Policies and Practices in Foreign Language Writing at the College Level: Survey Results and Implications

Abstract

This artide contains results from an online survey that asked 66 college‐level language program directors of French, German, and Spanish in (he United States about policies and procedures governing foreign language writing at iheir respective institutions. Survey categories included (1) general Information, (2) Information regarding practices and treatment of drafts, (3) policies and procedures regulating instructors' response to students' writing, and (4) mechanisms for providing feedback. Results indicate that the size of the program and the professional level of the instructors were the primary factors influencing how writing was treated. More specifically, larger programs‐in particular those with teaching assistants‐were more likely to have estahlished policies and procedures regulating treatment of foreign language writing. The article includes survey implications and pedagogic recommendations.

Feedback on the Feedback: Sociocultural Interpretation of Saudi ESL Learners’ Opinions about Writing Feedback

“…First, the results of this study are consistent with those of past research (Goldstein, 2006;Montgomery & Baker, 2007;Furneaux, Paran, & Fairfax, 2007;Lefkowitz, 2008;O'Donnell, 2007), the Saudi students were not satisfied with the feedback they received from their teachers, but regardless of their reactions to the types of feedback they receive and prefer, they still appreciated it and took it seriously (e.g., Cohen & Cavalcanti, 1990;Leki, 1991;Hedgcock & Leftkowitz, 1994;Ferris, 1995;Hyland, 1998;Ferris & Roberts, 2001;Lee, 2004). Although it is quite daunting for teachers to cater to the expectations of every student, this was not the case in this study.…”

Evaluating the Role of Writing in the First and Second Year University Foreign Language Curriculum

“…Although almost all FL courses include some sort of written component (writing in this instance defined simply as the act of putting words to paper), FL instructors currently employ a wide variety of techniques and practices which actually target very different things (e.g. O"Donnell, 2007;Hubert & Bonzo, 2010;Reichelt et al, 2012). While most FL instructors appear to agree that writing should play a role in the instruction they offer to students, there appears to be no consensus regarding the exact nature of that role.…”

“…Unfortunately, much of U.S. university FL instruction does not appear to apply the concept of communicative competence to writing, as they do to speaking (i.e. Scott, 1996;O"Donnell, 2007;Hubert & Bonzo, 2010). Although almost all FL courses include some sort of written component (writing in this instance defined simply as the act of putting words to paper), FL instructors currently employ a wide variety of techniques and practices which actually target very different things (e.g.…”

Accessing Fellow Academics as Research Participants: Constraints, Collegiality, and “Academic Citizenship”

“…While the surveys conducted by Casanave and Hubbard [6], Jenkins, Jordan, and Weiland [7], and Ferris and Tagg [8,11], in the late 1980s to early 1990s, were paper-based with hard copies of questionnaire mailed to target participants, over time it has increasingly become a norm to conduct surveys using the Internet, by distributing the questionnaire directly via email (as in [9]) or sending an invitation email containing a URL link to an online survey (as in [10]). Of the latter, as the researchers Hubert and Bonzo ([10,] p. 521) described: "The survey was administered using an online instrument to which potential respondents were provided access via a secure URL link.…”

“…It can be seen that when questionnaires are distributed within a relatively closely-knit academic community, where the researcher has personal connections, either in the context of one university [16,17], or a disciplinary/professional community of which the researcher is a member [5] or to which the researcher has access through a listserv [9], a high response rate is likely to achieved. We also notice that researchers may express an emotional attitude toward the response rates: while for Ferris and Tagg [8], a response rate of 25.4% was "fairly low" (p. 37), for Ferguson et al [13], 10% was "modest" (p. 47), and for Olsson and Sheridan [15], 17.5% was "disappointingly low" (p. 39); in addition, a response rate of 40% was "highly satisfactory" (p. 433) for Bolton and Kuteeva [16].…”