Effects of Task Complexity Increase on Computer-Mediated L2 Writing and Temporal Distribution of Cognitive and Metacognitive Processes

Document Type : Research Article

Author

English Department, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract

This study examined the effects of cognitive task complexity increase on the complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF) as well as the temporal distribution of the cognitive and metacognitive processes involved in computer-mediated L2 written production. To this end, the study employed a between-subjects experimental design with 85 EFL learners from a language learning institute in Iran. Participants were assigned to one of 3 groups: low-, medium-, and high-complexity groups. Each group performed one of the 3 computer-mediated letter writing tasks of varying levels of complexity, from the lowest level (low-complexity) to the highest level (high-complexity) of cognitive demand. Participants were also asked to complete L2 writing Cognitive Processes Scale (CPS) and Metacognitive Processes Scale (MPS) to measure the differentials in time and attention allocated to these processes by the participants in each group. Results revealed that the increases of task complexity (1) affected the fluency positively and the accuracy negatively, with no significant effects on the complexity; (2) directed the participants’ attention more toward the processes such as task formulation and generation of new ideas, which could help them manage the conceptual pressure imposed; and (3) contrary to the assumptions, directed the participants’ attention away from the processes such as thinking about language aspects, which could direct their attention to the linguistic aspects of the tasks. Implications are discussed and avenues for future research are outlined.

Keywords

References

Adams, R., Alwi, N. A. N. M., & Newton, J. (2015). Task complexity effects on the complexity and accuracy of writing via text chat. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 64-81.
Baralt, M. (2010). Task complexity, the cognition hypothesis, and interaction in CMC and FTF environments. Retrieved 3 March 2015, from the World Wide Web: http://gradworks.umi.com/34/12/3412595.html
Devine, J., Railey, K., & Boshoff, P. (1993). The implications of cognitive models in L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2(3), 203-225.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387.
Frear, M. W., & Bitchener, J. (2015). The effects of cognitive task complexity on writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 45-57.
Fiori, M. L. (2005). The development of grammatical competence through synchronous computer-mediated communication. CALICO Journal, 22(3), 567-602.
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.
Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (Eds.). (2012). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Ishikawa, T. (2007). 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.
Kern, R. G. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. The Modern Language Journal, 79(4), 457-476.
Kormos, J. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(2), 148-161.
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic performance in L2 writing and speaking. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 91-104). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Kung, S.-C. (2004). Synchronous electronic discussions in an EFL reading class. ELT Journal, 58(2), 164-173.
Levkina, M., & Gilabert, R. (2012). The effects of cognitive task complexity on L2 oral production. In F. Kuiken & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency investigating complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA (pp. 171-198). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Malden, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Manchón, R. M., & de Larios, J. R. (2008). Writing-to-learn in instructed language learning contexts. In E. A. Soler & P. S. Jordà (Eds.), Intercultural language use and language learning (pp. 101-121). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Myles, J. (2002). Second language writing and research: The writing process and error analysis in student texts. TESL-EJ, 6(2), 1-20.
Ong, J. (2014). How do planning time and task conditions affect metacognitive processes of L2 writers? Journal of Second Language Writing, 23, 17-30.
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(4), 218-233.
Ong, J., & Zhang, L. J. (2013). Effects of the manipulation of cognitive processes on EFL writers' text quality. TESOL Quarterly, 47(2), 375-398.
Pennington, M. C. (1996). Writing the natural way: On computer. Computer- Assisted Language Learning, 9(2-3), 125-142.
Philp, J., Adams, R., & Iwashita, N. (2013). Peer interaction and second language learning. New York: Routledge.
Robinson, P. (2001) Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27-57.
Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. IRAL—International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43(1), 1-32.
Robinson, P. (2007). Criteria for classifying and sequencing pedagogic tasks. In C. M. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 7-26). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Robinson, P. (Ed.). (2011). Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
Robinson, P., & Gilabert, R. (2007). Task complexity, the cognition hypothesis and second language learning and performance. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(3), 161-176.
Roca de Larios, J., Manchón, R., Murphy, L., & Marín, J. (2008). The foreign language writer's strategic behavior in the allocation of time to writing processes. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(1), 30-47.
Sasaki, M. (2000). Toward an empirical model of EFL writing processes: An exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 259-291.
Skehan, P. (1996) A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38-62.
Skehan, P. (1998) A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. (2003) Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36(1), 1-14.
Skehan, P. (2009). Modeling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510-532.
van den Bergh, H., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (1999). The dynamics of idea generation during writing. In M. Torrance & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Knowing what to write (pp. 99-121). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity, and accuracy. Language Testing, 26(3), 445-466.
Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics
Volume 8, Issue 2
November 2017
Pages 187-210

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics