The present study explores English as a foreign language (EFL) learning strategies used in Hungarian, Chinese, and Mongolian university students with different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. A total of 519 university students participated in the survey from the three different countries. The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL), developed by Rebecca Oxford (2003), was administered to explore cross-cultural differences in strategy use in the study. To explain cultural divergences, we employed Hofstede's 6-D model of cultural values. The study identified a number of cross-cultural similarities and differences in strategy use among these three groups. All the subsamples similarly preferred the use of metacognitive learning strategies; however, there were some significant differences among the countries. A significant difference was observed in cognitive language learning strategy usage for the Hungarian subsample compared to the Mongolian subsample. With regard to the affective field, we noticed that the Mongolian and Chinese students employed affective strategies significantly more frequently. The Hungarian students rated the use of affective strategies the lowest by comparison. These differences may be partly linked to the cultural traditions of the participating countries. Our findings also suggest that although students' cultural background is a significant factor, linguistic and educational background and teaching traditions are also crucial.

In research on EFL writing, much attention has been paid to teachers’ practises in assessment or feedback, but little is known about teachers’ behaviors in these two domains as a whole. There also seems to be a paucity of research on how teachers’ reactions to student writing develop from pre- through in-service. The current study, using a cross-sectional method, aims to compare pre- and in-service teachers’ assessment and feedback in EFL writing pertinent to their potential changes and challenges in responding to student text. Three groups of participants (59 pre-practicum trainees, 31 post-practicum trainees, and 32 in-service teachers) in Mainland China were involved in a simulation task for assessing a descriptive text by using the given scoring rubrics and providing written feedback to the same text. The results of the assessment task showed that there is a salient change in the participants’ severity from pre- through in-service in assessing the student text; participants with less teaching experience focused on conceptual aspects of the text, whereas those with more experience highlighted linguistic issues in the assessment task; and some participants in each group had problems with proper use of the rating scales. Results of the feedback task revealed that all three cohorts at different professional development stages probably faced challenges in reacting to the text due to the limited quantity and poor quality of their written responses. These findings underscore the necessity for assessment literacy training for teachers in both pre-service and in-service programs.

In teaching writing in English as a foreign language (EFL) context, a little information is known about teachers’ knowledge base of writing. The current study, therefore, used the case of Chinese context to explore how TEFL (teaching English as a foreign language) teachers understand writing and what impacts their conceptions. A questionnaire containing the natures, functions, and development of writing, and text features of good writing were developed to collect data online; items had 5-point Likert scales. 490 (female 76.3%) participants were engaged in the sample. Respondents generally identify linguistic, cultural and cognitive natures of writing, but many question its social nature, and a few are in trouble with recognizing the multifaceted concepts of writing. Participants highlight writing functions related to the self and self-expression but fail to note those targeting the addressees. The majority accede to the facilitation of other language skills and writing instruction to the development of writing, but lay the greatest stress on the transfer effects of reading. When evaluating texts, they do not seem to focus on linguistic features more relevant to foreign language learning (e.g. vocabulary, grammar). Demographic components (gender, teaching experience, school level, class size, and frequency of writing instruction) do not influence their conceptions systematically. These findings may be of interest for in-service teacher trainers.

Abstract-In teaching English as a foreign language (EFL), teacher trainees' knowledge about writing is little known in the literature. The study aimed to understand trainees' perceptions of writing and how the practicum shapes their thinking in the Chinese context. A self-developed questionnaire with 5-point Likert scales targeting natures, functions, and development of writing, and the basis of good writing was employed to collect data online. 204 EFL trainees answered the questionnaire in January 2017 just after completing their practicum. While most respondents held views conforming to present research consensus, some had difficulty recognizing multiple natures of writing. Participants paid more attention to the functions of writing concerned with the self and self-expression, and much less to those focusing on the addressees. They generally accept the facilitators to the development of writing, but highlighted coherence and cohesion, semantics, and length of a text as features of good writing. Specific English studies relating to writing and pre-service programs in general were found significantly weakly but not systematically related to participants' perceptions. The length of practicum, school level, school location, and school type did not make a difference in participants' perceptions of writing. However, the class size and frequency of teaching writing were associated with their understanding of writing. The findings suggest that the practicum is too short to contribute significantly to trainees' learning about writing. They concurrently raise questions and call for further research regarding trainees' relative inattention to the social and communicative nature of writing, and linguistic features of good writing.