The relationship between use of writing strategies and English proficiency

Bai, R., Hu, G., & Gu, P. (2014). The relationship between use of writing strategies and English proficiency in Singapore primary schools. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 23(3), 355-365. doi: 10.1007/s40299-013-0110-0

Background

Despite the increasing body of writing strategy research, the authors reported little research had been conducted in Singapore, especially on how young writers use their strategies.

Aims

This study examined the writing strategies used by primary school pupils, and explored the relationship between their writing strategies and language proficiency.

Sample

The participants were 1,618 Primary 4 to 6 pupils in two Singapore primary schools.

Method

The pupils’ use of writing strategies was elicited with a 46-item questionnaire and classified into three general categories: metacognitive strategies, cognitive strategies, and social/affective strategies. For each statement, the participants were asked to rate how often they used the writing strategy using a Likert scale from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating greater frequency.

Findings

The results indicated that planning strategies were the most frequently adopted group of metacognitive strategies. Out of the 18 cognitive strategies, revising strategies were the least popular among the pupils while text-generating and resourcing strategies were more frequently used. Help-seeking and affective managing strategies were the most commonly adopted type of affective strategies. Overall, there were systematic differences in strategy use between the pupils of various proficiency levels. Planning and help-seeking and affective managing strategies were most frequently used by the low proficiency learners. The middle proficiency learners also deployed help-seeking and affective managing strategies comparatively more frequently than the other strategy groups. By contrast, help-seeking and affective managing strategies were the second least frequently used type of writing strategies for the highly proficient learners. The highly proficient leaners used the planning strategies and text-generating strategies most frequently. However, there were variations in the relationships between reported strategy use and English proficiency from both schools. For example, in School 1, the middle proficiency group deployed all the five categories of writing strategies more frequently than the least proficient group. In School 2, however, the middle proficiency group did not use the writing strategies more often than their least proficient counterparts.

Implications

The authors recommended that future research validate the current writing strategy questionnaire with qualitative research methods such as think-aloud protocols and interviews, to enhance the overall validity of writing strategy research.

Original article retrieved from EBSCO.