Chapter published in:
Complex Dynamic Systems Theory and L2 Writing Development
Edited by Gary G. Fogal and Marjolijn H. Verspoor
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 54] 2020
► pp. 3–25

Exploring dynamic developmental trajectories of writing fluency

Who benefited from the writing task?

| Kinjo Gakuin University
This study investigates the developmental trajectories of L2 writing fluency in 105 university students when the same task procedure was repeatedly used in a classroom setting throughout an academic year. The students wrote a timed narrative composition in their English L2 along with reflective writing in their L1 Japanese every week. Individual growth curve modeling revealed that their writing fluency increased over a year, but the rate of change varied significantly from person to person. Case analyses of high- and low-growth performers suggested that the former seemed to benefit more from task iteration, and actions that showed reflection in action and a positive attitude toward the task may have contributed to increased growth.
Keywords: developmental trajectories, writing fluency, task iteration, individual growth curve modeling, L2 writing
Published online: 04 June 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.54.01bab
References

References

Baba, K.
(2011) Reflection in second language writing: A longitudinal study of task repetition from a Complexity Theory perspective. 金城学院大学論集（社会科学編）, 8, 70–101.Google Scholar
Baba, K., & Nitta, R.
(2014) Phase transitions in the development of writing fluency from a complex dynamic systems perspective. Language Learning, 64(1), 1–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bulté, B., & Housen, A.
(2017) Synactic complexity in L2 writing: Individual pathways and emerging group trends. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28, 147–164. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bygate, M.
(2018) Dynamic systems theory and the issue of predictability in task-based language: Some implications for research and practice in TBLT. In M. J. Ahmadian & M. D. P. Garcia Mayo (Eds.), Recent perspectives on task-based language learning and teaching (pp. 143–166). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chan, H., Verspoor, M., & Vahtrick, L.
(2015) Dynamic development in speaking versus writing in identical twins. Language Learning, 65, 298–325. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fogal, G. G.
(2019a) Tracking microgenetic changes in authorial voice development from a complexity theory perspective. Applied Linguistics, 40(3), 432–455. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2019b) Investigating variability in L2 development: Extending a complexity theory perspective on L2 writing studies and authorial voice. Applied Linguistics, 1–27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Friginal, E., Li, M., & Weigle, S. C.
(2014) Revisiting multiple profiles of learner compositions: A comparison of highly rated NS and NNS essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 23, 1–16. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Garner, J., & Crossley, S.
(2018) A latent curve model approach to studying L2 n-gram development. The Modern Language Journal, 102, 494–511. 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kobayashi, H., & Rinnert, C.
(2013) L1/L2/L3 writing development: Longitudinal case study of a Japanese multicompetent writer. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 4–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D.
(2006) The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 590–619. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2018) Task repetition or task iteration? It does make a difference. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Learning language through task repetition (pp. 311–329). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2019) On language learner agency: A complex dynamic systems theory perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 103, 61–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lavelli, M., & Fogel, A.
(2002) Developmental changes in mother-infant face-to-face communication: Birth to 3 months. Developmental Psychology, 38, 288–305. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, M. D.
(2000) The promise of dynamic systems approaches for an integrated account of human development. Child Development, 71(1), 36–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McCarthey, S. J., Guo, Y.-H., & Cummins, S.
(2005) Understanding changes in elementary Mandarin students’ L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 71–104. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McKean, C., Mensah, F. K., Eadie, P., Bavin, E. L., Bretherton, L., Cini, E., & Reilly, S.
(2015) Levers for language growth: Characteristics and predictors of language trajectories between 4 and 7 years. PLOS ONE, 10, e0134251. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mehta, S. R., & Al-Mahrooqi, R.
(2015) Can thinking be taught? Linking critical thinking and writing in an EFL context. RELC Journal, 46, 23–36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., & Wu, Q.
(2011) Kindergarten children’s growth trajectories in reading and mathematics: Who falls increasingly behind? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 472–488. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Murayama, K., Pekrun, R., Lichtenfeld, S., & vom Hofe, R.
(2013) Predicting long-term growth in students’ mathematics achievement: The unique contributions of motivation and cognitive strategies. Child Development, 84, 1475–1490. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, H., & Larsen-Freeman, D.
(2018) Using tasks to teach formulaic sequences: Interindividual and intraindividual variation. In M. J. Ahmadian & M. D. P. Garcia Mayo (Eds.), Recent perspectives on task-based language learning and teaching (pp. 167–193). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nitta, R., & Baba, K.
(2018) Understanding benefits of repetition from a complex dynamic systems perspective: The case of a writing task. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Language learning through task repetition (pp. 279–309). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) Task repetition and L2 writing development: A longitudinal study from a dynamic systems perspective. In H. Byrnes & R. Manchon (Eds.), Task-based language learning and teaching: Insights from writing (pp. 107–136). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sasaki, M., Kozaki, Y., & Ross, S. J.
(2017) The impact of normative environments on learner motivation and L2 reading ability growth. The Modern Language Journal, 101(1), 163–178. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schön, D. A.
(1987) Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B.
(2003) Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spoelman, M., & Verspoor, M.
(2010) Dynamic patterns in development of accuracy and complexity: A longitudinal case study in the acquisition of Finnish. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 532–553. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, W. A.
(2000) Change-point analysis: A powerful new tool for detecting changes. http://​www​.variation​.com​/cpa​/tech​/changepoint​.html> (7 January 2020).
Van Waes, L., & Leijten, M. L.
(2015) Fluency in writing: A multidimensional perspective on writing fluency applied to L1 and L2. Computers and Composition, 38, 79–95. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vercellotti, M. L.
(2017) The development of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language performance: A longitudinal study. Applied Linguistics, 38, 90–111. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M., & Smiskova, H.
(2012) Foreign language writing development from a dynamic usage-based perspective. In R. M. Manchon (Ed.), L2 writing development: Multiple perspectives (pp. 17–46). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M., Lowie, W., & van Dijk, M.
(2008) Variability in second language development from a dynamic systems perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 214–231. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vyatkina, N.
(2012) The development of second language writing complexity in groups and individuals: A longitudinal learner corpus study. The Modern Language Journal, 96, 576–598. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weissberg, R.
(1998) Acquiring English syntax through journal writing. College ESL, 8(1), 1–22.Google Scholar