The Role of Teacher-Generated, Learner-Generated, and Creative Content in Chinese EFL Students’ Narrative Writing: A Contextual Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper discusses an issue that contributes to the knowledge in task-based writing in L2. It is sound, well-written, and presented in an academic standard. I have raised a few comments I believe would strengthen the manuscript before publication:

 1.    Further details and clarification are necessary about the second type of task described in ‘(2) students had the opportunity to use their own personal experiences and control the task content and be creative if they chose to’ (157-158). This freedom remains unclear although the authors explain it in the same paragraph: ‘Although (2) and (3) appear quite similar in terms of allowing students to be creative, the complete freedom and lack of constrains in (2) might also result in a mundane account of past experiences possibly recounted numerous times earlier by the student, so creativity is only option but not a requirement there’ (160-161). However, the readers may wonder how many students in each group finally opted for the second type and the reasons for doing so. This question is related with my last comment in this review.

2.    The authors state that 120 narratives were produced altogether but how many narratives and types were produced by each group?

3.    Method. Which sampling method was used in this research? The authors claim that ‘Although members of the two groups were selected on the basis of their proficiency scores’. What do the authors mean by ‘selected on the basis of their proficiency scores’? How were the participants selected in each group (CSH and CSC)?

4.    Method: The authors should briefly explain the Oxford Placement Test to clarify the selection criteria. This test has two sections, ‘Listening’ and ‘Use of English’, with separates scores for each. The authors claim there was a significant difference in the listening scores between both groups but not in the grammar section, does it refer to the ‘use of English’ section? When were the scores obtained?

5.    Some statements need further clarification, for example ‘This might suggest that producing output on the CT could be dependent on individual characteristics, such as creativity (see Albert and Kormos 2004).’ (301-302). This seems to be redundant, creative task (CT) depends on ‘creativity’. There may be other determining factors such as vocabulary knowledge, self-confidence, critical thinking skills, motivation, etc.

6.    Results. What other factors could determine the choice for each type of writing among EFL students?  For example time pressure, perceived easiness (PE), etc. TGT (describe some pictures) could be perceived as ‘less demanding’ in terms of critical thinking skills than LGT y CT if the conditions were the same for all students (30 minutes). Although creativity is often described as a positive ability it requires the enactment of many different skills and not all students can be ‘creative’ at the same level.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable comments. We have reviewed every comment carefully and reflected them in our revised manuscript accordingly. Please see the attachment named "Response to Reviewer".

Best Regards,

Dr. XXX

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see my detailed comments in the attached document, titled "Journal manuscript review - Languages 1".

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable comments. We have reviewed every comment carefully and reflected them in our revised manuscript accordingly. Please see the attachment named "Response to Reviewer".

Best Regards,

Dr. XXX

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf