THE EFFECTS OF PREWRITING DISCUSSIONS ON EFL LEARNERS’ WRITING PERFORMANCE

Authors

  • Phan Minh Nhat Vinh English Teacher, University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City, Vinh Long Campus MA Candidate, Tra Vinh University, Vietnam
  • Thai Cong Dan English Senior Lecturer School of Foreign Languages, Can Tho University, Can Tho City, Vietnam

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.46827/ejals.v8i2.612

Keywords:

small-group talk, EFL writing, prewriting discussion, IELTS writing performance, learner attitudes

Abstract

Improving writing skills remains a significant challenge for English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners, particularly at the intermediate proficiency level. While previous studies have explored various instructional techniques, limited research has examined the impact of small-group student talk—especially prewriting discussions—on writing performance in EFL contexts. This study addresses that gap by investigating the effects of small-group discussions on B1-level EFL learners’ IELTS writing performance and their attitudes toward the activity. Using an experimental research design, 55 university-level students from a private English language center in Vietnam were divided into experimental and control groups. The experimental group participated in structured small-group prewriting discussions, while the control group received conventional task-based writing instruction. Writing performance was assessed through IELTS Writing Task 2 pre- and post-tests, evaluated by independent IELTS examiners. Learner attitudes were explored using questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Results showed that students who engaged in prewriting discussions significantly outperformed those in the control group, with marked improvements in task achievement, coherence, cohesion, and lexical resource. Participants also expressed positive perceptions of the activity, citing increased confidence, engagement, and clearer idea development. These findings suggest that small-group student talk is an effective pedagogical strategy for enhancing both writing performance and learner motivation in EFL settings. This study provides practical implications for language educators, advocating for the integration of collaborative discussion activities into writing instruction to support improved outcomes and learner engagement.

 

Author Biographies

  • Phan Minh Nhat Vinh, English Teacher, University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City, Vinh Long Campus MA Candidate, Tra Vinh University, Vietnam

    Mr. Phan Minh Nhat Vinh is currently an English lecturer at the University of Economics, Ho Chi Minh City (UEH), Vinh Long Campus. He is pursuing a Master’s degree in Principles and Methods in English Language Education at Tra Vinh University (TVU), Vietnam, and is expected to graduate in 2025. His research interests include English language teaching methodologies, writing techniques and strategies, the four English language skills, and English for Specific Purposes (ESP), particularly in economics-related contexts.

    Email: phanminhnhatvinh@gmail.com.

  • Thai Cong Dan, English Senior Lecturer School of Foreign Languages, Can Tho University, Can Tho City, Vietnam

    Mr. Thai Cong Dan is a Senior Lecturer of English and project manager at the School of Foreign Languages, Can Tho University, Vietnam. He earned his Ph.D. in Educational Administration (English program) from Naresuan University, Thailand (2010), and an M.A. in Cultural Aspects and Literature from the University of Notre Dame du Lac, USA (1999). His research focuses on TEFL/TESOL, intercultural communication, English teaching and learning, curriculum design, testing, ESP (tourism, political education, food technology), professional development, and educational administration.

    ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0002-9566-8128,

    Email: tcdan@ctu.edu.vn.

References

Bacha, N. (2001). Writing evaluation: What can analytic versus holistic essay scoring tell us? System, 29(3), 371–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0346-251x(01)00025-2

Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices. Longman. Retrieved from https://evelintampubolon.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/h-_douglas_brown_-_language_assessment.pdf

Cullen, P., French, A., & Jakeman, V. (2014). The official Cambridge guide to IELTS. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://quicklylearningenglish.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/cambridgeielts10.pdf

Durnali, M., & Limon, İ. (2020). Enriching teaching and learning environments with contemporary technologies. IGI Global.

Dyson, A. H. (1990). Talking up a writing community: The role of talk in learning to write. In N. Mercer (Ed.), Perspectives on talk and learning (pp. 99–114). Multilingual Matters.

Faraj, A. K. A. (2015). Scaffolding EFL students' writing through the writing process approach. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(13), 131–141. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1080494.pdf

Gangal, J. K. (2011). A practical course for developing writing skills in English. PHI Learning. Retrieved from https://books.google.ro/books/about/A_PRACTICAL_COURSE_FOR_DEVELOPING_WRITIN.html?id=v1ZFxJz3o14C&redir_esc=y

Hamp-Lyons, L. (1991). Assessing second language writing in academic contexts. Ablex Publishing Corporation. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/328948

Harsch, C., & Martin, G. (2013). Comparing holistic and analytic scoring methods: Issues of validity and reliability. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 20(3), 281–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594x.2012.742422

Kellogg, R. T. (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective. Journal of Writing Research, 1(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2008.01.01.1

Li, H. H., & Zhang, L. J. (2021). Effects of structured small-group student talk as collaborative prewriting discussions on Chinese university EFL students’ individual writing: A quasi-experimental study. PLOS ONE, 16(5). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251569

Li, H. H., Zhang, L. J., & Parr, J. M. (2020). Small-group student talk before individual writing in tertiary English writing classrooms in China: Nature and insights. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.570565

McDonough, K., & De Vleeschauwer, J. (2019). Comparing the effect of collaborative and individual prewriting on EFL learners’ writing development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 44, 123–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.04.003

Nation, I. S. P. (2008). Teaching ESL/EFL reading and writing. Routledge. Retrieved from https://vulms.vu.edu.pk/Courses/ENG515/Downloads/I%20S%20P%20Nation%20Teaching%20ESL%20EFL%20Reading%20and%20Writing%20%20(2008).pdf

Neumann, H., & McDonough, K. (2015). Exploring student interaction during collaborative prewriting discussions and its relationship to L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, 84–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.009

Stokoe, E. H. (2000). Constructing topicality in university students' small-group discussion: A conversation analytic approach. Language and Education, 14(3), 184–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780008666789

Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2004). Designing for interaction: Six steps to designing computer-supported group-based learning. Computers & Education, 42(4), 403–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2003.10.004

Uysal, H. H. (2009). A critical review of the IELTS writing test. ELT Journal, 64(3), 314–320. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccp026

Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26(3), 445–466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209104670

Downloads

Published

2025-06-14

Issue

Vol. 8 No. 2 (2025)

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).