Child L2 Writers: A room of their own 9027212929, 9789027212924

Citation preview

TRENDS IN

   

Child L Writers A room of their own Amparo Lázaro-Ibarrola

JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY

Child L2 Writers

Trends in Language Acquisition Research issn 1569-0644 TiLAR publishes monographs, edited volumes and text books on theoretical and methodological issues in the field of child language research. The focus of the series is on original research on all aspects of the scientific study of language behavior in children, linking different areas of research including linguistics, psychology & cognitive science. For an overview of all books published in this series, please see benjamins.com/catalog/tilar

Editors Shanley E.M. Allen

University of Kaiserslautern [email protected]

Evan Kidd

Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics & Australian National University [email protected], [email protected]

Editorial Board Ruth A. Berman

Steven Gillis

Morten H. Christiansen

Annick De Houwer

Jean Berko Gleason

Elena Lieven

Nancy Budwig

Brian MacWhinney

Ewa Dąbrowska

Caroline F. Rowland

Tel Aviv University Cornell University Boston University Clark University University of Erlangen-Nürnberg and University of Birmingham

Philip S. Dale

University of New Mexico

Paul Fletcher

University of Antwerp University of Erfurt

University of Manchester Carnegie Mellon University University of Liverpool and Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics

Marilyn Vihman

University of York

University College Cork

Volume 32 Child L2 Writers. A room of their own by Amparo Lázaro-Ibarrola

Child L2 Writers A room of their own

Amparo Lázaro-Ibarrola Institute for Advanced Social Research (I-COMMUNITAS) | Public University of Navarre

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

doi 10.1075/tilar.32 Cataloging-in-Publication Data available from Library of Congress: lccn 2022047250 (print) / 2022047251 (e-book) isbn 978 90 272 1292 4 (Hb) isbn 978 90 272 5469 6 (e-book)

© 2023 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Company · https://benjamins.com

This book is dedicated to the teachers who devote their efforts to teaching writing. To the children who cannot have access to one of those teachers. To my teachers. To my children.

Table of contents Introduction

1

part i. Child learners and L2 writing chapter 1. We need to write about children 1.1 Introduction 11 1.2 Cognitive features of children aged 9–12 12 1.2.1 The emergence of abstract thinking 13 1.2.2 Self-regulation 15 1.2.3 Working memory 16 1.2.4 Peer bonding and friendship 18 1.2.5 Self-esteem: Praise, criticism, and effort 18 1.3 Children need to write 21 1.3.1 L2 writing in elementary school 21 1.3.2 L2 writing is tough 23 1.3.3 L2 writing is worth it 25 1.4 Children in SLA 28 1.5 The theoretical underpinnings of L2 writing tasks 1.6 The tasks 34 1.6.1 Dictogloss 34 1.6.2 Direct corrections 35 1.6.3 Model texts 36 1.6.4 Reformulation 38 1.6.5 Task repetition 40 1.7 Summary 43 chapter 2. Children and collaborative writing 2.1 Introduction 47 2.2 Collaborative learning 48 2.3 Collaborative writing 50 2.3.1 Peer work and writing-to-learn 50 2.3.2 Definition 51 2.3.3 The tenets of collaborative writing tasks 51

11

30

47

viii

Child L2 Writers

2.3.4 Process and product 53 2.4 Studies with adult learners 55 2.5 Studies with young learners 57 2.5.1 The body of research 57 2.5.2 Collaborative and individual writers 62 2.5.3 Language-related episodes (LREs) 64 2.5.4 Do children collaborate? 69 2.5.5 Do children like collaborative writing? 75 2.6 Summary 75 chapter 3. Children and written corrective feedback 3.1 Introduction 78 3.2 Children and feedback 79 3.3 Children and written corrective feedback 82 3.4 Studies on written corrective feedback with child L2 learners 3.4.1 Focus on formal aspects 83 3.4.1.1 Direct written corrective feedback 83 3.4.1.2 Dictogloss 85 3.4.2 Focus on the text 88 3.4.2.1 Model texts 89 3.4.2.2 Reformulation 103 3.5 Summary 107 chapter 4. Children and task repetition: Does practice make perfect? 4.1 Introduction 111 4.2 Repetition in children’s education 112 4.3 Repetition in SLA 114 4.4 Task repetition in SLA 116 4.4.1 Definition of task repetition 116 4.4.2 The rationale of task repetition for oral and writing tasks 4.4.3 The rationale of task repetition for child L2 writers 118 4.5 Empirical studies on task repetition 121 4.5.1 Task repetition in oral tasks 121 4.5.2 Task repetition in writing tasks 123 4.5.2.1 Adults 123 4.5.2.2 Children 124 4.6 Summary 132

78

83

111

117

Table of contents

chapter 5. Task motivation in writing 135 5.1 Introduction 135 5.2 Motivation in elementary school 136 5.3 Motivation and writing 139 5.4 Task motivation and writing tasks 140 5.4.1 The construct 140 5.4.2 The rationale 141 5.5 Studies on task motivation 144 5.5.1 Initial insights into children’s attitudes towards L2 writing tasks 148 5.5.2 Studies on task motivation with children and L2 writing tasks 148 5.6 Summary 159 part ii. Taking stock and moving forwards chapter 6. Child L2 writers: A room of their own 165 6.1 Introduction 165 6.2 Findings and lines for further research 166 6.3 Child L2 writers 177 6.4 Roadmap for future research 179 6.4.1 Ingredients for future studies 179 6.4.2 General needs in research on L2 writing tasks with children 184 6.4.3 How do we do this? 186 chapter 7. Pedagogical guidelines 7.1 Introduction 189 7.2 The case for SLA-based teaching practices 189 7.2.1 Teaming up 189 7.2.2 Short cuts to make a difference 190 7.3 Pedagogical guidelines in SLA papers on child L2 writers 192 7.4 Pedagogical implications 195 7.4.1 Realistic expectations 195 7.4.2 Integration of the learning-to-write and the writing-to-learn approaches 196 7.4.3 Cross-curricular and cross-linguistic implementation of writing tasks 196 7.5 Ten tips for the implementation of L2 writing with YLs 197 7.6 Summary 202

189

ix

x

Child L2 Writers

References

204

Index

235

List of abbreviations CAF CL CLIL CW EFL FNs PFNs FL IQ ISLA L1 L2 LRE SL SLA TR WCF YL ZPD

Complexity, accuracy, fluency Collaborative learning Content and language integrated learning Collaborative writing English as a foreign language Features noticed Problematic features noticed Foreign language Intelligence quotient Instructed second language acquisition First language Second language Language-related episode Second language Second language acquisition Task repetition Written corrective feedback Young learner Zone of Proximal Development

Introduction Why this book My decision to write this book was inspired by a wealth of professional and personal experience as an English as a foreign language (EFL) teacher and as a second language acquisition (SLA) researcher. The large population of child learners of second and foreign languages has been the focus of my research efforts for the past 25 years. While it is true that in the field of SLA studies the population of young learners (YLs) has been largely disregarded until recently, it is equally true that it is quickly gaining ground in the field and attracting the interest of more and more researchers. In particular, the exploration of L2 writing tasks with children has bloomed in the past decade in an unprecedented manner and, personally, this topic has engaged me as no topic had before. I have devoted countless hours to reading relevant papers, observing classrooms, talking to teachers, collecting and analyzing data, and, above all, to thinking in depth about how L2 writing tasks can contribute to the acquisition of an L2 in foreign language (FL) classrooms in elementary school. This book is the result of these hours. I hope that putting all the gained knowledge and experience together in this volume will contribute to offer interesting insights into this topic. I also hope that this volume will trigger future studies that will help us build a more accurate understanding of child L2 writers, of child L2 learners and, ultimately, of how to teach languages to young populations in a more knowledgeable and effective way.

What the book is about The broadness of the topic of L2 writing makes it necessary to clearly establish the scope of this volume. The volume is framed within the fruitful and growing body of SLA-oriented task-based L2 writing studies devoted to investigating the potential of writing tasks to foster L2 learning. Specifically, this book provides a comprehensive and critical review of empirical research to date addressing L2 writing tasks with YLs in elementary school. The body of research has been built with the following criteria:

https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.32.intro © 2023 John Benjamins Publishing Company

2

Child L2 Writers

i.

Epistemological stance: the studies are framed within the field of SLA and of task-based L2 writing studies. ii. Research aims: the research aim is to understand how YLs perform L2 writing tasks and, in turn, how the tasks and the implementation variables promote L2 learning opportunities. iii. Tasks: the studies implement L2 writing through tasks and in several stages; the tasks can be accompanied (or not) by feedback. iv. Participants and context: the participants are YLs (aged 9–12) learning English as a second or foreign language in a school context. A total of 29 studies addressing L2 writing tasks with YLs fit these criteria and constitute the basis and unifying thread of this book. To provide a critical understanding of this body of research, the volume draws on our knowledge from the fields of psychology, education and SLA, and includes thorough discussions of the main concerns, findings, lines for further inquiry and implications for pedagogy. In what follows, these criteria are described in greater detail to provide the reader with a clear picture of the scope of this volume.

Epistemological stance All the studies reviewed here implement L2 writing through tasks, thus contributing to bridging the gap between L2 writing studies and SLA. Research on L2 writing and written corrective feedback (WCF) was first conducted from a pedagogical point of view, and studies frequently compared different feedback conditions and tasks without being guided by any particular theoretical model (Bitchener, 2019). To provide a solid framework, scholars started to make use of some SLA theories, originally formulated for oral production, but which could also help to account for task-based L2 writing research (Bitchener, 2019; Leow, 2020; Leow & Suh, 2021). The main SLA theories that have been used in the studies on L2 writing tasks with YLs are the output (Swain, 1995, 2005) and noticing (Schmidt, 1990, 2001) hypotheses. Also, to frame the fruitful strand of research on collaborative writing (CW), scholars have relied on the interaction hypothesis (Long, 1996) and, from a broader perspective, on Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory, which accounts for human cognitive development (Storch, 2019). When affect has been considered within the research aims, the construct of task motivation has proved vital to account for the specific motivational dispositions towards a given task and for the impact that these dispositions can have on task performance (Dörnyei & Kormos, 2000). In sum, the studies reviewed here have employed these SLA theories and constructs to justify their methodological decisions and to interpret and account for their findings. This, in turn, has contributed

Introduction

to our understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the theoretical underpinnings of this body of research (Leow & Suh, 2021).

Research aims The studies under review revolve around four interconnected issues of key relevance in SLA: collaboration, written corrective feedback (WCF), task repetition (TR), and task motivation. The aim is to elucidate the potential of these issues in the context of L2 writing tasks with YLs. Consequently, the research efforts are focused on measuring the impact that different tasks or task implementation variables (such as collaboration or task repetition) have on L2 writing and on YL’s motivation. Three main areas are addressed in the research questions: (i) the processes of writing and dealing with WCF; (ii) the products of writing; (iii) the motivation of YLs. The processes of writing and dealing with WCF are mainly accounted for by means of analyses of the learners’ interactions in CW studies and, occasionally, by asking students to write about what they know or do not know (note-taking). The products of writing are usually measured in terms of their quality and of how they reflect the improvements gained in the process of writing and dealing with WCF. As for the motivation of the YLs, it has been measured by means of questionnaires and, occasionally, also with interviews. The construct of motivation is brought forward as a key element to provide a comprehensive understanding of the impact of the tasks.

The tasks The body of research reviewed in this manuscript comprises several L2 writing tasks and several forms of written corrective feedback (WCF) (see definitions and samples in 1.6) All the tasks under scrutiny can be described as short and argumentatively simple narratives that entail quite a lot of description. In most cases, the studies have followed a multi-stage task design comprising the writing of two drafts, an initial and a final one, between which there might be training sessions, self-editing sessions, or sessions in which WCF is provided. The provision of WCF includes three main components: direct corrections, which are implemented with and without metalinguistic explanations and mainly refer to feedback on form; models, which is the most widely researched topic related to WCF; and reformulations. Self-editing and task repetition are also put to the test. The tasks are implemented with students working in collaboration in most cases, but a few studies also examine the potential of individual writing. In several studies the written and oral modality are also compared.

3

4

Child L2 Writers

The participants and the learning context The available studies on L2 writing conducted with children have all focused on the period of late childhood, which corresponds to the final years of elementary school. Thus, the bulk of research addressed in this volume on child L2 writers comprises pupils within the range of 9 to 12 years of age (only one study includes some 13-year-olds (Fazio, 2001)). I will be referring to this age group with the terms “young learners” (YLs) and “children” indistinctively. However, I would like to express my personal preference for the term “children” over “young learners.” In my view, the word “children” describes the age group I am addressing in this book more accurately, as it is related to the word “childhood,” understood from a psychological perspective as the period of life that expands from the age of 2 until the onset of puberty (around ages 11–12). This period is defined by age together with a set of factors related to the physical, social, and cognitive development of the person. On the other hand, the term “young learners,” which seems to be gaining ground in the literature, contains the word “young” and, therefore, could cover a much wider age group, which might include students above the age of 12. Also, all the learners in the studies reviewed in this volume are learning English in an instructed setting. The learning context is their own school, except for one study that was conducted in a school of languages which children attended after school (Gorman & Ellis, 2019). Further, the tasks were all implemented in the children’s own schools, and with the cooperation of their own school teachers. Finally, the terms “second language” (SL) and “foreign language” (FL) will also be used indistinctively to avoid excessive repetition, but the vast majority of learners under scrutiny in this volume come from FL contexts and, in particular, from Spanish schools. More specifically, 23 studies have been conducted with students learning English as a foreign language (EFL) in Spain and two with EFL learners in Brunei Darussalam (Shak, 2006; Shak & Gardner, 2008). ESL learners have been investigated in one study in Australia (Ives, 2004), one in Malaysia (Gorman & Ellis, 2019) and one in Singapore (Jang & Cheun, 2020).

What the book is not about As the body of research reviewed in this book falls within such a specific area of SLA and L2 writing, this volume leaves out a number of topics of great relevance for L2 writing and YLs. For instance, this book is not about defining the developmental stages L2 writers go through when learning to write in an L2 or about how literacy skills are acquired and transferred across languages, with similar or different alphabets and/or with similar or different literacy cultures. This book is

Introduction

also not about new forms of computer/tablet-mediated writing and non-standard informal written language, or about the fluid genres between writing and speaking that these emergent writing practices generate. All these topics have their own literatures and should see an uptick in coming years but will not be dealt with in this volume. Some other topics will be dealt with but from a very specific perspective. Thus, while this book will offer knowledge on the potential of specific tasks, it does not aim to design an L2 writing curriculum. Likewise, this book will deal with issues of affect in connection to L2 writing taks but it is not about how L2 writing can be employed with extralinguistic purposes, for example, to deal with issues of identity with multilingual learners or to raise awareness of topics such as gender or social inequality.

What the book adds to the literature This book addresses a gap in SLA and in L2 writing research: Children are underresearched in SLA in general and, until now, they had been rarely included in L2 writing studies. From the 29 studies reviewed in this volume, 23 have been published between 2018 and 2022, which gives a clear idea of the recency and impetus of this strand of research in the SLA field. After these fruitful years of growing interest in YLs and in L2 writing, the body of research is large enough to provide a characterization of child L2 writers. This volume intends to provide this characterization and to stimulate further research. From a pedagogical perspective, children constitute a very large population of language learners, writing constitutes a powerful learning tool, and children regularly do writing activities in their language lessons. Therefore, the research and ecological validity of addressing this population is enormous and this book also constitutes an attempt to make the knowledge accessible to language practitioners and to make an impact on their practices.

Who the book is for This book can be of interest for SLA researchers, SLA students, L2 teachers and second language coursebook editors. Researchers in the field of SLA will learn about YLs, their characteristics and capabilities and, more specifically, about the potential of L2 writing tasks with this population. Also, the book will be of interest for researchers interested in investigating aspects related to L2 learners’ task performance and for those interested in

5

6

Child L2 Writers

how tasks may enhance L2 learning. The book provides not only a comprehensive review of the available literature but also clear guidelines for further research and reflections on our own practices as researchers that could be applicable not only to L2 writing studies but also to many other SLA topics. This volume could also be a reference book for students taking courses in SLA. They will find not only a good summary of L2 writing research with YLs but also information on the characteristics of SLA research with this age group, advice to conduct future studies, and reflections on the interpretation of research results. The book can also be of interest for school teachers in today’s language classrooms where the use of tasks for regular teaching and testing has become part of their staple diet. Teachers will find the final chapter especially relevant, as it provides information on how to implement L2 writing tasks and what to expect from them. Finally, this volume could interest second language coursebook editors, who might incorporate some of the tasks reviewed here in their lesson plans contributing to enhance the quality of coursebooks by introducing content that is supported by research findings.

How the book is organized This book is about child language learners who are underrepresented in SLA research despite the fact that they constitute one of the largest populations of L2 learners in instructed settings. The focus on L2 writing with this population is justified on several grounds. This justification serves to introduce the reader to the content of each of the chapters. First of all, we need to learn about child L2 writers because children learn to write in an L2 in elementary school for the first time in their life. The specific characteristics of child learners in terms of cognitive and linguistic development, as well as the specific characteristics of L2 writing in elementary school, make this process different from the process of L2 writing among adult learners; therefore, child L2 writing constitutes its own field of inquiry and needs to be addressed as such (Chapter 1). Also, child L2 writers have become an interesting object of study in recent years because research on L2 writing tasks with child learners has broken through several barriers: writing, which had been considered a solitary task, has been successfully implemented in collaboration (Chapter 2); new and more comprehensive feedback strategies have been implemented (Chapter 3); task repetition has made its way from oral into writing tasks (Chapter 4); and, finally, research analyses of linguistic outcomes have been complemented by measures of task motivation (Chapter 5). The findings of these empirical studies enable

Introduction

us to pinpoint the specificity of writing tasks for this population, identify the research gaps that pave the way for future studies (Chapter 6), and offer a guide for teachers who wish to implement writing tasks with young language learners (Chapter 7). The connection of the constructs and concepts discussed in each of the chapters is so strong that the reader will often have the same feeling one gets when reading nested stories with several characters with intertwining narratives. The same constructs (collaboration, feedback, task repetition, task motivation) play out over the whole book, the main concepts in one chapter reappear as secondary in the next, and all concepts acquire new meaning in their relationships with one another. In fact, one of the main lessons I learned from writing this book was a profound understanding of the overwhelming yet fascinating interconnected nature of the constructs of L2 writing and L2 acquisition. In sum, why child L2 writers? The need to address this population and to gather the knowledge gained from L2 writing tasks suggests that the time is ripe for child L2 writers to have a room of their own.

7

part i

Child learners and L2 writing

chapter 1

We need to write about children 1.1

Introduction

We need to write about child L2 writers. To do this, we need to understand children as learners; we need to understand the educational context of elementary schools; we need to understand writing skills; and, last but not least, we need to understand the relevant second language acquisition (SLA) constructs associated with children and writing. The only way to achieve a deep understanding of child writers is by adopting a multidisciplinary approach. This is precisely the aim of this opening chapter, in which I will deal with the key components of this volume: children’s cognitive characteristics (Section 1.2); writing in school (Section 1.3); collecting data from YLs (Section 1.4); and a discussion of the SLA knowledge that provides the theoretical framework for L2 writing studies (Section 1.5). In addition to this, I will also describe the main writing tasks and illustrate them with samples produced by YLs in order to clarify what we mean with L2 writing tasks in this volume (Section 1.6). The field of SLA emerged as a sub-discipline of applied linguistics, specifically to address the acquisition of languages that are not a speaker’s native language. From the beginning, SLA was conceived as an interdisciplinary field (Cook, 2015). Most researchers understood that to fully understand the processes of language acquisition, first or second, it was necessary to draw on a variety of other disciplines. In the case at hand, that of child L2 writers, the process of language acquisition happens in the context of elementary school and in a period of life – childhood – when cognitive development is under constant change and differs a great deal from the cognitive characteristics of adulthood. If we aim to reach a comprehensive understanding of child L2 learners, we need to take into account the knowledge and experience of child educators and psychologists (Dixon et al., 2012). This knowledge, together with the knowledge gained from several decades of SLA research on child L2 learners, will facilitate a more integrated, dynamic, and interdisciplinary approach to the investigation of child L2 writers. Bearing this in mind, this opening chapter is divided into five sections. Section 1.2 draws on our knowledge about child development. It provides a description of the cognitive characteristics of children and, more specifically, of the age group under scrutiny in this volume, 9–12-year-olds, focusing on the most relevant features for L2 learning and writing. Section 1.3 focuses on writing in https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.32.c1 © 2023 John Benjamins Publishing Company

12

Child L2 Writers

elementary school. It provides an overview of the relevance of writing, of its cognitive and linguistic demands, and of the educational functions it can serve with child L2 learners. Section 1.4 briefly describes the complexities of collecting data with YLs. Section 1.5 is rooted in the field of SLA and establishes the theoretical stance of the book by briefly summarizing the main theories and constructs involved in studies on L2 writing tasks. The discussion of these constructs provides a framework and bridge to the following chapters, which is completed by Section 1.6, in which brief definitions of the L2 writing tasks under scrutiny in this volume (dictogloss, direct corrections, model texts, reformulations and task repetition) are provided. The definitions are accompanied by samples of learners’ drafts to help understand the type of L2 writing we are dealing wih. Finally, a summary of the chapter is provided, and the importance of bearing the issues discussed in this chapter in mind throughout the book is emphasized.

1.2

Cognitive features of children aged 9–12

An understanding of the cognitive characteristics of the age period under study is important for two main reasons. First, we need to understand what children can and cannot do. Children’s capabilities depend greatly on their stage of cognitive development, which entails close-knit interactions between cognitive, social and emotional aspects (Berk, 2013). This development often predetermines the success or failure of a given teaching intervention. Understanding the implications of children’s development can prevent teachers from misjudging their teaching capacity or their students’ capabilities upon task failure. For instance, children do not fully develop logical thinking skills until adolescence, which implies that they cannot hypothesize and deal with abstract concepts when these are not directly connected to concrete elements. This suggests that YLs will have great difficulty in processing the sophistication of the morpho-syntax of a given language, for instance, the third person singular –s, negative forms, or question formation in English (García Mayo & García Lecumberri, 2003), or in appreciating aspects such as metaphor or irony (Pexman, 2008), which are more successfully mastered by adolescents. If practitioners do not understand this, They will probably misjudge students’ failure to carry out such tasks, and they may resort to other explanations, such as students’ lack of diligence, textbooks’ lack of clarity, or their own lack of ability as language teachers. Second, understanding children’s minds is also important because the learning environment can encourage or hinder the development of children’s capacities. Archaic views of the brain as a blank slate have been replaced by a conception

Chapter 1. We need to write about children

of the brain as an organ that does not develop according to a pre-set blueprint. Rather, the brain adapts to the environment through a combination of influential factors, such as family, culture, peers, and the school context. It has been demonstrated that teaching practices are one of the factors that exert a great influence on the development of a child. School has an impact on how the child develops in terms of cognition and language, as well as influencing emotional, social, and moral development (Berk, 2013). While a close-up insight into children’s cognitive characteristics would need a volume of its own, in this section I will try to describe the main characteristics of the psychology of children that are relevant to language learning and teaching in school contexts and, specifically, to L2 writing tasks and to the age period under study (9–12-year-olds). My point of departure in this chapter is the understanding that cognitive development and language learning develop in tandem as language (first and second) is, in fact, as an aspect of human cognition (DeKeyser & Criado, 2012; DeKeyser & Juffs, 2005). Achieving L2 language proficiency “implies a set of skills that enable speakers to comprehend and produce messages quickly and efficiently” (DeKeyser & Criado, 2012, p. 1). Given this view, cognitive psychology is unquestionably relevant to SLA as it helps us to understand what learners can do with language at various stages of learning (DeKeyser & Criado, 2012). Cognitive development refers to how children think, explore, and understand the world around them, and how they use language to do this. Language is the tool that enables children to express thoughts and ideas and to interact with others. Language itself is understood as a cognitive activity that requires consciousness, reasoning, and manipulation, and that makes use of a variety of cognitive strategies, such as repetition, organization of new information/language, summarizing meaning, guessing meaning from context, and using imagery for memorization. Language skills and cognitive skills are, therefore, interdependent and grow together, feeding one another. As cognitive skills develop, they enable language to develop and vice versa, creating a feedback loop. The development of these mental operations of thought helps children to gradually adapt to their environment. Next, I will describe some of the main concepts that help characterize the children studied in this volume and that inform language learning and teaching, either by understanding what we can expect or by encouraging the use or disuse of certain practices.

1.2.1 The emergence of abstract thinking The classic division of childhood into periods dates back to Piaget’s classification into the following phases (Wadsworth, 1989):

13

14

Child L2 Writers

1. 2. 3. 4.

Sensorimotor stage (birth to 18–24 months). Preoperational stage (ages 2–7). Concrete operational stage (ages 7–11). Formal operational stage (ages 12 and over).

While Piaget’s original classification has been qualified, and these phases are now seen as a continuum in modern information processing theories (Pinter, 2011), the basic periods and their fundamental characteristics still hold true. There is a consensus that all children go through these stages in this order but with variation regarding the rate of their progress; there is also an understanding of the interplay between nature and nurture during the process of development. More recent research has also identified several growth spurts by measuring brain weight, skull size, and electrical activity of the cortex (Pinter, 2011). Two of these spurts take place right before and right after the age group under study in this volume; specifically, one of these spurts takes place between 7.5 and 9 years, and the other takes place between the ages of 12 and 15. This emphasizes the changing nature of children’s cognition in this period. The children researched in this volume fall between the ages of 9 and 12, with most of them either 10 or 11 years of age; this means they are straddling the boundary between the concrete and formal operational stages. In the concrete operational stage, children acquire logical or operational thought; they can understand rules but only when they are applied to physical or concrete objects. The formal operational stage is characterized by the development of the ability to think abstractly or hypothetically. This means that between the ages of 9 and 12, as children grow and mature, they are able to produce dialogue of greater complexity thanks to their increasing ability to resolve activities that imply problem-solving and dealing with more abstract concepts (Pinter, 2011); however, they have not yet fully reached the cognitive leap into abstract thinking that mostly happens in adolescence. A problem with this is that children will present a great deal of individual variety and, while some might be ready to deal with abstract concepts, others will still not be capable of doing so. In other words, while some might be facing the challenges of acquiring a second language as children, others will be facing them as adult learners. With regard to L2 writing tasks in late childhood, children’s ability to focus on formal aspects of language is emerging, and they are better able to use abstract thinking while writing to decide how to express their ideas. Compared to younger children, those aged between 9 and 12 are perfectly able to write their own texts in the L2 and to deal with feedback on their production, as confirmed by empirical studies (e.g., Coyle & Roca de Larios, 2014; Luquin & García Mayo, 2020, among many others). Younger children are far less likely to have the necessary resources

Chapter 1. We need to write about children

to deal with writing tasks in this fashion. Also, the cognitive development of children in this age group enables them to deal with and start to understand not only direct but also indirect feedback forms, such as the circling or underlining of errors or the provision of models or reformulated texts. In summary, the cognitive development of formal thinking empowers children of this age to perform writing activities and to benefit from them.

1.2.2 Self-regulation Self-regulation can be defined as the capacity to use effort to regulate your own behavior, emotions, and thoughts (Rothbart, Ellis, & Posner, 2004). Selfregulation develops in early childhood and continues to improve throughout childhood and adolescence (Monahan, Steinberg, Cauffman, & Mulvey, 2009; Steinberg, Albert, Cauffman, Banich, Graham, & Woolard, 2008), and it has been associated with concepts such as intelligence and success (Best, Miller, & Naglieri, 2011; Finders, McClelland, Geldhof, Rothwell, & Hatfield, 2021). Thanks to selfregulation, preteens and teenagers are significantly more efficient in facing tasks: They quickly develop the ability to plan, pay sustained attention to tasks, and persevere when faced with difficulties. Self-regulation also leads to children’s capacity to understand how their behavior affects others and to act in socially appropriate ways, even when this goes against their own will (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2013). Higher levels of self-regulation have been very clearly associated with longer attention spans, greater academic success, and a higher level of general satisfaction in adult life. In contrast, difficulties with self-regulation underlie the emergence of a range of developmental problems during adolescence, including problems with social and academic competence (Eisenberg et al., 2003; Krueger, Hicks, Patrick, Carlson, Iacono, & McCue, 2002; Mischel, Shoda, & Peake, 1988). Thus, the concept of self-regulation is essential in the field of educational psychology (King, Lengua, & Monahan, 2013; Rothbart, Ahadi, & Evans, 2000). Together with other factors, it helps to explain learning, achievement, and motivation in educational settings. While self-regulation has a strong biological basis and is rather stable, it is also somewhat malleable, and instruction can play a role in its development (King et al., 2013; Rothbart et al., 2004). Therefore, teachers should understand how to help students develop adequate strategies to reach higher levels of self-regulation. Self-regulation is also known to develop as a result of peer interaction; as I will argue when discussing peer culture in preadolescence, tasks that encourage collaboration among students are strongly encouraged. With regard to the effect of self-regulation on writing tasks, it is necessary to start by stating that writing is a challenging skill to develop (see more on this in Section 1.3 of this chapter). Therefore, in the school context, it would seem

15

16

Child L2 Writers

that without a degree of self-regulated behavior, it would be extremely difficult for students to sustain the effort that writing entails or to manage the frustration that comes from dealing with corrective feedback. Extreme care should, therefore, be taken when designing writing activities. In designing writing tasks, teachers might include strategies to help students to cope with the specific difficulties of these tasks. This would not only help students to perform the task more successfully but would also help them to develop their capacity for self-regulation. That is, a degree of self-regulation is a prerequisite for dealing with the difficulties of writing, and writing activities can, in turn, be used to develop students’ capacity for self-regulation. On the other hand, asking students to carry out writing tasks beyond their capacities can result in frustration and abandonment. Future SLA research could investigate this further, either by training students in the use of self-regulation strategies, or by asking them about their feelings. For instance, students could be asked how capable they felt before and after completing a task, or what they did when they faced difficulties. Last but not least, as we know that selfregulation in childhood develops significantly in interaction with peers, the use of collaborative writing (CW) tasks in the classroom is highly recommended.

1.2.3 Working memory Working memory is one of the brain’s executive functions. As initially proposed by Baddeley and Hitch (1974), working memory refers not only to our capacity to store the products of our experience in the world but also to our ability to process this information while performing higher-order cognitive tasks, such as comprehension, learning, and reasoning (Baddeley & Logie, 1999). Given its importance, working memory has been widely researched in education and psychology (Cowan, 2010, 2014). However, little research has been conducted with children despite the importance of this construct in this particular period of life; measurements of working memory in children at the beginning of schooling have been shown to correlate strongly with future academic success (Cockcroft, 2015; Gathercole & Alloway, 2008). The impact of working memory is stronger than that of other influential factors, such as intelligence quotient (IQ) scores (Alloway & Alloway, 2010). Similarly, children’s performance on working memory tasks has been linked to success in different areas of the school curriculum, such as the acquisition of vocabulary (Engel de Abreu, Gathercole, & Martin, 2011); reading (Gathercole & Alloway, 2008; Stevenson, Bergwerff, Heisera, & Resinga, 2014); and mathematics (Bull & Scerif, 2001; DeStefano & LeFevre, 2004). In terms of language acquisition, L2 researchers have suggested that working memory might be a core element among the range of cognitive processes on which L2 learning rests. Working memory has been demonstrated to be a key fac-

Chapter 1. We need to write about children

tor in determining L2 aptitude (Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003; Robinson, 2005) and in predicting L2 proficiency (van den Noort, Bosch, & Hugdahl, 2006). Also, it seems to be one of the main factors that account for variation in most aspects of L2 acquisition, such as reading (Leeser, 2007; Walter, 2006); writing (Adams & Guillot, 2008); speaking (O’Brien, Segalowitz, Collentine, & Freed, 2006); vocabulary development (Cheung, 1996); grammar (Williams & Lovatt, 2003); and the processing of input and intake (Mackey, Philp, Egi, Fujii, & Tatsumi, 2002). Some authors have even established a link between working memory and non-linguistic factors that have an impact on L2 acquisition, such as extraversion (Dewaele, Petrides, & Furnham, 2008) and stress (Rai, Loschky, Harris, Peck, & Cook, 2011). Like other cognitive capacities, working memory develops and changes over an individual’s lifespan. It is present from the age of 6 or earlier; with maturation, the components of working memory grow in a linear manner throughout the early and middle school years to adolescence (Gathercole, Pickering, Ambridge, & Wearing, 2004). That is, the quantity of items or chunks that can be held and processed in the child’s working memory increases in a linear manner until it seems to reach a peak around the age of 16; this finding is consistent across many cultures (Alloway, Gathercole, Willis, & Adams, 2004). The working memory capacity that an individual has reached in late adolescence is likely to remain constant until it starts to decline at around the age of 45 (Alloway, 2011; Cowan, 2010; Simmering & Perone, 2013). The development of working memory starts to develop in childhood when children start to talk to others and to experience life events within their environments. This emphasizes the value of socialization and interaction, already mentioned in connection to self-regulation, in the cognitive development of the child. Also of relevance is the finding that when children experience events that they do not fully understand, they are less likely to remember the event (or to recall events correctly). Linking this to writing, the period under study will correspond to the linear increase in working memory towards its peak in late adolescence. Students should be able to use their working memories in writing tasks; they should also be able to store and process knowledge from written corrective feedback (WCF) that could be used on later occasions, for instance, when producing another piece of writing or when performing other task types. As argued when dealing with selfregulation, children’s developing working memories will be both required and enhanced in the performance of CW tasks, as interaction with others is known to promote the development of working memory. In this respect, individual differences will probably help to explain individual variability in terms of task outcomes. Studies on writing could, therefore, take this variable into account to fully understand the impact of working memory on task resolution and, ultimately, on L2 acquisition.

17

18

Child L2 Writers

1.2.4 Peer bonding and friendship For the first time in their lives, children develop what has been referred to as peer culture. Peers start to replace adults as their preferred people to socialize with, and children prefer to interact with their peers without the presence of adults. Language develops accordingly, and YLs start to use vocabulary and phrases that distinguish their language from that of adults. They form peer groups and learn to cooperate and work together towards common collective objectives. This is a great time for collaboration in education, as children in general will not only embrace peer work but will also be able to cooperate towards the achievement of a common goal. This is different from previous stages of development, in which they might like to be together but do not yet have the ability to work together. Peer acceptance becomes a powerful force and a predictor of later adjustment in school life and in society; ultimately, it is a predictor of a satisfactory and healthy future life. The concept of friendship undergoes a radical change. In earlier periods of life, children tend to think of all their peers as friends, while in this period they select a few based on personality traits and on a feeling that they can count on each other. Friends made in this period tend to last longer and are necessary for children to learn about emotional commitment, about conflict resolution, and about cooperation to achieve common goals. Therefore, this is a time when special attention should be paid to the affective factors involved in peer or team work, as rejection by peers can have very negative consequences. Peer work in school activities could serve as a tool to teach the acceptance of children who do not fit in or who do not want to follow the peer culture rules.

1.2.5 Self-esteem: Praise, criticism, and effort Self-esteem can be defined as a realistic judgement about one’s own worth accompanied by feelings of self-acceptance and self-respect (Von Der Haar, 2005). The development of self-esteem in elementary school has been described as follows. Before the age of 6, children are not yet able to have a realistic image of their own competence and usually rate their own ability in line with their desired ability, that is, they underestimate task difficulty and feel able to perform tasks beyond their abilities (Harter, 2003, 2006). Around the age of 6 or 7, children develop a more realistic psychological image of themselves and are able to distinguish their capabilities in different areas, such as academic competence, social competence, physical competence, and physical appearance (Harter, 2003, 2006). At this age, children start to be frequently rated in comparison to their peers academically and socially. All of this leads to a decrease in self-esteem and to the emergence of more individual differences. However, this decrease is not usually very

Chapter 1. We need to write about children

drastic; rather, it represents an adjustment to a more realistic view of themselves, and children’s self-esteem, in general, remains high. At the age of 10, self-esteem tends to rise again in connection to peer relationships and athletic capabilities (Twenge & Campbell, 2001), but it starts to present greater individual variability and show lower rates for some in connection to academic achievement (Berk, 2013). In early adolescence, usually coinciding with the transition from elementary to high school, the decline in self-esteem is more general, with some learners entering dangerous levels of low self-esteem that can profoundly harm their future behavior (Berk, 2013). Therefore, the age group under study, still in elementary school but already including 12-year-olds, will be expected to have good self-esteem in general, but there might be some 12-year-old learners who start to worsen in terms of their evaluation of their own capabilities. Of key importance for educators is the understanding that self-esteem is dynamic and that school-related factors play a key role in its development during childhood. Empirical studies have found a strong connection between self-esteem and academic achievement (Mann, Hosman, Schaalma, & De Vries, 2004). Selfesteem provides children with the motivation to work hard in the pursuit of school achievements (Ferkany, 2008) and, in turn, these achievements will fuel children’s levels of self-esteem (Humphrey, 2004; Mruk, 2006). School educators, therefore, have a great responsibility to help students build positive self-esteem, and some researchers have suggested that the promotion of students’ self-esteem should be among the educational goals of schools (Ferkany, 2008). While different avenues have been explored to promote students’ self-esteem, such as teachers’ expectations or grouping students by ability, a thorough review of them falls beyond the aims of this book. In this section I will focus on two interconnected aspects that can be relatively easily taken into account when designing and implementing writing tasks with L2 children, and which can have a positive impact on the development of students’ self-esteem: the use of praise and criticism, and the value of effort.

Praise and criticism When compared to adult self-esteem, child self-esteem is more malleable and more sensitive to praise, criticism, and approval from significant adults, such as parents or teachers. In elementary school, children are becoming not only more cognitively capable of processing the feedback offered by their teachers but also increasingly sensitive to it. This means that if feedback is not positively received, it can have very negative effects on the child’s disposition to perform school tasks. Feedback can take two basic forms: praise and criticism. Both can perform a positive function in school contexts where, when used in a balanced way, they

19

20

Child L2 Writers

can encourage effort and the pursuit of academic achievement. When used indiscriminately, however, excessive praise could result in a decrease in students’ motivation and generate dependence on the praise itself, while excessive criticism could discourage students and diminish their self-esteem. Teachers also need to understand that the effects of praise and criticism become more complex with age. Whereas 4- to 5-year-olds always infer that praise indicates high ability and high effort, paradoxical effects begin to appear among 11- to 12-year-olds. Younger children understand that the teacher’s praise is linked to their ability and effort (Meyer, 1992; Miller & Hom, 1997), whereas perceptions of praise and criticism among older children become more complex, being affected by their developing perceptions of their own abilities in comparison with those of their peers. At this age, praise can be understood as an attribution of low ability and can lead to the development of beliefs of low competence. This can happen, for example, if a student is praised for completing an easy task and another student is not praised for an identical achievement. In a similar way, criticism can be considered a positive judgement on ability if another student is not criticized for a similar performance. All of this might contribute to the formation of fewer positive or appropriate academic self-concepts. Therefore, with this age group, praise and criticism should not only be balanced but should always include a distinction between ability and effort, and should include specific advice from the teacher as to which aspect of student performance or ability is being targeted in order to avoid misinterpretation and encourage effort (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Möller, 2005). This could help promote perseverance, as focused effort-centered feedback will strengthen children’s task persistence and, in turn, will improve their self-esteem.

Effort With the development of reasoning skills and with increased exposure to evaluative feedback, elementary school children learn the different effects that ability and effort can have on their performance (Dweck, 1999, 2002). At the age of 7, they start to form a realistic image of their capabilities, to compare themselves to others, and to experience difficulties in the performance of school tasks that, until now, had been faced mostly in a playful manner. In these first encounters with academic challenges, it is vital to help children understand that, whatever their ability, their performance will improve with effort. Understanding this will help them cope with failure, as they will understand that when they fail, this is due not only to their ability but also to a lack of effort. In other words, they will understand that task failure can be reverted by investing more effort and trying harder. If students adopt this view of learning, referred to as a mastery-oriented or goaloriented view, they will develop perseverance, become more hardworking and industrious, and make the best of their capabilities. In contrast, if praise focuses

Chapter 1. We need to write about children

on ability, children will be less likely to learn the value of effort and less likely to persist and improve following failure; they will tend to attribute failure exclusively to their lack of ability and see it as stable and impossible to control, thus becoming “learned-helpless” (Dweck, 1999). Simply put, children will be more likely to give up without trying (Cain & Dweck, 1995). The importance of effort should be taken into account when designing L2 writing tasks. Teachers should design tasks that are challenging but achievable. This does not seem difficult as writing tasks per se are challenging but achievable for L2 children (see Section 1.3 in this chapter). That is, L2 children can write texts in the L2 and deal with feedback at their own level, unlike other activities which might be unachievable for some, such as listening or grammar exercises that require a certain command of language and vocabulary. This makes writing activities an excellent tool to illustrate the value of effort and promote students’ self-esteem. In sum, when designing and implementing L2 writing tasks teachers should try to provide feedback that contains praise and criticism in balanced ways. This feedback should be clearly understood by the student to avoid misinterpretation, and the focus should be placed on effort rather than achievement, with the aim of promoting the understanding that future effort can lead to improvement and success.

1.3

Children need to write

1.3.1 L2 writing in elementary school Writing is a very relevant activity in childhood, as this is the period of life when writing skills are usually acquired for the first time, that is, when children discover how the oral language they have already acquired is represented graphically with the symbols that we call “letters.” In school contexts, reading and writing are usually taught in tandem under the denomination of “literacy,” which is understood as the ability to read and write. Literacy is considered a key element in human development and has been recognized as a fundamental human right by The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO, 2008). Literacy education is also a means to achieve inclusivity and to address the still large number of children who cannot read and write (Luckasson, 2006). Literacy in the L1 is usually introduced in schools at around the ages of 3 or 4. In this process reading comes first and, once acquired, reading comprehension plays a key role in writing. By the age of 7 or 8, students are expected to have

21

22

Child L2 Writers

gained a basic command of reading and writing. These skills play a vital role in the academic life of a student. In elementary education, the foundations for several later competencies need to be built. This includes the acquisition of writing abilities for a range of different contexts and comprises discipline-specific discourses and genres. It is, therefore, widely understood, regardless of countries, languages, or cultures, that achieving a good command of reading and writing is one of the most important skills that students need to master in the elementary years. Likewise, literacy levels are used to decide whether or not students can progress into the final years of elementary school, as researchers have often associated deficient literacy skills with future academic failure (Francis, Shaywitz, Stuebing, Shaywitz, & Fletcher, 1996; Pianta, Belsky, Vandergrift, Houts, & Morrison, 2008). Regarding writing in the L2, language teachers understand that their students should master the four skills of speaking, listening, reading, and writing; there is, however, no agreement on when and how these should be introduced (Pinter, 2006). Speaking and listening are usually introduced from the beginning of schooling, while reading and especially writing, which is difficult to teach and learn, are usually introduced later. The starting age for writing seems to depend on many factors (Pinter, 2006), and, unfortunately, there are no studies to date providing a big picture of when and how it is introduced worldwide. One of the most relevant documents we can turn to is a review conducted by the European Commission in 2006 exploring language teaching among YLs in Europe. The European Commission recognizes the value of introducing reading and writing at an early stage and recommends the early introduction of these skills over teaching approaches that concentrate solely on listening and speaking in the first years (Edelenbos, Johnstone, & Kubanek, 2006). This recommendation is based on a review of some available studies suggesting that learners benefit from an early introduction to reading and writing in the target language and that this introduction does not seem to affect writing skills in the L1. For instance, Mertens (2003) found that children learning French in Germany were able to benefit from the introduction of written French from the beginning of their learning process in Grade 1, and that they fared better than students who followed oral, playful methodologies. In relation to the L1, Edelenbos et al. (2006) refer to a study by Vickov (2007), which shows that introducing writing in English to Croatian children does not negatively affect their learning of Croatian writing. Finally, a study on the relation between L1 and L2 writing skills among Puerto Rican elementary school children (Grades 4 and 5) in bilingual programs shows that the students transferred their literacy skills from the L1 to L2 before their L2 oral-aural skills had developed very far (Lanauze & Snow, 1989) and, therefore, the introduction of writing in the L2 was recommended.

Chapter 1. We need to write about children

On a more individual level, writing tasks are also relevant in elementary school because they are meaningful for students. From an early age, children write (whether digitally or by hand) in school and outside school; they write texts such as messages to their friends, personal diaries, school notes, summaries, and exam answers. Also, childhood is a period in which children are nurtured by fantasy and stories, and some children feel a desire to write their own stories, poems, songs, and other forms of creative writing. Therefore, writing is meaningful to children because they understand this is a skill they will need in real life. In terms of the L2, teachers and learners fully embrace the idea that when you learn an L2, you need to learn the four skills, writing being one of them. Pinter (2006) warns, however, that writing can only be a useful skill if the children themselves feel ready and interested in the process of familiarizing themselves with the L2 writing system. Finally, and considering the relevance of writing, I would like to finish this section by quoting the opening lines of the book Writing Systems by Florian Coulmas (2003). Here, the author explains how the relevance of writing has always existed, and how it has even increased in contemporary society: Writing has been with us for several thousand years, and nowadays is more important than ever. Having spread steadily over the centuries from clay tablets to computer chips, it is poised for further dramatic advances. Although hundreds of millions of people are still unable to read and write, humanity relies on writing to an unprecedented extent. It is quite possible that, today, more communication takes place in the written than in the oral mode. There is no objective measure, but if there were any doubts, the Internet explosion has laid to rest the idea that for the human race at large writing is only a ‘minor’ form of communication. It is not risky to call writing the single most consequential technology ever invented. (Coulmas, 2003, p. 1)

1.3.2 L2 writing is tough Let’s start this section with the bad news. Writing is so hard that students often consider it one of the most challenging aspects of learning an L2 (Hyland, 2003) and clearly harder than writing in the L1 (Flowerdew, 2002). Writing in an L2 requires the ability to put thoughts into words in a meaningful form, while making use of still limited knowledge of the L2 rules for orthography, lexis, grammar, vocabulary, and discourse. Thus, L2 writing requires higher-order thinking skills, as L2 writers cannot simply memorize and repeat items or chunks of the L2; rather, L2 writers need to create their own text by dealing with the interplay of many issues related to content, organization, meaning,

23

24

Child L2 Writers

language use, and mechanics. All of this has to be done in a language that they only partially know. With all these demands in mind, and drawing on the cognitive development of YLs, L2 writing is clearly tough for students at the end of elementary school, who are usually at a disadvantage when compared to more cognitively mature adolescents. Thus, empirical studies considering factors such as age of onset and amount of instruction while comparing different age groups of learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) in school contexts have found that, regardless of onset age, older learners (learners in high school) have a greater command of writing skills than YLs in elementary school and are able to write longer and more complex texts (Lasagabaster & Doiz, 2003). These findings can be connected firstly to the cognitive development of children and secondly to the transferability of literacy skills from the L1. First, older students have already developed a greater cognitive capacity to perform tasks that require higher-order thinking processes, such as those involved in writing. Second, older students have achieved a higher level of writing in the L1, which they transfer to writing in the L2. In sum, while the introduction of writing is recommended, it should be accompanied by realistic expectations, given the cognitive demands that the task will impose on child L2 learners. When dealing with a language like English, we cannot disregard the additional complexity of spelling. It is important to bear in mind the intricacies and inconsistencies of English spelling, the main foreign language in the studies reviewed in this volume, and to fully appreciate the cognitive demands that English spelling places on YLs. It has been shown that native speakers of English experience developmental dyslexia more frequently than speakers of languages such as Italian or German (Snowling, 2000), in which the connections between letters and sounds are more consistent (Paulesu et al., 2001; Paulesu et al., 2000). In other words, the orthographies of some languages, such as English or Danish, are more likely to generate phonological dyslexia than the orthographies of other languages, suggesting that developmental dyslexia is a cognitive deficit that will only emerge when the demands of the orthography to be learned are high (Wydell, 2000, 2003). In the case of English as a second or foreign language, some students who have not suffered from dyslexia when learning their L1s, such as Spanish, German, or French, might struggle with English. Also, when L2 writing is introduced after writing skills in the L1 have been acquired, learners will tend to transfer the grapho-phonemic rules of their L1s, and learning the new ones will take time; this time will be longer in the case of languages with complicated graphophonemic relationships, such as English. Therefore, young L2 writers have to deal with the process of writing and expressing their ideas in the foreign language at the same time as trying to deal with the mechanical basis of the target language.

Chapter 1. We need to write about children

The above illustrates the challenge of L2 writing for YLs. In spite of this, and to finish with the good news, learning activities that require higher-order thinking skills are tougher but also more effective (Bloom, 1956), and writing tasks are hard but achievable, as learners can write at their own level and process the feedback offered on their own production. Therefore, writing activities properly designed for L2 learners will offer them greater opportunities for language acquisition, and writing will be worth the effort.

1.3.3 L2 writing is worth it The fact that writing in an L2 is hard but achievable for L2 child learners means that it bears great learning potential. The functions that writing in an L2 can serve in elementary school are many and varied. In this section I will briefly outline some of the benefits that L2 writing can bring to the elementary school classroom. 1. Writing is a language-learning tool With the advent of the writing-to-learn approach in SLA (Manchón, 2011), the value of writing as a learning tool has been clearly established. However, this value has been known for a long time in L1 and immersion contexts. Writing across the curriculum has long been understood as a tool to improve learning, and since the late 1960s and early 1970s, writing tasks have been recommended as useful activities in all subject areas (Britton, 1970; Britton, Burgess, Martin, McLeod, & Rosen, 1975). The approach of writing-to-learn from elementary through high school education has also shown that writing in the disciplines enhances learning in science, social studies, and mathematics; this has been shown with elementary, middle, and high school students. The effects of writing-to-learn are not affected by the features of the writing activities or the instruction (Graham, Kiuhara, & MacKay, 2020). Also, writing in different disciplines provides students with subject-specific registers and writing abilities (Klein & Boscolo, 2016; Klein, Boscolo, Kirkpatrick, & Gelati, 2014). The need to write is true for immersion contexts, too. Children in immersion contexts have been shown to possess a much lower command of the productive skills (writing and speaking) in the immersion language when compared to their native-like command in the receptive skills (reading and listening) (Swain, 1993, 1995, 2000, 2005). Since this has been partly attributed to the reduced opportunities that students have to produce language in school contexts, that is, to write and speak, it follows that encouraging more writing and speaking activities is a way to improve students’ proficiency. Finally, L2 writing is also gaining importance with the expansion of content and language integrated learning (CLIL) programmes, as students have to write

25

26

Child L2 Writers

about different disciplines in the L2. Therefore, L2 writing activities in their FL lessons will help them cope with this demand; in turn, writing activities in the different disciplines will aid both the L2 acquisition process and the acquisition of content (Graham et al., 2020). In the next section, I will offer a more detailed description of the ways in which writing promotes L2 learning. First, however, I would like to conclude with Jessica Williams’ (2012) summary of how writing contributes to learning: (1) its slower pace, and (2) the enduring record that it leaves, both of which can encourage cognitive processes and interactive moves thought to promote language acquisition, and (3) the need for and the opportunity for greater precision in language use, which may encourage learners to consult their explicit knowledge as they plan, monitor, or review their production. (Williams, 2012, p. 321)

2. Writing offers a picture of “learning in progress” Simply put, writing provides a picture of what a learner knows very well, quite well, and not so well. This is of great interest for both teachers and researchers. Speaking is immediate and does not allow time to think. Also, speaking can be mediated by the psychological stress that often accompanies oral production in a second language. Therefore, when speaking, learners tend to use the L2 knowledge that has been deeply internalized and can be automatically retrieved. Writing, on the contrary, allows students to think about what they want to say and how they want to say it. It allows students to make use of their cognitive resources and exploit their knowledge of the L2 more deeply (Manchón, 2011). Therefore, written output can show not only language that has been internalized but also language that is emerging, as students are more likely to take risks and try to use structures or vocabulary that have not yet been fully mastered. Let me illustrate this with an example from a very well-known empirical study with YLs conducted by Spada and Lightbown (1999). Among other things, the authors tested students’ performance on oral and written tasks regarding their acquisition of English question formation. Question types were classified into the five stages described in Pienemann, Johnston and Brindley (1988). These stages reflect the patterns of emergence of English questions in chronological order, with questions from Stage 1 emerging first, and so on. Their results revealed that students were able to produce questions from lower or more advanced stages depending on whether they were collecting data from oral production or from written production tasks. While the oral production tasks placed most students in Stages 2 and 3, the written production tasks provided evidence that most of the students also had some knowledge of Stages 4 and 5. This means that students were able to retrieve structures of greater complexity in the written mode while only simpler structures appeared in their oral output.

Chapter 1. We need to write about children

The writing-to-learn approach, which prioritizes the process of writing and how this process contributes to language learning, has undoubtedly opened fruitful research and teaching avenues (Manchón, 2011, 2020); however, this approach does not invalidate the value of writing as a product and, as argued here, a product of great value. 3. Writing helps learners to develop multiple learning skills Writing requires the mastery of both handwriting and keyboard writing. It requires the use of the vocabulary, the grammar, and the cohesive and organizational devices of the L2. It requires consideration of the genre, the purpose of writing, and the reader. It requires imagination and creativity but also rigor and clarity. Therefore, it is a very complete task, and by practicing and improving it, other language areas and cognitive skills will also be practiced and improved. 4. Writing and reading work in tandem The writing skill cannot be developed without the contribution of reading. Reading comprehension enhances the writing abilities in a way that could not be achieved by mere writing practice (Hyland, 2003). Thus, reading comprehension is a central process in the acquisition of writing skills in the L1 (Hyland, 2003; Weigle, 2002) and also in the L2, in which case the connection between the two skills becomes more complex and is mediated by other factors, such as the proficiency in the target language and the transfer or literacies and skills from the L1s (Hirvela & Belcher, 2016). In turn, writing instruction also has a direct impact on reading skills (Graham & Hebert, 2011). In sum, writing and reading are complementary, and this should be taken into account when doing research and when formulating teaching recommendations. The reciprocal relationship between reading and writing entails that writing activities improve students’ reading, and vice versa (Ruiz Funes, 1999). This suggests that the study of reading and writing would benefit from a deeper integration of both skills (Graham, 2020). In addition, a good writer must first be a reader, and by writing, students can develop a greater interest in reading what others have written. 5. Writing can promote perseverance From an educational perspective, writing can reinforce the value of effort and perseverance. As explained, writing is tough and requires effort, but at the same time, writing is achievable for all students: each student can write and deal with feedback at their own level. The regular use of writing tasks and the provision of effort-focused praise on the part of the teacher can help students understand the value of effort and will make them more likely to pursue improvement and academic success.

27

28

Child L2 Writers

6. Writing can promote creativity Writing is highly connected to our imagination and can be an excellent tool to promote creativity in the classroom. Elementary school students are familiar with stories and can make attempts to write their own (Tin, 2011). 7. Writing can promote cross-curricular values Writing topics can be chosen at will and could help to promote cross-curricular values, such as environmental awareness, gender equality, or cultural diversity. 8. Writing can be used as a tool to communicate Students find writing useful to express their feelings, their worries, and their fears. They can also use writing to apologize or thank somebody, especially when speaking is not possible due to shyness or distance. Writing, thanks to its enduring nature, seems to be more powerful than speaking. 9. Writing can provide a sense of achievement When an L2 learner writes a text, this text remains and leaves an enduring record (Williams, 2012). The text belongs to the learner and provides a sense of achievement typically found in human tasks that generate tangible products. The student’s effort has not vanished into thin air; this promotes a feeling of satisfaction that something valuable has been achieved.

1.4

Children in SLA

Although much SLA research has focused on adult learners, research on child L2 learners has increased dramatically in the past few decades; the result is an initial characterization of YLs in instructed settings. The main findings related to the characterization of children as L2 learners are well summarized in Pinter’s (2007) volume. The author explains that children are good language learners, but that the factors that contribute to success in L2 language acquisition in childhood are complex and include “an early start in an optimal environment, consistent, rich exposure, opportunities to practise, high motivation and some explicit instruction” (Pinter, 2007, p. 64). After spending over 20 years collecting and analyzing data from child L2 learners in school contexts, I would like to devote some lines to explaining my views on why SLA research with children is equally scarce and needed. Firstly, gaining access to data from child learners is a complicated matter. Researchers are mainly working in university contexts, and to access YLs they

Chapter 1. We need to write about children

need the cooperation of schoolteachers. Often, these school practitioners are willing to help (this has definitely been my own experience), but they need to open their doors and offer their own time. At the same time, it is not clear what the researcher is offering the teachers in exchange for their efforts. Even when teachers are willing to participate, the way into data collection is hazardous. Parent or tutor permissions need to be collected. Researchers need to conduct meetings with school staff, sit in on lessons to familiarize themselves with the learning process, and schedule their data collection times according to the availability of the school members and their own schedules. This is undoubtedly more timeand energy-consuming than conducting research with adult learners at the university level. Not surprisingly, university students are the most widely studied group in SLA as they are mostly the researchers’ own students, but this privileged and highly educated group of language learners does not reflect the variety of learners in society; On the contrary, provided that a variety of school contexts is researched, there is significant value in working with elementary school learners, as in many countries, virtually all children attend school. Secondly, as the field of SLA has developed to focus primarily on adults, the methodologies employed with adult learners need to be first tested with YLs, and then discarded or adapted to this age group. As described, the changing and distinctive cognitive features of child L2 learners preclude the direct extrapolation of the tools and findings obtained from research with adults. Thus, while the field of SLA has been growing for around 50 years, when focusing on L2 child learners, researchers have needed to go back to square one. The opening lines in Pinter’s (2011) book Children Learning Second Languages could not describe this better and in fewer words: “language learning in childhood is both similar and different from adult language learning” (Pinter, 2011, p. 1). Finally, once access to child learners has been obtained, their behavior might be unexpected, and the data collected might end up being less reliable than that collected from adults. Extralinguistic factors have a great impact on children’s performance and make the interpretation of the results more complex. In my experience, we have frequently needed to stop recording because a child needed to use the toilet, or burst into laughter, or were too shy and intimidated to talk, or were such extroverts that they told us about their friends, family, or toys, or were constantly waving or looking at the cameras, or wrote in unreadable handwriting. The presence of the researcher in the classroom can be very disruptive for some YLs, who might not behave in a natural way. From my experience, and in line with Pinter (2011), data collection with children could benefit if the teachers became more involved, and, in particular, if the students’ own teachers collected the data as part of their regular teaching practices (see more on this in Chapter 7).

29

30

Child L2 Writers

All in all, and even if more research is needed, the publication of two monographs (Murphy, 2014; Pinter, 2017) and several edited volumes (García Mayo, 2017; Nikolov, 2009; Philp, Oliver, & Mackey, 2008; Rokita-Jaśkow & Ellis, 2019) on child learners, together with the present volume, give an idea of the present vigor of this complicated yet interesting population group. Finally, it goes without saying that the study of child L2 learners is of great relevance. The number of child L2 learners in school contexts is huge (Enever, 2018; García Mayo, 2017), and the implications of research could find their way into the classroom in the form of pedagogical guidelines; this may be the only way to make large-scale changes to L2 teaching practices (see more on this in Chapter 7). Finally, research on L2 YLs means understanding how children learn languages, which directly contributes to understanding how the human mind works and develops from the early stages of life.

1.5

The theoretical underpinnings of L2 writing tasks

The theoretical underpinnings that L2 writing studies have cited to interpret their findings revolve around the following interrelated SLA concepts: output, noticing, feedback, and interaction. These concepts, their theoretical support, and their interplay, are key to understanding the potential of L2 writing tasks. At the same time, the findings from empirical studies on L2 writing with YLs uncover some weaknesses of these concepts and highlight the need to elaborate a more L2 writing-specific theoretical foundation, a goal towards which several authors are already investing their efforts (Leow & Suh, 2021; Storch, 2021b).

Output hypothesis Merrill Swain proposed the output hypothesis (Swain, 1993, 1995, 2000, 2005), linked to the context of YLs in immersion classes. She observed that in French Immersion classrooms, students reached native-like levels in the receptive skills of reading and listening but lagged far behind in their mastery of oral and written production. She argued that the gap between the receptive and productive skills could be attributed not only to the greater complexity of producing (vs. receiving) language but also to the lack of practice of these skills. In school contexts, students are rather passive and do not usually have many opportunities to produce language themselves, in either the oral or written form. On the contrary, they devote many hours to listening and reading, but these activities are not enough to promote the development of the productive skills. Thus, Swain considered that output activities (speaking and writing) should be increased in the classroom, not

Chapter 1. We need to write about children

only as a means to obtain a product from the students to evaluate their learning, but also as powerful learning tools. As Leow & Suh (2021: 13) put it, Swain (2005) “includes this process of producing as part of the learning process”. Output activities promote high levels of awareness and deeper processing and are, therefore, conducive of L2 learning. Swain (1995, 2000) highlights the main functions of the production of language (output) that are key to language learning: 1.

The noticing/triggering function: when learners need to produce language using their current knowledge of the L2, they are very likely to become aware of what they do not know or know only partially; this has been referred to as “noticing the gap.” 2. The hypothesis-testing function: when producing messages in an L2, learners are constantly testing hypotheses about the language and can receive feedback from an interlocutor to confirm, discard, or modify the linguistic forms they have used (modified output). 3. The metalinguistic (reflective) function: when producing a message in the L2, learners necessarily engage in reflections about the L2. These reflections contribute to internalizing linguistic knowledge. In the case of L2 writing tasks, the output hypothesis establishes the L2 learning potential of the act of writing itself. Although it has limitations – for example, it does not account for the impact that the investment of more or less effort on the part of the learners (Leow & Suh, 2021) – it still provides a solid foundation to support the value of L2 writing tasks in the classroom.

Noticing and feedback The output hypothesis was formulated in connection with and as a means to complete Stephen Krashen’s (1985, 1991) input hypothesis. The input hypothesis originally postulated that comprehensible input was the only necessary condition for language acquisition; in contrast, Swain’s output hypothesis (Swain, 1993) argued that comprehensible input was necessary but not enough, and that output emerged as another necessary construct. Specifically, the output hypothesis explains that for learning to take place, learners need to go through the process of encountering gaps in their L2. This is referred to as “noticing” and is considered to be another essential element in language acquisition; this idea has been further developed with the formulation of the noticing hypothesis (Robinson, 1995; Schmidt, 1990). According to this hypothesis, when producing language, learners are more likely to notice what they do not know or know only partially (referred as language gaps) and will, therefore, be more likely to try to close these gaps. In the case of L2 writing tasks the noticing hypothesis helps to account for

31

32

Child L2 Writers

the noticing that happens when writing but mainly to emphasize the importance of WCF. The mere noticing of gaps in the process of writing might or might not be deep enough to facilitate L2 learning (Leow, 2015). On the contrary, the processing of WCF encourages the activation of higher levels of awareness, that is, learners are more likely to pay explicit attention to the processing of the mismatches between their production and the feedback. As a reasult, WCF facilitates L2 learning. In sum, in output activities learners need to process the language more deeply than when they are merely processing input. Therefore, output facilitates noticing and, in turn, language acquisition, thanks to the mental processes that it sets in motion. The noticing of linguistic aspects is particularly promoted when feedback is provided. The output hypothesis and different forms of feedback have often been studied in combination, especially in the context of written tasks, leading to a consensus that feedback is beneficial.

Interaction The next step in SLA research was to add the ingredient of interaction to productive tasks. In SLA research, oral output tasks have been widely and mostly investigated with learners working in pairs, and the pair dialogues that learners generate during task performance have been understood as the main tool to gain insight into the learners’ brains (see Mackey, 2007, 2012 for a review). Thus, pair work has added the value of interaction to research on output tasks. Vygotsky’s (1978, 1981) sociocultural theory offers a psychological perspective on the vital role of collaboration in human cognitive develpment. The interaction hypothesis (Long, 1996) explicates this vital role from an SLA perspective. The interaction hypothesis (Long, 1996) postulates that learning is facilitated through negotiation of meaning when interactions are modified among conversational partners to avoid breakdowns in communication. Interaction facilitates L2 learning because (1) it provides positive input, sometimes uniquely modified to suit learners’ needs (comprehensible input); (2) learners produce comprehensible output, that is, they modify their own contributions to a conversation in order to make themselves understood (modified output); and (3) learners may receive corrective feedback in numerous forms in response to their output. Therefore, collaborative output activities provide a locus to integrate key ingredients of language acquisition, such as input, output, interaction, feedback, and noticing. Many empirical studies have demonstrated that interaction benefits adult populations (see Mackey, 2007, 2012 for a review). There is also abundant evidence that child learners can negotiate, use a wide range of strategies to do so, and benefit from these negotiations, although at different rates when compared

Chapter 1. We need to write about children

to adult learners (Lázaro-Ibarrola & Azpilicueta-Martínez, 2019a; Oliver, 2002, 2009; Pinter, 2007). Also of relevance is the knowledge that, even at low levels of proficiency and young age, students are able to interact (Lázaro-Ibarrola & Azpilicueta-Martínez, 2019b).

The constructs in writing tasks In the context of writing tasks, the output hypothesis is developed through the writing-to-learn approach (Manchón, 2011). Manchón (2011) made a shift from understanding that learners had to learn to write into understanding that learners learned by writing. In comparison to oral production, writing can enhance learning in the following ways (Manchón, 2011, 2020): –

– – – – –

Writing provides time to allow students to use their cognitive resources (Manchón, 2014a; Storch, 2016). This generates more attention to form, usually measured by the number of language-related episodes (LREs). (Adams & Ross-Feldman, 2008). Learners resolve more LREs in writing tasks than in oral-only tasks (Azkarai & García Mayo, 2016). Writing encourages the use of language structures not normally employed orally (Williams, 2012). Writing demands higher levels of accuracy: errors are not tolerated (Schoonen, Snellings, Stevenson, & van Gelderen, 2009). Writing facilitates the internalization of forms that are already part of the developing system, thus contributing to the consolidation of knowledge (Housen & Kuiken, 2009). Writing contributes to turning declarative into procedural knowledge, which, in turn, promotes fluency (DeKeyser, 2007b).

This new and promising approach to writing has triggered a large number of empirical studies with adult and child L2 writers (see Manchón, 2020). Our knowledge of L2 written tasks with YLs is the object of this volume and will be expanded in subsequent chapters. It can be summarized here by saying that learners are able to write; to write together (Chapter 2); to discuss language issues and interact with feedback (Chapter 3); to improve their writing via repetition (Chapter 4); and to perform writing tasks with high motivational levels and reasoning about why they like or dislike them (Chapter 5).

33

34

Child L2 Writers

1.6

The tasks

To illustrate the L2 writing tasks under scrutiny and the type of text that YLs produce, this section offers a brief description of the main tasks found in empirical studies with children – namely dictogloss, direct corrections, model texts, reformulations and task repetition. Also, some real samples of the texts written by child L2 writers are included to provide a picture of their written production in the L2.

1.6.1 Dictogloss 1.6.1.1 Definition In dictogloss tasks learners are asked to reconstruct a text that they have listened to. The standard procedure was established by Wajnryb (1990): Learners listen to a text one time; then, listen to it again while taking notes trying to get the main information; and finally, use their notes to reconstruct the text trying to be as faithful as possible to the original. In the dictogloss tasks employed in empirical studies with YLs, the researchers often pre-select a grammatical item and make sure that the text contains this item several times to help learners focus on it. When this is the case, dictogloss tasks focus on isolated aspects of the language. Yet, as the targeted item is embedded in a text, the focus on language is contextualized and the learner does not lose sight of the text as a whole. 1.6.1.2 Sample This dictogloss text was employed by Kopinska & Azkarai (2020) with 62 Spanish EFL learners (aged 11–12) working in pairs. In this case, the authors did not embed a target form (see example of dictogloss with embedded target form in Chapter 3). Text: Naughty Laura Laura takes her lunch box every day to school. Today, her father forgot to prepare a sandwich, so he gives her some money to buy an apple at the supermarket. At the supermarket, she sees some chocolate bars. She loves chocolate, so she buys one with black chocolate and peanuts instead of an apple. At the break she feels very hungry and eats the chocolate bar. It tastes so good! Then, she returns to class. They have Maths. Suddenly, her face turns red and she starts to feel very sick. Laura forgot she is allergic to peanuts! The teacher calls her father and he drives her to hospital. At the hospital, her father tells her: “an apple a day keeps the doctor away”.

Chapter 1. We need to write about children

Sample from participants: Lora’s father makes a sandwich every day for her. But that day he doesn’t make one so she takes some money to buy an apple at the supermarket. When she was at the supermarket she saw some chocolate sweets and some peanits and she takes in sted of an apple. She was at the playground when she fells hungry so she eats the chocolate and the penouts. Then she have maths but in the middle of the day her fase changed to red and he stated to fell sick. Lora’s teacher calls to her father to take it to hospital. At the hospital, the doctor said tht iwas only that Lora has alergik to penauts.

1.6.2 Direct corrections 1.6.2.1 Definition Direct corrections constitute the most explicit way of correcting learners’ errors. With direct correction, the errors from students’ drafts are crossed out and the correct form is provided by the teacher. Providing feedback via direct or explicit corrections is probably the most common practice in primary schools (Roothooft et al., 2022). In research, it has received a lot of attention in studies with adults (e.g. Bitchener, Young & Cameron, 2005; Chandler, 2003; Ferris, 2006; Lalande, 1982; Van Beuningen, De Jong & Kuiken, 2008, 2012), yet it has barely been explored with children (Coyle & Roca de Larios, 2014; Fazio, 2001; Gorman & Ellis, 2019). 1.6.2.2 Sample Roothooft et al. (2022) implemented direct corrections with one of their groups of YLs (aged 10–12) of English writing individually. The following sample from their database illustrates the corrections introduced by the teacher (all in capital letters) and the final draft written by the learner after having examined these direct corrections. The composition is based on a picture prompt, also used in other studies (e.g. Hidalgo & García-Mayo, 2021; Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2021), which shows a brother and a sister doing their homework.

35

36

Child L2 Writers

Draft with direct corrections: There are WAS one A brother with his little sister. The boy is doing the homework and his sister is drawing a picture. When the brother finish FINISHED the homework he go WENT to watch t.v. The girl draw STARTED TO DRAW in the homework of her brother ON HER BROTHER’S HOMEWORK. Later the siter SISTER take TOOK a chir CHAIR and she standup STOOD UP in ON the chir CHAIR and she take TOOK the glue and the sisors SCISSORS of FROM a shelve SHELF but the brother stay wach WAS WATCHING TV. The girl glue GLUED some flowers in her picture. At 8 o’clock the boy put SWITCHED off the t.v. and he go WENT with her HIS sister and he is bery VERY hungry ANGRY because his sister drow DREW ON his homework but the girl no care DIDN’T CARE and she say SAID to him: look AT my picture. Learner’s final draft: A boy and a girl was dowing homework at 6 o’clock. At quarter past 7 they finished the homework. They boy went to the sofa to play a videogame and the girl drawed flawers in the boy’s homework. At half past 7 the girl took the chir of the boy and stand up on the chir and she took the scissors and the glue from a shelf. She cuted with the scissors the flawers that she did in the boy’s homework and she give the flawers in her homework to do more beautefool. At 8 o’clock the boy went with the girl and he was hungry with the girl because she cut in his homework.

1.6.3 Model texts 1.6.3.1 Definition Model texts are texts written by experts and generally based on a picture prompt that will also be used to ask students to write. The experts write the model texts taking the learners’ cognitive and proficiency levels into account. Originally, these model texts were presented to the students before writing, so that they could imitate the models when writing their own drafts. However, with the writing-to-learn perspective, and in the context of task-based research studies, models started to be used as a resource to solve problems that the learners had encountered while writing. Thus, in this volume, model texts are typically implemented in the following three stages: – –

In Stage 1, learners simply write a composition based on a picture prompt. In Stage 2 learners are given one or two models written by experts to compare their drafts to them and anlyse the differences.

Chapter 1. We need to write about children

–

In Stage 3, learners are asked to write their original draft again using the same picture prompt (sometimes with and sometimes without the original draft in front of them).

1.6.3.2 Sample Cánovas Guirao et al. (2015) used the following picture prompt and model text with a group of 10 learners (aged 10–11). A sample of the texts produced by one of the pairs participating in their study is also included.

Picture prompt

37

38

Child L2 Writers

Model text: It is Monday, the first of May and Emily leaves school at a quarter past five. Then, she goes swimming at half past five. After that, she goes to karate at half past six. When she finishes karate, at a quarter past seven, she plays handball. Next morning, she gets up at eight o’clock and she is very tired. She goes to school but at a quarter past nine, she falls asleep and her classmates laugh at her.

Sample from participants Text produced at stage 1 Lisa go to the school at five o’clock. In the school has class the swimming at half past five. Next day has class the doing judo at half past six. At half past seven Lisa playing handball. Lisa no sleeping at night. In class slepping. Text produced at stage 3 Lisa go to the school at five o’clock. At six o’clock Lisa has class the swimming pool. At half past six has class the doing judo. At eight o’clock has class the handball. At the night Lisa no sleep. At the morning slepping in the class.

1.6.4 Reformulation 1.6.4.1 Definition When using reformulation, students write a composition and then receive their composition again but accompanied by a corrected version of it written by an expert (typically, the teacher), which we refer to as a reformulated text. In the reformulated text the teacher, departing from the students’ draft, introduces only the necessary changes to make the composition correct while making sure that the original ideas are preserved (Cohen, 1982). The students have to compare their original draft and reformulated one and identify the differences. It has been used only rarely with YLs to date with very few exceptions (Coyle et al., 2020; García Hernández et al., 2017), and samples from children are not available in these studies (except for Lapkin, Swain & Smith, 2002, with early adolescents in French). Therefore, I include a sample from a study conducted with adolescent EFL learners using reformulation as a feedback technique (Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2013).

Chapter 1. We need to write about children

1.6.4.2 Sample In this study, the learners, a group of 16 EFL learners in secondary school (aged 16–17), had to write a story about a haunted house (Borley Rectory). The story appeared in their English coursebook and they had read it in class a week earlier. A sample of the first writing of one of these students, of the reformulated version prepared by the teacher, and of the final version the student wrote after comparing both drafts are provided. Original draft by the student The history started, because in this house Borley Rectory must begín a few sounds and strangers laughts. The people didn’t want to go, furthermore in the garden appeared a ghost. Once, the people will know the history of the house, later, this house will be a haunted house for London. Few years later one book was publcked by Tom. Tom was how wrote the book. Tom had said that the noises for the house were produced by him And the ghost was him with a white dress. The people was felt tricked and finally Tom was certaining every body. They want to check the noises, So that the went to the famous house. It is likely to have incident because while they was doing the séance with the ghosts, the noises were started by the spiritus and once flash light appeared for the nothing. Barely they would can see. They claim that the ghost might exist. Reformulated text The story of Borley Rectory started when strange laughter and noises were heard in the house. Furthermore, a ghost appeared in the garden. Then, as soon as people knew about the story of the house it became the haunted house of London. Few years later, one book was published. Tom was the man who had written the book and in it he explained that the strange noises had been produced by him and that he was the ghost in the white dress. As a consequence, the people felt tricked and they wanted to check the noises, so they went to the famous house. While they were doing a séance to speak with the ghosts, the ghosts started to make noises and a flash of light appeared from nowhere. As a result, they are barely able to see and they claim that ghosts might exist.

39

40

Child L2 Writers

Final version after reformulation written by the student The story of the house Borley Rectory started when a few sounds and strange laughts were heard by the people. Furtheremore a ghost appeared in the garden so the people didn’t want to go. Wthan the story was known by the people, later the house would be the ‘haunted house for London’. Few years later one book was publicated. Tom is the writer, and he said that the noises for the house were falses and its were produced by him. The ghost had a white dress and it was him. And Tom was tricking everybody. All was fake. They come back to the famouse house to check the noises an consequence while the weas doing the séance, the noises shouted and once flash light appeared for the nowhere. They would barely can see. Finally they claim that ghosts might exist.

1.6.5 Task repetition 1.6.5.1 Definition Task Repetition, as implemented in the literature reviewed in this volume, consists of asking students to write a draft more than one time, either in exactly the same way (same or exact task repetition) or with the same procedure but different content (procedural task repetition). There is always a time interval between repetitions (Bygate & Samuda, 2005). 1.6.5.2 Sample The following example of task repetition comes from a study conducted by Hidalgo and García-Mayo (2019). These researchers implemented procedural and same task repetition with a group of 40 Spanish EFL learners. The picture prompts used and a sample of the learners’ production can be seen below. The first prompt (Prompt 1) was used three times for same task repetition. For procedural repetition, the learners wrote a composition based on each of the picture prompts (Prompt 1, 2, 3) each time.

Chapter 1. We need to write about children

Prompt 1. Prompt for writing 1 (and for writings 2 and 3 for same task repetition) From Cambridge English. (2014). Young Learners. Young Learners English Tests (YLE). Sample Papers. Flyers. Practice Test 3. Cambridge University Press, p. 3.

Prompt 2. Prompt for writing 2 in procedural task repetition From Cambridge English. (2014). Young Learners. Young Learners English Tests (YLE). Sample Papers. Flyers. Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 36.

41

42

Child L2 Writers

Prompt 3. Prompt for writing 3 in procedural task repetition From Gray, E. (2000). Skills builder for young learners: Flyers 1: Student’s book. Newbury: Express Publishing, p. 143. Same task repetition sample from L2 writers Writing 1. One day Sara and Himmy were doing his homework. When Jimmy finish, he when to see the TV, but Sara start to do a beatiful draving for Jimmy. She draw 2 flowers on the page that he do Jimmy the homework. She takes the chair of Jimmy for taking the glue and the sisers. It takes the sisers for cut the flowers and the glue for stick it on the drawing. Sara call Jimmy for showing the drawing, he see the homework and have 2 halls of 2 flowers and Jimmy was so hangry, but was happy about her sister’s drawing. The end. Writing 2. One day, Sam and Sophie were doing their homework. Suddenly Sam say that he finish so he go to see the TV. Her sister Sophie still drawing and she draw two flowers in the page that Sam do the homework. Sophie takes the chair of Sam for take the glue and the sissers. She wants the sissers for cut the two flowers and the glue for stick it in the drawing. Sophie call Sam for show the drawing, Sam takes the homework and he looks that is broken, So he is so hungry that he take the drawing of Sophie and he broke it. Writing 3. On Saturday afternnon Alice and Peter start to do the homework. When Peter finish his homework he go to see the TV. Alice is doing a drawing and she need 2 flowers so she draw 2 flowers in the page that Peter do his homework. Alice take Peter chair for take the sissers and the glue. The sissers are for stick the 2 flowers in the drawing. When Peter finish to see the TV, he see 2 halls in his homework. So he Broke the Alice drawing. Alice was so sad that she say to Peter sorry and Peter to Alice he say sorry too.

Chapter 1. We need to write about children

Procedural task repetition sample from L2 writers Writing 1. Once upon a time, two brothers were painting in the table of the room. The little girl, Sara was drawing a house with a garden and the boy was writing a text. Mike went to play videogames to the TV and meenwile Sara continued the drowing, she ween to take the sisers and the glue and draw in Mike’s text two flowers, later she cut them and paist them in her drawing. When Mike arrive he saw that his text was broke and he started showting to Sara. Writing 2. Once upon a time in a TV shop, Marc and his dad were buying a TV. It was very big and heavy so Marc had to help his dad carrig in into the car, when they finish they went on in the car and go to their house. When they arrive his mom went out and Marc and his dad take the TV and tried to enter it but Marc fell down in a stair and the TV fell down too. They though that the TV had broke but when they went to the sitting room to open the box it was OK. Writing 3. It’s very dark, the nigth has come, Ben is studing for tomorrows exam. When he finish he went to bed. The next they he woke up and put his clothes and at 8:45 he went to the BUS stop. When it arrived we went in to the school. Then he went to class and he saw in the b[e]rd “HISTORY EXAM” and he sit in his sit and star[d] writing. The next day when the teacher give the exams he had a very good mark, so he saw to his parents and they were very happy.

1.7

Summary

In this chapter I have tried to provide the frameworks within which the issues dealt with in this volume will be interpreted and discussed. In Section 1.2, I provided a description of the key developmental features that characterize 9- to 12-year-olds, the target group of study in this volume. This selection was made based on the relevance of those features for L2 writing with YLs, either because they highlight children’s limitations/capabilities (e.g., development of formal thinking, self-regulation, and working memory), or because understanding these features can lead to more appropriate teaching and research practices in L2 writing (e.g., peer bonding and self-esteem).

43

44

Child L2 Writers

An essential point of departure, therefore, is the acknowledgement that children’s cognitive development is essentially different from the cognitive development that characterizes the adult brain. Aspects related to cognitive development, as varied as the development of formal thinking and the development of selfesteem, cannot be dismissed when conducting research or when designing teaching interventions. Two key messages can be taken from this section. The first message is that there is a deficiency in SLA research with child L2 learners. Understanding how children think and what they are capable of should be more prevalent and better integrated into SLA research. It should be present in the design of research, in the data collection process, in the interpretation of the results, and in the formulation of pedagogical implications. Knowledge from cognitive psychology has already proven useful in the improvement of educational practices in several fields; for instance, it has been applied to the teaching of mathematics and to the introduction of literacy. It is, however, very rarely present in the field of SLA (Dixon, et al., 2012). Within the cognitive perspectives of language acquisition, which have been dominant in the SLA field (Doughty & Long, 2003), language (first or second) is understood as an aspect of human cognition (DeKeyser & Juffs, 2005). However, the cognitive development of child L2 learners has generally been ignored in research studies and teaching practices. Probably, this has been due to the general approach in SLA whereby research conducted with adult L2 learners is applied to research with child L2 learners. However, while adult learners are cognitively more homogeneous because their cognitive abilities are mostly developed, the period of childhood is characterized by learners going through rapid and dramatic changes, which should be considered in research and teaching practices. The second message is that L2 writing should be encouraged with 9- to 12-year-olds. The cognitive development of this age group suggests that the children will be able to perform L2 writing tasks with effort; they will, therefore, be able to benefit from L2 writing and, in turn, writing activities will promote their cognitive development. Children are gaining reasoning abilities, self-regulation, and working memory, and this will provide them with the capacity to use language to create their own text with a degree of complexity and richness of content that was not possible in earlier years. They are now equipped with sufficient mental resources to plan a writing task, pay the sustained attention to it that L2 writing requires, and store and process knowledge from the feedback they receive. They are also ready to work with peers and to make the most of collaborative writing tasks, as they are increasingly able to listen to the ideas of others and share their own knowledge. As their self-esteem is being formed in a more realistic manner and based on comparison with their peers, it is important to understand that writing tasks, tough but achievable, can be used to promote the value of effort, and

Chapter 1. We need to write about children

that the provision of praise and criticism should be balanced and mostly focused on student effort, so that students want to continue and not give up. In Section 1.3, I described the status of writing in elementary school, its challenges, its affordances, and the functions it can perform. Children learn to read and write for the first time in their L1 at around the same age, and they naturally understand that writing is a relevant skill for them. It is likewise understood by the educational community that learning to write in the L2 is an essential part of L2 learning, and there is evidence in favor of an early introduction. However, little is known about L2 writing practices worldwide, and there is likely huge variation from context to context. Two characteristics of writing have been highlighted: L2 writing is hard for 9- to 12-year-olds, but it is achievable. I have tried to show how the conjoint potential of these two factors – difficulty and achievability – is what endows L2 writing with a very unique potential. On the one hand, the difficulties of L2 writing demand higher-order thinking processes and increase learning; in addition, L2 writing activities promote working memory and self-regulation, as the child needs to sustain the effort and use a wide variety of mental resources. On the other hand, the fact that L2 writing is achievable for each student at their own level – that is, the fact that an L2 writer will end up with a text of their own, with a product of their own labor – will help children to understand the value of the effort invested and will build their self-esteem. Writing in general, and L2 writing in particular, can thus serve several functions in the classroom. These are related not only to language learning but also to the encouragement of reading, creativity, communication of ideas or feelings, and more. Section 1.4 briefly described the importance of conducting research with YLs as well as the difficulties that researchers will encounter with this age group. Section 1.5 presented the theoretical underpinnings of the studies on task-based L2 writing with YLs. These studies constitute the inspiration for this book and will be the focus of the central chapters of this volume. Therefore, the theoretical framework described in this section constitutes a bridge to the next chapters. Finally, Section 1.6 offered a definition of the main L2 writing tasks employed in empirical research with YLs. This section included real samples of the learners’ production. All in all, the aim of this chapter is to help better understand the scope of this volume and the content of the upcoming chapters. I opened this summary by saying that I had tried to provide the frameworks under which the issues dealt with in this volume could be interpreted and discussed. I used the word “frameworks” in the plural form very purposefully because I would like to end this chapter by highlighting the importance of interdisciplinary approaches in SLA (Guiora, 2005). In my view, interdisciplinary research is the only possible approach to gain a close-up insight into child L2 writers. To fully understand how children face writing tasks, we need to take into

45

46

Child L2 Writers

account, at least, knowledge from the three areas that have been addressed in this chapter: (1) children’s cognitive capabilities (and incapabilities); (2) writing in the elementary school context; and (3) SLA research in connection to writing. By presenting knowledge from these fields, I have made an attempt to provide a richer understanding of children as learners, as language learners, and as L2 writers. The concepts, constructs, and empirical findings revised and discussed in this chapter will be used throughout the book to help understand, interpret, and complete research findings on child L2 writers. In my view, the adoption of a multidisciplinary approach is a fundamental challenge we need to take up in order to make progress and understand the interaction of factors that define our nature as language learners. These factors do not exist in isolation; they are masterfully interwoven in the very essence of the (child or adult) human being.

chapter 2

Children and collaborative writing 2.1 Introduction It was not until recently that collaborative writing (CW) tasks started to attract the interest of researchers (Hirvela & Belcher, 2016), but once the spark of interest was lit, research into CW quickly generated an unprecedented number of smallscale studies. As is frequently the case in SLA, these studies were initially focused on adult learners in second language (SL) contexts (McDonough & García Fuentes, 2015; Storch, 2005; Swain & Lapkin, 2000, 2001; Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009) and foreign language (FL) contexts (Antón & DiCamilla, 1998; Fernández Dobao, 2012; Kim & McDonough, 2011). Later, but also at great speed, researchers started to focus on YLs in FL contexts (Azkarai & Kopinska, 2020; Coyle, Cánovas Guirao & Roca de Larios, 2018; Coyle & Roca de Larios, 2020; Kopinska & Azkarai, 2020; Luquin & García Mayo, 2020, 2021). The popularity of CW continues, and, to date, the vast majority of studies on writing tasks with YLs, with very few exceptions (see Fazio, 2001; Gorman & Ellis, 2019; Roothooft, LázaroIbarrola, & Bulté, 2022) have been conducted with students working in collaboration. In the body of research under review in this volume, 26 out of the 29 studies include CW; from these, only three also include individual writing. In general, studies in which participants write together have not focused exclusively on the impact of collaboration; rather, they have explored how CW interplays with other factors such as task repetition (Hidalgo & Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2020; Lázaro-Ibarrola & Hidalgo, 2021), amount and functions of the L1 (Antón & DiCamilla, 1998; Swain & Lapkin, 2000, 2001), pre-task modeling (Kim & McDonough, 2011), focus on form (Azkarai & Kopinska, 2020; Calzada & García Mayo, 2020b; Kopinska & Azkarai, 2020), and WCF (mainly via model texts and dictogloss tasks) (Calzada & García Mayo, 2020a, 2020b, 2021a, 2021b; Coyle et al., 2018; Coyle & Roca de Larios, 2020; Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2021; Luquin & García Mayo, 2020, 2021; Martínez Esteban & Roca de Larios, 2010). This variety of foci means that CW research comprises a wide array of combinations of constructs and variables and, therefore, many of the studies on CW that I review here will also be mentioned in future chapters when focusing on WCF (Chapter 3); task repetition (TR) (Chapter 4); and task motivation (Chapter 5). In this chapter, I review only the studies on CW that specifically discuss the impact of collaboration, leaving the discussion of other issues for the corresponding chapters. https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.32.c2 © 2023 John Benjamins Publishing Company

48

Child L2 Writers

Thus, in this chapter I briefly start by explaining the benefits of collaboration from a broad educational stance, showing how adopting an approach in which peer work is at the core helps YLs develop some key cognitive and social processes they will need in their future academic and non-academic lives (Section 2.2). In Section 2.3, I briefly outline how research on CW emerged, define the construct, review the tenets that sustain its potential within the field of language acquisition, and explain how research has focused on the products and processes of writing in collaboration. Next, in Section 2.4, I provide a brief review of the knowledge accumulated from the most relevant empirical studies with adults, which serves as a standpoint to present the body of studies on CW with YLs (Section 2.5). To finish, a summary of the chapter is offered with a discussion of the main ideas and findings (Section 2.6).

2.2

Collaborative learning

Human collaboration has been essential to human development. As Aristotle put it, humans are social animals (Ho ánthropos physei zôon politikòn); humans live in herds and, therefore, need to collaborate with each other to co-construct human evolution. Thus, human collaboration sustains the functioning of countries, families, workplaces, and, focusing on our object of study, educational contexts. The concept of collaboration appeared in the field of education in the 1970s, in opposition to traditional approaches in which the teacher was seen as the only owner of knowledge. Collaborative learning (CL) can be defined as an educational approach in which students work in pairs or groups to optimize their own and each other’s learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1999). Thus, in the classroom, learners work together to solve problems, complete tasks, or learn new concepts. Very quickly, CL attracted the attention of teachers and researchers worldwide and became a leading concept or, as some authors have claimed, a 21st-century trend (Laal & Laal, 2012). CL draws on Vygotsky’s (1978, 1981) sociocultural theory and is based on the notion that the construction of knowledge, including knowledge of language, happens in a social context. Collaboration is necessary, and this need becomes more evident as knowledge becomes more complex. Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory understood human development as a social process during which children acquire their knowledge through collaborative interactions with more knowledgeable members of society. CL took a step further by understanding that learners can also co-construct knowledge and, in fact, can do so very successfully when they interact with equally knowledgeable members of society: their peers. In other

Chapter 2. Children and collaborative writing

words, in CL, learners rely on one another to accomplish tasks that they wouldn’t be able to complete individually or, at least, not so well. From a cognitive point of view, when CL activities involve peers, learners free themselves from the dependence of the know-it-all teacher authority. In turn, knowledge becomes theirs, and they are empowered to create their own unique conceptual frameworks (Laal & Laal, 2012). This offers many cognitive and social advantages, some of which are key to YLs. For instance, CL increases students’ ability to resolve problems and enhances their critical thinking skills (Gokhale, 1995; Totten, Sills, Digby, & Ross, 1991). It also promotes students’ autonomy and allows them to achieve knowledge of greater complexity and of longer duration (Johnson & Johnson, 1986). In addition, CL contributes to increasing levels of engagement and achievement (Prince, 2004; Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005). From a social perspective, the advantages are also very relevant to childhood. In a world where school contexts are often socially diverse and multicultural, CL helps students to develop cultural awareness (Bruner, 1996; Tomasello, 1999). It encourages more heterogeneous relationships (Webb, 1982); it helps students be more open towards diversity (Swing & Peterson, 1982); and, as has been suggested, it might create a more welcoming environment for minority students, which in turn, generates a sense of belonging (Johnson, Álvarez, Longerbeam, Soldner, Inkelas, Leonard, & Rowan-Kenyon, 2007; Meeuwisse, Severiens, & Born, 2010). Finally, with regard to students who have difficulties with traditional learning, CL might facilitate their participation and interaction with other students (Hakkarainen, Lipponen, Jarvela, & Niemivirta, 1999). All of these advantages are key for YLs as they prepare for the demands of their future academic (and non-academic) life. At the end of the day, we should not forget that, during childhood, key aspects of development (Damon, 1983; Hartup, 1982), school engagement, and motivation at school (Martin & Dowson, 2009; Pianta, 1998) rely on positive relationships with peers. This is particularly the case in the age period under scrutiny in this volume, because it is during the period of 9–12 years of age when peer culture emerges and learners start to build meaningful relationships (see 1.2.4 Peer bonding and friendship). This is, therefore, a good time to introduce collaborative tasks in school. Children will be likely to enjoy peer work and will also be able to cooperate, unlike in previous stages of development when they were capable of being together but not so much of working together towards a common goal. In sum, the advantages offered by CL are many, and CL helps students to develop cognitive processes and personality traits that they will need to become autonomous grown-ups. The number of school contexts in which CL is implemented is innumerable and includes language lessons worldwide. This makes the study of peer collaboration inside (language) lessons in school contexts a topic of great ecological and pedagogical value.

49

50

Child L2 Writers

Finally, it is important to bear two factors in mind so as not to focus too much on CL without considering the context or the personality traits of the students. First, CL will not apply similarly to all cultures or to all children. Thus, the sociocultural context should not be marginalized when CL is introduced. CL should be tuned to the culture in which the lessons are being developed, and should be accompanied by training when necessary. Second, while CL offers many advantages, the potential of individual work should not be neglected. Research in the field of psychology suggests that overvaluing group work has led to ignoring the potential of individual work to the point that, in some cultures, almost all the tasks that students do in school happen in teams. However, solitude is also necessary for learning, it is essential for creativity and, for a large part of the population, working alone clearly leads to more effective learning (Cain, 2013). A balance between CL and individual work and a consideration of the cultural factors involved should, therefore, be present in the teaching agenda.

2.3

Collaborative writing

2.3.1 Peer work and writing-to-learn A substantial amount of research with YLs and writing tasks has been conducted with students working in collaboration. This body of research has managed to combine the potential of writing tasks with those of peer work. However, exploration of the conjoint potential of these two constructs is fairly recent in SLA research. For a long time the value of peer collaboration and the value of writing were demonstrated separately, and as a result, our understanding of these constructs developed in two separate strands of research. In the case of peer collaboration, its development mainly took place in the context of oral tasks. Within the interactionist framework (Long, 1996), and based on the claim that oral interactions provide ample opportunities for L2 learning, the value of interactive tasks was soon demonstrated for adults and, later, also for YLs in second and foreign language contexts (see Mackey & Goo, 2007, for an overview). As for research on writing, researchers have devoted most of their efforts to testing the value of WCF, and studies on WCF have mainly been conducted with students writing individually, probably replicating the common practice in language classrooms (see Kang & Han, 2015, for a review), where students only collaborated when producing drafts during brainstorming and peer review activities (Fernández Dobao, 2012; Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009). In the past decade, however, the writing-to-learn approach (Manchón, 2011) has offered a new per-

Chapter 2. Children and collaborative writing

spective on writing tasks. The value of writing per se as a learning tool has been emphasized, and writing activities have started to be considered valuable regardless of the provision of WCF. In parallel, the advantages of peer work started to be widely demonstrated in oral tasks (Philp, Adams & Iwashita, 2013). Thus, the time was ripe to investigate the conjoint potential of writing and peer collaboration (Hirvela & Belcher, 2016; Storch, 2016).

2.3.2 Definition Storch (2019) defines collaborative writing (CW) as an activity with several distinctive traits affecting the product and process of writing. CW activities require the involvement of the co-authors in all stages of the writing process and a shared responsibility for the ownership of the entire text produced. Thus, CW has been defined as the conjoint production of a single text written by several authors (Ede & Lunsford, 1990; Storch, 2019). Throughout the process, all writers should have control over their production and should agree upon decisions at all levels (content, structure, and language). In Storch’s (2013, 2018) words, all writers should coauthor and co-own the text. Storch (2019) also clarifies that CW tasks are different from cooperative tasks in which learners divide the work, take responsibility for parts of it individually, and put it together into a final product. This is a sum of individual productions, not a jointly generated product. This distinction is important because not all writing tasks that are conducted in groups can be defined as CW tasks, and only those that meet specific criteria for CW will offer learners the language learning benefits of CW. Collaborative tasks place the learner at the center of the learning process; it has been claimed that they promote learner autonomy and genuine involvement, that they foster interaction and knowledge co-construction, and that they increase speaking time (McDonough, 2004). These tasks also offer ample opportunities for genuine negotiation of meaning and have been claimed to enhance students’ oral skills in L2 contexts (for a review, see Storch, 2013).

2.3.3 The tenets of collaborative writing tasks CW tasks enhance language learning opportunities in several ways (Storch, 2011, 2019; Wigglesworth & Storch, 2012). Firstly, students benefit from the great learning potential attributed to writing. This potential is based on the output hypothesis (Swain, 1993, 1995, 2000, 2005), which considers output activities (speaking and writing) to be not only a way to obtain a product from the students but also powerful learning tools. In line with this, the writing-to-learn dimension was emphasized in SLA (Manchón, 2011), and a shift was made away from an

51

52

Child L2 Writers

understanding that learners had to learn to write and towards an appreciation that learners could use writing activities to learn. Secondly, in CW activities, learners also benefit from the learning opportunities of the collaborative dialogue they necessarily engage in while deciding what to write and how (Storch, 2021a). Finally, many learners express positive feelings about collaborative activities (Storch, 2005, 2013), while they describe individual writing tasks as difficult and boring (Murtiningsih, 2016). In this section, I will discuss how the benefits of CW are sustained in several constructs of key importance to SLA: scaffolding, Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), languaging, and collaborative dialogue. Although Vygotsky (1978, 1981) did not write extensively about SLA per se, his theories have provided a foundation for SLA research through two of the concepts for which he is best known (Mahn, 2013) and which have been frequently applied in SLA research (Storch, 2019), namely, the concept of the ZPD and the concept of scaffolding. The popularity of these two constructs probably rests on how well aligned they are with the experience of language teachers and language learners and, also, on how closely-tied they are to pedagogical concerns. The underlying tenet of socio-cognitive theories is that human cognition develops by means of human interactions and, in particular, when an expert participant provides assistance to a less knowledgeable one at the above-mentioned ZPD. The ZPD is defined as the zone that expands from the learners’ current level of development to the potential level that this learner could achieve. If the demands of an activity fall below the learner’s current level or beyond their potential level, the activity will not be conducive to learning. In layman’s terms, a given CW task, for instance, has to be achievable while at the same time not too easy or too hard for the participants. Computer games can be used as a metaphor to understand this more easily. When players complete a level in a computer game, they are ready to move to the next level, which will be challenging but attainable; however, the players cannot move to more advanced levels because they would be playing beyond their abilities (beyond their ZPD). Likewise, going back to the previous level would not enable any progress to be made. The assistance provided, as outlined by Vygotsky, is referred to as scaffolding; it needs to be provided within the ZPD in order to be effective. In the case of CW tasks, WCF (see Chapter 3) or peer collaboration, if well attuned to the students’ level, can act as the scaffold to push learning further. In general, but more so in the case of YLs, if writing activities are not within the ZPD, learning will not happen. What is worse, a decrease in student motivation could follow, especially if students feel that the task is unachievable and they attribute this to their incapacity rather than to the task not being attuned to their level. Deviating slightly from Vygotsky’s (1978, 1981) claim that learners need to interact with more knowledgeable members of society, in CW tasks, interaction

Chapter 2. Children and collaborative writing

can also happen among peers, that is, among two or more participants with a similar amount or level of knowledge. In CW, the learners themselves pool their linguistic knowledge and are able to co-construct learning; this is sometimes referred to as collective scaffolding (Donato, 1994; Storch, 2002). Collective scaffolding allows learners to express and share their thoughts about language and could take place in the L1, in the L2, or in both (e.g., Antón & DiCamilla, 1998; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2003; Swain & Lapkin, 2000). Thus, this collective scaffolding is mediated by another concept of great relevance in SLA, the concept of languaging, coined by Swain (2006) and also influenced by socio-cognitive theories. Languaging is a term that captures how, thanks to the human capacity to express our thoughts by means of words, language itself becomes a tool to achieve learning and, in the case that occupies us, L2 language learning (Swain, 2006; Swain, Kinnear, & Steinman, 2011). In the case of L2 learning, languaging happens when the speakers need to resolve linguistic problems related to the L2; it can happen in private speech or by means of collaborative dialogue (DiCamilla & Antón, 2004). Finally, we need to mention the concept of interaction, given that in CW tasks, students talk to each other to decide what to write and how to write. If this interaction takes place in the L2, the learners will also take advantage of the benefits attributed to peer interaction (Storch, 2013). The interactionist framework (Long, 1996) and a large number of empirical studies designed within this framework have demonstrated the positive role of peer interactions in the L2 acquisition of adults and YLs (García Mayo & Alcón Soler, 2013; Loewen & Sato, 2018; Long, 1996; Mackey, 2007; Mackey & Goo, 2007). When talking to each other, learners provide positive input, produce output, promote comprehension, and need to pay attention to form – meaning connections. Frequently, they also need to negotiate for meaning in order to overcome communication breakdowns. In addition, oral interactions provide students with opportunities to use the language meaningfully, something that is of great relevance in low-exposure contexts, such as FL contexts, where learners have very few opportunities to use the language (McDonough, 2004).

2.3.4 Process and product Research findings related to the linguistic impact of collaboration in the context of writing can be classified into those related to the quality of the products of collaborative writers (in comparison to the products of individual writers) and those related to the process of writing, that is, to how learners collaborate when writing and how this contributes to language acquisition. A review of the most relevant journal articles and book chapters reveals that the knowledge gained so far about

53

54

Child L2 Writers

the products and processes is not balanced: there are many more studies focusing on the process than on the products of CW, and there are very few focusing on both. Regarding the products of writing, when adult learners write individually and in pairs and their products are compared, collaboratively written drafts are generally considered better, especially in terms of accuracy (Fernández Dobao, 2012; Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009) and, in some cases, also in terms of lexical and grammatical complexity (see Villarreal & Gil-Sarratea, 2020, with adolescents). As for YLs, there are few available studies that compare collaboratively and individually written drafts, as most studies with this population have not included groups of individual writers. On the other hand, the findings from the few available studies comparing drafts written by pairs and individual YLs are not conclusive and generally fail to identify differences between pairs and individuals (Hidalgo & Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2020; Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2021). As for the process of writing, it could be argued that a very positive effect of the arrival of CW tasks has been the fact that they have brought the process of writing to the forefront of research efforts; this, in turn, has led to a more comprehensive understanding of the potential of writing tasks. Going back to the concept of languaging (Swain, 2006), speakers use language to mediate their cognition when they need to resolve linguistic problems, either privately or by means of collaborative dialogue. In individual writing, languaging necessarily happens in the form of private speech and is, therefore, difficult for researchers to access; researchers rely on the use of think-aloud protocols or note-taking to obtain an indirect image of the languaging process that is going on in the students’ minds. In contrast, in CW, the process of writing comes to the surface and becomes visible in the collaborative dialogue produced by the learners, although, we might argue too, perhaps, that this dialogue is only the tip of the iceberg. It is understood that collaborative dialogue puts words to the students’ thoughts, and, as such, it constitutes a very valuable object by which to understand the process of writing. Given the value of this dialogue, a plethora of studies has offered insights into the focus of learners’ efforts while writing by means of what has become the most popular unit of analysis: the language-related episode (LRE). An LRE has been defined as all those parts of students’ dialogues in which “students talk about the language they are producing, question their language use, or correct themselves or others” (Swain & Lapkin, 1998, p. 326). However, while LREs are key to understanding students’ efforts regarding language issues, students’ dialogues consist of more than LREs. Aware of this, and with a more comprehensive approach to the process of writing, some authors have conducted a thorough analysis not only of the LREs generated in learners’ dialogues but also of the totality of their interactions (Storch, 2005; Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009).

Chapter 2. Children and collaborative writing

Such studies have provided valuable information not only about students’ efforts to solve linguistic problems but also about the phases of writing (planning, composing, and revising) and about the foci of the totality of students’ efforts. Thus, student dialogues have been classified in the form of different episodes (task clarification, idea generation, structure, revision, and LREs). These thorough analyses of pair talk have added to the literature by helping researchers to understand the process of writing as a whole and in greater depth. However, studies by Storch (2005) and Wigglesworth and Storch (2009) seem to have met a dead end, as to date, researchers have not tried to replicate their study with either adults or YLs. In sum, on the negative side, we could say firstly that there is an imbalance between the studies focused on the product and process of writing. And secondly, those studies focused on the process of writing (the vast majority) have focused exclusively on LREs, and have missed important information about the focus of students’ efforts during the entire process of writing. On the positive side, the already substantial body of research on CW allows us to better understand the affordances of collaboration in writing tasks and provides fertile ground for further research.

2.4

Studies with adult learners

To understand the potential of CW with YLs it is helpful to provide an overview of the knowledge accumulated from research with adults, as this body of research has been the starting point for the studies conducted with primary school learners. A first attempt to compare the performance of pairs and individuals in adult L2 contexts was made by Storch (1999). She compared the individual and pair performance of a group of learners (N = 8) and showed that, in general, pairs produced more grammatically correct drafts. In a subsequent study, under a twogroup design, Storch (2005) examined the jointly and individually written compositions of 23 international students from Asia. This study aimed at a comprehensive understanding of the potential of CW. It included pairs and individuals; it measured pair talk in its entirety; it measured draft quality using both quantitative and qualitative measures; and, finally, it also explored students’ beliefs. Her analysis of the written products showed no statistical differences in the quantitative analysis, which might have been due to her small sample size (five individuals and nine pairs) and the brevity of the texts; as we will see later, this foreshadows one of the weaknesses of the findings related to YLs in the context of writing tasks. In contrast, a higher average score was found for the pairs in the qualitative analysis (4.1 for pairs vs. 3.3 for individuals). Storch’s conclusion was that pairs were

55

56

Child L2 Writers

able to write shorter but better texts in terms of task fulfilment, grammatical accuracy, and complexity. Individual writers, however, tended to produce excessively detailed texts. As for pair talk, analysis revealed that, while writing together, students mainly collaborated when generating ideas. Also, it was found that their collaboration allowed them to give and receive feedback on language (operationalized as LREs), which was not possible for students writing individually. Finally, regarding students’ beliefs, Storch (2021a) found that, in general, learners were positive about the experience of writing in collaboration. Expanding on Storch’s (2005) findings, Wigglesworth and Storch (2009) further confirmed the potential of collaboration in the context of writing, showing that jointly written products were more accurate than those written individually. Analysis of the pair dialogues also showed that collaboration afforded learners the opportunity to share ideas and, also, to discuss and pool their knowledge about language. In FL contexts, Fernández Dobao (2012) compared the performance of individuals (N = 21), pairs (N = 15) and groups of four learners (N = 15). She found that the texts written by groups were the most grammatically and lexically accurate, followed by those written by pairs, leaving the individually written texts as the least accurate. The pairs and groups also generated a large number of LREs, although the groups produced more episodes and were able to correct a higher percentage of the linguistic problems discussed in their LREs. Fernández Dobao’s (2012) results seem to suggest that the more participants on a writing task, the greater the benefits. However, she acknowledged a limitation: it was not possible to examine how the benefits affected each of the group members individually. To address this, Villarreal and Gil-Sarratea (2020) carried out a classroom-based study with high school students (aged 16–17). A group of 32 students produced an essay individually; then, in a subsequent session, they were divided into two groups to write a second essay. Those in the experimental group (N = 16) wrote in pairs, while those in the control group (N = 16) wrote individually. In line with previous findings, the results showed that the pairs produced better texts, specifically, the pairs wrote texts that were more grammatically accurate, and slightly more lexically and grammatically complex. They were also able to collaborate by pooling ideas, deliberating over language use, and providing feedback to each other. Besides, by comparing the individually and jointly written texts of the experimental group, these authors showed that all students, without exception, benefited from the collaboration. This review shows how research with adults offers promising findings regarding the impact of CW on the process and products of writing. Collaborative writers put their heads together, provide feedback to each other, resolve linguistic problems while writing, and generate better drafts than individual writers. Also, groups seem able to resolve more problems than individuals, although the impact

Chapter 2. Children and collaborative writing

of collaboration on each individual participant is still unknown. In addition, some researchers have added to the literature by broadening the lens when looking into the writing process and by showing that students’ talk focuses not only on language issues but also on task clarification, on what ideas to include in the drafts, and on the task itself (that is, not only on the LREs) (Storch, 2005; Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009); these are aspects that researchers are missing when they concentrate solely on an analysis of LREs. The next section will outline the studies conducted with YLs and how they help to characterize the specificity of this age group and to identify the longrecognized similarities and differences between adults and children in SLA.

2.5

Studies with young learners

2.5.1 The body of research The vast majority of studies with YLs performing writing tasks has been conducted with learners writing in collaboration. Table 2.1 summarizes their main characteristics, showing their number, the inclusion (or not) of individual writers as control groups, the focus of analyses in terms of whether they provide information about the process of writing via an analysis of the LREs, about the product of writing (students’ drafts) or about attitudes or task motivation. As Table 2.1 shows, the body of studies investigating CW is conspicuously recent. These studies have been mainly generated by three research teams. One group is based at the University of Murcia, Spain. Two members of this team, Yvette Coyle and Julio Roca de Larios have thoroughly investigated the potential of WCF with YLs, mainly through the use of model texts. Another group is the one led by María del Pilar García Mayo at the University of the Basque Country, Spain; this team has developed a line of research focused on how different factors interplay with CW. The third team, led by Amparo Lázaro-Ibarrola, is based at the Public University of Navarre, Spain. This group of researchers has investigated task repetition vs. WCF, with pairs and indidividual writers, and has introduced the construct of task motivation. Consequently, all the studies presented in this chapter share the same context and linguistic profile of the students: the participants are Spanish (or Spanish-Basque bilingual) learners of EFL in elementary school. Even though the population of Spanish elementary school learners of EFL is large, it goes without saying that the limited scope of the research to date in terms of the languages involved encourages further studies with different languages and in different contexts (see Chapter 6 for lines of further research).

57

58

Child L2 Writers

Studies on CW tasks with YLs Process (LREs)

Authors

N. & age

Pairs

Amount, Individual focus & writers outcomes

Product (quantitative, qualitative or Pair acceptability dynamics measures)

(motivation or attitudes)

Task and aims

___

NO

YES

NO

NO

Patterns of interaction between ESL and native speakers of English in CW

Coyle & Roca de

___

NO (although they use note-taking)

NO

YES

NO

Noticing and incorporations with model texts and direct WCF

Cánovas Guirao, Roca de Larios, &

___

YES

NO

YES

NO

Noticing with model texts and same TR (control group, two repetitions)

Coyle, Cánovas Guirao, & Roca de

___

YES

NO

YES

NO

Instructed vs. uninstructed group Trajectories with model texts

García Mayo &

__

YES

YES

NO

NO

LREs and interactional patterns in oral and oral + written

Hidalgo & García

___

YES

NO

NO

NO

Focus and resolution of LREs in exact TR and procedural TR (three times)

Azkarai &

___

YES

YES

NO

YES

Patterns of interaction and levels of engagement in LREs with a dictogloss task

Calzada & García

___

NO

NO

NO

YES

Children’s attitudes towards a dictogloss task

teacher-selected and self-selected

Chapter 2. Children and collaborative writing

(continued) Process (LREs)

Authors

N. & age

Pairs

Product (quantitative, qualitative or Pair acceptability dynamics measures)

(motivation or attitudes)

YES

NO

NO

NO

Pairs, small groups, and individuals. Engagement, focus and outcome of LREs in a dictogloss task

Focus and resolution of LREs

Amount, Individual focus & writers outcomes

Calzada & García dyads

Task and aims

groups of three Calzada & García

___

YES

NO

YES

NO

Calzada & García

___

YES

NO

NO

NO

Coyle, Férez Mora, & Solís Becerra

___

YES

NO

YES

NO

Reformulation vs. self-editing

Coyle & Roca de

___

YES

NO

YES

NO

EFL vs. CLIL: Cognitive strategies during feedback processing with model texts

Hidalgo & Lázaro-

__

YES

NO

YES

NO

Imaz Agirre & García Mayo

__

YES

NO

NO

NO

Agency in pair formation and degree of participation

Jang & Cheung

___

NO

YES

YES

NO

Impact of pair interaction on the process and product of CW

LREs and incorporations in a dictogloss task

(three times)

59

60

Child L2 Writers

(continued) Process (LREs)

Authors

N. & age

Pairs

Product (quantitative, qualitative or Pair acceptability dynamics measures)

(motivation or attitudes)

NO

NO

NO

YES

Amount, Individual focus & writers outcomes

Kopinska &

Task and aims

Luquin & García

___

YES

NO

NO

NO

Noticing and incorporations with model texts vs. selfediting

Martínez-Adrián

___

YES

NO

NO

YES

Lázaro-Ibarrola

NO

NO

YES

NO

Individual vs. pairs

Lázaro-Ibarrola, &

NO

NO

YES

NO

Individual vs. pairs

writing + editing; oral + editing

Lázaro-Ibarrola &

___

NO

NO

NO

YES

Luquin & García

___

YES

NO

NO

NO

Roca de Larios, Hernández García,

__

YES

NO

NO

NO

Villarreal & Lázaro-Ibarrola

__

Noticing and incorporations with model texts vs. selfediting (include delayed post-test) apart)

NO

NO

YES

YES

Chapter 2. Children and collaborative writing

The main tasks employed in the research have been the dictogloss task and the use of model texts, although other tasks have also been put to the test (for instance, reformulations, task repetitions and direct corrections) (see defintions and written samples in Section 1.6). As was the case in adult studies, the focus of analysis has been mainly the analysis of students’ LREs and, to a lesser extent, also the quality of their written products; fewer studies have included an analysis of both aspects, and very few have looked into students’ attitudes and task motivation or into pair dynamics. Other aspects have also been investigated, such as the specific trajectories that students follow, the impact of pair formation, and the specific strategies students employ while writing. To measure the quality of written products, authors have often employed quantitative measures of complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF) (e.g., Storch, 2007, 2008; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2007, 2010; Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009) and, in some cases, also qualitative measures which include the use of holistic rubrics. While there are variations from study to study in how CAF measures are obtained, they can be summarized as follows: Complexity measures capture the degree of embedding or subordination (syntactic complexity) and the degree of lexical diversity (lexical complexity) in a text. Accuracy measures reflect grammatical accuracy and usually consider the proportion of error free words and sentences. Finally, fluency refers to the length of the text, which is measured by the number of words it contains. As for holistic rubrics, the following example (from Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2021, p. 27) can help to illustrate how writing quality is evaluated. In order to obtain a high score in the rubric, 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. (Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2021, p. 27)

61

62

Child L2 Writers

The following sections provide a review and analysis of the main findings of these studies in relation to CW.

2.5.2 Collaborative and individual writers The body of research summarized in Table 2.1 has focused on CW tasks, and has yielded positive and promising findings. Briefly, these can be summarized by saying that children are able to write together, that they discuss and resolve linguistic issues, that they notice and incorporate features from the feedback they receive, and that they display positive attitudes towards writing together. In every case, the researchers have claimed that their findings encourage the use of collaborative tasks with child L2 learners. However, these claims have been made without really demonstrating the superiority of pair work (vs. individual work) due to the lack of control groups of individual children in most studies. To identify the specific impact of CW, we need to compare the behavior of individuals and pairs in, for example, the quality of their drafts or their attitudes towards the task. Unfortunately, and as we can see in Table 1.2., very few studies to date have included individual writers as control groups. This section is devoted to these few attempts. The rest of the studies implementing writing tasks with collaborative groups only (that is, without control groups of individual writers) will be discussed in future chapters in connection to their research aims (task repetition, WCF, task motivation, etc.). To isolate the effect of CW, Lázaro-Ibarrola & Hidalgo (2021) conducted a study comparing a group of individual writers (N = 19) and a group of collaborative writers (N = 40) aged 11, learning EFL in elementary school in Spain (LázaroIbarrola & Hidalgo, 2021). The objective of this study was to examine the effects of collaboration and of two types of task repetition (TR): procedural repetition (same task type with different content) and exact same task repetition. When the products from each of the groups were compared, gains related to TR type were found (see Chapter 4 for a full account of TR), but there were no differences related to pair vs. individual modality. In other words, the texts produced by pairs were not better (or worse) than those produced by individual writers. These results were obtained using a holistic rubric and quantitative measures of complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF). Unlike studies conducted with adults (Fernández Dobao, 2012; Storch, 2005; Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009) and adolescents (Villarreal & Gil-Sarratea, 2020), Lázaro-Ibarrola & Hidalgo’s (2021) study did not show an advantage for the collaborative writers in the CAF measures or in the holistic rubrics. However, in spite of the lack of differences between individually and jointly written drafts, these authors did not conclude that CW practices were unhelpful, as the process of writing (student talk) was not analyzed, and they

Chapter 2. Children and collaborative writing

could not know whether the learners had benefited from the collaboration in spite of the lack of evidence for this in their written products. In another study, Lázaro-Ibarrola (2021) analyzed the quality of the texts written by eleven individuals and by twenty-two pairs of YLs. A comparison of the final drafts written by the individuals and pairs after receiving the WCF was made considering CAF measures and a holistic rubric. The results indicated that there were no significant differences in draft quality in any of the measures employed (holistic and quantitative). In this study, the students in both groups had received WCF in the form of model texts (see definition and sample of model texts in Section 1.6.3). The researcher coded the quantity of features noticed from the models as well as the proportion of the noticed features that the learners later incorporated in their final drafts. As happened with draft quality, there were no differences in the quantity of features that individuals and pairs noticed and incorporated. In both groups, the learners were able to notice and incorporate very few items. Also comparing pairs and individuals, Calzada and García Mayo (2020b) analyzed the effectiveness of a dictogloss task (see definition and sample of the dictogloss task in Section 1.6.1) to help students notice two grammatical features of English (third person singular –s and articles). Fifty 11- to 12-year-old elementary Spanish EFL learners worked on a dictogloss task individually and in teacher-assigned dyads and small groups. Among other aspects, these authors measured the students’ grammatical improvement by means of a pre- and postdictogloss grammaticality judgement test. They reported that although the students did not seem to focus on the grammatical features targeted in the dictation, the pairs showed a slight advantage over the small groups and individuals. Finally, Kopinska and Azkarai (2020) also conducted a study using a dictogloss task with EFL students looking at students’ task motivation, an issue typically neglected in task-based research (see Chapter 5). Rather than using two groups (one with pairs, the other with individuals), they asked all students to work under both conditions, four times individually and twice in pairs. Their findings regarding the comparison of collaborative and individual writing indicated that, while students’ attitudes towards the dictogloss were consistently high and increased with practice, they felt more positive when they carried out the task in pairs. In a very recent article, Roothooft et al. (2022) reported the only study to my knowledge in which YLs participated individually in L2 writing tasks. This study included task motivation and draft quality in three conditions: TR, the provision of WCF via models and the provision of WCF via direct corrections (see definition and samples of these tasks in Section 1.6). In all groups learners improved their final drafts. In the TR groups improvements were reflected in grammatical complexity (although these improvements were very small), in the model group

63

64

Child L2 Writers

in lexical diversity and overall draft quality, and in the group receiving direct corrections improvements were found in accuracy. Also, the three groups showed high levels of task motivation suggesting that, even if research on CW repeatedly shows that learners feel very motivated by pair work, their high motivational dispositions do not depend on pair work because the motivation of young writers is also high when working on their own and, therefore, must be sustained by other motivational forces. In sum, the findings of this study underscore the need to conduct more research with YLs working individually. This is important to avoid dismissing the potential of one practice (individual writing) just because another practice (CW) has proved to be very effective. Pedagogically speaking, understanding and researching the potential of individual writing is also valuable given that this practice is feasible and frequent in language lessons and is also a good tool for evaluation purposes.

2.5.3 Language-related episodes (LREs) As with adult learners, researchers have used student interactions as a means to determine what is happening inside the students’ minds and to understand how they are coping with the task. Most researchers have analyzed the segments of speech in which learners talk about language, that is, the LREs; this section will describe what these analyses have taught us about the process of CW with child L2 learners. LREs are the parts of learners’ talk in which students discuss formal aspects of the language or simply solve a linguistic issue (correctly or incorrectly), which can happen even if they have not explicitly identified it as a problem (Swain & Lapkin, 1995). In CW, learners talk to one another while deciding what to write and how or while dealing with WCF. An LRE starts when the learners raise the language problem and ends when the problem is solved or, simply, when the learners move to a new topic (García Mayo & Azkarai, 2016). Thus, in LREs learners use the language to resolve problems and to build and consolidate knowledge (Storch, 2013). This implies that LREs do not only reflect learning in progress but also serve to enhance the learning process (Swain & Lapkin, 1998, 2001; Swain & Watanabe, 2013). Most analyses of LREs have classified them into three basic types depending on whether their focus is on meaning, on form, or on mechanics (punctuation and spelling). Meaning-focused LREs involve discussions about vocabulary use (e.g. selection of terms, searching for words in the target language, discussing meaning). (ii) Form-focused LREs deal with morphosyntactic aspects, and (iii) mechanical LREs include discussions about spelling and punctuation. However, variations to this basic classification can be found. For instance, some authors

Chapter 2. Children and collaborative writing

have included mechanics LREs within the form-focused category (Hidalgo & García-Mayo, 2021) and others have offered more detailed categorizations including, for example, discourse-focused LREs (Calzada & García-Mayo, 2020b; Luquin & García-Mayo, 2021). Below, I offer several examples of LREs and of how they were classified according to their focus by the researchers. All the examples belong to studies with YLs in CW. (a) CHILD1: She only see her parents two times in a year, and on Sunday, her free day… his free day… his free day… his free day. CHILD2: Her! ¡Es una chica! [It’s a girl] CHILD1. His…Ah!

(Calzada & García-Mayo, 2020b: 28)

(b) CHILD1: the girl … put. CHILD2: the flower. CHILD1: puted no? en pasado [past tense]. CHILD2: ok. CHILD1: because once upon a time there was a boy and a girl. CHILD2: yes in past. In past. CHILD1: puted. The girl puted.

(Hidalgo & Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2020: 508)

(c) CHILD1: they saw the TV very content CHILD2: very CHILD1: very content. CHILD2: no… he, he, very happy with two… with double p. (Hidalgo & Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2020: 508) (d) CHILD1: Because he lives very, eh… ¿cómo se decía lejos? [how do you say far?] Eh…how do you say ‘lejos’ [far]? CHILD2: In a lot of…kilometers, one to the others. Viven a muchos kilómetros unos de otros [they live many kilometers away from one another] CHILD1: Lives… CHILD2: To lot of kilometers.

(From Calzada & García-Mayo, 2020b: 28)

(e) CHILD1: Laura is swimming, en su piscina, ¿como era? ([Laura is swimming in her swimming pool, how was it?]) CHILD2: Laura esta nadando, no hace falta poner piscina. ([Laura is swimming, we do not need to write swimming pool]). CHILD1: Laura is swimming, she is swimming. (From Cánovas-Guirao et al., 2015: 67)

65

66

Child L2 Writers

Examples (a) and (b) are instances of form-focused LREs. In (a) the discussion refers to the possessive pronoun and is successfully resolved. In (b), on the contrary, the learners identify the need to use the verb in past but do not know the correct form and overgeneralize the rule for the regular past (‘puted’). In Examples (c, d, e) the LREs are focused on meaning. In (c) one learner uses the word ‘content’ but the other suggests the word ‘happy’, resulting in a correct resolution of the LRE. In (d) the learners try to find a way to express content in English and find a creative solution, albeit not totally target-like. Finally, in (e) the word search for the Spanish term ‘piscina’ (swimming pool) is abandoned because one learner considers it unnecessary. In addition to analysing the focus of the LREs, researchers have also examined whether they were resolved or not, and whether the resolution achieved by the students was successful, that is, target-like (Leeser, 2004; Swain, 1998). In most cases, researchers have found that learners successfully resolve most of the LREs. The following examples from YLs feature some cases of resolved and unresolved LREs. (a) CHI2: they took. CHI1: take the (..). CHI2: took because the (..). CHI1: they take took is in past and (.). CHI2: es verdad (it is true). CHI1: is happening right now. (b) CHI1: how do you say (.) how do you say aprobar (pass) (.) you don’t know how to say aprobado (passed)? CHI2: hmm (..) ay (..) CHI1: eh aprobated. CHI2: (laughs) it could be. (c) CHI1: so he (..) aprobar (pass) (.) cómo era? (how was it?) CHI2: [shrugs] CHI1: aprobar la asignatura (to pass a subject). CHI2: bah (..) it doesn’t matter. (Examples from Hidalgo & García-Mayo, 2021, p. 572)

In Example (a), the learners discuss what verb tense they should use. The LRE ends by deciding on the present tense because it seems coherent with the fact that the story is happening right now. The researchers classified this LRE as correctly resolved. In Example (b) learners search for a word in the target language (the

Chapter 2. Children and collaborative writing

word “pass”, corresponding to Spanish “aprobar” in connection to exams) and end up with a Spanish word that they foreignize (by adding an English ending – ated) to make it sound English (‘aprobated’). The resolution is, therefore, classified as nontarget-like. In Example (c) the YLs also search for the word “pass” but quickly abandon the discussion and leave the LRE unresolved. Next, before discussing how LREs contribute to our understanding of CW with YLs, I would like to clarify several points. First, like in research with adult learners (Storch, 2005; Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009), the almost exclusive focus on LREs means that in most studies large parts of learners’ dialogues have not been analyzed (note, however, that there are some exceptions (Cánovas-Guirao et al. (2015); Luquin & García-Mayo (2021)). Our understanding of the process only reflects our understanding of the students’ focus on language, which we can refer to as metatalk. An analysis of the entirety of learners’ talk is, therefore, a very necessary line for further research to pursue in the future. Second, in several studies in which feedback was provided via model texts, the process of writing was indirectly analyzed in the form of written notes that students were asked to take while writing, or while comparing their texts to model texts. However, written notes only provide information on noticing but not on how learners discuss and resolve linguistic issues. Therefore, in this section, I will only describe collaborative studies with YLs that focus on an analysis of the learners’ LREs, which, depending on the study, could happen in the L1, in the L2, or in both (Luquin & García Mayo, 2020, 2021). Third, I will present here only on the analyses of LREs in terms of their focus and resolution. However, later in this chapter I will show how LREs have also been analyzed with the purpose of understanding whether and how YLs engage in collaboration towards task completion. I move now to discuss the specific studies on CW with YLs that include analyses of LREs. I will begin by briefly mentioning the few CW studies that have analyzed LREs generated while writing in general. I will then turn to the much larger body of CW studies focusing on LREs that occur while learners interact with WCF. Among the few pieces of research that provide an analysis of the LREs generated while writing, the study conducted by Hidalgo and García Mayo (2021) explored the impact of two types of TR on the LREs produced by 40 YLs (aged 11–12) writing compositions in pairs. The learners repeated either the same task or the same task procedure three times. They found that most of the LREs generated while writing the two drafts were successfully resolved and concluded that CW had been beneficial because the LREs had offered the learners opportunities to co-construct knowledge, resolve linguistic issues and, in turn, develop their L2 knowledge (Swain & Lapkin, 1998, 2001; Swain & Watanabe, 2013). They also reported that the majority of LREs were form-focused, a category in which these

67

68

Child L2 Writers

authors included morpho-syntax, spelling, and phonology. In line with these findings, Hidalgo and Lázaro-Ibarrola (2020) also explored the effects of TR on the LREs generated in the conversations of 10 pairs of EFL learners aged 12. Their findings showed that the YLs were able to generate and resolve a large number of LREs while discussing what and how to write and, also, that most were focused on form, a category in which these authors also included morpho-syntactic aspects, spelling, and pronunciation. On the other hand, the studies that provide an account of students’ LREs while interacting with feedback agree that YLs writing in collaboration are able to generate a large number of LREs and are able to resolve many of them successfully (details regarding the specific potential of each type of WCF will be discussed in Chapter 3) (Azkarai & Kopinska, 2020; Calzada & García-Mayo, 2020b, 2021a, b; Cánovas et al, 2015; Coyle & Roca de Larios, 2020; Coyle et al., 2018, 2020; Luquin & García-Mayo, 2020, 2021; Roca de Larios et al., 2021). The following examples illustrate LREs generated while the learners interact with reformulations and model texts. (a) CHILD1: Underline that. Here they’ve written ‘but she doesn’t see it’. CHILD 2: Yes (reading) ‘but she doesn’t see it’. And we didn’t write that. Ok. A: Underline it. (From Coyle et al., 2020: 7) (b) CHILD1: Finally, the cat becomes… (translating the model) CHILD2: In…a white bat CHILD1: Becomes, we didn’t write that (they underline it). CHILD2: We put ‘convertir’ in Spanish

(Coyle et al., 2018, p. 31)

In Example (a) the learners are paying attention to a difference between their original text and the reformulated version. Specifically, they have noticed that the model includes the following sentence ‘but she doesn’t see it’ which describes one idea that they had not included in their text. Likewise, in Example (b) the learners are looking at the model and noticing the word ‘become’ which they can use instead of the Spanish word ‘convertir’ that they had used in their original drafts. All these discussions about language (LREs), whether with the WCF or while writing, have been unanimously understood as a clear advantage of peer collaboration in comparison to individual work, given that students working individually cannot benefit from discussing their thoughts with a peer or even, when the discussions happen in English, from the opportunity to use the target language meaningfully. In sum, in terms of the process of writing, most studies implementing CW tasks report that the LREs that learners generate focus on formal aspects of language use while writing, which include discussions about spelling and grammar,

Chapter 2. Children and collaborative writing

and on different aspects depending on WCF type when interacting with the feedback. Also, YLs are able to resolve the great majority of the LREs they generate; this success could be linked to the ZPD. As discussed in Chapter 1, writing tasks are products made by the students themselves and, therefore, working with their own products means that the starting point for the task is their own level. From this perspective, collaboration and/or WCF can be seen as a scaffold to help students move beyond their text (beyond their level). The positive findings could also be linked to these YLs’ cognitive development, as they are now equipped with the capacity to work with a peer, listen to that person’s opinions, and put their heads together to work towards a common objective. On the other hand, to better understand the focus of students’ efforts during the entire process of writing, we need studies that provide an account of the entirety of students’ conversations (Storch, 2005; Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009); that is, we still need to know what students are talking about when they are not engaged in LREs.

2.5.4 Do children collaborate? I now turn to a question about the very essence of CW. Do we know whether students are actually collaborating? The answer is that our knowledge about the extent to which YLs do collaborate is scarce and rather indirectly drawn. The definition of CW, provided earlier in this chapter, is straightforward: two or more writers make decisions together about what to write and how to write it. In Storch’s (2013) words, all the writers co-own and co-author the text. As discussed earlier, the interest of understanding whether and how learners collaborate is well sustained by sociocultural theories (Vygotsky, 1978). Sociocultural approaches take the view that language learning takes place in interaction because language learning is a necessarily socially mediated process. Interactions offer learners opportunities to verbalize their thoughts on the problems and challenges that emerge during task performance. This verbalization of thoughts has been specifically referred to as languaging (Swain, Kinnear, & Steinman, 2011). Under this view, understanding the type of relationship that the participants establish is essential to understanding the task outcome (Storch, 2016). The nature of collaboration has an impact on the amount of scaffolding that occurs and, in turn, the amount of linguistic knowledge that can be retained (Storch, 2013). However, putting two or more students together to write does not automatically mean that they are going to collaborate. The view that just by asking learners to work together, they will naturally collaborate to complete a task has been challenged and dismissed in L2 research (Chen, 2018). In fact, the type of relationship that students form is key to whether or not they will collaborate successfully (Storch, 2016). A recent study with YLs exploring (among other aspects) the patterns of

69

70

Child L2 Writers

interaction displayed in the discussion and resolution of LREs found a similar number of pairs engaged in collaborative and cooperative patterns (Azkarai & Kopinska, 2020). The importance of the type of relationship is probably more relevant in the case of YLs, as they value activities in terms of how much pleasure they get from them (Kiss & Nikolov, 2005) and do not have the ability to transcend a possible lack of motivation because they need to achieve a long-term gain; that is, they are not capable of understanding that the benefits of learning will outweigh the effort of engaging in a task with a partner they do not like. In fact, some pieces of research have found great fluctuation in interactional patterns depending on the task at hand (Ives, 2004), while the patterns of interaction in adult learners have been shown to be rather permanent (Chen, 2017). Paradoxically, in spite of the importance of pair dynamics, the extent to which learners do or do not collaborate in writing tasks has not been well documented in the SLA literature (Chen & Yu, 2019; Li & Kim, 2016; Storch, 2001, 2004; Watanabe & Swain, 2007), and especially not in the case of YLs (Azkarai & Kopinska, 2020; García Mayo & Imaz Agirre, 2019; Jang & Cheung, 2020; Kopinska & Azkarai, 2020). Several pieces of evidence demonstrate not only that this is the case but also that this issue seems to be absent from research agendas. Firstly, in the sections devoted to the discussion and interpretation of results, most published papers on CW do not make reference to the possible impact of different types of collaboration (or lack of it), and they do not even mention the study of interaction dynamics as a line for further research. This suggests that collaboration is either taken for granted, is understood as homogeneous across pairs, is irrelevant as a means of accounting for the results obtained, is too difficult to account for with so many variables already at play, or is, perhaps, simply forgotten. Secondly, the studies focusing on pair dynamics only analyze how learners collaborate in LREs. While these analyses offer valuable information about pair dynamics, it is also true that the rest of the conversation among the writers is ignored. An investigation of the additional conversation would undoubtedly help to further our knowledge of whether the young writers are collaborating and, if so, how and in what aspects of the writing process. Finally, the overwhelming focus on the quality of written products and the even more overwhelming focus on the LREs in CW research is proof that pair dynamics are considered of secondary importance. All in all, while we claim to be conducting research on CW, and we attribute advantages to collaboration, our claim that YLs are writing collaboratively seems to be, scientifically speaking, an act of (good) faith. The trigger for research into interactional patterns in the context of writing with adults was work by Storch (2002). Previously, several authors had already highlighted the need to take into account the nature of group or pair functioning by showing that simply assigning students to work in groups or pairs does not

Chapter 2. Children and collaborative writing

automatically provide the learning opportunities afforded by genuine collaboration (e.g., Bennett & Cass, 1988; Donato, 1988; Ellis & Gauvain, 1992; Nelson & Murphy, 1993). Based on this, Storch (2002) conducted a longitudinal study in an adult ESL classroom. She examined the nature of interaction between 10 pairs of students on several tasks and over a semester. In this study, four distinct patterns of dyadic interaction were found and later used as the bases for research (see Figure 2.1). These patterns are based on the concepts of equality and mutuality (Damon & Phelps, 1989). Equality is defined as “the degree of control or authority over the direction of the task” (Storch, 2002, p. 127) and mutuality as “the level of engagement with each other’s contribution” (Storch, 2002, p. 127).

Figure 2.1 Patterns of interaction (Storch, 2002, p. 128)

In line with what previous researchers had highlighted, Storch (2002) found that some interactional patterns were more conducive to learning than others. Specifically, peer interaction had positive effects on the dyads that established collaborative and expert/novice patterns, as the learners focused more attention on language choice and were more capable of individually retaining the linguistic knowledge that had been co-constructed (Rouhshad & Storch, 2016). On the contrary, pairs with lower mutuality generated fewer deliberations and, in turn, had fewer opportunities to internalize linguistic knowledge and develop their L2. While other authors have offered modified versions of this classification, or even different classifications based on different concepts (see Chen, 2017, for an overview, and see Azkarai & Kopinska, 2020, for a summary of the patterns), the original classification by Storch (2002) is the one that has been employed in studies with YLs.

71

72

Child L2 Writers

In general, the studies on patterns of interaction carried out with adults (Chen, 2018; Edstrom, 2015; Rouhshad & Storch, 2016; Storch, 2008; Tan, Wigglesworth, & Storch, 2010; Watanabe & Swain, 2007) have found that L2 learners work collaboratively in pairs (Storch, 2002; Watanabe, 2008), although the degree of collaboration depends on different factors, such as the proficiency of the pairings (Watanabe, 2008; Watanabe & Swain, 2007) or the communication mode, i.e., face-to-face or computer-mediated communication (Rouhshad & Storch, 2016; Tan et al., 2010). In the case of YLs, some very recent studies have also shed light on this issue; however, and unlike studies with adults, they have failed to report an impact of the pairing type (Azkarai & Kopinska, 2020; García Mayo & Imaz Agirre, 2019; Ives, 2004; Jang & Cheung, 2020; Kopinska & Azkarai, 2020). Before reviewing the available studies focusing on interaction patterns in CW with YLs, there are two studies worth mentioning, both conducted with oral tasks. These studies are interesting in that they suggest that age exerts an important influence over the interactional patterns students engage in (Butler & Zeng, 2015; García Mayo & Imaz Agirre, 2016). Butler and Zeng (2015) studied the interactional patterns of 24 9- to 10-year-olds and 24 11- to 12-year-olds; all were Chinese learners of EFL, and they were investigated using both their L1 and English in a school context. Butler and Zeng (2015) reported an important difference determined by age. The younger students aligned with a dominant/dominant pattern, which means that the two members tended to take part in the tasks equally actively, but they had minimal engagement with each other. The older ones, in contrast, fitted into a collaborative pattern with active participation and greater levels of engagement. García Mayo and Imaz Agirre (2016) analyzed the effect of TR on the collaborative patterns of 8- to 9-year-olds (N = 54) and 9- to 10-yearolds (N = 66). All students were Spanish and were learning English in school. They reported that when all students had the same proficiency level, the 8- to 9-year-old students displayed a more collaborative attitude than the older group, who were less willing to collaborate. Moving on to writing tasks, several studies have analyzed how students collaborate (Azkarai & Kopinska, 2020; García Mayo & Imaz Agirre, 2019; Jang & Cheung, 2020). For instance, García Mayo and Imaz Agirre (2019) examined the interaction of 32 dyads of 11- to 12-year-old Spanish EFL learners, who completed two tasks: an oral-only task and an oral and written task. They also considered other variables, such as whether the pairs were teacher-selected or self-selected, and whether they worked in proficiency-matched pairs. These researchers analyzed the interactional patterns that emerged in the LREs as well as the nature and outcome of these episodes. The results revealed that children were mostly collaborative as they were able to pool their linguistic resources together to try to resolve the LREs (they resolved at least half of them).

Chapter 2. Children and collaborative writing

In another study delving deeper into the nature of collaboration among YLs, Jang and Cheung (2020) investigated the impact of pair interaction on the process and product of CW in young ESL learners in Singapore. LREs were chosen as the unit of analysis to describe the process of writing. These researchers reported that the four pairs of students that they analyzed (9 to 11 years old) represented four different patterns, which they described as collaborative, expert/novice, dominant/dominant and dominant/moderately passive. These patterns of dyadic interaction seemed to affect both the quantity and quality of LREs and the quality of the written products. Specifically, these authors found that the learners who engaged in collaborative or expert/novice patterns produced more LREs and produced work of higher quality in the post-writing tasks. When individual gains were examined, novice learners and passive learners benefited from CW by watching how the other student wrote. However, dominant students showed the least improvement in the post-writing task. The findings of this study suggest that interaction patterns affect both the process of collaborative dialogue and L2 learning itself, and emphasize the importance of including interaction patterns in further research. In another study, Azkarai and Kopinska (2020), also employing LREs as the unit of analysis, brought three unexplored issues together and tried to provide an account of their students’ task motivation, patterns of interaction, and levels of engagement. Their participants were a group of young Spanish EFL learners (ages 11–12), who worked in pairs on a dictogloss task. An analysis of the students’ oral LREs showed mixed findings for patterns of interaction, with a similar number of pairs represented by a collaborative pattern and a cooperative pattern; however, the students’ engagement in LREs was not affected by their patterns of interaction, as the vast majority of LREs were handled with high engagement. Other studies have examined how certain characteristics interplay and affect pair dynamics, including students’ temperament and learning style in pairs composed of a native speaker (NS) and a non-native speaker (NNS) (Ives, 2004), or students’ gender and proficiency (Martínez-Adrián, Gutiérrez-Mangado, Gallardo-del-Puerto, & Basterrechea, 2021). In a small-scale study carried out in the Australian ESL context, Ives (2004) explored the interactional styles of three NNSs of English paired with native speaking classmates (aged 10–12). The pairs worked on different activities, which included writing tasks. Ives reports that the learning styles and temperaments of each of the individuals in each pair greatly determined the number of learning opportunities; however, the author leaves the question of what temperaments had specific outcomes when paired with what other temperaments for further research. Turning their focus towards more controllable variables, Martínez-Adrián et al. (2021) examined the LREs of 59 10to 12-year-old Basque-Spanish EFL learners enrolled in CLIL programs. These

73

74

Child L2 Writers

authors tried to disentangle the interface between task modality, pair dynamics, and pairing method. Their study indicated that same-gender dyads produced and correctly resolved more LREs than different-gender dyads in the oral modality and that proficiency-based pairings (compared to self-selected pairs) were more successful in engaging in optimal patterns of interaction and achieved higher levels of accuracy in the resolution of both meaning and form-focused LREs. Finally, in a recent study with adult learners, Zhang (2019) emphasized the fact that dyadic interaction is often fluid and a pair may show different collaboration patterns when dealing with different aspects of the CW task. However, with the model most frequently used to describe collaboration (Storch, 2013), a predominant pattern had to be chosen to represent the behavior of a given pair during the whole task, which meant that, if fluctuations in peer collaboration during task performance happened, they could not be accounted for. To address this issue, Zhang (2019) proposed a new model. In her model, quantitative analyses of the learners’ involvement in each of the main aspects of the task (language use, organization, task management, content discussion) were performed. The aim was to identify all existing collaboration types, but in connection to the specific aspects of the CW task in order to better grasp the fluctuations of dyadic interaction. Zhang’s (2019) dataset consisted of 35 conversations between intermediate EFL learners in a public university in southern China. She was able to identify collaboration types that included organization noncollaborative type, language use noncollaborative type, task management noncollaborative type, content noncollaborative type, and collaborative type. Perhaps of greater relevance, this author also dissociated patterns of interaction from the quality and linguistic accuracy of learners’ collaborative texts (Zhang, 2019); this reflects Azkarai and Kopinska’s (2020) finding that the pair dynamic had no impact on the level of engagement or resolution of LREs. At a time when we are starting to characterize and understand pair dynamics among YLs, this raises a new question: What is the impact of pair dynamics on the products of collaborative writers and, ultimately, on their language acquisition process? In sum, studies considering interactional patterns in CW with YLs are scarce, and the results are mixed. The patterns that YLs adopt seem to be either collaborative or cooperative, and they seem to hinge on age (Butler & Zeng, 2015; García Mayo & Imaz Agirre, 2016), learning style, temperament (Ives, 2004), gender, and proficiency issues (Martínez-Adrián et al., 2021). On the other hand, the impact of the pairing type is rather unclear (Azkarai & Kopinska, 2020). Also, as happened with the analysis of the process of writing by means of LREs exclusively, it is also the case that the identification of interactional patterns has been based mostly on the analyses of students’ LREs. Undoubtedly, a deeper analysis of learners’ entire speech during a collaborative task would be helpful to build on ini-

Chapter 2. Children and collaborative writing

tial findings. Besides, analysis of pair relationships in terms of active/passive or expert/novice (as noted, based on LREs) probably neglects psychological traits that may deeply affect how learners collaborate (Ives, 2004). It will be a challenge for further research to tackle the analysis of these subtleties; however, learners’ psychology is multifaceted and complex, and so are the psychological dynamics involved in pair work (Sato & Csizér, 2021). This line of research would be timeconsuming and would require knowledge from the fields of psychology and sociology, yet it would promote the adoption of multidisciplinary approaches that are crucial to fully understand SLA.

2.5.5 Do children like collaborative writing? To complete our knowledge about the nature of YL’s collaboration while writing, we can draw on some other studies involving YLs, which have included measures of task motivation or of attitudes (for a full discussion of motivation in writing tasks, see Chapter 5). In general, regardless of the pairing method, we know that the few studies that have included measures of task motivation in the context of writing (Azkarai & Kopinska, 2020; Calzada & García Mayo, 2020a; LázaroIbarrola & Villarreal, 2021; Villarreal & Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2022) report very positive motivational dispositions towards the tasks. In these studies, researchers use number rating scales (1 to 10) to measure learners’ motivational dispositions before and/or after they perform a given task. Learners are asked to choose the number that best reflects their motivation towards the writing task and, often, they are also asked to provide a reason to justify the number they have chosen. In most cases, YLs choose very high numbers from the scale. As for the reasons, they mostly opt for those connected to their liking of peer work, which indicates that learners mostly like to collaborate. However, not all students like to collaborate, or not all the time. In fact, Calzada and García Mayo (2020a) provide some negative views of CW from learners, and Kopinska and Azkarai (2020) also report that children sometimes feel that while interacting with a peer, they cannot get all the help they need. Finally, as some authors have warned, we should not assume that all students will be happy with CW tasks, or with collaborative work in general, as there are some students who prefer to work individually (Hyde, 1993).

2.6

Summary

Initial studies on the conjoint potential of writing and collaboration have offered some preliminary and promising findings, and have identified areas for future research. At the same time, research on CW with YLs could also contribute to

75

76

Child L2 Writers

innovation in the classroom, where writing tasks are mainly performed individually (Storch, 2011). Research so far has answered some key questions in the case of YLs at the level of writing tasks and language learning: YLs are perfectly capable of writing compositions together, they are able to do so in the L2, they discuss and resolve a large number of linguistic issues that emerge while writing, and they do this with greater frequency when interacting with WCF. Transcending the domain of language acquisition, collaborative learning has many advantages to add to the language learning opportunities that CW affords: students will take a more active role in their learning process; their ability to resolve problems, their autonomy, their engagement, and their critical thinking skills will be enhanced; and, from a social perspective, they will be more likely to develop a more open view of cultural diversity. However, we still have an incomplete understanding of the impact of CW on the products of writing, as few studies have included individual writers as control groups to help isolate the effects of collaboration. Likewise, while we are starting to understand pair dynamics, we know little about the impact that different pair dynamics can exert on the products of CW. Our knowledge of the process of writing in collaboration is also limited. Most studies have only provided an account of LREs, showing students’ ability to discuss and resolve language issues, but we do not know where the focus of students’ efforts is when not talking about the language. In general, studies with YLs performing CW tasks share several (if not all) of the following limitations: they adopt the methodologies (data collection tools, measurements) from adult studies with little modification, they have relatively small sample sizes, the compositions students produce are short, and generally data from only one task performance are provided. In line with these limitations, some recent studies that have not found any statistical significance have also highlighted the necessity of rethinking the methodological tools we are using to measure and analyze students’ production (Calzada & García Mayo, 2020b; LázaroIbarrola, 2021). With the above-mentioned limitations in mind, and in order to truly understand CW among YLs, studies should be, above all, more comprehensive in their analyses and more rigorous in the attribution of findings to the collaboration. Starting with the need to isolate the effects of collaboration, the control of this variable should be taken care of either by the inclusion of individual writers or by means of questionnaires and observations that help us to understand its specific impact. Regarding the need for comprehensiveness, the focus on only one or two specific aspects (LREs or product quality) only offers isolated information about the full potential of CW. While these isolated pieces from different studies can

Chapter 2. Children and collaborative writing

help build the whole puzzle, it is also true that the variety of factors influencing each of the studies (proficiency levels, age, school context, L1s, cultural variables, task types, task performance conditions, etc.) makes it impossible to extrapolate the findings. In fact, the results from several studies are quite contradictory, as we have seen in this chapter, but it is hard to tell what factors have led to the differences. Ideally, studies that aim to make progress in our understanding of CW should be designed to include (as many of ) the following criteria (as possible): – – – – – –

Groups of individual writers and groups of collaborative writers Groups of YLs and adult learners at similar levels of proficiency and performing the same tasks Analysis of the quality of the products, employing quantitative and qualitative measures Analysis of the process of writing by examining student conversations in their totality and by asking individual writers to externalize their thoughts Analysis of pair dynamics by describing patterns of interaction, by looking at their impact on the process and products, and by comparing the process and products of pairs that represent different patterns Measures of task motivation and students’ attitudes, and exploration of the possible impact of these on engagement and task outcomes

In conclusion, YLs clearly write in collaboration and, while doing so, they encounter linguistic issues and resolve most of them successfully. It seems clear, then, that they are using collaborative scaffolding and working within their own ZPD. Also, when asked, they generally express positive feelings about collaboration. From a broad educational perspective, the value of collaborative learning is undisputable. All this together encourages the use of collaborative tasks in language lessons. At the same time, the potential of collaboration should be further investigated, and future research should try to isolate collaboration as a variable. Future studies should be as comprehensive as possible, avoiding a focus on isolated aspects and trying to account for the entire process of writing.

77

chapter 3

Children and written corrective feedback 3.1 Introduction The second language acquisition (SLA) research community has come a long way since Truscott’s (1996) thought-provoking paper challenged the effectiveness of written corrective feedback (WCF). Since then, many researchers have striven to demonstrate that some form of feedback is beneficial and contributes to enhancing the potential of writing tasks with adults and child L2 learners. Both L2 teachers and L2 learners generally claim that WCF is necessary and helpful, and, in fact, providing some form of feedback on students’ drafts is common practice in schools. The study of WCF is, therefore, a key research topic with high pedagogical relevance. WCF was originally defined as feedback that is written on students’ drafts with the aim of improving students’ understanding and performance by helping them to recognize and correct their errors (Bitchener & Knoch, 2010). With time, however, and as different feedback strategies such as model texts and reformulations were put to the test, the term “written corrective feedback” has been frequently used in a broader sense to refer to any form of feedback that is provided on students’ drafts. In this chapter, the term will be employed in this broad sense to refer to all the feedback techniques reviewed here. The chapter summarizes the knowledge achieved regarding the provision of WCF to child L2 learners in school contexts. In Section 3.2, the relevance of providing WCF specifically to children is discussed. To do this, I draw on child educational psychology and briefly discuss the pertinence of assistance in childhood; this includes information on the characteristics that this assistance must have in order to be effective. With the general justification for feedback in childhood firmly established, I will look at what supports the provision of feedback in the context of L2 writing with children (Section 3.3). In the following sections, I deal with the main WCF techniques that have been used in SLA research, dividing them into two broad types. On the one hand, I summarize the empirical studies testing techniques mainly focused on formal aspects of language: direct corrections and dictogloss tasks (Section 3.4). Although dictogloss tasks are not a canonical form of WCF, they constitute an attempt to promote writing skills and to draw students’ attention to language and, therefore, it makes sense to review this technique in this chapter. In fact, some recent studies implementing dictogloss https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.32.c3 © 2023 John Benjamins Publishing Company

Chapter 3. Children and written corrective feedback

tasks in elementary school have helped to broaden our understanding of how children process L2 information in connection to writing. On the other hand, I focus on WCF techniques that offer a more comprehensive approach to the text (Section 3.5). This section mainly discusses model texts, which constitute by far the most widely studied WCF technique with YLs, but also includes information on the knowledge accrued from some recent research exploring the provision of WCF via reformulations with children. To finish (Section 3.6), a summary of the main findings is offered, together with a description of the limitations and research agenda.

3.2

Children and feedback

Adopting an interdisciplinary approach to the theoretical need for feedback, I would like to illustrate how our knowledge from educational psychology, from the domain of general learning and instruction, and from the domain of SLA complement one another to build a case in favor of the provision of comprehensible corrective feedback to learners and, very especially, to YLs. To start with, the provision of feedback to YLs is clearly supported by our knowledge of child psychology. The provision of assistance to children is, in fact, one of the distinctive features of humans when compared to other animal species. While the higher primate species simply learn by observation of their elders (Hamburg, 1968; van Lawick-Goodall, 1968), humans use intentional tutoring with children to such an extent that the provision of assistance becomes a crucial feature of learning in childhood (Bruner, 1972). In other words, the role of feedback in the problem-solving process is essential: humans provide feedback to help the younger generations to make progress more quickly and more effectively (Bruner, 1972; Hinde, 1974). Very similarly, the domain of learning and instruction has long seen feedback as either a fundamental principle for efficient learning (Bilodeau, 1969; Bloom, 1976; Taylor, 1987) or, at least, as an important element of instruction (Dick, Carey, & Carey, 2001). Nowadays, there is considerable evidence to show that effective feedback leads to learning gains (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006). For instance, Black and Wiliam (1998) reviewed over 250 studies on feedback conducted since 1988 and covering all educational sectors. Their meta-analysis revealed that feedback produced significant benefits in learning and achievement in all areas and skills, and at all educational levels. Their work moved beyond academia and had an important influence on teaching practices in schools, where the provision of feedback is common practice (Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshal, & Wiliam, 2003).

79

80

Child L2 Writers

Initially, within the receptive-transmission model of teaching and learning, feedback was considered a gift that the knowledgeable teacher offered the students. Later, within the constructivist view of education that considered the student to be an active agent in the building of their own knowledge, feedback came to be seen as a tool to help students make connections and construct knowledge in an active way (Askew & Lodge, 2004). From this perspective, feedback was intended to invite a response from the student, and started to be considered a learning tool that triggered students’ engagement, deeper internalization of concepts, and reflective thinking. Finally, the need for corrective feedback in the case of L2 acquisition has gradually gained considerable consensus and has been distinguished from the process of acquisition of the L1, in which the provision of feedback is not (or not so) necessary. Some of the main figures in the field of SLA have proclaimed the value of feedback and have done so from different theoretical stances, thus substantiating its value. From a nativist perspective (Chomsky, 1975), White (1988), for instance, states that some aspects of L2 acquisition cannot progress on the basis of positive evidence alone, and that it is necessary to draw learners’ attention to the fact that certain forms are not allowed in the target language by means of corrective feedback. The hypothesis-testing models of acquisition offer further evidence in favor of corrective feedback. When learners formulate hypotheses about the L2, they need corrective feedback to notice the differences between their hypothesis and the norm (Bley-Vroman, 1986, 1989; Ohta, 2001). Thus, corrective feedback provides learners with the necessary data to confirm, disconfirm, modify (Chaudron, 1988), and/or discard incorrect hypotheses (Schachter, 1991). More recently, and adopting cognitive models of language acquisition, Long (1996) explained that the interaction between innate and environmental factors, such as feedback, seems necessary for language acquisition to happen. In Long’s (1996) updated version of the interactionist hypothesis, the importance of negative feedback is described as follows: … negative feedback obtained during negotiation work or elsewhere may be facilitative of SL development, at least for vocabulary, morphology, and language specific syntax and essential for learning certain specifiable L1–L2 contrasts. (Long, 1996, p. 414)

Ellis (2009) reminds us of an extra value of feedback, indicating that in both structural and communicative approaches to language teaching, feedback plays an important role in not only guaranteeing linguistic accuracy but also in increasing learner motivation. On the other hand, and specifically in connection to pedagogical practices with child L2 learners in school contexts, Edelenbos, Johnstone, and Kubanek

Chapter 3. Children and written corrective feedback

(2006), in their report on the main pedagogical principles underlying the teaching of languages to very young learners for the European Commission, include the provision of feedback on their list of key messages drawn from the published research. Specifically, they highlight the “importance of providing feedback to children […] to help them further refine their underlying language system.” They specify that this feedback may take two basic forms, as it “may be positive (encouragement) or may be corrective” (Edelenbos et al., 2006, p. 9). Our knowledge from general education on the effectiveness of praise and punishment when providing feedback can help complete their idea. There seems to be a certain consensus around the notion that teachers should combine the provision of feedback to show what is wrong (corrective feedback) and the provision of feedback to praise what is correct. While only focusing on the errors has been shown to be overpowering and discouraging to students, too much praise can also yield negative effects when it is indiscriminate, as it might lead to misconceptions of one’s capacity and low self-esteem and motivation (Brophy, 1981; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Kalis, Vannest, & Parker, 2007; Lannie & McCurdy, 2007). However, regardless of whether it shows the wrongs or the rights, feedback in educational environments is most effective when it is accompanied by information that the learner can use to do the task better (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). Drawing again on our knowledge of educational psychology, we know that the assistance provided to children can take many forms, but a sine qua non condition is that it must be comprehensible for the learner. Children cannot benefit from the assistance offered by others if they are not able to understand it. In other words, understanding the solution to a particular problem is necessary before the child herself is able to produce the steps leading to it without assistance (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976). Copying Krashen’s (1982, 1985) terminology regarding comprehensible input, we could, in fact, refer to this principle as comprehensible feedback. Starting from the belief that corrective feedback is necessary, many researchers have investigated what types of corrective feedback are more effective, and how corrective feedback should be provided. One condition of feedback seems to be of particular relevance, especially for YLs. Gass (1988, 1990) emphasized the importance of providing corrective feedback to push learners into noticing mismatches, but she also underscored the importance of learners understanding these mismatches as a pre-condition. Likewise, the studies conducted by Han (2000, 2001, 2002) on the provision of recasts identified several characteristics that corrective feedback should have to be successful. These include developmental readiness, thereby linking research on corrective feedback to research on developmental sequences (Corder, 1967; Pienemann & Johnston, 1987; Pienemann et al., 1988), or to the Vygotskian need to operate within the

81

82

Child L2 Writers

students’ ZPD (see Chapter 1). Broadening the lens, we see a connection to theories within educational psychology that underscore the importance of providing assistance that is comprehensible, especially in the case of YLs who are still building their problem-solving cognitive resources and need a firm standpoint to make progress.

3.3

Children and written corrective feedback

The provision of corrective feedback relates to learners’ production in the oral and written form. Following a recurrent pattern in SLA research, the focus of research efforts was initially placed on the provision of corrective feedback on students’ oral production. The emphasis has been primarily on the provision of recasts and on their role in L2 learning; in general, studies have supported the facilitative role of corrective feedback in SLA with adults and YLs (Doughty & Varela, 1998; Han, 2002; Long, Inagaki, & Ortega, 1998; Lyster, 1998a, 1998b, 2001; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Lyster & Saito, 2010; Lyster, Saito, & Sato, 2013; Mackey, Gass, & McDonough, 2000; Mackey & Philp, 1998; Oliver, 1995). More recently, and within the writing-to-learn approach (Manchón, 2011), there has been an abundance of studies on the role of corrective feedback in the context of writing. WCF is of great interest for teachers, researchers, and students. While it is not always possible to establish a link between the classroom and SLA findings, the study of corrective feedback bears direct pedagogical value, and research findings resonate with students and teachers (Adams, 2003). Studies suggest that when learners receive information on the quality of their written products, the L2 acquisition process is enhanced (Ferris, 2010). Aligning with this view, the provision of WCF on students’ written products is common practice in school contexts where teachers often understand that providing students with corrections on their production is a substantial part of their job and will help students improve in subsequent drafts and internalize the language (Bitchener, 2012, 2016; Guénette, 2007; Hyland & Hyland, 2006; Polio, 2012). As for the students, when asked about their opinions, built mainly on the teaching practices they have experienced, adult learners tend to respond that they want and expect feedback, and they value it as an aid in their language learning process (Chen, Nassaji, & Liu, 2016; Elwood & Bode, 2014; Ferris, 2004; Hyland, 1998; Leki, 1991; Schulz, 2001). In general, learners prefer corrections on isolated rather than global aspects of the language (Cohen, 1982, 1989; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994), and students of higher proficiency show more interest in the WCF than less-proficient ones and, in fact, seem to benefit more from the feedback (Lee, 2008; Lee, 2013).

Chapter 3. Children and written corrective feedback

However, some studies have also found that the sine qua non condition for feedback to be effective is not always present; that is, the feedback is not always comprehensible to the students (Lee, 2008). Students may also forget the meaning of the WCF when making revisions (Chandler, 2003; Lee, 2008), and their motivation to write might be negatively affected by some types of feedback (Lee, Yu, & Liu, 2018; Tang & Liu, 2018; Yu, Jiang, & Zhou, 2020). For instance, a survey conducted by Yu et al. (2020) with 1,395 high school students in Hong Kong found that students’ low motivation towards writing could be affected by the teachers’ provision of excessively detailed WCF. Opponents of WCF also argue that it diverts energy and time from a more productive focus on the process of writing (Crosthwaite, 2017; Truscott, 1996). Moving to YLs, studies on the provision of WCF are scarce, and studies on YLs’ perceptions of feedback are barely existent; therefore, there is no way to know if the preferences and likings of adult learners would be applicable to children. There are, however, a few studies on different types of WCF whose results partly confirm the findings from adults. These studies will be summarized in the following sections.

3.4

Studies on written corrective feedback with child L2 learners

While the available empirical work on YLs and WCF strategies can be presented in different ways, I will approach this body of research by making a distinction between two types of feedback strategies. The first type is feedback strategies that have been shown to be useful in drawing students’ attention towards the form of the language and, mostly, towards isolated aspects; included here are direct corrections and dictogloss. The second type is the strategies that have attempted (without fully succeeding, as we will see) to draw students’ attention to the text as a whole; these include model texts and reformulations. In addition, two types of knowledge will be broadly distinguished in relation to WCF: knowledge from process-oriented research questions, which focus on the children’s interactions with the WCF, and knowledge from product-oriented research questions, which focus on the effects that the WCF has on the learners’ subsequent draft.

3.4.1 Focus on formal aspects 3.4.1.1 Direct written corrective feedback Very few studies on YLs have been conducted on what we could refer to as traditional forms of feedback, i.e., those that mainly consist of explicitly showing the

83

84

Child L2 Writers

errors and providing the correct forms (Ferris, 2003) (see definition and sample of direct corrections in Section 1.6.2). Following the terminology from the field, I will refer to these forms as direct WCF (Ferris, 2003). Typically, the teacher crosses out the erroneous form and writes the correct one next to it. With adults and adolescents in general, direct corrections have proved to be more effective in the short term (that is, in the reduction of errors in subsequent texts) than indirect forms of feedback such as underlining errors or using codes (Sachs & Polio, 2007; Santos, López Serrano, & Manchón, 2010). When we move to children, the few available studies point to the effectiveness of direct forms of WCF demonstrated for adult learners (Coyle & Roca de Larios, 2014; Roothooft et al., 2022), but do not unanimously support them (Fazio, 2001). The only longitudinal study with a large number of children was conducted by Fazio (2001). This is, in fact, the only study with child participants that appears in in Kang and Han’s (2015) meta-analysis of 21 WCF studies, which illustrates the misbalance between studies investigating adults and YLs. In Fazio’s (2001) study, 112 Grade 5 students (aged 10–13) in four classrooms in two French-language schools in Montreal performed journal writing as an in-class activity over a period of four months in French-language arts lessons. They were divided into groups, which differed in the feedback that they received: corrections, commentaries, and a combination of the two. Feedback was provided every week, and classroom observations and individual interviews were conducted. The analysis of accuracy of the students’ diaries yielded no significant difference in accuracy attributable to feedback conditions, suggesting that the provision of feedback one way or another did not benefit children in this context. The author suggested that this could be due to the fact that students did not actually pay attention to the corrections (let alone understand them!); it could also be related to the specific pedagogical context in which the investigation was conducted. Fazio’s (2001) study is both valuable and limited. It is valuable because it is a long-term classroom-based study, which taps into the effects of repeated exposure to WCF and thus goes beyond the once-only shot that most studies provide. It is also valuable because it includes classroom observations and detailed descriptions of the context. At the same time, it is limited because the specificity of the study precludes the extrapolation of the findings to other contexts. As the author warns in the final lines of her paper “it would be imprudent to cite the results of this study as being supportive of the ineffectiveness of corrective feedback without also making reference to the students’ lack of attentiveness to their corrections and the pedagogical context in which the investigation was conducted” (Fazio, 2001, p. 247). Apart from this study, our knowledge about how children deal with direct WCF draws on studies in which these forms are compared to model texts (note that these studies will be reviewed in more detail in Section 3.4.2.1). In a study

Chapter 3. Children and written corrective feedback

carried out in a Spanish context with child learners of English, Coyle and Roca de Larios (2014) compared the effects of the provision of direct corrections and the provision of model texts. Elementary school children (N = 46) performed a threestage writing task, in which they wrote, received WCF in the form of model texts or direct corrections, and rewrote their original compositions. The researchers found that the learners who received direct corrections were able to notice more grammatical aspects from the WCF and were also able to introduce more of the noticed features in their revised drafts, which, in turn, improved in terms of acceptability and comprehensibility. With very similar results, Roothooft et al. (2022) compared the quality of the drafts written by 78 Spanish children learning English in school working through direct corrections, model texts, and task repetition. These authors also found that the students working through direct corrections were able to improve the grammatical accuracy of their revised drafts, while the drafts produced by children in the other two groups did not improve in this aspect; specifically, the drafts written by the group that received model texts improved only in terms of lexis, and those written by the task repetition group did not improve in accuracy or lexis. Thus, these two studies seem to confirm the findings from research with adults regarding the relatively higher effectiveness of direct corrections over other forms. Again, as Fazio (2001) warned, it is not possible to extrapolate these findings. Also, the studies are hardly comparable to Fazio’s (2001) as the procedure and research tools are so different. However, it could be argued that the lack of attention to the WCF reported in Fazio’s (2001) study did not happen in the studies based on a multi-stage writing task; these included a “noticing session” in which students, working in pairs, discussed the direct corrections and were, therefore, forced to pay attention to them (Coyle & Roca de Larios, 2014; Roothooft et al., 2022). Thus, the implementation of the noticing session as well as the collaboration (see Chapter 2) probably contributed to enhancing the effectiveness of direct WCF (Coyle & Roca de Larios, 2014; Roothooft et al., 2022). 3.4.1.2 Dictogloss Our understanding of children and WCF is also enhanced by several recent studies that focused on dictogloss tasks (Calzada & García Mayo, 2020a, 2020b, 2021a, 2021b; Gorman & Ellis, 2019). Although dictogloss is not a form of WCF, it constitutes an attempt to help students improve their writing by noticing linguistic aspects; therefore, these studies contribute to our understanding of how YLs deal with linguistic information. Also, dictogloss is the task most frequently used in research studies on CW that focus on language form (Wajnryb, 1990), although it is probably not common in the classroom context.

85

86

Child L2 Writers

During a dictogloss task, learners listen to a text; then, listen to it again while writing down the main information; and finally, reconstruct the text using their notes and trying to be as faithful as possible to the original (García Mayo, 2018) (see definition and sample of dictogloss in Section 1.6.1). In general, dictogloss tasks have ben claimed to be effective in helping learners focus on specific linguistic forms. Thus, in dictogloss tasks there is often an embedded targeted linguistic item in the text that the researchers have pre-selected in order to draw learners’ attention to it. The following example of a dictogloss task employed with YLs by Calzada & García-Mayo (2021a) illustrates this. A sweet surprise Next Sunday Mary’s grandmother celebrates her birthday. Her grandmother always cooks delicious things for her but once a year Mary likes giving her a sweet surprise. She wakes up early in the morning and buys the ingredients at the supermarket. At home, first, she puts sugar and some flour in a bowl. Then, she breaks some eggs and beats them. She also adds some milk. Her brother Tom helps her to put the mixture in muffin cups and they bake them in the oven. Finally, she pours melted chocolate and sweets on top of the cupcakes, because her granny loves them. At 6 o’clock, Mary visits her granny and gives her the cupcakes. Her granny hugs her and they eat them together! (Calzada & García-Mayo, 2021a, p. 16)

In the example, the targeted form selected by the researchers to be seeded into the dictogloss task was the third person singular present tense morpheme in English. The text contains 122 words and 15 instances of the targeted item (3rd person -s). In this respect, and like direct forms of WCF, it focuses on isolated aspects of the language. With adults, dictogloss has proved to be a very effective way to attract learners’ attention to form (Alegría de la Colina & García Mayo, 2009; Azkarai & García Mayo, 2016); however, when considered globally, studies implementing dictogloss tasks with YLs seem to show that the effectiveness of this task is rather limited, at least, when the targeted forms are beyond children’s level of grammatical awareness (Calzada & García Mayo, 2020a, 2020b, 2021a; Gorman & Ellis, 2019). Gorman and Ellis (2019) conducted a quasi-experimental study with 33 children aged 9–12 years. The learners completed four dictogloss tasks designed to elicit the use of the present perfect tense. The students were divided into three different groups depending on the type of feedback or instructions they received between performing the tasks: one group was provided with explicit metalinguis-

Chapter 3. Children and written corrective feedback

tic explanations (group 1), another group with direct written corrections on errors in their preceding writing (group 2), and another group did not receive any feedback (comparison group). In line with Fazio (2001), the results failed to identify benefits in the treatment groups, which the authors attributed to YLs failure to use grammatical knowledge, probably due to their young age, and to the complexity of the target structure they had chosen. As could be argued from a linguistic developmental perspective, the chosen structure was probably beyond learners’ linguistic knowledge, or, from a broader cognitive perspective, it was probably beyond the students’ ZPD (Vygotsky, 1978, 1981). In a series of very recent studies with the same cohort of YLs in elementary school, Calzada and García Mayo (2020a, 2020b, 2021a, 2021b) implemented dictogloss tasks with students working individually, in pairs and in small groups. The embedded target form was the third person singular morpheme ‑s. The authors analyzed the LREs generated in the learners’ conversations, their subsequent incorporation into the reconstructed texts, the quality of individual reconstructions before and after the collaboration, and students’ attitudes towards the task. The findings showed that these children focused significantly more on form than on meaning and were quite able to resolve and incorporate their LREs. However, the focus on the targeted form, ‑s, was very limited; that is, the students mainly paid attention to other grammatical forms (Calzada & García Mayo, 2020b, 2021a). In fact, when writing a reconstruction after the collaboration, improvements in grammatical complexity were found (Calzada & García Mayo, 2021b). However, less-proficient learners fared worse. Finally, these authors found that the children’s attitudes towards the task were very positive (Calzada & García Mayo, 2020a), a finding that has been confirmed by other studies on motivation and dictogloss with YLs (Azkarai & Kopinska, 2020; Kopinska & Azkarai, 2020) (see Chapter 5). As in Gorman and Ellis (2019), and also applicable to work by Calzada and García Mayo (2020a, 2020b, 2021a, 2021b) although they do not mention this in their research, the lack of attention to the target form might be attributed to its complexity in terms of acquisition. As Ellis (2009) explains, some direct corrections could simply not be understood by the students and, in fact, the third person singular ‑s is one of the last morphemes to be acquired. The focus of WCF on a specific form employed in dictogloss tasks can, thus, violate the principle for successful assistance: learners must understand the problem before they can internalize the solution and produce it themselves (Wood et al., 1976). In sum, focusing on specific forms beyond the children’s ZPD might be an ineffective way to draw children’s attention to form. In contrast, approaches that offer students the possibility to focus on a wide array of forms could make it possible for each learner to focus on the forms they are ready to internalize; this was the case with the students in

87

88

Child L2 Writers

Calzada and García Mayo (2021a), who were able to focus on formal aspects of the language but not so much on the targeted form. The conclusion would be to let students choose their focus, or ensure that a form is chosen that they are ready to internalize. To this end, researchers should conduct pilot studies to identify what forms are within the children ZPD and take this knowledge into account when designing their research studies. All in all, these studies (Calzada & García Mayo, 2020a, 2020b, 2021a, 2021b; Fazio, 2001; Gorman and Ellis, 2019) seem to moderate the effectiveness in the provision of form-focused and direct forms of WCF identified with adults in the case of YLs. As explained in Chapter 1, and drawing on our knowledge from developmental psychology, this might be linked to learners still developing a capacity for abstract thinking and metacognition. Even if they attend to the WCF and are able to focus on certain forms (Calzada & García Mayo, 2021a), their capacity to understand the feedback might be limited, and certain direct WCF forms might be a waste of time.

3.4.2 Focus on the text Partly in response to WCF feedback strategies, which focus on a limited number of grammatical target structures and provide students with the corrections, some researchers have proposed alternative methods (Yang & Zhang, 2010). These include indirect forms of WCF provided on discrete items, such as circling the errors, annotating their number, or simply using a code (Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Robb, Ross, & Shortreed, 1986). Such alternative forms of feedback have been used in an attempt to make students more active in the process of noticing (Hanaoka & Izumi, 2012). However, the great innovation offered by these new feedback types came from the fact that authors designed forms of feedback that preserved the value of the text as a whole, in that the feedback took into account not only the micro features of writing (isolated forms) but also the macro features (cohesion, content, organization, register) (Yang & Zhang, 2010). Thus, two main feedback types have emerged in the literature: reformulations, which consist of rewritten versions of students’ original drafts (Cohen, 1982, 1989), and model texts, which are native-like texts written on the same topic (Hanaoka, 2007). When the provision of WCF occurs via reformulations and model texts, students compare their drafts to native-like texts. In the case of reformulation, the text is a correct version of the students’ own original drafts; in the case of models, the text is a version written by an expert at the students’ level and based on the same prompt. Both types have been claimed to be effective at different levels (Yang & Zhang, 2010), but reformulation is time-consuming for teachers, as its implementation requires instructors to rewrite the texts in a correct way (Qi

Chapter 3. Children and written corrective feedback

& Lapkin, 2001). In contrast, as some authors point out, model texts have not only proved to be valuable in promoting noticing but they are also easy to implement (Hanaoka & Izumi, 2012). Perhaps this explains why models have attracted more attention from researchers with adults and YLs, while reformulations have been largely consigned to oblivion (Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2013), at least until recently (Coyle, Férez Mora, & Solís Becerra, 2020; García Hernández, Roca de Larios, & Coyle, 2017; Roca de Larios, García Hernández, & Coyle, 2021). However, it is also true that the popularity of models in the SLA research field does not seem to have reached language lessons for YLs on a large scale (Coyle et al. 2018). 3.4.2.1 Model texts

Definition When working with models, students write their own drafts first; then, they are given a model text and are asked to compare their original compositions to it, trying to identify the differences, to find solutions to the linguistic problems they had encountered while writing, and to notice elements that they could incorporate in subsequent writings (see definition and sample of model texts in Section 1.6.3). Model texts are written by proficient users of the language (usually the teacher or the researcher), and are defined as “native-like texts that take into consideration the content and genre of the target text-type, and are tailored to match learners’ ages and proficiency levels” (Coyle et al., 2018, p. 26). In general, to make sure that students can compare their writing to the model and find useful solutions in it, picture stories have been used as writing prompts, as they allow the researcher to control the content and the language that students will need to use to a much greater extent than open writing topics. The body of research In comparison with the amount of research dedicated to direct forms of WCF, the number of studies focusing on models as a feedback technique with adult learners is relatively modest (Cánovas Guirao, Roca de Larios, & Coyle, 2015; Coyle & Roca de Larios, 2020). The contrary applies to children, though, thanks to the abundant number of studies conducted with model texts in elementary school contexts. Most of these studies are fairly recent and have been mainly generated by the research teams at the University of Murcia, at the university of the Basque Country and at the Public University of Navarre. This research provides fertile ground to better understand child writers, especially to understand how children interact with WCF, given that most research on models and YLs has concentrated on the amount and types of noticing that occur during students’ interactions with the feedback (the model text).

89

90

Child L2 Writers

To date, the most relevant studies with model texts have elicited data from Japanese (Abe, 2008; Hanaoka, 2007; Hanaoka & Izumi, 2012) and Chinese (Yang & Zhang, 2010) university students, and from Spanish high school learners (García Mayo & Loidi Labandibar, 2017; Martínez Esteban & Roca de Larios, 2010). In these studies, models have been explored, either in isolation or compared to other WCF techniques (Abe, 2008; García Mayo & Loidi Labandibar, 2017; Hanaoka, 2006a, 2006b, 2007; Hanaoka & Izumi, 2012; Kang, 2020; Martínez Esteban & Roca de Larios, 2010; Yang & Zhang, 2010). With regard to their implementation, models are usually implemented via multi-stage writing tasks comprising three stages. In stage 1, the students produce a piece of writing based on a picture prompt. In stage 2, the students are asked to compare their own composition to one or two model texts and to notice and explain or try to understand the differences between the two drafts. Finally, in stage 3, the learners write the composition again using the picture prompt. While this is the basic procedure, there are important differences in the methodological implementation of studies with model texts. These differences are usually related to whether the three stages happen in the same session or with a time interval, and to whether students write the final composition with their notes from the comparison to the model and/or their original composition in front of them (in a text editing fashion), or from scratch on a clean piece of paper. Also, there are differences regarding whether students write individually or in pairs, and regarding whether noticing is captured via note-taking or by analyzing the students’ conversations when students work in collaboration. Table 3.1 summarizes the main studies conducted with model texts and YLs and includes information on the main characteristics of the studies. To the details provided in Table 3.1, it is necessary to add that the specific instructions given to the students also vary from one study to another, although not by a great deal. In general, students are not given instructions to use specific vocabulary or structures, and they are given the time they need to perform the tasks. Also, following the seminal papers by Hanaoka (2007), most studies employ two model texts to avoid memorization or copying from a single text and to broaden the chances that students can find solutions to their problems (Coyle & Roca de Larios, 2020; Hanaoka, 2007; Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2021). Note, however, that only one model was used in Luquin and García Mayo (2021).

Chapter 3. Children and written corrective feedback

91

Characteristics of studies with model texts with elementary school students Can students use their notes/ Authors & date

N. and age

Time span between stages

model when

Do students work in pairs?

Is noticing captured via notetaking?

Is noticing captured via LREs?

Are Is text quality considered?

groups compared?

Is there a delayed posttest?

Were the students trained? If so, for how long?

Is task motivation considered?

Coyle & Roca de Larios

YES

YES

YES

NO

YES Acceptability measures

Direct WCF vs. models

NO

YES

NO

Cánovas Guirao, Roca de Larios, & Coyle

NO

YES

YES

YES (all stages)

Only acceptability of incorporations

Same-task repetition

NO

NO

NO

Instructed group vs. uninstructed group

NO

One of the groups participated in

NO

EFL vs. CLIL group

NO

Coyle, Cánovas Guirao & Roca de Larios

vs. model group Two cycles separated by a

NO

YES

YES (all stages)

YES (all stages)

YES Comprehensibility and acceptability

instructional intervention

week between Coyle & Roca de Larios

NO

YES

YES

YES (all stages)

Only acceptability of the incorporation

YES

NO

92

Child L2 Writers

(continued) Can students use their notes/ Authors & date

N. and age

Time span between stages

model when

Do students work in pairs?

Is noticing captured via notetaking?

Is noticing captured via LREs?

Are Is text quality considered?

groups compared?

Is there a delayed posttest?

Were the students trained? If so, for how long?

Is task motivation considered?

Luquin & García Mayo

No

YES

NO

YES (all stages)

NO

Model group vs. control group (self-editing texts)

NO

YES

NO

LázaroIbarrola

NO

YES (one group) NO (one group)

YES

NO

YES CAF and holistic measures

Pairs vs. individuals

NO

YES

NO

LázaroIbarrola & Villarreal

NO

YES

NO

NO

NO

Models vs. task repetition

NO

YES

YES

Chapter 3. Children and written corrective feedback

93

(continued) Can students use their notes/ Authors & date Luquin & García Mayo

N. and age

Time span between stages

Do students work in pairs?

Is noticing captured via notetaking?

Is noticing captured via LREs?

Is text quality considered?

groups compared?

No

YES

NO

YES

NO

NO

NO

YES

NO

YES CAF and holistic measures

model when

et al.

Is there a delayed posttest?

Were the students trained? If so, for how long?

Is task motivation considered?

Model group vs. control group (self-editing texts)

YES

YES

NO

Model group vs. same-task repetition

NO

YES

YES

NO.

YES.

YES

Are

vs. direct corrections Villarreal & LázaroIbarrola

NO

YES

NO

NO

YES

Model group vs. same-task repetition

94

Child L2 Writers

Some differences can be found, though, regarding whether the learners were asked to simply underline the differences and/or make a written note of them on the same sheet (Cánovas Guirao et al., 2015; Coyle & Roca de Larios, 2018), or whether they were also asked to try to explain these differences. Also, the information on whether the discussions happened in English or in the students’ L1s is not always provided, but when it is, both possibilities can be found; for instance, the students used Spanish in Cánovas Guirao et al. (2015) and in Coyle and Roca de Larios (2018) due to their low level of proficiency in English, while the use of English was encouraged in other studies (Luquin & García Mayo, 2020, 2021). With regard to the participants, as Table 3.1 shows, all the studies with YLs were conducted in the Spanish context with EFL students between 9 and 12 years of age. Models have been compared to same-task repetition (Cánovas Guirao et al. 2015; Lázaro-Ibarrola & Villarreal, 2021; Roothooft et al., 2022); self-editing (Luquin & García Mayo, 2020, 2021); and direct error corrections (Coyle & Roca de Larios, 2014; Roothooft et al., 2022). Also, and in line with research showing the potential of collaborative tasks, model texts have been mainly implemented with YLs working in pairs (Cánovas Guirao et al., 2015; Coyle & Roca de Larios, 2014; Luquin & García Mayo, 2020, 2021), with only two studies considering individual writers, one of them comparing individual writers and pairs (LázaroIbarrola, 2021) and the other with only individual writers (Roothooft et al., 2022). Regarding the contexts, students in different instructional settings have been compared (EFL vs. CLIL) (Coyle & Roca de Larios, 2020), as well as students receiving extensive instruction on how to use models and with researchers designing more fine-grained tools to track their processing of the feedback (Coyle et al., 2018). Several studies have considered task motivation in an attempt to gain a more complete understanding of the potential of model texts with YLs (LázaroIbarrola & Villarreal, 2021; Villarreal & Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2022; Roothooft et al., 2022) (see Chapter 5). This review illustrates why models help us to understand not only the potential of model texts but also other interacting factors such as students’ collaboration (Chapter 2); task repetition (Chapter 4); and task motivation (Chapter 5).

Noticing and incorporations One of the most interesting findings in the studies with model texts is that, in spite of the aforementioned differences regarding procedure and implementation, the findings from the empirical studies conducted with adults and YLs unanimously point in the same direction. Models mainly promote the noticing and incorporation of lexical aspects, which comprise vocabulary items; to a lesser extent, they also promote the noticing of new ideas while offering, at the same time, the language to express them. Coyle and Roca de Larios (2020) summarize the findings

Chapter 3. Children and written corrective feedback

from research on models as follows: “This research has repeatedly shown both long and short-term effects for the use of models on children’s developing knowledge of lexis and their increasingly target-like use of morphological and cohesive elements in narrative writing” (Coyle & Roca de Larios, 2020, p. 2). When analyzing the potential of model texts, researchers have mainly focused on the amount of noticing that they promote. Noticing can be defined as the conscious registration of specific instances of language (Schmidt, 1990) and has been considered necessary for L2 acquisition to occur (Doughty & Williams, 1998; Norris & Ortega, 2000; Schmidt, 1990, 1994, 2001, 2012). The main function of feedback is to set processes of awareness and attention to language in motion. Consequently, research on the provision of WCF in the form of models has focused on what students notice and, taking a step further, which of the noticed features they are able to incorporate in subsequent drafts, and how. Learners’ efforts to comprehend input may take place openly through interaction but also silently through mental activity (Ellis, Tanaka, & Yamazaki, 1994). As it is impossible to “hear” the thoughts in the students’ brains, and as can be seen in Table 3.1, researchers investigating model texts have used two indirect tools to gain insights into those thoughts: students’ written notes and, when the task is conducted in collaboration, the LREs that emerge from students’ oral interactions. Thus, some studies have operationalized noticing as the LREs generated in the students’ interactions (Luquin & García Mayo, 2020, 2021), while others have relied on students’ written notes (Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2021), and others have used both (Coyle & Roca de Larios, 2020). Both the LREs and the notes have been usually accounted for in terms of their quantity and their typology, which falls within the following categories: lexis, spelling, grammar, and ideas and expression (Coyle & Roca de Larios, 2020). The literature on noticing through models has developed its own terminology (Coyle & Roca de Larios, 2014). The term “problematic features noticed” (PFNs) has been adopted to refer to the features that students notice while writing, while the term “features noticed” (henceforth FNs) is used to refer to the features that students report while comparing their draft to the model texts. Researchers have followed these features (PFNs and FNs) throughout the process of rewriting to examine whether they were incorporated in subsequent drafts, which ones were incorporated, and how. Researchers have also examined whether these features have been noticed while writing or while comparing (Coyle & Roca de Larios, 2014; Hanaoka, 2007; Hanaoka & Izumi, 2012). These studies have shown that when children write, they notice a few features, but they notice a lot more when they compare their writings to model texts (Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2021). As for the nature of students’ noticing, they predominantly notice lexical features, which

95

96

Child L2 Writers

mainly include words but also some chunks; they also notice some ideas on what content to include and the language to express it. In terms of incorporation, YLs are able to incorporate a large number of the noticed features in their subsequent writings. Also, while some researchers have considered the incorporation of features only in terms of their number, that is, regardless of whether they contained minor errors (Coyle & Roca de Larios, 2014; García Mayo & Loidi Labandibar, 2017; Hanaoka, 2007; Martínez Esteban & Roca de Larios, 2010), others have also taken into account their acceptability (Cánovas Guirao et al., 2015; Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2021). Cánovas Guirao et al. (2015) analyzed data from 10 pairs of children divided into two groups, a model group and a task repetition group (control group). Their noticing was coded from notetaking while comparing to the model and by means of the LREs generated during students’ conversations throughout the whole process. When looking at the incorporations, they classified them as either acceptable or unacceptable (containing lexical or grammatical errors). By acceptable changes Cánovas Guirao et al. (2015) referred to those modifications that entailed some degree of textual upgrading from the learners’ original output, including improvements in lexis (word choice, noun phrases, word insertion), form (choice of verb forms, spelling), or at sentence level (word order). Within unacceptable changes the authors included those incorporations in the revised texts that contained grammatical or lexical errors. The following examples illustrate some acceptable and unacceptable modifications. In (a) the words in bold were coded as acceptable changes related to lexis, one of them entails the correction of spelling (swimming) and the other the choice of the correct word (handball), given that the picture prompt showed a girl playing handball. In (b) the words in bold were coded as unacceptable changes classified as lexical (at the night) and grammatical (no sleep, get up). a.

Acceptable modifications: Original text: Laura is playing volleyball with Lucía. Revised text: Laura is playing handball in school at quarter past seven Original text: (Two) Alba swimming in the swimpool Revised text: She’s go to the swimming pool

b.

Unacceptable modifications: Original text: Lisa no sleeping at night/ Revised text: At the night Lisa no sleep Original text: Day, 2nd May, at eight o’clock gone to school/ Revised text: Next day, 2nd May, Laura get up at eight o’clock (Examples from Cánovas-Guirao et al., 2015, p. 68)

Chapter 3. Children and written corrective feedback

The results from this study (Cánovas-Guirao et al., 2015) showed a majority of acceptable changes in both groups with a greater number in the model group (64%). Also, the authors reported that the acceptable incorporations were mainly lexical, and the great majority were directly or indirectly related to the model texts. The final texts also included general improvements. When the control group was compared to the model group, the model group showed an advantage as their texts contained ideational and textual upgrading beyond those of the control group, whose revised texts were basically edited versions of their original output. Lázaro-Ibarrola (2021) conducted a study with two groups of learners working with models, a group where learners worked individually and a group where they worked in pairs. In this study noticing was coded via note-taking exclusively and incorporations were classified as correct, if they contained no mistake at all, or incorrect, if they contained errors. Lázaro-Ibarrola (2021) provided the example (see (a) below) of the incorporation of the word ‘scissors’ (a word that appeared in the model texts) by two learners. Both had written the word incorrectly in their first draft and both incorporated the word in the final draft, however, one of them incorporated the word correctly while the other incorporated the word incorrectly. a. Example of correctly and incorrectly incorporated feature CHILD1. She take the glue and the scissors (correctly incorporated) CHILD2. She go to take the siccors (incorrectly incorporated) Lázaro-Ibarrola (2021) found that, with no differences between the individual and pair group, the percentage of accurate incorporations over the total number of incorporations reached a rate of 60%. Thus, these two studies show that information on the acceptability of the incorporations is important to fully understand the potential of model texts.

Improvements in the final drafts To fully understand the impact of models, some studies have also considered the improvements in the final drafts by comparing them to the original drafts. A first attempt was made by Coyle and Roca de Larios (2014). These authors compared the grammaticality of the initial and final drafts of 46 Spanish learners of English (ages 11–12) working in pairs. The students were divided into two groups; for one group, feedback was provided via model texts, while for the other it was provided via direct error correction. Coyle and Roca de Larios (2014) classified the acceptability of the written drafts considering three ascending levels: (level 1) preclauses, which are incorrect and with unclear meaning; (level 2) protoclauses, which are incorrect but with clear meaning; and (level 3) clauses, which are mainly correct and with clear meaning, that is, “inaccuracies in spelling, lexis, grammar or

97

98

Child L2 Writers

concordance” (Coyle & Roca de Larios, 2014, p. 463) were accepted within the category of clauses provided the meaning was clear. These authors reported that the second draft was better than the first one because it contained fewer preclauses and a greater number of clauses. Draft improvement was reported for both conditions, but it was greater in the error correction group than in the model text group. Another very interesting finding from their study was the identification of a gap between the language of the models and the children’s L2 knowledge, which probably left grammatical features largely ignored and many lexical items misunderstood. The students sometimes simply memorized chunks without understanding them. These authors conclude by highlighting the importance of tailoring model texts very closely to learners’ needs; otherwise, their effectiveness diminishes. Again, this finding is consistent with the basic principle of understandable assistance. In two other studies (Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2021; Roothooft et al., 2022), pre- and post-treatment draft quality was compared, but using different tools. In this case, the researchers employed some of the most widely used quantitative measures of complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF). Complexity measures capture the degree of embedding (syntactic complexity) and of lexical diversity (lexical complexity), accuracy measures reflect grammatical accuracy by taking into account the proportion of error free words and sentences and, finally, fluency is measured by means of the number of words a text contains. These quantitative measures were complemented with holistic rubrics that measured global aspects, such as task fulfilment or content. The results of these two studies were quite similar with regard to model texts, and were also quite promising. In LázaroIbarrola (2021), pairs and individuals were compared and the results showed that students’ second drafts were better than the initial ones when rated holistically, although no differences in draft quality were found when considering quantitative measures of CAF. Roothooft et al. (2022) compared direct WCF, models, and mere task repetition and found that each treatment yielded different results: Students’ drafts improved in lexical diversity and overall text quality (holistic ratings) in the model group, they improved in grammatical accuracy in the direct WCF group, and they did not improve in the task repetition group, except for a slight increase in complexity. Therefore, the studies on model texts with YLs have focused on different aspects but have reached very similar results in terms of noticing and incorporations and, to a certain extent, also in terms of draft quality. Table 3.2 summarizes the main studies and their results regarding these aspects.

Chapter 3. Children and written corrective feedback

Summary of studies analyzing PFNs, FNs and incorporations with model texts Authors Coyle & Roca de Larios

N& age

Groups and variables Direct WCF vs. MG

PFNs

FNs

Incorporations

Mainly lexical in both groups

Mainly lexical features in both

Mainly lexical in both groups Direct WCF encouraged more grammatical revisions than models

Direct WCF group also grammatical (verb tenses)

in acceptability and comprehensibility in the direct WCF group

Both models and direct WCF play complementary roles and are encouraged for classroom use Error correction helps to notice grammatical features Models provide lexis and expressions beyond learners’ current repertoires

pairs in model group reported noticing without understanding it Cánovas Guirao, Roca de Larios, & Coyle

Same-task repetition Control group vs. model group

Mainly in MG and Around resolved in both groups

Lexical aspects in both groups In model group also general improvements and ideational upgrading

acceptability in both conditions with an advantage for the model group

Children need guidance because their processing capacity is limited and aspects remain unnoticed or they do not fully understand them

99

100

Child L2 Writers

(continued) Authors Luquin and García Mayo

N& age

Groups and variables Model group vs. control group (selfediting texts)

PFNs

FNs

Incorporations

Mainly grammatical and also mechanics in both groups

Similar amount as PFNs Mainly content (treatment group:

The CG incorporated very few features The MG mainly incorporated lexis

Authors argue that the students focus on

in studies with model texts

The MG noted FNs than the control group with respect to lexis and content. LázaroIbarrola

Pairs vs. individual

Notice few features Around

Mainly lexical of other features which students express personal opinions on the models

features were incorporated, from these,

Both groups improve the holistic rating of

Importance of measure accuracy of the

collaborative vs. individual condition correctly incorporated

Chapter 3. Children and written corrective feedback

(continued) Authors Luquin & García Mayo

N& age

Groups and variables Model group (MG) vs. control group (CG) (self-editing texts) *A delayed post-test

PFNs

FNs

Mainly lexical,

The MG noticed more features than the CG The MG noticed more lexical and content-related features The CG focused mainly on form and mechanics

Incorporations Not considered grammar, unlike previous research These authors hypothesize that the training session might have acted as a catalyst to divert their attention towards form or that

the FNs, mainly lexical and content-related and

focused instruction they might be receiving FNs, all related to form and mechanics, and content-related features The MG incorporated were formal and discursive

et al.

direct WCF vs. task repetition (CG) *Task motivation *All work individually

Not analyzed

Not analyzed

Not analyzed

The MG improved in lexis The direct WCF improved in accuracy The CG did not improve

each other rate their task motivation seem to align YLs associate high task motivation with the easiness of the task

101

102

Child L2 Writers

Towards a deeper understanding: Students’ trajectories Expanding our knowledge about model texts, authors have broadened the lens through which the potential of models has been scrutinized by including new elements or variables for analysis that go beyond noticing and draft quality. As Coyle et al. (2018) point out, “most studies have focused narrowly on learners’ cognitive processing and uptake using dichotomies (solved/unsolved; noticed/unnoticed; perfunctory/substantive; incorporated/not incorporated) that no longer account for the full range of phenomena which emerge before, during and after feedback analysis” (Coyle et al., 2018, p. 40). For instance, Coyle et al. (2018) conducted a study that could be described as qualitative as it constitutes an attempt to provide an in-depth analysis of the processing of feedback and to test the impact of training. Coyle et al. (2018) did not simply classify the features students noticed according to their number and nature; they also provided a thorough analysis of the entire process of writing, comparing, and rewriting by establishing some specific trajectories that students followed, thus, tracing students’ writing and noticing from the beginning to the end of the three-stage writing process. These researchers define trajectories “as the dynamic routes open to learners across the drafting, feedback analysis and rewriting tasks as a function of their noticing and linguistic problem-solving, and the impact of both on written output” (Coyle et al., 2018, p. 30). They identified a total of 14 different trajectories with their corresponding sub-types in their corpus. For the authors, these trajectories allowed the researchers to determine why some learners succeeded in the noticing process, while others did not. Their findings revealed that the learners followed heterogeneous trajectories while carrying out the multi-stage writing task, and that these trajectories possessed different amounts of learning potential, which basically hinged on the depth of the noticing processes. Coyle et al. (2018) also report that when the children received instruction on the use of model texts, they were able to benefit more from the trajectories, thus confirming the suggestion made in previous studies that YLs need further guidance in the use of model texts (Cánovas Guirao et al., 2015). In another study, Coyle and Roca de Larios (2020) go beyond an analysis of the amount and types of noticing: they also establish connections between (1) the children’s initial written output; (2) their noticing strategies, and (3) the changes made to their revised texts. Thus, these authors provide an account of the strategies used by young CLIL and EFL learners when processing model texts and examine the impact these different strategies might have on their subsequent uptake in students’ revised texts. Their aim is to contribute to our knowledge about processing of WCF by identifying the cognitive strategies used by YLs from CLIL and EFL instructional settings when analyzing model texts. These authors

Chapter 3. Children and written corrective feedback

identify four different strategies from the dialogues of their students. These strategies are as follows: (1) noticing of surface differences between the models and their own texts; (2) acknowledgement of similarities; (3) filling lexical holes or gaps they had noticed while writing their initial texts by now finding the relevant words in the models; and (4) noticing of linguistic and ideational alternatives in the model. The fourth strategy is of particular interest, as it aims to test whether models are useful, as has been claimed, beyond the noticing of isolated forms – that is, whether models really constitute a WCF alternative to promote a more comprehensive approach to a written text. The results indicate that the main strategy in both groups was the identification of differences between their own drafts and the models, with CLIL pairs being more capable of finding solutions to the linguistic problems that had emerged while writing. However, only the CLIL learners were able to notice alternatives, expressions, and ideas from the model texts. The authors argue that the differences between the groups can be attributed to factors such as proficiency and different instructional settings, but they also add that the low proficiency of all the learners, as well as their psycholinguistic constraints, probably explains why they mainly noticed (and incorporated) superficial and isolated aspects from the models.

Conclusion We can see that the positive effects of model texts are based on sound findings from numerous empirical studies with YLs: We know that YLs notice features, incorporate features correctly, and, as a result, improve the overall quality of their final drafts. The noticed features are mainly lexical but also include a degree of attention to textual characteristics. The trajectories that children follow are varied and so is their efficacy with trajectories that imply deeper noticing levels yielding the best results. The proficiency and context (CLIL vs. EFL) mediates the students’ ability to detect deeper or more global features, and instruction seems to be beneficial. I believe that these findings, together with the lack of complication that using model texts entails for teachers (Coyle et al., 2018), should be sufficient to encourage the implementation of model texts in language lessons with child learners. 3.4.2.2 Reformulations To date, there are very few studies exploring the potential of reformulation with child L2 learners. Reformulation, as a WCF technique, consists of offering learners a rewritten version of their original draft correcting the errors at all levels but maintaining the content. That is, the reformulated version makes the language native-like by introducing the minimum number of changes possible and by keeping the content of the original intact (Thornbury, 1997) (see definition

103

104

Child L2 Writers

and sample of reformulation in Section 1.6.4). Reformulations appeared in the literature accompanied by the claim that they were excellent tools to promote the noticing of lexical and grammatical features while considering the text as a whole, and in contrast with the narrow focus of direct corrections (Adams, 2003; Qi & Lapkin, 2001; Sachs & Polio, 2007). However, they were also accompanied by concerns regarding their applicability in the classroom, as it is very timeconsuming for teachers to reformulate each of their students’ drafts (Ferris, 2010), and some teachers might even feel that they lack the proficiency to do so in a reliable manner (Cohen, 1982). Reformulation studies conducted with adult learners have confirmed that reformulations are useful in promoting noticing (Adams, 2003; Sachs & Polio, 2007), although sometimes they fail to drive students’ attention towards suprasentential aspects (Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2013; Lapkin, Swain, & Smith, 2002; Qi & Lapkin, 2001). For instance, Qi and Lapkin (2001) used reformulation with two adult learners at different proficiency levels and found that they were able to notice and incorporate mainly lexical and morpho-syntactic items, while they only occasionally noticed discursive elements. Likewise, Lapkin, Swain and Smith (2002) and Swain and Lapkin (2002) found that adolescent learners made no improvements in textual coherence or cohesion. Also, a small-scale study on the use of reformulation with 16 Spanish learners of English in high school (LázaroIbarrola, 2013) found that while the students in the reformulation group outperformed those in the control group in terms of amount of noticing and incorporations, they only noticed isolated errors and failed to perceive modifications at discourse level. In spite of the textual modifications included in the reformulated versions, the participants missed the forest (text) for the trees (isolated items) (Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2013). In contrast, Kim and Bowles (2019) employed reformulations with 22 undergraduate ESL learners and found that they were able to attend to suprasentential errors but overlooked surface-level errors with reformulations, while the opposite was true for direct corrections. The capacity of these students to attend to paragraph-level errors with reformulations compared to previous research might be attributed to their higher level of proficiency. If this is the case, it would seem unlikely that children, who are usually less proficient and still learning to write, could be able to benefit from reformulations beyond the noticing of isolated forms. However, some recent empirical studies have taken on the challenge of testing reformulation with child L2 learners. García Hernández, Roca de Larios, and Coyle (2017) collected data from 60 EFL elementary school children (aged 11–12), who performed two three-stage writing tasks (two cycles) with a different picture prompt in each of them. The children were divided into three groups: a reformulation group, in which students received reformulated texts as WCF; another reformulation group, which

Chapter 3. Children and written corrective feedback

received reformulated texts and also six weeks of instruction between cycles; and a control group, in which the students simply self-edited their texts. Two cycles consisting of three stages each were analyzed from each group. Each group had 10 pairs divided into five high- and five low-proficiency pairs on the basis of their performance on school tests. They analyzed the LREs that emerged from the conversations of each of the pairs in the different stages and cycles and found that instruction did not seem to yield any benefits and that higher proficiency was clearly beneficial. Also, they found that the treatment groups had an advantage over the control group. This was so because the LREs generated in the treatment groups mainly had an upgrading orientation, which the authors defined as attempts to convey a given message in the L2 more accurately, as in example (a). In contrast, the LREs in the control group generally had a compensatory orientation, that is, they tried to avoid a problem (message reduction or abandonment) or find an alternative (message replacement, translation, foreignising, code-switching), as in example (b). a. Example from reformulation group. Intended message: Se convierte. [Turns into] Final message: Turns into. LRE: B: Empieza, become. [You start, become] A: ¿Become? B: No, convertirse. Begin, began, begun.[No, to become. Begin, began, begun] A: Become, became, become. B: No. Eso es… [No. That’s…] A: El participio, el participio. [The participle, the participle] B: Eso es convertirse o llegar a ser. [That’s become or come to be] A: Pues ya está, convertirse. Se está convirtiendo en un gato. [Well, that’s it, to become. He’s becoming a cat] B: Ah, vale. Es verdad. [Oh yes. You’re right] A: A ver, the magic pócima, ¿no? La pócima mágica…le está haciendo el efecto. [Let’s see, the magic potion, no? The magic potion…is having an effect] B: Ese convertirse se refiere a que pasan los años y te conviertes en un… si te acuerdas, en la redacción que hacíamos era un verbo como turns. ¿No te acuerdas? [That ‘become’ means that time goes by and you turn into a… if you remember in the writing we did before it was a verb like turns. Don’t you remember?]

105

106

Child L2 Writers

A: Ah, vale. Turns into… [Oh, ok. Turns into] B: Into the cat. A: Into a cat. Bien pensado, Jesús. [Into a cat, well done, Jesús] b. Example from control group Intended message: The scientist has discovered an experiment. Final message: The doctor has a new drink. LRE: A: Luego que… científico no lo hemos dado, entonces que… el chico.Ahí ha descubierto, ¿no? Ay.[Then…we haven’t learnt how to write scientist, so ..the boy. There, has discovered, no? Ay] B: No lo sé. [I don’t know] A: Ha hecho… Esto sí lo hemos dado. [Has done. We’ve seen that before] B: Sí, el verbo hacer sí. [Yes, the verb ‘to do’ yes] A: Qué complicación. ¿Qué ponemos? [How difficult. What shall we write?] B: No sé. En vez de poner un experimento, ha inventado… [I don’t know. Instead of experiment, has invented..] A: ¿Inventar lo hemos dado? [Have we seen ‘invent’ before?] B: No lo sé. Me suena un poco, pero no sé ahora mismo. Bueno, una bebida.[I don’t know. It rings a bell, but right now I don’t know. Well, a drink] A: Sí, bueno… [Yes, ok] B: Una bebida especial. [A special drink] A: Eso. [That’s it] B: A ver. Vamos a poner el doctor. Vamos a poner el doctor tiene una nueva bebida.[Let’s see. Let’s put the doctor. Let’s put the doctor has a new drink]. (Examples from García Hernández et al., 2017, pp. 208, 209,2010) Another study using reformulation was conducted by Coyle, Férez Mora, and Solís Becerra (2020). These authors explored the possibilities of reformulation with 28 pairs of EFL learners (aged 11–12) and included a control group. Their study focused on the effects of reformulation on the use of reference cohesion. All students performed two multi-stage writing and feedback tasks over a threemonth period. All pairs completed a weekly writing task, with the students in the reformulation group receiving reformulated versions of their original drafts. The students in the control group simply performed the weekly writing task and selfedited their texts. The provision of feedback in the form of reformulated texts effectively promoted the accurate use of the two target features (pronominal reference and sequence markers) and also yielded a decrease in the misuse of arti-

Chapter 3. Children and written corrective feedback

cles. The authors believe that the findings support the use of reformulation to promote cohesion in children’s L2 writing. Coyle et al. (2020) also touch on a key issue in SLA to explain their positive findings regarding the improvements of the reformulation group in the use of pronominal difference. They connect their finding to SLA knowledge regarding research on the developmental acquisition of the English morphemes and argue that, as the pronominal system in school contexts has been shown to emerge around the age of 12 (García Mayo, Lázaro-Ibarrola & Liceras, 2005; Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2011), the 11- to 12-year-olds in their study were probably ready for the acquisition of pronominal reference and the “exposure to enhanced reformulated feedback may have helped accelerate this developmental process” (Coyle et al., 2020, p. 9). When considered together, and setting aside the implementation difficulties that reformulation entails, it seems that reformulating students’ drafts can help children. The reformulations depart from their own production and can engage children affectively; they are also less discouraging than direct corrections, and they are easier to understand than codes or metalinguistic explanations, which low-proficiency learners sometimes struggle with (Coyle et al., 2020; Gorman & Ellis, 2019; Simard, Guénette, & Bergeron, 2015). They also align well with the ZPD and the basic tenet in assistance to YLs that the learner needs to understand the problem before they can resolve it by themselves.

3.5

Summary

Our knowledge from psychology, general education, SLA, and specific research on WCF supports the notion, albeit not without controversy, that feedback is beneficial, if not necessary, for YLs. Assistance to members of younger generations is a characteristic of the human race, and the provision of feedback in classroom contexts is probably an application of this ancestral and distinctive characteristic of the human species. In fact, the mere existence of schools reveals the belief that we humans understand that we need to assist or teach our young. With regard to the acquisition of a second language, researchers from different theoretical frameworks agree on the importance of feedback to facilitate L2 development and achieve accuracy (Ellis, 2009; Long, 1996; Ohta, 2001). Likewise, pedagogical approaches emphasize the relevance of the provision of feedback for child L2 learners (Edelenbos et al., 2006). Also, and still within this multidisciplinary approach to feedback, there is a consensus that the assistance provided to the young learner needs to be understandable in order to be effective; in other words, children need to understand the problem to be able to reach the solution on their own (Wood et al., 1976).

107

108

Child L2 Writers

Applied to language acquisition, feedback should promote the understanding of mismatches between the learners’ production and the target language, and should be provided within the range of students’ developmental readiness (Gass, 1988, 1990; Han, 2000, 2001, 2002). Departing, thus, from the convenience of feedback, and landing on the specific field of WCF, the body of studies on children and WCF seems to confirm some of the benefits of providing assistance. Our review of studies with YLs confirm some of the findings from the studies with WCF and adult learners, but not all. In general, WCF groups outperform groups that merely repeat the task or selfedit (Coyle et al., 2020; Luquin & García Mayo, 2021). However, studies on direct forms of WCF are scarce and only partially support the effectiveness demonstrated for adults, as there is one longitudinal study showing no effects (Fazio, 2001) and two studies with multi-stage writing tasks showing advantages for accuracy when the direct WCF is compared to model texts and/or task repetition (Coyle & Roca de Larios, 2014; Roothooft et al., 2022). In the case of model texts, the results fully coincide with those reported for adults. YLs notice and incorporate lexical aspects from the models, which occasionally include ideas and the language to express them. Studies on reformulation are scarce but do seem to extend the value of this strategy to YLs (Coyle et al., 2020; García Hernández et al., 2017), suggesting that success in noticing and incorporation could be linked to whether students are ready to acquire the targeted structures (Coyle et al., 2020). This idea is reinforced by findings from studies on dictogloss tasks. Dictogloss tasks can be said to have failed in their objective of directing students’ attention to the targeted forms (Calzada & García Mayo, 2020b; Gorman & Ellis, 2019), but students did pay attention to other forms (Calzada & García Mayo, 2021a). As argued, the targeted forms might not have been aligned with students’ developmental readiness, and, therefore, students failed to notice them but were able to notice other forms. In further studies, researchers should choose the targeted forms carefully to enhance the potential of dictogloss tasks. Positive findings can be added from studies that have considered the quality of drafts written after the provision of feedback. The available studies have reported improvements with models (Coyle & Roca de Larios, 2014; Coyle et al., 2018; Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2021; Roothooft et al., 2022; Villarreal & Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2022) and with direct corrections (Roothooft et al., 2022). This suggests that the provision of WCF to YLs seems to enable students to generate better drafts. Several issues clearly deserve further investigation as only one or two studies so far have been devoted to exploring them. For instance, regarding instruction on the specific type of WCF, results remain unclear, with one study suggesting that it is beneficial in the case of model texts (Coyle et al., 2018), while another study on reformulations does not identify advantages (García Hernández et al.,

Chapter 3. Children and written corrective feedback

2017). Also, regarding the learning context, CLIL students, probably thanks to their higher level of proficiency and to the characteristics of their learning context, have been shown by one study to benefit more from the provision of model texts (Coyle & Roca de Larios, 2020). All in all, on the one hand, models stand out as excellent tools to promote attention to lexical items and, on the other hand, direct WCF, reformulations, and dictogloss tasks could be used to promote attention to grammatical items but only provided they are finely tuned to students’ developmental readiness and that their implementation guarantees students’ attention, for instance, by means of noticing sessions. Of great importance is the fact that reformulations and models could also be effective in directing students’ attention towards the text as a whole, helping L2 writers transcend the segmented focus usually adopted with direct forms of WCF. The provision of different feedback forms is, therefore, recommended to help students benefit from the differential potential of each of the feedback forms reviewed in this chapter. The main limitations of research on child learners and WCF have already been highlighted and are summarized in this section; I also show here how they provide the impetus for further studies. The first limitation of the studies on WCF with children is related to the participants, as their profile is extremely limited. With most research on writing and children, all students are within the same age range (9–12), and in most studies, the target language is English and the L1 is Spanish. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct studies with younger learners and also with a greater variety of L1s and L2s. There also some methodological limitations. The first is that, with few exceptions, most studies are based on a single writing sample in a multi-stage writing task; very few studies have looked at the effects of the ongoing implementation of WCF, which could also be accompanied by regular instruction on feedback use. Another methodological issue relates to the codification of noticing, which has sometimes been coded from note-taking and sometimes from LREs. Further, the latter are classified into different types, but not all studies share the same classification. The unification of the coding process is crucial to ensure the comparability of results from different studies, and close replications are, therefore, encouraged. Another problem is that sometimes relevant information related to the procedure, methodology, or data coding is not present in the article, making it harder for the reader to fully understand the results and/or compare them to other studies. Finally, there are some unexplored areas in connection with child L2 writers and WCF. For instance, there are no studies to date on peer feedback. If students have already demonstrated that they can attend to WCF and collaborate, this could be a new line of further research that would promote students’ empowerment. Also of great interest would be a comparison of WCF techniques with

109

110

Child L2 Writers

adults and children within the same study and with similar levels of proficiency, as it would help us to understand the behavior of these two age groups when acquiring a second language. Linked to this, studies are needed on aspects that have been explored with adults but that are still (totally or very) unexplored with YLs and WCF, such as students’ reactions to and perceptions of feedback, or teachers’ practices as feedback providers, or the analysis of WCF with different proficiency levels. It would also be interesting to compare the WCF techniques with the same techniques in the L1. Another interesting line of research would be to investigate the use of model texts as models before writing to help students improve their writing skills while, at the same time, establishing a connection between reading and writing. From the results of our review, it is also clear that researchers need to explore ways to help YLs transcend the correction of isolated items and attend to aspects of writing at the suprasentential level. To do this, researchers will probably need to investigate how writing is practiced and what feedback teachers are offering to their students. It might be the case that the teachers themselves have become so used to correcting compositions in terms of isolated items that they have lost the ability to approach the text as a whole. Thus, there is a need to explore feedback forms or to train students to generate attention to macro features of writing, such as genre, cohesion, and organization. I would like to finish this chapter highlighting the importance of two issues: fine-tuning feedback to students’ capacities and forcing students to attend to it. If the WCF is overly complex and beyond students’ ZPD or developmental readiness, learners will hardly understand it and, while they might borrow chunks of it (Coyle & Roca de Larios, 2014), its efficacy will be diminished. Likewise, and as revealed by studies on students’ trajectories (Coyle et al., 2018; Coyle & Roca de Larios, 2020), no matter the quality of the WCF, if noticing does not happen, that is, if learners do not attend to it or do so but only superficially, little learning can be expected to happen. These two aspects should be taken into account in further research, especially with children, as their cognitive and self-regulatory resources are still under construction and the assistance provided needs to be carefully tuned to their needs and capacities.

chapter 4

Children and task repetition Does practice make perfect? 4.1 Introduction This chapter is devoted to the construct of task repetition (TR). From a broad perspective, the repetition of similar or identical activities, which can be referred to as “practice,” is omnipresent in human life. From the beginning of life, humans embrace repetition as a learning tool to improve a skill (such as walking, typing, or playing the violin) or, simply, they repeat activities because familiarity feels good. The repetition of tasks is also common in schools. In virtually all school subjects, students are frequently asked to repeat similar tasks with similar task procedures. Likewise, coursebooks usually offer the same activity types in each unit, only modifying the content. When it comes to second language acquisition (SLA), repetition is also a key concept, first, from a general perspective because L1 and L2 learning require abundant repetition and, second, from the point of view of speaking and writing tasks because research has demonstrated that TR can aid L2 learning. Besides, and from a practical point of view, TR has great pedagogical appeal given its simplicity and its time-saving nature for teachers, who often perceive lack of time as a primary concern (Lightbown & Spada, 2020). This chapter addresses TR and what it specifically offers to L2 writing tasks with elementary school children. The chapter starts with an overview of the concept of repetition in education, which will help the reader understand the relevance of repeating tasks from the perspective of school settings (Section 4.2). Then, I will proceed to summarize the relevance of TR in SLA, showing how it has been understood and how the concept has evolved according to the different approaches and theories that have attempted to explain SLA (Section 4.3). In the following section (Section 4.4), I will deal with the specific knowledge that we have of TR in the context of task-based research. Thus, I define task repetition (Section 4.4.1) and discuss its rationale in confrontation with oral tasks (Section 4.4.2) and also in light of our knowledge of children development and of child L2 writers (4.4.3). In Section 4.5, I offer an overview of the available studies to date, starting with the findings obtained in L2 oral tasks (Section 4.5.1) and then moving to the field of L2 writing (Section 4.5.2). I first present studies conducted with adults (Sections 4.5.2.1), which will help understand the few studies https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.32.c4 © 2023 John Benjamins Publishing Company

112

Child L2 Writers

conducted with YLs (Section 4.5.2.2). The chapter concludes with a summary of the main points and makes recommendations for further research (Section 4.6).

4.2

Repetition in children’s education

Repetitio est mater studiorum The potential of repetition has been present in human history for a long time. A Latin proverb says that “repetitio est mater studiorum” (“repetition is the mother of learning”); in other words, repetition is the foundation of many aspects of learning. In the field of child psychology, repetition is considered a natural behavior in childhood. Children perceive the repetition of tasks as a natural way to learn, internalize, and consolidate knowledge; it also increases confidence in children. From the perspective of motivation, while many adults might deem repetition boring, child learners tend to feel safe with repetition and see it as a natural way to learn; through repetition, they feel confident enough to take on tough tasks. In sum, repetition is essential in the development of the child (Evans, Leckman, Carter, Reznick, Henshaw, King, & Pauls, 1997).

Deliberate practice In education, the concept of TR has been mainly developed in connection to the acquisition of specific skills and has been researched under the concept of “deliberate practice.” Deliberate practice refers to the repeated performance of activities when this repetition is designed with the specific aim of improving the students’ current level of performance (Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Römer, 1993), which, although not mentioned in the definition, implies working within the learners’ ZPD. This concept is different from indiscriminate practice, which simply entails the repetition of tasks without a clear purpose. This mere repetition is not very conducive to learning and could even consolidate errors. The concept of deliberate practice is also based on one basic principle of human learning: “humans, whether struggling or gifted, need multiple opportunities to learn new ideas” (Hattie, 2012, p. 114). Hattie (2012) helps to define the characteristics of deliberate practice by adding that it should be repeated over time (it should be extensive) and learners should understand why they are practicing (it should be meaningful). Thus, deliberate practice can be defined as the purposeful repetition of well-designed activities in which learners meaningfully engage.

Chapter 4. Children and task repetition

Repetition and memory in childhood Humans need extensive and deliberate practice because their memory is limited (see Chapter 1). Learning takes place when we are able to store information in our long-term memory. However, in order to access this long-term storage room in our brain, the information first needs to be processed by our working memory, and this working memory is very limited. Distractions, lack of attention, and too much information have a negative impact on our working memory and hinder learning. With deliberate practice, however, when information is processed by the working memory a sufficient number of times, it can move along to our long-term memory storage (Baddeley, 2002). Once there, learners can access complex information rapidly and automatically, that is, without thinking about it or without too much effort (Anderson, 1995). Thanks to this mechanism, we are ready to process new information and create more complex knowledge. We can make use of our stored knowledge automatically, and our working memory, freed from the burden of processing so much information, will be working at full capacity (Kotovsky, Hayes, & Simon, 1985). The limitations of our working memory are greater in childhood, a time when the components of working memory are still developing (Gathercole et al., 2004) and have not reached their peak, which seems to happen in adolescence (Alloway et al., 2004). Therefore, our knowledge of working memory in childhood clearly suggests that the repetition of tasks in the form of deliberate practice is extremely useful and can help learners to process new and increasingly complex information. As children grow older, they develop not only their working memories but also their capacity to self-regulate. This translates into children being gradually more capable of monitoring their own knowledge, of using metacognitive strategies, and of practicing for longer periods of time. Consequently, teachers should understand the limitations of children’s working memories and their developmental characteristics; teachers should take these into account when designing activities by making use of enough deliberate TR to aid the internalization and automatization of knowledge. How much repetition is necessary is not easy to determine. For instance, there is no consensus on the interplay between amount of practice and genetic capacities to account for the quality of learners’ performance. Some authors argue that most individual differences can be attributed to practice (e.g., Baddeley, 2002; Ericsson et al., 1993), while others give more weight to innate individual differences (e.g., Mosing, Madison, Pedersen, Kuja-Halkola, & Ullén, 2014, in the case of music). In either case, there seems to be an interaction between both factors, and deliberate practice can reduce performance differences and help learners make relevant progress, at least for tasks such as typing (Keith & Ericsson,

113

114

Child L2 Writers

2007), chess (Charness, Tuffiash, Krampe, Reingold, & Vasyukova, 2005; Gobet & Campitelli, 2007), musical performance (Ericsson et al., 1993), and the improvement of advanced writing skills (Kellogg & Whiteford, 2009). However, its role in other areas of education is not so clear and/or has not been so widely explored. Such is the case with L2 learning.

4.3

Repetition in SLA

Before addressing the role of TR within the task-based approach and, more specifically, with its role in the context of writing tasks, I would like to start by devoting a few lines to the big picture. By this, I mean the overall role of TR in the acquisition of an L2. The different theories and approaches to the process of L2 acquisition have reflected the need for repetition in different ways. The behaviorist approach to L2 acquisition represents the most extreme view. In the behaviorist view, the role of repetition can be summarized with the expression “practice makes perfect.” Behaviorism understands language acquisition as the result of mere imitation of the input (VanPatten & Williams, 2007). When applied to the L2, what learners need to do is imitate native models. In terms of teaching, drilling becomes the main activity and, in fact, drilling was the basic activity employed by the audiolingual methodology (based on behaviorist views of language acquisition), which was based on the frequent repetition of oral texts. It did not take long for researchers to demonstrate that this type of repetition had little to no effect on L2 acquisition and that, while practice was necessary, it was not enough and it had to be meaningful (DeKeyser, 2007a; DeKeyser & Criado, 2012). Post-behaviorist approaches to L2 acquisition discarded repetition as the unique activity by which to acquire a language, but they understood that abundant and frequent meaningful practice was necessary. For instance, Krashen (1982, 1985), inspired by Chomsky’s (1975) minimalist view of language acquisition, claims that L2 acquisition does not require tedious drills but rather abundant meaningful interactions that will cause language acquisition to happen. Likewise, sociocultural approaches embrace repetition in the form of an abundance of meaningful interactions within the culture. Vygotsky himself stated that the key to the internalization of learning rests on the human capacity to imitate, understanding imitation not as mere mimicking but as a goal-directed and meaningful cognitive activity (VanPatten & Williams, 2007). Interactionists, for their part, hold the view that L2 acquisition happens when learners engage in meaningful interactions. To ensure this, however, the learner needs to have abundant practice, that is, abundant opportunities to receive input, to produce and

Chapter 4. Children and task repetition

modify output, to negotiate, and to meaningfully communicate in the target language. In classroom contexts, this is made possible through the implementation of tasks (Gass & Mackey, 2007). Last but not least, it is interesting to mention the take that skill acquisition theories have on repetition (DeKeyser, 2007b; DeKeyser & Criado, 2012). These theories understand that a substantial part of L2 learning happens in a similar way to the learning of a wide variety of skills. DeKeyser (2007b) explains how, according to this view, learners acquire a small amount of knowledge from the L2, for instance, by mere observation, and then need several trials (that is, several repetitions) to turn this declarative knowledge of the language into automatized or procedural knowledge. Thus, the concept of deliberate practice employed in the field of education is defined for SLA as “specific activities in the second language, engaged in systematically, deliberately, with the goal of developing knowledge of and skills in the second language” (DeKeyser, 2007a, p. 8). While skill acquisition theories do not see deliberate practice as the only way to explain how languages are learned, they do see it as necessary and very useful for some aspects of language acquisition. In sum, the initial view that “practice makes perfect” held by behaviorism has been transformed in later approaches and with the knowledge gained after years of research into the view that “practice does not make perfect, but it helps”; in other words, (meaningful) repetition is not sufficient, but it is necessary for L2 acquisition. Consequently, there seems to be room for a more deliberate type of repetition or practice in the L2 lessons (DeKeyser, 1998). Lightbown and Spada (2020) consider that practice, understood as the repetition of activities focused on specific aspects of the language, is a necessary feature of language instruction. This practice should be framed within communicative tasks, and should be aimed at promoting learners’ engagement in the linking of a form with a meaning (Wong & VanPatten, 2003). As DeKeyser (2007a, 2010) explains, in “drill and kill” practices, learners are passive imitators and do not engage in the necessary process of mapping form and meaning that are more conducive to learning (see e.g. DeKeyser, 1998; VanPatten, 2003; Wong & VanPatten, 2003). This said, there are many open questions surrounding the specific features that repetition should have in order to maximize its potential for L2 learning. Without a doubt, one aspect that needs to be taken into account, and is of concern to us in this chapter, is learners’ age (DeKeyser, 2010).

115

116

Child L2 Writers

4.4

Task repetition in SLA

4.4.1 Definition of task repetition In the field of task-based language teaching, TR has been one of the implementation variables that has more frequently attracted researchers’ interest. It is also a variable of clear pedagogical impact. Within the school context it is common to repeat the same task or the same task type as a way to help learners internalize knowledge. As Ahmadian (2012) explains, the research related to this construct is very relevant for pedagogical practices because it explores the “ways in which tasks might be linked within lessons (and across sequences of lessons) to provide learners with opportunities to work repeatedly with similar linguistic content” (Ahmadian, 2012, p. 2). Besides, the time-saving nature of the repetition makes this practice very appealing for teachers, as the teaching profession cites lack of time as one of the main causes of stress (Lightbown & Spada, 2020). TR is a term that can be applied to several types of repetition. In this section we refer to the type of TR that Bygate (2006) defined as “external TR,” as opposed to “internal TR,” which refers to tasks whose internal demands require repetition to complete them. Drawing on Bygate’s (2006) definition, Manchón (2014a) also defines external TR in the context of writing as a type of repetition that derives from instructions. Simply put, external TR consists of asking students to perform the task more than one time, either in exactly the same way or with some modification, and with a time interval between repetitions (Bygate & Samuda, 2005). For practical purposes, as I will not be addressing internal task repetition in this monograph, I will simply use the term “task repetition” (TR). In the context of oral tasks, Patanasorn (2010) further classifies TR into three main types according to what is being repeated and with how much exactitude: (1) exact repetition (students repeat the exact same task); (2) procedural repetition (students repeat the task procedure but with different content); and (3) content repetition (students perform a different task type with the same content. Most of the research on TR with writing tasks has been implemented considering only two of these types: exact repetition and procedural repetition (Ahmadian, 2012). When the exact same task is repeated, preserving the same procedure and content, the first performance is considered preparation for further performances (Ellis, 2005). This type of repetition has been referred to as “same TR” or “exact TR” and constitutes the most widely explored type (Bygate, 2001). When the task type is familiar but the content changes, it has been referred to as “procedural TR,” which has not been so widely explored but which, on the other hand, seems to be the most common type in school contexts (Lázaro-Ibarrola & Hidalgo, 2017); it is also common in language course books, with each unit offering the same activity types with different content.

Chapter 4. Children and task repetition

In the context of writing, and given the relevance of feeback provision and the frequent implementation of tasks as multi-stage writing tasks, Manchón (2014a) also distinguishes between TR with and without the provision of feedback. In this chapter, however, I will only focus on TR without feedback (see definition and samples of TR in Section 1.6.5), as the other type was the object of study in Chapter 3. Finally, it is also important to note that the conceptualization of TR in this chapter is different from the behaviorist drills defined as “plain repetition of the cue” (Paulston & Bruder, 1976, p. 12) and whose efficacy has been repeatedly dismissed by SLA research, as explained in the previous section. In the current conceptualization of TR, the task demands form – meaning mappings and is intended to be meaningful for the student (Ellis, 2005).

4.4.2 The rationale of task repetition for oral and writing tasks The limitations of our attentional resources To understand the rationale behind TR, we need to first understand the limitations of our attentional resources, which determine our capacity to select what information to process. When trying to communicate in an L2, the learner is not able to focus on both meaning and form simultaneously. To ensure that the message is received, L2 learners prioritize a focus on meaning (VanPatten, 1990), that is, on what learners want to say vs. on how they want to say it, thus causing a conflict between the form of the message and its content (Skehan, 1998, 2007, 2009). The limited attentional resources of the human brain can also cause so-called trade-off effects. The trade-off hypothesis (Skehan, 2009) suggests that L2 task demands often exceed the available attentional resources, and L2 learners must choose which areas to focus on. In doing so, they neglect other areas. That is, if the L2 learners focus their attentional resources on one dimension of performance (e.g., accuracy), they will necessarily neglect other areas (e.g., fluency), which can be negatively affected (Skehan, 1996, 1998, 2009). With these limitations in mind, TR has been put forward as a powerful tool to reduce the attentional demands of the task, to shift learners’ focus from meaning to form, and to reduce possible trade-off effects (Sample & Michel, 2014). When repeating a familiar task, learners have already processed the information related to what they want to communicate (meaning) in their first attempt and do not need (so much) effort to retrieve this content. This saved effort can, therefore, be devoted to focus on the form of the language. In Bygate and Samuda’s (2005) words, when repeating a task, learners “rework their language” and, as a result, enhance their L2. The rationale behind TR, therefore, resonates

117

118

Child L2 Writers

with our common sense, and it seems wise to hypothesize that the relevance could be even greater for child L2 learners, as their cognitive development, attentional resources included, is still under construction. However, this same rationale seems to draw a parting line between the written and oral modality. In speech production, attentional resources are clearly limited (Levelt, 1989) due to the “real-time, on-line nature of oral communication” (Sánchez, Manchón, & Gilabert, 2020, p. 123), that is, due to the fact that when speaking their L2, learners do not have time to think about what to say and how to say it (in Krashen’s, 1982 terms, learners do not have time to use the Monitor). In contrast, in writing tasks, students have ample time to make use of their attentional resources and could be more capable of focusing on the various aspects of language production, even in the first attempt (Manchón, 2014a; Manchón & Williams, 2016; Williams, 2012). This will be discussed in greater depth and in connection to child L2 writers in the following section.

4.4.3 The rationale of task repetition for child L2 writers To understand the specific rationale of TR for child (vs. adult) L2 learners and in connection with the written modality (vs. oral), I would like to start by outlining two important characteristics of writing of relevance for the construct of TR: 1.

Authorship: The written product is produced by the learner and by nobody else; as such, it is a picture of the students’ knowledge (see Chapter 1). Drafts are written with the students’ cognitive capacities and available knowledge in the specific moment of writing. Therefore, it could be said that each draft is tailor-made at the learner’s level of development in all respects (length, form, content, organization of ideas, etc.). Also, when writing a draft in the L2, learners use language that has already been internalized, but they also make use of language that is only partially internalized. Thus, the repetition of a draft can be very useful to help the learner consolidate the language that has already been acquired (as opposed to forgetting it) and to internalize, or turn into procedural knowledge (DeKeyser, 2007b) the language that has only partially been acquired. 2. Visibility and edition: Unlike oral production (unless recorded), written texts are visible and tangible, and as such, they can be improved. In the context of L2 learning, written texts should not be seen as finished and unchangeable but as unfinished and improvable products. This is not the case in other tasks, such as listening or vocabulary exercises, which, when finished, have nothing else to offer to the language learning process. In contrast, the written text is a point of departure for learners, which can make a deeper use of their cog-

Chapter 4. Children and task repetition

nitive and linguistic resources to edit, revise, or simply rewrite a given text upon TR. This point of departure, as argued above, is very useful because it is within the learners’ developmental range and can, therefore, be a good starting point to stretch their linguistic knowledge a little further by “finetuning existing form-function mappings and establishing incipient new ones” (Ortega, 2007, p. 184).With this in mind, TR in the context of writing never entails writing the exact same texts, as students’ writing is “inevitably different each time” and this process of constructing a text and improving it “can be most effectively achieved under the familiarized task frame, which is naturally established through task repetition” (Nitta & Baba, 2014, p. 127). With these ideas in mind, it is important to review the differences between the oral and written modality that demonstrate the need for a different rationale for TR in the context of writing (Gilabert, Manchón & Vasylets, 2016; Manchón, 2014a; Tavakoli, 2014). As Tavaloki says: What makes writing different from speaking is that in writing, because of the lack of pressure caused by situational factors present in speaking, the existence of more time compared with speaking, and the visibility of the text produced, learners have more time and opportunity to pay attention to form and meaning simultaneously and to involve more active monitoring. (Tavakoli, 2014, as cited in Amiryousefi, 2016, p. 1054)

The immediacy of speech vs. the asynchrony present in written production constitutes a key difference. In the oral mode, we cannot use our attentional resources simultaneously to attend to form and meaning because we need to produce the message without having time to think. In contrast, in the written mode, we do have time to focus our attentional resources on the meaning and the form successively while deciding what to write and how to write, and even when revising our drafts. What, then, is the role of TR in writing if we already have access to our attentional resources? Our review of the role of repetition in the form of deliberate practice provided earlier in the chapter suggests that meaningful repetition is necessary to gradually store superficial knowledge in our long-term memory. When writing a text, students will make use of chunks of their knowledge of language, not just once but several times, and in doing so, they will be more likely to push these repeatedly used chunks of knowledge into their long-term storage. Nitta and Baba (2014) summarize this in connection to writing tasks by saying that the L2 learning potential already present in L2 writing tasks, “is enhanced by repetition” (Nitta & Baba, 2014, p. 127). They say:

119

120

Child L2 Writers

Even if a writing task provides a necessary condition for promoting L2 learning, the effects of only a single use of the task on L2 development may be too trivial to make a fundamental change in the L2 system. However, if engagement with the task happens repeatedly, an important change in the system is more likely to occur. (Nitta & Baba, 2014, p. 108)

To flesh out this idea that TR will improve the potential of writing (Nitta & Baba, 2014), I would like remind the reader of several purported benefits of L2 writing: L2 writing facilitates attention to form, requires the use of more complex structures, and demands greater levels of accuracy (Housen & Kuiken, 2009; Manchón, 2011, 2020). In my view, all these benefits could be further facilitated by TR. That is, repetition in the context of writing will combine two benefits: time to use all available resources, and an opportunity to look more deeply into linguistic issues. These two combined allow the writer to move from simply making the text to polishing it. In sum, our working memory and our attentional resources are limited, and more so in childhood. The time offered by writing tasks allows students to make wider use of these limited resources, while TR allows a deeper, quicker, and more effective use of them. This is all related to the point made above, that the learner owns the written production, which is at their level of development, and that the learner’s production can be improved to an unlimited degree. Manchón (2014a) refers to this idea as follows: As for the effects of TR in writing, it could be posed that instead of, or in addition to, overcoming time constraints on attention resources (as is the case of TR in speaking) so that attention is freed to attend to language matters, the availability of time that characterizes writing may represent an ideal condition for TR to foster deeper linguistic processing as a result of a gradual “complexification of goals” being pursued. This is so because having more time to plan and formulate messages and being able to go back over what one has written, or over the feedback received on one’s own writing (both the written text and the written feedback on one’s own writing are always permanent), could in theory allow L2 writers to be more in control of their attentional resources, more prone to prioritize linguistic concerns (in contrast to what is possible in oral production) and, accordingly, more likely to attend to language. It follows that the different processing temporal demands of speaking and writing are likely to result in different effects of TR. (Manchón, 2014a, p. 20)

In sum, departing from an understanding of written texts as mutable or unfinished products of the learners’ capacity that can undergo continuous improvements, TR can afford learners greater depths of language processing. This is especially true in the case of YLs, given their still immature cognitive development and their more limited access to cognitive resources. Thus, one would expect that

Chapter 4. Children and task repetition

repetition will make YLs write better texts while, at the same time, making them more efficient learners. In the words of the Olympic motto, we could say that TR can make learners citius (faster), altius (higher) and fortius (stronger) in their management of their cognitive and linguistic resources when a draft is written a second or third time. However, as Manchón noted in 2014 in relation to the specific potential of TR in writing, “these are theoretical predictions in need of further empirical validation” (Manchón, 2014a, p. 20). The next sections will provide a summary of the empirical studies that, to date, have shed some light on this.

4.5

Empirical studies on task repetition

4.5.1 Task repetition in oral tasks Bygate’s (1996) conceptualization of TR was initially developed for oral tasks, and still today, a substantial part of our knowledge about TR comes from research studies in the oral modality. The starting gun was fired by the claim that upon repetition, learners can generate better products thanks to the rationale presented earlier in this chapter. Learners’ cognitive resources are limited. Speech production is immediate and does not allow time to think about how to say things. Therefore, the first production is extremely demanding: students must choose the meaning and the form of the language to communicate their message, and they tend to prioritize meaning to make sure their message is understood. When a second attempt is allowed, learners can draw on the meanings they have already conveyed in their first attempt; the cognitive load decreases, and the learners’ attentional resources can be directed to the form of the language, thus improving the oral text they produce. Empirical studies with adult learners in the context of oral tasks have mainly focused on the effects of TR on language performance and have consistently reported beneficial effects for L2 oral production in terms of CAF measures (complexity, accuracy, and fluency) (Ahmadian, 2011; Ahmadian & Tavakoli, 2010; Bui, Ahmadian, & Hunter, 2018; Bygate, 1996, 2001; Gass, Mackey, Álvarez-Torres, & Fernández-García, 1999; Kim, 2013; Kim & Tracey-Ventura, 2013; Lynch & McLean, 2000, 2001; Patanasorn, 2010) and other aspects, such as the potential to direct learners’ attention to form (Fukuta, 2016) although, as Ahmadian (2011) points out, the extension of these benefits to new texts (the “carryover” effect, as Gass et al., 1999, put it) still remains unclear. Similarly, positive findings have been reported for adolescents in school contexts, with studies reporting improvements in syntactic complexity (Kim & Tracy-Ventura, 2013) or an increase in the capacity to incorporate target-like forms in conversations (Hawkes, 2012). From this

121

122

Child L2 Writers

research, Ahmadian (2012) underlines two conditions as beneficial when implementing TR with oral tasks: (1) learners might benefit more from repetition if they receive feedback on their initial performance (Sheppard, 2006, as cited in Ellis, 2009); and (2) massed repetition practice might be necessary to promote language acquisition (Ahmadian, 2011). In addition to these studies focused on the effects of TR on students’ oral performance, other researchers have implemented TR with students working in pairs and have reported beneficial effects of TR on students’ ability to focus on form (Hawkes, 2012) and on the production of language-related episodes (LREs) (Kim & Payant, 2014). To a lesser extent, but also amounting to an important wealth of research, TR with oral tasks has been tested with YLs in different contexts. Compared to the studies conducted with adults, which, as shown above, have mainly concentrated on the analysis of performance, TR research with YLs has been frequently implemented with learners working in pairs. The focus has primarily been on the analysis of students’ interactions rather than on the quality of the students’ performance. Empirical studies with YLs have also provided discussions of several aspects, including task performance, task resolution, L1 use, and students’ level of confidence. One of the first studies was conducted by Mackey, Kanganas, and Oliver (2007). These researchers analyzed data from very young children (7–8 years old) of different L1 backgrounds learning English in Australia. The children repeated a familiar task and improved their fluency in their second attempt. In Hungary, Pinter’s (2006, 2007) studies addressed the effects of TR with beginner-level Hungarian children (aged 10); they not only reported an increase in fluency and accuracy upon repetition but also demonstrated that children became more confident and effective in their resolution of specific tasks. In Canada, Sample and Michel (2014) analyzed TR with six 9-year-old EFL learners and reported a significant increase in fluency. They also reported benefits in other aspects; specifically, they claimed that that TR had led to increased cooperation, motivation, confidence, and strategy development. In Spain, and framed within the interactionist framework, there are several studies with YLs of English in the elementary school context that report positive effects of TR. These effects include an increased focus on LREs (García Mayo & Imaz Agirre, 2016), a decline in L1 use (Azkarai & García Mayo, 2016), and improvements in lexical density (Lázaro-Ibarrola & Villarreal, 2019), accuracy (Lázaro-Ibarrola & Hidalgo, 2017), and fluency (García Mayo, Imaz Agirre, & Azkarai, 2018). However, some of these authors have also noted that the effects of TR among YLs seem to be more modest than those reported in studies with adults.

Chapter 4. Children and task repetition

In sum, research on oral tasks provides promising results regarding the effectiveness of TR. In the next section I discuss the available research on TR in the context of writing, showing how it confirms some of the findings reported for oral tasks, qualifies others, and adds to our understanding of this construct.

4.5.2 Task repetition in writing tasks 4.5.2.1 Adults Over the last two decades, the construct of TR has gained increasing pedagogical interest and has generated a large number of task-based studies conducted in L2 classrooms (Bygate, 2018). This interest has also reached the field of research on L2 writing, with a substantial body of work demonstrating that repeating writing tasks several times brings about improvements in the written products of adults (Amiryousefi, 2016; Kim, Choi, Yun, Kim, & Choi, 2020; Nitta & Baba, 2014), although not always (Sánchez et al., 2020), and without a clear answer regarding the specific areas that show improvement. Nitta and Baba (2014) conducted a series of studies with Japanese students including regular use of TR. In their papers, they reported a positive longitudinal effect in writing quality in terms of syntactic and lexical measures (Nitta & Baba, 2014), as well as in terms of fluency upon continuous use of procedural TR (Baba & Nitta, 2011, 2014). In these papers, and again in a later article (Nitta & Baba, 2018), these authors emphasize the finding that even if TR did not seem to offer an immediate improvement in their students’ command of language, repetition was likely to result in learning over time. Other empirical studies have analyzed the implementation of TR. In the context of computer-mediated L2 writing, Amiryousefi (2016) found that the performance of Iranian EFL learners (measured by a post-test) improved with same and procedural TR in fluency and, with same TR, also in accuracy. Another study was carried out by Kim, Kang, Yun, Kim and Choi (2020) with 38 Korean learners of English at the university level. These authors also analyzed procedural and same TR. All the students completed a pre-test, two writing tasks in collaboration, and a post-test over a period of two weeks. These authors demonstrated that, with same TR, drafts improved in syntactic complexity and in the accuracy of target features, but not in global accuracy. On the other hand, the procedural TR group scored significantly higher than the same TR group on the post-test. Kim, Kang, et al. (2020) also examined LREs, and found a high rate of correctly resolved instances. The procedural TR group resolved a different number of LREs in each task and obtained a lower rate of successful resolution in the second task. In contrast, the number of LREs in the same TR was stable, and the number of

123

124

Child L2 Writers

successfully resolved LREs was higher in the second task. This suggests that the LREs might be directly related to the content of the task (which changed in the procedural TR condition but not in the same TR), and that procedural TR poses higher cognitive demands and leads to a higher rate of incorrect or unresolved LREs. Finally, a study of great relevance, and with findings that contradict those of previous research, was conducted by Sánchez et al. (2020). The researchers collected data from 29 Spanish EFL learners (16 high school and 13 university), who had to complete a decision-making task twice, either orally or in writing. These authors considered task modality and proficiency, and employed a wide array of indices to measure the quality of their students’ production. Sánchez et al. (2020) identified that writing (vs. speaking) elicited more complex language and lexical complexity, although lexical complexity was mediated by proficiency. As for TR, they found that its impact was affected by a complex pattern of interaction between task modality and students’ proficiency. Among their findings, the authors reported a lack of positive effects in the areas of lexical complexity and accuracy, and even a detrimental effect in syntactic complexity, with students producing a lower rate of global subordination, especially in the writing group (vs. oral). This finding clashes with previous research, which consistently reports positive effects of TR on writing; however, the authors themselves warn about comparing their results to those of other studies, as many variables are different, one of them being the task employed: a decision-making task rather than narrative tasks. All the reviewed studies highlight the importance of conducting studies that focus on several aspects of writing rather than on just one and confirm the difficulty in predicting the effects of TR (Samuda & Bygate, 2008), which might be mediated by many factors, such as proficiency (Sánchez et al., 2020). The body of research reviewed in this section also reveals the impossibility of extending findings to other contexts, mainly because of the great diversity of variables involved in the studies conducted so far (context, age, level, tasks, and time span between repetitions) (Lázaro-Ibarrola & Hidalgo, 2017). 4.5.2.2 Children When we compare the body of empirical research on TR with YLs to the body of research with adults, one significant difference is that in most YL studies, the population under scrutiny, the tasks, and the methodological tools employed have been very similar. This is unfortunate, and clearly there is a need for studies involving different populations and a greater variety of factors. On the other hand, this lack of variation is positive because it allows comparison, with caution, but also with a certain degree of reliability. Specifically, all the studies on TR with

Chapter 4. Children and task repetition

child L2 writers have been conducted very recently, all in the context of Spanish EFL learners in the final years of elementary school, all with learners writing narrative texts with picture prompts, and all implementing two or three iterations with a week’s interval between repetitions. Albeit small in number, these few studies have already tapped into different aspects of writing and provide interesting findings and lines for further research. To date, empirical studies with YLs implementing TR conditions have explored same TR vs. procedural TR, TR in pairs vs. TR in individual writers, the effects of TR on focus on form (LREs) and on draft quality, the impact of TR compared to other feedback types (model texts and direct WCF), and the impact of TR on students’ task motivation. The fact that several constructs are implemented together with TR implies that some of the studies reviewed here have already been reviewed in the corresponding chapters of this volume on CW (Chapter 2); WCF (Chapter 3); and task motivation (Chapter 5). In this section we review them from the perspective of TR, that is, of what they add to our understanding of the value of having learners repeat the same or a similar writing task. Before going into a review of these studies, Table 4.1 summarizes their main characteristics.

125

126

Child L2 Writers

Review of studies on TR with YLs

Author(s)

N. & age

Pairs or individuals?

Cánovas Guirao et al.

Pairs

Hidalgo & García Mayo

Pairs

Hidalgo & LázaroIbarrola

Pairs

LázaroIbarrola & Hidalgo

Pairs & individuals

Groups compared (control)

N. of repetitions

Time interval between repetitions

Objective

Results regarding TR

Assess impact of models (vs. TR) on noticing and

Task repetition also had an impact on improved performance in the revised written output in both groups Both groups found and resolved LREs successfully, although the model group did so more abundantly

Assess impact of TR type on LREs

Most LREs were form-focused, and resolved target-like in both

TR The LREs in the procedural TR group remained stable Assess impact of TR on (CAF and holistic measures) (individual) (pairs) TR (individual) (pairs)

Assess impact of TR type and individual vs. collaborative modality on

Learners’ compositions improve with repetition when measured by holistic ratings although CAF measures fail to grasp this improvement Number of LREs declined with TR The STR group obtained greater holistic rates upon repetition

Chapter 4. Children and task repetition

127

(continued)

Author(s)

N. & age

Pairs or individuals?

Groups compared

N. of repetitions

Time interval between repetitions

Objective

Results regarding TR

Assess impact of TR and et al. WCF

quality and task motivation (score and motives)

accuracy in the DCG and improved in lexical diversity and overall text quality in the MG Task motivation was generally high and almost always higher post-task than pre-task in the three groups; however, motivation high across stages in the TRG Students in the TR group selected motives connected to the enjoyment and the easiness of the task By contrast, in the DCG and MG students selected reasons

Villarreal & LázaroIbarrola

Pairs task motivation (control)

MG Motivation ratings in both groups were positive overall and being the most popular motive At the post-test, the CG maintained motivation levels while the

128

Child L2 Writers

I would like to start this review by devoting special attention to a study that I consider visionary in terms of TR and child L2 writers. Cánovas Guirao et al. (2015) carried out a study with two groups of 11- to 12-year-old EFL learners. Their main aim was to explore the impact of model texts. To isolate the effects of this form of WCF, they investigated two groups of students, those who were provided with WCF in the form of model texts (the experimental group, or EG) and those who were not provided with feedback and simply repeated the task (the control group, or CG). Therefore, even if their aims did not include an exploration of TR per se, they had a TR group. They also included a research question that addressed the changes made in the learners’ texts between the first and the second draft, comparing the two groups. Interestingly, when answering this research question, the authors highlighted the similarities found in both groups regarding the modifications they had introduced in their final drafts as follows: Learners in both groups made a similar number of overall changes in their stories […] with practically the same number of acceptable changes in both cases (39 in the CG and 44 in the EG), most of which were lexical. […] In contrast, form and sentence-related episodes were not the main focus of attention for any of the learners, as evidenced in the comparatively lower incorporation of grammatical (28% in the CG, and 19% in the EG) and sentence-level changes (23% in the CG and 17% in the EG) in the revised texts. Comparatively, however, the control group made greater gains in both these features than the experimental group. (Cánovas Guirao et al., 2015, p. 71)

The authors continue their discussion as follows regarding the acceptability of the changes the learners in both groups had introduced: Regarding unacceptable incorporations, the results were similar for both groups, with 37 such changes coded in the experimental group and 33 in the control group, totaling identical percentages in both cases (46%). (Cánovas Guirao et al., 2015, p. 71)

Finally, these authors reached the following conclusion regarding the positive effects they had identified in the performance of their groups as follows: The similarities found in the revised texts of all the pairs, in terms of the number of acceptable and unacceptable changes, suggest that TR may have influenced the written performance of both groups of learners. (Cánovas Guirao et al., 2015, p. 72)

In sum, while Cánovas et al. (2015) found advantages that I have not detailed here (see Chapter 3) in in their EG, which was provided with model texts, these advantages did not prevent the authors from ignoring the value of the improvements

Chapter 4. Children and task repetition

found in their control group, which simply repeated the task. Thus, their reflections in this study provide the rationale to conduct more research on TR in the context of writing. Accepting the challenge, several researchers in the University of the Basque Country (Spain) and in my own university, the Public University of Navarre (Spain), have conducted empirical studies explicitly addressing the effects of TR with child L2 writers. However, as already noted above, the implementation of TR has been combined with other constructs, namely, with the provision of WCF, with CW, and with task motivation. Two of these studies addressed the different effects of the two main types of repetition: same TR, in which students write the same composition two or more times, keeping the task conditions identical; and procedural TR, in which students write different compositions but following the exact same procedure (Hidalgo & García Mayo, 2021 Lázaro-Ibarrola & Hidalgo, 2021). In the first of these two studies, Hidalgo and García Mayo (2021) collected data from a group of 40 YLs (aged 11–12) writing collaboratively (see also reference to this study in Chapter 2). These authors investigated the effects of same TR (which they referred to as “exact TR” in their article) and procedural TR on the production of LREs while writing. They asked the learners to write a composition based on a picture prompt in the same pairs three times and divided them into two groups depending on the type of repetition they performed. Specifically, they had an exact TR group, in which the learners wrote the same composition, and a procedural TR group, in which the learners wrote three similar compositions following the exact same procedure but with a different picture prompt, that is, different content, each time. Their first research question addressed the impact of the TR condition on the number of LREs, regardless of their type. The results showed that the same TR group produced fewer LREs with each repetition, although the differences in the number of LREs generated by each group did not reach statistical significance at any of the three data collection times. When looking at the evolution of LREs within each of the groups, however, the number of LREs decreased significantly (by 50) in the same TR group, and by only 11 in the procedural TR group. A statistical analysis reveals a significant decrease only in the LREs produced by the learners in the same TR group and only in the third draft. As for the nature of the LREs, in both groups, most LREs were focused on form, and the proportion of meaning and form-focused LREs remained stable across drafts. The only significant difference was a significant decrease in meaning-focused LREs in the third draft in the same TR group. These authors conclude that TR promotes YLs’ attention to form and recommend its implementation in school, encouraging at the same time further research into this construct. Regarding the two types of repeti-

129

130

Child L2 Writers

tion, they conclude that procedural TR seems to be more effective in maintaining learners’ attention on the language. In the second study, Hidalgo and Lázaro-Ibarrola (2020) looked into same TR and procedural TR. In this case, the researchers added the individual vs. pair variable and focused not on the LREs but on the quality of the students’ drafts. Their study included 59 Spanish YLs (aged 11) who wrote two compositions. The learners were divided into an individual and a collaborative group, and each of these groups was further divided into a same TR and a procedural TR group. In the same TR group, students simply wrote the same composition based on a picture prompt two times, while in the procedural TR group, they wrote a different composition each time following the same procedure. The students in the individual group always wrote individually, and those in the pair group always wrote in pairs. The results showed that, while no differences could be attributed to the collaboration, TR type did seem to exert an influence on students’ writings. Specifically, the raw numbers in the four groups suggested an improvement in the quality of the second draft, which was nonetheless only significant in terms of holistic ratings in the same TR group. Considering these results, Hidalgo and Lázaro-Ibarrola (2020) questioned the validity of the tools employed to measure gains in students’ drafts and encouraged further research into TR. The results from these two studies are complementary, showing that same TR can result in a drop in the number of lexical LREs as students become familiar with the vocabulary (Hidalgo & García Mayo, 2021), and it can yield holistically superior compositions (Lázaro-Ibarrola & Hidalgo, 2021). As for procedural TR, while no significant improvements have been reported for draft quality (LázaroIbarrola & Hidalgo, 2021), the attention to lexis remains intact across repetitions (Hidalgo & García Mayo, 2021). In addition to these studies, three studies have focused exclusively on same TR. The first study, conducted by Hidalgo and Lázaro-Ibarrola (2020), offers a more global understanding of TR by analyzing not only draft quality (like Lázaro-Ibarrola & Hidalgo, 2021) or only LREs (like Hidalgo & García Mayo, 2021 but by analyzing both aspects. In this study, the conjoint potential of CW (see Chapter 2) and same TR is explored with 10 pairs of 12-year-old EFL learners. Their analysis included the LREs that learners generated while writing and also a thorough analysis of the drafts students produced, including quantitative (complexity, accuracy, and fluency) and holistic measures. The students simply had to repeat the same composition three times using the same picture prompt and with a week’s interval between repetitions. The analyses of students’ drafts showed that they were able to write better drafts upon TR. However, this improvement was only significant when measured according to holistic ratings, as CAF measures did not reveal any statistically significant differences. Regarding the stu-

Chapter 4. Children and task repetition

dents’ production and resolution of LREs, a large number were found, mostly focused on form (although an important number focused on lexical aspects, too), and these were mostly successfully resolved in the three drafts (like Hidalgo & García Mayo, 2021). In line with the study by Hidalgo and García Mayo (2021) the number of LREs also declined with same TR, which was expected as a result of having already discussed and resolved the main language choices in previous attempts. The conclusion reached was that same TR, in conjunction with CW, seems positive, as it enabled students to write better compositions and to discuss and successfully resolve a large number of LREs. Also, the importance of including several measures of draft quality was encouraged, as the inclusion of only one measure (such as CAF) would have failed to identify the holistic improvements. Finally, several studies on same TR have included measures of task motivation (see Chapter 5). Roofhooft et al. (2022) compared same TR in terms of draft quality and task motivation with the provision of two types of WCF, namely, model texts and direct corrections (See Chapter 3). Seventy-five elementary school students (aged 10–12) were divided into a same TR group (N = 21), a model group (MG) (N = 24), and a direct correction group (DCG) (N = 30). The students worked individually on a three-stage writing task, with students in the WCF groups receiving feedback in the second stage while students in the TR group simply repeated the task three times. At each of the stages, all students completed preand post-task motivation thermometers in which they had to choose a score and a motive. Thus, besides reporting results regarding draft quality, this study offered insights into students’ motivational dispositions for the first time in connection to TR. Unlike previous findings, the students in the TR group in this study did not improve their compositions in a significant way (while the other two groups did), but the task motivation was high in the three drafts, and the motives that learners offered to explain their positive disposition were connected to the easiness of the task. While this study questions the possibility of extrapolating the improvements found in previous research to other groups, which is a rather negative finding, it also offers a positive outcome of TR: the very positive motivational disposition of the students. Finally, just as Cánovas Guirao et al. (2015) implemented TR via a control group, Villarreal & Lázaro-Ibarrola (2022) and Lázaro-Ibarrola & Villarreal (2021) did the same in order to analyze the impact of model texts in CW with young learners (YLs) in terms of draft quality and task motivation. Both studies were conducted with 10- to 11-year-olds in the final years of elementary school. In both studies, the researchers included a model group and a control group that simply wrote the same composition twice and thus could be considered a same TR group. In one study (Lázaro-Ibarrola & Villarreal, 2021), only task motivation was analyzed, while in the other Villarreal and Lázaro-Ibarrola (2022) also considered draft quality, employing more sophisticated statistical tools than previous

131

132

Child L2 Writers

studies with the aim of identifying the differences that seemed to be there but that did not reveal statistical significance (Lázaro-Ibarrola & Hidalgo, 2021). The results regarding task motivation were totally in line with Roothooft et al. (2022), as the ratings were very high and did not decline in the TR group. In terms of draft quality, the results revealed large differences favoring the model group (Villarreal & Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2022), again suggesting caution in the extension of previous findings regarding potential benefits of same TR in draft quality. In conclusion, the few studies that have included measures of task motivation suggest that TR is positive in this respect (Roothooft et al., 2022; Villarreal & Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2022); however, its potential to improve draft quality remains very unclear, with some studies identifying holistic improvements upon same TR (Cánovas et al., 2015; Hidalgo & Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2020; Lázaro-Ibarrola & Hidalgo, 2021) but others showing only slight improvements in some measures and no improvements in most aspects (Roothooft et al., 2022; Villarreal & LázaroIbarrola, 2022). This is in line with the findings of adult studies and confirms the hypothesis that it is hard to predict the outcomes of TR. When comparing procedural and same TR, the attention to form operationalized as LREs is best maintained in procedural TR and declines in same TR, probably because learners have already resolved most LREs in the same attempt. More research is needed to confirm, disconfirm, and complete these preliminary findings and, ultimately, to be able to tell teachers what to expect if they introduce TR in their language lessons with YLs. Besides, the research conducted suggests that studies that focus on several aspects within the same study might help to clarify the impact of TR. The employment of several statistical tools and measures of draft quality also seems to be necessary to avoid neglecting improvements.

4.6

Summary

I opened this chapter by stating the importance of repetition in human learning and, more specifically, in the period of childhood. The concept of deliberate practice has demonstrated the value of extensive, purposeful, and well-designed repetition of activities in many areas of learning. Also, the need for deliberate practice rests on the limitations of human cognitive capacities and, specifically, on the limitations of human working memory. In the case of children, cognitive development is still under construction and should be taken into account when introducing repetition. The same applies to language acquisition, which requires a large amount of meaningful practice (vs. drill and kill exercises) (DeKeyser, 2007a, 2010).

Chapter 4. Children and task repetition

In the chapter I have also tried to provide the rationale for the construct of TR with YLs in the context of writing. The construct of TR in the context of writing has been usually confronted with the rationale established for TR in oral tasks (Manchón, 2014a, 2014b) and has been presented as less beneficial, if at all. The usefulness of repetition when students produce oral language has been justified by the great pressure of immediacy and the impossibility of making use of all the cognitive resources stored in the learners’ brain, and has been empirically demonstrated by an important body of research. However, controversy remains regarding the role of TR in writing tasks. When writing, time allows students to have access to their resources; a second iteration, therefore, could offer the opportunity for a deeper processing of both form and meaning as a result of a complexification of goals (Manchón, 2014a). As Manchón (2014a) states, this rationale needed to be empirically tested. The results from empirical studies with adults suggest that TR might, in fact, enable them to more successfully establish form – meaning mappings, as students’ drafts improve upon repetitions (Amiryousefi, 2016; Kim, Kang et al., 2020; Nitta & Baba, 2014), although its potential might depend on a complex interaction of mediating factors, such as proficiency (Sánchez et al., 2020). With YLs, on the other hand, the available findings do not allow us to provide a clear answer. Some studies suggest that TR offers students the possibility to stretch their knowledge because drafts, as in the case of adults, improve upon repetition (Cánovas et al., 2015; Hidalgo & Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2020; Lázaro-Ibarrola & Hidalgo, 2021). However, other studies have not identified any significant improvements (Villarreal & Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2022; Roothooft et al., 2022). Probably, the different results hinge on a complex interaction of mediating factors, too, which could include age and proficiency as well as taskrelated factors, such as difficulty or task motivation. As for the LREs, we know that their number declines upon same TR (Hidalgo & García Mayo, 2021; Hidalgo & Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2020), but we need further research to determine whether the issues discussed on second or third attempts are different from the previous ones, or if the discussions go deeper. This review of studies has also highlighted some differences between TR studies with adults (more abundant, heterogeneous in method and participants, and mostly focused on performance) and those with children (less abundant, homogeneous in methods and participants, and focused on several aspects, such as task motivation, task performance, or collaboration). Above all, however, research is still very scarce; as such, no firm conclusion can be reached, and Manchón’s (2014a) claim that the rationale for TR in writing needs to be tested still holds true. However, the main takeaway from studies with YLs and TR could be that all empirical studies to date have identified at least one

133

134

Child L2 Writers

positive effect. Therefore, I encourage researchers to conduct more studies on this topic. I would like to finish this chapter by reiterating the value of repetition in education and, in particular, in the education of YLs, which includes L2 acquisition. Repetition is probably at the basis of most aspects of learning, if not of all learning. Repetition is not sufficient, but it is necessary. Experienced teachers know that students need to hear, experience, and try concepts, ideas, and skills again and again until they are able to internalize them. Robert F. Bruner of the University of Virginia summarizes the value of repetition as follows: The deepest “aha’s” spring from an encounter and then a return. Repeating the encounter fuses it into one’s awareness. One of the biggest mistakes a teacher can make is to forego the return or repetition. The learning process is one of slow engagement with ideas; gradually the engagement builds to a critical mass when the student actually acquires the idea. Repetition matters because it can hasten and deepen the engagement process. If one cares about quality of learning, one should consciously design repetitive engagement into courses and daily teaching. To do this well is harder than it seems. (Bruner, 2001, p. 1)

chapter 5

Task motivation in writing 5.1 Introduction Learning cannot happen unless students are motivated. In educational psychology motivation is defined as “the process whereby goal-directed activity is instigated and sustained” (Pintrich & Schunk, 2007, p. 5). Motivated students are those who have goals and work hard to achieve them, which means that motivation is key in the education of children: It sets them in motion and sustains their efforts to achieve goals. It is unsurprising, then, that motivation has attracted a great deal of attention from educators and researchers in different fields, including the fields of education and SLA. However, conducting research on motivation is complex. First, motivation is an internal process; this means that it cannot be directly observed but needs to be inferred from what learners do or say (Lamb, 2016). Second, motivation is dynamic, multifaceted, and learner-specific. This demands a constant and thorough observation of its development in each individual, contemplating its many interwoven factors. On the other hand, conducting research on motivation is useful. First, motivation can be shaped and, among the many factors that shape the motivational dispositions of students, school practices stand out as very relevant. This means that teaching practices, if properly informed by motivation research, could contribute to an improvement in students’ motivation. Second, motivation, in interaction with many other factors such as aptitude, intelligence, or quality of teaching, correlates with academic achievement and language achievement. Motivation studies are, therefore, challenging for researchers but useful for practitioners, as the findings can help teachers to understand students’ motivational dispositions and to redirect teaching practices accordingly. In this chapter, I review the specific value of motivation in the context of writing with YLs. To this end, the chapter starts by offering a general overview of the value of general motivation and L2 motivation in school contexts from a broad educational perspective. This overview outlines the specific characteristics of motivation with elementary school students (Section 5.2). Next, Section 5.3 summarizes the knowledge gained in research studies about the motivation of L2 learners with regard to L2 writing. Landing in the field of task-based research, Section 5.4 focuses on the construct of task motivation. In Section 5.4.1 the construct is described, and in Section 5.4.2 its rationale for YLs performing writing https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.32.c5 © 2023 John Benjamins Publishing Company

136

Child L2 Writers

tasks is explained. Then, in Section 5.5 I offer a comprehensive review of the available studies on task motivation with YLs carrying out writing tasks. I start with some preliminary studies on children’s attitudes (Section 5.5.1) and continue with very recent publications on the construct of task motivation (Section 5.5.2) in connection with different task types and feedback types and constructs. To finish, a brief summary of the chapter is presented in Section 5.6.

5.2

Motivation in elementary school

In general terms, motivation can be defined as a set of interrelated beliefs and emotions that influence and direct behavior (Green, Martin, & Marsh, 2007; Martin, 2007, 2008a, 2008b). General motivation in education and general motivation towards language learning have been at the forefront of research, given that they correlate with students’ academic achievement. Interestingly, the main findings from general motivation in education and L2 motivation regarding elementary school learners are highly coincidental. From a broad educational perspective, research has repeatedly found a decline in students’ motivation for school during the high school years (e.g., Gottfried, Fleming, & Gottfried, 2001; van der Veen & Peetsma, 2009), with intense engagement rarely occurring at school during early, middle, and late adolescence (Larson, 2000). The few studies conducted in the elementary school context (there are fewer studies with younger learners, just as in SLA in general and in writing in particular), suggest that this decline starts as early as the final years of elementary school (e.g., Jacobs, Lanza, Osgood, Eccles, & Wigfield, 2002; Spinath & Spinath, 2005; Stoel, Peetsma, & Roeleveld, 2001). For instance, and among other decreasing aspects, intrinsic motivation (Gottfried et al., 2001) remains high in the first years of elementary school (Nurmi & Aunola, 2005) and clearly starts to decline in the final years (Spinath & Spinath, 2005). Given that motivation exerts an impact on school achievement (Steinmayr & Spinath, 2009), this tendency has been described as worrisome and in need of further research (Hornstra, van der Veen, Peetsma, & Volman, 2013). Nevertheless, there are also some aspects of great importance for school achievement that seem to benefit from age and could have a bearing on language tasks. One of them is self-efficacy, defined as students’ capacity to control their actions (Bandura, 1997; Wigfield, Eccles, Schiefele, Roeser, & Davis-Kean, 2008). Self-efficacy is built on previous experiences and has been found to increase from Grades 5 to 11 (Zimmerman & Martínez-Pons, 1990). With age, children gain a sense of control and self-regulation that is key to increasing their self-efficacy in general and their self-efficacy in terms of performance in specific activities

Chapter 5. Task motivation in writing

(Schunk & Pajares, 2002); it should be noted, however, that not all studies agree with this finding (Anderman, Maehr, & Midgley, 1999; Pajares & Valiante, 1999). Another advantage of age in connection to motivation, and also related to selfefficacy, is a possible increase in students’ investment in schoolwork; that is, as they grow, students devote more effort to school activities, and their efforts are more sustained. Some studies based on teacher ratings of school investment and on students’ self-reports suggest that students become more invested in their schoolwork towards the end of elementary school. Again, however, there is no consensus on this (e.g., van der Veen & Peetsma, 2009), and this does not seem to apply to all students, as the investment of boys and ethnic minority students has been found to decrease in some cases (Hornstra et al., 2013). Finally, it is also noteworthy that the development of motivation in school contexts is not necessarily linear (Hornstra et al., 2013); rather, it can rise and fall frequently in response to different factors; this links well with research into L2 motivation, which increasingly emphasizes its dynamic and changeable nature. In the field of SLA, research on language learning motivation started with Gardner and Lambert’s (1959) pioneering studies in the bilingual context of Canada. Since then, rivers of ink have flowed on this topic, with no sign of a decrease in its popularity (Ushioda & Dörnyei, 2017). In general terms, L2 motivation refers “to the extent to which the individual works or strives to learn the language because of a desire to do so and satisfaction experienced in this activity” (Gardner, 1985, p. 10). Mirroring the above-described findings on motivation in school contexts, SLA research has clearly stated that motivation is an essential element of successful language acquisition that, in combination with other factors, correlates with language achievement (see Dörnyei, 2020 for its development), a finding corroborated by teachers’ impressions (Williams & Burden, 1997). In the case of young populations, children have been shown to display positive attitudes towards language learning in school settings (Edelenbos et al., 2006; Mihaljević Djigunović, 2012; Murphy, 2014; Nikolov & Mihaljević Djigunović, 2011), although there are also exceptions; that is, not all children enjoy language learning or not all the time (Copland, Garton, & Burns, 2014; Courtney, Graham, Tonkyn, & Marinis, 2017; Muñoz, 2017), and not all children show a positive disposition towards the FL when it is first introduced to them in school (Mihaljević Djigunović, 2012). Starting to learn an FL early in life seems to increase the child’s chances of developing a positive motivational disposition in later years (Muñoz, 2017; Ushioda, 2009). In spite of this promising starting point, with highly motivated children, a pervasive research finding that mirrors motivation for school is that as students grow older, motivation to learn the FL declines (Edelenbos et al., 2006; Mihaljević Djigunović & Lopriore, 2011; Mihaljević Djigunović, 2012; Murphy, 2014; Nikolov & Mihaljević Djigunović, 2011). Learners seem to become

137

138

Child L2 Writers

bored and tired of the very long process of learning an FL (Henry, 2009). As seen above, this drop affects not only L2 learning; rather, it coincides with a general “disenchantment with school” at this age (Henry, 2009, p. 184). For instance, some studies suggest that once in high school, students start to dissociate the language itself (which they like) from language lessons (which they do not like so much) (Muñoz, 2017). It is not a simple decrease in motivation, though; rather, it is a shift that seems to happen at the brink of adolescence (age 11). Specifically, and again in line with findings on motivation from a broad educational perspective, while intrinsic motivation to learn the language per se wanes, instrumental motivation starts to emerge in early adolescence (Azkarai & Kopinska, 2020; Muñoz, 2017; Nikolov, 1999). This shift is not accompanied by a decrease in students’ efforts to learn, at least in the case of English, as it has been shown that students maintain a very stable commitment towards language learning, probably because, thanks to their awareness of the instrumentality of English, they see this language as a necessary skill in the 21st century (see Csizér & Kormos, 2009; Dörnyei, Csizér, & Németh, 2006; Ushioda, 2017). Also, as discussed above, this is happening at a time when students are increasing their levels of self-efficacy (Schunk & Pajares, 2002) and school work (Hornstra et al., 2013). Finally, L2 motivation, just like motivation in education, is not linear (Hornstra et al., 2013). As has been described, L2 motivation is dynamic and in constant flux (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015), and in the case of YLs, education programs and the learning context play a role in shaping it (Djigunović, 2009; Lázaro-Ibarrola & Azpilicueta-Martínez, 2021; Masgoret & Gardner, 2003). A very important conclusion can be drawn here: Teachers can do something about motivation (Dörnyei, 2001, 2003). Julkunen (2001) underscores the strong connection between the classroom context and students’ motivation and highlights the importance of awareness of this by saying that “teaching is the component that can easiest be modified” (Julkunen, 2001, p. 29). An understanding of the motivational basis of learning could help to inform teachers and could encourage them to adopt instructional practices that optimize learner engagement (Sato & Loewen, 2019). Therefore, findings from research on YLs’ motivation could provide important information to better understand this construct and, ultimately, to draw guidelines for improvement in educational settings. Despite this, and just as studies on motivation in education with child learners are scarce, L2 motivation studies suffer from a “virtual absence of systematic research on the motivation of primary school pupils” (Boo, Dörnyei, & Ryan, 2015, p. 156). Edelenbos et al. (2006), in their report for the European Commission on the main pedagogical principles underlying the teaching of languages to very young learners, identify motivation as one of the areas in which further development seems essential:

Chapter 5. Task motivation in writing

“[We] need to learn more about children’s motivation for learning and using languages, in order to find ways of ensuring that this grows and becomes more multifaceted as they progress through their primary school education” (Edelenbos et al., 2006, p. 11).

5.3

Motivation and writing

The improvement of writing has become an important concern in contemporary education, and researchers, aware of the impact of motivation on L2 writing, have called for more studies investigating the relationship between attitudes and writing behavior (Kear, Coffman, McKenna, & Ambrosio, 2000). L2 writing studies, however, did not pay attention to motivation until the turn of the 21st century, and most research conducted since then has focused on adult writers in university contexts. The findings are as varied as the methodologies employed, but some common trends can be identified. For instance, Alister Cumming and his colleagues conducted a series of studies with adult ESL learners in academic contexts (see Cumming, 2006; Yang, Baba, & Cumming, 2004). Although their research goals were very specific and emerged from an academic setting, what is interesting about these studies is that, in line with our knowledge of L2 motivation in general (Dörnyei, 2005, 2009), they revealed the significant influence of external or contextual factors on students’ motivational dispositions. Other researchers have found that when learners’ attitudes towards writing are positive, their performance improves (Hashemian & Heidari, 2013). This seems to be especially the case when they are interested in the content (Albin, Benton, & Khramtsova, 1996), or when they realize that writing well will be beneficial for them (Bruning & Horn, 2000). Indirectly, we can also broaden our understanding of L2 writing motivation by drawing on studies that investigate students’ beliefs. For instance, learners have expressed positive feelings towards collaborative writing (Storch, 2005, 2013), while they have described individual writing tasks as difficult and boring (Murtiningsih, 2016). For over three decades, researchers have explored students’ motivation towards WCF, mainly in the form of students’ preferences; however, the age bias is present here, too, as these studies have mainly focused on adult learners in university settings (Tang & Liu, 2018; Yu et al., 2020). In a highly controversial paper, Truscott (1996) challenged the value of WCF, arguing that it could make students feel anxious and demotivated with regard to subsequent writing tasks. However, many studies have since demonstrated that students want and expect WCF and perceive the corrections as helpful in reducing their mistakes (e.g., Chen

139

140

Child L2 Writers

et al., 2016; Elwood & Bode, 2014). This is the case even at low proficiency levels (Hamidun, Hizwari, Hashim, & Othman, 2012); students often report wanting more feedback than teachers provide (e.g. Lyster et al., 2013; Schulz, 1996, 2001); and they prefer immediate (Brown, 2009; Lee, 2013) and frequent and explicit WCF over more implicit forms (Han & Jung, 2007). On the other hand, some researchers have also found that certain feedback types can have a negative impact on students’ motivation to write (Yu et al., 2020). In this respect, some of the most relevant pieces of research have been conducted with Asian students. For instance, Lee et al. (2018) conducted a survey of 1,395 high school ESL students in Hong Kong and concluded that students’ low motivation to write in English was due to the detailed error correction they received from their teachers, among other factors. In another large-scale survey, Yu et al. (2020) collected data from Chinese university students and measured their attitudes to different types of WCF. They also concluded that direct feedback had a demotivating effect, and that this was more negative when all errors were marked and less negative when errors were selected. Another relevant piece of research was conducted by Tang and Lui (2018), who compared coded correction feedback and short affective comments with coded correction feedback alone. While no differences were found in terms of students’ performance, a more positive mindset was identified in the group receiving affective comments. The comments seemed to have motivated these students to work harder on improving their writing. Thus, these authors show the value of affective factors in complementing the potential of WCF (Tang & Lui, 2018). The findings summarized in this section on L2 writing motivation, informative as they may be, describe general tendencies but say little about how general L2 writing motivation can be used when performing a given writing task. The next section discusses the importance of complementing our knowledge with research on task-specific motivation.

5.4

Task motivation and writing tasks

5.4.1 The construct Several studies have already demonstrated that task motivation has a direct impact on task performance (Al Khalil, 2011; Dörnyei & Kormos, 2000; García Mayo, 2018; MacIntyre & Serroul, 2014). Yet, task motivation is a construct rather neglected in task-based research. Research on L2 motivation has developed parallel to, rather than along with, the prevalent task-based approach in SLA research. The main findings described

Chapter 5. Task motivation in writing

above from studies on L2 motivation or on L2 writing hardly contribute to an interpretation of the findings from task-based studies, other than by saying that, perhaps, motivation is or is not playing a role. The reason for this gap is that L2 motivation theories have generally adopted a macro approach towards the language acquisition process (Kormos & Dörnyei, 2004). This macro perspective aims to gain a broad understanding of students’ motivation towards L2 learning, which is necessary, but which needs to be complemented by the specific motivational disposition needed each time students need to execute a specific task. It is precisely the specific task-related motivation level that could explain the task outcomes. The concept of task motivation is, thus, a step to bridge the gap between L2 motivation and SLA task-based research. Task motivation constitutes an attempt to capture the dynamic features of the specific learning situation under analysis. Kormos and Dörnyei (2004) explain that although many factors are necessary to determine the quality of students’ outcomes, task motivation is the trigger or pre-condition to get students engaged, and to sustain this engagement (Al Khalil, 2011). It is important to understand that task motivation and general L2 motivation are not competing for attention in SLA; rather, they are complementary, as they have an impact on each other and nurture each other in the learning process. The importance of task motivation is emphasized by the fact that it not only affects students’ performance on a particular task, but it also affects their general motivation and, ultimately, the success of their learning process (Al Khalil, 2011; Robinson, 2011).

5.4.2 The rationale The rationale behind the implementation of task motivation measures in writing research is sustained on several pillars, namely, on its alignment with task-based research and L2 motivation theory, on its classroom applicability, and on the fact that writing is very hard for young apprentice L2 writers.

Task-based research Students’ willingness to engage in each task is a prerequisite for successful task completion and subsequent L2 learning (Dörnyei, 2019). Therefore, a measure of students’ specific motivational dispositions is very necessary to understand task outcomes and to distinguish the actual learning opportunities that students have had from the potential ones that the task offered. Thus, task motivation brings together research on L2 motivation with the predominant task-focused approach employed in research studies and in language classrooms.

141

142

Child L2 Writers

Tasks have become the main unit of analysis and are considered “the building blocks of classroom learning” (Dörnyei, 2002, p. 137). As Dörnyei (2019) explains, in task-based language teaching research, the focus has been predominantly placed on task outcomes and task conditions (task structure, difficulty, implementation, etc.), causing an imbalance between a focus on cognition and a focus on affect, which has existed for a long time in SLA research (Winne & Marx, 1989). This focus on cognition somehow takes it for granted that students will engage in the tasks they need to perform. However, while students will probably frequently engage in tasks, task motivation cannot be taken for granted and cannot be understood as an all-or-nothing factor. In fact, task motivation can vary a great deal from student to student, from task to task, from pre-task to post-task, etc., and so can the reasons that fuel or deplete it.

L2 motivation theory The need for the concept of task motivation responds to the importance given to the context in Dörnyei’s (2005, 2009) theory of the L2 Motivational Self System (L2MSS). While this theory adopts a macro approach to explain general motivation towards L2 learning, it also considers, for the first time in the history of motivation theory, the great importance of the learning context. Specifically, the L2MSS emphasizes the dynamic nature of motivation and adds a factor related to the learning context to the two main factors (intrinsic and extrinsic motivation) into which general motivation had been previously analyzed (Dörnyei, 2005; Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015; Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011). The emergence of this third factor is justified on the consistent observation that students’ motivation is highly dependent on classroom conditions, which include aspects such as the teacher, the methodology or, of greater relevance for us, the specific tasks that students are required to perform. Empirical studies consistently indicate that the L2 learning experience is often the most powerful predictor of motivated behavior (Dörnyei, 2019) and, in the case of YLs, the motivation of students regarding the classroom context is clearly subject to a great deal of variability (PladevallBallester, 2018; Lázaro-Ibarrola & Azpilicueta-Martínez, 2021).

Classroom applicability School motivation starts to wane at the end of elementary school, and, as some authors have suggested, something could be done about this, given that motivation is dynamic and also malleable (unlike other factors that we cannot manipulate, such as language aptitude or students’ L1) (Dörnyei, 2001). However, this is easier said than done, and in reality, knowledge about general L2 motivation cannot be so easily applied to classroom practices. In contrast, specific task motivation does seem more manageable (Dörnyei & Kormos, 2000), as it implies

Chapter 5. Task motivation in writing

“simply” identifying the task types or task conditions that motivate students and implementing them more frequently in the classroom. The implementation of tasks that motivate students will be expected to have a positive impact on students’ outcomes (Robinson, 2011) and, if this becomes a frequent practice, on their L2 acquisition process. Task motivation is of particular importance for children, as they are still developing their self-regulatory behaviors and are not yet aware of the value of investing effort in the completion of boring tasks in order to learn; they simply value tasks based on the enjoyment they obtain from them (Kiss & Nikolov, 2005).

Writing tasks are hard Writing is tough (see Chapter 1). Writing is a productive skill that requires deep processing and great effort. When learning to write, students need to master multiple aspects, such as spelling, punctuation, cohesion, content, organization, and vocabulary. Therefore, writing activities are generally seen as a difficult and complex (Graham, Harris, & Mason, 2005), and higher levels of motivation are needed to sustain students’ engagement in writing activities (Bruning & Horn, 2000); this is especially true in the case of young L2 apprentice writers, for whom the level of difficulty increases as they have not yet mastered the writing skill or the language. In describing the mental model of the L2 writer, Manchón and Roca de Larios (2011) explain how motivational variables play a key role in writing tasks, as they determine the students’ focus, level of attention, and depths of problem-solving during the process of writing (and during the processing of WCF, if available), which, in sum, have a direct impact on the learners’ performance. Kormos (2012) explains the complexity of writing tasks by comparing them to oral tasks and by offering quantitative measures that help to visualize how demanding they are on the learner. According to Kormos, producing 100 words orally could take about a minute in an L2, whereas writing a composition of 100 words could take 30 minutes. Therefore, she explains that writing is not only complex but also time-consuming and requires concentration and determination; in other words, it requires task motivation. If we applied this rule to YLs, the difference between oral and written production would probably be wider, as would the degree of concentration and determination needed. As students develop selfregulation and their task investment increases, they are better equipped to face hard work, but this does not happen until the end of elementary school (Schunk & Pajares, 2002). Therefore, research on task motivation in the context of writing tasks should be conducted to understand task outcomes and to use the knowledge in order to design tasks that generate higher levels of motivation.

143

144

Child L2 Writers

In sum… All of this combined provides a strong theoretical and practical rationale to sustain the key importance of measuring and understanding task motivation among YLs performing writing tasks in school contexts. This will contribute to expanding our understanding of tasks by offering a more comprehensive understanding of their potential and limitations (Dörnyei & Kormos, 2000). In summary, task motivation will help us to solidify our general understanding of L2 motivation in the classroom task-based domain, which will also contribute to informing instructed L2 learning in a way that is more manageable for language instructors.

5.5

Studies on task motivation

Unfortunately, the concept of task motivation could be referred to as the Cinderella in the prolific field of task-based research. This concept is still relatively unknown and ranks high among the variables in need of research in tasksupported classrooms (Al Khalil, 2016). To date, task motivation has been considered in few studies and in connection to few task-types. This is also the case in the context of writing with YLs. However, it is worth noting that the word “motivation” sometimes appears in research studies focused on the linguistic outcomes of writing tasks, which do not include motivation among their research aims. For instance, Luquin and García Mayo (2020) in their study analyzing the noticing skills of EFL elementary school children during a three-stage collaborative task, explain how they discarded the option of making their students take notes by making use of motivation, as follows (underlining added): Nevertheless, this approach was ruled out to avoid a processing burden as the learners were too young to cope with a triple task (writing, interacting and notetaking) which is physically demanding and time-consuming and their motivation might have been jeopardized. (Luquin & García Mayo, 2020, p. 81)

In a similar vein, Lázaro-Ibarrola and Hidalgo (2021) conducted a study on the effects of procedural and same TR in CW and individual writing among elementary school EFL learners (Lázaro-Ibarrola & Hidalgo, 2021). In this study, the researchers explicitly speculated about the potential role of task motivation when discussing the limitations (underlining added): This study has some drawbacks that need to be acknowledged. It would have been interesting to gather information about factors that could help explain our findings, such as out-of-school exposure to the target language, pair work experience or motivation towards the task. (Lázaro-Ibarrola & Hidalgo, 2021, p. 25)

Chapter 5. Task motivation in writing

Also, Hidalgo and García Mayo (2021) in their study of LREs in the context of procedural and exact TR with YLs add the following in the final lines of their paper. Here, they speculate about a potential detrimental effect of TR on students’ task motivation (underlining added): Finally, learners’ motivation is an important aspect to be considered. The decrease during the ETR treatment may have been related to the fact that the participants had to repeat the exact same task three times with a one-week interval, which might have led to a drop in the participants’ motivation to complete the task. (Hidalgo & García Mayo, 2021, p. 17)

From the examples above, all from studies with YLs in the context of writing tasks, we see that motivation seems to “come in handy” when researchers are justifying decisions about the design of their study or trying to interpret their results. This reveals that researchers, even when not measuring task motivation, are not unaware of its potential impact, have it in mind for further research, and understand that it could help explain research findings. Before starting the review of the available empirical studies measuring task motivation with YLs performing writing tasks, Table 5.1 summarizes the main details of this body of research.

145

146

Child L2 Writers

Studies on task motivation with children and writing tasks Authors

Shak & Gardner

Kopinska & Azkarai

Azkarai & Kopinska

N. & age

Task(s)

Focus-on-form tasks

Dictogloss

Dictogloss

Instruments

Groups and procedure

Findings

Student and teacher attitude questionnaire with open and closed questions

A single group Students discuss the reconstruction in small groups and then write individually

Teachers and students express generally positive attitudes Students’ attitudes improve with familiarity Some students (not all) express positive attitudes towards the peer collaboration

Attitude questionnaire with open and closed questions and semi-structured group interviews

Positive attitudes towards focus-on-form tasks focus-on-form tasks Students worked individually.

Questionnaire for L2 motivation Thermometers for task motivation

tasks)

Motivation thermometer with score and motives

All students work in pairs on a dictogloss task.

demands, production demands, and pair/groupwork opportunities Attitude improves with familiarity

A single group of students performs motives connected to the task itself Post-task scores were consistently higher than the pre-task scores on each attempt. Motivation of pair writers was maintained and more homogeneous than that of the individual writers Overall positive disposition towards the dictogloss task Collaborative and cooperative pairs scored high but

Chapter 5. Task motivation in writing

147

(continued) Authors

N. & age

Task(s)

Instruments

Groups and procedure

Findings

Calzada & García Mayo

Dictogloss

Attitudes questionnaire with open and closed questions

Students work in pairs, or in small groups on a dictogloss task.

Positive attitude towards writing, the dictogloss task and collaboration in the classroom, regardless of their grouping condition Learners considered the blend of the written and oral mode and the opportunities for peer assistance

Imaz Agirre & García Mayo

Oral vs. oral + written and teacher vs. researcher vs. selfselected pairs

Task motivation thermometer with scores and motives

Pairs

Pair-formation method and task modality do not

MartínezAdrián

increased with familiarity

and written modality

Task motivation thermometer with scores

tasks

LázaroIbarrola & Villarreal

Models and task repetition

Task motivation thermometer with scores and motives

texts and one group in pairs with

Villarreal & LázaroIbarrola

Model and task

Task motivation thermometer with scores and motives

Model vs. control group (repeats the task)

High motivation but higher in control group

Model, direct corrections and task

Task motivation thermometer with scores and motives

Model vs. direct corrections vs. task repetition

High motivation in general, higher TR and linked to task easiness, lower in direct corrections and models

Dramatic decrease when comparing with model

148

Child L2 Writers

5.5.1 Initial insights into children’s attitudes towards L2 writing tasks The first studies relating to children’s attitudes towards L2 writing tasks were conducted by Shak (2006) and Shak and Gardner (2008) with children learning English in Brunei Darussalam. Although these researchers did not employ the construct of task motivation as such, their aim was to investigate children’s attitudes towards specific task types. In their studies (with 78 elementary school learners aged 9–12), the school teachers administered the tasks to avoid the teacher-researcher effect. In the first study (Shak, 2006), the students performed two dictogloss tasks on two separate sessions. The students discussed the reconstruction of the text in small groups and then wrote their own texts individually; they were also given an attitude questionnaire at the end of each session. Shak (2006) reported that, in general, the students displayed a positive attitude towards the task; their attitude was lower when they encountered the task for the first time, since they perceived dictogloss as complex, and higher on the second attempt when they were already familiar with the task. The increased level of motivation affected not only their perception of the task but also their perception of their own performance. Shak (2006) also revealed that children rated the task more positively when it was cognitively stimulating, not overly demanding, and with lower production demands. Some children, but not all, expressed a preference for working with peers. Shak also elicited the opinions of teachers on the dictogloss tasks and revealed that the teachers’ perceptions of the task were also positive and were based on the cognitive load, the linguistic demands, and the opportunities offered for learner interaction. The potential of the dictogloss task was enhanced in a later study, in which Shak and Gardner (2008) compared their previous results with students’ attitudes towards three other focus-on-form tasks (consciousness raising, grammaring, and interpretation of grammar) and found that only the dictogloss task promoted increasingly positive attitudes along with familiarity in all the aspects under scrutiny: enjoyment, perceived ease, perceived performance, and motivation. The authors concluded that, as postulated by the “resultative hypothesis” (Johnson, 2008), when learners acquire familiarity with a task, their attitudes and performance are likely to improve.

5.5.2 Studies on task motivation with children and L2 writing tasks Very recently, several studies conducted at the University of the Basque Country and at the Public University of Navarre have also dealt with children’s task motivation with regard to L2 writing tasks. To understand them well, however, it is necessary to summarize some previous research in the context of oral tasks, which

Chapter 5. Task motivation in writing

has yielded insight into the concept of task motivation and has provided some research tools to measure it.

Inspirational studies Dörnyei and Kormos (2000) carried out a study designed to measure task motivation in a group of young Hungarian EFL learners (ages 16–17), who carried out oral argumentative tasks in pairs, in both their L1 and English. Results showed that the higher learners’ task motivation was, the more language the participants produced (Dörnyei & Kormos, 2000; Dörnyei, 2002; Kormos & Dörnyei, 2004). Among other conclusions, Dörnyei and Kormos (2000) state that affective factors (task motivation) greatly impacted the learners’ language output, and that these factors should, therefore, be considered when task-based research is conducted, as this will enable researchers to study the impact of a task in a more holistic and integrated manner. Several subsequent studies with adults and oral data introduced the variable of task motivation, which they usually measured by means of during- (Poupore, 2013), pre- and/or post-task questionnaires (Al Khalil, 2011, 2016; Julkunen, 2001), thus providing information on students’ dispositions towards the task at various stages (Shak, 2006; Shak & Gardner, 2008). The common finding was the great variability found in task motivation scores, which was identified when comparing students and also when comparing pre- and post-task scores. This variability contributed to reinforcement of the concept that motivation is changeable and dynamic. Two of these studies, both conducted with adult learners, deserve special mention as their methods and tools have been used for further research with writing tasks. One is the study conducted by Al Khalil (2011, 2016). Al Khalil (2011, 2016) designed a tool to measure task-related motivation based on Tennant and Gardner’s (2004) motivation thermometer, which consisted of a scale for students to rank their motivational dispositions. Al Khalil (2011, 2016) included a similar scale but added a qualitative dimension by allowing students to explain the reasons for their chosen scores in order to obtain deeper insights into the motivational dispositions of the learners (See Figure 5.1). Inspired by these studies, a body of empirical research with YLs has included the construct of task motivation (Dörnyei, 2002; Dörnyei & Kormos, 2000; Kormos & Dörnyei, 2004) and has used the motivation thermometer as the main research tool (Al Khalil, 2011).

Studies on task motivation and children in writing tasks Most of the studies on task motivation with children in the context of L2 writing have been couched within the construct of CW. It is no coincidence that task motivation has attracted the interest of researchers in connection with the construct of collaboration, as one of the purported benefits of peer work is, precisely,

149

150

Child L2 Writers

Figure 5.1 Post-task thermometer (from Al Khalil, 2011, p. 167)

that it boosts students’ motivation (Azkarai & García Mayo, 2016; Azkarai & Kopinska, 2020; Kim, 2015; Kim, Choi et al., 2020; Lázaro-Ibarrola & Villarreal, 2021; Storch, 2011). Moreover, activities in language lessons are frequently performed either in pairs or small groups (Dörnyei & Kormos, 2020; Fernández Dobao, 2012) and, therefore, the study of motivation in these tasks could inform these regular practices. Compared to task motivation in individually performed tasks, task motivation when collaborating has the additional element that it is coconstructed by the participants and that each individual contribution matters and affects the joint performance (Dörnyei, 2002, 2019; Kormos & Dörnyei, 2004). Collaboration, thus, makes the construct of task motivation more complex and more dynamic, but also more social and more bearing of learning potential and pedagogical implications. All the empirical studies conducted so far have adopted Al Khalil’s (2016) thermometer with very little modification. This thermometer is completed before and after each task performance. The learners have to choose a score and, instead of having to provide a reason, to make it more accessible to children they are asked to choose from a list of task-oriented reasons provided for them (see Figures 5.2 and 5.3). Kopinska and Azkarai (2020) conducted a seminal study that measured task motivation among YLs using thermometers (among other measurements). The relevance of this study is that it places motivation at its core, rather than as one more research question (usually the last one) that sometimes seems of secondary importance (e.g., Imaz Agirre & García Mayo, 2020; Kim, Choi et al., 2020; Villarreal & Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2022). An additional value of their study is that it considered both general motivation and task motivation, thus helping to clarify a possible interplay between both types. Data were elicited from 65 Spanish EFL

Chapter 5. Task motivation in writing

Figure 5.2 Task motivation thermometer for pre-task measurement in CW (from Kopinska & Azkarai, 2020, p. 615)

Figure 5.3 Task motivation thermometer for post-task measurement in CW (from Kopinska & Azkarai, 2020, p. 616)

learners (aged 11–12) who performed six dictogloss tasks individually and in pairs, six times, over a whole school year. The double focus on the macro and micro perspective of motivation, together with the longitudinal nature of the study, allowed the researchers to explore the interaction process between the learners’ general L2 motivation and their specific motivational dispositions towards specific tasks. The first finding they reported, and one that has been corroborated with further studies and that aligns well with findings from general L2 motivation in YLs, is that motivation was high. The learners exhibited high motivation and positive attitudes towards EFL and the task from the start of the school year (pre-test). When specifically looking at task motivation, it was interesting to see that the learners frequently selected motives connected to the task itself to justify their high scores (“I have enjoyed the activity”). Also, the post-task scores were consistently higher than the pre-task scores on each attempt, and the positive attitude of the collaborative writers was maintained and more homogeneous than that of the individual writers, which fluctuated more. These authors interpreted this finding as suggestive that the collaboration had a positive impact on sustain-

151

152

Child L2 Writers

ing a positive motivational disposition. The authors concluded that the dictogloss task had actively engaged the students and had fostered their motivation, which the authors understood as evidence of task usefulness for elementary school EFL learners. As argued above, an advantage of task motivation is that it is easier to translate the research findings into pedagogical practices. The motivational possibilities of the dictogloss task in Kopinska and Azkarai’s (2020) study and the recommendation to introduce this task in language lessons is a straightforward example that this is the case. Martínez-Adrián et al. (2021) also used the same thermometer, but they only asked the students to provide a score. In their study, they compared the possible influence of task modality (writing vs. speaking) with 56 Basque-Spanish EFL elementary school learners working collaboratively on four different tasks, an oralonly task, an oral+written task, an oral+editing task, and an oral+writing+editing task. Their findings are very clear in relation to the motivational scores: the scores were high, they were always higher post-task, and there were no differences that could be connected to task modality. Another interesting study with a different focus but also considering task motivation with young EFL learners was conducted by Imaz Agirre and García Mayo (2020). These researchers analyzed the influence of agency, which they operationalized as the method of pair formation, on the production and task motivation of a group of 64 young Spanish EFL learners (aged 11). All the learners worked in pairs and were divided into three groups as follows: 12 dyads (N = 4) were researcher-selected on the basis of the proficiency test; 8 dyads (N = 16) were teacher-selected according to the teacher’s knowledge about who could best complete tasks together; and 12 dyads (N = 24) were self-selected. The students performed two tasks, one of them only oral and the other combining the oral and written modalities. These tasks were slightly more sophisticated than those used in most studies focused on task motivation. In the oral task, adapted from the book Nate the Great and the Lost List (Sharmat, 1975), each dyad had to put 13 vignettes in order to build a story about a child detective who was looking for a missing list. The oral and writing task consisted of a poster showing a science classroom with some broken elements, which suggested that a thief had broken into the room. Together with the poster, they were given three clues and information about four suspects. The students had to talk to each other in order to find out what had happened and who the culprit was. Then, they were asked to write down their interpretation of the facts. To measure task motivation, all pairs were asked to complete the motivation thermometer before and after each task. The results regarding motivation scores revealed no significant motivational differences related to either pairing or task modality. Also, the authors reported that all students displayed higher motivation scores after the tasks than before

Chapter 5. Task motivation in writing

them. Therefore, they concluded that while the task itself seemed to have led to an increase in the participants’ motivation, the grouping did not seem to affect their scores. In contrast, they did find that agency influenced the learners’ level of participation. The learners in the researcher-selected group participated more and in a more balanced manner in the collaborative dialogue and also used English more; in contrast, learners in the teacher-selected and self-selected pairs produced fewer turns, resorted to Spanish more frequently, and usually had one member leading the dialogue. Regarding the motives that students selected, the findings were very interesting. In general, the researcher- and teacher-selected pairs opted for reasons related to the task itself (similar to Kopinska & Azkarai’s, 2020 study) while the self-selected pairs opted for social explanations, namely, the fact that they enjoyed working with their partner. That is, when students could choose the partner they worked with, this seemed to be the main motivating force. There are also several studies looking at task motivation or students’ perceptions in the context of task repetition (Kim, Choi et al., 2020) and/or WCF in the form of model texts (Lázaro-Ibarrola & Villarreal, 2021; Villarreal & LázaroIbarrola, 2022) and explicit corrections (Roothooft et al., 2022). Some studies with adults that precede chronologically the very recent publications addressing YLs are worthy of mention here (García Mayo & Loidi Labandibar, 2017; Yang & Zhang, 2010). One of the first attempts to consider task motivation can be found in a study on the provision of feedback via model texts (Yang & Zhang, 2010). Yang and Zhang (2010) explored the effectiveness of model texts, accompanied by reformulations and pair discussions, in a three-stage task with university students (N = 10, aged 18–21) enrolled in an EFL writing class in a Beijing university. In their study, motivation was not part of the research questions, but the learners were interviewed after class in an attempt to elicit their attitudes towards the task and obtain information that could help interpret the results. These authors report that the students positively valued the provision of a native model text. By contrast, rather negative attitudes towards models were identified by García Mayo and Loidi Labandibar (2017) with Basque/Spanish EFL learners in secondary and high school (N = 60; aged 13 and 16). These authors investigated the implementation of a three-stage writing task, in which WCF was provided via model texts. Among their research questions, they explicitly formulated one related to the participants’ attitude towards the task and the model texts (the fourth of four research questions). At the end of the three stages, the students had to complete a post-task questionnaire (which they referred to as an exit questionnaire) based on Marsden (2006) and Marsden and Torgerson (2012), giving information about their attitude towards writing and model texts. The findings contradict most research on task motivation, as the learners’ attitudes were quite negative in general. However, these authors also reported that when students’ dispositions were more positive,

153

154

Child L2 Writers

they were able to incorporate more elements from the models in their revisions. Based on this positive correlation, the authors encourage the inclusion of more sophisticated measures of motivation in future studies. Another relevant study was conducted by Kim, Choi et al. (2020) in the context of writing and task repetition (see Chapter 4). It is interesting because it offers categories to help classify the notes, reflections, and descriptors of students’ reasons for their choice of a given motive. Kim, Choi et al. (2020) scrutinized the effects of TR and indirect synchronous WCF during CW on the quality of students’ drafts and on the learning of Korean grammar with 54 university students learning Korean as a foreign language. In their study, the authors included a research question specifically addressing students’ perceptions. It was the last research question in their study. They employed three open-ended questions and a Likert scale to rate 10 statements that were classified into the following categories: – – – – – –

Perceived task difficulty Satisfaction with task performance Enjoyment Motivation for future tasks Perceived learning opportunities The effectiveness of task repetition

Their findings regarding students’ perceptions indicate that learners in the WCF group generally showed less positive attitudes towards collaborative writing performance, felt that tasks were more difficult, and showed lower levels of task satisfaction, enjoyment, and motivation for performing similar tasks in the future. In contrast, the learners in the no feedback group, who simply repeated the task, showed more positive attitudes towards task difficulty, task satisfaction and motivation for performing future tasks. Also, learners in both groups, that is, regardless of whether they received WCF or not, found the task less difficult and more enjoyable, and expressed that they were more satisfied with their own task performance, when they performed the task the second time (Kim, Choi et al., 2020). The publications on YLs dealing with task motivation in connection to model texts compare this feedback type to task repetition (TR) and explicit corrections, which allows researchers to relativize the scores given to just one type (LázaroIbarrola & Villarreal, 2021; Roothooft, Lázaro-Ibarrola, & Bulté, 2022; Villarreal & Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2022). The point of departure of these studies was the identification of a gap in the studies showing that model texts, explicit corrections, and TR aid language acquisition: task motivation had never been measured. To address this gap, in two of these studies, Lázaro-Ibarrola & Villarreal (2021) and Villarreal & Lázaro-Ibarrola (2022) compared the task motivation of students working in

Chapter 5. Task motivation in writing

pairs through model texts and via mere TR and in one of them, Roothooft et al. (2022) compared model texts, direct WCF, and TR with individual writers. As with previous research, in these studies pre- and post-task motivation thermometers were employed and students were asked to choose a score and a motive from a list (Kopinska & Azkarai, 2020). Specifically, the study by Lázaro-Ibarrola and Villarreal (2021) focused exclusively on the (pre- and post-) task motivation of 24 YLs working in collaboration. The students performed a three-stage writing task that took three sessions. One group of students received WCF in the form of model texts in the second session, and the other group received no feedback at all and simply wrote the same composition three times, thus falling into a TR condition. Before and after each of the sessions all pairs completed motivation thermometers. To move our understanding of task motivation in this context forward, the researchers also classified these reasons following Kim, Choi et al.’s (2020) categories. Figure 5.4 shows this classification (Lázaro-Ibarrola & Villarreal, 2021). Categories

Why did you choose your score

Perceived task difficulty Perceived learning opportunities

Because the task was easy. Because the task was difficult. Because I have learnt. Because I haven’t learnt.

General

Because I got bored.

In relation to the task

Because I enjoyed doing the task. Because I didn’t like the task.

Enjoyment

In relation to doing a task in a foreign language

Because I liked to do a task in English.

In relation to collaboration (with a peer)

Because I liked to work with my classmate.

Because I didn’t like to do a task in English.

Because I didn’t like to work with my classmate.

Figure 5.4 Classification of children’s comments (from Lázaro-Ibarrola & Villarreal, 2021, Appendix 1)

Their findings showed that students’ task motivation was high in general but declined in the model group (MG) while it was maintained in the task repetition (TR) group. As for the motives, working together was the main reason students

155

156

Child L2 Writers

gave to justify their positive scores. Some specific details of interest were that the post-task upward trend was not significant in the MG when the students compared their text to a model text. Lázaro-Ibarrola and Villarreal (2021) interpreted this lack of significance as a possible motivational cost of model revision by speculating that perhaps the students felt “overwhelmed by the demands brought about by the model texts” (Lázaro-Ibarrola & Villarreal, 2021, p. 42). By contrast, the students in the TR group maintained very high and steady levels of pre- and posttask motivation in the three repetitions and only the pre-task motivation contrasts between session 1 and session 2 and sessions 1 and 3 yielded significant differences. This suggests that students felt the least enthusiastic before writing for the first time; this is in line with Shak (2006) and Shak and Gardner (2008), who found that for the dictogloss task, repetition increased the students’ motivation towards the task. In the second study, Villarreal & Lázaro-Ibarrola (2022) compared data from 32 CLIL learners of English in elementary school (aged 10–11) working in pairs in a TR and a model group, considering not only task motivation but also linguistic outcomes in order to grasp a global understanding of the task. In this case, all the students wrote the same composition two times. In the model group, however, they were provided with WCF via model texts in a session between the two composing sessions. Task motivation was measured while writing the first and second composition in both groups (referred to as pre- and post-test in the publication). Draft quality analyses revealed advantages in the MG but the analysis of task motivation showed that, while ratings were high and significantly higher post-task in both groups, the MG evidenced a significant drop at post-test. This reinforces the findings from Lázaro-Ibarrola and Villarreal (2021), goes in line with the negative attitudes reported by García Mayo and Loidi Labandibar (2017) for adolescents working via models, and suggests that model texts can be demotivating for students in spite of their learning potential. As for the reasons our students provided to justify their scores, in line with previous research, peer work stood out as the main reason. Villarreal and Lázaro-Ibarrola (2022) concluded that models bear enormous potential to generate upgraded texts, but they also present a drop in motivation worthy of further exploration. Their findings also reinforce the value of collaboration as a motivational force with YLs. In the study conducted by Roothooft et al. (2022) a third type of WCF was added: direct or explicit corrections (probably the most common type in language lessons). Roothooft et al. (2022) implemented the task individually, which allowed them to determine whether motivational dispositions varied a great deal when the collaborative element included in previous research – and which seems to be so motivating – was eliminated. The implementation of an individual task also allowed the researchers to enlarge the pool of participants to 75 (aged 10–12). The

Chapter 5. Task motivation in writing

students were divided into three groups, a task repetition group (TRG; N = 21), a model group (MG; N = 24) and a direct correction group (DCG; N = 30). All the participants performed a multi-stage writing task. In stage 1, all students wrote a composition; in stage 2, the TRG simply repeated the same composition, while the students in the MG were provided with feedback via model texts and those in the DCG with feedback via direct corrections; in stage 3 all students wrote the same composition again. At each of the stages all students completed pre- and post-task motivation thermometers in which they had to choose a score and a motive using the same thermometers from previous research. The results drew a clear-cut distinction between the three treatments. In terms of draft quality, the second drafts did not significantly improve in the TRG, improved in accuracy in the DCG, and improved in lexical diversity and overall text quality in the MG. As for task motivation, it was generally high and almost always higher post-task in the three groups. However, it decreased in stages 2 and 3 in the DCG and MG yet remained high across stages in the TRG (similar to Lázaro-Ibarrola & Villarreal, 2021; Villarreal & Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2022). Regarding the reasons more frequently selected in the TR group, students mainly selected reasons connected to their enjoyment and the easiness of the task. By contrast, in the DCG and MG, students selected reasons connected to learning and task difficulty. Therefore, a correspondence between students’ perceptions and learning outcomes was hinted at with students perceiving learning in the case of the MG and DCG while perceiving that TR was easy. As previously reported, in the studies implementing writing tasks with students working in collaboration, most learners chose pair work as the main reason to justify their scores. This is not possible in Roothooft et al. (2022) given that the students worked individually; therefore, the individual modality has allowed us to see what other reasons led students to choose their scores. Last but not least, Calzada and García Mayo (2020a) conducted a very illuminating study to investigate the attitudes of young Spanish EFL learners in the final year of elementary school towards the dictogloss task. They used a more extensive questionnaire and invited students to provide answers to open questions. Following the finding in Shak (2006) and Shak & Gardner (2008) on how familiarity enhances positive attitudes towards dictogloss tasks, the students in Calzada & García Mayo (2020a) became familiar with the dictogloss task in a pilot session. In another session they completed another dictogloss task, supervised by one of the researchers (unlike in Shak and Gardner, 2008, where the teachers were in charge) and, finally, a week later, the students completed an attitude questionnaire that consisted of 12 question items divided into four sections: (1) writing; (2) collaborative work; (3) collaborative writing; and (4) dictogloss. The questions regarding their attitude towards writing addressed their attitudes towards L1 and L2 writing, and a third item was designed to categorize writing self-efficacy.

157

158

Child L2 Writers

The analysis of the students’ answers to the questionnaire confirmed that the students displayed a general positive attitude towards writing in the L1 and in the L2, towards collaboration and towards the dictogloss task itself. An interesting finding not reported in previous research was a significantly more positive attitude towards writing in the L1 (compared to the L2, English), which the authors attributed to the difficulties that L2 writing entails. Also of great interest was the fact that, unlike previous research in which students chose their motives from a list of items, the students in Calzada & García Mayo (2020a) were asked to provide the reasons themselves. These comments provide valuable insights into the learners’ perceptions and show their great ability to notice the positive and negative aspects of task-related factors, such as collaboration (see examples below). Examples: (1) Participants’ positive views on pair work (Q4) Porque puedes aprender muchas cosas de la otra persona (Because you can learn many things from your partner), 22C Porque me parece más divertido trabajar con un compañero (Because I think it’s more fun to work with a partner), 50P (2) Participants’ negative views on pair work (Q4) Porque a veces puede llegar a haber problemas (Because sometimes there can be problems), 19A Porque estás hablando más de otras cosas que del trabajo y para mí eso es perder el tiempo. (Because sometimes you are talking more about other things than just work, and to me that’s a waste of time), 32A (3) Participants’ positive views on group work (Q5) Porque cuanta más gente es más fácil hacer las cosas (Because the more people there are, the easier it is to work), 8G Porque los que tienen vergüenza para participar o preguntar cosas pueden hablar sin problemas (Because those who are shy to participate or ask questions can do so without any problem), 21A (4) Participants’ negative views on group work (Q5) Porque algunos no trabajan (Because some people don’t work), 27M Porque en clase trabajamos en grupos y yo prefiero en parejas porque es más fácil (Because in class we work in groups and I prefer in pairs because it’s easier), 29N (Examples from Calzada & García Mayo, 2020a, p. 61)

Calzada and García Mayo (2020a) conclude that, in terms of the students’ perception of their own writing self-efficacy, generally, the children had a positive or very positive impression of their own writing skill. The authors, making use of

Chapter 5. Task motivation in writing

research with adolescents, suggest that a positive perception might be connected to success in their own writing (Aula Blasco, 2016) and encourage further research on this issue. However, given that children have not yet been able to form an accurate self-image (see Chapter 1), this might not be the case. In other words, they might simply be overestimating their capacity due to their young age. Calzada and García Mayo’s (2020a) final words serve as a good summary to finish this section: In short, the present study demonstrates that writing, a somewhat neglected mode in early foreign language instruction (Becker & Roos, 2016) and EFL in general in Spain (European Commission, 2012), may turn into an enjoyable practice for child EFL learners. (Calzada & García Mayo, 2020a, p. 66)

5.6

Summary

Motivation at the end of elementary school At the beginning of this chapter, I identified some commonalities in the findings from SLA and general education research focused on the motivation of YLs in school settings. In both fields, research is more abundant with adult populations but rather scarce with YLs. Also, elementary school students usually have high levels of motivation to learn and of L2 motivation, however, these levels start to drop as early as the end of elementary school or beginning of middle school, when a feeling of disappointment with the school context and the language learning process emerges. To counteract this negative finding, students are also working harder and self-regulating their behavior at greater levels at the end of elementary school, which makes them more efficient as learners in general and more efficient language learners in particular. At the end of elementary school, students also start to become aware of the instrumental value of learning and are able to change their approach to school tasks, which they might start to value not only in terms of whether they like or enjoy them but also in terms of their value to achieve an external aim. Finally, motivation towards education and L2 motivation are dynamic and changeable and do not necessarily follow linear patterns; therefore, measuring them in connection to specific contexts or tasks is of great informative value for teachers and researchers. In sum, at the end of elementary school, when the body of empirical studies on L2 writing tasks with YLs has been conducted, the average student could be described as follows in terms of motivation: the student is highly motivated and likes learning a foreign language but might be starting to feel a certain disenchantment with the school and the language learning process; the student is also starting to understand that education

159

160

Child L2 Writers

and the foreign language have an instrumental value, and they are gradually being able to self-regulate their behavior and, therefore, work harder and be more effective as learners. At the same time, their motivation will not be steady but could increase or decrease and affect academic achievement. Of course, while this is the description of the average student, a variety of profiles combining some of these characteristics with their own will be found in real classrooms.

Motivation and writing Motivation is especially necessary in the context of L2 writing among YLs, as writing is a difficult skill that requires great effort and constancy. This makes the study of motivation in connection to writing activities in this period very relevant and clashes with the scarcity of research on the topic to date. The findings from research with adult populations suggest that the contextual factors surrounding writing tasks exert a great influence on motivation, that learners with positive attitudes perform better, and that learners generally express more positive attitudes towards collaborative than towards individual writing. In relation to WCF, learners expect and value feedback, especially explicit, but detailed error corrections could also demotivate students.

Task motivation To complete our understanding of general motivation towards writing or WCF, task motivation has been recently brought to the forefront of writing research in the contexts of YLs, standing out as a key element to gain a thorough understanding of the impact of a writing task. A group of very recent studies conducted with young EFL learners in elementary school, using questionnaires and pre- and posttask thermometers with scores and motives to gain insights into learners’ perceptions of task, reveal several findings: –

Students’ task motivation is high towards dictogloss tasks, TR, explicit corrections, and model texts, but: – TR and dictogloss in particular help to keep students’ motivation high. – Model texts and direct corrections might cause a decrease in task motivation.

– – –

Task motivation increases when the task is familiar. Post-task scores are higher than pre-task scores. When working together, students generally choose their liking of peer interaction to justify their high scores.

Chapter 5. Task motivation in writing

–

When working individually, students highlight the easiness of TR and the learning potential of explicit corrections and model texts.

To finish, and as a researcher myself who is used to the difficulties of collecting data from YLs, I would like to say that adding measures of task motivation with YLs (or adults), such as pre- and/or post-task thermometers does not overly complicate the process of data collection and can offer valuable information to interpret the results. I, therefore, encourage the inclusion of task motivation measures in task-based research on writing. The information obtained will help to introduce more motivating tasks in the classroom and will, in turn, have a positive impact on students’ outcomes (Robinson, 2011).

161

part ii

Taking stock and moving forwards A roadmap for writing tasks with child L2 learners

chapter 6

Child L2 writers A room of their own 6.1

Introduction

The previous chapters of this monograph have sought to identify the specific potential of writing tasks for YLs of foreign languages in elementary school contexts. In doing so, they have also aimed to broaden our understanding of second language acquisition (SLA), of young L2 learners, and of the affordances of L2 writing tasks in instructional settings. This has been done by drawing on our knowledge from the fields of psychology, education, and SLA, and by providing a review of the empirical studies to date addressing writing tasks and young L2 learners, which revolve around four interconnected issues: collaboration, written corrective feedback (WCF), task repetition (TR), and motivation. This monograph also addresses a gap in SLA and in L2 writing research: Children are under-researched in SLA in general, and they have been particularly under-researched in the context of L2 writing. This clashes with the ecological validity of studying this age group and writing skills in this context, as children constitute a very large population of language learners, and writing constitutes a powerful learning tool for these children. Children regularly do writing activities in their language lessons, and they need to gain a sufficient command of writing by the end of elementary school. In this chapter I will summarize the knowledge gained throughout the previous chapters of this volume, and I will also suggest guidelines for further research. I will start in Section 6.2 by summarizing the main findings and lines for further research that emerge from each of the constructs in the reviewed studies. In Section 6.3, I will summarize the positive and negative findings of the body of research to show how they help us describe child L2 writers’ affordances and limitations when dealing with L2 writing tasks. Next, in Section 6.4, I will adopt a broader point of view and address the research agenda from a more holistic perspective. In Section 6.4.1, I will describe the ingredients that should be included in future studies; in Section 6.4.2, I will focus on the main research needs that will need to be addressed; and, to finish, in Section 6.4.3, I will reflect on ways to address the research agenda more successfully. All in all, this chapter attempts to

https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.32.c6 © 2023 John Benjamins Publishing Company

166

Child L2 Writers

show how the knowledge achieved in this monograph could also serve as a springboard to conducting further research in potentially fruitful ways.

6.2

Findings and lines for further research

Our knowledge of child L2 writers, as outlined in this book, has been built on the bases of knowledge from the fields of psychology, education, and SLA; this knowledge helps to explain and put into context the findings of the available studies related to L2 child writers. Table 6.1 summarizes the basic components of these studies. As Table 6.1 shows, this body of research can be described in a few words: it is recent and fast growing, but it is still scarce; the studies have small numbers of participants who are often divided into smaller groups when assigned to treatment and control conditions; the research is mostly based on the implementation of just one multi-stage writing task; and the empirical studies include many interwoven variables, which makes it hard to identify their conjoint and separate potential. Also, the great majority of studies have implemented tasks with learners writing in collaboration and very few with learners working individually. Finally, a very evident characteristic of the reviewed research is that, with very few exceptions (Fazio, 2001; Gorman & Ellis, 2019; Shak, 2006), all studies have been carried out in a very similar context: the final years of elementary school with Spanish EFL learners. When considering the findings globally, all the reviewed studies have reported at least one positive outcome. Specifically, positive outcomes have been identified in students’ amounts of noticing and incorporations, their capacity to focus on form and lexis, their discussion and resolution of LREs, their performance, their interaction with feedback, their peer dynamics, and their task motivation. Usually, the scope of the positive findings has been modest, and more so when compared to the findings from studies with adults; however, it is hard to establish reliable comparisons given the large number of differences and variables from one study to another.

Chapter 6. Child L2 writers

167

Summary of studies on YLs and writing tasks (in alphabetical order) Authors and date

N. & age

L1

Target language

Pairs

Individual writers

Tasks and groups

Noticing

Pair dynamics

Beliefs, attitudes, motivation

Azkarai & Kopinska

Spanish/ Basque

English

NO

Dictogloss

NO

YES LRES

YES

YES

Calzada & García Mayo

Spanish

English

NO

Dictogloss

NO

NO

NO

YES

Calzada & García Mayo

Spanish

English

Dictogloss

NO

YES LREs

NO

NO

Calzada & García Mayo

Spanish

English

Dictogloss

NO

YES LREs

NO

NO

Calzada & García Mayo

BasqueSpanish

English

Dictogloss

CAF & holistic (rubrics)

YES LREs

NO

NO

Cánovas Guirao, Roca de Larios, &

Spanish

English

YES Improved performance

YES Notetaking & LREs

NO

NO

times)

Coyle, Cánovas Guirao, & Roca de

Spanish

Models

NO

YES LREs & notetaking

NO

NO

Other

groups

NO

(treatment)

(pre and post-task) NO

NO

Grammaticality judgements

Instruction and trajectories

168

Child L2 Writers (continued)

Authors and date

L1

Target language

Coyle, Férez Mora, & Solís Becerra

Spanish

English

Coyle & Roca de

Spanish

English

Coyle & Roca de

Spanish

English

French L1 and French L2 with other minority languages

English

Mandarin; Cantonese; Malaysian; Malay

English

Gorman &

N. & age

Pairs

NO

NO

Noticing

Pair dynamics

Beliefs, attitudes, motivation

NO

NO

NO

Use and misuse of target features

NO

NO

Cognitive strategies CLIL vs. EFL

YES

Classroom observations & interviews with students Employ target features

Individual writers

Tasks and groups

NO

Reformulation

NO

NO

Direct WCF & models

YES Acceptability & comprehensibility

YES Written notes

NO

Direct error correction vs. models

NO

YES LREs & written notes

Journal writing

YES Accuracy

NO

YES Accuracy

NO

Form-focused group (direct corrections) Content-based group Combination group (direct + content) NO

Metalinguistic explanation Direct WCF Control

NO

NO

Other

Chapter 6. Child L2 writers

169

(continued) Authors and date

N. & age

L1

Target language

Hidalgo & García Mayo

Spanish

English

NO

Hidalgo & LázaroIbarrola

Spanish

English

NO

Imaz Agirre & García

Spanish

English

NO

Non-native speakers and native speakers of English

English (NSs paired with NNSs)

Pairs

Individual writers

Tasks and groups Exact TR vs.

Noticing

Pair dynamics

Beliefs, attitudes, motivation

Other

NO

YES LREs

NO

NO

YES CAF & holistic

YES

NO

NO

Oral task and oral and written task

NO

YES LREs

YES

NO

Agency in pair formation & task modality

NO

Several classroom activities.

NO

NO

YES

NO

Interaction styles & opportunities for language production & for learning in NNS–NS pairs

NO

Writing tasks

YES CAF & holistic

YES LREs

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

YES

YES CAF & holistic

YES Notetaking

NO

NO

times)

Jang & Cheung

Chinese, Tamil, & Hindi

Kopinska & Azkarai

Spanish/ Basque

LázaroIbarrola

Spanish

times) Multi-stage task with picture prompt

170

Child L2 Writers (continued) Authors and date

N. & age

Noticing

Same TR vs. procedural TR

YES CAF & holistic

NO

NO

NO

NO

Same TR vs. model

NO

NO

NO

YES

Spanish

NO

Test/ treatment/posttest/delayed posttest One group with models on group self-edit texts.

NO

YES LREs

NO

NO

Luquin & García Mayo

Spanish

NO

Test/ treatment/posttest/delayed posttest One group with models on group self-edit texts.

NO

YES LREs

NO

NO

MartínezAdrián et al.

Basque & Spanish

NO

NO

NO

YES

YES

L1 Spanish

LázaroIbarrola & Villarreal

Spanish

Luquin & García Mayo

Pairs

Individual writers

Beliefs, attitudes, motivation

Pair dynamics

LázaroIbarrola & Hidalgo

Target language

Tasks and groups

combining oral and written modality and edition

Other

Use of previously known languages

Chapter 6. Child L2 writers (continued) Authors and date Roca de Larios, García Hernández, & Coyle

N. & age

L1

Target language

Pairs

Spanish

Individual writers

Noticing NO

NO

NO

NO

Tasks and groups

NO

Beliefs, attitudes, motivation

Pair dynamics

story texts

Spanish

English

NO

Direct WCF Models TR

YES CAF & holistic

NO

NO

YES

Malay

English

NO

Dictogloss

NO

NO

NO

YES

Shak & Gardner

Malay

English

NO

NO

NO

NO

YES

Villarreal & LázaroIbarrola

Spanish

YES CAF & holistic

NO

NO

YES

LázaroIbarrola, &

tasks NO

Model TR

Other Taxonomy of collaborative formulation strategies &

171

172

Child L2 Writers

The fact that only a small number of significant differences have been identified in the reviewed studies while many aspects have remained unaffected could be interpreted from different perspectives. It could be interpreted as a weakness of the models to generate predictions about L2 writing. Future studies could consider a further refinement of the theoretical underpinnings of L2 writing studies in line with the efforts initiated by several authors (Bitchener, 2019; Leow, 2020; Manchón, 2020). As suggested by some scholars, the identification of only few significant differences could also be attributed to deficiencies in the measuring tools employed to account for the production of YLs (Coyle et al., 2018). Therefore, the exploration of new tools would also be encouraged in further research. It might be the case that the current tools fail to grasp all the improvements that YLs are introducing in their writings, for instance, some studies have reported holistic gains but have not found quantitative differences. This idea can be further substantiated by the fact that the methodological tools employed draw on the ones from studies with adults with little or no adaptation; the same techniques and tools might not necessarily age-appropriate for YLs. Finally, the gains might have been small due to the shortness of the interventions, a limitation shared with the vast majority of research studies on L2 writing and which reveals an urgent need for long-term studies (Luquin & García-Mayo, 2020). Note, however, that the fact that, in spite of the shortness of the intervention, YLs showed evidence of improvement could be interpreted as promising. In sum, the results from the available studies on L2 writing tasks with YLs have to be interpreted as objectively as possible, keeping the balance between two dangerous extremes: overvaluing the importance of the gains or, in contrast, failing to recognize their importance because they are small. All in all, we need to acknowledge that, in spite of the short-term nature of the L2 writing tasks implemented in the literature, in spite of our lack of appropriate tools, and in spite of the young age of the participants, there is some evidence that YLs were able to collaborate, notice, make use of feedback, and improve the quality of their writings. All of this makes L2 writing tasks worthy of further research and worthy of classroom use. L2 writing and L2 learning take time and are, in the end, the sum of small gains. The following is a summary of the main findings and the corresponding lines for further research regarding each of the constructs under scrutiny.

Main findings regarding CW – –

Learners are able to write in collaboration. Learners’ dialogues while writing include a large number of LREs, which they are able to discuss and successfully resolve.

Chapter 6. Child L2 writers

– – – – – – – – –

Learners generate more LREs when they collaborate on tasks that include writing (vs. oral-only tasks) (Martínez-Adrián et al., 2021). While writing, students mostly generate form-focused LREs (Luquin & García Mayo, 2021). While dealing with feedback in the form of model texts, collaborative writers mainly generate lexical LREs. Upon TR in CW, LREs decrease but are still abundant (Hidalgo & García Mayo, 2021). Most learners enjoy collaborative writing. Child learners are able to provide reasons for their positive and negative reactions to CW (Calzada & García Mayo, 2020a). Child learners mostly adopt cooperative patterns (Azkarai & Kopinska, 2020). Children’s positive attitudes towards CW are similar to their positive attitudes towards oral tasks (Martínez-Adrián et al., 2021). When compared to individual writers, young collaborative writers either show advantages in terms of number of LREs or outcome and engagement in dictogloss tasks (Calzada & García Mayo, 2020b); their results are similar in terms of draft quality with model texts and upon TR (Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2021; Lázaro-Ibarrola & Hidalgo, 2021).

Lines for further research in CW – – – – –

Thorough analyses of students’ conversations beyond LREs are needed to examine exactly how children cooperate and what aspects they attend to during the entire process of writing (Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009). Studies on CW need to isolate the effects of the collaboration by including groups of individual writers (Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2021), and by having writers work individually after the collaboration (Calzada & García Mayo, 2021a). More studies are needed with students working in small groups (Calzada & García Mayo, 2020b). Training students on collaboration might empower students to work more effectively (Laal & Laal, 2012). It is necessary to measure the individual learning that happens when learners are writing in collaboration (Fernández Dobao, 2012; Villarreal & GilSarratea, 2020).

173

174

Child L2 Writers

Main findings regarding WCF – – –

– – – – –

Children can process WCF in the form of model texts and direct corrections and are also able to self-edit their drafts. WCF in the form of model texts generates abundant LREs focused on lexis, more abundant than the LREs learners are able to generate while writing or self-editing (Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2021; Luquin & García Mayo, 2020). When students process feedback from model texts, they follow different trajectories that are conducive to learning in different degrees; learners who receive instruction are able to follow more effective trajectories (Coyle et al., 2018). Students are able to attend to lexical aspects with model texts, to find solutions to the gaps they had noticed while writing, and to incorporate the solutions with high rates of acceptability and of accuracy (Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2021). Children are able to improve their texts holistically (Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2021) and lexically after receiving feedback in the form of models (Roothooft et al., 2022). Children are able to improve their texts in terms of accuracy after receiving feedback in the form of direct corrections (Roothooft et al., 2022), although this has not been demonstrated in longitudinal studies (Fazio, 2001). With direct corrections, students notice more forms and incorporate and improve the acceptability of their texts to a greater extent than with indirect forms of WCF (Coyle & Roca de Larios, 2014). WCF groups surpass TR and self-editing groups (Cánovas Guirao et al., 2015; Coyle et al., 2020; Luquin & García Mayo, 2021), suggesting benefits for the provision of WCF, although some studies did not find advantages in treatment groups with direct corrections (Fazio, 2001) or with the dictogloss task (Gorman & Ellis, 2019).

Lines for further research in WCF – – –

Other forms of WCF could be explored, such as underlining errors or showing error types. Studies need to include instruction on the specific form of WCF to help children benefit more from the specific feedback type and, in general, from a broader range of features (Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2021). Studies that consider incorporation of the feedback should provide more detailed coding schemes, including partial incorporations and their accuracy (Cánovas Guirao et al., 2015; Yang & Zhang, 2010).

Chapter 6. Child L2 writers

–

There is a need for studies that include mass repetition in combination with WCF types that include delayed post-tests, and that demonstrate improvements on new drafts (Fazio, 2001; Luquin & García Mayo, 2021).

Main findings regarding TR –

– –

– – –

While procedural TR does not seem to generate gains in terms of draft quality, children can improve their compositions holistically upon same TR (Hidalgo & Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2020; Lázaro-Ibarrola & Hidalgo, 2021), although this has not been found in all studies (Roothooft et al., 2022). While writing, children generate and resolve a large number of LREs, especially focusing on grammatical aspects, although they also pay attention to lexis (Hidalgo & García Mayo, 2021; Hidalgo & Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2020). The number of LREs decreases upon same TR, suggesting that the learners have already resolved their main linguistic issues in previous attempts. In spite of this, LREs are still abundant upon repetition (Hidalgo & García Mayo, 2021; Hidalgo & Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2020). The number of LREs upon procedural TR does not decrease and seems to depend on the composition at hand (Hidalgo & García Mayo, 2021). No differences have been found in terms of draft quality when TR is implemented in pairs or individually (Lázaro-Ibarrola & Hidalgo, 2021). Task motivation is high and does not decrease upon TR (Lázaro-Ibarrola & Villarreal, 2021; Roothooft et al., 2022; Villarreal & Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2022); children associate high motivation scores with collaboration and task easiness.

Lines for further research in TR – –

Studies that include mass repetition are necessary to identify the potential of this construct in L2 writing with children (Nitta & Baba, 2014). Potential similarities and/or differences between individual and collaborative writers upon TR also need to be explored.

Main findings regarding task motivation –

YLs display positive dispositions towards writing in general (Calzada & García Mayo, 2020a) and towards writing tasks, in particular; this is true for dictogloss (Azkarai & Kopinska, 2020); direct WCF (Roothooft et al., 2022); models; and TR (Lázaro-Ibarrola & Villarreal, 2021; Villarreal & LázaroIbarrola, 2022).

175

176

Child L2 Writers

– – – – –

Learners’ positive attitudes towards tasks rise with familiarity (Shak, 2006). Learners’ positive attitudes towards writing tasks are often associated with peer work (Calzada & García Mayo, 2020a; Lázaro-Ibarrola & Villarreal, 2021). Children’s dispositions always increase post-task, suggesting that the writing task is giving them a feeling of confidence and achievement (Azkarai & Kopinska, 2020). They seem to perceive the main affordances of different WCF types and associate TR with ease, and models and direct corrections with learning outcomes (Roothooft et al., 2022). They suffer a decline in motivation with model texts and direct corrections, which might be connected to their feeling overwhelmed by the task (Roothooft et al., 2022).

Lines for further research in task motivation – – –

All studies should include measures of task motivation to help provide a more complete understanding of the effectiveness of the task. Studies that allow students to provide their own motives rather than choose from a list are also necessary to gain a deeper understanding of their motives. Task motivation questionnaires could be combined with interviews that provide further information on YLs’ dispositions.

In a nutshell, the findings can be summarized by saying that CW seems very successful, while results are modestly positive for TR. The provision of WCF is superior in outcomes to non-feedback (self-editing or TR) conditions; improvements vary depending on the type of WCF provided; and providing students with instruction might benefit their ability to collaborate and their ability to learn from the WCF (Coyle et al., 2018). As for the gaps in the research, in addition to the lines for further research specified above for each of the constructs, there are other desirable avenues to follow with YLs. An obvious line of research would be to introduce more L2 writing tasks, as the number of tasks put to the test so far is rather limited. Also, there is barely any research on task-related factors, task-related strategies, L1 use (Azpilicueta-Martínez, 2020), peer feedback, the provision of feedback on content (Fazio, 2001), or, in general, research on writing in digital contexts, which now constitutes an emerging field. In the case of TR, studies could also explore the potential of using the different drafts that children write, and asking them to compare them and notice differences.

Chapter 6. Child L2 writers

Manchón (2020) has identified several avenues for further research that still remain unexplored with children. Two of them will be of particular interest with young populations. One is the exploration of the role of reading in bringing about learning through writing; this is especially relevant with YLs, as they are still inexperienced readers and writers. Adopting a more integrating approach towards literacy, which sees writing and reading through a comprehensive lens, will open up fruitful areas of research. Another area worthy of exploration and only recently explored with adult learners (and very interesting with YLs, given their cognitive specificity) is the role that specific cognitive processes can play in the performance of L2 writing tasks (Manchón, 2020). Adopting a pedagogical perspective and going beyond SLA, it could also be suggested that, given the importance of affective factors in childhood when children are building their self-esteem for the first time, research combining WCF and praise for students’ efforts could be worthy of exploration. Another avenue for future research is the potential of writing as a tool to help learners increase their confidence level and solve conflict, for instance, by using diaries or journals to describe themselves, their fears, and so on.

6.3

Child L2 writers

The findings outlined above show the affordances of different constructs and help us build a profile of child L2 writers that captures how they deal with and benefit from L2 writing tasks. Many positive results suggesting children’s capacity to benefit from writing tasks have been reported in the literature. Research on CW reports very positive motivational attitudes, which are strongly associated to the collaboration. Some tentative reports of improvements in draft quality have appeared, and there is evidence of abundant discussions of language items (LREs), which reveal a very desirable focus on form while writing and on lexis while dealing with models. TR studies also yield some positive effects, although not found in all studies and limited to same TR (vs. procedural TR). TR studies also tell us that, upon repetition, as could be expected, the number of LREs decreases as students resolve certain issues; however, a large number of discussions on language issues is maintained. When looking at the results from research into forms of feedback, the most positive findings come from research into the use of model texts, which are also the most widely explored form of feedback. With them, students are able to focus on a large number of lexical items and means of expression, many of which they successfully incorporate in their revisions. Promising results have also emerged from the only study on reformulation, which suggests that this approach can help children attend to global features and foster cohesion in L2 writing, and

177

178

Child L2 Writers

from the studies on direct WCF, which show the superiority of this explicit form to improve subsequent drafts. With regard to more modest results, on the other hand, are few attempts to focus students’ attention on form via the dictogloss task, as they attended to issues related to form but not to the targeted features. However, direct corrections did help to improve subsequent drafts and proved to be more effective than model texts in the amount of noticing, incorporations, and textual acceptability generated. Differences in results from studies on feedback types could be interpreted in the light of the cognitive development of YLs. Formal thinking is still emerging, and while they are very capable of dealing with lexical issues, they might not be so able to infer more formal aspects of the language. This may only happen if these aspects are explicitly shown to them and are at their level of development, which might be the case of direct corrections, which are provided on their own written draft and, therefore, on forms that students have used themselves. Dictogloss texts, in contrast, are prefabricated texts and, if not correctly tuned to students’ level, they might be tapping on issues beyond students’ capacities and, therefore, have little potential to enhance students’ language acquisition process. Calzada and García Mayo’s (2020b) students, for instance, failed to attend to the article system in spite of the researchers’ efforts to target this form in a dictogloss task. The authors themselves briefly acknowledge that articles seemed to be beyond the students’ metalinguistic awareness. Drawing on this summary of the affordances and limitation that children have shown in research to date, we can define child L2 writers in elementary school as follows: – – – – – – – –

They are able to write in the L2. They can write in pairs and small groups, and, when doing so, they generally have a cooperative attitude. They are able to process features from direct WCF, model texts, dictogloss tasks, and reformulations. The processing of WCF seems to be more successful if learners receive instruction in how to use it. They are able to improve their drafts with same TR and after feedback in the form of direct WCF, model texts, dictogloss, and reformulations. They generate and resolve abundant LREs while writing in collaboration and a larger number when dealing with WCF. They fail to attend to formal aspects of writing beyond their metalinguistic awareness. They show positive motivational dispositions towards writing tasks, although their dispositions are affected by task type.

Chapter 6. Child L2 writers

– –

They frequently associate their positive dispositions towards writing tasks with collaboration, although children are able to express not only the positive but also the negative aspects of writing with peers. They are able to associate different writing tasks with different affordances.

In sum, child L2 writers in elementary school can successfully perform writing tasks; discuss linguistic issues when working in collaboration; deal with WCF; and improve their drafts upon repetition or with the help of the WCF, showing lexical gains with model texts, accuracy gains with direct corrections, and timid holistic gains upon repetition. Also, YLs show positive dispositions towards writing tasks, which improve after task (vs. pre-task) and with familiarity; these are often associated with peer work. They are also able to identify the reasons why they like a particular task, and their choice of reasons is in line with the linguistic gains afforded by the task itself. Finally, with instruction, they might be able to interact with WCF more successfully.

6.4

Roadmap for future research

In light of the findings and research gaps regarding each of the issues under scrutiny, and adopting a bird-eye view of the research conducted so far, a roadmap for future research can be drawn. This roadmap includes the ingredients that future studies should have (Section 6.4.1) as well as the general research needs (Section 6.4.2) that need to addressed to make progress in the field of L2 writing tasks with YLs.

6.4.1 Ingredients for future studies A pervasive feature of SLA research is that it is almost impossible to make very strong statements given that there are always many variables that cannot be fully controlled. This reality forces researchers who want to preserve the scientific integrity of their work to only tentatively refer to possible trends and to ask for more research to make their preliminary findings robust. To improve this, I would like to provide the ingredients that, in my view, a piece of empirical research on L2 writing tasks with YLs should have, in order to be as scientific and pedagogically informative as possible. Whenever possible, future studies will need to include (1) a large number of participants; (2) control groups; (3) detailed descriptions; (4) analyses of several aspects of writing; (5) multiple measures; (6) knowledge from different disciplines; and (7) a (statistical significance) bias-free approach to the results that

179

180

Child L2 Writers

does not neglect the relevance of all the findings. Let me briefly expound on each of these ingredients. 1. Larger pools of participants First of all, the number of participants in each of the studies or in each of the treatment groups is often quite small. This weakens the robustness of the results and the power of the statistical tools, while it increases the risk of interpreting contextspecific behaviors as possible general trends. Having data from a larger pool of participants would help make the findings more robust and would apply more powerful statistical tools that contribute to tell general trends rather than contextbound outcomes. 2. Control groups The literature on child L2 writing tasks reveals a conspicuous dearth of studies with control groups. With the exception of the studies focused on WCF, which, in general, have included control groups following different treatments, it is not unusual to find a one-group-only design. As with the relatively small number of participants, this is partly attributable to the difficulties that data collection with YLs entails and which have already been discussed in this volume (see Chapter 1). Nevertheless, a tenet of scientific rigor is the inclusion of control groups that allows researchers to isolate the effect of particular variables. Specifically, control groups of individual writers allow the researcher to isolate the effects of the collaboration; control groups of adult students, which allow the researcher to isolate the effect of age and tap deeper into the specificity of children, are very much needed; and finally, control groups writing in the L1 allow the researcher to isolate the specificity of FL writing tasks. Research on CW has very confidently claimed its potential for YLs, yet paradoxically, there are very few studies to date comparing individual and collaborative writers performing the same tasks. The few studies that do exist only identify small advantages (see Calzada & García Mayo, 2020b for grammar in dictogloss), or do not identify differences between individual and collaborative writers; see Lázaro-Ibarrola & Hidalgo (2021) for draft quality upon TR and Lázaro-Ibarrola (2021) for draft quality after model texts. Therefore, further studies on CW should include individual groups performing the same tasks. Likewise, to be able to characterize the specificity of child L2 learners in relation to adults, studies that include both populations performing the same tasks are highly desirable; if this is not possible, at the very least we need replication studies that preserve the methods and tools as far as possible. I am very aware that this is very hard to do. The researcher needs to have access to both populations and to make sure that they are comparable in terms of proficiency.

Chapter 6. Child L2 writers

Some attempts have been made in the area of oral tasks, and the results have greatly contributed to deepen our understanding of age differences (AzpilicuetaMartínez, 2020; Lázaro-Ibarrola & Azpilicueta-Martínez, 2019b). In the field of writing tasks, in contrast, no study to date has attempted to include YLs and adults, leaving thus a clear gap to be addressed in the future. Addressing this will help enhance our understanding of L2 acquisition in connection to the differences in cognitive development between adults and children. Finally, no study to date has compared writing tasks in the FL to writing tasks either in the L1 of the learners or performed by native speakers of the FL under scrutiny. Studies of this kind would contribute to establishing the specificity of writing tasks in connection to the FL while, at the same time, providing insights into the potential of the writing tasks explored as tools to promote L2 writing. 3. Detailed descriptions As mentioned above, research in the field of human sciences, of SLA, and, specifically, of L2 writing with children always implies a large number of variables that cannot be fully controlled (at least not in the way scientists can control variables in laboratories), but that undoubtedly have an impact on the results of a given piece of research. To be able to understand the individual and conjoint potential of all these factors, researchers should provide as many details as possible about all the elements of their studies: the measures employed, the participants, and the process of task implementation. This information is sometimes missing in published papers, but it could help enormously to understand how the findings can be associated with particular variables or features of the study at hand. In particular, information about what is included in the different LRE types is necessary. Spelling, for instance, is sometimes included within the form-focused category and sometimes within the label of mechanics, and this can make a big difference when reporting results and comparing them to other studies. The same applies to CAF measures, which do not always coincide, and also to the statistical tools employed by the researcher. Regarding the subjects and the context, we need to know their L1s, their level of proficiency in the specific skill under scrutiny (writing), the pedagogical approach that they follow in their school, and their familiarity (or lack thereof ) with the task under implementation. To do this, researchers will need to conduct classroom observations and/or teacher and student interviews to acquire full information about the context; these should include questions about the focus of the lessons, students’ attitudes, the most common activities, and so on. Fazio (2001) might be a good example of this. This author places the importance of describing the contexts at the forefront of her study; as the abstract reads: “Extensive classroom observations were carried out with the aim of determining the pedagogical orientation of the French language

181

182

Child L2 Writers

arts lessons; individual interviews were conducted to tap the extent to which students attended to their feedback” (Fazio, 2001, p. 235). Also, any relevant detail or observation related to the process of data collection should be provided. Just as detectives try to gather as much information on a crime scene as possible because they do not know which piece of information might be key to solving the mystery, SLA researchers should gather as much information from the classroom context as possible because there are always valuable clues to interpret the results. Only thorough descriptions of the intervening features can help to build a more accurate interpretation of the results. 4. Analyses of several aspects of writing Another characteristic of the reviewed research is that it tends to analyze only one or two aspects of implementing writing tasks with L2 child learners. Most studies have, thus, focused exclusively on LREs, on noticing and incorporations, on draft quality, on task motivation, or, less frequently, on two of these. However, it would be more beneficial to include as many aspects as possible when dealing with L2 writing tasks. A focus on a combination of the process, the product, and affect will benefit this field of research and will help to establish correlations between aspects such as noticing, LREs, incorporations, draft quality, and task motivation, which have, so far, been mostly studied separately. As Coyle et al. (2018) state in connection to the language learning potential of WCF, “some degree of comprehensiveness should be brought to the process-oriented research strand” (Coyle et al., 2018, p. 28). 5. Multiple measures Related to the need for comprehensiveness in the aspects under analysis, multiple measures of the data also need to be used. In some studies, for example, we found gains in holistic ratings but not in CAF measures (Hidalgo & Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2020; Lázaro-Ibarrola & Hidalgo, 2021), which revealed that the inclusion of both measurements was very valuable, as it helped us not to ignore gains that were present (holistic) and to moderate these gains with the lack of differences when using other measures (CAF). This should also be accompanied by the exploration of measures that might be more suitable for the processes and products of child L2 learners, as the measures from adult studies have been generally applied but might not be the most suitable tools to assess writing tasks with YLs (Calzada & García Mayo, 2020b; Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2021). 6. Knowledge from different disciplines A pervasive idea in this volume is the understanding that our knowledge based on the specific body of research on L2 writing can be enriched by our general

Chapter 6. Child L2 writers

knowledge from SLA and by our knowledge from the fields of psychology and education. For instance, several studies have reported unexpected outcomes with regard to the failure of certain forms of WCF. Coyle and Roca de Larios (2014), in their study comparing direct corrections and models, determined that the children had difficulties in understanding and internalizing the language in the models and suggest that future studies should use “model texts that are more closely matched to learners’ levels of competence to increase the possibilities of noticing with understanding” (Coyle & Roca de Larios, 2014, p. 480). Calzada and García Mayo (2020b) also report their students’ inability to pay attention to the targeted forms in a dictogloss task, especially to the articles, and suggested that this had happened because “one of the pre-selected forms, articles, seemed to be beyond their metalinguistic awareness” (Calzada & García Mayo, 2020b, p. 34). Coyle et al. (2020) in their study testing the potential of reformulation to draw children’s attention towards reference cohesion reported, among other findings, that pronoun reference proved more responsive than the article system. One of the reasons they provided to explain this was the fact that the pronoun system might be emerging according to research on developmental stages (Álvarez, 2006; García Mayo, Lázaro-Ibarrola & Liceras, 2005; Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2011), and this enabled students, with the help of exposure to the reformulated text, to attend to these forms and accelerate this developmental process (Coyle et al., 2020). All these studies tell us that tasks or feedback forms could simply fail because they are not correctly tuned to student linguistic development; the findings of these studies are interpreted more accurately by drawing from the fields of SLA and developmental psychology. Likewise, researchers sometimes briefly make reference to facts related to the excessive easiness of the task, for example, to explain lack of improvement or lack of task familiarity; or they make reference to the fact that writing is an issue in the context, thus making use of knowledge from educational research. It is, thus, necessary, to gather knowledge from the different fields of expertise that have their say when implementing a writing task with L2 learners. In sum, as Storch (2018) claims, studies that provide a less isolated focus and try to integrate the expertise from different fields and multiple analysis should be “at the forefront of the research agenda on WCF in the coming decade” (Storch, 2018, p. 175). 7. A statistical significance bias-free approach To finish this list of ingredients, I would like to call the attention of researchers to the statistical significance bias and the need to attend to all the findings. The acquisition of an L2 in an FL (often referred to as low-input) context with YLs does not happen overnight. It is a slow process in which no dramatic changes are expected. This is why, when conducting research with YLs in the context of

183

184

Child L2 Writers

writing tasks, the results might be disappointing. They usually show few (if any) and small improvements from pre- to post-task, or when comparing groups. This might be part of the explanation why, in my view, SLA articles comparing control and treatment groups (the reviewed articles included), tend to suffer from a bias based on statistical significance. The researchers tend to put the focus of their discussions exclusively on the significant differences they are able to identify (generally in favor of the treatment groups). In doing this, we are neglecting the relevance of similarities and/or lack of significant differences between groups, which in many studies constitute the majority of the findings. I believe that discussion sections should redress this misbalance by providing insights into both the significant differences and the (also relevant) lack of differences. Coyle et al. (2018) reflect on this when dealing with studies on WCF as follows: In addition, studies of WCF, in consonance with feedback studies in other domains (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996), have tended to emphasize improvements in writing while ignoring negative aspects, thus providing a one-sided view of revised output by failing to counter-balance both upgrading and downgrading tendencies. Taking this idea into consideration is important in deepening our understanding of L2 development, as signs of progress will have to be weighed against the shortcomings in learners’ writing. (Coyle et al., 2018, p. 28)

In this, SLA is no exception, as research with statistically significant results is potentially more likely to be submitted and published than work with null or nonsignificant results (see, for example, Sutton, Song, Gilbody, & Abrams, (2000), in the field of medicine or Gerber & Malhotra, (2008), in the field of empirical sociological research). Therefore, let me finish this section by calling on SLA journal editors and reviewers, who have the power to influence this. I encourage the discussion of all findings and the publication of all relevant papers, as relevance could be based on both the statistically significant and the statistically insignificant (but also relevant) findings.

6.4.2 General needs in research on L2 writing tasks with children The general needs that emerge from the current body of research on L2 writing tasks with YLs can be summarized by saying that we need “more.” Specifically, we need (1) more studies; (2) more age groups; (3) more contexts and languages; (4) more repetitions (long-term studies); and (5) more tasks. Let me briefly expound on each of these needs.

Chapter 6. Child L2 writers

1. More studies The body of research reviewed in this monograph is powerful enough to characterize child L2 writers and the potential of L2 writing tasks with this population, but the number of studies is relatively small. More empirical studies are needed to consolidate, qualify, and amplify the findings presented here. 2. More age groups The body of research reviewed in this paper provides data from children between the ages of 9 and 12. However, L2 learners start to write in the FL earlier in school settings, and some research could be conducted with younger learners. Children of different age groups could also be compared, as this would help shed light on the impact of different age periods in childhood in the context of L2 writing tasks. 3. More contexts and languages The studies have been mainly conducted in EFL contexts with Spanish learners in the final years of elementary school. This is helpful to characterize this group, and the Spanish context bears great ecological validity given the number of Spanish elementary school learners of English. However, the conspicuous lack of research in other contexts constitutes an emergency, and I call for further studies in different parts of the world and with different L1s and FLs. It is necessary to be aware of the fact that most SLA findings are based on research on the acquisition of English, but the findings might be different when applied to other target languages (Ushioda, 2017). In line with this, it would be very interesting to broaden the focus from the FL to also look at the L1 and/or any other regional languages that the students might be learning in school. 4. More longitudinal studies The need for studies that implement writing tasks over time and via several repetitions has been repeated over and over again in the reviewed research studies, and in connection to all the constructs, as a fundamental avenue to explore in L2 writing tasks. One-shot measures are only a first step, and tasks need to be regularly implemented to be able to measure their potential to promote language development. This makes even more sense from a pedagogical perspective, given that the only way a given task can be effective for students is by including it with regularity within the syllabus. In sum, mass repetition over time and effects on different drafts are very necessary to answer the key question of how L2 writing promotes language acquisition and to correctly inform pedagogical practices.

185

186

Child L2 Writers

5. More tasks The tasks and feedback forms employed so far are dictogloss, models, writing with prompts, direct corrections, and, very recently, reformulations. In future studies, researchers could find alternative ways to implement these tasks, and could also explore new tasks that have not been present in the research but might be common in school contexts. For instance, future studies could deal with indirect forms of feedback on isolated items, such as correction codes or circling of errors; with the combination of different types of WCF, for example, model texts and reformulations or direct corrections and TR; or, in the case of reformulations, by asking students to reformulate their own texts; or, in the case of dictogloss, by asking them to reconstruct a text that they have read (adopting a reading-to-write approach) instead of a text they have listened to. Also, most writing tasks have used picture prompts, but students could also write based on guidelines, written prompts, several sources of information, and so on. In line with a very vibrant body of research in studies with adults, digital writing could also be a fruitful research avenue with child L2 writers (Amiryousefi, 2016). Writing tasks that aim at learning-to-write could also be put to the test in terms of their writing-to-learn potential, such as guided forms of writing or writing using models as prompts.

6.4.3 How do we do this? While the roadmap is easy to read and understand, following it might seem an impossible task. Here, I offer two reflections of very different nature that might help make progress towards the development of more meaningful pieces of research in the future, that is, towards studies that contribute more efficiently to our understanding of the potential of L2 writing tasks with children. The first one regards the content and scientific contribution of a given paper. The second one highlights the value of teachers as agents who actively cooperate in the implementation and data collection processes. 1. Publish less to mean more I’m not sure how many researchers will agree with this reflection. As I see it, the review of studies presented here reveals a clear tendency in published papers to segment the data obtained from large projects into small-scale studies (often, very small-scale, indeed). This is understandable from the perspective of the pressing need to publish (or perish); of the difficulty of dealing with so many variables and measurements in sufficient depth in 8,000 words (the usual word limit in most publications); and of the difficulty of collecting data from children. Nevertheless, in my view, our scientific knowledge of L2 writing tasks with L2 children would

Chapter 6. Child L2 writers

benefit from the publication of fewer but more far-reaching papers, as it is only by covering the impact of many factors that we can truly understand the language acquisition process. 2. Get teachers involved From my own experience as a researcher, the only way to achieve higher pools of participants and regular repetition of writing tasks to uncover how L2 writing leads to language acquisition is by empowering teachers to become data collectors. I have tried this with my team of researchers, and we have obtained very good results. This requires training teachers and having their full cooperation. It also entails the risk of losing a degree of control over the data collection process. Nevertheless, the advantages are, in my view and experience, greater than the drawbacks. If teachers collect their own data, student behavior will be fully natural, as they will not feel that they are doing something extraordinary with an external researcher in their classroom (Gorman & Ellis, 2019). Also, the feasibility of the tasks will be tested and, if teachers can implement them in their regular lessons, it will mean that the task can be integrated into classroom practice. This is essential if we really want to recommend the use of certain tasks to teachers and if we understand that informing teaching practices is a fundamental aim in SLA research in instructed settings (a belief that I fully embrace; see Chapter 7). Finally, this will be an attempt to respond to the research agenda established by Manchón (2020) in her book Writing and Language Learning : Advancing Research Agendas. Making reference to Leow (2019a, 2019b, 2019c) and Leow and Cerezo’s (2016) principles for instructed second language acquisition (ISLA), Manchón (2020) highlights the “need to acknowledge that the context of ISLA is situated within a language curriculum, which has specific goals, curricular information, a syllabus, and expected learning outcomes to be successfully achieved by students” (Manchón, 2020, p. 338). She continues by drawing a pedagogical implication as follows: The logical implication would be for future research agendas in the domain to make room for new studies situated within the language curriculum, while forming part of the language syllabus students are following during the academic year (as recently done, for instance, in Caras, 2019; Coyle, Cánovas-Guirao, & Roca de Larios, 2018, as further elaborated in a later section). Approaching the study of writing from this ISLA lens would entail the posing of new research questions and, as a result, the adoption of diverse methodological procedures, the most relevant ones being to move from laboratory settings to the real language/writing classroom, to situate research within the syllabus, and to adopt a longitudinal perspective in recognition of the temporal nature of a language curriculum. (Manchón, 2020, p. 338)

187

188

Child L2 Writers

All of this can be more easily achieved if teachers are in charge of the data collection process, as they can integrate the tasks under research into their daily practice and provide a longitudinal perspective on the inclusion of the tasks in the language syllabus.

chapter 7

Pedagogical guidelines 7.1 Introduction The last chapter of this volume is devoted to explaining what research efforts with young L2 writers teach us regarding possible implications for classroom practice. I will start (Section 7.2) by providing the reasons why pedagogical implications are necessary in SLA and by explaining how teaming up with teachers and including SLA knowledge in coursebooks could contribute to make a difference (Sections 7.2.1 and 7.2.2). In the following section (Section 7.3), I will engage in a focused discussion of how the authors of the reviewed studies have dealt with the pedagogical value of their work, and of how I understand that this pedagogical value could be increased in the future. Then, in Section 7.4, I will discuss some issues connected to writing tasks and children of general relevance for the L2 language classroom. The last section (Section 7.5) offers ten guidelines to help practitioners with the implementation of writing tasks with YLs in real classroom contexts. The chapter ends with a summary of the main ideas (Section 7.6).

7.2

The case for SLA-based teaching practices

7.2.1 Teaming up L2 teachers and SLA researchers need each other to improve their practices and to achieve their common goals: understanding L2 acquisition and using this knowledge to improve L2 teaching practices. Let’s start with SLA researchers. While I am aware that not everyone feels the same, I am in the (certainly not small) group of researchers who do not conceive of SLA research without an interest in transforming the knowledge we gain, where possible, into some teaching guidelines that help to improve teaching practices. This goal has been present in the field of SLA from its birth, almost half a century. As early as 1973, Corder (1973) stated that SLA is, among other things, about transmitting the findings of linguistics to language teachers. More recently, Cook (2015), in his paper on the current situation of SLA entitled “Birds out of dinosaurs,” reminds researchers that, for some investigators, drawing teaching guidelines from the SLA findings is still one of their main aims. https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.32.c7 © 2023 John Benjamins Publishing Company

190

Child L2 Writers

The pedagogical value of SLA research becomes more relevant in instructed second language acquisition (ISLA) settings, in which ignoring the teaching value of the research would entail ignoring the context in which it is being conducted. As Manchón (2020) reminds us, ISLA happens within a syllabus that researchers should not ignore. In turn, any teaching approaches, methods, and activities, such as the ones tested with YLs in the context of writing tasks, could only demonstrate their effectiveness beyond laboratory settings if they make their way into the classroom and are used regularly, that is, integrated into the school curriculum. Let’s move to L2 teachers. When asked, they clearly state their interest in SLA research and, when they learn about SLA, they clearly improve their understanding of their own teaching practices. In a study conducted by Nassaji (2012), 201 teachers of ESL and EFL expressed the belief that knowing about SLA research was useful and could improve L2 teaching. Likewise, in another study, Busch (2010) investigated the effects of providing pre-service teachers (N = 381) with an introductory SLA course at a state university in California. The teachers under research explained that they had dramatically changed their beliefs after taking the course. In sum, SLA research needs the classroom, and the classroom needs SLA research. In Cook’s words: “SLA research can be a source of provocative ideas to use in different levels of teaching and can form a bridge between psychological theories or linguistic descriptions and language teaching” (Cook, 1999, p. 2067). Unfortunately, SLA researchers and classroom practitioners seem to have been pursuing their careers mostly along parallel roads instead of feeding each other with their knowledge and expertise (Busch, 2010). In the case of YLs in particular, several decades of empirical studies have contributed to building their specific L2 profile (Pinter, 2011). However, educational policies related to L2 practices are often implemented without consulting relevant research (Dixon et al., 2012).

7.2.2 Short-cuts to make a difference In my view, there might be two short-cuts to get SLA knowledge into the hands of teachers. The first one is to empower teachers as researchers and collectors of data, and to work more closely with them while conducting research in order to benefit from their valuable knowledge and to share the findings in a more meaningful way (Pinter, Mathew, & Smith, 2016). The second one is to include the knowledge from SLA research in the design of coursebooks (Jordan & Grey, 2019). A discussion of the benefits of working hand in hand with teachers during the data collection process has already been presented (see Chapter 6, Section 6.3). I simply remind the reader here that teachers are agents of change, as they are

Chapter 7. Pedagogical guidelines

the ones who can introduce teaching practices on a regular basis and with a large number of students over a large number of years. As for the second short-cut, it is a fact that L2 coursebooks are still one of the main tools (if not the main tool) that teachers use in their lessons (Jordan & Gray, 2019). Therefore, designing them with SLA findings in mind would be a very efficient way to bring about change to the L2 classroom on a large scale. In an eye-opening article, Jordan and Grey (2019) argue that the content of coursebooks not only blatantly ignores SLA findings but, what is worse, it contradicts them, offering teaching practices that would not be recommended by SLA findings due to their proven inefficacy. They refer specifically to global coursebooks produced by well-known publishers and focus on the teaching of general English. They also collect opinions from relevant figures in the field that substantiate their argument against the coursebook contents as follows: Not everybody is happy with the ongoing domination of coursebooks in ELT. Thornbury (2013), a leading discontent, sees coursebooks as purveyors of ‘mcnuggets’, unappetizing, processed bits of language served up to passive students by deskilled teachers. Long (2015) is equally critical, arguing that coursebooks adopt an approach to ELT which makes impossible demands on learners and flies in the face of research findings in SLA. More radically, Copley (2018) argues that coursebooks exemplify the effects of neoliberalism and the commodification of education. (Jordan & Grey, 2019, p. 438)

In conclusion, given that coursebooks are the main tool teachers use, the introduction of SLA-based content in them could probably be the most effective way to make a difference in L2 lessons. I truly hope this is one of the avenues to explore in the coming years. Integrating knowledge from research on child L2 writers should not be difficult, as textbooks could include writing activities with model texts, with task repetition, with noticing charts, and so on, in each of their lessons, accompanied by instructions to exploit them and with information for teachers on what gains can be expected from them. In sum, I understand that cooperating with teachers is one of our duties and privileges as researchers in ISLA contexts. As said above, teachers are agents of change, as only they can apply teaching practices regularly, and coursebooks are their main tools. I recommend working on both fronts in the coming years. Increased mutual cooperation will mean that teachers will inform researchers on the outcomes of the real applicability and scope of the activities that have proven successful in empirical studies.

191

192

Child L2 Writers

7.3

Pedagogical guidelines in SLA papers on child L2 writers

If we look at the studies on child L2 writers reviewed in this volume, we can see that the pedagogical implications are often present in the minds of the researchers. Most (though not all) authors state at some point in their articles that their work has important pedagogical implications. Sometimes these implications are already announced in the abstract (see Examples (a), (b)) or even appear in the title of the discussion sections (see Examples (c), (d)). A few examples are as follows: (a) “This paper concludes with pedagogical implications for the use of model texts as a feedback technique with young language learners”. (final line in the abstract in Cánovas Guirao et al., 2015, p. 63) (b) “Pedagogical implications of these findings will be discussed”. (final line in the abstract in Hidalgo & García Mayo, 2021, p. 1) (c) “Conclusion, pedagogical implications and lines for further research”. (title of Section 5 in Kopinska & Azkarai, 2020, p. 623) (d) “Conclusions and pedagogical implications”. (title of Section 7 in Calzada & García Mayo, 2020a, p. 53)

Yet, it is also true that, quite often, the claims about the pedagogical value of the research are not accompanied by the thorough discussions that one might expect. Usually, the pedagogical implications are relegated to a single paragraph in the discussion section. The extension of this paragraph may vary, but very rarely does this discussion take longer than a few lines, and also very rarely is this discussion found elsewhere in the paper. To illustrate this with examples, I will make use of studies in which I have been involved. The reader can simply look at the rest of the studies under review in this volume and will soon understand that I am no exception. In my recent paper on model texts (Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2021), for instance, I include a very brief mention of pedagogical guidelines in just one paragraph as follows (Examples (e)). I write: (e) Therefore, we encourage teachers to introduce model texts in language lessons. Providing feedback via model texts is feasible and, compared to the usual provision of corrections of isolated errors, it promotes a more comprehensive focus on writing as well as a student-generated type of noticing. In light of our results, we also recommend accompanying model texts with training and follow-up sessions in order to promote a greater variety and quantity of noticed features and a greater quantity of (accurate) incorporations, which would, in turn, result in drafts of greater quality. (Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2021, p. 25)

Chapter 7. Pedagogical guidelines

In some cases, studies do not mention the pedagogical value of their findings at all. For instance, this is the case in Lázaro-Ibarrola and Hidalgo (2021). Departing from the current situation, I would like to suggest several ways in which our discussion of the pedagogical value of the empirical studies can improve and gain more ground. I can think of three scenarios, not necessarily incompatible with each other.

Devote more lines and provide practical guidelines The first one is simple: the researcher could try to discuss the pedagogical implications in greater depth by devoting more lines to them and by trying to provide not only some broad general advice but also some specific guidelines when possible. This can be illustrated with some good examples from the body of research reviewed in this book. For instance, with the studies conducted by Hidalgo & García Mayo (2021) (see Examples (f)) or by Coyle & Roca de Larios (2020) (see Examples (g)). (f ) The pedagogical implications of this study point to the value of collaborative writing tasks, which have been found to combine the benefits of both oral and written tasks. Collaborative writing allows learners to interact in the target language (TL), and provides them with extra time to focus on the form of their message, as well as more opportunities to co-construct new knowledge. We have also seen that TR in general promotes learners’ attention to form. However, LREs decrease at T3 in the output of the ETR group. Therefore, if the purpose of using this TR type is for learners to focus on language aspects, only one repetition would be enough. Moreover, our participants produced more form-focused LREs than meaning focused LREs (to a statistically significant degree). Thus, if the aim is to look into learners’ attention to meaning, practitioners should then use tasks that include more challenging vocabulary. Finally, learners’ motivation is an important aspect to be considered. The decrease during the ETR treatment may have been related to the fact that the participants had to repeat the exact same task three times with a one-week interval, which might have led to a drop in the participants’ motivation to complete the task. Nevertheless, we cannot make any claims in this study, which constitutes one of the limitations we have to acknowledge. (Hidalgo & García Mayo, 2021, p. 17) (g) A number of pedagogical implications can also be drawn. Firstly, the findings provide some evidence, albeit tentative, in support of the implementation of CLIL in elementary education, since the pairs in this group, despite being a year younger, seemed to be more open to using the language and ideas included in the models to improve their own writing. Secondly, teachers might

193

194

Child L2 Writers

profitably engage in whole class language awareness activities to explicitly direct children’s attention to morphological, lexical and discursive features of models in an attempt to broaden the scope of their noticing beyond basic content words. Finally, they might also scaffold learners’ attempts at explaining the reasons underlying any differences noticed and provide appropriate metalanguage to encourage the appropriation of linguistic terminology, a factor that Sachs and Polio (2007) associate with deeper levels of awareness. Teachers could facilitate children’s metalinguistic understanding by exposing them to initial notions of grammar as a system of signs and then prompting them to use it as a systemic resource in their decision-making processes for meaningmaking in writing. Chen and Myhill (2016) recommend that this should be seen as a long-term process whereby children gradually expand their knowledge from the initial identification (location and naming) and elaboration (explanation and/or exemplification) of grammatical concepts, to subsequent processes of extension (understanding of how these concepts relate to each other in writing) and application (the articulation of how the concept creates meaning in written text). In doing so, teachers would comply with researchers adopting a social view of language learning who have suggested that all students, including children, should be provided with mental tools to understand how language works if they are to achieve higher educational outcomes (Moore & Schleppegrell, 2014). (Coyle & Roca de Larios, 2020, p. 12)

Make reference to the pedagogical value of the research whenever relevant Another idea is to see the discussion of the pedagogical recommendations as an issue of relevance in different parts of the paper. With this in mind, the pedagogical value of the study could be mentioned whenever it might be relevant, for instance, while providing a review of the literature or while discussing the results. This will probably give more weight to pedagogy, and to the necessary interplay of SLA findings and pedagogical practices. This might help to go deeply into the pedagogical implications by offering not only broad advice on the general findings but also more specific advice on minor aspects that might be applicable in teaching practices. All in all, this will mean a clear improvement if we compare it to the usual practice of isolating the pedagogical recommendations to one single paragraph in the discussion or conclusion sections.

Include a research question addressing the pedagogical value of the writing tasks A final idea is to take a step forwards in increasing the pedagogical value of our work by including research questions related to the didactical application of the

Chapter 7. Pedagogical guidelines

findings, with specific mention of how to do this and what to expect. This might also contribute to making the publications more readable and nurturing for language teachers. I believe (and hope) that we will witness a qualitative growth in pedagogical discussions of empirical studies conducted in instructed settings. Not only are most researchers aware of the pedagogical value of their studies and mention this in their papers (albeit sometimes broadly and briefly), but there are also several relevant SLA journals that already include in their home page the importance they give to the pedagogical value of the research in instructed language settings. Some even offer summaries that are readable by a non-expert audience, such as teachers who are, as I have argued, our indispensable allies in the pursuit of making a difference in L2 teaching.

7.4

Pedagogical implications

7.4.1 Realistic expectations I would like to open this section with what I understand to be the sine qua non pedagogical implication derived from SLA research and from L2 writing research with YLs. We need to be able to generate research-grounded expectations about the potential of L2 writing tasks. In the specific case of L2 writing, the reviewed studies and the broader field of research on L2 writing suggest that writing is beneficial and conducive to learning. However, making this statement without further explanation might lead to an overestimation of the results that could be obtained in the classroom as a result of, for example, using collaborative writing or introducing model texts. As we have seen in the reviewed studies, the gains observed (when there have been gains) are very small. In fact, they are so small that it might be the case that the research tools are able to identify them but they might remain unnoticed in the classroom context. Therefore, when recommending L2 writing tasks we must explain that there will likely not be dramatic changes in the students’ L2; rather, there will likely be small improvements that will, in the long run (again here the need for mass repetition), make teaching more effective. Formulating realistic expectation will prevent disappointment and the temptation to abandon a given practice that is beneficial, although not in a spectacular way. In the end, it all goes down to the understanding that language acquisition is the sum of many small steps.

195

196

Child L2 Writers

7.4.2 Integration of the learning-to-write and the writing-to-learn approaches A very relevant pedagogical implication is the consideration of L2 writing in two ways: as a skill that needs to be taught and as a tool to learn the L2. Both perspectives are valuable in the context of teaching and should be taken into account when designing the school syllabus. First of all, we need to understand that guiding students to write in an L2 will be more helpful than taking it for granted that the skill will be acquired. As shown in Chapter 1, writing is tough for YLs. They are facing L2 writing for the first time and at a time when their writing skills are still being developed in the L1(s), and when they still have a low command of the target language. The implication is that helping them will ease the process and will prevent L2 writers from feeling that the task is overwhelming and unaccomplishable. Besides, the empirical studies under scrutiny in this volume have revealed that learners rarely attend to textual features beyond isolated grammatical and lexical forms, suggesting that they could benefit from a teaching approach that helps them with aspects related to the text as a whole, such as how to organize their ideas, how to create cohesion and coherence, or how to adjust the text to the reader’s needs. The second perspective is equally important. L2 writing per se is an activity that enhances language acquisition with YLs. Therefore, and regardless of the quality of students’ performance, we must reinforce the message that when we make students write we are offering them opportunities to learn the L2 by testing their hypotheses, noticing their gaps, reflecting on their language choices, activating their partially or fully acquired knowledge, and so on. Teaching plans should bear both perspectives in mind. Teaching learners to write and making learners write to learn the L2 will generate a large number of interrelated benefits and learning opportunities.

7.4.3 Cross-curricular and cross-linguistic implementation of writing tasks Writing skills are not only present in the L2 classroom; they are used in all school subjects and during the student’s entire academic life. In elementary school, children build the foundations for later writing in different disciplines (Graham et al., 2020). The transfer of writing abilities from one language (L1) to another (L2) and from general to discipline-specific domains could benefit from taking a global approach to writing instruction in a given school instead of teaching writing in different ways in each of the subjects and languages.

Chapter 7. Pedagogical guidelines

7.5

Ten tips for the implementation of L2 writing with YLs

Based on the knowledge provided in this monograph, I present the following ten tips to help maximize the learning opportunities afforded by assigning writing tasks in school settings. The tips are not meant to be a detailed L2 writing guide, but rather a list of ten basic and feasible recommendations to bear in mind when designing L2 writing activities. The idea is that teachers could take into consideration the tips that make more sense for their students when designing L2 writing tasks. For those teachers who are already applying some of these tips in their lessons, this guide might serve as a further reinforcement of the potential of their practices.

1. Write, write, write The first message is simple: Make students write. When they are writing, they are learning. Even if the teacher does not see the product that the student has produced, writing is a valuable learning tool. Being a teacher myself and having worked in several school contexts, I know only too well that teachers often do not ask their students to do more writing activities because they simply do not have the time or the energy (or both) to correct their drafts, and they feel that they are not doing their job if they are not correcting. However, while feedback will provide greater benefits, writing in itself provides many benefits, too, and it needs to be seen as valuable in its own right. When writing, learners will benefit from all the advantages described in Chapter 1: They will process the language more deeply, attend to form, try to use more complex structures, try to be more correct, and so forth. Therefore, I recommend that teachers practice writing every day and correct a selection of the writings. This can be done in different ways and teachers will certainly know how to implement this in their own groups, but here is one idea. At the beginning or at the end of every L2 lesson, the students could have a diary in which they simply write down three or four lines about a topic of their choice or of the teachers’ choice. At regular intervals, perhaps at the end of every month, the teacher can collect the diaries to read some of the texts and provide feedback on the language and positive feedback on the effort made by the students. If the teacher needs to track the progress of a specific student more closely, she can check this student’s diary as often as necessary but, for most students, the regular review of some of the diary entries will be enough. This habit will help to enhance not only L2 learning but also students’ self-regulation, creativity, and sense of achievement. By the end of the year, each student will have a diary with plenty of L2 writing, without exhausting the teacher with the burden of too many corrections.

197

198

Child L2 Writers

2. Assign multi-stage tasks Asking students to write a text, marking it, and then giving it back to them seems to be a common practice in schools (the only one I experienced in my school years when learning FLs). However, the learning potential of this practice can be easily enhanced with a little effort on the part of the student to encourage more autonomous learning. This can be done by implementing writing assignments in the form of multi-stage tasks whenever possible. An activity involving three stages could be implemented in three separate sessions, or in the same session. The first stage will be devoted to writing; the second one to revising (self-editing or with WCF); and the third one to rewriting. The characteristics of each of these sessions can be very different (see ideas on this in the coming sections), but the mere introduction of three stages will bring about the benefits of writing, revising, and rewriting. The revision and rewriting stages allow students to notice features in their initial writing, to reflect on their gaps, to find solutions and improvements, and to recycle the knowledge gained from their revision. Simply put, they will benefit from writing, they will notice while revising, and they will recycle the knowledge gained in the previous stages in the rewriting stage. In contrast, the mere writing and provision of corrections by the teacher, without asking students to do something with them, usually leads to a very superficial approach to the corrections made by the teacher; students do not even have the opportunity to rewrite using the knowledge gained. Thus, my advice is this: Do not waste the potential of a students’ written draft by only marking it. Make students use it for further improvement by implementing revision and rewriting stages.

3. Promote noticing A key feature in SLA and in the context of L2 writing tasks is the relevance of noticing to make progress in the L2 acquisition process. To ensure that students notice, and process the noticing as deeply as possible, devote sessions to specifically asking them to pay attention to their drafts, that is, to notice the language and content and the content-language mapping that they have employed. After they write a text, ask them to look at it, together or individually, with or without the help of WCF. Make sure that they understand that looking at their drafts, identifying and explaining their errors, and improving them is as necessary as writing them. This could be done with the help of models, reformulations, or direct corrections, and could be accompanied by tables to fill in, classifying linguistic issues into categories (Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2021). Also, students could be allowed to use dictionaries or textbooks to help build their autonomy in the L2 learning process and

Chapter 7. Pedagogical guidelines

to enhance their efficiency as reviewers of their own work; this helps them, at the same time, to build their self-esteem.

4. Combine different forms of WCF As we have seen in this volume, the use of model texts promotes the noticing of lexical forms, while direct WCF helps YLs to notice more formal aspects of the language while writing, at least while writing in collaboration. This suggests that teachers could combine different forms of feedback, being aware of the type of noticing that they are promoting with each of them. On the other hand, aspects related to the structure of the text or the organization of ideas seem to be rarely noticed and will have to be addressed by the teacher specifically, as it seems that the WCF forms explored to date do not, or only very partially, call learners’ attention to these global aspects of writing (Coyle et al., 2020).

5. Encourage collaboration Collaboration seems to be a motivating factor in studies on CL in general education, and the same applies to studies on collaboration in writing tasks; some tentative gains in students’ noticing and performance have been reported when comparing pairs to individual writers. Therefore, the introduction of collaborative writing activities could be an interesting tool for the elementary school L2 classroom. Teachers can make students work in pairs or small groups and try to promote cooperative patterns (which already seem to be the most frequent pattern among children according to the reviewed research) whenever possible. CW can also be accompanied with training sessions in which teachers explain to students how they must cooperate as a team to write the best possible text, to benefit from each other’s knowledge, or to notice and solve a greater and more varied number of linguistic challenges. The pairs can be formed in different ways, and by combining similar and different proficiency levels, as all learners will benefit in one way or another. The practice of CW will also entail the use of oral language in interaction and, therefore, will offer the additional benefits demonstrated for peer interactions in the L2 among YLs. From the perspective of CL, writing in collaboration can not only benefit language acquisition but can also have positive effects in other ways, such as helping to integrate students from different cultures or with different needs. Finally, encouraging CW does not mean that individual writing should be done away with. The few studies with individual writers have demonstrated that children are able to benefit from L2 writing when writing on their own and are also motivated when performing tasks individually (Roothooft et al.,

199

200

Child L2 Writers

2022). Therefore, a balanced approach that combines individual writing and CW would be desirable.

6. Repeat Although the benefits demonstrated for TR with children have been modest, this practice motivates students, and, as stated, the simple act of writing provides learning opportunities. Therefore, I encourage teachers to ask their students to write the same composition twice or three times and then compare those writings. Students can notice the differences, or teachers can provide feedback on the second or third attempt, thus combining the benefits of TR and of WCF.

7. Write regularly A pervasive idea in education is the fact that humans usually need a lot more than one attempt at something before they can achieve their learning goals. Likewise, a pervasive idea in L2 writing research with YLs and adults is the acknowledgement that one-shot tasks are useful to gain insights into the potential of the given task but not sufficient to promote language learning. For language development to occur, tasks need to be used in the school context on a regular basis. As Manchón (2020) reminds us, ISLA happens within a syllabus. Thus, the efficiency of a given practice has to be integrated into regular lessons to enable students benefit from its potential. In other words, teachers need to implement writing tasks regularly for a long period of time, that is, writing tasks should be present in the classroom every week or every two weeks for the whole academic year, and in each school year.

8. Provide instruction Assistance is very beneficial for learners in general, and writing tasks are no exception. Since children usually need more assistance than adults, it is recommended that they be provided with the support they need. This could take the form of writing instruction, corrective feedback, and guidance in how to collaborate. Forms of scaffolding such as the provision of WCF or of task guidelines are simple forms of assistance that help children benefit from a given task. Several researchers have also suggested that YLs might benefit from a more guided implementation of writing tasks and feedback forms, that is, from instructing learners specifically on how to perform the tasks (Coyle et al., 2018). Cánovas Guirao et al. (2015), when observing the difficulties that children have in processing and integrating linguistic forms in their subsequent drafts, suggest that providing them with instruction would be a way to improve this:

Chapter 7. Pedagogical guidelines

… younger learners need additional guidance and practice in using models so that they might better exploit the potential models offer for improving written output. Children need to be made aware of how to extract ideas, lexis and form systematically, just as they need to be shown how to allocate their limited attention more strategically. This calls for extended practice at the feedback comparison stage in activities designed to promote noticing and rehearsal so as to facilitate children’s encoding of linguistic forms in long-term memory for future retrieval and use. Teachers might take advantage of samples of children’s writing and model texts in whole class discussions to help learners focus their attention on lexical, content-related and syntactic errors. Guided noticing could be promoted by providing tables or checklists to complete when analysing feedback, and by encouraging children to formulate accurate sentences with recurrent errors during the comparison stage. (Cánovas Guirao et al., 2015, p. 73)

9. Praise students’ L2 writing efforts The opinions of teachers are very relevant because children’s self-images are built partly as a result of the opinions of significant adults, including teachers. Research has shown that a focus on students’ efforts usually results in increased effort and a greater sense of empowerment, and that praise for effort is more effective than excessive praise or excessive punishment related to the learners’ intrinsic capacities. Practically speaking, when marking students’ compositions, teachers could not only provide feedback on the students’ product but also on the effort and achievement made with that effort, with the aim of encouraging the continuation of the effort and the building of students’ perseverance.

10. Tune the tasks A key principle in education is that learning happens within a range that starts at the students’ current level of knowledge and extends only by a certain amount. Any goals beyond this range are simply unattainable. When designing writing tasks, teachers must tune them to the cognitive and linguistic development of their students and, then, use their drafts to stretch their knowledge from there. Simple as it seems, this is not always taken into account in L2 lessons. From my own experience, I can say that I have met some teachers (fortunately, very few) who design tasks that most students cannot resolve; they blame it on students’ lack of effort without being aware that the task is simply too long or too hard. In sum, teachers should not design L2 writing tasks that will result in abandonment or failure for most learners. Likewise, teachers should not design L2 writing tasks that the majority cannot complete because they lack the basic vocabulary or the basic knowledge about how to structure their text. Rather, teachers should design

201

202

Child L2 Writers

tasks that all students can resolve at their own level and work on those drafts (with noticing session, repetitions, WCF, and so on) to promote the L2 development of each student. Writing is a wonderful skill to put this principle into practice, as all students can write, even at low levels of proficiency, and all should be able to complete the task and stretch from their own point of departure (their draft). In sum, the pedagogical applications of the knowledge gained from SLA research on L2 writers can be summarized in the form of straightforward guidelines, as follows: – – –

– – – – –

7.6

Ask students to write as often as possible, even if you cannot correct their drafts. Allow students to write in pairs. Implement writing tasks in multiple stages, including: – noticing sessions (of their own draft or with WCF); – rewriting sessions; and – repetition of the same draft. Combine different forms of WCF. Implement writing tasks regularly. Train your students in how to carry out the writing task, how to process WCF, and how to collaborate. Praise your students’ efforts. Tune the task to students’ cognitive and linguistic capacities.

Summary

In this final chapter I have discussed what I consider to be a major issue in SLA: the relevance of our research, conducted in instructed settings, in providing pedagogical guidelines and improving language teaching in ESL and EFL contexts. This is especially important in contexts where access to the TL is very limited, and where the need to use the most effective practices is key in achieving positive outcomes. As I have explained, the only way to bring about change in the language classroom is for teachers and researchers to cooperate. Real students in real language lessons are our object of study, and, therefore, the more closely we cooperate, the deeper our understanding of the acquisition and teaching processes will be. Thus, I have argued in favor of strengthening this cooperation and, at the same time, trying to bring change to classroom coursebooks, which still constitute the main tools for teachers. To my knowledge, this avenue is still unexplored, but it could be a very effective way to improve teaching approaches on a large scale.

Chapter 7. Pedagogical guidelines

In this chapter, I have also briefly reviewed the behavior of SLA researchers in published papers on the topic of L2 writing with YLs. This review shows that, while the pedagogical guidelines seem to be in the minds of researchers, the space they occupy in the articles is rather limited, as is the depth or the clarity with which the pedagogical guidelines are described. I have suggested the integration of these guidelines online with discussion of the results, with the inclusion of a section specifically devoted to them, with greater weight, and finally, with the inclusion of research questions explicitly addressing the pedagogical value of the study. Also, I have not disregarded the ongoing progress made in this respect in the field of SLA with many editors already favoring inclusion of the pedagogical value of SLA studies and the addition of summaries for wider audicences. In an attempt to put the above recommendations into practice, I have devoted the two final sections of this volume to a discussion of the implications and applications of the reviewed studies. Regarding the implications, I have reflected on the main issues to bear in mind when dealing with L2 writing with YLs, from the awareness of limitations in terms of expected outcomes, to the integration of the writing-to-learn and learning-to-write approaches, to the advantages of treating writing as cross-linguistic and cross-curricular in schools. To finish, I have provided some guidelines that could be followed to optimize the potential of L2 writing tasks in elementary school contexts. I would like to end this book about writing with a piece of writing. It is an extract from the novel Momo by Michael Ende, published in 1973. I believe that it describes well what it feels like to face the challenging task of teaching/learning L2 writing and, ultimately, of teaching/learning an L2. It also provides the best advice to approach this challenge. Let’s say that L2 writing is like sweeping a very long street: Sometimes, when you’ve a very long street ahead of you, you think how terribly long it is and feel sure you’ll never get it swept. And then you start to hurry. You work faster and faster and every time you look up there seems to be just as much left to sweep as before, and you try even harder, and you panic, and in the end you’re out of breath and have to stop – and still the street stretches away in front of you. That’s not the way to do it. You must never think of the whole street at once, understand? You must only concentrate on the next step, the next breath, the next stroke of the broom, and the next, and the next. Nothing else. That way you enjoy your work, which is important, because then you make a good job of it. And that’s how it ought to be. And all at once, before you know it, you find you’ve swept the whole street clean, bit by bit. What’s more, you aren’t out of breath. That’s important, too… – Michael Ende, Momo

203

References Abe, M. (2008). Exploring the role of model essays in the IELTS writing test: A feedback tool (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Queensland, Australia. Adams, A. -M., & Guillot, K. (2008). Working memory and writing in bilingual students. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 13–28. https://doi.org/10.2143/ITL.156.0.2034417

Adams, R. (2003). L2 output, reformulation and noticing: Implications for IL development. Language Teaching Research, 7(3), 347–376. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168803LR127OA Adams, R., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2008). Does writing influence learner attention to form? The speaking-writing connection in second language and academic literacy development. In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela. (Eds.), The oral/literate connection: Perspectives on L2 speaking, writing, and other media interactions (pp. 210–225). University of Michigan Press. Ahmadian, M. J. (2011). The effect of ‘massed’ task repetitions on complexity, accuracy and fluency: Does it transfer to a new task? The Language Learning Journal, 39(3), 269–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2010.545239

Ahmadian, M. J. (2012). Task repetition in ELT. ELT journal, 66(3), 380–382. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccs020

Ahmadian, M. J., & Tavakoli, M. (2010). The effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency in EFL learners’ oral production. Language Teaching Research, 15, 35–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810383329 Al Khalil, M. K. (2011). Second language motivation: Its relationship to noticing, affect, and production in task-based interaction (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, USA. Al Khalil, M. K. (2016). Insights from measurement of task-related motivation. In A. Mackey & E. Marsden. (Eds.), Advancing methodology and practice: The IRIS repository of instruments for research into second languages (pp. 243–262). Routledge. Albin, M. L., Benton, S. L., & Khramtsova, I. (1996). Individual differences in interest and narrative writing. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(4), 305–324. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1996.0024

Alegría de la Colina, A., & García Mayo, M. P. (2009). Oral interaction in task-based EFL learning: The use of the L1 as a cognitive tool. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics, 47(3–4), 325–345. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2009.014 Alloway, T. P. (2011). Improving working memory: Supporting students’ learning. Sage. Alloway, T. P., & Alloway, R. G. (2010). Investigating the predictive roles of working memory and IQ in academic attainment. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 106(1), 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2009.11.003

Alloway, T. P., Gathercole, S. E., Willis, C., & Adams, A. M. (2004). A structural analysis of working memory and related cognitive skills in early childhood. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 87(2), 85–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2003.10.002

References

Alvarez, E. (2006). Rate and route of acquisition in EFL narrative development at different ages. In C. Muñoz. (Ed.), Age and the rate of foreign language learning (pp. 127–155). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853598937-008 Amiryousefi, M. (2016). The differential effects of two types of task repetition on the complexity, accuracy, and fluency in computer-mediated L2 written production: A focus on computer anxiety. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(5), 1052–1068. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2016.1170040

Anderman, E. M., Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1999). Declining motivation after the transition to middle school: Schools can make a difference. Journal of Research & Development in Education, 32, 131–147. Anderson, J. R. (1995). Learning and memory: An integrated approach. John Wiley & Sons. Antón, M., & DiCamilla, F. (1998). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(3), 314–342. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.54.3.314

Askew, S., & Lodge, C. (2004). Gifts, ping-pong and loops–linking feedback and learning. In S. Askew. (Ed.). Feedback for learning (pp. 13–30). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203017678

Aula Blasco, J. (2016). The relationship between writing anxiety, writing self-efficacy, and Spanish EFL students’ use of metacognitive writing strategies: A case study. Journal of English Studies, 14, 7–45. https://doi.org/10.18172/jes.3069 Azkarai, A., & García Mayo, M. P. (2016). Task repetition effects on L1 use in EFL child taskbased interaction. Language Teaching Research, 21(4), 480–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816654169

Azkarai, A., & Kopinska, M. (2020). Young EFL learners and collaborative writing: A study on patterns of interaction, engagement in LREs, and task motivation. System, 94(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102338

Azpilicueta-Martinez, R. (2020). Verbal evidence of task-related strategies in EFL: Children and adult interactions. International Journal of English Studies, 20(3), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes.409961

Baba, K. & Nitta, R. (2011). Task repetition and L2 writing development: A longitudinal study from a dynamic systems perspective. In H. Byrnes & R. M. Manchón. (Eds.), Task-based language learning and teaching: Insights from writing (pp. 107–136). John Benjamins. Baba, K., & Nitta, R. (2014). Phase transitions in development of writing fluency from a complex dynamic systems perspective. Language Learning, 64(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12033

Baddeley, A. D. (2002). Is working memory still working? European Psychologist, 7(2), 85. https://doi.org/10.1027//1016-9040.7.2.85

Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower. (Ed.), Recent advances in learning and motivation (pp. 47–89). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60452-1

Baddeley, A. D., & Logie, R. H. (1999). Working memory: The multicomponent model. In A. Miyake & P. Shah. (Eds.), Models of working memory (pp. 28–61). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174909.005 Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman. Bennett, N., & Cass, A. (1988). The effects of group composition on group interactive processes and pupil understanding. British Educational Research Journal, 15, 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192890150102

205

206

Child L2 Writers

Becker, C., & Roos, J. (2016). An approach to creative speaking activities in the young learners'classroom. Education Inquiry, 7(1), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.3402/edui.v7.27613 Berk, L. (2013). Child development. Pearson Education. Best, J. R., Miller, P. H., & Naglieri, J. A. (2011). Relations between executive function and academic achievement from ages 5 to 17 in a large, representative national sample. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 327–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.01.007 Bilodeau, E. A. (1969). Principles of skill acquisition. Academic Press. Bitchener, J. (2012). A reflection on the language learning potential of written CF. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 348–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.006 Bitchener, J. (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 Bitchener, J. (2019). The intersection between SLA and feedback research. In Hyland, K., & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 85–105). 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002

Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001

Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshal, B. & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. Open University Press. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102 Bley-Vroman, R. (1986). Hypothesis testing in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 36, 353–376. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1986.tb00559.x Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). What is the logical problem of foreign language learning? In S. Gass & J. Schachter. (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 41–68). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524544.005 Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Vol. 1: Cognitive domain. David McKay. Bloom, B. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. McGraw–Hill. Boo, Z., Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). L2 motivation research 2005–2014: Understanding a publication surge and a changing landscape. System, 55, 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.10.006

Britton, J., Burgess, T., Martin, N., McLeod, A., & Rosen, H. (1975). The development of writing abilities. Macmillan. Britton, J. R. (1970). Language and learning. Allen Lane. Brophy, J. (1981). Teacher praise: A functional analysis. Review of Educational Research, 51, 5–32. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543051001005 Brown, A. V. (2009). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of effective foreign language teaching: A comparison of ideals. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 46–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00827.x

Bruner, J. S. (1972). Nature and uses of immaturity. American Psychologist, 27(8), 687–708. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0033144

Bruner, J. S. (1996), Culture of education. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674251083

References

Bruner, R. F. (2001, August 17). Repetition is the first principle of all learning. SSRN. Retrieved on 4 August 2022 from https://ssrn.com/abstract=224340 Bruning, R., & Horn, C. (2000). Developing motivation to write. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3501_4 Bui, G., Ahmadian, M. J., & Hunter, A. -M. (2018). Spacing effects on repeated L2 task performance. System, 81, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.12.006 Bull, R., & Scerif, G. (2001). Executive functioning as a predictor of children’s mathematical ability: Inhibition, switching and working memory. Developmental Neuropsychology, 19, 273–293. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326942DN1903_3 Busch, D. (2010). Pre-service teacher beliefs about language learning: The second language acquisition course as an agent for change. Language Teaching Research, 14(3), 318–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810365239

Butler, Y. G., & Zeng, W. (2015). Young learners’ interactional development in task-based paired-assessment in their first and foreign languages: A case of English learners in China. Education, 43(3), 292–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2013.813955 Bygate, M. (1996). Effect of task repetition: Appraising the development of second language learners. In J. Willis & D. Willis. (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 136–146). Heinemann. Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate, M. Swain, & P. Skehan. (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning teaching and testing (pp. 23–48). Pearson Education. Bygate, M. (2006). Areas of research that influence L2 speaking instruction. In E. Usó-Juan & A. Martínez-Flor. (Eds.), Current trends in the development and teaching of the four skills (pp. 159–186). Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197778.3.159 Bygate, M. (Ed.). (2018). Learning language through task repetition. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.11

Bygate, M., & Samuda, V. (2005). Integrative planning through the use of task repetition. In R. Ellis. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 37–74). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.05byg Cain, K. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1995). The relation between motivational patterns and achievement cognitions through the elementary school years. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 41, 25–52. Cain, S. (2013). Quiet: The power of introverts in a world that can’t stop talking. Broadway Books. Calzada, A., & García Mayo, M. P. (2020a). Child EFL learners’ attitudes towards a collaborative writing task: An exploratory study. Language Teaching for Young Learners, 2(1), 52–72. https://doi.org/10.1075/ltyl.19008.cal Calzada, A., & García Mayo, M. P. (2020b). Child EFL grammar learning through a collaborative writing task. Languaging in Language Learning and Teaching, 19–40. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.55.01cal

Calzada, A., & García Mayo, M. P. (2021a). Child learners’ reflections about EFL grammar in a collaborative writing task: When form is not at odds with communication. Language Awareness, 30(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2020.1751178 Calzada, A., & García Mayo, M. P. (2021b). Effects of proficiency and collaborative work on child EFL individual dictogloss writing. Language Teaching for Young Learners, 3(2), 246–274. https://doi.org/10.1075/ltyl.20003.cal

207

208

Child L2 Writers

Cánovas Guirao, J., Roca de Larios, J., & Coyle, Y. (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

Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 267–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9 Charness, N., Tuffiash, M., Krampe, R., Reingold, E., & Vasyukova, E. (2005). The role of deliberate practice in chess expertise. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 151–165. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1106

Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524469 Chen, H., & Myhill, D. (2016). Children talking about writing: Investigating metalinguistic understanding. Linguistics and Education, 35, 100e108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2016.07.004

Chen, S., Nassaji, H., & Liu, Q. (2016). EFL learners’ perceptions and preferences of written corrective feedback: A case study of university students from Mainland China. AsianPacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 1(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-016-0010-y

Chen, W. (2017). The effect of conversation engagement on L2 learning opportunities. ELT Journal Volume, 71(3), 329–340. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccw075 Chen, W. (2018). Patterns of pair interaction in communicative tasks: The transition process and effect on L2 teaching and learning. ELT Journal, 72(4), 425–434. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccy015

Chen, W., & Yu, S. (2019). A longitudinal case study of changes in students’ attitudes, participation, and learning in collaborative writing. System, 82, 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.03.005

Cheung, H. (1996). Non-word span as a unique predictor of second language vocabulary learning. Developmental Psychology, 32, 867–873. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.32.5.867 Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on language. Pantheon. Cockcroft, K. (2015). The role of working memory in childhood education: Five questions and answers. South African Journal of Childhood Education, 5(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajce.v5i1.347

Cohen, A. D. (1982, May 1–6). Writing like a native: The process of reformulation. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Honolulu, HI, United States. Cohen, A. D. (1989). Reformulation: A technique for providing advanced feedback in writing. Guidelines: A Periodical for Classroom Language Teachers, 11(2), 1–9. Cook, G. (2015). Birds out of dinosaurs: The death and life of applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 36(4), 425–433. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv038 Cook, V. (1999). Using SLA research in language teaching. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 267–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.1999.tb00176.x Copland, F., Garton, S., & Burns, A. (2014). Challenges in teaching English to young learners: Global perspectives and local realities. TESOL Quarterly, 48(4), 738–762. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.148

Copley, K. (2018). Neoliberalism and ELT coursebook content. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 15(1), 43–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2017.1318664

References

Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 161–167. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1967.5.1-4.161 Corder, S. P. (1973). Introducing applied linguistics. Penguin Coulmas, F. (2003). Writing systems: An introduction to their linguistic analysis. Cambridge University Press. Courtney, L., Graham, S., Tonkyn, A., & Marinis, T. (2017). Individual differences in early language learning: A study of English learners of French. Applied Linguistics, 38(6), 824–847. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv071 Cowan, N. (2010). The magic mystery four: How is working memory capacity limited and why? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 51–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721409359277

Cowan, N. (2014). Working memory underpins cognitive development, learning, and education. Educational Psychology Review, 26(2), 197–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9246-y

Coyle, Y., Cánovas Guirao, J., & Roca de Larios, J. (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 Coyle, Y., Férez Mora, P. A., & Solís Becerra, J. (2020). Improving reference cohesion in young EFL learners’ collaboratively written narratives: Is there a role for reformulation? System, 94, 102333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102333 Coyle, Y., & Roca de Larios, J. (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

Coyle, Y., & Roca de Larios, J. (2020). Exploring young learners’ engagement with models as a written corrective technique in EFL and CLIL settings. System, 95, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102374

Crosthwaite, P. (2017). Retesting the limits of data-driven learning: Feedback and error correction. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(6), 447–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1312462

Csizér, K., & Kormos, J. (2009). Learning experiences, selves and motivated learning behavior: A comparative analysis of structural models for Hungarian secondary and university learners of English. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda. (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 98–119). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691293-006 Cumming, A. H. (Ed.). (2006). Goals for academic writing: ESL students and their instructors. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.15 Damon, W. (1983). Social and personality development: Infancy through adolescence. Norton. Damon, W., & Phelps, E. (1989). Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education. International Journal of Educational Research, 58(1), 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(89)90013-X

DeKeyser, R. M. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42–63). Cambridge University Press. DeKeyser, R. (2007a). Situating the concept of practice. In R. DeKeyser. (Ed.), Practice in a second language (pp. 1–18). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667275.002

209

210

Child L2 Writers

DeKeyser, R. M. (2007b). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 97–112). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Associates. DeKeyser, R. (2010). Monitoring processes in Spanish as a second language during a study abroad program. Foreign Language Annals, 43(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2010.01061.x

DeKeyser, R., & Criado, R. (2012). Automatization, skill acquisition, and practice in second language acquisition. In C. A. Chapelle. (Ed.). The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0067 DeKeyser, R., & Juffs, A. (2005). Cognitive considerations in L2 learning. In E. Hinkel. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 437–454). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Associates. DeStefano, D., & LeFevre, J. (2004). The role of working memory in mental arithmetic. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16, 353–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440244000328

Dewaele, J. -M., Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2008). Effect of trait emotional intelligence and sociobiographical variables on communicative anxiety and foreign language anxiety among adult multilinguals: A review and empirical investigation. Language Learning, 58(4), 911–960. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00482.x DiCamilla, F. J., & Antón, M. (2004). Private speech: A study of language for thought in the collaborative interaction of language learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 36–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2004.00053.x Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2001). The systematic design of instruction. Longman. Dixon, L. Q., Zhao, J., Shin, J. Y., Wu, S., Su, J. H., Burgess-Brigham, R., Gezer, M. U., & Snow, C. (2012). What we know about second language acquisition: A synthesis from four perspectives. Review of Educational Research, 82(1), 5–60. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311433587

Djigunović, J. M. (2009). Impact of learning conditions on young FL learners’ motivation. In M. Nikolov. (Ed.), Early learning of modern foreign languages. Processes and outcomes, (pp. 75–89). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691477-008 Donato, R. (1988). Beyond group: A psycholinguistic rationale for collective activity in secondlanguage learning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Delaware, Newark. Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel. (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Ablex. Dörnyei, Z. (2001). New themes and approaches in second language motivation research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190501000034 Dörnyei, Z. (2002). The motivational basis of language learning tasks. In P. Robinon. (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 137–158). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.2.10dor

Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, orientations and motivations in language learning: Advances in theory, research, and applications. Language Learning, 53(1), 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.53222

Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263107310061

References

Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda. (Eds), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 92–142). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691293-003

Dörnyei, Z. (2019). Task motivation. What makes an L2 task engaging? Researching L2 Task Performance and Pedagogy, 13, 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.13.04dor Dörnyei, Z. (2020). From integrative motivation to directed motivational currents: The evolution of the understanding of L2 motivation over three decades. In M. Lamb, K. Csizér, A. Henry, & S. Ryan. (Eds.), Palgrave Macmillan handbook of motivation for language learning (pp. 39–69). Palgrave Macmillan. Dörnyei, Z., Csizér, K., & Németh, N. (2006). Motivation, language attitudes and globalisation: A Hungarian perspective. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853598876 Dörnyei, Z., & Kormos, J. (2000). The role of individual and social variables in oral task performance. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 275–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880000400305

Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315779553

Dörnyei, Z. & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In C. Doughty & M. Long. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 539–587). Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756492.ch18 Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and researching motivation (2nd ed.). Pearson Education. Doughty, C., & Long, M. H. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of second language acquisition. Basil Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756492 Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–138). Cambridge University Press. Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press. Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development. Psychology Press. Dweck, C. S. (2002). Messages that motivate: How praise molds students’ beliefs, motivation, and performance (in surprising ways). In J. Aronson. (Ed.), Improving academic achievement: Impact of psychological factors on education (pp. 37–60). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012064455-1/50006-3

Ede, L., & Lunsford, A. (1990). Singular texts/plural authors. Southern Illinois University Press. Edelenbos, P., Johnstone, R., & Kubanek, A. (2006). The main pedagogical principles underlying the teaching of languages to very young learners. European Commission, Education and Culture, Culture and Communication Multilingualism Policy. Edstrom, A. (2015). Triads in the L2 classroom: Interaction patterns and engagement during a collaborative task. System, 52, 26–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.04.014 Eisenberg, N., Valiente, C., Fabes, R. A., Smith, C. L., Reiser, M., Shepard, S. A., Losoya, A. H., Guthrie, I. K., Murphy, B. C., & Cumberland, A. J. (2003). The relations of effortful control and ego control to children’s resiliency and social functioning. Developmental Psychology, 39, 761–776. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.39.4.761 Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task performance in a second language. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11

211

212

Child L2 Writers

Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63, 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023

Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., & Yamazaki, A. (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

Ellis, S., & Gauvain, M. (1992). Social and cultural influences on children’s collaborative interactions. In L. T. Winegar & J. Valsiner. (Eds.), Children’s development within social context (pp. 155–180). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Elwood, J. A., & Bode, J. (2014). Student preferences vis-à-vis teacher feedback in university EFL writing classes in Japan. System, 42(1), 333–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.12.023

Enever, J. (2018). Policy and politics in global primary English. Oxford University Press. Engel de Abreu, P. M. J., Gathercole, S. E., & Martin, R. (2011). Disentangling the relationship between working memory and language: The roles of short-term storage and cognitive control. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(5), 569–574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.06.002

Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363

European Commission. (2012). First European survey on languages competences. Final report. Retrieved from Evans, D. W., Leckman, J. F., Carter, A., Reznick, S., Henshaw, D., King, R. A., & Pauls, D. (1997). Ritual, habit, and perfectionism: The prevalence and development of compulsivelike behavior in normal young children. Child Development, 68, 58–68. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131925

Fazio, L. L. (2001). The effect of corrections and commentaries on the journal writing accuracy of minority- and majority-language students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(4), 235–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00042-X Ferkany, M. (2008). The educational importance of self-esteem. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 42(1), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9752.2008.00610.x Fernández Dobao, A. (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

Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410607201 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(1), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.005 Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long term effects of written error correction. In Hyland, K., & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81–104). 1st edition. Cambridge University Press. Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990490

References

Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: how explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X

Finders, J. K., McClelland, M. M., Geldhof, G. J., Rothwell, D. W., & Hatfield, B. E. (2021). Explaining achievement gaps in kindergarten and third grade: The role of self-regulation and executive function skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 54, 72–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2020.07.008

Flowerdew, J. (2002). Genre in the classroom: A linguistic approach. In A. M. Johns. (Ed.), Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 91–102). Routledge. Francis, D. J., Shaywitz, S. E., Stuebing, K. K., Shaywitz, B. A., & Fletcher, J. M. (1996). Developmental lag versus deficit models of reading disability: A longitudinal, individual growth curves analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.88.1.3

Fukuta, J. (2016). Effects of task repetition on learners’ attention orientation in L2 oral production. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 321–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815570142

García Hernández, F. J., Roca de Larios, J., & Coyle, Y. (2017). Reformulation as a problemsolving space for young EFL writers: A longitudinal study of language learning strategies. In M. P. García Mayo. (Ed.), Learning foreign languages in primary school: Research insights (pp. 193–222). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783098118-012 García Mayo, M. P. (Ed.). (2017). Learning foreign languages in primary school: Research insights. Multilingual Matters. García-Mayo, M. P. (2018). Child task-supported interaction in the Spanish EFL setting. Research and challenges. International Journal of English Studies, 18(2), 119–143. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2018/2/319731

García Mayo, M. P., & Alcón Soler, E. (2013). Negotiated input and output. Interaction. In J. Herschensohn & M. Young-Scholten. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 209–229). Cambridge University Press. García Mayo, M. P., & García Lecumberri, M. L. (2003). Age and the acquisition of English as a foreign language. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853596407 García Mayo, M. P., & Imaz Agirre, A. (2016). Task repetition and its impact on EFL children’s negotiation of meaning strategies and pair dynamics: An exploratory study. The Language Learning Journal, 44(4), 451–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2016.1185799 García Mayo, M. P., & Imaz Agirre, A. (2019). Task modality and pair formation method: Their impact on patterns of interaction and LREs among EFL primary school children. System, 80, 165–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.11.011 García Mayo, M. P., Imaz Agirre, A. I., & Azkarai, A. (2018). Task repetition effects on CAF in EFL child task-based oral interaction. In M. J. Ahmadian & M. P. García Mayo. (Eds.), Recent perspectives on task-based language learning and teaching (pp. 9–27). De Gruyter Mouton. García Mayo, P., Lázaro-Ibarrola, A., & Liceras, J. (2005). Placeholders in the English interlanguage of bilingual (Basque/Spanish) children. Language Learning, 55(3), 445–489. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00312.x

García Mayo, M. P., & Loidi Labandibar, U. (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. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190517000071

213

214

Child L2 Writers

Gardner, R. C. (1985), Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. Edward Arnold. Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1959). Motivational variables in second language acquisition. Journal of Psychology, 13(4), 266–272. Gass, S. M. (1988). Second language vocabulary acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 9, 92–106. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500000829 Gass, S. M. (1990). Second and foreign language learning: Same, different or none of the above? In B. VanPatten & J. Lee. (Eds.), Second language acquisition (pp. 34–44). Multilingual Matters. Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten, & J. Williams. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 175–200). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gass, S., Mackey, A., Alvarez-Torres, M. J., & Fernández-García, M. (1999). The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 49(4), 549–581. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00102

Gathercole, S. E., & Alloway, T. P. (2008). Working memory and learning: A practical guide for teachers. Sage. Gathercole, S. E., Pickering, S. J., Ambridge, B., & Wearing, H. (2004). The structure of working memory from 4 to 15 years of age. Developmental Psychology, 40, 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.40.2.177

Gerber, A. S., & Malhotra, N. (2008). Publication bias in empirical sociological research: Do arbitrary significance levels distort published results? Sociological Methods & Research, 37(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124108318973 Gilabert, R., Manchón, R., & Vasylets, O. (2016). Mode in theoretical and empirical TBLT research: Advancing research agendas. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 117–135. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190515000112

Gobet, F., & Campitelli, G. (2007). The role of domain-specific practice, handedness, and starting age in chess. Developmental Psychology, 43(1), 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.1.159

Gokhale, A. A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology Education, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v7i1.a.2 Gorman, M., & Ellis, R. (2019). The relative effects of metalinguistic explanation and direct written corrective feedback on children’s grammatical accuracy in new writing. Language Teaching for Young Learners, 1(1), 57–81. https://doi.org/10.1075/ltyl.00005.gor Gottfried, A. E., Fleming, J. S., & Gottfried, A. W. (2001). Continuity of academic intrinsic motivation from childhood through late adolescence: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.3 Graham, S. (2020). The sciences of reading and writing must become more fully integrated. Reading Research Quarterly, 55, 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.332 Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and self-efficacy of struggling young writers: The effects of self-regulated strategy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(2), 207–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.08.001

Graham, S., & Hebert, M. (2011). Writing to read: A meta-analysis of the impact of writing and writing instruction on reading. Harvard Educational Review, 81, 710–744. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.81.4.t2k0m13756113566

References

Graham, S., Kiuhara, S. A., & MacKay, M. (2020). The effects of writing on learning in science, social studies, and mathematics: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 90(2), 179–226. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320914744 Green, J., Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2007). Motivation and engagement in English, mathematics and science high school subjects: Towards an understanding of multidimensional domain specificity. Learning and Individual Differences, 17, 269–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2006.12.003

Guénette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 40–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.01.001

Guiora, A. Z. (2005). The language sciences: The challenges ahead. A farewell address. Language Learning, 55, 183–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00302.x Hakkarainen, K., Lipponen, L., Jarvela, S., & Niemivirta, M. (1999). The interaction of motivational orientation and knowledge-seeking inquiry in computer-supported collaborative learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 21, 263–81. https://doi.org/10.2190/C525-TDYQ-WWKY-87CB

Hamburg, D. A. (1968). Evolution of emotional responses: Evidence from recent research on non-human primates. Science and Psychoanalysis, 12, 39–54. Hamidun, N., Hizwari, S., Hashim, M., & Othman, N. (2012). Enhancing students’ motivation by providing feedback on writing: The case of international students from Thailand. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 2(6), 591–594. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJSSH.2012.V2.179

Han, J., & Jung, J. K. (2007). Patterns and preferences of corrective feedback and learner repair. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics, 23(1), 243–260. Han, Z. -H. (2000, October). Rethinking the role of corrective feedback in Communicative Language Teaching. Paper presented at the 27th New York State TESOL Convention, Rochester, NY, United States. Han, Z. -H. (2001). Fine-tuning corrective feedback. Foreign Language Annals, 34, 582–599. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2001.tb02105.x

Han, Z. -H. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 543–572. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588240 Hanaoka, O. (2006a). Exploring the role of models in promoting noticing in L2 writing. Jacket Bulletin, 42, 1–13. Hanaoka, O. (2006b). Noticing from models and reformulations: A case study of two Japanese EFL learners. Sophia Linguistica, 54, 167–192. Hanaoka, O. (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(4), 459–479. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807080963 Hanaoka, O., & Izumi, S. (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

Harter, S. (2003). The development of self-representations during childhood and adolescence. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney. (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 610–642). Guilford. Harter, S. (2006). The self. In N. Eisenberg. (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., Vol. 3, pp. 505–570). John Wiley & Sons.

215

216

Child L2 Writers

Hartup, W. W. (1982). Peer relations. In C. B. Kopp & J. B. Krakow. (Eds.), The child: Development in a social context (pp. 514–575). Addison-Wesley. Hashemian, M., & Heidari, A. (2013). The relationship between L2 learners’ motivation/attitude and success in L2 writing. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 476–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.085 Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203181522

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487 Hawkes, M. (2012). Using task repetition to direct learner attention and focus on form. ELT Journal, 66(3), 327–336. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccr059 Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(2), 141–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(94)90012-4

Henry, A. (2009). Gender differences in compulsory school pupils’ L2 self-concepts: A longitudinal study. System, 37, 177–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.11.003 Hidalgo, M. Á., & Garcia Mayo, M. P. (2021). The influence of task repetition type on young EFL learners’ attention to form. Language Teaching Research, 25(4), 565–586. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819865559

Hidalgo, M. Á., & Lázaro-Ibarrola, A. (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 Hinde, R. A. (1974). Biological bases of human social behaviour. McGraw-Hill. Hirvela, A., & Belcher, D. (2016). Reading/writing and speaking/writing connections: The advantages of multimodal pedagogy. In R. M. Manchón & P. K. Matsuda. (Eds.), Handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 587–612). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614511335-030

Hornstra, L., van der Veen, I., Peetsma, T., & Volman, M. (2013). Developments in motivation and achievement during primary school: A longitudinal study on group-specific differences. Learning and Individual Differences, 23, 195–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.09.004

Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30, 461–473. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp048 Humphrey, N. (2004). The death of the feel-good factor? Self-esteem in the educational context. School Psychology International, 25(3), 347–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034304046906

Hyde, M. (1993). Pair work – A blessing or a curse? An analysis of pair work from pedagogical, cultural, social and psychological perspectives. System, 21(3), 343–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(93)90024-B

Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 255–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90017-0 Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667251

Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (Eds.). (2006). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524742

References

Imaz-Agirre, A., & García-Mayo. (2020). The impact of agency in pair formation on the degree of participation in young learners’ collaborative dialogue. In C. Lambert & R. Oliver. (Eds.), Using tasks in second language teaching (pp. 306–323). Multilingual Matters. Ives, D. (2004). Three NS-NNS upper primary school pairs. A case study. Australian Language and Literacy Matters, 1, 11–16. Jacobs, J. E., Lanza, S., Osgood, D. W., Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Changes in children’s self-competence and values: Gender and domain differences across grades one through twelve. Child Development, 73, 509–527. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00421 Jang, H., & Cheung, Y. L. (2020). Impacts of dyadic interaction on second language writing: A study with eight bilingual primary school students in Singapore. Education 3–13, 48(5), 527–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2019.1624804 Johnson, D. R., Alvarez, P., Longerbeam, S., Soldner, M., Inkelas, K. K., Leonard, J. B., & Rowan-Kenyon, H. (2007). Examining sense of belonging among first-year undergraduates from different racial/ethnic groups. Journal of College Student Development, 48(5), 525–542. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2007.0054 Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory into Practice, 38, 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849909543834 Johnson, K. (2008). An introduction to foreign language learning and teaching. Pearson Education. Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1986). Action research: Cooperative learning in the science classroom. Journal of Science and Children, 24(2), 31–32. Jordan, G., & Gray, H. (2019). We need to talk about coursebooks. ELT Journal, 73(4), 438–446. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccz038 Julkunen, K. (2001). Situation- and task-specific motivation in foreign language learning. In Z. Dörnyei & R. Schmidt. (Eds.), Motivation and second language learning (pp. 29–42). University of Hawai‘i. Kalis, T. M., Vannest, K. J., & Parker, R. (2007). Praise counts: Using self-monitoring to increase effective teaching practices. Preventing School Failure, 51(3), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.3200/PSFL.51.3.20-27

Kang, E. Y. (2020). Using model texts as a form of feedback in L2 writing. System, 89, 102196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102196

Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12189

Kear, D. J., Coffman, G. A., McKenna, M. C., & Ambrosio, A. L. (2000). Measuring attitude toward writing: A new tool for teachers. The Reading Teacher, 34, 10–22. Keith, N., & Ericsson, K. A. (2007). A deliberate practice account of typing proficiency in everyday typists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 13(3), 135–145. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.13.3.135

Kellogg, R. T., & Whiteford, A. P. (2009). Training advanced writing skills: The case for deliberate practice. Educational Psychologist, 44(4), 250–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903213600

Kim, H. R., & Bowles, M. (2019). How deeply do second language learners process written corrective feedback? Insights gained from think-alouds. TESOL Quarterly, 53(4), 913–938. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.522

Kim, J. H. (2015). The role of models and error correction in L2 young learners’ noticing and output. English Teaching, 70(2), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.70.2.201506.3

217

218

Child L2 Writers

Kim, Y. (2013). Promoting attention to form through task repetition in a Korean EFL context. In K. McDonough & A. Mackey. (Eds.), Second language interaction in diverse educational settings (pp. 3–24). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.34.04ch1 Kim, Y., Choi, B., Yun, H., Kim, B., & Choi, S. (2020). Task repetition, synchronous written corrective feedback and the learning of Korean grammar: A classroom-based study. Language Teaching Research, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820912354 Kim, Y., Kang, S., Yun, H., Kim, B., & Choi, B. (2020). The role of task repetition in a Korean as a foreign language classroom: Writing quality, attention to form, and learning of Korean grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 53(4), 827–849. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12501

Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2011). Using pretask modelling to encourage collaborative learning opportunities. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 183–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810388711

Kim, Y., & Payant, C. (2014). A pedagogical proposal for task sequencing: An exploration of task repetition and task complexity on learning opportunities. In M. Baralt, R. Gilabert, & P. Robinson. (Eds.), Task sequencing and instructed second language learning (pp. 151–177). Bloomsbury Academic. Kim, Y., & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2013). The role of task repetition in L2 performance development: What needs to be repeated during task-based interaction? System, 41, 829–840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.08.005 King, K. M., Lengua, L. J., & Monahan, K. C. (2013). Individual differences in the development of self-regulation during pre-adolescence: Connections to context and adjustment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41(1), 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-012-9665-0

Kiss, C., & Nikolov, M. (2005). Developing, piloting, and validating an instrument to measure young learners’ aptitude. Language Learning, 55(1), 99–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00291.x

Klein, P., Boscolo, P., Kirkpatrick, L., & Gelati, C. (Eds.). (2014). Writing as a learning activity. Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004265011 Klein, P. D., & Boscolo, P. (2016). Trends in research on writing as a learning activity. Journal of Writing Research, 7(3), 311–350. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2016.07.03.01 Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254 Kopinska, M., & Azkarai, A. (2020). Exploring young EFL learners’ motivation: Individual versus pair work on dictogloss tasks. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 10(3), 607–630. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2020.10.3.10 Kormos, J. (2012). The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 390–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.003 Kormos, J., & Dörnyei, Z. (2004). The interaction of linguistic and motivational variables in second language task performance. Zeitschrift für interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht, 9(2), 19. Retrieved on 4 August 2022 from http://citeseerx.ist .psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.477.1967&rep=rep1&type=pdf Kotovsky, K., Hayes, J. R., & Simon, H. A. (1985). Why are some problems hard? Evidence from Tower of Hanoi. Cognitive Psychology, 17(2), 248–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(85)90009-X

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practices of second language acquisition. Pergamon.

References

Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Longman. Krashen, S. (1991). The input hypothesis: An update. In J. Alatis. (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics. Linguistics and language pedagogy: The state of the art (pp. 409–431). Georgetown University Press Krueger, R. F., Hicks, B. M., Patrick, C. J., Carlson, S. R., Iacono, W. G., & McGue, M. (2002). Etiologic connections among substance dependence, antisocial behavior, and personality: Modeling the externalizing spectrum. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111, 411–424. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.111.3.411 Laal, M., & Laal, M. (2012). Collaborative learning: what is it? Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 491–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.092 Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. The Modern Language Journal, 66, 140–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1982.tb06973.x Lamb, M. (2016). Motivation. In G. Hall. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of English language teaching (pp. 324–338). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315676203-28 Lanauze, M., & Snow, C. (1989). The relation between first- and second-language writing skills: Evidence from Puerto Rican elementary school children in bilingual programs. Linguistics and Education, 1(4), 323–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0898-5898(89)80005-1 Lannie, A. L., & McCurdy, B. L. (2007). Preventing disruptive behavior in the urban classroom: Effects of the good behavior game on student and teacher behavior. Education and Treatment of Children, 30(1), 85–98. Retrieved on 4 August 2022 from https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2007.0002

Lapkin, S., Swain, M., & Smith, M. (2002). Reformulation and the learning of French pronominal verbs in a Canadian French immersion context. The Modern Language Journal, 86(4), 485–507. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00157 Larson, R. W. (2000). Toward a psychology of positive youth development. American Psychologist, 55(1), 170–183. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.170 Lasagabaster, D., & Doiz, A. (2003). Maturational constraints on foreign-language written production. In M. P. García Mayo & M. L. García Lecumberri. (Eds.), Age and the acquisition of English as a foreign language: Theoretical issues and fieldwork (pp. 136–160). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853596407-008 Lázaro-Ibarrola, A. (2011). Faster and further morphosyntactic development of CLIL vs EFL Basque-Spanish bilinguals learning English in high school. International Journal of English Studies, 12(1), 79–96. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes.12.1.125621 Lázaro-Ibarrola, A. (2013). Reformulation and self-correction: Insights into correction strategies for EFL writing in a school context. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 29–49. Lázaro-Ibarrola, A. (2021). Model texts in collaborative and individual writing among EFL children: noticing, incorporations, and draft quality. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2020-0160 Lázaro-Ibarrola, A., & Azplicueta-Martínez, R. (2019a). Spotting the differences between child–child and child–adult interactions: Evidence from Spanish EFL learners at low levels of proficiency. In J. Rokita-Jaśkow & M. Ellis. (Eds.), Early instructed second language acquisition: Pathways to competence (pp. 80–105). Multilingual Matters. Lázaro-Ibarrola, A., & Azpilicueta-Martínez, R. (2019b). Negotiation of meaning in child-child vs. adult-adult interactions: Evidence from low proficiency EFL learners. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 60(2), 463–489. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2019-0013

219

220

Child L2 Writers

Lázaro-Ibarrola, A., & Azpilicueta-Martínez, R. (2021). Motivation towards the foreign language (English) and regional language (Basque) in immersion schools: Does CLIL in the foreign language make a difference? Advance online publication. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211031737 Lázaro-Ibarrola, A., & Hidalgo, M. Á. (2017). Procedural repetition in task-based interaction among young EFL learners: Does it make a difference? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 168(2), 183–202. https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.16024.laz Lázaro-Ibarrola, A., & Hidalgo, M. Á. (2021). Give me a second chance: Task repetition and collaborative writing with child EFL learners. Language Teaching for Young Learners, 3(2), 275–299. https://doi.org/10.1075/ltyl.20009.laz Lázaro-Ibarrola, A., & Villarreal, I. (2019). Questioning the effectiveness of procedural repetition: the case of Spanish EFL primary school learners. Porta Linguarum, 31, 7–20. Lázaro-Ibarrola, A., & Villarreal, I. (2021). Are EFL writers motivated or demotivated by model texts and task repetition? Evidence from young collaborative writers. International Journal of English Studies, 21(2), 29–55. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes.466401 Lee, E. (2013). Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students. System, 41, 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.01.022 Lee, I. (2008). Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(3), 144–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.12.001 Lee, I., Yu, S., & Liu, Y. (2018). Hong Kong secondary students’ motivation in EFL writing: A survey study. TESOL Quarterly, 52(1), 176–187. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.364 Leeser, M. J. (2007). Learner-based factors in L2 reading comprehension and processing grammatical form: Topic familiarity and working memory. Language Learning, 57, 229–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00408.x Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24(3), 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1991.tb00464.x

Leow, R. P. (Ed.). (2019a). The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315165080 Leow, R. P. (2019b). From SLA > ISLA > ILL: A curricular perspective. In R. P. Leow. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 485–493). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315165080-33 Leow, R. (2019c). ISLA: How explicit or how implicit should it be? Theoretical, empirical, and pedagogical/curricular issues. Language Teaching Research, 23, 476–493. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818776674

Leow, R. P. (2015). Explicit learning in the L2 classroom: A student-centered approach. Routledge. Leow, R. P. (2020). L2 writing-to-learn: Theory, research, and a curricular approach. In Manchón, R. (Ed.), Writing and language learning: Advancing research agendas (pp. 95–118). John Benjamins. Leow, R. P., & Cerezo, L. (2016). Deconstructing the “I” and “SLA” in ISLA: One curricular approach. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6, 43–63. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2016.6.1.3

Leow, R. P., & Suh, B. R. (2021). Theoretical perspectives on L2 writing, written corrective feedback, and language learning in individual writing conditions. In R. M. Manchón & C. Polio. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and writing (pp. 9–21). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429199691-3

References

Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. The MIT Press. Li, M., & Kim, D. (2016). One wiki, two groups: Dynamic interactions across ESL collaborative writing tasks. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.002

Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2020). Teaching and learning L2 in the classroom: It’s about time. Language Teaching, 53(4), 422–432. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444819000454 Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2018). Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language teaching, 51(3), 285–329. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000125 Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie, & T. Bathia. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). Academic Press. Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. WileyBlackwell. Long, M., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative evidence in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 82, 357–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01213.x

Luckasson, R. (2006). The human rights basis for personal empowerment in education. In E. B. Keefe, V. M. Moore, & F. R. Duff. (Eds.), Listening to the experts (pp. 11–20). Paul H. Brookes. Luquin, M., & García Mayo, M. 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(1), 73–100. https://doi.org/10.1075/ltyl.19007.luq Luquin, M., & García Mayo, M. P. (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

Lynch, T., & Maclean, J. (2000). Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for classroom language learning. Language Teaching Research, 4, 221–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880000400303

Lynch, T., & Maclean, J. (2001). Effects of immediate task repetition on learners’ performance. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain. (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks, second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 99–118). Longman. Lyster, R. (1998a). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48, 183–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00039

Lyster, R. (1998b). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51–81. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226319800103X Lyster, R. (2001). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 51, 265–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.2001.tb00019.x

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001034 Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990520 Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000365

221

222

Child L2 Writers

MacIntyre, P. D., & Serroul, A. (2014). Motivation on a per-second timescale: Examining approach-avoidance motivation during L2 task performance. In Z. Dörnyei, P. MacIntyre, & A. Henry. (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 109–138). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783092574-013 Mackey, A. (2007). Interaction as practice. In R. DeKeyser. (Ed.), Practice in a second language (pp. 85–110). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667275.006 Mackey, A. (2012). Input, interaction and corrective feedback in L2 classrooms. Oxford University Press. Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100004010

Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 407–451). Oxford University Press. Mackey, A., Kanganas, A. P., & Oliver, R. (2007). Task familiarity and interactional feedback in child ESL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 285–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00060.x

Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01211.x

Mackey, A., Philp, J., Egi, T., Fujii, A., & Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development. In P. Robinson. (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 181–209. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.2.12mac

Mahn, H. (2013). Vygotsky and second language acquisition. In C. A. Chapelle. (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1–7). Blackwell. Manchón, R. (Ed.). (2011). Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.31 Manchón, R. M. (2014a). The distinctive nature of task repetition in writing. Implications for theory, research, and pedagogy. Estudios de Lingüística Inglesa Aplicada, 14, 13–41. https://doi.org/10.12795/elia.2014.i14.02

Manchón, R. M. (2014b). The internal dimension of tasks: The interaction between task factors and learner factors in bringing about learning through writing. In H. Byrnes & R. M. Manchón. (Eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 27–52). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.7.02man Manchón, R. M. (Ed.). (2020). Writing and language learning: Advancing research agendas. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.56 Manchón, R. M., & Leow, R. P. (2020). An ISLA perspective on L2 learning through writing. In R. M. Manchón. (Ed.), Writing and Language Learning: Advancing research agendas (pp. 335–356). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.56.14man Manchón, R. M., & Roca de Larios, J. (2011). Writing-to-learn in FL contexts. In R. M. Manchón. (Ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (181–208). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.31.13man Manchón, R. M. & Roca de Larios, J. (Eds.) (Forthcoming). Research methods in the study of writing processes. John Benjamins.

References

Manchón, R. M., & Vasylets, O. (2019). Language learning through writing: Theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence. In J. W. Schwieter & A. Benati. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of language learning (pp. 341–362). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108333603.015

Manchón, R. M., & Williams, J. (2016). L2 writing and SLA studies. In R. M. Manchón & P. K. Matsuda. (Eds.), The handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 567–586). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614511335-029 Mann, M., Hosman, C., Schaalma, H., & De Vries, N. (2004). Self-esteem in a broad-spectrum approach for mental health promotion. Health Education Research, 19, 357–372. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyg041

Marsden, E. (2006). Exploring input processing in the classroom: An experimental comparison of processing instruction and enriched input. Language Learning, 56(3), 507–566. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2006.00375.x Marsden, E., & Torgerson, C. (2012). Single group, pre- and post-test research designs: Some methodological concerns. Oxford Review of Education, 38(5), 583–616. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2012.731208

Martin, A. J. (2007). Examining a multidimensional model of student motivation and engagement using a construct validation approach. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 413–440. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709906X118036 Martin, A. J. (2008a). Enhancing student motivation and engagement: The effects of a multidimensional intervention. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 239–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.11.003

Martin, A. J. (2008b). Motivation and engagement in music and sport: Testing a multidimensional framework in diverse performance settings. Journal of Personality, 76, 135–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00482.x Martin, A. J., & Dowson, M. (2009). Interpersonal relationships, motivation, engagement, and achievement: Yields for theory, current issues, and educational practice. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 327–365. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325583 Martínez-Adrián, M., Gutiérrez-Mangado, M. J., Gallardo-del-Puerto, F., & Basterrechea, M. (2021). Language-related episodes by young CLIL learners: A review of task modality effects. Language Teaching for Young Learners, 3(2), 214–245. https://doi.org/10.1075/ltyl.20005.mar

Martínez Esteban, N., & Roca de Larios, J. (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 Masgoret, A. M., & Gardner, R. C. (2003). Attitudes, motivation, and second language learning: A meta-analysis of studies conducted by Gardner and associates. Language Learning, 53(1), 167–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00227 McDonough, K. (2004). Learner-learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a Thai EFL context. System, 32(2), 207–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.01.003 McDonough, K., & García Fuentes, C. (2015). The effect of writing task and task conditions on Colombian EFL learners’ language use. TESL Canada Journal, 32(2), 67–67. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v32i2.1208

Meeuwisse, M., Severiens, S. E., & Born, M. P. (2010). Learning environment, interaction, sense of belonging and study success in ethnically diverse student groups. Research in Higher Education, 51, 528–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-010-9168-1

223

224

Child L2 Writers

Mertens, J. (2003). Rhythm, rhymes and rules. Vom Nutzen der Schrift (nicht nur) beim frühen Englischlernen. Fremdsprachenunterricht, 47(56) 3, 168–173. Meyer, W. U. (1992). Paradoxical effects of praise and criticism on perceived ability. European Review of Social Psychology, 3, 259–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779243000087 Mihaljević Djigunović, J. (2012). Early EFL learning in context: Evidence from a country case study. The British Council. Mihaljević Djigunović, J., & Lopriore, L. (2011). The learner: Do individual differences matter? In J. Enever. (Ed.), ELLiE: Early Language Learning in Europe (pp. 43–60). British Council. Miller, A. T., & Hom, H. L. (1997). Conceptions of ability and the interpretation of praise, blame, and material rewards. Journal of Experimental Education, 65, 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1997.9943790

Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Peake, K. (1988). The nature of adolescent competencies predicted by preschool delay of gratification. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 54, 687–696. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.687

Möller, J. (2005). Paradoxical effects of praise and criticism: Social, dimensional and temporal comparisons. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(2), 275–295. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709904X24744

Monahan, K. C., Steinberg, L., Cauffman, E., & Mulvey, E. P. (2009). Trajectories of antisocial behavior and psychosocial maturity from adolescence to young adulthood. Developmental Psychology, 45, 1654–1668. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015862 Mosing, M. A., Madison, G., Pedersen, N. L., Kuja-Halkola, R., & Ullén, F. (2014). Practice does not make perfect: No causal effect of music practice on music ability. Psychological science, 25(9), 1795–1803. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614541990 Mruk, C. (2006). Self-esteem research, theory, and practice (3rd ed.). Springer. Muñoz, C. (2017). Tracing trajectories of young learners: Ten years of school English learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 37, 168–184. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190517000095 Murphy, V. A. (2014). Second language learning in the early school years: Trends and contexts. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12116 Murtiningsih, S. R. (2016). Collaborative writing in an EFL context. Journal of Foreign Languange Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 82–90. https://doi.org/10.18196/ftl.118 Nassaji, H. (2012). The relationship between SLA research and language pedagogy: Teachers’ perspectives. Language Teaching Research, 16(3), 337–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168812436903

Nelson, G. L., & Murphy, J. M. (1993). Peer response groups: Do L2 writers use peer comments in revising their drafts? TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 135–141. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586965 Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090 Nikolov, M. (1999). ‘Why do you learn English?’ ‘Because the teacher is short’. A study of Hungarian children’s foreign language learning motivation. Language Teaching Research, 3(1), 33–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/136216889900300103 Nikolov, M. (Ed.). (2009). The age factor and early language learning. De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110218282

Nikolov, M., & Mihaljević Djigunovic, J. (2011). All shades of every color: An overview of early teaching and learning of foreign languages. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 95–119. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000183

References

Nitta, R., & Baba, K. (2014). Task repetition and L2 writing development. In H. Byrnes & R. M. Manchón. (Eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 107–136). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.7.05nit Nitta, R., & Baba, K. (2018). Understanding benefits of repetition from a complex dynamic systems perspective. In M. Bygate. (Ed.), Learning language through task repetition (pp. 279–309). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.11.11nit Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00136

Nurmi, J. E., & Aunola, K. (2005). Task-motivation during the first school years: A personoriented approach to longitudinal data. Learning and Instruction, 15(2), 103–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.04.009

O’Brien, I., Segalowitz, N., Collentine, J., & Freed, B. (2006). Phonological memory and lexical narrative, and grammatical skills in second language oral production by adult learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 377–402. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716406060322 Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410604712 Oliver, R. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS–NNS conversation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 459–481. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100014418 Oliver, R. (2002). The patterns of negotiation for meaning in child interaction. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00138 Oliver, R. (2009). How young is too young? Investigating negotiation of meaning and feedback in children aged five to seven years. In A. Mackey, & C. Polio. (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction (pp. 135–156). Routledge. Ortega, L. (2007). Meaningful practice in foreign language classrooms: A cognitiveinteractionist perspective. In R. DeKeyser. (Ed.), Practice in a second language (pp. 180–207). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667275.011 Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (1999). Grade level and gender differences in the writing self-beliefs of middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24(4), 390–405. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1998.0995

Patanasorn, C. (2010). Effects of procedural, content, and task repetition on accuracy and fluency in an EFL context (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northern Arizona University. Paulesu, E., Demonet, J. F., Fazio, F., McCrory, E., Chanoine, V., Brunswick, N., Cappa, S. F., Cossu, G., Habib, M., Frith, C. D., & Frith, U. (2001). Dyslexia – cultural diversity and biological unity. Science, 291, 2165–2167. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1057179 Paulesu, E., McCrory, E., Fazio, F., Menoncello, L., Brunswick, N., Cappa, S., Cotelli, M., Cossu, G., Corte, F., Lorusso, M., Pesenti, S., Gallagher, A., Perani, D., Price, C., Frith, C., & Frith, U. (2000). A cultural effect on brain function. Nature Neuroscience, 3, 91–96. https://doi.org/10.1038/71163

Paulston, C. B., & Bruder, M. N. (1976). Teaching English as a second language. Techniques and procedures. Winthrop Pexman, P. M. (2008). It’s fascinating research: The cognition of verbal irony. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(4), 286–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00591.x

Philp, J., Adams, R., & Iwashita, N. (2013). Peer interaction and second language learning. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203551349

225

226

Child L2 Writers

Philp, J., Oliver, R., & Mackey, A. (Eds.). (2008). Second language acquisition and the younger learner: Child’s play? John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.23 Pianta, R. C. (1998). Applying the concept of resilience in schools: Cautions from a developmental systems perspective. School Psychology Review, 27, 407–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.1998.12085925

Pianta, R. C., Belsky, J., Vandergrift, N., Houts, R., & Morrison, F. J. (2008). Classroom effects on children’s achievement trajectories in elementary school. American Journal of Educational Research, 45, 365–397. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207308230 Pienemann, M., & Johnston, M. (1987). Factors influencing the development of language proficiency. In D. Nunan. (Ed.), Applying second language acquisition research (pp. 45–141). University of Sidney, Australia, National Curriculum Resource Center, AMEP. Pienemann, M., Johnston, M., & Brindley, G. (1988). Constructing an acquisition-based procedure for second language assessment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10, 217–243. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100007324 Pinter, A. (2006). Verbal evidence of task-related strategies: Child versus adult interactions. System, 34, 615–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2006.09.005 Pinter, A. (2007). Benefits of peer–peer interaction: 10-year-old children practising with a communication task. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807074604

Pinter, A. (2011). Children learning second languages. Palgrave McMillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230302297

Pinter, A. (2017). Teaching young language learners (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. Pinter, A., Mathew, R., & Smith, R. (2016). Children and teachers as co-researchers in Indian primary English classrooms. British Council. Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2007). Motivation in education: Theory, research and applications (3rd ed.). Merrill Prentice Hall. Pladevall-Ballester, E. (2018). A longitudinal study of primary school EFL learning motivation in CLIL and non-CLIL settings. Language Teaching Research, 23(6), 765–786. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818765877

Polio, C. (2012). The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 375–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.004

Poupore, G. (2013). Task motivation in process: A complex systems perspective. Canadian Modern Language Review, 69(1), 91–116. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.1139 Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x Qi, D. S., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 277–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00046-7

Rai, M. K., Loschky, L. C., Harris, R. J., Peck, N. R., & Cook, L. G. (2011). Effects of stress and working memory capacity on foreign language readers’ inferential processing during comprehension. Language Learning, 61(1), 187–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00592.x

Robb, T., Ross, S., Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83–93. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586390 Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning, 45(2), 283–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00441.x

References

Robinson, P. (2005). Aptitude and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 45–73. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000036 Robinson, P. (2011). Task-based language learning: A review of issues. Language Learning, 61, 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00641.x Roca de Larios, J., García Hernández, F. J., & Coyle, Y. (2021). A theoretically-grounded classification of EFL children’s formulation strategies in collaborative writing. Language Teaching for Young Learners, 3(2), 300–336. https://doi.org/10.1075/ltyl.20008.roc Rokita-Jaśkow, J., & Ellis, M. (Eds.). (2019). Early instructed second language acquisition: Pathways to competence. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/ROKITA2500 Roothooft, H., Lázaro-Ibarrola, A., & Bulté, B. (2022). Task repetition and corrective feedback via models and direct corrections among young EFL writers: Draft quality and task motivation. Language Teaching Research (ahead of print). https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221082041

Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., & Evans, D. E. (2000). Temperament and personality: origins and outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 122–135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.122

Rothbart, M. K., Ellis, L. K., & Posner, M. I. (2004). Temperament and self-regulation. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs. (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 357–370). Guilford Press. Rouhshad, A., & Storch, N. (2016). A focus on mode. Patterns of interaction in face-to-face and computer-mediated contexts. In M. Sato, & S. Ballinger. (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning. Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 267–289). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.45.11rou Ruiz Funes, M. (1999). Writing, reading, and reading-to-write in a foreign language: A critical review. Foreign Language Annals, 32(4), 514–526. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1999.tb00880.x

Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). Learners’ uses of two types of written feedback on an L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(1), 67–100. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263107070039

Sample, E., & Michel, M. (2014). An exploratory study into trade-off effects of complexity, accuracy and fluency on young learners’ oral task repetition. TESL Canada Journal, 31(8), 23–47. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v31i0.1185 Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230596429

Sánchez, A. J., Manchón, R. M., & Gilabert, R. (2020). The effects of task repetition across modalities and proficiency levels. In R. M. Manchón. (Ed.), Writing and language learning: Advancing research agendas (pp. 121–144). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.56.06san

Santos, M., López Serrano, S., & Manchón, R. M. (2010). The differential effects of two types of direct written corrective feedback on noticing and uptake: Reformulation vs. error correction. International Journal of English Studies, 10, 131–154. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/1/114011

Sato, M., & Csizér, K. (2021). Introduction: Combining learner psychology and ISLA research: Intersections in the classroom. Language Teaching Research, 25(6), 839–855. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211044237

Sato, M., & Loewen, S. (2019). Do teachers care about research? The research–pedagogy dialogue. ELT Journal, 73, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccy048

227

228

Child L2 Writers

Schachter, J. (1991). Corrective feedback in historical perspective. Second Language Research, 7(2), 89–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/026765839100700202 Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129 Schmidt, R. W. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA Review, 11, 11–26. Schmidt, R. W. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.003

Schmidt, R. (2012). Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language learning. In W. M. Chan, K. N. Chin, S. Bhatt, & I. Walker. (Eds.), Perspectives on individual characteristics and foreign language education (pp. 27–50). Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614510932.27

Schoonen, R., Snellings, P., Stevenson, M., & van Gelderen, A. (2009). Toward a blueprint of the foreign language writer: The linguistic and cognitive demands of foreign language writing. In R. M. Manchón. (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts (pp. 77–101). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691859-007 Schulz, R. A. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: Students’ and teachers’ views on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 29, 343–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1996.tb01247.x Schulz, R. A. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback. The Modern Language Journal, 85, 244–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00107 Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2002). The development of academic self-efficacy. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles. (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation. A volume in the educational psychology series. (pp. 15–31). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012750053-9/50003-6

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2013). Self-regulation and learning. In W. M. Reynolds, G. E. Miller, & I. B. Weiner. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Educational psychology (pp. 45–68). John Wiley & Sons. Shak, J. (2006). Children using dictogloss to focus on form. Reflection on English Language Teaching, 5, 47–62. Shak, J., & Gardner, S. (2008). Young learner perspectives on four focus-on-form tasks. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 387–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089923 Sharmat, M. W. (1975). Nate the Great and the lost list. Penguin. Sheppard, C. (2006). The effects of instruction directed at the gaps second language learners noticed in their oral production (Unpublished PhD thesis). University of Auckland, New Zealand. Simard, D., Guénette, D., & Bergeron, A. (2015). L2 learners’ interpretation and understanding of written corrective feedback: Insights from their metalinguistic reflections. Language Awareness, 24(3), 233–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2015.1076432 Simmering, V. R., & Perone, S. (2013). Working memory capacity as a dynamic process. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00567 Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38–62. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.1.38 Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press

References

Skehan, P. (2007). Task research and language teaching: Reciprocal relationships. In S. Fotos & H. Nassaji. (Eds.), Form focused instruction and teacher education (pp. 55–69). Oxford University Press. Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510–532. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp047 Snowling, M. (2000). Dyslexia. Blackwell Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (1999). Instruction, first language influence, and developmental readiness in second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 83(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00002

Spinath, B., & Spinath, F. M. (2005). Longitudinal analysis of the link between learning motivation and competence beliefs among elementary school children. Learning and Instruction, 15(2), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.04.008 Steinberg, L., Albert, D., Cauffman, E., Banich, M., Graham, S., & Woolard, J. (2008). Age differences in sensation seeking and impulsivity as indexed by behavior and self-report: evidence for a dual systems model. Developmental Psychology, 44, 1764–1778. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012955

Steinmayr, R., & Spinath, B. (2009). The importance of motivation as a predictor of school achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(1), 80–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.05.004

Stevenson, C. E., Bergwerff, C. E., Heisera, W. J., & Resinga, W. C. M. (2014). Working memory and dynamic measures of analogical reasoning as predictors of children’s math and reading achievement. Infant and Child Development, 23(1), 51–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.1833

Stoel, R. D., Peetsma, T. T. D., & Roeleveld, J. (2001). Relations between the development of school investment, self-confidence and language achievement in elementary education: A multivariate latent growth curve approach. Learning and Individual Differences, 13(4), 313–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1041-6080(03)00017-7 Storch, N. (1999). Are two heads better than one? Pair work and grammatical accuracy. System, 27(3), 363–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00031-7 Storch, N. (2001). How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs. Language Teaching Research, 5(1), 29–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880100500103 Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00179

Storch, N. (2004). Using activity theory to explain differences in patterns of dyadic interactions in an ESL class. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 60(4), 457–480. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.60.4.457

Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002 Storch, N. (2008). Metatalk in a pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for language development. Language awareness, 17(2), 95–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410802146644

Storch, N. (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

Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847699954

229

230

Child L2 Writers

Storch, N. (2016). Collaborative writing. In R. M. Manchón & P. Matsuda. (Eds.), Handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 387–406). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614511335-021

Storch, N. (2018). Written corrective feedback from sociocultural theoretical perspectives: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 51(2), 262–277. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000034

Storch, N. (2019). Collaborative writing. Language Teaching, 52, 40–59. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000320

Storch, N. (2021a). Collaborative writing: Promoting languaging among language learners. In M. P. García Mayo. (Ed.), Working collaboratively in second/foreign language learning (pp. 13–34). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501511318-002 Storch, N. (2021b). Theoretical perspectives on L2 writing and language learning in collaborative writing and the collaborative processing of written corrective feedback. In R. M. Manchón & C. Polio. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and writing (pp. 22–34). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429199691-4 Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2003). Is there a role for the use of the L1 in an L2 setting? TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 760–770. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588224 Sutton, A. J., Song, F., Gilbody, S. M., & Abrams, K. R. (2000). Modelling publication bias in meta-analysis: A review. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 9(5), p. 421–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/096228020000900503

Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50(1), 158–164. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.50.1.158 Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer. (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford University Press. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf. (Ed.), Sociocultural approaches to second language research (pp. 97–115). Oxford University Press. Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In H. Byrnes. (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). Continuum. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied linguistics, 16(3), 371–391. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.3.371

Swain, M., & Watanabe, Y. (2013). Languaging: Collaborative dialogue as a source of second language learning. The encyclopedia of applied linguistics, 3218–3225. Swain, M., Kinnear, P., & Steinman, L. C. (2011). Sociocultural theory in second language acquisition: An introduction through narratives. Multilingual Matters. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01209.x

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 251–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880000400304

References

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. Longman. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3–4), 285–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00006-5

Swing, S. R., & Peterson, P. L. (1982). The relationship of student ability and small group interaction to student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 19(2), 259–274. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312019002259 Tan, L., Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2010). Pair interaction and mode of communication: Comparing face-to-face and computer mediated communication. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 33, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.2104/aral1027 Tang, C., & Liu, Y. (2018). Effects of indirect coded corrective feedback with and without short affective teacher comments on L2 writing performance, learner uptake and motivation. Assessing Writing, 35, 26–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2017.12.002 Tavakoli, P. (2014). Storyline complexity and syntactic complexity in writing and speaking tasks. In H. Byrnes & R. M. Manchon. (Eds.), Task-based language learning insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 217–236). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.7.09tav Taylor, R. (1987). Selecting effective courseware: three fundamental instructional factors. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12(3), 231–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-476X(87)80028-0

Tennant, J., & Gardner, R. C. (2004). The computerized mini-AMTB. CALICO Journal, 21(2), 245–263. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v21i2.245-263 Thornbury, S. (1997). Reformulation and reconstruction: Tasks that promote ‘noticing’. ELT Journal, 51, 326–335. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/51.4.326 Thornbury, S. (2013). Resisting coursebooks. In J. Gray. (Ed.), Critical perspectives on language teaching materials. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137384263_10 Tin, T. B. (2011). Language creativity and co-emergence of form and meaning in creative writing tasks. Applied Linguistics, 32(2), 215–235. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amq050 Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Harvard University Press. Totten, S., Sills, T., Digby, A., & Ross, P. (Eds.). (1991). Cooperative learning: A guide to research. Garland. Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2001). Age and birth cohort differences in self-esteem: A cross-temporal meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 321–344. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0504_3

Umbach, P. D., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in student learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 153–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-004-1598-1

UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2008). International literacy statistics: A review of concepts, methodology, and current data. Retrieved on 5 August 2022 from http://uis.unesco.org /sites/default/files/documents/international-literacy-statistics-a-review-of-conceptsmethodology-and-current-data-en_0.pdf Ushioda, E. (2009). A person-in-context relational view of emergent motivation, self and identity. In Z. Dornyei & E. Ushioda. (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 215–228). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691293-012

231

232

Child L2 Writers

Ushioda, E. (2017). The impact of global English on motivation to learn other languages: Toward an ideal multilingual self. Modern Language Journal, 101(3), 469–482. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12413

Ushioda, E., & Dörnyei, Z. (2017). Beyond global English: Motivation to learn languages in a multicultural world: Introduction to the special issue. The Modern Language Journal, 101(3), 451–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12407 Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ITL – International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279–296. https://doi.org/10.2143/ITL.156.0.2034439 Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62, 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x

van den Noort, M. W. M. L., Bosch, P., & Hugdahl, K. (2006). Foreign language proficiency and working memory capacity. European Psychologist, 11, 289–296. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.11.4.289

van der Veen, I., & Peetsma, T. T. D. (2009). The development in self-regulated learning behaviour of first-year students in the lowest level of secondary school in The Netherlands. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(1), 34–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.03.001

Van Lawick-Goodall, J. (1968). The behaviour of free-living chimpanzees in the Gombe Stream Reserve. Animal Behaviour Monographs, 1, 161–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0066-1856(68)80003-2

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

VanPatten, B. (Ed.). (2003). Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary. Routledge. VanPatten, B., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (2007). Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Vickov, G. (2007). Pisanje na engleskom u prvom razredu osnovne skole [Writing skills in English in the first grade of primary school]. Stranijezici. Villarreal, I., & Gil-Sarratea, N. (2020). The effect of collaborative writing in an EFL secondary setting. Language Teaching Research, 24(6), 874–897. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819829017

Villarreal, I. & Lázaro-Ibarrola, A. (2022). Models in collaborative writing among CLIL English learners in Primary School: Linguistic outcomes and motivation matters. System, 102922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102922 Von Der Haar, C. M. (2005). Social psychology: A sociological perspective. Pearson Education. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch. (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 144–188). M. E. Sharpe. Wadsworth, B. J. (1989). Piaget’s theory of cognitive and affective development (4th ed.). Longman. Wajnryb, R. (1990). Grammar dictation. Oxford University Press.

References

Walter, C. (2006). Transfer of reading comprehension skills to L2 is linked to mental representations of text and to L2 working memory. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 315–339. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.3.315

Watanabe, Y. (2008). Peer-peer interaction between L2 learners of different proficiency levels: Their interactions and reflections. Canadian Modern Language Review, 64, 605–635. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.64.4.605

Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 121–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880607074599

Webb, N. M. (1982). Group composition, group interaction, and achievement in small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(4), 475–484. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.74.4.475

Weigle, S. (2002). Assessing Writing. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511732997

White, L. (1988). Implications of learnability theories for second language learning and teaching. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics/Cahiers Linguistiques de McGill, 5, 148–162. Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Schiefele, U., Roeser, R., & Davis-Kean, P. (2008). Development of achievement motivation. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner. (Eds.), Child and adolescent development: An advanced course (pp. 406–434). John Wiley & Sons. Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26(3), 445–466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209104670

Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (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

Williams, J. (2012). The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 321–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.007 Williams, J. N., & Lovatt, P. P. (2003). Phonological memory and rule learning. Language Learning, 53, 67–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00211 Williams, M., & Burden, R. (1997). Psychology for language teachers: A social constructivist approach. Cambridge University Press. Winne, P. H., & Marx, R. W. (1989). A cognitive-processing analysis of motivation with classroom tasks. In C. Ames & R. Ames. (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (pp. 297–327). Academic Press. Wong, W., & VanPatten, B. (2003). The evidence is in drills are out. Foreign Language Annals, 36(3), 403–423. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2003.tb02123.x Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x

Wydell, T. N. (2000). Advances in understanding cross cultural differences in dyslexia through a bilingual individual with monolingual dyslexia. In F. Columbus. (Ed.), Advances in psychology research (Vol. 2, pp. 141–162). Nova Science Publishers. Wydell, T. N. (2003). Dyslexia in Japanese and the ‘hypothesis of granularity and transparency’. In N. Goulandris. (Ed.), Dyslexia in different languages: Cross-linguistic comparisons (pp. 255–276). Whurr Publishers

233

234

Child L2 Writers

Yang, L., Baba, K., & Cumming, A. (2004). Activity systems for ESL writing improvement: Case studies of three Chinese and three Japanese adult learners of English. Angles on the English-Speaking World, 4, 13–33. Yang, L., & Zhang, L. (2010). Exploring the role of reformulations and a model text in EFL students’ writing performance. Language Teaching Research, 14, 464–484. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810375369

Yu, S., Jiang, L., & Zhou, N. (2020). Investigating what feedback practices contribute to students’ writing motivation and engagement in Chinese EFL context: A large scale study. Assessing Writing, 44, 100451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100451 Zhang, M. (2019). Towards a quantitative model of understanding the dynamics of collaboration in collaborative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.04.001

Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 51–59. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.51

Index A acceptability 96–97, 98–99, 128 accuracy 61–62, 98, 117 see also under CAF assistance 52, 78, 81, 87, 107, 110, 200 attitudes 75, 139–40, 148 B beliefs 136, 139 bias 183–184 C CAF (complexity, accuracy and fluency) 61–63 childhood 4, 11, 13–14 cognitive development 4, 11–13, 15, 24, 44 cognitive development and dictogloss 178 cognitive demands and task repetition 124 collaborative dialogue 52–54 complexity of writing 143 complexity 56, 61–63, 98 see also under CAF grammatical 63, 87 syntactic 121, 123 lexical 124 comprehensible feedback 81 D dispositions 2, 75, 135, 139, 141, 175–176, 178–179 (see also motivational dispositions) dyads 59, 71–72, 152 different-gender 74 same-gender 74 teacher-assigned 63 E engagement 71–74 engagement and school 49, 136, 138

engagement and writing tasks 80, 115, 120, 134, 141, 143 F fluency 33, 61–62, 98, 117 see also under CAF form 83 focus on form 47, 85, 86–87, 166 form and task repetition 115–117, 119, 121, 122, 125 form-focused LREs 64, 66 H holistic holistic rubrics 61 (also, holistic measures and holistic ratings) holistic perspective in research studies 149 I incorporations 94, 96, 99–101 individual writers 54, 56–60, 62, 76–77, 94, 151, 155, 167–171, 173, 180, 199 input hypothesis 31 interaction hypothesis 2, 32 L L2 Motivational Self System (L2MSS) 142 languaging 52–54, 69 learning-to-write 186, 196, 203 lexical diversity 61, 98 LREs 54, 55 M metalinguistic metalinguistic function 31 metalinguistic awareness 178, 183 metalinguistic explanations 3, 107, 168

metalinguistic understanding 194 motivational dispositions 2, 75, 135, 139, 141, 178 (see also dispositions) motivation thermometers (see also thermometers) 149, 151 multi-stage task 3 N negotiation of meaning 32, 51 noticing 31, 32, 94–98, 102–104, 109–110 noticing function 31 noticing hypothesis 31 noticing session 85, 109 noticing the gap 31 O output hypothesis 30–33, 51 P pair dynamics 58–61, 70, 73–74, 76–77, 167–171 procedural repetition 40, 116 R rewriting 198, 202 S same or exact task repetition 40–42 scaffolding 52–53, 69, 77, 200 self-editing 3, 174, 176, 198 sociocultural sociocultural theory 2, 32, 48 sociocultural approaches 69, 114 T thermometers (see also motivation thermometers) 149–150, 160–161

236

Child L2 Writers

W writing-to-learn 25, 27, 33, 36, 50–51, 186, 196, 203

Z ZPD (Zone of Proximal Development) 52, 69, 77, 82, 87–88, 107, 110, 112

Studies on L2 writing tasks with child learners have broken through several barriers in the past few years. Although long considered a solitary task, writing is now regularly done in collaborative pairs and groups as well. New and more comprehensive writing and feedback strategies have been implemented and task repetition has made its way from oral into writing tasks. Finally, research analyses of linguistic outcomes have been complemented by measures of task motivation. Drawing on knowledge from the fields of psychology, education and SLA, this book includes a comprehensive and interdisciplinary analysis of this body of research. It pinpoints the specificity of writing tasks for child L2 learners, identifies the research gaps that pave the way for future research, and offers a guide for teachers who wish to implement writing tasks with young language learners. In sum, this book demonstrates that child L2 writing constitutes a new field of inquiry and attempts to give child L2 writers a room of their own.

isbn 978 90 272 1292 4

JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY