El individuo

The studies reported above were directly focused on descriptive accounts of productive language tasks; either frameworks of speaking tasks (Section 3.1) or analyses of how writing tasks have been

categorized (Section 3.2). Many more studies have included an approach to writing prompt

categorization, typically in work that investigates how manipulating certain aspects of writing prompts affects test taker performance on writing tests. This section will review how writing prompts have been categorized in studies where the direct focus is not on the prompt categorization but on the written language elicited by the prompts. These studies have already been described in detail within Chapter 2 (Sections 2.1 and 2.2) so the approaches to prompt categorization in these studies will be summarized in the table below.

48

Table 3.1: Summary of prompt categorization approaches within prompt effect studies

Study Prompt categorization Population ESL writers

Greenberg (1981) Experiential/cognitive demand College students No Quellmalz et al. (1982) Discourse mode/response mode High-school students No Brossell & Ash (1984) Personal/neutral &

imperative/neutral

College students No

Smith et al. (1985) Complexity & length of topic structures

College students No

Hirokawa & Swales (1986)

Simple/academic College students Yes

Spaan (1990) Rhetorical specification/subject matter

MELAB takers Yes

Peyton et al. (1990) 4 different task genres 6th _{grade students Yes}

Brown et al. (1991) Integrated/independent tasks College students Yes Cumming et al. (2005) Integrated/independent tasks TOEFL takers Yes O’ Loughlin &

Wigglesworth (2007)

Quantity and presentation of task information

College students Yes

Kuiken & Vedder (2008) Quantity of task information College students No Ong & Zhang (2010) Time/amount of detail of input College students Yes Lim (2010) Topic domain/task

constraint/rhetorical task/prompt length/grammatical person of response

MELAB takers Yes

As may be apparent from the numerous studies of prompt effect reported above, there have been a wide variety of approaches adopted to prompt categorization. Some of these studies are more relevant to this thesis than others. The studies that contrast independent writing prompts with integrated prompts are not especially relevant to a categorization of only independent prompts, which is the focus of this thesis. The aim of this study is to establish the effect of the characteristics of independent writing prompts (bare or framed in Kroll & Reid’s terminology) on the written product and test taking processes of second language writers. The distinctions between independent and integrated writing prompts are considerably broader and more substantive than those between different independent writing prompts. Therefore, the studies that focus on the distinction between independent and integrated writing

prompts (Brown et al., 1991; Cumming et al., 2005) do not provide sufficient relevant guidance toward a meaningful set of independent prompt characteristics. Two other studies (Peyton et al., 1990; O’

Loughlin & Wigglesworth, 2007) also lack relevance to an analysis of independent writing prompts. Peyton et al. (1990) focused on prompts that elicited different genres of writing whereas independent prompts typically elicit only letters or essays so there is little merit in using genre as an identifying

49

category. Likewise, O’ Loughlin & Wigglesworth (2007) utilized a task type that is not typical of an independent writing prompt, that is a prompt that asks writers to interpret a graph or chart and to compose a response based on information presented graphically. This is not to question the validity of such tasks but these tasks are not the focus of this thesis.

The review of literature of prompt categorization shows that several different approaches to categorization have been undertaken. Some trends that emerge are:

1. The complexity of the input, either in terms of quantity/length of the input or the linguistic difficulty of the input has been used to categorize prompts in several of the studies with either a binary distinction or a continuum of complexity being used to distinguish between prompts. 2. The distinction between personal and non-personal responses has been used to make a binary

distinction between different prompts in several studies.

3. Different modes of response (narrative, expository, argumentative) or genres of writing (journal writing, letter, essay) have been used to distinguish between different types of prompts.

4. The distinction between independent and integrated writing tasks has been the subject of some attention more recently in the literature

The first three of these approaches provide a valuable summary of the main writing prompt characteristics that have been used to categorize writing prompts in the second language writing assessment literature. These prompt characteristics are all considered carefully in the initial phase of prompt categorization in this study, described in Chapter 4 (see Section 4.2.2). Some of the studies described in this chapter are of particular relevance to the aims of this work. Hamp-Lyons & Mathias (1994), Spaan (1990), and Lim (2010) all worked with writing prompts from the MELAB test program and the findings of these studies must be considered carefully when developing a categorization framework for the assessment context that is the focus of this research.

The most detailed approach to prompt categorization was that developed by Lim (2010) who identified five distinct prompt characteristics that could distinguish between different independent writing prompts. However, Lim’s categorization suffers from the same shortcomings that apply to many works described in this chapter. It is based only on the observations of the researcher and derived from the researcher’s interpretation of the prompts themselves. It does not take into account any analysis of the responses to the prompts and does not call on the people who engage with the prompts; the test takers. While Lim’s framework is the most comprehensive one seen (for writing prompts used on ESL exams) in the second language writing field, it cannot be held up as definitive until the findings are triangulated from sources beyond a single researcher. It is these concerns with how previous categorizations have been arrived at that drives an alternative approach taken in this work; an approach that does not rely on expert judgments but also draws on the views of experienced raters, a review of prompt responses by these raters, and the input of authentic test takers as to which aspects of the prompts are important and distinguishing.

50