Spaced Multi-draft Composing and Feedback in Mainland Chinese English as a Foreign Language Secondary School Writing Literacy
This chapter investigated how uninformed, spaced multi-draft composing and teacher feedback influenced the writing quality and fluency among secondary school EFL learners of different proficiency levels. Thirty-nine Junior Two students in two proficiency groups composed three drafts of the same paper spaced out over eight weeks. Only half of each group obtained teacher feedback during the training. Results showed that multi-draft composing improved writing fluency for all participants’ second and third drafts. The high-proficiency students showed better writing quality in both subsequent drafts; their low-proficiency counterparts only improved on the second draft. Teacher comments did not affect the writing performance. The results stressed the importance of timely teacher feedback in process writing. Also, low-proficiency learners should receive extra support for later drafts.
Part of the results of this research has been reported in the Chinese publication: 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. Those data have been re-analyzed and re-interpreted here.
- Anderson, J. R. (2000). Learning and memory: An integrated approach (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Barton, D. (2006). The significance of a social practice view of language, literacy, and numeracy. In L. Tett, M. Hamilton, & Y. Hillier (Eds.), Adult literacy, numeracy and language: Policy, practice, and research (pp. 21–30). Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
- Bui, G. (2018). A lexical approach to teaching formality in freshman L2 academic writing. In L. T. Wong & W. L. Wong (Eds.), Teaching and learning English for academic purposes: Current research and practices (pp. 111–124). New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
- Bui, G., Ahmadian, M., & Hunter, A. (2019). Spacing effects on repeated L2 task performance. System, 81, 1–13.Google Scholar
- Bui, G., & Skehan, P. (2018). Complexity, fluency and accuracy. In J. Liontas (Ed.), TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Bui, H. Y. G. (2014). Task readiness: Theoretical framework and empirical evidence from topic familiarity, strategic planning, and proficiency levels. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 63–93). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
- Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
- 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). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Murray, D. (1972). Teach writing as a process not a product. The Leaflet, 71(3) 11–14.Google Scholar
- Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
- Skehan, P. (Ed.). (2014). Processing perspectives on task performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
- White, R., & Arndt, V. (1991). Process writing. London, UK: Longman.Google Scholar