Effects of increasing the degree of reasoning and the number of elements on L2 argumentative writing
Abstract
The impacts of task characteristics on second language (L2) writing require further exploration. This study examined the effects of increasing task complexity on L2 argumentative writing. Upper-intermediate L2 learners performed two writing tasks with varying degrees of complexity in relation to the number of elements and the degree of reasoning. The learners’ writing was measured in terms of syntactic complexity, accuracy, lexical complexity, organization, content, and overall text quality. Increasing task complexity effected a significant desirable change in one dimension of syntactic complexity (notably the amount of subordination) and one dimension of lexical complexity (notably academic vocabulary use), had a significant adverse effect on accuracy, and led to the enhancement of content, organization, and writing quality. These findings lend support to the Trade-off Hypothesis, the Cognition Hypothesis, and the central tenet of Kellogg’s writing model. Methodological and pedagogical implications of the study are also discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access and purchase options for this article.
References
Cohen J. (1992). Quantitative methods in psychology: A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
Coxhead A. (2002). The academic word list: A corpus-based word list for academic purposes. Language and Computers, 42, 73–89.
DeKeyser R. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 195–221.
Dörnyei Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, 221–246.
Ellis R. (2013). Task-based language teaching: Responding to the critics. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 8, 1–27.
Foster P., Skehan P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–323.
Foster P., Wigglesworth G. (2016). Capturing accuracy in second language performance: The case for a weighted clause ratio. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 98–116.
Foster P., Tonkyn A., Wigglesworth G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21, 354–375.
Frear M.W., Bitchener J. (2015). The effects of cognitive task complexity on writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 45–57.
Gathercole S., Baddeley A. (1993). Working memory and language. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hamp-Lyons L., Mathias S.P. (1994). Examining expert judgments of task difficulty on essay tests. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 49–68.
Hunt K.W. (1966). Recent measures in syntactic development. Elementary English, 43, 732–739.
Hyland K. (2003). Second language writing. New York: Cambridge University Press
Ishikawa T. (2007). The effect of manipulating task complexity along the [+/−Here-and-Now] dimension on L2 written narrative discourse. In Mayo M.D.P.G. (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 136–156). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Jacobs H., Zinkgraf S., Wormuth D., Hartfiel V., Hughey J. (1981). Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Kellogg R.T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In Levy C.M., Ransdell S. (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 57–71). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kellogg R.T., Whiteford A.P., Turner C.E., Cahill M., Merlens A. (2013). Working memory in written composition: An evaluation of the 1996 model. Journal of Writing Research, 5, 159–190.
Kim Y., Payant C., Pearson P. (2015). The interaction of task-based interaction, task complexity, and working memory. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 549–581.
Kormos J. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 148–161.
Kormos J., Trebits A. (2012). The role of task complexity, modality and aptitude in narrative task performance. Language Learning, 62, 439–472.
Kuiken F., Vedder I. (2007). Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 261–284.
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, 48–60.
Kuiken F., Vedder I. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic performance in L2 writing and speaking. In Robinson P. (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 90–104). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kuiken F., Vedder I. (2012). Syntactic complexity, lexical variation and accuracy as a function of task complexity and proficiency level in L2 writing and speaking. In Housen A., Kuiken F., Vedder I. (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. (pp. 143–170). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Levelt W.J. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Long M. (2016). In defense of tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and real issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 5–33.
Long M.H., Crookes G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 27–56.
MacWhinney B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. 3rd edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Malvern D., Richards B. (2002). Investigating accommodation in language proficiency interviews using a new measure of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 19, 85–104.
Manchón R.M. (2014). The internal dimension of tasks: The interaction between task factors and learner factors in bringing about learning through writing. In Byrnes H., Manchón R.M. (Eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 27–52). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Nation P. (2007). Range 2 software. Available at: http://www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/about/staff/paul-nation (accessed February 2018).
Norris J.M., Ortega L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555–578.
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, 218–233.
Pajares F., Hartley J., Valiante G. (2001). Response format in writing self-efficacy assessment: Greater discrimination increases prediction. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 33, 214–221.
Patton M.Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Polio C., Shea M.C. (2014). An investigation into current measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 10–27.
Rahimi M., Zhang L.J. (2017). Effects of Task complexity and Planning Conditions on L2 Argumentative Writing Production. Discourse Processes.
Révész A. (2011). Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions, and individual differences: A classroom-based study. Modern Language Journal, 95, 168–181.
Révész A. (2014). Towards a fuller assessment of cognitive models of task-based learning: Investigating task-generated cognitive demands and processes. Applied Linguistics, 35, 87–92.
Révész A., Kourtali N.E., Mazgutova D. (2016). Effects of task complexity on L2 writing behaviors and linguistic complexity. Language Learning, 67, 208–241.
Révész A., Michel M., Gilabert R. (2015). Measuring cognitive task demands using dual-task methodology, subjective self-rating, and expert judgments. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 703–37.
Révész A., Sachs R., Hama M. (2014). The effects of task complexity and input frequency on the acquisition of the past counterfactual construction through recasts. Language Learning, 64, 615–650.
Robinson P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57.
Robinson P. (2011). Second language task complexity, the cognition hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In Robinson P. (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis on language learning and performance (pp. 3–37). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Robinson P. (2015). The Cognition Hypothesis, second language task demands, and the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In Bygate M. (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference (pp. 87–122). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
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.
Shernoff D.J., Csikszentmihalyi M., Shneider B., Shernoff E.S. (2003). Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. School Psychology Quarterly, 18, 158–176.
Skehan P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38–62.
Skehan P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510–532.
Skehan P. (2014). Limited attentional capacity, second language performance, and task-based pedagogy. In Skehan P. (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (task-based language teaching) (pp. 211–260). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Skehan P., Foster P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49, 93–120.
Skehan P., Foster P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In Robinson P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183–205). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tavakoli P. (2014). Storyline complexity and syntactic complexity in writing and speaking tasks. In Byrnes H., Manchón R. (Eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 163–191). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Thai C., Boers F. (2016). Repeating a monologue under increasing time pressure: Effects on fluency, complexity, and accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 50, 369–393.
Troia G.A., Harbaugh A.G., Shankland R.K., Wolbers K.A., Lawrence A.M. (2012). Relationships between writing motivation, writing activity, and writing performance: Effects of grade, sex, and ability. Reading and Writing, 26, 17–44.
UCLES (University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate) (2001). Quick Placement Test. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Biographies
Muhammad Rahimi earned his PhD in Education (Applied Linguistics & TESOL) at the University of Auckland, New Zealand. His areas of research interest include second language research and acquisition, second language pedagogy, second language assessment, and second language materials development. His publications have appeared in System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, the Language Learning Journal, RELC Journal, Discourse Processes, and Australian Journal of Teacher Education.
Cite article
Cite article
Cite article
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published online: March 9, 2018
Issue published: September 2019
Keywords
Authors
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Article usage*
Total views and downloads: 1033
*Article usage tracking started in December 2016
Altmetric
See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores
Articles citing this one
Receive email alerts when this article is cited
Web of Science: 27 view articles Opens in new tab
Crossref: 25
- Verb argument construction complexity indices and L2 written productio...
- One size fits all? The role of task complexity in L2 production via th...
- Automated analysis of cohesive features in L2 writing: Examining effec...
- Task-based explanation for genre effects: Evidence from a dependency t...
- Effects of cognitive task complexity and online planning on second lan...
- L2 writing anxiety, working memory, and task complexity in L2 written ...
- The effects of task complexity on lexical complexity in L2 writing: An...
- Effects of reasoning demands triggered by genre on Chinese EFL learner...
- Effects of Well-being, Grit, Emotion Regulation, and Resilience Interv...
- The effect of graph complexity and planning on graph writing performan...
- A multidimensional approach to assessing the effects of task complexit...
- Joining the adventures of Sally Jones – Discursive strategies for prov...
- Effects of the longest pause, its location, and pause variance on succ...
- Effects of an Engaging Process-Genre Approach on Student Engagement an...
- Improving Chinese College Students’ Argumentative Writing: A Presentat...
- EXAMINING THE RELATIVE EFFECTS OF TASK COMPLEXITY AND COGNITIVE DEMAND...
- Effects of prior knowledge and reasoning demands on Chinese EFL writin...
- Enhancing Syntactic Complexity in L2 Chinese Writing: Effects of Form-...
- A comparative study of the effects of L1 and L2 prewriting discussions...
- Task complexity, task repetition, and L2 writing complexity: exploring...
- Collaborative writing in an EFL secondary setting: the role of task co...
- The effect of task complexity on integrated writing performance: The c...
- Effects of manipulating writing task complexity on learners’ performan...
- Writing task complexity, students’ motivational beliefs, anxiety and t...
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
Get access
Access options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
loading institutional access options
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
