Task repetition and corrective feedback via models and direct corrections among young EFL writers: Draft quality and task motivation

Abstract

Second language (L2) writing research has demonstrated that young learners discuss linguistic issues, make use of feedback, and show a generally positive disposition toward writing tasks. However, many issues deserve further investigation. Regarding task implementation, few studies have been conducted with young learners writing individually, and few have compared different feedback types. Also, the focus of analysis has mostly been placed on students’ discussions; little is known about aspects such as draft quality and task motivation. To address these gaps, draft quality and task motivation were measured in 75 learners (aged 10–12 years) engaged in a three-stage writing task. They were divided into a task repetition group ( n = 21), a group that received feedback via direct corrections ( n = 30), and a group that received feedback via model texts ( n = 24). Students’ drafts improved very slightly in complexity with task repetition; they significantly improved in accuracy with direct corrections, and also in lexical diversity and text quality with models. Task motivation remained high throughout the writing cycle in the task repetition group, where students found the task easy. However, it dropped slightly with direct corrections and – especially before the final draft, with models – which students deemed conducive to learning but difficult. Some pedagogical guidelines are discussed.

Models as written corrective feedback: Effects on young L2 learners’ fluency in digital writing from product and process perspectives

“…Past research with models has examined adults (Hanaoka, 2007), adolescents (García-Mayo & Labandibar, 2017;Kang, 2020;Martínez-Esteban &Roca de Larios, 2010), andchildren (Cánovas Guirao, 2018;Cánovas Guirao et al, 2015;Coyle et al, 2018;Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2021;Luquin & García-Mayo, 2021;Roothooft et al, 2022). Models have been implemented in a three-stage writing sequence: 1) a writing stage where participants are also pushed to notice the linguistic features they cannot express or have difficulties with (problematic features noticed); 2) a comparison stage of their own texts with a model text; and 3) a rewriting stage where participants try to include the features noticed in the previous stage into their own texts.…”

“…Only two studies explicitly alluded to Truscott's (1996Truscott's ( , 2004 claims (Chandler, 2003, andEkanayaka &Ellis, 2020). Young learners were examined in Cánovas , Lázaro-Ibarrola (2021) and Roothooft et al (2022). Chandler (2003), Ekanayaka and Ellis (2020) and Kim et al (2022) studied university students, while Martínez-Esteban and Roca de Larios (2010) investigated secondary-school students, and Sánchez (2019) examined both university and secondary-school students.…”

“…Chandler's (2003) first reported study resorted to indirect WCF, Ekanayaka and Ellis (2020) used direct, semi-focused WCF, synchronous indirect WCF was selected by Kim et al (2022), while Chandler's (2003) second study and Sánchez (2019) drew upon both direct and indirect WCF. Cánovas , Lázaro-Ibarrola ( 2021) and Martínez-Esteban and Roca de Larios (2010) used models, which were also employed by Roothooft et al (2022) together with direct WCF. Crucial methodological issues in these studies are worth mentioning:…”

“…The sample sizes were generally small, ranging from five individual writers and six pairs in Martínez-Esteban and Roca de Larios (2010) to Ekanayaka and Ellis' ( 2020) thirty participants in one WCF group and thirty-one writers in both the control and the second WCF groups. Six studies reported inferential statistics (Chandler, 2003;Ekanayaka & Ellis, 2020;Kim et al, 2022;Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2021;Roothooft et al, 2022;Sánchez, 2019), whose results may not be stable due to the small samples that were used. 3.…”

“…3. Importantly, the measurement of the fluency of the final text greatly differed: a) frequency counts, either the raw number of words in untimed collaborative writing , or in timed writing such as total number of words in ten minutes (Ekanayaka & Ellis, 2020), or in twenty minutes (Roothooft et al, 2022); also, the number of T-units in 25 minutes (Kim et al, 2022) and total number of words, the proportion of T-units and number of clauses per text in 30 and 20 minutes respectively for the collaborative and the individual groups (Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2021); b) temporal ratios such as words and syllables per minute in untimed writing (Sánchez, 2019); c) a speed perspective with minutes per 100 words (Chandler, 2003); and d) description of mean writing minutes and of words written (Martínez-Esteban & Roca de Larios, 2010).…”