4963&14+ *7*&6(-3.8.&8.:*74963&14+ *7*&6(-3.8.&8.:*7
$4192* 779* 68.(1*
"-*440.3,1&77++*(8-*342*3414,.(&1!89)<4+6&)9&8*"-*440.3,1&77++*(8-*342*3414,.(&1!89)<4+6&)9&8*
7.&3!89)*387>3,1.7-%6.8.3,-&11*3,*77.&3!89)*387>3,1.7-%6.8.3,-&11*3,*7
&5.&&;&
96)9*#3.:*67.8<
!933.*%&8743
96)9*#3.:*67.8<
4114;8-.7&3)&)).8.43&1;4607&8-8857).,.8&1(42243793(+79*)9/6.
&684+8-*.1.3,9&1918.1.3,9&1&3)918.(91896&1)9(&8.43422437966.(9192&3)37869(8.43
422437.+8*))9(&8.43422437&3)8-*38*63&8.43&1&3)425&6&8.:*)9(&8.43422437
*(422*3)*).8&8.43 *(422*3)*).8&8.43
&;&&5.&&3)%&8743!933.*"-*440.3,1&77++*(8-*342*3414,.(&1!89)<4+
6&)9&8*7.&3!89)*387>3,1.7-%6.8.3,-&11*3,*7
4963&14+ *7*&6(-3.8.&8.:*7
$4177
68.(1*
:&.1&'1*&8-8857).,.8&1(42243793(+79*)9/6.:41.77
"-.7 *7*&6(-68.(1*.7'649,-884<49+46+6**&3)45*3&((*77'<8-*4963&14+ *7*&6(-3.8.&8.:*7&8
.,.8&1422437&<*88*:.11*!8&8*#3.:*67.8<8-&7'**3&((*58*)+46.3(197.43.34963&14+ *7*&6(-3.8.&8.:*7
'<&3&98-46.=*)*).8464+.,.8&1422437&<*88*:.11*!8&8*#3.:*67.8<46246*.3+462&8.4351*&7*(438&(8
)'&11&693(+79*)9
"-*440.3,1&77++*(8-*342*3414,.(&1!89)<4+6&)9&8*7.&3"-*440.3,1&77++*(8-*342*3414,.(&1!89)<4+6&)9&8*7.&3
!89)*387>3,1.7-%6.8.3,-&11*3,*7!89)*387>3,1.7-%6.8.3,-&11*3,*7
'4988-*98-467
&5.&&;&.73,1.7-64+*7746;-4-&78&9,-8&896)9*#3.:*67.8<&3):<"*(-42293.8<411*,*+46
246*8-&3?+8**3<*&67*66*7*&6(-+4(97*7431*&63*6(*38*6*)1*&63.3,*3:.6432*387(91896&1
.3(197.:.8<.779*7.3431.3*&3)[email protected]*(4967*73,1.7-&3,9&,**&63*67&3)8*(-3414,<(*38*6*)
(966.(9192.3(19).3,,&2*'&7*)1*&63.3,
!933.***%&8743.777.78&3864+*77464+*&63.3,*7.,3&3)"*(-3414,<&896)9*#3.:*67.8<*6
6*7*&6(-+4(97*743&88.89).3&1(-&3,*8*(-3414,<.38*,6&8.43.3(19).3,7&3)!&3)(6.8.(&1
7<78*2.((-&3,*.36*1&8.4384.3+462&8.43&,*1*&63*6(*38*6*)1*&63.3,*3:.6432*387
*<;46)7*<;46)7
-.3*7*,6&)9&8*.38*63&8.43&11*&63*67!(6477(91896&15*)&,4,<
"-.76*7*&6(-&68.(1*.7&:&.1&'1*.34963&14+ *7*&6(-3.8.&8.:*7-8857).,.8&1(42243793(+79*)9/6.:41.77
Journal of Research Initiatives (2017) 2(3)
Available online at: http://digitalcommons.uncfsu.edu/jri/
THE LOOKING GLASS EFFECT: A PHENOMENOLOGICAL STUDY OF GRADUATE
ASIAN STUDENTS’ ENGLISH WRITING CHALLENGES
Papia Bawa, Purdue University and Ivy Tech Community College
Sunnie Lee Watson, Purdue University
Abstract
Increasingly more students from China are looking to the USA for learning opportunities.
Despite being beneficial for both stakeholders, this phenomenon has some deep-rooted issues
pertaining to cross cultural language acquisition barriers that may be preventing such learners
from reaching their full potential in academic accomplishments. This phenomenological study of
five Chinese students in the USA, engaged in the process of English language communication, is
a step towards understanding this phenomenon. The study’s findings led to the development of a
new metaphorical paradigm (Looking Glass Effect Paradigm) to explain the key issues faced by
such learners, a new pedagogical approach (Globally Infused Pedagogy), and an innovative
teaching strategy recommendation (Customized Learning Camp) to assist Chinese learners in
gaining English language competencies.
Introduction
Once upon a time, not too long ago, five students from Asia stepped through the looking
glass, and crossed the vast oceans to come to this far away land in the West that they believed
was a land of opportunities. They had worked hard to be here, and were prepared to work even
harder to stay. While they did meet many people, and made many friends, they were still not
quite able to make their voices heard. Despite their best efforts, they encountered struggles that
choked their expressions. Does the story sound somewhat familiar? If it does, the information in
this paper will take you on an empathetic journey. If it does not, the same information will
provide insights to a critical issue prevalent in the US academic world. This is not just the story
of five Asian students’ struggles to make sense of their learning challenges, and reflecting upon
strategies that may help ease their arduous journey through the prickly forest of English writing.
This is relevant and important for every person experiencing the phenomenon of being born in a
logographic language system like Chinese, facing challenges as they interact with an alphabetical
language universe: The English ‘languageverse’.
The paper reports the findings of a Phenomenological study on Chinese graduate
students’ perceptions of their English writing and communication experiences in the United
States. The metaphor of the ‘Looking Glass’ has been used to discuss the findings, which will be
explained in subsequent sections. The study focused specifically on graduate students for
compelling reasons. Graduate students from China who are in the United States have gone
through rigorous English training, both in China (Lin, 2002), and several years of academic
experience in the United States. However, despite their exposure to English long-term, the
challenges of writing in English remain, which indicates that whatever learning process they had
ENGLISH WRITING CHALLENGES Journal of Research Initiatives 2
been through thus far did not work, at least not to its full potential. This could be because the
degree of differences between the Chinese and English languages influences the way the native
language users perceive, interpret, assimilate and eventually translate information. This creates a
unique set of challenges that place Chinese learners who are from a logographic background,
within ill-structured spaces when faced with writing assignments in English. The level and
uniqueness of this challenge may prevent learners from constructing usable knowledge without
appropriate interventions in all stages of learning English, and can eventually prove
demotivating. In such cases, providing a bevy of support, including specific and more frequent
feedback, may be a better strategy for knowledge transfer.
Additionally, despite efforts to push English language learning for its citizens, the
Chinese government is trading quantity for quality. The ‘Gaokao System’ of English training in
China focuses solely on preparing students for test taking, which does not prepare students for
real applications of the language in communications (Li, 2012; Wong, 2015). Zhao (2014)
argues that the authoritarian nature of Chinese education is responsible for a majority of issues
with students’ lack of applicable knowledge. “Such an education system, while being an
effective machine to instill what the government wants students to learn, is incapable of
supporting individual strengths, cultivating a diversity of talents, and fostering the capacity and
confidence to create” (Zhao, 2014, p. 9).
Since the exact causes of such challenges are not fully apparent, it is important to look at
this phenomenon through the lens of graduate student experience, to identify some reasons for
the low competency level despite extensive exposure to English. Finding such reasons would be
valuable information that can be applied to redesigning curriculum when training undergraduate
level students from this population with respect to English. Thus, this study sought answers to
the questions: What are the characteristics pertaining to the phenomenon of Chinese graduate
students’ experiences of writing in the English language? What are the perceptions of Chinese
graduate students regarding support strategies like feedback to facilitate cross-cultural language
writing?
There is scant literature on the effects of feedback and other support mechanisms on
logographic writing systems users within alphabetical language environments. The exposure of
the two languages to each other is relatively recent, which is why there is a dearth of research
and literature on how to handle such cross-language barriers in higher education. This study is
also valuable in the context of the rapid increase in the population of Chinese students within the
USA, coupled with the cultural and financial benefits they provide (NAFSA, 2013). For
example, in 2014-2015, there were 304,040 Chinese students in the USA, who collectively
contributed $9.8 billion into the U.S. economy through tuition and fees (IIE, 2016). Chinese
learners favor the USA as a learning hub, and the USA wants to welcome them warmly due to
cultural and financial benefits. Helping such a population will be mutually beneficial for all
stakeholders. In addition, the findings discussed in this paper will be valuable for all international
learners as a resource for information on enhancing learner experiences and performances.
Literature Review
The investigation applies Och’s (1989) Language Socialization Theory (LST) as the
framework of inquiry. The selection of LST is based on the definition of theoretical framework
as “the application of a theory, or a set of concepts drawn from one and the same theory, to offer
an explanation of an event, or shed some light on a particular phenomenon or research problem”
(Imenda, 2014, p. 189). LST is a good fit, given this description, as the study seeks to
investigate and explain factors within the phenomenon of English writing experiences of Chinese
ENGLISH WRITING CHALLENGES Journal of Research Initiatives 3
graduate students. Based on Imenda’s (2014) description of conceptual framework as a
composite of concepts related to a phenomenon, some critical aspects of cross-cultural language
acquisition and application, as supported in literature, are also discussed in this review section.
The selection of literature is based on Creswell’s (2012, 2014) suggestion to include works that
represent the relationships of things to the surroundings, as well as the worldviews of learners or
researchers.
Language Socialization Theory (LST): Theoretical Frame
The theory propounds that people learn language through socialization and socialize
through language. Thus, language socialization involves simultaneous learning of a language and
associated culture. “Many formal and functional features of discourse carry sociocultural
information. Part of the meaning of grammatical and conversational structures is sociocultural
(Ochs, 1986, p.3). Based on Psycholinguist Nelson’s views (1981), Ochs (1989) argues,
“children come to understand lexical items first in terms of their role in particular situational
contexts of use and later in terms of properties that generalize across contexts of use” (p.3). This
is fitting to the context of the study as socio-cultural aspects underpin some of the unique
challenges Chinese students face in terms of gaining English language writing competencies.
First, the Chinese learners’ ‘built environment’ is radically different from that of the United
States’ learning environments, in which such learners are placed. ‘Built environments’, which is
the name given to the concept of manmade surroundings designed for human activity, can be
seen in physical, social, cultural and psychological realms (Rapoport, 1990). In addition, most
Chinese students are novice learners when it comes to English language, given the magnitude of
cultural differences and their historical underexposure to the native user culture. “A central tenet
of language socialization research is that novices’ participation in communicative practices is
promoted but not determined by a legacy of socially and culturally informed persons, artifacts,
and features of the built environment” (Duranti, Ochs & Schieffelin, 2012, p.4). Language
socialization research examines semiotic worldviews of novices’ engagement with culture-
binding webs of meaning. “Language socialization also subscribes to the idea that a person may
be an expert in one situation and a novice in another” (Duranti, Ochs & Schieffelin, 2012, p.17).
The study seeks to verify the accuracy of these assumptions, by examining the participants’
experiences as novice learners of a foreign language, and its effects on their built environment, in
the context of learning English in China and within the academic settings of the USA.
Writing Systems: Logographic versus Alphabetic
Based on the foci of the research questions (RQs), it is important to examine the
differences existing between English and Chinese languages’ writing systems, as these are
defining elements of the ontology of language learning. Even though they are not language in
themselves, writing systems are foundational to a culture’s communication structure, and plays a
key role in acquiring and transfer of language. The Chinese language belongs to the Logographic
systems while the English language is housed in the Alphabetical systems (Ager, 2015). The
core difference between these systems relates to the characters and scripts used, as well as the
internal relationships between them and the ideas they represent. Scripts are primarily classified
into logographic (semiotic based) and phonetic (sound based), based on how they represent
language. Internal structures of writing systems are unique, and independent of the language
being written (Rogers, 2005). Logographic relates to ‘logo’ or word plus ‘graph’ or ‘written
sign’. English scripts are sound based, wherein each character represents a specific sound. Both
script systems have their unique processing and reading methods. In English, letters represent
sound that in turn, converts to meaning. In Chinese, each character of the script simultaneously
ENGLISH WRITING CHALLENGES Journal of Research Initiatives 4
represents a unit of meaning (morpheme) as well as a syllable. It is this characteristic that allows
written Chinese to be pronounced differently in different dialects, and even though these dialects
can be mutually unintelligible, all Chinese can still share the same language. Such a phenomenon
cannot exist in a phonetic (syllable to sound) language like English (Hoosain, 2005).
Native users of English language learn how to translate spelling to sound from their
infancy. As learners grow in age, they become more and more proficient in this translation, as
they store word recognition patterns that match to the spellings in their long-term memories
(Venzeky, 2005). Thus, for proficiency in English usage, the recognition pattern for an
alphabetic set of characters representing the script should reside within the users’ long-term
memory, which is not the case with logographic users, who may have significantly less time and
resources to make this happen. In addition, logographic users follow a different pattern of
learning their language (Taylor & Park, 2005). Thus, there are clear processing differences
between the two writing systems, and this must be considered during any attempt to transfer
language skills between the two systems.
Four Challenges of Cross-Cultural Language Acquisition
First, language is a non-genetic cultural trait and habit, which is why it takes longer to de-
acquire, since its utility and value is assimilated deeply within the user’s consciousness.
Foundational linguists like Sapir (1921) believed that language mingling is far more difficult
than race mingling. That is because, “Language and our thought-grooves are inextricably
interwoven, are, in a sense, one and the same” (Sapir, 1921, p. 103). Acquiring literacy is a
lifelong, context bound process, reliant on cultural contents, which is why native users of any
language have long-term memories of that first language or L1. This becomes a potential
hindrance to the successful acquisition of the second language or L2. Thus, it is exponentially
more challenging to acquire competency for a language that belongs to another system and is as
radically different as English is from Chinese, as opposed to different languages within the same
writing systems as English and Spanish (Durgunoglu & Verhoeven, 2013). Then, there is the
issue of lack of family support that non-native language users face when dealing with foreign
language acquisition. Even if children learn a foreign language in school, they may not retain
that skill for long due to a lack of literacy support within their home environment (Wells, 1989).
Second, because learning is situated in learners' social practices, until the learners are fully
immersed in the foreign language’s culture, meaningful language acquisition may not be
possible. This is especially true of the cultures that are too foreign, remote or otherwise
disengaged from the original source (Mondada & Doehler, 2004), for example, the Chinese and
United States cultures. Using the concept of Ferguson (1965), Khansir (2012) contends, “One of
the major problems in the learning of a second language is the interference caused by the
structural differences between the native language of the learner and the second language” (p.
1028).
English Language Learners (ELL) face serious constraints as they try to fit in with the
expected norms of the dominant, English-focused academic and social communities prevalent in
the United States. A large part of this relates to their ability or lack thereof, to interact with peers
and mentors. For a non-native, fitting in a community may require long-term immersion
(Fuhrer, 1993; Lave, 1993; Pliatsikas & Chondrogianni, 2015). “A socio-cultural pathway to
expertise is associated with immersion in a particular social situation over time, and acquiring
not only skillful knowledge, but also the facility to engage successfully in the discourse, norms
and practices of the particular community of practice” (Billett, 1996, p.266). In the context of
ELLs, the absence of language-culture synthesis with the foreign culture may mean greater
ENGLISH WRITING CHALLENGES Journal of Research Initiatives 5
difficulties in acquiring competencies.in the foreign language. It may not be enough for ELL
students to be just proficient in grammar as an isolated skill. In order to be successful writers,
they must also learn the writing culture of native users (Beckett, Gonzales, & Schwartz, 2004).
This is critical for Chinese learners, particularly because they belong to a different culture and
writing system. In addition, international learners who arrive in the United States are expected to
display socio-communication skills equivalent to the natives, which they do not possess. This
can be demoralizing for such learners.
In addition, the ways in which native language users decipher and translate foreign
languages can create issues of meaning transfer, leading to confusion and gaps in the ELL’s
ability to express ideas in the way native users do (Quigley, 2009). Four, the language policies
of regional and national authorities could determine the fate of native language acquisition.
Typically, if a country follows a policy of language segregation, it can become difficult for
learners to develop cross-language skills. An example could be the policy of the Chinese
authorities to control English language learning, which is detrimental to the true skill acquisitions
of English language. English courses in China mostly use the traditional grammar-translation
approach that facilitates higher scores, but not necessarily, corresponding higher skills in learners
(Li, 2010). When students from this kind of an academic background come to dominantly
English speaking countries, they are faced with challenges of critical thinking and
communicating at a higher cognitive level when using English.
What Feedback Can Do
Since one focus of the study is on support mechanisms like feedback for the target
population, it is important to examine the discussions about feedback available in literature.
Feedback provided by peers, teachers, family and/or self, could act as positive or negative
reinforcements ((Hattie & Timperely,2007; Hogan & Tudge, 1999; Vygotsky, 1978). The value
of feedback is directly linked to the learners’ ability to use it through a self-regulated process,
which in the end can result in behavioral changes (Carver& Scheier, 2013; Förster, Grant, Idson,
&Higgins, 2001; Van-Dijk & Kluger, 2004).
There are opposing viewpoints regarding the depth and frequency of feedback required to
provide effective support to ELLs. The constructivists believe that not providing extensive
feedback could facilitate learners’ language skills through the process of self-assessments and
self-regulation. The argument is that self-regulated learners are higher achievers due to their
greater persistence and resourcefulness. In addition, the growing control learners have on their
learning allows them, over a period, to let go of the clutches of external dependency on teachers
(Nicol & Macfarlane‐Dick, 2007; Scroth, 1992; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2001, 2004). Some
researchers argue in favor of extensive feedback, which is most useful if it is a two-way dialogue
between receiver and provider, rather than a one-way commentary to tell learners what is wrong
and how they can improve (Nicol, Thompson & Breslin, 2013; Nicol, 2010). However, these
perspectives do not recognize the degree of challenges that logographic (Chinese) learner’s face,
which makes such contentions questionable in that context.
Methodology and Methods
The study used Phenomenology as the methodology. Phenomenology focuses on gaining
an understanding of social, cultural and psychological phenomena from the perspectives of
people involved, including careful and thorough data gathering on how people perceive
something, describe it, feel about it, judge it, remember it, and have conversations about it with
others (Creswell,2014; Holroyd, 200; Patton, 2015; Percy, Kostere & Kostere, 2015; Welman &
Kruger,2002). “It is a particular way of doing science: doing qualitative research by substituting
ENGLISH WRITING CHALLENGES Journal of Research Initiatives 6
individual descriptions for statistical correlations and interpretations resulting from the
experiences lived for causal connections” (Sadala & Adorno, 2001, p. 283). Thus, a
phenomenology methodology was most suitable for this study, as it examined the lived
experiences and perceptions of Chinese graduate students regarding the phenomenon of writing
in English and the value of support mechanisms like feedback. This ties in closely with the
theoretical and conceptual frames and associated research questions. The study examined if the
general factors that contribute to other ELL learners are equally applicable to Chinese learners.
This matches the central foci of phenomenology pertaining to reliance on individual experiences
versus statistical correlations perceived within a phenomenon.
The participants for this study were five graduate level students from China, who have
been in the USA for more than three years. Purposeful sampling was used to identify and select
cases that were most rich in information. Graduate students with some academic writing
experience using English language, who have resided in the USA for more than three years, were
targeted, since this population would have special knowledge, experience and interest in the
phenomenon being studied (Creswell & Plano Clark; 2011Patton, 2015). To select the final
participants, twelve prospective participants were asked to complete a short online survey, using
a 12 multiple-choice question set, pertaining to demographic information (age, education level,
country of origin, time spent in the USA). Prospective participants were given unique identifiers
to protect their confidentiality. The final five participants were selected based on their time spent
in the USA, country of origin and graduation level. Denscombe (2003) clarifies the advantage of
purposive sampling survey as it allows the researcher to “hone in on people or events which
there are good grounds for believing will be critical for the research…. it might not only be
economical but might also be informative” (p. 16).
Data sources were semi-structured interviews of approximately one-hour duration, and
participant’s writing samples for pre and posttests that served as examples of the writing quality,
which was essential to the study’s intent. Interview questions provided insights into the core
research questions, as well as elicited maximum information from the participants on
background, perception, feelings and knowledge about the phenomenon (Jacob & Furgerson,
2012). The interviews were recorded and transcribed, verbatim. The interview transcripts
analysis drew from Saldana’s (2009) recommendations for coding, in that the purpose of coding
is not limited to reduction of data, but can also include summarizing, distilling or condensing
data.
Although reduction is useful to “organize data in such a way that “final” conclusions can
be drawn and verified” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 11), it alone may not be enough to retain
the authenticity and the viability of the process (Namey, Guest, Thairu & Johnson, 2008). Based
on this, Saldana (2009) suggests that because, “A code represents and captures a datum’s
primary content and essence” (p.3), we should look at “what strikes you” (p.18), Thus,
transcripts were first examined with an eye on critical elements relatable to the RQs. Thereafter,
they were coded for patterns and then codified, by dividing the codes into primary, and sub
categories. “To codify is to arrange things in a systematic order, to make something part of a
system or classification, to categorize” (Saldana, 2009, p. 8).
Good research practices demand that researchers employ techniques to establish
trustworthiness and validity, including credibility, dependability, transferability, and
confirmability (Graneheim & Lundman 2004; Lincoln & Guba 1985). In Phenomenology, this is
done by ensuring that the findings are accurate from multiple standpoints, including that of the
researcher, the participant, and/ or the readers of the study report (Creswell, 2014, Creswell
ENGLISH WRITING CHALLENGES Journal of Research Initiatives 7
&Miller, 2000; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Rolfe (2006) explains that these procedures are
important because, “A study is trustworthy if and only if the reader of the research report judges
it to be so” (p.306). For this study, Epoché, Eidetic Reduction, and Imaginative Variation
techniques were used (Groenewald, 2004; Moustakas, 1994; Sadala, & Adorno, 2001). Epoché
and Eidetic Reduction were done using deep reflexivity and discussing biases, as well as in the
interview transcript coding process. Imaginative Variation, which means using varying frames of
reference and imagination (Lin, 2013; Moerer-Urdahl & Creswell, 2004; Moustakas, 1994), was
achieved using the metaphor of the looking glass, as explained and discussed in the findings
section. In addition, Interrater Reliability for coding was established by having two people code
separately, and then matching the codes. Member checking was done by sending the raw
transcripts and/or analysis script to the participants for verification. Face and content validity of
surveys was done via pilot testing using three students. Interview protocols were pilot tested
using two students, before proceeding with the actual interviews.
Researcher Positionality
Although Phenomenology does not subscribe to the rigors of objectivity prevalent in
quantitative work, it is not an arbitrary display of “idiosyncratic explanations” (Lin, 2013, p.
471), and demands the application of both subjective and objective/critical lenses (Crotty, 1998).
A Phenomenologist’s intent should be “to discover the universals underlying the inter-
subjectively experienced phenomenon” (Lin, 2013, p.471). Researcher subjectivity is also a key
aspect of phenomenology. “It is precisely the realization of the intersubjective
interconnectedness between researcher and researched that characterizes phenomenology”
(Finlay, 2009, p.11). In this context, the authors are deeply empathetic towards the target
population, having experienced English language learning as a non-native user. In addition, as a
professor of English Language and Composition, the first author had the privilege of teaching
large number of students from China. Her close association with them over a considerable period
did shape some of the concerns and questions regarding the support mechanisms and
pedagogical approaches that are being used in the USA for such students. When engaged within
the study’s environment, this helped becoming a part of the process and thus established a rich
interconnectedness between the researchers and researched. Their intimate association with the
phenomenon added to the value of the study, as it added the subjective richness demanded in
qualitative research. As the foci of the study was more exploratory, it provided valuable insight
that added to the first authors’ own understanding of this phenomenon, and emerging from the
study, a better-informed educator. In order to balance objectivity with subjectivity, several
techniques for trustworthiness and validity as explained in the above paragraphs were used.
Findings and Discussions: The Looking Glass Effect
Some of the ideas reflected within the literature reviews, such as challenges related to
specific differences between the languages, and participant’s perception of the value of feedback,
were substantiated by the findings of this study. However, what was most significant was that
there was no evidence that when learners are immersed in the culture of the foreign language, it
may increase language competencies, in particular writing skills. To the contrary, it was evident
that despite being immersed in the USA culture for three years or more, participants still had
serious writing issues, as was evident from their writing samples and confessions within the
interviews. Inspired by what the participants revealed, the first author developed three new
concepts. One, the experiences of the Chinese learners in the USA was akin to the one’s Lewis
Carroll’s (1896) characters experienced. The first author named it the Looking Glass Effect
paradigm or LGE. Then, based on the unique nature of these experiences and resultant learning
ENGLISH WRITING CHALLENGES Journal of Research Initiatives 8
challenges, the first author developed the concept of a Globally Infused Pedagogy (GIP), and
provided an example model (Customized Language Camp) of its possible application.
Researcher Approach to Discussion of Findings
Literature supports the choice of using creativity to enhance rigor, as a part of the
Imaginative Variation process, which is done by including rich, thick descriptions, sharing
examples and quotations from the data, and wherever possible, using figurative analysis in the
form of metaphors, analogies or the like. These help create greater rapport with the readers, who
may find venues of identification, empathy and recognition within such sharing (Burnard, Gill,
Stewart, Treasure & Chadwick, 2008; Burnard, 2004; Slone, 2009; Wills, 2004). Lincoln and
Guba (1985) discuss how creative ways of data display and discussion of findings may help to
establish transferability and confirmability. Such descriptive and creative analysis allows us to
focus more intuitively on the experience, and resonates with the readers’ and researchers’
psychological and professional sensibilities (Laverty, 2003; van Manen, 2007).
Nonetheless, in following this style, extra precautions must be taken to ensure that the
discussion does not digress from the RQ foci and the study’s intent. Thus, it is prudent to look to
literature and other practitioner approaches to support the usage of any metaphor, and fuse it with
a candid description of the author’s worldview of the metaphor’s usefulness within the context of
the study. For this study, the findings and associated data have been discussed using the
metaphoric lens of the ‘looking glass’, as derived from Lewis Caroll’s (1896) classic novel:
Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There. Literature supports the use of
metaphors to write qualitative research findings, including Phenomenological research. Some
examples used so far are the dance metaphor for qualitative inquiry (Janesick, 1998), learning
metaphors used by Chinese students (Xiong, 2015), and metaphors that conceptualized how
students visualize their research (Pitcher, 2013). Jensen (2006) suggests that since the language
of participants is a means of shared expressions, the data analysis and reporting should be
reflective and symbiotic. As discussed subsequently, the metaphor of the looking glass has also
been used by some other authors, though sparingly and not in the context of Chinese to English
learning. The discussion has been embellished with verbatim quotes from the transcripts, with no
changes made to correct grammar issues or make the language clearer. This is so that the
authenticity of the speech is retained as that also provides insight into the difficulties participants
had in using English language.
Brief Explanation of the Looking Glass Effect (LGE) Paradigm
LGE is the paradigm that represents unique challenges Chinese learners have with respect
to learning and/or using English language. The term draws from the adventures or misadventures
of the characters in Lewis Carroll’s (1896) novel, which provided a metaphorical backdrop to
describe these challenges more profoundly than what could be described using a non-
metaphorical approach. Using the metaphor may enable readers to identify with these challenges
in a more intuitive fashion, because of two reasons. First, there are many similarities between the
situations and psychological ramifications depicted in the book and the Chinese graduate
students’ perceptions of their experiences in learning English. Second, a central theme of the
book pertains to language issues, including cross-cultural language problems as well as unique
aspects of the English language that can be confusing for foreign users.
Yaguello and Harris (1998) describe in detail several language issues that Carroll’s
(1896) book depicts, in the context of foreign language users. For example, they discuss
syntactic ambiguity, syntax across dialects, and syntactic anomalies, and explain how,
“Grammarticality is a fudgy edged concept. Acceptability judgments may also be influenced by
ENGLISH WRITING CHALLENGES Journal of Research Initiatives 9
social norms and prescription” (p.118). Beckman (2010) describes how the conversations in
Carroll’s (1869) book display a very different logic from formal English language, even though
the language used is English. In order to facilitate readers’ understanding, here is a micro-
summary of the story of Alice’s journey through the looking glass and a link to the full novel
online. Alice is a young girl, who is prone to daydreaming, and within her dreams, she visits
fantastical lands. In this story, as Alice is talking to her kittens, she finds that the glass of the
mirror in her home has grown soft, and she can step through it to an alternate room in an
alternate world, which though very similar to her own home, is also very strangely different. In
this world, she faces many challenges, and meets strange characters, some of whom she knows
from her own world. In the end, she realizes that this was all a dream, but she is not sure if she
was a part of another character’s dream, or if they were a part of her dream!
It is the first author’s belief that there was an ulterior motive to Carroll’s (1896) use of
the phrase ‘looking glass’ instead of the more generic term ‘mirror’. That is because, a mirror by
its represented definition means a copy of something; that is similar to something else, or a
faithful representation of something else (Cambridge Dictionary, 2016; Dictionary.com, 2016).
However, the world that Alice stepped into using the ‘mirror’ was not exactly the same as what
she had left behind. In fact, this world was in many ways the reverse of Alice’s world. However,
her enticement with what she saw through the glass was strong enough to make her feel that
things were good on the other side, and encouraged her to step through the glass.
Perceptions of Chinese Students’ English Usage Experiences in the United States
The conversations divulged several views that were common and some that were
divergent. However, the Looking Glass Effect (LGE) was the underpinning flavor of these
conversations, as participants shared accounts of their experiences as ELLs. Several of the
participants revealed how they or their families were enticed by the ‘American lure’ that
encouraged them to come to the USA. For example, Harry mentioned, “When I was doing my
bachelor degree, I was thinking about… if I can just go to America to see what the first powerful
country in this world is like”, and Sam disclosed similar feelings, “I think America is very
diverse, so I like the diversity”. All participants’ families encouraged them to study in the USA.
The challenge that emerges from such ‘looking glass’ perspectives is that the realities may not
live up to the expectations, leading to negative experiences, feelings, and inferiority complexes.
Carroll’s (1896) Alice was bewildered and confused to find a world that looked promising, but
was not, and this led to many misadventures, anger and frustration. Similarly, the participants’
initial worldview of the USA, led to disappointments in several ways, since they had not
accounted for the kind of difficulties they could face due to the language barriers.
Chelsea confessed to her high levels of discomfort when interacting with her American
peers in high school, as she was unable to figure out if they were making fun of her heritage,
were being sarcastic, or were seriously interested. “I have really difficulty to like really
understand how people express their feelings Yes, yes especially if dragons were a joke or
sarcastic something like that”. Harry had issues communicating with his peers in class because,
“All of my classmates are English native speakers, so I sometimes feel difficult talking with
them… they don't speak like standard English and also because they may speak very fast and use
different words which I never learn before, so this make some difficulties for me”. Dana
expressed similar frustrations, “sometimes I don’t know other people’s feeling. Uh, I feel it is,
like other people don’t understand me…. so… in America, lots of people don’t understand
Chinese”. These confessions supported and ratified my assumption, as expressed in the
Literature Review section, which is that because the Chinese learners’ ‘built environment’ is so
ENGLISH WRITING CHALLENGES Journal of Research Initiatives 10
radically different from that of the USA learning environments, in which such learners are
placed, it can create unique challenges for such learners. Galetcaia’s (2014) study on ELLs
infers similar findings in that participants developed a “wide range of inferiority complexes,
thereby diminishing the learner’s confidence.” (p. 4274), and their “sense of self was diminished
by not being able to express adequately their thoughts and feelings” (p.4273).
Magnified Level of Confusion and Resultant Learning Challenges
Another element of the LGE is magnified level of confusion and resultant learning
challenges the emanating from the universal differences between the Chinese and English
languages and cultures. This may be due to different reasons, such as language structure,
grammar rules, vocabulary confusions, and denotation-connotation complexities. Carroll’s
(1896) Alice faces several such situations in the looking glass world, as do the study participants
in the USA. In the context of grammar and rules, let us examine an excerpt from the book, and
then compare it with the participant rhetoric.
Book excerpt: I don't care for jam.’‘It's very good jam,’ said the Queen.‘Well, I don't want any
to-day, at any rate.’‘You couldn't have it if you did want it,’ the Queen said. ‘The rule is jam
tomorrow and jam yesterday but never jam to-day.’‘It must come sometimes to “jam to-day”,’
Alice objected. ‘No it can't,’ said the Queen. ‘It's jam every other day; to-day isn't any other day,
you know.’‘I don't understand you,’ said Alice. ‘It's dreadfully confusing!’ (Carroll, 1896, pp.
65,66).
Carroll’s (1896) Alice is “dreadfully confused” due to the nature of the rules of jam
eating, since it does not make sense when viewed through the lens of her own experiences. In a
similar vein, Chinese students have a tough time making sense of English grammar rules, as
nothing comparable exists in their native language. Chelsea made several observations
supporting this. “We usually don't use clause. We have little expressions like ‘which’. We
usually have a long adjective out of descriptive words before the noun. We do not usually say
comma, ‘which is', ‘who is'”. For her, this is extremely challenging as, “it is a difficult transition
for me, to in my mind, translate it from Chinese”. Sam expressed something very similar,
“Spanish is very similar to English. Therefore, for those people it is easy to become English, but
for us everything is different. We have to forget Chinese first, and then we can speak English.
Therefore, it is right. It's a totally different language”. Lena provided an interesting outlier in that
she believed “English language have rule, very clear, Chinese rule isn’t clear”. However, Lena’s
difficulty stemmed from the vast difference in the volume and texture of the vocabularies.
“Understanding Chinese is easier if you know the history behind the picture. If you know China
vocabulary, 3000, you can read article in newspaper, you can write, but in English vocabulary is
more, more, more”.
Stereotyping Leads to Lower Self-esteem and Self-efficacy
This is another key LGE element manifested in the way native or non-Chinese writers
and reviewers may view how Chinese writers write in English language. In Carroll’s (1896)
world, such stereotyping is quite rampant in the way different characters view one another, many
times in disdain or negatively. For example, let us look at the ‘Lion and the Unicorn’ Chapter, in
which Carroll’s (1896) Alice has a curious conversation about other people in general, and the
messenger in particular.
Book Excerpt: I see nobody on the road,’ said Alice. ‘I only wish I had such eyes,’ the King
remarked in a fretful tone. ‘To be able to see Nobody! (p.89). …What curious attitudes he goes
into!' (For the messenger kept skipping up and down and wriggling like an eel, as he came along,
with his great hands spread out like fans on each side.)'Not at all,' said the King. ‘He is an Anglo-
ENGLISH WRITING CHALLENGES Journal of Research Initiatives 11
Saxon Messenger-and those are Anglo-Saxon attitudes. He only does them when he is happy
(Carroll, 1896, p. 90).
In this passage, the King has a stereotypical notion of the awkwardness of the
Messenger’s gait. He is also regretful that he cannot see ‘Nobody’, which could be an allegorical
representation of how reality can be warped, as in stereotyping, where ‘somebody’ becomes a
‘nobody’ as people assimilate their impressions of targeted individuals to form an impression
about the group to which the targeted individual may belong (Rothart & Lewis, 2006; Taifel,
1982). Chinese learners in the USA may also be subjected to lower self-esteem and self-efficacy
as they are constantly, and sometimes painfully, aware that when people read their writing, they
treat it as inferior, because they may suspect that it was written by a Chinese writer.
This is self-propelled stereotyping that can manifest itself in lessened zeal to do better. Several of
the participants provided poignant expressions of this. For example, Chelsea stated, “But
sometimes I am not very confident when thinking about… oh.. The one who is reading my
article is thinking I'm a Chinese and this has a whole lot of errors and this doesn't make any
sense”, and how that “kind of blocks me from really wanting to express something”. In a similar
vein, Sam explained, “I want to write like a native speaker you know. It is very important for
me. I do not want people to see my paper and they "Oh this is-- it must be like a non-English
speaker write this”.
Challenge of Cognitive Reconditioning
Central to the LGE is the challenge of cognitive reconditioning that is required when
acquiring a new language. As discussed in the literature review section, the tenets of Language
Socialization Theory indicate that language learning during the formative years can create long-
term memories, which may hinder rewiring of language concepts or reconditioning. In the
context of the Chinese student participants, all five admitted that they began learning English as
early as in third grade. Yet, the way in which they learned the language in China during their
foundational years may have contributed to this challenge. Metaphorically, Carroll’s (1896)
Alice experiences such hindrances as she encounters the strange patterns of language usage by
the characters in the looking glass land, and she is perplexed that even though they are using
English, the connotation-denotation does not match her cognitive memories of what the terms
and sentences should really mean. This is very clearly manifested in the “Jabberwocky” poem
conversation, as well as the dialogue between the Red Queen and Alice.
Book Excerpt: ‘When you say “hill,”’ the Queen interrupted, ‘I could show you hills, in
comparison with which you’d call that a valley.’ ‘No, I shouldn’t,’ said Alice, surprised into
contradicting her at last: ‘a hill can’t be a valley, you know. That would be nonsense— ’ ‘The
Red Queen shook her head, ‘You may call it “nonsense” if you like,’ she said, ‘ but I’ve heard
nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!’ (Carroll, 1896, p.29).
Alice is flabbergasted by what she perceives to be warped connotations of perfectly good
English phrases and words. Similarly, when she hears the Jabberwocky” poem, which is written
in perfect English grammar, but the word usage is nonsensical, Alice resorts to subterfuge to
protect her secret that she was just not getting it. “‘It seems very pretty,’ she said when she had
finished it, ‘but it’s rather hard to understand!’ (You see she didn’t like to confess, ever to herself
that she couldn’t make it out at all.)” (Carroll, 1896, p. 20). Yang (2006) examined Carroll’s
(1869) novel from the perspective of cross cultural language acquisition, and explained that since
native users of English use grammar to decipher a combinations of thoughts into their respective
combinations of words, it is necessary to have knowledge of not only grammar, but also how to
use that to translate thoughts into words. “Grammar is Nature’s substitute for telepathy; for it to
ENGLISH WRITING CHALLENGES Journal of Research Initiatives 12
function properly, though, we have to pick a particular codebook and stick with it” (Yang, 2006,
p. 94). In the case of the Chinese graduate participants, learning grammar at an early age was not
enough to develop writing competencies, because their formative training did not prepare them
to apply that grammar knowledge to recode their Chinese codebook. All five participants
suggested this, indicating that even though they learned grammar, it was focused entirely on
providing a rote-for-test skill, and not actual implementation or application of that knowledge.
This was also substantiated by the pre and post written tasks submitted (Appendix B). It was
interesting to see that although Harry was able to complete all identification-of-grammar-error
questions with a hundred percent accuracy, he had more than ninety percent grammar and
structural errors in his four paragraph essay! Similar issues were found in varying degrees in all
participant essays.
Harry commented on the different approaches to writing between the languages. “In
China, we need to use some adjective words before you can really express your ideas. So I think
English writing here is more direct and in Chinese, we always want the readers to feel what we
want to express”. Sam expressed similar feelings, “even like a word choice, for me it is so hard
because for you guys you know -- okay these two words are different, what -- why it would be
different, right? But for me they mean the same thing you know” This suggests the existence of a
critical issue with their current learning process. “Grammar cannot simply be a list of sentences
we have previously memorized—Rather, the grammar must be a compact device that encodes
the regularities of how sentences are formed in our language, one that we can use to create and
understand new sentences” (Yang 2006, pp. 95-96). As is evidently clear from the data, Chinese
learners face several unique challenges that support the Looking Glass Effect paradigm.
Chinese Students’ Perceptions of Support Mechanisms, Including Feedback
A key focus of the study was to examine the assumption that feedback and other support
mechanism are essential to facilitate the Chinese graduate students’ English writing process.
Since feedback was the most readily available option due to the background of the primary
investigator as an English professor, the study included pre, post-writing samples, and associated
feedback. Participants unanimously agreed that feedback is vital to their language competency
acquisition process, and indicated that the scope of such feedback should be intensive and
inclusive of grammar, critical thinking, structure and vocabulary. Appendix A provides transcript
samples related to participants’ views on what kind of feedback they preferred. The unanimous
agreement was that simply pointing out grammar errors is not enough. Having several iterations
of the same writing piece was the favorite feedback choice. In addition, Chelsea mentioned how
she disliked when professors took her papers and did not give any comments, even if she
received acceptable grades. Simultaneously, the interview question number ten focused on the
‘other supports’: What kind of help, in addition to or other than written feedback, would help
improve your English? In response to this question, the participants provided rich data pertaining
to support mechanisms. The associated transcript examples for this section are available in
Appendix A. Participants listed several items related to technology, personal interfacing and
creative pedagogy. as preferred support mechanism other than or along with feedback. These
provided the data for supporting the practitioner model of Globally Infused Pedagogy (GIP) for
Chinese students, which is discussed in detail below.
Implications and Recommendations
Pedagogical Outcome: Recommendation for a Globally Infused Pedagogy (GIP)
Data suggests that the answer to the critical factors pertaining to the phenomenon of
Chinese graduate students’ experiences of writing in the English language can be found in the
ENGLISH WRITING CHALLENGES Journal of Research Initiatives 13
Looking Glass Effects paradigm discussed above. There is also compelling data indicating the
need of the target population to be supported by pedagogy techniques and technologies that can
cater to their unique learning challenges. The discussion below identifies the key principles of
this suggested pedagogy and associated justification and support.
The First Principle of GIP: Reduce Western worldview on pedagogy. The first principle
of GIP is to reduce the dominance of a Western worldview on pedagogy, and instead cater to the
unique needs of international students, especially from Asian belts. GIP suggests that an Asian
cultural infusion take place within the curricula when dealing with Asian learners. The
participant responses regarding their hardships of learning and applying English writing
competencies strongly suggest a critical need to rethink our teaching strategies with respect to
this population and perhaps develop a new form of pedagogy to handle the issues relative to the
phenomenon being investigated. In this context, we must think in terms of a Globally Infused
Pedagogy (GIP) that seeks to be consciously cognizant of the needs of the international
population that we have come to welcome in the educational arenas of the USA. This suggestion
is inspired from the foundational works of Ladson-Billings (1995), Gay (2000 and 2001), and
Banks (2004) who propounded pedagogical approaches that were culturally relevant. For
example, Ladson-Billings (1995) proposed the Culturally Relevant and Responsive Pedagogy
Theory (CRRP), which suggests that all students must get a chance to succeed academically,
irrespective of their cultural backgrounds. The theory encouraged educators to use students'
culture as a vehicle for learning, and design curriculum to reflect a multicultural approach to
pedagogy.
Gay (2000) added to this discourse by propounding seven principles of culturally
responsive teaching (validating, comprehensive, multidimensional, empowering, transformative
and emancipatory) as a solution to demolishing Eurocentric beliefs and practices that led to
cultural apathy among educators. Gay (2000, 2001) also provided prescriptions for action and
expanded on her earlier ideas by advocated creating culturally diverse knowledge base,
designing culturally relevant curricula for all categories (formal, symbolic, societal curriculum),
building cross-cultural communications and maintaining cultural congruity in instructional
practices. In addition, Banks (2004, 2005) emphasized on restructuring teaching practices to
accommodate diversity. However, even though literature is teeming with research reports on
culture related curriculum design, the research is primarily focused on two marginalized
population streams: African-Americans and Latinos. These theories and recommendations do not
give precedence to the newest addition to the arena: The International Students. In addition,
most of such literature represents a Western worldview, ignoring the uniqueness of the Asian
culture counterparts. “We need to explore the possibilities for a new way forward that works
from an understanding of these complexities and a genuine attempt to learn from the unfamiliar
‘other’ (Ryan & Louie, 2007, p.405). As discussed in the Introductions section, the international
students are a widely expanding academic population in the USA. As discussed in the sub-
questions findings section, the unique challenge this population faces warrants immediate
attention, and justifies GIP. The concept of GIP is similar to CRRP in that pedagogy must be
culturally conscious, but there is a major difference.
The Second Principle: Rethink conventional thinking. The second principle of GIP is to
promote conscious rethinking of some conventional notions of language acquisition
phenomenon. The study data indicates that some conventional thinking with respect to language
acquisition does not apply to this population, and thus they should be rethought. Some of the
previous theories the data contradicts relates to the belief that second language learners can gain
ENGLISH WRITING CHALLENGES Journal of Research Initiatives 14
competencies if they are immersed in the culture of the language being acquired for a period.
There are different views on what this immersion means. For example, Cummins’s (2008) BICS
(Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills) research suggested that one to three years
intermingling would give ELLs the social language level of their peers, which they can then use
to enhance their academic language competencies. Similarly, Mondada and Daehler (2004)
contended that when ELL learners are fully immersed in the foreign language’s (L2) culture,
meaningful language acquisition might take place. The immersion is also distinguished by type:
Total (ELL learn using L2), partial (ELLs are partially engaged with L2), and bilingual (ELLs
use both L2 and indigenous language) (Christian, 1996; Kristmanson & Dicks, 2014; Jong
&Howard, 2009; Pacific Policy Research Center. 2010). Fusing concepts of LST and Socio-
Cultural Theory, Duff (2007) contends, “Learning, knowledge-construction, and socialization –
that is, the development of the human mind and the socialized individual – are seen to be
processes that are mutually engaged in by members in a community over time” (p.312).
However, the study data clearly contradicts this and shows that despite being immersed in the L2
culture, and socializing with it over a substantial period of three years or more, Chinese graduate
students failed to develop the competencies as predicted by literature.
The Third Principle: Revaluate feedback techniques. The third principle of GIP is to
revitalize feedback strategies to complement the target populations’ writing and communication
in English needs. The participants unanimously agreed that feedback is the most important
intervention that they need to improve their competencies. However, they also unanimously
perceived that certain conventional feedback techniques are less effective for their English
writing competency needs. This is specially related to the type of feedback. In literature,
feedback has been posited as a tool for self and co regulated learning, and associated with
constructivism and cognitivism learning approaches (Mccaslin & Hickey, 2001; Zimmerman &
Kitsantas, 2005). The constructivist approach believes that interventions (like giving feedback)
during the knowledge acquisition stage should be avoided so that greater learning challenges can
be created, which in turn will help learners to better construct their own learning (Driscoll, 2005;
Hill, 2002; Jordan, Carlile & Stack ,2008; Nicol, Thomson, & Breslin 2013; Nicol &
Macfarlane‐Dick, 2007). Some cognitivist approach based research contends that delay in
feedback provides more long-term transfer, even though this could slow down the rate of
immediate learning (Scroth, 1992). However, as suggested by the data, this may not be
applicable to situations where adult learners are engaged in learning languages that have
different systemic structures of writing such as in logographic (Chinese) versus alphabetic
(English). As displayed in Appendix A, participants indicated that peripheral feedback (pointing
grammar errors, providing outside resources, not in-depth) is far less valuable if not married to
intensive feedback (close reading, critical thinking, providing different iterations, one-on-one
tutoring). This demands taking a fresh approach on designing feedback interventions.
The Fourth Principle: Revaluate teaching techniques. The fourth principle of GIP is to
encourage teachers to revamp their teaching ideologies and processes by giving due
consideration to the unique challenges faced by the target population. The study data suggests
that teachers need to revamp their teaching techniques when it comes to helping Chinese students
with English writing. This may also require getting reoriented with the realities of Chinese
learners’ perceptions of what constitutes valuable techniques, as well as the extent of
competencies such learners are seeking to achieve ((Harklau 1994). All participants in this study
expressed the desire to become as competent as native English users, which is why they were
looking for interventions that went beyond conventional methods and attitudes of hands-free or
ENGLISH WRITING CHALLENGES Journal of Research Initiatives 15
total control kind of teaching. For example, Chelsea complained about some professors not
giving any feedback, “My adviser gave me some feedback on my writing with papers that we
were going to submit for conferences and publication, but for other like course papers I didn't
receive anything about my writing. I don't know where it went”. For Chelsea, being treated like
this was a problem, because it prevented her from gaining the competencies she desired.
On the other side, the data gave some indication that teachers’ desire and compulsion to
accommodate ELL students can backfire, depending on the level of control teachers may exert
on the students’ learning process. For example, Chelsea mentioned how some of the professors
would give grace points or overlook English errors, and though she appreciated this, she was
more comfortable with being told how her work could improve. Teacher accommodations may
include giving easy pass, grace points, rewriting papers, having students copy peer work, and
generally not giving ELL students learning challenges that match what native users may get.
Harklau’s (1994) experiment revealed that generally native English speakers were given more
vocal time in class activities than Chinese students. In the case of written language, Chinese
students were given activities that required single word or phrase responses in fill-in-the-blank
and short answer formats. Similarly, in Dooley’s (2003) study the teacher offered help to two
Taiwanese students, by dictating appropriate paragraphs for the writing tasks.
The point of all this is that there needs to be a balance between extreme support or too
little support, and teachers need to reevaluate their teaching strategies when it comes to Chinese
students’ English language learning. As the data suggests, the Looking Glass Effect (LGE) is a
very real experience for such learners and conventional pedagogy has essentially failed to
produce desired results. “Professional discourses on ‘the Chinese learner’ may thus point to real
differences: Chinese students may constitute a distinctive group for whom special consideration
must be made if pedagogies are to be productive of high quality academic outcomes including
intellectual quality and student control of learning” (Dooley, 2003, p. 32). Thus, applying a
Globally Infused Pedagogy approach may prove to be more assistive in dealing with LGE issues.
The next section describes graphically and textually, a model that applies GIP principles.
Practitioner Implications: Customized Learning Camp: A GIP Application Model
The study’s findings implied using a new pedagogical approach of GIP for teaching
cross-cultural languages for Asian students. Giving life to the voice of the participants, and based
solely on their recommendations, a working model is being suggested that utilizes GIP principles
and provides an innovative approach to facilitating English learning for Chinese students. This is
valuable since the model has been synthesized from the suggestions of learners belonging to the
population it seeks to serve. In a way this is the most appropriate complement to the looking
glass metaphor that epitomizes the target population’s learning issues, as each participant
explores his or her own ‘looking glass’ world and finds a way out in this vision of dynamic
communal learning. The model may be used as a class structure or as a supportive structure to
augment the class structure in the context of English learning.
The suggestions were mostly garnered from the responses to the interview question number ten
about support mechanisms, other than or in addition to feedback. Chelsea initiated the inspiration
to think of this model by her suggestion of having a learning camp for Chinese students, and all
other participants provided their own versions that intuitively supplemented this vision.
Appendix B has a full rendition of these important transcript pieces. To summarize her vision,
the learning camp would be a place where Chinese and non-Chinese students could congregate
and participate in socially charged learning activities. They could be supported by “instructors
who are hanging around with us and trying to connect the different activities to like some core
ENGLISH WRITING CHALLENGES Journal of Research Initiatives 16
elements in language so that I can have a more international feeling of how this language is
going on”. All camp members would be contributors who come up with innovative ways to help
one another learn. Sam supported that vision by suggesting that we create customized learning
solutions for Chinese students. Eventually, based on each participant’s contribution, six themes
emerged from the recommendations, as displayed below.
Conclusion
The five participants of the study provided in-depth, intuitive and compelling data that
led to several findings, some supporting existing literature, while others contributing to it. At the
end of the study, it was apparent that using graduate students was a more efficient way to assess
the English learning issues of the Chinese population in the USA, because their issues are
representative of teaching approaches and theories that did not work when implemented at lower
levels of academia. The participants went through a rigorous English language learning process,
from the third grade in China, through high school and then undergraduate college in the USA.
Yet, they did not gain the desired or predicted competencies and continued to have unique issues
as described in the Looking Glass Effect paradigm. Appendix B has some snippets taken from
the participant responses to the pre and posttests and as is apparent, they have a long way to go
before gaining English writing proficiency. Clearly, what we have done so far has not worked
efficiently enough, which warrants finding new ways to tackle these issues. Fortunately, the
participant responses provided the much needed vision and recommendations.
The birth of new approaches to pedagogy and teaching strategies (Globally Infused
Pedagogy, Customized Learning Camp) is significant as it draws from the target populations’
vision, born out of a desperate need for solutions to their unique challenges of English learning.
Even if at this stage the model is conceptual, it is founded on credible and valid data, making it a
viable suggestion. This also provides avenues for future exploration by applying the model and
investigating how it can be improved or modified to serve the population needs effectively. In
addition, even though GIP and CLC were developed keeping Chinese students in mind, their
structures are flexible enough to be tweaked to suit any ESL population from international
backgrounds. After all, cross-cultural language acquisition will have some common challenges.
“Writing in a first and second language are not the same and… teaching practices from one
situation are not necessarily transferable to another” (Hyland, 2000, p. 35).
To conclude, this study was a significant step towards helping international students and
their teachers in the USA get a deeper understanding of the issues of Chinese learner population
and possible ways to deal with such issues. As researchers, we do understand that there is no
shortcut way though the prickly, topsy-turvy forest of English for international learners; no
magical pixie- dust to whisk such learners away to a land where they are fully versed in the
English language. However, it is precisely for this reason that we also believe that we must never
give up, but plod on, researching and trying to find innovative ways to bring our ‘lost’ learners
out of this forest and help them fulfill their dream of being competent English language users.
After all, as Dana put it, “Sometimes you face this challenge, have many problems, sometimes
you want to give up, … yea, but I don’t want to give up, because it’s a long time life, you know,
if you give up, like, you can blow up future”.
References
Ager, S. (2015). Types of writing system. Retrieved August 11, 2015, from
http://www.omniglot.com/writing/types.htm#semphon
ENGLISH WRITING CHALLENGES Journal of Research Initiatives 17
Banks, J. A. (2004). Multicultural education: Historical development, dimensions, and practices.
In J. A. Banks & C. A. McGee Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural
education (2nd ed., pp. 3–29). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Beckett, G. H., Gonzales, V., & Schwartz, H. (2004). Content-Based ESL writing curriculum: A
language socialization model. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 2(1), 161-175.
Retrieved from http://www.mdc.edu/iac/documents/Content-
Based%20ESL%20Writing%20Curriculum%20_%20A%20Language%20Socialization%
20Model.pdf
Beckman, J. (2010). “We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” The Alice books and the
professional literature of psychology and psychiatry. Retrieved from
www.victorianweb.org/authors/carroll/beckman2.html
Billett, S. (1996). Situated learning: Bridging sociocultural and cognitive theorizing. Learning
and Instruction, 6(3), 263-280. doi:10.1016/0959-4752(96)00006-0
Burnard, P. (2004). Writing a qualitative research report. Nurse Education Today, 24(3), 174-
179. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2003.11.005
Burnard, P., Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E., & Chadwick, B. (2008). Analysing and presenting
qualitative data. British Dental Journal, 204(8), 429-432. doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.2008.292
Cambridge English Dictionary. (2016). mirror Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary.
Retrieved from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/mirror
Carroll, L. (1896). Through the looking-glass and what Alice found there (1st ed.). Retrieved
from https://birrell.org/andrew/alice/lGlass.pdf
Carver, C.S, & Scheier, M.F. (2013). Self-regulation of action and effect. In K. Vohs & R.
Bauneister (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation, Second Edition: Research, Theory, and
Applications (2nd, Paperback ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Christian, D. (1996). Two-Way immersion education: Students learning through two languages.
The Modern Language Journal, 80(1), 66. doi:10.2307/329058
Creswell, J. (2014) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.
London and Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed method research
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into
Practice, 39(3), 124-130. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2
Crotty, M. (1998). The Foundations of Social Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cummins, J. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. In
Street, B. & Hornberger, N. H. (Eds.). (2008). Encyclopedia of Language and Education,
2nd Edition, Volume 2: Literacy. (pp. 71-83). New York: Springer Science + Business
Media LLC. Retrieved from
http://daphne.palomar.edu/lchen/CumminsBICSCALPSpringer2007.pdf
Denscombe, M. (2003). The good research guide: For small-scale social research projects (4th
ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press. Retrieved from
http://dspace.utamu.ac.ug:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/173/martyn_denscom
be_the_good_research_guidebookfi-org.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Dictionary.om. (2016). Mirror | Define Mirror at Dictionary.com. Retrieved from
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/mirror?s=t
ENGLISH WRITING CHALLENGES Journal of Research Initiatives 18
Dooley, K. (2003). Reconceptualising equity: Pedagogy for Chinese students in Australian
schools. The Australian Educational Researcher, 30(3), 25-42. doi:10.1007/bf03216796
Driscoll, M. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction. Allyn & Bacon, Boston: MA
Duff, P. A. (2007). Second language socialization as sociocultural theory: Insights and issues.
Language Teaching, 40(04), 309-319. doi:10.1017/s0261444807004508
Duranti, A., Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. B. (2012). The theory of Language Socialization. In The
handbook of language socialization (pp. 1-21). Retrieved from
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/anthro/faculty/ochs/articles/The_Theory_of_Language_Socia
lization.pdf
Durgunoglu, A., & Verhoeven, L. (2013). Literacy development in a multilingual context: Cross-
cultural perspectives (p. Ix). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Finlay, L. (2009). Debating phenomenological research methods. Phenomenology & Practice,3,
6-25. Retrieved from http://www.psyking.net/HTMLobj-
3824/Debating_Phenomenological_Research_Methods.pdf
Förster, J., Grant, H., Idson, L., & Higgins, E. (2001). Success/Failure feedback, expectancies,
and approach/avoidance motivation: How regulatory focus moderates classic relations.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 253-260. doi:10.1006/jesp.2000.1455
Fuhrer, U. (I 993). Behaviour settings analysis of situated learning: the case of newcomers In S.
Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice perspectives on activity and context
(pp. 179-211). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Gay, G. (2000). Power pedagogy through cultural responsiveness. [Pdf file]. Retrieved from
Purdue University’s EDCI 585 course website:
https://mycourses.purdue.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-4406574-dt-content-rid-
14350689_1/courses/wl_13697.201520/Culturally%20Responsive%20Teaching.pdf
Gay, G. (2001). Effective multicultural teaching practices in Multicultural education in the 21st
century. [Pdf file]. Retrieved from: https://mycourses.purdue.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-
4406576-dt-content-rid-
14350692_1/courses/wl_13697.201520/Effective%20Multicultural%20Teaching%20Pra
ctices.pdf
Galetcaia, T. (2014). The many faces of the language ego: Exploring tensions of linguistic and
cultural adaptation in immigrants and adult language learners. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 116, 4270–4276. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.930
Galetcaia, T. (2012). Through the looking glass of the language ego: Towards the English-
speaking self in English Language Learning. Saarbrcken: LAP LAMBERT Academic
Publishing.
Graneheim, U., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research:
concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education
Today,24(2), 105-112. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001
Groenewald, T. (2004). A phenomenological research design illustrated. International Journal of
Qualitative Methods, 3(1), 1-26. Retrieved from
https://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/3_1/pdf/groenewald.pdf
Harklau, L. (1994). ESL versus mainstream classes: Contrasting l2 learning environments.
TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 241. doi:10.2307/3587433
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research,
77(1), 81-112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487
ENGLISH WRITING CHALLENGES Journal of Research Initiatives 19
Hill, W.F. (2002) Learning: A survey of psychological interpretation (7th ed), Allyn and Bacon,
Boston, MA.
Hogan, D. M., & Tudge, J. R. H. (1999). Implications of Vygotsky. In A. O' Donn & A. King
(Eds.), Cognitive Perspectives on Peer Learning (pp. 39-65). Mahwah, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Holroyd, C. (2001). Phenomenological research method, design and procedure: A
phenomenological investigation of the phenomenon of being-in-community as
experienced by two individuals who have participated in a community building
workshop. Indo-Pacific Journal of Phenomenology, 1(1), 1–10.
doi:10.1080/20797222.2001.11433859
Hoosain, R. (2005). Getting at the sound and Meaning of logographic and Alphabetical Scripts.
In I. Taylor & D. Olson (Eds.), Scripts and Literacy: Reading and Learning to Read
Alphabets, Syllabaries and Characters (Neuropsychology and Cognition). Springer.
Hyland, F. (2000). ESL writers and feedback: giving more autonomy to students. Language
Teaching Research, 4(1), 33-54. doi:10.1177/136216880000400103
Imenda, S. (2014). Is there a conceptual difference between theoretical and conceptual
frameworks? Journal of Social Sciences, 38(2), 185-195. EBSCOHost Accession #:
94966862
Institute of International Education (IIE). (2016). Fast Facts | Open Doors Data. Retrieved from
IIE website: http://www.iie.org/Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors/Data/Fast-
Facts#.VxRSYTArIsw
Jacob, S. A., & Furgerson, S. P. (2012). Writing interview protocols and conducting interviews:
Tips for students new to the field of qualitative research. The Qualitative Report,17(6), 1-
10. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR17/jacob.pdf
Janesick, V. A. (1998). The dance of qualitative research design: Metaphor, methodolatry, and
meaning. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp.
35-55). Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232497144_The_dance_of_qualitative_research
_design_Metaphor_methodolatry_and_meaning
Jensen, D. F. (2006). Metaphors as a bridge to understanding educational and social contexts.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 2-17. Retrieved from
https://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/5_1/PDF/JENSEN.PDF
Jordan, A., Carlile, O., & Stack, A. (2008). Approaches to learning: A guide for teachers.
McGraw-Hill, Open University Press: Berkshire.
Jong, E. de, & Howard, E. (2009). Integration in two-way immersion education: equalising
linguistic benefits for all students. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 12(1), 81–99. doi:10.1080/13670050802149531
Kristmanson, P., & Dicks, J. (2014). Looking in the one-way mirror: Reflections on the changing
face(s) of immersion in North America and beyond. Journal of Immersion and Content-
Based Language Education, 2(2), 273–287. doi:10.1075/jicb.2.2.08kri
Khansir, A. A. (2012). Error analysis and second language acquisition. Theory and Practice in
Language Studies, 2(5). doi:10.4304/tpls.2.5.1027-1032
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that's just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant
pedagogy. [Pdf file]. Retrieved from: https://mycourses.purdue.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-
4406575-dt-content-rid-14350690_1/courses/wl_13697.201520/Case%20for%20CRP.pdf
ENGLISH WRITING CHALLENGES Journal of Research Initiatives 20
Lave, J. (1993). The practice of learning. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding
practice: perspectives on activity and context (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Laverty, S. M. (2003). Hermeneutic Phenomenology and Phenomenology: A Comparison of
Historical and Methodological Considerations. International Journal of Qualitative
Methods, 2(3), 1-29. Retrieved from
https://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/2_3final/pdf/laverty.pdf
Li, M. (2010). EFL teachers and English language education in the PRC: Are they the policy
makers? The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 19(3). Retrieved November 1, 2015,
from
http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/handle/10072/36703/66397_1.pdf?sequen
ce=1
Li, J. (2012, December 1). China's Achilles heel: Education system. Forbes. Retrieved from
http://www.forbes.com/sites/junhli/2012/12/01/chinas-achilles-heel-education-
system/#41aafd0f7808
Lin, C. S. (2013). Revealing the “essence” of things: Using Phenomenology in LIS research.
Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries, 4, 469-478. Retrieved from
http://www.qqml.net/papers/December_2013_Issue/2413QQML_Journal_2013_ChiShio
uLIn_4_469_478.pdf
Lin, L. (2002). English education in present-day China. Anthropology: Bachelors to Doctorates
(ABD), 33(2), 8-9. Retrieved from http://www.accu.or.jp/appreb/09/pdf33-2/33-2P008-
009.pdf
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (1st ed., pp. 7-416). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.
McCaslin, M., & Hickey, D. T. (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: A
Vygotskian view. In B. Zimmerman and D. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and
academic achievement: Theory, research, and practice, second edition (pp.227-252).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Moerer-Urdahl, T., & Creswell, J. (2004). Using transcendental phenomenology to explore the
“ripple effect” in a leadership mentoring program. International Journal of Qualitative
Methods, 3, 1-28. Retrieved from
https://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/3_2/pdf/moerer.pdf
Mondada, L., & Doehler, S. P. (2004). Second language acquisition as situated practice: Task
accomplishment in the french second language classroom. The Modern Language
Journal, 88(4), 501–518. doi:10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004.t01-15-.x
Moustakas, C. E. (1994). Phenomenological research methods (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA.
Sage Publications
NAFSA. (2013). The economic benefits of international students to the U.S. economy
contributed $24 billion in 2012-2013; Supports 313,000 jobs. Retrieved from
http://www.nafsa.org/_/File/_/eis2013/Pennsylvania.pdf
Namey, E., Guest, G., Thairu, L., & Johnson, L. (2008). Data reduction techniques for large
qualitative data sets. In G. Guest & K. M. MacQueen (Eds.), Handbook for team-based
qualitative research (pp. 137-162). Retrieved March 3, 2016, from
http://web.stanford.edu/~thairu/07_184.Guest.1sts.pdf
ENGLISH WRITING CHALLENGES Journal of Research Initiatives 21
Nicol, D., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2007). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: A
model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education,
31(2), 199-218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090
Nicol, D. 2010. “From monologue to dialogue: Improving written feedback in mass higher
education.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 35 (5): 501–517.
Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2013). Rethinking feedback practices in higher
education: A peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
39(1), 102-122. doi:10.1080/02602938.2013.795518
Ochs, E. (1986). In B. B. Schieffelin & E. Ochs (Eds.), Language socialization across cultures
(pp. 1-273). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pacific Policy Research Center. 2010. Successful Bilingual and Immersion Education
Models/Programs. Honolulu: Kamehameha Schools, Research & Evaluation Division.
Retrieved from http://www.ksbe.edu/_assets/spi/pdfs/Bilingual_Immersion_full.pdf
Patton, M,Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods: Integrating theory and
practice (4th ed). London, SAGE.
Percy, W. H., Kostere, K., & Kostere, S. (2015). Generic Qualitative Research in Psychology.
The Qualitative Report, 20(2), 76-85. Retrieved from
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR20/2/percy5.pdf
Pitcher, R. (2013). The Metaphors that research students live by. The Qualitative Report, 18, 1-8.
Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR18/pitcher3.pdf
Pliatsikas, C., & Chondrogianni, V. (Eds.). (2015). Learning a non-native language in a
naturalistic environment: Insights from behavioural and neuroimaging research. Frontiers
Research Topics. doi:10.3389/978-2-88919-639-5
Quigley, S. J. (2009). Translating language, culture, and setting in cross-cultural writing. New
Writing: The International Journal for the Practice and Theory of Creative Writing, 6(2),
90-95. doi: 10.1080/14790720902981164
Rolfe, G. (2006). Validity, trustworthiness and rigour: quality and the idea of qualitative
research. J Adv Nurs, 53(3), 304-310. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03727.x
Rapoport, A. (1990). The meaning of the built environment: A nonverbal communication
approach. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.
Rogers, H. (2005). Writing systems: A linguistic approach (1st ed., pp. 1-344). Malden, MA:
Blackwell Pub.
Rothbart, M., & Lewis, T. L. (2006). Attitudes and beliefs in a marching band: stereotyping and
accentuation in a favorable intergroup context. European Journal of Social
Psychology,36(5), 699-719. doi:10.1002/ejsp.312
Ryan, J. & Louie, K. (2007). False dichotomy?: ‘Western’ and ‘Eastern’ concepts of scholarship
and learning. Educational Philosophy and Theory (39)4, 404-417. Doi: 10.1111/j.1469-
5812.2007.00347.x
Sadala, M. L., & Adorno, R. C. (2001). Phenomenology as a method to investigate the
experience lived: a perspective from Husserl and Merleau Ponty’s thought. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 37(3), 282–293. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02071.x
Saldaa, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (1st ed.). Retrieved from
http://stevescollection.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/6/13866629/saldana_2009_the-coding-
manual-for-qualitative-researchers.pdf
ENGLISH WRITING CHALLENGES Journal of Research Initiatives 22
Sapir, E. (1921). Language, an introduction to the study of speech (1st ed.). New York, Harcourt.
Retrieved from http://www.ugr.es/~fmanjon/Sapir,%20Edward%20-
%20Language,%20An%20Introduction%20to%20the%20Study%20of%20Speech.pdf
Schroth, M. (1997). Effects of frequency of feedback on transfer in concept identification. The
American Journal of Psychology, 110(1), 71-79. Retrieved June 12, 2015, from
http://search.proquest.com/openview/029228827c8b15b108bc8b6fa113eb7b/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar
Slone, D. J. (2009). Visualizing qualitative information. The Qualitative Report, 14(3), 489-497.
Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR14-3/slone.pdf
Taifel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33,
1-39. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.33.020182.000245
Taylor, I., K. Park (2005). Differential processing of content words and function words: Chinese
characters versus phonetic scripts. In I. Taylor & D. Olson (Eds.), Scripts and literacy:
Reading and learning to read alphabets, syllabaries and characters (Neuropsychology and
Cognition). Springer.
Van-Dijk, D., & Kluger, A. (2004). Feedback sign effect on motivation: Is it moderated by
regulatory focus? Applied Psychology, 53(1), 113-135. doi:10.1111/j.1464-
0597.2004.00163.x
van Manen, M. (2007). Phenomenology of practice. Phenomenology & Practice, 1(1), 11-30.
Retrieved from http://www.maxvanmanen.com/files/2011/04/2007-Phenomenology-of-
Practice.pdf
Venezky, R. (2005). How English is read: Grapheme-Phenome regularity and orthographic
structure in word recognition. In I. Taylor & D. Olson (Eds.), Scripts and Literacy:
Reading and Learning to Read Alphabets, Syllabaries and Characters (Neuropsychology
and Cognition). Springer.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Welman, J. C., & Kruger, F. (2002). Research methodology for the business and administrative
sciences. Cape Town: Oxford University Press.
Wells, G. (1989). Learning through interaction: The study of language development. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Wong, T. (2015, June 9). China's Gaokao: High stakes for national exam. BBC News. Retrieved
from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-33059635
Xiong, C. (2015). Metaphors of learning Chinese students live by. Journal of Language Teaching
and Research, 6(4), 877. doi:10.17507/jltr.0604.23
Yaguello, M., Harris, T. A., & Yaguello, M. (1998). Language through the looking glass:
Exploring language and linguistics. Oxford, U.K: Oxford University Press.
Yang, C. D. (2006). The infinite gift: How children learn and unlearn the languages of the world.
New York, NY: Scribner.
Zhao, Y. (2014). Who's afraid of the big bad dragon?: Why China has the best (and worst)
education system in the world (1st ed.). San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2005). The hidden dimension of personal competence: Self-
regulated learning and practice. In A.J. Elliot, C.S. Dweck, & S. Carol (Eds.), Handbook
of Competence and Motivation (pp. 509-526), New York: Guilford Publications
ENGLISH WRITING CHALLENGES Journal of Research Initiatives 23
Zimmerman, B. J. & Schunk, D. H. (2004) Self-regulating intellectual processes and outcomes: a
social cognitive perspective, in D. Y. Dai & R. J. Sternberg (Eds) Motivation, emotion
and cognition (Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).
Zimmerman, B. J. & Schunk, D. H. (2001) Self-regulated learning and academic achievement:
theoretical perspectives (Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).
