MODEL TEXTS AS A FEEDBACK INSTRUMENT IN EXPOSITORY WRITING: EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VIETNAMESE EFL LEARNERS’ AFFECTIVE ENGAGEMENT AND THEIR WRITING PERFORMANCE
Tập 134 Số 6B (2025), Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities
Tập 134 Số 6B (2025)

MODEL TEXTS AS A FEEDBACK INSTRUMENT IN EXPOSITORY WRITING: EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VIETNAMESE EFL LEARNERS’ AFFECTIVE ENGAGEMENT AND THEIR WRITING PERFORMANCE

Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities
https://doi.org/10.26459/hueunijssh.v134i6B.7433
Đã xuất bản 2025-06-21
Long Quoc Nguyen
University of Foreign Languages and International Studies, Hue University

Tóm tắt

As an alternative to written corrective feedback, model texts as a feedback instrument (MTFI) have been deployed to facilitate English as a foreign language (EFL) writing for almost two decades. However, past MTFI research mainly focused on narratives over a three-stage task including composing (stage one), comparing (stage two), and rewriting (stage three); expository writing still receives insufficient attention, especially in the Vietnamese context. Moreover, EFL learners’ affective engagement with MTFI and its relationship with writing performance are largely underexplored. This study aimed to address these gaps by employing a quasi-experimental design with the participation of 68 Vietnamese EFL undergraduates who were assigned into a control group (N = 33) and a modeling group (N = 35). While the modeling group compared their original draft with a given model in stage two and completed a questionnaire in stage three, the control group did not. The results showed that the modeling group significantly outperformed the control group in the overall writing score. Additionally, Exploratory Factor Analysis and repeated measure correlations revealed that the learners’ affective engagement with MTFI was generally positive, which was substantially associated with their overall writing performance. This study also entailed discussions on theoretical, methodological, and pedagogical implications that might be of great value to researchers and education stakeholders.

https://doi.org/10.26459/hueunijssh.v134i6B.7433
PDF (English)

Tài liệu tham khảo

  1. . 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, 63-77.
  2. . 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.
  3. . Kang, E. Y. (2020). Using model texts as a form of feedback in L2 writing. System, 89, 102196.
  4. . Kang, E. Y. (2023). EFL learners’ perceptions and their association with the effectiveness of model texts as a feedback tool. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1-12.
  5. . Tieu, L., & Baker, J. R. (2022). Using model essays in conjunction with noticing as a feedback instrument in IELTS writing preparation. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1–13.
  6. . Wu, Z., Qie, J., & Wang, X. (2023). Using model texts as a type of feedback in EFL writing. Frontiers in Psychology, 14:1156553.
  7. . Hamano-Bunce, D. (2022). The effects of direct written corrective feedback and comparator texts on the complexity and accuracy of revisions and new pieces of writing. Language Teaching Research, 13621688221127643.
  8. . Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.
  9. . 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.
  10. . 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, 13621688221082041.
  11. . Fan, Y., & Xu, J. (2020). Exploring student engagement with peer feedback on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 50, 100775.
  12. . Yang, Y., Yap, N. T., & Ali, A. M. (2023). Predicting EFL expository writing quality with measures of lexical richness. Assessing Writing, 57, 100762.
  13. . Lundine, J. P., & McCauley, R. J. (2016). A Tutorial on Expository Discourse: Structure, Development, and Disorders in Children and Adolescents. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 25(3), 306.
  14. . Beers, S. F., & Nagy, W. E. (2011). Writing development in four genres from grades three to seven: Syntactic complexity and genre differentiation. Reading and Writing, 24(2), 183–202.
  15. . Nippold, M. A. (2016). Later language development: School-age children, adolescents, and young adults. PRO-ED, Inc.
  16. . Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. Input in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165–179.
  17. . Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied
  18. Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.
  19. . Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language
  20. instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge University Press.
  21. . Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Addison-Wesley Longman Limited.
  22. . Ellis, R. (2010). Epilogue: A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in second language acquisition, 32(2), 335-349.
  23. . 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.
  24. . Nguyen, L. Q., & Le, H. V. (2022). Improving L2 learners’ IELTS task 2 writing: the role of model essays and noticing hypothesis. Language Testing in Asia, 12(58), 1-20.
  25. . UCLES. (2001). Oxford quick placement test. Oxford University Press.
  26. . Vasylets, O., & Marín, J. (2021). The effects of working memory and L2 proficiency on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 52, 100786.
  27. . McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia medica, 22(3), 276-282.
  28. . Hair Jr, F., Black, C., Babin, J., & Anderson, E. (2009). Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective. Pearson Education.
  29. . Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS. McGraw-hill education.
  30. . Bakdash, J. Z., & Marusich, L. R. (2017). Repeated measures correlation. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 456.
  31. . Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912.
  32. . Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage.
  33. . Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). Learners’ uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 67–100.