Reading–writing integrated tasks,comprehensive corrective feedback,and EFL writing development

Abstract

The study examines whether there is any difference between the effects of a reading–writing integrated task and comprehensive corrective feedback (CF) on English as a foreign language (EFL) learners’ writing development, and whether the input language in the integrated task makes a difference in L2 writing development over time and the language accuracy of the writing resulting from the integrated task. It also explores the possible relationships among language, content alignment and language accuracy and the relationship between language alignment and content alignment. To this end, a quasi-experimental study was conducted to assess participants’ L2 writing development based on a pretest–posttest–delayed-posttest design implemented in four intact EFL freshman classes. Four groups were created: an English-reading–English-writing (EE) group, a Chinese-reading–English-writing (CE) group, a comprehensive CF group, and a control group, which engaged solely in writing practice. The results demonstrated that (1) the EE and CF groups outperformed the control and CE groups on the posttest and outscored the control group on the delayed posttest with respect to language, although there were no significant differences among the three experimental groups in overall, content, and organization scores; (2) the input language of the integrated reading–writing task had a significant effect on language accuracy in the resulting essays; and (3) there was no significant correlation between content alignment and language accuracy for the CE group, whereas for the EE group, a significant positive correlation was observed not only between content and language alignment, on the one hand, and language accuracy, on the other hand, but also between content alignment and language alignment.

Keywords

Comprehensive corrective feedback content alignment input language language accuracy language alignment reading–writing integrated tasks

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Carroll

(2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Cumming

Kantor

Baba

Erdosy

Eouanzoui

James

(2005). Differences in written discourse in writing-only and reading-to-write prototype tasks for next generation TOEFL. Assessing Writing, 10, 5–43.

Ferris

D.R.

(1996). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1–11.

Ferris

D.R.

(2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ferris

D.R.

(2004). The ‘grammar correction’ debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime …?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49–62.

Ferris

D.R.

(2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Journal of Second Language Writing, 32, 181–201.

Garrod

Anderson

(1987). Saying what you mean in dialogue: A study in conceptual and semantic co-ordination. Cognition, 27, 181–218.

Hunt

K.W.

(1977). Early blooming and late blooming syntactic structures. In: Cooper

Odell

(Eds.), Evaluating writing: Describing, measuring, judging (pp. 91–104). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Kobayashi

Rinnert

(1992). Effects of first language on second language writing: Translation versus direct composition. Language Learning, 42, 183–215.

10.

Pickering

Garrod

(2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 169–226.

11.

Pickering

Garrod

(2006). Alignment as the basis for successful communication. Research on Language and Computation, 4, 203–228.

12.

Plakans

(2008). Comparing composing processes in writing-only and reading-to-write test tasks. Assessing Writing, 13, 111–129.

13.

Plakans

Gebril

(2012). A close investigation into source use in integrated second language writing tasks. Assessing Writing, 17, 18–34.

14.

Plakans

Gebril

(2013). Using multiple texts in an integrated writing assessment: Source text use as a predictor of source. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 217–230.

15.

Sheen

(2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 203–234.

16.

Sheen

Wright

Moldawa

(2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused writing correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37, 353–371.

17.

Tomasello

(2003). Constructing a language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

18.

Truscott

(1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–369.

19.

Truscott

(1999). The case for ‘The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes’: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 111–122.

20.

Truscott

(2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 337–343.

21.

Truscott

(2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255–272.

22.

Van Beuningen

C.G.

De Jong

N.H.

Kuiken

(2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62, 1–41.

23.

Wang

(2011). An analysis of three teaching preferences in light of an efficient route to L2 learning. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 43: 540–549.

24.

Wang

(2012). The continuation task—An effective method in enhancing foreign language acquisition. Foreign Language World, 5, 2–7.

25.

Wang

(2014). The effect of Alignment on written acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 35, 1–25.

26.

Weigle

Parker

(2012). Source text borrowing in an integrated reading/writing assessment. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 118–133.