Process Writing and Descriptive Paragraph Development Among A1 Secondary Learners

Mariella Zoila  Garcia-Coronel

doi:10.66836/linguatech.v2n1.uewnfnbB3

Authors

Mariella Zoila Garcia-Coronel University of Guayaquil Author https://orcid.org/0009-0008-6050-1313

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.66836/linguatech.v2n1.uewnfnbB3

Keywords:

process writing, descriptive paragraphs, A1 learners, writing assessment, secondary education

Abstract

Process writing converts composition into a sequence of manageable decisions and may be particularly useful for beginning foreign-language writers. This mixed-methods, non-equivalent-group study evaluated an eight-week intervention for 32 tenth-grade A1 learners at an urban public school in Ecuador. Ten volunteers completed 15 additional 40-minute sessions focused on brainstorming, ranking ideas, topic sentences, supporting details, connectors, drafting, and feedback; 22 classmates continued regular instruction. Before and after the intervention, learners wrote a descriptive paragraph that was scored from 1 to 5 for Content, Organisation, and Language. Participant-level scores were recalculated, and the three criteria were summed into a 3-15 composite. The intervention group increased from M = 8.80 (SD = 2.44) to M = 11.60 (SD = 1.58), whereas the comparison group increased from M = 6.14 (SD = 2.19) to M = 7.91 (SD = 2.56). A baseline-adjusted model estimated a 2.53-point posttest advantage for the intervention group, 95% CI [0.64, 4.41], p = .011. Adjusted differences favored the intervention in Organisation and Language, but not Content. However, the unadjusted between-group gain comparison was not significant, p = .250, and both groups improved. Questionnaire and journal evidence highlighted modeling, brainstorming, and feedback as useful, while topic-sentence construction, vocabulary, online concentration, and limited revision time remained challenges. The program is promising, but nonrandom assignment, baseline imbalance, unequal instructional time, repeated prompts, and a change of rater prevent a definitive causal conclusion.

References

Badger, R., & White, G. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal, 54(2), 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/54.2.153

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://books.google.com/books?id=XkRZAAAAMAAJ

Cambridge Assessment English. (2020). A2 Key for Schools handbook for teachers. https://www.cambridgeenglish.org/images/504506-a2-key-for-schools-handbook2020.pdf

Council of Europe. (2020). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment—Companion volume. https://rm.coe.int/common-european-framework-of-reference-for-languages-learning-teaching/16809ea0d4

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. https://www.sagepub.com/shop/buy-a-book/designing-and-conducting-mixed-methods-research-3-241842

Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990490

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387. https://doi.org/10.2307/356600

Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445–476. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445

Graham, S., & Sandmel, K. (2011). The process writing approach: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Educational Research, 104(6), 396–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2010.488703

Graham, S., Cao, Y., Kim, Y. S. G., Lee, J., Tate, T., Collins, P., Cho, M., Moon, Y., Chung, H. Q., & Olson, C. B. (2025). Effective writing instruction for students in grades 6 to 12: A best evidence meta-analysis. Reading and Writing, 38(4), 1–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-024-10539-2

Graham, S., Kim, Y. S. G., Cao, Y., Lee, J., Tate, T., Collins, P., Cho, M., Moon, Y., Chung, H. Q., & Olson, C. B. (2023). A meta-analysis of writing treatments for students in grades 6–12. Journal of Educational Psychology, 115(7), 1004–1027. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000819

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487

Hayes, J. R. (2012). Modeling and remodeling writing. Written Communication, 29(3), 369–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312451260

Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6(2), 65–70. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4615733

Hyland, K. (2019). Second language writing (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://books.google.com/books?id=DBOevgEACAAJ

Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399

Long, J. S., & Ervin, L. H. (2000). Using heteroscedasticity consistent standard errors in the linear regression model. The American Statistician, 54(3), 217–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2000.10474549

Nelson, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science, 37(4), 375–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9053-x

Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002

Vélez-Palacios, A. A., & Ramírez-Ávila, M. R. (2023). Peer feedback and its impact in the writing process of International Baccalaureate students in a public institution. YUYAY: Estrategias, Metodologías & Didácticas Educativas, 1(2), 26-39. https://doi.org/10.59343/yuyay.v1i2.14

Vickers, A. J., & Altman, D. G. (2001). Analysing controlled trials with baseline and follow up measurements. BMJ, 323(7321), 1123–1124. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7321.1123