. Henry also used rhetoric in writing. He liked to use gures of speech to create original and vivid expressions and images. For instance, I wanted to emphasize how crowded the virtual chat rooms are, in a fresh way. First I thought it is noisy with so many voices, so many net worms. So I came up with the expression are buzzing with net worms. Then I thought the expression net worms is a household name and not fresh enough. Since they are buzzing, how about bees? Yes, think about the frenzy of those people who burn the candle at both ends to chat online. It seems appropriate to compare them with busy bees. Finally I decided on the expression are buzzing with net bees. (Henry, stimulated recall, E11) By mediating the idea with metaphor, Henry strategically produced an interesting expression and created a delightful image. Evaluation criteria-mediated strategies To write their assignments well, Henry and Jenny followed certain evaluation criteria that they had learned from teachers. For example, good English writing to Henry entails: natural English, profound thoughts, accurate diction, clear logic, and literary avors. (Henry, interview, E12)

X. Lei / Journal of Second Language Writing 17 (2008) 217236

227

For Jenny, a good essay has the following characteristics: well-polished language, vivid details, clear and well-organized structure, and appropriate styles. (Jenny, interview, E13) When asked about the inuence of evaluation criteria on their writing processes, both agreed that they strived to meet their respective criteria for good writing. However, on reection, Henry seemed not very satised with his essay because he felt its English was still not natural enough. Unlike Henry, Jenny felt that she was satised with her essay since she had tried very hard to write it well. Time-mediated strategies According to the writing course requirements, students had 1 month to do the assignment. Henry and Jenny followed different schedules to grapple with the homework in the allotted time. When negotiating his schedule for the assignment, Henry opted for a date in the middle of the 1month period as the deadline for his rst draft. He spent the rst 2 weeks collecting materials and gathering ideas. Writing the rst draft took Henry about 2 hours with two 5-minute breaks. After nishing the rst draft, Henry continued to read his draft and revise it every 2 or 3 days until he submitted it. He remarked on his sense of time as follows: As time went on, I became more detached from the essay and could evaluate and revise it from a more objective perspective. In addition, as I mulled over the essay, I became more sophisticated and philosophical about the topic. (Henry, process log, E14) Before submitting the essay, Henry wished that he had longer time to revise it. He believed that he could probably compose a better essay if given more time. Jenny did not begin writing her rst draft until 5 days before the assignment deadline. Prior to that day, Jenny had carried out extensive research about the topic. She spent approximately 2.5 hours with three 5-minute breaks writing the rst draft. To her, writing was a recursive process and revision was performed when she was writing. After nishing the rst draft, she felt the task was almost done except for the ending. On the day of the deadline, Jenny revised the last paragraph and submitted the essay. Community-mediated strategies Henry and Jenny communicated strategically with people from both the campus and the society in writing activities; therefore, two types of community-mediated strategies were identied: campus community-mediated strategies and society-mediated strategies. Campus community-mediated strategies In the campus community, their writing teacher played the most important role in mediating the two participants writing. As Henry stated, Ms. Z (pseudonym) is the primary target reader for this assignment. She is an expert in writing and an evaluator of my essay. (Henry, process log, E15) In addition, Jenny expressed her anxiety about Ms. Zs feedback: After I submit my writing assignments, I always wait anxiously for Ms. Zs comments. If she praises my essays, I will feel jubilant for quite a few days and write more. (Jenny, interview, E16)

228

X. Lei / Journal of Second Language Writing 17 (2008) 217236

In Henry and Jennys eyes, the writing teacher was an expert in writing, a competent consultant to rely on, an amiable authority who appreciated their creativity, and an evaluator who judged their essays and recognized their efforts and ability. Besides the writing teacher, the participants also talked about how other people in the campus community mediated their writing. Henry mentioned that he had beneted from another English teacher: I learned a lot of English words from my intensive reading teacher. When I write, I try to use them, especially those fresh ones. (Henry, interview, E17) Jenny sometimes turned to her classmates for comments and suggestions: I hope my classmates can read my essays. I like to hear their comments and suggestions, which can be very helpful to my revision. (Jenny, stimulated recall, E18) However, communication with her classmates could be adversely affected by the potential competition between them. According to Jenny, some students in her class regarded assignments as a representation of ones intelligence and prociency, as well as a channel to high ranking and scholarship, and therefore would not like to communicate with their cohorts or help them. Society-mediated strategies Henry and Jenny also socialized with people outside the campus when they were doing assignments. Jennys communication with a former classmate in her preparation for the assignment was a case in point: When I prepared for this assignment, I chatted with a high school friend, who is also an English major in another university, about the topic on the Internet and collected some very useful evidence for my argumentation from her suggestions and comments. (Jenny, process logs, E19) After writing essays, Jenny liked to put them on her blog so that people could view them online and make comments. She had several regular blog visitors, and she found virtual communication with them encouraging and inspiring. Henry discussed how good writers from another elite university in the same city mediated his writing although he knew none of them: I heard from my writing teacher, who was doing her part-time Ph.D. in that famous university, that students are much more competent in writing than my classmates. I always compare myself with students from that university; then I feel my performance is not satisfying enough and I need to work harder to enhance my writing ability. I will never be like some of my classmates who do nothing but chat on QQ, watch movies, listen to music, play computer games, and sleep. In fact it is true that I have to compete with students from that university when I am hunting for a job upon graduation, not only with my classmates. (Henry, interview, E20) By visualizing competent peers, Henry stimulated himself to work harder and develop his writing ability for the present; moreover, he could prepare himself for potential competition in job hunting.

X. Lei / Journal of Second Language Writing 17 (2008) 217236

229

Role-mediated strategies Two types of role-mediated strategies were identied to capture how the roles that the participants took mediated their writing actions: author-mediated strategies and language learner-mediated strategies. Author-mediated strategies As the author of her essay, Jenny endeavored to brainstorm ideas and present them in an agreeable written form, as she stated: I thought hard about the topic, the requirements, the teachers expectation, related knowledge, and appropriate rhetorical skills. (Jenny, process log, E21) Through the efforts she had exerted, Jenny hoped to create her own style and high quality in writing. Henry tried to establish his authorship as a native English writer. He made constant efforts to use appropriate English words in writing, which could be detected in extracts 7 and 8. When doing the assignment, he created scenarios such as driving, living in suburbs, ying, long-distance calling, online chatting, and household and ofce electrical appliances, which he believed to be familiar to English native speakers. Author-mediated strategies also entailed the consideration of the reader, both the real and the imagined. For Henry and Jenny, the primary target reader of the task was their writing teacher, as stated by Henry in E15. In addition, they considered other readers: Jenny mentioned her classmates as her readers in E18, and Henry referred to native English speakers as his readers, although he seldom showed them his essays. Henry and Jenny interacted with their readers during writing processes. For example, in E10, Jenny attributed the use of parallel structures partly to her intention of persuading the reader. Henrys author image as a native English writer was consistent with his imagination of native English speakers as his readers. Moreover, Henry tried to impress the reader by appearing as a condent author: In the rst paragraph, I brought about my opinion directly. In this way, I could leave my reader a strong impression that I am condent in the argument. If I am condent, my reader will have condence in me; nobody will believe in someone who does not believe in himself. (Henry, stimulated recall, E22) In short, author-mediated strategies encompassed not only authors strategic efforts to establish themselves as authors, but also their consideration of who the reader was and how they interacted with the reader. Language learner-mediated strategies Another type of role-mediated strategies Jenny and Henry employed was language learnermediated strategy. As English majors, learning English was supposed to be the primary focus in their 4-year university life. Moreover, Henry hoped to become a journalist for an English newspaper in China such as China Daily or Guangzhou Morning Post after graduation, and Jenny wanted to pursue postgraduate studies in applied linguistics and become a university English teacher. Therefore, English was crucial to their current studies as well as their future careers. According to Henry and Jenny, writing assignments offered them opportunities to learn English

230

X. Lei / Journal of Second Language Writing 17 (2008) 217236

and develop into competent writers in English. For instance, Jenny discussed her role as a language learner in the writing process: After you learned words, expressions, rhetorical techniques, etc. through reading, you are still not the master of them unless you can apply them in your writing. So, through writing I can rethink, discover, and internalize what I have learned and promote further learning. (Jenny, interview, E23) For them, writing involved not only using pen and paper to express their ideas about certain topics, but also honing their thinking, enhancing their English prociency and writing abilities, and linking linguistic input with output in language. Discussion Drawing on mediation and Activity Theory, the present study has explored how participants strategically mediated their writing with diverse resources in writing activities. The ndings add some support to previous studies on writing strategy use. For instance, literary work-mediated strategies and L1-mediated strategies are similar to two strategies found in Lekis (1995) study: looking for models and taking advantage of rst language/culture. The double-edged functions of L1 seem to be consistent with Cohen and Brooks-Carsons (2001) nding that some students write better in their L2 whereas other students write better through translation from L1. Additionally, the study can offer alternative perspectives for previous research. For example, the view of L2 as a psychological tool in L2-mediated strategy use can help us reconsider the relationships between writers strategy use, L2 writing ability, and L2 prociency discussed in previous research (Cumming, 1989; Raimes, 1987; Sasaki, 2000; Wong, 2005). With higher L2 prociency, which is a more sophisticated and advanced psychological tool, writers are better equipped to mediate their writing. If they can strategically mediate their writing with this psychological tool, their ability to produce good essays can be further enhanced. The reconceptualization of writing strategies from a sociocultural perspective in this study has demonstrated that the two student writers cognition exists not only within the connes of their bodies, but also in the sociocultural context, thus contributing to the growing corpus of sociocultural research (e.g., Cole & Engestrom, 1993; Engestrom, 1999; Prior, 1998; van Lier, 2004). As shown in the ndings, Henry and Jenny used cultural artifacts (e.g., the Internet, L1, L2, and English literary works); applied rules acquired from schools, the university, and society; socialized with people from different communities; and fullled their social roles. All these mediated actions were components of their writing processes that nally yielded good essays. This sociocultural approach to writing also highlights the importance of the four types of mediating resources to the writing process, although the study only provided details on some of them. A greater variety of in-depth investigations is necessary in writing strategy research, and special attention needs to be given to those barely researched variables such as time, as suggested by Roca de Larios et al. (2008). Moreover, four other issues in this sociocultural approach to writing strategy research merit our attention, namely, contradictions in mediated actions, writers agency, writing goals, and interactions between strategies. While mediating resources facilitated participants writing, their use engendered contradictions as well. Contradictions can be intra-cultural and inter-cultural (Basharina, 2007), and both types were found in the study. Instances of intra-cultural contradictions are Jennys unsuccessful communication with her current classmates about writing and Henrys dissatisfaction with his essay due to a shortage of time. Inter-cultural contradictions arose

X. Lei / Journal of Second Language Writing 17 (2008) 217236

231

from participants use of Chinese when writing English. As Chinese and English are different in both their linguistic systems and the cultures they represent, it is probably difcult to depend much on Chinese for natural English expressions, even with the help of resources such as the Internet and dictionaries. According to Henry, although Chinese could help him plan well, think more clearly, and track down English words through translation, he worried about the Chinglish expressions he might produce, as he mentioned in E6. His slight dissatisfaction with his essay appeared to be related to his negative transfer from Chinese. Nevertheless, though contradictions aggravate individuals and activities, they can also be a source of changes and development in activities, as observed by Engestrom (2001). The contradictions Henry found between Chinese and English seemed to be motivating him to use L2-mediated strategies and make efforts to detect their differences and enhance his English prociency, as indicated in E6, E7, and E8. The ndings also showed participants agency in strategy use. Henry and Jenny used the same or similar resources differently or turned to different resources when mediating their writing. For example, Henry and Jenny used the same and different online dictionaries, preferred different rhetorical skills, and held similar ideas about good writing criteria. By following different schedules, Henry seemed to benet from continuing revision and reection, and Jenny probably made good use of adequate preparation and revision during writing. Henry and Jenny both communicated with their writing teacher, as well as other community members, and nally both held different attitudes towards the outcomes of the writing activities. Henrys and Jennys personal agency probably contributes to the fulllment of their respective goals discussed below. However, to fully interpret writers agency and differences between writers, which was beyond the current research topic, it seems necessary to probe deeper into the local, historical, and interactive levels of context of individuals writing activities, as Casanave (1995, 2002) and Prior (1998) suggested. According to Activity Theory, mediated actions are oriented toward conscious goals. In a similar vein, strategies were not randomly or inadvertently employed by Henry and Jenny, and the goals found in their strategy use comprised both current and future goals. Henry and Jenny were determined to obtain high scores, to write good essays, and to enhance their writing abilities and language prociency in the short term. In the long term, they wished that they could develop themselves from novice members to experts in communities and pursue professional careers in English (i.e., to become an English journalist and a university English teacher, respectively). Such goals shed light on Henry and Jennys enthusiasm in writing strategy use and their agency in writing activities. Although they had never been abroad, Henry and Jenny were highly motivated and made remarkable efforts to use writing strategies, as they cherished these goals and worked towards them. Strategies were found to interact with each other to achieve the writers goals. Although some goals could be obtained by the use of a single strategy (e.g., in E4 and E9), others had to be fullled through the interactions between strategies within and across the four categories. For example, Jenny and Henry socialized with members from different communities and coordinated different types of community-mediated strategies to maximize the use of human resources. Jenny used a literary work-mediated strategy (i.e., imitating Charles Dickens writing) and a rhetoricmediated strategy (i.e., using parallelism) together to create her parallel style. Henrys authormediated strategy use was informed by his use of L2-mediated strategies (e.g., strategic use of motion verbs) and community-mediated strategies (e.g., considering community members as the reader). Anderson (2005) used orchestration, and Oxford (2001) coined the term strategy chain to describe the connectedness in L2 learning strategy use. According to Activity Theory, every element (e.g., mediating artifacts) interacts with other elements in activity systems. Hence, strategic mediation of each mediator also interacts with that of other mediators. Through

232

X. Lei / Journal of Second Language Writing 17 (2008) 217236

interactions between various types of strategies, Henry and Jenny could mediate their writing processes and realize their writing goals more efciently and effectively. In sum, writing strategy use involves not only the strategic mediation of diverse resources in the world, but also the fulllment of writers goals in the society. Therefore, it is suggested that this sociocultural approach to writing strategy research should capture both writers mediated actions and the goals of these mediated processes. Implications for writing instruction and future directions Going beyond the Cartesian dualism between cognition and context as well as between body and mind, which is assumed in the traditional cognitive approach to writing strategy research, the study has identied four interrelated types of writing strategies from a sociocultural perspective: artifact-mediated, rule-mediated, community-mediated, and role-mediated strategies. Although L2 learners might have already used some of these strategies, they may not always be aware of the mediated processes or potential strategies and be able to use them efciently and with control. One implication that L2 writing teachers can draw from the study is that if students can raise their consciousness about the mediation of resources in writing processes, they might be able to strategically mediate their writing with a multitude of resources, nd the true meaning of writing, and gradually develop themselves into better writers. In addition, as a myriad of potential mediating resources are yet to be investigated, the onus is also on teachers to work with their students to explore strategic ways of writing. Drawing on data from interviews and a single writing task, this study investigated strategies used by two procient EFL learners in a specic context and categorized them into 4 categories and 11 subcategories, which are by no means exhaustive. To enrich our understanding of writing strategy use, more individuals and contexts need to be included in future research. As the study was conducted under rather articial conditions (in a room set up for the purpose of the writing task in the study and for the researcher to record what was happening), future research can explore how L2 learners write under conditions that they normally write in, which might yield different results. It is also worthwhile to explore how individual factors (e.g., L1, L2, and rhetoric) mediate writing processes and interact with other factors. Finally, it would be useful to examine writers strategy use in writing activities from the local, historical, and interactive levels of context to gain in-depth and holistic understanding of individuals strategy use and differences between writers. Although more studies are needed, this paper has exemplied a framework to reconceptualize writing strategies from a sociocultural perspective, which situates and explores strategy use in its sociocultural context. Acknowledgements I would like to express my deep gratitude to Agnes S. L. Lam, Icy Lee, Vivien Berry, and David Nunan for their supervision and help with this paper. I am also very grateful to Geoffrey P. Smith, Paul K. Matsuda, the editors of JSLW, and the two anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of the paper. References
Anderson, N. (2005). L2 learning strategies. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 757771). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

X. Lei / Journal of Second Language Writing 17 (2008) 217236

233

Basharina, O. K. (2007). Activity theory perspective on student-reported contradictions in international telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 11(2), 82103. Bazerman, C. (1994). Systems of genres and the enactment of social intentions. In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric. London: Taylor & Francis. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd. Bosher, S. (1998). The composing processes of three Southeast Asian writers at the post-secondary level: An exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(2), 205241. Casanave, C. P. (1995). Local interactions: Constructing contexts for composing in a graduate sociology program. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy (pp. 83110). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Casanave, C. P. (2002). Writing games: Multicultural case studies of academic literacy practices in higher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. CHAT & DWR. CulturalHistorical Activity Theory. (2007). Retrieved February 11th, 2007, from http://www.edu.helsinki./activity/pages/chatanddwr/chat/. Cohen, A., & Brooks-Carson, A. (2001). Research on direct versus translated writing: Students strategies and their results. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 169188. Cole, M., & Engestrom, Y. (1993). A culturalhistorical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 146). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second-language prociency. Language Learning, 39(1), 81141. Cumming, A., Busch, M., & Zhou, A. (2002). Investigating learners goals in the context of adult second-language writing. In S. Ransdell & M. Barbier (Eds.), New directions for research in L2 writing (pp. 189208). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher. Ding, W., Wu, B., Zhong, M., & Guo, Q. (1994). A handbook of writing. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Donato, R., & McCormick, D. (1994). A sociocultural perspective on language learning strategies: The role of mediation. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 453464. Engestrom, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy. Engestrom, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen, R.-L. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 1938). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Engestrom, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133156. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The cognition of discovery: Dening a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication, 31, 2132. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365387. Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. Essex: Pearson Education Limited. Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jacobs, H., Zinkgraf, S., Wormuth, D., Hartel, V., & Hughey, J. (1981). Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Lam, A. S. L. (2002). English in education in China: Policy changes and learners experiences. World English, 21(2), 245256. Lam, A. S. L. (2005). Language education in China: Policy and experience from 1949. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Lam, A. S. L. (2007). The multi-agent model of language choice: National planning and individual volition in China. Cambridge Journal of Education, 37(1), 6787. Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching, 33, 7996. Lantolf, J. P. (2006). Sociocultural theory and L2. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 67109. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leki, I. (1995). Coping strategies of ESL students in writing tasks across the curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 235260.

234

X. Lei / Journal of Second Language Writing 17 (2008) 217236

Leki, I. (1998). Academic writing: Exploring processes and strategies (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leontev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (J. V. Wertsch, Trans.). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe Inc. Luria, A. R. (1976). Cognitive development: Its cultural and social foundations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc. Miller, E. K. (2000). The prefrontal cortex and cognitive control. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 1, 5965. Ministry of Education. National teaching syllabus for college English majors in Peoples Republic of China. (2000). Retrieved from http://www.bfsu.edu.cn/chinese/site/gxyyzyxxw/zywj/tyyjxdg.htm. Oxford, R. L. (2001). Language learning strategies. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 166172). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Parks, S., & Raymond, P. M. (2004). Strategy use by nonnative-English-speaking students in an MBA program: Not business as usual! The Modern Language Journal, 88(3), 374389. Prior, P. (1998). Writing/disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the academy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Prior, P. (2001). Voices in text, mind, and society: Sociohistoric accounts of discourse acquisition and use. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 5581. Prior, P. (2006). A sociocultural theory of writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 5466). New York: The Guilford Press. Prior, P., & Shipka, J. (2003). Chronotopic lamination: Tracing the contours of literate activity. In C. Bazerman & D. R. Russel (Eds.), Writing selves/writing societies: Research from activity perspectives (pp. 180238). Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearing House and Mind, Culture, and Activity. Available online at http://wac.colostate.edu/books/selves_ societies/. Raimes, A. (1987). Language prociency, writing ability, and composing strategies: A study of ESL college student writers. Language Learning, 37, 439469. Roca de Larios, J., Manchon, R., Murphy, L., & Marn, J. (2008). The foreign language writers strategic behavior in the allocation of time to writing processes. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(1), 3047. Roca de Larios, J., Murphy, L., & Manchon, R. (1999). The use of restructuring strategies in EFL writing: A study of Spanish learners of English as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1344. Russell, D. R. (1995). Activity theory and its implications for writing instruction. In J. Petraglia (Ed.), Reconceiving writing, rethinking writing instruction (pp. 5177). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Russell, D. R. (1997). Rethinking genre in school and society: An activity theory analysis. Written Communication, 14(4), 504554. Sasaki, M. (2000). Toward an empirical model of EFL writing processes: An exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 259291. Sasaki, M. (2002). Building an empirically-based model of EFL learners writing processes. In S. Ransdell & M. Barbier (Eds.), New directions for research in L2 writing (pp. 4980). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Sasaki, M. (2004). A multi-data analysis of the 3.5-year development of EFL student writers. Language Learning, 54(3), 525582. Sasaki, M. (2007). Effects of study-abroad experiences on EFL writers: A multiple-data analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 602620. Schwartz, J. M., & Begley, S. (2002). The mind and the brain: Neuroplasticity and the power of mental force. New York: HarperCollins. van der Veer, R. (2007). Vygotsky in context: 19001935. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. V. Wersch (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 2149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultual perspective. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Bosch, E. (2000). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Villamil, O. S., & de Guerrero, M. C. M. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 5175. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Yaroshevsky, M. (1989). Lev Vygotsky. Moscow: Progress Press. Wang, W., & Wen, Q. (2002). L2 use in the L2 composing process: An exploratory study of 16 Chinese EFL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 225246.

X. Lei / Journal of Second Language Writing 17 (2008) 217236

235

Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (2004). Mind, language, and epistemology: Toward a language socialization paradigm for SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 88(3), 331350. Wong, A. T. Y. (2000). A study of cognition in context: The composing strategies of advanced writers in an academic context. Unpublished doctoral thesis, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. Wong, A. T. Y. (2005). Writers mental representation of the intended audience and of the rhetorical purpose for writing and the strategies that they employed when they composed. System, 33, 2947. Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 10, 6776. Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 165187.

Appendix A. Interview questions about their English learning and writing experience 1. Can you walk me through the efforts you have made to improve your English writing before and after you entered the university? And how did they benet your writing? 2. How do you usually work on writing assignments? Can you give an example? 3. What are the features of good English writing in your opinion? 4. What are your goals in English writing? (including immediate and future goals) 5. What strategies do you often use when writing assignments? Can you give some examples? 6. What do you think of your writing course (textbooks, topics, teachers, . . .)? And what have you learned from your writing course? 7. Did you communicate with anyone (e.g., classmates, friends, and teachers) about English writing? Can you give an anecdote?

Appendix B. Process log (adapted from Wong, 2000)

Section I: Preparation for writing

1. What is the assignment topic? What are you required to do? Do you like it? Why or why not? 2. Do you know much about the assignment topic? If yes, what are they and where was your knowledge from? 3. How are you going to get ideas for the assignment? 4. Do you have target readers for the assignment? If yes, who are they and why did you choose them? 5. What are your goals in writing the assignment? 6. What are your roles when writing the assignment? Have they affected your preparation? If yes, in what way? 7. Did you talk about the topic with anyone before writing? If yes, whom did you talk to and what did you talk about? 8. What did you actually do to get ideas for the assignment? 9. In what language(s) did you prepare for the assignment and why did you use this language or these languages?

236

X. Lei / Journal of Second Language Writing 17 (2008) 217236

Section II: Writing an essay (including the whole process of writing and revising until the submission of your essay)

10. Have your assumptions about what the target readers know or believe to be true affected how you wrote the essay? Can you give some examples? 11. Have your goals affected how you wrote the essay? If yes, in what way? 12. Did your perceptions of the target readers change during the writing process? If yes, what are the changes? 13. Did your goals change during the writing process? If yes, what are the changes? 14. Did you talk about the essay with anyone during writing? Whom did you talk to and what did you talk about? 15. Are there problems in your writing? If yes, can you describe ve major problems and how you handled them? 16. Are you satised with your nal version? Why or why not? 17. Can the nal version represent your writing ability? Why or why not? 18. What tools (e.g., the Internet, dictionaries) did you use and how did you use them when writing the rst draft? 19. What tools (e.g., the Internet, dictionaries) did you use for revision and how did you use them?
Xiao Lei is currently a PhD candidate at the Centre for Applied English Studies, the University of Hong Kong. Before beginning her doctoral studies she taught English at South China University of Technology, China. Her research interests include writing, SLA, and applications of Sociocultural Theory in education.