An investigation into the effects of prompt selection on writing complexity, accuracy, and fluency: The case of Iranian learners at different proficiency levels


Self-selecting of the material has been the arena of discussion by the researchers of L2 pedagogy. While some believe that it can be effective, others believe that it is detrimental to L2 learning. Hence, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of self-selected and teacher assigned writing prompts on the writing complexity, accuracy, and fluency of Iranian EFL learners at beginning, intermediate, and advanced proficiency levels. The theoretical aspects of the current research were founded based on Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) and Choice Theory (Glasser, 1998). Given that, 52 Iranian EFL learners (beginning N = 19, intermediate N = 16, advanced N = 17) participated in this study. Each student was asked to write about two writing prompts: one selected by the students and the other by the teacher. Using relevant indexes, we measured writing complexity, accuracy and fluency with regard to the two writing prompts. The results indicated that there was a statistically significant difference between the writing complexity, accuracy, and fluency of L2 learners when they wrote about their own self-selected prompts and when they wrote about the teacher assigned ones. The results also revealed that L2 learners’ writings were more complex, accurate, and fluent when they wrote about their self-selected prompts. The findings of this study can have some implications for L2 writing instructors and test designers.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Ahmadi, A., & Meihami, H. (2017). The development of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in learners’ writing: A dynamic systems theory. XLinguae, 10(3), 57-71.

  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.

  • Ajzen, I. (2012). Values, attitudes, and behavior. In S. Salzborn, E. Davidov, & J. Reinecke (Eds.), Methods, theories, and empirical applications in the social sciences (pp. 33–38). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

  • Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

  • Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L., & Hare, V. C. (1991). Coming to terms: How researchers in learning and literacy talk about knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 61(3), 315-343.

  • Baynham, M. (2000). Academic writing in new and emergent discipline areas. In M. Lea & B. Stierer (eds.), Student writing in higher education: New contexts. (pp. 17-31). Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.

  • Bonyadi, A. (2014). The effect of topic selection on EFL students’ writing performance. Sage Open, 4(3), 1-9.

  • Boyd, W. L., Crowson, R. L. & Van Geel, T. (1995). Rational choice and the politics of education: Promise and limitations. In J. D. Scribner and D. H. Layton (Eds), The study of educational politics (pp. 127-145). Washington: Falmer.

  • Breiner-Sanders, K.E., Swender, E., & Terry, R.M. (2001). Preliminary proficiency guidelines writing: Revised 2001. Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: ACTFL Materials Center.

  • Buss, D. M. (2000). The evolution of happiness. American Psychologist, 55, 15-23.

  • Carroll, V. (1997). Learning to read, reading to learn (EDRS opinion papers). Retrieved January, 15, 2017,

  • Dunsmuir, S., Kyriacou, M., Batuwitage, S., Hinson, E., Ingram, V., & O’Sullivan, S. (2015). An evaluation of the Writing Assessment Measure (WAM) for children’s narrative writing. Assessing Writing, 23(1), 1-18.

  • Edmunds, K., & Bauserman, K. (2006). What teachers can learn about reading motivation through conversations with children. Reading Teacher, 59, 414-424.

  • Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

  • Ellis, R. (2004). Task-based language learning and teaching. Essex: Oxford University Press.

  • Ellis, R. & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analyzing learner language. London: Oxford University Press.

  • Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied linguistics, 21(3), 354-375.

  • Glasser, W. (1998). Choice theory: A new psychology of personal freedom. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

  • Gradwohl, J. M., & Schumacher, G. M. (1989). The relationship between content knowledge and topic choice in writing. Written Communication, 6, 181-195.

  • Hannafin, M. J., Hill, J. R., Land, S. M., & Lee, E. (2013). Student-centered, open learning environments: Research, theory, and practice. In M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Merrienboer, & M. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 641–651). London: Routledge.

  • He, L. and Shi, L. (2012). Topical Knowledge and ESL Writing. Language Testing. 29(3), 443-464.

  • Hunt, K., W. (1970). Do sentences in the second language grow like those in the first? TESOL Quarterly, 4(3), 195–202.

  • Hyland, K. (2016). Methods and methodologies in second language writing research. System, 59, 116-125.

  • Jackson, D. O., & Suethanapornkul, S. (2013). The cognition hypothesis: A synthesis and meta-analysis of research on second language task complexity. Language Learning, 63(2), 330-367.

  • Kragler, S. (2000). Choosing books for reading: An analysis of three types of readers. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 14, 133-141.

  • Lambert, C., & Kormos, J. (2014). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in task-based L2 research: Toward more developmentally based measures of second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, amu047, 1-9.

  • Larsen-Freeman, D. (1976). Evidence of the need for a second language acquisition index of development. In W. Ritchie (Ed.). Second language acquisition research: Issues and implications. New York: Academic Press.

  • Leblanc, C., & Fujieda, M. (2012). Investigating effects of topic control on lexical variation in Japanese university students’ inclass timed-writing. Humanities Review, 17, 241-253.

  • Lu, X. (2011). A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers’ language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 36-62.

  • Meihami, H. & Rashidi, N. (2018). The effect of topical knowledge on ESP learners’ writing quality: complexity, accuracy, and fluency measures. XLinguae, 11(4), 45-58.

  • Mishra, D., Akman, I., and Mishra, A. (2014). Theory of Reasoned Action application for Green Information Technology acceptance. Computers in human behavior, 36, 29-40.

  • Nassaji, H., & Tian, J. (2010). Collaborative and individual output tasks and their effects on learning English phrasal verbs. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 397-419.

  • Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555-578.

  • Oni, A. A., Oni, S., Mbarika, V., & Ayo, C. K. (2017). Empirical study of user acceptance of online political participation: Integrating Civic Voluntarism Model and Theory of Reasoned Action. Government Information Quarterly, In press.

  • Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 492–518.

  • Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 590-601.

  • Paquin, R. S., & Keating, D. M. (2016). Fitting Identity in the Reasoned Action Framework: A Meta-analysis and Model Comparison. The Journal of Social Psychology, DOI: 10.1080/00224545.2016.1152217

  • Polio, C. (2001). Research methodology in second language writing research: The case of textbased studies. In Silva, T. & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), On second language writing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  • Popham, W. J. (2005). Students’ attitudes count. Educational Leadership, 62(5), 84-85.

  • Robinson, P. (2007). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: effects on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45(3), 193-213.

  • Ryan, R. L., & Deci, E. M. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.

  • Schmidt, R. (1994). Implicit learning and the cognitive unconscious: Of artificial grammars and SLA. In N. Ellis (ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 165-209). London: Academic Press.

  • Sewell, E. (2003). Students’ choice of books during self-selected reading (EDRS opinion papers). Retrieved January, 15, 2017 from

  • Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 185-211.

  • Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64-81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Tarone, E. Downing, B. Cohen, A. Gillette, S. Murie, R. & Dailey, B. (1993). The writing of Southeast Asian-American students in secondary school and university. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2(2), 149-172.

  • Tavakoli, M., & Rezazadeh, M. (2014). Individual and collaborative planning conditions: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 argumentative writing. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 5(4), 85-110.

  • Thomas, M. (1994). Assessment of L2 proficiency in second language acquisition research. Language Learning, 44, 307–336.

  • Threadkell, J. E. (2010). Seeking new perspectives on self-selected and teacher-assigned texts: Exploring adolescent readers’ experiences (Doctoral dissertation). University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.

  • Wang, D. (2010). Chinese students’ choice of writing topics: A comparison between their self-selected topics and writing prompts in large-scale tests. Journal of Asia TEFL, 7(3), 165-187.

  • Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26(3), 445-466.

  • Wolf, J. (2013). Exploring and contrasting EFL learners’ perceptions of text-book assigned and self-selected discussion topics. Language Teaching Research, 17, 49-66.

  • Xing, J. & Luo, S. (2015) The effects of task complexity on Chinese learners’ language production: A synthesis and meta-analysis. Applied Research on English Language, 4(2), 96-109.

  • Yuan, F. & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 1-27.


Journal + Issues