The current body of literature on model texts as a written corrective feedback (WCF) technique has primarily examined the interaction among participants, or the quality of written drafts. However, there is a notable gap in understanding the impact of a child’s oral interaction on their written output and the traceability of their noticing. Using a longitudinal design, the research involved 60 children (aged 11–12 years) studying English as a foreign language (EFL) who were divided into three groups: a treatment group (TG); a long-term treatment group (LTG); and a control group (CG). The treatment groups received either short-term or long-term feedback incorporating model texts as exemplars of proficient writing, while the CG relied on self-correction of their texts. The results indicate that (1) the LTG made significantly more (acceptable) revisions compared to other groups; (2) they incorporated a broader range of features in their revisions compared to previous instances and compared to their counterparts; (3) the traceability of many of these changes originated in the first draft, indicating a connection to their prior work with model texts; (4) these improvements were observed in the post-test as well; (5) some second language (L2) features emerged later in the writing process, suggesting a delayed effect of the WCF; and (6) the LTG also showed a statistically significant improvement in the accuracy of features incorporated into their subsequent writing. A number of pedagogical implications will be discussed.
AbeM. (2008). Exploring the role of model essays in the IELTS writing test: A feedback tool. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia.
2.
BitchenerJ. (2021). Written corrective feedback. In NassajiH.KartchavaE. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching (pp. 207–225). Cambridge University Press.
3.
ByrnesH.ManchónR.M. (Eds.). (2014). Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 Writing. John Benjamins.
4.
CalzadaA.García MayoM.P. (2020a). Child EFL grammar learning through a collaborative writing task. In SuzukiW.StorchN. (Eds.), Languaging in language learning and teaching: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 20–39). John Benjamins.
5.
CalzadaA.García MayoM.P. (2020b). Child learners’ reflections about EFL grammar in a collaborative writing task: When form is not at odds with communication. Language Awareness, 30, 1–16.
Cánovas GuiraoJ. (2017). The use of written models in the teaching of English in primary. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universidad de Murcia, Murcia, Spain.
8.
Cánovas GuiraoJ.Roca de LariosJ.CoyleY. (2015). The use of models as a written feedback technique with young EFL learners. System, 52, 63–77.
9.
CoplandF.GartonS. (2014). Key themes and future directions in teaching English to young learners: Introduction to the Special Issue. ELT Journal, 68, 223–230.
10.
CoyleY.Cánovas GuiraoJ.RocadeLariosJ. (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.
11.
CoyleY.RocadeLariosJ. (2014). Exploring the role played by error correction and models on children’s reported noticing and output production in a L2 writing task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 451–485.
12.
CoyleY.RocadeLariosJ. (2020). Exploring young learners’ engagement with models as a written corrective technique in EFL and CLIL settings. System, 95, 1–14.
13.
CriadoR.Garcés-ManzaneraA.PlonskyL. (2022). Models as written corrective feedback: Effects on young L2 learners’ fluency in digital writing from product and process perspectives. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 12, 697–719.
14.
EllisR. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.
15.
EllisR. (2016). Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research, 20, 405–428.
16.
EneverJ. (2018). Policy and politics in global primary English. Oxford University Press.
17.
FerrisD. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 181–201.
18.
García MayoM.P. (2018). Child task-based interaction in EFL settings: Research and challenges. International Journal of English Studies, 1, 119–143.
19.
García MayoM.P.Alcón SolerE. (2013). Negotiated input, output/interaction. In HerschensohnJ.Young-ScholtenM. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 209–229). Cambridge University Press.
20.
García MayoM.P.García LecumberriM.L. (Eds.). (2003). Age and the acquisition of English as a foreign language. Multilingual Matters.
21.
García MayoM.P.Loidi LabandibarU. (2017). The use of models as written corrective feedback in English as a foreign language (EFL) writing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 37, 110–127.
22.
HanaokaO. (2006a). Exploring the role of models in promoting noticing in L2 writing. JACET Bulletin, 42, 1–13.
23.
HanaokaO. (2006b). Noticing from models and reformulations: A case study of two Japanese EFL learners. Sophia Linguistica, 54, 167–192.
24.
HanaokaO. (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, 73–93.
25.
HanaokaO.IzumiS. (2012). Noticing and uptake: Addressing pre-articulated covert problems in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 332–347.
KangE.Y. (2020). Using model texts as a form of feedback in L2 writing. System, 89, 1–11.
28.
KangE.Y.HanZ. (2021). Written corrective feedback: Short-term and long-term effects on language learning. In ManchónR.PolioC. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and writing (pp. 213–225). Routledge.
29.
KelloggR.T. (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive development perspective. Journal of Writing Research, 1, 1–26.
30.
KormosJ. (2012). The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 390–403.
31.
LapkinS.SwainM.SmithM. (2002). Reformulation and the learning of French pronominal verbs in a Canadian French immersion context. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 485–507.
32.
Lázaro-IbarrolaA. (2021). Model texts in collaborative and individual writing among EFL children: Noticing, incorporations and draft quality. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 61, 329–359.
33.
LoewenS.SatoM. (2018). Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 51, 285–329.
34.
LongM.H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–141.
35.
LongM.H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In BhatiaT.K.RitchieW.C. (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition (pp. 413–468). Academic Press.
36.
LuquinM.García MayoM.P. (2020). Collaborative writing and feedback: An exploratory study of the potential of models in primary EFL students’ writing performance. Language Teaching for Young Learners, 2, 73–100.
37.
LuquinM.García MayoM.P. (2021). Exploring the use of models as a written corrective feedback technique among EFL children. System, 98, Article 102465.
38.
MackeyA. (Ed.) (2007). Conversational interaction in second language acquisition. A collection of empirical studies. Oxford University Press.
39.
MackeyA. (2020). Interaction, feedback and task research in second language learning: Methods and design. Cambridge University Press.
40.
ManchónR.M. (Ed.) (2011). Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language. John Benjamins.
41.
ManchónR.M. (2014). The internal dimensions of tasks. In ByrnesH.ManchónR.M. (Eds.), Task-based language learning insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 27–53). John Benjamins.
42.
Martínez EstebanN.Roca de LariosJ. (2010). The use of models as a form of written feedback to secondary school pupils of English. International Journal of English Studies, 10, 143–170.
43.
McCutchenD. (2011). From novice to expert: Implications of language skills and writing-relevant knowledge for memory during the development of writing skill. Journal of Writing Research, 3, 51–68.
44.
MichelM.KormosJ.BrunfautT.RatajczakM. (2019). The role of working memory in young second language learners’ written performances. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 31–45.
45.
Montealegre RamónF. (2019). Exploring the learning potential of models with secondary school EFL learners. Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics, 32, 155–184.
OliverR.AzkaraiA. (2017). Review of child second language acquisition (SLA): Examining theories and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 37, 62–76.
48.
OliverR.MackeyA. (2003). Interactional context and feedback in child ESL classrooms. The Modern Language Journal, 87, 519–533.
49.
OliverR.NguyenB.SatoM. (2017). Child ISLA. In LoewenS.SatoM. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 468–487). Routledge.
50.
OliverR.PhilpJ. (2014). Focus on oral interaction. Oxford Key Concepts for the Language Classroom Series. Oxford University Press.
51.
OrtegaL. (2012). Epilogue: Exploring L2 writing-SLA interfaces. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 404–415.
52.
PhilpJ.OliverR.MackeyA. (Eds.). (2008). Second language acquisition and the younger learner: Child’s play?John Benjamins.
53.
PienemannM. (2007). Processability theory. In VanPattenB.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 137–154). Lawrence Erlbaum.
54.
PolioC. (2012). The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 375–389.
55.
QiD.S.LapkinS. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 277–303.
56.
ReindersH. (2009). Learner uptake and acquisition in three grammar-oriented production activities. Language Teaching Research, 13, 201–222.
57.
RoothooftH.Lázaro-IbarrolaA.BultéB. (2022). Task repetition and corrective feedback via models and direct corrections among young EFL writers: Draft quality and task motivation. Language Teaching Research, 29, 1311–1344.
58.
SchmidtR. (2001). Attention. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge University Press.
59.
SkehanP. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.
60.
SPSS. (2020). IBM SPSS statistics for windows: Version 27.0. IBM Corp.
61.
StorchN. (2016). Collaborative writing. In ManchónR.M.MatsudaP.K. (Eds.), Handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 387–406). De Gruyter.
62.
StorchN. (2021). Collaborative writing: Promoting languaging among language learners. In García MayoM.P. (Ed.), Working collaboratively in second/foreign language learning (pp. 13–34). De Gruyter Mouton.
63.
Van BeuningenC. (2010). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights, and future directions. International Journal of English Studies, 10, 1–27.
64.
WigglesworthG.StorchN. (2012). What role for collaboration in writing and writing feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 364–374.
65.
WilliamsJ. (2012). The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 321–331.
66.
YangL.ZhangL. (2010). Exploring the role of reformulations and a model text in EFL students’ writing performance. Language Teaching Research, 14, 464–484.
