The Effects of Planning on Fluency, Complexity, and Accuracy in Second Language Narrative Writing

Abstract

Building on previous studies of the effects of planning on second language (L2) learners' oral narratives and drawing on Kellog's (1996) model of writing, this article reports a study of the effects of three types of planning conditions (pretask planning, unpressured on-line planning, and no planning) on 42 Chinese learners' written narratives elicited by means of a picture composition. The results show that, whereas pretask planning resulted in greater fluency (syllables per minute, p < .01) and greater syntactic variety (number of different verb forms, p < .01), the opportunity to engage in unpressured on-line planning assisted greater accuracy (error-free clauses, p < .05). It is proposed that the two types of planning impact on different aspects of L2 writing processes, with pretask planning promoting formulation and unpressured on-line planning providing better opportunities for monitoring. Writers in the no-planning condition were faced with the need to formulate, execute, and monitor under pressure, with negative consequences for the fluency, complexity, and accuracy of the written product in comparison to the planning groups. This study draws on two different but potentially commensurable research areas: task-based research in SLA, and first~L1! and second~L2! language writ-ing+ Task-based research has been primarily concerned with the effects of task The authors would like to thank the anonymous SSLA reviewers of an earlier version of this article for their perceptive and constructive criticism+

Metacognition in Language Learning and Teaching

“…Additionally, our results as shown by the participants above also lend support to findings from previous studies, which focused on the functions of guided planning regardless of differences in writing contexts or environments (e.g. paper-and-pen writing or computer-aided writing; L1 writing or L2 writing) (Adams et al 2014;Amani 2014;Ellis and Yuan 2004;Ong and Zhang 2013).…”

Cognitive task complexity effects on L2 writing performance: An application of mixed-methods approaches

“…Also, we point out that Ellis and Yuan's (2004) study was the only mixed-methods study that used two independent theoretical perspectives in order to collect both quantitative and qualitative data and interpret their results. Out of approximately 40 articles, we focused on only 11 articles which were very close to the concept of cognitive task complexity and L2 written performance including Ellis and Yuan (2004), Farahani andMeraji (2011), Heidari-Shahreza et al (2011), Kim (2009), Philip et al (2006, Ong and Zhang (2010), Rahimpour and Hosseini (2010), Salimi et al (2011), Sasayama (2011), Tavakoli (2009), and Wigglesworth and Storch (2009. Other studies were not considered for further analysis because the research questions addressed in other studies were not relevant to those we designed to answer in the current study.…”

“…In the next stage of exploration, we will focus on the mixed-methods studies that have been conducted in the area of cognitive task complexity and L2 textual performance. These studies include Ellis and Yuan (2004), Heidari-Shahreza et al (2011), Kim (2009), and Sasayama (2011. The research trends of these studies are different from other studies reviewed in this paper and also show new understandings of the topic within the mixed-methods approach supported by a pragmatistic worldview.…”

“…There is a growing body of research on the effects of cognitive task complexity on linguistic performance in second language (L2) writing such as Ellis and Yuan (2004), Farahani andMeraji (2011), Heidari-Shahreza, Dabaghi, andKassaian (2011), Kim (2009), Vedder (2007, 2008), Ong and Zhang (2010), Philip, Oliver, and Mackey (2006), Rahimpour and Hosseini (2010), Salimi, Dadaspour, and Asadollahfam (2011), Wigglesworth andStorch (2009), andSasayama (2011). These studies use quantitative experimental design to interpret their findings, while very little research, giving priority to participants' perceptions and feelings, employs qualitative experimental design (Tavakoli, 2009).…”

“…These studies use quantitative experimental design to interpret their findings, while very little research, giving priority to participants' perceptions and feelings, employs qualitative experimental design (Tavakoli, 2009). The number of studies in the area of cognitive task complexity which use mixed-methods research to collect data and interpret the results are very few (Ellis & Yuan, 2004;Heidari-Shahreza et al 2011;Kim, 2009;Sasayama, 2011). The present study is a content-based analysis and it addresses the content of cognitive task complexity through evaluation practices.…”