In order to understand how strong of a role linguistics plays in language instruction, I evaluate how language teachers use their linguistic knowledge, and what factors affect the application of that knowledge. This paper aims to fill this gap in understanding how much and what factors affect L2 teachers’ application of linguistic knowledge by interviewing L2 teachers at an intensive English program at a university in the Southwestern United States. To do so, the study uses interviews with open-ended questions involving hypothetical teaching scenarios that probe different areas of linguistics: phonology, grammar, pragmatics, and sociolinguistics.
The general findings suggest that teachers use their linguistic knowledge and awareness in their teaching: such as, with sociolinguistics, in how they control the classroom and interact with students; with phonology, in how they teach pronunciation; with grammar, in how they edit students’ writing and meet with students about their writing; and with pragmatics, in how they teach vocabulary usage and formal requests. Additionally, the results suggest that years of experience appear to be the largest factor in the application of linguistic knowledge and that contextual factors, like time and curriculum goals, also play a role. Moreover, in relation to teacher cognition, how a L2 teacher conceptualizes or defines linguistic terms also seemed to affect their awareness of the application of linguistic knowledge. In conclusion, it appears that L2 teachers’ linguistic knowledge and TLingA help them to evaluate their students’ needs and influence their lesson planning.
The study suggests the following four strategies to apply TEIL into the English curriculum of the KMA: (a) introduce WE/EIL activities into the English Conversation course; (b) establish a WE/EIL course; (c) provide extracurricular WE/EIL activities; and (d) incorporate intercultural content into the Military English course. The study argues that implementing these suggestions would help cadets develop both their linguistic proficiency in English and intercultural communicative competence that are essential for them to become professional military communicators who can effectively communicate with interlocutors from diverse linguistic, cultural, and national backgrounds in international military contexts.
While the study contributes to the literature by bridging the gap between TEIL and military contexts, it demonstrates the following implications: (a) a meaningful case of applying TEIL into the military context in Korea; (b) the importance of both linguistic proficiency in English and intercultural competence for ELT in the KMA; and (c) the possibility of influencing the Korea Air Force and Naval Academy to reexamine their English curricula. The study concludes that the English curriculum of the KMA should be revised based on the recognition of the symbiotic relationship among linguistic proficiency in English, exposure to diverse varieties of English, and intercultural competence in order to produce cadets who can effectively communicate in English as a military lingua franca for the success of their designated military objectives in the future.
The findings of the study indicate that the processing of WCF and error awareness may be affected by pedagogical factors, such as the type of feedback and its delivery method. In addition, I found that while socio-contextual factors, such as grading policy, may influence students' attitudes toward the importance of grammar accuracy in their writing or motivation to seek help with grammar outside of class, such factors do not appear to affect students' engagement with WCF at the time of revision.
Based on the insights gained from this study, I suggest that direct feedback may be more beneficial if it is provided in a comment or in the margin of the paper, and that both direct and indirect feedback may be more effective if a brief explanation about the nature of the error is included. In addition, students may need to be provided with guidelines on how to engage with their instructors' feedback. I conclude by suggesting that if WCF is provided, students should be held accountable for making revisions, and I recommend ways in which this can be done without penalizing students for not showing immediate improvements on subsequent writing projects.
This study articulates a framework of writing strategies and validates the framework by using it to examine the writing process of researchers as they write journal articles for publication. The framework advances a definition of writing strategies and a classification system for categorizing strategies that is based on strategic goals. In order to develop the framework, I first synthesize existing literature on writing strategies found in second language writing studies, composition studies, and second language acquisition. I then observe the writing process of four researchers as they write journal articles for publication and use the framework to analyze participants’ goals, their strategies for accomplishing goals, the resources they use to carry out strategies, and the variables that influence their goals and strategies. Data for the study was collected using qualitative methods, including video recordings of writing activities, stimulated-recall interviews, questionnaires, and semi-structured interviews. The study shows that the framework introduced in the study is useful for analyzing writers’ strategies in a comprehensive way. An operationalizable definition of ‘writing strategies’ is the conscious and internalized agentive ideas of a writer about the best way to act, often with the use of resources, in order to reach specific writing goals embedded in a context. Writing strategies can be categorized into seven types of strategic goals: composing, coping, learning, communicating, self-representation, meta-strategies, and publishing. The framework provides a way to understand writing strategies holistically—as a unit of goal, action, and resource—and highlights variability in writers’ actions and use of resources. Some of this variability in writers’ strategies can be explained by the influence of various contextual factors, which are identified in the analysis. The dissertation concludes with a discussion of how the framework can be used to inform future research and classroom teaching on writing strategies.