Research Materials

3.2.1 Writing tasks

A total of six writing tasks were used in the study, being all on the same subject matter and varying along two dimensions: rhetorical task and topic familiarity. Four different prompts were used for the four rhetorical tasks (i.e., narration, exposition, expo-argumentation, and argumentation) with topic familiarity controlled at the medium-impersonal familiar level except for the narrative task. Three different prompts were used for the three levels of topic familiarity (i.e., higher–personal familiar topics, medium–impersonal familiar topics, and lower–impersonal less familiar topics), with rhetorical task controlled at the expo-argumentative task level. One writing prompt which was an expo-argumentative task with medium topic familiarity was shared between the two prompt sets for the two cognitive complexity dimensions. Control over the other dimension in a study of the effect of one of the dimensions is much recommended, since an interaction effect has been observed for the two dimensions (Hamp-Lyons & Mathias, 1994). Table 3.2 lists the six writing prompts that were used, all sharing the common subject matter of the use of computers and the Internet. Control over subject matter was considered necessary since topic/ subject matter has been found to have an effect on writing performance in scores and in language production features, as discussed in Chapter 2. What is construed in each of the six prompts is different, although the same subject matter is used. A fully crossed design was not feasible, due to the number of levels for the two dimensions: 4×3.

Table 3.2

Writing Prompts Used in the Study Familiarity/

Rhetorical Task

Personal Familiar Impersonal Familiar Impersonal Less Familiar Narrative Describe oneof your --

experiences in which you used computers and/or the Internet for completing a course assignment or project or for studying for a school subject matter.

--

Expository -- What are some ways that

university students in this country use computers and the Internet?

--

Expo-

argumentative

What do you think are the benefits and possible problems that computers and the Internet bring to you

What do you think are the benefits and possible problems that computers and the Internet bring to university students in this country?

as a university student?

What do you think are the benefits and possible problems that computers and the Internet bring to people in underdeveloped areas of the world where there is limited access to computers and the Internet?

Argumentative -- Computers and the

Internet have improved the efficiency and quality of learning for university students in this country. Do you agree or disagree with the statement?

Support your position with reasons.

--

The writing task sheet that was administered to the participants can be found in Appendix C. The writing tasks and the directions for the essay task were given in both English and

Chinese. The essay writing was timed, and the students were given 30 minutes to write their essays. 30 minutes is also the time limit for the writing sections in College English Test and in Test for English Major in China, as well as the independent writing section in Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). In the directions for the writing tasks, the students were also

instructed to write a minimum of 150 words and were informed of the broad areas on the basis of which their essays would be rated: idea development and support in relation to the prompt and the task, organization and flow of ideas, and language use (in syntax, lexis, and etc.).

The participants hand wrote the essays. After the hand-written essays were collected, the essays were typed up into Microsoft Word files onto computers, by several hired students at the participating university and by the researcher. The researcher then checked each single typed-up essay against the original hand-written essay for accuracy, and any discrepancies were corrected.

3.2.2 Post-writing questionnaire

A short post-writing questionnaire was administered right after the writing task was completed. The questionnaire mainly asked questions about the writers’ pre-writing planning for the task completed, level of interest in the writing topic, level of familiarity with the rhetorical task, frequency of use of computers and the Internet, perception of difficulty levels of the writing task completed and the other writing tasks in the same cognitive complexity category. See

Appendix D for the questionnaire. The students could choose to complete either the English version or the Chinese version of the questionnaire.

3.2.3 Measure of general English proficiency

Since the study also looks into whether general English proficiency plays a role in the effects of the cognitive complexity dimensions on writing quality and on language production features of writing, a measure of the participants’ general English proficiency was needed. For this purpose, a cloze test that was first validated by Brown (1980) was used; it is a 50-item test that requires 25 minutes. A cloze test was chosen because it is often found to be an adequate indicator of general language proficiency (Brown, 2002; Hinofotis, 1980; Oller & Conrad, 1971). Other longer tests of general English proficiency could not be given in the study due to time

constraints in the classrooms. The cloze test used, with translation of the directions in Chinese, and the answer keys are in Appendix E. The participants were given 30 minutes, since the cloze test format was not familiar to the participants. The researcher, together with a visiting scholar from China, scored the cloze tests using acceptable answer scoring, with the score for each test checked twice when scoring. For the whole data set, the mean score of the cloze test was 27.33, the median was 27, and the range was 6-47. The cloze test was to further confirm that the task groups were equal in terms of their general L2 proficiency level. Table 3.3 below reports the descriptive statistics for the cloze test results for each of the writing task groups. The mean scores for the groups were almost identical, and there were no statistical differences in the means, confirming that the L2 proficiency levels of the task groups were equal.

Table 3.3

Means and Standard Deviations for Participants' Cloze Test Scores by Writing Task Group

Group n M SD Narrative 61 28.02 8.21 Expository 62 27.05 8.58 Expo-Argu/ Impersonal Familiar 61 26.66 8.51 Argumentative 63 26.65 9.76 Personal familiar 63 27.75 7.78

Impersonal less familiar 62 27.87 8.29