Understanding students’ motivation

in L2 collaborative writing
Wenting Chen

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/75/4/442/6326499 by guest on 06 April 2022

Although research about the potential learning outcome of collaborative
writing in L2 or foreign language education has proliferated in the last few
decades, little is known about students’ motivation in collaborative writing.
This case study seeks to explore higher-proficiency (HP) students’ motivation
in L2 collaborative writing, as well as factors influencing their motivation. The
findings reveal that students with similar proficiency (HP) could have different
levels of motivation, which may affect their participation. This study also found
that knowledge of collaborative writing, previous beliefs and experiences of pair/
group work, and perceived value of the role in the partnership were three major
factors that influence students’ motivation in collaborative writing. This study
makes several recommendations from a motivational perspective about how
best to implement collaborative writing tasks in L2 classes.

Introduction Collaborative writing as an instructional activity has gained much

attention in L2 or foreign language contexts over recent decades (e.g.
Storch 2005; Fernández Dobao 2012). Informed by sociocultural theory
that learning occurs through scaffolded interactions with more capable
peers or seniors (Vygotsky 1978), a surge of research has provided
evidence that collaborative writing not only encourages learners to focus
their attention on form in jointly composed texts, but also promotes
social interaction among L2 learners (Storch 2005; Chen and Hapgood
2019). Despite the theoretical and pedagogic support for implementing
collaborative writing tasks in L2 writing classrooms, collaborative
writing activities may not always succeed (Storch 2013). One major
concern among writing teachers centres on the patterns of interaction
that students form in terms of their contributions and engagement with
each other’s contributions. Storch (2002) has described four dyadic
interaction patterns generated with two intersecting continua: ‘equality’
and ‘mutuality’. Studies have shown that pairs or groups displaying
collaborative or expert/novice stances experienced more knowledge
transfer and greater language learning than pairs or groups that
displayed dominant/dominant and dominant/passive stances
(Storch 2002).
Although prior studies have provided insights into the factors (e.g.
pairing method, L2 proficiency, task type) that influence patterns of

442 ELT Journal Volume 75/4 October 2021; doi:10.1093/elt/ccab027

Published by Oxford University Press 2021.
Advance Access publication 23 July 2021
 interaction (Fernández Dobao 2012; Basterrechea and Leeser 2019), very
few studies (e.g. Chen and Yu 2019) have addressed learners’ affective
factors (e.g. learner motivation, attitude, and personality). Of the limited
collaborative writing research that has addressed affective factors,
Chen and Yu (2019) compared patterns of interaction for students
with contrasting attitudes towards collaborative writing, as well as their
language learning opportunities (quantity of language-related dialogues
and quality of engagement in solving the language-related problems) over
multiple observations. Their study found students’ attitudes may change
based on the levels of exposure to the activities and positive attitudes led
to more learning opportunities. However, their study primarily drew
attention to the role of attitude in affecting patterns of interaction and

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/75/4/442/6326499 by guest on 06 April 2022

language learning opportunities. Thus, it remains unclear how learners’
positive attitudes may or may not tie into the motivation that is necessary
to help them accomplish their goals during the collaborative writing
process.
Motivation focuses on the direction and magnitude of human behaviour,
explaining the choice of actions, their persistence, and the effort expanded
(Dörnyei 2005). Due to its role in effective learning, motivation is a central
concern in L2 writing classrooms. Research into motivation has adopted
a dynamic systems perspective that integrates factors related to the
learner, the learning task, and the learning environment into one complex
system (Dörnyei 2005; Dörnyei and Ushioda 2011). However, existing
research on L2 writing motivation mainly addresses how best to promote
it through methods such as adopting journal writing as a self-assessment
technique or assigning interesting writing topics (e.g. Lo and Hyland
2007). Very limited research has addressed students’ motivation in
collaborative writing. One such study, conducted by Storch (2004), found
that learners’ motives and goals are related to their patterns of interaction
and the relationships that they form as they collaborate on writing tasks.
The author investigated the interactions of adult ESL learners in pairs
and suggested that patterns of interaction can be traced to the nature of
their goals and to whether members of the dyad share the same goals.
Although this study emphasized the role of motives and goals in affecting
interaction patterns across tasks, it focused on undergraduates whose
L2 proficiency was considered as intermediate to high. However, higher-
proficiency (HP) students have been shown to feel less inclined toward
pair or group work because they are less likely to believe that they will
receive helpful feedback from their partners (Hu and Lam 2010). Thus,
why HP students are motivated or unmotivated to engage in collaborative
writing activities needs further exploration. To fill this research gap, the
current study seeks to explore HP students’ motivation in L2 collaborative
writing, as well as factors influencing their motivation. In addition, HP
students are well suited for this study because proficiency pairing may
affect relationships formed by the pairs or groups, which may ultimately
impact L2 language learning opportunities (e.g. Storch and Aldosari 2013).
Thus, by exploring motivation of HP students in collaborative writing,
the present study can illuminate the nature of L2 collaborative writing
motivation and provide valuable implications to enhance the effective
implementation of collaborative writing in L2 contexts.

Understanding students’ motivation in L2 collaborative writing 443

The study This study used a case study approach (Yin 2009) and aimed to answer
the following two research questions (RQs):
RQ1: What are HP students’ motivation in L2 collaborative writing?
RQ2: What factors may shape HP students’ motivation in L2 collaborative
writing?

Research context As part of a larger project examining collaborative writing in L2 settings

and participants (Chen and Hapgood 2019), this study was conducted in a reading and
writing course (with twenty students) in an intensive English-language
programme at a large research university in the United States. Participants
were intermediate-level learners. Although participants shared fairly

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/75/4/442/6326499 by guest on 06 April 2022

homogeneous L2 proficiency, relative differences in language proficiency
were still expected. This is because some participants met intermediate-
level literacy requirements by completing basic-level courses, whereas
others were placed at this level due to the proficiency test scores (ranging
from 55 to 65 out of 100) that they received upon first arriving at the
language institute. Also, since students were from various countries (e.g.
China, Japan, Saudi Arabia), individual differences were expected, such as
previous learning experiences and language learning beliefs. Outcomes
for students at this course level targeted the development of academic
reading and writing skills, with the writing component emphasizing essay
production. The author was the course instructor. As part of the course
requirements, students were asked to complete a collaborative writing task
in teacher-selected pairs based on mixing students with relatively similar
language proficiency, cultural backgrounds, and personalities. Students
got credits for the full completion of the task. Given the position of the
author as both researcher and instructor, a professor from the Department
of Education acted as an intermediary to explain the study and solicit
consent forms from students while the researcher was out of the room.
The professor then kept the consent forms in a sealed envelope until after
the term had ended. Thus, the instructor did not know which students
had agreed to participate and which had not until well after students had
received their grades.
Two HP students (Yuan and Alex) from different pairs were selected
for analysis in this study as a result of purposive sampling (Yin 2009).
They were identified as HP students due to their much higher writing
performance than their partners based on in-class writing quizzes and
placement tests that included writing components emphasizing grammar,
vocabulary, mechanics, structure, and content. In addition, these two
students were selected because the patterns of interaction they formed
with their partners were completely different. A collaborative pattern of
interaction was observed in Yuan’s group, whereas a dominant/passive
pattern was observed in Alex’s group (Storch 2002). Yuan (age 17) was
a male student from China who had eight years of English learning
experiences, whereas Alex (age 18) was a male student from Saudi Arabia
who had six years of English learning experiences. Neither participant
had previous collaborative writing experience. All data were labelled with
students’ pseudonyms and were collected with Institutional Review Board
approval in relation to ethical concerns.

444 Wenting Chen

Research The larger study was conducted over a span of seven weeks. Multiple
procedure, data sources of data were collected, including audio recordings of pair talk,
collection, and interviews, and reflective journals. Specifically, in Week 1, students were
analysis paired up and informed of the collaborative writing task. Each student
participated in a 15-minute pre-task interview concerning their previous
English learning experiences. In Week 4, students received metacognitive
instruction and training (Chen and Hapgood 2019), which included three
types of information about collaborative writing: (1) The definition, pros
and cons, and application of collaborative writing (declarative-related
knowledge); (2) procedure and techniques for classroom implementation
of collaborative writing (procedural-related knowledge); and (3) examples
of successful implementation of collaborative writing in different contexts

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/75/4/442/6326499 by guest on 06 April 2022

(conditional-related knowledge). To minimize the researcher-related bias,
the training was video recorded and rated by two English instructors to
ensure that the instructor’s manner and energy level were appropriate.
In Week 5, students were given two hours to complete an in-class
argumentative essay in pairs, during which audio-recordings of pair talk
were collected. Argumentative essay writing was selected as one main
genre students needed to acquire in this course because it is a key skill
for success in academic writing. After class students were also required to
write a reflective journal. The instructor provided guidelines in terms of
pair dynamics, individual contributions, and reflections about the activity
(e.g. Do you write with others? How have you contributed to the pair
work? What was the most interesting part of the activity, why?). In Week
7, in-depth interviews (30–40 minutes each) were conducted with Yuan
and Alex, focusing on their motivation to achieve goals, their attitudes
towards the activity, their behaviours when dealing with difficulties,
and conflicts during the collaborative writing process. To avoid having
students simply repeat what they learned about collaborative writing in the
pre-task training, the researcher asked follow-up questions that prompted
students to explain how they had used this training on the actual writing
task. For example, when Yuan said ‘collaborative writing offered an
opportunity to learn from providing assistance’ (interview), the researcher
asked him: ‘Can you give an example how this affected your behaviour in
the writing process?’ Interviews were also conducted with Amar (Yuan’s
partner) and Mo (Alex’s partner) to obtain their evaluations of Yuan and
Alex’s behaviours and practices during the writing process.
The recordings of pair talk and interviews were transcribed and analysed
by the researcher and verified by the two participants for accuracy. All
transcripts were analysed according to Yin’s (2009) real-life case study
methodology and conventions of qualitative data analysis. To answer RQ1
and RQ2, data from the interviews and pair-talk recordings were analysed
and triangulated with the reflective journals to examine the motivation the
two HP students felt toward collaborative writing and factors that shaped
their motivation. Informed by the framework of Dörnyei and Ushioda
(2011), the researcher read the data iteratively to identify stances about the
two HP students’ motivation related to themselves (e.g. satisfy curiosity),
the writing task (e.g. attitudes towards the writing task), the environment
(e.g. get a good grade), and reasons for their particular motivation. Then
the researcher revisited the data to recheck and triangulate the codes

Understanding students’ motivation in L2 collaborative writing 445

 before organizing them into themes. The researcher then grouped
similar categories into themes. For example, regarding factors that have
shaped students’ motivation, the theme of ‘knowledge about collaborative
writing’ was identified by combining the categories of ‘benefits of doing
collaborative writing’, ‘how to do collaborative writing’, and ‘why and
when to use collaborative writing’. After that, the researcher used Yin’s
(2009) cross-case synthesis to look at similarities and differences among
the themes. Cross-case conclusions were finally reached by further
analysing relevant subcategories. To ensure reliability, a second coder
(the professor who distributed the consent forms) looked through all the
data and rechecked all the coding. The interrater agreement was 88.2%
for interview scripts and 92.3% for reflective journals; discrepancies were

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/75/4/442/6326499 by guest on 06 April 2022

resolved through discussion.

Results Motivation in collaborative writingAs shown in the pair-talk recording

Yuan: I enjoy data, Yuan was highly motivated to produce the essay with Amar and
being a teacher! tended to actively participate in pair interaction. His motivation was to
‘learn from others’ and to ‘learn from providing assistance’ (interview). He
explained:
I learned new things from Amar. We discussed together to fix
mistakes … I think teaching my partner is more fun than reviewing the
knowledge myself. It’s more useful for me to remember things well.
(reflective journal)
Yuan clearly articulated his motivation for helping others when he
explained that he enjoyed being helpful and teaching his partner. This was
echoed by his partner Amar. Amar was encouraged to participate actively
in pair work. He considered Yuan as ‘a perfect buddy who enjoys sharing
knowledge’ (interview). Excerpt 1 shows how Yuan and Amar exhibited the
expert/novice pattern of interaction due to Amar’s motivation to provide
assistance and participate actively:
Excerpt 1:
Yuan: Can you double check this sentence? I see a grammatical
mistake.
Amar: Wait. Please don’t tell me. Ah, ‘it has began’, right?
Yuan: No, should be ‘it has begun’. G-U-N. You may want to repeat
begin, began, begun.
Amar: Thanks dude.
As we can see, Yuan was motivated to take a leading role and encouraged
Amar to correct language errors. In addition, he attempted to help Amar
review language points.
Factors that shaped his motivationSeveral factors were found to have shaped
Yuan’s motivation toward collaborative writing. First, the data revealed that
knowledge about collaborative writing was the main factor. Yuan repeatedly
emphasized the benefits of collaborative writing (declarative-related
knowledge) both in interviews and in his reflective journal. He explained
that collaborative writing ‘offered him an opportunity to hear others’

446 Wenting Chen

 thoughts’, ‘reduced pressure’, and ‘practiced oral skills’ (interview). His
deeper understanding of collaborative writing also motivated him to regulate
his behaviours (e.g. encouraging the partner and inviting the partner’s
opinions) in order to maximize the learning opportunity. As he stated, ‘when
my partner was not interested in revising our essay, I tried my best effort to
encourage him, because both of us have to be responsible’ (reflective journal).
In addition, previous beliefs about and experiences with pair/group work
were another factor that influenced Yuan’s motivation. He mentioned
that ‘although I never tried to write collaboratively, I benefited from group
discussions and group presentations in previous classes’ (interview).
His previous pleasant experiences working with others, coupled with
his beliefs in collaborative writing, motivated him to perform well. For

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/75/4/442/6326499 by guest on 06 April 2022

example, when confronting difficulties in the writing process, Yuan still
took the initiative to help his partner solve problems. He said, ‘I think you
can always learn something from another person, even if it is sometimes
small things. You fight and you learn’ (reflective journal).
The third factor related to how Yuan perceived the value of his role in the
partnership. Yuan viewed himself as a leader or teacher while working
with Amar. He explained, ‘He [Amar] listens to me and believes what
I told him … I feel very happy to teach him’ (interview). Yuan’s assistance
was confirmed and valued by Amar, who reported that ‘My partner is a
very nice guy and he explains things very clear. I learned a lot’ (interview).
As these exchanges demonstrate, Yuan’s motivation might have been
related to how he perceived his value in the role of a teacher or leader.

Alex: should I get Motivation in collaborative writingAlex’s motivation was driven primarily

more credits for by the grade he would receive for completing the collaborative writing
doing more work? assignment. Although he agreed that collaborative writing can be
beneficial, he did not appear to believe that he would learn anything from
writing collaboratively. He explained:
For some students, maybe. Yes, they may learn something. But,
I don’t not like the idea. I can write better myself. No one disturbs me.
Together, you need to explain to your partner … I do it because you [the
researcher] asked us to do. I need to get good grade. (interview)
Alex viewed collaborative writing as a task assigned by the teacher. Because
he viewed his English as better than that of his partner, Mo, he was
unmotivated and asked, ‘I helped Mo more than he helped me. Should I get
more credits?’ (reflective journal). Alex’s unwillingness did not go unnoticed
by Mo during their work. Mo described Alex as ‘a bossy and angry partner’
(interview). In Excerpt 2, we can see how Alex’s lack of motivation resulted
in a dominant/passive interaction pattern between him and his partner:
Excerpt 2:
Mo: Can we say ‘stay good health?’
Alex: No, keep good health.
Mo: ‘Stay’ is right too. I think.
Alex: Just use ‘keep’. It is better. You write it down.

Understanding students’ motivation in L2 collaborative writing 447

 Factors that shaped his motivationSimilar to the case of Yuan, several
factors were found to account for Alex’s lack of motivation in collaborative
writing. First, knowledge of collaborative writing was an influential factor.
Alex did not value collaborative writing highly, perhaps because he never
realized he could have benefited from both giving and receiving feedback.
In other words, he could have learned from teaching his partner. Instead,
Alex repeatedly said, ‘I helped him [Mo]’, ‘I did more’, and ‘it’s not fair’
(interview). Because Alex perceived the goal of collaborative writing as
solely for the purpose of getting a good grade and meeting the teacher’s
requirements, he missed out on possible opportunities to improve himself
by providing feedback to others.
Second, Alex’s previous beliefs about and experiences with pair/

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/75/4/442/6326499 by guest on 06 April 2022

group work were pivotal factors that affected his motivation. Although
metacognitive instruction (knowledge about collaborative writing) was
provided prior to the activity, Alex still showed little understanding of
collaborative writing. He explained, ‘I don’t have faith in collaborative
writing, because I never benefited from group work. Working together is
just time consuming’ (reflective journal). As we can see, Alex’s previous
learning experiences and his learning beliefs were deeply entrenched and
resistant to change.
Alex’s perceived value of his role in the partnership affected his motivation
as well. In contrast to Yuan, who perceived himself as a teacher, Alex
perceived himself as the main contributor. He mentioned, ‘My partner did
not do much. I almost wrote the whole essay. He [Mo] was sometimes on
his cellphone’ (interview). Mo’s irresponsible behaviour could have been
another possible reason for Alex’s lack of motivation. He also explained
how he spent a great deal of time helping Mo understand various
elements of the assignment. He said, ‘My partner needs to do more
preparation, I think. I had to explain what is right. Spending too much
time’ (interview). These data illustrate the unfairness Alex perceived and
how that played a role in discouraging his collaboration in pair work.

Discussion and This study provided evidence about factors impacting the motivation
conclusions of two HP students to participate in collaborative writing and indicated
that students with similar proficiency (HP) could have different levels
of motivation, which may affect students’ participation and patterns
of interaction. In one case, Yuan adopted a feedback-giving oriented
motivation, resulting in the expert/novice pattern of interaction in pair
work. Conversely, Alex viewed collaborative writing as a grade-oriented
activity and formed a dominant/passive pattern of interaction in pair
work. On one hand, this study is in line with the conclusion reached
by Storch (2004) that learners’ motives and goals may help explain the
ways they interacted in pairs. On the other hand, this study has furthered
previous research by offering insight from a motivational standpoint as to
why learners may participate differently in collaborative writing, given that
previous research has not sufficiently explored learner motivation to this
degree in this context.
This study indicates that knowledge of collaborative writing may be another
possible factor affecting HP students’ motivation in this process. Previous

448 Wenting Chen

 research (Chen and Hapgood 2019) has discussed how providing L2 writers
with more knowledge about the collaborative process would positively
impact their participation and learning. The findings from Yuan’s case
confirmed previous research. However, despite being exposed equally to
collaborative writing instruction, Alex showed a lack of collaborative writing
knowledge, which resulted in low motivation in the writing process. This
finding suggests that providing learners with knowledge of collaborative
writing (knowledge taught) may not necessarily translate into knowledge
they can use (actual knowledge) to motivate learning and their previous
experiences and beliefs may have affected their views as well. This adds a
layer of complexity to the prior results on this strategy.
Previous beliefs and experiences of pair/group work appeared to influence

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/75/4/442/6326499 by guest on 06 April 2022

the motivation of HP students to participate in collaborative writing.
While previous research has found learners’ beliefs in an activity affected
their behaviour (e.g. Storch 2005), this study deepens our understanding
about why students with different prior learning beliefs and experiences
may behave differently in collaborative writing from a motivational
perspective. Such a finding is expected, because how learners view certain
language learning approaches can encourage them to set and accomplish
motivational goals for the activity (Dörnyei 2005). Meanwhile, such a
finding indicates learners’ beliefs and goals are fairly entrenched, so it
is vital to consider these collaborative writing beliefs and goals when
implementing instructional activities. Additionally, while confirming the
findings from prior research that learners may form different relationships
during the collaborative writing process (e.g. Storch 2002, 2004), this
study extends previous research by uncovering how learners’ perceived
value of their roles in the partnership possibly influenced their motivation.
The findings also shed new light on the burgeoning area of L2
collaborative writing research and offer clear practical implications. First,
given students’ lack of familiarity with the collaborative writing approach,
it is imperative that L2 writing teachers make concerted efforts to enhance
students’ motivation in collaborative writing. For example, these findings
demonstrate the value of dedicating class time to educating students about
collaborative writing (metacognitive instruction). However, educators
must pay specific attention to how much collaborative writing knowledge
students can digest since knowledge taught does not always translate into
knowledge gained. Second, because students’ long-established beliefs
in language learning may be resistant to change, writing teachers may
conduct a pre-task survey about students’ attitudes towards collaborative
learning. For those who hold negative attitudes towards collaborative
learning, instructors could offer personalized assistance through student–
teacher conferences to help reduce students’ stress and boost interest in
collaborative writing tasks. Third, given that students’ perceived value of
their role in the partnership may influence their motivation, L2 writing
teachers should monitor groups for possible negative feedback during
the collaborative writing process and hold conferences to resolve conflicts
between partners if necessary.
The conclusions reached in this study were based on one collaborative writing
activity with only two HP participants, which is a limitation. Moreover,

Understanding students’ motivation in L2 collaborative writing 449

 the duration of the study (seven weeks) is short, which might make the
generation of clear outcomes from the student data difficult. Future research
can draw upon multiple sessions of collaborative writing activities with a
larger sample size. Although pre-task training was intended to promote
students’ collaborative writing knowledge, a limiting factor could be that a
standardized training protocol does not fully account for affective factors and
individual differences. While this study focused on HP students’ collaborative
writing motivation and its qualitative impact on interaction, future
investigations could adopt a mixed-methods approach to examine the impact
on collaborative writing performance. Another factor that emerged in this
study was the ways in which learners’ long-established beliefs and attitudes
impacted their interactions. It is also recommended that future research

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/75/4/442/6326499 by guest on 06 April 2022

take into consideration learners’ individual differences while designing
collaborative writing tasks for either instructional or assessment purposes.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Social Science Fund
(20210020041).
Final version received August 2020

References Storch, N. 2002. ‘Patterns of Interaction in ESL Pair

Basterrechea, M. and M. Leeser. 2019. ‘Language-
Related Episodes and Learner Proficiency During
Collaborative Dialogue in CLIL.’ Language Awareness
28(2):97–113.
Chen, W. and S. Hapgood. 2019. ‘Understanding
Knowledge, Participation and Learning in L2
Collaborative Writing: A Metacognitive Theory
Perspective.’ Language Teaching Research. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1362168819837560.
Chen, W. and S. Yu. 2019. ‘A Longitudinal
Case Study of Changes in Students’ Attitudes,
Participation, and Learning in Collaborative
Writing.’ System 82:83–96.
Dörnyei, Z. 2005. The Psychology of the Language
Learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dörnyei, Z. and E. Ushioda. 2011. Teaching and
Researching Motivation (Second edition). Harlow:
Longman.
Fernández Dobao, A. 2012. ‘Collaborative Writing
Tasks in the L2 Classroom: Comparing Group, Pair,
and Individual Work.’ Journal of Second Language
Writing 21(1):40–58.
Hu, G.W. and S.T.E. Lam. 2010. ‘Issues of Cultural
Appropriateness and Pedagogical Efficacy: Exploring
Peer Review in a Second Language Writing Class.’
Instructional Science 38:371–94.
Lo, J. and F. Hyland. 2007. ‘Enhancing Students’
Engagement and Motivation in Writing: The Case of
Primary Students in Hong Kong.’ Journal of Second
Language Writing 16:219–37.
Work.’ Language Learning 52(1):119–58.
Storch, N. 2004. ‘Using Activity Theory to Explain
Differences in Patterns of Dyadic Interactions in
an ESL Class.’ Canadian Modern Language Review
60:457–80.
Storch, N. 2005. ‘Collaborative Writing: Product,
Process, and Students’ Reflections.’ Journal of Second
Language Writing 14(3):153–73.
Storch, N. 2013. Collaborative Writing in L2
Classrooms. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Storch, N. and A. Aldosari. 2013. ‘Pairing Learners
in Pair Work Activity.’ Language Teaching Research
17:31–48.
Vygotsky, L.S. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development
of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Yin, R.K. 2009. Case Study Research: Design and
Method (Fourth edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
The author
Wenting Chen is Associate Professor in Applied
Linguistics at College English Department, Capital
Normal University, China. Her research interests
include L2 writing, multicultural education, and L2
teacher education. Her publications have appeared
in international journals such as TESOL Quarterly,
Language Teaching Research, System, ELT Journal,
Language Awareness, and Asia-Pacific-Education
Researcher.
Email: 6501@cnu.edu.cn

450 Wenting Chen