Login | Register

Exploring the relationships among student preferences, prewriting tasks, and text quality in an EAP context


Exploring the relationships among student preferences, prewriting tasks, and text quality in an EAP context

Neumann, Heike ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8977-7219 and McDonough, Kim (2014) Exploring the relationships among student preferences, prewriting tasks, and text quality in an EAP context. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 15 . pp. 14-26. ISSN 14751585

[thumbnail of Exploring_relationships_among_student_preferences_prewriting-tasks_text-quality_Neumann_etal.pdf]
Text (application/pdf)
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution No Derivatives.

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2014.05.002


Despite their prevalence in second language (L2) writing classrooms, prewriting discussions have not been widely investigated in terms of their relationship to students’ written texts. Furthermore, students’ preferences for individual or collaborative work have not been considered in terms of their potential impact on the quality of either prewriting tasks or written texts. The current study investigates the relationships among students’ preferences for collaboration, the format of prewriting tasks (collaborative or individual) and student text quality in an English for Academic Purposes (EAP) course (N = 21). The students carried out three collaborative and three individual prewriting tasks, submitted six written texts, and completed a questionnaire about their learning preferences. Analysis of two focal participants with divergent preferences for collaboration revealed that the collaboratively-oriented student reflected more on content during the collaborative discussions than the individually-oriented student. However, the individually-oriented students did not engage in more reflection during individual prewriting tasks. In addition, the texts both students produced after collaborative prewriting discussions received higher ratings than the texts they wrote after individual prewriting tasks. The findings suggest that collaborative prewriting may be beneficial for text quality, even for students who prefer to work individually.

Divisions:Concordia University > Faculty of Arts and Science > Education
Item Type:Article
Authors:Neumann, Heike and McDonough, Kim
Journal or Publication:Journal of English for Academic Purposes
Date:6 June 2014
Digital Object Identifier (DOI):10.1016/j.jeap.2014.05.002
Keywords:Second language writing; second language interaction; collaboration; group work; prewriting tasks; student preferences
ID Code:986245
Deposited By: Heike Neumann
Deposited On:15 Jan 2020 15:30
Last Modified:15 Jan 2020 15:30


Bailey, P., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Daley, C. E. (2000). Using learning style to predict foreign language achievement at the college level. System, 28(1), 115-133. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00064-0
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. (1975). The learning style inventory. Lawrence, KS: Price Systems.
Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. (1991). Productivity environmental preference survey. Lawrence, KS: Price Systems.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(1), 59-84. doi: 10.1017/S0272263104026130
Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2010). Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing conventions development. Language Learning and Technology, 14(3), 51-71.
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. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2011.12.002
Fernández Dobao, A., & Blum, A. (2013). Collaborative writing in pairs and small groups: Learners' attitudes and perceptions. System, 41(2). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.02.002
Griffiths, C. (2012). Learning styles: Traversing the quagmire. In S. Mercer, S. Ryan & M. Williams (Eds.), Psychology for language learning: Insights from research, theory and practice (pp. 151-168). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Higgins, L., Flower, L., & Petraglia, J. (1992). Planning text together. Written Communication, 9(1), 48-84. doi: 10.1177/0741088392009001002
Johnston, L., & Miles, L. (2004). Assessing contributions to group assignments. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(6), 751-768. doi: 10.1080/0260293042000227272
Kagan, S. (1995). Group grades miss the mark. Educational Leadership, 52(8), 68-71.
Kinsella, K. (1995). Understanding and empowering diverse learners in ESL classrooms. In J. Reid (Ed.), Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp. 170-194). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Kroll, B. (1990). What does time buy? ESL student performance on home versus class composition. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing research: Insights for the classroom (pp. 140-154). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nel, C. (2008). Learing style and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons from good language learners (pp. 49-60). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Neumann, H., & McDonough, K. (2013). Exploring student interaction during collaborative prewriting discussions and its relationship to L2 writing. [Manuscript submitted for publication].
Ojima, M. (2006). Concept mapping as pre-task planning: A case study of three Japanese ESL writers. System, 34(4), 566-585. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2006.08.003
Oxford, R. L. (1993). Style analysis survey (SAS): Assessing your own learning and work styles.
Pritchard, A. (2009). Ways of learning: Learning theories and learning styles in the classroom. London: Routledge.
Reid, J. (1984). Perceptual Learning Styles Preference Questionnaire.
Reid, J. (Ed.). (1995). Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Shehadeh, A. (2011). Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(4), 286-305. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2011.05.010
Shi, L. (1998). Effects of prewriting discussions on adult ESL students' compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 319-345. doi: 10.1016/s1060-3743(98)90020-0
Storch, N. (2002a). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119-158. doi: 10.1111/1467-9922.00179
Storch, N. (2002b). Relationships formed in dyadic interaction and opportunity for learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3–4), 305-322. doi: 10.1016/s0883-0355(03)00007-7
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153-173. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002
Storch, N. (2007). Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL classes. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 143-159. doi: 10.1177/1362168807074600
Storch, N. (2008). Metatalk in a Pair Work Activity: Level of Engagement and Implications for Language Development. Language Awareness, 17(2), 95-114. doi: 10.1080/09658410802146644
Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2007). Writing tasks: The effects of collaboration. In M. d. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 157-177). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Strauss, P., & U, A. (2007). Group assessments: Dilemmas facing lecturers in multicultural tertiary classrooms. Higher Education Research & Development, 26(2), 147-161. doi: 10.1080/07294360701310789
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
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. doi: 10.1177/136216880607074599
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26(3), 445-466. doi: 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. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.005
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zhou, M. (2011). Learning styles and teaching styles in college English teaching. International Education Studies, 4(1), 73-77. Retrieved from http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ies/article/view/9114/6656
All items in Spectrum are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved. The use of items is governed by Spectrum's terms of access.

Repository Staff Only: item control page

Downloads per month over past year

Research related to the current document (at the CORE website)
- Research related to the current document (at the CORE website)
Back to top Back to top