Home Model texts in collaborative and individual writing among EFL children: noticing, incorporations, and draft quality
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Model texts in collaborative and individual writing among EFL children: noticing, incorporations, and draft quality

  • Amparo Lázaro-Ibarrola EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: June 1, 2021
International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching
From the journal International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching Volume 61 Issue 2

Abstract

When written corrective feedback is provided via model texts, language learners notice and incorporate features from the models into their subsequent writings. However, little is known about the accuracy of these incorporations or about the impact of model texts on draft quality. Also, model texts have often been implemented with children working in pairs but, to date, studies including individual and collaborative conditions are extremely scarce. This study examines the impact of model texts among 33 EFL children (aged 11–12) divided into a pair (N = 22) and an individual (N = 11) group. Our findings do not reveal any significant differences between pairs and individuals. The students in both conditions noticed features, mainly lexical. They incorporated around 50% of these features from the model texts into their final drafts, with an accuracy rate of 60%. Regarding draft quality, the second draft was significantly better than the first one when rated holistically.

Keywords: collaborative writing; EFL children; model texts; noticing; written corrective feedback
Corresponding author: Amparo Lázaro-Ibarrola, I-COMMUNITAS Institute for Advanced Social Research, Universidad Pública de Navarra, Campus de Arrosadia, 31006, Pamplona, Spain, E-mail:

Acknowledgements

Our deepest gratitude to the school, the teachers and the children for their willingness and generosity to participate in this project.

  1. Research funding: This work was supported by grants FFI2016-74950-P (Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, National Research Agency) and CENEDUCA2018 grant for the development of research in school contexts (Government of Navarra, Spain).

Appendix 1: Stage 1. Composing

SHEET 1 – PICTURE PROMPT

NAME(S): DATE: SCHOOL: CLASS:

WRITE 8–10 LINES DESCRIBING WHAT HAPPENS IN THE FOLLOWING PICTURES

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

Write down the problems that you have had when writing the composition. You can do so in English, Spanish or Basque. You can use the back of the page too.

Examples: “I didn’t know how to say “X” and I said …”; “I’m not sure if the sentence “X” is correct because….”

Appendix 2: Stage 2. Comparison

SHEET 2 – MODEL TEXTS

NAME(S): DATE: SCHOOL: CLASS:

Compare your composition to the model texts below

Source. From Cambridge English. (2014). Young Learners. Young Learners English Tests

(YLE). Sample Papers. Flyers. Practice Test 3. Cambridge University Press, p. 3.

MODEL A

It’s Monday evening and Tom is doing his homework while his sister Katie does some drawing. After a while, Tom gets bored and decides to watch the football on TV. Katie has drawn a lovely house with a garden but she wants to put some flowers on the grass. She sees Tom’s homework and starts to draw flowers on it.

Soon Katie’s flowers are finished so she gets some scissors and glue, cuts them out and sticks them onto her picture. Proud of her work, Katie shows her picture to her brother. When Tom realises where the flowers have come from and sees his ruined homework, he is furious!

MODEL B

Tom and Katie are brother and sister and they are in the sitting room of their house. They are sitting at a table. It is 7 o’clock. Tom is doing his homework and Katie is drawing a picture of a house and garden. At 7.15 Tom is watching TV and Katie is drawing another picture of two big flowers. She is drawing the flowers on Tom’s piece of paper! At 7.30 she gets the glue and the scissors. At 7.45 she has cut out the two flowers and is sticking them both on the picture of her garden. At 8 O’clock Tom sees what Katie has done and is very angry but she is very happy with her picture.

Write down the differences between your composition and the model texts and explain if you have learnt something with the model texts. You can do so in English, Spanish or Basque. You can use the back of the page too.

Appendix 3: Qualitative measurement

Guidelines to global evaluation of writing adapted from Storch (2005).

The writing is assessed on a score out of 5. This score evaluates the writing mainly in terms of structure and task fulfilment. In order to fulfil the task, the writing needs to include the description of the main elements that appear on the pictures and the narration of what happens should also be clear.

  1. This is a very well written text. It is well structured. It contains a clear and complete description of the pictures and the narration of the story is logical. Ideas are clearly organized and good use is made of linking words/phrases.

  2. This is a good text. The text has a clear overall structure. All pictures are described and the narration of the story is easy to follow most of the time. Ideas are generally well organized and linking words/phrases are generally used appropriately.

  3. This is a satisfactory text. It has an overall structure, but the description of some pictures may be incomplete and the narration of the story hard to follow. Linking words/phrases may be missing or used inappropriately.

  4. This is an adequate text. The text is difficult to follow because the description is very incomplete and the narration is not well organized. There is a general lack of linking words/phrases. There might be repetitions.

  5. This is a poorly written text. It is poorly organized and difficult to follow. Description and narration are poor or absent.

Appendix 4 : Individual results for noticing and incorporations

Individual Pairs
Participant PFNs FNs Incorporations Correct Participant PFNs FNs Incorporations Correct
1 0 3 3 3 P1 1 4 0 0
2 3 8 4 3 P2 2 5 2 1
3 3 7 3 0 P3 3 6 2 0
4 0 6 1 0 P4 1 6 1 1
5 3 3 0 0 P5 1 3 2 2
6 1 6 2 0 P6 0 1 1 1
7 2 9 2 1 P7 1 1 0 0
8 0 5 1 1 P8 2 3 0 0
9 4 3 2 0 P9 1 8 1 1
10 0 5 1 1 P10 1 1 1 1
11 3 5 0 0 P11 1 2 1 1
Total 19 60 19 9 Total 14 40 11 8

References

Bitchener, John. 2016. To what extent has the published written CF research aided our understanding of its potential for L2 development. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 167(2). 111–131. https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.167.2.01bit.Search in Google Scholar

Cánovas Guirao, Josefa, Julio Roca de Larios & Yvette Coyle. 2015. The use of models as a written feedback technique with young EFL learners. System 52(1). 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.04.002.Search in Google Scholar

Choi, Ikkyu & Deane Paul. 2021. Evaluating writing process features in an adult EFL writing assessment context: A keystroke logging study. Language Assessment Quarterly 18(2). 107–132 https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2020.1804913.Search in Google Scholar

Cohen, Andrew D. 1983. Reformulating compositions. TESOL Newsletter 6(12). 4–5.Search in Google Scholar

Collins, Laura & Carmen Muñoz. 2016. The foreign language classroom: Current perspectives and future considerations. Modern Language Journal 100. 133–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12305.Search in Google Scholar

Coyle, Yvette & Josefa Cánovas Guirao. 2019. Learning to write in a second language: The role of guided interaction in promoting children’s noticing from model texts. CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education 2(1). 21–30. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/clil.22.Search in Google Scholar

Coyle, Yvette, Josefa Cánovas-Guirao & Julio Roca de Larios. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.09.002.Search in Google Scholar

Coyle, Yvette & Julio Roca de Larios. 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(3). 451–485. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263113000612.Search in Google Scholar

Coyle, Yvette & Julio Roca de Larios. 2020. Exploring young learners’ engagement with models as a written corrective technique in EFL and CLIL settings. System 95. 102374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102374.Search in Google Scholar

Ellis, Rod. 2009. Task‐based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 19(3). 221–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00231.x.Search in Google Scholar

Ellis, Rod, Yoshiro Tanaka & Asako Yamazaki. 1994. Classroom interaction, comprehension, and the acquisition of L2 word meanings. Language Learning 44(3). 449–491. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01114.x.Search in Google Scholar

Fernández Dobao, Ana. 2012. Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing 21(1). 40–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.12.002.Search in Google Scholar

García-Mayo, María del Pilar (ed.). 2021. In , Working collaboratively in second/foreign language learning, Vol. 30. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9781501511318Search in Google Scholar

García-Mayo, María del Pilar & Udane Loidi Labandibar. 2017. The use of models as written corrective feedback in EFL writing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 37. 110–127. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0267190517000071.Search in Google Scholar

Hanaoka, Osamu. 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. 459–479. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807080963.Search in Google Scholar

Hanaoka, Osamu & Shinichi Izumi. 2012. Noticing and uptake: Addressing pre-articulated covert problems in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 21(4). 332–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.008.Search in Google Scholar

Hidalgo, María Ángeles & Amparo, Lázaro-Ibarrola. 2020. Task repetition and collaborative writing by EFL children: Beyond CAF measures. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 10(3). 501–522. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2020.10.3.5.Search in Google Scholar

Housen, Alex & Folkert Kuiken. 2009. Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied linguistics 30(4). 461–473. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp048.Search in Google Scholar

Kang, Eun Young & Han Zhaohong. 2015. The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. Modern Language Journal 99. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12189.Search in Google Scholar

Larson-Hall, Jenifer. 2010. A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203875964Search in Google Scholar

Lázaro-Ibarrola, Amparo & María Ángeles, Hidalgo. 2021. Task repetition and collaborative writing with child EFL learners. Language Teaching for Young Learners 3(2). 275–299. https://doi.org/10.1075/ltyl.Search in Google Scholar

Luquin, María & María del Pilar, García-Mayo. 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(1). 73–100. https://doi.org/10.1075/ltyl.19007.luq.Search in Google Scholar

Luquin, María & María del Pilar, García-Mayo. 2021. Exploring the use of models as a written corrective feedback technique among EFL children. System 98. 102465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102465.Search in Google Scholar

Lyster, Roy, Kazuya Saito & Masatoshi Sato. 2013. Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching 46. 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000365.Search in Google Scholar

Malvern, David, Brian Richards, Ngoni Chipere & Pilar Durán. 2004. Lexical diversity and language development. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230511804Search in Google Scholar

Manchón, Rosa M. 2011. Writing to learn the language: Issues in theory and research. In Rosa M. Manchón (ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language, 61–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.31.07manSearch in Google Scholar

Martínez Esteban, Noelia & Julio Roca de Larios. 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. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119241.Search in Google Scholar

McDonough, Kim & César García-Fuentes. 2015. The effect of writing task and task conditions on Colombian EFL learners’ language use. TESL Canada Journal 32(2). 67–79. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v32i2.1208.Search in Google Scholar

McKee, Gerard, David Malvern & Brian Richards. 2000. Measuring vocabulary diversity using dedicated software. Literary and Linguistic Computing 15. 323–337. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/15.3.323.Search in Google Scholar

Murtiningsih, Sri Rejeki. 2016. Collaborative writing in an EFL context. Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Learning 1(1). 82–90. https://doi.org/10.18196/ftl.118.Search in Google Scholar

Neumann, Heike & Kim McDonough. 2014. Exploring the relationships among student preferences, prewriting tasks, and text quality in an EAP context. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 15. 14–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2014.05.002.Search in Google Scholar

Neumann, Heike & Kim McDonough. 2015. Exploring student interaction during collaborative prewriting discussions and its relationship to L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 27. 84–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.009.Search in Google Scholar

Norris, John M. & Lourdes, Ortega. 2009. Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics 30(4). 555–578. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp044.Search in Google Scholar

Polio, Charlene. 2012. The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing 21. 375–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.004.Search in Google Scholar

Schmidt, Richard W. 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11. 129–158. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129.Search in Google Scholar

Shehadeh, Ali. 2011. Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing 20(4). 286–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.05.010.Search in Google Scholar

Storch, Neomy. 2005. Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing 14. 153–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002.Search in Google Scholar

Storch, Neomy. 2011. Collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Processes, outcomes, and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31. 275–288. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000079.Search in Google Scholar

Storch, Neomy (ed.). 2013. Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781847699954Search in Google Scholar

Storch, Neomy. 2016. Collaborative writing. In Rosa M. Manchón & Paul Matsuda (eds.), Handbook of second and foreign language writing, 387–406. Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9781614511335-021Search in Google Scholar

Storch, Neomy. 2019. Written corrective feedback from sociocultural theoretical perspectives: A research agenda. Language Teaching 51(2). 262–277. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444818000034.Search in Google Scholar

Storch, Neomy. 2021. Collaborative writing: Promoting languaging among language learners. In María del Pilar & Mayo García (eds.), Working collaboratively in second/foreign language learning, 13–34. Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9781501511318-002Search in Google Scholar

Swain, Merrill. 1985. Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Susan Gass & Carolyn Madden (eds.), Input in second language acquisition, 235–253. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Search in Google Scholar

Swain, Merrill. 2000. The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In James P. Lantolf (ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning, 97–114. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Swain, Merril & Sharon Lapkin. 1998. Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal 82(3). 320–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01209.x.Search in Google Scholar

Swales, John M. & Christine B. Feak. 1994. Academic writing for graduate students. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Search in Google Scholar

VanPatten, Bill. 1990. Attending to form and content in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12(3). 287–301. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100009177.Search in Google Scholar

Villarreal, Izaskun & Nora Gil-Sarratea. 2020. The effect of collaborative writing in an EFL secondary setting. Language Teaching Research 24(6). 874–897. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1362168819829017.10.1177/1362168819829017Search in Google Scholar

Wigglesworth, Gillian & Neomy Storch. 2009. Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing 26(3). 445–466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209104670.Search in Google Scholar

Wigglesworth, Gillian & Neomy Storch. 2012. What role for collaboration in writing and writing feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing 21(4). 364–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.005.Search in Google Scholar

Wong, Wynne. 2001. Modality and attention to meaning and form in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 23. 345–368. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263101003023.Search in Google Scholar

Yang, Luxin & Ling Zhang. 2010. Exploring the role of reformulations and a model text in EFL students’ writing performance. Language Teaching Research 14(4). 464–484. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810375369.Search in Google Scholar
Received: 2020-10-11
Accepted: 2021-05-20
Published Online: 2021-06-01
Published in Print: 2023-06-27

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Exploring ESOL teachers’ perspectives on the language learning experiences, challenges, and motivations of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK
  4. Thai tonal confusion patterns in the production of L1 Chinese Zhuang students
  5. Lexical measures as a proxy for bilingual language dominance?
  6. Elicited metaphoric competence in a second language: a construct associated with vocabulary knowledge and general proficiency?
  7. Model texts in collaborative and individual writing among EFL children: noticing, incorporations, and draft quality
  8. Investigating Indonesian EFL learners’ knowledge and use of English causative constructions
  9. The relationship between university EFL teachers’ oral feedback beliefs and practices and the impact of individual differences
  10. “We thought about it together and the solution came to our minds”: languaging linguistic problem-solving in multilingual Finnish classrooms
  11. Lexical stress assignment preferences in L2 German
  12. Focus on form in task repetition through oral and written task modeling
  13. Prior processing, foreign language classroom anxiety, and L2 fluency
  14. Analyzing trends in the aural decoding errors of Japanese EFL learners
  15. Effects of task complexity on the learning of genre specific rhetorical moves and linguistic forms: the case of contrast and argumentative essays
  16. Glossing and incidental vocabulary learning in L2 reading: a cognitive load perspective
  17. Factor structures of speed and breakdown fluency in EFL learners’ story retelling performances
  18. The acquisition of L3 French present simple and present progressive by adult L1 Chinese speakers of L2 English
https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2020-0160
Keywords for this article
collaborative writing; EFL children; model texts; noticing; written corrective feedback

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Exploring ESOL teachers’ perspectives on the language learning experiences, challenges, and motivations of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK
  4. Thai tonal confusion patterns in the production of L1 Chinese Zhuang students
  5. Lexical measures as a proxy for bilingual language dominance?
  6. Elicited metaphoric competence in a second language: a construct associated with vocabulary knowledge and general proficiency?
  7. Model texts in collaborative and individual writing among EFL children: noticing, incorporations, and draft quality
  8. Investigating Indonesian EFL learners’ knowledge and use of English causative constructions
  9. The relationship between university EFL teachers’ oral feedback beliefs and practices and the impact of individual differences
  10. “We thought about it together and the solution came to our minds”: languaging linguistic problem-solving in multilingual Finnish classrooms
  11. Lexical stress assignment preferences in L2 German
  12. Focus on form in task repetition through oral and written task modeling
  13. Prior processing, foreign language classroom anxiety, and L2 fluency
  14. Analyzing trends in the aural decoding errors of Japanese EFL learners
  15. Effects of task complexity on the learning of genre specific rhetorical moves and linguistic forms: the case of contrast and argumentative essays
  16. Glossing and incidental vocabulary learning in L2 reading: a cognitive load perspective
  17. Factor structures of speed and breakdown fluency in EFL learners’ story retelling performances
  18. The acquisition of L3 French present simple and present progressive by adult L1 Chinese speakers of L2 English
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 20.11.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/iral-2020-0160/html
Scroll to top button