Cover not available

Article In: ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics: Online-First Articles

Interactions among motivational orientations, cognitive task complexity, and proficiency in L2 writing performance

The interplay of learner motivation, task complexity, and L2 writing

ORCiD logo with link | University of Nevada, Reno
ORCiD logo with link | Allameh Tabataba’i University (ATU)
ORCiD logo with link | Golestan University
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
This study investigated how L2 learners’ motivational orientations predicted writing performance under varying levels of task complexity and across different proficiency levels. Drawing on Regulatory Focus Theory and Regulatory Mode Theory, four motivational orientations (i.e., promotion, prevention, assessment, and locomotion) were examined as predictors of L2 writing performance operationalized through syntactic complexity, accuracy, lexical complexity, and fluency (CALF). A total of 120 EFL learners enrolled in three CEFR-aligned writing levels (B1–C1) completed two argumentative writing task versions differing in cognitive complexity (simple vs. complex), along with two questionnaires measuring motivational orientations. Multiple regression analyses revealed that assessment consistently and positively predicted several CALF measures, particularly under the cognitively complex task conditions and at higher proficiency levels. Promotion positively predicted syntactic complexity and fluency but negatively predicted accuracy, especially among advanced learners performing the complex task. Prevention was negatively associated with syntactic complexity and lexical sophistication among higher-proficiency learners. Locomotion positively predicted syntactic complexity but negatively predicted accuracy. Overall, the findings suggest a dynamic interplay among motivational orientations, cognitive task demands, and L2 writing proficiency. The study underscores the importance of balancing cognitive and affective dimensions in task-based language teaching and suggests that L2 writing instruction may benefit from greater sensitivity to learners’ motivational orientations.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical backgrounds
    • 2.1Motivational Orientations in L2 Writing: A Regulatory Focus and Regulatory Mode Perspective
    • 2.2Cognitive Task Complexity (CTC) and L2 writing
    • 2.3Learner Proficiency as a Key Individual Difference Factor in L2 Writing Performance
    • 2.4L2 Writing Performance and Its Core Dimensions
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Participants and the learning context
    • 3.2Instruments
      • 3.2.1Tasks
      • 3.2.2Questionnaires
    • 3.3Procedure
    • 3.4CALF Measures
    • 3.5Data Analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Factor Analysis of Focus and Mode Motivation Questionnaires
      • Regulatory Focus Questionnaire
      • Regulatory Mode Questionnaire
    • 4.2Results of Motivation Orientations and CALF across TC and Proficiency
      • Syntactic Complexity
        • MLTU
        • DC/T
        • CN/T
        • CN/C
        • EFC
        • Vocd
        • WRDFRQcm
        • WMP
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1Motivational Orientations as Predictors of CALF in L2 Writing
    • 5.2Motivation–CTC Interactions in Predicting CALF
    • 5.3Motivation–Proficiency Interactions in Predicting CALF
    • 5.4Motivation × CTC × Proficiency Interactions in L2 Writing
  • 6.Conclusion: Implications, limitations, and future research directions
  • Data Availability Statement
  • Author queries
  • References
References (46)
References
Abdi Tabari, M., & Miller, M. (2021). Unraveling the effects of task sequencing on the syntactic complexity, accuracy, lexical complexity, and fluency of L2 written production. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 1–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Abdi Tabari, M., Lu, X., & Wang, Y. (2023). The effects of task complexity on lexical complexity in L2 writing: An exploratory study. System, 1141, 103021. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Abdi Tabari, M., & Golparvar, S. E. (2024). The interplay of task repetition and task rehearsal in L2 written production across varied proficiency levels. Language Teaching Research. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Abdi Tabari, M., Farahanynia, M., & Botes, E. (2025). Examining the predictive power of L2 writing anxiety on L2 writing performance in simple and complex tasks under task-readiness conditions. Assessing Writing, 631, 100912. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Abdi Tabari, M., & Johnson, M. D. (2025). Rethinking fluency in task-based L2 writing: A critical examination of product- and process-based measures. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 4(3), 100225. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ardasheva, Y., Tong, S. S., & Tretter, T. R. (2012). Validating the English Language Learner Motivation Scale (ELLMS): Pre-college to measure language learning motivational orientations among young ELLs. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(4), 473–483. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bui, G. (2021). Influence of learners’ prior knowledge, L2 proficiency, and pre-task planning on L2 lexical complexity. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 59(4), 543–567. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chau, T. C. (2023). The relationships between L1, writing quality, and complexity, accuracy, and fluency in L2 writing [Unpublished doctoral dissertation], University of South Florida.
Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(2), 117–132. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dao, P. (2021). Effects of task goal orientation on learner engagement in task performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 59(3), 315–334. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R., & Criado, R. (2012). Automatization, skill acquisition, and practice in second language acquisition. In Chapelle, C. (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 4501–4504). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2019). Task motivation: What makes an L2 task engaging? In Z. Wen & M. Ahmadian (Eds.), Researching L2 task performance and pedagogy. In honour of Peter Skehan (pp. 53–66). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guilloteaux, M. J., & Dörnyei, Z. (2008). Motivating language learners: A classroom-oriented investigation of the effects of motivational strategies on student motivation. TESOL Quarterly, 42(1), 55–77. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 521, 1280–1300. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Regulatory focus theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, E. T. Higgins, & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.). Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 483–504). Sage Publications Ltd. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 461–473. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ishikawa, T. (2007). The effect of increasing task complexity along the [±Here-and-Now] dimension on L2 written narrative discourse. In Mayo, M. P. Garcia (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 136–156). Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jiang, C., & Papi, M. (2021). The motivation-anxiety interface in language learning: A regulatory focus perspective. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 32(1), 25–40. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, M. D. (2017). Cognitive task complexity and L2 written syntactic complexity, accuracy, lexical complexity, and fluency: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. Journal of Second Language Writing, 371, 13–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, M. D., & Abdi Tabari, M. (Eds.). (2025). Cognitive task complexity and second language performance: Understanding L2 learner affect and engagement. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kim, C., & Pekrun, R. (2014). Emotions and motivation in learning and performance. In J. Spector, M. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 65–75). Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kruglanski, A. W., Orehek, E., Higgins, E. T., Pierro, A., & Shalev, I. (2010). Modes of self-regulation: Assessment and locomotion as independent determinants in goal pursuit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of personality and self-regulation (pp. 375–402). Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kruglanski, A. W., Thompson, E. P., Higgins, E. T., Atash, M. N., Pierro, A., Shah, J. Y., & Spiegel, S. (2000). To “do the right thing” or to “just do it”: Locomotion and assessment as distinct self-regulatory imperatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 791, 793–815. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuiken, F., Mos, M., & Vedder, I. (2005). Cognitive task complexity and second language writing performance. EUROSLA Yearbook, 51, 195–222. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2008). Cognitive task complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(1), 48–60. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2020). Complex dynamic systems theory. In B. VanPatten, G. D. Keating, & S. Wulff (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 248–270). Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, S., Wang, Z., & Ge, X. (2024). Effects of task complexity and L2 proficiency on functional adequacy in L2 writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 543–554. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maamuujav, U., Olson, C. B., & Chung, H. (2021). Syntactic and lexical features of adolescent L2 students’ academic writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 531, 100822. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manchón, R. M., McBride, S., Mellado Martínez, M. D., & Vasylets, O. (2023). Working memory, L2 proficiency, and task complexity: Independent and interactive effects on L2 written performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 45(3), 737–764. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nowell, C. (2017). The influence of motivational orientation on the satisfaction of university students. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(7), 855–866. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2015). Syntactic complexity in L2 writing: Progress and expansion. Journal of Second Language Writing, 291, 82–94. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Papi, M. (2018). Motivation as quality. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(4), 707–730. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Papi, M., Zhang, Y., Zhou, Y., Kim, C. J., Mahbodi, M., Eom, M., & Jiang, C. (2025). Regulatory focus and fit effects on task engagement: An experimental study. Applied Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pisarik, C. T. (2009). Motivational orientation and burnout among undergraduate college students. College Student Journal, 43(4), 1238–1253.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Polio, C., & Yoon, H. J. (2023). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CALF) measures. In M. Kessler & C. Polio (Eds.), Conducting genre-based research in Applied Linguistics (pp. 149–171). Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pownall, J. (2016). Task complexity as mediated by proficiency, working memory, and attention: Competition for cognitive resources during L2 oral task performance [Unpublished PhD dissertation], University of Barcelona.
Révész, A., Kourtali, N. E., & Mazgutova, D. (2017). Effects of task complexity on L2 writing behaviors and linguistic complexity. Language Learning, 67(1), 208–241. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 221, 27–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). The cognition hypothesis, task design, and adult task-based language learning. Second Language Studies, 211, 45–105.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Second language task complexity, the cognition hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 3–38). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robinson, P., & Gilabert, R. (2007). Task complexity, the cognition hypothesis, and second language learning and performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45(3), 161–284. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2014). The context for researching a processing perspective on task performance. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 1–26). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skinner, E. A., Graham, J. P., Brule, H., Rickert, N., & Kindermann, T. A. (2020). “I get knocked down, but I get up again”: Integrative frameworks for studying the development of motivational resilience in school. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 44(4), 290–300. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wang, W., & Wu, Y. (2025). EFL learner motivation and psychological well-being in online instruction: To spy the traces of resilience, autonomy, and engagement via path analysis. Learning and Motivation, 891, 102078. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zabihi, R. (2017). The role of cognitive and affective factors in measures of L2 writing. Written Communication, 35(1), 32–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue