1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. TASK
  4. Volume 3, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 3, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2666-1748
  • E-ISSN: 2666-1756
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Task-based research often focuses on the main effects of task variables on measures of complexity, accuracy, and fluency of second language (L2) writing performance. This study aimed to extend this line of research by examining the main and interaction effects of task type, learner L2 proficiency, and L2 study on register variation in L2 learners’ writing. Each of 42 Chinese learners of English as a foreign language responded to independent and integrated writing tasks before and after nine months of English language study. Each essay ( = 168) was rated on level of formality and tagged for various lexico-syntactic features. Overall, integrated essays were judged to use more formal language and were more informationally dense than were the independent essays. More proficient students were judged to use more formal language than did less proficient students. After instruction, students’ writing became more formal, more informationally dense, and more narrative. The findings and their implications for the teaching and assessment of L2 writing are discussed.

© 2023 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/task.22009.bar
2023-10-04
2025-04-30

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/task.22009.bar
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abrams, Z. I.
    (2019) The effects of integrated writing on linguistic complexity in L2 writing and task-complexity. System, 811, 110–121. 10.1016/j.system.2019.01.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.01.009 [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson, M. J.
    (2001) A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecology, 261, 32–46. 10.1046/j.1442‑9993.2001.01070.x
     https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1442-9993.2001.01070.x [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson, M. J., Gorley, R. N., & Clarke, K. R.
    (2008) PERMANOVA+ for PRIMER: Guide to software and statistical methods. PRIMER-E.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Attali, Y.
    (2013) Validity and reliability of automated essay scoring. InM. D. Shermis & J. Burstein (Eds.), Handbook of automated essay evaluation: Current applications and new directions (pp. 181–198). Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bachman, L., & Palmer, A.
    (2010) Language assessment in practice. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Barkaoui, K., & Hadidi, A.
    (2021) Assessing changes in second Language writing performance. Routledge. 10.4324/9781003092346
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003092346 [Google Scholar]
  7. Biber, D.
    (1988) Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511621024
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024 [Google Scholar]
  8. (2014) Using multi-dimensional analysis to explore cross-linguistic universals of register variation. Language Contrast, 14(1), 7–34. 10.1075/lic.14.1.02bib
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.14.1.02bib [Google Scholar]
  9. Biber, D., & Conrad, S.
    (2019) Register, genre, and style (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108686136
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108686136 [Google Scholar]
  10. Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., & Helt, M.
    (2002) Speaking and writing in the university: A multidimensional comparison. TESOL Quarterly, 36(1), 9–48. 10.2307/3588359
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3588359 [Google Scholar]
  11. Biber, D., Gray, B., & Staples, S.
    (2016) Predicting patterns of grammatical complexity across language exam task types and proficiency levels. Applied Linguistics, 37(5), 639–668. 10.1093/applin/amu059
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu059 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bui, G., Skehan, P., & Wang, Z.
    (2018) Task condition effects on advanced-level foreign language performance. InP. A. Malovrh & A. G. Benati (Eds.). The handbook of advanced proficiency in second language acquisition (pp. 219–237). John Wiley & Sons. 10.1002/9781119261650.ch12
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119261650.ch12 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bygate, M., Samuda, V., & Van den Branden, K.
    (2021) A pedagogic rationale for task-based language teaching for the acquisition of real-world language use. InM. J. Ahmadian & M. H. Long (Eds.). The Cambridge handbook of task-based language teaching (pp. 27–50). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108868327.003
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108868327.003 [Google Scholar]
  14. Byrnes, H., & Manchón, R. M.
    (2014) Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing. InH. Byrnes & R. M. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 1–23). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.7.01byr
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.7.01byr [Google Scholar]
  15. Chang, Y.-Y., & Swales, J.
    (1999) Informal elements in English academic writing: Threats or opportunities for advanced non-native speakers?InC. N. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes, and practices (pp. 145–67).: Longman. 10.4324/9781315840390
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315840390 [Google Scholar]
  16. Clarke, K. R., & Gorley, R. N.
    (2015) PRIMER v7: User manual/Tutorial. PRIMER-E.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Connor, U., & Mbaye, A.
    (2002) Discourse approaches to writing assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 221, 263–278. 10.1017/S0267190502000144
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190502000144 [Google Scholar]
  18. Crawford, W. J., & Zhang, M.
    (2021) How can register analysis inform task-based language teaching?Register Studies, 3(2), 180–206. 10.1075/rs.20021.cra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.20021.cra [Google Scholar]
  19. Crosthwaite, P.
    (2016) A longitudinal multidimensional analysis of EAP writing: Determining EAP course effectiveness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 221, 166–178. 10.1016/j.jeap.2016.04.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.04.005 [Google Scholar]
  20. Di Gennaro, K.
    (2009) Investigating differences in the writing performance of international and Generation 1.5 students. Language Testing, 26(4), 533–559. 10.1177/0265532209340190
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209340190 [Google Scholar]
  21. Ellis, R.
    (2018) Reflections on task-based language teaching. Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781788920148
     https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788920148 [Google Scholar]
  22. Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. S.
    (2014) Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice (3rd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 10.4324/9781410611505
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410611505 [Google Scholar]
  23. Field, A.
    (2009) Discovering statistics using SPSS (Third edit). Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Friginal, E., & Weigle, S.
    (2014) Exploring multiple profiles of L2 writing using multi-dimensional analysis. Journal of Second Language Writing, 261, 80–95. 10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.007 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gilquin, G., & Paquot, M.
    (2008) Too chatty: Learner academic writing and register variation. English Text Construction, 1(1), 41–61. 10.1075/etc.1.1.05gil
     https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.1.1.05gil [Google Scholar]
  26. Goulart, L., Gray, B., Staples, S., Black, A., Shelton, A., Biber, D., & Wizner, S.
    (2020) Linguistic perspectives on register. Annual Review of Linguistics, 61, 435–455. 10.1146/annurev‑linguistics‑011718‑012644
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-012644 [Google Scholar]
  27. Grant, L., & Ginther, A.
    (2000) Using computer-tagged linguistic features to describe L2 writing differences. Journal of Second Language Writing9(2), 123–145. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(00)00019‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00019-9 [Google Scholar]
  28. Halliday, M., Matthiessen, C. M., & Matthiessen, C.
    (2014) An introduction to functional grammar. Routledge. 10.4324/9780203783771
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203783771 [Google Scholar]
  29. Heylighen, F., & Dewaele, J. M.
    (1999) Formality of language: Definition, measurement and behavioral determinants. Internal Report. Center “Leo Apostel”, Free University of Brussels.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K.
    (2017) Is academic writing becoming more informal?English for Specific Purposes, 451, 40–51. 10.1016/j.esp.2016.09.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2016.09.001 [Google Scholar]
  31. Issitt, S.
    (2017) Evaluating the impact of a pre-sessional English for academic purposes programme: A corpus based study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Birmingham.
  32. Jackson, D. O., & Suethanapornkul, S.
    (2013) The cognition hypothesis: A synthesis and meta-analysis of research on second language task complexity. Language Learning, 63(2), 330–367. 10.1111/lang.12008
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12008 [Google Scholar]
  33. Johnson, M. D.
    (2017) Cognitive task complexity and L2 written syntactic complexity, accuracy, lexical complexity, and fluency: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. Journal of Second Language Writing, 371, 13–38. 10.1016/j.jslw.2017.06.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.06.001 [Google Scholar]
  34. Knoch, U., Macqueen, S., & O’Hagan, S.
    (2014) An investigation of the effect of task type on the discourse produced by students at various score levels in the TOEFL iBT writing test (TOEFL iBT Report No. 23, ETS Research Report No. RR-14-43). Educational Testing Service. 10.1002/ets2.12038
     https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12038 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kormos, J.
    (2011) Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 201, 148–161. 10.1016/j.jslw.2011.02.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  36. (2014) Differences across modalities of performance. Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing. InH. Byrnes & R. M. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based language learning–Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 193–216). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.7.08kor
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.7.08kor [Google Scholar]
  37. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I.
    (2016) Functional adequacy in L2 writing: Towards a new rating scale. Language Testing34(3), 321–336. 10.1177/0265532216663991
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532216663991 [Google Scholar]
  38. Ling, G., Powers, D. E., & Edler, R. M.
    (2014) Do TOEFL iBT scores reflect improvement in English-language proficiency? Extending the TOEFL iBT validity argument (Research Report No. RR-14-09). Educational Testing Service. 10.1002/ets2.12007
     https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12007 [Google Scholar]
  39. Malicka, A., & Levkina, M.
    (2012) Measuring task complexity: Does EFL proficiency matter?InA. Shehadeh & C. A. Coombe (Eds.). Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts: Research and implementation (pp. 63–86). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.4.06mal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.4.06mal [Google Scholar]
  40. Nini, A.
    (2014) Multidimensional Analysis Tagger 1.2 – Manual. Retrieved on25 May 2023from: sites.google.com/site/multidimensionaltagger
     [Google Scholar]
  41. 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, 191, 218–233. 10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.003 [Google Scholar]
  42. Plakans, L.
    (2014) Written discourse. InA. J. Kunnan (Ed.), The companion to language assessment (pp. 1–13). John Wiley & Sons.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Polio, C., & Friedman, D.
    (2016) Understanding, evaluating and conducting second language writing research. Routledge. 10.4324/9781315747293
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315747293 [Google Scholar]
  44. Qin, W., & Uccelli, P.
    (2020) Beyond linguistic complexity: Assessing register flexibility in EFL writing across contexts. Assessing Writing, 451, 1–14. 10.1016/j.asw.2020.100465
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100465 [Google Scholar]
  45. Révész, A., Ekiert, M., & Torgersen, E. N.
    (2016) The effects of complexity, accuracy, and fluency on communicative adequacy in oral task performance. Applied Linguistics, 37(6), 828–848.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Robinson, P.
    (Ed.) (2011) Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance. John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.2
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.2 [Google Scholar]
  47. Ruiz-Funes, M.
    (2014) Task complexity and linguistic performance in advanced college-level foreign language writing. InH. Byrnes & R. M. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based language learning–Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 163–192). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.7.07rui
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.7.07rui [Google Scholar]
  48. Shaw, P., & Liu, E.
    (1998) What develops in the development of second-language writing?Applied Linguistics, 191, 225–254. 10.1093/applin/19.2.225
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.2.225 [Google Scholar]
  49. Skehan, P.
    (2015) Limited attentional capacity and cognition: Two hypotheses regarding second language performance on tasks. InM. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference (pp. 123–155). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.8.05ske
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.8.05ske [Google Scholar]
  50. (2021) The psycholinguistics of task-based performance. InM. J. Ahmadian & M. H. Long (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of task-based language teaching (pp. 3–26). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108868327.002
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108868327.002 [Google Scholar]
  51. Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B.
    (2012) Academic writing for graduate students: A course for nonnative speakers of English (3rd ed.). University of Michigan Press. 10.3998/mpub.2173936
     https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.2173936 [Google Scholar]
  52. Weigle, S. C., & Friginal, E.
    (2015) Linguistic dimensions of impromptu test essays compared with successful student disciplinary writing: Effects of language background, topic, and L2 proficiency. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 181, 25–39. 10.1016/j.jeap.2015.03.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.03.006 [Google Scholar]
  53. Yan, X., & Staples, S.
    (2020) Fitting MD analysis in an argument-based validity framework for writing assessment: Explanation and generalization inferences for the ECPE. Language Testing, 37(2) 189–214. 10.1177/0265532219876226
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532219876226 [Google Scholar]
  54. Zhang, M.
    (2018) Collaborative writing in the EFL classroom: The effects of L1 and L2 use. System, 761, 1–12. 10.1016/j.system.2018.04.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.04.009 [Google Scholar]
  55. (2021) Understanding L1 and L2 interaction in collaborative writing: A lexico-grammatical analysis. Language Teaching Research, 25(3), 338–359. 10.1177/1362168819859911
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819859911 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/task.22009.bar
Loading
Exploring task effects on register variation in second language learners’ writing
task 3, 109 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1075/task.22009.bar
/content/journals/10.1075/task.22009.bar
/content/journals/10.1075/task.22009.bar
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): L2 proficiency; register; second language writing; task effects

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error