Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

Journal of Second Language Writing 24 (2014) 1–19

Development of EFL students’ mental models of writing and their

effects on performance

Florentina Nicolas-Conesa a,*, Julio Roca de Larios b, Yvette Coyle b

a Centro Universitario de la Defensa (CUD) de San Javier, MDE-UPCT, C/ Coronel Lopez Pena, s/n, 30720 Santiago de la Ribera, Murcia, Spainb Universidad de Murcia, Facultad de Educacion, Campus Universitario de Espinardo, Departamento de Didactica de la Lengua y la Literatura,

30100 Murcia, Spain

Abstract

The present paper reports an investigation into individual differences in writing with students of English as a foreign language

(EFL) enrolled in an English for Academic Purposes (EAP) course at a university in southeast Spain. Specifically, it represents an

attempt to shed light on writers’ internal process factors by examining the longitudinal development of the students’ stored beliefs

on the task and goals and their contribution to the development of L2 written performance. Data for the study included reflective

journals, timed essays, and language proficiency tests collected nine months apart. The results indicate the development over time

of advanced L2 students’ multidimensional models of composition into more sophisticated models, and the existence of two

different views on task conceptualizations in terms of processes and products that affect the activation of a hierarchical network of

goals for composing. The students’ views on the task were also found to be related to their motivation, self-regulation, and levels of

writing achievement. The contribution of this study lies in furthering the understanding of writer-internal factors in relation to

writing development, thus helping to advance both theoretical knowledge of second language writing and to improve pedagogical

practice.

# 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Mental models; Writing goals; Task representation; Effects on written performance

Introduction

Most research on the development of writing has focused on the quality of students’ written products. In this

respect, studies carried out in English medium universities on the effect of EAP courses on writing ability have

shown mixed results including no changes in accuracy or complexity but development of formal language when

writing (e.g., Shaw & Liu, 1998), gains in linguistic accuracy (e.g., Storch & Tapper, 2009), improvement in

overall proficiency (e.g., Elder & O’Loughlin, 2003), or development of written performance (e.g., Green & Weir,

2003). These findings bring to light the importance of delving into writers’ internal processes in order to

understand what goes on in their minds when approaching a writing task and their potential for writing

development.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 968 18 99 33.

E-mail addresses: flori.nicolas@cud.upct.es (F. Nicolas-Conesa), jrl@um.es (J. Roca de Larios), ycoyle@um.es (Y. Coyle).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.02.004

1060-3743/# 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

F. Nicolas-Conesa et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 24 (2014) 1–192

Some researchers have explored writers’ task representations, so as to elicit their beliefs about the writing

task and to examine the implications for composing (e.g., Flower, 1990; Ruiz-Funes, 2001; Wolfersberger, 2007).

Flower (1990) described task representation as an interpretative problem-solving process that involves

the understanding of a rhetorical problem posed by the task, the goals that are pursued by the writer, and the

strategies that are implemented while composing. This conceptualisation of task representation is in line with

the definition of mental models (MMs henceforth) in the field of psychology, as individuals’ cognitive

representations that are put into motion while reasoning and solving particular problems through the activation of

goals (Doyle, Ford, Radzicki & Trees, 2002). MMs are, therefore, made up of belief systems developed by

individuals to deal with the specific demands of problem-solving situations such as writing tasks. In this respect,

MMs are ‘‘working models’’ (Johnson-Laird, 1983), or a dynamic network of beliefs exposed to time and to

learning that can be inconsistent and imperfect since they are continuously revised and changed by experience and

learning.

Different approaches have been adopted for the investigation of task representation in writing. Some studies have

drawn on reading-to-write tasks and have reported different complex cognitive interpretations of the same task while

writing, whereas other studies have focused on learners’ mental representations of expository texts without sources.

Both trends of research highlight writers’ interpretations of the task, although not all the studies in both strands have

also explored the goals that guide the evolving nature of task representation. The present longitudinal study aims at

exploring the relationship between 21 EFL university students’ mental models (understood as beliefs on the task and

goals) and the effects of these on written performance. We are particularly interested in participants’ initial stored task

representation and the relationship of such representation to goals and written performance. We consider learners’

stored task representation as the core element of writers’ MMs that activates a network of goals for composing, as

Hayes, Flower, Schriver, Stratman, and Carey (1987) previously suggested. They claimed that the notion of task

representation was at the top of the model because goals emerged around it for specific problem processes that need to

be solved. In what follows, we describe work relevant to our research and specify the gaps that we attempt to fill with

the present empirical study.

Writers’ task representation while writing

Flower (1990) began the investigation into L1 writers’ task representation while composing by means of think

aloud protocols and personal accounts. She observed that writers differed in their interpretation of the same task, which

in turn resulted in distinct goals, writing strategies, text format, and plans for organising their assignments. Further

research into task representation in L2 while writers compose their texts has not considered writers’ goals when

composing (e.g., Ruiz-Funes, 2001; Wolfersberger, 2007). Ruiz-Funes (2001) focused on foreign language learners’

task representation as reflected in their final written products. Her findings indicated that the complexity of L2

students’ task representation did not always relate to the linguistic sophistication of the produced texts. Other

researchers, like Wolfersberger (2007), explored the dynamic process of L2 writers’ task representation and its

relationship to written performance by examining elements such as previous writing experiences that may have an

influence on the shaping of the task at different stages of the composing process. However, the shaping of task

representation in relation to writers’ goals was not explored. To our knowledge, only Manchon and Roca de Larios

(2011) have examined learners’ stored task representation and the goals that determined their performance, although

the analysis of task representation was based on students’ self-reported perception of development rather than on the

comparison of actual changes across time, as we explain next.

Writers’ stored task representation

Manchon and Roca de Larios (2011) investigated EFL learners’ mental models of writing, which were

characterised, following Manchon (2009), as learners’ beliefs and conceptions that guide their written performance.

MMs were considered crucial to determining learners’ goals for writing, the aspects they attended to when composing,

and the depth of problem-solving behaviour they engaged in. After a nine-month EAP course, their participants

reported self-perceived changes in their conceptualisation of the writing task, which became more multidimensional as

they paid attention to different dimensions (ideational, textual, and linguistic) involved in text production. In addition,

F. Nicolas-Conesa et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 24 (2014) 1–19 3

the self-reported changes in learners’ task conceptualisation resulted in the development of goals along the dimensions

of L2 writers (ideational and textual) and of L2 learners (linguistic concerns).

As a whole, although goals are intimately linked with the discovery process of composing (Flower & Hayes, 1981)

and with the dynamic nature of task conceptualisation (Flower, 1990; Wolfersberger, 2007), they are the missing

components of some of the studies that have researched task representation (e.g., Ruiz-Funes, 2001; Smeets & Sole,

2008; Wolfersberger, 2007). In contrast, other studies have instructed learners to set an expert-like standard of

achievement to strive for goals (Cumming, 1986; Hoffman, 1998).

Research on goals in L2 writing

Some interventionist studies have delved into learners’ agency when writing (Cumming, 1986; Hoffman, 1998)

by examining the effects of students’ goals on written performance and self-regulation, while descriptive

studies have examined the development of goals without establishing experimental conditions (Cumming, 2006;

Sasaki, 2009). Cumming (1986) revealed the beneficial effects of instructing students to set goals that resulted

in (a) improvement of self-regulation behaviour, and (b) coherence between perceived areas of improvement

and actual written performance. The findings of this study were nevertheless limited in their time-span (12 weeks)

and were constrained by the instructor, who modelled the participants’ thought processes for the pursuance of

goals.

In contrast to this instructional design, Cumming (2006) carried out a longitudinal, descriptive research project on

the development of goals in a second language context. The results showed that goals had multidimensional

realisations, were transferable to other learning contexts, and differed in quality as a result of students’ personal growth

and socialisation processes in the second language setting. Sasaki (2009) proposed that findings on motivation in

second language (SL) writing may not be applied to a foreign language (FL) setting since ‘‘FL students do not always

have to set goals to survive in their L2 learning situations’’ (Sasaki, 2009, p. 54). On these grounds, Sasaki (2009)

carried out a longitudinal study on the dynamics of Japanese university students’ L2 writing ability in English and

motivation. Her results indicated that there were motivational differences in pursuing goals between those learners

who had spent time abroad and those who had remained at home during their studies. The differences were in favour of

the study-abroad group and they were also reflected in their written performance. Contrasting with Sasaki’s (2009)

suggestion that learners in a FL situation may not be motivated to enhance their writing ability once they have passed

their exams, Manchon and Roca de Larios (2011) found that their EFL participants improved their writing ability,

increased their motivation, and claimed that they intended to achieve more complex goals in future assignments after

nine months of writing instruction and practice in an EAP course. Curiously, their learners experienced in their EFL

context the same conditions as those reported by Sasaki (2009) in an ESL setting (writing practice, explicit instruction,

and authentic audience). This finding highlights the influence of effective teaching practices on learners’ motivation

and achievement rather than the instructional context itself. In this sense, it also raises the question of how useful the

traditional EFL/ESL distinction may actually be.

In light of the studies reviewed, we can conclude that the investigation of students’ goals has contributed to the

knowledge on the variation of written performance, motivation, and self-regulation. However, there is still a dearth of

theoretically informed studies that investigate, systematically and longitudinally, the role of students’ goals for

writing from cognitive, motivational, and self-regulatory perspectives, as well as the interrelationship between goals

and task representation and their influence on written products. The present study, therefore, aims to begin to fill this

gap in the research by attempting to understand the functioning of EFL writers’ MMs of writing and their effects on

performance without establishing experimental conditions for composing so that learners’ real goals for writing, task

representation in an EAP course, and their relationship to written performance can be explored. It is our intention to

examine how learners’ longitudinal shaping of their stored task representation in an EAP course could be related to

their goals for composing, to their self-evaluation of goals, as well as to their writing development. These

relationships could be important in furthering the knowledge of individual differences in student-writers’

achievement, self-regulation, and motivation. On these grounds, the following research questions (RQ) were

formulated:

RQ1: Are there changes in students’ task representation across time?

RQ2: Are students’ task representations, goals, and written performance related?

Method

Participants

The participants were 21 EFL university students, 17 female and 4 male with a mean age of 24, enrolled in an EAP

course in the fourth year of a five-year English degree in Spain, at the University of Murcia. Prior to the study, the

participants had completed three annual English language courses, with varying degrees of success. In general, all the

participants had an upper intermediate level of English (B2 level according to the Common European Framework) as

attested by the Oxford Placement Test (OPT) (x ¼ 149:43, SD = 8.98).

The thirty-week EAP course was devoted to the improvement of their reading and writing abilities in English

following a process-approach to writing. Students had three contact hours per week, during which time they learnt to

analyse writing assignments and compose academic texts. Students were required to participate actively in idea

generation, peer editing, and individual and group revision tasks. Throughout the academic year, the student-writers

completed a portfolio of three assignments and composed a total of 45 journals. Each assignment was rewritten at least

twice, following the feedback provided by the teacher and by peers at the level of content, rhetoric, and language. The

formative journals were submitted regularly during the 30 weeks and were designed to encourage fluency and

confidence in writing in the EAP course. Assessment was based on a combination of coursework and a final

examination, for which the learners had to compose an argumentative text of 500–600 words on an academic topic.

Data collection

Written texts and journals

Information on written performance was gathered by means of argumentative L2 essays, while self-reflective

journals were used to collect data on task representation and goals across time. Additional information on students’ L2

language level was gathered by the OPTat two points in time and changes in their linguistic competence were analysed

by means of a Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

Participants were required to write two argumentative essays on the same topic initially before starting their writing

instruction in mid-September (Time 1) and then nine months later in June (Time 2). The essays were written in the

classroom and students were given one hour to complete the task without the help of external sources such as

dictionaries. The same writing prompt was used at both times, based on Raimes (1987) (see Appendix A). The

repetition of the same task1 at both times of data collection was motivated by our attempt to avoid possible problems in

measuring the development of writing given that different task topics could affect the quality of the written texts

(Storch & Tapper, 2009). In addition, in order to check whether participants were motivationally influenced by task

repetition, they were required at Time 2 to assess their level of engagement immediately after having completed the

essay using a simple Likert scale (from 1 to 5).

As for the journals, we only collected for our research a specific set of journals (see Appendix A), for which there was

no word limitation. These journals were collected twice throughout the academic year, at the beginning (mid-September)

and at the end of the EAP course (June). The writing prompts used in the journals were modified from Time 1 to Time 2 to

allow the participants to report and reflect on their changing views over time on task representation and goals.

Regarding the journals on beliefs, participants were required to give their opinion on their task representation by

stating what good academic writing meant for them before beginning writing instruction. Therefore, they drew

initially on their previous knowledge and writing experiences. On finalising the EAP course, participants explained in

the journals their beliefs on task representation, bearing in mind the knowledge obtained from having participated in

the writing course.

With respect to the journals on goals, data were also gathered prior to and after the period of instruction. Initially,

participants were asked to reflect on their goals, as well as on the actions that they had taken to accomplish those goals

F. Nicolas-Conesa et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 24 (2014) 1–194

1 Although the task we used to collect data was the same across time, there was a significant time lapse between both times of data collection, and

the participants were not given feedback on their essays at Time 1. In an interview at Time 2, none of the participants were able to recall the ideas

they had developed in their original texts. This would appear to rule out any possible practice effects across time that could have influenced the

quality of the results of this research.

F. Nicolas-Conesa et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 24 (2014) 1–19 5

when writing their argumentative L2 essay at Time 1. Upon finalising the course, the student-writers were asked to

reflect on their perceptions of changes in writing goals throughout the academic year and describe those changes.

Coding of written texts

The learners’ essays were analysed from a dual perspective: using holistic rating and analytical measures.

Holistically, the essays were blindly assessed by three raters using the global version of the Hamp-Lyons’ (1991) rating

scale in combination with an anchor text. The anchor text was an essay considered as average in quality by one of the

researchers and selected from the total sample of compositions gathered in the pre- and post-tasks.

The use of an anchor text allowed raters to weigh up their judgements better in relation to other texts and assign

scores in a similar way as when using a Likert scale (‘‘How many times is this essay better or worse than the anchor

text?’’). All three raters were Dutch: two EFL teachers who had received previous training in the assessment of writing

ability using anchor texts and a Ph.D. student of writing processes. None of the raters were informed about the number

of participants in the present study nor about the fact that half of the total essays given to them had been written by the

same participants at two points in time. Inter-rater reliability resulted in a Cronbach alpha of .79.

As for the analytical measures, two raters (one of the researchers and a Ph.D. student of EFL writing) assessed the

writing components of complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF) using a tagging software for English texts (the

Constituent Likelihood Automatic Word-tagging System or CLAWS tagger) from Lancaster University (Garside,

1996; Garside & Smith, 1997). Any disagreements when coding were solved by consensus. The inter-rater agreement

was therefore always 100%.

Fluency was assessed in terms of the total number of words per essay, following Wolfe-Quintero, Inagaki, and Kim

(1998) and using the WordSmith 4.0 software (Scott, 2004). Accuracy was measured by means of the percentage of

error-free clauses (EFC Perc) and the percentage of error-free sentences (EFS Perc). Error free clauses (EFC) and

sentences (EFS) were defined as clauses and sentences in which no error was detected with regard to syntax,

morphology, native-like lexical choice, or word order. Clauses had to be correct in isolation while sentences were only

error-free when all the clauses of which they were composed were correct.

Complexity was measured from a multidimensionality perspective following Norris and Ortega (2009). Thus

essays were coded for (a) complexity through subordination, for which we calculated the rate of subordination per

clause (Sub/C) and per sentence (Sub/Sent), (b) subclausal complexity as measured by the words per clause (W/C) or

mean length of clause, and (c) the sophistication of language for which we used the D index. The D index is an

alternative measure to type/token ratio (TTR), since it is independent of sample size and allows the comparison of

various linguistic samples (Malvern & Richards, 2002; Malvern, Richards, Chipere, & Duran, 2004). The D index was

calculated using the D-tools programme2 (Meara & Miralpeix, 2004).

Coding of journals on task representation and goals

The students’ journal entries were typed and recursively reread to identify thematic units (TU), which were

operationally defined as ‘‘a set of statements conveying one identifiable coherent idea’’ (Luk, 2008, p. 628). These

thematic units were blindly coded by three raters (one of the researchers and two Ph.D. students) by means of the

comparative method (Miles & Huberman, 1994), which involved iterative reviews of the thematic units so as to identify

recurrent patterns of analysis in relation to the research questions. The coding process was based on our knowledge of

theories and research about student-writers’ task representation and goals. Each journal of task representation and goals

was coded in a binary way (1 versus 0) taking into account the participants who mentioned, at least once, each category of

the coding scheme. The binary coding was mutually exclusive. In addition, we also computed the number of times that

each category of task representation was mentioned so as to examine quantitative changes across time.

The coding scheme on task representation included two levels of analysis: learners’ orientation towards writing and

the dimensions of writing. The inter-coder reliability resulted in a Kappa of .86 for each level of analysis. The

2 The computation of the D index follows this process: 100 random samples of 35 words from each writer’s text are generated and the mean type/

token ratio (TTR) for the 35 words is computed. This procedure is followed up to the calculation of 100 samples of 50 words, which results in a set of

16 mean TTR values.

F. Nicolas-Conesa et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 24 (2014) 1–196

orientation towards writing included the distinction between a process and a product approach following previous

research (Flower, 1990; Manchon & Roca de Larios, 2011; Wolfersberger, 2007). Process entailed the understanding

of academic writing as a recursive task that can involve one or several stages of writing (collecting, planning,

formulation, and/or revision). A process approach can entail continuous assessment and reformulation of information

when composing (e.g., ‘‘you should read the second draft looking into the grammar so that you can correct some

mistakes or simply improve the quality of the text using a more complex structures to say the same thing’’3). In

contrast, the product approach entailed the description of the characteristics of the task as static elements without

making reference to any identifiable stage. In this case, the task is described in terms of the main characteristics that

this written product should have without reporting engagement in problem-solving behaviour (e.g., ‘‘I think about a

professional text, very well organised, in which specific vocabulary related to the topic is used’’).

The dimensions of writing were inspired by Manchon and Roca de Larios’ research (2011), which comprised

ideational, textual, and linguistic aspects. Ideational aspects made reference to the writer’s generation and organisation

of ideas by means of techniques such as brainstorming or outlining and/or the use of sources to write well-documented

texts by gathering ideas (e.g., ‘‘It is important to investigate and collect as many information as we can about the topic

that we are going to write’’). The linguistic level included grammar and vocabulary (e.g., ‘‘academic style involves

precise and objective language. This should mean that the language is clear and simple’’), while textual issues involved

learners’ concerns about macro-textual or rhetorical issues such as the register of different types of texts, objectivity,

cohesion, coherence, purpose in writing, or the writer’s tone of voice (e.g., ‘‘a different register must be used

depending on the kind of text we are dealing with’’).

The operationalisation of learners’ goals was conceptually rooted in Zhou, Busch, Gentil, Eouanzoui, and

Cumming’s research (2006) and defined as ‘‘explicit statements of desire or need in regard to the learning of L2

composition or related abilities’’ (p. 29). The coding scheme used was determined by the specific writing prompt and

the time of data collection. At Time 1, Zhou et al.’s coding scheme (2006) was used to identify the semiotic object of

intention of learners’ goals, as well as the actions oriented to achieve them. Five main codes were distinguished: (a)

content, (b) language, (c) rhetoric, (d) affective states (participants’ attempt to lower their anxiety), and (e) composing

processes. The inter-coder reliability for the object of goals and actions yielded an overall Kappa of .84. At Time 2, the

participants evaluated their achievement of goals, and journals were coded for the directional pattern of goals, which

involved the distinction between dynamic and static goals. This differentiation was inspired by self-regulation models,

according to which after learning there is a self-reflection process and the evaluation of achievement and accomplished

goals can affect future learning behaviours, success, and the possible formulation of new goals (e.g., Zimmerman,

2000). For this reason, dynamic goals were those instances in which student-writers formulated new desires or wishes

for the future after the accomplishment of a goal (e.g., ‘‘I have fulfilled my goals for this course and now I want to keep

on writing complex texts’’) or after the acknowledgement of a problem or conflict in learning (e.g., ‘‘I have realised

some common vocabulary mistakes I used to make and now I want to upgrade my English grammar when writing’’). In

contrast, goals were considered to be static when participants explained their perceived achievement or dilemmas

without formulating new goals for the future (e.g., ‘‘I have (not) fulfilled all the goals I had set for myself this academic

year’’). We also found that there were goals that involved reporting an intention for the future at the end of the

academic year. However, we could not always distinguish whether the formulation of those goals was part of a self-

reflection process about their writing achievement. For this reason, these goals were just coded as intentions and were

not included in the coding of the directional pattern of goals. The Kappa for the directional pattern of goals was .87.

Data analyses

We used a mixed method approach to analyse the data because we were interested in both quantitative and qualitative

information. In order to examine changes in students’ task representation over time, we conducted a Wilcoxon signed

rank test on the percentage of thematic units identified per participant in each of the categories of our coding scheme. In

addition, we also compared the changes in the participants’ report of task representation from a qualitative point of view.

As for the relationship between goals and task representation, several analyses were performed on the journals

collected at Time 1 and Time 2. For the data on participants’ task representation at Time 1, the participants were

3 All the examples provided in this section are taken from the participants’ journals.

F. Nicolas-Conesa et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 24 (2014) 1–19 7

divided into two sub-groups: (a) those who represented the task to themselves in terms of a process involving problem-

solving behaviour, and (b) those who just viewed the task in terms of a product without taking into account a process

approach. This division into two groups, as if there were two independent samples, was motivated by previous research

on writing which has shown that the sophistication of learners’ task representation could lead them to pursue goals at

different levels of problem-solving behaviour (Manchon & Roca de Larios, 2011). On these grounds, qualitative

differences in the goals reported by each group of participants with different views on task representation at Time 1

were compared.

At Time 2, we analysed the relationship between the participants’ self-evaluation of goals (dynamic versus static

goals) and their initial task representation. In this way, we attempted to find a pattern of stored task representation (a)

for the establishment of new goals after reporting perceived achievement of a goal or (b) for the absence of new goals

after reporting perceived achievement following self-regulation models. It should also be recalled that in this study we

consider students’ stored task representation as the basic element for the functioning of the network of goals following

Hayes et al. (1987). Drawing on the same distinction of participants as at Time 1 (process versus product), as if the

participants belonged to two independent samples, we conducted a Fisher’s exact test. This non-parametric test

determines whether the two groups of task representation coded in a binary way (process versus product) differ in the

proportions in which they mention two different categories of goals (dynamic versus static goals) that are

representative of different patterns of self-regulation at the end of the academic year.

Finally, we examined whether there was development in participants’ written performance across time and whether

these potential changes could be related to their task representation and goals. We expected to uncover possible

patterns of writing achievement in relation to the core element of participants’ stored task representation, and also in

relation to their self-evaluation of goals at the end of the academic year along the lines of studies of self-regulation and

motivation (e.g., Dornyei & Otto, 1998). First of all, Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to analyse changes in the

participants’ written scores measured holistically and analytically (CAF measures) across time. After that, we

examined whether there were differences in the written performance across time between the two groups of

participants who had different stored task representation at Time 1 (process versus product). For this purpose, we

conducted a Mann Whitney U-test. Finally, we analysed whether there was a relationship between different patterns in

the participants’ self-evaluation of goals and the corresponding scores of written performance measured holistically.

On these grounds, we calculated rank-biserial correlations between the binary variables of self-evaluation of goals at

Time 2 (dynamic versus static) and their scores on written performance at the end of the academic year.

Results and discussion

The results of our analyses are presented and discussed below in four main sections focusing on: (a) changes in

students’ task representation across time, (b) participants’ initial stored task representation and specific goals for the

writing task at Time 1, (c) participants’ initial stored task representation and their self-evaluation of goals at Time 2,

and (d) the possible relationship of task representation, goals, and written performance. It should be recalled that the

exploration of participants’ changes in task representation and in the self-evaluation of goals was possible due to the

adaptation of the writing prompts at Time 2 to encourage students to reflect on changes across time. Taking into

account that the data were analysed following a mixed-method approach, we shall also combine the quantitative and

qualitative description of results and their discussion for greater clarity.

Changes in students’ task representation across time

Our first research question asked:

RQ1: Are there changes in students’ task representation across time?

The results of the analyses showed that as a whole the participants in the study developed a more sophisticated MM

of writing, since they moved from conceptualising writing on the basis of linguistic accuracy and surface features of

rhetorical aspects at Time 1 to representing the task in relation to an in-depth analysis of ideational aspects and a broad

range of rhetorical features at Time 2. In what follows, we shall offer a descriptive account of results (number of

participants and number of thematic units per category of coding schemes computed in the journals). We shall also

F. Nicolas-Conesa et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 24 (2014) 1–198

describe the results of the Wilcoxon signed rank test for the explanation of statistical changes in task representation

across time.

The predominant orientation towards writing, which included the distinction between a process and a product

approach, was at both times largely related to a product view of composition (see Table 1) (21 participants at Time 1

and 20 participants at Time 2). In other words, nearly all the participants described the writing task in terms of the static

features that all well-written texts should have, although half of these participants (13 at T1 and 10 at T2) also

perceived the act of composing in terms of a process approach that involved iterative decision making and rewriting

procedures.

Given that half of the participants began and ended the writing course holding a process or problem-solving view

towards the writing task (13 at T1 and 10 at T2), it seems that they did not discover a new way of representing the task

as a result of the EAP course, but rather they refined their already existing beliefs. In this respect, the results contrast

with those reported by Manchon and Roca de Larios (2011) in that, in the latter case, the definition of the writing task

in terms of problem-solving behaviour was developed across time. However, in that study, the researchers reported the

students’ perceptions of changes in their task representation rather than comparing the participants’ task representation

at two points in time, as was the case in the present research.

As for the different dimensions of writing (ideational, textual, and linguistic), the participants’ task representation

was already based on multiple dimensions (see Table 1) at the beginning of the course, since they described writing in

relation to textual aspects of writing (21 participants), linguistic features (18 participants), and ideational issues (16

participants). The representation of the task in terms of multiple dimensions of writing could be considered to be a

multidimensional model of writing, as previous researchers have also suggested (Devine, Railey, & Boshoff, 1993;

Manchon & Roca de Larios, 2011). This result also differs from Manchon and Roca de Larios’ research (2011) in that

their foreign language learners, whose L2 writing experience and language proficiency was similar to our participants,

reported having developed their multidimensional model of writing across time during the instructional and writing

practice period in an EAP course. It is possible that the participants in both studies had different writing task

conceptualisations at the beginning of their EAP courses. However, as indicated above, differences in the collection of

data could also explain the findings since Manchon and Roca de Larios (2011) investigated the perceptions of changes

in task representation at Time 2.

In spite of the multidimensional nature of our participants’ initial task representation, it was evident that at Time 1

they tended to focus more intensively on the textual dimension (see Table 1) (69 TU) rather than on the ideational (41)

or linguistic (25) ones. At Time 2, the textual dimension of writing prevailed even more (85 TU) over the ideational

and linguistic dimensions (32 TU and 16 TU respectively). Accordingly, when participants’ language level improved

throughout the academic year (see next section), there was also a tendency for them to develop more rhetorical

concerns when representing the task. In this respect, the results (see Table 1) indicated that there was a significant

increase from Time 1 to Time 2 in the percentage of thematic units within the textual dimension (z = �2.17, p = .03,

r = .33), but there were no significant changes for the ideational (z = �.59, p = .56) or linguistic dimensions

(z = �1.49, p = .14) across time.

Regarding the textual dimension, the participants’ conceptualisation of rhetorical features for composing at T1 (21

participants) referred predominantly and recurrently to the overall organisation of the text and to coherence and clarity

in the expression of ideas. In addition, the participants’ description of the task at Time 1 appeared to be very abstract

and rather general, as it seemed to come from their common sense and/or from procedural knowledge acquired through

writing experience in previous instrumental language courses. At Time 2, most participants (20, see Table 1) claimed

they had qualitatively expanded the range of rhetorical concerns they now addressed in their writing, which were

considered more in-depth, such as thesis statement, purpose in writing in relation to an overall writing goal, style,

register, audience, or rhetorical moves.

With respect to the ideational dimension, there were no significant changes across time in the percentage of

thematic units. However, there were qualitative changes in learners’ views on the organisation of ideas and use and

acknowledgement of sources. Writers moved from a writer-based prose (Flower, 1979) to a reader-based perspective.

The writer-based prose was restricted to the writer’s own ideas, which involved composing without taking into account

the intended audience and avoiding rhetorical counterarguments. In contrast, at the end of the academic year, our

participants appeared to define the task from a more reader-based perspective, which helped them engage in ideational

searches from a more cognitively demanding perspective so as to come up with arguments and counterarguments

related to the main rhetorical problem posed by the writing task. In this respect, the participants referred to the

F.

Nico

las-C

on

esaet

al./Jo

urn

al

of

Seco

nd

La

ng

ua

ge

Writin

g2

4(2

01

4)

1–

19

9

Table 1

Descriptive statistics on the dimensions of task representation across time.

Dimensions

of task

representation

Main

categories

Time 1 Wilcoxon signed rank test Time 2

N8P(n = 21)

N8TU Total

N8TU

%TU

(out of

141 TU)

Mdn M (SD) z p Effect

size (r)a

M (SD) Mdn %TU

(out of

134 TU)

Total

N8TU

N8TU N8P(n = 21)

Orientation Process 13 34 141 24% 25 21 (21) �.83 .41 .13 17 (25) 0 16% 134 22 10

Product 21 101 72% 75 73 (24) �1.55 .12 .24 83 (25) 100 84% 112 20

Non relevant 5 6 4% 0 6 (12) �2.03 .04 .31 0 (0) 0 0% 0 0

Dimensions

of writing

Ideational 16 41 141 29% 25 25 (20) �.59 .56 .09 24 (26) 14 24% 134 32 14

Textual 21 69 49% 40 49 (22) �2.17 .03 .33 61 (31) 56 63% 85 20

Linguistic 18 25 18% 17 20 (15) �1.49 .14 .23 14 (26) 0 12% 16 7

Non relevant 5 6 4% 0 6 (12) �2.02 .04 .31 1 (2) 0 1% 1 1

Note: N8P = number of participants; TU = thematic units.a The effect size was calculated following Rosenthal’s (1991) explanation (reviewed here via Larson-Hall, 2009) that for any non-parametric tests with a Z-score, this equation (r = Z/HN) can be

used to transform the Z-score into a ‘‘percentage variance measure of r’’ (Larson-Hall, 2009, p. 377), where N stands for the total number of observations rather than the number of participants.

F. Nicolas-Conesa et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 24 (2014) 1–1910

importance of selecting adequate information by comparing and contrasting knowledge derived from different sources

so as to draw inferences about them and develop objective arguments and an overall sense of meaning about the

text.

As for the linguistic dimension, the few participants (7) who described the task in terms of language at Time 2 (see

Table 1) did so intensively, since at the end of the EAP course they reported a similar number of thematic units about

linguistic accuracy as the eighteen participants had at Time 1 (18% of the total N8TU at Time 1 and 12% of the total

N8TU at Time 2, as indicated in Table 1). This explains why there were no differences in the percentage of thematic

units within this dimension (z = �1.49, p = .14).

This small group of participants perceived writing practice from a double perspective of learning-to-write and

writing-to-learn (see Manchon, 2011), which is indicative of the interface between SLA and FL writing

(Manchon, 2011; Manchon & Roca de Larios, 2011; Ortega & Carson, 2010). However, the apparent decrease of

importance in the linguistic dimension on the part of the general group of participants may not necessarily mean

that their conceptualisation of writing is less complex because fewer dimensions of writing are considered. We

suggest that the complexity of mental models of writing in the case of fairly advanced L2 learners may not always

necessarily involve the development of multiple dimensions for composing in relation to the increase of L2

language proficiency as reported in other studies (e.g., Roca de Larios, Manchon, & Murphy, 2006). We contend

that the complexity of mental models may be related to the L2 writer’s cognitive expansion and enhanced

understanding of already demanding dimensions like the textual or the ideational ones. It is possible that when L2

writers are asked about their task representation, they may refer to multiple dimensions if they have been

instructed about the importance of accurate use of language, the structure of their texts, and the use of sources for

composing. Nevertheless, having declarative knowledge about these dimensions of writing does not imply that

their mental models are sophisticated. We rather contend that the depth with which students describe each

dimension can be a better measure of the complexity of their task representation and the depth of the cognitive

processes in which they may be willing to engage.

As a whole, when our participants represented the task to themselves at higher-level aspects of writing (i.e.,

ideational, textual) they seemed less prone to define the task in terms of surface features like linguistic accuracy. In

spite of these findings, it is also possible that our learners might have upgraded their linguistic concerns about L2

accuracy when writing, although our data collection instruments may not have been sufficiently adequate to capture

this. In particular, we elicited our participants’ stored task representation for overall composing processes. In this

sense, the participants reported their stored task representation regardless of the specific problems that may emerge

during the ongoing process of writing, as has been captured by other studies using think-aloud protocols (Manchon,

Roca de Larios, & Murphy, 2009; Roca de Larios et al., 2006).

Finally, our results also show that the different dimensions of writing were integrative (simultaneous concerns

about several dimensions like language and rhetoric) rather than conflicting (showing conflicts between dimensions),

as illustrated in the following extract in which one participant describes the importance of both rhetorical features and

linguistic accuracy when writing:

Another thing to highlight would have to be the accuracy of the information that we are making use of, but also

the amount of information that we provide to the reader, since you may have a lot information about a certain

topic but not all that quantity will be relevant to the text, so we should just focus on its relevance to the text.

Besides these main features of a text, we should take into account some other points like: grammar, syntax and

vocabulary. (Participant 4, Journal on task representation).

This finding is in contrast to those found in Devine et al.’s research (1993), in which L2 writers who had

multidimensional models of the writing task (i.e., grammar, communication, and personal voice) were prone to

experience a conflict between different components of the model. We suggest that differences in writing expertise, L2

language proficiency level, and cultural backgrounds of the participants in both studies could explain the dissimilar

results. While the participants in Devine et al.’s study were ESL students with a lower intermediate level of English (B1

level) from nine different backgrounds, our research was restricted to a homogeneous group of upper intermediate (B2

level) university learners in an EFL context. The difference in the cultural backgrounds of the participants in Devine

et al.’s research could also account for possible conflicts in their mental models, since L2 writers might have already

developed a representation of academic writing in their L1 that may not necessarily correspond to the academic

conventions of L2 composition (e.g., Hyland, 2003; Watanabe, 2004; Zhang, 2005).

F. Nicolas-Conesa et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 24 (2014) 1–19 11

In the following sections, we report the results of our second research question:

RQ2: Are students’ task representations, goals, and written performance related?

Taking into account that we consider participants’ initial stored task representation as the core element of MMs for

the activation of a network of goals, the results of this research question revolve around (a) the relationship between

initial stored task representation and goals at different moments of data collection and (b) the connection between

initial task representation, goals, and written performance. The results are presented in three main subsections.

Participants’ initial stored task representation in relation to goals and actions when writing a specific task at Time 1

In this section, we shall explain the qualitative relationship between participants’ different views on task

representation at Time 1 and the goals that were reported for the composition of a particular text at the beginning of the

EAP course.

The results at Time 1 show that participants had different views on the task representation (process versus product)

and approached their written texts from distinct perspectives. However, these differences were only evident on looking

into participants’ specific subgoals when writing, since on the surface student-writers who had different views on task

representation reported pursuing similar kinds of higher-order goals in their written texts.

All the participants (21) defined the writing task as a product at Time 1 (Table 1). Thirteen of these 21 participants also

described the task as a process that involved rewriting and constant decision making to solve problems when composing.

Therefore, only eight participants were truly shown to hold a static product view of the writing task at Time 1.

Following Flower and Hayes’ (1981) contention that goals are organised in a hierarchical manner, we classified

participants’ goals as higher-order goals or as subgoals. In this respect, there were no clear differences in the higher-

order goals and actions reported by the two groups with different task representations at Time 1 (process versus

product). Both groups reported goals that were concerned mainly with rhetorical issues, linguistic accuracy, or the

content of the text. Nevertheless, a close analysis of the subgoals that each group aspired to revealed qualitative

differences between them (Table 2). Those participants with a process view of writing reported that their subgoals

consisted of exploring the topic of their texts from different perspectives so as to present arguments and

counterarguments, supporting their arguments or finding relationships among different ideas. These subgoals were

different from those reported by the participants who defined the task as a product. These product-oriented learners

aspired to persuade the reader and be clear in the argumentation of ideas, but there was no evidence of aiming to

achieve complex subgoals that could lead them to struggle with a recursive process approach to writing.

Table 2

Goals pursued while writing at Time 1 as self-reported by the participants who held different views on task representation at Time 1.

Higher-order goals Subgoals reported by product-oriented

participants at Time 1 (n = 8)

Subgoals reported by process-oriented participants at Time 1 (n = 13)

Content � Show the writer’s point of view

� Decide what to say

� Develop ideas in a clear and coherent manner

� Respond to the question posed by the writing prompt

� Defend one’s point of view

Language � Be linguistically accurate

� Use formal language

� Be linguistically accurate

� Use appropriate language

� Use complex language

� Use synonyms to avoid repetitions

Rhetoric � Structure the text into three main parts:

introduction, body and conclusion

� Persuade the reader

� Be clear in the argumentation of ideas

� Present arguments and counterarguments

� Develop clear and relevant arguments in an efficient way

� Persuade the reader and guide him/her through the reading process

� Offer justification for arguments

� Include relevant information

� Be clear and straightforward in the argumentation of ideas

� Justify and illustrate the main ideas in the text using examples

� Find a relationship among different ideas

Affective � Control emotions when writing � Control emotions when writing

F. Nicolas-Conesa et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 24 (2014) 1–1912

In line with the array of subgoals, diverse strategic actions were also stated. While the product-oriented participants

reported engaging in actions like drawing an outline, their process-oriented counterparts reported drawing an outline

or engaging in revision and rewriting at an ideational (clear ideas), linguistic (accuracy), and/or rhetorical level

(coherence of the text). These results suggest that student-writers could be engaged in the same cognitively demanding

task at different levels of cognitive complexity, according to the task representation that they have in mind (Flower,

1990; Ruiz-Funes, 2001). They also coincide with Flower’s (1990) research in revealing the participants’ distinct

levels of engagement and depth in the composition process, which varied as a result of the task representation and the

corresponding goals that they were willing to pursue. However, our distinction of task representation in terms of

process or product seems to be more encompassing than the understanding of a specific reading-to-write task in terms

of text types as described by Flower (1990) (i.e., synthesis, summary, free response, synthesis with a rhetorical

purpose).

To summarise, our research indicates that the particular representation of the task held by student-writers could be

important for their active engagement in complex thinking that involves problem-solving following their particular

goals and subgoals. The representation of the task in terms of process might facilitate learner engagement in deep

mental processes, which could, in turn, result in the confrontation and resolution of different kinds of problems when

composing (Flower & Hayes, 1980).

Participants’ initial stored task representation in relation to their self-evaluation of goals at Time 2

We present the results of the participants’ stored task representation at Time 1 in relation to their self-evaluation of

goals at Time 2. A Fisher’s exact test was performed to explore the connection between participants’ initial task

conceptualisation and the self-reported evaluation of goals (dynamic or static) at the end of the academic year. It should be

recalled that the self-evaluation of goals was only coded at the end of the academic year when students reflected on their

achievement of goals and evaluated their motivation to keep on improving their writing ability by setting new goals. Table

3 shows that of the student-writers who had conceptualised the task as a process involving problem-solving behaviour at

Time 1 (13 participants), 12 later reported having dynamic goals ( p = .01). Given the binary coding of thematic units on

task representation in terms of a process (1) or only a product view of writing (0), the results of the Fisher’s exact test

regarding product conceptualisation and dynamic goals had the same significance level as that of the process view.

However, the distribution of the participants was the opposite of that described above. As shown in Table 3, only three

participants who viewed the task in terms of a product at Time 1 seemed to pursue dynamic goals at the end of the

academic year. These results indicate that learners with a process view of writing seemed to be more likely to develop

dynamic goals for composing across time in comparison with the product-approach counterparts.

In other words, a process conceptualisation of the writing task in terms of recursive rewriting and problem-solving

behaviour when composing could be related not only to further levels of cognitive engagement in the task but also to a

motivational and self-regulation cycle for further writing achievement once student-writers perceive that they have

attained previous goals (Dornyei & Otto, 1998; Heckhausen & Kuhl, 1985). Hence, those learners who started the

writing course with a process view of the writing task were able to progress initially, in Dornyei and Otto’s terms

(1998), from a preactional stage to a postactional one, before beginning the cycle again to move from a postactional

stage to a new preactional stage, as a result of the evaluation of their achievement of goals at Time 2. Nevertheless, the

results also show that those goals that belonged to a new preactional stage were broad and abstract. The vagueness in

the description of new goals after the evaluation of achievement could be explained by the temporal distance with

Table 3

Relationship between participants’ task representation at Time 1 and self-evaluation of goals at Time 2.

Self-evaluation of goals at Time 2

Static Dynamic Total count

Task representation at Time 1 Product 5 3 8

Process 1 12 13

Total count 6 15 21

Fisher exact test p = .01

F. Nicolas-Conesa et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 24 (2014) 1–19 13

which these goals were formulated and the lack of knowledge about their writing opportunities in their EFL context

after the EAP course.

Given that our participants only evaluated their goals at Time 2, future research could also investigate whether

student-writers’ initial process view of writing could be equated with a greater tendency to self-evaluate their writing

achievement and to formulate new goals consistently (i.e., to formulate dynamic goals) across a long period of time

(e.g., from the beginning of a writing course to the end of it).

Changes in written performance in relation to participants’ stored task representation and self-evaluation of

goals

We shall first describe the development of written performance using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Then, the

relationship between task representation and written performance as well as between goals and written scores will be

examined, for which we shall report the results of Mann Whitney-U tests and rank-biserial correlations respectively.

The overall findings indicate that the participants improved their written performance over time. However, this

improvement was evident only in the holistic rating using the Hamp-Lyons’ scale (1991) (z = �2.54, p = .01, r = .39),

as we did not find any significant changes over time in any of the CAF measures that were analysed, that is, accuracy,

fluency (essay length), or complexity. Table 4 shows the descriptive statistics of participants’ written performance

according to the holistic rating and the CAF measures, the descriptive statistics of L2 language proficiency, which

statistically improved across time, and the results of the Wilcoxon signed rank test.

The lack of significant differences in the CAF measures across time could not be attributed to motivational factors

such as a decrease in interest in writing the same task across time, since all the participants reported having been

engaged in the writing task at Time 2, albeit at different levels.4 Other reasons, therefore, might be adduced. Firstly, the

analytical measures might be indicative of micro-level qualities of texts that do not map perfectly onto the global

changes that were captured in the holistic rating, such as communicative adequacy or efficiency of the written texts

(Pallotti, 2009). Along these lines, the constructs of error-free clauses (EFC) and error-free sentences (EFS) in

percentages measured their quantity of errors but not their quality or gravity in terms of how they could affect the

comprehensibility and communicative effectiveness of the text (e.g., Polio, 1997; Storch, 2009). Secondly, if we

assume that the analytical measures are finer-grained than the holistic rating, we could also expect less change in only

30 weeks of writing instruction and practice. Thirdly, the existence of a ceiling effect is also possible, since the

analytical measures that were registered at Time 1 could have already been developed at that time, given that our

participants were fairly advanced L2 students. Fourthly, task conditions could have also influenced the results since

Table 4

L2 proficiency and written performance: descriptive statistics and Wilcoxon signed rank tests.

Constructs Test, scale and measures Time 1 Time 2 Wilcoxon signed rank test

Mdn M (SD) Mdn M (SD) z p Effect size (r)a

L2 proficiency OPT test 140 142 (12) 150 149 (9) �3.08 .00 .47

Writing ability Holistic rating.

Hamp-Lyons scale

88 99 (52) 127 134 (52) �2.54 .01 .39

Syntactic complexity W/C 9 9 (1) 9 10 (1) �.40 .69 .06

Sub/C .45 .46 (.13) .48 .45 (.10) �.37 .72 .06

Sub/Sent 1.10 1.29 (.75) 1.20 1.14 (.47) �.40 .69 .06

Lexical variety D index 71 74 (17) 68 68 (9) �1.30 .19 .20

Accuracy EFC Perc 68 63 (16) 66 68 (12) �1.30 .19 .20

EFS Perc 37 34 (18) 36 39 (17) �1.33 .19 .20

Fluency Essay length 292 288 (62) 312 307 (64) �1.03 .31 .16

Note: W/C = words per clause; Sub/C = subordination per clause; Sub/Sent = subordination per sentence; EFC Perc = percentage of accuracy in

error free clauses; EFS Perc = percentage of accuracy in error free sentences.a The effect size was calculated using this equation (r = Z/HN).

4 Somewhat involved: 8 participants; Involved: 11 participants; Very involved: 2 participants.

F. Nicolas-Conesa et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 24 (2014) 1–1914

participants wrote under time constraints and the resulting texts might not have been long enough to reliably capture

changes in the CAF measures. Fifthly, one of the problems of a pre- and post-test design is that the development of

individuals’ writing ability may not be fully represented by one text written at the beginning and at the end of a course.

In this respect, further research could collect data on written performance during the whole academic year.

Furthermore, a control group of participants could also help to better research and explain participants’ changes in

written performance across time.

Regarding the written outcomes in relation to the participants’ particular representation of the task, our results (see

Tables 5 and 6) indicate that participants with different stored task representations at Time 1 did not differ significantly

in their initial holistic scores as indicated by the Mann Whitney U test (z = �1.02, p = .34). This was a surprising result

given that participants with a process view of writing, in contrast with those participants with a product approach, had

explained at Time 1 that they aspired to pursue sophisticated subgoals when composing those essays. Such a finding

may be indicative of L2 writers’ difficulty in accomplishing the goals they pursue (Ruiz-Funes, 2001; Wolfersberger,

2007). However, it would appear that through writing practice those difficulties may be overcome. Over time the

process-oriented participants tended to obtain significantly better holistic scores in their essays at Time 2 in

comparison with learners with a product view of writing, as indicated by the Mann Whitney U test (z = �3.04, p = .00,

r = .47). It could be suggested that the dynamic conceptualisation of the writing task that involved iterative writing

processes and engagement in problem-solving behaviour may have helped process-oriented participants to achieve

better written texts across time.

Table 6

Mann Whitney U-tests. Comparison of written scores obtained by learners with different task representations (process vs product) at Time 1.

Mann Whitney U test Written scores measured holistically at Time 1 Written scores measured holistically at Time 2

z �1.02 �3.04

p .34 .00

Effect size (r)a .16 .47

a The effect size was calculated using this equation (r = Z/HN).

Table 5

Descriptive statistics of the written scores obtained by participants with different task representations at Time 1.

Task representation at Time 1 Written scores measured holistically

Time 1 Time 2

Mdn M (SD) Mdn M (SD)

Process 90 102 (46) 152 158 (50)

Product 77 96 (63) 92 94 (23)

In addition, due to the overlap between the number of student-writers who conceptualised the task as process and

who also reported dynamic goals (12 students) (see Table 3), it was also expected that having these dynamic goals

would correlate with high scores in written texts at Time 2 (see Table 7) (rho (21) = .44, p = .05). From a motivational

point of view, we could consider that when students perceive that they have achieved their writing goals across a long

period of time and they are motivated to continue improving their writing skills in the future by setting new goals (i.e.,

Table 7

Rank-biserial correlations between learners’ self-evaluation of goals at Time 2 and writing ability.

Self-evaluation of goals at Time 2 Writing ability

Holistic rating Time 1 Holistic rating Time 2

Dynamic goals Time 2 .42 .44*

Static goals Time 2 �.12 �.16

* Significant at .05 level.

F. Nicolas-Conesa et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 24 (2014) 1–19 15

dynamic goals), they could achieve high written performance. In contrast, those student-writers who positively self-

assessed their achievement of goals but were not interested in establishing new goals for their immediate future beyond

their EAP course (i.e., static goals) did not tend to achieve high written scores at the beginning (rho (21) = �.12,

p = .59) or at the end of the academic year (rho (21) = �.16, p = .50).

As a whole, these results provide empirical evidence of high written performance and improvement in written

scores across time on the part of students who define the task in terms of problem-solving processes, self-evaluate

positively their writing achievement, and have the desire of continuing to improve by pursuing new goals for

writing. In this we coincide with Cumming (2012) who has claimed that ‘‘goals follow but also determine

development’’ (Cumming, 2012, p. 153) as in a cyclical relationship, since the students in our research who had

dynamic goals not only pursued goals because of their problem-solving approach to the task but also achieved

high written scores at Time 2. Consequently, in the case of the participants in our sample who had dynamic goals

and described the task as a process, there was correspondence between perceived improvement in writing and real

achievement. This result is in line with interventionist studies (e.g., Cumming, 1986) in which learners were

tutored to pursue goals and evaluate their attainment. However, our study adds to previous research empirical

evidence on student-writers’ self-initiated goals, self-evaluation of goal achievement, and writing improvement in

a natural learning context without interventional conditions for setting and pursuing goals and during a long

instructional period.

Conclusion and implications

The present study has explored EFL learners’ mental models and their effects on writing performance. The

principal findings reported here offer insights into the complex relationships between learners’ task representation,

their formation of subgoals, and engagement in writing. Our findings have at times coincided with previous empirical

studies on learners’ task representation and writing goals but they have also provided specific points of contrast, which

entail important theoretical and pedagogical implications. Theoretically, the results of our research provide new

evidence on the shaping of MMs, the dynamics of EFL learners’ goals for writing from a motivational and self-

regulatory perspective, and the relationship between MMs and success in writing.

As for the shaping of MMs, previous L2 writing studies (Devine et al., 1993; Manchon et al., 2009) share the

assumption that the sophistication of mental models is equated with learners’ attention to multiple dimensions

when composing. Contrasting with these findings, the participants in our research initially reported a

multidimensional model of writing (ideational, textual, and linguistic), which developed across time into more

sophisticated models that were focused on fewer dimensions of writing (ideational and textual aspects). In this

respect, our results indicate that when investigating the shaping of MMs on the part of advanced language

learners, changes may be better captured by engaging in qualitative analyses of the description of each dimension

of writing, rather than quantitatively in terms of the dimensions learners pay attention to. It is still an empirical

question, however, whether the number of dimensions of writing elicited from stored task representations may be

an indication of the sophistication of MMs in the case of learners with low or intermediate L2 proficiency levels.

Along the same lines, it might also be possible to find deeper changes in the representation of the task when

participants are less-skilled language learners who have mono-dimensional models of writing focusing on

linguistic concerns (e.g., Kasper, 1997; Victori, 1999) than when they are advanced L2 learners who already have

multidimensional models of composing. This also explains why our participants could refine some beliefs about

the writing task, while radical conceptual changes were not found. In addition, qualitative changes in student-

writers’ task representation might be better observed by means of think-aloud protocols and/or in longitudinal

studies about stored task representation, given the length of time required to shape learners’ beliefs (Bernat &

Gvozdenko, 2005; Mori, 1999).

Regarding learners’ goals for writing, our study adds empirical evidence on the relationship between a dynamic

process of task conceptualisation and the maintenance of motivation and self-regulation to write in an EFL context.

However, learners’ vagueness in the description of new goals for the future given the absence of immediate writing

prospects draws attention to a possible reduction in their purposeful behaviour, and the limited opportunities for

writing beyond specific courses that are traditionally related to EFL settings (Ortega, 2009; Sasaki, 2009). In other

words, the results illustrate how EFL learners’ goals for writing from a motivational and self-regulatory perspective are

determined by the interplay of individual factors (dynamic task conceptualisation) and contextual ones (a challenging

F. Nicolas-Conesa et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 24 (2014) 1–1916

learning context). This relationship offers empirical evidence to Ushioda’s (2009) definition of motivation as a

‘‘person-in-context’’ since the pursuance of individuals’ particular goals or intentions are associated with a specific

time, place, and social context (Sealey & Carter, 2004, p. 195).

With respect to the relationship between student-writers’ MMs and success in writing, the present study illustrates

that sophisticated conceptualisations of the writing task can lead to more active and effective engagement in the

process of writing as well as to better written products. Drawing on the assumption that writing involves a task

representation to solve particular problems that come up when composing (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987; Hayes,

1996), our study shows that those writers who described the task as a process involving problem-solving behaviour

were more likely to strive for more sophisticated subgoals when composing and thus wrote better texts. It is our

contention that holding a process view of the writing task may have helped writers to consciously engage in goal

setting so as to solve problems that emerged while composing leading them to formulate several complex subgoals

oriented towards the achievement of an overall goal of writing quality. It is also possible that while writing those

participants who held a process view transformed and adapted their initial task representation when they experienced

difficulties in achieving the various subgoals they had formulated. However, further insights from think-aloud

protocols would have been needed for us to confirm this inference. As a whole, our findings seem to indicate that

understanding the task in terms of a process could have helped writers to solve the problem posed by the writing task in

a more successful way, since they went on to compose texts that were more highly rated from a holistic point of view at

Time 2. This finding is important in helping to advance research on L2 writing that up to now had not reported

conclusive findings about the sophistication of task representation and success in composing.

We also suggest that task representation could be indicative of individual styles for composing and setting goals

(Ford & Nichols, 1991), since the participants in our study who held a process approach appeared to be more oriented

towards self-improvement in writing than those who described the task in terms of a product. The product-oriented

learners seemed more focused towards maintaining their level of attainment and did not formulate new goals after

reporting their perceived achievement. Theoretically, then, our study highlights the importance of considering

individual learner differences in any exploration of task representation and writing goals for the development of

writing ability. Future research may shed further light on the development and depth of goals that are pursued in

multiple tasks across time, bearing in mind learners’ task conceptualisation and individual learning styles.

The results of our study also entail several pedagogical implications. In order to help learners improve their writing

ability and better understand their performance, instruction might focus on how learners represent the writing task to

themselves together with the goals they pursue. Along these lines, EAP teachers might foster the conception of writing

in terms of problem-solving behaviour through instruction and recursive writing practices oriented towards writers’

goals, so as to familiarise learners with setting appropriate goals, striving for them, and evaluating their goal

achievement and corresponding written outcomes.

The use of authentic tasks in the classroom, adapted to writers’ professional interests and career goals that go

beyond their immediate academic needs in EFL or ESL settings, could also lead to the development of personal goals

for writing and to self-regulation for improvement. This proposal is in line with research on intentional cognition,

which postulates that effective learning is the result of the struggle for writers’ self-imposed goals (Bereiter &

Scardamalia, 1985; Cumming, 1986). Such a pedagogical approach to writing could help students self-regulate their

composing processes for life-long learning. Ideally, writing practice and guided instruction tailored closely to writers’

goals could result in mastery goals (cf. Midgley, 2002) or goals for learning, which writing teachers might encourage

students to pursue in other tasks and courses that offer the opportunity to write during their university studies.

In attempting to account for the shaping of student-writers’ beliefs on the task, goals, and performance, future

studies might also consider the sociocultural context in which student-writers develop their abilities. As rightly pointed

out by Ortega (2009), ‘‘we should take great care to avoid the pitfall of treating teachers, writers, and writing contexts

across studies as belonging to an undifferentiated, homogenous contextual class of ‘FL’ or ‘EFL’’’ (p. 250). Along the

same lines, if differences are expected within EFL classroom situations, discrepancy of results about learners’ shaping

of their task representation, goals, and performance will also be expected in ESL contexts on account of the diverse

learning and writing opportunities offered in second language situations (e.g., amount of input and output, mainstream

courses devoted to writing, the help provided by writing centres to learners, etc.) in comparison with EFL settings. For

this reason, future studies should also delve into the idiosyncratic features of students’ mental models in different

learning contexts so as to shed further light on the relationship between MMs and improvement in written

performance.

F. Nicolas-Conesa et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 24 (2014) 1–19 17

Acknowledgements

The research reported in this paper was financed by the Spanish Ministerio de Economıa y Competitividad (research

grant FFI2012-35839) and by Fundacion Seneca, the research agency of the Autonomous Government of the region of

Murcia, Spain (research grant 11942/PHCS/09 and a Ph.D. research grant). We thank the editors and anonymous

reviewers of the Journal of Second Language Writing for their help and insightful suggestions. We are also grateful to

Talita Groenendijk and Marina Artese for their help in coding data.

Appendix A

Prompt for writing task taken from Raimes (1987)

Success in education is influenced more by the students’ home life and training as a child than by the quality and

effectiveness of the educational program. Do you agree or disagree?

Prompt for journal on task representation at Time 1

In the light of what you have learned at university please write a journal entry to try to explain to a prospective

student in our department what you think good academic writing is and what it involves.

Prompt for journal on task representation at Time 2

In the light of what you now know, please write a journal entry trying to explain to a 3rd year student in our

department what good academic writing is and what it involves. Try to focus on anything that you have discovered

during this year that you did not know before.

Prompt for journal on goals at Time 1

Think of the essay you have just completed. Tell us about the goals and strategies you had in mind while you were

writing your text.

Prompt for journal on goals at Time 2

Can you tell us if your goals for academic writing have changed since you’ve been doing this course? If you think

they have changed, can you tell us how?

References

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1985). Cognitive coping strategies and the problem of inert knowledge. In Chipman, S., Segal, J. W., & Glaser, R.

Eds. Thinking and learning skills. Vol. 2 (pp.65–81). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bernat, E., & Gvozdenko, I. (2005). Beliefs about language learning: Current knowledge, pedagogical implications, and new research directions.

TESL-EJ, 9(1), 1–21.

Cumming, A. (1986). Intentional learning as a principle for ESL writing instruction: A case study. TESL Canada Journal, Special Issue, 1, 69–83.

Cumming, A. (Ed.). (2006). Goals for academic writing: ESL students and their instructors. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Cumming, A. (2012). Goal theory and second-language writing development, two ways. In R. Manchon (Ed.), L2 writing development: Multiple

perspectives (pp. 135–164). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

Devine, J., Railey, K., & Boshoff, P. (1993). The implications of cognitive models in L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2,

203–225.

Dornyei, Z., & Otto, I. (1998). Motivation in action: A process model of L2 motivation. Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, 4, 43–69.

Doyle, J. K., Ford, D. N., Radzicki, M. J., & Trees, W. S. (2002). Mental models of dynamic systems. In Barlas, Y. (Ed.). System dynamics and

integrated modeling. Encyclopedia of life support systems (EOLSS) (Vol. 2). Oxford: UNESCO, EOLSS Publishers.

Elder, C., & O’Loughlin, K. (2003). Investigating the relationship between intensive English language study and band score gains on IELTS. IELTS

Research Reports, 4, 207–254 Canberra: IELTS Australia.

F. Nicolas-Conesa et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 24 (2014) 1–1918

Flower, L. (1979). Writer-based prose: A cognitive basis for problems in writing. College English, 41(1), 19–37.

Flower, L. (1990). The role of task representation in reading-to-write. In L. Flower, V. Stein, J. Ackerman, M. J. Kantz, K. McCormick, & W. C. Peck

(Eds.), Reading to write: Exploring a cognitive and social process (pp. 35–75). New York: Oxford University Press.

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication, 31(1), 21–

32.

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387.

Ford, M. E., & Nichols, C. W. (1991). Using goal assessments to identify motivational patterns and facilitate behavioral regulation and achievement.

In Maehr, M. L., & Pintrich, P. R. Eds. Advances in motivation and achievement. Vol. 7 (pp.51–84). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Garside, R. (1996). The robust tagging of unrestricted text: The BNC experience. In J. Thomas & M. H. Short (Eds.), Using corpora for language

research: Studies in the honour of Geoffrey Leech (pp. 167–180). London: Longman.

Garside, R., & Smith, N. (1997). A hybrid grammatical tagger: CLAWS4. In R. Garside, G. N. Leech, & T. McEnery (Eds.), Corpus annotation:

Linguistic information from computer text corpora (pp. 102–121). London: Longman.

Green, A., & Weir, C. (2003). Monitoring score gain on the IELTS academic writing module in EAP programmes of varying duration. Phase 2 report.

Cambridge: UCLES.

Hamp-Lyons, L. (1991). Scoring procedures for ESL contexts. In L. Hamp-Lyons (Ed.), Assessing second language writing in academic contexts

(pp. 241–276). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing:

Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 1–27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hayes, J. R., Flower, L., Schriver, K. A., Stratman, J. F., & Carey, L. (1987). Cognitive processes in revision. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in

applied psycholinguistics: Vol. 2, Reading, writing, and language learning (pp. 176–240). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heckhausen, H., & Kuhl, J. (1985). From wishes to action: The dead ends and short cuts on the long way to action. In M. Frese & J. Sabini (Eds.),

Goal directed behaviour: The concept of action in psychology (pp. 134–160). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hoffman, A. (1998). An exploratory study of goal setting and the nature of articulated goals in second language writing development. New Zealand

Studies in Applied Linguistics, 4, 33–48.

Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(1), 17–29.

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, England:

Cambridge University Press.

Kasper, L. F. (1997). Assessing the metacognitive growth of ESL student writers. TESL-EJ, 3(1), 1–20.

Larson-Hall, J. (2009). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. New York: Routledge.

Luk, J. (2008). Assessing teaching practicum reflections: Distinguishing discourse features of the ‘‘high’’ and ‘‘low’’ grade reports. System, 36, 624–

641.

Malvern, D., & Richards, B. (2002). Investigating accommodation in language proficiency interviews using a new measure of lexical diversity.

Language Testing, 19(1), 85–104.

Malvern, D., Richards, B. J., Chipere, N., & Duran, P. (2004). Lexical diversity and language development: Quantification and assessment.

Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Manchon, R. M. (2009). Task conceptualization and writing development: Dynamics of change in a task-based EAP course. Paper presented at the

TBLT 2009 Conference.

Manchon, R. M. (Ed.). (2011). Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Manchon, R. M., & Roca de Larios, J. (2011). Writing to learn in FL contexts: Exploring learners’ perceptions of the language learning potential of

L2 writing. In R. M. Manchon (Ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 181–207). Amsterdam/Philadelphia:

John Benjamins.

Manchon, R. M., Roca de Larios, J., & Murphy, L. (2009). The temporal dimension and problem-solving nature of foreign language composing

processes: Implications for theory. In R. M. Manchon (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts. Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 102–

129). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Meara, P., & Miralpeix, I. (2004). D-tools [computer software]. Swansea: University of Wales.

Midgley, C. (Ed.). (2002). Goals, goal structures, and patterns of adaptive learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mori, Y. (1999). Beliefs about language learning and their relationship to the ability to integrate information from word parts and contexts in

interpreting novel Kanji words. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 534–547.

Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2009). Measurement for understanding: An organic approach to investigating complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA.

Applied Linguistics, 30, 555–578.

Ortega, L. (2009). Studying writing across EFL contexts: Looking back and moving forward. In R. M. Manchon (Ed.), Writing in foreign language

contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 232–255). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Ortega, L., & Carson, J. G. (2010). Multicompetence, social context, and L2 writing research praxis. In T. Silva & P. Matsuda (Eds.), Practicing

theory in second language writing (pp. 48–71). West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.

Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30, 590–601.

Polio, C. G. (1997). Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Language Learning, 47(1), 101–143.

Raimes, A. (1987). Language proficiency, writing ability, and composing strategies: A study of ESL college student writers. Language Learning, 37,

439–467.

Roca de Larios, J., Manchon, R. M., & Murphy, L. (2006). Generating text in native and foreign language writing: A temporal analysis of problem-

solving formulation processes. The Modern Language Journal, 90(1), 100–114.

Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research (Vol. 6). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

F. Nicolas-Conesa et al. / Journal of Second Language Writing 24 (2014) 1–19 19

Ruiz-Funes, M. (2001). Task representation in foreign language reading-to-write. Foreign Language Annals, 34, 226–234.

Sasaki, M. (2009). Changes in English as a foreign language students’ writing over 3.5 years: A socio-cognitive account. In R. M. Manchon (Ed.),

Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 49–76). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Scott, M. (2004). WordSmith Tools version 4 [computer program]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sealey, A., & Carter, B. (2004). Applied linguistics as social science. London: Continuum.

Shaw, P., & Liu, E. T. K. (1998). What develops in the development of second-language writing. Applied Linguistics, 19, 225–254.

Smeets, W., & Sole, I. (2008). How adequate task representation can help students write a successful synthesis. Zeitschrifts Schreiben Retrieved

from http://www.zeitschrift-schreiben.eu/Beitraege/smeets_Adequate_Task.pdf.

Storch, N. (2009). The impact of studying in a second language (L2) medium university on the development of L2 writing. Journal of Second

Language Writing, 18, 103–118.

Storch, N., & Tapper, J. (2009). The impact of an EAP course on postgraduate writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(3), 207–223.

Ushioda, E. (2009). A person-in-context relational view of emergent motivation, self and identity. In Z. Dornyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation,

language identity and the L2 self (pp. 215–228). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.

Victori, M. (1999). An analysis of writing knowledge in EFL composing: A case study of two effective and two less effective writers. System, 27,

537–555.

Watanabe, M. (2004). The structure of convincing: Ways of thinking reflected in expression styles of early school education of Japan and the United

States. Tokyo: Toyo Shuppan.

Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H. Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity.

Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.

Wolfersberger, M. A. (2007). Second language writing from sources: An ethnographic study of an argument essay task. (Unpublished doctoral

dissertation) University of Auckland: New Zealand.

Zhang, Y. (2005). Task interpretation & ESL writers’ writing experience. Paper presented at the 2nd Annual ICIC Conference on Intercultural

Rhetoric and Written Discourse Indiana University-Purdue University.

Zhou, A., Busch, M., Gentil, G., Eouanzoui, K., & Cumming, A. (2006). Students’ goals for ESL and university courses. In A. Cumming (Ed.), Goals

for academic writing: ESL students and their instructors (pp. 29–49). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook

of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Florentina Nicolas Conesa is an Assistant Professor at the University Centre of Defence, Spanish Air Force Academy. She previously worked in the

Faculty of Education and in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Murcia, where she obtained her Ph.D. in applied linguistics. Her research interests

include the analysis of writing processes, written products, students’ cognition, learning, and teaching.

Julio Roca de Larios is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of Murcia in Spain. His research interests include

foreign language writing, classroom interaction processes and teacher training. His work on foreign language writing has appeared in Language

Learning, the Modern Language Journal, Learning and Instruction, and the Journal of Second Language Writing.

Yvette Coyle is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of Murcia in Spain. Her research interests include younger

learners, classroom discourse, and foreign language writing and feedback. She has published mainly in the area of teaching methodology and

language learning with children.