1. Chapter One: Introduction
2.5 Second language writing development
2.5.1.2 Accuracy
Wolfe-Quintero et al. (1998) have defined accuracy as the ability to be free from errors while
using language to communicate in either writing or speech. They believe that the purpose of
accuracy measures is the comparison between the learners' ability of using the language in
communication with target-like use. Accuracy has been said to arise from the three following
interacting sources:
1. The degree of accuracy of the language representation itself,
2. The strength of competing representations, and
61
The first source here corresponds to the degree to which the learner has internalized the target
language system correctly, the second source relates to the strength of different forms
internalized in comparison with other representations and the final one comes from the extent to
which one or the other form is retrieved automatically. On the relationship between speed of
language use and accuracy MacKay (1982) states that when language production is still in the
process of being automatised, there are trade-offs between the two. It means that when the
learner produces either extremely slowly or extremely rapidly, there are more errors in his/her
production. Also, it has been observed that in second language development, some kind of
transfer from either the learner's first language representations, or earlier stages of the second
language may cause difficulty in the production of the target language representations. Wolfe-
Quintero et al. (1998) conclude from these observations that as more correct representations get
strengthened over time, they will be more likely to get activated.
In regard to automatisation aspect of language production, Ellis (1996) considers 'memory for
chunks' as the basis not only of automaticity and fluency, but also of the higher-level
restructuring that can result in complexity and accuracy gains. Learners develop their fluency as
they automatise access to their encoded language knowledge and improve complexity and
accuracy features of their language use when they restructure the learned language
representations.
Brumfit (1984) takes a contrasting view between accuracy and fluency and proposes that the
62
and automatic use of natural language for communication. He believes that accuracy is the
outcome of a conscious attention to form, not an unconscious restructuring process. In Brumfit's
view of language pedagogy, the important issue is whether classroom attention is more focused
on learning accurate target language forms to achieve accuracy, or to communicating a message
to achieve fluency.
For Wolfe-Quintero et al. (1998), however, accuracy can be related to a continuum from more
implicit to more explicit forms of language knowledge. A more explicit or conscious access to
certain aspects of language knowledge can play a role in the self-monitoring of language
production, including the conscious editing of writing. In this view, the conscious application of
editing knowledge in writing is part of the higher level control over plans (Schmidt, 1992) that
exists in all language production. Editing is a conscious plan, but the language choices made
while editing are subject to the same gradual development of automaticity and restructuring as all
language knowledge is.
Evidence drawn from research indicates that errors themselves may be automatised (Schmidt,
1992), that the automatic self-correction of low-level errors occurs when basic writers read their
writing out loud (Bartholomae, 1980), and that it is difficult to allocate conscious attention to
different types of errors when L2 writing products are being edited (Zamel, 1995). Writers are
dependent on the state of their language knowledge when it comes to the types of errors they
search for notice or are able to correct either automatically or through a conscious struggle.
63
In second language writing development research, error analysis has been an important technique
because of the fundamental assumption that, as writers become more proficient; it becomes
easier for them to produce increasingly accurate language which is by definition less erroneous.
Larsen-Freeman (1978) considered both structural errors in second language learners' writing
and the use of oversimplified sentence structures as indications of incomplete syntactic control.
Hence, Wolfe-Quintero et al. (1998) conclude that a lack of knowledge of the second language
can manifest itself as simplification which is the complexity issue or as error, the accuracy issue.
According to this view the avoidance strategy by which the writer who has not absorbed a
syntactic structure completely and shows no tendency to use it in his/her writing is also taken
into consideration. Therefore, analysing the accuracy measures by which both errors (as
indications of lack of accuracy) and avoidance strategies (as manifestations of lack of
complexity) will give the second language writing development researchers a dual picture of
understanding the way the second language learners develop their writing repertoire.
It has been generally assumed that there exists a close relationship between the development of
accuracy (fewer errors), an increase of fluency (faster rate and greater length), and an increase in
complexity (more lexical and grammatical variety). Yet, researchers like Foster and Skehan
(1996), MacKay (1982), and Tedick (1990) studied these three components of language
development and showed that there is not a necessarily linear relationship between them. In
Foster and Skehan's (1996) study the more complex sentences learners tried to produce, the more
errors they were likely to make, and in MacKay's (1982) the more rapidly learners produced
language that was not fully automatic the more errors they made. In Tedick's (1990) research
64
that second language learners produce longer T-units, when they are more familiar with the topic
of writing assignment though their error-free T-units are fewer. Tedick concluded that familiarity
with the topic might have been a factor of increase in risk-taking in the learners making them
produce longer T-units and also larger number of errors associated. In contrast with the results of
these studies, Wolfe-Quintero et al. (1998) believe that complexity and accuracy may progress
together over long-term development and the above mentioned trade-off might be a factor only at
certain points in time.
As we see, studying ESL/EFL learners' writing development in terms of individual components
of the CAF studies and also the relationship between one component to the others either at a
particular time or over time will result in conflicting ideas. Therefore, it is an important issue to
consider if the researcher is conducting a cross-sectional or a longitudinal study in order to
interpret the results appropriately.
Defining accuracy measures: Two approaches to counting the errors in a written text have been
widely used in second language writing development research. The first approach deals with
whether a structural unit of some type is error-free, whether clauses, sentences, or T-unit. The
measures that are usually searched for in this approach are the number of error free T-units per
T-unit (EFT/T) or the number of error free clauses per clause (EFC/C). In this approach the
learners' level, the discriminative value of the errors within the population, and the researcher's
preferences determine the type of error(s) that should be taken into account (Wolfe-Quintero et
al., 1998). Various error types that typically have been counted in different studies within this
65
unit is error-free. The second approach is the analysis of how many errors occur in relation to
production units such as words, clauses, or T-units. In this approach all errors can be considered,
as in the calculation of the number of errors per word (E/W), or errors of various types can be
considered, as in the calculation of morphological errors per clause (MorE/C). Typical types of
errors are syntactic, morphological, lexical, or semantic. Researchers like Homburg (1984) and
Zughoul (1991), however, used their own method of error classification.
Bardovi-Harlig and Bofman (1989) criticized the first approach saying that measures such as
error-free T-unit per T-unit do not reveal how errors are distributed within the T-unit. They
argued that "a single error of any type is sufficient to eliminate a T-unit from the error-free
category. In this way, a T-unit exhibiting one error is treated identically to a T-unit exhibiting
multiple errors" (p 22). Moreover, Wolfe-Quintero et al. (1998) discuss that error-free measures
do not reveal what types of errors are involved, because all types of errors that are being
analysed are treated as equivalent for purposes of determining the correctness of a unit. As a
result of these criticisms of error-free T-unit measures, the second approach as introduced above
was developed by Bardovi-Harlig and Bofman (1989) and Homburg (1984).
The number of error free T-units is the most frequently used measure in accuracy measures.
Although it is expected to increase as proficiency increases, Wolfe-Quintero et al. (1998) argue
that the assumption may be false, because there may be a trade-off between accuracy and
complexity that prevents a co-linear relationship. The evidence they give refers to the results of
Tomita (1990) and Sharma (1980). In Tomita's study the third-year students committed more
66
second year students, while in Sharma's study the number of error-free T-units decreased from
low intermediate to high intermediate learners.
These discrepancies in the results of frequency measures of accuracy might have called the
attention of the researchers to the accuracy ratio measures. Wolfe-Quintero et al. (1998: 43) have
given a list of 27 accuracy ratios that have been used in quite a number of studies. Yet many of
these ratios have been used in only one or two studies whereas, the two measures of error-free T-
unit ratio (EFT/T) and the errors per T-unit ratio (E/T) have been used more frequently. Carlisle
and McKenna (1991), Henry (1996), Homburg (1980), Larsen-Freeman (1983), Rifkin and
Roberts (1995), and Tomita (1990) are just a few examples using the ratio measures.
One general result gained from the error-free T-unit ratio studies as concluded by Wolfe-
Quintero et al. (1998: 45) is this that there may not be a linear relationship between accuracy and
proficiency in second language writing. Regarding the studies that counted the ratio of errors
(errors per T-unit, E/T), it has been concluded that the measure is less an indication of
development than it is an indication of what teachers are looking for when they make
comparative judgements between learners at roughly the same level: overall accuracy. Of course,
Wolfe-Quintero et al. (1998) suggest further studies to examine this generalisation they have
made.
2.5.1.3 Fluency
Fluency has been defined variously by different researchers. Housen and Kuiken (2009) state
67
characterized by perceptions of ease, eloquence, and ‘smoothness’ of speech or writing. Fluency is the "process of language in real time" (Schmidt, 1992: 358) with a focus on "the primacy of
meaning" (Foster and Skehan, 1996: 304).
One group of researchers have defined fluency in terms of the appropriate use of routines. For
Ellis (1996), for example, the routine is an automatised chunk of language and for House (1996)
it is a pragmatic formula. Wolfe-Quintero et al. (1998: 13) argue that "the use of routines will
result in an increase on measures of fluency, because the units of production will be longer and
easier to produce within a given time frame".
The problem with measuring fluency starts from the point where different definitions of fluency
give a kind of vague understanding of this construct in relation to the other two constructs of
CAF, i.e. complexity and accuracy. For example, in Fillmore's (1979) discussion, which focuses
on defining (elaborating) native speakers' fluency, fluent speakers are considered in terms of how
fast they talk, how coherent and complex their speech is, whether the speech is appropriate, and
how creative it is. Here, as we see, there is a combination of complexity and accuracy
characterisations involved. Lennon (1990: 390) views fluency as the ability to process the L2
with ‘native-like rapidity’ and Ellis (2003: 342) considers it as ‘the extent to which the language produced in performing a task manifests pausing, hesitation, or reformulation’.
Housen and Kuiken (2009) summarizing research on fluency conclude that language researchers
have mainly analyzed oral production data to determine exactly which quantifiable linguistic
68
1996; Cucchiarini et al. 2002; Kormos and Danes 2004). Within this framework speech fluency
is a multicomponential construct in which different subdimensions can be distinguished, such as
speed fluency (rate and density of delivery), breakdown fluency (number, length, and
distribution of pauses in speech), and repair fluency (number of false starts and repetitions)
(Tavakoli and Skehan 2005).
A quick look at the relevant literature reveals that a good bulk of research take fluency as an
aspect of language involving 'time' and 'speed' and therefore the concepts of time and its
measurement are two almost ever-present elements in defining and measuring fluency of speech.
In many cases this is true with fluency in writing, though not in all.
Regarding fluency in writing, Wolfe-Quintero et al. (1998) observe the same vague image of the
relationship between fluency, complexity and accuracy for "second language writers who may be
considered fluent if they can produce written language rapidly, coherently, appropriately, and
creatively" (p 13).
Having reviewed different definitions and methods of measuring fluency, Wolfe-Quintero et al.
(1998) take an automaticity view towards the construct, the view that characterises fluency as an
"automatic procedural skill" (Schmidt, 1992). In this view, fluency means that more words and
more structures are accessed in a limited time, whereas lack of fluency means that only a few
words or structures are accessed. For Wolfe-Quintero et al. (1998) "fluency is not a measure of
69
words or structural units a writer is able to include in their writing within a particular period of
time: (p 14).
Defining fluency measures: Three ways of measuring fluency have been introduced by Wolfe-
Quintero et al. (1998). In the first and most common way the number, length or rate of
production unit would be counted. By production unit here it is meant sentences, T-units,
clauses, and phrases. In this method, fluency is measured by considering the length of production
units by counting the average number of words in them. Calculating the number of words
produced per minute is another way of measuring fluency. This is the rate measure of production
as proposed by Arthur (1979). Although length measures such as words per T-unit (W/T) or
words per utterance (W/U) had been considered measures of complexity, Wolfe-Quintero et al.
(1998) consider all length measures to be measures of fluency. Calculating the average length of
complex nominals in T-units (measured as the number of words in complex nominals per T-
units, or WCN/T) and the average length of complex nominals per clause (measured as the
number of words in complex nominals per clause, or WCN/C) are the other two methods of
measuring fluency, although they appear, as Wolfe-Quintero et al. say, to be related more to
complexity than to fluency.
The last group of fluency measures is the 'error-free measures' in which the fluency of a writer
within the context of writing accurate sentences is examined. In these measures the total number
of words within error-free T-units (WEFT) or words within error-free clauses (WEFC), as well
the average number of words per error-free T-unit (W/EFT) or words per error-free clauses
70
Wolfe-Quintero et al. explain the reason why they have considered them as the measures of
fluency referring to Ishikawa (1995) who contrasted measures of quantity (length) with quality
(error). Ishikawa stated that “to consider both kinds of measures 'syntactic' is to miss the very real distinction between them" (p 56). They give the example of a writer who may write only one
very long accurate T-unit. This writer will have a higher score on words in error-free T-units
(WEFT) or words per error-free T-units (W/EFT) than another writer who writes many more
accurate but shorter T-units. They conclude that the first writer is more fluent in accuracy
context, as the words per error-free T-unit measure would indicate, but the second writer is more
accurate overall.
After reviewing the two sets of studies in which fluency frequency measures (the number of
words (W), verbs (V), clauses (C), sentences (S), T-units (T), words in T-units (WT), words in
clauses (WC), words in error-free T-units (WEFT), and words in error-free clauses (WEFC)) and
fluency ratios measures (words per minute (W/M), clause length (W/C), sentence length (W/S),
T-unit length (W/T), error-free T-unit length (W/EFT), error-free clause length (W/EFC),
complex nominal length per T-unit (WCN/T), and complex nominal length per clause(WCN/C))
have been counted, Wolfe-Quintero et al. conclude that the best measures of fluency are the three
ratio measures. These measures are clause length (W/C), T-unit length (W/T), and error-free T-
unit length (W/EFT). The main reason for this preference, according to them, is the linear
relationship observed between the increase of these measures and proficiency level of the
research subjects they have examined.
71 2.6 Conclusion
This chapter has reviewed theories, definitions, and research concerning the topics relevant to
teaching, testing and L2 writing development. In order to give a brief summary of the topics
reviewed the whole chapter was divided into two broad areas. In the first three sections (2.2, 2.3,
and 2.4) issues around writing skill in general, and second language writing in particular were
discussed. Having reviewed the conceptualisations of writing introduced by Rivers (1981),
Widdowson (1983), and Zamel (1987), I have given a more detailed description of the two well-
known lines of thinking regarding the writing skill, i.e. writing as a product and writing as a
process. It was argued that as a result of advantages and disadvantages observed in these theories
of teaching writing, an integrative model of L2 pedagogy was introduced to the discipline
(Connor, 1987).
Regarding approaches to teaching L2 writing, Raimes's (1991) historical survey of approaches to
L2 writing instruction, that is, "focus on form", "focus on the writer", "focus on content", and
"focus on the reader" have been reviewed along with Hyland's (2003) conceptualisations of
instructional trends towards L2 writing i.e. the 7 orientations he believes should be seen as
"complementary and overlapping perspectives, representing potentially compatible means of
understanding the complex reality of writing" (Ibid: 2).
With regard to teaching writing in EFL contexts, especially at lower levels of proficiency, the so
called "functional approach" (Ibid: 6) in which the teacher chooses the appropriate patterns to
teach and the most effective way of using them is considered the most relevant model in
72
most highlighted principle is to relate structures to meanings, paragraphs are considered as
syntactic units composing of a number of sentences in which writers can fit particular functional
units into given slots, and students are taught how to form the functions into structural patterns.
The model is believed to be influential where L2 students are being prepared for academic
writing at college or university.
A key issue for every instructional activity in an academic setting is 'assessment' and there is no
exception to this in teaching second language writing. Therefore, attempts were made to
elaborate on assessing second language writing. First of all, a distinction was made between
second language writing assessment in terms of measures of language development and writing
proficiency measures. The former being characteristics of a learner's output that reveal some
point or stage along a developmental continuum and the latter a broader concept that is related to
separating language users into cross-sectional groups based on a normal distribution of their
language abilities.
The second area of the topics examined in this chapter deals with the ESL/EFL learners' progress