Effects of Fluency Training on the Application of Linguistic Operations in Writing

Abstract

ABSTRACT. In this article we report the results of a classroom experiment in grades 5 and 6 of primary education directed at improving children's writing skills. Our theoretical assumption is that increased fluency in the use of linguistic operations facilitates students' attention to the meaning level of their texts, resulting in better comprehensibility. We discriminated four conditions for improving linguistic fluency: (1) implicit instruction with attention to linguistic forms, (2) explicit instruction with attention to linguistic forms, (3) implicit instruction with attention to meaning, and (4) explicit instruction with attention to meaning. The experiment consisted of a post test-only design with randomised assignment to experimental groups within a classroom. Effects of instructional conditions on children's ability to use linguistic operations were explored in writing tasks with less constraints (LCT) or more constraints (MCT) on the translation process. Results show that the students in the experimental conditions performed better in the semantic application of linguistic operations in the LCT task, but not in the MCT task, compared to the control group. This result supports our theoretical assumption that increased fluency results in a better control of the semantic consequences of linguistic operations and therefore in better writing.

Examining the transcription-writing link: Effects of handwriting fluency and spelling accuracy on writing performance via planning and translating in middle grades

“…Also importantly, translating tasks required little planning and imposed varying constraints on the translating process (cf. van Gelderen & Oostdam, 2005). In the opinion essay task, students generated ideas before writing and put them freely into sentences during text production.…”

Modeling the Development of L1 and EFL Writing Proficiency of Secondary School Students

“…We therefore argue that our results are not at odds with cognitively oriented experimental studies reporting that working memory capacity and automatization of component processes are involved in proficient writing (see Hayes, 2006; Torrance & Galbraith, 2006). Establishing a causal relationship between fluency and writing performance requires controlled experimental studies such as the studies of Snellings et al (2004) and Van Gelderen and Oostdam (2005), also conducted with students in secondary school in the Netherlands. Snellings et al were able to show that speeding up lexical retrieval in a (short) intervention affected students’ EFL writing performance.…”

“…So‐called lower order processes such as transcribing, spelling, and, possibly, lexical retrieval or sentence construction are candidates for automatizing or to become more fluent. Thus far, supporting empirical evidence mainly comes from controlled experiments manipulating the conditions in which writing subprocesses in working memory are, or are not, disrupted by secondary tasks (Ransdell, Levy, & Kellogg, 2002) or training experiments evaluating the effect of increased fluency of writing (sub)processes (Snellings, Van Gelderen, & De Glopper, 2004; Van Gelderen & Oostdam, 2005). Our study aims to investigate the relationship between L1/EFL writing proficiency and (psycho)linguistic knowledge and skills in a larger general sample of secondary school students.…”

Evaluation of Secondary School Students’ Writing Fluency Skills

“…So as not to encounter such a result, the concept of fluent writing must be defined as "the amount of words written in a certain time and the frequency of these words" and the applications to be carried out within this context must be realized and evaluated in line with this definition. Van Gelderen and Oostdam (2005) also support this perspective, stating that one of the fundamental characteristics of fluent writing is producing various word combinations and sentence structures.…”