1. Introduction

This chapter introduced the xu-based comparative continuation writing (CCW) as a distinct writing task employing a complete input text to provide coherent discourse structure and rich linguistic resources, aiming to promote language learning by aligning learners’ output with enhanced input contexts. It emphasized CCW’s dual role in integrating EFL reading and writing instruction and facilitating assessment of discourse-level alignment in student writing. Discourse competence was defined as the ability to connect language form and content in context, crucial for achieving text coherence, cohesion, and flow in English writing. Input enhancement was described as an instructional technique based on Krashen’s Input Hypothesis, designed to make input more salient and focus learner attention, thus serving as an external inducer to activate implicit scaffolding in the reading text. Previous research primarily explored input enhancement effects at lexical, phrasal, and syntactic levels, with limited focus on discourse competence and its assessment in CCW. The chapter highlighted discourse-level alignment as a potential mechanism by which the xu-argument supports language learning and underscored the need to investigate how various input enhancement strategies influence learners’ discourse-level writing abilities through experimental manipulation, aiming to uncover optimal approaches and clarify the underlying mechanisms of CCW tasks.

2. Literature Review

This chapter described input enhancement (IE) as techniques designed to make specific linguistic forms in input more salient to EFL learners, primarily through textual input enhancement (TIE) methods like bolding or underlining. Numerous studies demonstrated TIE’s effectiveness in promoting learners’ noticing of language forms. The discussion highlighted the evolving balance between form-focused and meaning-focused instruction, noting that while grammar-focused outcomes dominate assessments, discourse-level effects of IE remain underexplored. The integration of content and language through approaches like CLIL was emphasized, with writing pedagogy seen as critical for linking linguistic form and meaningful content via input enhancement.

This chapter introduced discourse competence as the ability to manage linguistic features and meaning functions in context, highlighting cohesion and coherence as its foundational elements. Cohesion involves grammatical and lexical ties, while coherence relates to contextual integration. Discourse competence is a vital indicator of L2 writing proficiency and can be measured by the use of cohesive devices, though findings vary due to differing operational definitions. Advanced tools like the Tool for the Automatic Analysis of Cohesion and Coh-Metrix enable broader and more nuanced assessments of discourse competence, incorporating indices from lexical to semantic levels. Studies have shown mixed results on cohesive device development, underscoring the need to consider both linguistic markers and semantic meaning to fully capture EFL learners’ discourse competence.

This chapter focused on comparative continuation writing (CCW) tasks, where learners read a complete text, summarize the thesis, and integrate their own ideas while mirroring linguistic features of the input. CCW differs from traditional continuation tasks by providing full texts that include discourse structure and linguistic resources supporting cohesion and coherence. Research identified lexical and syntactic alignment effects in CCW that improve writing proficiency, but discourse-level measures have been limited. While linguistic competence in continuation tasks has been studied mainly at phrase and syntax levels, discourse analysis remains scarce. Input enhancement within continuation tasks can direct learner attention to grammatical, lexical, and syntactic patterns, enhancing writing accuracy. However, studies tend to focus unidirectionally on either input or output content aspects, with little exploration of how comprehension and production interact in meaning construction during CCW writing.

3. Methodology

This chapter described the participants as first-year senior middle school students from southern China, aged 14 to 16, with 117 initially recruited and 60 selected for analysis after proficiency screening and text length criteria. The participants were divided randomly into four groups with comparable language proficiency scores in the A2-B1 CEFR range.

The materials included a 390-word narrative passage from a mandatory English textbook, characterized by high readability for the target learners. Writing tasks varied between groups: three experimental groups performed comparative continuation writing (CCW) with different input enhancement techniques, while the control group completed a designed-topic writing task without input text exposure. Textual input enhancement (TIE) involved highlighting narrative structure and language features, and explicit teaching (ET) provided additional guided instruction. A true-or-false reading comprehension test was also administered to the CCW group without enhancement.

The procedure integrated the study within the regular curriculum following unit instruction. Participants read the input text (except the designed-topic writing group) and then completed writing tasks within 50 minutes. Among the CCW groups, two engaged with TIE activities, one of which additionally received ET support, while the third completed only comprehension questions. The designed-topic writing group worked independently on a moral-themed essay. This design allowed for analysis of the varying effects of different input enhancement strategies and comparison with traditional writing tasks.

Data collection involved digitizing written outputs for discourse analysis using Coh-Metrix 3.0, focusing on indices related to discourse competence, including Referential Cohesion, Latent Semantic Analysis, Connectives, and Situational Model. One-way ANOVA tests were used to detect significant group differences. Writing performance was evaluated by two trained raters against a rubric combining C. M. Wang’s framework and IELTS criteria, assessing length, clarity, content, vocabulary, and grammar, with procedures in place to resolve scoring discrepancies. Reliability was high, and statistical analyses were conducted to examine the impact of input enhancement on both discourse competence and writing performance.

4. Results

This chapter described the effects of input enhancement on Chinese EFL learners’ discourse competence and writing performance in comparative continuation writing. Using Coh-Metrix, discourse analysis employed 35 indices from four banks—Referential Cohesion, LSA, Connectives, and the Situational Model—to assess cohesion and coherence across linguistic, content, and cognitive dimensions. Overlap indices measured cohesion levels with values closer to 1 indicating stronger cohesion, while frequency counts tracked occurrences of connectives. One-way ANOVA revealed significant differences in two indices: CNCTempx (temporal connectives) and SMINTEp (intentional verbs). Temporal connectives such as “before” and “first” showed notable variation, with the DW Group using significantly fewer expanded temporal connectives compared to the other three groups engaged in comparative continuation writing tasks. Referential Cohesion and LSA indices did not show statistical differences, indicating similar performance among participants regarding word overlap and semantic relatedness.

Pairwise comparisons further specified that the DW Group’s lower use of temporal connectives distinguished it from groups performing CCW tasks. For intentional verb usage, the CCW Group had significantly higher frequencies than the TIE+CCW Group and the DW Group, while no difference emerged between the CCW and the TIE+ET+CCW Groups. These findings highlight that input enhancement influenced specific aspects of discourse, particularly temporal and intentional markers in writing.

Regarding writing performance, a one-way ANOVA compared scores on five dimensions plus total scores across the four groups to evaluate the impact of input enhancement. Clarity emerged as the only dimension showing significant group differences, with the CCW Group achieving the highest average clarity score. Total scores and other sub-metrics—content, vocabulary, and grammar—did not differ significantly, nor did text length due to all participants meeting minimum requirements. Post-hoc tests revealed the CCW Group outperformed the TIE+ET+CCW and TIE+CCW Groups in clarity, but not the DW Group. Additionally, the TIE+CCW Group scored significantly lower in clarity compared to the DW Group. These results underscore clarity as a pivotal factor affected by task type and input enhancement in writing evaluation.

5. Discussion

This chapter discussed how various types of input enhancement affected Chinese EFL learners’ discourse competence and writing performance in comparative continuation writing (CCW). The results revealed that CCW-based tasks provided significant advantages over designated-topic writing (DW) in learners’ use of temporal connectives, which are crucial for signaling event sequences and narrative development. The CCW groups outperformed the DW group in applying these temporal markers, highlighting the benefits of enhanced input materials in fostering coherent narrative timelines. Enhanced input activities directed learners’ attention to discourse structures, thus improving temporal coherence in writing.

The absence of enhanced input texts in the DW group resulted in fewer opportunities for learners to notice and interact with discourse features, reducing their ability to create cohesive narratives. The findings support the idea that well-structured input materials facilitate the internalization of proficient language and help construct logical progression in written texts. Among different discourse elements, intentional verbs—verbs indicating goals and plans—varied across groups. The CCW group without explicit instructional support showed the highest use of intentional verbs, suggesting that implicit learning within the CCW task itself promotes discourse coherence even without additional enhancement. Conversely, the group receiving teacher-led input enhancement combined with temporal input enhancement (TIE+ET+CCW) showed better temporal coherence but did not surpass the CCW group in intentional verb usage.

The study pointed out that cognitive load plays a key role in influencing discourse outcomes. Tasks combining multiple input enhancement techniques increased students’ cognitive demands, limiting their capacity to process and apply broader discourse features. The teacher intervention in the TIE+ET+CCW group helped manage cognitive load by guiding learners’ focus, explaining their better performance compared to the TIE+CCW group, which lacked instructional support. The CCW group’s use of reading comprehension tests appeared to activate higher-level cognitive processes, effectively engaging learners with the text and promoting autonomous learning and writing development.

These insights imply the necessity of balancing input enhancement intensity with cognitive load management and pedagogical support to optimize discourse competence gains. More targeted input enhancement designs that stimulate learner awareness and motivation can enhance writing quality. Active monitoring and timely instructional intervention serve as important scaffolds for improving students’ comprehension beyond their current abilities.

Despite the positive effects on temporal connectives and intentional verbs, most other discourse indices showed no significant improvement across groups. This underscores the ongoing challenges Chinese high school learners face in mastering discourse cohesion in English writing. Referential cohesion markers (such as noun coreference) and cognitive semantic overlap (measured by LSA) did not benefit significantly from input enhancement, suggesting that deeper discourse knowledge and instructional focus remain necessary. Effective methods to boost discourse awareness and competence warrant further exploration in EFL contexts.

Regarding writing performance, measured by length, clarity, content, vocabulary, and grammar, no significant differences emerged in total scores among groups. However, clarity varied notably: the CCW group outperformed both input-enhanced groups (TIE+ET+CCW and TIE+CCW) in clarity scores. This highlights clarity as a critical dimension of narrative writing that reflects cohesion, unity, and audience awareness, all essential for quality text production and critical thinking. Thus, writing assessments should place greater emphasis on clarity.

Contrasting earlier research focusing on specific linguistic features, the study adopted a broader approach by addressing input enhancement effects at the discourse level. The CCW tasks targeted both structural linguistic elements and semantic meanings, expanding understanding of how input enhancement influences narrative writing beyond isolated grammatical or lexical forms. This integrated perspective contributes to language teaching by illustrating that fostering discourse-level comprehension and writing skills requires balancing enhancement methods, cognitive demands, and supportive instruction.

The study’s findings advocate for careful task design that incorporates input enhancement techniques without overloading learners cognitively, coupled with effective teacher guidance to scaffold understanding. Such strategies can optimize the outcomes of CCW interventions aimed at improving Chinese EFL learners’ discourse competence and narrative writing performance.

6. Conclusion

This chapter introduces a study that fills research gaps regarding the effects of input enhancement on EFL writing by focusing on discourse competence, which integrates linguistic structure and semantic content through comparative continuation writing (CCW). It examines how varying strengths of input enhancement affect discourse competence and writing performance and investigates the feasibility of combining CCW with different forms of input enhancement to heighten learners’ discourse awareness. The study emphasizes that CCW can effectively enhance learners’ discourse competence when students sufficiently comprehend the input text, supported by strengthened reading strategies, discourse awareness cultivation, and instructional support. It also highlights the need to manage learners’ cognitive load when integrating input enhancement with instruction to foster internal integration of acquired knowledge through analyzing discourse structures, highlighting linguistic cues, and linking reading with writing activities. This alignment facilitates transfer of comprehension gains to writing tasks, providing a method that connects understanding and production. The chapter advocates for L2 instruction to prioritize discourse competence development over isolated vocabulary and grammar, promoting meaning-making at the contextual level and nurturing advanced cognitive patterns beyond language form mastery. Limitations include a small sample size due to quasi-experimental constraints and reliance on manual scoring for writing performance, suggesting future use of more precise assessment tools. The absence of qualitative interviews is noted, with a recommendation to incorporate such analyses in future research. Further studies are encouraged to explore the impact of various input text genres, conduct cross-genre comparisons, and investigate diverse input enhancement forms integrated with continuation tasks to innovate teaching practices.