Wroblewski em Researchpaper Weebly

Running head: IMPROVING FOREIGN LANGUAGE WRITING WITH AUTHENTIC TEXTS
Improving Foreign Language Writing with Learner Analysis of Authentic Spanish Texts
Sarah Wroblewski
Michigan State University

IMPROVING FOREIGN LANGUAGE WRITING WITH AUTHENTIC TEXTS 2
Abstract
Often the teaching of how to write genre, or text types, is not introduced to language learners
until the upper levels of proficiency, however, it can be a valuable skill at all levels. One
potential way to teach genre is through authentic model texts. This practitioner study uses corpus
tools, rubrics, and student reflections to analyze changes in student writing samples before and
after exposure to authentic texts within the specific genre of blogs.
Keywords: authentic texts, L2 writing, corpus analysis, learner corpora, second language
acquisition, International Baccalaureate, Diploma Program, genre, text type, practitioner
research
Improving Foreign Language Writing with Learner Analysis of Authentic Spanish Texts
Introduction
Literacy, or the “means by which we communicate”, traditionally through reading and
writing, is a key skill to be developed when learning a new language (Gambrell, Malloy,
Marinak, & Mazzoni, 2014). While the ability to speak in the new language is often a main goal
of many students, the ability to read and write allows for full expression of both receptive and
expressive skills and can contribute to the overall ability to communicate (Gambrell et al., 2014).
One aspect of literacy is that of genre, sometimes known as text types (Paltridge, 1996; Wingate,
2012). The exploration of genre is a valuable part of literacy, however, often it is not introduced
to its full extent until later in foreign language learning, sometimes even at the collegiate level, or
relegated to strictly academic texts (Mishan, 2005; Tardy, 2009). Authentic texts, or “model
texts” are one potential way to introduce students at the lower proficiency levels to the idea of
genre and assist them in producing texts of a similar type (Mishan, 2005). The question the
current practitioner study investigates is whether the reading and analysis of authentic texts of a
particular genre, in this case blogs, influences student writing of the same text type. This is
analyzed through student reflection, rubric-based structural evaluation, and a corpus analysis of
learner writing samples and model texts.
Literature Review
In this section, relevant literature from the linguistic, genre analysis, second-language
learning, and literacy fields are explored in greater detail as they pertain to the current study.
First, second language literacy instruction will be explored, particularly the traditional approach
to literacy as influenced by the ACTFL guidelines versus the alternative offered by the
International Baccalaureate (IB) program. Second is a survey of literature involving the reading
and writing of genre (and text type) and the value that this type of learning can have for students
within literacy instruction. Next is a discussion of the use of authentic texts within the second-
language classroom, including their utility in relation to teaching genre and literacy in general.
Fourth is a research-informed basis for the types of tasks and activities used within genre-based
literacy instruction based on authentic texts. Fifth, relevant literature of corpus analysis is
reviewed within the context of the analysis of learner writing samples for this study. Finally,
there is a short section explaining where this practitioner study fits in within the literature.
Second Language Literacy Instruction in the United States
The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Language’s (ACTFL) proficiency
guidelines (2012) emphasize a focus on both reading and writing. The guidelines for writing
place particular emphasis on accuracy (control of grammar and vocabulary) and communication
(ability to convey a message) (ACTFL, 2012). When it comes to reading, the focus is on
comprehension of text on a variety of topics (ACTFL, 2012). While the ACTFL guidelines do
outline different types of text or genres to some extent with the use of terminology such as
“Presentational” versus “Interpersonal” texts, the idea of text type or genre as a whole is usually
not introduced until the upper levels of language learning (ACTFL, 2012). For example, the
upper proficiency levels on the ACTFL scale (i.e. Advanced and Superior) mention student
ability to “understand texts from many genres dealing with a wide range of subjects” for reading,
and the use of “appropriate conventions” for writing, while the lower proficiency levels (i.e.
Novice, Intermediate) are expected to focus on “short, non-complex texts” with “basic
information” (ACTFL, 2012). Besides mentioning some writing genres that characterize students
at the lower proficiency levels (i.e. simple messages, notes, bulletin boards, weather reports),
textual conventions such as audience or purpose are rarely mentioned (ACTFL, 2012). In
addition, the typical culmination of a student’s language learning career, the AP language exam,
may require comprehension of various text types or genres through reading, but does not require
students to write anything beyond an e-mail response (interpersonal writing), persuasive essay,
or narrative (presentational writing) (The College Board, 2019). While some aspects of text
conventions are mentioned, including “use of register”, they are not a main focus (The College
Board, 2015). As a result, many foreign language classrooms in the United States relegate these
more “complex texts”, or reading and writing of various genres, and the analysis or use of
components of discourse such as audience, register, and author purpose, to the upper levels of
language learning. This is in stark contrast to language learning within the International
Baccalaureate (IB) program, an educational program adopted by many schools around the world
(International Baccalaureate Organization (IB), 2019). Their curriculum places particular focus
on the comprehension and production of various text types as well as recognition and use of text
conventions such as audience, message, and purpose (IB, 2019). One program of the IB, the
Middle Years Program (MYP), includes aspects of text conventions and text type as early as
Phase 1 and Phase 2, the lowest on their language proficiency scale (IB, 2014). On their
language acquisition rubrics for reading, this inclusion is particularly clear: “Strand ii: Student
clearly recognizes basic conventions including aspects of format and style, and author’s purpose
for writing” (IB, 2014). This focus on text type and text conventions culminates in the Diploma
Program (DP) Language B course and exams, the IB equivalent to AP language exams, where
text types are central to the aims of literacy. The quote below, from the updated Language B
guide section describing the written portion of the IB exam (Paper 1), demonstrates this:
The aim of this component is to assess the ability to communicate in writing for a variety
of purposes. In order to fulfill the requirements of this assessment component, students
need to show, through their use of text type, register and style, that they understand the
concepts of audience, context, purpose, meaning and variation, and can apply them to
their written language. (IB, 2018, p. 31)
The IB also mentions that “teachers should provide frequent opportunities for students to
understand and use a variety of text types” (IB, 2018, p. 21). The DP Language B Guide includes
a list of the text types they expect students to master, divided into three categories: personal,
professional, and mass media, as shown in Figure 1 (IB, 2018). It is clear that the idea of genre,
what the IB calls text type, is central to language learning within the IB program. The IB even
has various publications with the explicit intention of helping students learn text types
(Arriagada, 2012). The data analyzed in this study comes from students at an IB school, where
students are expected to maintain a focus on text types throughout their language learning. The
question becomes: what is the value of the learning of genre or text type when it comes to
literacy in the second language classroom, and how is it best taught to students?
The Value of Learning Genre
Genre has many definitions. Paltridge (1996) mentions a few, including that of Swales
(1990), one of the main researchers of genre. He states that genre is “a class of communicative
events, the members of which share some set of communicative purposes which are recognized
Figure 1: The text types taught in IB DP Language B (IB, 2018, p. 22)
by the expert members of the parent discourse community” (Swales, 1990 as cited by Paltridge
1996, p. 238). Examples of genres are advertisements, news reports, letters, brochures, resumés,
or recipes (Paltridge, 1996; Tardy, 2009). The IB uses the term “text type” in the DP Language B
guide, but it is somewhat unclear on whether this term is interchangeable with genre (IB, 2018).
Based off of the types of text that are listed (see Figure 1) and the language used in the guide, the
IB Language B program defines text types as similar to if not the same as genre. Paltridge (1996)
points out that there are many researchers that use the terms interchangeably, however he also
discusses the difference between the two. He defines text type more as what the text is doing, or
the rhetorical organization; for example, anecdote, description, exposition, procedure, or recount
(p. 239). When the definition of text type is defined in this way, “more than one genre may share
the same [text] type…equally, a single genre, such as formal letters, may be associated with
more than one text type” (Paltridge, 1996, p. 239). In other words, one e-mail may involve a
problem-solution text type while another may include a description, or the same e-mail could
include both a procedure and description (Paltridge, 1996). Even though text type as a separate
entity can be useful for teachers (see Paltridge, 1996 or Lee, 2001 for additional sources to
explore this), due to the fact that IB defines text type in the same way as genre and most teachers
are more familiar with the idea of genre, for simplicity’s sake the terms will be used
interchangeably throughout this research paper. The preferred definition used here comes from
Martínez-Lirola’s (2015) discussion of genre theory: “Texts that share the same purpose in the
culture and have many of the same obligatory and optional features are called genres or text
types” (p. 61).
Oftentimes genre is viewed from the perspective of learning how to structure a text; for
example, including a title, an introduction, the body text, and a closing (Tardy, 2009). This is
sometimes known as “formal knowledge” of a genre (Tardy, 2009). However, when viewed from
a discursive and rhetorical perspective, which is touched on in Swales’ (1990) definition when he
mentions “communicative purposes” and the “parent discourse community”, genre knowledge
becomes more than just the form of a text (Tardy, 2009, p. 20). Tardy states that “learning to use
genres requires much more than learning text types and forms, it requires learning the social
contexts, actions, and goals that give genres their meaning” (Tardy, 2009, p. 12). The structural
elements, or formal knowledge, of a genre are still important, but genre knowledge includes
other aspects of knowledge as well: the intended audience of the text, context of the text
distribution, style and register, and even the content (Tardy, 2009). Tardy (2009, p. 21-22)
discusses four aspects of genre knowledge that are important:
1. Formal knowledge- the structural elements of a genre
2. Process knowledge- how a genre is distributed and received
3. Rhetorical knowledge- understanding of context, values of readers, culture, and
community
4. Subject matter knowledge- knowledge of the content
In learning genre, students are not just learning how to write a text based on the structural
elements or learning the content, but immersing themselves into the culture and language of that
genre. This is a major goal in literacy in general; not just learning to read and write, but also
“understanding discourse and the processes by which it is created and interpreted… gateways to
learning new, alternative ways of organizing thought and expression” (Kern, 2008, p. 374).
Genre approaches also allow students to learn the social and historical contexts of texts
(Martinez-Lirola, 2015). In this way, acquiring genre knowledge can be incredibly valuable for
students in order to reach intercultural as well as linguistic goals. Kern (2008) summarizes this
point:
Texts… offer more than something to talk about (that is, content for the sake of
practicing language). They offer students the chance to position themselves in relation to
distinct viewpoints and distinct cultures. They give students the chance to make
connections between grammar, discourse, and meaning, between language and content,
between language and culture, and between another culture and their own – in short,
making them aware of the webs, rather than strands, of meaning in human
communication. (Kern, 2008, p. 380)
The IB Language B guide discusses the value in learning text type/genre as well:
The guiding principle for using texts in the DP language acquisition courses is to develop
students’ receptive, productive and interactive skills in the target language by focusing
their attention on the ways in which good communicators consider the audience, context
and purpose of what they want to say or write in the process of choosing and developing
an appropriate text type to convey a message. (IB, 2018, p. 21)
Learning genres/text types helps students to develop their language and communication skills,
make deeper connections with cultural communities, and make connections between language
and culture. In addition, learning to write and read through the perspective of genre better
approximates the type of literacy students will need to use outside of the classroom (Tardy, 2009;
Martínez-Lirola, 2015). Some may argue that learning genre or text type in order to make
connections to the cultures of a language community is not possible until the AP or DP level of
language learning. Kern (2008) argues against this, pointing out that without practice in the early
levels, students will be unable to “gradually develop the skills and sensibilities that will allow
them to succeed in dealing with texts by the time they get to advanced level courses” (p. 375).
This is especially important for IB teachers in preparing their students for the Diploma Program
language courses with their intense use of text types. What is the best way to teach genre/text
type at the lower levels of language learning? One way to teach students genre is through “genre
study, or immersion within a certain genre”, which will be examined in the next section
(Bromley, 2014).
Using Authentic Texts
Genre study, or immersion, is often done through “the use of authentic texts as models…
that are successful to accomplish communicative ends in a determined context… [they] introduce
students to the main text types, to their functions and to their textual and grammatical
characteristics” (Martinez-Lirola, 2015, p. 61). Using authentic models in the genre allows for
exposure to “vocabulary and structures that are actually used” and students can focus on the
language that is common in the genre they will write (Polio, 2016, p. 19). The reading of
authentic texts has long been championed within the language learning community, going all the
way back to Krashen’s well-known comprehensible input hypothesis of “i + 1” or input + 1; the
idea that learners should receive input just above their level in order to learn a language
(Krashen, 1981, as cited in Mishan, 2005). Within general language literacy research, learning
genre through authentic texts used for authentic purposes is linked to better growth in reading
comprehension (Duke & Martin, 2014). In second language literature, findings show that using
authentic texts is incredibly motivating for students because they allow them to see real samples
of real language in action (Gilmore, 2007; Mishan, 2005; Polio, 2016). Authentic texts also help
students develop autonomy and confidence in their language learning skills as they “stimulate
learners to further develop independent discovery and learning” (Mishan, 2005, p. 10). However,
what is an authentic text? Mishan (2005) quotes the definition of Morrow (1997), which is often
used in paraphrase by second language practitioners: “An authentic text is a stretch of real
language, produced by a real speaker or writer for a real audience and designed to convey a real
message of some sort” (Morrow, 1997, p. 13 as cited in Mishan, 2005, p. 11). Mishan (2005)
points out some issues raised by educators when deciding to use authentic texts. First, the
question of whether to simplify or “dumb-down” authentic texts often comes into play when
considering using them with lower-proficiency second language learners. If a text is too difficult,
students can become frustrated by the vocabulary and language but if it is too simple they may
become annoyed with the lack of content (Welbourn, 2009). In other words, students would be
outside of their ideal learning conditions; outside of what they are able to do on their own with
minimal support, their “zone of proximal development”, the term coined by the psychologist
Vygotsky (Mishan, 2005). Either way, student motivation, a key factor in literacy learning,
suffers (Guthrie, 2014). Teachers have to make informed decisions when choosing and
potentially modifying authentic texts. Some studies show that simplifying authentic texts, or
editing them by changing the vocabulary to make it easier, is not helpful: “far from assisting our
learners, by ‘simplifying’ and shortening texts, we risk not only eliminating elements crucial to
comprehension but also generally impoverishing learners’ input” (Mishan, 2005, p. 24). Other
studies on text modification have mixed results, meaning this method is still up for debate
(Gilmore, 2007). Still, many teachers of lower proficiency learners see the difficulties of
authentic texts as an obstacle rather than a challenge that learners can work to overcome
(Mishan, 2005, p. 61). As Tomlinson (1994) says, there is a need “to respect, stimulate and
challenge the lower levels” (p. 4, as cited in Mishan, 2005, p. 75). To help make authentic texts
more accessible for lower proficiency students, instead of trying to make authentic texts easier to
read, the “texts can be made accessible to learners… by adjusting the demands of the task
involving them (Mishan, 2005, p. 61, emphasis in original). Choosing tasks appropriate to not
only the learner and their level of proficiency but the texts themselves becomes the most
important question for language teachers, with both reading and writing (Gilmore, 2007; Mishan,
2005). As Arnold (1991) states, “‘Use of authentic materials does not imply that tasks will be
authentic… it is what trainees or students DO that counts’” (p. 238, as cited in Mishan, 2005, p.
16). Designing appropriate tasks to be used with authentic texts in order to teach genre will be a
key part of the next section of this literature review.
Genre-based Reading and Writing Tasks
Students learn to write when given models, clear expectations, room to make mistakes,
feedback, and realistic practice (Bromley, 2014, p. 290). When looking at genre, the approach is
similar. Ellis (2004) presents one model for teaching and learning genre, which he takes from
Martin (1999). In this process, there are three stages: deconstruction, joint construction, and
independent construction (Ellis, 2004, p. 211; see Figure 2 below). Students start by analyzing
model texts from the genre for “content, structure, and language features to provide insight about
the genre and register to the students” (Ellis, 2004, p. 211). Next students jointly construct their
writing together through preparation of the genre text, and finally they produce the text on their
own individually (Ellis, 2004, p. 211).
Figure 2: Genre-based teaching and learning model (Martin, 1999, p. 131 as cited in Ellis,
2004, p. 212)
The first step, deconstruction of text, often involves students reading and analyzing authentic
models of that text type. Some teachers may worry that using models is too much like copying,
but studies have shown that students can use them effectively and they help improve aspects of
writing (Tardy, 2009, p. 49-50; p. 96-97). One example is Henry & Roseberry (1998), where
students received genre-based instruction with model texts. Students that used and learned from
the models had higher gains on writing than those that had not (Henry & Roseberry, 1998, as
cited in Tardy, 2009). “The texts to which they were exposed played a very important role in
developing their knowledge of an unfamiliar genre” (Tardy, 2009, p. 50). These models give
students a stronger understanding of structure and form of the text, and the styles of language
used within that genre (Tardy, 2009). However, input does not always lead to uptake or
processing of that input in a meaningful way without drawing attention to it (Loewen, 2015). The
types of reading and writing activities used with model texts should include some form of
awareness-raising or noticing of text conventions and language (Loewen, 2015; Mishan, 2005).
These consciousness-raising activities may include comparisons between different texts of the
same genre, annotation of the text, or looking at form and language of specific sentences or
passages (Tardy, 2009; Fisher & Frey, 2014). Tardy (2009) also supports the ideas of Swales by
advocating for more explicit treatment of genre: “Activities that ask students to explicitly
describe, analyze, or compare generic conventions of multiple samples… take on a better
understanding of the linguistic and sociorhetorical dimensions of those genres” (p. 102). This
also fits within the general research for reading comprehension with the integration of explicitly
teaching text structures being particularly helpful for struggling learners (Duke, Pearson,
Strachan & Billman, 2011, p. 68). Devitt, Bawarshi, & Reiff (2003) outline some steps in
explicitly analyzing genre: gathering samples, studying the context and situation (i.e. writers,
readers, why it’s used), identifying patterns in the language and form, and finally analyzing how
the patterns fit into the situation.
In addition to these types of more explicit activities, it is important that reading tasks
remain consistent with the text as far as authenticity (Mishan, 2005). Authentic tasks based on
texts should try to mimic the same communicative purpose as the text itself, be similar to real-
life tasks related to that text type, and involve some communication between learners (Mishan,
2005, p. 75). For example, it makes little sense for students to closely analyze a newspaper
article for specific vocabulary or minute details when most native readers simply skim or read
for main ideas in real life when they look at newspaper stories and then relate what they read to a
friend (Mishan, 2005). There are different types of communicative purposes for texts:
instructional, informative, persuasive, soliciting, interactive, provocative, and engaging (Mishan,
2005, p. 78). Each different communicate purpose best lends itself to different authentic tasks
that imitate what native speakers do when reading or deconstructing a text (Mishan, 2005). For
example, when reading a more instructional blog (i.e. eat healthier with these tips!), a more
authentic task would be reacting to the text or making a response rather than extracting specific
information (Mishan, 2005). When looking at different genres, teachers need to keep the
communicative purposes of that text type in mind when they design activities to engage with the
model texts of that particular genre (see Mishan, 2005, for a full list).
When it comes to the second and third steps in the process of genre-based teaching and
learning, joint construction and independent construction, students are still using model texts but
are more focused on writing (Ellis, 2004). Joint construction involves scaffolding for students to
help them learn how to write that text type on their own, potentially through the use of graphic
organizers or peer feedback (Ellis, 2004; Tardy, 2009; Duke et al., 2011). Model texts also play
an important part in this stage as students base their own writing off of what they have analyzed.
The authentic models can be used as a springboard for their own writing, especially as it helps
them develop their own interlanguage systems (Ortega, 2009; Gilmore, 2007). This building of
text together fits well with the sociocultural theories of second language acquisition as students
work to jointly create texts with the teacher or peers within their Zone of Proximal Development-
just beyond what they can do on their own (Lantolf, 2012). In addition to group construction of
text, feedback is essential to improve writing but can be incredibly time-consuming for teachers,
especially with large classes or longer writing samples (Bromley, 2014; Polio, 2016). An
alternative is peer feedback, which is usually only effective when students are given very
specific assignment guidelines (Polio, 2016, p. 23). Still, peer feedback can help build learner
autonomy, is more learner-centered, and involves more interaction (Polio, 2016; Benson, 2012;
Mackey, Abbuhl & Gass, 2012). Especially at the lower levels, peer feedback on language
accuracy can lead to more errors or even an avoidance of errors in the future (Polio, 2016).
Instead, a focus on meaning, overall text structure, or a specific language structure (one at a
time) can be helpful (Polio, 2016). Also, in order for feedback to be effective on writing,
“students need to do something with the feedback” (Polio, 2016, p. 24). Examples include having
students rewrite, write about the feedback they received, or keep a sort of “error log” where they
keep track of their errors (Polio, 2016, p. 26). Other alternatives to individual student feedback
include self-correction with a checklist or providing feedback to all students at the same time
after a general overview of all student writing (Polio, 2016, p. 26-27). Scaffolding through model
texts, feedback, peer work, and authentic task activities can help students eventually reach the
third stage of genre-based teaching: writing in the genre independently. These learner writing
samples of genre can be analyzed for growth or change in various ways. For this particular
practitioner study, corpus analysis was the chosen medium for pre and post writing analysis.
Corpus Analysis
Corpus analysis has recently become a more intense focus of world language teachers
due to its utility in materials development and teaching methods (Xu, 2016). Corpus analysis
involves examining the language of a large collection of texts, also known as a corpus (corpora
in the plural) (Weisser, 2016). “Any collection of texts that has been systematically assembled in
order to investigate one or more linguistic phenomena can be termed a corpus”, however the
texts are usually authentic and consist of written and/or spoken language (i.e. books, news
articles, radio broadcasts) (Weisser, 2016, p. 23). One example of a large Spanish corpora is El
Corpus del Español (https://www.corpusdelespanol.org/), where users can investigate billions of
spoken or written words from authentic texts (Davies, 2019). Most corpora are computerized,
allowing for easy analysis through various online and downloadable tools. The major advantage
to using corpora is the ability to look at how language is actually used, particularly the patterns
of words that occur together, phrasing and register, and the frequency of vocabulary or phrases.
Frequency dictionaries are one example of materials that are developed as a result of corpus
analysis (Xu, 2016). These resources show the actual most frequently used words in a language,
helping teachers to develop materials based on these common words to allow students to acquire
the most vital words for communication first (Xu, 2016). The “Super Seven” or seven most
common verbs in a language, is another example of corpus-based teaching methodology
(TeachingComprehensibly, 2019). In other words, corpus analysis can help teachers and students
to “achieve a more realistic learning experience that is at least a little closer to language
acquisition” and “improve their awareness of many different features of language by

investigating different words forms in their ‘natural’ contexts” (Weisser, 2016, p. 80). When it
comes to investigating text types and genre, “corpus linguistic tools and methods have been
instrumental in establishing the links between formulaic language and text structuring” (Paquot
& Granger, 2012, p. 134). The analysis of sample texts of a particular genre, even in a smaller
corpus, can help create links between textual patterns in language and their social context (Tardy,
2009). Corpus linguistics can identify language used to organize texts based on various rhetorical
functions (i.e. introducing a topic, conclusions, summary…) as well as common vocabulary and
phrases for that genre (Paquot & Granger, 2012). Corpus analysis as it pertains to teaching text
type or genre is frequently used in English for Academic Purposes (EAP), but is not as common
for investigation of text types or genre in other languages (Paquot & Granger, 2012).
In second language acquisition, the use of learner corpora is a recent development which
is still not widely used (Gilquin, Granger, & Paquot, 2007). Learner corpora are “electronic
collections of texts produced by foreign or second language (L2) learners” (Paquot & Granger,
2012, p. 130). These learner corpora create opportunities for exploration of L2 writing and
speaking and give researchers and practitioners a window into what is going on inside of
learner’s brains as they acquire a new language (Xu, 2016). More specifically, learner corpora
can be used to look at L2 writer or speaker errors, comparison of use to various vocabulary or
phrase lists, comparison to expert or novice native texts (Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis),
and in the case of data-driven learning (DDL), students can utilize corpora to explore their own
language use in comparison to native texts (Gilquin, Granger & Paquot, 2007; Mishan, 2006; Xu,
2016). Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis (CIA) is a popular method that often involves two
types of comparison: “comparisons of learner language and one or more native speaker reference
corpora (L2 vs. L1), and comparisons of different varieties of learner language (L2 vs. L2)”
(Gilquin, Granger & Paquot, 2007, 322). In this study, a form of CIA is used to compare learner
writing to native writing (model texts) to investigate the native authentic writing of a specific
text type/genre. This comparison shows the goal that learners are striving for in “expert” texts
(Gilquin, Granger, & Paquot, 2007). It is also used to compare learner writing before exposure to
authentic texts (T1) and after (T2). Corpus analysis tools permit investigation of a large
collection of texts simultaneously as well as comparison of textual linguistic features and
changes over time. One critique of learner corpora is the limited authenticity of the data due to
the artificial nature of the task (Xu, 2016, p. 47). However, all classroom writing is essentially
unnatural due to the setting. If writing is under “authentic classroom circumstances” and includes
continual discourse for a specific purpose rather than disconnected sentences, it is better able to
fulfill the rhetorical view of genre (Tardy, 2009, p. 12; Xu, 2016, p. 47). In addition, by giving
one task to a group of learners, even though “the learner corpora are rather small… the learner
texts have the same topic as the prompt… thus making it possible to control for the influence of
the topic on lexical choice” (Paquot & Granger, 2012, p. 132). Corpus analysis also means that
learner texts can be examined for use of language borrowed or adapted from the model texts of
that genre, fitting with the idea that when learning how to write in a genre, students may “borrow
explicit textual fragments” and look at “support genres… to learn how to communicate
effectively” (Tardy, 2009, p. 13-14). Another advantage of corpus-based research to look at
genre is that it can “highlight linguistic features [and]… patterns that are used by… learners but
which are not (or very rarely) found in native professional writing” (Gilquin, Granger, & Paquot,
2007, p. 327). As a result, educators can use this comparative data to inform their instruction on
what students need to become more “native-like” in their production of a particular genre.
Study Design & Purpose
When investigating genre and whether the analysis of authentic texts can influence
writing, the text type must be chosen wisely. The text type or genre introduced to students in this
study is blogs. A blog, short for “weblog”, “is an online journal or informational website
displaying information… it is a platform where a writer or even a group of writers share their
views on an individual subject” (Djuraskovic & FirstSiteGuide Team, 2018). The IB text types
textbook by Arriagada (2012) defines it as more of an online journal and states that it is “similar
to the personal diary format” (p. 54). However, blogs can serve a variety of purposes and some
can be more professional than others, depending on the topic (Djuraskovic & FirstSiteGuide
Team, 2018; Arriagada, 2012). Blogs were chosen as the text type in this study for a few reasons:
1. Many students already have some background knowledge of blogs from their own use
of the Internet outside of class and in previous courses.
2. Blogs are extremely varied in their discourse. Some are informal, others formal, and
many include various purposes or intended audiences depending on the content and
communicative purpose (i.e. instructions, narrative, problem-solution…) (Paltridge,
1996; Mishan, 2005). This allows for more discourse analysis than some other, more
limited, text types/genres. Blogs include comments as well, which can offer an
interpersonal aspect of response that some other text types lack.
3. Blogs are the only genre included in all three of the IB text type categories (personal,
professional, and mass media- see Figure 1), and they sometimes morph these
together or appear to move between them. For example, a blog by a doctor may
appear more professional in its trustworthiness and content, but could use the
informal tú (you) and be intended for a mass audience.

4. Many blogs use simple language for the varied audience of online readers and
therefore are more appropriate for the reading level of lower-proficiency students
(Arriagada, 2012).
5. The written samples (T1 and T2) were conducted via Google Docs, making an online
medium such as blogs more appropriate because students have access to online tools
when creating their texts. In addition, more editing options are available when it
comes to the visuals that sometimes accompany blogs (i.e. bold text, different fonts
for titles, pictures).
6. On the Internet there are a wide variety of blogs on the topic of health, the subject
matter covered within the Spanish II curriculum at the time of this research, and
students were already familiar with the base vocabulary necessary to understand a
large portion of the text.
7. Blogs on health often include the use of the informal tú (you) through the giving of
recommendations or the use of the imperative (commands), a grammar point that
students had recently practiced in class through other contexts (i.e. giving directions
in the city). It is also the register they are most familiar with using in the Spanish I
and Spanish II levels.
This research study fills a void in existing research for a few reasons. First, most existing
studies of genre and particularly writing of genre are at the university or upper-levels of
proficiency, and many involve English (i.e. English for Academic Purposes) (see Tardy, 2009 for
one example). The same is true of corpus analysis of genre (Paquot & Granger, 2012). This study
focuses on the secondary setting in a lower-proficiency course for Spanish rather than upper-
levels in English. It is also an example of learner corpus analysis which is still not as common in
the field of second language acquisition or linguistics (Gilquin, Granger & Paquot, 2007). This
study involves Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis, which while common in learner corpus
studies, is not always used for both comparison of learner data at different points in time (T1 to
T2) and comparison to model authentic texts. In addition, the inclusion of structural rubric-based
data as well as learner reflections on the experience allow for consideration of not only the
language of the genre, but also the structural aspects of genre and the context of writing (Mishan,
2005). Finally, this study falls into the domain of practitioner research or problem-solving
research (Mitchell, 2009). This growing field of second language acquisition research is
important due to its strong relevance to what teachers are actually doing in the classroom and it
can help drive further research by raising new and important issues (Mitchell, 2009; De Graaff &
Housen, 2009). With teachers and other practitioners as active partners in the research process,
more problem solving can occur within the field and teachers can further develop their own
reflection skills through participation (Mitchell, 2009). One disadvantage of this type of research
is many factors and variables can come into play that may not be present during more
experimental laboratory studies (Mitchell, 2009). One could argue that although these additional
variables can confound results, they also reflect the reality of many classrooms that are often
complex and not at all like the controlled conditions in a laboratory or more structured research
formats. In fact, some argue that some second-language research findings may not always be
generalizable to the classroom context (De Graaff & Housen, 2009). Practitioner research can
help to fill this gap and investigate whether research findings make sense within the classroom
context. By focusing on a practitioner-relevant question (how to best teach genre and how using
authentic texts can affect student writing of genre), this study aims to investigate the teaching of
literacy using genre within the classroom context. This is of particular importance to language
teachers at International Baccalaureate schools where the expectation is to teach text
types/genres in order to best prepare them for the Diploma Program Language B exams. By
looking at a real classroom context in a lower-level course at an IB school, the hope of this
researcher is to shed some light for language educators on potential ways for them to best teach
text type to their students.
Research Questions
Based on the review of the literature on genre, authentic texts, literacy instruction, and
corpus analysis, the research questions for this practitioner study are as follows:
1) Does the analysis of authentic texts of a certain genre (blogs) influence lower
proficiency student writing as measured through a corpus analysis of a pre-writing
sample (T1), post-writing (T2) sample, rubric evaluation, and student reflection?
2) How does student writing compare to model texts (MT) of the same genre?
Methods
Participants
The participants in this study consist of high school students from two classes of foreign-
language learners (n=35 total); ages 14 through 18. The majority of students are freshmen with a
few upper classmen. The students are enrolled in a large public International Baccalaureate (IB)
high school in the Midwestern United States. All students are in the second semester of their
second year of Spanish language study and are from novice mid to intermediate low on the
ACTFL scale of proficiency, as measured on various formative and summative assessments
throughout the school year (ACTFL, 2012). There is a wide variety in learner background with
some students coming from homes where additional languages are spoken and others with only
English as an L1, Spanish language heritage learners, gifted students, and still others with special
education designations. The classes are integrated, with some students having chosen an
accelerated curriculum (n= 25) and others a regular curriculum (n=10). The differences between
these designations are largely structural, with accelerated students learning slightly more
advanced vocabulary and grammar and with different rubrics for assessment (Phase 2 for regular
students on the IB MYP rubric scale vs. Phase 3 for accelerated) (IB, 2014). Students are
required to take two years of a language through the IB program requirements and graduation
requirements in the state of Michigan. Some students no longer take a language after completion
of the Spanish II course while others will continue on a traditional path (Spanish III, Spanish IV,
AP Spanish). Still others choose the full IB Diploma Program and take Spanish III then DP
Spanish B, a two-year course. While this study focuses on the IB text types, the literacy activities
included benefit all students.
Context
Within the Spanish classroom at this school, students do not use a textbook as a part of
their curriculum and units are thematic based on topic rather than grammar. The Spanish teachers
within the district determine the units with guidelines from ACTFL standards and IB
recommendations (ACTFL, 2012; IB, 2019). This study took place during the unit on health.
This unit covers healthy diet, exercise habits, visiting the doctor, injuries, and overall wellness.
This is a common and relevant theme across language classrooms, and is a topic on both the AP
Spanish language exam and is a sub-theme for the IB Language B exam (IB, 2018). Prior to the
research, students worked through various communicative activities throughout the unit,
including doctor/patient roleplays and interpretive activities with videos and info-graphs related
to health. Other, more traditional explicit activities were also a part of the unit with students
taking grammar notes on informal commands (the imperative mood) and the present progressive
tense. Students used these aspects of language out of context (i.e. rote practice with websites
such as www.conjuguemos.com) and in-context (i.e. friend giving a friend some
recommendations for what to do when ill, analyzing pictures to say what people are doing). As
far as writing, students complete daily written warm-ups, sometimes with short answers and
paragraphs required. More writing practice is given via explicit worksheet practice and
communicative writing through information gap activities and interpersonal writing such as
messages to other students. Vocabulary is taught in a variety of ways, often through visual,
auditory, tactile, and kinesthetic input (i.e. playing Simón Dice or Simon Says to learn body
parts) and constant repetition of words through both input and student output. Students received
a base list of vocabulary for the health unit, tiered for the two populations (accelerated vs.
regular). Vocabulary lists are created through teacher collaboration, but usually without
consultation of corpus analysis and therefore do not always reflect the real-life usage of the
language (Ellis, 2009). For most units, students complete Integrated Performance Assessments
evaluated on the IB MYP rubrics for Criterion A (listening), B (reading), C (communication) and
D (accuracy) (IB, 2014). These are often district common assessments, meaning all teachers test
in the same or very similar ways. The text-analysis tasks completed in this study were somewhat
unfamiliar to students, but the reading and writing activities were similar in many ways to what
students were used to in class. The use of Google Docs as a medium for collecting writing
samples was also familiar to students, although few had used it before when typing in Spanish.
Class periods at the school are 50 minutes in length and occur every day of the school week (5
days). One day of the study did occur on an early release schedule of a 28-minute class instead of
the usual 50.

Procedure
Participants for the study were chosen because they were already enrolled in the Spanish
II course taught by the researcher. Parents and guardians were informed of the study, and
completed consent forms sent to a third party (to avoid bias in class grades). 35 students
consented to participate out of the 41 students total in the two classes. Participants first
completed the T1 writing sample, asking them to write a blog in Spanish based on the topic of
health (see Appendix A for the prompt given) in class over two class days (approx. 100 minutes).
Initially a 50-minute time window (one class period) was anticipated, but many students
struggled to get started, were absent or on a field trip the first day, or did not write enough for
any sort of analysis, so the second day of class was added with more success. It was emphasized
to students that they should focus on the message of their writing and try to write as much as
possible rather than focusing on the accuracy of their writing. Students were not permitted to use
any notes, translators, or other tools, although they did have access to some of their chapter
vocabulary list and other basic grammar and vocabulary via classroom posters/visuals. The T1
writing sample was completed in a Google Document where students typed their responses and
submitted them to the Google Classroom page for the class. Typing in Google Docs was chosen
as a writing medium because using a computer can lead to better writing output for lower-
proficiency learners, it has an automatic spell check, and it results in easier upload to corpus
analysis tools (Bromley, 2014).
After the T1 writing, students completed various text analysis activities over the course of
five days in class (approx. 250 minutes, see Table 1). The first set of activities focused on
explicit genre analysis and were meant to raise awareness to the form, context, audience, and
purpose of the blog genre (Tardy, 2009). Prior to the reading and analysis of texts, students were
given a chart to record vocabulary they learned during their reading, personalized for their own
needs and desires of what they would like to learn or use for the future (see Appendix B). This
was not only a learner-driven activity but also research shows that by choosing their own
vocabulary students challenge themselves more and it can improve motivation and acquisition
(Benson, 2012; Duke & Martin, 2014). Students first received model texts with three different
blogs on the topic of health, chosen for their accessibility of language based on the vocabulary as
well as theme (see Appendix C for links to these blogs). Students explored the blogs online in
their original medium so they could experience some of the more unique aspects of the text that
do not show up on paper (i.e. links within the blog to other entries). The participants were placed
in groups of three based on proficiency level; one higher-proficiency (2AC) student with two low
to mid-proficiency (2 regular) students. This grouping was chosen as some research shows that
mixed groups can be helpful, while others show that lower proficiency students paired with
higher proficiency don’t communicate as much (Lowen, 2015). Each student received a different
blog, with the higher proficiency students receiving the longest to account for their overall
stronger levels of motivation in the face of challenge. Using a graphic organizer, each student
filled in information about the features and context of the genre based on their assigned model
text, including format, register, and language (Ponzio, 2017; see Appendix D for the organizer
students used). The following day students formed their groups and did a jigsaw activity, sharing
what they had learned about their blog and filling in the missing sections of their graphic
organizer based on the information from their groupmates. Printed copies of the blogs were
provided so students could point out key features they had noticed. The third day was joint
construction of a rubric to analyze the features of genre based on the 6 + 1 traits for writing
(Ponzio, 2017). Students first got into their groups of three again and created a rubric for what a
“typical” blog should look and sound like based on commonalities across all the blogs they had
read. Afterwards the whole class shared out their thoughts and created a blog rubric together
from all of their observations. This allowed for a large degree of learner autonomy and
interaction, although it should be noted that more of the discussion occurred in English rather
than Spanish (Benson, 2012). Students later received a typed copy of their finalized rubric
combining the final rubrics of both classes to be used for feedback and writing analysis (see
Appendix E). The fourth and fifth days of instruction, students analyzed a fitness blog in more
detail (see Appendix F). The blog introduction was analyzed in randomized small groups, with
students answering questions based on the communicative purpose of the text; to inform and give
instructions on fitness activities (Paltridge, 1996; Mishan, 2005). Questions involved grasping
the main idea and making a personal reaction to the text rather than looking at highly specific
details (Mishan, 2005). Some questions did help students notice contextual or linguistic aspects
of the text, such as asking them to point out already known or new vocabulary and asking for
their observations on voice/register (first, second, or third person; formal or informal). After
going over potential answers as a class, students independently analyzed the rest of the text
including the main sections of the body as well as the conclusion. Questions were similar to the
introduction analysis, based more on meaning rather than language or specific details.
Throughout this process participants were strongly encouraged to use their personal vocabulary
lists to keep track of any new words they had learned and wanted to use in the future. The final
day of text analysis involved a previous homework assignment. Students were asked to find a
Spanish-language blog online that involved health in some way but also on a topic that interested
them. This allowed students for more autonomy in learning and was meant to increase
motivation due to learner interest in authentic texts (Guthrie, 2014). The resulting list was posted
into a Google Document in Google Classroom where all students could access it. On the day this
assignment was due, students went into the document in class and explored the various blogs
their peers had found, gaining more exposure to the genre (see Appendix G for the list of blogs
generated by students). The list included a variety of topics on everything from mental health to
sports to healthy cooking, demonstrating the wide range of student inquiry. After finding a blog
of interest, either the one they posted or one that a peer posted, their assignment was to complete
similar analysis questions to the previous blog reading, then use a graphic organizer to begin
planning their own blog on the topic of health (see Appendix G, second page of linked
document).
The following week of instruction (approx.170 minutes, with time subtracted for other
required curricular activities including preparation for a speaking exam) students worked on
writing and peer editing (see Table 1 for instructional activity sequence). In pairs, students were
asked to use their graphic organizer, their personalized vocabulary lists, and the model texts
studied and found by peers to co-create a short blog (Ponzio, 2017; Mackey, Abbuhl & Gass,
2012). Pairs were determined based on similar proficiency, with a lower-proficiency student
working with an only slightly higher proficiency student when possible to increase
communication and avoid one student taking over when writing (Loewen, 2015). Each student in
a pair received a Chromebook to type in the same document. The use of Google Docs allowed
for monitoring of authorship of various sections through the editing history feature, which
prevented one partner from dominating over another (Ponzio, 2017). Students were encouraged
to use model texts as a basis for their writing, based on research that this sort of “patchwriting”
can be useful for novices to a genre (Tardy, 2009). Another advantage to Google Docs was the
direct access to resources such as WordReference.com to look up unknown vocabulary words or

grammar to help them as they wrote (Ponzio, 2017). After completing the co-written mini-blog,
once again in pairs, students peer edited each other’s blogs using the original rubric they created
as a class and a checklist with specific instructions for feedback (see Appendix H for the peer
editing instructions). Due to time constraints, some teacher feedback was given using the
“comments” and “suggestions” features of Google Docs as students were writing for live
feedback, but feedback was not given on every portion of all student writing after completion.
The final day of writing students were given the class period to look over their errors, feedback,
and reflect on them both (see within the document in Appendix H).
The T2 writing sample was conducted in the same manner as the T1 sample with students
receiving two full class periods (100 minutes) to write in Google Docs. The T2 prompt was the
same as the T1 prompt. Students were not allowed to use any notes or other online resources;
however, they were encouraged to study their personal vocabulary list and look over their
writing feedback and practices the night before. Finally, upon completion of the T2 writing,
students were asked to complete reflection questions via Google Forms (including an assent form
for collection of data) to think about their overall experience in the learning of a genre (see
Appendix I). Questions were both on a Likert scale and more open-ended to allow for some
quantitative as well as qualitative data collection.
Table 1: Instructional Activities
DAY 1  Students begin T1 writing sample (pre-write) using Google Docs

(50 minutes) (prompt Appendix A)
 Students begin T1 writing sample (pre-write) using Google Docs
DAY 2  As students finish, they receive a blog for jigsaw reading. Divided
(50 minutes) into groups of 3, each student receives a different model text to
analyze using (Appendix C & D)
 Warm-up: informal short reflection on T1 writing (what was difficult,
DAY 3 easy, thoughts, etc.)
(50 minutes)  Blog jigsaw activity- get into groups of 3 (those with same blog) and
discuss features of blog. Divide into new groups of 3 with each
person having analyzed a different blog and create a rubric for blogs
(Appendix D & E)
 Homework: Find any blog on health on a topic that interests you,
post link in Google Classroom (due later in week)
 Warm-up: correction of some selected errors from T1 writing
DAY 4  Whole-class discussion and creation of rubric (later both classes were
(50 minutes) combined into one rubric and distributed to students)
 Read through introduction of another sample blog as a group, discuss
 Warm-up: more correction of selected T1 errors
 Stations of reading: blog model text divided into sections, students
rotate and read each, answer comprehension questions as they read
DAY 5
(Appendix F)
(50 minutes)
 Additional activity: students working on personal dictionary/list of
words as they go, filling in words they read that they want to use
again in the future. Students were permitted to use WordReference
dictionary to help them define unknown words. (Appendix B)
 Warm-up: students made their own comments in response to a
DAY 6 comment on a blog
(50 minutes)  Continue reading stations of model blog
 Homework due (find your own blog)
 Warm-up: students made their own comments in response to a
comment on a blog
DAY 7  Student-found blogs activity: students answered comprehension
(50 minutes) questions and discussed blogs they found, could choose which to
read (Appendix G)
 Writing preparation- graphic organizer (Appendix G)
 Warm-up: students created their own sentences with their personal
vocabulary (words they found from the readings)
DAY 8  Speaking practice (unrelated to research)
(50 minutes)  Writing practice: introduce partner blog writing project, assign
partners (Appendix H)
DAY 9  Writing practice: partners work together in Google Docs to write a
(50 minutes) blog using model texts, personal vocabulary, and any other resources
DAY 10  Continue partner writing practice
(28 minutes)
DAY 11  Continue partner writing practice
(50 minutes)  When complete, peer review in partners (Appendix H)
DAY 12  Finish peer review in partners

(50 minutes)  Speaking exam preparation (unrelated to research)
 Reading practice (blog on health), complete comprehension questions
DAY 13-14  Reading unit exam (blog on health), answer comprehension questions
(100 minutes) (short answer)
DAY 15  T2 writing sample (post-writing)

(50 minutes)
DAY 16  Speaking exams (unrelated to research)
(50 minutes)
DAY 17  Reflection on research (completed in Google Forms- Appendix I)
(50 minutes)
Data Collection & Analysis
T1 and T2 writing samples for students opting to participate in research were downloaded
to a secure password-protected drive and coded with random identification numbers stored in a
different location. Samples were stored both in their original form (Google Docs) to allow for
analysis of structure and formatting as well as Plain Text files (.txt) to allow for analysis using
corpus tools. The plain text files were edited to provide more accurate computer analysis.
Table 2: Edits made to participant T1 & T2 writing files
Spelling errors corrected: Spelling errors NOT corrected:

 Words where context implies the  Words where student intention was
student knows the word but struggled to unclear or student used Spanglish or
spell it; usually only off by a few letters. a made-up word instead of the actual
For example, many participants spelled word (i.e. “scheduleable”).
balanceada (balanced) incorrectly. This  Gender agreement errors (i.e.
was to allow for more accurate muchos partes vs. muchas partes)
vocabulary frequency analysis. were not corrected so their
 Accent marks were added or deleted, frequency could be analyzed if
mainly to differentiate between usage of necessary.
tú (subject pronoun “you”) versus tu  Verb conjugation errors (i.e. empeza
(second person singular possessive vs. empieza) were not corrected for
adjective). Many students were also the same reason.
missing accents on other words such as
también and Sí. Accents were added or
deleted to allow for accurate vocabulary
frequency analysis.
Other edits:
 Removal of any identifying personal information (i.e. student names or school
location)
 Removal of instructions/prompt for blog
 Removal of extra spacing
Edits made to the writing samples are included in Table 2. Writing sample files were edited
using BBEdit free trial software (Bare Bones Software, Inc., 2019) and the TextEdit software on
the Macintosh operating system. The model texts that students analyzed during classroom
activities were also compiled into a corpus of plain text files. Many were downloaded from the
Internet (see list of links to blogs in Appendix G) as either HTML or plain text files. Edits to
model texts were minimal but included any noticeable spelling errors, removal of HTML coding
when appropriate, and some formatting removal (i.e. large amounts of space, advertisement text).
Titles, headers, and captions for photos were left intact for both student writing and model texts
due to their importance in the genre of blog structure.
For the analysis of both model and participant texts in corpus form, the free Voyant Tools
text analysis website was used (Sinclair & Rockwell, 2019) in addition to the tools available
through Laurence Anthony’s website, mainly AntConc (Anthony, 2019). The plain text files
were uploaded as separate corpora into these software tools for analysis and comparison- the T1
corpus, T2 corpus, and model text (MT) corpus.
Results
Structural Data
To analyze the structure and layout of student produced texts in relation to model blog texts, the
rubric that students co-created during instruction (based on Ponzio, 2017) was used. Students
created these categories of the rubric after analyzing various blogs in groups to compile features
typical of most health blogs. This rubric is reproduced in Figure 3. The two rubric categories that
are under consideration in regards to structure are Presentación (presentation) and Organización
(organization). They consider structural aspects typical to blogs such as use of fonts, text, and
photos in addition to headers, titles, breaking the text into sections, etc. The total for these two
categories was out of 10 (5 each). Both the T1 writing sample and the T2 writing sample were
Figure 3: Blog Rubric

RUBRIC: Blogs 5 4 3 2 1
Shows Skill Strengths Equal Weak, but No Effort
Throughout Outweigh Strengths and Made an / Did not
Weaknesses Weaknesses Effort complete
task
Presentación / Presentation: ¿Cómo es el texto?

 Titles & subtitles used
 Pictures or photos (with captions)
 Fonts used to emphasize main points
 Readable & visually appealing, with good
spacing
 Comments (or place for comments) at
bottom
 Links or information about other sections of
blog potentially included
Ideas y contenido: ¿Qué información tiene?

 Gives suggestions for readers
 Relevant, health related
 Includes evidence or facts to back up
statements
Organización: ¿Cómo es organizado?

 Divided into sections: Includes an
introduction, body, and conclusion
 Use of bullet points and/or a list
 Author(s) listed at top or bottom
Voz: ¿Formal o informal? ¿Primera, segunda,

tercera persona?
 Informal
 2nd person used to talk to reader (tú form)
 1st person used (yo), more in intro
Vocabulario: ¿Cuáles son palabras comunes?

 Relevant vocabulary related to health
 Simple, to-the-point vocabulary, easy to
understand for all readers
 Variety of vocabulary, not repetitive
Gramática / Frases: ¿Tipo de verbos? ¿Frases

largas o cortas?
 Mix of sentence structures, mostly simple
and shorter
 Present tense and/or future tense
 Tú commands
analyzed using the original Google Docs files (because the plain text files lose the formatting) to
look at structure. These were graded by the teacher / researcher. As you can see from the
numerical data below (Table 1), there was a huge difference in student text structure from T1 to
T2. This is also fully visible in the visual examples of Appendix J.
Table 3: Structural Data (based on rubrics)
Title T1 T2 Raw Difference Percent Increase

1 2 8 6 300.00%
2 3 7 4 133.33%
3 2 9 7 350.00%
4 3 10 7 233.33%
5 2 9 7 350.00%
6 3 9 6 200.00%
7 2 9 7 350.00%
8 4 9 5 125.00%
9 2 9 7 350.00%
10 3 8 5 166.67%
11 2 10 8 400.00%
12 2 9 7 350.00%
13 2 10 8 400.00%
14 4 8 4 100.00%
15 2 7 5 250.00%
16 2 10 8 400.00%
17 2 9 7 350.00%
18 2 8 6 300.00%
19 4 10 6 150.00%
20 2 9 7 350.00%
21 2 8 6 300.00%
22 2 9 7 350.00%
23 2 10 8 400.00%
24 2 10 8 400.00%
25 2 10 8 400.00%
26 5 10 5 100.00%
27 2 10 8 400.00%
28 2 9 7 350.00%
29 2 10 8 400.00%
30 2 10 8 400.00%
31 2 10 8 400.00%
32 2 10 8 400.00%
33 2 9 7 350.00%
34 2 10 8 400.00%
35 2 9 7 350.00%
AVG 2.37 9.17 6.8 314.52%
In the T1 writing samples, most students wrote their text in a paragraph format with little to no
structure. For T2, nearly all students divided their writing into sections, included titles and
headers as well as visual aspects such as photos and bullet points to organize information. This
made the texts much easier to read and they appeared more similar to the model texts (again, see
Appendix J for visual comparison), however it may have resulted in some interesting changes
across T1 to T2 in the corpus analysis which are discussed in the next section.
Corpus Analysis Results: changes from T1 to T2
The T1 and T2 corpora were first analyzed individually using Voyant Tools (Sinclair &
Rockwell, 2019) to examine number of words (length of texts), type token ratio, vocabulary
density, and average words per sentence. These factors were chosen to show any changes (or
gain/loss) between T1 and T2. The settings used for word definitions and token definitions were
the default settings in Voyant Tools, which cannot be changed. Data is visible in Table 4 and 5.
Table 4: T1 individual data (Voyant Tools)
Title Words Types Ratio Words/Sentence

35T1E 251 92 0.37 11.41
34T1E 132 96 0.73 6.95
33T1E 205 93 0.45 8.54
32T1E 119 70 0.59 8.50
31T1E 216 106 0.49 9.82

30T1E 201 101 0.50 9.14
29T1E 168 93 0.55 8.40
28T1E 209 97 0.46 10.45
27T1E 252 90 0.36 14.82
26T1E 263 134 0.51 8.22
25T1E 192 104 0.54 9.60
24T1E 191 87 0.46 7.35
23T1E 443 171 0.39 10.07
22T1E 187 61 0.33 17.00
21T1E 122 71 0.58 10.17
20T1E 119 77 0.65 8.50
19T1E 249 121 0.49 9.96
18T1E 133 68 0.51 19.00
17T1E 152 81 0.53 10.13
16T1E 202 105 0.52 9.18
15T1E 85 46 0.54 12.14
14T1E 201 94 0.47 6.70
13T1E 385 148 0.38 11.00
12T1E 198 96 0.48 10.42
11T1E 122 79 0.65 8.13
10T1E 169 64 0.38 11.27
9T1E 202 76 0.38 12.63
8T1E 254 109 0.43 12.70
6T1E 106 61 0.58 8.15
7T1E 122 71 0.58 10.17
5T1E 236 96 0.41 12.42
4T1E 201 83 0.41 9.14
3T1E 206 97 0.47 15.85
2T1E 204 130 0.64 10.20
1T1E 213 97 0.46 9.26
AVERAGES 197.43 93.29 0.49 10.50
Table 5: T2 individual data (Voyant Tools)

35T2E 333 112 0.34 11.48
34T2E 330 161 0.49 11.00
33T2E 279 96 0.34 8.72
32T2E 327 140 0.43 9.08
31T2E 397 164 0.41 8.82
30T2E 389 171 0.44 12.16
29T2E 330 139 0.42 13.20
28T2E 351 107 0.30 9.75
27T2E 268 123 0.46 13.40
26T2E 323 177 0.55 8.97
25T2E 244 121 0.50 8.41
24T2E 407 160 0.39 11.63

23T2E 567 212 0.37 14.54
22T2E 311 88 0.28 13.52
21T2E 116 57 0.49 11.60
20T2E 211 105 0.50 7.54
19T2E 334 142 0.43 14.52
18T2E 212 98 0.46 14.13
17T2E 279 120 0.43 12.13
16T2E 378 157 0.42 8.22
15T2E 263 110 0.42 12.52
14T2E 272 110 0.40 8.24
13T2E 703 226 0.32 14.06
12T2E 317 126 0.40 12.19
11T2E 257 121 0.47 9.52
10T2E 200 83 0.42 10.00
9T2E 302 100 0.33 13.73
8T2E 426 148 0.35 12.53
7T2E 280 107 0.38 11.67
6T2E 254 102 0.40 9.07
5T2E 412 151 0.37 15.85
4T2E 348 126 0.36 11.23
3T2E 323 132 0.41 14.68
2T2E 246 152 0.62 9.11
1T2E 272 128 0.47 11.83
AVERAGES 321.74 130.63 0.42 11.40
Based on the data, various trends emerged. First, students appeared to have written much more
on the T2 writing sample as compared to T1 both based on word count and words per sentence.
In addition, the type token ratio (vocabulary density) appears to have decreased from T1 to T2,
which was somewhat unexpected. To analyze this further, the amount of gain/loss (defined here
as change) was calculated for each category, along with percentage of change. A t-test was run
on the changes as well to determine significance of changes from T1 to T2. Statistical analyses
were calculated using the Excel Analysis add-on as well as the Social Science Statistics online
calculators (Stangroom, 2018). All significance values were set at 0.05. In looking at changes
from T1 to T2 word count (Table 6), students had a 71.27% increase, with a two-tailed t-test
value of t=11.023907 for a p-value of less than .00001, making it statistically significant.
Table 6: T1 to T2 comparison- word count changes
Title Word count (T1) Word count (T2) Change % Change

35 251 333 82 32.67%
34 132 330 198 150.00%
33 205 279 74 36.10%
32 119 327 208 174.79%
31 216 397 181 83.80%
30 201 389 188 93.53%
29 168 330 162 96.43%
28 209 351 142 67.94%
27 252 268 16 6.35%
26 263 323 60 22.81%
25 192 244 52 27.08%
24 191 407 216 113.09%
23 443 567 124 27.99%
22 187 311 124 66.31%
21 122 116 -6 -4.92%
20 119 211 92 77.31%
19 249 334 85 34.14%
18 133 212 79 59.40%
17 152 279 127 83.55%
16 202 378 176 87.13%
15 85 263 178 209.41%
14 201 272 71 35.32%
13 385 703 318 82.60%
12 198 317 119 60.10%
11 122 257 135 110.66%
10 169 200 31 18.34%
9 202 302 100 49.50%
8 254 426 172 67.72%
7 106 280 174 164.15%
6 122 254 132 108.20%
5 236 412 176 74.58%
4 201 348 147 73.13%
3 206 323 117 56.80%
2 204 246 42 20.59%
1 213 272 59 27.70%
AVG 197.4285714 321.7428571 124.3142857 71.27%
This is especially interesting because both the T1 and T2 writing prompts encouraged students to
write between 250-500 words, with no change in wording between the two prompts. Students
wrote more on the T2 writing anyway, with all students showing positive change except for one
(#21 dropping from 122 words to 116). Some changes were especially dramatic, such as #15
showing 209.41% growth between the number of words written in T1 and T2.
Table 7: T1 to T2 comparison- average words per sentence changes
Title Words/sentence (T1) Words/sentence (T2) Change % Change

35 11.41 11.48 0.07 0.65%
34 6.95 11.00 4.05 58.33%
33 8.54 8.72 0.18 2.07%
32 8.50 9.08 0.58 6.86%
31 9.82 8.82 -1.00 -10.14%
30 9.14 12.16 3.02 33.05%
29 8.40 13.20 4.80 57.14%
28 10.45 9.75 -0.70 -6.70%
27 14.82 13.40 -1.42 -9.60%
26 8.22 8.97 0.75 9.17%
25 9.60 8.41 -1.19 -12.36%
24 7.35 11.63 4.28 58.29%
23 10.07 14.54 4.47 44.40%
22 17.00 13.52 -3.48 -20.46%
21 10.17 11.60 1.43 14.10%
20 8.50 7.54 -0.96 -11.34%
19 9.96 14.52 4.56 45.80%
18 19.00 14.13 -4.87 -25.61%
17 10.13 12.13 2.00 19.71%
16 9.18 8.22 -0.96 -10.50%
15 12.14 12.52 0.38 3.14%
14 6.70 8.24 1.54 23.02%
13 11.00 14.06 3.06 27.82%
12 10.42 12.19 1.77 17.00%
11 8.13 9.52 1.39 17.03%
10 11.27 10.00 -1.27 -11.24%
9 12.63 13.73 1.10 8.73%
8 12.70 12.53 -0.17 -1.34%
7 8.15 11.67 3.51 43.08%
6 10.17 9.07 -1.10 -10.77%
5 12.42 15.85 3.43 27.57%
4 9.14 11.23 2.09 22.87%
3 15.85 14.68 -1.16 -7.35%
2 10.20 9.11 -1.09 -10.68%
1 9.26 11.83 2.57 27.70%
AVG 10.50 11.40 0.90 11.98%
Similar but less drastic increases are visible in the T1 to T2 data involving sentence length (Table
7- words per sentence), with a two-tailed t-test value of t=2.28017 and a p-value of p=.02899,
making it barely statistically significant (with significance set at .05). Students overall showed a
11.98% increase, however there were some writing excerpts that showed a decrease in sentence
length (i.e. #18 from 19.00 words to 14.13 words for a -4.87 or 25.61% loss). Others showed
more extreme positive growth (i.e. #34 from 6.95 words to 11.00 words for 4.05 or 58.33%
increase). One potential reason for the various decreases in sentence length could be the fact that
blogs structurally include titles, headers, lists, and bullet points to present information and these
features typically result in shorter “sentence” length. Students noted these textual features on
their co-created rubric and many utilized them in their T2 writing, but not on the T1 pre-write.
These textual features were not removed from data because of their importance in the structure
of the text type of blogs, but they may be influencing the data.
Table 8: T1 to T2 comparison- vocabulary density changes
Title Density (T1) Density (T2) Change % Change

35 0.37 0.34 -0.03 -8.24%
34 0.73 0.49 -0.24 -32.92%
33 0.45 0.34 -0.11 -24.15%
32 0.59 0.43 -0.16 -27.22%
31 0.49 0.41 -0.08 -15.82%
30 0.50 0.44 -0.06 -12.52%
29 0.55 0.42 -0.13 -23.91%
28 0.46 0.30 -0.16 -34.32%
27 0.36 0.46 0.10 28.51%
26 0.51 0.55 0.04 7.55%
25 0.54 0.50 -0.05 -8.45%
24 0.46 0.39 -0.06 -13.69%
23 0.39 0.37 -0.01 -3.14%
22 0.33 0.28 -0.04 -13.26%
21 0.58 0.49 -0.09 -15.57%
20 0.65 0.50 -0.15 -23.09%
19 0.49 0.43 -0.06 -12.51%
18 0.51 0.46 -0.05 -9.59%
17 0.53 0.43 -0.10 -19.29%
16 0.52 0.42 -0.10 -20.10%
15 0.54 0.42 -0.12 -22.71%
14 0.47 0.40 -0.06 -13.52%
13 0.38 0.32 -0.06 -16.37%
12 0.48 0.40 -0.09 -18.02%
11 0.65 0.47 -0.18 -27.29%

10 0.38 0.42 0.04 9.59%
9 0.38 0.33 -0.05 -11.99%
8 0.43 0.35 -0.08 -19.04%
7 0.58 0.38 -0.19 -33.59%
6 0.58 0.40 -0.18 -31.00%
5 0.41 0.37 -0.04 -9.90%
4 0.41 0.36 -0.05 -12.32%
3 0.47 0.41 -0.06 -13.21%
2 0.64 0.62 -0.02 -3.04%
1 0.46 0.47 0.02 3.34%
AVG 0.49 0.42 -0.08 -14.31%
Unexpectedly, the type token ratio or vocabulary density was significantly lower on the T2
writing as compared to the T1 writing, with an overall drop of 14.31% (Table 8). On a two-tailed
t-test, t=-6.436948, with a highly significant p-value of <.00001. There are various potential
explanations for this, one being the use of titles, lists/bullets, and headers in the T2 blog writing
that were not present in the T1 writing. Use of titles and headers could result in some repetition
of words that are not present in simple paragraph writing without such textual features. Another
interesting data point emerges when looking at vocabulary density compared to the word count
and word sentence length. There were a few students that had increases in one but decreases in
another: for example, sample #34 showed a 58.33% increase in sentence length and a 150%
increase in word count between T1 and T2 but a 32.92% drop in vocabulary density. A
correlation was run in Excel Analysis between word count and vocabulary density to investigate
this further, which can be seen in Table 9.
Table 9: Correlation between word count and Vocabulary Density (Type/Token ratio)
Words T1 Words T2 Ratio T1 Ratio T2

Words T1 1
Words T2 0.76982727 1
Ratio T1 -0.6087855 -0.395309 1
Ratio T2 -0.2775626 -0.4635261 0.66444629 1
There is a negative correlation of -.61 between the word count and the vocabulary density
(“Ratio” in the table) for T1 and a negative correlation of -.46 between the word count and the
vocabulary density for T2. Using a significance value of .05 and analysis through Social Science
Statistics online calculators, both negative correlations are significant at a p-value of .000107 for
T1 and .005097 for T2 (Stangroom, 2018). The T2 correlation is weaker, but it still means that as
students wrote more, their vocabulary density decreased. This could simply be that as they wrote
more, they needed to use more repetitive function words to include more content (see the section
on vocabulary frequency). Another possibility is that in their attempts to write more (or perhaps
to include more information in titles, lists, etc.) they are including less varied vocabulary and
repeating the same vocabulary more frequently. When reading the texts, however, very few
students repeated content or information throughout the text, meaning any repetition was not just
writing the same or similar sentences over and over again. This is discussed more in the
vocabulary frequency section. Overall results for changes from T1 to T2 are compiled in Table
10 below.
Table 10: T1 to T2 comparison- overall
T1 T2 Change % Change
6,910 11,261 4,351 62.97%

Total words (TOKENS)
896 1,260 364 40.63%

Total unique word forms (TYPES)
0.13 0.11 -0.02 -15.38%

Type/Token Ratio (TOTAL, all texts)
0.49 0.42 -0.07 -14.29%
Vocabulary density (individuals AVG)
Number of words (individuals AVG) 197.43 321.74 124.31 62.96%
Words per sentence (individuals AVG) 10.50 11.40 0.9 8.57%

General results: Model text (MT) data and comparison
The model text corpus, made up of the texts that students read in class, found online, and
generally all texts used for class activities between T1 and T2 (see Appendices D-G), were
analyzed individually using Voyant Tools (Sinclair & Rockwell, 2019). The number of texts was
33, similar to the 35 student-produced texts. Some texts that students found during the student-
found blog activity were removed from analysis, mainly due to their irrelevance (i.e. blogs listing
other health blogs). The texts were analyzed to examine number of words (length of texts), type
token ratio, vocabulary density, and average words per sentence (Table 11). These were the same
factors chosen for T1 and T2 analysis to allow for comparison (Table 12). The settings used for
word definitions and token definitions were the default settings in Voyant Tools.
Table 11: MT individual blog data (Voyant Tools)

Blog33X 1173 433 0.37 20.22
Blog32X 1014 430 0.42 18.78
Blog31X 496 214 0.43 22.55
Blog30X 1251 472 0.38 23.60
Blog29X 318 169 0.53 35.33
Blog28X 347 208 0.60 23.13
Blog27X 1072 408 0.38 19.85
Blog26X 608 313 0.51 23.38
Blog25X 950 469 0.49 13.01
Blog24X 498 270 0.54 35.57
Blog23X 641 292 0.46 33.74
Blog22X 1000 412 0.41 17.86
Blog21X 629 293 0.47 24.19
Blog20X 653 294 0.45 31.10
Blog19X 1184 470 0.40 21.93
Blog18X 507 246 0.49 22.04
Blog17X 1049 385 0.37 19.79
Blog16X 496 236 0.48 19.08
Blog15X 679 366 0.54 26.12
Blog14X 1459 514 0.35 47.06
Blog13X 748 346 0.46 25.79
Blog12X 1614 521 0.32 18.99
Blog11X 613 311 0.51 30.65
Blog10X 944 345 0.37 16.56
Blog9X 496 217 0.44 19.84

Blog8X 1635 513 0.31 21.80
Blog7X 1423 602 0.42 22.95
Blog6X 603 284 0.47 21.54
Blog5X 679 333 0.49 16.56
Blog4X 877 370 0.42 16.87
Blog3X 833 386 0.46 21.92
Blog2X 914 403 0.44 18.65
Blog1X 1207 497 0.41 17.75
AVG 866.97 364.30 0.44 23.28
Table 12: MT comparison to T1 and T2- overall data
T1 T2 MT
35 35 33
Total number of texts
6,910 11,261 28,610
Total words (TOKENS)
896 1,260 5,243
Total unique word forms (TYPES)
0.13 0.11 0.18
Type/Token Ratio (TOTAL)
0.49 0.42 0.44
Vocabulary density (AVG)
Number of words (AVG) 197.43 321.74 866.97
Words per sentence (AVG) 10.50 11.40 23.28
The model texts, although there are fewer texts overall, include a much higher number of words
and unique word forms in comparison to the student productions, which is to be expected
considering their proficiency level. Student writing for T2 did approach a more similar word
count, type count, and words per sentence as compared to the model texts. The vocabulary
density did decrease from T1 to T2, but both are not incredibly off from the MT data, with .13
overall for T1 (or .49) as compared to .18 (or .44) for the MT data and .11 overall for T2 (or .42)
as compared to the .18 (or .44) for the MT data. As suggested by the negative correlation
between word count and vocabulary density, the more that students wrote, while approaching a
more “native-like” word count, resulted in less varied vocabulary as compared to native texts.
This is somewhat unexpected based on the growth in other areas between T1 and T2, but does
make sense when considering potential factors such as the inclusion of textual elements like
titles, headers, and lists, or the fact that as students write more they must include more function
words in order to communicate the content. Still, more investigation is needed, particularly for
student production of text types with similar textual features like titles and lists.
Vocabulary Frequency
Vocabulary use in student samples and model texts was investigated further through
frequency analysis. AntConc was chosen for frequency wordlists due to the ability to better
control the stoplist (or lack thereof) manually, easier conversion into Excel and other tables, and
overall greater control of parameters as compared to Voyant (Anthony, 2019). It is important to
note that the definitions of words (tokens) may be different across Voyant and AntConc due to
the inflexibility of Voyant’s settings. Token definitions and Tool Preferences settings were set to
default in AntConc. A note that Range is the term used by AntConc to show how many texts in
which the word is present (i.e. range of 30 = the word is used in 30 out of 35 texts). Table 13
shows the frequency of the top 50 most frequent words in each corpus: T1, T2, and MT without a
stoplist, meaning both content and function words are included. There is some overlap across
texts, including typical function words like y (and), the preposition para (for), and pero (but) that
students learn in the lower levels of Spanish. Two words that were not in the top 50 in T1 but did
Table 13: T1 & T2 & MT most frequent words (AntConc- no stoplist)
T1 Frequency T2 Frequency MT Frequency

(types=879, tokens= 6889) (types=1228, tokens=11,153) (types=5126, tokens=28,201)
Frequency Word Range Frequency Word Range Frequency Word Range
339 y 35 418 y 34 1731 de 33
203 es 34 386 es 34 925 la 33
166 tú 27 244 tu 33 897 que 33
153 la 28 234 muy 33 885 y 33
143 para 28 234 para 29 695 el 33
127 no 32 225 los 33 635 en 33

125 ejercicio 33 225 tú 30 522 a 33
123 los 27 224 de 33 390 los 33
119 el 27 224 el 32 373 para 33
118 de 31 175 ejercicio 30 356 es 32
111 saludable 26 162 no 35 317 las 33
107 las 22 161 saludable 31 316 un 32
101 tu 30 154 la 30 294 con 33
100 muy 30 150 un 31 276 no 32
87 en 27 149 las 22 254 una 33
85 comida 28 147 en 29 244 más 32
83 dieta 27 121 más 30 237 se 31
76 comer 27 118 importante 30 231 por 31
76 un 24 112 una 27 194 tu 20
75 yo 18 105 que 23 187 o 32
74 por 23 104 salud 27 177 te 26
69 frutas 31 99 dieta 26 175 del 29
66 una 23 96 comer 29 170 lo 29
62 muchas 20 93 hacer 25 152 al 32
62 o 26 87 frutas 30 148 si 31
61 mucho 26 87 por 26 134 como 33
61 necesitas 21 87 son 23 106 son 29
60 importante 23 86 pero 27 98 cuerpo 19
59 más 24 84 comida 26 91 pero 31
53 pero 24 80 con 23 90 este 23
53 salud 17 78 porque 26 87 su 27
52 hacer 20 75 o 29 82 salud 25
52 son 16 74 a 24 70 ejercicio 15
51 come 15 73 muchas 18 69 correr 9
51 proteínas 26 72 todos 24 68 sin 25
50 debes 17 70 si 17 67 dieta 14
50 puedes 16 69 cuerpo 21 66 alimentos 12
50 todos 23 68 necesitas 26 64 cada 23
48 granos 25 67 puedes 21 64 peso 13
48 porque 21 66 mucho 25 64 vida 24
48 también 21 66 proteínas 25 63 cuando 21
47 que 16 65 bueno 25 63 muy 23
46 a 20 64 ser 20 61 tus 21
43 como 15 63 comidas 19 60 ser 27
43 días 22 57 también 21 57 puede 27
42 con 18 57 yo 22 56 día 20
42 lácteos 20 56 días 23 55 grasas 6
41 mi 15 55 debes 18 55 tener 22
40 bueno 18 52 verduras 20 53 ya 23
37 verduras 17 51 correr 23 52 esta 26
make the top 50 in T2 with overlap of the MT frequency list include ser (to be) and si (if). Si is
especially interesting because students have never explicitly learned it, and it often triggers more
complex tenses to talk about “if… then” clauses, such as conditional + imperfect subjunctive;
usually taught in the upper levels of Spanish. Si can also be used within the rhetorical function of
a health blog to tell individuals “if you ____ then you ____” when giving recommendations or
suggestions. This is investigated more in the recommendations section. Another function word
that is highly frequent in student writing is muy, the adverb meaning “very”. Using KWIC (key
word in context) within AntConc, MT texts use muy with a wide variety of adjectives including
poca (little), sencillo (simple), útil (useful), and distinta (distinct), to name just a few (see Figure
4). In T2 writing, however, students use muy in a similar fashion, but with a smaller variety of
adjectives. The most common adjectives paired with muy in T2 student writing are bien (good),
bueno (good), beneficio (incorrect, although they are trying to use beneficioso for beneficial),
delicioso (delicious), fácil (easy), saludable (healthy) and overwhelmingly importante
(important) with over 50+ uses of muy importante. This overuse of importante will be discussed
further in the recommendations section.
Figure 4: sample of KWIC for muy

T2 MT
(234 hits) (63 hits)
Hit KWIC File Hit KWIC File
Students are using the word muy in a similar way to the native texts, but their variety of
adjectives that it modifies is much less diverse. They also appear to have a lower vocabulary
when it comes to adverbs, using muy when the native texts use many more adverbs such as
especialmente (especially), completamente (completely), etc. Another point of note with the
frequency data overall is the increase in frequency of function words (i.e. y, es, de…) from T1 to
T2, which could be a contributing factor in the lower vocabulary density for T2 writing as word
count increased. Perhaps students needed more function words to include more content, and
therefore increased their function word repetition.
Next, frequency lists were generated for content words only using a stoplist (see
Appendix K for the full stoplist from Text Tools, 2018). Table 14 shows the results for the top 50
most frequent content words for each text.
Table 14: T1 & T2 & MT most frequent words (AntConc- content words, with stoplist)
T1 Frequency T2 Frequency MT Frequency

(types=709, tokens= 3448) (types=1035, tokens=5744) (types=4764, tokens=12,939)
Frequency Word Range Frequency Word Range Frequency Word Range
166 tú 27 244 tu 33 194 tu 20
125 ejercicio 33 225 tú 30 177 te 26
111 saludable 26 175 ejercicio 30 98 cuerpo 19
101 tu 30 161 saludable 31 82 salud 25
85 comida 28 118 importante 30 70 ejercicio 15
83 dieta 27 104 salud 27 69 correr 9
76 comer 27 99 dieta 26 67 dieta 14
69 frutas 31 96 comer 29 66 alimentos 12
61 necesitas 21 87 frutas 30 64 peso 13
60 importante 23 84 comida 26 64 vida 24
53 salud 17 69 cuerpo 21 61 tus 21
51 come 15 68 necesitas 26 56 día 20
51 proteínas 26 67 puedes 21 55 grasas 6
50 debes 17 66 proteínas 25 50 forma 20
50 puedes 16 63 comidas 19 48 personas 19
48 granos 25 56 días 23 45 comer 12
43 días 22 55 debes 18 39 agua 13
42 lácteos 20 52 verduras 20 39 grasa 8
37 verduras 17 51 correr 23 39 puedes 14
36 vegetales 16 51 mantener 17 38 minutos 16
35 comidas 13 50 granos 24 38 tipo 14
29 cuerpo 13 45 dormir 10 37 cinta 2
28 comes 14 45 vida 18 37 ejercicios 6
28 mantener 12 43 agua 17 35 alimentación 8

24 hola 24 43 lácteos 19 35 dejar 11
22 basura 13 41 personas 17 34 sueño 4
22 leche 14 38 come 14 33 energía 11
21 balanceada 13 36 balanceada 13 32 entrenamiento 8
20 amigos 16 36 blog 20 31 saludable 13
20 plato 8 34 quieres 14 31 saludables 8
19 rápida 10 34 vegetales 16 30 horas 10
19 te 11 32 ejercicios 14 29 deporte 10
18 comas 13 32 te 14 28 estrés 10
18 día 13 30 amigos 14 27 beneficios 13
18 estás 9 29 plato 10 27 vegetarianos 1
18 minutos 13 28 fácil 15 25 ayuda 13
18 quieres 11 27 recomiendo 15 25 ayuno 2
18 tienes 12 27 suficiente 13 25 bajar 9
17 correr 17 26 tienes 16 25 hombros 1
17 gusta 7 24 basura 10 24 comida 9
16 deportes 11 24 corriendo 9 24 importante 13
16 desayuno 9 24 horas 12 23 frutas 5
16 dormir 9 24 necesitan 8 23 fumar 2
15 carne 13 23 calorías 18 23 hábitos 4
15 tus 9 23 día 10 23 mejores 8
14 estrés 5 22 deportes 13 22 actividad 10
14 pan 12 22 energía 13 22 aumenta 7
13 almuerzo 9 22 pesas 10 22 carne 4
13 fácil 11 21 carne 14 22 estás 12
13 horas 10 21 gusta 13 22 evitar 10
There is a substantial amount of overlap in content words across texts. Nouns like ejercicio
(exercise), salud (health), cuerpo (body), vida (life), and agua (water) occur in all three, typical
of blogs about health. The informal 2nd person register is very common within the blog genre in
Spanish, as students observed when looking at model texts (see Figure 3 for the student-created
rubric). This is clear here for all three texts from terms such as tú (subject pronoun “you”), te
(reflexive pronoun or indirect object pronoun), and tu / tus (possessive adjective). One
interesting note is that the MT corpus uses the terms alimentos and alimentación to refer to food
(or nourishment), while students use the more basic term comida (food or meal). The words are
used in a similar manner, with phrases like alimentación/comida saludable (healthy food)
appearing in the T2 writing and MT texts. The same sort of simplified vocabulary can be seen
with sueño (sleep, dream) which is common in the MT corpus, and the verb dormir (used as a
noun- sleep), which is more simplistic and more common in the T1 and T2 corpora. In other
words, students are trying to express similar ideas but with less sophisticated vocabulary. It is
also interesting to point out that the word blog is much more prevalent in the T2 writing than the
T1 writing, with students including it in their titles (El blog de salud or El blog de bienestar –
“The health blog”) and more mentions in the comments students wrote to accompany their blogs
(Me gusta el blog- “I like the blog”), both features of the text type. Students appear to be very
cognizant of the text type in the T2 writing.
In order to compare across texts with different total word counts, normalized frequencies
were calculated, dividing the frequency for the given word by the total number of words (with
the stoplist), and multiplying by 1000 (McEnery & Hardie, 2012, p. 50). In other words, this is
the adjusted frequency of that word per 1000 words in each text (McEnery & Hardie, 2012).
Table 15: Overlap between T1, T2, and MT content words, normalized frequency
Word T1 frequency T2 frequency MT frequency

tu 29.29 42.48 1.55
te 0.55 0.56 0.20
cuerpo 0.84 1.20 0.15
salud 1.54 1.81 0.19
ejercicio 3.63 3.05 0.12
correr 0.49 0.89 0.07
dieta 2.41 1.72 0.11
alimentos 0.00 0.02 0.09
peso 0.12 0.28 0.10
vida 0.38 0.78 0.19
tus 0.44 0.24 0.16
día 0.52 0.40 0.15
grasas 0.20 0.19 0.05
forma 0.09 0.03 0.15
personas 0.32 0.71 0.15
comer 2.20 1.67 0.09
agua 0.20 0.75 0.10
grasa 0.06 0.17 0.06
puedes 1.45 1.17 0.11
minutos 0.52 0.33 0.12
tipo 0.09 0.16 0.11
cinta 0.00 0.00 0.02

ejercicios 0.15 0.56 0.05
alimentación 0.00 0.07 0.06
dejar 0.00 0.03 0.09
sueño 0.00 0.02 0.03
energía 0.12 0.38 0.09
entrenamiento 0.00 0.00 0.06
saludable 3.22 2.80 0.10
saludables 0.17 0.23 0.06
horas 0.38 0.42 0.08
deporte 0.09 0.26 0.08
estrés 0.41 0.33 0.08
beneficios 0.03 0.31 0.10
vegetarianos 0.00 0.00 0.01
ayuda 0.20 0.33 0.10
ayuno 0.00 0.00 0.02
bajar 0.12 0.30 0.07
hombros 0.00 0.00 0.01
comida 2.47 1.46 0.07
importante 1.74 2.05 0.10
frutas 2.00 1.51 0.04
fumar 0.09 0.10 0.02
hábitos 0.00 0.14 0.03
mejores 0.00 0.00 0.06
actividad 0.03 0.09 0.08
aumenta 0.00 0.00 0.05
carne 0.44 0.37 0.03
estás 0.52 0.16 0.09
evitar 0.26 0.12 0.08
The normalized frequencies for words based on the top 50 of the MT corpus are included in
Table 15. The use of some words increased from T1 to T2: for example, beneficios from .03 to
.31, closer to MT texts at .10, but slightly exaggerated. For other words it decreased: i.e. estás
from .52 down to .16, closer to the MT texts frequency of .09. A few words that were not used at
all in T1 writing but were acquired for T2, perhaps through the authentic texts, include hábitos,
alimentación, and dejar, although it should be noted that their use overall is minimal when you
look at range (how many students used them). Some students acquired this new vocabulary while
others did not. In general, the use of certain vocabulary is much, much higher for the T1 and T2
texts as compared to the MT corpus, with some numbers above 0 (i.e. cuerpo at 1.20), meaning
students are repeatedly using those words. Nearly all of these repetitive words come from the
student vocabulary lists for their health unit (saludable, cuerpo, salud, ejercicio, dieta, comer, &
comida), meaning that they were highly salient for students before the research study took place.
Many classroom activities were centered around their use, resulting in a large amount of prior
exposure. Students likely overused them due to their particular salience and relevance to the
topic of health. A positive takeaway is that even with less variety in vocabulary, most of the
words that students used at a high rate were also words of high frequency on the MT corpus.
Giving Recommendations
One common rhetorical feature of blogs, particularly those about health, is giving
recommendations or suggestions for the reader. Students noticed this in the model texts in
various ways. First, when creating the Voz (voice) section of their blog rubric, they point out the
use of the informal tú (you) in the model texts to refer to the reader (see the student-created
rubric in Figure 3). This could be one reason for the high frequency of both tú (pronoun, you)
and tu (possessive adjective, your) in student writing (refer back to Table 14 and 15). When
looking at the frequency of the subject pronoun tú (you) in AntConc, it is used to refer to the
reader in the MT corpus (i.e. ¿Y tú?), but not very frequently (8 times, range of 6- see figure 5).
Tú does not even make the top 50 most frequent words for the MT corpus, but it is in the top two
for both the T1 and T2 corpora. However, when searching the MT corpus for verbs with the
inflection of present tense 2nd person (tú) form, for example, quieres (you want), puedes (you
can), haces (you do), etc., the frequency within the MT corpus is higher (i.e. 16 for quieres, 39
for puedes, 12 for haces…). Using the regular expression (regex) of \w*(as|es)\b to search for
other verbs with the 2nd person inflection (as/es ending), there were many, many more1. Going
back to the pronoun tú, while it is infrequent in the MT corpus, in T2 writing tú is used 255
times, often paired with a verb (see a sample of the KWIC output in Figure 5).
Figure 5: KWIC for tú (you)

T2 MT
(225 hits) (8 hits)
This points to potential influence from the L1 for most of the participants in this study: English.
In English, verbs cannot be used without their pronouns in the present tense, yet you can do so in
Spanish. For example, “run” cannot be exchanged for “you run”, yet corres already means “you
run” in Spanish without the pronoun tú included. The inflection (es ending in this case) gives the
1
It should be noted that an exact count of all 2nd person verbs was not possible without a part of speech tagger,
however a manual count of the 3,118 hits was deemed too tedious and a glance at the data showed a large number of
2nd person verbs without further analysis
lexical information necessary to show it is referring to tú. Students may be overusing tú to refer
to the reader because of influence from English, although they are using it to perform a similar
function as compared to the MT texts. Instead of including tú, the MT texts are simply
conjugating the verb in the 2nd person and leaving the pronoun out. It’s also interesting to note
that students have some errors with tú, overusing the pronoun in the incorrect form (i.e. after a
preposition instead of ti- es importante por tú vs. es importante para ti), which could be creating
a higher frequency. The overuse of tú with verbs for L1 learners of English is something that
needs to be addressed in instruction so that students understand they can use the tú form of verbs
(or any form) in Spanish without the pronoun included, which will result in a closer
approximation to usage in native writing.
Figure 6: tu (your) sample using KWIC

T2 MT
(244 hits) (194 hits)
Another word with excessively high frequency is the possessive adjective (or determiner)
of tu with a normalized frequency of 29.29 in T1 writing and 42.48 in T2 writing as compared to

1.55 in the MT corpus. Tu is used before nouns to denote possession (i.e. your body), and
students use it frequently with a variety of nouns related to personal health (see Figure 6). First,
it should be noted that some errors in accents were visible in the data (i.e. using tu vs. tú), likely
due to researcher error when cleaning data. In addition, there are some examples of students
using tu instead of tus when referring to plural nouns, forgetting to change the possessive
adjective to agree in number. Both of these factors could be influencing the data. While the usage
of tu is similar in the MT corpus, the usage of the definite articles el and la (the) is not (see Table
16). Students may be using tu more frequently in front of nouns to try to address the reader rather
Table 16: normalized frequency of el/la/tu (all tokens, no stoplist)
Word T2 normalized frequency MT normalized frequency
el 2.01 2.46
la 1.38 3.28
tu 2.19 0.69
than the definite articles, which are generally interchangeable in Spanish as long as the possessor
is clear. For example, with te lavas el pelo (you wash (the) hair), the reflexive pronoun te has
already made it clear that you’re washing your own hair so the definite article la can be used
instead of tu. Looking at the web/dialects Corpus del Español with over 2 billion words, in native
Spanish el (85,366,616) and la (76,803,014) are more frequent overall than tu (2,489,705)
(Davies, 2019). This is not the case with the T2 corpus. This is also a possible side effect of a
less nuanced sentence structure without pronouns, where the MT refers to the reader in a more
indirect way through the use of verb inflection or pronouns, for example with the T2 phrase
ejercicio es muy importante para tu salud (exercise if very important for your health) vs. the MT
phrase te proporcionará otros beneficios para la salud (it will supply you other benefits for (the)
health). Students are likely overusing tu in front of nouns because they are attempting to include
more references to the reader as they see in the model texts. Unfortunately, they do not yet have
the ability to use a more varied sentence structure including other pronouns or verb inflection
within the sentence. If they did, they could use more definite articles in front of nouns rather than
the possessive adjective tu, providing more indirect rather than direct reference to the reader.
Aside from references to the reader using tú or tu, the rhetorical function of
recommendations and suggestions was further investigated using typical phrases or words in
Spanish. Some of the words and phrases under investigation are in Table 17.
Table 17: Words or phrases used to give suggestions or recommendations

Organization of this table is loosely based on Erichsen, 2019
Spanish English
Obligation (present/conditional tense)
Deber (i.e. debes, deberías) + verb infinitive Should (i.e. you should)
Poder (i.e. puedes) + verb infinitive Can (i.e. you can)
Tener (que) (i.e. tienes (que)) + verb infinitive Have (i.e. you have (to))
Necesitar (i.e. necesitas) + verb infinitive Need (i.e. you need to)
Imperative mood (informal commands)
Positive commands (duerme, deja) Positive commands (sleep, stop)
Negative commands (no comas, no fumes) Informal commands (don’t eat, don’t smoke)
Impersonal Expressions
Es importante + infinitive It’s important to…
Es necesario + infinitive It’s necessary to…
Hay que + infinitive One must…
se + conjugated verb (se debe) Impersonal se (i.e. one should/must)
Subjunctive mood / “if” clauses / Complex tenses
Si (tú) (quieres)… If (you want)…
Es importante/necesario (que) + subjunctive verb It’s important/necessary (that) + subjunctive
Often in traditional Spanish curricula, students learn to give suggestions and recommendations
first through the present tense (you should sleep more), then the imperative mood (sleep more!),
then impersonal expressions (it’s important to sleep more), and finally the subjunctive mood and
complex tenses (if you were to sleep more then you would feel better / it is necessary that you
sleep more). At the language level of students in this study, they have explicitly been taught the
present tense options for the above function, the imperative mood (informal tú commands), and
some impersonal expressions, but no subjunctive. Phrases used to fulfill the rhetorical function
of suggestions or recommendations were investigated in all three corpora using the KWIC and
frequency features in AntConc. The present tense verbs of debes (you should) and puedes (you
can) were included due to their high frequency in T2 writing. The word importante (important),
which can signal impersonal expressions or subjunctive, was also highly frequent in T1 and T2
and therefore merited further analysis. Finally, the word si (if) was included, which was more
common in T2 as compared to T1 (refer back to Table 13 for frequency). For each of these
words, the KWIC (key word in context) tool was used in AntConc with settings at default (levels
at 1R, 2R, 3R) and search window of 20. The T2 and MT data were analyzed, leaving T1 out due
to the length of analysis. For the following figures showing KWIC data, it is only a selection of
all of the data for viewing purposes to save space.
Figure 7: debes (you should) sample using KWIC

T2 MT
(55 concordance hits) (10 concordance hits)
Figure 8: puedes (you can) sample using KWIC

T2 MT
Hit KWIC File. Hit KWIC File
Debes is frequent in the T2 texts, with 55 concordance hits and a range of 18. The sample in
Figure 7 shows the general use of this word; to give advice to the reader using very concrete,
simple, and health-related action verbs like comer or dormir (you should eat, you should sleep).
The usage of debes is much less in the MT texts at 10 concordance hits. The verbs that co-occur
are also fewer concrete actions, with terms like saber (to know) and tener (to have).
Interestingly, when searching the use of the more impersonal (or more formal) debe (he/she/one
should) in the model texts, there are more examples (i.e. no se debe comer menos) (see Figure 7).
This means that the model texts are still using the verb deber, just in other, more impersonal and
more formal ways and less frequently than the student texts. When looking at puedes (you can),
it is also more frequent in T2 than in the MT corpus, with a normalized frequency of 1.17 for T2
and 0.11 for MT. The usage is similar, with the more impersonal se puede showing up in the
model corpus like se debe, and T2 usage with simpler verbs. It’s also interesting to note the
repeated use of the pronoun tú with debes and puedes here in T2 writing, uncommon in native
Spanish but more common for those with English as an L1, as noted in the previous section.
Puedes is overall more common than debes, making the top 50 frequency of content words for
the MT corpus. One potential reason is that deber is a more forceful verb indicating more of a
command (debes- you should) versus the suggestion given with poder (puedes- you can) when
referring to the reader. Native writers wishing to refer to the reader and give suggestions in a
blog take the more nuanced route of puedes (you can) rather than a sense of obligation based on
personal opinion with debes (you should), but students likely don’t recognize the difference.
Figure 9: importante (important) sample using KWIC

T2 MT
It’s also possible that native texts are using more impersonal expressions to give
suggestions and recommendations as compared to students. The most common version of this in
the T2 texts is importante (important). Students used importante mostly for phrases with a noun
as a subject (i.e. exercise is very important), which is how they are taught the adjective in the
previous Spanish 1 course (see Figure 9). Model texts did the same, but also added more correct
usage of the subjunctive in the impersonal expression es importante que (it’s important that).
Interestingly, students attempted to use es importante que or incorrect variations of the
impersonal expression (i.e. es importante tú – it’s importante you), but they did not use the
subjunctive. In addition, while the T2 texts use almost exclusively importante, the MT texts use
other impersonal expressions such as es necesario (it’s necessary- 13 hits), and hay que (one
must- 10 hits) that are essentially absent from student writing. Some students are attempting to
use impersonal expressions, albeit incorrectly, while others resort to the more basic sentence
structure of “____ is important” learned from previous instruction.
Figure 10: si (if) sample using KWIC

T2 MT
Finally, it was noted previously that the word si became more frequent in T2 writing as
compared to T1 writing (refer back to Table 13). Si can be used to indicate possibility and
alternatives. In Spanish, it often triggers the future, conditional, or imperfect subjunctive with if
clauses (i.e. “if you eat more fruits, you will feel better” or “if one were to exercise more, one
would have more energy”). In T2 writing students appear to be using si with the present tense
and occasionally commands (i.e. si eres un adulto, debes dormir 6-8 horas- if you are an adult,
you should sleep 6-8 hours). The MT texts also use si in this manner, (i.e. si tu objetivo es bajar
de peso, te recomiendo… - if your objective is to lose weight, I recommend…), but in addition
there are more instances of complex sentence structures using future or conditional tense (i.e. si
tenemos un perro, seguro que le encantará…- if we have a dog, it’s certain that it will love…).
The overall higher usage of si in T2 could indicate influence from the model texts, even if
students are not using it in the same manner.
When looking at all of the data, students were still able to complete the essential
rhetorical functions of a health blog: giving recommendations and suggestions in relation to
healthy habits; they just used more repetitive, less nuanced, and easier to remember vocabulary
and grammatical phrases in order to do so. For example, students used more expressions of
obligation like puedes and debes rather than impersonal expressions such as hay que, although
they did make attempts to use more complex sentences with si and es importante que. This
observation of more simplistic sentence structure in student writing fits very well with what
Gilquin, Granger & Paquot (2007) point out:
Learners, as a rule, have a limited repertoire of expressions at their disposal to fulfil a
particular rhetorical function… they tend to rely on a few items only, which they use over
and over again, to the detriment of other, perhaps less salient expressions. (p. 328)
Reflection Data
Soon after the T2 writing sample was complete, students reflected on the experience
using Google Forms. The form itself included quantitative (Likert Scale) as well as qualitative
data in the form of open-ended questions (to view the form, see Appendix I).
Table 18: Student Reflection Data (Quantitative)
QUESTION AVERAGE MODE

(1= not at all true for me, 5= very true for me)
1. Reading many examples of writing in Spanish helped me become a better
3.91 4
writer.
2. The readings we did in Spanish were overall understandable /

3.97 4
comprehensible.
3. I applied or included vocabulary or phrases I learned from the readings in

3.91 4
my final Spanish writing sample.
4. My final Spanish writing sample was better than my first writing sample. 4.51 5
5. The structure of my writing in Spanish changed as a result of the readings

4.37 5
we did in class.
6. I enjoyed practicing reading and writing like this in class. 3.20 3

7. Reading these texts helped me with writing more than taking grammar notes
3.60 3
or doing a worksheet.
8. I applied or included grammar (new verbs or new verb structures) I learned
3.74 4
from the readings in my final Spanish writing sample.
9. The activities we did in class helped me to better understand the texts we
4.06 4
read.
10. I applied or included grammar or vocabulary I’ve learned earlier this year
4.37 5
in my final writing sample.
11. I felt more motivated reading authentic texts (made for native Spanish
3.66 3
speakers, by native Spanish speakers) than I do when reading from a textbook.
From the reflection data a few interesting points emerge. First, the majority of students believed
1) overall T2 writing improved compared to T1 writing; 2) The most substantial change was in
the structure of the text based on the models; and 3) they were applying vocabulary and grammar
learned from class in their writing. Areas where students did not show as much enthusiasm were
1) enjoying this type of practice; 2) belief that this was more helpful than grammar notes or a
worksheet; and 3) motivation. The lack in motivation is noteworthy as it runs somewhat in
contrast with the research showing that use of authentic texts can help motivate students, but
there were also many positive comments, as seen in the qualitative reflection questions. Students
were asked two questions, and their short answers were coded into 8 categories based on general
topics and content: Structure/style/organization, word count, vocabulary, reading/writing/
authentic texts, grammar, ideas/topics, stress/difficult/boring, and general comments. The
number of each type of response was recorded, and some sample comments are included in
Table 19. Sample comments included were chosen based on representativeness of the comments
overall as a whole for that category.
Table 19: Student Reflection Responses
Question 1. How did the process of reading many Question 2. What was difficult about the writing
authentic texts (blogs) in Spanish help you to improve tasks that asked you to write specific types of texts
your writing? Explain what you think you did well (or (blogs) in Spanish? What do you think might help
better than before) and how you felt about the task. you to do these writing tasks better?
It was helpful to see how the blogs were actually
structured and how they use the informal voice
I learned about how a blog should be formatted.
I think that my final blog was much more
cohesive.
I think readibg [sic] the blogs helped me
ubderstabd [sic] the layout and how to actually
Structure/
write and create a blog. Structure/ The difficult part was writing it in a blog
style/
I was… able to learn on how to organize my style/ style, but it was easy once we looked at
organization
information different [sic] and what suggestions organization blogs
(20
(2 comments)
comments) I can include when writing my blog. I think I did
better in organization and including more
information and suggestions that actually relate
to health.
It helps me write text more authentically and
real Other than just texts that I found in a
textbook, which is more basic and less
complex.it helped me form a better blog
I found it was tricky to meet the word
I think as time went on, I got better at writing
requirement even the second time, so I
and reaching the word limit.
had to find a lot more to say about the
different topics
Word count
Word count What was difficult was hitting the 250
(1
(4 comments) minimum word criterion, as I had written
comment) about what I wanted to write in less than
I was able to write a lot more than I could the minim [sic] requirement. I think a
before. good fix to this is either lower the
minimum word requirement or give us
more time to work on it.
I didn’t know some specific vocabulary
Vocabulary I think I did a good job of using a wider variety Vocabulary
that I wanted to use. However, I learned
(9 of vocab words, and could do more things with (11
more vocabulary when reading other
comments) the words comments)
blogs.
By reading more authentic texts in Spanish I was I also found that incorporating the new
able to expand my vocabulary and learn how to vocabulary and using my past
use different information knowledge was difficult.
I think that the most difficult thing for
me was not knowing all of the
This helped me to improve writing, because I vocabulary words that I would have used
learned many new words that I usually use in my in English.
writing that I didn’t know in Spanish. i found it difficult to remember certain
words and phrases that would help move
my blog along.
I could tell how native speakers actually talk and
how it’s different than texts made for people
learning spanish
Reading/ Reading/
I felt like the activity that we did with finding
writing/ writing/
our own Spanish blog was helpful in giving us I think that more practice with writing
authentic authentic
the authentic Spanish blog that we all needed to instead of just reading would help.
texts (7 texts (1
see.
comments) comment)
It allowed me to be immersed into spanish and
allowed me to better understand spanish and
how to write.
I had trouble making sure that what I
They gave me sentences I could use to improve
was writing was making sense both
and taught me new grammar
grammatically and Spanish-wise
The most difficult thing for me was
spelling and conjugating certain words. I
Grammar (4 Grammar (5 also struggled with accents. I think
comments) comments) practicing conjugating words will help
Reading authentic texts help me shape my me do these better.
sentences.
Nothing was that difficult, but
sometimes I needed to use the future
tense and couldn’t, so I had to find some
way around it.
Because the topic was narrow it was
Because it helped me know what to write about
hard to find a variety of vocab and my
and how to write it.
blog felt repetative [sic]
It was still difficult, because I had to
write a lot of facts about each topic, but
some were a little hard to write for
It gives you many ideas about what to write
Ideas/ Ideas/ (sleeping). What I could do to make this
topics (7 topics (14 a little easier, is to pick topics I can write
comments) comments) a lot about.
I think what was difficult was the fact
that I am not an expert in the subject and
i didn't know specific words in Spanish.
I had more topics to work from.
Thinking of things to write about.
Because some stuff I did not know how
to say in Spanish.
Stress/ I felt the task was a lot more stressful because Stress/ I guess I’m just saying that it would help
difficult/ we had so much time to write something that difficult/ if the unit was more exciting.
boring (2 needed to fit all the criteria given. But overall it boring (4 I don’t really like continuous reading,
comments) wasn’t extremely difficult. comments) it’s kinda hard to focus due to the fact
that I continue reading the same sentence

over and over
It wasn't that good it was too hard to read Staying on tasks [sic] cause it was boring
General (2 General (2
I understand it better and can keep up. Have more knowledge
comments) comments)
Looking at student comments, the most popular coded categories for the question about writing
improvement were structure / style / organization (20 comments), vocabulary (9 comments), and
reading / writing / authentic texts and ideas / topics (7 comments each). Comments were
especially positive in regards to structuring blogs after reading authentic texts. Referring back to
Tardy’s four aspects of genre knowledge, students appear to perceive the most growth in formal
knowledge of the structural elements, which fits with the structural rubric evaluation of T1 vs.
T2 writing (Tardy, 2009). For the question about what was difficult about writing, the most
popular category was ideas / topics (14 comments), with at least 4 students citing that they felt
their writing was “repetitive” because they couldn’t say what they wanted to or they found the
topic too narrow. After that came vocabulary (11 comments), with students voicing the difficulty
in applying new vocabulary or struggling to think of the vocabulary necessary to express
themselves in Spanish on the topic. This validates the quantitative data showing a lowering in
vocabulary density as students felt they did not have the vocabulary to write what they wanted to
write in their blogs for the topic. It also shows that students may still be lacking in subject matter
knowledge when it comes to the genre (Tardy, 2009). More focused vocabulary instruction could
have helped, as could have a different, more personal choice in writing topic, or even a change in
word count recommendations. Overall, based on student reflection data it appears that the
majority of students found the experience valuable, although perhaps not exciting. They
perceived the most growth in text structure and felt the least competent in varied vocabulary use,
both of which fit with the corpus and rubric-based data.

Conclusion
Pedagogical Implications
Based on this study, there are various pedagogical implications for language teachers.
First, there were many characteristics of the study design, particularly during instruction, that
students (and the teacher) found useful. While it is impossible to tell if any one of these activities
or tools had a stronger influence over student writing due to the quasi-experimental nature of the
study, they still deserve consideration. Google Docs and Google Forms were very helpful for
both peer writing activities, teacher feedback, and submission of consent documentation and are
strongly recommended for other practitioners and researchers. In the reflection comments,
students mention enjoying the ability to search for their own blogs within their personal domain
of interest, which is one way for the teacher to find a large number of model texts without
spending hours, and also give students autonomy and increase motivation. The student genre
rubric creation based on the reading of authentic texts was also an excellent activity for students
to critically consider aspects of the texts they might not otherwise have noticed (Ponzio, 2017).
Still, teachers need to consider how the more simplistic student rubrics could increase saliency of
certain textual elements to influence writing, as may have occurred in this study with the overuse
of the tú form to refer to the reader. Lastly, the student personal vocabulary lists where they kept
track of words they read in the texts that they wanted to use in the future were useful, but likely
needed to be used more intentionally (i.e. students use X number of those words in their writing
practice) in order to have an impact on writing.
As far as the results based on the corpus analysis data, students wrote much more after
the analysis of authentic texts, but their vocabulary density decreased as they wrote more.
Teachers need to consider how the chosen genre’s text structure can influence vocabulary
density, especially with a text type such as a blog where titles, subtitles, and lists are considered
typical of the genre. For Diploma Program teachers, working with students on creating textual
features such as lists without sacrificing quality and variety of vocabulary will need to be a high
priority to prepare for the Language B exam. In addition, student reflection comments mentioned
the difficultly of avoiding repetition due to the topic chosen and/or some students felt the topic of
health was boring. Practitioners working on writing genre with their students need to ensure the
topics chosen are of high interest to students to generate motivation. Student background
knowledge is also important to avoid repetition of vocabulary due to lack of information on the
topic. In the lower proficiency levels where students do not yet have a wide vocabulary for the
writing of informational texts, personal text types such as diary entries, social media posts, or
personal e-mails could be the best options to introduce the idea of genre because students already
know quite a bit about their most engaging subject- themselves! Finally, choosing a word limit
(or lack thereof) can be important. In this study, students were encouraged to write between 250-
500 words, yet they wrote much more on the T2 writing. In reflections comments, some
participants felt rushed and stretched by this word count while others felt they had too much time
to write. Still, students feeling that they must write more could lead to lower vocabulary
complexity as they attempt to reach the set number of words. The practitioner must consider
his/her goals when designing the writing prompts for genre practice and whether a word count is
appropriate. It is important to note that overall lower vocabulary density is expected at the lower
proficiency levels. This is clear when referring to the ACTFL proficiency guidelines (2012) for
students at the Intermediate Low level, the proficiency level for many of the learners in this
study:
Most sentences are recombinations of learned vocabulary and structures. These are short
and simple conversational-style sentences with basic word order. They are written almost
exclusively in present time. Writing tends to consist of a few simple sentences, often with
repetitive structure. (p. 13)
The “repetitive structure” of student writing at this proficiency level is typical, and teachers
should not be discouraged if student vocabulary density is well below that of model texts. Other
features can be considered as factors of student improvement, such as structure and rhetorical
device use. For example, in this study, students showed major growth in the area of structure and
formatting between T1 and T2, and students were able to complete the main rhetorical function
of health blogs in giving recommendations even if they did use more simplistic vocabulary and
grammar.
Another factor to consider when looking at student writing is influence from the L1 and
ensuring to pre-teach aspects of writing that may come under this influence. For this study,
students overused the word tú (you) with verbs to fulfill the rhetorical function of referencing the
reader, but it was likely due to influence from the L1 of English where “you” is necessary before
2nd person verbs.
Vocabulary saliency is yet another aspect of writing that teachers should keep in mind. In
this study, students overused words from their chapter vocabulary list such as cuerpo and salud
at the expense of less salient vocabulary they could have learned from the authentic texts. The
vocabulary that is taught and used regularly in the classroom will likely show up more frequently
in writing, meaning teachers need to make informed decisions about what to include on
vocabulary lists and in classroom activities. In fact, the corpus tools themselves could be an
excellent way for teachers to analyze authentic texts to focus on what vocabulary and phrases to
teach within a specific genre or text type. In this study, students were not explicitly taught
vocabulary or phrases to help them to write within a specific genre, but instructor text analysis
ahead of time could allow for better instructional decisions when teaching a text type. In other
words, a vocabulary frequency analysis could be run on a corpus of authentic texts to see which
words need to be added to vocabulary lists or used during instruction, or an N-grams / lexical
bundles analysis could be used to look at which phrases are most common. For example, in this
study phrases such as hay que which were used to give suggestions in native texts could have
been pre-taught to students. To go beyond this, teachers could even have their students analyze
the texts themselves with data-driven learning, such as the work done by Kennedy & Miceli
(2001).
Finally, this study demonstrated that the formal knowledge of genre, or the structure of
texts, was greatly improved through the classroom tasks (Tardy, 2009). Still, students did not
always consider the rhetorical function of texts or other types of genre knowledge (Tardy, 2009).
Practitioners teaching writing of a genre may consider having students do other types of text
analysis activities to look at text distribution and how the chosen text type fits within the target
culture, especially if the topic is relevant to a cultural theme.
Limitations and Further Research
Most of the limitations of this study stem from the fact that it is a practitioner study and
took place within a real language classroom where various factors cannot be controlled. For
example, within the context of the instruction involved in his research students were pulled for
field trips, students fell ill and were absent, technology being used in the classroom was taken for
make-up standardized testing, etc. These sorts of interruptions and issues are familiar to any
teacher and can be the reason educators see a disconnect between controlled research studies and
the classroom. Individual differences can also place many confounding variables into play when
analyzing the findings. Differences such as age, aptitude, working memory, and learner
background can all have a large influence on language acquisition and could potentially skew
results (Loewen, 2015). These individual background variables were not analyzed as a part of
this study.
Another issue is the model authentic texts chosen for this study were chosen based on
teacher evaluation rather than any particular criteria and no corpus analysis on model texts was
run before the instruction took place. Future studies on genre could use corpus analysis of
authentic texts ahead of time to determine vocabulary for instruction, which could influence
outcomes. Data driven learning is another possibility for future practitioner research, in the vein
of Kennedy & Miceli where students use corpus analysis to look at their own writing and model
texts (2001). Further investigation of the potential lower vocabulary density with higher word
count in student writing could also be interesting, especially with similar text types. Finally, this
study did not look at learner errors in writing although they were plentiful and could have
resulted in noteworthy results. This could be another direction for future studies in learner corpus
analysis.
Another limitation of the current study is its lack of process-oriented tests, for example,
think-aloud tasks and retrospective interviews (De Graaff & Housen, 2009). These types of tests
allow researchers to investigate what participants are thinking during the learning process. This
study did include a reflection portion, but did not include any of these process-oriented tests due
to time constraints and also the added difficulty of a more complex consent process, however
they would be highly beneficial for any future research.
When referring to other limitations, the corpus analysis for this study was conducted by
an amateur, as were the statistical analyses, meaning there is potential for error in results or
interpretation therein. More studies need to be conducted by experts for conclusive results.
Finally, more research needs to be done using corpus analysis for lower-proficiency learner
writing, particularly in the area of genre and using L2 other than English. There were very few
studies to use as a basis for the design of this one, making it difficult as a practitioner to make
informed study design decisions. More practitioners using corpus analysis tools to look at text
type and genre in other languages can only benefit future researchers, teachers, and students.
References
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (2012). ACTFL proficiency guidelines
2012. Retrieved from https://www.actfl.org/publications/guidelines-and-manuals/actfl-
proficiency-guidelines-2012/
Anthony, L. (2019). Laurence Anthony’s Website: Software. Retrieved from
http://www.laurenceanthony.net/software.html
Arriagada, I. E. (2012). Developing Skills for Text Types: A Guide for Students of Spanish.
Cardiff, Wales: International Baccalaureate.
Bare Bones Software, Inc. (2019). BBEdit 12. Retrieved from
https://www.barebones.com/products/bbedit/
Bromley, K. (2014). Best Practices in Teaching Writing. In L.B. Gambrell & L. Mandel-Morrow
(Eds.), Best Practices in Literacy Instruction (5th ed.), (pp. 343-364). New York: Guilford
Press.
Benson, P. (2012). Learner-Centered Teaching. In Burns, A. & Richards, J.C. (Eds.), The
Cambridge Guide to Pedagogy and Practice in Second Language Teaching, (pp. 30-38).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
The College Board (2015). AP Spanish Language and Culture 2015 Scoring Guidelines.
Retrieved from https://apstudent.collegeboard.org/apcourse/ap-spanish-language
The College Board (2019). AP Spanish Language and Culture: Course Overview. Retrieved from
https://apstudent.collegeboard.org/apcourse/ap-spanish-language
De Graaff, R. & Housen, A. (2009). Ch 38: Investigating the effects and effectiveness of L2
instruction. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp.
726- 755). Singapore: Wiley-Blackwell
Devitt, A., Bawarshi, A., & Reiff, M. (2003). Materiality and Genre in the Study of Discourse
Communities. College English, 65(5), 541-558. doi:10.2307/3594252
Duke, N.K. & Martin, N.M. (2014). Best Practices in Informational Text Comprehension
Instruction. In L.B. Gambrell & L. Mandel-Morrow (Eds.), Best Practices in Literacy
Instruction (5th ed.), (pp. 249-268). New York: Guilford Press.
Duke, N., Pearson, P.D., Strachan, S. & Billman, A. (2011). The Essential Elements of Fostering
and Teaching Reading Comprehension. In S.J. Samuels & A.E. Farstrup (Eds.), What
Research Has to Say About Reading Instruction (4th ed.), (pp. 51-93). Newark: DE:
International Reading Association.
Ellis, R. (2004). Supporting genre-based literacy pedagogy with technology- the implications for
the framing and classification of the pedagogy. In L. Ravelli & R. Ellis (Eds.), Analysing
academic writing, (pp. 210-232). Continuum, London.
Ellis, N. (2009). Ch 9: Optimizing the input: Frequency and sampling in usage-based and form-
focused learning. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching
(pp. 139-157). Singapore: Wiley-Blackwell.
Davies, M. (2019). Corpus del Español. Retrieved from
https://www.corpusdelespanol.org/
Djuraskovic, O. & FirstSiteGuide Team (2018, April 8). What is a Blog? – The Definition of
Blog, Blogging, and Blogger. Retrieved from https://firstsiteguide.com/what-is-blog/
Erichsen, G. (2019). How to offer advice in Spanish. Retrieved from
https://www.thoughtco.com/giving-advice-spanish-3079435
Fisher, D. & Frey, N. (2014). Best Practices in Adolescent Literacy Instruction. In L.B. Gambrell
& L. Mandel-Morrow (Eds.), Best Practices in Literacy Instruction (5th ed.), (pp. 149-
166). New York: Guilford Press.

Gambrell, L., Malloy, J., Marinak, B., & Mazzoni, S. (2014). Evidence-Based Best Practices in
Comprehensive Literacy Instruction. In L.B. Gambrell & L. Mandel-Morrow (Eds.), Best
Practices in Literacy Instruction (5th ed.), (pp. 3-36). New York: Guilford Press.
Gilmore, A. (2007). Authentic materials and authenticity in foreign language learning. Language
Teaching, 40(2), 97-118. doi:10.1017/S0261444807004144
Gilquin, G., Granger, S., & Paquot, M. (2007). Learner corpora: The missing link in EAP
pedagogy. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(4), 319-335.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2007.09.007.
Guthrie, J. (2014). Best Practices in Motivating Students to Read. In L.B. Gambrell & L.
Mandel-Morrow (Eds.), Best Practices in Literacy Instruction (5th ed.), (pp. 61-82). New
York: Guilford Press.
International Baccalaureate Organization (2014). Middle Years Programme Language
acquisition guide. Cardiff, Wales: Peterson House. Retrieved from
https://www.spps.org/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=38371&dataid=
21214&FileName=language_acquisition_guide_2014.pdf
International Baccalaureate Organization (2018). Diploma Programme Language B guide.
Geneva, Switzerland: International Baccalaureate Organization. Retrieved from
http://www.cosmopolitanschool.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/dp-language-B-
guide.pdf
International Baccalaureate Organization (2019). International Education- International
Baccalaureate. Retrieved from https://www.ibo.org/
Kennedy, C. & Miceli, T. (2001). An evaluation of intermediate students’ approaches to corpus

investigation. Language, Learning & Technology, 5(3), 77-90.
https://dx.doi.org/10125/44567
Kern, R. (2008). Making connections through texts in language teaching. Language
Teaching, 41(3), 367-387. doi:10.1017/S0261444808005053
Lantolf, J. (2012). Ch 4: Sociocultural theory: a dialectical approach to L2 research. In S. Gass &
A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 57-72).
New York: Routledge.
Lee, D. (2001). Genres, registers, text types, domain, and styles: Clarifying the concepts and
navigating a path through the BNC jungle. Language Learning & Technology, 5(3), 37-
72. https://dx.doi.org/10125/44565
Loewen, S. (2015). Introduction to instructed second language learning. New York: Routledge.
Mackey, A., Abbuhl, R., & Gass, S. (2012). Ch 1: Interactionist approach. In S. Gass & A.
Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 7-23). New
York: Routledge.
Martínez-Lirola, M. (2015). Using Genre Theory for teaching writing at tertiary level: a practical
example of teaching to write effective recounts. La Revista Guillermo de Ockham, 13(1),
59-66. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.21500/22563202.1689
McEnery, T. & Hardie, A. (2012). Corpus linguistics: method, theory and practice. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Mishan, F. (2005). Designing authenticity into language learning materials. Bristol, UK;
Portland, OR: Intellect
Mitchell, R. (2009). Ch 36: Current trends in classroom research. In C. Doughty & M. Long
(Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 675-705). Singapore: Wiley-Blackwell.

Ortega, L. (2009). Ch 6: Sequences and processes in language learning. In C. Doughty & M.
Long (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 81-105). Singapore: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Paltridge, B. (1996). Genre, text type, and the language learning classroom, ELT Journal,
50 (3), 237–243. Retrieved from https://doi-org.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/10.1093/elt/50.3.237
Paquot, M. (2008). Exemplification in learner writing: A cross-linguistic perspective. In S.
Granger, & F. Meunier (Eds.), Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective.
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Paquot, M., & Granger, S. (2012). Formulaic language in learner corpora. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 32, 130-149.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/10.1017/S0267190512000098
Polio, C. (2016). Teaching Second Language Writing. New York, NY: Routledge.
Ponzio, C. (2017, September 9). Seven Ways to Use Google Docs to Support Bilingual Student
Writers. Retrieved from https://www.edsurge.com/news/2017-09-25-seven-ways-to-use-
google-docs-to-support-bilingual-student-writers
Sinclair, S., & Rockwell, G. (2019). Voyant Tools. Retrieved from https://voyant-tools.org/
Stangroom, J. (2018). Social Science Statistics: Statistics Calculators. Retrieved from
https://www.socscistatistics.com/tests/
Tardy, C. M. (2009). Building genre knowledge. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
TeachingComprehensibly (2019). Super Seven Verbs. Retrieved from
http://teachingcomprehensibly.com/super-seven/
Text Tools (2018). Spanish stop words. Retrieved from
https://countwordsfree.com/stopwords/spanish
Weisser, M. (2016). Practical Corpus Linguistics: An Introduction to Corpus-Based Language
Analysis. Sussex, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
Wingate, U. (2012). Using Academic Literacies and genre-based models for academic writing
instruction: A ‘literacy’ journey. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11, 26-37.
Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.006
Welbourn, M. (2009). Approaching Authentic Texts in the Second Language Classroom: Some
Factors to Consider (Master’s thesis). Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden. Retrieved
from
https://www.academia.edu/10632377/Approaching_authentic_texts_in_the_second_langu
lan_classroom
Xu, Q. (2016). Application of Learner Corpora to Second Language Learning and Teaching: An
Overview. English Language Teaching, 9(8), 46-52. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n8p46
Appendix A
T1 and T2 Writing Prompt
Prompt: Create a typed blog post in which you discuss recommended aspects of
diet and/or exercise in order to maintain one's health.
Your goal should be to write between 250-500 words (check the word count above by
highlighting what you wrote and clicking Word Count under “Tools”). You will use
Google Docs to type below, and while you must type up your blog post, please do not
use any online resources to help you (i.e. translators, websites, dictionaries). Do not use
your notes either! You should use your own brain to write :)
(Crea una entrada de blog en lo que describes tus recomendaciones para la dieta y/o
ejercicio para mantener la salud. Debes escribir entre 250-500 palabras. Vas a usar
Google Docs, y aunque necesitas escribirlo a máquina, por favor no uses recursos del
internet como traductores, sitios web, diccionarios).
TO COPY AND PASTE: ¿ ¡ á é í ó ú ñ
Type your name and hour below:
Nombre: Hora:
Start typing your blog here:

Appendix B
Learner-Created Vocabulary List
Vocabulario nuevo para mi

Aquí puedes escribir palabras nuevas que aprendes cuando leemos esta semana. Después,
¡puedes usarlas cuando escribes!
Palabra nueva (new Significado en inglés When might you use this word? Give a
word) (English) sentence or context
Appendix C
Blogs for Initial Group Activity
Romano, G. (n.d.). 5 hábitos saludables para bajar de peso. Tu Salud Total.com. [web log].
Retrieved from https://tusaludtotal.com/habitos-saludables-para-bajar-de-peso/
Como evitar lesiones musculares cuando haces deporte. (2015). Blog de Bienestar. [web log].
Retrieved from https://blogdebienestar.com/2019/02/15/como-evitar-lesiones-
musculares-cuando-haces-deporte/
Reto Fitness (n.d.). Gimnasio en casa. Reto de 30 días Fitness. [web log]. Retrieved from
http://retode30dias1.blogspot.com/2015/04/gym-en-casa.html
Appendix D
Jigsaw Reading Activity
Original document can be found here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14u8KyMh_8vOPPGoys8iCEPNQGJagwZcteVmuFiUpu5
Q/edit?usp=sharing
Appendix E
Rubric Creation Template
Original document can be accessed here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BghQKFwJ6jeK-

d4Wv2qKcTPMND4QYx7OJszTA27-4fw/edit?usp=sharing
Appendix F
Fitness Blog Analysis Activity
Original source:
Díaz, S. (2017). 5 entrenamientos de cardio para complementar tu rutina. Musculación Total.
[web log]. Retrieved from https://www.musculaciontotal.com/el-cardio/los-5-mejores-
ejercicios-de-cardio-para-acompanar-el-gimnasio/
Document with activities can be accessed here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1W12EmoQcWMt6D3zxx7gQJL-
ZnPoZ_kyUNPxUem9vlPI/edit?usp=sharing
Appendix G
List of student-generated blogs and activities; Graphic organizer
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BTrrLuAsKC2zv0p2LsIfXqWFHLuiSTkg7KG6UIpY_4A
/edit?usp=sharing
Appendix H
Peer editing instructions and reflection
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10L98OOiEbctBWH1DVBQQ28N-
yiwcRzxzMMIGFOghh3A/edit?usp=sharing
Appendix I
Link to Google Form Student Reflection: https://forms.gle/wB2qvxiqZgTyrzFV8
Una encuesta: Reflexión

After reading all of these authentic texts and practicing our writing during this unit, we are
going to reflect on the experience. Answer based on your personal experience and opinion.
Your answers will be confidential!
A. Pick which is most true for you for each of the questions based on the scale below.
1 2 3 4 5
(not at all true for me) (very true for me)
1. Reading many examples of writing in Spanish helped me become a better writer.

1 2 3 4 5
2. The readings we did in Spanish were overall understandable / comprehensible.

1 2 3 4 5
3. I applied or included vocabulary or phrases I learned from the readings in my final

Spanish writing sample.
1 2 3 4 5
4. My final Spanish writing sample was better than my first writing sample.
1 2 3 4 5
5. The structure of my writing in Spanish changed as a result of the readings we did in class.
1 2 3 4 5
6. I enjoyed practicing reading and writing like this in class.

1 2 3 4 5
7. Reading these texts helped me with writing more than taking grammar notes or doing a
worksheet.
1 2 3 4 5
8. I applied or included grammar (new verbs or new verb structures) I learned from the
readings in my final Spanish writing sample.
1 2 3 4 5
9. The activities we did in class helped me to better understand the texts we read.
1 2 3 4 5
10. I applied or included grammar or vocabulary I’ve learned earlier this year in my final
writing sample.
1 2 3 4 5
11. I felt more motivated reading authentic texts (made for native Spanish speakers, by native
Spanish speakers) than I do when reading from a textbook.
1 2 3 4 5
B. Answer in English:
1. How did the process of reading many authentic texts (blogs) in Spanish help you to
improve your writing? Explain what you think you did well (or better than before) and
how you felt about the task.
2. What was difficult about the writing tasks that asked you to write specific types of texts
(blogs) in Spanish? What do you think might help you to do these writing tasks better?
Appendix J
Visual comparison of blog structure between T1, T2, and MT
T1 (#23)
T2 (#23)
T1 (#27)
T2 (#27)
Model Text (#31)

https://blogdebienestar.com/2019/04/26/el-consumo-de-frutas-y-verduras-en-espana/
Model Text (#5)

https://www.vidaysalud.com/6-simples-habitos-para-mantener-una-buena-salud/
Appendix K
Spanish Stoplist (Text Tools, 2018)
a buenas debido eras

actualmente bueno decir eres
adelante buenos dejó es
además cada del esa
afirmó casi demás esas
agregó cerca dentro ese
ahí cierta desde eso
ahora ciertas después esos
al cierto dice esta
algo ciertos dicen está
algún cinco dicho ésta
alguna comentó dieron estaba
algunas como diferente estaban
alguno cómo diferentes estado
algunos con dijeron estais
alrededor conocer dijo estamos
ambos conseguimo dio estan
ampleamos s donde están
añadió conseguir dos estar
ante considera durante estará
anterior consideró e estas
antes consigo ejemplo éstas
apenas consigue el este
aproximada consiguen él éste
mente consigues ella esto
aquel contra ellas estos
aquellas cosas ello éstos
aquellos creo ellos estoy
aqui cual embargo estuvo
aquí cuales empleais ex
arriba cualquier emplean existe
aseguró cuando emplear existen
así cuanto empleas explicó
atras cuatro empleo expresó
aún cuenta en fin
aunque da encima fue
ayer dado encuentra fuera
bajo dan entonces fueron
bastante dar entre fui
bien de era fuimos
buen debe eramos gran
buena deben eran grandes
gueno llegó nueva propia

ha lleva nuevas propias
haber llevar nuevo propio
había lo nuevos propios
habían los nunca próximo
habrá luego o próximos
hace lugar ocho pudo
haceis manera otra pueda
hacemos manifestó otras puede
hacen más otro pueden
hacer mayor otros puedo
hacerlo me para pues
haces mediante parece que
hacia mejor parte qué
haciendo mencionó partir quedó
hago menos pasada queremos
han mi pasado quien
hasta mientras pero quién
hay mio pesar quienes
haya misma poca quiere
he mismas pocas realizado
hecho mismo poco realizar
hemos mismos pocos realizó
hicieron modo podeis respecto
hizo momento podemos sabe
hoy mucha poder sabeis
hubo muchas podrá sabemos
igual mucho podrán saben
incluso muchos podria saber
indicó muy podría sabes
informó nada podriais se
intenta nadie podriamos sea
intentais ni podrian sean
intentamos ningún podrían según
intentan ninguna podrias segunda
intentar ningunas poner segundo
intentas ninguno por seis
intento ningunos por qué señaló
ir no porque ser
junto nos posible será
la nosotras primer serán
lado nosotros primera sería
largo nuestra primero si
las nuestras primeros sí
le nuestro principalme sido
les nuestros nte siempre
siendo trabajan ya
siete trabajar yo
sigue trabajas
siguiente trabajo
sin tras
sino trata
sobre través
sois tres
sola tuvo
solamente tuyo
solas última
solo últimas
sólo ultimo
solos último
somos últimos
son un
soy una
su unas
sus uno
tal unos
también usa
tampoco usais
tan usamos
tanto usan
tendrá usar
tendrán usas
teneis uso
tenemos usted
tener va
tenga vais
tengo valor
tenía vamos
tenido van
tercera varias
tiempo varios
tiene vaya
tienen veces
toda ver
todas verdad
todavía verdadera
todo verdadero
todos vez
total vosotras
trabaja vosotros
trabajais voy
trabajamos y

Wroblewski em Researchpaper Weebly

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Wroblewski em Researchpaper Weebly

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Running head: IMPROVING FOREIGN LANGUAGE WRITING WITH AUTHENTIC TEXTS

Michigan State University

after exposure to authentic texts within the specific genre of blogs.

Literacy, or the “means by which we communicate”, traditionally through reading and

learner writing samples and model texts.

Second Language Literacy Instruction in the United States

The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Language’s (ACTFL) proficiency

of purposes. In order to fulfill the requirements of this assessment component, students

their written language. (IB, 2018, p. 31)

The Value of Learning Genre

Figure 1: The text types taught in IB DP Language B (IB, 2018, p. 22)

types” (p. 61).

discusses four aspects of genre knowledge that are important:

1. Formal knowledge- the structural elements of a genre

2. Process knowledge- how a genre is distributed and received

3. Rhetorical knowledge- understanding of context, values of readers, culture, and

4. Subject matter knowledge- knowledge of the content

communication. (Kern, 2008, p. 380)

an appropriate text type to convey a message. (IB, 2018, p. 21)

Using Authentic Texts

way back to Krashen’s well-known comprehensible input hypothesis of “i + 1” or input + 1; the

key part of the next section of this literature review.

Genre-based Reading and Writing Tasks

own individually (Ellis, 2004, p. 211).

describe, analyze, or compare generic conventions of multiple samples… take on a better

the patterns fit into the situation.

instructional, informative, persuasive, soliciting, interactive, provocative, and engaging (Mishan,

Corpus del Español (https://www.corpusdelespanol.org/), where users can investigate billions of

common verbs in a language, is another example of corpus-based teaching methodology

acquisition” and “improve their awareness of many different features of language by

collection of texts simultaneously as well as comparison of textual linguistic features and

effectively” (Tardy, 2009, p. 13-14). Another advantage of corpus-based research to look at

Study Design & Purpose

of the Internet outside of class and in previous courses.

communicative purpose (i.e. instructions, narrative, problem-solution…) (Paltridge,

interpersonal aspect of response that some other text types lack.

informal tú (you) and be intended for a mass audience.

for titles, pictures).

large portion of the text.

recommendations or the use of the imperative (commands), a grammar point that

and Spanish II levels.

teachers at International Baccalaureate schools where the expectation is to teach text

text type to their students.

proficiency student writing as measured through a corpus analysis of a pre-writing

ACTFL scale of proficiency, as measured on various formative and summative assessments

included benefit all students.

such as www.conjuguemos.com) and in-context (i.e. friend giving a friend some

the usual 50.

analysis tools (Bromley, 2014).

direct access to resources such as WordReference.com to look up unknown vocabulary words or

quantitative as well as qualitative data collection.

Table 1: Instructional Activities

DAY 1  Students begin T1 writing sample (pre-write) using Google Docs

DAY 12  Finish peer review in partners

DAY 15  T2 writing sample (post-writing)

Data Collection & Analysis

Table 2: Edits made to participant T1 & T2 writing files

Spelling errors corrected: Spelling errors NOT corrected:

due to their importance in the genre of blog structure.

corpus, T2 corpus, and model text (MT) corpus.

Figure 3: Blog Rubric

Presentación / Presentation: ¿Cómo es el texto?

Ideas y contenido: ¿Qué información tiene?