대한언어학회 전자저널

Li, Shaojie & Jhang, Se-Eun. (2021). Effects of the production-oriented approach on the syntactic complexity of English writing by Chinese university students: Evidence from a pedagogical intervention study. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 29(4), 65-92. The Production-oriented Approach (POA) has been developed over the past decade to improve university English instruction in China, and has proven effective. Empirical studies investigating its long-term effects on the quality of university students English writing are still under-represented, however. To fill the research gap, we conducted a 16-week experiment, exploring its effects on the syntactic complexity of six Chinese university students English writing. The results are as follows: (1) Generally, the POA exerted a positive impact on the syntactic complexity of the students writings. (2) In terms of proficiency level, for the higher-level learners, although there were no significant differences among the pretest, posttest, and delayed posttest, there was an improvement from the pretest to delayed posttest in the mean length of T-unit (MLT) and from the pretest to posttest in the complex nominal per T-unit (CN/T), demonstrating the effectiveness of the POA. For the intermediate level learners, there were no significant differences in both the MLT and CN/T, whereas the continuous improvement from the pretest to delayed posttest revealed the POAs lasting impact on the syntactic complexity. For the lower-level learners, the values of the CN/T showed a significant difference between the pretest and delayed posttest, indicating that the POA had a significant effect on the syntactic complexity of their written language. It is hoped that this study can shed light on an effective approach to teaching English as a foreign language at the tertiary level.

# Production-oriented Approach # syntactic complexity # English writing # pedagogical intervention

• Barrot, J. S., & Agdeppa, J. Y. (2021). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency as indices of college-level L2 writers’ proficiency. Assessing Writing, 47, 1-11.
• Biber, D., Gray B., & Poonpon, K. (2011). Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 5-35.
• Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2012). Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 21–46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. Washington, DC: The National Association for the Education of Young Children.
• Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Fifth edition. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
• Cumming, A., Yang, L., Qiu, C., Zhang, L., Ji, X., Wang, J., Wang, Y., Zhan, J., Zhang, F., Xu, C., Cao, R., Yu, L., Chu, M., Liu, M., Cao, M., & Conttia, L. (2018). Students’ practices and abilities for writing from sources in English at universities in China. Journal of Second Language Writing, 39, 1-15
• Duan, Y. (2020). A study of L2 motivational intervention in blended teaching settings. Foreign Language Education in China, 3(4), 49-56.
• El-Maghraby, A. (2021). Investigating the effectiveness of Moodle based blended learning in developing writing skills for university students. Journal of Research in Curriculum Instruction and Educational Technology, 7(1), 115- 140.
• Gyllstad, H., Granfeldt, J., Bernardini, P., & Källkvist, M. (2014). Linguistic correlates to communicative proficiency levels of the CEFR: The case of syntactic complexity in written L2 English, L3 French and L4 Italian. EUROSLA Yearbook, 14, 1–30.
• Han, Y., & McDonough, K. (2021). Motivation as individual differences and task conditions from a regulatory focus perspective: Their effects on L2 Korean speech performance. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 15(1), 1-12.
• Khushik, G. A., & Huhta, A. (2020). Investigating syntactic complexity in EFL learners’ writing across common European framework of reference levels A1, A2, and B1. Applied Linguistics, 41(4), 506-532.
• Kuiken, F., Vedder, I., & Gilabert, R. (2010). Communicative adequacy and linguistic complexity in L2 writing. In I. Barting, M. Martin, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Communicative proficiency and linguistic development: Intersections between SLA and language testing research (pp. 81–100). Rome: EuroSLA.
• Larsen-Freeman, D. (1978). An ESL index of development. TESOL Quarterly, 12(4), 439–448.
• Li, S. (2019). A case study on the effect of the POA on linguistic complexity of English writing by the students at different proficiency levels. MA thesis, Dalian Maritime University.
• Li, S., Wang, H., & Wang, Y. (2020). Retrospect and prospect of POA: Analysis of knowledge map based on CNKI. Maritime Education Research, 37(2), 94-99.
• Lu, X. (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15, 474–96.
• Lu, X. (2011). A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers’ language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 36 –62.
• Lu, X., and Qi, X. (2016). L2 syntactic complexity analyzer and its applications in L2 writing research. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 48(3), 409-420.
• Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 492-518.
• Polat, N., Gregersen, T., & MacIntyre, P. (2019). Research-driven pedagogy: Implications of L2A theory and research for the teaching of language skills. London: Routledge.
• Qiu, L. (2017). The step-by-step design of language activities in the production-oriented approach. Modern Foreign Languages, 40(3), 386-396.
• Sa’adah, A. R. (2020). Writing skill in teaching English: An overview. Educasia, 5(1), 21-35.
• Sun, S. (2017). Teacher-student collaborative assessment in classroom teaching: A reflective practice. Modern Foreign Languages, 40(3), 397-406.
• Sun, S. (2019). Optimizing teacher-student collaborative assessment: Dialectical research. Modern Foreign Languages, 42(3), 419-430.
• Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensive input and comprehensive output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley: Newbury House.
• Wang, B. (2019). Teaching grammar: Application of POA in Korean language instructions for beginners. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 1, 9-16.
• Wen, Q. (2007). Output-driven and problem-driven hypotheses: Reforms on the curriculum and teaching methods for English majors’ programs in a new century. A keynote speech at The 1st National Forum of Chairs of English Departments. May 2007, Shanghai, China.
• Wen, Q. (2013). Application of the output-driven hypothesis in college English teaching: Reflections and suggestions. Foreign Language World, 6, 14-22.
• Wen, Q. (2014). Output-driven, input-enabled: A tentative theory of foreign language classroom instruction for university students. Foreign Language Education in China, 7(2), 3-11.
• Wen, Q. (2015). Developing a theoretical system of production-oriented approach in language teaching. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 47(4), 547-558.
• Wen, Q. (2016). Teacher-student collaborative assessment: An innovative assessment method for the production-oriented approach. Foreign Language World, 5, 37-43.
• Wen, Q. (2018). The production-oriented approach to teaching university students English in China.” Language Teaching, 51(4), 526-540.
• Wen, Q. (2019). Recent development of the theory and practice of POA. The fifth forum on innovative foreign language education in China. May 2019, Beijing, China.
• Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26(3), 445–466.
• Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki S., & Kim, H.-Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. Manoa: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
• Yang, L. (2015). Designing a micro lecture for the motivating phase of POA teaching process. Foreign Language Education in China, 8(4), 3-9.
• You, C., & Dörnyei, Z. (2016). Language learning motivation in China: Results of a large-scale stratified survey. Applied Linguistics, 37(4), 495-519.
• You, X. (2004). The choice made from no choice: English writing instruction in a Chinese university. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 97–110.
• Zhang, L. (2016). Reflections on the pedagogical imports of western practices for professionalizing ESL/EFL writing and writing-teacher education. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 39(3), 203–232.
• Zhang, L. (2017). An experimental study on the effectiveness of the production- oriented approach. Modern Foreign Languages, 40(3), 369-376.
• Zhang, L. (2020). Motivating in the production-oriented approach: From theory to practice. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 43(3), 268-283.
• Zhang, W. (2015). Enabling’ students’ production to enable students’ language development: Applying production-oriented approach to TEFL classroom. Foreign Language Education in China, 8(4), 10-17.
• Zhang, W. (2016). Applying production-oriented approach to college English classrooms: A teaching experiment. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 2, 106-114.
• Zhang, W. (2017). An experimental study on the effect of the production⁃oriented approach on college students’ English writing quality. Modern Foreign Languages, 40(3), 377-385.
• Zhu, Y, & Bai, X. (2019). Evaluating the attainment of productive objectives through the use of POA teaching materials. Chinese Teaching in the Word, 33(1), 95-103.