본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

A Primer on Authorial Voice-Promoting Pedagogy in an Academic Argumentative EFL Context: An Innovative Mixed-Methods Research Approach

Mohammad Amini Farsini|Esmaeel Abdollahzadeh|Bahareh Sadat Minaye Hashemi
아시아테플 (AsiaTEFL (The Asian Association of Teachers of English As a Foreign Language))|2023.06|Journal of Asia TEFL|제20권 제2호|pp. 261-285|DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2023.20.2.3.261

1

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

argumentative writingMA studentsL2 authorial voiceinnovative mixed-methods research

초록

Authorial voice is a remarkably slippery construct in second language (L2) argumentative writing. Given its fluid and dynamic nature, Zhao (2013) projects a framework which evokes different dimensions that writers should navigate in their L2 argumentative writing performance. However, such framework has not been empirically considered as a pedagogical one. As such, this study, adhering to Zhao’s (2013) rubric and Riazi’s (2016) innovative mixed-methods research, quantitatively examined the effect of teaching authorial voice on 27 MA students’ voice development and argumentative writing quality. Then, qualitatively, the study traced the learners’ conceptions of and potential challenges in constructing their authorial voice in their argumentative writing through stimulated recall interviews. The integrative results reveal that voicepromoting pedagogy was influential in promoting students’ voice repertoire and argumentative writing quality. Although the quantitative results revealed that the three authorial voice dimensions(i.e., the presence and clarity of ideas in content, the manner of presentation, and the writer and reader presence) were almost equally affected by the treatment, the qualitative findings showed the centrality of reader-and-writer engagement in constructing good enough voice in L2 argumentative writing performance. The pedagogical and methodological implications for L2 writing instruction and argumentative writing are also discussed.

Abstract

Authorial voice is a remarkably slippery construct in second language (L2) argumentative writing. Given its fluid and dynamic nature, Zhao (2013) projects a framework which evokes different dimensions that writers should navigate in their L2 argumentative writing performance. However, such framework has not been empirically considered as a pedagogical one. As such, this study, adhering to Zhao’s (2013) rubric and Riazi’s (2016) innovative mixed-methods research, quantitatively examined the effect of teaching authorial voice on 27 MA students’ voice development and argumentative writing quality. Then, qualitatively, the study traced the learners’ conceptions of and potential challenges in constructing their authorial voice in their argumentative writing through stimulated recall interviews. The integrative results reveal that voicepromoting pedagogy was influential in promoting students’ voice repertoire and argumentative writing quality. Although the quantitative results revealed that the three authorial voice dimensions(i.e., the presence and clarity of ideas in content, the manner of presentation, and the writer and reader presence) were almost equally affected by the treatment, the qualitative findings showed the centrality of reader-and-writer engagement in constructing good enough voice in L2 argumentative writing performance. The pedagogical and methodological implications for L2 writing instruction and argumentative writing are also discussed.

참고문헌 (59)

  1. Abdollahzadeh, E., "Argumentative writing behavior of graduate EFL learners", Argumentation, 31(4), pp.641~661 (2017)[DOI]
  2. Atkinson, R. C., "Reflections on a century of college admissions tests", Educational Researcher, 38(9), pp.665~676 (2009)[DOI]
  3. Bowles, M. A, "The Palgrave handbook of applied linguistics research methodology", pp.339~357 (2018), Palgrave Macmillan
  4. Burns, A., "Continuum companion to research methods in applied linguistics", pp.200~214 (2010), A & C Black
  5. Creswell, J. W, "Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative" (2002), Pearson Education
  6. Creswell, J. W., "Designing and conducting mixed methods research" (2018), Sage
  7. Eagly, A. H., "Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences", pp.413~432 (1995), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc
  8. Field, A., "Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS, Statistics for Statistics" (2018), SAGE Publications
  9. Fogal, G. G., "Tracking microgenetic changes in authorial voice development from a complexity theory perspective", Applied Linguistics, 40(3), pp.432~455 (2019)[DOI]
  10. Fogal, G. G., "Investigating variability in L2 development : Extending a complexity theory perspective on L2 writing studies and authorial voice", Applied Linguistics, 41(4), pp.575~600 (2020)[DOI]
  11. Graff, G., "They say, I say. The moves that matter in academic writing" (2010), W. W. Norton and Company
  12. Goffman, E., "The presentation of self in everyday life" (1959), Doubleday Publishing
  13. Gray, C. D., "IBM SPSS statistics 19 made simple" (2012), Psychology Press
  14. Hirvela, A., "Coming back to voice : The multiple voices and identities of mature multilingual writers", Journal of second language writing, 10(1-2), pp.83~106 (2001)[DOI]
  15. Hoey, M., "On the surface of discourse" (1983), Allen & Unwin
  16. Ivanič, R., "I am how I sound : Voice as self-representation in L2 writing", Journal of second language writing, 10(1-2), pp.3~33 (2001)[DOI]
  17. Kallemeyn, L. M., "Exploring the relevance of complexity theory for mixed methods research", Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 14(3), pp.288~304 (2020)[DOI]
  18. Keivanpanah, S., "The Effect of instruction on the development of voice in EFL argumentative writing", Issues in Language Teaching, 9(2), pp.89~119 (2020)[DOI]
  19. Meihua Liu, "References and Conjunctions as Cohesive Devices in Chinese Undergraduate EFL Students’ Argumentative Essays", Journal of Asia TEFL, 18(4), pp.1144~1160 (2021), 아시아테플
  20. Manzi, J., "Writing. A mosaic of perspectives", pp.385~400 (2012), Psychology Press
  21. Matsuda, P. K., "Voice in Japanese written discourse : Implications for second language writing", Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(1-2), pp.35~53 (2001)[DOI]
  22. Matsuda, P. K., "Voice in academic writing : The rhetorical construction of author identity in blind manuscript review", English for Specific Purposes, 26(2), pp.235~249 (2007)[DOI]
  23. Mitchell, K. M., "Academic voice : On feminism, presence, and objectivity in writing", Nursing Inquiry, 24(4), pp.1~8 (2017)[DOI]
  24. Moghaddam, S., "IELTS preparation practices : Argumentative writing development", Journal of Asia TEFL, 7(2), pp.313~353 (2010)
  25. Nolen-Hoeksema, S., "Rethinking rumination", Perspectives on psychological science, 3(5), pp.400~424 (2008)[DOI]
  26. Nussbaum, E. M., "Argument and conceptual engagement", Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(3), pp.384~395 (2003)[DOI]
  27. O’Brien, C. E., "Multiple rubric-based assessments of student case presentations", American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 72(3), pp.1~7 (2008)[DOI]
  28. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., "A typology of mixed methods sampling designs in social science research", The Qualitative Report, 12(2), pp.281~316 (2007)[DOI]
  29. Pallant, J., "SPSS Survival Manual" (2016), Allen & Unwin
  30. Phakiti, A, "Research methods in linguistics: Experimental research methods in language learning" (2014), Bloomsbury Academic
  31. Qin, J., "The analysis of Toulmin elements in Chinese EFL university argumentative writing", System, 38(3), pp.444~456 (2010)[DOI]
  32. Ramanathan, V., "Individualism, academic writing, and ESL writers", Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), pp.45~75 (1999)[DOI]
  33. Ramanathan, V., "Audience and voice in current L1 composition texts : Some implications for ESL student writers", Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), pp.21~34 (1996)[DOI]
  34. Rapanta, C., "Orientations to interpersonal arguing in the United Arab Emirates, with comparisons to the United States, China, and India", Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 44(4), pp.263~287 (2015)[DOI]
  35. Rapanta, C., "What is meant by argumentative competence? An integrative review of methods of analysis and assessment in education", Review of Educational Research, 83(4), pp.483~520 (2013)[DOI]
  36. Reddy, Y. M., "A review of rubric use in higher education", Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(4), pp.435~448 (2010)[DOI]
  37. Riazi, A. M., "Innovative mixed-methods research : Moving beyond design technicalities to epistemological and methodological realizations", Applied Linguistics, 37(1), pp.33~49 (2016)[DOI]
  38. Riazi, A. M., "Mixed methods research in language teaching and learning" (2017), Equinox Publishing
  39. Riazi, A. M., "Mixed-methods research in language teaching and learning : Opportunities, issues and challenges", Language Teaching, 47(2), pp.135~173 (2014)[DOI]
  40. Rusfandi., "Argument-counterargument structure in Indonesian EFL learners’ English argumentative essays : A dialogic concept of writing", RELC Journal, 46(2), pp.181~197 (2015)[DOI]
  41. Sadler, T. D., "Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues : A critical review of research", Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), pp.513~536 (2004)[DOI]
  42. Sperling, M., "Voice in the context of literacy studies", Reading Research Quarterly, 46(1), pp.70~84 (2011)[DOI]
  43. Stapleton, P., "Assessing the quality of arguments in students' persuasive writing : A case study analyzing the relationship between surface structure and substance", Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 17, pp.12~23 (2015)[DOI]
  44. Stemler, S. E., "What should university admissions tests predict?", Educational Psychologist, 47(1), pp.5~17 (2012)[DOI]
  45. Stevenson, M., "The effects of computer-generated feedback on the quality of writing", Assessing Writing, 19, pp.51~65 (2014)[DOI]
  46. Trinh Quoc Lap, "Enhancing Vietnamese Learners’ Ability in Writing Argumentative Essays", Journal of Asia TEFL, 11(2), pp.63~91 (2014), 아시아테플
  47. van Eemeren, F. H., "Fundamentals of rgumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments" (1996), Lawrence Erlbaum
  48. Voss, J. F., "Argumentation in psychology : Background comments", Discourse Processes, 32(2-3), pp.89~111 (2001)[DOI]
  49. Vygotsky, L. S., "Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes" (1978), Harvard University Press
  50. Wineburg, S., "Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting the future of teaching the past" (2001), Temple University Press
  51. Yoon, H. J., "Textual voice elements and voice strength in EFL argumentative writing", Assessing Writing, 32, pp.72~84 (2017)[DOI]
  52. Zabihi, R., "Assessment of authorial voice strength in L2 argumentative written task performances : Contributions of voice components to text quality", Journal of Writing Research, 11(2), pp.331~355 (2019)[DOI]
  53. Zabihi, R., "Are two voices better than one? Comparing aspects of text quality and authorial voice in paired and independent L2 writing", Written Communication, 37(4), pp.512~535 (2020)[DOI]
  54. Zare-ee, A., "Voice in short argumentative texts written by undergraduate learners of English", Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 33(1), pp.93~111 (2014)[DOI]
  55. Zhao, C. G., "Measuring authorial voice strength in L2 argumentative writing : The development and validation of an analytic rubric", Language Testing, 30(2), pp.201~230 (2013)[DOI]
  56. Zhao, C. G., "The encyclopedia of applied linguistics", pp.1~6 (2014), Wiley-Blackwell
  57. Zhao, C. G., "Writer background and voice construction in L2 writing", Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 37, pp.117~126 (2019)[DOI]
  58. Zhao, C. G., "Voice in timed argumentative essay writing", Assessing Writing, 31, pp.73~83 (2017)[DOI]
  59. Zhao, C. G., "Voice in high-stakes L1 academic writing assessment : Implications for L2 writing instruction", Assessing Writing, 13(3), pp.153~170 (2008)[DOI]

관련 논문AI추천

Voice, Practices, and Products: Accounting for a Writing Teacher and Students이영화한국영어교육학회 · 영어교육2008 · 제63권 제3호Understanding the Development of EFL Undergraduate Students’ Research Writing: An Investigation of the Use of Metadiscourse좌수민, 하경영현대영어교육학회 · 현대영어교육2020 · 제21권 제1호Exploring the use of hedges and stance devices in relation to Korean EFL learners’ argumentative writing qualities강유선, 민수현, 백진경한국영어교육학회 · 영어교육2019 · 제74권 제1호Explicitness of Authorial Presence in English Quantitative and Qualitative Research Articles of Applied Linguistics최연희담화·인지언어학회 · 담화와 인지2021 · 제28권 제3호L2 English Student Writers’ Authorial Presence in Research Articles: The Interplay of Linguistic and Cultural Factors최연희교과교육연구소 · 교과교육학연구2022 · 제26권 제1호A Corpus-Assisted Investigation on the Quality-Dependent Differences in Writer Visibility in L2 Writing조혜영현대영어교육학회 · 현대영어교육2015 · 제16권 제4호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (19건)

Lexical Bundles in EAP Research Articles of L1 and L2 English Authors: A Contrastive AnalysisRasoul Mohammad Hosseinpur, Ameneh Abbasi Damavandi, Faezeh Behzadipp. 215-243Pre-Task Planning in L2 Writing: Pedagogical Benefits and Practical ConcernsHieu Manh Dopp. 244-260An Exploration of Teacher Roles in Blended EFL Contexts in VietnamGiang Hong Nguyen, Elke Strackepp. 286-299Exploring the Impact of TPACK-based Teacher Professional Development (TPD) Program on EFL Teachers' TPACK Confidence and BeliefsHefy Sulistyawati, Nur Arifa Drajati, Hyo-Jeong So, Hilda Rakerda, Ma’rifatul Ilmipp. 300-315Using Systemic Functional Linguistics and the Genre-Based Approach in EFL Classroom Language Communities of PracticesAkiko Nagaopp. 316-337
원문 보기