Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics
[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 21, No. 0, pp.1272-1293
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Jan 2021
Received 15 Nov 2021 Revised 20 Dec 2021 Accepted 27 Dec 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.21..202112.1272

Effects of Task Complexity on Developing University Students’ L2 Writing through Synchronous CMC

Yearin An ; Chung Hyun Lee
(1st author) Graduate Student, TESOL Department, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies ijoaahn@naver.com
(corresponding author) Professor, Department of English Education, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Tel: 02-2173-2342 chlee04@hufs.ac.kr


© 2021 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Much attention has been focused on integrating technology into task-based language teaching in L2 writing due to the gradual increases using computer-mediated communication (CMC). However, what is essential in CMC settings is the selection of appropriate tasks. When designing tasks, one critical question relates to the adjustment of task complexity level. This study aimed to examine the effects of synchronous CMC (SCMC) tasks and task complexity on developing writing. The participants of the study were 43 students at a Korean university. The students were divided into two groups, the experimental group who carried out a series of SCMC tasks, and the traditional group. The mixed research was conducted using quantitative data such as students’ writing pre-, mid-, and post-tests and qualitative data, including reflective journals. Findings from the study revealed that SCMC tasks positively affected the development of L2 writing ability compared to the traditional group. Second, task complexity in the SCMC setting did not affect developing writing ability, but what was interesting was that students perceived complex tasks in the SCMC setting to help develop writing ability. Based on the study, further research will need to modify research design, procedures, and tasks and implement various other task-specific measures.

Keywords:

L2 writing, task complexity, synchronous computer-mediated communication

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Research Fund of 2021.

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.2019.01.009]
  • Adams, R. and N. Alwi. 2014. Prior knowledge and second language task production in text chat. In M. González-Lloret and L. Ortega, eds., Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks, 51-78. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.6.03ada]
  • Adams, R., N. Alwi and J. Newton. 2015. Task complexity effects on the complexity and accuracy of writing via text chat. Journal of Second Language Writing 29, 64-81. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.002]
  • Alwi, N., R. Adams and J. Newton. 2012. Writing to learn via text chat: Task implementation and focus on form. Journal of Second Language Writing 21, 23-39. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.12.001]
  • Baek, J. and C. H. Lee. 2018. University students’ perceptions and engagement in mobile assisted blended learning in English speaking classes. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning 21(4), 11-36.
  • 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/S0272263113000429]
  • Blake, R. 2000. Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish development. Language Learning & Technology 4, 111-125.
  • Byrnes, H. and R. M. Manchón. 2014. Task-based language learning – Insights from and for L2 writing. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.7]
  • Chapelle, C. A. 2004. Technology and second language learning: Expanding methods and agendas. System 32, 593-601. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.09.014]
  • Cho, H. 2015. Effects of task complexity on English argumentative writing. English Teaching 70, 107-131. [https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.70.2.201506.107]
  • Doughty, C. J. and M. H. Long. 2003. Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning & Teaching 7(3), 50-80.
  • Dörnyei, Z. and J. Kormos. 1998. Problem-solving mechanisms in L2 communication. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20, 349-385. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263198003039]
  • Ellis, R. 2003. Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  • Golonka, E. M., M. Tare and C. Bonilla. 2017. Peer interaction in text chat: Qualitative analysis of chat transcripts. Language Learning & Technology 21(2), 157-178.
  • González-Lloret, M and L. Ortega. 2014. Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.6]
  • Ishikawa, T. 2006. The effects of task complexity and language proficiency on task-based language performance. The Journal of Asia TEFL 3(4), 193-225.
  • Kang, S. and J. H. Lee. 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.2019.08.001]
  • Kern, R. G., P. Ware and M. Warschauer. 2008. Network-based language teaching, 2nd ed. In N. Van Deusen-Scholl and N. H. Hornberger, eds., Encyclopedia of language and education, 281-292. New York: Springer Second and foreign language education.
  • Kim, S. Y. and C. H. Lee. 2018. The impact of peer response on lexis and grammatical structure in L2 writing through blended learning. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning 21(4), 82-110.
  • Kim, Y. 2009. The effects of task complexity on learner-learner interaction. System 37, 254-268. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.02.003]
  • Kim, Y. 2012. Task complexity, learning opportunities, and Korean EFL learners’ question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 34, 627-658. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000368]
  • Kim, Y. 2017. Impacts of task complexity on the development of L2 oral performance over time. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 55(2). 197-220. [https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2017-0066]
  • Kuiken, F. and I. Vedder. 2007. Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 45, 261-284. [https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2007.012]
  • Kuiken, F. and I. Vedder. 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.2007.08.003]
  • Lai, C. and Y. Zhao. 2006. Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning & Technology 10, 102-20.
  • Lee, C. H. 2021. Principles and applications of MALL: Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning. Seongnam: Book Korea.
  • 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.2020.100777]
  • Lin, H. 2015. A meta-synthesis of empirical research on the effectiveness of computer-mediated communication (CMC) in SLA. Language Learning & Technology 19(2), 85-117.
  • Manchón, R.M. 2014. Learning and teaching writing in the FL classroom: Fostering writing-to-learn approaches. In P. Driscoll, E. Macaro, and A. Swarbrick, eds., Debates in modern language education, 96-107. London: Routledge.
  • Michel, M. C, F. Kuiken and I. Vedder. 2007. The influence of complexity in monologic versus dialogic tasks in Dutch L2. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 45, 241-259. [https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2007.011]
  • Nuevo, A. 2006. Task complexity and interaction: L2 learning opportunities and interaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Georgetown University, Washington DC.
  • Park, K. 2007. The effect of task type on quantity and syntactic complexity of learner output in Korean-Japanese telecollaboration. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning 10(2), 158-183. [https://doi.org/10.15702/mall.2007.10.2.158]
  • Pellettieri, J. 2000. Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence in the virtual foreign language classroom. In M. Warschauer and R. Kern, eds., Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice, 59-86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524735.006]
  • Peterson, M. 2010. Task-based language teaching in network-based CALL: An analysis of research on learner interaction in synchronous CMC. In M. Thomas and H. Reinders, eds., Task-based language learning and teaching with technology, 41-62. London: Continuum.
  • Rahimi, M. and L. J. Zhang. 2018. Effects of task complexity and planning conditions on L2 argumentative writing production. Discourse Processes 55, 726-742. [https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1336042]
  • Rahimpour, M. and P. Hosseini. 2010. The impact of task complexity on L2 learners’ written narratives. English Language Teaching 3(3), 198-205. [https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v3n3p198]
  • Révész, A. 2011. Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions, and individual differences: A classroom-based study. Modern Language Journal 95, Suppl. 1, 162-181. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01241.x]
  • Révész, A., N. E. Kourtali and D. Mazgutova. 2017. Effects of task complexity on L2 writing behaviors and linguistic complexity. Language Learning 67, 208-241. [https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12205]
  • Richards, J. C. and T. S. Rodgers. 2014. Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Robinson, P. 2001a. Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics 22, 27-57. [https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.27]
  • Robinson, P. 2001b. Task complexity, cognitive resources and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In R. Robinson, ed., Cognition and Second Language Instruction, 287-318. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.012]
  • 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), 1-32. [https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2005.43.1.1]
  • Robinson, P. 2007. 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.2007.009]
  • 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 of language learning and performance, 3–38. John Benjamins Publishing Company. [https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.2.05ch1]
  • Salaberry, R. 2000. L2 Morphosyntactic development in text-based computer-mediated communication. Computer Assisted Language Learning 13, 5-27. [https://doi.org/10.1076/0958-8221(200002)13:1;1-K;FT005]
  • Satar, H and N. Özdener. 2008. The effects of synchronous CMC on speaking proficiency and anxiety: Text versus voice chat. The Modern Language Journal 92(4), 595-613. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00789.x]
  • Sauro, S. 2011. SCMC for SLA: A research synthesis. CALICO Journal 28(2), 369-391. [https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.28.2.369-391]
  • Skehan, P. 1998. A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829802900209]
  • Skehan, P. 2009. Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics 30(4), 510-532. [https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp047]
  • Skehan, P. and P. Foster. 2001. Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson, ed., Cognition and second language instruction, 183-205. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.009]
  • Smith, B. 2004. Computer-mediated negotiated interaction and lexical acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26, 365-398. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310426301X]
  • So, L. and C. H. Lee. 2013. A case study on the effects of an L2 writing instructional model for blended learning in higher education. TOJET 12(4), 1-10.
  • So, L. and C. H. Lee. 2018. University students’ perspectives and voices on L2 writing in blended learning. Studies in Foreign Language Education 32(1), 79-107. [https://doi.org/10.16933/sfle.2018.32.1.79]
  • Stempleski, S., N. Douglas and J. R. Morgan. 2015. World link 1: Developing English fluency, 3rd Edition. Boston: Heinle.
  • Stockwell, G. and M. W. Harrington. 2003. The incidental development of L2 proficiency in NS-NNS e-mail interactions. CALICO Journal 20, 337-359. [https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v20i2.337-359]
  • Tare, M., E. M. Golonka, K. Vatz, C. L. Bonilla, C. Crooks and R. Strong. 2014. Effects of interactive chat versus independent writing on L2 learning. Language Learning & Technology 18(3), 208-227.
  • Warschauer, M. 1996. Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal 13, 7-26.
  • Xu, T. S., L. J. Zhang and J. S. Gaffney. 2021. Examining the relative effects of task complexity and cognitive demands on students’ writing in a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1-24. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263121000310]
  • Yilmaz, Y. 2011. Task effects on focus on form in synchronous computer-mediated communication. The Modern Language Journal 95, 115-132. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01143.x]
  • Yoon, S. Y. and C. H. Lee. 2010. The perspectives and effectiveness of blended learning in L2 writing of Korean university students. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning 13(2), 177-204. [https://doi.org/10.15702/mall.2010.13.2.177]
  • Yuan, Y. 2003. The use of chat rooms in an ESL setting. Computers and Composition 20, 194-206. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S8755-4615(03)00018-5]
  • Ziegler, N. 2016. Taking technology to task: Technology-mediated TBLT, performance, and production. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 36, 136-163. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190516000039]