1. Introduction

This chapter introduced the continuation task and the multiple-stage model-as-feedback writing (MAFW) task in L2 writing development, highlighting their growing attention and empirical support. The continuation task requires learners to extend an incomplete text after reading, fostering alignment beneficial for language learning, with model texts provided before writing. In contrast, the MAFW task involves offering well-written model texts after the initial writing, promoting noticing and output as mechanisms for improvement. The chapter emphasized theoretical distinctions between the two tasks, including their timing of model text provision and underlying learning processes. It also discussed the potential theoretical and pedagogical significance of comparing these tasks, particularly in understanding feedback mechanisms and optimizing instructional strategies. The study aims to address the gap in comparative research on their efficacy.

2. Literature Review

This chapter discussed the theoretical foundations and empirical investigations related to the continuation task in L2 writing development. It introduced the concept of alignment as a key mechanism through which learners interact with input texts during continuation tasks, enhancing writing accuracy by suppressing L1 interference. Alignment was examined from both psycholinguistic and sociocognitive perspectives, highlighting interactions at linguistic and situational levels between learners and texts. Empirical studies confirmed language alignment effects in various L2 contexts, demonstrating reduced error rates and improvements in coherence and cohesion. Longitudinal research indicated that continuation tasks promote broader writing accuracy and complexity more effectively than other writing tasks, with multi-turn modes showing additional developmental benefits.

This chapter introduced the theoretical grounding and research surrounding the Model-as-Feedback Writing (MAFW) task based on Schmidt’s noticing hypothesis and Swain’s output hypothesis. These theories emphasize the importance of learner noticing and output in resolving linguistic problems. Initial investigations by Hanaoka (2007) demonstrated learners’ ability to identify and incorporate linguistic problems from model texts into revisions. Subsequent studies examined distinctions between overt and covert problems, the effectiveness of model texts versus reformulations, and compared the MAFW task against error correction, revealing mixed outcomes related to linguistic acceptability and incorporation. More recent research expanded the scope to argumentative writing, showing positive effects on lexical development and overall writing quality when learners engaged in writing-comparing-rewriting cycles. Recommendations for future research included using model texts presenting opposing viewpoints to deepen engagement and cognitive challenge.

This chapter presented a comparative discussion of the continuation task and the MAFW task in L2 writing development. While both tasks have demonstrated value in enhancing L2 writing, no established theoretical framework currently accounts for their relative efficacy. The continuation task primarily leverages alignment with reading materials to foster accuracy and coherence, whereas the MAFW task focuses on learner noticing and output, facilitating linguistic problem-solving through engagement with model feedback. The absence of a definitive comparative framework underscores the need for further research to elucidate how and when each task optimally supports L2 writing growth.

3. Method

This chapter described the quasi-experimental design involving ninety Chinese college sophomores randomly assigned to three groups: continuation, model-as-feedback writing (MAFW), and control. Participants, aged 19 to 21 with intermediate English proficiency, completed a pretest, treatment, and posttest session. The Oxford Quick Placement Test confirmed no initial proficiency differences among groups. During treatment, a modified argumentative model essay opposing a specific view on law was used to stimulate interest and position-taking. Two pilot studies informed the selection of a word list of 13 potentially unknown words, time allotments (65 minutes for experimental groups; 40 for control), and clarity of instructions. The continuation group read the model essay before writing an opposing argument, encouraged to incorporate model elements. The MAFW group first wrote an essay, then compared and revised it with the model text provided afterward. The control group wrote without access to the model text or revision opportunity. Instructions were given bilingually. The pretest and posttest involved comparable argumentative writing tasks on the same topic and position to detect treatment effects. Both tests required about 200 words within 40 minutes. For assessment, an analytic rating scale targeting content, language, and organization/style was employed, comprising 11 subcomponents scored on a 5-point scale. Two experienced raters ensured reliability with high inter-rater correlations, and final scores were averaged.

4. Results

This chapter presented descriptive statistics and inferential analyses comparing three groups on overall and component writing scores before and after intervention. Initial tests confirmed no significant differences among the groups at the pretest stage across overall writing, content, organization, and language. Posttest results, analyzed via one-way ANOVAs, revealed significant differences with large effect sizes for all score types. The continuation group demonstrated the largest improvements, significantly outperforming both the MAFW and control groups across overall and all component scores, with effect sizes ranging from medium to large. The MAFW group also showed significantly better performance than the control group, but with medium effect sizes. Despite this, the control group also exhibited significant gains from pretest to posttest in all score categories. These findings indicate that the continuation task is more effective than the MAFW task in fostering overall L2 writing development and enhancing specific writing components, including content, organization, and language.

5. Discussion

This chapter discussed the comparative effects of the continuation and the MAFW tasks on overall writing quality and its components—content, organization, and language—in EFL writing. The continuation task showed greater improvement across all measures than the MAFW task, supported by various SLA theories. The usage-based SLA theory explains this advantage through priming induced by the model text in the continuation task, facilitating alignment between learners’ writing and the model text on language and content levels, which then promotes organizational alignment. Empirical studies confirmed that the continuation task enhances coherence and the organization of writing. Interviews also revealed that learners utilize ideas and logical structures from the model text during continuation writing. Conversely, the delayed feedback characteristic of the MAFW task likely weakens priming and alignment effects, consistent with findings from structural priming research.

The continuation task’s priming benefits extend to posttest performance due to increased entrenchment and accessibility of expressions, as supported by related studies showing higher accuracy and performance persistence when corrective feedback occurs during writing rather than after. The chapter also referenced L2 writing process models involving selective and after-the-fact corrective feedback (SCF and ACF). As SCF can integrate feedback into all writing stages—planning, translating, and revising—the continuation task aligns with this model, enhancing interaction with the model text across writing components. In contrast, ACF, embodied by the MAFW task, limits feedback to the revision stage, which may reduce motivation to align content and organization with the model text, indirectly affecting language quality.

Sociocultural theory offers an additional perspective, suggesting that corrective feedback is more effective when it meets learners’ immediate needs during task performance. The continuation task provides the model text while learners face compositional challenges, making it more timely and relevant than post-composition feedback in the MAFW task. The learners’ interlanguage system is more receptive to change during active writing struggles than after task completion. The Interaction Hypothesis further supports the continuation task’s effectiveness, emphasizing that model texts presented during active problem-solving motivate learners to seek and apply linguistic information, facilitating learning. Examples from vocabulary learning studies demonstrated that learners engage more with model texts to resolve uncertainties in the continuation task, while such motivation diminishes with delayed exposure in MAFW tasks. Case studies in Chinese as a foreign language similarly highlighted frequent rereading of the model text during continuation writing, which aided vocabulary, grammar, and orthographic verification.

6. Conclusion

This chapter discussed the first investigation into how the timing of model texts affects L2 writing development by comparing the continuation task and the model-as-feedback writing (MAFW) task. The continuation task was found to be superior in overall writing quality and in the components of content, organization, and language. It effectively counters the issue of learners mindlessly copying from the model text by requiring the creation of new content, thus maintaining the function of output. The continuation task’s adaptability allows teachers to tailor model text difficulty to different proficiency levels, and it can become more challenging as learners improve. Additionally, it demonstrated how immediate written feedback can be integrated into L2 writing through the model text serving as a resource to address diverse learner difficulties during the writing process. Limitations noted include the focus on intermediate-proficiency EFL learners, the exclusive use of argumentative writing, and the need for qualitative studies to clarify underlying learning mechanisms. Concerns about differing exposure times to model texts were acknowledged but considered inherent to the tasks’ nature. The chapter emphasized the ecological validity of the findings and suggested future research to explore the stated limitations.