Post-writing form-focused instruction in process-genre-oriented writing classrooms: Effects on second language learners’ writing accuracy

Yingying Peng; Jessie Barrot

doi:10.30827/portalin.vi39.24276

Autores/as

Yingying Peng Hubei University
Jessie Barrot https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8517-4058

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30827/portalin.vi39.24276

Palabras clave:

form-focused instruction, explicit instruction, L2 writing, process-genre approach, post-writing FFI

Resumen

Recientes hallazgos han proporcionado una creciente evidencia en apoyo de la pedagogía de la escritura procesual orientada al género. Sin embargo, estos tipos de enfoques tienden a colocar la instrucción centrada en la forma (FFI) en un segundo plano, en particular la enseñanza explícita de la gramática (es decir, FFI aislado). Por ello, los estudios recientes informan de una mejora limitada en la precisión de la escritura. Por lo tanto, es importante investigar cómo la FFI aislada podría mejorar aún más este aspecto de la escritura dentro de las aulas de escritura como proceso orientadas al género. El presente estudio investiga los efectos del FFI aislado en la post-escritura (post-FFI) en la precisión de la escritura de la segunda lengua (L2) dentro de este entorno de escritura. Utilizando un diseño cuasi-experimental de métodos mixtos, los resultados muestran que el post-FFI beneficia a los estudiantes, ya que mejora su precisión general en la escritura, particularmente los errores que impiden el significado (errores de nivel 2 y 3). Esta mejora se atribuyó a la atención, al aprendizaje contextualizado de las formas y a la preparación psicolingüística de los estudiantes, tal y como se desprende de sus respuestas cualitativas.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Citas

Atak, N., & Saricaoglu, A. (2021). Syntactic complexity in L2 learners’ argumentative writing: Developmental stages and the within-genre topic effect. Assessing Writing, 47, 100506.

Atkinson, D. (2003). L2 writing in the post-process era: Introduction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 3–5.

Badger, R., & White, G. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal, 54(2), 153–160.

Benati, A. (2017). The role of input and output tasks in grammar instruction: Theoretical, empirical and pedagogical considerations. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 7(3), 377–396.

Bitchener, J., & Ferris , D. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge.

DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty, and J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42–63). Cambridge University Press.

DeKeyser, R. (2015). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten and J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 94–112). Routledge.

Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, N. C. (2007). The weak interface, consciousness, and form-focused instruction: Mind the doors. Form-focused instruction and teacher education: Studies in honour of Rod Ellis, 17–33.

Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2002). The place of grammar instruction in the second/foreign language curriculum. In E. Hinkel and S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp.17–34). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Franks, J., Bilbrey, C., Lien, K., & McNamara, T. (2000). Transfer-appropriate processing (TAP) and repetition priming. Memory and Cognition, 28, 1140–1151.

Guo, Q., Feng, R., & Hua, Y. (2021). How effectively can EFL students use automated written corrective feedback (AWCF) in research writing?. Computer Assisted Language Learning. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1879161

Hassanzadeh, M., & Salehizadeh, M. J. (2020). Focus on form options in second language pronunciation instruction: The case of lexical stress. TESOL Journal, 11(2), e486.

Huang, Y., & Zhang, L. (2020). Does a process-genre approach help improve students’ argumentative writing in English as a foreign language? Findings from an intervention study. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 36(4), 339–364.

Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 17–29.

Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 148–64.

Kang, E. Y., Sok, S., & Han, Z. (2019). Thirty-five years of ISLA on form-focused instruction: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 23(4), 428–453.

Khezrlou, S. (2021). Effects of timing and availability of isolated FFI on learners’ written accuracy and fluency through task repetition. The Language Learning Journal, 49(5), 568–580.

Kotsyuk, L. (2015). English language error analysis of the written texts produced by Ukrainian learners: Data collection. Cognitive Studies, 15, 389–395.

Lee, J. (2021). ESL learners’ writing as a window onto discourse competence. Porta Linguarum, 35, 277–294.

Lozano, M. B., Mayo, M. D. P. G., & Leeser, M. J. (2014). Pushed output and noticing in a dictogloss: task implementation in the CLIL classroom. Porta Linguarum, 22, 7–22.

Lu, X. (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15, 474–496.

Lu, X., & Ai, H. (2015). Syntactic complexity in college-level English writing: Differences among writers with diverse L1 backgrounds. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 16–27.

Mehr, H. (2017). The impact of product and process approach on Iranian EFL learners’ writing ability and their attitudes toward writing skill. International Journal of English Linguistics, 7(2), 158–166.

Muncie, J. (2002). Finding a place for grammar in EFL composition classes. ELT Journal, 56(2), 180–186.

Nordin, S. M. & Mohammad, N. (2017). The best of two approaches: Process/genre-based approach to teaching writing. The English Teacher, 11, 75–85.

Ortega, L. (2015). Syntactic complexity in L2 writing: Progress and expansion. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 82–84.

Pica, T. (2005). Classroom learning, teaching, and research: A task-based perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 89(3), 339–352.

Pienemann, M. (2015). An outline of processability theory and its relationship to other approaches to SLA. Language Learning, 65(1), 123–151.

Polio, C. (2012). The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 375–389.

Rahimi, M., & Zhang, L. J. (2016). The role of incidental unfocused prompts and recasts in improving English as a foreign language learners' accuracy. The Language Learning Journal, 44(2), 257–268.

Rahimi, M., & Zhang, L. J. (2021). Effects of an Engaging Process-Genre Approach on Student Engagement and Writing Achievements. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 1–17.

Ranta, L., & Lyster, R. (2017). Form-focused instruction. In P. Garrett and J. Cots (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Language Awareness (pp. 40–56). Routledge.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.

Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention in cognition and second language instruction. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge University Press.

Shintani, N. (2017). The effects of the timing of isolated FFI on the explicit knowledge and written accuracy of learners with different prior knowledge of the linguistic target. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(1), 129–166.

Shintani, N., and Donnellan, M. (2016). The effects of pre-task and post-task metalinguistic explanations on accuracy in second language writing. TESOL Quarterly, 50(4), 945–955.

Spada, N. (2011). Beyond form-focused instruction: Reflections on past, present and future research. Language Teaching, 44(2), 225–236.

Spada, N. (2018). Isolating or integrating attention to form in communicative instruction: A dilemma?. Babel, 53(1), 7–13.

Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. (2008). Form-focused instruction: Isolated or integrated? TESOL Quarterly, 42(2), 181–207.

Spada, N., Jessop, L., Tomita, Y., Suzuki, W., & Valeo, A. (2014). Isolated and integrated form-focused instruction: Effects on different types of L2 knowledge. Language Teaching Research, 18(4), 453−473.

Tarone, E. (2014). Enduring questions from the interlanguage hypothesis. In Z. Han and E. Tarone (Eds.), Innovative research and practices in second language acquisition and bilingualism (pp. 7–26). John Benjamins.

Valeo, A., & Spada, N. (2016). Is there a better time to focus on form? Teacher and learner views. TESOL Quarterly, 50, 314–339.

VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Ablex.

VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing in SLA. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 5–31). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Xu, J., & Li, C. (2021). The effects of the timing of form-focused instruction on EFL learners’ learning of difficult and easy grammatical features: A comparative study. System, 101, 102612.

Xu, X., & Li, X. (2018). Teaching academic writing through a process-genre approach: A pedagogical exploration of an EAP program in China. TESL-EJ, 22(2), 1–21.

Yoon, H. J. (2021). Interactions in EFL argumentative writing: Effects of topic, L1 background, and L2 proficiency on interactional metadiscourse. Reading and Writing, 34, 705–725.