Cover not available

Article published In: Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 31:2 (2018) ► pp.638–659

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Reading-to-write tasks for professional purposes in Spanish as a foreign language

An empirical study among 19 master’s students

 | University of Antwerp
 | University of Antwerp
 | University of Antwerp
Published online: 27 December 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.17005.van
Abstract
A reading-to-write task is a complex cognitive activity. The aim of this study is to gain insight into the difficulties that advanced learners of Spanish as a foreign language for professional communication purposes experience when they have to perform a reading-to-write task. This insight will help to improve writing instruction and training for this particular type of students. In this study, 19 students of a one-year master’s programme in multilingual professional communication (level B2–C1 of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) were asked to carry out a reading-to-write task in Dutch, their mother tongue, and in Spanish at the beginning of the academic year. This task was repeated at the end of the academic year. On both occasions, the task was writing an informative synthesis of approximately 200–250 words using three digital source texts in Dutch and in Spanish pertaining to different text genres (i.e., a report from the European Union, a website, a newspaper article). The three source texts varied in lexical and syntactical complexity, content, style and discursive characteristics. All written products were evaluated by two independent raters. We found no general improvement in the reading-to-write task between the two moments, neither in the L1 nor in the L2. We did not find an improvement at sentence, text, or discourse level either. We will explore several explanations for this lack of improvement, based on theoretical models of foreign language acquisition and recent empirical writing research.
Resumen
Las tareas que consisten en leer para escribir, o reading-to-write tasks, son operaciones cognitivas complejas. Este estudio se concibió con el fin de adquirir una mejor comprensión de las dificultades a las que se enfrentan los aprendices avanzados del español como lengua extranjera para fines comunicativos profesionales (N = 19, nivel del Marco Común Europeo de Referencia: B2–C1) a la hora de realizar una tarea de este tipo. El objetivo es analizar el producto de redacción tanto en la lengua materna como en la lengua extranjera y aprovechar los resultados para poder mejorar la práctica de la competencia de redacción profesional en este tipo de alumnado. Concretamente, se les pidió a 19 estudiantes de una carrera académica de comunicación profesional multilingüe (un programa de máster de un año) que realizaran al principio del curso una tarea de leer para escribir tanto en su lengua materna (el neerlandés) como en español (una lengua extranjera para ellos). Esta tarea se repitió al final del curso. En las dos ocasiones se trató de un ejercicio de redacción de síntesis informativa de unas 200–250 palabras a partir de tres diferentes fuentes digitales en neerlandés y en español (un informe de la Unión Europea, un sitio web, un artículo de prensa). Estas fuentes fueron manipuladas en cuanto a complejidad léxica y sintáctica, contenido, estilo, género y propiedades discursivas. Todas las redacciones, de los dos momentos y para las dos lenguas, fueron valoradas por dos evaluadores independientes. En contraste con las hipótesis iniciales, no se pudo observar ninguna mejoría estadísticamente significativa entre los dos momentos en las redacciones realizadas ni en la lengua materna ni en la lengua extranjera. Tampoco se pudo constatar una mejoría a nivel sintáctico, textual o discursivo. En esta contribución se pretende dar varias posibles explicaciones de esta ausencia de mejora esperada. Para ello, se recurre a modelos de teorías de adquisición de una lengua extranjera y a los resultados de investigaciones empíricas recientes sobre la competencia escrita.
Article outline
  • 1.Background and aim
  • 2.Previous empirical data on writing in a foreign language
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Reading-to-write tasks
    • 3.3Materials
    • 3.4Procedure
    • 3.5Rating
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Holistic assessment
    • 4.2Analytic assessment
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • References
References (47)
References
Alamargot, D., Terrier, P., & Cellier, J. M. (2007). Written documents in the workplace. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Asención Delaney, Y. (2008). Investigating the reading-to-write construct. Journal of English for Academic purposes, 71, 140–150. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baba, K. (2009). Aspects of lexical proficiency in writing summaries in a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(3), 191–208. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bouwer, R., & Koster, M. (2016). Bringing writing research into the classroom: The effectiveness of Tekster, a newly developed writing program for elementary students (Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University). Retrieved from: [URL]
Byrnes, H., & Manchón, R. M. (Eds.). (2014). Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chan, S., Inoue, C., & Taylor, L. (2015). Developing rubrics to assess the reading-into-writing skills: a case study. Assessing writing, 261, 20–37. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Silva, R. (2015). Writing strategy instruction: Its impact on writing in a second language for academic purposes. Language Teaching Research, 19(3), 301–323. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Smedt, Fien, Van Keer, H., & Merchie, E. (2016). Student, teacher, and class-level correlates of Flemish late elementary school children’s writing performance. Reading and writing, 29(5), 833–868. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based research and language pedagogy. In K. Van den Branden, M. Bygate, & J. M. Norris (Eds.), Task-based language teaching: A reader (pp. 109–130). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2011). Learning to write: Issues in theory, research and pedagogy. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 17–36). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kobayashi, H., & Rinnert, C. (2008). Task responses and task construction across L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(1), 7–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kormos, J. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 201, 148–161. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2008). Cognitive task complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(1), 48–60. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Task complexity and linguistic performance in L2 writing and speaking: The effect of mode. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 91–104). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Syntactic complexity, lexical variation and accuracy as a function of task complexity and proficiency level in L2 writing and speaking. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 143–170). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lázaro Ibarrola, A. (2009). Reformulation and self-correction: Testing the validity of correction strategies in the classroom. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 221, 189–215.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leki, I., Cumming, A., & Silva, T. (2008). A synthesis of research on second language writing in English. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leijten, M., & Van Waes, L. (2013). Keystroke Logging in writing research: Using Inputlog to analyze and visualize writing processes. Written Communication, 30(3), 358–392. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leijten, M., Van Waes, L., Schriver, K., & Hayes, J. R. (2014). Writing in the workplace: Constructing documents using multiple digital sources. Journal of Writing Research, 5(3), 285–337. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leijten, M., Van Waes, L., Schrijver, I., Bernolet, S., & Vangehuchten, L. (2017). Hoe schrijven masterstudenten syntheseteksten? Het brongebruik van gevorderde schrijvers in kaart gebracht. In Pedagogischestudiën: Special issue on writing, 94(4), 233–253.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lenski, S. D. & Johns, J. L. (1997). Patterns of reading-to-write. Reading Research and Instruction, 371, 15–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manchón, R. M., & Roca de Larios, J. (2007). On the temporal nature of planning in L1 and L2 composing. Language Learning, 571, 549–593. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martínez, I., Mateos, M., Martín, E., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2015). Learning history by composing synthesis texts: Effects of an instructional programme on learning, reading and writing processes, and text quality. Journal of Writing Research, 7(2), 275–302. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mateos, M., & Solé, I. (2009). Synthesising information from various texts: A study of procedures and products at different educational levels. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24(4), 435–451. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mateos, M., Solé, I., Martín, E., Cuevas, I., Miras, M., & Castells, N. (2014). Writing a synthesis from multiple sources as a learning activity. In P. Klein, P. Boscolo, L. Kirkpatrick, & C. Gelati (Eds.), Writing as a learning activity (pp. 169–190). Boston: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mehta, S. R., & Al-Mahrooqi, R. (2015). Can thinking be taught? Linking critical thinking and writing in an EFL context. RELC Journal: A Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 46(1), 23–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mungra, P. (2010). Teaching writing of scientific abstracts in English: CLIL methodology in an integrated English and medicine course. Iberica, 201, 151–166.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nas, M., & Van Esch, K. (2014). Acquisition of writing in second language Spanish. In K. Geeslin (Ed.), Handbook of Second Language Spanish (pp. 482–497). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Olinghouse, N. G., Santangelo, T., & Wilson, J. (2012). Examining the validity of single-occasion, single-genre, holistically scored writing assessments. In E. Van Steendam, M. Tillema, G. Rijlaarsdam, & H. Van den Bergh (Eds.), Measuring writing: Recent insights into theory, methodology and practices (pp. 85–82). Leiden/Boston: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2012). Epilogue: Exploring L2 writing-SLA interfaces. Journal of Second Language Writing, 211, 404–415. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plakans, L. (2008). Comparing composing processes in writing-only and reading-to-write test tasks. Assessing Writing, 131, 111–129. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). The role of reading strategies in integrated L2 writing tasks. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 81, 252–266. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pollitt, A. (2012). The method of adaptive comparative judgement. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 19(3), 281–300. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2015). The cognition hypothesis, second language task demands, and the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and Directions in the Development of TBLT (pp. 87–122). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roca de Larios, J., Manchón Ruiz, R., & Murphy, L. (2007). Componentes básicos y evolutivos del proceso de formulación en la escritura de textos en lengua materna y lengua extranjera, Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 201, 159–183.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roca de Larios, J., Manchón, R. M., Murphy, L., & Marín, J. (2008). The foreign language writer’s strategic behaviour in the allocation of time to writing processes. Journal of Second Language Writing, 171, 30–47. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz-Funes, M. (2014). Task complexity and linguistic performance in advanced college-level foreign language writing. In H. Byrnes & R. M. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 163–192). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(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, 281, 1–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sadiq, A. A. I., & Negmeldin, O. A. (2012). Second language learners’ performance and strategies when writing direct and translated essays. International Education Studies, 5(5), 173–184.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schoonen, R., Van Gelderen, A., de Glopper, K., Hulstijn, J., Simis, A., Snellings, P., & Stevenson, M. (2003). First language and second language writing: The role of linguistic knowledge, speed of processing, and metacognitive knowledge. Language Learning, 531, 165–202. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schriver, K. (2012). What we know about expertise in professional communication. In V. W. Berninger (Ed.), Past, present and future contributions of cognitive writing research to cognitive psychology (pp. 275–312). London: Taylor Francis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2015). Limited attention capacity and cognition. Two hypotheses regarding second language performance on tasks. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT (pp. 123–156). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Weijen, D., Van den Bergh, H., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Sanders, T. (2009). L1 use during L2 writing: An empirical study of a complex phenomenon. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(4), 235–250. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Victori Blaya, M. (1997). EFL composing skills and strategies: Four case studies. RESLA, 121, 163–184.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). Integrating reading and writing in a competency test for non-native speakers of English. Assessing writing, 9(1), 27–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Leijten, Mariëlle, Luuk Van Waes, Iris Schrijver, Sarah Bernolet & Lieve Vangehuchten
2019. MAPPING MASTER’S STUDENTS’ USE OF EXTERNAL SOURCES IN SOURCE-BASED WRITING IN L1 AND L2. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 41:3 ► pp. 555 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue