writing complexity

The literature of ELT is perhaps overwhelmed by attempts to enhance learners’ writing through the application of different methodologies. One such methodology is critical discourse analysis which is founded upon stressing not only the decoding of the propositional meaning of a text but also its ideological assumptions. Accordingly, this study was an attempt to investigate the impact of critical discourse analysis-based (CDA) instruction on EFL learners’ writing complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF). To fulfill the purpose of this study, 60 female intermediate EFL learners were selected from among a total number of 100 through their performance on a piloted sample PET. Based on the results, the students were randomly assigned to a control and an experimental group with 30 participants in each. Both groups underwent the same amount of teaching time during 17 sessions which included a treatment of CDA instruction for the experimental group. A writing posttest was administered at the end of the instruction to both groups and their mean scores on the test were compared through a MANOVA. The results led to the rejection of the three null hypotheses, thereby demonstrating that the learners in the experimental group benefited significantly more than those in the control group in terms of improving their writing CAF. To this end, it is recommended that CDA instruction be incorporated more frequently in writing classes following of course adequate syllabus design and materials development.

The present study was an attempt to investigate the relationship between EFL learners’ anxiety and writing complexity. For the purpose of the study, 70 female learners, between 17 and 24 years old (mean=20) from Najm language school in Tehran participated in the study. The participants’ level of anxiety was measured using Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope’s Anxiety Questionnaire (1986) and their writing complexity was measured through writing a narrative text based on their course book. The results revealed that there was a significant positive correlation between anxiety and writing complexity (p=.00). In addition, the results of examining the predictability of writing complexity by anxiety showed that anxiety significantly predicted writing complexity (F(1, 68)=16.67, p<.01). The results of this study have implications for students, teachers, and all those involved in the area of teaching and learning.

Despite growing interest in the studies on Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), its operation in the forms of individualized and group-wide has been controversial. To cast some empirical light on the issue, this study was designed to quantitatively and comparatively study the applicability of the two scenarios of ZPD-based instructions to the writing complexity of Iranian EFL learners in terms of learners' types (low vs. high scorers). To this end, 118 EFL learners identified as homogeneous based on the TOEFL ITP test were randomly assigned into two equal experimental groups (individualized ZPD- and group-wide ZPD-based groups) which respectively received compatible instructions utilizing conference writing (as an individual scaffolding technique) and low- and high-structured writing templates (as a whole-class scaffolding technique). The treatments were allocated to the groups in a random manner within homogeneous blocks. Prior to and after the treatments, three tests (two writing tests and one ZPD test) were administered to measure both groups’ writing complexity and their ZPD levels. A ZPD test was also administered in the mid of treatments. The non-parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) revealed that the individualized-ZPD-based instruction is constructive to the writing complexity of the low scorers, while the group-wide ZPD-based instruction shows not much constructive to the writing complexity of the high scorers. The findings pointed to the use of ZPD-based instructions in TEFL writing in meaningful contexts and thereby showing impacts made on the writing complexity of learners. The study, indeed, yields support to the feasibility of group-wide ZPD measurement along with an individualized ZPD approach.

According to sociocultural theory, dynamic assessment (DA) merges instruction and assessment. This study attempted to compare the effects of interactionist versus interventionist DA on the writing fluency and complexity of adult versus young IELTS candidates in an international language school in Tehran with the age range of 15-48. One hundred and forty students (90 males and 50 females) who had enrolled in the IELTS preparation course in the spring of 2021 participated in this study. The study participants were divided into four groups namely, young interactionist, young interventionist, adult interactionist, and adult interventionist. The participants in all groups were homogenized based on the result of their performance in a standard version of Preliminary English Test (PET). During the eight-week treatment period, the interactionist groups were given writing tests followed by the instructor’s feedback and guidance, while the interventionist groups received instructions and were given writing test samples without qualitative feedback. The pre-test and post-test comparisons among the four groups by Two Way ANCOVA showed that both young and adult individuals in the interactionist groups had a significant improvement in their writing performance compared to those in the interventionist group. In addition, the study revealed the significant impact of interactionist DA vs. interventionist DA on both young and adult participants' scores in both writing fluency and complexity post-test. Likewise, the results showed no statistically significant interaction between the type of assessment and the candidates’ age. The study presents pedagogical implications for teachers, students, and IELTS preparation program designers.

Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) modes can ease scaffolding through multimodality in collaborative writing tasks. However, there is an ongoing debate regarding synchronous and asynchronous CMC environments. Additionally, there are conflicting results regarding gender’s pedagogical beliefs in CMC applications. The current study aimed to explore if there is a difference between synchronous and asynchronous multimodal scaffolding on the freewriting complexity of EFL learners. Besides, genders’ perceptions about applying multimodal scaffolding were compared. Participants were 84 EFL learners who randomly assigned into three groups. For the pre-test, a picture, podcast, and movie were shared, and the participants were asked to complete their freewriting tasks individually within the allocated time. For treatment, one experimental group was scaffolded in a synchronous environment by sending messages on WhatsApp, and the other experimental group experienced asynchronous scaffolding via email. The results indicated that multimodal scaffolding is beneficial. However, no significant difference was found between the writing complexity of synchronous and asynchronous groups. Furthermore, a significant difference between males’ and females’ tendency to use multimodal scaffolding was uncovered. The findings highlighted the role synchronous and asynchronous multimodal scaffolding can play in collaborative writing tasks