Task Type and Fluency

Regarding the potential role of task type in L2 learning, three indicators of fluency in L2 writing were used by calculating the number of words (W), clauses (C), and words to total clauses (W/C). As a reliable indicator of fluency, the total number of words per task type was calculated and the results are presented below.

Figure 4.1 Task Types and Words (

In Figure 4.1, there was a general t Task 1 except for one pair, and

the children produced more words when describing a picture rather than creating a story or expressing their opinions.

opportunities to add more words during the performance of Task 1. evidence to show the relationship between

As the second indicator of fl

was counted and the results are presented below.

100 200 300 400 0 20 40 60 80

Figure 4.1 Task Types and Words (P: Pair, T: Task

In Figure 4.1, there was a general tendency for the largest number of words pt for one pair, and for the lowest number of words in Task 3.

the children produced more words when describing a picture rather than creating a story or ns. This can be interpreted as indicating that

opportunities to add more words during the performance of Task 1. These results relationship between task type and word production.

As the second indicator of fluency in L2 writing, the total number of clauses per task type was counted and the results are presented below.

Figure 4.2 Task Types and Clauses

0 100 200 300 400 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 T1 T2 T3 0 20 40 60 80 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 T1 T2 T3 Task)

endency for the largest number of words to occur in for the lowest number of words in Task 3. In other words, the children produced more words when describing a picture rather than creating a story or This can be interpreted as indicating that the children had These results provide word production.

Figure 4.2 revealed somewhat mixed results in clause production per task in contrast to the distinctive pattern of word production across the three tasks. Despite a common tendency for the lowest clause production in Task 3 as shown in the lowest word production in the same task, the five pairs were divided into two groups in relation to the largest clause production. For example, Pair 4 produced the largest clause production in Task 1, whereas Pair 5 recorded the largest clause production in Task 2. Concerning the lowest clause production in Task 3 and the largest clause production in Task 1 or Task 2, the

also reveal the relationship between task type and

The third indicator of fluency in L2 writing was measured by the total number of words divided by the number of clauses and the results are presented below.

Figure 4.3 Task Types and Words

With regard to the balanced distribution of language production across the three tasks except for Pair 1, the results of Figure 4.3 indicated a general tendency for the highest ratios of words to clauses

in the same task. In other words, the children could produce

of using the most words in a clause during the performance of Task 1. In contrast, it seems

0 5 10 15

Figure 4.2 revealed somewhat mixed results in clause production per task in contrast to the ttern of word production across the three tasks. Despite a common tendency for the lowest clause production in Task 3 as shown in the lowest word production in the same task, the five pairs were divided into two groups in relation to the largest clause duction. For example, Pair 4 produced the largest clause production in Task 1, whereas Pair 5 recorded the largest clause production in Task 2. Concerning the lowest clause production in Task 3 and the largest clause production in Task 1 or Task 2, the

the relationship between task type and clause production.

The third indicator of fluency in L2 writing was measured by the total number of words divided by the number of clauses and the results are presented below.

Figure 4.3 Task Types and Words to Total Clauses

With regard to the balanced distribution of language production across the three tasks except for Pair 1, the results of Figure 4.3 indicated a general tendency for the highest in Task 1 which was also manifest in the largest word production in the same task. In other words, the children could produce the longest clauses as a result of using the most words in a clause during the performance of Task 1. In contrast, it seems

0 5 10 15 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 T1 T2 T3

Figure 4.2 revealed somewhat mixed results in clause production per task in contrast to the ttern of word production across the three tasks. Despite a common tendency for the lowest clause production in Task 3 as shown in the lowest word production in the same task, the five pairs were divided into two groups in relation to the largest clause duction. For example, Pair 4 produced the largest clause production in Task 1, whereas Pair 5 recorded the largest clause production in Task 2. Concerning the lowest clause production in Task 3 and the largest clause production in Task 1 or Task 2, these results

The third indicator of fluency in L2 writing was measured by the total number of words

s

With regard to the balanced distribution of language production across the three tasks except for Pair 1, the results of Figure 4.3 indicated a general tendency for the highest in Task 1 which was also manifest in the largest word production the longest clauses as a result of using the most words in a clause during the performance of Task 1. In contrast, it seems

difficult to say that there were any clear-cut differences between Task 2 and Task 3 in the ratios of words to clauses. Concerning the highest ratios in Task 1 across all pairs, it may be possible to suggest that particular task types are involved in the number of words to total clauses.

As regards the potential role of task type in fluency in L2 writing, the Korean EFL children of the present study became most fluent on Task 1 and least fluent on Task 3 according to the results of the three indicators of fluency. These results may provide evidence that there is a relationship between task types and L2 writing fluency. This may provide information for L2 teachers to design writing tasks for fluent writing. By using two measures, accuracy was measured in order to examine the effects of task type on language production.