This qualitative case study explores the interaction between Chinese college student writers’ voices and their teacher’s use of online materials during one semester-long writing course. It shows that, when acted upon selectively and critically, students’ voices can potentially improve their teacher’s use of online materials. This practice, in turn, can help students gain effective and necessary knowledge of writing. This study also shows that students’ interactions with their teacher seem to lead to bolder and enhanced narration of their voices on how to teach optimally through online materials.
BradleyLVigmoS (2016) Pedagogical framing of OER – The case of language teaching. Open Praxis8(4): 283–295.
2.
BroomanSDarwentSPimorA (2015) The student voice in higher education curriculum design: Is there value in listening?Innovations in Education and Teaching International52(6): 663–674.
3.
ChowdhuryMF (2015) Coding, sorting and sifting of qualitative data analysis: Debates and discussion. Quality & Quantity49(3):1135–1143.
4.
Cook-SatherA (2009) “I am not afraid to listen”: Prospective teachers learning from students. Theory Into Practice48(3):176–183.
5.
EllingerAD andMcWhorterR (2016) Qualitative case study research as empirical inquiry. International Journal of Adult Vocational Education and Technology7(3): 1–13.
6.
EslamiZR (2010) Teachers’ voice vs. students’ voice: A needs analysis approach to English for academic purposes (EAP) in Iran. English Language Teaching3(1): 3–11.
7.
GonzalezTEHernandez-SacaDIArtilesAJ (2017) In search of voice: Theory and methods in K-12 student voice research in the US, 1990–2010. Educational Review69(4): 451–473.
8.
HallidayMAK (1994) Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd ed.London: Edward Arnold.
9.
HongboontriC andNoipinitN (2014) Practical curriculum inquiry: Students’ voices of their EFL curriculum and instruction. Australian Journal of Teacher Education39(11): 65–81.
10.
LekiI andCarsonJG (1994) Students’ perceptions of EAP writing instruction and writing needs across the disciplines. TESOL Quarterly28(1): 81–101.
11.
Macken-HorarikMSandifordCLoveK, et al. (2015) New ways of working ‘with grammar in mind’ in School English: Insights from systemic functional grammatics. Linguistics and Education31: 145–158.
12.
NgC (2018) Using student voice to promote reading engagement for economically disadvantaged students. Journal of Research in Reading41(4): 700–715.
13.
RodgersCR (2006) Attending to student voice: The impact of descriptive feedback on learning and teaching. Curriculum Inquiry36(2): 209–237.
14.
ShadievRHwangWYHuangYM (2017) Review of research on mobile language learning in authentic environments. Computer Assisted Language Learning30(3–4): 284–303.
15.
TaffsKH andHoltJI (2013) Investigating student use and value of e-learning resources to develop academic writing within the discipline of environmental science. Journal of Geography in Higher Education37(4): 500–514.
16.
TroyanFJ (2014) Leveraging genre theory: A genre-based interactive model for the era of the Common Core State Standards. Foreign Language Annals47: 5–24.
XuZBanerjeeMRamirezG, et al. (2019) The effectiveness of educational technology applications on adult English language learners’ writing quality: A meta-analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning32(1–2): 132–162.
19.
ZhangX (2017) Understanding Chinese EFL Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices in the Textbook-based Classroom. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
20.
ZhangX (2018) Connecting OER with mandatory textbooks in an EFL classroom: A language theory-based material adoption. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning19(2): 89–110.
