Bao Trang Thi Nguyen

Lexical richness in written language production has been examined in different contexts and in relation to different genres but research into the effects of within-genre topics on lexical richness is still limited and takes little account of learners’ perspectives. The present study therefore sought to understand the effects of topics on lexical richness (lexical density, lexical diversity and lexical sophistication) in written essays by Vietnamese EFL learners. Data were collected from sixty-four English-major university students who each wrote four essays on four different topics across two genres (persuasive and descriptive) in their normal classes as progress tests. Ten students were also interviewed after they had completed all the essays to understand their perceptions of the writing topics. Lextutor’s VocabProfile was used to obtain measures of lexical density, lexical diversity and lexical sophistication. The results showed mixed effects of writing topics on these three lexical measures. Learner perspectives provided insights into how cognitive and affective individual factors contributed to the complexity of topic influence. Pedagogical implications are discussed in regard to how to enhance productive lexical use in writing through task selection and instructional planning.

Teacher written feedback (TWF) has received growing attention from researchers and teachers. Although TWF arguably targets multiple dimensions of students’ writing, research to date has largely focused on the relationship between written corrective feedback and language development. More research is needed to understand TWF more holistically and as a two-way social process (Storch, 2018). As such, it is important to understand students’ perspectives on TWF in different instructional contexts. The present study explores Vietnamese EFL students’ perceptions of TWF practices and their preferences for TWF. Data was collected from 97 English-major students in a Vietnamese tertiary setting by means of a questionnaire and follow-up interviews. The findings show that while TWF tended to weigh more on the linguistic end of the form-meaning continuum, students preferred TWF to target both form and global issues of content/idea development and writing style. However, students were divided in their preferences for comprehensive/selective feedback and for direct/indirect feedback. Although students were aware of the necessity of revising their writing upon reception of feedback, they reported different post-feedback actions. Above all, students’ preferences and expectations were underpinned by their own beliefs about the values of TWF that encompass both cognitive/non-cognitive and affective dimensions. The study offers important pedagogical implications for planning written feedback in writing instruction.