The present study involves the creation and analysis of a corpus containing 7747 samples of timed, pre-matriculated L2 English writing from an IEP. The focus of the analysis is on three phrasal complexity measures with time and proficiency as fixed effects, examining their impact on each measure. Results of the analysis suggest that this is true for some phrasal measures, such as nominalizations and attributive adjectives, while others, such as noun-noun phrases, may indicate a lower level of proficiency or lesser allotted writing time. Nominalizations in particular demonstrated a strong relationship with both allotted time and proficiency, further suggesting that certain phrasal measures may be more useful than others when examining academic writing, and therefore may merit additional focus and time spent on related structures in IEPs and other pre-matriculated ESL/EFL classrooms.

Developing syntactic complexity in writing is an important goal for many adult language learners. However, little is known about the effect of different writing practice tasks on the development of syntactic complexity. Furthermore, it is unclear to what degree syntactic complexity is related to writing quality. The main purpose of this study was to compare the longitudinal effects of three types of writing tasks on the development of syntactic complexity and writing quality. In order to investigate these relationships, a mixed-methods design was used. A quantitative component that was a quasi-experimental, longitudinal investigation was combined with an embedded qualitative component which involved eliciting stimulated recalls from participants from two of the experimental groups in the study. For the quantitative component, the participants (N = 105) were first-year, non-English majors at a four-year, co-educational university in western Japan. The participants were randomly divided into two groups: a sentence-combining group and a translation group. These two experimental groups were compared to an intact timed-writing group, which served as a comparison group. Writing samples were collected at three points throughout the year and analyzed based on five measures of syntactic complexity: mean length of sentence, mean length of T-unit, mean length of clause, clauses per T-unit, and T-units per sentence. Repeated-measures ANOVAs were used to analyze the five measures to investigate statistical differences across time for each group. One-way ANOVAs were used to analyze the five measures to ascertain differences between groups at each time. Furthermore, all the writing samples were evaluated by human raters for writing quality using an analytic rubric. Ratings were analyzed and investigated for changes in quality across time and between groups, as well as to examine the overall relationship between syntactic complexity and quality. For the qualitative component, seven participants were selected from the experimental groups to participate in stimulated recalls. The data were analyzed and coded to investigate the cognitive processes underlying each task. The results of the quantitative study indicated that the participants in the translation and sentence-combining groups made small, but significant gains in syntactic complexity across time. The translation group made significant growth on clauses per T-unit while the sentence-combining group made significant growth across time on mean length of sentence, mean length of T-unit, and T-units per sentence. The timed-writing group was not able to sustain significant growth across time. In the between-groups analyses, there were significant differences between the sentence-combining group and the other groups on mean length of sentence and T-units per sentence, indicating that the participants in that group demonstrated more coordination, and to a lesser degree, more subordination in their writing. In terms of quality of writing, the results indicated an overall weak, statistically significant positive correlation between measures of syntactic complexity and human rating judgments. Among all of the syntactic measures, T-units per sentence correlated the strongest with rating scores. The results of the qualitative component indicated that the participants practicing sentence-combining tasks focused most of their attention toward syntactic aspects of language while the participants in the translation group focused their attention on lexical aspects of language while performing the tasks. The findings of this study show that the development of syntactic complexity is influenced by writing practice tasks and that tasks that direct learners’ attention toward features of the language are more likely to hasten the development of syntactic complexity. Among the tasks, sentence-combining showed the most potential in developing syntactic complexity, particularly for increasing the use of compound sentences. However, none of the writing practice tasks led to significant gains in writing quality, in part because syntactic complexity was shown to have a moderately weak relationship to overall writing quality. / Teaching & Learning