Written corrective feedback (WCF) has received considerable attention in secondlanguage (L2) writing research. The conducive role of WCF in developing L2 writing and second language acquisition has been corroborated by a number of theoretical frameworks, and the findings of empirical studies, meta-analyses, and research syntheses. WCF research has predominantly addressed its effectiveness in improving learners’ syntactic, lexical, and orthographic knowledge. This dissertation project extends the scope of this line of research to formulaic aspects of language and investigates the relative effectiveness of WCF targeting formulaic vs. non-formulaic constructions in L2 writing. The text-analytic descriptive aspect of this research design aimed at investigating the extent of L2 learners’ non-target-like use of formulaic vs. non-formulaic forms in L2 writing and writing teachers’ WCF treatment of non-target (non)formulaic language use. A total of 480 first drafts of essays written by 33 advanced adult English-as-a-foreign language (EFL) learners during one semester and 480 drafts of essays corrected through WCF by three EFL teachers constituted the corpus in this study. Advancing the field of learner corpus research, the findings demonstrated that whereas learners’ non-target formulaic forms outnumbered that of non-formulaic ones in their writing assignments, all three teachers provided WCF more often for erroneous use of non-formulaic forms. The quasi-experimental aspect of the research design attempts to add new empirical evidence on the L2 learning potential of accessing and processing WCF provided for formulaic vs. non-formulaic constructions in L2 writing. To this end, a total of 66 EFL learners in a Test of English as a Foreign Language preparation course participated in a pretest-posttest design, with 5 experimental groups (those who were provided with direct, indirect, direct plus metalinguistic, and indirect plus metalinguistic WCF) and a control group (those who were not provided with WCF). Maintaining a division between formulaic vs. non-formulaic forms, the findings provide empirical evidence on the interactions between types of WCF, types of linguistic targets, and the effectiveness of WCF in terms of enhancing L2 learners’ accuracy and acquisition in their revised writing and new writings in the short and long term.

This dissertation study investigated how L2 doctoral students regulate their emotions upon receiving written feedback from their mentors. The study took a multiple-case-study approach that entailed stimulated recall of the feedback-reading and revision process. Three international doctoral students who were engaged in high-stakes writing in the third and fourth years of their doctoral program participated in the study. The data from the stimulated-recall and interview talks were analyzed and coded for emotion-regulation strategies and how they were used in the participants’ revision process. The results show that the participants, while processing feedback, experienced a variety of emotions—both positive and negative—that stemmed from the challenges of working in an academic setting, life as a scholar, and social relationships. They also regulated their emotional reactions by suppressing immediate emotional responses or by reappraising their thoughts to proactively reduce the emotional impact. The results also show that one of the key functions of emotion regulations in the writing process may be to prevent writer’s block. These findings, unlike previous studies, provide an understanding of how individual variations of emotion regulation strategies are exercised and how regulation impacts the process of writing in a naturalistic context. In addition, the findings suggest the need for future studies to identify the necessity and efficiency of emotion regulation strategies within the L2 writing context and establish an inventory of emotion regulation strategies that allow researchers, teachers, and writers to recognize ways to sustain an effective writing process.

This project investigated second language writing teachers’ writing assessment literacy by looking at teachers’ practices of electronic writing portfolios (e-WPs), as well as the sources that shape L2 writing teachers’ knowledge of e-WPs in the context of multilingual First-Year Composition (FYC) classrooms. By drawing on Borg’s (2003) theory of teacher cognition and Crusan, Plakans, and Gebril’s (2016) definition of assessment literacy, I define L2 teachers’ writing assessment literacy as teachers’ knowledge, beliefs and practices of a particular assessment tool, affected by institutional factors. While teachers are the main practitioners who help students create e-WPs (Hilzensauer & Buchberger, 2009), studies on how teachers actually incorporate e-WPs in classes and what sources may influence teachers’ knowledge of e-WPs, are scant. To fill in this gap, I analyzed data from sixteen teachers’ semi-structured interviews. Course syllabi were also collected to triangulate the interview data. The interview results indicated that 37.5 % of the teachers use departmental e-WPs with the goal of guiding students throughout their writing process. 43.7 % of the teachers do not actively use e-WPs and have students upload their writing projects only to meet the writing program’s requirement at the end of the semester. The remaining 18.7 % use an alternative platform other than the departmental e-WP platform, throughout the semester. Sources influencing teachers’ e-WP knowledge included teachers’ educational and work experience, technical difficulties in the e-WP platform, writing program policies and student reactions. The analysis of the course syllabi confirmed the interview results. Based on the findings, I argue that situated in the context of classroom assessment, institutional factors plus teachers’ insufficient knowledge of e-WPs limit the way teachers communicate with students, whose reactions cause teachers to resist e-WPs. Conversely, teachers’ sufficient knowledge of e-WPs enables them to balance the pressure from the institutional factors, generating positive reactions from the students. Students’ positive reactions encourage teachers to accept the departmental e-WPs or use similar alternative e-WP platforms. Pedagogical implications, limitations of the study and suggestions for future research are reported to conclude the dissertation.

This project examines how writing teachers of multilingual students conceptualize their pedagogical practices. Specifically, it draws on work in teacher cognition research to examine the nature of teacher knowledge and the unique characteristics of this knowledge specific to the teaching of second language writing. Seeing teacher knowledge as something embedded in teachers’ practices and their articulation of the goals of these practices, this project uses case studies of four writing instructors who teach multilingual students of First-Year Composition (FYC). Through qualitative analysis of interviews, observations, and written feedback practices, teachers’ goals and task selection were analyzed to understand their knowledge base and the beliefs that underlie their personal pedagogies.

Results from this study showed that while participants’ course objectives were primarily in alignment with the institutional goals for the course, they each held individual orientations toward the subject matter. These different orientations influenced their task selection, class routines, and assessment. This study also found that teachers’ understanding of their students was closely tied with their orientations of the subject matter and thus must be understood together. Findings from this study support a conceptualization of teacher knowledge as a construct comprised of highly interdependent aspects of teachers’ knowledge base.

This study provides insights into the nature of L2 writers' engagement with written corrective feedback (WCF) - how they process it and what they understand about the nature of the error - to explore its potential for language development. It also explores various factors, such as individual, socio-contextual, and pedagogical, which influence the extent of student engagement. Data include students' revisions recorded with screen-capture software and video-stimulated recall. The video-stimulated recall data were transcribed and coded for evidence of processing, error awareness, and error resolution. In addition, I conducted interviews with students and their instructors, and through a thematic analysis, I identified individual and socio-contextual factors that appeared to influence students' engagement.

The findings of the study indicate that the processing of WCF and error awareness may be affected by pedagogical factors, such as the type of feedback and its delivery method. In addition, I found that while socio-contextual factors, such as grading policy, may influence students' attitudes toward the importance of grammar accuracy in their writing or motivation to seek help with grammar outside of class, such factors do not appear to affect students' engagement with WCF at the time of revision.

Based on the insights gained from this study, I suggest that direct feedback may be more beneficial if it is provided in a comment or in the margin of the paper, and that both direct and indirect feedback may be more effective if a brief explanation about the nature of the error is included. In addition, students may need to be provided with guidelines on how to engage with their instructors' feedback. I conclude by suggesting that if WCF is provided, students should be held accountable for making revisions, and I recommend ways in which this can be done without penalizing students for not showing immediate improvements on subsequent writing projects.

The current research examines the influence of disciplines, advisors, committees, language, culture, and previous experiences in students' search and selection of dissertation topics, as well as whether and how students react to those influences during this process. Invention has been an area of research for rhetoricians for centuries, but most modern research focuses exclusively on the pre-writing process in first composition classrooms (Young, 1976). The current research collected survey and interview data from second- and third-year Ph.D. students in natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities at a large research university in the United States. 80 second- and third-year Ph.D. students completed an online survey; 11 students and four of their advisors participated in a semi-structured interview. The results demonstrate that the majority of students spent over three months in the selection of dissertation topics, and the humanities students tended to spend longer time in this process than social sciences or humanities students. Additionally, students have much in common in their perception of the criteria they would use in the selection of dissertation topics, and those criteria are similar to what previous researchers (Isaac, Koenigsknecht, Malaney, & Karras, 1989; Kozma, 1997; Sessions, 1971) have identified. However, when it comes to the actual selection experiences, the interviews show that students do not necessarily apply those criteria rationally. Moreover, disciplines appear to have an overarching effect on students' topic selection. Natural sciences advisors appeared to have more direct involvement in students' topic choice than advisors in social sciences or humanities. The linguistic and cultural backgrounds of the eleven doctoral participants were not found influential in their selection of dissertation topics. Finally, although Ph.D. advisors generally have a good understanding of students' academic progress, their knowledge of the students' personal and professional concerns may differ, and the latter knowledge is crucial in their advising on students' dissertation topic choice. The current study suggests invention in the scholar and researcher level is significantly different from that of first-year composition classrooms. The successful invention of dissertation topics is indispensable of the influence of disciplines, programs as well as the intellectual and practical support students can receive.