Running Head: ASSIGNMENT 1

Link for plagiarism report: https://u.pcloud.link/publink/show?

code=XZ3SUHVZa4Wu2DdKAEXtGgfn8FR7tSzdoRRV

Discuss the ways in which a second language learner’s writing in the target language may be

assessed? What are the major issues involved in such assessment?

Name
Class
Subject
Date
ASSIGNMENT 2

Discuss the ways in which a second language learner’s writing in the target language may

be assessed? What are the major issues involved in such assessment?

Introduction

It is essential, for one's chances of being successful in learning a foreign language, to be

able to articulate one's thoughts and ideas unambiguously through the written word. It is

generally agreed upon that a sufficient command of one's native tongue is essential to achieve

one's full potential in academics. This is due to the fact that academics commonly use the ability

to communicate effectively in one's native tongue as a manner of evaluating their students.

Because of this, students of all skill levels view writing as a challenging endeavour that they are

required to conquer in order to pass their assessments, despite the fact that their competency

levels may vary. Writing in a foreign language is challenging for students for a number of

reasons, including the fact that it is an active and productive activity. It is amazing to be able to

communicate one's ideas in writing in a way that is both clear and succinct, even if one is doing

so in a second language. Because of this, being able to write in a foreign language necessitates a

high level of self-assurance in regards to writing conventions, language knowledge, grammar,

and vocabulary, as well as cognitive skills that enable language learners to express themselves

fluently in the other language. Consequently Nevertheless, despite the fact that there is so much

of an emphasis placed on writing education, the writing of students continues to be a cause of

ongoing dissatisfaction in classes where they are learning either their first or second language.

Comparing the productive language skills of writing and speaking may provide insight into

the nature of writing by highlighting similarities and differences between the two. Accordingly,

Barrette, Paesani and Vinall (2010) hypothesised that there would be significant distinctions
ASSIGNMENT 3

between the two in terms of vocabulary, fluency, the length and complexity of the phrases, the

forms of addresses, and other aspects of language use. They went over a number of points that

differentiate oral communication from written communication. On the other hand, in comparison

to speaking, writing is typically done more privately. Second, while the utterance or turn

functions as the fundamental building block of speech, the sentence is the fundamental building

block of written communication. Writing, on the other hand, requires more planning and

preparation than speaking, which is more impromptu. The conventional and socially acceptable

modes of writing have a tendency to be more standardised, in contrast to the openness of accents

in spoken language. Fifth, it is more possible for written communication to be removed in time

and space (taken out of context), but oral communication is more likely to take place face-to-

face. In conclusion, although verbal communication is auditory in nature, written communication

is visual and places a greater emphasis on form and organisation. Teachers have a key part to

play in assisting students in improving their writing abilities. One way they can do this is by

educating students on the significance of effective writing skills for the development of

successful careers. They are able to conduct and organise productive writing classes for students,

which will help students develop skills and knowledge in effective writing strategies. These

classes are possible to deliver and organise.

Characteristics of Writing

However, given that writing is both a mental and an emotional activity, the affective

variables of the environment in which one writes have an effect on every aspect of the writing

process. A number of researchers have already looked into the affective factors that are involved

in writing. For instance, Genesee, Geva, Dressler and Kamil (2007) investigated the writing
ASSIGNMENT 4

performance of Turkish tertiary level English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners in

connection to different affective aspects. Researchers say that the ideas and attitudes that EFL

students have about academic writing (such as how confident they are in their writing talents) are

crucial indications of whether or not they are able to create quality academic writing. These

findings lead researchers to claim that. In a different piece of research, Lou and Noels (2019)

investigated how undergraduate students in an English as a Foreign Language (EFL)

environment utilised different writing styles in accordance with their levels of motivation and

attitudes. They contended that the students' interest in writing was impacted by their desire to use

their writing for a particular goal, and that this interest motivated the students to write. They

discovered that students who had a high degree of motivation also had higher levels of

confidence, satisfaction, and a favourable attitude toward successful teaching ways for writing.

Additionally, these students had a tendency to turn to writing tactics more frequently. Writing is

also characterised by the fact that it is a cyclical process, which requires writers to move back

and forth between the stages of prewriting, writing, reviewing, and altering their work. This is

another distinguishing feature of writing. In order to emphasise the significance of the prewriting

stage, a minimum of seventy percent of the time spent writing should be devoted to prewriting

(Schmitt, 2019). According to the findings of research conducted by Gevers (2018), students

who used their first language to generate ideas before writing in a second language shown a

marked improvement in the quality of their writing. As a result, they recommended that teachers

of writing employ students' L1s to produce ideas, particularly when working with novice

students of English as a second language.

Reasons for the Weakness of Students’ Writing Skill

ASSIGNMENT 5

The lack of writing ability displayed by some students may be attributable to a number of

different factors. The following are some of the reasons behind this, however the list is not

exhaustive: The very first cause is a method of teaching composition that places an excessive

emphasis on the role of the instructor and is unduly reductionist. This method overlooks the

connection that exists between composition and other language skills. Because of this, students

are not given the opportunity to choose their own preferred topics for writing because the focus

is concentrated on correcting surface errors in writing (Larsen-Freeman, 2018). Anxiety about

writing or fear of writing may be the result of a product approach, which solely focuses the

product of writing rather than the process of writing itself. This may contribute to the

development of writing anxiety or dread. When it comes to teaching students how to write, the

lecture style is not very effective, and this is the third aspect that contributes to this

ineffectiveness (Chou, 2018).

The large number of writing classes offered within the EFL/ESL curriculum is one factor

that contributes to the fourth problem. The proliferation of other types of digital media, including

television, radio, music, video games, and other electronic entertainment options, along with

personal computers and movie theatres, is ultimately to blame for the decline of print culture.

Recent years have seen the development of a metadiscipline in applied linguistics and second

language research. This metadiscipline focuses on the study of second language writing, which

has been an area of academic investigation for approximately sixty years (Teimouri, Goetze, &

Plonsky, 2019). The study of second-language authors and writing in general is not the primary

focus of academic research on second-language writing; rather, the emphasis is placed on

literacy education and instruction. TESOL and applied linguistics are often used to indicate the

position of the field in relation to other subjects like foreign language studies, composition
ASSIGNMENT 6

studies, bilingual education, and other TESOL programmes. This is because TESOL is a

multidisciplinary field and applied linguistics is a branch of TESOL. TESOL and writing in a

second language have been connected in a few studies, but there is a clear need for additional

investigation in this field (Han & Hiver, 2018).

Since the 1990s, a new field of research known as "metadisciplinary inquiry" has

emerged with the purpose of investigating the philosophical and methodological roots of the

work done in a specific field of study. In order to gain an understanding of how disciplinary

inquiry operates, metadisciplinary inquiry centres its attention on questions such as "who we are,

what we do, and how we do what we do" (Wang, Derakhshan & Zhang, 2021). One of the many

ways that metadisciplinary research can be carried out in the subject of second language writing

is to define the field itself, which is one of the many ways that metadisciplinary research can be

carried out (Schmitt, 2019). Studies of writing in foreign languages have traditionally

concentrated mostly on the syntactic domain; nevertheless, some scholars have begun to

investigate additional topics, such as the pragmatics of metadiscourse. To cite just one

illustration, García-Pastor and Miller (2019) found that the utilisation of metadiscourse markers

was linked to fluency in a second language. In this regard, they placed an emphasis on the good

effects that can result from receiving education. Studies of writing in a second language also

focus on a wide variety of topics, such as how children acquire the ability to read and write in a

foreign language, the connection between reading and writing, and issues pertaining to ideology

and politics. The influence of social, cultural, and educational factors on the study of writing in a

second language is another essential factor that L2 writing researchers need to take into

consideration.
ASSIGNMENT 7

Writing studies in the modern day have been broken down into four major subfields by

García-Pastor and Miller (2019). These subfields are the writing process, the writing product, the

writing context, and the teaching of writing. The process of writing entails a variety of activities,

some of which are the analysis of compositional methods, the modelling of cognitive activities,

the monitoring of changes through time, and the consideration of individual differences. Analysis

of text, as well as error analysis, comparative analysis, and contrastive analysis, are all

components of the writing process. In the context of writing, it is normal practise to investigate

social constructions and conduct analyses of individuals' understanding of genre requirements

and motivation. The final point to make is that research into writing education focuses on

learning methodologies, classroom procedures, the development of linguistic competency, and

the evaluation of a person's capacity to write. Research in both L1 and L2 should not be thought

to be in competition with one another; rather, it should be viewed as a continuous and

complementary sequence of research that contribute to the development of a more

comprehensive theory of writing (Godwin-Jones, 2019). The academic field of writing in a

second language (also known as L2) is continuously expanding in both its theoretical and

practical aspects. This encompasses not only pragmatic but also educational, methodological,

and theoretical points of view as well. Research on writing in a second language (L2 writing) is

propelled, in reality, by a wide range of unforeseen developments (technical, disciplinary, and

demographic), as well as by the attempts of L2 writing scholars to adapt to those shifts (Kessler,

2018).

Prevalent Approaches to Teaching Writing

ASSIGNMENT 8

Finding methods that are both appealing and practical to help students improve their

writing is a long-standing goal of researchers who are seeking for ways to assist students in

improving their writing, which is a challenging endeavour for even the most proficient language

learners. The methods used to instruct writing have been subjected to a great deal of evolution

over the years as a direct consequence of this fact. As a consequence of this, this section

investigates the growth of writing in a second language, provides a historical review of empirical

research into writing in a second language, and then explores the behavioralist and contrastive

rhetorical methods that are commonly used to instruct writing (Hartshorne, Tenenbaum &

Pinker, 2018).

The behaviourist approach as a method

In the 1950s, there were not many studies that looked at writing in a second language

because there were so few people doing it. Only people who spoke Spanish in North America

were given the opportunity to learn English as a second language; throughout this historical

period, English was mostly disregarded as a foreign language everywhere else. When it came to

schooling in the 1950s, the method that was most popular put an unwarranted emphasis on vocal

skill rather than writing proficiency. In the 1960s, a substantial number of students from other

countries arrived to the United States to pursue higher education. As a result, teachers of first

language writing observed major discrepancies in the writing of first language students and those

learning English as a second language. As a result, the "disciplinary division of labour" between

composition studies and L2 studies was developed, based on the perception of these differences

in the challenges associated with L1 and L2 languages (Mendoza & Phung, 2019). Since there

was not enough emphasis placed on teaching ESL students how to write in English in the past,
ASSIGNMENT 9

the field of second language writing research came into being as a result. The Audiolingual

Method, which was the most popular approach to educating pupils learning a second language

(L2) throughout the 1960s, placed a focus on the structure of the L2 through prescriptive

controlled practise in writing instruction (Culpeper, Mackey & Taguchi, 2018). Therefore,

writing was limited to exercises such as filling in blanks, making substitutions, and changing

forms. Utilizing this instrument allows for the examination as well as the strengthening of

grammatical rules. This extremely restricted emphasis did not take into account the extremely

challenging task of writing.

The application of a variety of linguistic and rhetorical strategies

After that, teachers of writing, particularly those who instruct students on how to

construct paragraphs, came to see the significance of expanding their focus on writing skills

beyond the sentence level. In response to Li's (2018) emphasis on the fundamental concept of

cultural variances and variations in students' writing, he developed Contrastive Rhetoric (CR), a

method that applies syntactic structure to paragraph structures in a way that is both practical and

applicable. In addition to that, this tactic places an emphasis on the requirements that should be

met by readers who are not already enrolled in a class. It is the rhetorical forms, not the

grammatical forms, that are supposed to be the paradigms, and the reader is regarded as the

paradigmatic representation of a huge discourse community. Wallace (2022) established the

distinctive rhetorical patterns of English as a Second Language (ESL) writing by analysing the

writing of seven hundred students learning the language as a second. These patterns are a result

of the effect of the students' native language and their cultural background. The "cultural thought

patterns" can be summed up as a diagram of five separate linguistic characteristics: English,

ASSIGNMENT 10

Oriental, Semitic, Russian, and Romance. This is because English, Oriental, and Semitic

languages are all distinct from Romance languages. The research that the author did on

contrastive rhetoric led to the discovery that an English-speaking writer needs to utilise a linear

framework with precise specifics in order to maintain the subject. In contrast to people who

spoke English, he concentrated on the rhetorical models of speakers of other languages. When

compared to speakers of English, Arabic writers made use of a greater number of coordinating

terms inside their written work. Students who were speaking French or Spanish veered off

subject by explaining things that had nothing to do with the discussion at hand, while students

from Asia displayed a circular and illogical structure in the way that they presented their ideas.

After Kaplan's research on contrastive rhetoric, empirical studies in a variety of languages

extended further than CR characteristics (including CR as well as syntactic analysis) (Saito &

Plonsky, 2019).

Setiyad (2020) cited a weak version of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis as the origin of

contrastive rhetoric. Only then can the Whorfian hypothesis be tested once more. Before

asserting that a language learner's writing style is influenced by the language they speak or the

culture they are a part of, it is vital to have a better understanding of how a language, culture, and

group are assimilated. This is the case before making such a claim (Byram & Wagner, 2018).

Despite the fact that Li's (2018) groundbreaking work on CR had a considerable impact on the

field of research into writing in a second language, his analysis caused a great deal of

controversy. There are some people who believe that the deterministic rhetorical model has a

built-in anti-L2 bias and "prioritises the writing of native English speakers while simultaneously

denigrating linguistic and cultural differences in writing among different languages." These are

some of the claims that have been made by the critics. Chou (2018) and Wallace (2022) are a
ASSIGNMENT 11

few examples of the critics that fall into this category. Despite the fact that research on

contrastive rhetoric was used to EFL/ESL writing classes, some composition scholars urged for a

critical pedagogy to assist L2 students in becoming integrated into the target discourse

community. This drew severe criticism from other writing academics (Byram & Wagner, 2018).

According to Jiang and Dewaele (2019) warned that it could generate an ideological dilemma

and dishonour the values of the students' social as well as cultural uniqueness if EFL/ESL

students writing in English were instructed to follow the English rhetorical pattern blatantly. The

application of contrastive rhetorical analysis has been of significant assistance to the discipline of

writing in a second language. Texts written by L2 authors were distinguished by the grammatical

and lexical traits that they possessed, which were shaped by the authors' respective cultural

environments. The present studies of contrastive rhetoric are reshaped as a result of the new

opportunities offered by contrastive rhetoric pedagogy. Saito and Plonsky (2019), researchers in

the field of second language learning, defined contrastive rhetoric as "an area of research in

second language learning that identifies challenges in composition faced by second language

authors and, by referencing the rhetorical methods of the first language, attempts to explain" (p.

5). She emphasises that the use of contrastive rhetoric has resulted in a good impact in other

sectors. Expressionist, cognitive, and social constructivist writing styles are the three primary

approaches to writing that can be derived from the theories of rhetoric and composition. Using

these several methods, one is able to conduct an analysis of both the product and the process of

writing in a second language. Text linguistics techniques are very important to contrastive

rhetoric since they are used to analyse text features such as coherence, narrative organisation,

and grammatical aspects of texts. Through the application of text linguistics, it has been

demonstrated that writings in first and second languages, in addition to texts from other genres,
ASSIGNMENT 12

have distinct differences in their rhetorical styles. According to the author's classification, during

the past three decades, research into contrastive rhetoric has expanded into four main areas.

These categories include studies of writing as a cultural and pedagogical activity as well as text

linguistic analyses of contrastive texts. Studies that are exclusive to a certain genre and

classroom-based comparison study are two examples of other sorts of research. She views

contrastive rhetoric as a method that, when used to research and instruction, can help students

develop their writing skills and broaden their cultural backgrounds, particularly in situations

involving EFL. She believes that "contrastive rhetoric is an excellent resource for advanced- or

college-level ESL/EFL teaching authors," which is relevant when it comes to the development of

writing programmes that take into consideration issues related to genre, culture, and rhetorical

concerns (Peters, 2019). According to Kukulska‐Hulme and Viberg (2018), "future contrastive

rhetoric studies should be sensitive to the premise that authors be understood as individuals in

communities that are undergoing ongoing change" for the future (p. 76). Even though both the

behaviourist and contrastive rhetorical methods to teaching writing emerged sequentially as a

response to an earlier model of education, they are not incompatible with one another in terms of

how they teach writing. The process of instructing writing has gotten more challenging as a

direct result of the prominence of various methodologies, all of which have seen widespread

adoption.

Approaches to the Study of Writing

The product-oriented approach and the process-oriented approach to writing have

traditionally been the two most frequent methods to the study of writing. According to Li (2018),

one of the most significant differences between the two methodologies is the route that was taken
ASSIGNMENT 13

to get at the final product (Naser Oteir & Nijr Al-Otaibi, 2019). On the other side, the product

approach places more of an emphasis on the finished product as well as the evaluation of it. Both

strategies were conceived at the same time in direct reaction to one another and were developed

simultaneously. Even the process-oriented approach pays attention to this facet of the problem,

which is distinct from the product or finished piece of labour. On the other side, this technique

places a greater emphasis on arriving to the destination and developing one's skills along the way

(Rose et al., 2018). Because of this, collaborative writing has had a meteoric rise in popularity

over the past several years as a direct result of a new stage of development in L2 writing known

as post-process, which places a greater emphasis on the social aspects of the topic being studied

(Godwin-Jones, 2018). According to Kukulska‐Hulme & Viberg (2018), writing products have

been investigated in terms of the use of language and linguistic structure, as well as more general

characteristics such as communicative effectiveness and other characteristics proposed by

rhetorical theories. Peters (2019) suggests using syntactic length as a method for evaluating the

level of a writer's ability. According to Warner and Dupuy (2018), in order for a piece of writing

to be effective, all of its phrases must be connected to one another. In a different way of putting

it, this linkage provides "the structural and semantic ties between words across phrases, from the

link between single words throughout sentences to abstract, global thematic and structural

patterns". During the process of writing, Godwin-Jones (2019) state that a composition is the

outcome of the interplay between three different aspects. The term "task environment" refers to

everything that is not the writer themselves and is located outside of their body. This pertains to

the audience as well as any and all written information.

Following that, there is the author's expertise with the topic matter, as well as their

understanding of various rhetorical issues, tactics, genres, and traditions. The writer is able to
ASSIGNMENT 14

retrieve previously stored knowledge from their memory at various points throughout the writing

process. When writers sit down to compose a piece of writing, they engage in a wide range of

intricate mental processes, the culmination of which is the writing process itself. According to

the investigation of protocol1, this is the very last piece of the puzzle. At the beginning of the

1980s, Shao, Pekrun and Nicholson (2019) came up with the idea of applying a process approach

theory to the investigation of the writing process. This hypothesis implies that factors such as the

writer's long-term memory and the work at hand have an effect on the writer's output. The

planning, the translation, and the evaluation stages make up the three steps of the process

approach theory. The process of creating material, organising that content, and establishing goals

and procedures for writing are all aspects of the planning process. The writer needs to participate

in some kind of mental activity before they can start writing, and one of the most common types

of mental activity is planning. The essence of planning is conveyed in a composition that is

created through translation. When writing, one of the goals of the writer is to present his or her

ideas in a style that is logical and consistent. During the process of translation, a writer may find

that they need to return to the drawing board. The process of reviewing entails evaluating

everything that has previously been planned and written down. If the evaluation produces

unfavourable findings, the author may be required to make adjustments to the piece (Boudreau,

MacIntyre & Dewaele, 2018). This method places an emphasis on writing processes, instructing

strategies for discovery and invention, as well as taking audience and context into consideration;

it places an emphasis on recursiveness, which requires writers to go back and read what they've

already written before moving forward; and it differentiates between goals and modes of

discourse (e.g. expository, expressive, persuasive, classification narration, evaluation, and

description). Additional research conducted by Pakula (2019) demonstrates that second language
ASSIGNMENT 15

learners' academic writing can be significantly improved by adopting a task-based methodology

and including process writing into their studies.

Conclusion

It cannot be denied that students' writing abilities are an extremely important factor in

determining how well they can communicate in a second language, and this is true not only in

the classroom but also in academic studies. Writing is seen as a tough activity by native speakers

to a certain extent; but, for non-natives, particularly students of English as a foreign language

(EFL), it is far more terrifying. The ability to express oneself clearly and concisely in writing is

widely regarded as one of the most challenging linguistic abilities to acquire. Many times,

research topics related to writing in a second language will fit into one of these three categories:

disciplinary, interdisciplinary, or metadisciplinary. There are a total of four fundamental methods

to teaching writing, which we might identify as follows: behaviourism, contrastive rhetoric,

process-oriented approaches, product-oriented approaches, and post-process approaches.

Language instructors and academics have pointed to analytical and impressionistic (holistic)

approaches to grading writing for a significant amount of time as two methods that are

considered to be valid alternatives.

ASSIGNMENT 16

References

Barrette, C. M., Paesani, K., & Vinall, K. (2010). Toward an integrated curriculum: Maximizing

the use of target language literature. Foreign Language Annals, 43(2), 216-230.

Boudreau, C., MacIntyre, P., & Dewaele, J. M. (2018). Enjoyment and anxiety in second

language communication: An idiodynamic approach. Studies in Second Language

Learning and Teaching, 8(1), 149-170.

Byram, M., & Wagner, M. (2018). Making a difference: Language teaching for intercultural and

international dialogue. Foreign Language Annals, 51(1), 140-151.

Chou, M. H. (2018). Speaking anxiety and strategy use for learning English as a foreign

language in full and partial English‐medium instruction contexts. Tesol Quarterly, 52(3),

611-633.

Culpeper, J., Mackey, A., & Taguchi, N. (2018). Second language pragmatics: From theory to

research. Routledge.

García-Pastor, M. D., & Miller, R. (2019). Unveiling the needs of students who stutter in the

language skills-a study on anxiety and stuttering in EFL learning. European Journal of

Special Needs Education, 34(2), 172-188.

Genesee, F., Geva, E., Dressler, C., & Kamil, M. L. (2007). Cross-linguistic relationships in

second-language learners. In Developing reading and writing in second-language

learners (pp. 75-108). Routledge.

ASSIGNMENT 17

Gevers, J. (2018). Translingualism revisited: Language difference and hybridity in L2

writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 40, 73-83.

Godwin-Jones, R. (2019). Riding the digital wilds: Learner autonomy and informal language

learning. Language Learning & Technology, 23(1), 8-25.

Han, J., & Hiver, P. (2018). Genre-based L2 writing instruction and writing-specific

psychological factors: The dynamics of change. Journal of Second Language Writing, 40,

44-59.

Hartshorne, J. K., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Pinker, S. (2018). A critical period for second language

acquisition: Evidence from 2/3 million English speakers. Cognition, 177, 263-277.

Jiang, Y., & Dewaele, J. M. (2019). How unique is the foreign language classroom enjoyment

and anxiety of Chinese EFL learners?. System, 82, 13-25.

Kessler, G. (2018). Technology and the future of language teaching. Foreign language

annals, 51(1), 205-218.

Kukulska‐Hulme, A., & Viberg, O. (2018). Mobile collaborative language learning: State of the

art. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(2), 207-218.

Larsen‐Freeman, D. (2018). Looking ahead: Future directions in, and future research into,

second language acquisition. Foreign language annals, 51(1), 55-72.

Li, M. (2018). Computer-mediated collaborative writing in L2 contexts: An analysis of empirical

research. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(8), 882-904.

ASSIGNMENT 18

Lou, N. M., & Noels, K. A. (2019). Promoting growth in foreign and second language education:

A research agenda for mindsets in language learning and teaching. System, 86, 102126.

Mendoza, A., & Phung, H. (2019). Motivation to learn languages other than English: A critical

research synthesis. Foreign Language Annals, 52(1), 121-140.

Naser Oteir, I., & Nijr Al-Otaibi, A. (2019). Foreign language anxiety: A systematic

review. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Volume, 10.

Pakula, H. M. (2019). Teaching speaking. Apples-Journal of Applied Language Studies, 13(1),

95-111.

Peters, E. (2019). The effect of imagery and on‐screen text on foreign language vocabulary

learning from audiovisual input. Tesol Quarterly, 53(4), 1008-1032.

Rose, H., Briggs, J. G., Boggs, J. A., Sergio, L., & Ivanova-Slavianskaia, N. (2018). A

systematic review of language learner strategy research in the face of self-

regulation. System, 72, 151-163.

Saito, K., & Plonsky, L. (2019). Effects of second language pronunciation teaching revisited: A

proposed measurement framework and meta‐analysis. Language Learning, 69(3), 652-708.

Schmitt, N. (2019). Understanding vocabulary acquisition, instruction, and assessment: A

research agenda. Language Teaching, 52(2), 261-274.

Setiyadi, A. G. (2020). Teaching English as a foreign language.

ASSIGNMENT 19

Shao, K., Pekrun, R., & Nicholson, L. J. (2019). Emotions in classroom language learning: What

can we learn from achievement emotion research?. System, 86, 102121.

Teimouri, Y., Goetze, J., & Plonsky, L. (2019). Second language anxiety and achievement: A

meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(2), 363-387.

Wallace, M. P. (2022). Individual differences in second language listening: Examining the role

of knowledge, metacognitive awareness, memory, and attention. Language

Learning, 72(1), 5-44.

Wang, Y., Derakhshan, A., & Zhang, L. J. (2021). Researching and practicing positive

psychology in second/foreign language learning and teaching: the past, current status and

future directions. Frontiers in Psychology, 12.

Warner, C., & Dupuy, B. (2018). Moving toward multiliteracies in foreign language teaching:

Past and present perspectives… and beyond. Foreign Language Annals, 51(1), 116-128.