The current study sought to examine the association between emotional aspects of WR and the quality of writing. We hypothesized that the process of writing revision contributes to the consolidation of writing quality and the outcomes of form revision or content orientation are associated with writing quality concerning the development of writing development. We found that when asked about their ability to generalize the emotional transformation from the four time points, a significant number of EFL learners highlighted their emotional changes regarding content orientation. The following section discusses the three hypothesis respectively.
Hypothesis 1: The process of writing revision contributes to the consolidation of writing quality
The outcomes of learners’ writing revisions provide some support for possible the manner in which the process of writing revision contributes to the enhancement of writing quality among EFL learners, facilitated by the consolidation of their emotional engagement with writing revision. Table 3 illustrates various orientation outcomes of writing revision, presenting an interactive model of EFL writing revision for developmental purposes. In particular, a significant finding, particularly pertinent for lower-proficiency EFL learners, is the importance of continuous writing revision in enhancing the quality of their writing manuscripts, fostering ongoing revision reformulation towards revision design, and fostering the consolidation of writing skills for EFL development. Likewise, as depicted in Table 3, the process initiates with learners composing writing samples in four groups (NR), the accuracy of which interacts with the frequency of revisions, represented by various revision traces within the writing revision domain. The second pattern entails learners engaging in writing revision, wherein they refine writing scripts based on various patterns (FR), serving as “the necessary sculpting that refines EFL learners’ cognitive processing and self-efficacy in writing” [1]. Learners in FR may have fewer opportunities to develop psychological changes during writing processes in CR. This finding aligns with [27]’s WR-oriented perspective, emphasizing the iterative nature of writing revision for triggering reflection. The third pattern encompasses the Mechanical Revision (MR) domain, involving a multi-step revision process that encapsulates EFL learners’ emotional processes during writing revision. This includes how they revise their writing manuscripts with a balanced distribution of form revision and content orientation; their affective involvement during writing revision, reflecting their attitudes toward the process; and their cognitive engagement in improvement, depicting how they navigate the improvement process step by step during writing revision [24].
When warranted, writing revision begins with EFL learners revising specific points in the writing manuscript and corresponding writing traces simultaneously. They may employ either a “local writing revision processing strategy,” where they iteratively analyze the commented/revised segments of their writing manuscript and the writing revision, or a “deep writing revision processing strategy,” where they review the entire text in this manner [42]. This prompts gap noticing (pattern 1 in Shintani et al.’s model) and, if comprehensible (pattern 2), engages learners with the targeted writing revision emotionally and cognitively. However, non-targeted revising patterns may go unnoticed (CR).
Crucially, when EFL learners are acquainted with the four patterns of writing revision, their emotional involvement may transition from form revision to content revision [24], mirroring pattern 4 of the writing revision model, denoting progressive writing revision formation with emotional engagement. This longitudinal approach to writing revision entails iterative revising aimed at grasping a writing revision point and its underlying revising standard, offering pedagogical opportunities beyond mechanically substituting writing segments with revisions. Similarly [26], observed that EFL learners’ emotional growth during writing revision bolstered their focus on content, seeking the essence of writing revision, and employing metacognitive and motivational regulation strategies to enhance writing quality.
Another aspect of emotional engagement for lower-level learners may emerge after several iterations at different time points: arriving at a decision-making stage to address a deeper understanding of writing revision (e.g., thought processes, logic, cultural nuances), which are significant yet not overly complex. While most EFL learners are cognizant of associated form revisions, they may inaccurately apply them due to lapses in attention during the writing revision process. As such, Persistent writing revision signals the necessity for decision-making/actions against prominent errors, a process that could be facilitated by content-revision notes informing EFL learners of revision cues.
Conversely, emotional engagement with writing revision “necessitates EFL learners to employ cognitive and metacognitive strategies to assess the impact of writing revision on their writing and monitor their revisions” [5]. This involves the fundamental processing of writing revision, wherein learners endeavor to align with the revised standard, followed by writing evaluation, i.e., applying self-efficacy principles in the subsequent writing revision phase, indicative of a deeper content-oriented strategy, facilitated by the extended processing time during writing revision [17]. The iterative nature of the writing revision process allows EFL learners to repeatedly scrutinize their attempted revisions, discard inaccurately formulated ones, devise new ones (Time 4), construct sentences based on the outcomes of the three preceding stages, and then revise them through writing revision. Through the iterations of this writing revision process, most prominent errors, as well as some complex ones, tend to diminish, contributing to the consolidation of the targeted writing manuscript.
Hypothesis 2: The outcomes of form revision or content orientation are associated with writing quality concerning the development of writing development
RQ2 investigated the ramifications of prioritizing form revision or content orientation during the process of writing revision, particularly in relation to the advancement of writing skills. A detailed scrutiny of writing revision practices revealed that despite efforts to engage with form revision or content orientation, learners frequently encountered challenges in fully grasping the underlying principles of writing revision. Certain form revisions, notably those involving functional variability (e.g., articles like “the”), lower frequency occurrences (e.g., omission of “s” in compound adjectives), or specific rule applications (e.g., “affect on” vs. “effect on”), proved especially intricate for some learners. This variability necessitated the application of different writing revision rules within form revision, posing difficulties for learners with limited metalinguistic awareness, even when employing content orientation across various contexts of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learning.
Furthermore, some form revisions, characterized by the manifestation of a single function (e.g., affixation) in writing revision processes, could not be easily mastered through a limited number of revisions or a single revision pattern (e.g., Content Revision or Form Revision). For instance, achieving proficiency in distinguishing between “success” and “successful” may not immediately translate into accuracy in spelling checks, word additions, deletions, complexity adjustments, or grammar checks (e.g., “hard” instead of “hardly”) elsewhere due to the multifaceted nature of morphological processes involving suffixation. This deficiency in form revision impeded the transferability of learning across different contexts, contrasting with more straightforward form revisions such as possessive adjectives.
Scholars like [33] argue that engaging with form is indispensable for EFL learners to develop revision awareness, necessitating numerous trial-and-error attempts before consolidating writing quality. However, even with extended opportunities for revision, some learners may struggle to accurately revise towards certain complex structures, a finding corroborated by [44]’s meta-analysis. Engaging EFL learners in multiple writing revision modes, as advocated by [10], can facilitate successful processing of writing revision focused on content orientation. Moreover, employing additional student-friendly revision techniques such as error labeling and metalinguistic explanations can assist in navigating complex writing revision tasks and mitigate the risk of learners merely replicating form revisions without comprehending the underlying principles of writing revision.
In their endeavor to refine their writing skills, EFL learners often concentrate on developing a deeper understanding of the writing revision (WR) process. When initial revision attempts fail to yield desired improvements, learners may resort to repeated iterations of revising content, hoping to glean insights into effective revision strategies. This iterative approach, elucidated by [35], entails building upon previous revisions and engaging in self-reflection to inform subsequent revisions. By consistently reflecting on their writing and revising both form and content, learners significantly enhance the quality of their manuscripts.
Engagement in sustained WR fosters emotional and cognitive involvement with the revision process, prompting learners to actively consider new phases of writing. The differentiation between revising form and content, as underscored by [12, 34], holds significant importance. EFL learners immersed in WR processes don’t merely superficially revise their writing to meet testing requirements; instead, they delve into the core principles of WR, striving to comprehend underlying concepts and apply them autonomously. This concept of “writing revision for acquisition,” proposed by [35], underscores the iterative nature of WR. Over time, consistent engagement in WR builds upon previous reflections, potentially strengthening learners’ self-efficacy in writing revision, as observed in [18]’s research. This underscores the potential of prolonged, content-driven WR.
Contrary to the assertion by [27] regarding the inefficacy of WR in promoting deep processing of target writing, our findings indicate that learners deeply engage with WR. These findings are supported statistically by the presentation of numerous text-specific examples illustrating learners’ comprehension of WR complexity. Throughout the WR process, learners frequently read and re-read the entire writing segment under scrutiny, aiming to gain deeper insights for independently enhancing the quality of their writing. This finding aligns with the work of [24], suggesting that while WR may prompt a restructuring of writing, continuous testing and refining of iterative improvements enhance emotional engagement with the WR process. Therefore, to ascertain the association of these effects with greater certainty, future research should delve into causal mechanisms with more longitudinal data.
Hypothesis 3: Psychological processes help EFL learners improve the self-efficacy in language acquisition
RQ3 delves into the emotional transitions experienced by EFL learners during form or content revision in their language development journey. Figure 2 illustrates the iterative process EFL learners undergo when prompted to self-correct their writing regularly. The emotional shifts reveal that lower-level EFL learners may detect linguistic errors during self-revision, consistent with the findings of [12, 17], indicating successful amendments when learners possess sufficient understanding of identified errors. Furthermore, we found a spectrum of positive psychological experiences among EFL learners during writing, including enjoyment, satisfaction, and excitement, which motivate sustained language-learning efforts. These findings offer support for previous research, such as [26], which underscores the role of positive psychological states in broadening attention and driving action, serving as potent motivational forces [30, 32]. However, few studies have examined the nuanced impact of negative psychological states on EFL learners’ motivation. While anxiety and burnout can diminish enthusiasm and reduce engagement with writing activities, as suggested by recent literature (e.g [30, 34, 35]). , , their effects on motivation are multifaceted. Previous research has primarily focused on examining writing quality from revision, but the effective utilization of external psychological factors, such as self-revision, may be largely ignored, especially when addressing errors that necessitate form revision.
Emotional attitudes towards writing revision
Regarding the present findings on limited linguistic proficiency among learners, this outcome contrasts with the findings of [26], as learners may struggle with revisions due to frustration or fear of making errors, potentially introducing new errors. Learners express minimal confidence in successful yet unverified self-revision, inhibiting learning due to uncertainty and avoidance regarding the accuracy of their revisions [30]. Additionally, these findings bolster self-efficacy among EFL learners in error identification, reflecting positive, negative, significant, and insignificant trends in content-oriented form revision, fostering either confidence or fear of risk-taking during writing. Moreover, these results align with prior research linking writing revision efforts to writing quality, as shown in Table 2.
Regarding the significance of addressing writing revision alongside broader emotional transformations, as depicted in Fig. 1, this study found a novel finding fraught with complex psychological dynamics. Despite lower proficiency, the pedagogical outcomes of EFL learners’ engagement in the writing revision process during the writing phase yield marginal improvements, diverging from past findings [38], suggesting that despite ongoing psychological changes and metacognitive processes during revision attempts, enhancements in writing quality remain elusive. To our knowledge, the current study is the first to examine the association between psychological processes of writing revision and quality of writing, and as such, these results offer novel insights into the relations between these two variables.
Implications
Exploring the impact of content revision on writing quality through the lens of emotional transformation has significant implications for language teaching and assessment. Firstly, this study can facilitate a novel approach to writing assessment for educators and teachers by considering the emotional processes inherent in language learning. By dynamically observing learners’ psychological changes during writing revision, it assists in understanding learners’ internal emotional needs and identifying sources of subtle learning anxiety, thus improving teacher-learner interaction. Secondly, in the context of language learning, it is crucial to prioritize understanding learners’ psychological states, especially in ESL (English as a Second Language) contexts, and the psychological shifts associated with language testing, rather than solely focusing on superficial measures of performance. Thirdly, by emphasizing content focus, this study offers a perceptual pathway for simultaneously examining the methodologies used to analyze internal and external factors influencing the effectiveness of language learning and teaching. Fourthly, this study aids in assessing language learning both quantitatively and qualitatively, enabling simultaneous observation and cognitive bootstrapping, which facilitates teachers in adjusting their teaching practices effectively. Fifthly, evaluating learners’ emotional changes is valuable for gaining a deeper understanding of their conceptualization process during language learning, which is crucial for accurately observing learners’ progress. Therefore, this research opens a new avenue for exploring EFL perspectives in terms of emotional considerations and provides valuable insights for enhancing language instruction and practice.
Limitations and future studies
The current study examined the emotional evolution of 320 EFL learners engaged in writing revision, specifically transitioning from form-focused revisions to content-oriented ones, over a sixteen-week period. The primary aim was to enhance the quality of writing through fundamental revisions. However, it’s important to note a limitation in the experiment, namely the exclusion of comprehensive writing revision, which ideally should encompass various aspects such as content, vocabulary, and organization [45]. Theoretically, a comprehensive approach to EFL writing revision should integrate these facets to provide a holistic view of EFL development and enhance self-efficacy in writing quality, departing from established models of EFL development (for further discussion, refer to [35] for an in-depth exploration of the relationship between writing revision and writing quality).
[31]’s model suggests that writing revision involves cognitive and affective processes leading to form-focused revisions, distinct from content-oriented ones. The writing revision process might require simultaneous adjustments, especially if future studies investigate proceduralization across different proficiency levels and writing revision conditions, such as those involving multiple rewriting, as seen in the studies by [27] and [20]. It’s conceivable that the transition from form-focused revisions to content-oriented ones could occur more rapidly for higher-proficiency learners unless additional complex writing revisions are introduced. Conversely, the writing revision process might resemble the patterns observed in the current study if lower-proficiency learners undergo writing revision over an extended period.
Methodologically, future mixed-methods studies should strive for complementarity, exploring various layers of the writing revision process in EFL writing, alongside triangulation. Regarding core writing revision, an incremental approach may be beneficial, gradually shifting focus to deeper patterns (e.g., paraphrasing; coherence between form revisions and content orientation) once specific patterns of writing revision are identified, as demonstrated in studies such as [10, 46] and [23], promoting a more ecologically valid approach to writing revision. In terms of the writing revision process, future studies could investigate strategy training by instructing learners to utilize diverse learning materials and draw from previous experiences for autonomous, self-initiated revisions.
Add Comment