Second language learners’ self-perceived roles and participation in face-to-face english writing consultations

System 63 (2016) 51e64

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

System journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/system

Second language learners’ self-perceived roles and participation in face-to-face english writing consultations Cynthia Lee Centre for Applied English Studies, Rm 6.60, 6/F., Run Run Shaw Tower, Centennial Campus, Pokfulam, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 9 February 2016 Received in revised form 24 August 2016 Accepted 27 August 2016

Learner talk, a neglected area of study in the literature of language advising for second language (L2) learners, deserves more attention. With reference to multiple qualitative sources of data obtained from interviews and tutor-learner recorded conversations, this paper delineates learners' behaviors, strategies and contribution to language learning in tutor-dominant writing consultations. More importantly, it reveals the relationships between self-perception and learning behaviors via learning strategies. Nine native and nonnative English-speaking writing tutors and 23 L2 learners from different disciplines participated in the study. Three types of L2 learners and 11 learning strategies were identified and analyzed based on the self-reported data and transcribed conversations. Analysis showed that the identified strategies signify the learners' behaviors and varied degrees of readiness to engage actively in learning by obtaining language input from tutors through some self-initiated acts, demonstrating selfawareness of their problems and establishing rapport with tutors to accomplish the learning task. Implications for teaching and future research are discussed. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: L2 learners Role perception Discourse Writing consultations Strategies Behaviors Participation

1. Introduction Second language (L2) learners' beliefs can influence their behaviors and approaches towards learning (Wesely, 2012), such as choosing the appropriate language learning strategy (Chamot, 2001; Cohen & Macaro, 2007; Kaypak & Ortactepe, 2014; Mori, 1999; Oxford, 1990; Yang, 1999), deciding on the extent of participation (Norton, 2001), and regulating learning €rnyei, MacIntyre & Henry, 2015; Ushioda, 2012) both inside and outside the classroom. Some researchers have motivation (Do called for in-depth examination of the relationship between beliefs and actual behaviors (Navarro & Thornton, 2011) because beliefs have significant influence on learning behaviors (Cotterall, 1995; Riley, 1996). Learning behaviors, in particular, are usually revealed through language learners' strategies (Griffiths, 2003) which are usually found by means of questionnaires, learners' narratives, diaries and think-aloud protocols (see Griffiths & Oxford, 2014). Regardless of how behaviors or strategies are classified, knowing how L2 learners perceive themselves and how their perceptions shape learning, behaviors and participation in a learning environment from a teacher's perspective are revealing and a useful reference for teaching (Ellis, 2001). Face-to-face writing consultations are a specific learning environment on campus in which L2 learners continue their own learning beyond the classroom. Their conversations with writing tutors and how they think about learning can deepen our

E-mail address: [email protected]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.08.010 0346-251X/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

52

C. Lee / System 63 (2016) 51e64

understanding on how they behave and manage their learning in this context. However, learners' behaviors and their selfperceptions, particularly their relationships, are not adequately discussed in writing consultations as the primary focus is on structure, pedagogy and management (e.g., Babcock, Manning, Rogers, Goff, & McCain, 2012; Thonus, 1999; 2004). In view of the importance of understanding the relationship between L2 learner self-perception and its influence on actual learning behavior by teachers, this paper examines the neglected issue in face-to-face, one-to-one English writing consultations. It first reviews the definitions of beliefs and learning strategies, and relevant research studies. Then it presents the method of study, and analyzes both L2 learners' self-perceptions of their roles in writing consultation obtained through interviews and identified strategies based on recorded conversations. The subtle relationships among L2 learners’ beliefs in tutee roles, strategies used for learning and participation are discussed. Finally, pedagogical implications and future research directions are recommended. 2. L2 learners’ beliefs and language learning strategies Since Horwitz's studies (1987, 1988, 1999) on foreign language learners' beliefs about the difficulty of language learning, foreign language aptitude, the nature of language learning, learning and communication strategies, and motivation and learner expectations from different countries, there are numerous studies investigating foreign language learners' beliefs and their influence on learning such as on online consultation mode (Lee, 2012a), collaborative writing (Dobao & Blum, 2013; Shehadeh, 2011) and autonomous learning (Cotterall, 1995), just to name a few. Beliefs, which are considered as “valuerelated and tend to be held more tenaciously” (Wenden, 1999: 436), are defined by Benson and Lor (1999: 464) as “what learner holds to be true about these objects and processes” and “can be inferred more or less directly from data”. Drawing on the mentally constructed beliefs based on prior experience, learners can “cope with specific content and contexts of learning (Benson & Lor, 1999, p.462). Beliefs are argued as important as they can impact a learner's motivation, attitude and learning processes (Riley, 1996). More importantly, good language learners can make use of their beliefs in other contexts to reconstruct new experience (White, 2008). Learners' beliefs towards a task and corresponding learning behaviors can be shown by means of language learning strategies. Language learning strategies are defined by Griffiths as ‘activities consciously chosen by learners for the purpose of regulating their own language learning” (2013, p.15). The definition has captured six key elements debated in the past three decades (e.g., Cohen & Macaro, 2007; Oxford, 1990; Rubin, 1975; Wenden, 1987). Language learning strategies have also been categorized in different ways. Rubin (1981) identifies direct and indirect learning strategies. Oxford (1990) proposes three direct (memory, cognitive and compensation) and three indirect (metacognitive, affective and social) learning strategies consisting of 19 strategy sets (p.17). For instance, cognitive strategies deal with practicing, receiving, analyzing and reasoning the language. Affective strategies concerns the ways learners manage their anxiety, motivation and emotions. Social strategies refer to questions asked by learners for clarifications and correction, cooperation with other people, awareness of others’ thoughts and feelings, and development of cultural understanding. O'Malley and Chamot (1990) suggest four similar categories, namely cognitive, metacognitive, social and affective strategies. In Oxford's book in 2011, she revisits and regroups the direct and indirect language learning strategies, and introduces the strategic self-regulation model of language learning to explain how language learners monitor their own learning. Under the new model, memory strategies are omitted. Social strategies are re-conceptualized and a new category known as sociocultural-interactive (SI) strategies is formed. The SI strategies allow learners to continue to interact, learn and communicate and to manage identity and power. Although the categorization of strategies have been criticized as contentious (Griffiths & Oxford, 2014), they have provided a good reference for researchers. To avoid such controversy and prescriptive classification, a pragmatic approach is suggested by “grouping strategies according to post hoc thematic analysis” (Griffiths & Oxford, 2014, p.3). Researchers have used multiple methods to study language learning strategies, including but not limited to narrative enquiries, interviews, case studies and questionnaires. Some strategies are found to be more frequently used than the others (Oxford et al. 2014; Griffiths, 2013; Griffiths et al. 2014). For instance, Griffiths (2013) found that higher level language learners were more inclined to use available resources and wider range of strategies than less successful ones as shown from empirical and case studies. Moreover, Oxford et al. (2014) and Griffiths et al. (2014) found that metacognitive strategies were more frequently mentioned than socio-affective strategies by North American, European, African and East Asian experts on language learning strategy in their personal narratives. Similarly, the social strategies of asking questions, seeking help and corrections were less frequently used outside classrooms and outside universities by the Malayalee undergraduate students who came from Malayalam-medium and English-medium schools (Harish, 2014). Apart from revealing learners' preference, language learners' strategies can vary with other personal factors (Griffiths, 2008); one of which is their beliefs (White, 2008; Yang, 1999). The relationship between learner beliefs and strategy use had been confirmed by Yang (1999) who found that there was a strong correlation between Taiwanese college EFL learners' beliefs about language learning and the use of six groups of language learning strategies in a survey. It led to the argument that learners’ beliefs about language learning would possibly lead to the use of certain language learning strategies and language learning strategies might be shaped by their beliefs. Yang further proposed a theoretical construct for language learning beliefs which comprised both metacognitive and motivational dimensions. The former focusses on “what learners know about themselves”, “think about the task of second language learning” and “what they believe about how best to learn a second or foreign language” (p.532). The latter is concerned with the reasons for learning the language, how to learn the language and feeling about learning the language. In fact, the extent to which strategies are used for learning can indicate

C. Lee / System 63 (2016) 51e64

53

whether an L2 learner is an effective or a less effective learner (Wong & Nunan, 2011). Wong and Nunan (2011) found that an effective L2 learner tends to adopt an active role by using different strategies and taking responsibility of their learning by means of questionnaires. A less effective learner often relies on external help and instructions with minimum participation. The aforementioned review have indicated only the possible relationship between L2 learners' beliefs about language learning and numerous language learning strategies by effective or good language learners. As pointed out by White (2008), it is worth exploring how beliefs assist a language learner's behavior and learning in a particular context. The relationship between L2 learners' beliefs and their actual behaviors, language learning strategies and participation in other learning contexts such as writing consultations is, however, rarely examined. It is this we turn to next. 3. L2 learners’ beliefs, learning strategies and participation in writing consultations Writing consultations are a specific context in which L2 learners can continue their participation in language learning beyond the classroom. It is different from classroom learning in the sense that it allows more space and time for direct interactions between a writing tutor and a language learner. Nowadays, universities in the United States and many Englishmedium universities in Europe and Asia have provided this type of writing support services for students outside the classroom for academic or professional communication to enhance academic literacy and supplement classroom learning (e.g., €uer, 2009; Reichelt et al., 2013; Xiao, 2001). Research studies on this area primarily focus on tutorial structure, native/nonBra native English-speaking tutor strategies to manage native/non-native English-speaking learners' learning and their interactions (Babcock et al., 2012; Thonus, 1999; 2004). Nevertheless, one common feature emerging from various studies about this unique learning context is tutor dominance. Writing tutors usually adopt three main rhetorical strategies, namely questions, echoing (e.g., yeah, right, okay) and qualifiers (e.g., I don't know, could, may) (Blau, Hall, & Strauss, 1998) to involve learners and advise them. Tutor dominance, or epistemic asymmetry (Park, 2012), is not surprising, as L2 learners who come to seek language advice are not proficient in language and they perceive themselves as less knowledgeable than tutors who have higher status, subject knowledge and authority (Blau, Hall, & Sparks, 2002; Harris, 1995). Only a few studies have examined L2 learners' behaviors or actions in such an epistemic asymmetry. L2 learners are found to be not actively engaged in learning. For instance, it was found that L2 learners usually provide minimal responses such as acknowledgement or a yes-no answer in consultations with native English tutors, who take charge of interaction display less extended negotiated sequences (Thonus, 2004). To achieve their learning goals, L2 learners usually collaborate and some adopt the epistemic downgrades of ‘I don't know þ if/wh complement’ to seek advice in writing consultations (Park, 2012), despite occasional resistance to or non-compliance with tutors' advice in content and arguments (Lee, 2012b; Waring, 2005). The limited studies on L2 learners seem to indicate that they usually take what is suggested by tutors, and do not contribute to their learning by taking the initiative to ask, clarify, express opinions, or show disagreement during writing consultations. Their passiveness may be influenced by the way they perceive the role of a learner in language learning, particularly in the writing consultations where asymmetry in power prevails. Such relation between self-perception and language learning action/behavior is supported by Lee in her study (2012a) that reported on L2 learners' perception of writing consultations led to the low usage rate of the newly launched online consultation service. Lee therefore called for the need to better understand language learner attitudes and perceptions in addition to promoting the new learning mode. Given that there is a potential impact of L2 learner beliefs on their behaviors, learning and participation, their relationship, however, has not been jointly investigated, particularly in writing consultations. This study fills the gap by using a new analytical framework to address the issue in the new context. It investigated L2 learners’ perceived roles as a tutee, impact of their beliefs on learning behaviors and participation via their use of strategies, as well as their relationship. To achieve the aim, three research questions were asked. 1. How do L2 learners perceive their roles in writing consultations? 2. How do L2 learners' role perceptions influence their learning behaviors and participation via their use of learning strategies in writing consultations? 3. What is the relationship among L2 learners' role perception, learning behaviors, learning and participation in writing consultations?

4. Methodology 4.1. Qualitative self-reported data and discourse analysis With these research questions in mind, information about L2 learners' perceptions of their roles and writing consultations was collected by means of semi-structured interviews. Semi-structured interviews are a way to collect perceptions and attitudes from potential participants whose behavior may not be shown from quantitative analysis (Mackey & Gass, 2005). A few guiding questions were prepared (see Appendix 1) for the semi-structured interviews. Questions 1 and 2 aimed to collect information about the learner's language experiences whereas questions 3 to 5 revolved around the beliefs about the function of writing consultations, learning role and the way to learn in writing consultations. These three questions were the main

54

C. Lee / System 63 (2016) 51e64

categories for analysis. The learners were welcome to elaborate on any issues they felt important. To complement the selfreported data which may be problematic as they only represent perceptions, the discourse of learners and tutors were recorded, transcribed and analyzed (see 4.4 for further information). 4.2. Background to the study: English Writing Support Service in an English-medium University Data were collected from an English Writing Support Service in an English-medium university in Hong Kong. This is a free service for undergraduate and postgraduate students at the university. As publicized on its homepage, writing tutors help L2 learners review the grammatical and structural aspects of an essay, advise them on the ways to improve content and offer strategies to enhance their writing ability. It is stressed that this is not a proofreading service. Learners are required to bring an outline of their paper or a few pages of their written work in progress for discussion. They could make a 25-minute appointment once a week through the online booking system. If they do not show up twice, they will be barred from using the service for the rest of the semester. 4.3. Participant profiles e writing tutors and L2 learners A total of 11 undergraduate (U1 to U11) and 12 postgraduate (P1 to P12) students and nine writing tutors (T1 to T4 and G1 to G5) agreed to participate in this study. Of the 23 students, 21 are ethnic Chinese, either from Mainland China or Hong Kong, one is from Malaysia and one is from South Korea. They came from different disciplines and years of study. The nine writing tutors included two native English-speakers and seven non-native English speaking writing tutors with varied teaching experience. Four of them were regular English teachers with three to twelve years of English teaching experience and were assigned as writing tutors as part of their teaching assignment. The other five tutors were graduate assistants who were postgraduate research students of Applied Linguistics during the research period. Three of them had some English teaching experience and two did not have any. Tables 1 and 2 show the profiles of the participants and writing tutors. 4.4. Data collection, transcription and coding procedures Following the university's research ethics procedures, invitations were first sent to all writing tutors of the English Writing Support Service during the research period. Nine writing tutors agreed to participate and signed the consent forms that explained the purpose of the study. L2 learners who had signed up for consultation timeslots with these tutors were invited to participate in the study. Twenty-three L2 learners accepted the invitations and signed the consent forms. To avoid any potential influence on their behaviors in writing consultations, they were then interviewed by a trained Research Assistant (RA) at an agreed time after the consultation. On the consultation day, the RA placed a small recorder at a corner of the table before the appointment. A total of 703.07 min of interactions were recorded. With reference to the learners' answers to questions 3, 4 and 5, related discourse regarding what they thought about writing consultations, their perceived role as a tutee, and what they believed to be the ways to learn or participate in writing consultations were coded. Table 1 Participant profiles. No.

Nationality

Postgraduate students PG1 Chinese PG2 Chinese PG3 Chinese PG4 Chinese PG5 Chinese PG6 Chinese PG7 Chinese PG8 Chinese PG9 Chinese PG10 Malaysian PG11 Chinese PG12 Chinese Undergraduate students UG1 Chinese UG2 Chinese UG3 Chinese UG4 Chinese UG5 Chinese UG6 Chinese UG7 Chinese UG8 Chinese UG9 Chinese UG10 South Korean UG11 Chinese

Gender

Discipline

Have/used the service before

F F M M F M M M M F F F

Applied Linguistics Public Health Electrical and Electronic Engineering Microbiology Library and Information Management Dentistry Education IT in Education Journalism Real Estate Construction Computer Science Science

✓ ✓ ✓

F F F M F M F F F F F

Urban Studies Chinese Language and Literature Psychology Chemistry Engineering Science Actuarial Science Art Economics and Finance Business Administration Food and nutritional science

✓

First-time visit

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

C. Lee / System 63 (2016) 51e64

55

Table 2 Writing tutor profiles. Writing tutors T1 T2 T3 T4 GA1 GA2 GA3 GA4 GA5

NS/NNS & L1 NS, L1: English NNS, L1: Cantonese NNS, L1: Cantonese NNS, L1: Cantonese NS, L1: English NNS, L1: Cantonese NNS, L1: Putonghua NNS, L1: Putonghua NNS, L1: Cantonese

Gender F F M M M M F M F

Tutor-learner conversations were recorded and transcribed. As the primary focus of transcription was to identify ideas, the transcription only showed the basic features of interpersonal interactions (refer to Appendix 2 for the transcription convention adapted from Wong & Waring, 2010). Taking into account L2 learners’ learning strategies used for language learning and writing consultations, and advice suggested in the paper of Griffiths and Oxford (2014), the transcribed conversations of all learners were read repeatedly by the researcher so as to code related learning strategies inductively from the data via a grounded theory method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) and avoid a “priori strategy classification” (Griffiths & Oxford, 2014, p.3). Discourse that shared the same speech function and linguistic feature, such as the use of wh-question by learners to seek information or advice on organization, was coded as a category. Then, the relationship between different coded learning strategies was studied carefully, and macro and sub-categories were formed. Finally, instances were counted and the coded categories were juxtaposed with the interview data for in-depth analysis. 5. Findings 5.1. L2 learners’ beliefs about tutee roles in writing consultations The 23 learners came to the writing support service for two main reasons: (1) polishing up their academic or professional writing skills, and (2) diagnosing their language problems and seeking advice to improve the language and organization of their written texts. Among them, 11 learners (¼47.8%) had used the service before and 12 learners (¼52.17%) were new to the service. The learners had different views on their tutee roles and the ways they would participate in writing consultations. Four learners (17.39%) explicitly stated that they would only wait for tutors' instructions and they were to be taught or spoon-fed because they thought tutors should be knowledgeable about writing skills and English, and should tell them how to write and point out their problems. Among them, two had used the service before whereas two was new to the service. For instance, PG12 thought he needed to follow the tutor's instructions because they knew what to do. UG4 also expected the tutor to guide and tell her how to improve. There was no mentioning of asking tutors any questions. This type of learners seemed to adopt an overt passive learning attitude and they expected the least extent of participation. Thirteen students (56.52%), on the other hand, said that they would prepare a text for discussion because it was their duty. They, however, would wait for advice but would ask questions and respond to tutors' questions during consultations whenever necessary. Among them, seven had used the service before and six had not. This group of learners seemed to adopt neither a passive nor an active learning role which may be influenced by the learning environment and the tutor. Finally, six learners (26.09%) explicitly said that they would take the initiative to talk about their needs at the beginning of the consultation so as to let the tutors better understand their problems, followed by the questions they had prepared. Only two of them had used the service several times. For example, U9 described herself as an inquisitive person who usually asked a lot of questions. She believed a student should be reflective and it was the student's responsibility to learn independently. PG8 described himself as an aggressive learner who aimed high and therefore always asked questions. Taking into account how the learners described their tutee roles and learning in the interviews, they were broadly categorized into three groups of learners, namely passive, inactive and active learners, each of them represented one domain of belief. The passive learners are those who held the belief that they would wait for tutor advice and had little motivation to participate in learning. The inactive learners are those who thought that they could take the initiative to learn and increase participation but subject to the learning context. Finally, the active learners are those who had a strong desire to learn and participate in learning. Table 3 summarizes the three role perceptions and the corresponding groups of learners, as well as the total number of instances. 5.2. Beliefs about tutee roles, learning strategies and behaviors demonstrated in writing consultations Similar to what is reported in the literature, the tutors directed discussions and talked most of the time in the collected tutor-tutee discourse. The tutors started the consultations by asking the learners what they could help with, raised numerous

56

C. Lee / System 63 (2016) 51e64

Table 3 Role perceptions and suggested groups of learners’ beliefs. Suggested groups of learners Passive group of learners UG1*, UG4 PG5*, PG12 Inactive group of learners UG2, UG5*, UG6, UG7*, UG8*, UG10, UG11 PG2*, PG3*, PG4, PG6, PG10*, PG11* Active group of learners UG3, UG9 PG1*, PG7, PG8*, PG9

Role perceptions

Total number of instances (%)

Adopt a passive learning role - Wait to be taught and wait for tutors' instructions

4 (21.74%)

Adopt either a passive or an active learning role subject to the learning context - Prepare a text for discussion, wait for advice but ask questions/ respond to tutors' questions

13 (52.17%)

Adopt an active learning role - Talk about personal needs and prepare questions to ask Total

6 (26.09%) 23 (100%)

Key: Learners marked with an asterisk (*) are those who have used the writing service before.

questions to clarify understanding before giving advice, and provided feedback on language, ideas and organization respectively. The learners usually gave minimal responses such as ‘mhm’, ‘ok’, ‘yeah’ or ‘yes’. These back channel cues are the learners' behaviors that signal to the tutors that they are attentive, as well as displaying their understanding and agreement, which are commonly found in human interactions (Schegloff, 1982). Upon close examination of the learners' discourse, other actions were identified in addition to backchannel cues, indicating their involvement or participation in learning during consultations. The actions included but were not limited to clarification and confirmation checks, expression of needs and opinions, small talk, summarizing, demonstrating understanding, and questioning. These actions are strategies for learning in this context, expressed in words. These strategies could be further classified under the two macro categories of self-initiated questions for tutors and self-initiated responses to tutor questions and advice. The two macro and corresponding subcategories are described below. 5.2.1. Macro category 1: self-initiated questions for tutors The self-initiated questions asked by the learners revolved around seven aspects: organization; grammar; vocabulary/ expressions; presentation format (e.g. where to put a source/citation); contents, arguments and/or ideas; language improvement methods; and length of text. Learners from the three role perception groups asked a total of 122 questions. It was found that the passive group of learners asked 3.75 questions, the inactive group asked 5.07 questions and the active group asked 6.83 questions on average (Table 4). With reference to the number of questions raised by each group, the learners’ self-perceived roles and participation seem to match. Examining the data more closely, questions related to contents, presentation of arguments and ideas were most frequently asked, followed by questions about vocabulary and expressions and organization. The inactive group of learners also asked a number of grammar questions. The questions were framed in different linguistic forms such as interrogative questions, whquestions, polar questions (yes/no questions), indirect questions and statements with a rising tone. Table 4 presents a breakdown of the seven aspects with reference to the three identified groups of learners, followed by examples (Excerpts 1 to 9) for illustration. Excerpt 1: Organization T4 and PG11 288

PG11

Mm (0.7) you think it (.) is (0.4) better to put (0.4) the heading of these two together?

Excerpt 2: Grammar T1 and PG10 210

PG10

What's the difference between I will overcome and have been overcome?

Excerpt 3: Vocabulary/Expression GA3 and UG9 73 74 75

UG9 GA3 UG9

It's what? Insignificant. What is insignificant?

Excerpts 4e5: Presentation format GA4 and PG9 359 GA1 and PG1 272

PG9

So it's necessary to put a signature on a: (0.5) uh cover letter?

PG1

Uh: also a question (.h) do I have to put also the year here or just at the end of the paragraph?

C. Lee / System 63 (2016) 51e64

57

Excerpts 6e7: Contents/arguments/ideas T3 and PG12 4 T1 and PG10 2

PG12

So I should give more examples?

PG10

¼ But I'm not sure if I can mention this (.h) will people think then why don't you just go: go there?

Excerpt 8: Language improvement method GA2 and PG5 3

PG5

So: can you give me: some suggestions (0.3) about (0.5) learning daily (0.2) English?

Excerpt 9: Essay length GA4 and PG7 262

PG7

Do you think it's too long?

5.2.2. Macro category 2: eleven types of self-initiated responses to tutor questions and advice Another indication of participation in language learning was shown through learners' responses to tutors’ questions and advice. Eleven types of responses were identified from the recordings, namely. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Expressing language needs/problems Giving a short reply (e.g., mhm, yeah) Providing explanations and additional information for tutor questions Expressing (opposite) opinions/views Clarifying and confirming tutor's advice Completing tutor's utterance by suggesting some words Summarizing tutor's advice Demonstrating uncertainty or ignorance of certain knowledge Demonstrating agreement Demonstrating understanding Involving in small talk

All learners, regardless of their self-perceived roles, took the initiative to talk about their needs and expectations immediately in response to the tutor's invitation question of “What can I do for you?’ or the questions “What is it (the essay) about?” and “What's the question today?” at the outset. Some of them gave a rather lengthy description of their needs while some presented their problems more succinctly. Excerpt 10 shows PG11, who studied Computer Science, presenting his needs to T4 at the beginning of the consultation. Excerpt 10: Expressing language needs

5

T4:

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

PG11:/ T4: PG11:/ T4: PG11:/ T4: PG11:/ T4: PG11:/ T4: PG11:/

(T4 greeted the student, checked his identity and started the consultation.) Al:right (1.9) ok so what can I do for you? (0.4) Um: I think I'm: I have written that short essay on this topic Right An:d uh (0.3) one of my friends (0.4) uh have (0.3) revised this uh: this short essay for me [with it [mmhmm mmhmm About the structure Mm¼ ¼ but I hope that you can (0.4) give me some: (.) feedback on ¼ ¼ mm (0.3) Structures and [some [mmhmm (0.4) Sentence writing

In Excerpt 11, another undergraduate, UG1, told his story about wanting to change his discipline to GA1 and talked about what reasons he would write in the application form. After describing the reasons for a number of turns (Turns 41, 43 and 46), the tutee asked for the tutor's opinion in Turn 60: “What do you think?”

58

C. Lee / System 63 (2016) 51e64

Excerpt 11: Asking tutor's advice

41

UG1:/

42 43

GA1: UG1:/

44 45

GA1:

58 59 60

GA1: UG1:/

(GA1 greeted UG1 and asked what his need was today. UG1 told GA1 that he was applying for a change of discipline from architecture to business and economics. UG1 provided the details for GA1 so as to understand why he wanted to change.) Ya (3.6) and: I'm trying to think of outline I've first I've on talk about ((clear throat)) why my interest (.hh) change from: (0.5) from this major to: to the other one (0.7) and: first I can about uh the architecture course because some projects I do, they are interesting but maybe (.h) I'm really interested in: how they are related to the commercial activities (.h) just like the (0.4) project I should do: like I maj I did a part about (.h) commercial activities in tourism and I think that is interesting (.h) and I think that is actually related to business not to the architecture (.h) and [for some other courses that are Mmhmm (.hh) more related to architecture I don't find them interesting. (0.7) an:d the second one is I00 took three business course (.h) and I think they are: (0.3) interesting and I explain why: (0.3) and then also why the teachers them- (0.4) uh: how they (0.3) how they tea:ch why is it impressive. (.hh) an:d also I see a lot of business competitions (.h) an:d know many friends from (.h) uh: this the major I want to go in, (.h) and then I want to say why I enjoy staying with them because we have some (.h) similar perspectives and pursuit (0.9) Mm ¼ (UG1 talked about the reasons to apply for the change in the subsequent turns. GA1 acknowledged what was heard and responded with the word of ‘mhm’, ‘Mm’ or “ya’. Finally at Turn 60, UG1 asked GA1 what he thought.) Ya (0.4) What do you think?

Apart from presenting needs and problems, some learners responded to tutors' questions when they went through the texts. Their responses varied, including giving short replies to tutor questions, expressing opinions and uncertainties, providing explanations for arguments and additional information. Their opinions were sometimes opposite to the tutors’ advice. Excerpt 12: Expressing opposite opinions 91 92

GA5: UG4:

¼ stat you did not give me any statistics, you did not give me any evi [dence in your [But it's very hard to give you any statistics coz (0.8) you you won't remember anything when you are in exam (0.8) right?

The average number of instances of these behaviors corresponded to the learners’ self-perceived roles, from 9 instances per learner in the passive group, to 12.54 instances per learner in the inactive group and 15 instances per student in the active group. Table 5 presents the results. During consultations, participation in learning also took place by means of giving minimal responses such as asking for clarification and confirming understanding, suggesting words to complete tutor utterances, and summarizing tutor feedback or advice. The passive role group only clarified or checked 2.25 instances per learner. The rate for the inactive group was 3.15 instances per learner while that for the active group was 4.67 instances per learner on average (see Table 6). Some learners told their tutors that they did not know or were uncertain and worried about the appropriate way to handle a language problem. The expressions of ‘I don't know þ whether/which/if’ and ‘I am not sure’ were uttered by the three groups of students. These expressions seemed to sound negative on the surface, but they can be interpreted as a tutee's unconscious strategy to obtain suggestions or advice from the tutor. Table 7 below shows the instances (total and average) and percentages of learners' two expressions of uncertainty. In face of such expressions, the tutors usually provided input. In Excerpt 13, GA3 gave her opinion in Turn 469 in response to PG2's expression of uncertainty in Turns 466 and 468. Excerpt 13: I don't know 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469

PG2: GA3: PG2: GA3: PG2: / GA3: PG2:/ GA3:

Coz it's a bit hard for me coz: if I: to talk about to- technology in general Yeah I I can say many things like many things involved technologies [so [ya: and So that (0.6) that could make (0.6) me feel like harder to write (h) (0.7) So [I don't [you can I don't know which one is good so: You you need to use technology at the beginning I think at the very beginning

In response to tutor advice, a few learners occasionally showed understanding and agreement by saying ‘I understand’, ‘yes/yeah’ and ‘I agree’ (Table 8). Finally, a few learners were involved in small talk with their tutors, either self-initiated or tutor-initiated. Small talk, as defined by Malinowski, is phatic communion, a type of speech that is for social and leisure purposes and establishes interpersonal bonds (1972, as cited in Coupland, 2000, p. 2). Four and five instances came from the inactive and the active groups respectively and usually took place at the beginning or the end of consultations. Only one instance was from the passive group. Excerpt 14 is an example of small talk between PG9 and G4. PG9 was interested to know more about G4 at the end of their consultation, and the topic was of no relevance to writing and learning.

C. Lee / System 63 (2016) 51e64

59

Excerpt 14: Small talk 461 462 463 464 465

PG9/

493 494 495

PG9:/

Are you used to be a HR? (0.9) [me? [uh ya Uh no. (After 28 turns) Do you teach (0.4) in the: English departs (0.2) centre? (0.3) Uh eh I'm I'm ot uh I'm not teaching I'm just a student of xxx department (0.2)

G4: PG9: G4:

G4:

6. Discussion and implications The findings have answered questions 1 and 2, and have shed light on research question 3 which is discussed below. 6.1. Relationship between L2 learners’ beliefs about tutee roles and learning behaviors via the use of strategies The analysis has presented the three ways in which the 23 learners perceived their roles. The three types of self-perceived roles taken on by the learners in writing consultations and language learning, namely passive, inactive and active, seem to largely correlate with their actual behaviors via the number of strategies they have used in an institutional activity that is usually dominated by the tutors. In other words, if a language learner feels that the tutor should shoulder the most responsibility, s/he will ask fewer questions and perform other active language learning behaviors less often that those who Table 4 Instances and percentages of each identified area of concern. Suggested groups of learners

Areas of concern (instances & percentages) O

Passive group of learners UG1*, UG4 0 PG5*, PG12 Inactive group of learners 7 UG2,UG5*,UG6, UG7*,UG8*,UG10, UG11 PG2*,PG3*, PG4, PG6, PG10*, PG11* Active group of learners UG3,UG9 9 PG1*, PG7, PG8*, PG9 Total 17 (13.93%)

Average number of instances

G

Vo/Exp

PF

C/A/I

Lg-I-M

L

Total number of instances

0

5

0

7

3

0

15

3.75 instances/ learner

8

14

2

28

1

5

66

5.07 instances/ learner

0

6

7

16

1

2

41

6.83 instances/ learner

8 (6.56%)

25 (20.49%)

9 (7.38%)

51 (41.80%)

5 (4.10%)

7 (5.74%)

122 (100%)

Key: O ¼ organization of text; G ¼ grammar; Vo/Exp ¼ vocabulary/expression; PF ¼ presentation format. C/A/I ¼ contents/arguments/ideas; Lg-I-M ¼ language improvement method; L ¼ length of text. Learners marked with an asterisk (*) are those who have used the writing service before.

Table 5 Instances and percentages of learners' responses to tutors’ advice. Suggested groups of learners

Learners' responses to tutors' advice (instances and percentages) Expressing personal needs & opinions

Passive group of learners UG1*, UG4 17 PG5*, PG12 Inactive group of learners 45 UG2,UG5*,UG6, UG7*,UG8*, UG10, UG11 PG2*,PG3*, PG4, PG6, PG10*, PG11* Active group of learners UG3,UG9 36 PG1*, PG7, PG8*,PG9 Total 98 (33.91%)

Expressing opposite opinions

Expressing uncertainty

Providing explanations

Providing additional information

Giving short answers to tutor question

Total number of instances

Average number of instances

8

5

5

1

0

36

9 instances/ learner

1

15

33

4

65

163

12.54 instances/ learner

2

13

23

0

16

90

15 instances/ learner

11 (3.80%)

33 (11.42%)

61 (21.11%)

5 (1.73%)

81 (28.03%)

289 (100%)

Key: Learners marked with an asterisk (*) are those who have used the writing service before.

60

C. Lee / System 63 (2016) 51e64

Table 6 Instances and percentages of clarifying, confirming and summarizing tutors’ advice and suggesting words. Suggested groups of learners

Passive group of learners UG1*, UG4 PG5*, PG12 Inactive group of learners UG2,UG5,UG6, UG7*,UG8*, UG10, UG11 PG2*,PG3*, PG4, PG6, PG10*, PG11* Active group of learners UG3,UG9 PG1*, PG7, PG8*,PG9 Total

Learners' responses to tutors' advice (instances and percentages) Clarifying & Confirming

Suggesting words

Summarizing

Total number of instances

Average number of instances

6

1

2

9

2.25 instances/learner

30

6

5

41

3.15 instances/learner

25

1

2

28

4.67 instances/learner

61 (78.20%)

8 (10.26%)

9 (11.54%)

78 (100%)

Key: Learners marked with an asterisk (*) are those who have used the writing service before.

Table 7 Instances and percentages of learners’ expressions of uncertainty. Suggested groups of learners

Passive group of learners UG1*, UG4 PG5*, PG12 Inactive group of learners UG2,UG5*,UG6, UG7*,UG8*, UG10, UG11, PG2*,PG3*, PG4, PG6, PG10*, PG11* Active group of learners UG3,UG9 PG1*, PG7, PG8*,PG9 Total

Learners' expressions of uncertainty (instances and percentages) I don't know

I am not sure

Total number of instances

Average number of instances

5

0

5

1.25 instances/learner

14

1

15

1.15 instances/learner

11

2

13

2.17 instances/learner

30 (90.91%)

3 (9.09%)

33 (100%)

Key: Learners marked with an asterisk (*) are those who have used the writing service before.

perceive themselves as a team player co-constructing knowledge in the learning activity. This explains why the average number of instances for the learners who adopt a passive role for self-initiated questions and responses to tutor questions, feedback and advice are usually the lowest, followed by the learners who take an inactive role and then the learners with an active role. The two macro-categories (refer to 5.2.1 and 5.2.2) and the extent to which they are used can be seen as language learning strategies to manage language learning and participation. This findings have lent some support to the suggestion that “there is some possible relationship between belief and behavior” (Wenden, 1987: 113). They have also provided some evidence supporting the claim that learners’ belief of their roles can regulate behaviors and approaches towards language learning as argued in the literature (Chamot, 2001; Cohen & Macaro, 2007; Kaypak & Ortactepe, 2014; Riley, 1996; White, 2008; Yang, 1999). The learners who adopt an active role can be regarded as the most effective or good language learners who take the learning responsibility (Wong & Nunan, 2011), followed by the learners who adopt an inactive role. The learners who adopt a passive role are seen as less effective language learners who rely on instructions and assistance from tutors. As the three groups of L2 learners chose to come to the writing service, they may be considered as learners who are relatively more active and more motivated than those who do not seek any assistance or have not sought any assistance from the writing service before. However, as shown from Tables 3e8, at least 50% of the passive and inactive groups of learners and around 66% of the active group of learners are new to the service. Their beliefs about tutee roles and even their participation do not seem to be influenced by the number of times they have used the writing service. Nevertheless, we cannot rule out the possibility that some learners’ beliefs about tutee roles, to a certain extent, may be shaped by or related to their previous consultation experiences (Benson & Lor, 1999) and motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ushioda, 2008, 2012). If their former situated experience (Norton & Toohey, 2001) is positive, it is likely that they will re-use the service and increase their motivation to learn. The findings of this study may not be able to give a conclusive answer to this conjecture. Further investigation into L2 learners who come to writing service with different learning motivations and their actual behaviors and learning is deemed necessary. 6.2. Signs of learners’ self-awareness, participation and contributions to language learning in writing consultations Although epistemic asymmetry and unequal power relations between tutors and students exist, the 11 identified types of responses, ranging from self-initiated questions to small talk (Tables 5e8, Excerpts 1e14), are indications of the ways which

C. Lee / System 63 (2016) 51e64

61

Table 8 Instances and percentages of acknowledging and showing understanding. Suggested groups of learners

Passive group of learners UG1, UG4 PG5, PG12 Inactive group of learners UG2,UG5,UG6, UG7,UG8,UG10, UG11, PG2,PG3, PG4, PG6, PG10, PG11 Active group of learners UG3,UG9 PG1, PG7, PG8,PG9 Total

Learners' responses Acknowledging/Showing agreement

Showing understanding

Total number of instances

1

0

1

9

3

12

0

0

0

10 (76.92%)

3 (23.08%)

13 (100%)

Key: Learners marked with an asterisk (*) are those who have used the writing service before.

the learners have engaged in and strategies they have used to contribute actively to their learning. In spite of the belief that interactions are tutor dominant (Blau et al., 1998; Harris, 1995), the analysis shows that the learners do participate in their language learning by taking the initiative to express needs and problems, sincerely sharing their worries and honestly acknowledging inadequate knowledge and language abilities (Excerpts 10e11) where epistemic asymmetry exists (Park, 2012). Regardless of how active or passive the learners are, they have applied mainly the social or sociocultural-interactive and affective strategies (Oxford, 1990, 2011; O'Malley & Chamot, 1990) to manage their own learning by asking questions to obtain knowledge and continue to learn, clarify, confirm, and cooperating with others by showing understanding and talking about their feelings. They construct knowledge by asking a variety of questions from grammar to methods for language improvement (Excerpts 1e9, Table 4), expressing opinions, confirming understanding, explaining arguments and answering tutor questions (Tables 5 and 6). Using the epistemic downgrades (Park, 2012) of ‘I don't know’ and ‘I am not sure’ (Table 7 and Excerpt 13), they obtain additional input from tutors. More importantly, the learners go beyond all these strategies by expressing opposite opinions (Excerpt 12), though this was noted only occasionally in the study and the literature (Lee, 2012b; Waring, 2005). This act signifies their evaluations of tutors' responses and their cognitive engagement in learning in spite of their tendency to only acknowledge and agree with tutors. In addition, small talk (Excerpt 14), which is one of the least frequently identified behaviors compared to self-initiated questions and expression of opinions and clarifications, is an indicator of the learners' willingness to participate by establishing relationships and rapport with tutors despite the inherent social and power differences (Norton, 2001). The emphasis on social affective strategies to manage learning by this group of L2 learners in writing consultations is greater than that reported by Griffiths et al. (2014), Oxford et al. (2014) and Harish (2014) in the literature. The difference does not necessarily mean that the learners do not use cognitive strategies. The difference indicates that learners' preference may be attributable to the social context (i.e., writing consultations) in which it inherently allows more space and time for a learner to ask, clarify and talk face-to-face with a teacher than that in the classroom. The social context, to some extent, acts as a learning variable to influence learners’ choice of strategies (Griffiths & Oxford, 2014; Griffiths, 2013; White, 2008) even though epistemic authority and individual variation still prevail in the learning situation. The extent to which different learning contexts, such as writing consultations and traditional classrooms, will lead to different learning behaviors and participation pattern remains an area for further research. In essence, the identified responses reveal the learners' self-awareness of their potential problems, self-initiation of cognitive and social/sociocultural-interactive strategies via questions and cooperation with tutors, and readiness to coconstruct their own learning in terms of actions during consultations, an activity that is voluntarily chosen by them with an intended learning goal. In addition to discourse analysis of the recorded consultations, the interview data have revealed that a great majority of learners (19 learners who were classified as inactive and active learners) were willing to participate in the activity, engage in learning and interact with tutors in different ways. All this shows that writing consultations are not exclusively tutor-dominant (Blau et al., 2002; Harris, 1995; Thonus, 2004). They are a context that allows space and encourages L2 learners to use social affective strategies to learn and achieve their goals through spontaneous interactions in spite of the pervasive use metacognitive or cognitive strategies (e.g., Griffiths et al., 2014). Both tutors and learners work in a collaborative manner in which involvement may vary according to learners’ beliefs about their roles in writing consultations. The qualitative data obtained from interviews and recordings, in particular, has provided additional testimony to support the value of writing consultations, the positive relationship between learner belief and learning behavior, and the role of context as a crucial variable in deciding how to learn. 6.3. Pedagogical implications The identified learners' strategies and corresponding behaviors may be unnoticed by tutors as they are over-involved in language advising. The findings can therefore be used to inform teaching and consultation if writing tutors are made aware of learners' self-perceptions and study the tutor-tutee conversations in detail. With sufficient knowledge about learners' beliefs, learning process during writing consultations, the roles of social context and motivation, writing tutors may want to adjust

62

C. Lee / System 63 (2016) 51e64

their expectations of learners and pedagogies accordingly. More importantly, the study which was conducted in the Hong Kong context sheds new light on how tutors can handle writing consultations in addition to the non-directive method recommended in guidebooks for native and non-native tutors in the US context (Babcock et al., 2012; Bruce & Rafoth, 2009). Micro analysis on the discourse of learners in writing consultations could be made over time to better tutors' understanding of how they manage their learning and interactions linguistically and strategically in order to achieve their learning goals in this institutional activity where tacit epistemic asymmetry always exists. The qualitative discourse data can complement the selfreported data of the participants in the study. Likewise, micro analysis on the discourse of tutors can allow them to better understand how they navigate learners’ learning and interactions, and how to scaffold learners in their learning journey. Further qualitative analysis on the functions and impact of learner talk on learning and teaching merits more attention in the literature of language advising. More studies on the self-perception and learning behaviors of L2 learners with different cultural backgrounds in writing consultations are welcome as L2 learners’ language or strategy differences can be related to or influenced by cultural practice (Hyland, 2003). 7. Conclusion The study has reported a range of learners' strategies identified from approximately 12 hours of writing consultations, and has examined the relationship between the learners' beliefs about tutee roles, learning behaviors and participation. Both the self-reported and spoken discourse data have provided some evidence to show how different self-perceived roles may impact learning behaviors via the use of learning strategies, particularly strategies in the social/sociocultural-interactive and affective dimensions, and how the learners can engage in, regulate and contribute to learning by using different means to obtain input they need, aside from tutor-initiated questions. The eleven identified responses are not exhaustive and may simply represent part of the knowledge unknown to teachers and researchers. More categories identified as the size of the database grows. Micro analysis on how learners and tutors manage learning and teaching by adjusting their perceptions and behaviors in the same and other cultural contexts could be conducted. The analysis and conversation excerpts can be useful references and resources for institutions and writing centers when they plan staff training and professional development for writing tutors. The more writing tutors know about learners’ self-perceived roles and behaviors in writing consultations, the more they are able to facilitate learning and improve teaching. Acknowledgements This study was supported by the University of Hong Kong under Grant numbered 104002683. Appendix 1. Guiding questions for semi-structured interviews. 1. Can you tell me about your background? E.g., whether you are an undergraduate/a postgraduate, discipline of study and year of study. 2. Have you used the writing support service before? 3. What do you expect to achieve or learn from the service? 4. What, do you think, a tutee/student should do in a consultation? 5. How would you like to participate in a consultation?

Appendix 2. Transcription convention for the oral discourse data (interviews and tutor-L2 learner interactions)

Time intervals: (.) (0.2)

A tiny gap within or between utterances Length of pause in tenths of a second

Characteristics of speech productions: : ? . , word [ ¼ (.h) (( ))

Prolongation of the immediately prior sound Rising intonation, may or may not be question Falling in tone A continuing intonation Some form of stress via pitch and/or amplitude Overlap or simultaneous talk Latch or continuing speech with no break or silence between two speakers Inhalation Actions performed by the speaker

(Adapted from Wong & Waring, 2010).

C. Lee / System 63 (2016) 51e64

63

References Babcock, R. D., Manning, K., Rogers, T., Goff, C., & McCain, A. (2012). A synthesis of qualitative studies of writing centre tutoring 1983 e 2006. New York: Peter Lang. Benson, P., & Lor, W. (1999). Conceptions of language and language learning. System, 27, 459e472. Blau, S. R., Hall, J., & Sparks, S. (2002). Guilt-free tutoring: Rethinking how we tutor non-native English-speaking students. The Writing Center Journal, 23(1), 23e44. Blau, S. R., Hall, J., & Strauss, T. (1998). Exploring the tutor/client conversation: A linguistic analysis. The Writing Center Journal, 19(1), 19e48. €uer, G. (2009). The role of writing in higher education in Germany. In S. Bruce, & B. Rafoth (Eds.), ESL writers: A guide for writing center tutors (pp. Bra 186e194). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers. Bruce, S., & Rafoth, B. (Eds.). (2009). ESL writers: A guide for writing center tutors. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers. Chamot, A. U. (2001). The role of learning strategies in second language acquisition. In M. P. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning (pp. 25e43). Harlow, London: Pearson Education. Cohen, A. D., & Macaro, E. (2007). Language learner strategies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cotterall, S. (1995). Readiness for autonomy: Investigating learner beliefs. System, 23(2), 195e205. Coupland, J. (2000). Introduction: Sociolinguistic perspectives on small talk. In J. Coupland (Ed.), Small talk (pp. 1e25). Essex: Pearson Education Limited. Deci, R. M., & Ryan, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54e67. Dobao, A. F., & Blum, A. (2013). Collaborative writing in pairs and small groups: Learners' attitudes and perceptions. System, 41(2), 365e378. € rnyei, Z., MacIntryre, P. D., & Henry, A. (2015). Motivational dynamics in language learning. Bristol, Buffalo: Multilingual Matters. Do Ellis, R. (2001). The metaphorical constructions of second language learners. In M. P. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning (pp. 65e85). Harlow, London: Pearson Education. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of ground Theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine. Griffiths, C. (2003). Patterns of language learning strategy use. System, 31(3), 367e383. Griffiths, C. (2008). Lessons from good language learners. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. Griffiths, C. (2013). The strategy factor in successful language learning. Bristol, Buffalo, Toronto: Multilingual Matters. Griffiths, C., & Oxford, R. L. (2014). The twenty-first century landscape of language learning strategies: Introduction to this special issue. System, 43, 1e10. Griffiths, C., Oxford, R. L., Kawai, Y., Kawai, C., Park, Y. Y., Ma, X., et al. (2014). Focus on context: Narratives from East Asia. System, 43, 50e63. Harish, S. (2014). Social strategy use and language learning contexts: A case study of Malayalee undergraduate students in India. System, 43, 64e73. Harris, M. (1995). Talking in the middle: Why writers need writing tutors. College English, 57(1), 27e42. Horwitz, E. K. (1987). Surveying student beliefs about language learning. In A. Wenden, & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 119e129). London: Prentice Hall. Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language students. The Modern Language Journal, 72(3), 283e294. Horwitz, E. K. (1999). Cultural and situational influences on foreign language learners' beliefs about language learning: A review of BALLI studies. System, 27(4), 557e576. Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kaypak, E., & Ortactepe, D. (2014). Language learner beliefs and study abroad: A study on english as a lingua franca (ELF). System, 42, 355e367. Lee, C. (2012a). Tertiary students' perceptions and use of information computer technology for language consultation. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(3), 323e339. Lee, C. (2012b). The pragmatics of non-compliance by Cantonese learners of English in writing tutorials'. In A. Yeung, E. Brown, & C. Lee (Eds.), Communication and Language: Surmounting barriers to cross-cultural communication (pp. 319e341). North Carolina: Information Age Publishing. Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2005). Second language Research: Methodology and design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mori, Y. (1999). Epistemological beliefs and language learning beliefs: What do language learners believe about their learning? Language Learning, 49, 377e415. Navarro, D., & Thornton, K. (2011). Investigating the relationship between belief and action in self-directed language learning. System, 39(3), 290e301. Norton, B. (2001). Non-participation, imagined communities and the language classroom. In M. P. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning (pp. 159e171). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (2001). Changing perspectives on good language learners. TESOL Quarterly, 35(2), 307e322. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning Strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston, Massachusetts: Heinle & Heinle Publishers. Oxford, R. L. (2011). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Harlow: English: Pearson Education Limited. Oxford, R. L., Rubin, J., Chamot, A. U., Schramm, K., Lavine, R., Gunning, P., et al. (2014). The learning strategy prism: Perspectives of learning strategy experts. System, 43, 30e49. O'Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Park, I. (2012). Seeking advice: Epistemic asymmetry and learner autonomy in writing conferences. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(14), 2004e2021.  dz, Poland. Reichelt, M., Salski, L., Andres, J., Lowczowski, E., Majchrzak, O., Molenda, M., et al. (2013). “A table and two chairs”: Starting a writing center in Lo Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 277e285. Riley, P. (1996). “BATs and BALLs”: Beliefs about talk and beliefs about language learning. In Paper presented at the International Conference: Autonomy 2000: The development of learning independence in language learning. Bangkok. Received from http://web.atilf.fr/IMG/pdf/melanges/09_riley.pdf. Rubin, J. (1975). What the ‘good language learner’ can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 41e51. Rubin, J. (1981). Study of cognitive processes in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 117e131. Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Analysing Discourse: Text and talk (pp. 71e93). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Shehadeh, A. (2011). Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(4), 286e305. Thonus, T. (1999). How to communicate politely and be a tutor, too: NS-NS interaction and writing center practice. Text, 19(2), 253e279. Thonus, T. (2004). What are the differences? Tutor interactions with first- and second-language writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(3), 470e481. Ushioda, E. (2008). The social context of motivation. In C. Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons from good language learners (pp. 19e34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ushioda, E. (2012). Motivation: L2 learning as a special case? In S. Mercer, S. Ryan, & M. Williams (Eds.), Psychology for language learning (pp. 58e73). Houndsmill, Basingstoke, Hampshire & New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Waring, H. Z. (2005). Peer tutoring in a graduate writing center: Identity, expertise and advice resisting. Applied Linguistics, 28(2), 141e168. Wenden, A. L. (1987). How to be a successful language learner. In A. Wenden, & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 103e118). London: Prentice Hall. Wenden, A. L. (1999). An introduction to metacognitive knowledge and beliefs in language learning: Beyond the basics. System, 27, 435e441. Wesely, P. M. (2012). Learner attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs in language learning. Foreign Language Annals, 45(1), 98e117. White, C. (2008). Beliefs and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons from good language learners (pp. 121e130). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wong, L. L. C., & Nunan, D. (2011). The learning styles and strategies of effective language learners. System, 39, 144e163.

64

C. Lee / System 63 (2016) 51e64

Wong, J., & Waring, H. Z. (2010). Conversation analysis and second language pedagogy. New York: Routledge. Xiao, M. K. (2001). The writing assistance programme: A writing center with Hong Kong characteristics. In I. Leki (Ed.), Academic writing programs (pp. 7e18). Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. Yang, N. D. (1999). The relationship between EFL learners' beliefs and learning strategy use. System, 27(4), 515e535.