1.
L2 Writing Development of Japanese EFL Students
at a Writing Center
KATE The 46th Annual Convention in Tochigi
December 10-11, 2022
Maiko Nakatake
Gakushuin University

2.
Presentation Outline
1.Background of the Study
2.Purpose
3.Method
4.Results and Discussion
5.Future Research and Limitations

3.
Background of the Study
What is a writing center?
• Offers individual writing tutoring by tutors beyond the regular curriculum
• Helps students identify problems in their writing and discover how to improve
through dialogue instead of editing students’ papers
• Contributes to “producing better writers, not better writing” (North, 1984, p. 438)

4.
Background of the Study
An unexplored area of writing center research: Assessment
Writing center tutorials has demonstrated a positive influence on
students’ revision practices (e.g., self-initiated revision, becoming more
conscious of readers, and critical reflection on their text) (Nakatake,
2017).
→This study only examined the short-term effects of a writing center.
What long-term effects do writing centers exhibit?
Focus on changes or improvement in L2 English writing among students
who have repeatedly utilized a writing center’s services

5.
The Present Study
• Purpose: To investigate how Japanese EFL students’ written
English changed through repeated use of a university writing
center’s services
• Research site: A writing center at a university in Japan’s Kanto area
• Participants: Three undergraduate students who repeatedly utilized
a university writing center’s services for a year

6.
Data
Main data
• Pre-compositions (text written before visiting the writing center）
• Post-compositions (text written after utilizing the writing center’s
services for a year)
Supplementary data
• Semi-structured interview data

7.
Data Analysis
• Frequency: Words/T-unit (the number of words per T-unit)
T-unit: “one main clause plus whatever subordinate clauses are attached to that main
clause” (Hunt, 1966, p.737)
• Syntactic complexity: S-nodes/T-unit (the number of S-nodes per
T-unit)
S-node: “ equivalent to a verb phrase (VP) (both finite and infinite) ” (Ishikawa, 2006,
p.202)
• Lexical diversity: Guiraud index (word types/√word tokens）

8.
Data Analysis
Analytic ratings
• A modified version (Yamanishi, 2004) of ESL Composition
Profile (Jacobs et al., 1981)
Ten points for each of the five criteria (i.e., content, organization,
language use, vocabulary, and mechanics)
• Two raters, both with an English-teaching background, evaluated
the pre- and post-compositions without knowing which were either
pre- or post-compositions.

9.
Results Showing Linguistic Changes
Words/T S-nodes/T GI
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Student A 19.42 16.57 2.29 2.50 11.57 8.88
Student B 12.32 14.84 1.66 1.78 8.38 7.94
Student C 15.79 16.66 2.07 1.81 7.99 10.95

10.
Results Showing Linguistic Changes
Individual variation in linguistic changes
• Student A demonstrated improvement in syntactic complexity but
deterioration in fluency and lexical diversity.
• Student B demonstrated improvement in fluency and syntactic
complexity but deterioration in lexical diversity.
• Student C demonstrated improvement in fluency and lexical
diversity but deterioration in syntactic complexity.

11.
Fluency
• Student A’s fluency decreased.
Influence of task complexity and difficulty
Task complexity: “ the task dependent and proactively manipulable cognitive demands of task”
(Robinson, 2001, p.287)
Task difficulty: “ the L2 learner’s “perceptions” of difficulty” (Ishikawa, 2006, p.195)
“dependent on learner factors such as aptitude, confidence, motivation, etc. ”
(Robinson, 2001, p.287)
Student A’s writing assignment
Pre-composition: Choose three of eight topics and write an opinion on each selected topic (at
least 400 words).
Post-composition: Write about the development of new ideas/a new attitude and how they/it
will shape your future as an intercultural citizen. Include the specified keywords in your
response (around 500 words)→ more cognitively demanding and complex task
"For me, the content of the post-composition assignment was difficult. As I repeatedly used
the writing center, I became positive about writing in English, but unfortunately, I was reluctant
to write the post-composition.” (End-of-semester interview with Student A)

12.
Fluency
• Student B’s fluency improved.
 Increased confidence in English writing
“Before using the writing center, I did not understand the structure of sentences well. Writing
was time-consuming. However, through repeated use of the writing center, I became more
confident in my English writing, and now, I can instantly imagine the structure of sentences
in my head. ” (End-of-semester interview with Student B)
• Student C’s fluency improved.
 Effect of increasing the number of specified words
Pre-composition (350-500 words)→Post-composition (1,500 words)
 Increased confidence in English writing
“I can now write long sentences more easily.”（End-of-semester interview with Student C)

13.
Syntactic Complexity
Student A and Student B’s syntactic complexity improved.
Student C’s syntactic complexity decreased.
S-nodes/T shows “a greater sensibility for measuring small differences in
complexity at relatively lower levels of proficiency” (Norris and Ortega, 2009, p. 566)
→S-nodes/T is an effective indicator for measuring change in learners with
relatively low proficiency but may not adequately reflect changes in
relatively proficient learners such as Student C.
*Student C is a student in the Department of English and American Literature who has a TOEFL ITP score
of 480 points (as of December 2019) and a TOEIC score of 885 points (as of July 2021).

14.
Lexical Diversity
Student A’s and Student B’s lexical diversity decreased.
・Student A
1. Certain words were used more frequently in the post-composition, partly because
some designated keywords were required to be used in the assignment.
2. “One of the problems with my English writing is that I use the same words
repeatedly and lack lexical variety. Therefore, I want to improve my vocabulary
in the future.” (End-of-semester interview with Student A)
・Student B
“One of my writing problems is that I only use words I already know when writing
reports, so I would like to expand the range of my vocabulary and choose appropriate
words according to the situation.” (End-of-semester interview with Student B)
⇒ The interviews revealed that the students were aware of their lack of lexical diversity.

15.
Lexical Diversity
Student C’s lexical diversity improved.
Influence of task complexity
Greater lexical diversity on more complex tasks (Robinson, 1995)
Student C’s writing assignment
Pre-composition: a persuasive essay (topic: Japan should adopt a gap year program.)
(350-500 words)
Post-composition: a research paper (topic: Why is Finland’s education system successful?)
(1,500 words)
Intervention
Teacher intervention can improve the Guiraud index (Sato, 2015).
→Since this study did not analyze the support tutors provide during tutorials, in-depth analysis
of the kind of support tutors actually provide is necessary.

16.
Analytic Ratings Results
Content Organization
Language
use
Vocabulary Mechanics Total
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Student A 6.7 7 6 7 6.7 6.5 7.5 6.5 7 8.5 34 35.5
Student B 6 7 6 7 5 6 5 6.5 5.5 6 27.5 32.5
Student C 6 8 6.5 8 6 7 6 7.5 7.5 8 32 38.5
Note: Each score is the average of the two raters’ scores.

17.
Analytic Ratings Results
All three students showed improvement in their total
scores.
• Student B and Student C’s scores improved across all
five criteria. In addition, their total scores improved by
more than five points.
• Student A scored lower in “language use” and
“vocabulary”
→Could this be related to Student A’s deterioration in
lexical diversity?

18.
Future Research
The results revealed that the L2 students’ writing development
varied among individuals.
• It is necessary to examine in more detail the factors that can
cause these individual variations by considering each learner's
English proficiency level and past writing experiences.
• Multiple measures should be employed to fully capture changes
or development in students’ writing in longitudinal research.

19.
Limitations
• The influence of other factors, such as teacher feedback, peer feedback in class, and
students’ original abilities
Not all changes in the students’ writing in this study were necessarily due to support
from the writing center.
• Variations among participants in English proficiency, writing assignments to be
discussed at the writing center, etc.
• Limited number of participants
In this study, whether and how to use the writing center were left to the students’
discretion.
→ The major issues in future research include ways to control the variables arising from
differences among research participants and securing of research participants.

20.
References
Hunt, K. (1966). Recent measures I syntactic development. Elementary English, 43,
732-739.
Ishikawa, T. (2006). The effect of task complexity and language proficiency on task-
based language performance. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 3, 193-225.
Jacobs, H. L., Zinkgraf, S.A., Wormuth, D. R., Hartfiel, V. F., & Hughey, J. B. (1981).
Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Nakatake, M. (2017). The effects of writing tutorials on student revisions in a Japanese
writing center. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The University of Tokyo.
https://doi.org/10.15083/ 00074965
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in
instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555-578.
North, S. (1984). The idea of a writing center. College English, 46, 433-446.

21.
References
Robinson, P. (1995). Task complexity and second language narrative discourse.
Language Learning, 45, 99-140.
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A
triadic framework for examining task influence on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.),
Cognitive and second language instruction (pp.287-318). Cambridge University
Press.
Sato, T. (2015). Taiwa wo mochiita eigo raiteingu shidouho [Facilitating English
writing through dialogue]. Keisuisha.
Yamanishi, H. (2004). Kokosei no jiyueisakubun wa donoyouni hyoka sareteirunoka
−bunsekiteki hyokashakudo to sogoteki hyokashakudo no hikaku wo toshiteno kento
−[How are high school students’ free compositions evaluated by teachers and
teacher candidates? A comparative analysis between analytic and holistic rating
scales]. JALT Journal, 26, 189-205.

22.
Thank you very much!
The study reported in this presentation was funded by the Japan Society
for the Promotion of Science [Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research
Young, grant number 20K13110].