Models in collaborative writing among CLIL learners of English in primary school: Linguistic outcomes and motivation matters

Villarreal, Izaskun; Ibarrola, Amparo Lázaro

doi:10.1016/j.system.2022.102922

Cited by 8 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In prior studies, most researchers simply counted the number of elements incorporated from the models into learners’ revised drafts (Guirao et al., 2015; Hanaoka, 2007; Mayo & Labandibar, 2017; ). Fortunately, recent studies on models have incorporated the methodological rigor to provide more conclusive results (Coyle et al., 2018; Lázaro‐Ibarrola, 2021; Roothooft et al., 2022; Villarreal & Lázaro‐Ibarrola, 2022).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous studies have focused on a few learner‐related factors, including proficiency (Coyle & de Larios, 2020; Guirao et al., 2015; Hanaoka, 2007), attitude toward or perception of the use of models (Kang, 2020; Mayo & Labandibar, 2017), motivation (Villarreal & Lázaro‐Ibarrola, 2022), and working memory (Kang, 2022). These factors connect closely to the efficacy of models as a WCF strategy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Model‐based feedback for L2 writing revision: The role of vocabulary size and language aptitude

Kang

2023

Int J App Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the utility of model‐based feedback is well documented, little is known about which factors modulate its effectiveness. The current study investigated the extent to which learner differences in receptive and productive vocabulary sizes, as well as differences in their language aptitude (measured by the LLAMA test), mediated the effects of using models as a written corrective feedback (WCF) tool. Sixty Korean learners of English (ages 18–21) were divided into an experimental and a control group. They all completed an argumentative writing task. Before revising their texts, the experimental group received model texts to compare their first draft, while the control group self‐corrected their errors without a model. Subsequently, all 60 participants took the LLAMA and vocabulary size tests. The model group's revisions showed significant improvements in vocabulary, content, and organization compared to the control group. The results also showed that learners’ receptive and productive vocabulary sizes significantly predicted the effectiveness of model‐based feedback.

show abstract