Reading & Writing Quarterly

Overcoming Learning Difficulties

ISSN: 1057-3569 (Print) 1521-0693 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urwl20

Effects of L1 Writing Experiences on L2 Writing

Perceptions: Evidence From an English as a Foreign
Language Context

Hooman Saeli & An Cheng

To cite this article: Hooman Saeli & An Cheng (2019): Effects of L1 Writing Experiences on L2
Writing Perceptions: Evidence From an English as a Foreign Language Context, Reading & Writing
Quarterly, DOI: 10.1080/10573569.2019.1579129

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2019.1579129

Published online: 20 May 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 6

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=urwl20
READING & WRITING QUARTERLY
https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2019.1579129

Effects of L1 Writing Experiences on L2 Writing Perceptions:

Evidence From an English as a Foreign Language Context
Hooman Saelia and An Chengb
a
The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA; bOklahoma State University, Stillwater, USA

ABSTRACT
The current study explored Iranian learners’ prior L1 (i.e., Farsi) experiences,
their L2 (i.e., English as a foreign language) writing-related perceptions,
and the effects of these writing-related L1 experiences on L2 writing-
related perceptions. The data were gleaned from 15 students in a wide
range of proficiencies using qualitative interviews. Analysis of data subse-
quently revealed that the participants negatively evaluated their L1 writing
experiences, that the learners attached low importance to the skill of writ-
ing in English, and that the learners drew on their L1 experiences in form-
ing their L2 writing perceptions. In particular, the participants believed that
their L1 writing experiences were not “useful,” a perception often trans-
ferred to L2 writing contexts as well. The findings of the study highlight
the importance of incorporating awareness-raising strategies (e.g., needs
analysis) which can help students to grow more informed about the status
of L1 and L2 writing in various contexts (e.g., academic and professional).

Introduction
Research has shown that second language (L2) learners’ individual differences (ID), such as
motivation (e.g., Dewaele, 2009; D€ ornyei, 2014), are important determinants of L2 learning suc-
cess. As an important ID, L2 learners’ perceptions have been shown to play a vital role in “both
the process and product of language learning” (Ellis, 2008, pp. 7–8). Dewaele (2009) states that
learner perceptions are complex constructs, composed of personal and sociocultural factors.
Motivated by conceptual frameworks (e.g., Gardner, 1985), many studies have explored learner
perceptions and their effect on various aspects of language learning (e.g., Brown, 2009; Brooks-
Lewis, 2009; Horwitz, 1999; Schulz, 1996, 2001; Tse, 2000; Wesely, 2012). Specifically, several
investigations have explored learner perceptions about different aspects of L2 writing, ranging
from English composition (e.g., Rinnert & Kobayashi, 2001) to corrective feedback (e.g., Lee,
2008; Leki & Carson, 1994; Loewen et al., 2009). Overall, these studies suggest that learners’ per-
ceptions are effective factors in the attainment of learning goals in L2 writing. More research,
nevertheless, is needed to uncover the sources of these perceptions.
A second ID variable which has been shown to affect L2 writing is learners’ first language
(L1). Existing research has, for instance, highlighted the effect of learners’ L1 writing competency
on their L2 writing performance (e.g., Van Weijen, Van den Bergh, Rijlaarsdam, & Sanders, 2009;
Wang & Wen, 2002). These studies have shown that learners tend to utilize their L1 resources
when writing in an L2. Additionally, focusing on learners, a few studies (e.g., Silva, 1992)
have compared learners’ perceptions about L1 and L2 writing. However, the role of learners’

CONTACT Hooman Saeli hsaeli@utk.edu Department of English, The University of Tennessee, 1700 W Clinch Ave, Apt
213, Knoxville, TN 37916, USA.
ß 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 H. SAELI

writing-related L1 experiences in shaping their writing-related L2 perceptions has received consid-

erably less empirical attention. Therefore, drawing upon the research on L1–L2 transfer in writing
(e.g., Bell, 1995; Berman, 1994), the present study sought to investigate whether learners’ percep-
tions about and affective engagement with L2 writing were influenced by their prior L1 writing
experiences.

Learners’ perceptions about L2 writing

The literature on learner perceptions about L2 learning is relatively rich. Here, only the research
on learner perceptions about L2 writing are reviewed. In their comprehensive review, DiCerbo
et al. (2014) stress the importance of all language skills in the classroom, but do learners hold all
these skills to be equally important? Answering the question, Horwitz (1988) surveyed foreign
language students to gain insights into their perceptions about language learning. She concluded
that her participants viewed L2 writing as relatively easier than L2 speaking. In another study,
Kern (1995) explored the perceptions of students in French as a foreign language class. He con-
cluded that a large majority of learners believed that L2 writing was easier to learn than L2 speak-
ing. Overall, Kern’s results agree with those of Horwitz, because learners in both studies
perceived L2 speaking as more difficult than L2 writing. In another study, Christison and
Krahnke (1986) investigated the perceptions of ESL students about language learning in academic
contexts. Data collected from interviews showed that L2 writing was perceived as the most diffi-
cult, least interesting, and least useful skill. Additionally, Christison and Krahnke’s results are in
line with those of Barkhuizen (1998), since learners in both studies reported a stronger desire to
improve their L2 oral communication skills, rather than L2 writing. As the above results show,
learner perceptions about L2 writing, its usefulness, and its perceived difficulty are still
inconclusive.
A few studies have examined learners’ perceptions about the importance/status of L2 writing
compared with other skills. Exploring the perceptions of ESL learners, Barkhuizen (1998) con-
cluded that L2 writing was viewed more negatively and as less necessary than L2 oral communi-
cation skills and that developing L2 speaking skills was regarded more valuable than L2 writing.
Additionally, Simon and Taverniers (2011) surveyed the perceptions of Dutch ESL learners and
asked them to rank order (i.e., according to perceived importance) the four English skills.
Accordingly, they reported that speaking, writing, reading, and listening, in that order, were
viewed as the most to the least important skills. These results are particularly relevant to the cur-
rent research because, in the above studies, learners rank ordered the importance of English skills,
viewing L2 speaking as more important than L2 writing. Additionally, Bueno-Alastuey and L opez
Perez (2014) reported that, although English as a foreign language (EFL) learners highly regarded
L2 writing, they still considered L2 speaking as a more important skill. Lasagabaster and Doiz
(2016) also suggest that language learners hold unfavorable perceptions about L2 writing, unless
they produce a useful L2 writing piece. The authors concluded that the perceived usefulness of
English skills can determine the favorability of learner perceptions about them. While the afore-
mentioned studies have reported learners’ perceptions about L2 writing (e.g., its perceived
importance), they have not reported on the potential sources for these perceptions. In the present
study, it was hypothesized that learner perceptions about L2 writing are influenced by their prior
L1 writing experiences.

Transfer of learners’ L1 writing skills/experiences to L2 writing contexts

The role of learners’ ID variables in L2 writing has been discussed, both conceptually and empir-
ically (see Kormos, 2012, for a comprehensive review). Here, the existing research on one particu-
lar ID variable, learners’ L1 writing experiences/skills, is reviewed. The majority of these studies
 L1 TO L2 TRANSFER OF WRITING PERCEPTIONS 3

have examined the patterns of L1-to-L2 transfer in student writing. For instance, Kubota (1998)
explored whether a group of Japanese EFL students transferred their L1 writing discourse strat-
egies to L2 writing and found that many learners tended to incorporate L1 discourse patterns in
L2 writing. Berman (1994) investigated L1–L2 transfer in writing and concluded that ESL learners
frequently resorted to their L1 organization skills in L2 writing. The frequency and success of
such instances of transfer was, however, influenced by learners’ L2 proficiency. Additionally, Van
Weijen et al. (2009) examined whether Dutch ESL learners transferred their L1 writing skills to
L2 writing contexts. Their results showed that cases of transfer were frequent, although L1 use
had negative effects on the quality of L2 writing. Wang and Wen (2002) studied L1–L2 transfer
in writing among Chinese EFL learners. The results revealed that L1 was used in brainstorming
stages and narrative tasks. Overall, the available literature suggests that learners’ L1s influence
their L2 writing abilities, that learners tend to use their L1 skills in L2 writing, and that L1–L2
transfer in writing might be affected by several learner variables (e.g., L1 and L2 writing profi-
ciency). In addition, a few studies have explored the L1–L2 transfer of writing-related perceptions.
Bell (1995) concludes that learners might transfer their L1 writing-related perceptions (formed as
a result of L1 writing-related experiences) to L2 writing contexts. Bell’s conclusion is important,
since the current study examined whether learners’ L2 writing-related perceptions are affected by
their prior L1 writing-related experiences and perceptions.

The present study

A few researchers (e.g., Bell, 1995) suggest that L1–L2 transfer of writing-related perceptions
remains under-researched, thereby meriting further investigation. Such investigations are neces-
sary in some EFL contexts (e.g., Iran), where the investigation of writing-related perceptions is
still scarce; although some studies (e.g., Kaivanpanah, Alavi, & Sepehrinia, 2015; Rassaei, 2013)
have explored learner perceptions about several aspects of L2 writing (e.g., corrective feedback),
the effects of learners’ L1 writing-related experiences on their L2 writing-related perceptions are
still nonexistent, to the researcher’s best knowledge. The present study, therefore, aimed to
answer the following question: Are Iranian EFL learners’ L2 writing-related perceptions affected
by their prior L1 writing-related experiences?
In answering this research question, first, the learners’ prior L1 (i.e., Farsi) writing-related
experiences were scrutinized. Next, their L2 (i.e., English) writing-related perceptions (e.g.,
importance or usefulness of L2 writing) were explored. Finally, the transfer of L1 writing-related
experiences to L2 writing-related perceptions was examined. The findings are hoped to shed fur-
ther light on one specific source of L2 learners’ perceptions: prior language learning experiences
in their L1s.

Methodology
Study design
This study was a qualitative inquiry into learner perceptions which were otherwise deemed unob-
servable by other methods of inquiry (e.g., questionnaires). According to Corbin and Strauss
(2014), qualitative interviews are appropriate when delving into participants’ thoughts, percep-
tions, and attitudes. Also, qualitative interviews, as Corbin and Strauss posit, help identify the
underlying reasons behind phenomena. As a result, qualitative interviews have been used exten-
sively in L2 studies aimed at exploring perceptions, practices, and experiences (e.g., Harwood,
Austin, & Macaulay, 2009; Zhu, 2004). In the present study, recursive analysis showed that the
data had reached the saturation point, suggesting that all the thematic categories were identifiable
using 15 interviews. Also, because the interview questions were aimed at uncovering learners’ L2
4 H. SAELI

Table 1. Participants’ background information.

Personal information English and academic background
Name Gender Age Proficiency Eng. years Courses taken Academic major
Ari Male 20s Lower intermediate 4.5 General-English MS in engineering
Ava Male 20s Advanced 17 General-English and test-prep MS in engineering
Eddy Female 20s Upper-intermediate 12 General-English BS in hard sciences
Faezeh Female 30s Intermediate 10 General-English and test-prep PhD in hard sciences
Hoji Male 20s Advanced 7 General-English and test-prep MS in engineering
Ladan Female 30s Advanced 12 General-English and test-prep MA in management
Mahnaz Female 20s Lower intermediate 8 General-English BA in law
Majid Male 30s Intermediate 13 General-English BS in engineering
Maria Female 30s Upper-intermediate 6 General-English and test-prep BA in mathematics
Mary Female 30s Upper-intermediate 9 General-English BS in science
Nely Female 30s Upper-intermediate 26 General-English PhD in humanities
Omid Male 30s Upper-intermediate 2.5 General-English MBA
Samaneh Female 20s Advanced 11 General-English and test-prep MBA
Sara Female 20s Upper-intermediate 13 General-English and test-prep MA in economics
Zohreh Female 20s Advanced 10 General-English and test-prep MA in economics

perceptions, L1 experiences, and L1 experiences as a potential source of L2 perceptions, the use

of other data collection methods was not assumed to yield any novel insights.

Study context, participants, and participant selection criteria

The data were collected from two English schools in Tehran, Iran, both of which employed text-
book-based curricula. The schools offered various general-English classes at different proficiency
levels, and the skill of writing was allotted roughly one-fourth of teaching time, as well as instruc-
tional and assessment activities. Students enrolled in the general-English classes needed to be at
least 18 years old. The participant selection criteria were twofold. Qualified learners needed to
have experience in (1) L1 (i.e., Farsi) writing and (2) L2 (i.e., English) writing. In other words,
qualified participants needed to have experience in writing in Farsi (e.g., in the Iranian school
system) and English (e.g., classes they were taking at the language schools). Consent forms were
distributed to several EFL teachers, who then provided the forms to their students. From a total
of around 75 students, 15 agreed to take part in the interviews; these 15 learners (1) had at least
graduated from high school, (i.e., where Farsi courses are mandatory) and (2) were involved in
L2 writing, at least through the EFL classes they were enrolled in. Whereas 13 participants
reported that Farsi was their L1, two students claimed that they grew up in a bilingual context,
learning Farsi and Azeri Turkic. However, all learners had been required to take Farsi classes
(e.g., in high school). Table 1 provides additional background information on the participants.
Note that all the names are pseudonyms, and that test-prep classes refer to TOEFL iBT and/or
IELTS preparation classes.

Data collection instrument and procedure

A semi-structured, qualitative interview was utilized to collect data from the 15 learners (see
Appendix). The questions elicited responses in following areas: the participants’ (1) prior Farsi
writing experiences (e.g., in the Iranian school system), (2) evaluation of such experiences, (3)
English writing experiences, (4) evaluation of such experiences, (5) perceptions about English
writing, and (6) perceptions about the effects of these L1 writing experiences on these L2 writing
perceptions. The interview questions were developed after a brainstorming session with three
experienced writing teachers to ensure the validity of the interviews. The questions were then
piloted with two English learners, and some minor changes were made in the questions,
accordingly.
 L1 TO L2 TRANSFER OF WRITING PERCEPTIONS 5

After returning the signed consent forms, the participants were asked to choose their conveni-
ent time and location for the interviews. In particular, a classroom at either of the language
schools or a coffee shop served as the main setting for data collection. The first 10 mins of the
interviews were spent on providing general information on the consent forms, study objectives,
or any other concerns brought up by the participants. The students were then reassured that the
data were recorded, stored, and used confidentially (e.g., through the use of personal computers
and nicknames); that the interview data would not be shared with their instructors; and that their
interview responses would not influence their English grades at the institutes. After the first
stage, the main interview questions were asked using an interview protocol. After all the
interview questions were over, care was taken to answer any remaining questions from the stu-
dents and to examine the quality of the recordings. In addition, the interview lengths ranged
from 35–70 mins.

Data analysis
All of the interviews were conducted in Farsi in order to help collect more accurate data. In par-
ticular, using Farsi was hypothesized to provide the participants, especially those of lower English
proficiency levels, with greater linguistic expressivity in discussing their writing-related experien-
ces and perceptions. The interview data were first transcribed in Farsi. Next, using the main
interview questions as the coding guidelines, we scrutinized the data using the principles of a
grounded theory approach in interview data analysis (see Corbin & Strauss, 2014, for a thorough
discussion). Also, 50% of the data were co-rated by an experienced writing instructor. The two
developed coding schemes showed very high agreement (r ¼ .98). Next, a coding scheme was
developed which included several thematic categories and subcategories, which was then corrobo-
rated with a number of representative excerpts. The major thematic categories were the learners’
(1) prior Farsi writing experiences, (2) evaluation of such experiences, (3) English writing experi-
ences, (4) evaluation of such experiences, and (5) perceptions about the impact of their L1 writing
experiences on L2 writing perceptions.

Findings
The findings of the study are presented in this section. The organization of the reported findings
is based on the developed coding scheme. In order to illustrate the identified codes, a number of
excerpts are also provided.

The learners’ prior L1 writing experiences and their evaluation of such experiences
The data analysis showed that all of the learners (N ¼ 15) negatively evaluated their prior L1
(Farsi, hereafter) writing experiences in the Iranian school system, mentioning that writing was
given insufficient attention, time, instruction, and feedback, if any at all. When asked to elaborate
on the areas covered in their Farsi classes, many participants (n ¼ 12) claimed that discrete gram-
mar drills and lists of vocabulary items were primarily stressed in their school Farsi curricula. In
Excerpt 1, Majid, an intermediate learner taking general-English classes, criticized his Farsi
classes, adding that writing was not addressed. He also stated that discrete grammar rules and
word lists were stressed in his Farsi classes:
Excerpt 1: “It [Farsi class] was not good in our time. If it was, we would know something … We rarely got
to write anything … [What did you learn then?] It was mostly about structure [grammar of Farsi]. Mostly
about [grammar] rules. Also, we used to memorize the meanings of a bunch of words. [Were the words put
in a context?] No. Each lesson usually had a list of new words and their meanings. That’s it!” (Majid,
interview transcript, p. 120)
6 H. SAELI

In Excerpt 2, Eddy, an upper-intermediate student taking general-English classes, agreed with

Majid and claimed that writing was not taught in her Farsi classes; rather, the Farsi curricula
were centered around reading literary texts and learning new words in glossaries. Eddy’s overall
evaluation of her Farsi classes was negative, partially because writing was not taught in them:
Excerpt 2: “[What is your overall evaluation of your Farsi classes?] Not useful at all … Just look at the
output of our [Farsi] composition classes. A high school graduate can barely write a simple letter. [What
did you work on instead?] Usually grammar things. Verb tenses, for example … Also, a glossary of new
words along with their meanings in Farsi.” (Eddy, interview transcript, p. 98)

In Excerpt 3, Ladan, an advanced learner taking general-English and test-preparation classes,

also negatively evaluated the lack of focus on writing activities in her Farsi classes. She also men-
tioned that the strong emphasis on Farsi grammar and vocabulary was not practical:
Excerpt 3: “Many problems [in Farsi instruction]. What we learned in Farsi classes was very simple and not
practical … [Can you elaborate on Farsi writing?] I don’t remember writing anything useful in class. Like
summaries, evaluations. Nothing. [What did you do, instead?] It was mandatory for us to take Farsi classes
throughout school. We learned how to analyze sentences to learn about their structures. Also, their [the
sentences’] new words, sometimes … [What is your overall evaluation?] Mostly negative.” (Ladan, interview
transcript, p. 112)

In the above excerpts, the learners’ criticized their Farsi classes because of the perceived lack
of focus on writing. In addition, in Excerpt 4, Samaneh, an MBA holder and an advanced learner
taking general-English and test-preparation classes, stated that she did not consider Farsi writing
important when she was a high school student. However, because of the perceived importance of
writing in her university major (i.e., MBA), she began to view this skill as useful. Overall, she
criticized her high school Farsi classes for their lack of focus on writing and their impractical
emphasis on vocabulary items and grammar rules:
Excerpt 4: “Back in high school, I was happy that we didn’t write anything. Always hated it [writing]. But
after going to college, I realized how important it is to write different things. In order to succeed, you’d
need to write different things. From article summaries to application letters … I don’t evaluate it [Farsi
class] positively. Also, there is no context for us to actually use it [the acquired Farsi skills]. [What did you
learn?] It was mostly limited to grammar and new words … We never got to use them [words and
grammar rules] in sentences. Mostly for exams.” (Samaneh, interview excerpt, p. 142)

In particular, the data analysis showed that literature-based reading comprehension was
another important component of the participants’ Farsi classes. Several learners (n ¼ 5), therefore,
highlighted the inclusion of literary texts (e.g., short stories and poems) in their Farsi classes. In
Excerpt 5, for instance, Faezeh, an intermediate learner taking general-English and test-prepar-
ation classes, pointed out that her Farsi school curriculum involved reading comprehension of lit-
erature-based texts, thereby being “irrelevant” to many learners’ future academic and
professional careers:
Excerpt 5: “[Were your Farsi classes effective?] Not at all. They were very boring. Books were mostly about
reading some texts like poems and things like that … [How do you evaluate the outcome of such classes?] I
like reading about Persian literature, but the stuff we read back in high school was totally irrelevant to my
career … I never got to use any of the poems I read in my career … They need to make it more relevant
to students’ future! Not everyone likes literature. Or finds it useful. [How about writing?] The biggest thing
we did as far as writing was to make sentences using the new words we had learned. And that was back in
elementary school, I guess … I believe we should do more of that [writing]. [Why?] Because you’ll need to
be able to write. No matter what your field is.” (Faezeh, interview transcript, p. 103)

In Excerpt 5, Faezeh stated that writing was more useful than reading literary texts because
such texts were not relevant to/useful in her field; she was a PhD student in hard sciences.
Additionally, a few participants (n ¼ 3) touched upon the importance of the Iranian national uni-
versity entrance exam (i.e., Konkoor) in shaping Farsi school curricula. In Excerpt 6, Maria, an
upper-intermediate learner taking general-English and test-preparation classes, brought up the
 L1 TO L2 TRANSFER OF WRITING PERCEPTIONS 7

importance of the assessment criteria in Konkoor, stating that writing was not part of that exam;
rather, discrete grammar rules, vocabulary items, and reading comprehension questions were
included in Konkoor. Maria associated the low status of writing in Farsi education with the lack
of focus on this skill in Konkoor:
Excerpt 6: “[Farsi classes were] not useful at all. Mostly about grammar rules which we did not know how
to use. Also, no writing … [Why writing was not covered?] I’m not sure. I think our Farsi courses were
mostly meant to prepare us to take Konkoor. And you know that it [Konkoor] is mostly about grammar,
vocab, and some reading. Writing is not a part of Konkoor. That might be why schools don’t teach writing
[in Farsi classes].” (Maria, interview excerpt, p. 126)

Two (n ¼ 14) learners also highlighted the role of summative assessment in the Iranian school
system, and stated that writing was not included in such tests. In Excerpt 7, Hoji, an advanced
learner taking general-English and test-preparation courses, discussed assessment criteria in the
Iranian school system. Specifically, he stated that his Farsi school exams were centered around
grammar rules, vocabulary items, and reading comprehension. Thereby, he received perfect scores
without knowing “how to write:”
Excerpt 7: “[Farsi classes were focused on] only some words. Grammar, too. [Why is it bad?] Look! I
always got 20 [the perfect score in the Iranian school system], [but] I never learned how to write a letter.
Or a short essay. You should be able to use the things you learn … [Why writing was not assessed in your
Farsi classes?] I’m not sure. Perhaps because it was easier for teachers to just grade tests and quizzes. Also,
it [giving tests] is more objective. [Can you further elaborate?] Like the final exams which are unified. It’s
almost impossible to grade thousands of essays fairly.” (Hoji, interview excerpt, p. 106)

In Excerpt 7, Hoji asserted that writing activities were not included in Farsi exams at schools
because, unlike grammar and vocabulary, it was difficult to grade essays objectively. Another point
he brought up was the relative ease of grading tests and quizzes, as opposed to grading essays.
Similarly, in Excerpt 8, Sara, an upper-intermediate learner taking general-English and test-prepar-
ation classes, clarified that the Farsi and English school curricula in her classes were closely compar-
able. She, in particular, stated that both curricula were mostly centered around grammar rules and
vocabulary items, and that writing did not receive much attention in her Farsi and English classes:
Excerpt 8: “They [Farsi classes] included complex grammar rules and difficult words … [How about
writing?] No. Writing was not covered at all. I don’t remember writing paragraphs or essays. Maybe
sentences … The approved system of the Ministry of Education [in Iran] isn’t acceptable at all … Same
thing in English classes in high school. The books were just about grammar, words, and reading passages.
[How about writing?] We wrote sentences to practice new words or grammar rules. That’s it. [Any
difference between Farsi and English classes?] Not many. Just the things in English classes were simpler.
For example, the reading passages.” (Sara, interview transcript, p. 147)

Overall, all of the learners negatively evaluated their Farsi writing experiences. As the findings
showed, stronger focus was placed on grammar rules and vocabulary items in the learners’ Farsi
classes. In addition, a few participants associated the emphasis on grammar rules, vocabulary
items, and literature-based reading comprehension skills with Konkoor. We can, therefore, iden-
tify a potential backwash effect (i.e., the effect of assessment on instruction) between the areas
which were assessed in Konkoor and those stressed in Farsi school curricula. Overall, the findings
of this section can be summarized in the following points: (1) Writing received minimal attention
in the learners’ school Farsi classes, (2) areas such as grammar and vocabulary received more
attention, and (3) the students criticized the lack of focus on writing in their Farsi classes, partly
due to the impractical nature of the stressed areas (e.g., discrete grammar rules).

The learners’ perceptions about the personal importance of L2 writing

This section reports on the participants’ perceptions about the general importance and personal
status of L2 writing. The data analysis revealed that the majority of the learners (n ¼ 11) believed
8 H. SAELI

that L2 writing was generally not as important as the other English skills, but a few (n ¼ 4)
viewed this skill as equally important. Additionally, the learners (N ¼ 15) did not regard L2 writ-
ing as a personal priority, stating that L2 writing was not the most useful skill to them; rather,
many (n ¼ 11) mentioned that improving oral communication skills was their primary goal due
to their perceived usefulness in academic (e.g., higher education) (n ¼ 8), professional (e.g., busi-
ness trips) (n ¼ 7), personal contexts (e.g., interaction with foreigners) (n ¼ 5), and test-taking
contexts (e.g., TOEFL iBT). In Excerpt 9, Eddy, an upper-intermediate learner taking general-
English classes, reported that she preferred to improve her speaking skills because of the per-
ceived usefulness of these skills in professional contexts:
Excerpt 9: “[What is your priority in learning English?] Speaking, mostly. In general, I need to talk to
foreigners in my workplace. We usually host students and scientists from other countries. I sometimes get
appointed to show them around and translate things to them whenever they go out and do things. Like
shopping or looking for a place to live … I personally want to improve my speaking skills. You know, I
wanna be able to communicate with others … [How about writing?] Not so much. It [writing] is important
to get better grades [at her language school], but I don’t get to use it in my life a lot. At least not for now.
Like I said, speaking is much more useful in my life now right now. Going to [English] classes is my best
opportunity to improve my speaking [skills].” (Eddy, interview transcript, p. 99)

In Excerpt 10, Ava, an advanced learner taking general-English and test-preparation

classes, stated that his priority was improving his speaking skills. In particular, he agreed with
Eddy in Excerpt 9, and claimed that oral communication skills were more useful for him,
especially in academic contexts. Stating that he could learn L2 writing on his own, Ava
believed that his speaking skills could only be improved in a classroom context with the help
of teachers:
Excerpt 10: “[What is your priority in learning English?] I wanna work on my speaking [skills]. [Why?] I
wanna go to a conference in Malaysia. My adviser might come with me, but if not, I need to present my
research on my own … That’s why I need help to improve my speaking skills before I go there. [Any other
contexts of use for speaking skills?] Yeah. I’m thinking about continuing my education in Canada. So, it’d
be good for me to talk to professors at that conference. I need to make connections with them. It’s a good
opportunity for me. [How about writing?] Not as urgent [as speaking]. [Why?] I’ve published one article in
English. I learned how to do it by reading articles on my own. I think I can improve my writing [skills] by
reading a lot. Also, I don’t really come to class to write a five-paragraph essay. What I do in real life is
different. Like articles.” (Ava, interview transcript, p. 94)

These findings suggest that Ava perceived L2 writing as less useful and less difficult than
L2 speaking. In a similar vein, in Excerpt 11, Omid, an upper-intermediate learner taking
general-English classes, regarded L2 speaking as more useful, but more difficult than L2 writ-
ing in personal and academic settings. Interestingly, Omid thought that L2 speaking enjoyed a
higher status than L2 writing because of the visibility, and thereby more prestigious nature, of
L2 speaking:
Excerpt 11: “My personal priority is speaking. [Why?] Because I can use it in my life. I think I can
communicate with foreigners whenever I need to. Also, I know some international students who I
sometimes hang out with. I wanna be able to communicate better with them. Also, I need to improve my
speaking skills to get a high score for speaking to get funding from graduate programs in the U.S. or
Canada … [How about writing?] It’s my last priority. [Why?] I have difficulty in writing, in general. [I
won’t write,] unless I have to use [writing] … In general, speaking is very important in Iran. Maybe this is
the social approach [to learning English]. A person who can speak [English] would enjoy a higher social
status. But writing is not seen. If you know how to write [well], no one might see you [and your writing]
for the rest of your life. It’s because of its [speaking’s] social prestige that many put is as their priority.”
(Omid, interview transcript, p. 139)

In addition, in Excerpt 12, Mahnaz, a lower-intermediate learner taking general-English classes,

touched upon the importance of L2 speaking in her personal life, especially for watching movies
and attending movie sessions. She perceived L2 oral communication skills as more useful than
 L1 TO L2 TRANSFER OF WRITING PERCEPTIONS 9

L2 writing. Similar to Excerpts 9, 10, and 11, Mahnaz believed that L2 writing was not useful to
her because she had already graduated from college:
Excerpt 12: “[What is your priority in learning English?] Oral communication. [Why?] I wanna watch
movies that are in English. I wanna improve my listening skills first. I mean, my listening isn’t bad. I
just need more practice. Also, we have this group of friends. We get together every Friday [national
weekly holiday in Iran] and watch movies. They’re all Iranian but we try to speak English with each
other. We watch a movie and then try to talk about it in English. We switch to Farsi back and forth a
lot, but we try to speak as much English as possible. [How about writing?] I’m done with school, so I
don’t even need to work on my writing for school. When I was in college, I needed to read English
texts, but never [used] writing … In general, I don’t have any use for writing now.” (Mahnaz, interview
transcript, p. 143)

Additionally, two learners (n ¼ 2) prioritized L2 speaking over L2 writing because they believed
that improving L2 speaking skills would help them achieve better scores on tests of general
English proficiency (e.g., the TOEFL iBT). In Excerpt 13, Hoji, an advanced learner taking gen-
eral-English and test-preparation courses, referred to his perceived weakness in L2 speaking, and
pointed out that improving these skills would help him obtain higher scores on the TOEFL.
Overall, Hoji perceived L2 speaking as both more useful and more difficult than L2 writing:
Excerpt 13: “[What is your priority in learning English?] Speaking. My speaking [proficiency] is not that
good, although I have been taking classes for some years. Also, I don’t have the opportunity to practice
speaking outside the class, so that’s why it’s important to work on it in class … [How about writing?] I can
learn it on my own. Speaking is more difficult and needs much more practice … I can read articles and
writing samples to improve my writing. So, I don’t have to be in class to improve my writing [skills] …
[Where do you need speaking skills?] I need it [speaking] for TOEFL eventually … I am applying for some
graduate schools in the U.S., so I need to improve my speaking skills.” (Hoji, interview transcript, p. 108)

In addition to the perceived usefulness of L2 speaking, a few students (n ¼ 2) brought up their

weak L2 speaking skills to justify the higher personal status of such skills. Excerpt 14 by Ari, a
lower-intermediate learner taking general-English classes, referred to his weak L2 speaking back-
ground, thereby prioritizing the improvement of such skills. He reported that his high school
English classes were highly ineffective in improving his L2 speaking. Although Ari needed L2
writing in academic contexts, he had a colleague proficient in English who helped him with the
“quality” of his manuscripts:
Excerpt 14: “I always liked to speak fluently and accurately. In high school English [classes], we were never
taught [how to speak English]. So, I wanna learn it now … [Can you elaborate more?] Yes. The courses we
took back in high school were all about grammar, reading, and vocab. So, we never spoke one word of
English in class! Neither did our teacher! It is funny actually, that even the teacher spoke Farsi all the time.
[You did not have any speaking exercises at all?] Maybe reading a text aloud. That’d be it … [How about
writing?] Writing is not that important to me now. [Why?] I need to publish articles in English, but I have
a coworker who can help me with it. His writing [skill] is better than me so he can make sure the articles
are of good quality.” (Ari, interview transcript, p. 89)

As mentioned earlier, although the learners (N ¼ 15) reported that L2 writing was not their
personal priority, a few (n ¼ 4) considered L2 writing as important as the other English skills. In
particular, two of these learners (n ¼ 2) touched upon the importance of L2 writing in academic
and professional settings. In Excerpt 15, Ladan, an advanced learner taking general-English and
test-preparation classes, explained why she equally valued L2 writing due to its importance in aca-
demic contexts:
Excerpt 15: “[What is your priority in learning English?] I care about all the four skills … although I need
to improve my speaking, for the most part … My attitude [about the importance of writing] has changed a
lot. Now, I choose classes that cover all the skills, even writing. Before, like others, I cared more about
speaking. It didn’t happen to me to use writing. Things have changed now, though … I need to write
articles in my field. I need publications in good journals which are published in English. To get job
promotions, you know. [Why did your attitude change about writing?] Like I said, it found it necessary in
my field.” (Ladan, interview transcript, p. 112)
10 H. SAELI

The other two learners (n ¼ 2) believed that L2 writing was a requirement for achieving high
scores on tests of English proficiency (e.g., TOEFL). In Excerpt 16, Samaneh, an advanced learner
taking general-English and test-preparation classes, reported that L2 writing was of equal import-
ance to her, because each skill was allocated 30/120 points on the TOEFL iBT and she needed a
high score on this test for academic reasons:
Excerpt 16: “[What is your priority in learning English?] I want to take the TOEFL soon. Probably in a few
months. It’s a total of 120 points and writing has 30 points, so I cannot ignore writing. I think it’s as
important as the other ones [skills] … Writing is necessary for TOEFL. I wanna be a TA [at a university in
the U.S.], so I need to get a high score in the writing section on TOEFL … I think without good writing
[skills] on TOEFL, I cannot reach my academic goals.” (Samaneh, interview transcript, p. 141)

Overall, the findings in this section reveal that L2 writing did not enjoy a high status among
the participants. Instead, the learners mostly aimed to improve their L2 speaking skills for several
reasons, mostly centered around the perceived usefulness of L2 speaking. Contrary to L2 writing,
the participants viewed L2 speaking as more useful in a variety of contexts (e.g., academic, profes-
sional, and personal). It can, therefore, be hypothesized that the low perceived usefulness of L2
writing (e.g., in academic settings) was a significant determinant of the status of L2 writing
among the participants.

The learners’ perceptions of the effect of their prior L1 learning experiences on their L2
writing perceptions
The current study examined whether the learners’ L2 writing-related perceptions were formed by
their L1 writing experiences. As mentioned earlier, all of the learners reported that L1 writing
was not sufficiently covered in their Farsi classes, and that L2 writing was less useful than L2
speaking. As the data analysis revealed, the majority of the participants (n ¼ 13) claimed that their
L1 writing experiences affected their perceptions about L2 writing. Many of these learners (n ¼ 9)
claimed that their low regard for L2 writing was, at least partially, a product of the low status of
L1 writing in their Farsi classes. In Excerpt 17, Nely, an advanced learner taking general-English
classes, reported that her L1 writing background helped shape her negative perceptions about L2
writing. Because L1 writing was not appreciated in Nely’s high school Farsi and English classes,
she did not perceive L2 writing as important and useful:
Excerpt 17: “[Do you think your L1 writing experiences affected your perceptions about L2 writing?] I
think so. We were never taught to use writing back in high school. This is perhaps why I don’t see any use
for it [L2 writing] … In high school, we were never told about the value of [Farsi] writing in different
contexts. Not just for writing in Farsi. We never wrote anything in English either. I think it can become
very cultural. Stuff like that [importance of writing] can be acquired throughout school years. It didn’t
happen to me though … [Any thoughts on L2 writing?] Writing is something imposed [in EFL classes],
meaning that it is not that important to me. If I was a student abroad, yeah. But now it’s not equally
important as speaking and reading to me.” (Nely, interview transcript, p. 135)

As Excerpt 17 suggests, if students like Nely were not taught to appreciate L1 writing, they
might transfer negative perceptions about the importance, usefulness, and status of L1 writing to
L2 contexts. In Excerpt 18, Zohreh, an advanced learner taking general-English and test-prepar-
ation classes, highlighted the role of her L1 writing experiences in shaping her perceptions about
L2 writing. Pointing to the low status of L1 writing in her high school education, Zohreh trans-
ferred some L1-related experiences to L2 writing contexts:
Excerpt 18: “[Do you think your L1 writing experiences had an impact on your L2 writing perceptions?]
Hmmm. I think yeah. To some extent. I think we were not taught writing in our Farsi classes. Mostly
reading and grammar. Also, we were not supposed to write anything for final exams … I don’t remember
having to write anything longer than a sentence in my Farsi classes, actually … Konkoor [the nationwide
university entrance exam in Iran], as well. When the entire education system doesn’t value writing, then,
you as a student will probably do the same. If there’s no social importance for writing, then students won’t
 L1 TO L2 TRANSFER OF WRITING PERCEPTIONS 11

value it either … That might be why my priority in taking L2 classes in speaking … Yeah, I think it [my
perceptions about L2 writing] is somehow based on my Farsi [writing] experiences.” (Zohreh, interview
transcript, p. 152)

As Excerpt 18 shows, Zohreh also referenced different aspects of the Iranian education system
(e.g., summative assessment and nationwide tests) in explaining why she did not highly value
L2 writing.
Stressing the effects of their L1 learning experiences, several learners (n ¼ 4) reported that the
high personal value of L2 writing was partially influenced by their negative L1 writing experiences
(Note: these learners were the ones who believed that L2 writing was as important as the other
English skills). As the data analysis showed, because of these learners’ negative L1 writing experi-
ences (e.g., lack of focus on L1 writing), they became aware of the importance of L2 writing in
various contexts. Excerpt 19, by Ladan, an advanced student taking general-English and test-prep-
aration classes, shows how her negative L1 writing experiences helped shape her favorable percep-
tions about L2 writing:
Excerpt 19: “Like I said, my Farsi classes were mostly about grammar … We barely needed to write
anything. Teachers didn’t focus on it [Farsi writing] either … Because I had very bad Farsi classes, this
is why I care about writing now. When I had to use writing, then I realized the importance of it.
Then, I needed to try hard to learn how to use it [writing] correctly. Now, I know better that writing
in English is gonna be useful for the same reasons … [Where do you think you will use L2 writing?] I
think it’s useful in many ways. Like [publishing] articles or taking the TOEFL.” (Ladan, interview
transcript, p. 113)

The findings in this section suggest that the learners’ L1 writing experiences played a role in
shaping their L2 writing perceptions. In fact, both the participants who did not value (n ¼ 9) and
those who valued (n ¼ 4) L2 writing brought up their negative L1 writing-related experiences.
On the other hand, two learners (n ¼ 2) believed that the low importance of L2 writing was
not caused by their L1 writing experiences. The following points summarize the findings of
the study:

 Evaluations of Farsi learning experiences:

 Negative evaluations (N ¼ 15; 100%):
 Lack of focus on L1 writing (N ¼ 15; 100%)
 Over-emphasis on decontextualized grammar and vocabulary (n ¼ 12; 80%)
 Over-emphasis on literature-based texts (n ¼ 5; 33%)
 Emphasis on Konkoor, the Iranian national university entrance exam, which does not
include a writing section (n ¼ 3; 20%)
 Summative assessment in schools, which does not include a writing section (n ¼ 2; 13%)
 General importance and personal status of L2 writing:
 Not a personal priority and not the most useful skill (N ¼ 15; 100%)
 L2 writing as less important than other skills (n ¼ 11; 73%)
 Oral communication skills as more important/useful (n ¼ 11; 73%)
 Academic contexts (n ¼ 8; 53%)
 Professional settings (n ¼ 7; 47%)
 Personal contexts (n ¼ 5; 33%)
 Needed to obtain high TOEFL and IELTS scores (n ¼ 2; 13%)
 Perceived weakness in L2 speaking (n ¼ 2; 13%)
 L2 writing as equally important as other skills (n ¼ 4; 27%)
 Useful/necessary in academic and professional contexts (n ¼ 2; 13%)
 Needed to obtain high TOEFL and IELTS scores (n ¼ 2; 13%)
 Transfer of L1 writing experiences to L2 writing perceptions
 L1-related experiences as effective in shaping L2 perceptions (n ¼ 13; 87%)
12 H. SAELI

 Leading to low status of L2 writing (n ¼ 9; 60%)

 Leading to realization of L2 writing importance (n ¼ 4; 27%)
 L1-related experiences not important in shaping L2 perceptions (n ¼ 2; 13%)

Discussion
The research question of this study pertained to exploring whether learners’ L1 writing experien-
ces helped shape their L2 writing-related perceptions. Accordingly, the participants’ L1 writing-
related experiences and their evaluation of such experiences were examined. Touching upon the
lack of focus on writing, the learners negatively evaluated their L1 learning and strongly criticized
their L1 curricula because of (1) overemphasis on discrete grammar rules/drills, (2) decontextual-
ized lists of words, and (3) literature-based reading comprehension. Next, the analysis of the
learners’ perceptions about L2 writing revealed that many regarded this skill as less useful than
L2 speaking. These findings show that the perceived “usefulness” of skills was an important rea-
son behind the learners’ satisfaction with curricula, as also reported by Barkhuizen (1998) and
Christison and Krahnke (1986). Bueno-Alastuey and Lopez Perez (2014) also highlight the role of
skill usefulness in determining learner perceptions about English skills. Lasagabaster and Doiz’s
(2016) conclusion is also relevant here, because these authors have assumed the favorability of L2
writing to be dependent on the perceived usefulness of it. Overall, the above studies, as well the
current investigation, depict a relationship between learners’ perception favorability and skill use-
fulness. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that L2 speaking was viewed more positively in
the current study because the participants saw it as a more useful skill.
The above discussion draws our attention to the effects of a skill’s perceived usefulness on its
perception favorability (e.g., Bueno-Alastuey & L opez Perez, 2014; Lasagabaster & Doiz, 2016).
However, the literature on the potential sources of such perceived usefulness is very scarce. The
current findings indicate that such learner perceptions might be rooted in their L1 writing-related
experiences. Several available studies on the Iranian school curricula point to the low status of
L1/L2 writing. Jahangard’s (2007, pp. 146–147) analysis of the textbooks used nationwide in
Iranian high schools attests to the fact that the skill of writing “is somehow neglected in the ser-
ies. Although some exercises of the lessons are intended to enhance the writing skills of the learn-
ers, they are limited to a few isolated sentence production activities in a decontextualized and
sterile milieu of communication.” This conclusion depicts writing as an underrepresented skill in
the Iranian school system and shows the heavy accuracy-oriented focus on grammar rules. This is
also in agreement with what Farhady, Hezaveh, and Hedayati (2010, p. 12) state in regard to the
status of writing, when pointing out that in the Iranian school system, “written exam consists of
sections on spelling, vocabulary, grammar, and reading comprehension.” As the current study
shows, this underemphasis placed on writing might fail to prepare learners to perceive writing as
a useful skill.
As the findings show, the participants transferred their L1 writing-related experiences to L2
writing-related perceptions. Therefore, because they failed to appreciate L1 writing as useful, they
reported to transfer such negative perceptions to L2 writing contexts, thereby viewing L2 writing
as less useful than, for instance, L2 speaking. This finding provides further evidence for Bell’s
(1995) conclusion about the transfer of L1 learning experiences to L2-related perceptions. The
available studies have shown that students tend to draw upon their L1 resources (e.g., rhetorical
strategies or organization skills) in L2 writing (e.g., Van Weijen et al., 2009; Wang & Wen, 2002),
while the transfer of L1-related experiences to L2-related perceptions remains an under-
researched area. Additionally, although the existing studies on L2 learners’ writing-related percep-
tions mostly describe such perceptions (e.g., Ferris, 1995; Lee, 2008), the current study took one
step further and explored the effects of L1 writing-related experiences on the formation of L2
writing-related perceptions.
 L1 TO L2 TRANSFER OF WRITING PERCEPTIONS 13

Conclusion and pedagogical implications

The present study aimed to explore the impact of Farsi-speaking EFL learners’ prior L1 writing
experiences on their perceptions about L2 writing. The data collected from 15 students showed
that the learners (1) believed that writing received little attention in their L1 classes, (2) reported
that L2 speaking was more important than L2 writing, and (3) stated that their L1 writing-related
experiences were important determinants of their perceptions about L2 writing. The data analysis
showed that the perceived usefulness of skills was an important determinant of the favorability of
perceptions, and such perceptions about skill usefulness was often transferred from L1 to
L2 contexts.
Based on the findings, a number of pedagogical implications can be proposed. First, teachers
need to raise their awareness about students’ L1 learning experiences. This is particularly import-
ant, because students’ (mis)perceptions in an L2 (e.g., low importance of L2 writing) might be a
product of their prior L1 experiences. Therefore, identifying the potential role of students’ L1
background in, for instance, the formation of negative perceptions about L2 writing can contrib-
ute to the attainment of learning outcomes in L2 classes in which all the major skills are taught
and assessed. The feasibility of such an implication would be higher if teachers and students share
similar L1 backgrounds. In this case, teachers are perhaps aware of the status of L1 writing in a
given education system. They can, therefore, alleviate students’ L2-related negative perceptions
that are caused by prior L1 learning experiences. This can be achieved through the evaluation of
learners’ L1 learning experiences and the discussion of the importance of L1 and L2 writing.
The second pedagogical implication is closely tied to the first one. In fact, the findings suggest
that students might be unaware of the importance of L1 and L2 writing because of their L1-
related experiences. This underscores the importance of effective communication between teach-
ers and learners, which can, in turn, raise learners’ awareness of the importance of writing in.
variety of contexts (e.g., academic and professional). This can be achieved by discussing the
importance of different genres of writing (e.g., lab reports and memos) in various contexts.
Specifically, such awareness-raising strategies can improve learners’ perceptions about the useful-
ness of writing. As shown in the findings section, negative perceptions about skill usefulness were
an important factor in learners’ low regard for L2 writing.
Third, in order to further familiarize learners with the importance of L1 and L2 writing, teach-
ers can incorporate forms of needs analysis, in which students are held accountable for learning
about the usefulness of writing in a variety of contexts. In fact, such awareness-raising activities
can help L2 learners see a clearer picture of the language learning process, products, and compo-
nents. For instance, students can be asked to interview faculty members in their academic fields
and/or professionals in their workplace to heighten their awareness of the importance and uses of
writing. The results can help students to arrive at a better appreciation for and understanding of
L1 and L2 writing skills.
Fourth, as the findings showed, some learners touched upon the role of tests of general
English proficiency (e.g., TOEFL) in forming negative perceptions about the importance of L2
writing. This bring to light the importance of informing students about the nature and structure
of such tests, how English proficiency is operationalized in those tests, and how learners’ profi-
ciencies in the four main English skills are measured. For instance, teachers can discuss the
assessment criteria in those tests, thereby underscoring the importance of L2 writing. Overall, the
findings of the current study highlight the need for and significance of utilizing awareness-raising
strategies in the L2 classroom through facilitative communication between teachers and students.
The present study should be considered exploratory, because the findings are from the first-
known empirical attempt at exploring the effect of learners’ L1 writing experiences on their L2
writing perceptions. Therefore, the findings should not be overgeneralized. The findings are,
nevertheless, hoped to further our understanding of L2 learners’ perception system and to motiv-
ate L2 teachers to familiarize themselves with their students’ L1 writing experiences and L2
14 H. SAELI

perceptions. The findings of the current study will be supplemented in two future projects. In the
first one, the effects of learners’ L2 learning experiences (e.g., in high school) on their perceptions
about the status/importance of L2 writing can be examined. As some of the findings suggest,
experiences in both Farsi and English might affect students’ L2-related writing perceptions; how-
ever, only the L1 component of learners’ experiences was examined in the current study.
Specifically, this project will explore whether learners draw upon their L2 writing experiences in
the Iranian school system when evaluating the importance, status, and usefulness of L2 writing. A
second project will explore learners’ perceptions about the status, importance, and usefulness of
L2 writing before and after teacher intervention through the incorporation of informal needs
analyses. In fact, this study will (1) examine the extent to which awareness-raising strategies can
lead to changes in learners’ L2 writing-related perceptions and (2) explore whether L1-rooted
misperceptions about learning can be alleviated. These two projects can hopefully yield peda-
gogical implications for L2 writing researchers and practitioners.

References
Barkhuizen, G. P. (1998). Discovering learners’ perceptions of ESL classroom teaching/learning activities in a South
African context. TESOL Quarterly, 32(1), 85–108. doi:10.2307/3587903
Bell, J. S. (1995). The relationship between L1 and L2 literacy: Some complicating factors. TESOL Quarterly, 29(4),
687–704. doi:10.2307/3588170
Berman, R. (1994). Learners’ transfer of writing skills between languages. TESL Canada Journal, 12(1), 29–46. doi:
10.18806/tesl.v12i1.642
Brooks-Lewis, K. A. (2009). Adult learners’ perceptions of the incorporation of their L1 in foreign language teach-
ing and learning. Applied Linguistics, 30(2), 216–235. doi:10.1093/applin/amn051
Brown, A. V. (2009). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of effective foreign language teaching: A comparison of
ideals. The Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 46–60. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00827.x
Bueno-Alastuey, M. C., & L opez Perez, M. V. (2014). Evaluation of a blended learning language course: students’
perceptions of appropriateness for the development of skills and language areas. Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 27, 509–527. doi:10.1080/09588221.2013.770037
Christison, M. A., & Krahnke, K. J. (1986). Student perceptions of academic language study. TESOL Quarterly,
20(1), 61–81. doi:10.2307/3586389
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded
theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dewaele, J. M. (2009). Individual differences in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie, & T. K. Bhatia,
(Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 623–646). London, UK: Emerald Group
Publishing.
DiCerbo, P. A., Anstrom, K. A., Baker, L. L., & Rivera, C. (2014). A review of the literature on teaching academic
English to English language learners. Review of Educational Research, 84, 446–482. doi:10.3102/
0034654314532695
D€ornyei, Z. (2014). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition.
London, UK: Routledge.
Ellis, R. (2008). Learner beliefs and language learning. Asian EFL Journal, 10(4), 7–25.
Farhady, H., Hezaveh, F. S., & Hedayati, H. (2010). Reflections on foreign language education in Iran. TESL-EJ,
13(4), 1–18.
Ferris, D. R. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL
Quarterly, 29(1), 33–53. doi:10.2307/3587804
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation.
London, UK: Arnold.
Harwood, N., Austin, L., & Macaulay, R. (2009). Proofreading in a UK university: Proofreaders’ beliefs, practices,
and experiences. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 166–190. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2009.05.002
Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language students. The
Modern Language Journal, 72(3), 283–294. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1988.tb04190.x
Horwitz, E. K. (1999). Cultural and situational influences on foreign language learners’ beliefs about language
learning: A review of BALLI studies. System, 27(4), 557–576. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00050-0
Jahangard, A. (2007). Evaluation of the EFL materials taught at Iranian high schools. The Asian EFL Journal, 9(2),
130–150.
 L1 TO L2 TRANSFER OF WRITING PERCEPTIONS 15

Kaivanpanah, S., Alavi, S. M., & Sepehrinia, S. (2015). Preferences for interactional feedback: Differences between
learners and teachers. The Language Learning Journal, 43(1), 74–93. doi:10.1080/09571736.2012.705571
Kern, R. G. (1995). Students’ and teachers’ beliefs about language learning. Foreign Language Annals, 28(1), 71–92.
doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.1995.tb00770.x
Kormos, J. (2012). The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4),
390–403. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.003
Kubota, R. (1998). An investigation of L1–L2 transfer in writing among Japanese university students: Implications
for contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 69–100. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90006-6
Lasagabaster, D., & Doiz, A. (2016). CLIL students’ perceptions of their language learning process: delving into
self-perceived improvement and instructional preferences. Language Awareness, 25, 110–126. doi:10.1080/
09658416.2015.1122019
Lee, I. (2008). Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 17(3), 144–164. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.12.001
Leki, I., & Carson, J. G. (1994). Students’ perceptions of EAP writing instruction and writing needs across the dis-
ciplines. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 81–101. doi:10.2307/3587199
Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, F., Thompson, A., Nakatsukasa, K., Ahn, S., & Chen, X. (2009). Second language learners’
beliefs about grammar instruction and error correction. The Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 91–104. doi:
10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00830.x
Rassaei, E. (2013). Corrective feedback, learners’ perceptions, and second language development. System, 41(2),
472–483. doi:10.1016/j.system.2013.05.002
Rinnert, C., & Kobayashi, H. (2001). Differing perceptions of EFL writing among readers in Japan. The Modern
Language Journal, 85(2), 189–209. doi:10.1111/0026-7902.00104
Schulz, R. A. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: Students’ and teachers’ views on error correc-
tion and the role of grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 343–364. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.1996.tb01247.x
Schulz, R. A. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar
instruction and corrective feedback: USA-Colombia. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 244–258. doi:10.1111/
0026-7902.00107
Simon, E., & Taverniers, M. (2011). Advanced EFL learners’ beliefs about language learning and teaching: A com-
parison between grammar, pronunciation, and vocabulary. English Studies, 92(8), 896–922. doi:10.1080/
0013838X.2011.604578
Silva, T. (1992). L1 vs L2 writing; ESL graduate students’ perceptions. TESL Canada Journal, 10, 27–47. doi:
10.18806/tesl.v10i1.610
Tse, L. (2000). Student perceptions of foreign language study: A qualitative analysis of foreign language autobiogra-
phies. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 69–84. doi:10.1111/0026-7902.00053
Van Weijen, D., Van den Bergh, H., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Sanders, T. (2009). L1 use during L2 writing: An empirical
study of a complex phenomenon. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(4), 235–250. doi:10.1016/
j.jslw.2009.06.003
Wang, W., & Wen, Q. (2002). L1 use in the L2 composing process: An exploratory study of 16 Chinese EFL writ-
ers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(3), 225–246. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00084-X
Wesely, P. M. (2012). Learner attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs in language learning. Foreign Language Annals,
45(S1), 98–117. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2012.01181.x
Zhu, W. (2004). Faculty views on the importance of writing, the nature of academic writing, and teaching and
responding to writing in the disciplines. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 29–48. doi:10.1016/
j.jslw.2004.04.004

Appendix
Students’ background information:
Age; educational background; academic degree; English courses taken; English learning experience in English
schools; classes taken; four-skills? TOEFL iBT? IELTS?
Students’ prior L1 (i.e., Farsi) writing and feedback experiences and respective evaluations:

1. Did your Farsi classes involve writing, say, back in high school? If so, how much of in-class and homework
activities went to writing? In writing, which areas were stressed more? Grammar accuracy? Content?
Organization? Please discuss.
2. What method of writing instruction did you prefer in your Farsi classes? How about feedback? Please discuss.
3. How did your teachers rank-order the importance of grammar, content, and organization in your Farsi
classes? When teaching writing? How about when providing feedback? Please discuss any discrepancies
between your perceptions/preferences and your teachers’ practices.
16 H. SAELI

4. Overall, how do you evaluate the effectiveness of the instructional activities you received on writing in your
Farsi classes? How about the feedback? Please discuss.

Students’ L2 (i.e., English) writing and feedback perceptions and preferences:

1. Do your English classes involve writing? If so, how much of in-class and homework activities usually go to
writing? In writing, which areas are stressed more? Grammar accuracy? Content? Organization?
Please discuss.
2. What method of writing instruction do you prefer in your English classes? How about feedback?
Please discuss.
3. How do your teachers rank-order the importance of grammar, content, and organization in your English
classes? When teaching writing? How about when providing feedback? Please discuss any discrepancies
between your own perceptions/preferences and your teachers’ perceptions/practices.
4. How do you evaluate the effectiveness of the instructional activities you receive on writing in your English
classes? How about the feedback? Please discuss.

Students’ perceptions of L1-L2 transfer in writing:

1. How have you formed your perceptions/preferences in L2 writing? How about instructional activities? How
about feedback? Please discuss.
2. Do you think your prior L1 writing experiences might have had a role in shaping your L2 writing percep-
tions? Do you tend to carry over similar expectations/preferences/perceptions from your Farsi classes to your
English classes? Please discuss.