在以英語為第二語言或外語（ESL/EFL）的領域中，寫作是重要的研究議題之一，也因此許多學者投入檢視可能影響ESL/EFL學生寫作表現的潛在因素。在眾多的變項研究中，許多學者發現時間因素似乎左右著「有限注意力容量配置」（LACM: Limited Attentional Capacity Model）的運作，並推論其對寫作能力表現的影響。LACM據信對於記憶處理機制具有一定的影響力，而透過時間壓力的催化，寫作複雜度（Complexity）、正確度（Accuracy）及流暢度（Fluency）（簡稱寫作CAF）彼此之間將產生不同的聯繫關係。然而，當前對LACM與CAF三者間的互動模式之了解仍相當有限，尤其是時間因素對於臺灣EFL大專學生寫作CAF的影響更是匱缺。因此，為能釐清時間因素對於LACM與寫作CAF的影響，本實驗以推論及描述統計對43位臺灣EFL大專學生受試者進行於不同時限（30分鐘及50分鐘）的寫作文本分析。研究結果顯示，複雜度與正確度及複雜度與流暢度之間皆存在顯著的抵換機制（trade-off model）：當寫作時間匱乏時，受試者傾向於發展寫作流暢度；寫作時間充裕時，受試者則致力發展寫作正確度。本研究最後以英語寫作教學啟示及未來研究之建議進行結論。

Writing has been an important research issue in the domain of English as a Second/Foreign Language (ESL/EFL). Many investigations have been deployed to survey the latent factors that could affect ESL/EFL learners’ writing performance. Amongst them, time has been identified as one of the major causes, which may activate the Limited Attentional Capacity Model (LACM)—a framework considered to be potent over the memory processing system—and could result in possible turbulence in the interactive relationship between writing complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF). Still, the current understanding towards this aspect, particularly the influence of time on Taiwanese university-level EFL students’ writing CAF, is still limited. To throw clear light on how time variables alone may have an impact on LACM and hence writing CAF, the researcher of this study scrutinized the textual outputs created by 43 EFL participants, who wrote under two different time frames (i.e., 30 minutes versus 50 minutes). Both inferential and descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data garnered. The results reveal explicit trade-off models between complexity and accuracy/fluency. Specifically, when writing with limited time resources (i.e., 30 minutes), student writers were inclined to develop writing fluency; in contrast, when writing with more time resources (i.e., 50 minutes), they would apply themselves to the development of writing accuracy. This research finishes with pedagogical implications and suggestions for future investigations.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……	I
CHINESE ABSTRACT……	VII
ABSTRACT……	VIII
TABLE OF CONTENTS……	X
LIST OF TABLES……	XII
LIST OF FIGURES……	XIII
LIST OF APPENDICES……	XIV
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION……	1
1.1	Background of the Study……	1
1.2	Research Questions……	6
1.3	Purpose of the Study……	7
1.4	Significance of the Study……	7
1.5	Outline of the Chapters……	8
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW……	10
2.1	Definition and Measures of CAF……	10
2.1.1	Complexity……	10
2.1.2	Accuracy……	11
2.1.3	Fluency……	12
2.2	Reviews of the Relevant Research……	12
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY……	19
3.1	Participants……	19
3.2	Writing Tests and Time Implemented……	20
3.3	CAF Measures……	21
3.4	Raters……	24
3.5	Data Analysis……	25
3.6	Technical Problems for CAF Measures……	26
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION……	28
4.1	Inter-rater Reliability……	28
4.2	Interaction between CAF……	29
4.3	Descriptive Statistics……	34
4.4	Discussion……	36
CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION……	41
5.1	Conclusion……	41
5.2	Limitation and Suggestions……	42
REFERENCES……	45
APPENDICES……	54

LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1 Inter-rater Reliability between the Raters……	29
Table 4.2 Basic Information of the Writing Samples……	30
Table 4.3 Inferential Statistics (30-Minute Writing Test)……	33
Table 4.4 Inferential Statistics (50-Minute Writing Test)……	33

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1 Example of Complexity Assessment (Original Passage)……	21
Figure 3.2 Example of Complexity Assessment (Paraphrased Passage)……	22
Figure 3.3 Example of Accuracy Assessment (Error-free T-unit)……	23
Figure 3.4 Example of Accuracy Assessment (Erroneous T-unit)……	23
Figure 3.5 Descriptive Statistical Display of Each Numerical Counts Using WordList……	24
Figure 4.1 CAF Interaction in the 30-Minute Writing Test……	35
Figure 4.2 CAF Interaction in the 50-Minute Writing Test……	36
Figure 4.3 Overall Trade-off Relationship between CAF……	37
Figure 4.4 Trade-off Relationship between CAF (30 Minutes)……	38
Figure 4.5 Trade-off Relationship between CAF (50 Minutes)……	38

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Enlarged Image of Figure 4.1……	55
Appendix 2 Enlarged Image of Figure 4.2……	56
Appendix 3 Basic Information of the English Majors’ 30-Minute Writing Samples (Rater 1)……	57
Appendix 4 Basic Information of the English Majors’ 50-Minute Writing Samples (Rater 1)……	59
Appendix 5 Basic Information of the English Minors’ 30-Minute Writing Samples (Rater 1)……	61
Appendix 6 Basic Information of the English Minors’ 50-Minute Writing Samples (Rater 1)……	63
Appendix 7 Basic Information of the English Minors’ 30-Minute Writing Samples (Rater 2)……	65
Appendix 8 Basic Information of the English Minors’ 50-Minute Writing Samples (Rater 2)……	67

Alwi, N. M., Adams, R., & Newton, J. (2012). Writing to learn via text chat: Task implementation and focus on form. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(1), 23-39.
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.
Bygate, M. (1999). Quality of language and purpose of task: Patterns of learners’ language on two oral communication tasks. Language Testing Research, 3, 185-214.
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267-296.
Chang, C. Y. (2015). Teacher modeling on EFL reviewers’ audience-aware feedback and affectivity in L2 peer review. Assessing Writing, 252-21.
Chen, I. T. (2016). Time factors on writing complexity: A case study on Taiwanese EFL college student writers. Master’s Thesis. Tamkang University, New Taipei City, Republic of China (Taiwan).
Chenoweth, A., & Hayes, J. (2001). Fluency in writing: Generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication, 18, 80-98.
Collentine, J. (2004). The effects of learning contexts on morphosyntactic and lexical development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(2), 227-248.
Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Derwing, M., & Rossiter, J. (2003). The effects of pronunciation instruction on the accuracy, fluency, and complexity of L2 accented speech. Applied Language Learning, 13, 1-18.
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.
Fazio, L. L. (2001). The effect of corrections and commentaries on the journal writing accuracy of minority- and majority-language students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 235-349.
Freed, B. (1995). What makes us think that students who study abroad become fluent? In B. Freed (Ed.), Second Language Acquisition in a Study Abroad Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Freed, B. (2000). Is fluency, like beauty, the eyes, of the beholder? In H. Riggenbach (Ed.), Perspectives on Fluency. Michigan: the University of Michigan Press.
Hilton, H. (2008). The link between vocabulary knowledge and spoken L2 fluency. Language Learning Journal, 36(2), 153-66.
Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 461-473.
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.
Housen, A., Van Daele, S., & Pierrard, M. (2005). Rule complexity and the effectiveness of explicit grammar instruction. In A. Housen & M. Pierrard (Eds.), Investigations in instructed Second Language Acquisition. Mouton de Gruyter.
Huang, S.-Y. (2005). Taiwanese students talk about English in Taiwan and their lives. Languages, Communities, and Education. 45-54.
Hunt, K. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. NCTE Research report No. 3. Champaign, IL, USA: NCTE.
Jacobs, H. L., Zinkgraf, S. A., Wormuth, D. R., Hartfiel, V. F., & Hughey, J. B. (1981). Testing ESL Composition: A practical approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
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.
Kellog, R. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The Science of Writing (pp. 57-71). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kuiken, F, & Vedder, I. (2007). Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(3), 261-84.
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(1), 48-60.
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.
Latif, M. M. M. A. (2013). What do we mean by writing fluency and how can it be validly measured? Applied Linguistics, 34(1), 99-10.
Lennon, P. (2000). The lexical element in spoken second language fluency. In H. Riggenbach (Ed.), Perspectives on Fluency. The University of Michigan Press.
Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. MIT Press.
Lin, M. H. (2009). Evaluation of writing by computerized measurements and human raters: A pilot study. In the Proceedings of the Sixth OCIT Conference on Applied English Teaching, pp. 75-86, Taichung, Taiwan.
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., Groom, N., & Lin, C.-Y. (2013). Blog-assisted learning in the ESL writing classroom: A phenomenological analysis. Education Technology & Society, 16(3), 130-139.
Lin, M. H. (2015, May). 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., Chen, I.-T., & Chen, H.-K. (2015, June). What does time buy? A preliminary investigation on Taiwanese EFL students’ writing performance. Paper presented at the 11th Annual English Conference, New Taipei City, Taiwan.
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.
Muresan, L., & Pérez-Llantada, C. (2014). English for research publication and dissemination in bi-/multiliterate environments: The case of Romanian academics. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1353-64.
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.
O’Brien, I., Segalowitz, N., Freed, B., & Collentine, J. (2007). Phonological memory predicts second language oral fluency gains in adults. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 557-581.
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.
Ong, J., & L. J. Zhang (2013). Effects of the manipulation of cognitive processes on EFL writers’ text quality. TESOL Quarterly, 47(2), 375-398.
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. (1997). Measures of linguistics accuracy in second language writing research. Language Learning, 47, 101-143.
Riggenbach, H. (Ed.) (2000). Perspectives on Fluency. MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Robinson, P. (2001). Individual differences, cognitive abilities, aptitude complexity, and learning cognitions in SLA. Second Language Research, 17, 368-392.
Robinson, P. (2002). Effects of individual differences in intelligence, aptitude, and working memory on adult incidental SLA: A replication and extension of Reber, Walkenfeld, and Hernstadt, 1991. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 211-266). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Robinson, P. (2011). Second language task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In P. Robinson (Ed.). Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 3-37). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
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.
Salimi, A., Dadaspour, S., & Asadollahfam, H. (2011). The effect of task complexity on EFL learners’ written performance. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 1390-1399.
Salimi, A., & Dadaspour, S. (2012). Task complexity and language production dilemmas (Robinson’s Cognition Hypothesis vs. Skehan’s Trade-off Model). Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 643-652.
Schmidt, R. (1990a). Input, interaction, attention, and awareness: the case for consciousness raising in second language teaching. Enpuli Encontro National Professors Universities de Lengua Inglea, Rio de Janeiro.
Schmidt, R. (1990b). The role of consciousness in second language learning 1. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 1-32). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Seidlhofe, B. (2005). English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal, 59 (4), 339-341.
Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. (2001). Tasks and language performance assessment. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.). Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 167-185). Harlow: Pearson Education.
Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Learning Teaching, 36(1), 1-14.
Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510-532.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185-211.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retelling. Language Learning, 49(1), 93-100.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In P. Robison (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction, 183-205.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2007). Complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis in task-based performance: A meta-analysis of the Ealing Research. In S. Van Daele et al. (Eds.), Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in Second Language Use, Learning and Teaching. Contactforum.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2012). Complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis in task-based performance: A synthesis of the Ealing research. Language Learning & Language Teaching (MS).
Selinker, L. (1992). Rediscovering interlanguage. New York: Longman.
Tavakoli, P., & Skehan, P. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Tavakoli, P., & Skehan, P. (2011). Task design and second language performance: the effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 61(s1), 37-72.
Tonkyn, A. (2007). Short-term changes in complexity, accuracy and fluency: Developing progress-sensitive proficiency tests. In S. Van Daele et al. (Eds.) Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in Second Language Use, Learning and Teaching. Contactforum.
Towell, R., & Dewaele, J.-M. (2005). The role of psycholinguistic factors in the development of fluency amongst advanced learners of French. In J.-M. Dewaele (Ed.), Focus on French as a Foreign Language: Multidisciplinary Approaches. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Vercellotti, M. L. (2015). The development of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language performance: A longitudinal study. Applied Linguistics, Advance Access Published 13 March 2015; doi: 10.1093/applin/amv002
Wendel, J. (1997). Planning and second language narrative production. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Japan Tokyo.
Williams, J., & Evans, J. (1998). What kind of focus and on which forms? In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
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.
Wu, M. L., & Tu, C. T. (2005). SPSS & the Application and Analysis of Statistics. Taipei: Wu Nan.
Wu, M. L., & Tu, C. T. (2009). SPSS & the Application and Analysis of Statistics (2nd ed). Taipei: Wu Nan.
Young, R. (1995). Conversational styles in language proficiency interviews. Language Learning, 45(1), 3-42.
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.