Keywords
models
fluency
L2 writing
young learners
How to Cite
Number of views: 1821
Number of downloads: 886
Abstract
This study was motivated by Truscott’s (1996, 2004) scarcely empirically tested claims that written corrective feedback (WCF) processing hinders fluency in subsequent rewriting owing to learners’ purposeful avoidance of making mistakes by composing shorter texts at a higher speed. It examined the writing fluency of the texts produced by eighteen 10-11-year-old L2 English children in a digital environment. They were divided into a feedback (N = 10) and a self-correction group (N = 8). Both groups engaged in a three-stage task: writing, comparison of their texts with a model or self-editing as appropriate, and rewriting. Fluency was analyzed via five product/offline and five process/online measures. The texts and writing behaviors were recorded with Inputlog 8.0. The results partially support Truscott’s claims. The feedback group improved their fluency in all the ten measures. However, the self-editing group showed higher fluency than the feedback group in seven of the ten measures, with the corresponding Hedge’s effect sizes between groups ranging from small to large. The study enlightens our knowledge of young learners’ writing fluency and supports adopting a multidimensional approach to understand the complex and multi-faceted nature of fluency as mediated by WCF processing.
References
Abdel Latif, M. M. (2009). Towards a new processbased indicator for measuring writing fluency: Evidence from L2 writers’ think-aloud protocols. Canadian Modern Language Review, 65(4), 531-558. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.65.4.531 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.65.4.531
Abdel Latif, M. M. (2013). What do we mean by writing fluency and how can it be validly measured? Applied Linguistics, 34, 99-105. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams073 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams073
Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford University Press.
Barkaoui, K. (2007). Revision in second language writing: What teachers need to know. TESL Canada Journal, 25(1), 81-92. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v25i1.109 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v25i1.109
Barkaoui, K. (2019). What can L2 writers’ pausing behavior tell us about their L2 writing processes? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(3), 529-554. https://doi.org/10.1017/s027226311900010x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311900010X
Breuer, E. O. (2019). Fluency in L1 and FL writing: An analysis of planning, essay writing and final revision. In E. Lindgren & K. P. H. Sullivan (Eds.), Observing writing: Insights from keystroke logging and handwriting (pp. 191-211). Brill.
Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks, second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 23-48). Longman.
Cánovas Guirao, J. (2018). The use of written models in the teaching of English in primary (Doctoral dissertation, University of Murcia). DIGITUM repository.http://hdl.handle.net/10201/55971
Cánovas Guirao, J., Roca de Larios, J., & Coyle, Y. (2015). The use of models as a written feedback technique with young EFL learners. System, 52(1), 63-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.04.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.04.002
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9
Chenoweth, N. A., & Hayes, J. R. (2001). Fluency in writing: Generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication, 18, 80-98. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088301018001004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088301018001004
Council of Europe (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. https://rm.coe.int/1680459f97
Coyle, Y., & Roca de Larios, J. (2020). Exploring young learners’ engagement with models as a written corrective technique in EFL and CLIL settings. System, 95, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102374 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102374
Coyle, Y., Cánovas Guirao, J., & Roca de Larios, J. (2018). Identifying the trajectories of young EFL learners across multi-stage writing and feedback processing tasks with model texts. Journal of Second Language Writing, 42, 25-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.09.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.09.002
Ekanayaka, W. I., & Ellis, R. (2020). Does asking learners to revise add to the effect of written corrective feedback on L2 acquisition? System, 94, 102341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102341 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102341
García Hernández, J., Roca de Larios, J., & Coyle, Y. (2017). Reformulation as a problem-solving space for young EFL writers: A longitudinal study of language learning strategies. In M. P. García-Mayo (Ed.), Learning foreign languages in primary school. Research insights (pp. 193-222). Multilin-gual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783098118-012 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783098118-012
García-Mayo, M. D. P., & Labandibar, U. L. (2017). The use of models as written cor-rective feedback in English as a foreign language (EFL) writing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 37, 110-127. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190517000071 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190517000071
Garcés-Manzanera, A. (2021). An exploratory study of primary school children’s writing processes in digital environments: The use of models as written corrective feedback (Doctoral dissertation, University of Murcia). DIGI-TUM repository. http://hdl.handle.net/10201/114544
Hanaoka, O. (2007). Output, noticing, and learning: An investigation into the role of spontaneous attention to form in a four-stage writing task. Language Teaching Research, 11(4), 459-479. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807080963 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807080963
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3-30). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 461-473. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp048 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp048
Kang, E. Y. (2020). Using model texts as a form of feedback in L2 writing. System, 89, 102196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102196 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102196
Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2020). The effects of written corrective feedback: A critical synthesis of past and present research. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 3(1), 28-52. https://doi.org/10.1558/isla.37949 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1558/isla.37949
Kellogg, R. T. (1990). Effectiveness of prewriting strategies as a function of task demands. American Journal of Psychology, 103, 327-342. https://doi.org/10.2307/1423213 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1423213
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). Erlbaum.
Kim, Y., Choi, B., Yun, H., Kim, B., & Choi, S. (2022). Task repetition, synchronous written corrective feedback and the learning of Korean grammar: A classroom-based study. Language Teaching Research, 26(6), 1106-1132. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820912354 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820912354
Lázaro-Ibarrola, A. (2021). Model texts in collaborative and individual writing among EFL children: Noticing, incorporations, and draft quality. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 000010151520200160. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2020-0160 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2020-0160
Leijten, M., & Van Waes, L. (2013). Keystroke logging in writing research: Using Inputlog to analyze and visualize writing processes. Written Communication, 30(3), 358-392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088313491692 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088313491692
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. MIT Press.
Luquin, M., & García-Mayo, M. P. (2021). Exploring the use of models as a written corrective feedback technique among EFL children. System, 98, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102465 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102465
Martínez-Esteban, N., & Roca de Larios, J. (2010). The use of models as a form of written feedback to secondary school pupils of English. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 143-170. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119241 DOI: https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119241
Michel, M., Révész, A., Lu, X., Kourtali, N.-E., Lee, M., & Borges, L. (2020). Inves-tigating L2 writing processes across independent and integrated tasks: A mixed-methods study. Second Language Research, 36(3), 307-334. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658320915501 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658320915501
Mohsen, M. A. (2021). L1 versus L2 writing processes: What insight can we obtain from a keystroke logging program? Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211041292 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211041292
Palviainen, A., Kalaja, P., & Mäntylä, K. (2012). Development of L2 writing: Fluency and proficiency. AFinLA-e: Soveltavan kielitieteen tutkimuksia, 4, 47-59.
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64(4), 878-912. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12079 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12079
Révész, A., Kourtali, N. E., & Mazgutova, D. (2017). Effects of task complexity on L2 writing behaviours and linguistic complexity. Language Learning, 67, 208-241. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12205 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12205
Roothooft, H., Lázaro-Ibarrola, A., & Bulté, B. (2022). Task repetition and corrective feedback via models and direct corrections among young EFL writers: Draft quality and task motivation. Language Teaching Research, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221082041 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221082041
Sánchez, A. (2019). External task-repetition: The role of modality, written corrective feedback and proficiency. A comparative study (Doctoral dissertation, University of Murcia). DIGITUM repository. http://hdl.handle.net/10201/65841
Schoonen, R., Snellings, P., Stevenson, M., & Van Gelderen, A. (2009). Towards a blueprint of the foreign language writer: The linguistic and cognitive demands of foreign language writing. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 77-101). Multilingual Matters. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691859-007
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.003
Semke, H. D. (1984). Effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195-202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1984.tb01727.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1984.tb01727.x
Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510-532. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp047 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp047
Spelman Miller, K., Lindgren, E., & Sullivan, K. P. H. (2008). The psycholinguistic dimension in second language writing: Opportunities for research and pedagogy using computer keystroke logging. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 433-453. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00140.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00140.x
Stevenson, M. M. C. (2005). Reading and writing in a foreign language: A comparison of conceptual and linguistic processes in Dutch and English (Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam). UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository). https://hdl.handle.net/11245/1.310727
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidhofer (Eds.), For H. G. Widdowson: Principles and practice in the study of language. A Festschrift on the occasion of his 60th birthday (pp. 125-144). Oxford University Press.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x
Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 337-343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.05.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.05.002
Turner, H. M. I., & Bernard, R. M. (2006). Calculating and synthesizing effect sizes. Contemporary issues in communication science and disorders, 33, 42-55. https://doi.org/10.1044/cicsd_33_S_42 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1044/cicsd_33_S_42
Van Gelderen, A., & Oostdam, R. (2002). Improving linguistic fluency for writing: Effects of explicitness and focus of instruction. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 2, 239-270. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021304027877 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021304027877
Van Waes, L., & Leijten, M. (2015). Fluency in writing: A multidimensional perspective on writing fluency applied to L1 and L2. Computers and Composition: An International Journal, 38, 79-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2015.09.012 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2015.09.012
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.-Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. University of Hawai’i Press.
License
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.