Volume 11, Issue 1 (3-2026)
IJREE 2026, 11(1): 23-47 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Sharifabadi S, Farrokh P. (2026). Enhancing Descriptive Writing Skills in EFL Learners: A Comparative Study of Recasting and Summarizing Techniques. IJREE. 11(1),
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-1056-en.html
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-1056-en.html
Department of English Language, La.C., Islamic Azad University, Lahijan, Iran
Abstract: (1270 Views)
Objective: This study explores the impact of recasting and summarizing tasks on teaching descriptive writing to Iranian EFL high school learners. It examines whether these tasks can enhance the descriptive writing performance of pre-intermediate and intermediate students.
Methods: A total of 150 male and female students aged 14 to 16 in Rasht were selected through the Assessment English Test (AET) and divided into two experimental groups (recasting and summarizing) and a control group at each proficiency level. After a pre-test, the experimental groups received eight instructional sessions incorporating recasting and summarizing tasks, while the control group followed traditional instruction. Following the intervention, students completed a post-test in which they described their city.
Results: The t-tests and ANOVA analysis supported that recasting and summarizing significantly improved learners' descriptive writing skills, with variations in effectiveness observed between pre-intermediate and intermediate learners.
Conclusion: It can be concluded that both recasting and summarizing tasks led to noticeable improvements in descriptive writing performance compared to traditional methods. Furthermore, both techniques were equally effective at the pre-intermediate and intermediate levels, though the effects were more pronounced among intermediate learners. Overall, the findings highlight the pedagogical value of integrating recasting and summarizing tasks into EFL writing instruction to promote learners’ descriptive writing skills.
Methods: A total of 150 male and female students aged 14 to 16 in Rasht were selected through the Assessment English Test (AET) and divided into two experimental groups (recasting and summarizing) and a control group at each proficiency level. After a pre-test, the experimental groups received eight instructional sessions incorporating recasting and summarizing tasks, while the control group followed traditional instruction. Following the intervention, students completed a post-test in which they described their city.
Results: The t-tests and ANOVA analysis supported that recasting and summarizing significantly improved learners' descriptive writing skills, with variations in effectiveness observed between pre-intermediate and intermediate learners.
Conclusion: It can be concluded that both recasting and summarizing tasks led to noticeable improvements in descriptive writing performance compared to traditional methods. Furthermore, both techniques were equally effective at the pre-intermediate and intermediate levels, though the effects were more pronounced among intermediate learners. Overall, the findings highlight the pedagogical value of integrating recasting and summarizing tasks into EFL writing instruction to promote learners’ descriptive writing skills.
References
1. Ahmadian, M. J., & Tavakoli, M. (2014). The effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency in EFL learners' oral production. Language Teaching Research, 18(4), 432-454. [DOI:10.1177/1362168813519883]
2. Ahn, H. (2022). The effectiveness of teaching summarizing skills on improving summary writing abilities of Korean university EFL learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 13(2), 123-130. [DOI:10.17507/jltr.1302.01]
3. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Sorensen, C., & Walker, D. (2018). Introduction to Research in Education (10th ed.). Cengage.
4. Babaee, S. (2015). Challenges in English writing skills for Iranian EFL learners: Vocabulary, grammar, and structure. Journal of Language Learning, 18(2), 125-138.
5. Birjandi, P., & Malmir, A. (2019). The effect of task-based language teaching on the use of communication strategies by Iranian intermediate EFL learners. Journal of Language and Education, 5(2), 83-101. [DOI:10.17323/jle.2019.8875]
6. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage.
7. Dastjerdi, H. V., & Samian, S. H. (2011). Quality of Iranian EFL learners' argumentative essays: Cohesive devices in focus. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 2(2), 65-76.
8. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford University Press.
9. Ellis, R. (2017). Position paper: Moving task-based language teaching forward. Language Teaching, 50(4), 507-526. doi: 10.1017/S026144481700009X [DOI:10.1017/S026144481700009X]
10. Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., & Lambert, C. (2020). Task-based language teaching: Theory and practice. Cambridge University Press. [DOI:10.1017/9781108643689]
11. Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1-4. [DOI:10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11]
12. Farahian, M., & Rezaee, M. (2012). A case study of an EFL teacher's type of questions: An investigation into classroom interaction. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47(1), 161-167. [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.631]
13. Gholami, F., & Zeynali, M. (2021). Combining cognitive and linguistic approaches to improve EFL learners' writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 567-583. [DOI:10.1080/14708477.2021.1948692]
14. Hirvela, A., & Du, Q. (2013). Why am I paraphrasing? Undergraduate ESL writers' engagement with source-based academic writing and reading. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(2), 87-98. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2012.11.005 [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2012.11.005]
15. Hyland, K. (2019). Second language writing (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/9781108635547 [DOI:10.1017/9781108635547]
16. Khoshsima, H., & Rabani Nia, R. (2014). The impact of summarizing strategies on writing achievement among Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 3(5), 29-39. [DOI:10.5861/ijrsll.2014.818]
17. Loewen, S. (2012). The role of feedback. In A. Mackey & S. M. Gass (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 24-40). Routledge.
18. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37-66. doi: 10.1017/S0272263197001034 [DOI:10.1017/S0272263197001034]
19. Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265-302. [DOI:10.1017/S0272263109990520]
20. Mallahi, A. (2022). Summary writing and its impact on Iranian EFL learners' writing quality. Language Learning Journal, 50(3), 379-393. [DOI:10.1080/09571736.2022.1979430]
21. Mayesti, A. (2024). The effect of recast feedback on EFL students' writing accuracy. Language Teaching and Learning, 47(1), 15-27. [DOI:10.1080/09571736.2024.2048957]
22. Mouri, K. (2020). Summarizing tasks and their impact on EFL learners' grammar and writing skills. Journal of Language and Linguistics, 21(3), 50-67. [DOI:10.1016/j.jll.2020.05.002]
23. Nasiri, S., & Motallebzadeh, K. (2016). The relationship between Iranian EFL teachers' reflective practices and their teaching styles: A focus on the gender and teaching experience. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 4(14), 11-22.
24. Numan, N. (2019). The effectiveness of summarizing strategies in improving writing skills among Iraqi postgraduate students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 42(3), 15-25. [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2019.04.003]
25. Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge University Press. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511667336]
26. Rahimi, M., & Naderi, F. (2014). The effect of task-based language teaching on the writing production of Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 4(2), 45-59.
27. Richards, J. C. (2013). Curriculum approaches in language teaching: Forward, central, and backward design. RELC Journal, 44(1), 5-33. [DOI:10.1177/0033688212473293]
28. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158. doi: 10.1093/applin/11.2.129 [DOI:10.1093/applin/11.2.129]
29. Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners' acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255-283. [DOI:10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x]
30. Soleimani, H., & Hosseinpour, M. (2019). The effect of input-providing and output-pushing corrective feedback on the writing skill of Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 15(3), 897-913.
31. Talebinezhad, M. R., & Negari, G. M. (2015). The effect of task-based language teaching on the writing performance of Iranian EFL learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(8), 1575-1582. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0508.06 [DOI:10.17507/tpls.0508.06]
32. Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford University Press.
33. Zabihi, R. (2013). The effect of recasting on EFL learners' writing accuracy. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 1-19.
https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.2n.6p.28 [DOI:10.24059/ijal.2013.14]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons — Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0). |
This work is licensed under a Creative Creative Commons — Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)