Similar prompts may not be similar in the performance they elicit: Examining fluency, complexity, accuracy, and lexis in narratives from five picture prompts

C.A.M. de Jong, M.L. Vercellotti

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

418 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Only a few characteristics of picture-based narrative prompts have been studied to determine what features affect task performance. Thus, it is not easy to identify equivalent narrative prompts or identify features that are impactful. Tavakoli and Foster (2008) and Tavakoli (2009) examined the impact of prompt on the language produced by English learners during a picture-based narrative task in respect to narrative structure and storyline complexity. This study investigates if prompts within these known categories elicit similar performance. Considering the findings based on different prompts in Tavakoli and Foster, as well as in Robinson’s (2011) Triadic Componential Framework for pedagogical tasks, we added another feature, number of elements. All of the prompts in this study had a tight sequential structure (±causal reasoning), similar storyline complexity (±intentional reasoning), and similar main characters and props (±elements). Although the accuracy and complexity in the ESL narratives were similar across prompts, there were some unexpected differences in fluency and lexis. Potential explanations of the variation in these subareas of language performance are discussed. Overall, this study highlights the importance of piloting research and testing materials and of investigating features that constitute task complexity.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)387-404
JournalLanguage Teaching Research
Volume20
Issue number3
Early online date9 Oct 2015
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2016

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Similar prompts may not be similar in the performance they elicit: Examining fluency, complexity, accuracy, and lexis in narratives from five picture prompts'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this