Students’ Writer Identities and Writing Practice in Tertiary English-Medium Instruction in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript reports the findings from a study examining student writers' identities and writing practice in EMI instructional contexts in China. The manuscript is well-organised and well-written, and there is certainly a contribution that this manuscript can make to the growing literature on EMI writing practice. I outline below some minor suggestions for strengthening the manuscript, which I hope will be helpful as the authors develop their work further. 

1. More information about the research methodology can be provided in the manuscript. The authors need to elaborate on how the case study approach can help address the research questions. 

2. As this study focuses on the EMI context, the authors need to add a section that introduces the research context of the present study and provides more contextual information about EMI instruction and writing practice in mainland China. 

3. I wonder if it is possible to add some essay data to the case reports of Penny and Arthur. 

Author Response

See the enclosed responses

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I have had the opportunity to review the manuscript "Students' Writer Identities and Writing Practice in Tertiary English-Medium Instruction in China," submitted for publication in Sustainability. The study is relevant, timely and would significantly contribute to the journal's readership. However, there are a few areas the authors could revise to enhance the quality of the manuscript. Below I provide some suggestions.

Cases

 

Given that the study adopted a case study approach, providing more in-depth information about the four students is critical. First, how were these students selected (i.e., why these students)? Why and how the authors selected these four students needs to be clarified. Please provide more information about the selection process. Second, are these four students from the same university? Do all their programs follow the same type of EMI approach? Please provide more information about the EMI program(s). Third, are all classes offered in English? Only some classes? This information needs to be more explicit in the manuscript.

 

ELP Test Scores

 

You presented students' ELP scores in Table 1. However, whether these are overall scores or scores for the writing section needs to be clarified.

 

Research Questions

 

I recommend revising the first research question. As currently stated, it is too broad. Please make it specific to the case studies. For example: How do four Chinese students view themselves as EMI writers?

 

Data Analysis

 

Please provide more information about the data analysis process. For example, who coded all the data? How many people coded the data? How did the authors control for biases in coding?

 

Findings

 

I like that the authors provided rich data to support their findings. However, there were a few things I would have liked to know more about the four students. For example, how do students define being an academic writer? It would be nice to know their definition of an academic writer. Also, how did the students perform in their writing tasks (i.e., grades)? I did not see any information about their performance in the findings. Finally, did the authors find any relationship between ELP scores and the writer's identity? Between their field of study and the writer's identity? Between their grades and the writer's identity?

 

Implications

 

I recommend adding a section to describe the implications of this study. It could be implications for practice. For example, your findings show that teachers and lectures influenced students' identity as writers. What recommendations would the authors give to teachers or lecturers? I also suggest providing implications for future research. For example, which research studies could be pursued to continue this line of research?

 

Overall

 

I recommend reviewing the manuscript one more time. I found some typos here and there.

 

For example, on page 9 (line 407): Arthur considered herself as a member in the academic community…

It should be "himself” instead of “herself” and “of” instead of “in”

Author Response

see the enclosed response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I highlighted some constructions that need correcting. Note the confusion between him and her sometimes.

One thing I would also point out more is the difference between undergraduate and graduate students and how it may have affected their identities. The one graduate student probably knew how to write academically, but just did not think that was needed in the assignments. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

See the enclosed

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf