This study is to describe the nature of planning as a cognitive writing process in L2 writing. It aims to examine how Korean EFL learners generate ideas and organize them. It also investigates the relationship between planning and the final product. Given a worksheet for planning, 39 university students were asked to write an argumentative essay during class. Based on their planning notes, five brainstorming types were identified: using the prompt/writing the position, mini-outlining, listing, mind mapping and free writing (in the order of frequency). In addition, the dominant use of L1 was found both in the brainstorming and the outlining. It was found that there was no statistically significant correlation between the amount of brainstorming and the quantity and quality of L2 writing. Only the amount of brainstorming in L2 had a statically significant correlation with the quantity of L2 writing (but not with the quality of L2 writing). In the case of outlining, a statistically significant correlation was found between its amount and the quantity of L2 writing. However, no statistically significant correlation was found between the amount of outlining and the L2 writing quality.

In eliciting pragmatics data from a particular learner group, selecting an adequate elicitation method is crucial because different populations react differently to different methods. The present study compared the cartoon discourse completion test (DCT) and the written DCT in eliciting requests from Korean high school students. One hundred high school 2nd graders participated in this investigation. The cartoon DCT group and the written DCT group were each asked to write down what they would say in specific situations. The data was analyzed in terms of response length, strategy types of the head act, external modification, politeness marker and vocabulary. The results showed that the cartoon DCT group significantly produced more words than the written DCT group. In terms of strategy types of head acts, the cartoon DCT group was more direct utilizing the highest percentage of Mood derivable and the lowest of Hints. In addition, the cartoon DCT group produced data closer to a spoken discourse in terms of external modification. That is, the categories of Confirmation check, Introducing oneself, and Hesitation, which are features usually shown in the oral interaction, appeared only in the cartoon DCT data. Also, compared to the written DCT, the cartoon DCT yielded a wider range of external modification use. As for the use of the politeness marker, please, the cartoon DCT group produced a higher number of the marker, and showed a pattern for using it under the social factors embedded in the scenarios while the written DCT group did not. The findings imply that the cartoon DCT is more effective to elicit richer and more real conversation-like speech acts from high school students.

L1 and L2 summaries written by Korean university students in an EFL writing class were studied to determine the causes of instances of “plagiarism.” Summaries in both L1 and L2 were evaluated holistically along with seven essays in L2. It was found that more proficient writers in L1 and L2 tend to demonstrate less Reliance on the Source Text1); and a good amount of Reliance was also present in L1 as well as L2, suggesting that L2 interference is not the only cause of Reliance. These findings indicate a relation between Reliance on the Source text and writing ability both in L1 and L2. Moreover, a closer look at instances of Reliance often revealed efforts by the writers to integrate source text material into their own texts, though these attempts often seemed like “plagiarism” to writing teachers. However, Reliance in these cases may not be plagiarism per se from students’ point of view. The results are expected to help teachers understand the causes and nature of students’Reliance on the Source text in the writing instruction.