The Effects of Topic Familiarity and Language Proficiency on EFL Learners’ Writing Quality

doi:10.18627/jslg.39.3.202311.335

All Issue

2023 Vol.39, Issue 3 Preview Page

Research Article

The Effects of Topic Familiarity and Language Proficiency on EFL Learners’ Writing Quality: Lee, Jeong-Won¹, Yoon, Kyeong-Ok^2*; ¹Chungnam National University
²Korea Air Force Academy

30 November 2023. pp. 335-347

PDF

Abstract

This study aims to examine how topic familiarity and language proficiency impact the quality of English writing in EFL settings. For the study 64 college freshmen participated, and they were divided into two proficiency groups (high and intermediate). They were asked to write an argumentative essay for two topics each, followed by rating each topic’s degree of familiarity of on a 10-point Likert scale. They were also asked to respond to a questionnaire with two open-ended questions. The results are as follows: 1) participants were more familiar with the driving topic than the smoking topic; however, the differences in their knowledge about these two topics are not likely to come from their different language proficiency; 2) their topical knowledge failed to demonstrate any differences in their writing quality depending upon their language proficiency; and 3) most participants reported that the smoking topic was more difficult to write about, and they believed that both topics would be easier to write about if they did so in their mother tongue.

Keywords

topic familiarity

topical knowledge

language proficiency

L2 writing

text quality

References

Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L., and Hare, V. C. 1991. Coming to terms: How researchers in learning and literary talk about knowledge. Review of Educational Research 61, 315-343. 10.3102/00346543061003315
Carrell, P. L. 1983. Some issues in studying the role of schemata, or background knowledge, in second language comprehension. Reading in A Foreign Language 1.2, 81-92.
Clapham, C. 1996. The development of IELTS: A study of the effect of language background knowledge on reading comprehension. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, A. D. and Books-Carson, A. 2001. Research on direct versus translated writing: Students’ strategies and their results. The Modern Language Journal 85.2, 169-188. 10.1111/0026-7902.00103
Cumming, A. 1990. Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language composing. Written Communication 7.4, 482-511. 10.1177/0741088390007004003
Friedlander, A. 1990. Composing in English: Effects of a first language on writing in English as a second language. In B. Kroll (ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 109-125. 10.1017/CBO9781139524551.012
He, L. and Shi, L. 2012. Topical knowledge and ESL writing. Language Testing 29.3, 443-464. 10.1177/0265532212436659
Hinkel, E. 2008. The effects of essay topics on modal verb uses in L1 and L2 academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics 41, 667-683. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.029
Hubert, M. D. 2013. The development of speaking and writing proficiencies in the Spanish language classroom. Foreign Language Annals 46.1, 88-95. 10.1111/flan.12010
Huh, M.-H. 2001. Translation strategy in EFL writing. English Teaching 56.4, 75-92.
Indah, R. N. 2017. Critical thinking writing performance and topic familiarity of Indonesian EFL learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 8.2, 229-236. 10.17507/jltr.0802.04
Kessler, M., Ma, W., and Solheim, I. 2022. The effects of topic familiarity on text quality, complexity, accuracy, and fluency: A conceptual replication. TESOL Quarterly 56.4, 1163-1190. 10.1002/tesq.3096
Kim, B.-J. 2007. The effects of different types of form-focused instruction on Korean university students’ writing accuracy. English Language & Literature Teaching 13.2, 63-90.
Kim, S. A. 2020. Effects of topic and language ability on the syntactic complexity of high school EFL students’ writing. Studies in English Education 25.4, 559-593. 10.22275/SEE.25.4.01
Kim, S.-Y. and Ryoo, Y.-S. 2011. Korean EFL learners’ vocabulary use in reading-based writing: According to topic and learner proficiency. English Teaching 66.1, 91-109. 10.15858/engtea.66.1.201103.91
Kobayashi, K. 2009. The influence of topic knowledge, external strategy use, and college experience on students’ comprehension of controversial texts. Learning and Individual Differences 19.1, 130-134. 10.1016/j.lindif.2008.06.001
Kobayashi, H. and Rinnert, C. 1992. Effects of first language on second language writing: Translation versus direct composition. Language Learning 42.2, 183-215. 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1992.tb00707.x
Lee, H. 2004. Constructing a field-specific writing test for an ESL placement procedure. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Lee, H. and Anderson, C. 2007. Validity and topic generality of a writing performance test. Language Testing 24, 307-330. 10.1177/0265532207077200
Lindemann, E. and Anderson, D. 2001. A rhetoric for writing teachers. New York: Oxford University Press.
Messick, S. 1989. Validity. In R.. L. Linn (ed.). Educational measurement (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan, 13-103.
Prince, P. 1996. Second language vocabulary learning: The role of context versus translation as a function of proficiency. The Modern Language Journal 80.4, 478-493. 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1996.tb05468.x
Robinson, P. 2001. Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework, Applied Linguistics 22, 27-57. 10.1093/applin/22.1.27
Ruth, L. and Murphy, S. 1988. Designing writing tasks for the assessment of writing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Salimi, A. and Fatollahnejad, S. 2012. The effects of strategic planning and topic familiarity on Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ written performance in TBLT. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 2.11, 2308-2315. 10.4304/tpls.2.11.2308-2315
Scott, V. 1995. Rethinking foreign language writing. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Skehan, P. 1988. Task-based instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguists 18, 268-286. 10.1017/S0267190500003585
Skehan, P. 2001. Tasks and language performance. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, and M. Swain (eds.), Research pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, testing. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education, 167-185.
Tedick, D. J. 1990. ESL writing assessment: Subject-matter knowledge and its impact on performance. English for Specific Purposes 9, 123-143. 10.1016/0889-4906(90)90003-U
Winfield, F. E. and Barnes-Felfeli, P. 1982. The effects of familiar and unfamiliar cultural context on foreign language composition. The Modern Language Journal 66.4, 373-378. 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1982.tb01033.x
Yang, W. and Kim, Y. 2020. The effect of topic familiarity on the complexity, accuracy, and fluency of second language writing. Applied Linguistics Review 11.1, 79-108. 10.1515/applirev-2017-0017
Yoon, H. 2017. Linguistic complexity in L2 writing revisited: Issue of topic, proficiency, and construct multidimensionality .System 66, 130-141. 10.1016/j.system.2017.03.007

Information

Publisher :The Modern Linguistic Society of Korea
Publisher(Ko) :한국현대언어학회
Journal Title :The Journal of Studies in Language
Journal Title(Ko) :언어연구
Volume : 39
No :3
Pages :335-347
DOI :https://doi.org/10.18627/jslg.39.3.202311.335

[1] Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L., and Hare, V. C. 1991. Coming to terms: How researchers in learning and literary talk about knowledge. Review of Educational Research 61, 315-343. 10.3102/00346543061003315

[2] Carrell, P. L. 1983. Some issues in studying the role of schemata, or background knowledge, in second language comprehension. Reading in A Foreign Language 1.2, 81-92.

[3] Clapham, C. 1996. The development of IELTS: A study of the effect of language background knowledge on reading comprehension. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[4] Cohen, A. D. and Books-Carson, A. 2001. Research on direct versus translated writing: Students’ strategies and their results. The Modern Language Journal 85.2, 169-188. 10.1111/0026-7902.00103

[5] Cumming, A. 1990. Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language composing. Written Communication 7.4, 482-511. 10.1177/0741088390007004003

[6] Friedlander, A. 1990. Composing in English: Effects of a first language on writing in English as a second language. In B. Kroll (ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 109-125. 10.1017/CBO9781139524551.012

[7] He, L. and Shi, L. 2012. Topical knowledge and ESL writing. Language Testing 29.3, 443-464. 10.1177/0265532212436659

[8] Hinkel, E. 2008. The effects of essay topics on modal verb uses in L1 and L2 academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics 41, 667-683. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.029

[9] Hubert, M. D. 2013. The development of speaking and writing proficiencies in the Spanish language classroom. Foreign Language Annals 46.1, 88-95. 10.1111/flan.12010

[10] Huh, M.-H. 2001. Translation strategy in EFL writing. English Teaching 56.4, 75-92.

[11] Indah, R. N. 2017. Critical thinking writing performance and topic familiarity of Indonesian EFL learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 8.2, 229-236. 10.17507/jltr.0802.04

[12] Kessler, M., Ma, W., and Solheim, I. 2022. The effects of topic familiarity on text quality, complexity, accuracy, and fluency: A conceptual replication. TESOL Quarterly 56.4, 1163-1190. 10.1002/tesq.3096

[13] Kim, B.-J. 2007. The effects of different types of form-focused instruction on Korean university students’ writing accuracy. English Language & Literature Teaching 13.2, 63-90.

[14] Kim, S. A. 2020. Effects of topic and language ability on the syntactic complexity of high school EFL students’ writing. Studies in English Education 25.4, 559-593. 10.22275/SEE.25.4.01

[15] Kim, S.-Y. and Ryoo, Y.-S. 2011. Korean EFL learners’ vocabulary use in reading-based writing: According to topic and learner proficiency. English Teaching 66.1, 91-109. 10.15858/engtea.66.1.201103.91

[16] Kobayashi, K. 2009. The influence of topic knowledge, external strategy use, and college experience on students’ comprehension of controversial texts. Learning and Individual Differences 19.1, 130-134. 10.1016/j.lindif.2008.06.001

[17] Kobayashi, H. and Rinnert, C. 1992. Effects of first language on second language writing: Translation versus direct composition. Language Learning 42.2, 183-215. 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1992.tb00707.x

[18] Lee, H. 2004. Constructing a field-specific writing test for an ESL placement procedure. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

[19] Lee, H. and Anderson, C. 2007. Validity and topic generality of a writing performance test. Language Testing 24, 307-330. 10.1177/0265532207077200

[20] Lindemann, E. and Anderson, D. 2001. A rhetoric for writing teachers. New York: Oxford University Press.

[21] Messick, S. 1989. Validity. In R.. L. Linn (ed.). Educational measurement (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan, 13-103.

[22] Prince, P. 1996. Second language vocabulary learning: The role of context versus translation as a function of proficiency. The Modern Language Journal 80.4, 478-493. 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1996.tb05468.x

[23] Robinson, P. 2001. Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework, Applied Linguistics 22, 27-57. 10.1093/applin/22.1.27

[24] Ruth, L. and Murphy, S. 1988. Designing writing tasks for the assessment of writing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

[25] Salimi, A. and Fatollahnejad, S. 2012. The effects of strategic planning and topic familiarity on Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ written performance in TBLT. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 2.11, 2308-2315. 10.4304/tpls.2.11.2308-2315

[26] Scott, V. 1995. Rethinking foreign language writing. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

[27] Skehan, P. 1988. Task-based instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguists 18, 268-286. 10.1017/S0267190500003585

[28] Skehan, P. 2001. Tasks and language performance. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, and M. Swain (eds.), Research pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, testing. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education, 167-185.

[29] Tedick, D. J. 1990. ESL writing assessment: Subject-matter knowledge and its impact on performance. English for Specific Purposes 9, 123-143. 10.1016/0889-4906(90)90003-U

[30] Winfield, F. E. and Barnes-Felfeli, P. 1982. The effects of familiar and unfamiliar cultural context on foreign language composition. The Modern Language Journal 66.4, 373-378. 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1982.tb01033.x

[31] Yang, W. and Kim, Y. 2020. The effect of topic familiarity on the complexity, accuracy, and fluency of second language writing. Applied Linguistics Review 11.1, 79-108. 10.1515/applirev-2017-0017

[32] Yoon, H. 2017. Linguistic complexity in L2 writing revisited: Issue of topic, proficiency, and construct multidimensionality .System 66, 130-141. 10.1016/j.system.2017.03.007

The Journal of Studies in Language ISSN:1225-4770(Print) 2671-6151(Online) 언어연구

All Issue