Comparing the effect of collaborative and individual prewriting on EFL learners’ writing development
© 2019 Elsevier Inc. Despite claims about its potential positive impact on L2 writers' written performance, prewriting planning (i.e., a dedicated time for planning prior to writing) has not demonstrated consistently beneficial effects on linguistic measures of accuracy, fluency, and complexity...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal |
| Published: |
2019
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85064685267&origin=inward http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/65330 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Chiang Mai University |
| Summary: | © 2019 Elsevier Inc. Despite claims about its potential positive impact on L2 writers' written performance, prewriting planning (i.e., a dedicated time for planning prior to writing) has not demonstrated consistently beneficial effects on linguistic measures of accuracy, fluency, and complexity. Studies that compared individual and collaborative prewriting planning similarly have reported mixed findings. Since most planning studies have not examined how participation in various planning conditions facilitates L2 writers' longer term development, this preliminary report from a larger study compares the pretest-posttest performance of Thai EFL writers (N = 60) who carried out three practice writing tasks over one semester. Whereas half of the students planned individually during the practice tasks, the other students collaboratively planned before separating to compose individually. All students carried out the pretest and posttest individually. Their tests and practice writing tasks were rated using an analytic rubric (content, organization, grammar, and vocabulary) and coded for linguistic measures of accuracy (errors/word), coordination (coordinated phrases/clauses), and subordination (dependent clauses/clauses). The multivariate results indicate that students who had planned individually improved in terms of analytic ratings, while students who had planned collaboratively showed accuracy gains. Findings are situated in terms of prior planning research and areas for future investigation. |
|---|