Neutralizing Trade-off Effect between Accuracy and Fluency in EFL Writing by Mentor Text Modeling: Cognitive Complexity in Focus

Reza Biria, Farahnaz Liaghat

Abstract


The present study sought to explore the efficacy of a brand-new approach to teaching writing called mentor text modeling in neutralizing trade-off effect between accuracy and fluency in writing tasks with different levels of cognitive complexity. To this end, a total of 60 (30 male and 30 female) Iranian EFL learners were randomly selected and assigned to three groups of comparison, each containing 20 (10 male and 10 female) learners. Employing a pretest/posttest experimental design, learners of the three groups received instruction on advanced writing during an 11-week course. At the commencement of the course, the learners’ fluency and accuracy in writing were gaged through three writing tasks with high, moderate, and low levels of cognitive complexity. Having been exposed to the same instructional input, the learners of each group underwent writing instructions based on one of three approaches to teaching writing, namely, mentor text modeling, product-based approach, and process-based approach. At the end of the study course, the learners’ writing performance was assessed on three tasks parallel to the pretest measures. Results of running correlation analysis indicated that contrary to the two traditional approaches to teaching writing, mentor text modeling was capable of improving accuracy and fluency simultaneously and, as a result, was found to be effective in neutralizing the trade-off effect between accuracy and fluency in writing tasks with high, moderate, and low cognitive complexity levels. The study’s finding may urge EFL teachers to include mentor texts while teaching writing to realize a balanced improvement in EFL learners’ writing competence. 


Keywords


mentor text modeling, trade-off effect, accuracy, fluency, cognitive complexity, writing competence

Full Text:

PDF

References


Ahmadian, M.J., & Tavakoli, M. (2011). The effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, fluency, and complexity of EFL learners’ oral production. Language Teaching Research, 15, 35-59.

Al-Haq, F., & Al-Sobh, M. (2010). The effect of a web-based instructional EFL program on enhancing the performance of Jordanian secondary students. The JALT CALL Journal, 6(3), 189-218.

Balakrishnan, M. S. (2010). Writing case: The difference from a case study research methodology and a teaching study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bloom B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc.

Bloom, B.S. (2001). Taxonomy of educational objectives and writing intended learning outcomes statements. International Assembly for Collegiate Business Education (IACBE), USA.

Bogard, J., and Mackin, M. (2015). Writing Is Magic, or Is It? Using Mentor Text to Develop the Writer’s Craft. CA: Teacher created Materials Publishing.

Corden, R. (2007). Developing reading-writing connections: The impact of explicit instruction of literary devices on the quality of children’s narrative writing. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 21(3), 269-289.

Deane, P., Odendahl, N., Quinla, T., Fowles, M.,Welsh, C., Bivens-Tatum, J. (2008). Cognitive models of writing: Writing proficiency as a complex integrated skill. Princeton: Educational Testing Service (ETS).

Dorftman L.R., and Cappelli, R. (2007). Mentor text: teaching writing through children’s literature, K-6. Portland: Stenhouse publishers.

Ellis R., Yuan F. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 5984.

Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G., (2005). Analyzing learner language. New York: Oxford University Press.

Escobar Alméciga, W. Y., & Evans, R. (2014). Mentor texts and the coding of academic writing structures: A functional approach. HOW, A Colombian Journal for Teachers of English, 21(2), 94-111.

Gallagher, K., (2011). Write like this: teaching real-world writing through modeling and mentor texts to subscribe to Literacy links. Portland: Stenhouse publishers.

Geranpaye, A. (2003). A quick review of the English Quick Placement Test. University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations. Extract form Research Notes, 12, 8-10.

Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing Next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Hamp-Lyons, L., & Mathias, S. P. (1994). Examining expert judgments of task difficulty on essay tests. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 49–68.

Hayes, J. R. & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg, & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.). Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3-30). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hestenes, D. (2006). Modelling in Physics and Physics Education. Paper presented at the Modeling Theory of Science, Cognition and Instruction Proceedings conference: Arizona State University. USA.

Kane, C. M. K. (2012). Investigating the impact of a mentor text inquiry approach to narrative writing instruction on attitude, self-efficacy, and writing processes of fourth grade students in an urban elementary school. Unpublished doctoral thesis, San Diego State University, San Diego, Argentina.

Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2008). Cognitive task complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 48–60.

Larsen-Freeman, D., (2009). Adjusting expectations: The study of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30, 579-589.

Lynne, R., & Cappelli, R. (2007). Mentor texts: teaching writing through children’s literature, K-6. Portland: Stenhouse Publishers.

Meyers, A. (2009). Writing With Confidence. Writing Effective Sentences and Paragraphs. New York: Vango Publication.

Michel, M.C., Kuiken, F. and Vedder, I. (2007). Effects of Task Complexity and Task Condition on Dutch L2. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45(3), 241-259.

Murray, D. (1972). Teaching Writing as a Process, not a Product. The Leaflet, 11-14.

Naoroji, D., (2012). Using Mentor Texts to Improve Student Writing. Created by PCG Education for the Maine Content Literacy Project October 2012. MCLP Common Core Writing Workshop.

Nordin, S. & Mohammad, N. (2006). The best of two approaches: Process/genre-based approach to teaching writing. The English Teacher, 30, 75-85.

Nueva, J. C. (2016). Genre-based and process-based approaches to teaching news articles. Pertanika Journals, 24(1), 385-400.

Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching and Learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Omaggio Hadley, A. (1993). Teaching language in context. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Ortenburger, R. H. (2013). Mentor text: your personal teaching assistant. Content area literacy task force, 1(4), 1. Retrived from http://ekuwritingproject.org/uploads/5/2/4/0/5240502/febmentortext.pdf.

Pallant, J., (2007). SPSS Survival Manual 3rd Edition. New York: McGra Hill, Open University Press.

Pincas, A. (1984). Writing in English. London: Mac Millan.

Polio, C. (2001). Research methodology in second language writing research: The case of text based studies. In T. Silva and P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), On Second Language Writing (pp. 91-115). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Pytash, K.E., & Morgan, D.N. (2014). Preparing pre-service teachers to become teachers of writing: A 20-year review of research literature. English Education, 47(1), 6-37.

Rahman, M. (2011). Genre-based writing instruction: Implications in ESP classroom. English for Specific Purposes World, 11(33), 1-9.

Reid, J. M. (2001). The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages. In R. Cater & D. Nunan (Eds.), Writing (pp. 23-33). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. and Renandya, W. (2002). Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27-57.

Robinson, P. (2003). Attention and memory during SLA. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 630-678). Oxford: Blackwell.

Robinson, P. (2007). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects on speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 193–214.

Sakoda, N., (2007). The distinction between process based and product based approaches to teaching writing and its effects on classroom methodology. Hiroshima University of Economics, 1141-1156. Retrieved from http://harp.lib.hiroshima-u.ac.jphuemetadata480.

Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510–532.

Sutikno, M.K. (2008). Responding to students’ writing. (Teaching writing or assessing it?). Journal Pendidikan Penabur, 10(7), 51-59.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S., (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.

Tangpermpoon, T. (2008). Integrated approaches to improve students writing skills for English major students. ABAC Journal, 28(2), 1-9.

Torghabeh, R.A., Hashemi, M.R., & Ahmadi, H, Sh. (2010). Writing through literature: a novel approach to EFL writing instruction. Iranian EFL Journal, 6(4), 7-23.

Webb, N. L. (1997). Criterion for alignment of expectations and assessments in mathematics and science education. Washington DC: Council of Chief State School Affairs.

White, R. (1988). Process and Product. In P. C. Robinson (Ed), Academic writing (pp. 4-16). London: Modern English Publications in association with The British Council.

Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.-Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy and complexity. Technical report 17. Manoa, Hawai'i US: University of Hawai'i Press.

Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24, 1-27.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.7n.2p.134

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2012-2019 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.