CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS
In this chapter I will first summarize the findings concerning the effect of multi-draft writing on students’ writing quality and attitudes toward writing and revision. Next, some pedagogical implications for EFL writing researchers and teachers are provided. Finally, suggestions on future studies is also included in this chapter.
Summary of Findings
This study investigates the effects of multi-draft writing procedure on students' writing quality and attitudes toward writing and revision. Two groups of high school students participated in the study. The single-draft group wrote on nine different topics single-draftly while the multi-draft group wrote on three topics with each topic revised twice. Four major findings of the study are presented as follows:
First, multi-draft writing and single-draft writing procedures were both effective ways to improve students' ability at expository writing if appropriate instruction and feedback are given. Of the five components of writing—content, organization, grammar, vocabulary and mechanics—students in both groups showed the most significant progress in organization. This finding may suggest that teachers can improve the organization in students' writing through practice on expository writing.
Second, statistically speaking, multi-draft writing procedure and single-draft writing procedure were equally effective in improving students' writing quality. Both groups made significant mean gains in their writing post-test.
Third, through multi-draft writing, students had a more positive attitude toward
writing. They felt less apprehensive about English writing and even found it more enjoyable. As students proceeded from the first draft to the final draft, they witnessed how a text could be improved step by step in both the content and form. The whole process eventually gave students a sense of achievement when a composition was satisfactorily completed. Moreover, with the teacher's guidance, the students focused on one level of problems in one draft and wouldn’t feel cognitively overloaded by too many problems in content and errors in form.
Fourth, through multi-draft writing procedure, students also learned to appreciate the benefits of revision. At the end of the study, they enjoyed the process of revision better and even preferred to revise an old composition rather than write on a new topic.
They had understood that writing was a discovery of meanings and that revision might require a reconstruction of the whole content.
Besides the above major findings, the study reveals some other findings, which, though not directly related to the research questions, are significant nonetheless.
First, multi-draft writing is less time-consuming for a teacher to provide feedback for a draft than single-draft writing but it is equally effective in improving students’ writing quality. In a multi-draft writing context, the teacher gives feedback on the content and organization in the first draft, vocabulary, grammar and mechanics in the second and a general comment and criticism or praises in the third. This way, the teacher can focus on one part at a time and feel more relaxed. However, in a single-draft writing context, it may take the teacher a lot of time to give feedback on content, organization, grammar, vocabulary and mechanics in each student's
composition, especially if the students are of lower writing and language ability.
Second, although not as highly appreciated by students as teacher feedback, peer feedback could well complement teacher feedback as another source of audience
perspective and it provided a great opportunity for students to learn from each other. It was both rewarding and interesting for students.
Third, indirect feedback was favorably received by the students. Most students could understand the symbols with the help of the symbol table. They appreciated the opportunity to figure out the answer themselves. They liked to come up with their own sentences instead of copying those given by the teacher. Also, the students appreciated a mixed comment of criticism and praises. They appreciated the criticism as well as the praises and a sense of humor could make the praise more encouraging and criticism easier to accept.
Pedagogical Implications
Based on the results of the study, the single-draft writing procedure and the multi-draft writing procedure were both effective in improving students writing. In addition, the students in the multiple-draft group were less anxious about writing than those in the single-draft group. This provides a very important pedagogical
implication for the writing teachers in the high school. Since the inexperienced writers in high school tend to feel nervous and anxious about writing in English, the teachers can have students engaged in multiple-draft writing. In this way, they can develop their writing proficiency in a more relaxing and enjoyable manner. Their sense of achievement as a developing writer through a multiple-draft procedure would motivate them to write better in the long run.
Another practical implication is that teachers can help improve students’ writing equally well by using the less energy-consuming and less time-consuming
multiple-draft procedure. As we all know, to teach English writing to a large class has always been a formidable task for English teachers in high school. The results of
to achieve similar effects. Teaching composition writing can no longer be such drudgery for them. High school English teachers will be more willing to incorporate the teaching of writing into their syllabus and this will enhance students’ writing proficiency to a great extent.
Moreover, teachers can lead students to pay more attention to content and organization through the multi-draft writing procedure. In a multi-draft writing classroom, students will be guided to form the habit of examining the global issues in their texts and will learn when to and how to reconstruct their texts when necessary.
Limitations of the Study
One limitation of the study results from the convenient sampling procedure used in the study. The participants were not randomly sampled; rather, they were the
researcher’s students from two classes. The results, thus, may not be generalized to all at the intermediate and low-intermediate levels, let alone students at other levels. In addition, due to the small sample size of only 77 participants, the result of the quantitative part of the study can be questioned.
Furthermore, since the treatment in the present study lasted only one semester, it may not have adequately represented the reality. A study that requires students to write over a longer period of time, for example, one academic year, may reveal different results. To assess this complicated issue more fairly, longitudinal studies are needed.
Suggestions for Future Research
The current research has contributed to the research on the effect of multi-draft writing procedure on EFL students' writing ability and attitudes toward writing and revision. Yet many questions related to the research on the multi-draft writing
procedure remain to be answered:
First, will a longer period of research yield different results? In the current study, although not significantly, the single-draft group outperformed the multi-draft group in all the five components of writing. It is possible that a longer period of study may find single-draft writing procedure improve students' writing ability significantly more than multi-draft writing procedure.
Second, how do different genres, such as argumentation or description, influence students' progress in writing ability during the process of multi-draft writing? In the current research, participants engaged in expository writing, in which students may improve their organization more easily than if they engaged in other types of writing.
Finally, how do participants of higher level of proficiency react to multi-draft writing? In the current research, the students are beginners in English writing and of intermediate to low-intermediate English proficiency. Research that involves EFL students of higher English writing proficiency may yield different results.
Summary
In this chapter, I have presented the summary of findings. The pedagogical implications and limitations of the study are also provided. I have also offered some suggestions for future research in the last part of the chapter.
