Main Article Content
Prior research demonstrates that primary and secondary school teachers often find teaching young learners to write in a second language a slow and effortful process. Moreover, students in this age range lack the motivation to write. Therefore, it is important to explore the EFL writing pedagogy suitable for young learners. The present study investigated how story continuation (with or without reading input) under different topic familiarity conditions serves as a viable pedagogical means for secondary school students. Ninety-one Chinese students in four intact classes of comparable proficiency levels were assigned four writing task conditions in a 2 ⨉ 2 factorial design. Group 1 (Fam) was provided with the beginning of a familiar story in L1 Chinese and was required to complete the story in L2 English. Group 2 (UnFam) had the same task as Group 1, with an unfamiliar story. Group 3 (Fam+Input) was initially provided with the complete familiar story in Chinese (the same story as Group 1) as reading input and were then instructed to write the story in English with the reading material taken away. Group 4 (Unfam+Input) received the full unfamiliar story in Chinese (the same story as Group 2) as input before writing. Again they were not allowed to refer to the reading in the composing process. The results revealed that the young learners who wrote on familiar topics (Groups 1 and 3) produced longer texts and demonstrated greater lexical diversity than those with unfamiliar stories (Groups 2 and 4), although topic familiarity did not affect their writing quality or lexical sophistication. As for the story continuation conditions, students who completed writing the story without the L1 reading input on the topics (Groups 1 and 2) developed longer compositions and better writing quality than those with such input (Groups 3 and 4), although their lexical profiles (both lexical diversity and lexical sophistication) remained uninfluenced. Pedagogical implications for EFL writing among young learners were also discussed in the present study.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
1.1 The Author hereby warrants that he/she is the owner of all the copyright and other intellectual property rights in the Work and that, within the scope of the present Agreement, the paper does not infringe the legal rights of another person. The owner of the copyright work also warrants that he/she is the sole and original creator thereof and that is not bound by any legal constraints in regard to the use or sale of the work.
1.2. The Publisher warrants that is the owner of the PRESSto platform for open access journals, hereinafter referred to as the PRESSto Platform.
2. The Author grants the Publisher non-exclusive and free of charge license to unlimited use worldwide over an unspecified period of time in the following areas of exploitation:
2.1. production of multiple copies of the Work produced according to the specific application of a given technology, including printing, reproduction of graphics through mechanical or electrical means (reprography) and digital technology;
2.2. marketing authorisation, loan or lease of the original or copies thereof;
2.3. public performance, public performance in the broadcast, video screening, media enhancements as well as broadcasting and rebroadcasting, made available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them;
2.4. inclusion of the Work into a collective work (i.e. with a number of contributions);
2.5. inclusion of the Work in the electronic version to be offered on an electronic platform, or any other conceivable introduction of the Work in its electronic version to the Internet;
2.6. dissemination of electronic versions of the Work in its electronic version online, in a collective work or independently;
2.7. making the Work in the electronic version available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, in particular by making it accessible via the Internet, Intranet, Extranet;
2.8. making the Work available according to appropriate license pattern Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) as well as another language version of this license or any later version published by Creative Commons.
3. The Author grants the Publisher permission to reproduce a single copy (print or download) and royalty-free use and disposal of rights to compilations of the Work and these compilations.
4. The Author grants the Publisher permission to send metadata files related to the Work, including to commercial and non-commercial journal-indexing databases.
5. The Author represents that, on the basis of the license granted in the present Agreement, the Publisher is entitled and obliged to:
5.1. allow third parties to obtain further licenses (sublicenses) to the Work and to other materials, including derivatives thereof or compilations made, based on or including the Work, whereas the provisions of such sub-licenses will be the same as with the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Creative Commons sub-license or another language version of this license, or any later version of this license published by Creative Commons;
5.2. make the Work available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, without any technological constraints;
5.3. appropriately inform members of the public to whom the Work is to be made available about sublicenses in such a way as to ensure that all parties are properly informed (appropriate informing messages).
6. Because of the royalty-free provision of services of the Author (resulting from the scope of obligations stipulated in the present Agreement), the Author shall not be entitled to any author’s fee due and payable on the part of the Publisher (no fee or royalty is payable by the Publisher to the Author).
7.1. In the case of third party claims or actions for indemnity against the Publisher owing to any infractions related to any form of infringement of intellectual property rights protection, including copyright infringements, the Author is obliged to take all possible measures necessary to protect against these claims and, when as a result of legal action, the Publisher, or any third party licensed by the Publisher to use the Work, will have to abandon using the Work in its entirety or in part or, following a court ruling in a legal challenge, to pay damages to a third party, whatever the legal basis
7.2. The Author will immediately inform the Publisher about any damage claims related to intellectual property infringements, including the author’s proprietary rights pertaining to a copyrighted work, filed against the Author. of liability, the Author is obliged to redress the damage resulting from claims made by third party, including costs and expenditures incurred in the process.
7.3. To all matters not settled herein provisions of the Polish Civil Code and the Polish Copyright and Related Rights Act shall apply.
- Becker, A. (2006). A review of writing model research based on cognitive processes. In A. Horning & A. Becker (Eds.), Revision: History, theory, and practice (pp. 25-49). Parlor.
- Braine, G., & May, C. (1995). Writing from sources: A guide for ESL students. Mayfield Pub. Co.
- Bei, X. (2009). The effects of writing task repetition and teacher feedback on writing quality and fluency among students of different proficiency levels. Modern Foreign Languages, 32(4), 389-398. http://xdwy.cbpt.cnki.net/WKD/WebPublication/paperDigest.aspx?paperID=652ca93b-6e7e-4539-a74f-0fabaefbccc0
- Bui, G. (2014). Task readiness: Theoretical framework and empirical evidence from topic familiarity, strategic planning, and proficiency levels. In Skehan, P. (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 63-94). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.5.03gav
- Bui, G. (2019). Influence of learners’ prior knowledge, L2 proficiency and pre-task planning time on L2 lexical complexity. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2018-0244
- Bui, G., & Teng, F. (2021). Exploring complexity in L2 and L3 motivational systems: A dynamic systems theory perspective. The Language Learning Journal, 49(3), 302-317. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2019.1610032
- Bui, G., & Yu, R. (2019). Spaced multi-draft composing and feedback in mainland Chinese English as a foreign language secondary school writing literacy. In B. Reynolds & M. F. Teng (Eds.), English literacy instruction for Chinese speakers. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6653-6_8
- Bügel, K., & Buunk, B. (1996). Sex differences in foreign language text comprehension: The role of interests and prior knowledge. Modern Language Journal, 80, 15-31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1996.tb01133.x
- Chang, C. (2006). Effects of topic familiarity and linguistic difficulty on the reading strategies and mental representations of non-native readers of Chinese. Journal of Language and Learning, 4, 172-198.
- Chen, Q., & Donin, J. (1997). Discourse processing of first and second language biology texts: Effects of language proficiency and domain-specific knowledge. Modern Language Journal, 81, 209-227. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb01176.x
- Copland, F., Garton, S., & Burns, A. (2014). Challenges in teaching English to young learners: Global perspectives and local realities. TESOL Quarterly, 48(4), 738-762. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.148
- Eckstein, G., Chariton, J., & McCollum, R. M. (2011). Multi-draft composing: An iterative model for academic argument writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10, 162-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.05.004
- Graham, S., & Hebert, M. A. (2010). Writing to read: Evidence for how writing can improve reading: A Carnegie corporation time to act report. Alliance for Excellent Education.
- Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 57-71). Lawrence Erlbaum.
- Kellogg, R. T. (2001). Competition for working memory among writing processes. American Journal of Psychology, 114(2), 175-192. https://doi.org/10.2307/1423513
- Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction–integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163-182.
- Kupers, E., Lehman-Wermser, A., McPherson, G., & Geert P. V. (2019). Children’s creativity: A theoretical framework and systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 89: 93-124. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318815707
- Lee, S. K. (2007). Effects of textual enhancement and topic familiarity on Korean EFL students reading comprehension and learning of passive form. Language Learning, 57, 87-118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00400.x
- Lee, I., Yu, S., & Liu, Y. (2018). Hong Kong secondary students’ motivation in EFL writing: A survey study. TESOL Quarterly, 52(1), 176-187. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.364
- Leeser, M. J. (2007). Learner-based factors in L2 reading comprehension and processing grammatical form: Topic familiarity and working memory. Language Learning, 57(2), 229-270. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00408.x
- Long, D. R. (1990). What you don’t know can’t help you: An exploratory study of background knowledge and second language listening comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 65-80. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100008743
- Man, L., Bui, G., & Teng, F. (2018). From second language to third language learning: Exploring a dual-motivation system among multilinguals. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 41(1), 61-90. https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.17051.man
- Markham, P., & Latham, M. (1987). The influence of religious-specific background knowledge on the listening comprehension of adult second-language students. Language Learning, 37, 157-170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1987.tb00563.x
- Meara, P., & Bell, H. (2001). P-Lex: A simple and effective way of describing the lexical characteristics of short L2 tests. Prospect, 16(3), 5-19. http://www.ameprc.mq.edu.au/resources/prospect/V16_N3_2001
- Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual (5th ed.). Open University Press.
- Peng, J., Wang, C., & Lu, X. (2020). Effect of the linguistic complexity of the input text on alignment, writing fluency, and writing accuracy in the continuation task. Language Teaching Research, 24(3), 364-381. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1362168818783341
- Pickering, M. J., & S. Garrod. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27(2), 169-190. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X04000056
- Qiu. X. (2020). Functions of oral monologic tasks: Effects of topic familiarity on L2 speaking performance. Language Teaching Research, 24(6), 745-764. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819829021
- Qiu, X., & Lo, Y. Y. (2017). The influence of topic familiarity on L2 learners’ engagement in task performance and affective dispositions. Language Teaching Research, 21(6), 681-698.
- Schmidt-Rinehart, B. C. (1994). The effects of topic familiarity on second language listening comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 78, 179-189. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02030.x
- Skehan, P. (2009). Lexical performance by native and non-native speakers on language learning tasks. In B. Richards, H. Daller, D. Malvern, P. Meara, J. Milton, & J. Treffers-Daller (Eds.), Vocabulary studies in first and second language acquisition: The interface between theory and application (pp. 107-124). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230242258_7
- Skehan, P., Bei, X., Li, Q., & Wang, Z. (2012). The task is not enough: Processing approaches to task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 16(2), 170-187. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811428414
- Stevens, R. J., Van Meter, P., & Warcholak, N. D. (2010). The effects of explicitly teaching story structure to primary grade children. The Journal of Literacy Research, 42(2),159-198. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862961003796173
- Tedick, D. J. (1990). ESL writing assessment: Subject-matter knowledge and its impact on performance. English for Specific Purposes, 9, 123-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(90)90003-U
- Wang, C., & Wang, M. (2015). Effect of alignment on L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 36(5), 503-526. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt051
- Wilson, K., & Korn, J. H. (2007). Attention during lectures: Beyond ten minutes. Teaching of Psychology, 34(2), 85-89.
- Zhang, X. (2017). Reading–writing integrated tasks, comprehensive corrective feedback, and EFL writing development. Language Teaching Research, 21(2), 217-240. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815623291