名古屋外国語大学論集第4号

2019年2月

ArticleStudent Perceptions of Topic Selection andImpact on EFL Writing Fluency
Eric HIRATA
Jeremiah HALL

Abstract
This paper partially replicates Bonzo’s 2008 study, which found a significant
increase in writing fluency when students control writing topic selection. The
authors collected six timed-writing samples from 52 participants. For threesamples, the participants selected the writing topics. For the other three samples,
the authors selected the writing topics. The authors transcribed the writing
samples and used text analysis software to calculate the total word count andthe total unique word count for each sample. The fluency index employed in
Bonzo’s 2008 study was then used and a paired samples t-test was performed
in SPSS to measure how topic choice influenced writing fluency. The authors
found a statistically significant increase in student writing fluency when students
selected their own topics. Pre- and post-study surveys, in addition to post-writing
surveys, were used to gather learner preferences on topic selection and the writing activities. The writing fluency index employed by Bonzo and in this study
has serious limitations; however, instructors may find this paper useful when
considering topic choices in their writing courses.

141

Introduction
A primary goal of foreign language teachers and learners is the developmentof fluency. Brumfit (1984) characterizes fluency as showing continuity, coherence, context-sensitivity, and creativity in language. Learners often indicatethat they would like to become more fluent in their target language and that it is
the responsibility of teachers to develop this aspect of language. Teachers canpromote and develop fluency in students by encouraging them to make mistakes,
providing opportunities for students to use language, developing activities that
focus on getting a message across, not assessing students for accuracy but forfluency, and openly speaking with students about fluency (Brown, 1996). In
other words, fluency is an important consideration in any EFL course. As one of
Nation’s (2001) four strands of a well-balanced language course, fluency occurs
when learners are not working with new language but becoming more capablewith the language they already possess.
In relation to writing, fluency is how comfortable a second language writer iswith producing language (Wolfe-Quintero, Inagaki, & Kim, 1998) as well as therate and length of output (Lennon, 1990). Wolfe-Quintero et al. (1998) adapted
Lennon’s measure of oral fluency of words per minute into writing fluency bymeasuring the number of words or structural units produced by a writer in a set
time period. One way to determine this is through quick writing, timed writing,or continuous writing, where a writer will write about a topic for a set amountof time. Elbow (1998) noted the importance of timed writing and characterizedsome of the general guidelines with a ten-minute limit a writer selected topic,
and no feedback or editing by anyone, including the writer. This type of writing
meets the criteria that Nation (2001) established for developing fluency which
are activities that involve familiarity, meaning focus, pressure, and language
processing.
This study is a partial replication of Bonzo’s (2008) study of 81 students
studying German as a foreign language at an American university. Bonzo
142

Student Perceptions of Topic Selection and Impact on EFL Writing Fluency ■analyzed the 10-minute timed writing samples to determine the role of topic
selection in writing fluency and found that there was a significant increase in fluency when students selected their own topics. Further studies by Cohen (2013),
Dickinson (2014), Sponseller & Wilkins (2015), and Ottoson & Crane (2017)
have all confirmed these results while Retting-Miki and Sholdt’s (2014) study
showed that students’ fluency was higher when they wrote about teacher-selected
topics. This current study seeks to determine the impact of topic selection on
EFL student writing fluency while also examining learner preference on topic
selection.

Methods
ParticipantsThis study was conducted at a private university in central Japan with 52
participants (N= 52) who were second-year English majors in the Department
of British and American Studies. Classes were grouped by student number, notability, so all four classes were comprised of students with mixed English levels.
Participants met once a week in a 90-minute compulsory second year writing
course and came from four different classes taught by two different instructors.
Instructor A taught Class 1 (n=13) and Class 2 (n=10) and Instructor B taught
Class 3 (n=15) and Class 4 (n=14).
Procedures
Before starting this study, all participants were given a consent form inJapanese and English, explaining that their participation was voluntary. Only
participants who signed the consent form and completed all of the writing
assignments were included in this study.
In each of six weeks, participants completed a ten-minute timed writing
activity on either a teacher-selected topic or a student-selected topic. Before thisstudy, participants in all four classes had been doing timed writing on topics as143

a form of brainstorming and were, therefore, already familiar with the format.
Participants did the timed writing in pencil and were told to cross out mistakes
rather than erase them. Unlike the original Bonzo (2008) study, participants were
not allowed to use dictionaries or smartphones. To avoid potentially influencing
the results, no feedback was given on the writing, though students were informedthat their instructors would carefully read each sample for analysis. The writing
was transcribed into an electronic format verbatim by both of the researchers.
After the transcription, an online text analyzer at UsingEnglish.com (King &Flynn, 2002-2017), provided the total word count and total unique word countfor each sample, and these were used to calculate the fluency measure using thesame fluency index employed the in Bonzo (2008) study. This will be discussed
in more detail in the Data Analysis Section.
Research Questions
As this study is a partial replication of Bonzo (2008), it looks to confirm his
findings of the impact of topic selection on student writing fluency. Additionally,
student perception of the timed writing activities and their perceived value in
improving student writing ability were explored.
Research Question 1:
What impact does topic selection have on writing fluency?
Research Question 2:
What are student preferences regarding topic selection?
Research Question 3:
What impression do students have of the timed writing activity?
Pre-study Questionnaire and Participant Background Questionnaire
On the first day of the study, participants were asked to fill out a backgroundquestionnaire regarding their experience with English. These questions included
144

Student Perceptions of Topic Selection and Impact on EFL Writing Fluency ■how long they had studied English, where they had studied, and if they hadstudied abroad in an English language program. Participants were also asked
to complete a pre-study questionnaire (see Appendix 1) in order to discover
student perceptions of their writing ability as well as their impressions of timed
writings in general. The questionnaire included four questions on a five-point
Likert scale as well as space for participants to share additional thoughts they
had about writing in English.
Writing Samples and Post-activity Questionnaire
Every week, participants were assigned either a teacher-selected or studentselected topic. Table 1 presents the order, condition, and topic for each timed
writing. The topics alternated every week so that odd number weeks wereteacher-selected topics and even numbered weeks were student-selected topics.
Before the beginning of each timed writing, the participants were reminded not
to use dictionaries and erasers and were told of the topic. Upon completion ofeach timed writing, participants completed a post-activity questionnaire withfive questions on a five-point Likert scale (see Appendix 2) which asked about
the ease of doing the timed writings as well as their perceptions of writing about
the topic.

Table 1
Design of the Study
Week
1
2
3
4
5
6

Condition
Assigned
Self
Assigned
Self
Assigned
Self

Topic
Life After Graduation
Free TopicMy Friends
Free Topic
Free TimeFree Topic

Note. Assigned = teacher-selected topics; Self = student-selected topics
145Post-study Questionnaire
At the end of the final timed writing activity, a final post-study questionnaire(see Appendix 3) was completed by all of the participants to determine their
feelings on the study. The questionnaire consisted of six questions on a five-point
Likert scale as well as two open ended questions asking why students felt theirwriting was better or worse when they chose the topic as well as their opinion
on if they would prefer to continue the ten minute timed writings.
Data Analysis
The students composed all of the timed writings by hand, so first the researchers transcribed each of the hand-written samples into Microsoft Word documents
organized by student and assignment. This enabled the researchers to analyze
the samples with the online text analysis software at Using English.com (King &Flynn, 2002-2017) to more easily quantify the total number of words, or tokens,and the total number of unique words (unique tokens) for each sample.
In calculating these totals, all words were counted as tokens, including
Romanized Japanese words, though the total of unique tokens was adjusted in
the case of misspellings or typos. Contractions were counted as single tokens.
Hyphenated words were counted as unique tokens, though not if inconsistently
used. Erroneously combined words were adjusted for in the same way by counting them as unique tokens when used consistently, though subtracted from theunique token count when used inconsistently. Abbreviations were also counted
as unique tokens only if used consistently. Possessive nouns were also counted
as unique tokens from the nouns themselves and numbers were counted as
single tokens, though not when presented as a range (i.e. 10-15 was counted asa single token). Typos, whether introduced in the original handwritten sample
or introduced during transcription, were either corrected in the transcription (incases of transcription error) or adjusted for in the total token counts. For example,
146

Student Perceptions of Topic Selection and Impact on EFL Writing Fluency ■if a student had written “agood”, the researchers subtracted one token from theunique tokens count and added one token to the total token count. Erroneously
combined words were adjusted for in the same way by counting them as uniquetokens when used consistently, though subtracted from the unique token countwhen used inconsistently.
In keeping with a replication of Bonzo’s 2008 study, fluency was also definedin the same way as a ratio of total unique tokens to the total token count. As
Bonzo pointed out, though, such a ratio gives a percentage, which causes problems when comparing writing samples with similar ratios but very different token
counts. Bonzo used a more accurate token ratio developed by Carroll (1967)
and used by Arthur (1979) to help adjust for this weakness, where fluency (F)equals the total unique token count (U) divided by the square root of twice thetotal token count (T): F = U/√2T. While the authors do not consider this token
ratio to adequately measure writing fluency, the researchers applied the samemeasure to maintain the integrity of the replication study.
After collecting the data from the online text analyzer online text analyzer
at UsingEnglish.com (King & Flynn, 2002-2017), the researchers organized
the data into a Microsoft Exel file, where they calculated the writing fluency
for each writing sample. This data was then imported from Microsoft Exel into
Microsoft SPSS. To check if there was a linear relationship between the fluency
rates by condition, the authors created a scatterplot to illustrate the fluency
rates, as presented in Figure 1. The fluency rates of the teacher-selected topics(Assigned) were placed on the x-axis of the scatterplot and the fluency rates ofthe student-selected topics (Self) were placed on the y-axis.
The scatterplot shows a positive, though not tightly linear correlation between
conditions. A Shapiro-Wilk test for normality returned ps > .05 for both conditions (Assigned p = .24; Self p = .53), suggesting that that data are normally
distributed. The Shapiro-Wilk test for normality tests the null hypothesis that the
sample distribution is the same as a normal distribution, so if p < .05 we would
147

Figure 1. Scatterplot of fluency measure by condition.
reject the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis that the data are
not normally distributed. As the p-values are above .05, the null hypothesis thatthe data are normally distributed could not be rejected (Larson-Hall, 2016). This,
along with analysis of the descriptive statistics (Table 2) and visual inspectionof the box chart (Figure 2), suggest that the data are very close to normally
distributed.
A Pearson correlation coefficient was used to quantify the strength of theTable 2
Descriptive Statistics of Fluency Measure by Condition
Assigned
Self

n
52
52

M
4.50
4.73

SD
0.40
0.38

Var
0.16
0.15

Skew
0.05
0.26

SES
0.33
0.33

Kurt
-0.98
-0.41

Note. Assigned = teacher-selected topics; Self = student-selected topics
148

SEK
0.65
0.65

Student Perceptions of Topic Selection and Impact on EFL Writing Fluency ■positive relationship between the conditions. In the Self condition (M=4.73) students appeared to write more fluently than in the Assigned condition (M=4.50),
with a difference favoring the Self condition by 0.23. On average, students
given the choice to select their own topics for the timed writing assignments
seemed able to write more fluently. The researchers computed effect size using
Cohen’s d because Dunlap, Cortina, Vaslow, and Burke (1996) have shown thatcomputing the effect size directly from t in a paired-samples t-test can cause an
overestimation of the population effect size.

Results
Effect of Topic Selection on Writing Fluency
The researchers ran a paired samples t-test with bootstrapping in Microsoft
SPSS and on average students seemed to write more fluently when they chose

Figure 2. Boxplot of fluency measure data distributions. Assigned =teacher-selected topics; Self = student-selected topic
149

their own writing topics (M = 4.73, SE = 0.05) than when the teachers assigned
the writing topics (M = 4.5, SE = 0.06). The difference, -0.23, BCa 95% CI[-0.34, -0.13] was significant t(51) = -4.51, p = .001, and represented a smallsized effect, d = 0.58. Cohen’s d was calculated using pooled SD and interpreted
following Plonsky and Oswald’s (2014) guidelines for interpreting effect sizesof paired samples mean differences in L2 research.
Pre-study Questionnaire
Prior to beginning the study, each participant was asked to complete abackground questionnaire and a pre-study questionnaire that consisted of four
items on a five-point Likert scale. The items were presented in both English andJapanese and were used to measure student perceptions of short writing activities
before participating in the study. No items were reverse scored, so a mean of 1
represents “Strongly Disagree” and a mean of 5 represents “Strongly Agree,”with 3 representing a “Neutral” response. All participants completed each itemof the survey, with a total of 52 responses for each item.
On average, the participants did not feel it was easy to keep writing for a full
10 minutes in English (M=2.77) or that it was easy to put their ideas into English
sentences prior to the study (M=2.44). The participants also seemed to agree thatthey lacked sufficient vocabulary to express their ideas when writing in English(M=3.67) and that it is difficult for them to think of things to write about inEnglish (M=3.71). Table 3 provides the items, means and standard deviations
for the pre-study questionnaire.
Post-activity Questionnaires
After each timed writing activity, students were requested to complete a shortpost activity questionnaire to individually measure student perceptions of eachwriting activity. Each post activity questionnaire consisted of five items on a
Likert scale. The items were presented in both English and Japanese. No items
150

Student Perceptions of Topic Selection and Impact on EFL Writing Fluency ■were reverse scored, so a mean of 1 represents “Strongly Disagree” and a meanof 5 represents “Strongly Agree,” with 3 representing a “Neutral” response. All
participants completed each item of the survey, with a total of 52 responses foreach item. The items, means and standard deviations for each writing topic canbe found in Appendix 4. Table 4 provides the grand means and standard deviations for each item on the post-activity questionnaire, organized by condition.

Table 3Means and Standard Deviations for Pre-study Questionnaire
Item
It is easy to keep writing for a full 10 minutes in English.
I do not know the right English vocabulary to express myideas when writing in English.
It is difficult to think of things to write about in English.
It is easy to put my ideas into English sentences.

n
52
52

M
2.77
3.67

SD
0.92
0.90

52
52

3.71
2.44

0.78
0.80

Table 4Grand Means and Standard Deviations for Post-activity Questionnaires
by Condition
ItemnAssigned
M SD

Self
M SD

It was easy to keep writing for a full 10 minutes in
52
English.

3.14 0.90 3.49 0.75

I didn't know the right English vocabulary to express
52
my ideas about this topic.

3.15 0.68 3.11 0.66

This topic is something I often think about outside
52
this class.

3.32 0.69 3.59 0.73

It was difficult to think of things related to this topic
52
to write about.

2.71 0.69 2.58 0.68

It was easy to put my ideas about this topic into
52
English sentences.

2.82 0.60 2.99 0.71

Note. Assigned = teacher-selected topics; Self = student-selected topics
151

The grand mean for the post-activity surveys was markedly lower when
students were asked if it was easier to keep writing for 10 minutes on teacherselected topics (M=3.14) than on student-selected topics (M=3.49). The students
also seemed to indicate that it was a little less difficult to put their ideas into
English sentences when they chose their own topics (M=2.99) when compared
to writing on teacher-selected topics (M=2.82).
There was only a slight difference between the grand means in how students
perceived their vocabulary recall for teacher-selected topics (M=3.15) andstudent-selected topics (M=3.11). This seems to suggest that students only
perceived a little more difficulty in recalling vocabulary for teacher-selected
topics than student-selected topics. If student perception of difficulty recalling
vocabulary specific to the writing topic correlates with actual difficulty, thiswould appear to contradict the fluency measure assumption that recalling uniquetokens should be easier and take less time as writing fluency increases.
Final Post Study Questionnaire
After completing the study, participants were asked to complete a final questionnaire that consisted of six items on a Likert scale. The items were presented
in both English and Japanese and were used to measure student perceptions of
the short writing activities after participating in the study. No items were reverse
scored, so a mean of 1 represents “Strongly Disagree” and a mean of 5 represents“Strongly Agree,” with 3 representing a “Neutral” response. All participants
completed each item of the survey, with a total of 52 responses for each item.
On average, the participants felt rather positive about the experience,indicating that they would like to continue doing timed writing activities intheir classes (M=3.38), but that they only slightly enjoyed the writing activities(M=3.19). They indicated that they perceived an improvement in their writing
after completing the six timed writing activities, responding that it became easierto write for 10 minutes (M=3.49) and that their ability to write for 10 minutes
152

Student Perceptions of Topic Selection and Impact on EFL Writing Fluency ■improved after completing the study (M=3.29). Interestingly enough, while
participant writing fluency scores showed a significant correlation in favor of
student-selected writing topics, students indicated that they preferred writing
about teacher-selected topics (M=3.56) and that they seemed almost neutral tochoosing their own writing topics (M=3.04). These results corroborate those of
Ottoson and Crane (2017), who also found that students preferred to write aboutteacher-selected topics but that they wrote more fluently when choosing theirown topics. Table 5 provides the means and standard deviations for the final
post-study questionnaire.

Table 5Means and Standard Deviations for Final Post-study Questionnaire
Item

n

M

SD

It became easier to write for 10 minutes after doing theactivity at least 6 times.

52

3.49

1.00

I prefer writing about a teacher-selected topic.

52

3.56

0.87

I prefer choosing my own topic to write about.

52

3.04

0.91

My ability to write for 10 minutes improved by the 6th
writing.

52

3.29

0.96

I enjoyed writing for 10 minutes.

52

3.19

0.97

I would like to continue doing timed writing activities inthis or other classes.

52

3.38

0.87

Potential Problems
In the final questionnaire, students indicated that they preferred to write on
teacher-selected topics, but the grand mean for the post-activity surveys wasmarkedly lower when students were asked if it was easier to keep writing for
10 minutes on teacher-selected topics (M=3.14) than on student-selected topics(M=3.49). The students also seemed to indicate that it was easier to put theirideas into English sentences when they chose their own topics (M=2.99) whencompared to writing on teacher-selected topics (M=2.82). While these results153

seem to conflict with the students’ preference to write on teacher-selected topics,
perhaps this has to do with the additional challenges associated with thinking
about topics on which to write or, perhaps, students perceived the additional
challenge to writing on teacher-selected topics as a preferable means of improving their writing. These differences may also be attributed to the Japanese EFL
environment and the traditional teacher-student roles within this context. If
students feel more comfortable in a teacher-centered learning environment,
writing on student-selected topics may, understandably, be less preferable.
While students seemed to write more fluently on student-selected topics andshowed a preference for writing on teacher-selected topics, corroborating thefindings in Ottoson & Crane (2017), it must be remembered that both of thesestudies rely on a fluency measure that is not widely accepted in L2 research.
Another concern is that both of these studies were conducted in the Japanese
EFL context, as were similar studies conducted by Cohen (2013), Dickinson(2014), and Sponseller & Wilkins (2015). It would be desirable for this study to
be replicated in multiple L2 contexts with a more rigorous measure of writing
fluency to see if the positive correlation between student-selected topics andwriting fluency can be rigorously demonstrated over a variety of EFL contexts
and if differing contexts demonstrates differences in student preferences.

Conclusion
The authors embarked on this partial replication of Bonzo’s 2008 study for the
purpose of professional development. In addition to gaining exposure to quantitative analysis, the replication brought up concerns with how writing fluency is
being defined and measured in the original study. The authors feel that a tokenratio formula is an inadequate measure of fluency and that the results of this study
are very limited in usefulness for making decisions about topic selection in thewriting classroom. The authors do feel that granting students more latitude in
topic selection is a more student-centered approach to instruction. However, the154Student Perceptions of Topic Selection and Impact on EFL Writing Fluency ■survey results indicate that students prefer a more teacher-centered approach,with the instructor selecting the topics. This may be due to the authors’ specificteaching context, but it is certainly worth considering explaining to students thereasoning behind the topic selection choices made by the instructor. Along thesame lines, explaining the reasoning behind having students select their own
topics may be beneficial. However, instructors should be very cautious about
making claims that writing fluency increases when students have control overtopic choice. Replication in additional L2 contexts with a more rigorous writing
fluency measure is needed to confirm what appears to be a positive correlation
between writing fluency and student-selected writing topics.

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the guidance provided by Gregory Sholdtof Kobe University. His encouragement and suggestions were invaluable as wecompleted his Quantitative Research Training Project. The authors also wish toacknowledge Kevin Ottoson of Nanzan University for providing sample surveys
and database organizational suggestions. These helped immensely in conducting
and organizing the partial replication study.

References
Bonzo, J.D. (2008). To assign a topic or not: Observing fluency and complexity in intermediate foreign
language writing. Foreign Language Annals, 41 (4), 722-735.
Brown, J.D. (1996). Fluency development. In G. van Troyer (Ed.), JALT ’95: Curriculum and evaluation (pp. 174-179). Tokyo: Japan Association for Language Teaching.
Brumfit, C. (1984). Communication methodology in language teaching: The roles of fluency andaccuracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Cohen, J. (2013). The impact of topic selection on writing fluency: Making a case for freedom. Journalof NELTA, 18 (1-2), 31-40.
Dickinson, P. (2014). The effect of topic-selection control on EFL writing fluency. Journal of Niigata
University of International and Informational Studies, 17, 15-25.
Dunlap, W. P., Cortina, J. M., Vaslow, J. B., & Burke, M. J. (1996). Meta-analysis of experiments withmatched groups or repeated measures designs. Psychological Methods, 1 (2), 170-177.

155

Elbow, P. (1998). Writing without teachers (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Field, A.P. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). London, England: Sage.
King, A., & Flynn, R. (2002-2017). UsingEnglish.com: Text Content Analysis Tool [web-based
computer software: available at https://www.usingenglish.com/resources/text-tatistics.php].
Larson-Hall, J. (2016). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS and R (2nded.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Lennon, P. (1990). Investigating fluency in EFL: A qualitative approach. Language Learning 40 (3),387-417.
Nation, I.S.P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Ottoson, K.J., & Crane, P.A. (2017). Self-selected topics vs. teacher-selected topics: The impact on
writing fluency. Korea TESOL Journal 12 (2), 47-64.
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research.
Language Learning, 64 (4), 878-912.
Rettig-Miki, E., & Sholdt, G.P. (2014). Impact on L2 Writing Fluency of Topic Selection Method
for a Timed Writing Activity. Kobe University International Communication Center Bulletin,
11, 55-71.
Sponseller, A. & Wilkins, M. (2015). Investigating the Impact of Topic Selection Control on Writing
Fluency. Hiroshima Studies in Language and Language Education, 18, 141-152.
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.Y. (1998). Second language development in writing:
Measures of fluency, accuracy, & complexity. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.

156

Student Perceptions of Topic Selection and Impact on EFL Writing Fluency ■Appendix 1
Free Writing: Pre-Study Questionnaire
ID:_____________________________Class:___________________________

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

NeutralAgree

Strongly Agree

全くそう思わない

そう思わないどちらでもない

そう思う

非常にそう思う

1

2

3

4

5

1. It is easy to keep writing for the full 10 minutes.______

英語で10分間書き続けることは簡単だと思います。

2.	I do not know the right English vocabulary to express my ideas
when writing in English.______

英語で書く時自分の考えを表す適切な英語の語彙がわかりません。

3. It is difficult to think of things to write about in English.______

英語で文書を書く時、表現を思いつくことが難しいです。

4. It is easy to put my ideas into English sentences.______

自分の考えを英語の文章にすることは簡単です。

Share any additional thoughts on writing in English.
文章を書くことについて何か追加すべき考えや思いがあれば、英語で書いてくだ
さい。

157

Appendix 2
Free Writing: Post-Activity Questionnaire
ID:_____________________________Class:___________________________
Topic(話題): ____________________________________________
Strongly Disagree

Disagree

NeutralAgree

Strongly Agree

全くそう思わない

そう思わないどちらでもない

そう思う

非常にそう思う

1

2

3

4

5

1. It was easy to keep writing for the full 10 minutes.______

10分間をすべて使って書き続けることは簡単だった

2.	I didn’t know the right English vocabulary to express my ideas
about this topic.

______

この話題について自分の考えを表す適切な英語の語彙がわからなかった

3. This topic is something I often think about outside this class.______

この話題は（この）授業時間外で私がいつも考えていることである

4. It was difficult to think of things related to this topic to write about.

______

この話題に関連する事柄を書くために何かを思いつくことが難しかった

5. It was easy to put my ideas about this topic into English sentences.______

この話題に関する自分の考えを英語の文章にすることは簡単だった

Share any additional thoughts on writing about this topic in English.
この話題について文章を書くことについて何か追加すべき考えや思いがあれば、英語で書いてください。

158

Student Perceptions of Topic Selection and Impact on EFL Writing Fluency ■Appendix 3
POST-STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE
Please rate your abilities for each of the items below on a scale between 1 and 5. Circle
your choice.
下記の項目に対して、１から５で自分の能力を評価して下さい。選んだものに丸をつけて下さい.
Strongly Disagree

Disagree

NeutralAgree

Strongly Agree

全くそう思わない

そう思わないどちらでもない

そう思う

非常にそう思う

1

2

3

4

5

It became easier to write for 10 minutes after doing the activity at least 6 times.
少なくとも6回目になるころには、10分作文をすることが簡単（楽）になってきた。

I prefer writing about a teacher-selected topic.
教師が選んだトピックについて作文するほうが好ましい。

I prefer choosing my own topic to write about.
自分が選んだトピックについて作文するほうが好ましい。

My ability to write for 10 minutes improved by the 6th writing.
６回目に突入する頃には、10分間作文の能力が向上してきたように感じる。

I enjoyed writing for 10 minutes.
10分間作文を楽しんでいる。

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

I would like to continue doing timed writing activities in this or other classes.
10分間作文のような時間制限のある作文をこのクラスや他のクラスでも、今後続けていきたい。

Do you feel your writing was better when you chose the topic? If so, why? If not,why not?
あなた自身が選んだトピックのほうが、より良いライティングができると感じますか。そうなら、なぜだと思いますか。そう思わないなら、なぜそう思わないのですか。

How would you feel about continuing the 10 minute writings?
10分間ライティング（作文）を毎回続けていることに関してどう感じていますか。

159

Appendix 4
Means and Standard Deviations for Post-activity Questionnaires by Topic
Item 1
Item 2Item 3Item 4Item 5

n
52
52
52
52
52

Topic 12.96 (1.12)
3.08 (0.97)
3.62 (1.05)
2.85 (0.98)
2.60 (0.89)

Topic 2
3.33 (1.13)
3.25 (1.01)
3.37 (0.97)
2.48 (1.06)
2.94 (0.80)

Topic 33.13 (1.16)
3.13 (0.97)
2.98 (1.15)
2.81 (1.10)
2.92 (0.90)

Topic 4
3.52 (1.06)
3.08 (0.93)
3.52 (1.15)
2.44 (1.02)
3.06 (0.96)

Topic 5
3.46 (0.96)
3.17 (0.88)
3.52 (1.08)
2.63 (1.03)
2.98 (0.94)

Topic 6
3.48 (1.08)
3.08 (0.95)
3.73 (0.97)
2.67 (0.99)
2.92 (0.84)

Note. Topics 1-3 were teacher-selected topics in the Assigned condition (1 = “Life
After Graduation”; 2 = “My Friends”; 3 = “Free Time”). Topics 4-6 were studentselected topics in the Self condition.

Post-activity Questionnaire Items
Item # Question
1 It was easy to keep writing for a full 10 minutes in English.
2 I didn't know the right English vocabulary to express my ideas about this topic.
3 This topic is something I often think about outside this class.
4 It was difficult to think of things related to this topic to write about.
5 It was easy to put my ideas about this topic into English sentences.

160