A Temporal Analysis of Formulation Processes in L1 and L2 Writing (original) (raw)
Related papers
Toward an Empirical Model of EFL Writing Processes: An Exploratory Study
The present study investigated EFL learners' writing processes using multiple data sources including their written texts, videotaped pausing behaviors while writing, stimulated recall protocols, and analytic scores given to the written texts. Methodologically, the study adopted a research scheme that has been successfully used for building models of Japanese L1 writing. Three paired groups of Japanese EFL writers (experts vs. novices, more-vs. less-skilled student writers, novices before and after 6 months of instruction) were compared in terms of writing fluency, quality/complexity of their written texts, their pausing behaviors while writing, and their strategy use. The results revealed that (a) before starting to write, the experts spent a longer time planning a detailed overall organization, whereas the novices spent a shorter time, making a less global plan; (b) once the experts had made their global plan, they did not stop and think as frequently as the novices; (c) L2 proficiency appeared to explain part of the difference in strategy use between the experts and novices; and (d) after 6 months of instruction, novices had begun to use some of the expert writers' strategies. It was also speculated that the experts' global planning was a manifestation of writing expertise that cannot be acquired over a short period of time.
L1 use during L2 writing: An empirical study of a complex phenomenon
Journal of Second Language Writing, 2009
This study examined writers' use of their first language (L1) while writing in their second language (L2). Twenty students each wrote four short argumentative essays in their L1 (Dutch) and four in their L2 (English) under think-aloud conditions. We analysed whether L1 use varied between writers and tasks, and whether it was related to general writing proficiency, L2 proficiency, and L2 text quality. The analysis focused on the occurrence of a number of conceptual activities, including Generating ideas, Planning, and Metacomments. Results indicate that all participants used their L1 while writing in their L2 to some extent, although this varied among conceptual activities. In addition, L2 proficiency was directly related to L2 text quality but was not related to the occurrence of conceptual activities either in L1 or L2. General writing proficiency, on the other hand, has a negative influence on L1 use during L2 writing and a positive effect on L2 use during L2 writing. L1 use during L2 writing is negatively related to L2 text quality, at least for Metacomments. Finally, L2 use appears to be positively related to L2 text quality for Goal setting, Generating ideas, and Structuring, but negatively related to L2 text quality for Self-instructions and Metacomments. The theoretical relevance of these findings is also discussed. # Earlier L2 writing research has shown that L2 writers use their first language (L1) while writing in L2, although the extent to which they do so clearly varies (see for example, . Studies to date have also found that adult writers use their L1 while writing in their L2 for a wide variety of purposes, such as planning (Studies which reported on L1 use, such as those above, were carried out for a number of different reasons and with varying research goals. First of all, some studies focused on comparisons of L1 and L2 writing (e.g., or on the extent to which writers transfer their L1 strategies to L2 writing (e.g., . These studies see L1 use as a strategy which writers employ during L2 writing, mainly in the form of translating from L1 to L2. This view is also shared by other studies, which have focused on the influence of learner characteristics such as writing expertise and L2 proficiency on L2 writing (e.g.
The Contributions of Planning, L2 Linguistic Knowledge and Individual Differences to L2 Writing
The present study explored the relative contributions of planning, L2 linguistic knowledge and individual differences to Korean EFL students' argumentative essays. Seventy-two university students enrolled in college English writing courses participated in this study throughout one semester. The components of planning, L2 linguistic knowledge and individual differences were identified and measured, and their relationships to the quality of L2 writing were examined. The factors that made a significant contribution to L2 writing were found to be participants' ability to recognize good L2 essays and the quality of content of the outline in planning (21.4% explanatory power); grammar, productive vocabulary and sentence processing speed in L2 linguistic knowledge (42.7%); and eight items from the self-efficacy, strategy, and motivation questionnaires in individual differences (44.8%). When common effects were controlled for, the independent contributions of planning, L2 linguistic knowledge and individual differences to the quality of L2 writing were 7.2%, 14.1% and 16.3%, respectively. Based on the relative contributions of the three factors that are involved in L2 writing, pedagogical implications for L2 classrooms are provided.
Methodological Advances in Investigating L2 Writing Processes
Studies in Second Language Acquisition
This special issue is devoted to describing and evaluating new methods for analyzing online writing processes in a second language (L2). As all the contributors have stated, the aim is to identify the cognitive processes underlying writing. The ultimate aim is to employ observations and experimental manipulations of these processes to build theories that can be used to help writers write more effectively in their second language and, as López-Serrano, Roca de Larios, and Manchón (2019) argue, to facilitate learning of the second language. This project has two sides: (i) developing methods for recording and analyzing behavior as it unfolds during writing and (ii) relating this behavior to underlying cognitive processes. Furthermore, these two sides to the question are interdependent: what behavior is recorded and how it is analyzed depends on the researcher's theory of the cognitive processes involved, and, to a certain extent, theories of these cognitive processes depend on what it is possible to observe. In this commentary on the articles in the special issue, we will first consider the theoretical models within which the research has been framed. We will then consider the contribution of the articles to developing methods for observing the writing process, and how these have been related to underlying cognitive processes. Finally, we will consider directions for future research and some of the possible implications for second language writing instruction.
Forough kasiri, 2020
The present study was an attempt to investigate the differential effect/s of three different planning time scenarios (i.e. 0 min, 10 min, & 20 min), as well as three task conditions of (1) topic given, (2) topic and ideas given, and (3) topic, ideas and macrostructure given on EFL learners L2 writing complexity, accuracy and fluency (CAF). One-hundred-eight male and female participants were randomly assigned to three time-conditions, each with 36 members. Each time-condition group was itself divided into three smaller groups of 12, each with a particular task condition. The results of the comparison of the groups who were engaged in the argumentative writing task revealed that planning time significantly influenced the complexity of the essays, and the writers in the 20-minute planning time group produced more complex texts compared with those in the zero-minute planning time group. However, no significant effect of task conditions, as well as no interaction between planning time an...
Iranian Efl Learners' Writing Ability and Writing Strategies in Two Discourse Types
2013
Adapting a purely cognitive view of composing, Flower and Hayes (1981, p. 366) note that processes of writing are certain distinctive "thinking processes" that writers organize once engaged in writing. Hence, there are two key terms in the cognitive view of writing: thinking and process (Riazi, 1995). The first one identifies thinking critically in order to solve a problem which, on its own, calls for planning of the written task. This is where cognitive psychology and composition field are clearly reconciled. The problem solving nature of writing (Flower & Hayes, 1980) is accommodated in higher-order cognition in cognitive psychology. Higher-order cognition, according to Solso (cited in Bergovitz, 2008), are the mental activities or performances based on which knowledge is acquired or understood; it refers to aspects of cognition based on the perception and memory stages and which normally occur at the end of the information-processing sequence. To be more precise, this cognition "refers to such aspects of cognition as problem-solving and language" (Bergovitz, 2008, p. 12). Identifying the problem and planning the task, writers then initiate the process of composing by translating their abstract ideas and conceptions into words in addition to reviewing their written products through revising or editing (Riazi, 1995) to solve this problem. This is where the strategies are called into action. Strategy researchers generally believe that students employ strategies to solve the language problem (e.g., Oxford, 1990). On the other hand, cognitive psychologists also maintain that strategies are part of the solutions learners employ to solve a language problem (Bergovitz, 2008). Therefore, using the recursive and nonlinear processes of writing, this study adopts a holistic view to investigate the whole composing process than a single sub process like planning. This holistic investigation of writing from the time the writers see the topic up until they finish it, is also more comprehensive, as Roca de Larios et al. (2007) have asserted. 1. Writing/composing is a cognitive process of knowledge production (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987). 2. Writing/composing strategies are operationally defined as methods the writers consciously and intentionally employ to generate ideas, plan, draft, organize, and revise in the whole process of writing (Arndt, 1990; Beare, 2000). 3. Writing/composing process is the rationale, goal-oriented activity of hierarchical processes in which the writer actively attempts to solve the given problem including three major stages planning, transcribing, and reviewing (Flower & Hayes, 1980; Tapinta, 2006).
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2016
This research investigates whether advanced-level language learners use similar cognitive strategies when they are composing a paragraph in their L2 (English) and L1 (Turkish). More specifically, the cognitive processes under investigation were grouped under two categories: Planning and Content Generation, and the investigation was designed to observe if there was a tendency to use any of these categories more than the other one while composing in a particular language. A mixed method was used to investigate the issue. Qualitative data was collected through think-aloud protocols during the participants' written composition process, and quantitative data was obtained by calculating the indicators of planning and content generating strategies on the coded data. Chi-square tests were used to see whether the difference between the strategies used in the composing process for two languages was statistically significant. The results showed no statistically significant difference (p=.03), which suggested that the participants were making use of similar cognitive strategies when they were writing a paragraph in their L1 and L2. This leads to a further suggestion that instruction in written composition in one language might affect the composition process in another language.
This paper reports on a small-scale study designed to investigate the writing strategies employed by undergraduates who were studying English as a foreign language (EFL) in a Chinese university. The study aimed to address three research questions: 1) Do skilled and unskilled Chinese EFL writers differ in their use of writing strategies? 2) Do their writing strategies vary as a function of the writing tasks that they are engaged in? 3) Do task types have a similar effect on the strategic behavior of skilled Chinese EFL writers and their unskilled counterparts? Data for the study consists of think-aloud reports collected from one unskilled and two skilled EFL writers while they were performing two writing tasks. Analyses of the transcribed protocols reveal important differences in strategy use between the skilled and unskilled writers and interesting patterns of variation between the writing tasks. The findings yield several implications for writing instruction.
Reactivity of concurrent verbal reporting in second language writing
Journal of Second Language Writing, 2014
This paper reports an empirical study designed to explore whether concurrent verbal reporting has a reactive effect on the process of second language writing. Ninety-five Chinese EFL learners were randomly assigned to an argumentative writing task under three conditions: metacognitive thinking aloud (MTA), nonmetacognitive thinking aloud (NMTA), and no thinking aloud (NTA), after they completed a similar baseline writing task. Their essays were analyzed in terms of linguistic fluency, complexity, accuracy, and overall quality to examine if there were any significant between-group differences that could be taken as evidence of reactivity. After controlling for baseline differences, analyses revealed no traces of reactivity left on a majority of measures except that: (a) the two think-aloud conditions significantly increased dysfluencies in participants' essays; (b) they also tended to reduce syntactic variety of the essays; and (c) MTA significantly prolonged time on task and retarded the speed of written production. These negative effects are interpreted in light of cognitive model of writing as suggesting no serious interference with L2 writing processes and are taken as cautions for, rather than counterevidence against, the use of the think-aloud method to obtain L2 writing process data. #