Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T02:56:16.905Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Doctoral dissertations on second language writing and technology in the USA (2010–2019)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 September 2020

John Gibbons  and
Mimi Li
John Gibbons
Affiliation:
Texas A&M University-Commerce, USA
Mimi Li*
Affiliation:
Texas A&M University-Commerce, USA
*
*Corresponding author. Email: mimi.li@tamuc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper reviews 20 representative Ph.D. dissertations on second language (L2) writing and technology completed in the USA over the past decade (2010–2019). These dissertations were selected using advanced search via ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. Five thematic categories were examined: (1) computer-mediated teacher/peer feedback; (2) automated writing evaluation; (3) computer-based collaborative writing; (4) technology-based writing instruction/assessment; and (5) digital composing/literacy. Each dissertation study was closely reviewed, with the presentation of illustrative tables. After analyzing and discussing the research designs, findings, and contributions of these studies, the authors identified the research trend and highlighted directions for future dissertation research in the field of L2 writing and technology.

Type
Surveys of Ph.D./Ed.D. Theses
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 54 , Issue 2 , April 2021 , pp. 273 - 291
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alsallami, N. (2017). L2 learners’ perceptions and preferences of automated corrective feedback (Doctoral dissertation). Iowa State University. Retrieved from https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/15244Google Scholar
Alshalan, A. (2016). The effects of Wiki-based collaborative writing on ESL student's individual writing performance (Doctoral dissertation). Wayne State University. Retrieved from https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/15244Google Scholar
Bauler, C. V. (2012). Examining online forum discussions as practices of digital literacy in college-level ESL writing (Doctoral dissertation). University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Bikowski, D., & Vithanage, R. (2016). Effects of web-based collaborative writing on individual L2 writing development. Language Learning & Technology, 20(1), 79–99.Google Scholar
Chambers, L. (2011). Composition and revision in computer-based written assessment. Research Notes, 43, 25–32.Google Scholar
Chen, H. (2012). Social networking, socialization, and second language writers: The development of new identities and literacies (Doctoral dissertation). University of Arizona. Retrieved from https://repository.arizona.edu/handle/10150/232494Google Scholar
Choi, J. (2010). The impact of Automated Essay Scoring (AES) for improving English language learner's essay writing (Doctoral dissertation). University of Virginia. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/116200/Google Scholar
Cotos, E. (2010). Automated writing evaluation for non-native speaker English academic writing: The case of IADE and its feedback (Doctoral dissertation). Iowa State University. Retrieved from https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/11630/Google Scholar
Cunningham, K. J. (2018). Modes of feedback in ESL writing: Implications of shifting from text to screencast (Doctoral dissertation). Iowa State University. Retrieved from https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/16336/Google Scholar
de Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. S. (1994). Social-cognitive dimensions of interaction in L2 peer revision. Modern Language Journal, 78, 484–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dzekoe, R. (2013). Facilitating revision in the English as a second language (ESL) composition classroom through computer-based multimodal composing activities: A case study of composing practices of ESL students (Doctoral dissertation). Iowa State University. Retrieved from https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4156&context=etdGoogle Scholar
Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2016). Supporting second language writing using multimodal feedback. Foreign Language Annals, 49(1), 58–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 31–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godwin-Jones, R. (2018). Second language writing online: An update. Language Learning & Technology, 22(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
Guardado, M., & Shi, L. (2007). ESL students’ experiences of online peer feedback. Computers and Composition, 24(4), 443–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunawan, G., Suranti, N. M. Y., & Fathoroni, F. (2020). Variations of models and learning platforms for prospective teachers during the COVID-19 pandemic period. Indonesian Journal of Teacher Education, 1(2), 61–70.Google Scholar
Han, J. (2019). The effects and students’ views of teachers’ coded written corrective feedback: A multiple-case study of online multiple-draft Chinese writing (Doctoral dissertation). University of South Florida. Retrieved from https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/7802/Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2016). Teaching and researching writing (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jiang, P. (2013). Learning to write in the digital age: ELLs’ literacy practices in and out of their Western urban high school (Doctoral dissertation). Michigan State University. Retrieved from http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtmlGoogle Scholar
Kane, M. (2004). Certification testing as an illustration of argument-based validation. Measurement, 2(3), 135–170.Google Scholar
Keith, T. Z. (2003). Validity of automated essay scoring systems. In Shermis, M. D. & Burstein, J. (Eds.), Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective (pp. 140–160). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kyeu, D. W. (2014). The impact of interactive discussions on essay writing in Swahili as a Foreign Language (Doctoral dissertation). The University of Wisconsin-Madison. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/10439467/The_Impact_of_Facebook_Chat_on_Swahili_Essay_WritingGoogle Scholar
Lee, D., & Swales, J. (2006). A corpus-based EAP course for NNS doctoral students: Moving from available specialized corpora to self-compiled corpora. English for specific purposes, 25(1), 56–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, H. K. (2004). A comparative study of ESL writers’ performance in a paper-based and a computer-delivered writing test. Assessing Writing, 9(1), 4–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehtonen, T. (2017). You will certainly learn English much faster at work than from a textbook. System, 68, 50–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, J. (2006). The mediation of technology in ESL writing and its implications for writing assessment. Assessing Writing, 11(1), 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, M. (2014). Small group interactions in wiki-based collaborative writing in the EAP context (Doctoral dissertation). University of South Florida. Retrieved from https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/5254/Google Scholar
Li, M. (2018). Computer-mediated collaborative writing in L2 contexts: An analysis of empirical research. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(8), 882–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, M., & Storch, N. (2017). Second language writing in the age of CMC: Affordances, multimodality, and collaboration. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Link, S. (2015). Development and validation of an automated essay scoring engine to assess students’ development across program levels (Doctoral dissertation). Ohio State University. Retrieved from https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5574&context=etdGoogle Scholar
Manning, C. D., Surdeanu, M., Bauer, J., Finkel, J. R., Bethard, S., & McClosky, D. (2014). The Stanford CoreNLP natural language processing toolkit. In Proceedings of 52nd annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System demonstrations (pp. 55–60).Google Scholar
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. London, UK/New York, NY: Palgrave/Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, J. S. (2017). Digital literacy and composing practices of second language students: A student perspective on writing, technology, and privilege. (Doctoral dissertation). Bowling Green State University. Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=bgsu148715983643726&disposition=inlineGoogle Scholar
Oh, S. R. (2018). Investigating test-takers’ use of linguistic tools in second language academic writing assessment (Doctoral dissertation). Teachers College, Columbia University. Retrieved from https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8B00HDQGoogle Scholar
Park, K. (2010). Enhancing lexicogrammatical performance through corpus-based mediation in L2 academic writing instruction. (Doctoral dissertation). Penn State University. Retrieved from https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/files/final_submissions/3583Google Scholar
Shermis, M., & Burstein, J. (Ed.). (2003). Automated essay scoring. New York, NY: Routledge. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410606860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, I. A., & Bulfin, S. A. (2008). Using new media in the secondary English classroom. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 805–837). New York, NY: Lawrence ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
Sotillo, S. M. (2016). An update on discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 166–171.Google Scholar
Storch. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundvall, S. (2019). Rhetorical speculations: The future of rhetoric, writing, and technology. University Press of Colorado.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, M. (2008). Japanese learners’ self-revisions and peer revisions of their written compositions in English. TESOL Quarterly, 42(2), 209–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tseptsura, M. V. (2019). Multilingual writers and online writing instruction: Expanding our theoretical and instructional frameworks (Doctoral dissertation). University of New Mexico. Retrieved from https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1273&context=engl_etdsGoogle Scholar
Tuzi, F. (2004). The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course. Computers and Composition, 21(2), 217–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandommele, G., van den Branden, K., van Gorp, K., & de Maeyer, S. (2017). In-school and out-of-school multimodal writing as an L2 writing resource for beginner learners of Dutch. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 23–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vorobel, O. (2013). A case study of peer review practices of four adolescent English language learners in face-to-face and online contexts (Doctoral dissertation). University of South Florida. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1430500718Google Scholar
Wang, J., & Brown, M. S. (2007). Automated essay scoring versus human scoring: A comparative study. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 6(2). Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/103259/.Google Scholar
Warschauer, M., & Grimes, D. (2007). Audience, authorship, and artifact: The emergent semiotics of Web 2.0. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, Y. (2008). Peer-peer interaction between L2 learners of different proficiency levels: Their interactions and reflections. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(4), 605–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, P. R. R. (2015). Appraisal theory. In Tracy, K., Ilie, C., & Sandel, T. (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of language and social interaction, (1st ed., pp. 1–7). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Yim, S. (2017). Digital literacy in academic settings: synchronous collaborative writing among linguistically diverse students (Doctoral dissertation). University of California. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0bh1s43vGoogle Scholar
Yoon, H. (2008). More than a linguistic reference: The influence of corpus technology on L2 academic writing. Language Learning & Technology, 12(2), 31–48.Google Scholar
Yoon, H., & Hirvela, A. (2004). ESL student attitudes toward corpus use in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 257–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zheng, B., Yim, S., & Warschauer, M. (2018). Social media in the writing classroom and beyond. In Liontas, J. I. (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1–5). New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Zhi, M. (2019). Investigating the authenticity of computer-and paper-based ESL writing tests (Doctoral dissertation). The University of Texas at San Antonio. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/openview/5636f1642915659d132c64d9e1624f59/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=51922&diss=yGoogle Scholar