Erhalten Sie Zugang zu diesem und mehr als 300000 Büchern ab EUR 5,99 monatlich.
- Herausgeber: Narr Francke Attempto Verlag
- Kategorie: Fremdsprachen
- Serie: Multilingualism and Language Teaching
- Sprache: Englisch
This book presents a research study investigating young foreign language learners' ability to compose communicative texts in English. It reviews current research on young learners' EFL writing, reports on the learners' EFL writing competence, describes text quality at different CEFR language levels, and discusses current teaching practices and the learners' perception of EFL writing.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 496
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2022
Das E-Book (TTS) können Sie hören im Abo „Legimi Premium” in Legimi-Apps auf:
Ähnliche
Ruth Trüb
An Empirical Study of EFL Writing at Primary School
Ruth Trüb
ORCID: 0000-0002-9915-8611
Institut Primarstufe
Pädagogische Hochschule FHNW
Windisch, Schweiz
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24053/9783823395430
Die vorliegende Arbeit wurde vom Institut für Bildungswissenschaften der Universität Basel im März 2021 auf Antrag der Promotionskommission von Prof. Dr. Stefan Keller, Prof. Dr. Miriam Locher und Prof. Dr. Stefanie Frisch als Dissertation angenommen.
Publiziert mit Unterstützung des Schweizerischen Nationalfonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung.
© 2022 · Ruth Trüb
Das Werk ist eine Open Access-Publikation. Es wird unter der Creative Commons Namensnennung – Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen | CC BY-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/) veröffentlicht.
Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KG
Dischingerweg 5 · D-72070 Tübingen
Internet: www.narr.de
eMail: [email protected]
ISSN 2199-1340
ISBN 978-3-8233-9543-0 (Print)
ISBN 978-3-8233-0351-0 (ePub)
Inhalt
To Rebekka and Rahel, my two beloved goddaughters,
and Elias, their brother.
May your lives bear fruit abundantly!
Abstract
This study investigated the extent to which young learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) in grade 6 are able to compose texts that fulfil a communicative function. Since many teachers raised the question of how to teach EFL writing to young learners, the study also investigated current teaching practices and the learners’ perception of EFL writing, and examined different individual and educational determinants of EFL writing competence.
The learners wrote two texts, an email and a story, which were rated independently by two raters. The writing scores were adjusted for task difficulty, rater severity and difficulty of the rating criteria, and aligned to the language levels of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). Learner and teacher questionnaires and learner interviews provided additional data.
The learners’ EFL writing competence ranged from below A1.1 to above A2.2, with the majority of learners at levels A1.2 and A2.1. There was a statistically significant difference in EFL writing competence between the groups of learners about to enter the different educational tracks at secondary school. In order to illustrate the learners’ EFL writing competence at different language levels, writing profiles with detailed descriptions of text quality were provided. Many texts displayed heterogeneity with regard to different dimensions of text quality. Two small qualitative analyses provided insight into the means used by young EFL learners to create a communicative effect, and into the quality of coherence in their texts.
Many teachers reported using elements of the process approach, such as pre-writing activities, scaffolding and feedback. A few teachers reported that they applied elements of the genre approach, such as studying a sample text. Less frequently applied were elements such as collecting ideas on what to write about, discussing how to structure a text, or publishing the texts to a real audience. It emerged that, while pragmatic aspects (e.g. how to write a funny, sad or captivating story) are frequently considered when texts are assessed, they are only rarely addressed in class, and strategy instruction only plays a minor role in teaching practice. Three main factors were identified that appear to influence the learners’ perception of EFL writing: motivation, resources and task demands. If motivation was high, the learners had a clear idea of what they wanted to write about; if they had enough language resources and if task demands were considered as adequate, the learners showed a positive attitude towards EFL writing.
The learners’ self-efficacy and extra-curricular use of English were found to be strong predictors of their EFL writing competence. None of the examined educational factors significantly contributed to the explanation of the learners’ EFL writing competence, which may have been due to limitations in the research design.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the following people and institutions, without whom I would not have been able to complete this research:
My supervisors Prof. Dr. Stefan Keller, Prof. Dr. Miriam Locher and Prof. Dr. Stefanie Frisch for their invaluable and continuous support and the many inspiring discussions that greatly contributed to the quality of this research project.
Prof. Ursula Bader, head of our English department, who aroused my fascination for teaching foreign languages, never ceased to support my professional development throughout the past 15 years and encouraged me to undertake this exciting journey of pursuing a doctoral degree.
The FHNW University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland for granting me a 20 % reduction of my workload with continued pay during three years, so that I had enough time and resources to focus on the research project and move it forward efficiently.
The Aebli-Näf Foundation, Burgdorf, for its generous and repeated financial support, for which I am so grateful.
My research assistants Nadia Kohler, Christina Leuenberger, Elisabeth Trüb and Lotti Strickler, who invested a lot of time, energy and diligence into this project, as well as Christian Deppeler, Shirin Lindenmann, Alice Giger and Oskar Trüb for their very helpful and greatly appreciated support. Heinz Graber for designing the model of writing competence in 3D.
Dr. Kirsten Schweinberger for her perceptive feedback and advice on statistical analysis and research methodology.
Marion Richner for proof-reading the thesis.
The pupils and teachers who volunteered to participate in the study and opened their classrooms for this research so that, hopefully, many more classes and teachers can benefit from their knowledge and experience.
The different sponsors who provided office supplies and the opportunity for the participating classes to attend a baseball workshop with English-speaking professional baseball players.
The Therwil Flyers for organising the workshops.
My colleagues and fellow researchers.
My dear parents, family and friends, who supported me so much in all areas, who encouraged me and prayed for me.
S.D.G. – Soli Deo Gloria
Introduction
This dissertation is concerned with the teaching of writing in English as a foreign language (EFL) at primary school. It gives an account of the design, implementation and results of the research project An Empirical Study of EFL Writing at Primary School, which was carried out in the Canton of Aargau, Switzerland, between 2016 and 2020. The research project investigated the writing competence of young EFL learners in grade six, when they were about 12–13 years old. Besides gauging the learners’ EFL writing competence and describing the characteristics and qualities of their texts, the study examined current teaching practices and the learners’ perception of EFL writing, and measured the effects of individual and educational factors on the learners’ EFL writing competence.
So far, much of what is known about EFL writing in Switzerland stems from research in lower and upper secondary schools and from adult education. Since foreign language teaching at primary school was only introduced in the different cantons between 5 and 15 years ago, there are few studies that have researched EFL writing at primary school. Of the few existing studies, some gauged the learners’ EFL writing competence as part of a general evaluation of foreign language teaching at primary school (e.g. Bader & Schaer, 2006; Bayer & Moser, 2016; Gnos, 2012; Kreis, Williner, & Maeder, 2014), and others focused on aspects such as teacher variables (Loder Buechel, 2015), spelling (Vogt & Bader, 2017) or cross-lingual resources (Egli Cuenat, 2016). Therefore, a more comprehensive overview of the teaching of EFL writing at primary school appeared necessary.
The research project An Empirical Study of EFL Writing at Primary School is a subject-specific educational study in the field of foreign language teaching research. According to Leuders (2015), subject-specific educational research is ultimately always directed towards the subject-specific teaching and learning at school and the background for the professionalisation of the pedagogical staff (p. 13–14). One of the main aims of this study was therefore to make a contribution to this professionalisation by providing the teachers with an overview of what is so far known from research about EFL writing in a young learner context. For this reason, a model of writing competence for young EFL learners has been developed (see chapter 2.2.3). The model has two main functions. Firstly, it serves as a framework for presenting the current state of research with regard to EFL writing at a young age (see chapter 2), and secondly, it forms the theoretical and empirical background on which the research project is based. If not otherwise specified, the term young learners is used to refer to pupils aged approximately 9 to 13 years.
A second aim of the study was to find specific answers to questions about the young EFL learners’ writing competence. Before the project was initiated, there were many requests from teachers asking for information and guidance on how to teach EFL writing at primary school. When the first pupils who had started to learn English at primary school entered secondary school, the secondary school teachers often acknowledged that the learners had a good command of listening, speaking and reading skills, but they suggested putting more emphasis on the development of writing skills. As a result, the primary school English teachers started to ask questions about the role of writing in the primary EFL classroom and about how writing competence could be developed in an age-appropriate way. They also expressed the fear that, with a greater emphasis on writing, much of what had been achieved, including the learners’ motivation to learn languages, might be lost. Furthermore, they doubted whether a spelling approach, such as they themselves had experienced when they were taught English, would be suitable for teaching EFL writing at primary school.
These questions seemed to reveal different needs, which the study tried to address. First, the questions appeared to show an uncertainty about what was meant by the term writing. Does writing mainly have to do with spelling or more with text composition? Are young EFL learners capable of writing texts, or should one limit oneself primarily to writing at word and sentence level? Such questions were addressed in two ways. First, it appeared important to provide a clear definition of writing that could be used as a starting point for the whole research project (see chapter 2.1). This definition was developed in relation to the Swiss national standards for foreign language learning (EDK, 2011) and the cantonal curriculum (BKS, 2018), which regard the ability to use the language for oral and written communication as the key aim of foreign language learning (see also chapters 1.2 and 1.3). Secondly, the study investigated to what extent the EFL learners in grade six are able to solve communicative writing tasks, and aimed at measuring their EFL writing competence with regard to the different language levels as stated in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR, Council of Europe, 2001). An additional, descriptive analysis of the learners’ texts at the different language levels was intended to give the teachers guidance on what can be expected of young EFL learners in terms of text quality.
A second aspect that emerged from the teachers’ questions seemed to be an uncertainty with regard to what teaching methodology to use and what to focus on when teaching EFL writing. Therefore, in order to lay a foundation for discussing different methodological options, it was decided to additionally conduct an explorative study that investigated how EFL writing was currently taught in the primary schools in the Canton of Aargau. Since the teachers were also concerned to provide adequate writing instruction for young learners and to maintain their motivation to learn foreign languages, the study also investigated the learners’ perception of EFL writing, and tried to find out what challenges the young learners face when writing in English so that the teachers would, on this basis, be able to plan support appropriate to their learners’ age.
In addition to these aims, the object of the study was to examine the effect of different individual and educational factors on the learners’ EFL writing competence in order to draw conclusions about how the development of the young learners’ EFL writing competence can be supported effectively.
The study was thus divided into three parts: the young EFL learners’ writing competence (part 1), current teaching practices and the learners’ perception of EFL writing (part 2), and predictors of the young EFL learners’ writing competence (part 3).
Chapter 1 of this documentation gives a brief description of the context of the study. It first describes the political and educational context, including the introduction of English as a new school subject at primary school. It then describes two approaches to language teaching that seem to have been particularly influential, namely the communicative and the competency-based approach. This is followed by an overview of the curricular requirements for foreign language teaching at primary school in Switzerland and a brief presentation of the results of four studies that gauged the learners’ EFL writing competence in grade six in different cantons.
Chapter 2 starts with the specification of the construct definition of writing that underlies the whole research project. This is followed by a brief overview of the model of writing competence for young EFL learners and its origins in Hayes’ model of writing processes (2012) and Feilke’s model of literacy competence (2014). The subsequent chapters 2.3 to 2.9 describe the different elements of the model in detail and present relevant research findings from a young EFL learner context. These chapters form the theoretical and empirical background on which the study is based. Chapter 2 then concludes with the specification of the research questions.
Chapter 3 presents the research methodology that was applied in the study. After a first overview of the research design, the data collection instruments, the sampling method and participants, the data collection and processing, the standard setting and the methods for data analysis are presented. The chapter describes in detail how the research methodology is linked to the construct definition of writing and the empirical findings presented in chapter 2. It also discusses the quality of the research methodology in terms of validity, reliability and objectivity.
Chapter 4 presents the results of the three parts of the study. It first describes the young EFL learners’ writing competence from a quantitative and qualitative perspective and gives a detailed account of the specific characteristics of the learners’ texts at different language levels. It then gives insights into current teaching practices and describes what the learners think about EFL writing. The chapter concludes with a presentation of the results of different statistical analyses that examined the effect of individual and educational factors on the learners’ EFL writing competence.
Chapter 5 summarises the most important findings from chapter 4 and discusses their relevance for teaching EFL writing at primary school. It also draws conclusions with regard to EFL writing that appear to be relevant for teacher education, policy makers and research.
1Context of the Study
1.1Political and educational context
In Switzerland, English is learnt as a foreign language, i.e. it is usually neither the learners’ native language (L1), nor the official language of instruction at school, nor one of the main languages of communication in society (Richards & Schmidt, 2010). Nevertheless, global collaboration and mobility as well as technical developments such as internet technology and mobile communication networks have led to a widespread use of the English language. In most cantons in Switzerland, English is introduced as either the first or the second foreign language at primary school (EDK, 2018).
Responsibility for education in Switzerland lies with the cantons (EDK, 2012). On an inter-cantonal level, it is the Swiss Conference of Cantonal Ministers of Education (EDK) who coordinate the cantonal activities by use of so-called concordats and recommendations (EDK, 2012). After the year 2000, several cantons started to introduce English as a foreign language at primary school (EDK, 2018), and in 2004, the EDK obtained inter-cantonal agreement that at least two foreign languages should be taught at primary school, including at least one national language (EDK, 2004b).
The introduction of foreign language learning at primary school was paralleled with a shift in foreign language teaching methodology (Bader-Lehmann, 2007). In the Canton of Aargau, the teacher training for primary school EFL teachers started in 2004 and aimed at equipping the teachers and teacher trainees with solid knowledge about the current young learner EFL teaching methodology (Bader, 2006). This one-year methodology course was offered both to in-service primary school teachers and primary school teacher trainees, consisted of 90 hours contact study and 90 hours independent study and was credited with 6 ECTS points (Bader-Lehmann, 2007). In addition to the methodology course, the teachers and trainees had to stay for at least 8 weeks in an English-speaking country and were required to obtain a C1 language certificate (Bader, 2006). In 2008, after a two-year piloting phase, English was officially introduced in the Canton of Aargau as a new school subject at primary school (Husfeldt & Bader-Lehmann, 2009).
In the Canton of Aargau, English is the first foreign language, and the pupils start learning it from grade 3, when they are about 9 years old. They have three English lessons a week in grades 3 and 4, and two lessons in grades 5 and 6. Grades 7–9 are taught at secondary school with three English lessons per week. It seems important to note that, by the time the pupils start learning English, they have already acquired basic literacy skills in the school language (German) and can build on this knowledge when they start learning English. It is, therefore, a different situation compared to countries where the learners start learning English in grade 1 and are simultaneously starting to develop literacy skills in the school language and in the foreign language.
1.2Communicative and competency-based language teaching
The new teaching methodology that was introduced in the teacher training followed the approach of communicative language teaching (CLT), which focuses on using the language for real communication (BKS, 2008). In CLT, language is seen as a means of communication that fulfils a particular function (Richards & Rodgers, 2014). Language learning takes place in meaningful activities that engage the learners in real, authentic communication (Richards & Rodgers, 2014). Such a view seems to be in line with findings from second language acquisition research. McKay (2006), for example, summarising different theories from second language acquisition research, argues that
in foreign and second language classrooms, children’s language learning flourishes when there is a focus on meaning, and when their teachers and other visitors give them opportunities to interact in ways that reflect the wider discourse communities relevant to the language they are learning. Children learn to use language because the interesting activities in which they are engaged absolutely necessitate (from the child’s point of view) cooperation and interaction. (p. 41)
According to Richards and Rodgers (2014), learning in CLT follows three principles: the communication principle, the task principle and the meaningfulness principle (p. 90). Thus, activities should include real communication, the language should be used to complete relevant tasks and the language should be meaningful to the pupils (Richards & Rodgers, 2014, p. 90). The main aim of CLT is to develop communicative competence, a term brought forward and discussed, for example, by Hymes (1972), Canale and Swain (1980) and Bachman and Palmer (1996). Even though they used slightly different specifications of this term, it generally referred to the knowledge and skills needed to be able to use the language for particular purposes (Richards & Rodgers, 2014).
The same term was also used with the advent of competency-based language teaching (CBLT). In this context, the term competencies refers to ‘the essential skills, knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors required for effective performance of a real-world task or activity’ (Richards & Rodgers, 2014, p. 156). Whereas CLT primarily focusses on the importance of meaningful communication, CBLT tries to describe the learning outcomes, what the learners can or should be able to do with the language (Richards & Rodgers, 2014). A prominent product of CBLT is the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), which defines on different proficiency levels ‘what language learners have to learn to do in order to use a language for communication and what knowledge and skills they have to develop so as to be able to act effectively’ (Council of Europe, 2001, p. 1).
The two approaches had a considerable influence on curriculum development, teacher education and teaching practice. The standards for foreign language learning in Switzerland (EDK, 2011) as well as the cantonal curricula (e.g. BKS, 2008, 2018) were developed on the basis of the CEFR language level descriptors and specify the competencies the learners should acquire during compulsory education at primary and lower secondary school. The curricula also emphasise the importance of communicative competence as the main aim of language learning and regard language resources as subservient to the ability to communicate effectively:
The learners are to be enabled to use language skills in diverse and as authentic situations as possible. Interesting contents and factual topics from the pupils’ world of living form the basis for using the language. … For the successful completion of the communicative learning tasks, the learners need the corresponding language resources. Systematic work on vocabulary, pronunciation, grammar and orthography as well as reflection on them are described in the competence area language(s) in focus. The work on these competencies is not an end in itself but primarily serves the communicative action. [unofficial translation] (D-EDK, 2016, p. 63)
The same concepts and ideas served as a basis for the new course of studies for primary English teachers at the School for Teacher Education at the University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland (PH FHNW). According to Bader-Lehmann (2007), holistic, communicative and action-oriented language learning should be the aim of foreign language teaching at primary school (p. 242). The English teacher trainees who attended the new course of studies were expected to study the concepts and principles of contemporary, scientifically substantiated language teaching methodology and reflect on their own belief systems while at the same time experiencing concrete examples of these teaching practices in the seminar (Bader-Lehmann, 2007). They should thus be enabled to integrate the new concepts and methodologies into their own teaching practice, even if they had experienced a more traditional language teaching methodology in their own school career (Bader-Lehmann, 2007). When the teachers started teaching English at primary school, they were supported in small, regional professional development groups, where they had the opportunity to discuss the questions and problems that arose in everyday teaching practice (Bader-Lehmann, 2007). This seems to have had the effect that many teachers were able to implement the new teaching methodology in their classrooms.
1.3Swiss national standards and curriculum requirements
In 2011, the EDK introduced national standards for foreign language learning at primary and secondary school (EDK, 2011). They were developed on the basis of the HarmoS validation study for foreign languages (Konsortium HarmoS Fremdsprachen, 2009) and with reference to the CEFR (Council of Europe, 2001). Also here, the underlying principle was the concept of competency- and action-oriented language learning, which regards the ability to use the language for oral and written communication as the key aim of foreign language learning (EDK, 2011).
The Swiss national standards for foreign language learning are formulated as competences that describe what the learners should be able to accomplish by the end of primary and secondary school, in grades 6 and 9 respectively (EDK, 2011). They define key competences in listening, speaking, reading and writing as well as language mediation, intercultural awareness and the use of learning strategies. Since the CEFR levels are rather broad, the Swiss national standards further split the existing levels into two empirically validated sub-levels such as A1.1/A1.2 and A2.1/A2.2 (EDK, 2012, p. 166). In terms of minimum requirements, the national standards take into account that foreign language learning at primary school is still in the process of being established. According to the EDK (2011), the standards can be raised after a transition period, when teaching methodology, teacher training and teaching materials are in place. Table 1.1 shows the target language levels for the first foreign language at the end of primary school during the transition phase and Table 1.2 the language levels the children are expected to reach after the transition phase (EDK, 2011, p. 6).
CEFR language level
A1.1
A1.2
A2.1
A2.2
Listening comprehension
Reading comprehension
Speaking (conversation)
Speaking (monologue)
Writing
Table 1.1 Swiss national standards: Target language levels in the first foreign language at the end of primary school during the transition phase (EDK, 2011)
CEFR language level
A1.1
A1.2
A2.1
A2.2
Listening comprehension
Reading comprehension
Speaking (conversation)
Speaking (monologue)
Writing
Table 1.2 Swiss national standards: Target language levels in the first foreign language at the end of primary school after the transition phase (EDK, 2011)
As can be seen in Table 1.2, the standards are raised for listening, reading and speaking but not for writing. According to the EDK (2011), this is due to the fact that children of this age are still in the process of developing basic writing skills in the school language and because there are aims connected to writing that are not relevant for using the language. What aims they are referring to in this argument is not further specified.
Following the Swiss national standards for foreign language learning, the new curriculum of the Canton of Aargau (“Lehrplan 21”) specifies the same target language levels as the Swiss national standards for the time after the transition phase (BKS, 2018, p. 77). The learners should reach at least level A1.2 in writing by the end of grade 6:
CEFR language level
A1.1
A1.2
A2.1
A2.2
Listening
Reading
Speaking
Writing
Table 1.3 Curriculum of the Canton of Aargau: Target language level in the first foreign language at the end of primary school (BKS, 2018)
The HarmoS studies, which laid the empirical foundation for setting the Swiss national standards (EDK, 2004a), were carried out at a time when many cantons had not yet introduced foreign language learning at primary school. The consortium for foreign languages could therefore only predict what the learners might be able to achieve in the future when they would start learning English at primary school (Konsortium HarmoS Fremdsprachen, 2009). However, after the introduction of foreign language teaching at primary schools, several cantonal studies researched whether and how well the learners reached the aims set by the curriculum. Four of these studies investigated the learners’ EFL writing competence (Bader & Schaer, 2006; Bayer & Moser, 2016; Gnos, 2012; Kreis et al., 2014).
Figure 1.1 EFL writing competence in different cantons (grade 6)
As can be seen in Figure 1.1, the results of these studies show considerable heterogeneity between the different cantons in terms of the learners’ EFL writing competence, with 25 % (LU), 14 % (TG) and 18 % (AG) of the learners not yet reaching the minimum requirement (level A1.2), and 11 % (LU), 50 % (TG) and 36 % (AG) of the learners surpassing this level. Therefore, there seems to be a need for further research, not only for gauging the learners’ EFL writing competence, but also for giving a more detailed account of what text qualities might be expected of the learners at the different language levels, and for what factors might influence the learners’ writing competence. These are all questions the research project tried to address (see chapter 2.10, research questions).
2A Comprehensive Model of Writing Competence for Young EFL Learners
If writing competences are to be gauged for research purposes, a solid theoretical model appears central. It lays the foundation for any decisions that are to be taken in terms of research methodology, and provides a framework for interpreting the results. Chapter 2 presents a model of writing competence that has been specifically developed for a young EFL learner context, and which forms the basis for this research project. As already mentioned in the introduction, the study deals with various facets of learning to write in English as a foreign language at primary school. It deals with questions of writing competence, text quality, learning and teaching as well as predictors of writing competence. These aspects concern closely interwoven, complex processes that cannot be explained in a simple way. The study therefore requires a model that is capable of representing the different facets of writing and writing competence and their relationships to each other, while providing an intuitively comprehensible framework within which the results of the study can be discussed.
As far as possible, the model of writing competence is based on empirical evidence from a young EFL learner context. If no or only little evidence from this context was available, or if findings from related fields and contexts appeared central, for example from a young L1 learner context, such further findings were added to the discussion. The main aim of the study, however, is not to validate the model. This is something further research studies may be able to contribute to. The model of writing competence for young EFL learners is used as a framework for presenting the theoretical and empirical background of the study and for discussing the different elements of the research design. Moreover, it serves as a basis for presenting and discussing the results of the study.
Chapter 2.1 first presents the construct definition of writing on which the model is based. Chapter 2.2 briefly describes its origins and gives a first overview of the model. Chapters 2.3 to 2.9 present the different elements of the model in more detail, discussing various research findings and theoretical considerations that appear central for understanding the particular characteristics and challenges of writing in a young EFL learner context. References are provided to the corresponding sections in chapter 3, which show how these considerations have been integrated in the research methodology. The chapter concludes by specifying the research questions of the study (chapter 2.10).
2.1Construct definition
The model of writing competence for young EFL learners presented in this chapter was developed on the basis of a communicative and competency-based view of language learning as presented in chapter 1.2. Writing is regarded as a complex individual or collaborative activity that leads to the creation of a written product that fulfils a particular function. The final product may display different pragmatic, sociolinguistic and linguistic qualities. Writing competence is defined as the writer’s ability to use his or her personal and external resources in order to effectively and responsibly perform real-world writing tasks. The writing process may – to varying degrees – be influenced by diverse personal and external factors which may either support or hinder the writer’s performance. Learning and change is an important aspect of the model, since it allows writing development to be seen in its multidimensionality, and teaching approaches can be discussed with regard to the different elements of the model they focus on. Before the model is presented in detail, the chapter now gives a brief outline of its origins in Hayes’ model of writing processes (2012) and Feilke’s model of literacy competence (2014).
2.2Origins of the model
2.2.1Hayes’ model of writing processes
One of the most prominent and comprehensive models of writing processes is the model by Hayes (2012), see Figure 2.1. It originates from a model presented by Hayes and Flower (1980), which was modified several times over the years. It was designed on the basis of what is known from research and should, according to Hayes and Olinghouse (2015), ‘be viewed as a work in progress rather than as a finished product’ (p. 482). Even though its intention is to describe adult writing (Hayes & Olinghouse, 2015) rather than writing in a young EFL learner context, it encompasses important elements that also seem to be relevant in a young learner context.
The model describes the processes involved in writing and consists of a control, process and resource level (Hayes & Olinghouse, 2015). The control level includes aspects that direct the writing activity, namely the motivation to write, goal setting, the current writing plan and writing schemata such as genre knowledge and writing strategies (Hayes & Olinghouse, 2015). The process level comprises the actual writing process when ideas are created (proposer), mentally turned into language (translator) and transformed into written text (transcriber) (Hayes & Olinghouse, 2015). The evaluator judges the adequacy of ideas, mental language and written text (Hayes & Olinghouse, 2015). Also part of this writing process (but not labelled in the model, since they are complex activities that make use of the basic processes just described) are planning and revision (Hayes & Olinghouse, 2015). Moreover, the social and physical task environment, such as feedback from peers or the task materials, is believed to have an influence on the writing process and is, therefore, allocated to the process level (Hayes & Olinghouse, 2015). The third and last level of the model is the resource level, which includes aspects such as the ability to focus attention, the long-term and working memory, and reading as an important and recursive element that is frequently drawn upon during the writing process (Hayes & Olinghouse, 2015).
Figure 2.1 Model of writing processes by Hayes (2012, p. 371)
Such a model is helpful for understanding the different cognitive processes involved in writing. It shows that writing not only concerns the act of putting words on paper but is a highly complex mental activity. Hayes’ writing model, however, is mainly a model of cognitive processes rather than a model of writing competence, and has been criticised for taking too little account of the language resources required for successful writing (see e.g. Bachmann & Becker-Mrotzek, 2017). Even though Hayes and Olinghouse (2015) acknowledge that children need to build up language resources and writing schemata such as genre knowledge and strategies, it seems crucial to give these aspects a more prominent place in a writing model if it is to be applied to a young EFL learner context, where two of the main challenges of writing appear to be the learners’ limited language resources and their comparably small writing expertise.
2.2.2Feilke’s model of literacy competence
A model that takes these aspects into account is Feilke’s model of literacy competence (2014), see Table 2.1. He defines literacy competence (literale Kompetenz) as the ability of an individual to participate in the literary practices of a particular culture through the reception and production of written texts according to the expectations of that culture (Feilke, 2014, p. 43).
Competence
Type of
acquisition
Relevant conditions
Control level
“What for”-
Competences
Cultural Competences
Value orientation
Knowledge of norms
Motivation
Literacy-related target concepts
Literacy-related task schemata
Literacy-related role concepts and practices
Socialisation
Enculturation
Literacy socialisation in the family (e.g. early orientation towards literacy, models of literacy actions, gender-specific aspects of writing and reading)
Secondary and tertiary socialisation (school, religion, science, law, media)
Domain-specific literacy practices and corresponding models of literacy actions
Canonically marked cultural inventories (text canons, norms of written language) & competence standards
School instruction, e.g. tasks
Process level
“How”-
Competences
Writing competences
Writing-reading routines
Planning strategies
Writing strategies
Revising strategies
Text handling competences
Text composition
Formulation and reformulation procedures
Paraphrasing procedures
Compacting procedures
Problem-
solving actions
Exploratory and self-controlled reading and writing
Attention to the process and reflection on the writing act
Inclusion of writing ecology factors (addressee feedback)
Process-related instructional scaffolding (e.g. through temporary suspension of norms)
Resource level
“What”-
Competences
Acquired resources (LTM)
Literacy-related language competences:
Genre knowledge
Knowledge about text-procedural routines
Sentence and phrase construction
Literacy-related lexicon
Orthographic lexicon and norm competence
Declarative and episodic knowledge of the world (terms, hypotheses, frames & scripts)
Acquisition of reading and writing skills
Concept-/hypothesis-forming learning
Experience with reading and writing in different domains
Sufficient writing and reading times (“time on task”)
Teaching resources prepared to be used as examples (materials, expectations in terms of school language, forms and practices etc.)
Attention to the language & reflective practices with a focus on language
Experience of the world, processing of language, cognitively stimulating communication
Constitutional resources
Working memory
Intelligence independent of language
Table 2.1 Levels of literacy competence by Feilke (2014, p. 50) [unofficial translation]
Feilke’s model (2014) encompasses the same levels as Hayes’ model, namely the control, process and resource level, but it clearly gives more importance to the language resources and the cultural context. It explicitly states language-related resources such as genre knowledge, knowledge about text-procedural routines, sentence and phrase construction and a literacy-related lexicon on the resource level (see Table 2.1, resource level). In Hayes’ model, these language-related resources are, together with further aspects such as factual or experiential knowledge, subsumed under the term long-term memory (Hayes & Olinghouse, 2015, p. 486), and therefore hidden at first sight. A second aspect which is more prominently displayed in Feilke’s model is the cultural aspect on the control level (see Table 2.1, control level). In terms of competence, it encompasses elements such as values, knowledge of norms or literacy-related schemata, and in terms of acquisition, it relates to the socialisation, e.g. in the family, at school or in society in general (see Table 2.1, competence and acquisition). Generally, Feilke’s model appears to relate more closely to an educational context than Hayes’ model, since it includes relevant conditions which might be worthwhile to consider in an instructional setting (see Table 2.1, relevant conditions).
Bearing in mind that Feilke (2014) describes his model as necessarily selective and perspectival (p. 49), there appear to be certain key elements of writing and writing competence which are not or only marginally considered in this model. First, there is no explicit mention of the writing product, which is the actual goal of the writing process, the means by which a particular communicative function is to be achieved, and a central element when it comes to measuring writing competence (see e.g. Grotjahn, 2017). In addition, the resource level mainly focuses on internal personal resources and only slightly touches on external resources that might be used by the learner during the writing process. Feilke (2014) mentions teaching resources that are prepared to be used as examples (see Table 2.1, resource level). However, elements such as collaborating peers, the teacher, print or digital resources, transcription tools such as pens, pencils, computer keyboards or also technology such as word processing software or multimedia applications are not considered in the model. Furthermore, only a few personal determinants such as values or motivation are mentioned, and no external determinants such as the influence of noise, distraction, temperature or light quality. These elements all seem to be important components and determinants of writing and are thus included in the model of writing competence for young EFL learners as presented in the following chapter.
2.2.3A comprehensive model of writing competence for young EFL learners: an overview
The model of writing competence for young EFL learners presented in this and the following chapters takes up various elements of Hayes’ (2012) and Feilke’s (2014) models (see chapters 2.2.1 and 2.2.2) but rearranges and extends them in order to allow for a more comprehensive view of writing competence. Similarly to these two models, it comprises three levels, whose contents, however, have been slightly altered: the target level, the performance-product level and the resource level (see Figure 2.2). Additionally, the model explicates the central role of the learner in his or her executive and monitoring function. Rather than referring to impersonal expressions such as proposer, translator or transcriber (Hayes, 2012, p. 371), which may evoke associations with technical devices that are placed in the learners’ brains, the model emphasises the active and creative role of the learner. The model also encompasses personal and external determinants that may have an influence on the learner’s executive and monitoring function. In order to provide an overview, these elements will now be briefly outlined, followed by an illustration of the non-static character of the model and a brief introduction to the role of learning and change. In the subsequent chapters (chapters 2.3–2.9), the model will then be discussed in more detail.
Figure 2.2 A comprehensive model of writing competence for young EFL learners
The target level of the model of writing competence for young EFL learners describes different elements that constitute the aim of a writing task. This aim may be set by the writer him- or herself, by another person or by an event that triggers a written reaction. Different elements, such as the purpose and function of the writing activity, the intended reader, the characteristics of the writing task, the content to be included, genre-specific and cultural conventions and also formal requirements, may shape the appearance and content of the intended end product. In addition to the product goals, there might be certain process goals that are pursued, such as the use of specific writing strategies.
The performance-product level describes the actual writing activity and outcome. The performance consists of both internal and observable actions. It involves the typical elements of the writing process such as generating ideas, activating resources, planning, formulating, writing, (re-)reading, evaluating and revising/editing the text. If the product is a multimodal or digital text, this process may include further elements such as creating graphics and hyperlinks, drawing illustrations, taking and inserting photos, recording and editing audio or video files and similar elements. The writing activity leads to the product. At first, it may be an incomplete text or draft, later a finalised product. This product may have different pragmatic, sociolinguistic and linguistic qualities that might be analysed for assessment purposes, or for assigning the learner’s performance to a certain language or performance level.
The resource level comprises the internal and external resources the writer may draw upon during the writing process. The internal resources might be stored in either the writer’s long-term or short-term memory. The learner may, for example, use vocabulary that is already stored in long-term memory, or apply a writing strategy the class has just discussed, and is currently stored in the short-term memory. The internal resources may encompass language skills and resources in first, second and foreign languages, writing strategies and genre knowledge. Furthermore, they might embrace knowledge of the content and experience, and different skills such as motor, cognitive, social and technology skills. In addition to these internal resources, external resources might be available such as people (e.g. parents, teachers or peers), materials (e.g. paper, pencils, books or dictionaries) or technology (e.g. computers, internet access or different types of software).
The writer in their executive and monitoring function is a further key element of the model and encompasses the performance level and all physical and mental activity that contributes to the writing process. It consists of the learner’s ability to access, process and combine information, take action, focus and maintain attention as well as monitor and evaluate progress and influencing factors, and is closely linked to and at times restricted by the writer’s working memory.
Besides these elements, different personal and external determinants might affect the learners’ executive and monitoring function and, consequently, have an influence on the writing process and the outcome. Personal factors might be the writer’s motivation, self-efficacy, attitude, volition, emotions, health, energy level and similar matters. In this model, these aspects are mentioned separately from the writer’s internal resources, since they appear to affect the writer directly in their executive and monitoring function. They seem to play a more active role than resources that are accessed and used. This distinction, however, may be disputed. External factors such as distraction, noise, temperature, light and air quality and similar aspects may also affect the writer in his or her executive and monitoring function.
The whole model should not be interpreted as a static model. It might best be displayed in an animated form that illustrates which elements of the model are active to what extent at different points during the writing process. A learner, for example, may first be inspired by the idea of writing a letter to her English-speaking grandparents to invite them to a school theatre event (target level: purpose). She may think about what content to include in her letter (target level: content), thus generating first ideas (performance level: generating ideas) based on her knowledge about the event, such as time and place (internal resources: knowledge of the content), and activate language resources that might be suitable for this task (performance level: activating resources and internal resources: L2 language skills and resources). Since she is so eager to invite her grandparents (personal determinants: motivation), she may simply skip the planning phase (performance level: planning) and directly start to formulate her ideas and write them down (performance level: formulating and writing). She may remember that she should start a letter with a greeting (internal resources: genre knowledge and target level: genre-specific conventions), and activate vocabulary and phrases from her long-term memory (internal resources: L2 language resources). She might look up certain words in a dictionary (internal resources: writing strategies and external resources: materials) and ask her parents for support (external resources: people). She may get stuck because she does not know a particular English expression (internal resources: L2 language resources), cannot find it in the dictionary (external resources: materials) and cannot ask her mother because she is on the phone (external resources: people). She might, therefore, decide to write this phrase in the school language (internal resources: L1 language resources). She may reread (performance level: rereading) what she has written so far (product level), evaluate its appropriateness (performance level: evaluating) based on what she knows about writing letters (resource level: genre knowledge) and considering what her grandparents may need to know in order to come to the event (target level: reader). She may try to revise and edit her draft (performance level: revising and editing) but realise that she cannot concentrate any more (executive and monitoring function) because her siblings are playing hide-and-seek in the garden (external determinants: distraction) and she is getting tired (personal determinants: energy level). For this reason, she might hand over her text to her mother for feedback (external resources: people) and decide to continue her work on the next day.
This is a brief and simplified illustration of how closely the different elements of the model are interlinked. As can be seen from this example, writing does not follow a pre-defined sequence, but appears to be a highly individual and complex activity. Writing competence is thus seen as the learner’s ability to act in situations like these in order to create a written product that fulfils a particular function.
Even more complexity comes into play when the aspect of learning and change is considered. In a school context, the teachers may exert influence on different aspects of writing in order to support the learners in developing their writing competence. They may, for example, define the target level by assigning specific writing tasks; they may support the learners on the performance level by helping them to plan their texts or by giving feedback on the product; they may provide scaffolding in the form of language resources or help the learners build up content and genre knowledge; they may teach writing strategies to help the learners focus their attention on relevant aspects during the writing process; they may try to control external determinants such as noise and distraction; or they may try to positively influence the learners’ motivation and attitude towards writing. The learning seems to be as varied as the teaching and a multidimensional process that may similarly concern the various aspects of writing as presented in the model.
After this overview, the following chapters examine the different levels and elements of the model of writing competence for young EFL learners in more detail. They present and discuss relevant research findings from a young EFL learner context in order to lay a solid basis for understanding the specific characteristics and challenges of writing in this context. They form the theoretical and empirical background for the design and implementation of the study (see chapter 3), and are used as a framework for the discussion and interpretation of the results (see chapters 4 and 5).
