Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-dk7s8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T07:31:54.666Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE EFFECTS OF PLANNING ON FLUENCY, COMPLEXITY, AND ACCURACY IN SECOND LANGUAGE NARRATIVE WRITING

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2004

Rod Ellis  and
Fangyuan Yuan
Rod Ellis
Affiliation:
University of Auckland
Fangyuan Yuan
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.The authors would like to thank the anonymous SSLA reviewers of an earlier version of this article for their perceptive and constructive criticism.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , March 2004 , pp. 59 - 84
Copyright
2004 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Baddeley, A. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bourdin, B., & Fayol, M. (1994) Is written language production more difficult than oral language production? A working memory approach. International Journal of Psychology, 29, 591–620.Google Scholar
Brown, J., McDonald, J., Brown, T., & Carr, T. (1988) Adapting to process demands in discourse production: The case of handwriting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 45–59.Google Scholar
Cheng, Y., Horwitz, E., & Schallert, D. (1999) Language anxiety: Differentiating writing and speaking components. Language Learning, 49, 417–446.Google Scholar
Chenoweth, A., & Hayes, J. (2001) Fluency in writing: Generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication, 18, 80–98.Google Scholar
Crookes, G. (1989) Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 367–383.Google Scholar
Cumming, A. (in press). Models of second-language composing processes. In R. Weissberg (Ed.), ESL writers in the college composition classroom: Challenges and opportunities. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
De Larios, J., Marin, J., & Murphy, L. (2001) A temporal analysis of formulation processes in L1 and L2 writing. Language Learning, 51, 497–538.Google Scholar
Educational Testing Service. (1987). Reading for TOEFL Workbook. Princeton, NJ: Author.
Elbow, P. (1981). Writing with power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1987) Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 12–20.Google Scholar
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In L. Gregg & E. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31–50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996) The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–323.Google Scholar
Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000) Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21, 354–375.Google Scholar
Friedlander, A. (1990). Composing in English: Effects of a first language on writing in English as a second language. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing (pp. 109–125). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Grabe, W. (2001). Notes on a theory of second language writing. In T. Silva & P. Matsuda (Eds.), On second language writing (pp. 39–57). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, W. (1996). Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic perspective. London: Longman.
Hayes, J. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing (pp. 1–27). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hayes, J., & Gradwohl Nash, J. (1996). On the nature of planning in writing. In C. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing (pp. 29–55). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heaton, J. (1975). Beginning composition through pictures. London: Longman.
Horwitz, E., Horwitz, M., & Cope, J. (1986) Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 70, 125–132.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J., & Hulstijn, W. (1984) Grammatical errors as a function of processing constraints and explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 34, 23–43.Google Scholar
Kellog, R. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing (pp. 57–71). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Keselman, H., Huberty, C., Lix, L., Olejnik, S., Cribbie, R., Donahue, B., et al. (1998) Statistical practices of educational researchers: An analysis of the ANOVA, MANOVA, and ANCOVA analyses. Review of Educational Research, 68, 350–386.Google Scholar
Kroll, B. (1990). What does time buy? ESL student performance on home versus class compositions. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing (pp. 140–154). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Malvern, D., & Richards, B. (2002) Investigating accommodation in language proficiency interviews using a new measure of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 19, 85–104.Google Scholar
Mehnert, U. (1998) The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 52–83.Google Scholar
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000) Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (1999) Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 108–148.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1995) Task complexity and second language narrative discourse. Language Learning, 45, 99–140.Google Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997) Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185–211.Google Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999) The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49, 93–120.Google Scholar
Wendel, J. (1997). Planning and second language narrative production. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University Japan, Tokyo.
Whalen, J., & Menard, N. (1995) L1 and L2 writers' strategic and linguistic knowledge: A model of multiple-level discourse processing. Language Learning, 45, 381–418.Google Scholar
Woodhall, B. (2002) Language switching: Using the first language while writing in a second language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 7–28.Google Scholar
Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003) The effects of pretask planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24, 1–27.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, R. (2000) L2 writing: Subprocesses, a model of formulating and empirical findings. Learning and Instruction, 10, 73–99.Google Scholar