Exploring individual longitudinal development in a corpus of ‘natural’ disciplinary writing: what could it mean for teaching?

Randi Reppen

doi:10.1515/iral-2023-0173

Article

Exploring individual longitudinal development in a corpus of ‘natural’ disciplinary writing: what could it mean for teaching?

Randi Reppen

Published/Copyright: December 12, 2023

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching Volume 62 Issue 1

Abstract

Two major research issues for longitudinal investigations are the ‘naturalness’ of the learner language being studied, and the extent to which the research design is truly longitudinal. Regarding the first issue, data for longitudinal studies are usually collected in language classrooms or exams, with the writing tasks/topics being tightly controlled. A major disadvantage is that tasks can be unrepresentative of the writing required in disciplinary content courses. The present study analyzes writing development as it occurs ‘naturally’ in university disciplinary content courses, using four complexity features (i.e., finite adverbial clauses, finite relative clauses, attributive adjectives, and nouns as pre-modifiers) with the goal of comparing the kinds of findings in a True-longitudinal approach, a Quasi-longitudinal approach, and a Case study approach. This close examination of writing development that controlled for discipline and task showed an increase in development as measured by these linguistic indicators.

Keywords: longitudinal writing development; longitudinal research design methods; disciplinary writing development

Corresponding author: Randi Reppen, Department of English, Northern Arizona University, Linberal Arts BLDG, Flagstaff, 86011-6234, USA, E-mail: Randi.Reppen@nau.edu

Appendix: Normalized counts for Time 1 and Time 2 for the six students with papers matched for discipline and task

Student ID	Task	Discipline	Level	Time	Attributive adjectives	Pre-modifying nouns	Adverbial Clauses
107	cs	bu	UG	1	59.6	54.7	3.8
107	cs	Bu	UG	2	94.8	43.5	3.4
Difference Time 2 – Time 1					35.2	−11.2	−0.4
115	ie	Ss	UG	1	77.6	43.5	1.2
115	ie	Ss	UG	2	37.8	98.7	3.2
Difference Time 2 – Time 1					−39.8	55.2	2
116	ie	Al	GR	1	49.4	35.5	9.3
116	ie	al	GR	2	66.3	64.6	5.1
Difference Time 2 – Time 1					16.9	29.1	−4.2
116	ie	al	GR	1	47.2	35.4	5.5
116	ie	al	GR	2	49.3	55.4	10.2
Difference Time 2 – Time 1					2.1	20	4.7
118	rr	Ss	GR	1	64.1	47.5	6.0
118	rr	Ss	GR	2	70.5	46.7	4.4
Difference Time 2 – Time 1					6.4	−0.8	−1.6
144	cs	Lw	UG	1	38.4	20.1	18.2
144	cs	Lw	UG	2	43.6	32.1	11.5
Difference Time 2 – Time 1					5.2	12	−6.7
173	ie	Ss	GR	1	109.5	29.7	4.1
173	ie	Ss	GR	2	62.2	68.4	3.1
Difference Time 2 – Time 1					−47.3	38.7	−1
173	rr	ss	GR	1	69.8	56.7	8.3
173	rr	ss	GR	2	53.6	92.9	1.8
Difference Time 2 – Time 1					−16.2	36.2	−6.5

Task: cs = Case study; ie = Informational essay; rr = Research report. Disciple: al = Applied linguistics; bu = Business; hu = Humanities; ns = Natural Sciences; ss = Social Sciences; Lw = Law. Level: UG = Undergraduate students; GR = Graduate students.

References

Anthony, Laurence. 2023. AntConc (Version 4.2.4) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available at: https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software.Search in Google Scholar

Biber, Doug. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511621024Search in Google Scholar

Biber, Doug & Bethany Gray. 2016. Grammatical complexity in academic English: Linguistic change in writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511920776Search in Google Scholar

Biber, Doug, Bethany Gray & Kornwipa Poonpon. 2011. Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly 45(1). 5–35. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.244483.Search in Google Scholar

Biber, Doug, Bethany Gray & Shelley Staples. 2016. Predicting patterns of grammatical complexity across language exam task types and proficiency levels. Applied Linguistics 37(5). 639–668. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu059.Search in Google Scholar

Biber, Doug, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Randi Reppen, Shelley Staples & Jesse Egbert. 2020. Exploring the longitudinal development of grammatical complexity in the disciplinary writing of L2-English university students. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 6(1). 38–71. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.18007.bib.Search in Google Scholar

Bram, Bulté & Alex Housen. 2018. Syntactic complexity in L2 writing: Individual pathways and emerging group trends. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 28. 147–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12196.Search in Google Scholar

Goulart, Larissa. 2022. Communicative text types in university writing. Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Goulart, Larissa, Doug Biber & Randi Reppen. 2022. In this essay I will… Examining variation of communicative purpose in student written genres. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2022.101159.Search in Google Scholar

Lowie, Wander & Marjolijn Verspoor. 2018. Individual differences and the ergodicity problem. Language Learning 69(1). 184–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12324.Search in Google Scholar

Lowie, Wander & Marjolijn Verspoor. 2015. Variability and variation in second language acquisition orders: A dynamic reevaluation. Language Learning 65(1). 63–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12093.Search in Google Scholar

Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers. 2009. Available at: https://elicorpora.info/main.Search in Google Scholar

Ortega, Lourdes & Heidi Byrnes. 2008. The longitudinal study of advanced L2 capacities. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203871652Search in Google Scholar

Polat, Brittany & Youjin Kim. 2012. Dynamics of complexity and accuracy : A longitudinal case study of advanced untutored development. Applied Linguistics 35(2). 184–207. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt013.Search in Google Scholar

Reppen, Randi. 2018. Teaching lexical bundles: Which ones and how? In Eli Hinkel (ed.), Teaching essential units of language: Beyond single-word vocabulary, 186–200. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781351067737-8Search in Google Scholar

Staples, Shelley, Doug Biber & Randi Reppen. 2018. Using corpus-based register analysis to explore authenticity of high-stakes language exams: A register comparison of TOEFL iBT and disciplinary writing tasks. The Modern Language Journal 102(2). 310–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12465.Search in Google Scholar

Staples, Shelley, Jesse Egbert, Doug Biber & Bethany Gray. 2016. Academic writing development at the university level: Phrasal and clausal complexity across level of study, discipline, and genre. Written Communication 33. 149–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088316631527.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2023-07-25

Accepted: 2023-11-27

Published Online: 2023-12-12

Published in Print: 2024-03-25

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2023-0173

Keywords for this article

longitudinal writing development; longitudinal research design methods; disciplinary writing development