Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:38:59.928Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Planning in L1 and L2 writing: Working memory, process, and product

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 June 2020

Mark D. Johnson
Mark D. Johnson*
Affiliation:
East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The study of planning in second language (L2) writing research is heavily influenced by two research domains: (a) early research on cognition in first language (L1) composing processes and (b) second language acquisition (SLA) research. The first research domain has been instrumental in determining the specific systems and processes involved in composing and has led to widely accepted models of L1 writing (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987*; Flower & Hayes, 1980*; Hayes, 1996, 2012) as well as a widely accepted model of the interaction between working memory and L1 writing systems (Kellogg, 1996*; Kellogg, Whiteford, Turner, Cahill, & Mertens, 2013). The influence of these early studies is still felt in process approaches to composition instruction commonly implemented in L1 and L2 writing classes. The second research domain—SLA and more specifically task-based language teaching/learning—has come to view planning as a feature of task complexity that can be manipulated to facilitate the production of language that is complex (syntactically and/or lexically), accurate, and/or fluent (Robinson, 2011*; Skehan, 1998*; Skehan & Foster, 2001). This research timeline traces the study of planning in L2 writing in each of these domains by reviewing key L1 and L2 writing research over the last 30-plus years and by highlighting each study's findings. Prior to presenting the timeline, the following sections provide backgrounds in each of the domains noted above and situate planning within those domains.

Type
Research Timeline
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 53 , Issue 4 , October 2020 , pp. 433 - 445
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*Indicates full reference appears in the subsequent timeline.

References

Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galbraith, D., Ford, S., Walker, G., & Ford, J. (2005). The contribution of different components of working memory to knowledge transformation during writing. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 5, 113–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In Levy, C. M., & Ransdell, S. (Eds.), The science of writing (pp. 1–28). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hayes, J. R. (2012). Modelling and remodelling writing. Written Communication, 29, 369–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In Gregg, L. W., & Steinberg, E. R. (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kellogg, R. T., Whiteford, A. P., Turner, C. E., Cahill, M., & Mertens, A. (2013). Working memory in written composition: An evaluation of the 1996 model. Journal of Writing Research, 5, 159–190.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2003). The cognition hypothesis, task design, and adult task-based language learning. Second Language Studies, 21, 45–105.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183–205). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uzawa, K., & Cumming, A. (1989). Writing strategies in Japanese as a foreign language: Lowering or keeping up the standards. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 46, 178–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar