Spaced Multi-draft Composing and Feedback in Mainland Chinese English as a Foreign Language Secondary School Writing Literacy

  • Gavin BuiEmail author
  • Rhett Yu


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.


  1. Anderson, J. R. (2000). Learning and memory: An integrated approach (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. Bui, G., Ahmadian, M., & Hunter, A. (2019). Spacing effects on repeated L2 task performance. System, 81, 1–13.Google Scholar
  5. Bui, G., & Huang, Z. (2018). L2 fluency as influenced by content familiarity and planning: Performance, methodology and pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 22(1), 94–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bui, G., & Skehan, P. (2018). Complexity, fluency and accuracy. In J. Liontas (Ed.), TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Bui, G., & Teng, F. (2018). Exploring learners’ behavioral patterns in two task-readiness conditions: A qualitative study. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 42(2), 129–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36, 353–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hairston, M. (1982). The winds of change: Thomas Kuhn and the revolution in the teaching of writing. College Composition and Communication, 33(1), 76–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Kellogg, R. T. (2001). Competition for working memory among writing processes. American Journal of Psychology, 114(2), 175–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kalan, A. (2014). A practice-oriented definition of post-process second language writing theory. TESL Canada Journal, 32(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lee, I. (2016). Teacher education on feedback in EFL writing: Issues, challenges, and future directions. TESOL Quarterly, 50(2), 518–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lee, I. (2017). Classroom assessment and feedback in L2 school contexts. Singapore: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. MacBeth, K. P. (2010). Deliberate false provisions: The use and usefulness of models in learning academic writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(1), 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Murray, D. (1972). Teach writing as a process not a product. The Leaflet, 71(3) 11–14.Google Scholar
  20. Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  21. Skehan, P. (Ed.). (2014). Processing perspectives on task performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  22. Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. White, R., & Arndt, V. (1991). Process writing. London, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
  24. Wilson, K., & Korn, J. H. (2007). Attention during lectures: Beyond ten minutes. Teaching of Psychology, 34(2), 85–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Hang Seng University of Hong KongSiu Lek YuenHong Kong

Personalised recommendations