淡江大學覺生紀念圖書館 (TKU Library)
進階搜尋


下載電子全文限經由淡江IP使用) 
系統識別號 U0002-1602201610251600
中文論文名稱 時間因素對寫作複雜度的影響:以台灣EFL大學生為個案
英文論文名稱 Time Factors on Writing Complexity:A Case Study on Taiwanese EFL College Student Writers
校院名稱 淡江大學
系所名稱(中) 英文學系碩士班
系所名稱(英) Department of English
學年度 104
學期 2
出版年 105
研究生中文姓名 陳怡婷
研究生英文姓名 I-Ting Chen
學號 601110348
學位類別 碩士
語文別 英文
第二語文別 英文
口試日期 2016-01-14
論文頁數 74頁
口試委員 指導教授-林銘輝
委員-林進瑛
委員-李佳盈
中文關鍵字 英語寫作  寫作複雜度  時間因素 
英文關鍵字 English writing  Writing complexity  Time factor 
學科別分類 學科別人文學語言文學
中文摘要 對許多語言學習者而言,寫作一直是最複雜的語言技能之一。為了幫助學生發展這項技能,許多研究一直致力於探討影響學生作家的潛在因素,例如,事前寫作任務(pre-planning tasks)對學生寫作表現的影響。然而,在眾多研究因素中,時間因素對學生寫作表現的影響卻很少被探討,這樣的欠缺在以英語為外國語(English as a foreign language: EFL)的台灣教育情境下更是顯著,尤其是時間因素對寫作複雜度的深度探討更是匱虞。為了釐清這個研究缺口,本論文以時間做為影響因素,探討42位台灣EFL學生的寫作複雜度表現。受試者必須分別完成兩組時限內的寫作考試:(一)20分鐘對比40分鐘,以及(二)30分鐘對比50分鐘。本研究一共收集168篇寫作樣本,並以推論和敘述性統計進行資料分析。結果顯示,時間在台灣EFL學生的寫作複雜度上的確扮演重要角色。準確地說,台灣EFL學生在較多的時間資源下比較少的時間資源下能夠在寫作上表現出更高的複雜度;換句話說,在時間壓力受限的狀況下,學生將無法充分將語言複雜度展現於寫作之中。本研究最後將以討論進行結論,同時提供未來學者進一步的研究方向。
英文摘要 Writing has long been considered to be one of the most complex language skills for language learners to master. To help students develop this skill, many studies have been devoted to exploring potential factors affecting student writers’ performance, such as the effect of pre-planning tasks. Among the many other factors examined, however, the sheer effect of time on students’ writing performance is rarely studied. This is particularly true in the educational context of Taiwan, where English is mostly learned as a foreign language (EFL). The understanding of Taiwanese EFL students’ linguistic performance in terms of writing complexity is especially limited. To shed light on this research gap, this thesis explores the effects of time factors on a group of 42 Taiwanese EFL students’ writing complexity. The participants involved were required to complete two sets of timed writing tests: (1) 20 minutes versus 40 minutes, and (2) 30 minutes versus 50 minutes. In total, they produced 168 writing samples for analysis, for which both inferential and descriptive statistics were employed. The thesis results show that time factors play an important role in Taiwanese EFL students’ writing complexity. Specifically, with greater time resources, Taiwanese EFL students write with more complexity than those with less time resources. This thesis concludes by providing discussions and identifying possible reasons for further studies.
論文目次 TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I
CHINESE ABSTRACT II
ABSTRACT III
TABLE OF CONTENTS V
LIST OF TABLES VII
LIST OF APPENDICES VIII
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Purpose of the Study 3
1.3 Significance of the Study 4
1.4 Overview of the Chapters 4
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 6
2.1 Introduction 6
2.2 Definition of Writing Complexity 6
2.3 Grammatical Complexity in Writing 7
2.4 Measures of Complexity in Writing: Which to Choose? 10
2.5 Time Factors and Writing Complexity 13
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 16
3.1 Introduction 16
3.2 Research Design 16
3.2.1 Participants 16
3.2.2 Timed Writing Tests 17
3.2.3 Raters and Measures for Writing Complexity 20
3.2.4 Data Analysis 20
3.2.5 Sentence and Clause Types Used for This Project 20
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS 24
4.1 Introduction 24
4.2 Results 24
4.2.1 The Inter-Rater Reliability 24
4.2.2 Differences in clauses between the 20 M- and 40 M-Writing Samples 25
4.2.3 Differences in clauses between the 30 M- and 50 M-Writing Samples 27
4.2.4 Differences in sentences between the 20 M- and 40 M-Writing Samples 29
4.2.5 Differences in Sentences between 30 M- and 50 M-Writing Samples 30
4.3 Summary 32
CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION 35
5.1 Introduction 35
5.2 Discussion 35
5.3 Conclusion 38
REFERENCES 41
APPENDICES 46

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Correlation between grammatical complexity frequency and students’ writing proficiency levels 8
Table 2.2 Correlation between grammatical complexity ratios and students’ writing proficiency levels 9
Table 3.1 Details of the exams used in the study 17
Table 3.2 Details of sentences types, their definitions, and corresponding examples 22
Table 3.3 Details of clauses types, their definitions, and corresponding examples 22
Table 4.1 Basic data on 20 M- versus 40 M-WS (clauses): Descriptive statistics for overall (18+24) 25
Table 4.2 Paired-samples t-test for clauses (20 M- versus 40 M-WS) 26
Table 4.3 Basic data on 30 M- versus 50 M-WS (clauses): Descriptive statistics for overall (18+24) 28
Table 4.4 Paired-samples t-test for clauses (30 M- versus 50 M-WS) 29
Table 4.5 Basic data on 20 M- versus 40 M-WS (sentences): Descriptive statistics for overall (18+24) 30
Table 4.6 Paired-samples t-test for sentences (20 M- versus 40 M-WS) 30
Table 4.7 Basic data on the 30 M- versus 50 M-WS (sentences): Descriptive statistics for overall (18+24) 31
Table 4.8 Paired-samples t-test for sentences (30 M- versus 50 M-WS) 32
Table 4.9 Paired-samples t-test for clauses (20 M- and 40 M-WS versus 30 M- and 50 M-WS) 33
Table 4.10 Paired-samples t-test for sentences (20 M- and 40 M-WS versus 30 M- and 50 M-WS) 34
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Rater 1 (clauses: 40 writing samples) 47
Appendix 2 Rater 1 (sentences: 40 writing samples) 50
Appendix 3 Rater 2 (clauses: 40 writing samples) 53
Appendix 4 Rater 2 (sentences: 40 writing samples) 56
Appendix 5 English Major Writing Samples (sentences): 20 minutes versus 40 minutes (midterm exam) 59
Appendix 6 English Minor Writing Samples (sentences): 20 minutes versus 40 minutes (midterm exam) 61
Appendix 7 English Major Writing Samples (sentences): 30 minutes versus 50 minutes (final exam) 63
Appendix 8 English Minor Writing Samples (sentences): 30 minutes versus 50 minutes (final exam) 65
Appendix 9 English Major Writing Samples (clauses): 20 minutes versus 40 minutes (midterm exam) 67
Appendix 10 English Minor Writing Samples (clauses): 20 minutes versus 40 minutes (midterm exam) 69
Appendix 11 English Major Writing Samples (clauses): 30 minutes versus 50 minutes (final exam) 71
Appendix 12 English Minor Writing Samples (clauses): 30 minutes versus 50 minutes (final exam) 73


參考文獻 REFERENCES
Arslan, R. Ş., & Şahin-Kızıl, A. (2010). How can the use of blog software facilitate the writing process of English language learners? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(3), 183-197.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., and Bofman, T. (1989). Attainment of syntactic and morphological accuracy by advanced language learners. Studies in Second language Acquisition, 11, 17-34.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992). A second look at T-unit analysis: Reconsidering the sentence. TESOL Quarterly, 26(2), 390-395.
Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K. (2011). Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 5-35.
Chang, C. Y. (2015). Teacher modeling on EFL reviewers’ audience-aware feedback and affectivity in L2 peer review. Assessing Writing, 25, 1-20.
Diessel, H. (2004). The acquisition of complex sentence. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., & G. Barkhuizen (2005). Analysing Learner Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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(1), 59-84.
Ferris, D. R. (1994). Lexical and syntactic features of ESL writing by students at different levels of L2 proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 414-420.
Foster, P & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(3), 299-324.
Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2012). Complexity, accuracy and fluency. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 Performance and Proficiency: Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in SLA (Vol. 32) (pp. 1-20). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Hunt, K. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. NCTE Research report No. 3. Champaign, IL, USA: NCTE.
Ishikawa, S. (1995). Objective measurement of low-proficiency EFL narrative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 51-70.
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.
Wu, J. R. (2012). GEPT and English language teaching and testing in Taiwan. Language Assessment Quarterly, (9)1, 11-25.
Kalikokha, C., Strauss, P., & Smedley, F. (2009). The perceptions of first-year undergraduate Malawian students of the essay writing process. Africa Education Review, 6(1), 37-54.
Kenworthy, R (2006). Timed versus at-home assessment tests: Does time affect the quality of second language learners’ written composition? TEDL-EL, 10(1). Retrieved 29 June, 2009, from http://www.cc.kyoto-su.ac.jp/information/tesl-ej/ej37/a2.html
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). NY: Cambridge University Press.
Liang, H.-H. (2015). Improving EFL university students’ writing attitudes, audience awareness and writing quality through cognitive writing process. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Tamkang University.
Lin, M. H. (2012). Blog assisted language learning in the EFL writing classroom: An experimental study. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Lin, M. H. (2014). Effect of classroom blogging on ESL student writers: An empirical reassessment. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 23(3), 557-590. DOI:10.1007/s40299-013-0131-8.
Lin, M. H. (2015). Writing complexity, accuracy, and fluency: Validity as indicators for Taiwanese EFL writers? Paper presented at the 1st Interschool Academic Conference on Linguistics, Literature, and Language Teaching, Taichung, Taiwan.
Lin, M. H., & Chen, I.-T. (2015). Time factors in writing complexity, accuracy, and fluency: A preliminary trade-off model found in Taiwanese EFL students' compositions. In the Proceedings of 2015 International Conference and Workshop on TEFL & Applied Linguistics (pp. 161-169). Taipei: Crane Publishing.
Lin, M. H., Li, J. J., Hung, P.Y., & Huang, H. W. (2014). Blogging a Journal: Changing Students’ Writing Skills and Perceptions. ELT Journal, 68(4), 422-431.
Lu, X. (2011). A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers’ language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 36-62.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards on organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555-578.
Ortega. L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: a research synthesis of college level L2 writing. Applied Linguistic, 24, 492-518.
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(4), 218-233.
Parkinson, J., & Musgtave, J, (2014). Development of noun phrase complexity in the writing of English for academic purposes students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 14, 48-59.
Peng, C. Y., & Hsu, P. Y. (2008). Online journal writing: Effects on writing performance and writing self-efficacy of undergraduate students – A case of Chaoyang University of Technology. Saarbrucken, Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Muller.
Polat, B., & Kim, Y. (2013). Dynamics of complexity and accuracy: A longitudinal case study of advanced untutored development. Applied Linguistics. DOI: 10.1093/applin/amt013.
Polio, C., Fleck, C., & Leder, N. (1998). “If I only had more time:’’ ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 43-68.
Ravid, D., & Berman, R. A. (2010). Developing noun phrase complexity at school age: A text-embedded cross-linguistic analysis. First Language, 30, 3-26.
Robinson, P., & Gilabert, R. (2007). Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis and second language learning and performance. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(3), 161-176.
Shih, C.M. (2006). Perceptions of the General English Proficiency Test and its washback: A case study at two technological institutes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Canada.
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.
Stockwell, G. & Harrington, M. (2003). The incidental development of L2 proficiency in NS-NNS email interaction. CALICO Journal, 20(2), 337-359.
Vongpumivitch, V. (2006). An impact study of Taiwan’s General Proficiency English Test (GEPT). Paper presented at annual Language Testing Research Colloquium, Melbourne, Australia.
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H. Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. University of Hawaii. Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Yeh, S.-Y., & Lin, M. H. (2015). The trade-off relationship between English writing fluency, accuracy, and complexity: The time factor in college students’ English writing performance. Paper presented at the 32nd International Conference on English Teaching & Learning, Taipei, Taiwan.
Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pretask planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24, 1-27.
論文使用權限
  • 同意紙本無償授權給館內讀者為學術之目的重製使用,於2016-02-23公開。
  • 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2016-02-23起公開。


  • 若您有任何疑問,請與我們聯絡!
    圖書館: 請來電 (02)2621-5656 轉 2486 或 來信