Cover not available
Part of
Writing and Language Learning: Advancing research agendas
Edited by Rosa M. Manchón
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 56] 2020
► pp. 183–206

Chapter 8
Task modality, communicative adequacy and CAF measures

The moderating role of task complexity

 | University of Barcelona
 | University of Barcelona
 | University of Murcia
In this study we looked into the learning affordances of task modalities as mediated by task complexity. A group of intermediate learners performed an argumentative task with two levels of complexity orally and in writing and their performance was rated for adequacy, and assessed in terms of the CAF (complexity, accuracy, and fluency) measures. In both oral and written modes, communicative success was found to be linked to lexical complexity and fluency. However, adequacy was associated with accuracy only in speech and with propositional complexity (idea units) only in writing. Task complexity did not moderate the links between communicative adequacy and the CAF dimensions. Based on these findings, implications for task design and for language-learning potential across modalities are drawn.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Task complexity and task modality in SLA research
  • CAF and communicative adequacy
  • The present study: Research questions
  • Method
    • Participants
    • The experimental task
    • Data collection procedures
    • Data analysis procedures
    • CAF measures
    • Communicative adequacy raters and scale
    • Statistical analyses
  • Results
  • Discussion
    • Similarities and differences across modalities
    • Implications of the findings for the connection between L2 writing and L2 learning
  • Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 20 November 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.56.08vas
References (48)
References
Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2014). Conceptualizing and measuring short-term changes in L2 writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 42–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bulté, B., Housen, A., Pierrard, M., & Van Daele, S. (2008). Investigating lexical proficiency development over time–the case of Dutch-speaking learners of French in Brussels. Journal of French Language Studies, 18(3), 277–298. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Byrnes, H., & Manchón, R. M. (Eds.). (2014). Task-based language learning. Insights from and for L2 writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of references for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
De Jong, N. H., Steinel, M. P., Florijn, A. F., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2012). Facets of speaking proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(1), 5–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2005). The effects of careful within-task planning on oral and written task performance. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 167–193). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied linguistics, 21(3), 354–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilabert, R. (2007). Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 oral production. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(3), 215–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York, NY: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guiraud, P. (1959). Problèmes et methods de la statistique linguistique. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (Eds.). (2012). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iwashita, N., Brown, A., McNamara, T., & O’Hagan, S. (2008). Assessed levels of second language speaking proficiency: How distinct? Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 24–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kormos, J. (2014). Differences across modalities of performance: An investigation of linguistic and discourse complexity in narrative tasks. In H. Byrnes & R. M. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based language learning. Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 193–217). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2014). Rating written performance: What do raters do and why? Language Testing, 31(3), 329–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Functional adequacy in L2 writing: Towards a new rating scale. Language Testing, 34(3), 321–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuiken, F., Vedder, I., & Gilabert, R. (2010). Communicative adequacy and linguistic complexity in L2 writing. In I. Bartning, M. Martin, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Communicative proficiency and linguistic development: Intersections between SLA and language testing research (pp. 81–100). Eurosla Monographs Series 1.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2014). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1996). The CHILDES system. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 5(1), 5–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malvern, D., & Richards, B. (2002). Investigating accommodation in language proficiency interviews using a new measure of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 19(1), 85–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manchón, R. M. (Ed.). (2011). Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). The internal dimension of tasks: The interaction between task factors and learner factors in bringing about learning through writing. In H. Byrnes & R. M. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based language learning. Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 27–53). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Manchón, R. M., & Roca de Larios, J. (2007). Writing-to-learn in instructed language learning contexts. In E. A. Soler & M. P. S. Jordá (Eds.), Intercultural language use and language learning (pp. 101–121). Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manchón, R. M., & Vasylets, O. (2019). Language learning through writing: Theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence. In J. W. Schwieter & A. Benati (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of language learning (pp. 341–362). Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manchón, R. M., & Williams, J. (2016). L2 writing and SLA studies. In R. M. Manchón & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), The handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 567–586). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meara, P. M., & Miralpeix, I. (2006). Y_Lex: The Swansea advanced vocabulary levels test (Version 2.05)[Computer software]. Swansea: Lognostics.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B. (1990). Restructuring. Applied linguistics, 11(2), 113–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., McCarthy, P. M., & Cai, Z. (2014). Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 590–601. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Révész, A. (2013). Towards a fuller assessment of cognitive models of task-based learning: Investigating task-generated cognitive demands and processes. Applied Linguistics, 35(1), 87–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Révész, A., Ekiert, M., & Torgersen, E. N. (2016). The effects of complexity, accuracy, and fluency on communicative adequacy in oral task performance. Applied Linguistics, 37(6), 828–848.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27–57. DOI logoGoogle 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. 3–39). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz-Funes, M. (2015). Exploring the potential of second/foreign language writing for language learning: The effects of task factors and learner variables. Journal of Second Language Writing, 28, 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sato, T. (2012). The contribution of test-takers’ speech content to scores on an English oral proficiency test. Language Testing, 29(2), 223–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seliger, H. W., & Shohamy, E. (1990). Second language research methods. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1982). The oral/literate continuum in discourse. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy (pp. 1–16). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Tavakoli, P. (2014). Storyline complexity and syntactic complexity in writing and speaking tasks. In H. Byrnes & R. M. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based language learning. Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 217–236). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vasylets, O., & Gilabert, R. (2013). Communicative adequacy: The neglected component in L2 writing assessment. Paper presented at the conference of Urban Multilingualism & Education, University of Ghent, Belgium, March 7–8.
Vasylets, O., Gilabert, R., & Manchón, R. M. (2017). The effects of mode and task complexity on second language production. Language Learning, 67(2), 394–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Contribution of oral and written modes to lexical, syntactic and propositional complexity in L2 performance in instructed contexts. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 3(2), 206–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., Kim, H. Y., Kim, H. Y., & Inagaki, S. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, & complexity (p. 187). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
Yang, W. (2014). Mapping the relationship among the cognitive complexity of independent writing tasks, L2 writing quality, and complexity, accuracy and fluency of L2 writing (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgia State University. Retrieved from <[URL]> (26 May, 2020).
Zalbidea, J. (2017). ‘One task fits all’? The roles of task complexity, modality, and working memory capacity in L2 performance. Modern Language Journal, 101(2), 335–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Gomez Laich, Maria Pia & Naoko Taguchi
2023. Effects of task complexity on the learning of genre specific rhetorical moves and linguistic forms: the case of contrast and argumentative essays. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 61:2 ► pp. 571 ff. DOI logo
Kim, Minkyung & Scott A. Crossley
2023. Lexical and phraseological differences between second language written and spoken opinion responses. Frontiers in Psychology 14 DOI logo
Vasylets, Olena, Raquel Criado & Joaquín Gris-Roca
2023. Comparing Individual vs. Collaborative Writing in Spanish EFL Secondary Education. In New Approaches to the Investigation of Language Teaching and Literature [Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design, ], ► pp. 154 ff. DOI logo
Leow, Ronald P., Rosa M. Manchón & Charlene Polio
2022. Writing. In Research methods in instructed second language acquisition [Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 3], ► pp. 305 ff. DOI logo
Sasayama, Shoko & John M. Norris
2022. Designing speaking tasks for different assessment goals. TASK. Journal on Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning 2:2 ► pp. 184 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 december 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.