The Role of Task Complexity, Task Condition, and Self-regulation of Learners in L2 Writing

Authors
A. Rouhi 1
A. nemat tabrizi 2
M. Jafarigohar 1
F. Hemati 3
E. Ghaderi 4
1 Associate Professor, English Language Teaching Department, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran
2 Assistant Professor of English Language Education, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran
3 Associate Professor of English Language Teaching, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran.
4 Ph.D. Candidate in English Language Teaching, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Task-based language teaching (TBLT) characterized by involving language learners in meaning-focused activities with some focus-on-form has enjoyed increasing popularity in the past two decades. Meanwhile, ample theoretical and empirical evidence has been presented to account for different task design features that influence language learning and learners’ performance. However, selecting and sequencing suitable tasks as well as recognizing appropriate task combinations that can provide a good opportunity for learning are still topical issues in SLA research (Robinson, 2011; Skehan, 2014).

Considering this interest, this study set out to examine whether changes in the cognitive demands of tasks and their implementation condition (operationalized by individual and collaborative writing) would lead to differential improvement in language learners’ writing performance. The study also explored the relationship between an under-researched learner factor (self-regulation) and EFL learners’ written performance in individual and collaborative tasks varying in terms of cognitive complexity. The novelty of the present study lies primarily in its considering the combined effect of task complexity and task condition on writing—which is a somewhat neglected mode in research on TBLT—of EFL learners.

Although different models and criteria have been proposed to account for task complexity, psycholinguistic rationales have drawn more support recently. Skehan’s (1998, 2009) trade-off hypothesis and Robinson’s (2001, 2003, 2009) cognition hypothesis are two influential models in vogue toady. Different views on attentional capacity of human beings have led Skehan and Robinson to have almost contradicting predictions on learners’ performance in tasks with different levels of cognitive complexity. Robinson (2001, 2003), assuming multiple-resource model of attention, holds the view that performing some complex tasks (e.g., those made complex by the number of elements) pushes learners to make efficient use of their attentional resources and produce more accurate and complex output. Contrarily, Skehan (1998), acknowledging the limited attentional capacity of learners, claims that simultaneous increase in accuracy and syntactic complexity of linguistic output is not feasible just due to the manipulation of task complexity. He claims that learners carrying out cognitively demanding tasks have to prioritize one (accuracy or complexity) at the expense of the other.

Two research questions were formulated for the present study: (a) Do task complexity, task condition, and their interaction affect the accuracy, syntactic complexity, and fluency (CAF) of language learners’ written performance? (b) Is there any relationship between self-regulation of language learners and their performance in individual and collaborative writing tasks varying in terms of cognitive complexity? To answer these questions, 122 EFL learners whose homogeneity was ensured by Nelson English Language Proficiency Test were recruited. They were randomly assigned into four groups. The participants in four groups carried out the tasks which were different in terms of cognitive demands (simple/complex) and their implementation conditions (individual/collaborative). Task complexity was manipulated by the number of elements that participants had to consider while performing the writing task.

The collected data were analyzed by MANOVA and Pearson correlation after checking for the assumptions underlying these statistical analyses. Findings revealed that task condition had a significant effect on the writing accuracy of language learners but manipulation of task complexity did not affect three writing dimensions, i.e., syntactic complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF) significantly. These findings lent partial support to Skehan’s (2009) trade-off approach toward task design and also Vygotsky’s (1978) social constructivism. Moreover, self-regulation of learners who performed the complex writing task in isolation showed a positive significant correlation with the accuracy of their writing. Robinson (2011) has made a similar prediction regarding the role of individual differences in learners’ performance in complex tasks. The findings add support to the view that selecting appropriate levels of task complexity and suitable task implementation conditions enhance different dimensions of the written performance of language learners. The study calls for more prominent place for task condition and individual differences of learners in the frameworks and models put forward for task designing and sequencing.


Keywords

Subjects

• Albert, Á. (2011). “When individual differences come into play: The effect
of learner creativity on simple and complex task performance”. In P. Robinson (Ed.). Second Language Task Complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of Language Learning and Performance (Pp. 239–266). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. EngCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Benson, P. (2007). “Autonomy in language teaching and learning”. Language Teaching. 40 (1). Pp. 21–40.
• Bonk, C.; J. Middleton; T. Reynolds & L. Stead, (1990, April), “The index of writing awareness: One tool for measuring early adolescent metacognition in writing”. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
• Byrnes, H. & R. M. Manchón, (2014), “Task-Based Language Learning: Insights from and for L2 Writing: An Introduction”. In H. Byrnes & R. M. Manchón (Eds.). Task-based Language Learning: Insights from and for L2 Writing (Pp. 1–23). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Emami, R.; S. Talepasand & A. M. Rezaie, (2015). “Impact of self-regulation learning strategies training on composition writing of children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder”. Middle Eastern Journal of Disability Studies. 5(11). pp. 208–219. [In Persian].
• Farsian, M.; N. Rezaei & S. Panahandeh, (2015). “Correlation between achievement motivation, emotional intelligence, and foreign language classroom anxiety of students of French language at Ferdowsi University of Mashhad”. Language Related Research. 6(4). Pp. 183–200. [In Persian].
• Fernández Dobao, A. (2012). “Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work”. Journal of Second Language Writing. 21(1). Pp. 40–58.
• Gilabert, R. (2005). Task Complexity and L2 Narrative Oral Production. Unpublished Phd Dissertation. Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
• Givón, T. (1985). “Function, structure, and language acquisition”. In D. Slobin (Ed.). The Cross-linguistic Study of Language Acquisition (Pp. 1008–1025). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Graham, S. & K. R. Harris, (2000). “The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing development”. Educational Psychologist. 35(1). Pp. 3–12.
• Herl, H. E.; H. F. O'Neil; G. K. W. K. Chung; C. Bianchi; S. L. Wang; R. Mayer; C. Y. Lee; A. Choi; T. Suen & A. Tu (1999, March). “Final report for validation of problem-solving measures. CSE Technical Report 501”. University of California, Los Angles.
• Ishikawa, T. (2007). “The Effect of Manipulating Task Complexity Along the [+/–Here-and-Now] Dimension on L2 Written Narrative Discourse”. In M. P. Garcia Mayo (Ed.). Investigating Tasks in Formal Language Learning (Pp. 157–176). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
• 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.
• Kim, Y. & N. Tracy-Ventura, (2011), “Task Complexity, Language anxiety, and the Development of the Simple Past”. In P. Robinson (Ed.). Second Language Task Complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of Language Learning and Performance (Pp. 287–306). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Kormos, J. & A. Trebits, (2011), “Working Memory Capacity and Narrative Task Performance”. In P. Robinson (Ed.). Second Language Task Complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of Language Learning and Performance (Pp. 267–286). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Kormos, J. (2014). “Differences Across Modalities of Performance: An Investigation of Linguistic and Discourse Complexity in Narrative Tasks”. In H. Byrnes & R. Manchon (Eds.). Task-based Language Learning: Insights from and for L2 Writing (Pp. 193–216). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Kuiken, F. & R. Vedder (2008). “Cognitive task complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language”. Journal of Second Language Writing. 17(1). Pp. 48–60.
• Kuiken, F. & R. Vedder ,(2011), “Task Complexity and Linguistic Performance in L2 Writing and Speaking: The Effect of Mode”. In P. Robinson (Ed.). Second Language Task Complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of Language Learning and Performance (Pp. 91–104). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Michel, M. C.; F. Kuiken & I. Vedder, (2012), “Task Complexity and Interaction: (Combined) Effects on Task-based Performance in Dutch as a Second Language”. In L. Roberts, C. Lindqvist, C. Bardel & N. Abrahamsson (Eds.). EUROSLA Yearbook (Pp. 164–190). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Mousavi, S. I.; Gh. Kiany; R. Akbari & R. Ghafar Samar, (2016). “The process of developing disciplinary genre awareness through training academic writing skills: A case study”. Language Related Research. 7(3). Pp. 171–196. [in Persian].
• Nikoopour, J.; M. Amini Farsani & F. Mahmoudi, (2010). “Effect of using group writing technique on writing skill of EFL learners”. Applied Linguistics. 3(2). Pp. 163–18.1.[In Persian].
• O'Neil, H. F. & H. E. Herl, (1998, April), “Reliability and validity of a trait measure of self-regulation”. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
• Puustinen, M. & L. Pulkkinen, (2001). “Models of self-regulated learning: A review”. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. 45(3). Pp. 269–286.
• Robinson, P. (2001). “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. 285–316). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Robinson, P. (2003). “The cognition hypothesis, task design, and adult task-based language learning”. Second Language Studies. 21(2). Pp. 45–105.
• Robinson, P. (2011). “Task-based language learning: A review of issues”. Language Learning. 61(S1). Pp. 1–36.
• Skehan, P. & F. Foster, (2007), “Complexity, Accuracy, Fluency and Lexis in Task-Based Performance: A Meta-Analysis of the Ealing Research”. In S. Van Daele, A. Housen, F. Kuiken, M. Pierrard & I. Vedder (Eds.). Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency in Second Language Use, Learning, & Teaching (pp. 207–226). Brussels: Contactforum.
• Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Skehan, P. (2009). “Modeling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis”. Applied Linguistics. 30(4). Pp. 510–532.
• Skehan, P. (2014). “The context for researching a processing perspective on task performance”. In P. Skehan (Ed.). Processing Perspectives on Task Performance (Pp. 1–26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Storch, N. & G. Wigglesworth, (2007), “Writing tasks: Comparing Individual and Collaborative Writing”. In M. P. Garcia-Mayo (Ed.). Investigating Tasks in Formal Language Learning (Pp. 157–177). London: Multilingual Matters.
• Storch, N. (2005). “Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections”. Journal of Second Language Writing. 14. Pp. 153–173.
• Tavakoli, P. (2014). “Storyline Complexity and Syntactic Complexity in Writing and Speaking Tasks”. In H. Byrnes & R. Manchon (Eds.). Task-based Language Learning: Insights from and for L2 Writing (Pp. 163–191). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Wigglesworth, G. & N. Storch, (2009), “Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity, and accuracy”. Language Testing. 26. Pp. 445–466.
• Wolfe-Quintero, K.; S. Inagaki & H. Kim, (1998), Second Language Development in Writing: Measures of Fluency, Accuracy, and Complexity. Honolulu, Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press.
• Zalbidea, J. (2017). “One task fits all? The roles of task complexity, modality, and working memory capacity in L2 performance”. The Modern Language Journal. 101(2). Pp. 335–352.
• Zimmerman, B. J. & A. Kitsantas, (1999), “Acquiring writing revision skill: Shifting from process to outcome self-regulatory goals”. Journal of Educational Psychology. 91. Pp. 241–250.
• Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). “Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective”. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.). Handbook of Self-regulation (Pp. 13–39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
• Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). “Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview”. Theory into Practice. 41(2). Pp. 64–70.
Language Related Research
Volume 9, Issue 3 - Serial Number 45
July and August 2018
Pages 227-249