Language Learning Through Writing: Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Evidence

doi:10.1017/9781108333603.015

14 - Language Learning Through Writing: Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Evidence

from Part III - Skill Development

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 June 2019

Rosa M. Manchón and

Olena Vasylets

Edited by

John W. Schwieter and

Alessandro Benati

Show author details

John W. Schwieter: Affiliation:
Wilfrid Laurier University
Alessandro Benati: Affiliation:
American University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This chapter contributes a review of theoretical perspectives and selected empirical studies on how and why writing can be a site for language learning. This area of scholarly interest, a newcomer to language learning studies, has been characterized as “a well-defined space for a future research domain at the intersection between L2 [second language] writing and SLA” (second language acquisition; Manchón, 2011a, p. 62) whose key research preoccupation can be encapsulated in the following question: “Can the processes involved in writing—planning, composing, reflection, monitoring, retrieving knowledge, and processing feedback—promote L2 acquisition?” (Manchón & Williams, 2016, p. 569).

Despite its short history, this research domain is gradually developing into a vibrant strand with a rich scholarly output that includes theoretical accounts of the language learning potential of L2 writing and written corrective feedback (WCF) processing, together with an expanding body of SLA-oriented empirical research.

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning , pp. 341 - 362

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108333603.015 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adams, R. (2006). L2 tasks and orientation to form: A role for modality? ITL: International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 152, 7–34.Google Scholar

Adams, R., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2008). Does writing influence learner attention to form? In Belcher, D. & Hirvela, A. (eds.), The oral–literate connection (pp. 243–266). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Amelohina, V., Manchón, R. M., & Nicolás-Conesa, F. (2017). The language learning potential of different types of written corrective feedback in an EFL setting: A longitudinal study in an out-of-school context. Paper presented at the EUROSLA Conference, University of Reading, UK, August.Google Scholar

Azkarai, A., & García Mayo, M. P. (2015). Task-modality and L1 use in EFL oral interaction. Language Teaching Research, 19(5), 550–571.Google Scholar

Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118.Google Scholar

Bitchener, J. (2012). A reflection on “the language learning potential” of written CF. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 348–363.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bitchener, J. (2016a). To what extent has the published written CF research aided our understanding of its potential for L2 development? ITL: International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 167(2), 111–131.Google Scholar

Bitchener, J. (2016b). Why written corrective feedback can contribute to L2 development: A theoretical model. Paper presented at ALAA Conference, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409–431.Google Scholar

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten-month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193–214.Google Scholar

Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Bygate, M. (2006). Areas of research that influence L2 speaking instruction. In Usó-Juan, E. & Martínez-Flor, A. (eds.), Current trends in the development and teaching of the four language skills (pp. 159–186). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Bygate, M. (2018). Language learning through task repetition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bygate, M., & Samuda, V. (2005). Integrative planning through the use of task-repetition. In Ellis, R. (ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 37–74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Byrnes, H., & Manchón, R. M. (eds.) (2014a). Task-based language learning—Insights from and for L2 writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Byrnes, H., & Manchón, R. M. (2014b). Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing. An Introduction. In Byrnes, H. & Manchón, R. M. (eds.), Task-based language learning—Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 1–27). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Cumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second-language proficiency. Language Learning, 39(1), 81–135.Google Scholar

Cumming, A. (1990). Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language composing. Written Communication, 7(4), 482–511.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracyin L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30, 474–509.CrossRef Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research & language pedagogy. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2005). The effects of careful within-task planning on oral and written task performance. In Ellis, R. (ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 167–193). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1–10.CrossRef Google Scholar

Ferris, D. (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, 49–62.Google Scholar

Frear, M. W., & Bitchener, J. (2015). The effects of cognitive task complexity on writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 45–57.CrossRef Google Scholar

García Mayo, M. P., & Azkarai, A. (2016). EFL task-based interaction: Does task modality impact on language-related episodes? In Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning. Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 241–266). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Genc, Z. S. (2012). Effects of strategic planning on the accuracyof oral and written tasks in the performance of Turkish EFL learners. In Shehadeh, A. & Coombe, C. A. (eds.), Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts. Research and implementation (pp. 67–88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Hirvela, A., & Belcher, D. (2016). Reading/writing and speaking/writing connections: The advantages of multimodal pedagogy. In Manchón, R. M. & Matsuda, P. (eds.), The handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 587–612). Boston, MA/Berlin: De Gruyer Mouton.Google Scholar

Hyland, K., & Shaw, P. (eds.) (2016). Handbook of English for academic purposes. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Ishikawa, T. (2007). The effects of increasing task complexity along the +/– here-and-now dimension. In García Mayo, M. P. (ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 136–156). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Jackson, D., & Suethanapornkul, S. (2013). The Cognition Hypothesis: A synthesis and meta-analysis of research on second language task complexity. Language Learning, 63, 330–367.Google Scholar

Johnson, M. D. (2017). Cognitive task complexity and L2 written syntactic complexity, accuracy, lexical complexity, and fluency: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. Journal of Second Language Writing, 37, 13–38.Google Scholar

Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1–18.Google Scholar

Kormos, J. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(2), 148–161.Google Scholar

Kormos, J. (2014). Differences across modalities of performance: An investigation of linguistic and discourse complexity in narrative tasks. In Byrnes, H. & Manchón, R. (eds.), Task-based language learning—Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 193–217). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Kormos, J., & Trebits, A. (2012). The role of task complexity, modality, and aptitude in narrative task performance. Language Learning, 62, 439–472.Google Scholar

Kuiken, F., Mos, M., & Vedder, I. (2005). Cognitive task complexity and second language writing performance. EUROSLA Yearbook, 5(1), 195–222.Google Scholar

Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2011). Task performance in L2 writing and speaking: The effect of mode. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 91–104). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Lavolette, E., Polio, C., & Kahng, J. (2015). The accuracyof computer-assisted feedback and students’ responses to it. Language Learning & Technology, 19(2), 50–68.Google Scholar

Leow, R. P. (2015). Explicit learning in the L2 classroom: A student-centered approach. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Li, S. (2017). The efficacy of written corrective feedback on second language development: The impact of feedback type, revision type, learning motivation and strategies. Unpublished PhD dissertation, AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar

Manchón, R. M. (2011a). Writing to learn the language: Issues in theory and research. In Manchón, R. M. (ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 51–82). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Manchón, R. M. (2011b). The language learning potential of writing in foreign language contexts: Lessons from research. In Cimasko, T. & Reichelt, M. (eds.), Foreign language writing instruction: Principles and practices (pp. 44–64). Anderson, SC: Parlor Press.Google Scholar

Manchón, R. M. (2013). Teaching writing. In Chapelle, C. (ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

Manchón, R. M. (2014a). The internal dimension of tasks: The interaction between task factors and learner factors in bringing about learning through writing. In Byrnes, H. & Manchón, R. M. (eds.), Task-based language learning—Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 27–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Manchón, R. M. (2014b). The distinctive nature of task repetition in writing: Implications for theory, research, and pedagogy. ELIA, 14, 13–41.Google Scholar

Manchón, R. M. (2017). Looking into attentional processes while writing: Research focus and research instruments. Paper presented at the EUROSLA Conference, University of Reading, UK, August.Google Scholar

Manchón, R. M., & Matsuda, P. (eds.) (2016). The handbook of second and foreign language writing. Boston, MA/Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Manchón, R. M. & Roca de Larios, J. (2007). Writing-to-learn in instructed language learning contexts. In Soler, E. A. & Jordá, M. P. S. (eds.), Intercultural language use and language learning (pp. 101–121). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Manchón, R. M., Roca de Larios, J., & Murphy, L. (2009). The temporal dimension and problem-solving nature of foreign language composing. Implications for theory. In Manchón, R. M. (ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 102–129). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Manchón, R. M., & Williams, J. (2016). L2 writing and SLA studies. In Manchón, R. M. & Matsuda, P. K. (eds.), The handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 567–586). Boston, MA/Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Nitta, R., & Baba, K. (2014). Task repetition and L2 writing development: A longitudinal study from a dynamic systems perspective. In Byrnes, H. & Manchón, R. M. (eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights to and from writing (pp. 107–136). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Niu, R. (2009). Effect of task-inherent production modes on EFL learners’ focus on form. Language Awareness, 18, 384–402.Google Scholar

Ong, J. & Zhang, L. (2010). Effects of task complexity on the fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students’ argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 218–233.Google Scholar

Ortega, L. (2012). Epilogue: Exploring L2 writing–SLA interfaces. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 404–415.Google Scholar

Polio, C. (2012). The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 375–389.Google Scholar

Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57.Google Scholar

Robinson, P. (2011). Second language task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Second language task complexity. Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 3–37). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Roca de Larios, J., Murphy, L., Manchón, R. M., & Marín, J. (2008). The foreign language writer’s strategic behaviour in the allocation of time to writing processes. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(1), 30–47.Google Scholar

Ross-Feldman, L. (2007). Interaction in the L2 classroom: Does gender influence learning opportunities? In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 52–77). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ruiz-Funes, M. (2015). Exploring the potential of second/foreign language writing for language learning: The effects of task factors and learner variables. Journal of Second Language Writing, 28, 1–19.Google Scholar

Rummel, S. (2014). Student and teacher beliefs about written CF and the effect these bliefs have on uptake: A multiple case study of Laos and Kuwait. Unpublished PhD dissertation, AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar

Sánchez, A., Manchón, R. M., & Gilabert, R. (2017). Task repetition effects across modalities. Paper presented at the TBLT Conference, University of Barcelona, Spain, March.Google Scholar

Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283.Google Scholar

Sheen, Y. (2010). The role of oral and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2),169–179.CrossRef Google Scholar

Shintani, N., & Aubrey, S. (2016). The effectiveness of synchronous and asynchronous written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracyin a computer-mediated environment. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 296–319.Google Scholar

Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 286–306.Google Scholar

Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracyin using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103–131.Google Scholar

Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38–62.Google Scholar

Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510–532.Google Scholar

Skehan, P. (ed.) (2014). Processing perspectives on task performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49(1), 93–120.Google Scholar

Stefanou, C., & Révész, A. (2015). Direct written corrective feedback, learner differences, and the acquisition of second language article use for generic and specific plural reference. The Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 263–282.Google Scholar

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. & Seidhofer, B. (eds.), For H. G. Widdowson: Principles and practice in the study of language. A Festschrift on the occasion of his 60th birthday (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Swain, M. (2005). The Output Hypothesis: Theory and research. In Hinkel, E. (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Tavakoli, P. (2014). Storyline complexity and syntactic complexity in writing and speaking tasks. In Byrnes, H. & Manchón, R. M. (eds.), Task-based language learning—Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 217–236). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369.Google Scholar

Truscott, J. (1999). The case for “The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 111–122.Google Scholar

Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255–272.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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), 1–41.Google Scholar

Vasylets, O., Gilabert, R., & Manchón, R. M. (2017). The effects of mode and task complexity on second language production. Language Learning, 67(2), 394–430.Google Scholar

Williams, J. (2012). The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 321–331.Google Scholar

Yu, G. (2009). Lexical diversity in writing and speaking task performances. Applied Linguistics, 31, 236–259.Google Scholar

Zalbidea, J. (2017). “One task fits all”? The roles of task complexity, modality, and working memory capacity in L2 performance. The Modern Language Journal, 101(2), 335–352.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.