Automated analysis of cohesive features in L2 writing: Examining effects of task complexity and task repetition

IF 4.2 1区文学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Assessing Writing Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI:10.1016/j.asw.2023.100783

Mahmoud Abdi Tabari , Mark D. Johnson , Mahsa Farahanynia

{"title":"Automated analysis of cohesive features in L2 writing: Examining effects of task complexity and task repetition","authors":"Mahmoud Abdi Tabari , Mark D. Johnson , Mahsa Farahanynia","doi":"10.1016/j.asw.2023.100783","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>Informed by task-based approaches to language teaching, recent L2 writing research has sought to determine the effect of task complexity features on the complexity, accuracy, and fluency of written L2 production (Johnson, 2017). However, two areas of task-informed research have received scant attention: a) the effect of task complexity features on L2 writers’ use of cohesive devices and b) the effect of task repetition as a form of implicit planning. Furthermore, interaction effects of task complexity and task repetition on different types of cohesive devices in L2 writing have not been explored. To bridge these gaps, this study examines the effects of resource-directing task complexity features (Robinson, 2005), task repetition (Lambert et al., 2017), and their interaction on L2 writers’ use of cohesive devices. Ninety-six participants composed two argumentative essays in counterbalanced order: a) a simple task and b) a complex task and then completed a task difficulty questionnaire. After an interval of one week, the participants repeated each task. Essays were then analyzed using the Tool for Automatic Analysis of Cohesion—or TAACO (Crossley et al., 2018)—for indices found to be predictors of human ratings of essay organization (Abdi Tabari & Johnson, 2023). A factorial repeated-measures MANOVA revealed limited effects of task repetition on the participants’ use of cohesive devices. Rather, task complexity features had a more robust effect on their use of textual and local cohesive devices.</div>","PeriodicalId":46865,"journal":{"name":"Assessing Writing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Assessing Writing","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1075293523000910","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Informed by task-based approaches to language teaching, recent L2 writing research has sought to determine the effect of task complexity features on the complexity, accuracy, and fluency of written L2 production (Johnson, 2017). However, two areas of task-informed research have received scant attention: a) the effect of task complexity features on L2 writers’ use of cohesive devices and b) the effect of task repetition as a form of implicit planning. Furthermore, interaction effects of task complexity and task repetition on different types of cohesive devices in L2 writing have not been explored. To bridge these gaps, this study examines the effects of resource-directing task complexity features (Robinson, 2005), task repetition (Lambert et al., 2017), and their interaction on L2 writers’ use of cohesive devices. Ninety-six participants composed two argumentative essays in counterbalanced order: a) a simple task and b) a complex task and then completed a task difficulty questionnaire. After an interval of one week, the participants repeated each task. Essays were then analyzed using the Tool for Automatic Analysis of Cohesion—or TAACO (Crossley et al., 2018)—for indices found to be predictors of human ratings of essay organization (Abdi Tabari & Johnson, 2023). A factorial repeated-measures MANOVA revealed limited effects of task repetition on the participants’ use of cohesive devices. Rather, task complexity features had a more robust effect on their use of textual and local cohesive devices.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

二语写作中衔接特征的自动分析:任务复杂性和任务重复的影响

在基于任务的语言教学方法的指导下，最近的二语写作研究试图确定任务复杂性特征对二语写作的复杂性、准确性和流利性的影响（Johnson，2017）。然而，任务知情研究的两个领域很少受到关注：a）任务复杂性特征对二语作者使用衔接手段的影响；b）任务重复作为一种内隐规划形式的影响。此外，任务复杂性和任务重复对二语写作中不同类型衔接手段的交互作用尚未得到探索。为了弥补这些差距，本研究考察了资源导向任务复杂性特征（Robinson，2005）、任务重复（Lambert et al.，2017）及其相互作用对二语作者使用衔接手段的影响。96名参与者按平衡顺序撰写了两篇议论文：a）简单任务和b）复杂任务，然后完成了任务难度问卷。间隔一周后，参与者重复每项任务。然后，使用衔接自动分析工具（TAACO）（Crossley et al.，2018）对论文进行分析，发现这些指数可以预测论文组织的人类评级（Abdi Tabari&；Johnson，2023）。因子重复测量MANOVA揭示了任务重复对参与者使用内聚手段的有限影响。相反，任务复杂性特征对它们使用文本和局部衔接手段的影响更大。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Assessing Writing Multiple-

CiteScore

6.00

自引率

17.90%

发文量

期刊介绍： Assessing Writing is a refereed international journal providing a forum for ideas, research and practice on the assessment of written language. Assessing Writing publishes articles, book reviews, conference reports, and academic exchanges concerning writing assessments of all kinds, including traditional (direct and standardised forms of) testing of writing, alternative performance assessments (such as portfolios), workplace sampling and classroom assessment. The journal focuses on all stages of the writing assessment process, including needs evaluation, assessment creation, implementation, and validation, and test development.