Article published in:
Task-Based Language Learning – Insights from and for L2 Writing
Edited by Heidi Byrnes and Rosa M. Manchón
[Task-Based Language Teaching 7] 2014
► pp. 137–161

Planning and production in computer-mediated communication (CMC) writing

A growing body of research has documented the effect of pre-task and online planning on second language task-based production (e.g. Ellis 2005; Ortega 1999; Yuan & Ellis 2003). However, relatively little research has addressed the effects of planning time on written communication and none to date has considered the role of planning in computer-mediated task-based writing. The current study investigates the effect of planning on the task-based writing of 45 Malaysian civil engineering majors studying at a technical university and enrolled in courses focusing on English for professional communication. The students were divided into teams of three and linked via networked computers. Each team member was provided with information on a civil engineering scenario and asked to write a proposal via a wiki for the best type of equipment to use. The text from the wiki pages formed the data for the current study. The teams were grouped into three experimental conditions: pre-task planning, online planning, and no planning. Multiple measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity of their language production were analyzed. The results showed that different types of planning promoted different aspects of written production and therefore different learning opportunities. Overall, this study contributes to the aims of the book of expanding the research base on the connection between TBLT and language development by providing evidence for how task implementation options influence the language learning opportunities available in CMC-based writing tasks.
Published online: 14 November 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.7.06ada
References
Abu Seileek, A.F. & Qatawneh, K
(2013) Effects of synchronous and asynchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC) oral conversations on English language learners’ discourse functions. Computers & Education, 62, 181–190. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J.R
(1995) Learning and memory: An integrated approach. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bereiter, A.F., & Scardamalia, M
(1987) The psychology of written composition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bober, M.J., & Dennen, V.P
(2001)  Intersubjectivity: Facilitating knowledge construction in online environments . Educational Media International, 38, 241–250. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Buraphadeja, V., & Dawson, K
(2008) Content analysis in computer-mediated communication: Analyzing models for assessing critical thinking through the lens of social constructivism. The American Journal of Distance Education, 22, 130–145. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bygate, M., & Samuda, V
(2005) Integrative planning through the use of task repetition. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in second language learning (pp. 37–76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J
(1988)  Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Daller, H., van Hout, R., & Treffers-Daller, J
(2003) Lexical richness in the spontaneous speech of bilinguals. Applied Linguistics, 24, 197–222. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R
(1987) Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style shifting in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 1–20. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005)  Planning and task performance in a second language . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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, 59–84. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Foster, P
(1996) Doing the task better: How planning time influences students’ performance. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 126–135). London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Foster, P., & Skehan, P
(1996) The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–323. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1999) The influence of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 3, 215–247. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G
(2000) Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21, 354–374. CrossrefGoogle 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: Research insights from the classroom (pp. 109–125). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W
(2000) Critical thinking in a textbased environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 2, 87–105. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Guarda, M
(2012) Writer visibility and agreement / disagreement strategies in online asynchronous interaction: A learner corpus study. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 34, 84 – 87. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez-Llorett, M., & Ortega, L
(2014)  Technology and tasks. Exploring technology-mediated TBLT . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, W
(1996)  Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic perspective . London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hawkes, M
(2006) Linguistic discourse variables as indicators of reflective online interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 20, 231–244. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, J.R., & Flower, L.S
(1980) Identifying the organization of the writing process. In L.W. Gregg & E.R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Herring, S.C
(2004) Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behavior. In S.A. Barab, R. Kling, & J. Gray (Eds.), Designing virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 338–376). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse. Language@Internet, 4(1).Google Scholar
Hunt, K
(1965)  Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. NCTE research report No. 3. Champaign, IL: NCTE.Google Scholar
Kang, M., & Im, T
(2013) Factors of learner–instructor interaction which predict perceived learning outcomes in online learning environment. Journal of Computer-assisted Learning, 29, 292–301. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kawauchi, C
(2005) The effects of strategic planning on the overall narratives of learners with low and high intermediate L2 proficiency. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in second language learning (pp. 143–164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kellogg, R
(1996) A model of working memory in writing. In C.M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing (pp. 57–71). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kern, R
(1996) Computer-mediated communication: Using e-mail exchanges to explore personal histories in two cultures. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Telecollaboration in foreign language learning: Proceedings of the Hawaii symposium (pp. 105–119). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
Kim, H., Kim, G.J., Park, H.W., & Rice, R.E
(2007) Configurations of relationships in different media: FtF, email, instant messenger, mobile phone, and SMS. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , 12(4), article 3. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kroll, B
(1990) What does time buy? ESL student performance on home versus class compositions. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights from the classroom (pp. 140–154). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lai, C
(2005) The role of communicative practices and talking with and through the computer. In Y. Zhao (Ed.), Research in technology and second language learning developments and directions (pp. 249–285). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
Levelt, W
(1992) Accessing words in speech production: Stages, processes and representations. Cognition, 42, 1–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., & Gass, S.M
(2005)  Second language research: Methodology and design . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Malaysian Examinations Council (
n.d.) Malaysian Examinations Council. Retrieved from <http://​www​.mpm​.edu​.my​/bi​/>
Manchón, R.M
(2011) Tasks, language learning, and L2 writing: Expanding the research agenda. Paper presented at the International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching, Auckland, New Zealand, November 18. Crossref
Manchón, R.M., & Roca de Larios, J
(2007a) Writing-to-learn in instructed language learning contexts. In E. Alcón Soler & M.P. Safont Jordà (Eds.), Intercultural language use and language learning (pp. 101–121). Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007b) On the temporal nature of planning in L1 and L2 composing. Language Learning 57, 549–593. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nik, N
(2010) Examining the language learning potential of a task-based approach to synchronous computer-mediated communication. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.Google 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L
(1999) Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 109–148. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) What do learners plan? Learner-driven attention to form during pre-task planning. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 77–109). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Osman, G., & Herring, S.C
(2007) Interaction, facilitation, and deep learning in cross-cultural chat: A case study. Internet and Higher Education, 10, 125–141. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P
(2001) Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roca de Larios, J., Marín, J., & Murphy, L
(2001)  A temporal analysis of formulation processes in L1 and L2 writing . Language Learning, 51, 479–538. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shang, H.F
(2007) An exploratory study of e-mail application on FL writing performance. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20, 79–96. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P
(1998)  A cognitive approach to language learning . Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) Focus on form, tasks and technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21, 391–411. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P
(1997) Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185–211. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smith, B
(2004) Computer-mediated negotiated interaction and lexical acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 365–398. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Methodological hurdles in capturing CMC data: The case of the missing self-repair. Language Learning and Technology, 12, 85–103.Google Scholar
Vermeer, A
(2000) Coming to grips with lexical richness in spontaneous speech data. Language Testing, 17, 65–83. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Warschauer, M
(1996) Comparing face-to-face and electronic communication in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13, 7–25.Google Scholar
(1997) Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. Modern Language Journal, 81, 470–481. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yang, Y.C., Newby, T.J., & Bill, R.L
(2005) Using Socratic questioning to promote critical thinking skills through asynchronous discussion forums in distance learning environments. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19, 163–181. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Young, R
(1995) Conversational styles in language proficiency interviews. Language Learning, 45, 3–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yuan, F., & Ellis, R
(2003) The effects of pre-task planning and online planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24, 1–27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, R
(2000) L2 writing: Subprocesses, a model of formulating and empirical findings. Learning and Instruction, 10, 73–99. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Amiryousefi, Mohammad
2017. The differential effects of collaborative vs. individual prewriting planning on computer-mediated L2 writing: transferability of task-based linguistic skills in focus. Computer Assisted Language Learning 30:8 ► pp. 766 ff. Crossref logo
Zhang, Lawrence Jun & Tony Limin Qin
2018.  In Metacognition in Language Learning and Teaching, ► pp. 157 ff. Crossref logo
Çiftçi, Hatime & Erhan Aslan
2019. Computer-Mediated Communication in the L2 Writing Process. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching 9:2 ► pp. 19 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 july 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.