Exploring the use of model texts as a feedback instrument in expository writing: EFL learners’ noticing, incorporations, and text quality

IF 4.2 1区 文学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Assessing Writing Pub Date : 2024-09-20 DOI:10.1016/j.asw.2024.100890
Long Quoc Nguyen , Bao Trang Thi Nguyen , Hoang Yen Phuong
{"title":"Exploring the use of model texts as a feedback instrument in expository writing: EFL learners’ noticing, incorporations, and text quality","authors":"Long Quoc Nguyen ,&nbsp;Bao Trang Thi Nguyen ,&nbsp;Hoang Yen Phuong","doi":"10.1016/j.asw.2024.100890","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Model texts as a feedback instrument (MTFI) have proven effective in enhancing L2 writing, yet research on this domain mainly focused on narrative compositions over a three-stage task: i) composing, ii) comparing, and iii) rewriting. The impact of MTFI on learners’ noticing, incorporations, and text quality in expository writing, especially in the Vietnamese context, remains underexplored. To address these gaps, this study aims to investigate the effect of MTFI on 68 Vietnamese EFL undergraduates’ expository writing following a process-product approach. The participants were divided into a control group (CG, <em>N</em> = 33) and an experimental group (EG, <em>N</em> = 35). Both groups attended stages one and three, but only the EG compared their initial writing with a model text in stage two. The results, derived from learners’ note-taking sheets, written paragraphs, and semi-structured interviews, revealed that despite the two groups’ comparability in stage one, the EG demonstrated significantly better text quality than the CG in stage three, particularly in content, lexis, and organization. Furthermore, while the EG largely encountered lexical issues at the outset, they primarily concentrated on content-related and organizational features in the subsequent stages. Based on the findings, recommendations for future research and implications for pedagogy were deliberated.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":46865,"journal":{"name":"Assessing Writing","volume":"62 ","pages":"Article 100890"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Assessing Writing","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1075293524000837","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Model texts as a feedback instrument (MTFI) have proven effective in enhancing L2 writing, yet research on this domain mainly focused on narrative compositions over a three-stage task: i) composing, ii) comparing, and iii) rewriting. The impact of MTFI on learners’ noticing, incorporations, and text quality in expository writing, especially in the Vietnamese context, remains underexplored. To address these gaps, this study aims to investigate the effect of MTFI on 68 Vietnamese EFL undergraduates’ expository writing following a process-product approach. The participants were divided into a control group (CG, N = 33) and an experimental group (EG, N = 35). Both groups attended stages one and three, but only the EG compared their initial writing with a model text in stage two. The results, derived from learners’ note-taking sheets, written paragraphs, and semi-structured interviews, revealed that despite the two groups’ comparability in stage one, the EG demonstrated significantly better text quality than the CG in stage three, particularly in content, lexis, and organization. Furthermore, while the EG largely encountered lexical issues at the outset, they primarily concentrated on content-related and organizational features in the subsequent stages. Based on the findings, recommendations for future research and implications for pedagogy were deliberated.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
探索在说明文写作中使用范文作为反馈工具:英语学习者的注意、融入和文本质量
事实证明,作为反馈工具的范文(MTFI)能有效提高 L2 写作水平,但这方面的研究主要集中在叙事作文的三个阶段任务上:i) 作文,ii) 比较,iii) 改写。MTFI对学习者在说明文写作中的注意、融入和文本质量的影响,尤其是在越南语境中的影响,仍未得到充分探索。为了弥补这些不足,本研究采用过程-产品法,旨在调查 MTFI 对 68 名越南 EFL 本科生说明文写作的影响。参与者分为对照组(CG,33 人)和实验组(EG,35 人)。两组都参加了第一和第三阶段,但只有实验组在第二阶段将他们的初始写作与范文进行了比较。从学习者的笔记单、书面段落和半结构式访谈中得出的结果显示,尽管两组在第一阶段具有可比性,但在第三阶段,EG 的文章质量明显优于 CG,尤其是在内容、词汇和组织方面。此外,虽然教育组在开始阶段主要遇到词汇方面的问题,但在随后的阶段,他们主要集中在与内容相关的和组织方面的特点上。根据研究结果,讨论了对未来研究的建议和对教学法的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Assessing Writing
Assessing Writing Multiple-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
17.90%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: Assessing Writing is a refereed international journal providing a forum for ideas, research and practice on the assessment of written language. Assessing Writing publishes articles, book reviews, conference reports, and academic exchanges concerning writing assessments of all kinds, including traditional (direct and standardised forms of) testing of writing, alternative performance assessments (such as portfolios), workplace sampling and classroom assessment. The journal focuses on all stages of the writing assessment process, including needs evaluation, assessment creation, implementation, and validation, and test development.
期刊最新文献
A comparative study of voice in Chinese English-major undergraduates’ timed and untimed argument writing The impact of task duration on the scoring of independent writing responses of adult L2-English writers A structural equation investigation of linguistic features as indices of writing quality in assessed secondary-level EMI learners’ scientific reports Detecting and assessing AI-generated and human-produced texts: The case of second language writing teachers Validating an integrated reading-into-writing scale with trained university students
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1