Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T02:39:30.777Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EXAMINING THE RELATIVE EFFECTS OF TASK COMPLEXITY AND COGNITIVE DEMANDS ON STUDENTS’ WRITING IN A SECOND LANGUAGE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2021

Ting Sophia Xu Open the ORCID record for Ting Sophia Xu [Opens in a new window] ,
Lawrence Jun Zhang Open the ORCID record for Lawrence Jun Zhang [Opens in a new window]  and
Janet S. Gaffney Open the ORCID record for Janet S. Gaffney [Opens in a new window]
Ting Sophia Xu
Affiliation:
Faculty of Education and Social Work, The University of Auckland
Lawrence Jun Zhang*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Education and Social Work, The University of Auckland
Janet S. Gaffney
Affiliation:
Faculty of Education and Social Work, The University of Auckland
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Lawrence Zhang, Faculty of Education & Social Work, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92601, Symonds Street, Auckland1150, New Zealand. E-mail: lj.zhang@auckland.ac.nz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While many studies have investigated the effect of task complexity on L2 writing, little has been reported on the effects of intended task complexity manipulations on task-generated cognitive demands in L2 writing. This study, therefore, was designed to examine the relative effects of task complexity and cognitive demands on students’ L2 writing. Two argumentative writing tasks were manipulated with varying numbers of elements and reasoning demands to be distinguished either as a simple or complex writing task. Self-ratings and dual-task methodology were adopted to validate the manipulations of task complexity. Thirty-one L2 learners, in the single-task group, were asked to complete two writing tasks and a post-task questionnaire. Participants in the dual-task conditions (30 in Experimental 1 and 31 in Experimental 2) were required to simultaneously complete the primary writing tasks and the secondary tasks. Results from self-ratings and dual-task experiments supported the efficacy of the task complexity manipulations.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , May 2022 , pp. 483 - 506
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This work was supported by a joint scholarship for doctoral study offered to the first author by The University of Auckland and the China Scholarship Council. We would like to thank the students for their participation in this research and Guoxing Chen, Ming Yang, and Lihui Song for their assistance in data collection. We also thank the editor-in-chief, Professor Susan Gass, the handling editor, Professor Andrea Révész, and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive suggestions that have helped improve the clarity of the manuscript.

References

REFERENCES

Abrams, Z. I. (2019). The effects of integrated writing on linguistic complexity in L2 writing and task-complexity. System, 81, 110–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.01.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, R. (1995). Teaching and learning argument. Cassel.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Baralt, M. (2013). The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during online versus face-to-face interactive tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 689–725. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263113000429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baralt, M., Gilabert, R., & Robinson, P. (2014). An introduction to theory and research in task sequencing and instructed second language learning. In Baralt, M., Gilabert, R., & Robinson, P. (Eds.), Task sequencing and instructed second language learning (pp. 1–34). Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Brünken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brünken, R., Seufert, T., & Paas, F. (2010). Measuring cognitive load. In Plass, J. L., Moreno, R., & Brünken, R. (Eds.), Cognitive load theory (pp. 181–202). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cho, H. (2015). Effects of task complexity on English argumentative writing. English Teaching, 70, 107–131. https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.70.2.201506.107Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Donate, Á. (2018). Cognitive task complexity, foreign language anxiety and L2 performance in Spanish: A task-based language teaching perspective [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Georgetown University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Freedman, A., & Pringle, I. (1984). Why students can’t write arguments. English in Education, 18, 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-8845.1984.tb00668.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirose, K. (2003). Comparing L1 and L2 organizational patterns in the argumentative writing of Japanese EFL students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 181–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00015-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Housen, A., & Simoens, H. (2016). Introduction: Cognitive perspectives on difficulty and complexity in L2 acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 163–175. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263116000176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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). Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Kang, S., & Lee, J. H. (2019). Are two heads always better than one? The effects of collaborative planning on L2 writing in relation to task complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.08.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y. J., Payant, C., & Pearson, P. (2015). The intersection of task-based interaction, task complexity, and working memory: L2 question development through recasts in a laboratory settings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 549–581. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263114000618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuiken, F., Mos, M., & Vedder, I. (2005). Cognitive task complexity and second language writing performance. EUROSLA Yearbook, 5, 195–222. https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.5.10kuiCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). Cognitive task complexity and linguistic performance in French L2 writing. In Mayo, M. D. P. G. (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 117–135). Multilingual Matters.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, 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.08.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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). John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2019). Investigating teachers’ perceptions of syntactic complexity in L2 academic writing. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 3, 228–248. https://doi.org/10.1558/isla.37977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. (2019). Task complexity, cognitive load, and L1 speech. Applied Linguistics, 40, 506–539. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. (2020). Task closure and task complexity effects on L2 written performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 50, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Marcus, N., Cooper, M., & Sweller, J. (1996). Understanding instructions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.88.1.49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2003). Defining and measuring SLA. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 717–761). Blackwell.Google 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, 218–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ong, J., & Zhang, L. J. (2013). Effects of the manipulation of cognitive processes on EFL writers’ text quality. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 375–398. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paas, F., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1994). Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02213420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paas, F., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Adam, J. J. (1994). Measurement of cognitive load in instructional research. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 419–430. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1994.79.1.419CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahimi, M. (2019). Effects of increasing the degree of reasoning and the number of elements on L2 argumentative writing. Language Teaching Research, 23, 633–654. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818761465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahimi, M., & Zhang, L. J. (2018). Effects of task complexity and planning conditions on L2 argumentative writing production. Discourse Processes, 55, 726–742. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1336042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahimi, M., & Zhang, L. J. (2019). Writing task complexity, students’ motivational beliefs, anxiety and their writing production in English as a second language. Reading and Writing, 32, 761–786. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1336042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, W. M., Burton, J. K., & Kelly, P. P. (1985). The effects of writing ability and mode of discourse on cognitive capacity engagement. Research in the Teaching of English, 19, 283–297. https://doi.org/10.2307/40171051Google Scholar
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. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Révész, A., Kourtali, N. E., & Mazgutova, D. (2017). Effects of task complexity on L2 writing behaviors and linguistic complexity. Language Learning, 67, 208–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Révész, A., Michel, M., & Gilabert, R. (2016). Measuring cognitive task demands using dual-task methodology, subjective self-ratings, and expert judgments: A validation study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 703–737. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263115000339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Révész, A., Michel, M., & Lee, M. (2019). Exploring second language writers’ pausing and revision behaviors. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 605–631. https://doi.org/10.1017/s027226311900024xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2005.43.1.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2007a). Criteria for classifying and sequencing pedagogic tasks. In Mayo, M. D. P. G. (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 7–26). Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2007b). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 193–213. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2007.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2011a). Second language task complexity, the cognition hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 3–38). John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2011b). Task based language learning: A review of issues. Language Learning, 61, 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00641.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sasayama, S. (2016). Is a “complex” task really complex? Validating the assumption of cognitive task complexity. Modern Language Journal, 100, 231–254. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sasayama, S., & Norris, J. (2019). Unravelling cognitive task complexity: Learning from learners’ perspectives on task characteristics and second language performance. In Wen, Z. E., & Ahmadian, M. J. (Ed.), Researching L2 task performance and pedagogy: In honour of Peter Skehan (pp. 95–132). John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoor, C., Bannert, M., & Brünken, R. (2012). Role of dual task design when measuring cognitive load during multimedia learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60, 753–768. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-012-9251-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38–62. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.1.38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2013). Tasks and language performance assessment. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (Eds.), Research pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 167–185). Routledge.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2018). Second language task-based performance: Theory, research, assessment. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183–205). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, L., & Zhang, L. J. (2019). Peter Skehan’s influence in research on task difficulty: A bibliometric analysis using CiteSpace. In Wen, Z. E. & Ahmadian, M. J. (Eds.), Researching L2 task performance and pedagogy: In honour of Peter Skehan (pp. 183–196). John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wickens, C. (2007). Attention to the second language. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 177–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, L. J., Wang, L., & Wu, H. (2017). A meta-analysis of linguistic complexity research (1990–2015) conducted within cognitive linguistics frameworks. Fudan Forum on Foreign Languages and Literature, 10, 58–69.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Xu et al. supplementary material

Xu et al. supplementary material

Download Xu et al. supplementary material(File)
File 74.2 KB