Article published in:
Task-Based Language Learning – Insights from and for L2 Writing
Edited by Heidi Byrnes and Rosa M. Manchón
[Task-Based Language Teaching 7] 2014
► pp. 163–191

Task complexity and linguistic performance in advanced college-level foreign language writing

This study contributes to our understanding of the potential of tasks in the domain of writing for second/foreign language (L2/FL) development by exploring task complexity in academic writing and its effect on the linguistic performance of advanced college-level learners of Spanish. It focuses on essay-type writing tasks of different levels of complexity in terms of topic, discourse genre, task type, and cognitive processing and their relationship to syntactic complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF). It adds to the emerging research on task complexity in L2/FL writing in terms of two models: Skehan and Foster’s Limited Attentional Capacity Model (Skehan 1998a, 2001, 2003; Skehan & Foster 1999, 2001) and Robinson’s Cognition Hypothesis (Robinson 2001a, 2001b, 2003, 2005, 2007). Findings suggest a tendency towards an emerging tension between syntactic complexity and accuracy and fluency in relation to task complexity and, at the same time, a positive association between task complexity and some measures of syntactic complexity, accuracy, and fluency depending on the writing abilities of the students based on the quality of the essays they produced. The chapter calls for future research that provides a classificatory system of task complexity in L2/FL writing to help explain the effect of task variables on attentional resources and the role played by long-term and working memory capacity in the composing processes. In addition, further research is needed that considers writing ability in relation to levels of L2/FL language proficiency in order to understand better the interaction between tasks, L2/FL composing skills, and language production.
Published online: 14 November 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.7.07rui
References
ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines Speaking, revised. (
1999) American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. ⟨http://​www​.actfl​.org​/files​/public​/Guidelinesspeak​.pdf⟩
ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines Writing, revised. (
2001) American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages ⟨www​.actfl​.org​/files​/public​/writingguidelines​.pdf⟩.
Alamargot, D., & Chanquoy, L
(2001) Through the models of writing. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Appel, G., & Lantolf, J
(1994) Speaking as mediation: A study on L1 and L2 text recall tasks. Modern Language Journal, 78, 437–452. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baddeley, A.D
(1986) Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Becker, A
(2006) A review of writing model research based on cognitive processes ⟨http://​www​.wac​.colostate​.edu⟩.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M
(1987) The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bygate, M
2001 Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (eds.) Researching pedagogical tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 23-48). Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Byrnes, H., Maxim, H.H., & Norris, J.M
(2010) Realizing advanced foreign language writing development in collegiate education: Curricular design, pedagogy, assessment, Modern Language Journal, 94 (Supplement s-1).Google Scholar
Carter, R
(1998) Mapping the mind. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cumming, A
(1990) Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language composing. Written Communication, 7, 482–511. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dvorak, T
(1986) Writing in the foreign language. In B.H. Wing (Ed.), Listening, reading and writing: Analysis and application (pp. 145–167). Middlebury, VT: Northeast Conference. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R
(2009) Task-based research and language pedagogy. In K. Van den Branden, M. Bygate, & J.M. Norris (Eds.), Task-based language teaching: A reader (pp. 109–129). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., & Yuan, F
(2004) The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 59–84. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Flower, L
(1990) The role of task representation in reading-to-write. In L. Flower, V. Stein, J. Ackerman, M.J. Kantz, K. MacCormick, & W.C. Peck (Eds.), Reading-to-write: Exploring a cognitive and social process (pp. 35–73). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Flower, L.S., & Hayes, J
(1980) The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication, 31, 21–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1981) A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365–387. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Flower, L., Stein, V., Ackerman, J., Kantz, M.J., McCormick, K., & Peck, W.C
(1990) Reading-to-write: Exploring a cognitive and social process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gathercole, S.E., & Baddeley, A.D
(1993) Working memory and language. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Horowitz, D
(1986a) Process not product: Less than meets the eye. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 141–144. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1986b) What professors actually require: Academic tasks for the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 445–462. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ishikawa, T
(2006) The effect of manipulating task complexity along the ( + /−Here-and-Now) dimension on L2 written narrative discourse. In C.M. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 136–156). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Kellogg, R.T
(1996) A model of working memory in writing. In C.M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 57–71). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kormos, J
(2011) Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features in narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 148–161. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I
(2007) Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 261–284. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Cognitive task complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 48–60. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lalande, J.F
(1982) Reducing composition errors. An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, 140–149. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D
(1978) An ESL index of development. TESOL Quarterly, 12, 439–448. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lennon, P
(1990) Error: Some problems of definition, identification, and distinction. Applied Linguistics, 12, 180–195 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Long, M
(1992) Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 27–56. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.). Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Manchón, R.M
(2011) Writing to learn the language: Issues in theory and research. In R.M. Manchón (Ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to learn in an additional language (pp. 61–82). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J.M
(2009) Task-based teaching and testing. In M. Long and C. Doughty (Eds.), Handbook of language teaching (pp. 578–594). Cambridge: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J.M., & L. Ortega
(2009) Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555–578. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nunan, D
(2004) Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ong, J., & Zhang, L.J
(2010) Effects of task complexity on the fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students’ argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 219–233. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L
(2003) Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24, 492–518. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P
(1995) Task complexity and second language narrative discourse. Language Learning, 45, 99–140. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001a) Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287–318). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001b) Task complexity, task difficult, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) The Cognition Hypothesis of adult, task-based language learning. Second Language Studies, 21, 45–107.Google Scholar
(2005) Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 43, 1–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Re-thinking-for-speaking and L2 task demands: The Cognition Hypothesis, task classification, and sequencing. Plenary address at the Second International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching, University of Hawai’i.
Roca de Larios, J., Manchón, R.M., & Murphy, L
(2006) Generating text in native and foreign language writing: A temporal analysis of problem-solving formulation processes. Modern Language Journal, 90, 100–114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Samuda, V., & Bygate, M
(2008) Tasks in second language learning. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R
(2001) Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.). Cognition and second language learning (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P
(1996) A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1998a) A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1998b) Task-based instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 268–286. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) Tasks and language performance. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 167–185). London: Longman.Google Scholar
(2003) Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36, 1–14. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P
(1997) The influence of planning and post-task activities on accuracy and complexity in task-based learning. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185–211. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1999) The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49, 93–120. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183–205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P., Foster, P., & Mehnert, U
(1998) Assessing and using tasks. In W.A. Renandya & G.M. Jacobs (Eds.), Learners and language learning (pp. 227–248). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M
(1985) Communicative competence: Some roles for comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S.M. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–256). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
(1995) Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2005) The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.). Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–481). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S
(1995) Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step toward second language learning. Applied Linguistics16, 371–391. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Swales, J
(1986) Utilizing the literatures in teaching the research paper. Unpublished manuscript.
Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M., & Norris, J.M
(2009) Task-based language teaching: A reader. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wickens, C.D
(1992) Engineering psychology and human performance. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H
(1998) Skills, abilities, and context of reality. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 323–333. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H
(1998) Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.Google Scholar
Yuan, F., & Ellis, R
(2003) The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24, 1−27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yule, G
(1997) Referential communication tasks. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zamel, V
(1983) The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly 17, 165–187. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

Gomez Laich, Maria Pia & Naoko Taguchi
2021. 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 0:0 Crossref logo
Ruiz-Funes, Marcela
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 ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Silva, Breno B., Katarzyna Kutyłowska & Agnieszka Otwinowska
2021. Learning academic words through writing sentences and compositions: Any signs of an increase in cognitive load?. Language Teaching Research ► pp. 136216882110204 ff. Crossref logo
Zare, Mohammad, Mohammad Sadegh Bagheri, Firooz Sadighi, Ehsan Rassaei & Piotr Goel
2021. An Investigation of the Linguistic Complexity of IELTS Writing Topics Based on the Levels of Discourse Representation and the Degree of Meaning Coding. Cogent Education 8:1 Crossref logo
Çiftçi, Hatime & Erhan Aslan
2019. Computer-Mediated Communication in the L2 Writing Process. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching 9:2 ► pp. 19 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 08 june 2022. 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.