Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/65330
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorKim McDonoughen_US
dc.contributor.authorJindarat De Vleeschauweren_US
dc.date.accessioned2019-08-05T04:31:53Z-
dc.date.available2019-08-05T04:31:53Z-
dc.date.issued2019-06-01en_US
dc.identifier.issn10603743en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85064685267en_US
dc.identifier.other10.1016/j.jslw.2019.04.003en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85064685267&origin=inwarden_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/65330-
dc.description.abstract© 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.en_US
dc.subjectArts and Humanitiesen_US
dc.subjectSocial Sciencesen_US
dc.titleComparing the effect of collaborative and individual prewriting on EFL learners’ writing developmenten_US
dc.typeJournalen_US
article.title.sourcetitleJournal of Second Language Writingen_US
article.volume44en_US
article.stream.affiliationsConcordia Universityen_US
article.stream.affiliationsChiang Mai Universityen_US
Appears in Collections:CMUL: Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in CMUIR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.