This mixed-methods study investigates writers’ task representation and the factors affecting it in test-like and non-test-like conditions. Five advanced-level L2 writers wrote two argumentative essays each, one in test-like conditions and the other in non-test-like conditions where the participants were allowed to use all the time and online materials they needed. The writing was done on computers, and we recorded the writing process and keystrokes using the Screen Capture Video and Inputlog programs. We audio recorded stimulated recall interviews after each writing session, with the writers reporting and commenting on their writing strategies and their reasons for following them. The findings of this study suggest that there are several factors that play a role in task representation, such as previous education, personal beliefs, and task conditions. Although these factors were present in all participants’ responses, the differences in the writers’ approaches to interpret and execute the writing were marked. The results highlight various pedagogical issues and options related to teaching writing in general and to the place of task representation on writing programs in particular.
Abdel LatifM. M. (2008). A state-of-the-art review of the real-time computer-aided research of the writing process. International Journal of English Studies, 8, 29-51.
2.
AckermanJ. (1990). Students’ self-analyses and judges’ perceptions: Where do they agree? In FlowerL.SteinV.AckermanJ.KantzM.McCormickK.PeckW. (Eds.), Reading-to-write: Exploring a cognitive and social process (pp. 96-115). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
3.
ArielyD. (2012). The (honest) truth about dishonesty: How we lie to everyone—especially ourselves. London, UK: HarperCollins.
4.
BadgerR. G.WhiteG. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal, 54, 153-160.
5.
BashamC.RayR.WhalleyE. (1993). Cross-cultural perspectives on task representation in reading to write. In CarsonJ. G.LekiI. (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom (pp. 299-314). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
6.
CampbellC. (1990). Writing with others’ words: Using background reading text in academic compositions. In KrollB. (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 211-230). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
7.
CauderyT. (1990). The validity of timed essay tests in the assessment of writing skills. ELT Journal, 44, 122-131.
8.
ChengG. (2009). Using game making pedagogy to facilitate student learning of interactive multimedia. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25, 204-220.
9.
ColesJ. R. (1978). The plural I: The teaching of writing. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
10.
ConnorU.CarrellP. (1993). The interpretation of tasks by writers and readers in holistically rated direct assessment of writing. In CarsonJ. G.LekiI. (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom (pp. 141-160). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
11.
CummingA.KantorR.BabaK.ErdosyU.EouanzouiK.JamesM. (2005). Differences in written discourse in independent and integrated prototype tasks for next generation TOEFL. Assessing Writing, 10, 5-43.
12.
CummingA.KantorR.PowersD. (2002). Decision making while rating ESL/EFL writing tasks: A descriptive framework. Modern Language Journal, 86, 67-96.
13.
DuffP. (2008). Case study research in applied linguistics. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
FanF. H. K. (1993). How examinations affect students’ approach to writing. In BiggsJ. B.WatkinsD. A. (Eds.), Learning and teaching in Hong Kong: What is and what might be (pp. 67-76). Hong Kong: Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong.
15.
FlinnJ. Z. (1987). Case studies of revision aided by keystroke recording and replaying software. Computers and Composition, 5, 31-44.
16.
FlowerL. (1990). The role of task representation in reading-to-write. In FlowerL.SteinV.AckermanJ.KantzM.McCormickK.PeckW. (Eds.), Reading-to-write: Exploring a cognitive and social process (pp. 35-75). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
17.
FlowerL.SteinV.AckermanJ.KantzM.McCormickK.PeckW. (1990). Reading-to-write: Exploring a cognitive and social process. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
18.
GilmoreJ.StricklandD.TimmermanB.MaherM.FeldonD. F. (2010). Weeds in the flower garden: An exploration of plagiarism in graduate students’ research proposals and its connection to enculturation, ESL, and contextual factors. International Journal of Educational Integrity, 6, 13-28.
19.
GreeneS.HigginsL. (1994). “Once upon a time”: The use of retrospective accounts in building theory in composition. In SmagorinskyP. (Ed.), Speaking about writing (pp. 115-140). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
HarwoodN.PetrićB. (2012). Performance in the citing behavior of two student writers. Written Communication, 29, 55-103.
21.
HayesJ. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In LevyC. M.RansdellS. (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 1-27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22.
IvaničR.CampsD. (2001). I am how I sound: Voice as self-representation in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 3-33.
23.
KhuderB.HarwoodN. (2015). L2 writing in test and non-test situations: Process and product. Journal of Writing Research, 6, 233-278.
KirschG. (1988). Students’ interpretations of writing tasks: A case study. Journal of Basic Writing, 7, 81-90.
26.
KobayashiH.RinnertC. (2008). Task response and text construction across L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 7-29.
27.
LeijtenM.Van WaesL. (2013). Keystroke logging in writing research: Using Inputlog to analyze and visualize writing processes. Written Communication, 30, 358-392.
28.
LekiI. (1995). Coping strategies of ESL students in writing tasks across the curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 235-260.
29.
LekiI. (2007). Undergraduates in a second language: Challenges and complexities of academic literacy development. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
30.
LiS. (2013). The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences in language analytic ability and working memory. Modern Language Journal, 97, 634-654.
31.
LiY.CasanaveC. P. (2012). Two first-year students’ strategies for writing from sources: Patchwriting or plagiarism?Journal of Second Language Writing, 2, 165-180.
32.
LoJ.HylandF. (2007). Enhancing students’ engagement and motivation in writing: The case of primary students in Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 219-237.
33.
McCullochS. (2013). Investigating the reading-to-write processes and source use of L2 postgraduate students in real-life academic tasks: An exploratory study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12, 136-147.
34.
NelsonJ. (1990). This was an easy assignment: Examining how students interpret academic tasks. Research in the Teaching of English, 24, 362-396.
35.
Nicolás-ConesaF.RocadeLariosJ.CoyleY. (2014). Development of EFL students’ mental models of writing and their effects on performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 24, 1-19.
36.
NortonB.TooheyK. (2001). Changing perspectives on good language learners. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 307-322.
37.
OldfatherP.ShanahanC. H. (2007). A cross-case study of writing motivation as empowerment. In HidiS.BoscoloP. (Eds.), Motivation and writing: Research and school practice (pp. 257-279). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
38.
PetrićB.HarwoodN. (2013). Task requirements, task representation, and self-reported citation functions: An exploratory study of a successful L2 student’s writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12, 110-124.
39.
PlakansL. (2008). Comparing composing processes in writing-only and reading-to-write test tasks. Assessing Writing, 13, 111-129.
40.
PlakansL. (2010). Independent vs. integrated writing tasks: A comparison of task representation. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 185-194.
41.
PriorP. (2004). Tracing process: How texts come into being. In BazermanC.PriorP. (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual practices (pp. 167-200). London, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum.
42.
PurpuraJ. E. (1999). Learner strategy use and performance on language tests: A structural equation modeling approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
43.
RoseM. (1980). Rigid rules, inflexible plans, and the stifling of language: A cognitivist analysis of writer’s block. College Composition and Communication, 31, 389-401.
44.
RottenbergA. T. (1991). Elements of argument. A text and reader. Boston, MA: Bedford Books.
45.
Ruiz-FunesM. (1999). The process of reading-to-write used by a skilled Spanish-as-a-foreign language student: A case study. Foreign Language Annals, 32, 45-62.
46.
Ruiz-FunesM. (2001). Task representation in foreign language reading-to-write. Foreign Language Annals, 34, 226-234.
47.
SircG.Bridwell-BowlesL. (1988). A computer tool for analysing the composing process. Collegiate Microcomputer, 6, 155-160.
48.
SmagorinskyP. (1989). The reliability and validity of protocol analysis. Written Communication, 6, 463-479.
49.
TedickD. J. (1990). ESL writing assessment: Subject-matter knowledge and its impact on performance. English for Specific Purposes, 9, 123-143.
50.
TomlinsonB. (1984). Talking about the composing process: The limitations of retrospective accounts. Written Communication, 1, 429-445.
51.
WolfersbergerM. A. (2007). Second language writing from sources: An ethnographic study of an argument essay task (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
52.
WolfersbergerM. A. (2013). Refining the construct of classroom-based writing-from-readings assessment: The role of task representation. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10, 49-72.
53.
YangL.ShiL. (2003). Exploring six MBA students’ summary writing by introspection. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 165-192.
54.
YehC. (2009). Student perceptions of an EFL undergraduate research writing project. RELC Journal, 40, 314-33.
55.
YoungM. K.LeinhardtG. (1998). Writing from primary documents: A way of knowing in history. Written Communication, 15, 25-68.
56.
ZhangY. (2006). Task representation and second language writers’ prior writing experience: A case study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
