Task complexity, task repetition, and L2 writing complexity: exploring interactions in the TBLT domain
-
Mahmoud Abdi Tabari
,
Sima Khezrlou
und
Yu Tian
Abstract
Considering the increasing application of task-based frameworks to second language (L2) writing research, there has been a pressing need to examine TBLT views on the interactions between task conceptualization, task performance, and L2 writing outcomes. To address this need, the present study was designed to explore the synergistic effects of task complexity and task repetition on different facets of syntactic complexity as a key construct of proficiency and development in L2 writing. In doing so, 96 ESL learners performed written argumentative task versions with varying cognitive complexity in a counterbalanced fashion and then complete a task difficulty questionnaire. Afterward, they repeated the tasks in the opposite order at a one-week interval. The essays were analyzed using fine-grained syntactic complexity measures (reported by Lu’s L2 syntactic complexity analyzer, 2010). Linear mixed-effects models indicated significant main effects of task complexity and task repetition on different facets of syntactic complexity with robust effect sizes. However, no significant interaction effect between task complexity and task repetition was observed. These findings provide a reliable and accurate understanding of how syntactic complexity plays a role in the current accounts of connections between task features, implementation variables, and L2 writing task performance.
Task 1 (Simple version)
Imagine you are a government official in charge of allocating (giving) funds worth $5,000,000 for public projects. You have received three competing project proposals for public causes: building a new school for low-income families in the community, buying new buses to improve old and slow public bus transportation, and building a new dam to resolve water shortages. You must allocate funds for all of the projects. Please prioritize (choose and rank) the projects and allocate an amount (part of the $5,000,000 fund) to each project based on your own view of the importance of the projects for the local people. Please provide reasons and give examples when needed to make your choices as convincing as possible for the local people.
Please write at least 300 words. There is no upper limit; you can write as many words as you like to make your decision clear and convincing to the local people.
Task 2 (Complex version)
Imagine you are a government official in charge of allocating (giving) funds worth $10,000,000 for public projects. You have received six competing project proposals for public causes: reducing air pollution, creating jobs for the unemployed, building affordable accommodation for low-income families, providing subsidized healthcare for low-income families, providing free higher education for high-achievers, and increasing school budgets. You must allocate funds for all of the projects. Please prioritize (choose and rank) the projects and allocate an amount (part of the $10,000,000 find) to each project based on your own view of the importance of the projects for the local people. Please provide reasons and give examples when needed to make your choices as convincing as possible for the local people.
Please write at least 300 words. There is no upper limit; you can write as many words as you like to make your decision clear and convincing to the local people.
Please answer the following questions after completing each task version.
What was the level of the overall difficulty of the task? (Please circle)
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
| Very easy | Very difficult | ||||||||
How much mental effort was required to perform the task? (Please circle)
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
| Very little effort | Very much effort | ||||||||
What was the level of stress you felt while performing the task? (Please circle)
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
| Very relaxed | Very frustrated | ||||||||
How interesting was the task?
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
| Not interesting | Very interesting | ||||||||
How much time pressure did you feel during the planning stage?
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
| Very little pressure | Very much pressure | ||||||||
How much time pressure did you feel during the writing stage?
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
| Very little pressure | Very much pressure | ||||||||
How well do you believe you carried out the task?
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
| Very poorly | Very well | ||||||||
If you have any comments for the researchers, please provide them in the space below:
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Appendix C: Expert judgment questionnaire
What was the level of the overall difficulty of the task? (Please circle)
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
| Very easy | Very difficult | ||||||||
How much mental effort was required to perform the task? (Please circle)
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
| Very little effort | Very much effort | ||||||||
Please read the following two tasks and explain which of the tasks is cognitively more complex for your high-intermediate ESL students to write an essay about. Please give your reasons for your choice. Please answer the question given after the tasks.
Task 1 (Simple version)
Imagine you are a government official in charge of allocating (giving) funds worth $5,000,000 for public projects. You have received three competing project proposals for public causes: building a new school for low-income families in the community, buying new buses to improve old and slow public bus transportation, and building a new dam to resolve water shortages. You must allocate finds for all of the projects. Please prioritize (choose and rank) the projects and allocate an amount (part of the $5,000,000 fund) to each project based on your own view of the importance of the projects for the local people. Please provide reasons and give examples when needed to make your choices as convincing as possible for the local people.
Task 2 (Complex version)
Imagine you are a government official in charge of allocating (giving) funds worth $10,000,000 for public projects. You have received six competing project proposals for public causes: reducing air pollution, creating jobs for the unemployed, building affordable accommodation for low-income families, providing subsidized healthcare for low-income families, providing free higher education for high-achievers, and increasing school budgets. You must allocate funds for all of the projects. Please prioritize (choose and rank) the projects and allocate an amount (part of the $10,000,000 fund) to each project based on your own view of the importance of the projects for the local people. Please provide reasons and give examples when needed to make your choices as convincing as possible for the local people.
Question. Which of the above writing tasks is more cognitively complex (difficult) for your high-intermediate ESL students to write an essay about? Please provide your reasons.
Appendix D. The correlation matrix of the 14 measures of syntactic complexity
References
Abdi Tabari, Mahmoud. 2021. Task preparedness and L2 written production: Investigating effects of planning modes on L2 learners’ focus of attention and output. Journal of Second Language Writing 52. 100814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100814.Suche in Google Scholar
Abdi Tabari, Mahmoud. 2022. Investigating the interactions between L2 writing processes and products under different task planning time conditions. Journal of Second Language Writing 55. 100871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2022.100871.Suche in Google Scholar
Abdi Tabari, Mahmoud, Gavin Bui & Yizhou Wang. 2021. The effects of topic familiarity on emotionality and linguistic complexity in EAP writing. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211033565.Suche in Google Scholar
Abdi Tabari, Mahmoud & Minyoung Cho. 2022. Task sequencing and L2 writing development: Exploring the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221090922.Suche in Google Scholar
Ahmadian, Mohmmad Javad. 2011. The effect of ‘massed’ task repetitions on complexity, accuracy, and fluency: Does it transfer to a new task? The Language Learning Journal 39(3). 269–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2010.545239.Suche in Google Scholar
Ahmadian, Mohmmad Javad. 2012. Task repetition in ELT. ELT Journal 66(3). 380–382. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccs020.Suche in Google Scholar
Ahmadian, Mohmmad Javad, Mansoor Tavakoli & Hossein Vahid Dastjerdi. 2015. The combined effects of online planning and task structure on complexity, accuracy, and fluency of L2 speech. The Language Learning Journal 43(1). 41–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2012.681795.Suche in Google Scholar
Baayen, Harald, Douglas Davidson & Douglas M. Bates. 2008. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59(4). 390–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005.Suche in Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen. 1992. A second look at T-unit analysis: Reconsidering the sentence. TESOL Quarterly 26(2). 390–395. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587016.Suche in Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker & Steven Walker. 2015. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1-9. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.Suche in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Bethany Gray. 2010. Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9(1). 2–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.01.001.Suche in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Bethany Gray & Kornwipa Poonpon. 2011. Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly 45(1). 5–35. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.244483.Suche in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Bethany Gray, Shelley Staples & Jesse Egbert. 2020. Investigating grammatical complexity in L2 English writing research: Linguistic description versus predictive measurement. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100869 (Epub ahead of print).Suche in Google Scholar
Bulté, Bram & Alex Housen. 2012. Defining and operationalizing L2 complexity. Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA, 23–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.32.02bulSuche in Google Scholar
Bulté, Bram & Alex Housen. 2018. Syntactic complexity in L2 writing: Individual pathways and emerging group trends. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 28(1). 147–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12196.Suche in Google Scholar
Bygate, Martin. 1999. Task as the context for the framing, re-framing, and unframing of language. System 27. 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(98)00048-7.Suche in Google Scholar
Bygate, Martin. 2001. Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In Martin Bygate, Peter Skehan & Merrill Swain (eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing, 23–48. Harlow, UK: Longman.Suche in Google Scholar
Bygate, Martin. 2016. Sources, developments and directions of task-based language teaching. The Language Learning Journal 44. 381–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2015.1039566.Suche in Google Scholar
Bygate, Martin. 2018. Introduction. In Martin Bygate (ed.), Learning language through task repetition, 1–25. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tblt.11.introSuche in Google Scholar
Bygate, Martin & Virginia Samuda. 2005. Integrative planning through the use of task repetition. In Rod Ellis (ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language, 37–74. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.11.05bygSuche in Google Scholar
Casal, Elliott & Joseph Lee. 2019. Syntactic complexity and writing quality in assessed first-year L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 44. 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.03.005.Suche in Google Scholar
Cho, Minyoung. 2018. Task complexity, modality, and working memory in L2 task performance. System 72. 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.10.010.Suche in Google Scholar
Ellis, Rod. 2017. Task-based language teaching. In Shawn Loewen & Masatoshi Sato (eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition, 108–125. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315676968-7Suche in Google Scholar
Ellis, Rod. 2018. Towards a modular language curriculum for using tasks. Language Teaching Research 23(4). 454–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818765315.Suche in Google Scholar
Ellis, Rod. 2019. Task preparedness. In Zhisheng Wen & Mohammad Javad Ahmadian (eds.), Researching L2 task performance and pedagogy: In honor of Peter Skehan, 15–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tblt.13.02ellSuche in Google Scholar
Frear, Mark Wain & John Bitchener. 2015. The effects of cognitive task complexity on writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing 30. 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.009.Suche in Google Scholar
Gass, Susan, Alison Mackey, María José Alvarez-Torres & Marisol Fernandez-Garcia. 1999. The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning 49. 549–581. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00102.Suche in Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood & Christian Matthiessen. 2006. Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London: Continuum.Suche in Google Scholar
Hunt, Kellogg W. 1965. Grammatical structures are written at three grade levels. Champaign, IL: NCTE. NCTE Research Report No. 3.Suche in Google Scholar
Indrarathne, Bimali. 2013. Effects of task repetition on written language production in task-based language teaching. Paper presented at the Lancaster University postgraduate conference in linguistics & language teaching. Lancaster, UK.Suche in Google Scholar
Johnson, Mark 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 37. 13–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.06.001.Suche in Google Scholar
Kellogg, Ronald T. 1996. A model of working memory in writing. In Michael Levy & Sarah Ransdell (eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications, 57–71. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Suche in Google Scholar
Khatib, Mohammad & Mahsa Farahanynia. 2020. Planning conditions (strategic planning, task repetition, and joint planning), cognitive task complexity, and task type: Effects on L2 oral performance. System 93. 102297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102297.Suche in Google Scholar
Khezrlou, Sima. 2020. The role of task repetition with direct written corrective feedback in L2 writing complexity, accuracy, and fluency. Journal of Second Language Studies 3(1). 31–54. https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.19025.khe.Suche in Google Scholar
Khezrlou, Sima. 2022. Effects of task repetition with consciousness-raising in wiki-mediated collaborative writing on the development of explicit and implicit knowledge. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2033789.Suche in Google Scholar
Kim, YouJin & Caroline Payant. 2015. A pedagogical proposal for task sequencing: An exploration of task repetition and task complexity on learning opportunities. In Melissa Baralt, Roger Gilabert & Peter Robinson (eds.), Task sequencing and instructed second language learning, 151–177. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Suche in Google Scholar
Kim, YouJin, Scott Crossley, YeonJoo Jung, Kristopher Kyle & Sanghee Kang. 2018. The effect of task repetition and task complexity on L2 lexical use. In Martin Bygate (ed.), Language learning through task repetition, 75–96. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tblt.11.03kimSuche in Google Scholar
Kuiken, Folkert & Ineke Vedder. 2007. Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 45. 261–284. https://doi.org/10.1515/IRAL.2007.012.Suche in Google Scholar
Kuiken, Folkert & Ineke 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.Suche in Google Scholar
Kuiken, Folkert & Ineke Vedder. 2012. Syntactic complexity, lexical variation, and accuracy as a function of task complexity and proficiency level in L2 writing and speaking. In Alex Housen, Folkert Kuiken & Ineke Vedder (eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA, 143–169. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.32.07kuiSuche in Google Scholar
Kuiken, Folkert, Ineke Vedder, Alex Housen & Bastien De Clercq. 2019. Variation in syntactic complexity: Introduction. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 29(2). 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12255.Suche in Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Per Brunn Brockhoff & Rune Haubo Bojesen Christensen. 2015. Package ‘lmertest’. R package version, 2(0).Suche in Google Scholar
Kyle, Kristopher & Scott Crossley. 2018. Measuring syntactic complexity in L2 writing using fine-grained clausal and phrasal indices. The Modern Language Journal 102(2). 333–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12468.Suche in Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 2006. The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics 27(4). 590–619. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml029.Suche in Google Scholar
Larsson, Tove & Henrik Kaatari. 2020. Syntactic complexity across registers: Investigating (in) formality in second-language writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 45. 100850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100850.Suche in Google Scholar
Lee, Jiyong. 2018. The interactive effects of task complexity, task condition, and cognitive individual differences on L2 writing. Maryland: University of Maryland dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar
Levelt, Willem. 1989. Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/6393.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Loban, Walter. 1976. Language development: Kindergarten through grade twelve. NCTE Committee on Research Report No. 18. Urbana, IL.Suche in Google Scholar
Long, Michael. 2014. Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Suche in Google Scholar
Lu, Xiaofei. 2010. Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15(4). 474–496. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.4.02lu.Suche in Google Scholar
Lu, Xiaofei. 2011. A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers’ language development. TESOL Quarterly 45(1). 36–62. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.240859.Suche in Google Scholar
Lynch, Tony & Joan Maclean. 2000. Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for classroom language learning. Language Teaching Research 4(3). 221–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880000400303.Suche in Google Scholar
Manchón, Rosa M. 2014. The internal dimension of tasks: The interaction between task factors and learner factors in bringing about learning through writing. In Heidi Byrnes & Rosa M. Manchón (eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights to and from writing, 27–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tblt.7.02manSuche in Google Scholar
McLaughlin, Barry. 1990. Restructuring. Applied Linguistics 11(2). 113–128. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.113.Suche in Google Scholar
Nakagawa, Shinichi & Holger Schielzeth. 2013. A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 4(2). 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00261.x.Suche in Google Scholar
Nitta, Ryo & Kyoko Baba. 2014. Task repetition and L2 writing development: A longitudinal study from a dynamic systems perspective. In Heidi Byrnes & Rosa M. Manchón (eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing, 107–136. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tblt.7.05nitSuche in Google Scholar
Nitta, Ryo & Kyoko Baba. 2018. Understanding benefits of repetition from a complex dynamic systems perspective. The case of a writing task. In Martin Bygate (ed.), Learning language through task repetition, 285–316. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tblt.11.11nitSuche in Google Scholar
Norris, John & Lourdes Ortega. 2009. Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics 30(4). 555–578. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp044.Suche in Google Scholar
Ortega, Lourdes. 2003. Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics 24. 492–518. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.4.492.Suche in Google Scholar
Polio, Charlene. & Jongbong Lee. 2017. Written language learning. In Shawn Loewen & Masatoshi Sato (eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition, 299–317. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315676968-17Suche in Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2015. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: https://www.R-project.org/.Suche in Google Scholar
Rahimi, Muhammad. 2018. Effects of increasing the degree of reasoning and the number of elements on L2 argumentative writing. Language Teaching Research 23(5). 633–654. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818761465.Suche in Google Scholar
Révész, Andrea. 2009. Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31(3). 437–470. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263109090366.Suche in Google Scholar
Révész, Andrea, Marije Michel & Roger Gilabert. 2016. Measuring cognitive task demands using the 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/S0272263115000339.Suche in Google Scholar
Robinson, Peter. 2001. Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In Peter Robinson (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction, 287–318. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524780.012Suche in Google Scholar
Robinson, Peter. 2011. Second language task complexity, the cognition hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In Peter Robinson (ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance, 3–37. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tblt.2Suche in Google Scholar
Sánchez, Alberto J., Rosa M. Manchón & Roger Gilabert. 2020. The effects of task repetition across modalities and proficiency levels. In Rosa M. Manchón (ed.), Writing and language learning: Advancing research agendas, 121–143. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.56.06sanSuche in Google Scholar
Scott, Cheryl M. 1988. Spoken and written syntax. In Marilyn A. Nippold (ed.), Later language development: Ages nine through nineteen, 49–95. Boston: College-Hill.Suche in Google Scholar
Sercu, Lies, Lieve De Wachter, Elke Peters, Folkert Kuiken & Ineke Vedder. 2006. The effect of task complexity and task conditions on foreign language development and performance: Three empirical studies. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics 152(1). 55–84. https://doi.org/10.2143/ITL.152.0.2017863.Suche in Google Scholar
Skehan, Peter. 1998. A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1177/003368829802900209Suche in Google Scholar
Skehan, Peter (ed.). 2014. Processing perspectives on task performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tblt.5Suche in Google Scholar
Vasylets, Olena, Roger Gilabert & Rosa Manchón. 2017. The effects of mode and task complexity on second language production. Language Learning 67(2). 394–430. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12228.Suche in Google Scholar
Wang, Zhan & Gaowei Chen. 2018. Discourse performance in L2 task repetition. In Martin Bygate (ed.), Learning language through task repetition, 97–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tblt.11.04wanSuche in Google Scholar
Wolfe-Quintero, Kate, Shunji Inagaki & Hae-Young Kim. 1998. Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. Hawaii: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.Suche in Google Scholar
© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- Consolidating EFL content and vocabulary learning via interactive reading
- Understanding salient trajectories and emerging profiles in the development of Chinese learners’ motivation: a growth mixture modeling approach
- Multilingual pedagogies in first versus foreign language contexts: a cross-country study of language teachers
- Classroom assessment and learning motivation: insights from secondary school EFL classrooms
- Interculturality and Islam in Indonesia’s high-school EFL classrooms
- Collaborative writing in an EFL secondary setting: the role of task complexity
- Spanish heritage speakers’ processing of lexical stress
- Effectiveness of second language collocation instruction: a meta-analysis
- Understanding the Usefulness of E-Portfolios: Linking Artefacts, Reflection, and Validation
- Syntactic prediction in L2 learners: evidence from English disjunction processing
- The cognitive construction-grammar approach to teaching the Chinese Ba construction in a foreign language classroom
- The predictive roles of enjoyment, anxiety, willingness to communicate on students’ performance in English public speaking classes
- Speaking proficiency development in EFL classrooms: measuring the differential effect of TBLT and PPP teaching approaches
- L2 textbook input and L2 written production: a case of Korean locative postposition–verb construction
- What does the processing of chunks by learners of Chinese tell us? An acceptability judgment investigation
- Comparative analysis of written corrective feedback strategies: a linear growth modeling approach
- Enjoyment in language teaching: a study into EFL teachers’ subjectivities
- Students’ attitude and motivation towards concept mapping-based prewriting strategies
- Pronunciation pedagogy in English as a foreign language teacher education programs in Vietnam
- The role of language aptitude probed within extensive instruction experience: morphosyntactic knowledge of advanced users of L2 English
- The impact of different glossing conditions on the learning of EFL single words and collocations in reading
- Patterns of motivational beliefs among high-, medium-, and low-achieving English learners in China
- The effect of linguistic choices in note-taking on academic listening performance: a pedagogical translanguaging perspective
- A latent profile analysis of Chinese EFL learners’ enjoyment and anxiety in reading and writing: associations with imaginative capacity and story continuation writing performance
- Effects of monolingual and bilingual subtitles on L2 vocabulary acquisition
- Task complexity, task repetition, and L2 writing complexity: exploring interactions in the TBLT domain
- Expansion of verb-argument construction repertoires in L2 English writing
- Immediate versus delayed prompts, field dependence and independence cognitive style and L2 development
- Aural vocabulary, orthographic vocabulary, and listening comprehension
- The use of metadiscourse by secondary-level Chinese learners of English in examination scripts: insights from a corpus-based study
- Scoping review of research methodologies across language studies with deaf and hard-of-hearing multilingual learners
- Exploring immediate and prolonged effects of collaborative writing on young learners’ texts: L2 versus FL
- Discrepancy in prosodic disambiguation strategies between Chinese EFL learners and native English speakers
- Exploring the state of research on motivation in second language learning: a review and a reliability generalization meta-analysis
- Japanese complaint responses in textbook dialogues and ordinary conversations: learning objects to expand interactional repertoires
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- Consolidating EFL content and vocabulary learning via interactive reading
- Understanding salient trajectories and emerging profiles in the development of Chinese learners’ motivation: a growth mixture modeling approach
- Multilingual pedagogies in first versus foreign language contexts: a cross-country study of language teachers
- Classroom assessment and learning motivation: insights from secondary school EFL classrooms
- Interculturality and Islam in Indonesia’s high-school EFL classrooms
- Collaborative writing in an EFL secondary setting: the role of task complexity
- Spanish heritage speakers’ processing of lexical stress
- Effectiveness of second language collocation instruction: a meta-analysis
- Understanding the Usefulness of E-Portfolios: Linking Artefacts, Reflection, and Validation
- Syntactic prediction in L2 learners: evidence from English disjunction processing
- The cognitive construction-grammar approach to teaching the Chinese Ba construction in a foreign language classroom
- The predictive roles of enjoyment, anxiety, willingness to communicate on students’ performance in English public speaking classes
- Speaking proficiency development in EFL classrooms: measuring the differential effect of TBLT and PPP teaching approaches
- L2 textbook input and L2 written production: a case of Korean locative postposition–verb construction
- What does the processing of chunks by learners of Chinese tell us? An acceptability judgment investigation
- Comparative analysis of written corrective feedback strategies: a linear growth modeling approach
- Enjoyment in language teaching: a study into EFL teachers’ subjectivities
- Students’ attitude and motivation towards concept mapping-based prewriting strategies
- Pronunciation pedagogy in English as a foreign language teacher education programs in Vietnam
- The role of language aptitude probed within extensive instruction experience: morphosyntactic knowledge of advanced users of L2 English
- The impact of different glossing conditions on the learning of EFL single words and collocations in reading
- Patterns of motivational beliefs among high-, medium-, and low-achieving English learners in China
- The effect of linguistic choices in note-taking on academic listening performance: a pedagogical translanguaging perspective
- A latent profile analysis of Chinese EFL learners’ enjoyment and anxiety in reading and writing: associations with imaginative capacity and story continuation writing performance
- Effects of monolingual and bilingual subtitles on L2 vocabulary acquisition
- Task complexity, task repetition, and L2 writing complexity: exploring interactions in the TBLT domain
- Expansion of verb-argument construction repertoires in L2 English writing
- Immediate versus delayed prompts, field dependence and independence cognitive style and L2 development
- Aural vocabulary, orthographic vocabulary, and listening comprehension
- The use of metadiscourse by secondary-level Chinese learners of English in examination scripts: insights from a corpus-based study
- Scoping review of research methodologies across language studies with deaf and hard-of-hearing multilingual learners
- Exploring immediate and prolonged effects of collaborative writing on young learners’ texts: L2 versus FL
- Discrepancy in prosodic disambiguation strategies between Chinese EFL learners and native English speakers
- Exploring the state of research on motivation in second language learning: a review and a reliability generalization meta-analysis
- Japanese complaint responses in textbook dialogues and ordinary conversations: learning objects to expand interactional repertoires
