Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:02:51.824Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Testing a threshold: an approximate replication of Johnson, Mercado & Acevedo 2012

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 March 2015

Mark D. Johnson  and
Christine L. Nicodemus
Mark D. Johnson
Affiliation:
East Carolina Universityjohnsonmark@ecu.edu
Christine L. Nicodemus
Affiliation:
East Carolina Universitynicodemusc@ecu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In order to better understand the role of working memory in second language (L2) written production, this study contributes to recent research attempting to apply Kellogg's model of working memory in first language (L1) writing to L2 writing research (Ellis & Yuan 2004; Ong & Zhang 2010; Johnson, Mercado & Acevedo 2012). This paper describes an approximate replication of a study presented by Johnson et al. (2012) in order to determine whether the effects of pre-task planning sub-processes (idea generation, organization, and goal setting) are mediated by a hypothesized threshold of proficiency in the target language. To do this, the current study replicated a quasi-experimental research design to test the effect of specific pre-task planning sub-processes on the written language production of a group of L1 speakers of English. Using measures identical to those in Johnson et al. (2012), the study found no significant, multivariate effect of pre-task planning on the fluency and complexity of the participants' written language production, suggesting no support for the hypothesized threshold of general proficiency in the target language. The implications of the study's results are discussed in terms of Kellogg's model (1996) of working memory in L1 writing and its ability to describe L2 composing processes.

Type
Replication Studies
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , April 2016 , pp. 251 - 274
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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.)

References

Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. D. (2007). Working memory, thought, and action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernhardt, E. B. & Kamil, M. L. (1995). Interpreting the relationships between L1 and L2 reading: Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the linguistic interdependence hypotheses. Applied Linguistics 16, 15–34.Google Scholar
Biber, D. & Gray, B. (2010). Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9, 2–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chenoweth, N. A. & Hayes, J. R. (2001). Fluency in writing: Generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication 18, 80–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coniam, D. (1999). An investigation into the use of word frequency lists in computing vocabulary profiles. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics 4, 103–123.Google Scholar
Crossley, S. A. & McNamara, D. S. (2012). Predicting second language writing proficiency: The roles of cohesion and linguistic sophistication. Journal of Reading Research 35.2, 115–135.Google Scholar
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Toronto: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
De La Paz, S. & Graham, S. (2002). Explicitly teaching strategies, skills, and knowledge: Writing instruction in middle school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology 94, 687–698.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. & Yuan, P. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26, 59–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engber, C. A. (1995). The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL composition. Journal of Second Language Writing 4, 139–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fang, Z. (2006). The language demands of science reading in middle school. International Journal of Science Education 5, 491–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fang, Z., Schleppegrell, M. J. & Cox, B. E. (2006). Understanding the language demands of schooling: Nouns in academic registers. Journal of Literacy Research 38, 247–273.Google Scholar
Flower, L. S. & Hayes, J. R. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In Gregg, L.W. & Steinberg, E. R. (eds.), Cognitive processes in writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 31–50.Google Scholar
Galbraith, D., Ford, S., Walker, G. & Ford, J. (2005). The contribution of different components of working memory to knowledge transformation during writing. Educational Studies in Language and Literature 5, 113–145.Google Scholar
Graham, S. & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology 99, 445–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, L. & Ginther, A. (2000). Using computer-tagged linguistic features to describe L2 writing differences. Journal of Second Language Writing 9, 123–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guiraud, P. (1960). Problèmes et méthodes de la statistique linguistique. Dordrecht, Netherlands: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In Levy, C. M. & Ransdell, S. (eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1–28.Google Scholar
Heatley, A., Nation, I. S. P. & Coxhead, A. (2002). Range [Computer software]. Wellington, New Zealand: Victoria University of Wellington.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S. (2002). Short texts, best-fitting curves and new measures of lexical diversity. Language Testing 19, 57–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S., Grant, L., Bikowski, D. & Ferris, D. (2003). Exploring multiple profiles of highly rated learner compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing 12, 377–403.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. D., Acevedo, A. & Mercado, L. (2013). What vocabulary should we teach? Lexical frequency profiles and lexical diversity in second language writing. Writing and Pedagogy 5.1, 83–103.Google Scholar
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, 264–282.Google Scholar
Jones, S. & Tetroe, J. (1987). Composing in a second language. In Matsuhashi, A. (ed.), Writing in real time: Modeling production processes. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 34–57.Google Scholar
Kellogg, R. T. (1987a). Effects of topic knowledge on the allocation of processing time and cognitive effort to writing processes. Memory and Cognition 15, 256–266.Google Scholar
Kellogg, R. T. (1987b). Writing performance: Effects of cognitive strategies. Written Communication 4, 269–298.Google Scholar
Kellogg, R. T. (1988). Attentional overload and writing performance: Effects of rough draft and outline strategies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition 14, 355–365.Google Scholar
Kellogg, R. T. (1990). Effectiveness of prewriting strategies as a function of task demands. American Journal of Psychology 103, 327–342.Google Scholar
Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In Levy, C. M. & Ransdell, S. (eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 57–71.Google Scholar
Kellogg, R. T. (2001). Competition for working memory among writing processes. American Journal of Psychology 114, 175–191.Google Scholar
Kellogg, R. T. (2004). Working memory components in written sentence generation. The American Journal of Psychology 117, 314–361.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kormos, J. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing 20, 148–161.Google Scholar
Laufer, B. (1994). The lexical profile of second language writing: Does it change over time? RELC Journal 25, 21–33.Google Scholar
Laufer, B. & Nation, I. S. P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics 16, 307–322.Google Scholar
Lemmouh, Z. (2008). The relationship between grades and the lexical richness of student essays. Nordic Journal of English Studies 7.3, 163–180.Google Scholar
Manchόn, R. & Roca de Larios, J. (2007). On the temporal nature of planning in L1 and L2 composing. Language Learning 57, 549–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, P. M. (2005). An assessment of the range and usefulness of lexical diversity measures and the potential of the measure of textual, lexical diversity (MTLD), Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee.Google Scholar
McCarthy, P. M. & Jarvis, S. (2007). Vocd: A theoretical and empirical evaluation. Language Testing 24, 459–488.Google Scholar
McCarthy, P. M. & Jarvis, S. (2010). MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods 42, 381–392.Google Scholar
McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A. & McCarthy, P. M. (2010). Linguistic features of writing quality. Written Communication 27, 57–86.Google Scholar
McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., Cai, Z. & Graesser, A. (2005, 1 January). Coh-Metrix (Version 1.4). Retrieved October 2011 from http://cohmetrix.memphis.edu.Google Scholar
Ong, J. (2014). How do planning time and task conditions affect metacognitive processes of L2 writers? Journal of Second Language Writing 23, 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ong, J. & Zhang, L. J. (2010). Effects of task complexity on the fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students’ argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 19, 218–233.Google Scholar
Page-Voth, V. & Graham, S. (1999). Effects of goal setting and strategy use on the writing performance and self-efficacy of students with writing and learning problems. Journal of Educational Psychology 91, 230–240.Google Scholar
Rau, P. & Sebrechts, M. (1996). How initial plans mediate the expansion and resolution of options in writing. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 49, 616–638.Google Scholar
Ransdell, S. & Levy, M. (1996). Working memory constraints on writing quality and fluency. In Levy, C. M. & Ransdell, S. (eds.), The science of writing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 93–105.Google Scholar
Ransdell, S., Levy, M. & Kellogg, R. T. (2002). The structure of writing processes as revealed by secondary task demands. Educational Studies in Language and Literature 2, 141–163.Google Scholar
Rijlaarsdam, G. & van den Bergh, H. (2006). Writing process theory: A functional dynamic approach. In MacArthur, C., Graham, S. & Fitzgerald, J. (eds.), Handbook of writing research. New York: Guilford, 41–53.Google Scholar
Rimmer, W. (2008). Putting grammatical complexity in context. Literacy 42, 29–35.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics 22, 27–57.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics 43, 1–33.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2011a). Second language task complexity, the cognition hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis on language learning and performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 3–37.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (ed.) (2011b). Researching the cognition hypothesis on language learning and performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Roca de Larios, J., Manchόn, R. & Murphy, L. (2006). Generating text in native and foreign language writing: A temporal analysis of problem-solving formulation processes. The Modern Language Journal 90, 100–114.Google Scholar
Roca de Larios, J., Marín, J. & Murphy, L. (2001). A temporal analysis of formulation processes in L1 and L2 writing. Language Learning 51, 497–538.Google Scholar
Roca de Larios, J., Manchόn, R., Murphy, L. & Marín, J. (2008). The foreign language writer's strategic behaviour in the allocation of time to writing processes. Journal of Second Language Writing 17, 30–47.Google Scholar
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2001). Linguistic features of the language of schooling. Linguistics and Education 12, 431–459.Google Scholar
Sexton, M., Harris, K. & Graham, S. (1998). Self-regulated strategy development and the writing process: Effects on essay writing and attributions. Exceptional Children 64, 295–311.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction. New York: Cambridge University Press, 183–205.Google Scholar
Skibniewski, L. (1988). The writing processes of advanced foreign language learners in their native and foreign languages: Evidence from thinking-aloud and behavioral protocols. Studia Anglica Posnaiensia 21, 177–186.Google Scholar
Skibniewski, L. & Skibniewska, M. (1986). Experimental study: The writing processes of intermediate/advanced foreign language learners in their foreign and native languages. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 19, 142–163.Google Scholar
Troia, G. & Graham, S. (2002). The effectiveness of highly explicit, teacher-directed strategy instruction routine: Changing the writing performance of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities 35, 290–305.Google Scholar
Unsworth, L. (1997). Some practicalities of a language-based theory of learning. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 31.3, 30–42.Google Scholar
van den Bergh, H. & Rijlaarsdam, G. (1999). The dynamics of generation during writing: An online study. In Torrance, M. & Galbraith, D. (eds.), Knowing what to write: Conceptual processes in text production. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 99–118.Google Scholar
van der Hoeven, J. (1999). Differences in writing performance: Generating as an indicator. In Torrance, M. & Galbraith, D. (eds.), Knowing what to write: Conceptual processes in text production. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 63–77.Google Scholar
Whalen, K. & 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