In L1 writing instruction, imitation pedagogy is potentially practiced in different parts of the world, yet there has been very little communication among practitioners and researchers on this topic. In the study to be reported in this paper, we aimed to answer the question “How is imitation recommended as a writing pedagogy in a sample of books on Chinese L1 composition?” Discussions of how to use imitation as a writing pedagogy were extracted from a sample of 41 books on Chinese L1 composition to form a dataset of 68,700 Chinese characters. Qualitative content analysis was applied to the dataset in NVivo 12 using a data-driven approach and resulted in a coding structure. In the paper we focus on elaborating two dimensions of our coding structure that addressed the research question in a practical light: “Implementing the imitation pedagogy” and “Going beyond imitation to achieve innovation.” Our findings point to similarities between Chinese and Western practices in using imitation as a writing pedagogy, and highlight a distinction between imitation and plagiarism made in the dataset as well a range of strategies recommended for going beyond imitation to achieve innovation. It is hoped that our paper would contribute to exchanges on L1 writing education between China and the rest of the world.

Individual interest and self‐regulation are two pillars of self‐directed learning. Despite empirical evidence on the interaction between the two with respect to academic achievement, few studies have explored how individual interest and self‐regulation might interact and relate to self‐directed informal learning. This study surveyed 322 university students on self‐regulation and two interest constructs (interest in learning English and interest in pursuing personal interest in English), and tested how these factors related to their engagement in self‐directed use of technology for English learning beyond the classroom. Structural equation modelling analysis revealed that despite both being significant determinants, interest factors, and self‐regulation were associated differently with various types of self‐directed technological activities (instruction‐, information‐, entertainment‐ and socialization‐oriented activities). Self‐regulation was predictive of instruction‐, information‐ and socialization‐oriented activities, which have high cognitive load and require effort management for second‐language learners. Interest in English learning was consistently a significant predictor of all four types of technological activities. Interest in pursuing personal interest in English played a significant role in information‐ and entertainment‐oriented technological activities. The findings recommend greater attention to individual interest when promoting self‐directed informal learning. The findings further suggest adopting a differentiated approach to bolstering self‐directed learning for different purposes. Practitioner notesWhat is already known about this topic Self‐regulation is important to self‐directed learning. Subject‐matter interest and self‐regulation interplay to influence academic performance in formal learning contexts. What this paper adds Interest and self‐regulation interplayed to shape self‐direction in informal learning contexts. Self‐regulation was predictive of instruction‐, information‐ and socialization‐oriented activities. Interest factors added additional explanation power on self‐directed technological activities. Both subject‐matter interest and the integration of personal interest with subject learning were significant determinants. The integration of personal interest with subject learning mediated the influence of subject‐matter interest. Implications for practice and/or policy Educational interventions need to work simultaneously on both interest and self‐regulation to bolster self‐directed learning. Educators need to address different factors when boosting different types of technological activities. A relative stance needs to be taken since self‐regulation might play a less significant role in less taxing technological activities. It is important to deliberately integrate students' personal interests into English learning and help students perceive and act on the integration.

Teachers in Anglophone universities have often attributed Chinese ESL students’ plagiarism to “cultural difference”, the implication being that what is considered plagiarism in the English-speaking world may not be seen as plagiarism in China. We believe this assumption needs to be questioned on the basis of systematic evidence gathered from the local L1 (first language) context; a large collection of writing textbooks published over time is potentially a valuable dataset for starting to look for such evidence. By analysing the relevant content in a collection of 60 textbooks on Chinese-L1 (Chinese as the First Language) academic writing, our study aimed to answer this question: According to these textbooks, what is plagiarism and how can one avoid plagiarism? Data-driven content analysis revealed that despite alignment with the Anglophone world in defining what is plagiarism, their approach to dealing with it differs. The Chinese textbooks focus on large-scale copying in conceptualising plagiarism, with explanation of plagiarism at local or sentence and paragraph levels, bypassed; and for ways to avoid plagiarism, self-discipline and the formalities of source acknowledgement are emphasised, but textual strategies of proper source citation are hardly addressed. We point out that such gaps in the textbooks, and accordingly, in the Chinese education system, are partly responsible for Chinese students’ confusion in the proper practices of source use in academic writing. We end the paper by proposing avenues for future research for further understanding the issue of plagiarism in the local L1 environment and for interrogating the debatable “cultural difference” view of plagiarism.

No abstract