Task repetition and L2 writing development

2014 ◽  
pp. 107-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryo Nitta ◽  
Kyoko Baba
Keyword(s):  
Writing Development ◽  
L2 Writing ◽  
Task Repetition

L2 writing development through two types of writing task repetition

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tatsushi Fukunaga
Keyword(s):  
Effect Size ◽  
Developmental Trajectories ◽  
Writing Development ◽  
Medium Effect ◽  
Task Repetition ◽  
Medium Effect Size ◽  
Argumentative Essays ◽  
Task Types ◽  
Writing Task ◽  
Measurement Period

Abstract This study investigated whether any remarkable effects emerge in terms of overall complexity, complexity by subordination, accuracy, and fluency in two types of writing task repetition during a single academic semester (16 weeks). The Cognition Hypothesis states that tasks involving different cognitive demands will lead to different L2 output. Thus, this study explored whether any significant differences existed between two task types: descriptive and argumentative essays. The results revealed different patterns in the two types of writing tasks. For the descriptive essays, despite the improvements in overall complexity, complexity by subordination, and fluency with a large effect size, no significant findings were confirmed for accuracy. In contrast, in the argumentative essays, the learners improved all the linguistic aspects, but with a medium effect size. This study also unraveled developmental trajectories to demonstrate how different variables interacted in the two different types of writing tasks throughout the measurement period.

The role of task repetition with direct written corrective feedback in L2 writing complexity, accuracy and fluency

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sima Khezrlou
Keyword(s):  
Error Correction ◽  
Task Performance ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
L2 Writing ◽  
Task Repetition ◽  
Linguistic Form ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Initial Task ◽  
Writing Complexity

Abstract This study explored whether the effects of task repetition in drawing learners’ attention to linguistic form could be reinforced through the provision of two types of unfocused direct written corrective feedback. Fifty-seven learners formed three conditions: (1) task repetition with no feedback (TR, control), (2) task repetition with error correction (TR+EC), and (3) task repetition with reformulation (TR+R). All groups repeated an identical writing narrative task but only the experimental groups received feedback after their initial task performance. All participants were then asked to complete a new task of the same type followed by a new task of a different type. Performance was gauged by multiple measures of complexity, accuracy and fluency. Results revealed the persistent superiority of the TR+EC condition on all measures of accuracy while the TR+R condition led to immediate written complexity improvement regarding subordination. Furthermore, both the TR+R and TR conditions resulted in delayed fluency gains.

Reading–writing integrated tasks, comprehensive corrective feedback, and EFL writing development

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-240 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoyan Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Writing Development ◽  
L2 Writing ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Input Language ◽  
English Writing ◽  
English Reading ◽  
Quasi Experimental ◽  
Group A ◽  
The One

The study examines whether there is any difference between the effects of a reading–writing integrated task and comprehensive corrective feedback (CF) on English as a foreign language (EFL) learners’ writing development, and whether the input language in the integrated task makes a difference in L2 writing development over time and the language accuracy of the writing resulting from the integrated task. It also explores the possible relationships among language, content alignment and language accuracy and the relationship between language alignment and content alignment. To this end, a quasi-experimental study was conducted to assess participants’ L2 writing development based on a pretest–posttest–delayed-posttest design implemented in four intact EFL freshman classes. Four groups were created: an English-reading–English-writing (EE) group, a Chinese-reading–English-writing (CE) group, a comprehensive CF group, and a control group, which engaged solely in writing practice. The results demonstrated that (1) the EE and CF groups outperformed the control and CE groups on the posttest and outscored the control group on the delayed posttest with respect to language, although there were no significant differences among the three experimental groups in overall, content, and organization scores; (2) the input language of the integrated reading–writing task had a significant effect on language accuracy in the resulting essays; and (3) there was no significant correlation between content alignment and language accuracy for the CE group, whereas for the EE group, a significant positive correlation was observed not only between content and language alignment, on the one hand, and language accuracy, on the other hand, but also between content alignment and language alignment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document