Postgraduate Writing in a Globalised World
  • ISSN 0155-0640
  • E-ISSN: 1833-7139
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


Writing groups have been gaining attention as a new approach to doctoral education to cater to students and supervisors’ diversified needs emerging from the globalisation of higher education. However, the relationships between the main activity of these groups, oral interactions, and participants’ learning remain unexplored. To fill this gap, this study investigates the processes of one multilingual PhD student’s genre learning through oral interaction in a 10-week writing group at an Australian university. Data were collected through observation and audio recordings of meetings, written drafts, and interviews with the student and a facilitator. As mediating artefacts, writing group oral interactions were closely examined with reference to the student’s motives and her subsequent writing. Specifically they were analysed for the means of scaffolding and the student’s response patterns. The findings suggest the influence of the student’s motives on her participation in the activity of the writing group as well as her decisions on how to deal with the scaffolding she received. The findings reveal dynamic relationships between motives, scaffolding, and the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), and shed new light on the facilitative role of learners’ responses to scaffolding. The article concludes with pedagogical implications for oral feedback sessions in classrooms and writing groups.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aitchison, C
    (2009) Writing groups for doctoral education. Studies in Higher Education, 34(8), 905–916. doi: 10.1080/03075070902785580
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070902785580 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aitchison, C. , & Guerin, C
    (2014) Writing groups, pedagogy, theory and practice. In C. Aitchison & C. Guerin (Eds.), Writing groups for doctoral education and beyond (pp.27–54). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aljaafreh, A. , & Lantolf, J. P
    (1994) Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the Zone of Proximal Development. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465–483. doi: 10.2307/328585
    https://doi.org/10.2307/328585 [Google Scholar]
  4. Caffarella, R. S. , & Barnett, B. G
    (2000) Teaching doctoral students to become scholarly writers: The importance of giving and receiving critiques. Studies in Higher Education, 25(1), 39–52. doi: 10.1080/030750700116000
    https://doi.org/10.1080/030750700116000 [Google Scholar]
  5. Chang, G. C. L
    (2014) Writing feedback as an exclusionary practice in higher education. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 37(3), 262–275. doi: 10.1075/aral.37.3.05cha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.37.3.05cha [Google Scholar]
  6. Donato, R
    (1994) Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp.33–56). Norwood, NJ: Abex.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Ewert, D. E
    (2009) L2 writing conferences: Investigating teacher talk. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(4), 251–269. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2009.06.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2009.06.002 [Google Scholar]
  8. Ferguson, T
    (2009) The ‘write’ skills and more: A thesis writing group for doctoral students. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 33(2), 285–297. doi: 10.1080/03098260902734968
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03098260902734968 [Google Scholar]
  9. Goldstein, L. M. , & Conrad, S. M
    (1990) Student input and negotiation of meaning in ESL writing conferences. TESOL Quarterly, 24(3), 443–460. doi: 10.2307/3587229
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3587229 [Google Scholar]
  10. Green, B
    (2009) Challenging perspectives, changing practices. In D. Boud & A. Lee (Eds.), Changing practices of doctoral education (pp.239–248). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Guerin, C. , Xafis, V. , Doda, D. V. , Gillam, M. H. , Larg, A. J. , Luckner, H. , Jahan, N. , Widayati, A. , & Xu, C
    (2013) Diversity in collaborative research communities: A multicultural, multidisciplinary thesis writing group in public health. Studies in Continuing Education, 35(1), 65–81. doi: 10.1080/0158037X.2012.684375
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2012.684375 [Google Scholar]
  12. Guerrero, M. C. M. de , & Villamil, O. S
    (1994) Social-cognitive dimensions of interaction in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 484–496. doi: 10.2307/328586
    https://doi.org/10.2307/328586 [Google Scholar]
  13. (2000) Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 51–68. doi: 10.2307/330449
    https://doi.org/10.2307/330449 [Google Scholar]
  14. Lantolf, J. P. , & Thorne, S. L
    (2006) Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Larcombe, W. , McCosker, A. , & O'Loughlin, K
    (2007) Supporting education PhD and DEd students to become confident academic writers: An evaluation of thesis writers’ circles. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 4(1), 54–63.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Lee, A. , & Boud, D
    (2003) Writing groups, change and academic identity: Research development as local practice. Studies in Higher Education, 28(2), 187–200. doi: 10.1080/0307507032000058109
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0307507032000058109 [Google Scholar]
  17. Leont'ev, A. N
    (1978) Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. (1981).The problem of activity in psychology. In J.V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp.37–70). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Li, L. Y
    (2014) Scaffolding the thesis writing process. In C. Aitchison & C. Guerin (Eds.), Writing groups for doctoral education and beyond (pp.145–161). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Li, L. Y. , & Vandermensbrugghe, J
    (2011) Supporting the thesis writing process of international research students through an ongoing writing group. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 48(2), 195–205. doi: 10.1080/14703297.2011.564014
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2011.564014 [Google Scholar]
  21. Lidz, C. S
    (1991) Practitioner's guide to dynamic assessment. New York: Guilford Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Nelson, G. L. , & Carson, J
    (2006) Cultural issues in peer response: Revisiting "culture". In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp.42–59). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524742.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524742.005 [Google Scholar]
  23. Nelson, G. L. , & Murphy, J. M
    (1992) An L2 writing group: Task and social dimensions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3), 171–193. doi: 10.1016/1060‑3743(92)90002‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(92)90002-7 [Google Scholar]
  24. (1993) Peer response groups: Do L2 writers use peer comments in revising their drafts?TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 135–141. doi: 10.2307/3586965
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3586965 [Google Scholar]
  25. Patthey-Chavez, G. G. , & Ferris, D. R
    (1997) Writing conferences and the weaving of multi-voiced texts in college composition. Research in the Teaching of English, 31(1), 51–90. doi: 10.2307/40171264
    https://doi.org/10.2307/40171264 [Google Scholar]
  26. Storch, N
    (2002) Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–158. doi: 10.1111/1467‑9922.00179
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00179 [Google Scholar]
  27. (2004) Using activity theory to explain differences in patterns of dyadic interactions in an ESL class. Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 60(4), 457–480. doi: 10.3138/cmlr.60.4.457
    https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.60.4.457 [Google Scholar]
  28. Thomas, D. R
    (2006) A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237–246. doi: 10.1177/1098214005283748
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748 [Google Scholar]
  29. Thonus, T
    (2004) What are the differences?: Tutor interactions with first-and second-language writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(3), 227–242. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.012 [Google Scholar]
  30. Van de Pol, J. , Volman, M. , & Beishuizen, J
    (2010) Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–296. doi: 10.1007/s10648‑010‑9127‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6 [Google Scholar]
  31. Villamil, O. S. , & Guerrero , M. C. M. de
    (1996) Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 51–75. doi: 10.1016/S1060‑3743(96)90015‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(96)90015-6 [Google Scholar]
  32. (1998) Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 491–514. doi: 10.1093/applin/19.4.491
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.4.491 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2006) Sociocultural theory: A framework for understanding the social-cognitive dimensions of peer feedback. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp.23–41). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524742.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524742.004 [Google Scholar]
  34. Vygotsky, L. S
    (1978) Mind in society : The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Vygotsky, L.S
    (1981) The genesis of higher mental functions. In J.V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp.144–188). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Vygotsky, L. S
    (2012) Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Weissberg, R
    (2006) Scaffolded feedback: Tutorial conversations with advanced L2 writers. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp.246–265). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524742.015
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524742.015 [Google Scholar]
  38. Williams, J
    (2002) Undergraduate second language writers in the writing center. Journal of Basic Writing, 21(2), 73–91.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. (2004) Tutoring and revision: Second language writers in the writing center. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(3), 173–201. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.009 [Google Scholar]
  40. Wood, D. , Bruner, J. S. , & Ross, G
    (1976) The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17(2), 89–100. doi: 10.1111/j.1469‑7610.1976.tb00381.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x [Google Scholar]
  41. Yu, S. , & Lee, I
    (2015) Understanding EFL students' participation in group peer feedback of L2 writing: A case study from an activity theory perspective. Language Teaching Research, 19(5), 572–593. doi: 10.1177/136216881454171
    https://doi.org/10.1177/136216881454171 [Google Scholar]
  42. Zhu, W. , & Mitchell, D. A
    (2012) Participation in peer response as activity: An examination of peer response stances from an activity theory perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), 362–386. doi: 10.1002/tesq.22
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.22 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): L2 writing; mediated action; oral interactions; scaffolding; sociocultural theory
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error