Effects of task planning and rhetorical mode of writing on lexical complexity, syntactic complexity, and overall writing quality of EFL writers‟ task performance

Mine YILDIZ, (Atatürk University, Erzurum, 25200, Turkey)
Savaş YEŞİLYURT (Atatürk University, Erzurum, 25200, Turkey)
Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies
3 0
Yıl: 2017 Cilt: 13 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 440 - 464 Metin Dili: İngilizce İndeks Tarihi: 22-03-2019

Effects of task planning and rhetorical mode of writing on lexical complexity, syntactic complexity, and overall writing quality of EFL writers‟ task performance

Öz:
Based on Robinson‟s Triadic Componential Framework and the definition of task planning by Ellis (2005), thisstudy was carried out to find out the effects of task planning and rhetorical mode on lexical and syntacticcomplexity, and overall writing quality of writing production of EFL learners. Following a repeated-measuresdesign, the present study involved 41 ELT students who learned English as a foreign language. In this study, tworhetorical modes were used and for both rhetorical modes, two writing tasks were performed. Whereas one of thetasks was carried out under strategic pre-task planning in which students had extra time and opportunity to makea plan, the other task was performed under unpressured on-line planning in which they had no time pressure orno extra special time for planning. Thus, each participant produced 4 essays, and a total of 164 essays wereobtained. Each written text was separately analyzed by automated analysis tools for lexical and syntacticcomplexity, and also assessed through an analytic rubric for general writing achievement. The results revealedthat while all the three dimensions in this study showed significant difference according to the rhetorical mode ofwriting, task planning had varying effects on each component.
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Dil ve Dil Bilim

Planlama ve anlatım türünün yabancı dil olarak İngilizce öğrenenlerin yazma performansına sözcüksel karmaşıklık, dilbilimsel karmaşıklık ve genel yazma başarısı açısından etkisi

Öz:
Robinson‟un Üçlü Bileşensel Çerçevesi (Triadic Componential Framework) ve Ellis‟in görev planlaması tanımına dayalı olarak bu çalışma, görev planlaması ve anlatım türünün yabancı dil olarak İngilizce öğrenenler tarafından üretilen yazma çalışmalarına sözcüksel karmaşıklık, dilbilgisel karmaşıklık ve genel yazma başarısı açısından etkilerini araştırmak için uygulanmıştır. Tekrarlı ölçümler modelinin uygulandığı bu çalışmada, İngilizce‟yi yabancı dil olarak öğrenen 41 İngilizce Öğretmenliği Bölümü öğrencisi yer almıştır. Çalışmada, iki anlatım türü ve her bir anlatım türü için ise iki yazma çalışması olmak üzere toplam 4 yazma çalışması yapılmıştır. Her iki anlatım türünde de yazma çalışmalarından birisi, öğrencilerin plan yapmaları için özel zamana sahip oldukları görev öncesi stratejik planlama altında uygulanırken diğeri ise ne zaman sınırlamasının ne de plan yapmak için özel zamanın olduğu zaman sınırlaması olmayan görev esnası plan eşliğinde uygulanmıştır. Böylece, her öğrenciden 4 yazma çalışması olmak üzere toplamda 164 yazma çalışması elde edilmiştir. Her bir yazma çalışması, sözcüksel ve dilbilimsel açıdan bilgisayar programı ile analiz edilmiş ve genel yazma başarısı açısından ise analitik bir rubrikle incelenmiştir. Sonuçlar, çalışmada yer alan her üç boyutun da anlatım türüne göre önemli farklılık gösterirken görev planlamasının her boyut üzerinde farklı etkiye sahip olduğunu açığa çıkarmıştır.
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Dil ve Dil Bilim
Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Abrams, Z. I., & Byrd, D. R. (2016). The effects of pre-task planning on L2 writing: Mind-mapping and chronological sequencing in a 1st-year German class. System, 63, 1-12.
  • Ahangari, S., & Abdi, M. (2011). The effect of pre-task planning on the accuracy and complexity of Iranian EFL learners‟ oral performance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 1950-1959. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.445
  • Ai, H., & Lu, X. (2013). A corpus-based comparison of syntactic complexity in NNS and NS university students' writing. Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 59, 249-264.
  • Beers, S. F., & Nagy, W. E. (2009). Syntactic complexity as a predictor of adolescent writing quality: Which measures? Which genre? Reading and Writing, 22(2), 185-200. doi:10.1007/s11145-007- 9107-5
  • Blair, T. K., & Crump, W. D. (1984). Effects of discourse mode on the syntactic complexity of learning disabled students' written expression. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7(1), 19-29.
  • Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2014). Conceptualizing and measuring short-term changes in L2 writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 42-65. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.005
  • Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Seaddle River: Merrill.
  • Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Computational assessment of lexical differences in L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(2), 119-135.
  • Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2010). Cohesion, coherence, and expert evaluations of writing proficiency. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society.
  • Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2012). Predicting second language writing proficiency: The roles of cohesion and linguistic sophistication. Journal of Research in Reading, 35(2), 115-135.
  • Crowhurst, M., & Piche, G. L. (1979). Audience and mode of discourse effects on syntactic complexity in writing at two grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 13(2), 101-109.
  • Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task performance: Theory and research. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 3-34). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  • Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 474-509. doi:10.1093/applin/amp042
  • Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 59-84. doi:10.1017/S0272263104261034
  • Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2005). The effects of careful within-task planning on oral and written task performance. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 167-92). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Engelhard Jr, G., Gordon, B., & Gabrielson, S. (1992). The influences of mode of discourse, experiential demand, and gender on the quality of student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 26(3), 315-336.
  • Field, A. (2012). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). London: SAGE Publications.
  • Genç, Z. S. (2012). Effects of strategic planning on the accuracy of oral and written tasks in the performance of Turkish EFL learners. In A. Shehadeh & C. A. Coombe (Eds.), Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts (pp. 67-88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
  • Ghavamnia, M., Tavakoli, M., & Esteki, M. (2013). The effect of pre-task and online planning conditions on complexity, accuracy, and fluency on EFL learners' written production. Porta Linguarum (20), 31-43.
  • Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Kulikowich, J. M. (2011). Coh-metrix: Providing multilevel analyses of text characteristics. Educational Researcher, 40(5), 223-234. doi:10.3102/0013189x11413260
  • Hedge, T. (1988). Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Ishikawa, T. (2006). The effect of task complexity and language proficiency on task-based language performance. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 3(4), 193-225.
  • Iwashita, N. (2006). Syntactic complexity measures and their relation to oral proficiency in Japanese as a foreign language. Language Assessment Quarterly, 3(2), 151-169. doi:10.1207/s15434311laq0302_4
  • Johnson, M. D., Mercado, L., & Acevedo, A. (2012). The effect of planning sub-processes on L2 writing fluency, grammatical complexity, and lexical complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(3), 264-282.
  • Kawauchi, C. (2005). The effects of strategic planning on the oral narratives of learners with low and high intermediate L2 proficiency. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 143-164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Kuiken, F., Mos, M., & Vedder, I. (2005). Cognitive task complexity and second language writing performance. In S. Foster-Cohen, M. P. Garcia Mayo, & J. Cenoz (Eds.), Eurosla Yearbook (Vol. 5, pp. 195-222). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. Iral-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(3), 261-284.
  • Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques & principles in language teaching (Third Edition ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Lu, X. (2008). Automatic measurement of syntactic complexity using the revised developmental level scale. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Twenty-First Internatioanl FLAIRS Conference.
  • Lu, X. (2011). A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers' language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 36-62. doi:10.5054/tq.2011.240859
  • Lu, X. (2012). The relationship of lexical richness to the quality of ESL learners‟ oral narratives. The Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 190-208.
  • Lu, X., & Ai, H. (2015). Syntactic complexity in college-level English writing: Differences among writers with diverse L1 backgrounds. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 16-27. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.003
  • Malicka, A., & Levkina, M. (2012). Measuring task complexity: Does EFL proficiency matter? In A. Shehadeh & C. A. Coombe (Eds.), Task-based language teaching in foreign language context (pp. 43-66). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
  • Nemati, M. (1999). The effect of mode of discourse on EFL writing performance. University of Leicester, Tehran.
  • Ojima, M. (2006). Concept mapping as pre-task planning: A case study of three Japanese ESL writers. System, 34, 566-586.
  • Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(01), 109-148.
  • Prater, D. (1985). The effects of modes of discourse, sex of writer, and attitude toward task on writing performance in grade 10. Educational and Psychological Research, 5, 241-259.
  • Prater, D., & Padia, W. (1983). Effects of modes of discourse on writing performance in grades four and six. Research in the Teaching of English, 17(2), 127-134.
  • Ravid, D. (2004). Emergence of linguistic complexity in later language development: Evidence from expository text construction. In D. D. Ravid & H. B.-Z. Shyldkrot (Eds.), Perspectives on language and language development (pp. 337-355). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Raykov, T., & Marcoudiles, G. A. (2008). An introduction to applied multivariate analysis. New York, London: Routledge.
  • Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27-57.
  • Robinson, P. (2003). The Cognition Hypothesis, task design and task-based language learning. Second Language Studies, 21(2), 45-107.
  • Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task squencing: A review of studies in a Componential Framework for second langauge task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43(1), 1-33.
  • Robinson, P., Cadierno, T., & Shirai, Y. (2009). Time and motion: Measuring the effects of the conceptual demands of tasks on second language speech production. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 533-554. doi:10.1093/applin/amp046
  • Robinson, P., & Gilabert, R. (2007). Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis and second language learning and performance. Iral-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(3), 161-176.
  • Ruiz-Funes, M. (2015). Exploring the potential of second/foreign language writing for language learning: The effects of task factors and learner variables. Journal of Second Language Writing, 28, 1-19. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2015.02.001
  • Ryshina-Pankova, M. (2015). A meaning-based approach to the study of complexity in L2 writing: The case of grammatical metaphor. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 51-63. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.005
  • Salimi, A., Alavinia, P., & Hosseini, P. (2012). The effect of strategic planning time and task complexity on L2 written accuracy. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(11). doi:10.4304/tpls.2.11.2398-2406
  • Shavelson, R., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers' pedagogical thoughts, judgements, decisions and behaviour. Review of Educational Research, 51(4), 455-498.
  • Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36(1), 1-14. doi:10.1017/s026144480200188x
  • Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 185-211. doi:10.1177/136216889700100302
  • Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49, 93-120.
  • Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183-205). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2005). Strategic and on-line planning: The influence of surprise information and task time on second language performance. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.193-216). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Stapleton, P. (2001). Assessing critical thinking in the writing of Japanese university students' insights about assumptions and content familiarity. Written Communication, 18(4), 506-548.
  • Tavakoli, P. (2009). Investigating task difficulty: learners' and teachers' perceptions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 1-25.
  • Tavakoli, P., & Skehan, P. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 239-76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Tedick, D. J. (1988). The effects of topic familiarity on the writing performance of non-native writers of English at the graduate level. The Ohio State University.
  • Vyatkina, N. (2015). New developments in the study of L2 writing complexity: An editorial. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 1-2. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.001
  • Way, D. P., Joiner, E. G., & Seaman, M. A. (2000). Writing in the secondary foreign language classroom: The effects of prompts and tasks on novice learners of French. The Modern Language Journal, 84, 171-184. doi:0026-7902/00
  • Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Palatino, Italy: Longman.
  • Yang, W. (2014). Mapping the relationships among the cognitive complexity of independent writing tasks, L2 writing quality, and complexity, accuracy and fluency of L2 writing. (Unpublished Dissertation Thesis), Georgia State University. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/alesl_diss/29/
  • Yang, W., Lu, X., & Weigle, S. C. (2015). Different topics, different discourse: Relationships among writing topic, measures of syntactic complexity, and judgments of writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 28, 53-67. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2015.02.002
  • Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre‐task planning and on‐line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 1-27.
APA Yıldız M, Yeşilyurt S (2017). Effects of task planning and rhetorical mode of writing on lexical complexity, syntactic complexity, and overall writing quality of EFL writers‟ task performance. , 440 - 464.
Chicago Yıldız Mine,Yeşilyurt Savaş Effects of task planning and rhetorical mode of writing on lexical complexity, syntactic complexity, and overall writing quality of EFL writers‟ task performance. (2017): 440 - 464.
MLA Yıldız Mine,Yeşilyurt Savaş Effects of task planning and rhetorical mode of writing on lexical complexity, syntactic complexity, and overall writing quality of EFL writers‟ task performance. , 2017, ss.440 - 464.
AMA Yıldız M,Yeşilyurt S Effects of task planning and rhetorical mode of writing on lexical complexity, syntactic complexity, and overall writing quality of EFL writers‟ task performance. . 2017; 440 - 464.
Vancouver Yıldız M,Yeşilyurt S Effects of task planning and rhetorical mode of writing on lexical complexity, syntactic complexity, and overall writing quality of EFL writers‟ task performance. . 2017; 440 - 464.
IEEE Yıldız M,Yeşilyurt S "Effects of task planning and rhetorical mode of writing on lexical complexity, syntactic complexity, and overall writing quality of EFL writers‟ task performance." , ss.440 - 464, 2017.
ISNAD Yıldız, Mine - Yeşilyurt, Savaş. "Effects of task planning and rhetorical mode of writing on lexical complexity, syntactic complexity, and overall writing quality of EFL writers‟ task performance". (2017), 440-464.
APA Yıldız M, Yeşilyurt S (2017). Effects of task planning and rhetorical mode of writing on lexical complexity, syntactic complexity, and overall writing quality of EFL writers‟ task performance. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 13(2), 440 - 464.
Chicago Yıldız Mine,Yeşilyurt Savaş Effects of task planning and rhetorical mode of writing on lexical complexity, syntactic complexity, and overall writing quality of EFL writers‟ task performance. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies 13, no.2 (2017): 440 - 464.
MLA Yıldız Mine,Yeşilyurt Savaş Effects of task planning and rhetorical mode of writing on lexical complexity, syntactic complexity, and overall writing quality of EFL writers‟ task performance. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, vol.13, no.2, 2017, ss.440 - 464.
AMA Yıldız M,Yeşilyurt S Effects of task planning and rhetorical mode of writing on lexical complexity, syntactic complexity, and overall writing quality of EFL writers‟ task performance. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies. 2017; 13(2): 440 - 464.
Vancouver Yıldız M,Yeşilyurt S Effects of task planning and rhetorical mode of writing on lexical complexity, syntactic complexity, and overall writing quality of EFL writers‟ task performance. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies. 2017; 13(2): 440 - 464.
IEEE Yıldız M,Yeşilyurt S "Effects of task planning and rhetorical mode of writing on lexical complexity, syntactic complexity, and overall writing quality of EFL writers‟ task performance." Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 13, ss.440 - 464, 2017.
ISNAD Yıldız, Mine - Yeşilyurt, Savaş. "Effects of task planning and rhetorical mode of writing on lexical complexity, syntactic complexity, and overall writing quality of EFL writers‟ task performance". Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies 13/2 (2017), 440-464.
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
23-04-2024 7:29

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları