A.J.S. van Gelderen

Linguistic Knowledge, Metacognitive Knowledge And Retrieval Speed In L1, L2 And Efl Writing A structural equation modelling approach

This chapter presents an analysis of the Dutch and English writing proficiency of students who learned Dutch as a second language, compared to students for whom Dutch is the first language. Participants are 13/14 year-old secondary school students. The point of departure in the analyses is a regression model in which writing proficiency is decomposed into three types of constituent subskills: linguistic knowledge (vocabulary, grammar, and orthographic knowledge), speed or fluency of processing linguistic knowledge (word retrieval and sentence building), and metacognitive knowledge of both text characteristics and reading and writing strategies. This study investigates whether there are structural differences in both the Dutch writing and the English writing of the non-native speakers of Dutch compared to their native Dutch-speaking peers. Our hypothesis is that the two groups will differ in their Dutch writing, but not so much in their English writing. Using structural equation modelling, we firstly test whether the writing model for the native Dutch writers, with respect to the explanatory value of the constituent skills, holds for the non-native Dutch writers as well. Secondly, we test whether the English writing ‘decomposition’ is the same across the two student groups. Despite the differences in writing proficiency, no essential differences between the two groups were found in the pattern of weights of either Dutch or English writing proficiency on the three types of predictor variables (language knowledge, retrieval speed, and metacognitive knowledge).

Prediction of global ratings of Fluency and Delivery in narrative discourse by linguistic and phonetic measures; oral performances of students aged 11-12 years.

A rating scheme was developed for the evaluation of performances of students at the end of primary education on oral communication tasks. The scheme consists of four dimensions representing the main functions speakers must fulfil in order to be perceived as communicatively effective, viz., reference (representation of meaning), delivery (appropriate means for expression and appeal), fluency (smoothness, controlledness and continuity of discourse) and intelligibility (decodability of utterances and sentence patterns). This article reports on a validation study that aimed at establishing the distinctive meanings of ratings of delivery and fluency given by a jury of three trained raters. A hundred performances of students completing a story in front of a classmate were rated by the jury using the rating scheme. The jury ratings for delivery and fluency were then related to several linguistic and phonetic variables (such as lexical reinforcers of register, self-corrections, pause durations and variation of intonation) that were selected to serve as differential predictors. Hypotheses about their predictive value were tested using two samples of 60 texts from the original sample of 100 and by applying

IMPROVING LINGUISTIC FLUENCY FOR WRITING: EFFECTS OF EXPLICITNESS AND FOCUS OF INSTRUCTION

In an explorative classroom experiment the effects of several instructional conditions for writing were compared. Studies on writing suggest that linguistic fluency is an important factor in writers abilities to manipulate sentence structures in order to produce comprehensible text. L1 writing theories indicate that working memory limitations play an important role in formulation. Therefore, improving linguistic fluency presumably frees working memory space and allows the writer to devote more attention to meaning-related problems. An important point of debate in language-learning theories is the role of explicit knowledge about linguistic structure. Some believe that explicit rule knowledge has an important role in acquiring fluency, while others maintain that explicit knowledge has no real influence on skill development, and that fluency develops on the basis of the implicit knowledge of linguistic structures. In recent L2 theories a focus solely on meaning appears insufficient for mastery of linguistic structures. Meaning-oriented language production should, in this view, be complemented by a focus on form(s). Four learning conditions for improving linguistic fluency were discriminated according to the dimensions “focus of instruction” (forms vs. meaning) and “explicitness of instruction” (implicit vs. explicit). Students of elementary grades 5 and 6 (including both first- and advanced second-language learners of Dutch) received four lessons involving the linguistic operations for adding information to sentences in meaningful contexts and avoiding unnecessary (repetition of) information. Results of the experiment show significant positive effects of all four conditions on two post-test formulation tasks in comparison to a control group.

Validating a test of second language written lexical retrieval: a new measure of fluency in written language production

Lexical retrieval is an essential subprocess of language production and crucial in fluent writing and speaking. In this study we discuss a new measure of the speed of written lexical retrieval in a second language, the Written Productive Translation Task (WPTT). In contrast to Picture Naming tasks, the WPTT is not restricted to concrete nouns and verbs that can be depicted by pictures. The WPTT can also test combinations of words. Moreover, the WPTT can be used in a classroom setting because individual testing is not required. Using Messick’s 1989 framework, we investigated whether the WPTT is an appropriate measure of the construct of written lexical retrieval. In a multiple regression approach we examined the relationship between the WPTT and another test of the same construct, a written Picture Naming task. In addition, we looked at the relationship with other related constructs such as lexical access and orthographic encoding. Results suggest that the WPTT is both a reliable and valid measure of written lexical retrieval. When corrected for typing speed, the WPTT is related to the Picture Naming task and Orthographic Encoding. Finally, the results show that the relationship between the WPTT and the Lexical Decision Task is not very strong. This study makes clear that Lexical Decision Tasks do not constitute a valid substitute for measuring written lexical retrieval. At the same time it underlines the advantages of using a test specifically developed for measuring speed of written lexical retrieval like the WPTT.