Keywords
learner group
anxiety
CALF
TBLT
How to Cite
Number of views: 213
Number of downloads: 8
Abstract
Despite growing interest in task-based language teaching (TBLT), limited empirical work has examined how different rhetorical task types influence second language (L2) writing development, especially in relation to affective variables, such as writing anxiety. Existing research in TBLT has largely focused on cognitive dimensions, often neglecting individual differences in learners’ emotional responses. Moreover, Long’s (2014) call to use first language (L1) data as a benchmark in TBLT remains underexplored, complicating the interpretation of L2 performance patterns. To address these gaps, we examined the impact of task type and writing anxiety on the written performance of 140 university students (70 L1 English speakers, 70 L2 English learners). Participants completed a writing anxiety questionnaire and performed four rhetorical tasks over four weeks. Essays were assessed using syntactic complexity, accuracy, lexical complexity, and fluency (CALF) indices. Bayesian linear mixed-effects modeling was used to analyze both linguistic and affective variables. Results revealed significantly higher levels of somatic anxiety, cognitive anxiety, and anxiety avoidance among L2 writers. In both groups, increased task complexity was associated with longer clauses and more sophisticated syntax, with L1 writers showing steady gains in accuracy and fluency. L2 writers, however, exhibited greater variability: accuracy spiked during the argumentative task, while lexical diversity declined. The findings highlight the interaction between cognitive task demands and affective factors in shaping L2 writing outcomes, offering insights for TBLT researchers and pedagogical practices in L2 writing.
References
Abdi Tabari, M. (2022). Investigating the interactions between L2 writing processes and products under different task planning time conditions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 55, 100871. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2022.100871
Abdi Tabari, M. (2023). Unpacking the effects of different lengths of pre-task planning time: L2 writing outcomes and learners’ perceptions. The Language Learning Journal, 52(6), 615-628. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2023.2213237
Abdi Tabari, M., Abdel Latif, M. M. M., & Tian, Y. (2024). The impact of computer-mediated task complexity on writing fluency: A compara-tive study of L1 and L2 writers’ fluency performance. Computers and Composition, 73, 102863. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2024.102863
Abdi Tabari, M., & Goetze, J. (2024). Exploring the impacts of task complexity, anxiety, and self‐efficacy on L2 written production: Unraveling individual differences in TBLT. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 34(4), 1533-1555. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12582
Abdi Tabari, M., & Lee, J. (2024). The effects of task complexity on linguistic complexity and perception in English native speakers’ and L2 speakers’ argumentative writing. Language Awareness, 34(1), 119-144. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2024.2375226
Abdi Tabari, M., Farahanynia, M., & Botes, E. (2025). Examining the predictive power of L2 writing anxiety on L2 writing performance in simple and complex tasks under task-readiness conditions. Assessing Writ-ing, 63, 100912. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2024.100912
Albert, A. (2021). Stories students tell: Creativity and narrative task performance. Akadémiai Kiadó.
Baralt, M., & Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2011). Comparing learners’ state anxiety during task-based interaction in computer-mediated and face-to-face communication. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 201-229. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532210388717
Barber, P. (2015). Applied cognitive psychology: An information-processing framework. Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315651217
Beers, S. F., & Nagy, W. E. (2009). Syntactic complexity as a predictor of adolescent writing quality: Which measures? Which genre? Reading and Writing, 22, 185-200. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9107-5
Bi, P. (2020). Revisiting genre effects on linguistic features of L2 writing: A usage‐based perspective. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 30(3), 429-444. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12297
Bürkner, P.-C. (2017). brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. Journal of Statistical Software, 80, 1-28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v080.i01
Busse, V., Graham, S., Müller, N., & Utesch, T. (2023). Understanding the interplay between text quality, writing self-efficacy, and writing anxiety in learners with and without migration background. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1130149. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1130149
Cakici, D. (2016). The correlation among EFL learners’ test anxiety, foreign language anxiety, and language achievement. English Language Teaching, 9(8), 190-203. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n8p190
Chastain, K. (1975). Affective and ability factors in second language acquisition. Language Learning 25, 153-161. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1975.tb00115.x
Cheng, Y. (2002). Factors associated with foreign language writing anxiety. Foreign Language Annals, 35(6), 647-656. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2002.tb01903.x
Cheng, Y., Horwitz, E. K., & Schallert, D. L. (1999). Language anxiety: Differentiating writing and speaking components. Language Learning, 49(3), 417-446. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00095
Cheng, Y. S. (2004). A measure of second language writing anxiety: Scale development and preliminary validation. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 313-335. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.07.001
Chomeya, R. (2010). Quality of psychology test between Likert scale 5 and 6 points. Journal of Social Sciences, 6(3), 399-403. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3844/jssp.2010.399.403
Côté, S., & Gaffney, C. (2021). The effect of synchronous computer-mediated communication on beginner L2 learners’ foreign language anxiety and participation. The Language Learning Journal, 49(1), 105-116. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2018.1484935
Council of Europe (2020). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment: Companion volume. Council of Europe Publishing. https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages
Council of Europe (CEFR) (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press.
Daly, J. A., & Miller, M. D. (1975). The empirical development of an instrument to measure writing apprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 9(3), 242-249. DOI: https://doi.org/10.58680/rte197520067
Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 193-220. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880000400302
Foster, P., & Tavakoli, P. (2009). Native speakers and task performance: Comparing effects on complexity, fluency, and lexical diversity. Language Learning, 59(4), 866-896. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00528.x
Gelman, A., & Rubin, D. B. (1992). Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Statistical Science, 7(4), 457-472. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1177011136
Gkonou, C. (2011). Anxiety over EFL speaking and writing: A view from language classrooms. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1(2), 267-281. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2011.1.2.6
Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 36(2), 193-202. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195564
Hoffman, M. D., & Gelman, A. (2014). The No-U-Turn sampler: Adaptively setting path lengths in Hamiltonian Monte Carlo. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 15(1), 1593-1623.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125-132. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1986.tb05256.x
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, 37, 13-38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.06.001
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). Erlbaum.
Kim, K. J., & Pae, T. I. (2021). Examining the simultaneous effects of L1 writing, L2 reading, L2 proficiency, and affective factors on different task types of L2 writing. Discourse Processes, 58(7), 662-680. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2021.1872989
Kim, Y.-S. G. (2020). Structural relations of language and cognitive skills, and topic knowledge to written composition: A test of the direct and indirect effects model of writing. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 910-932. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12330
Kleinmann, H. (1977). Avoidance behavior in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning, 27, 93-107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1977.tb00294.x
Kormos, J. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(2), 148-161. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.02.001
Lambert, C., Aubrey, S., & Bui, G. (Eds.). (2023). The role of the learner in task-based language teaching: Theory and research methods (1st ed.). Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003227267-2
Lee, S. Y. (2007). Bayesian estimation of structural equation models. In S. Y. Lee (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: A Bayesian approach (pp. 67-109). John Wiley & Sons Inc. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470024737.ch4
Levkina, M., & Gilabert, R. (2012). The effects of cognitive task complexity on L2 oral production. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 171-197). John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.08lev
Li, C., Wei, L., & Lu, X. (2023). Contributions of foreign language writing emotions to writing achievement. System, 116, 103074. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.103074
Li, S., & Yu, H. (2023). Effects of topic familiarity on L2 writing processes and behaviors. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 34(1), 348-366. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12497
Long, M. (2014). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Wiley.
Lu, X. (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(4), 474-496. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.4.02lu
Lu, X. (2011). A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers’ language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 36-62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.240859
MacIntyre, P. D. (2017). An overview of language anxiety research and trends in its development. In C. Gkonou, M. Daubney, & J.-M. Dewaele (Eds.), New insights into language anxiety: Theory, research and educational implications (pp. 11-30). Multilingual Matters. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.22730706.5
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1994). The subtle effects of language anxiety on cognitive processing in the second language. Language Learning, 44(2), 283-305. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01103.x
Mazgutova, D., & Kormos, J. (2015). Syntactic and lexical development in an intensive English for Academic Purposes programme. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 3-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.004
McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., McCarthy, P., & Cai, Z. (2014). Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511894664
Nakagawa, S., & Schielzeth, H. (2013). A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed‐effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4(2), 133-142. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00261.x
Neal, R. M. (2011). MCMC using Hamiltonian dynamics. In S. Brooks, A. Gelman, G. Jones, & X.-L. Meng (Eds.), Handbook of Markov chain Monte Carlo (Vol. 2, pp. 113-162). Chapman and Hall/CRC. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1201/b10905-6
R Core Team. (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. In http://www.R-project.org/
Rahimi, M. (2018). Effects of increasing the degree of reasoning and the number of elements on L2 argumentative writing. Language Teaching Research, 23(5), 633-654. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818761465
Révész, A., Kourtali, N., & Mazgutova, D. (2017). Effects of task complexity on L2 writing behaviors and linguistic complexity. Language Learning, 67(1), 208-241. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12205
Robinson, P. (2003). The cognition hypothesis, task design, and adult task-based language learning. Second Language Studies, 21(2), 45-105.
Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 43, 1-32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2005.43.1.1
Robinson, P. (2015). The Cognition Hypothesis, second language task de-mands, and the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in TBLT: Plenaries from a decade of the international conference (Vol. 8, pp. 87-122). John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.8.04rob
Skehan, P. (2001). Tasks and language performance assessment. In M. By-gate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 167-185). Pearson Education.
Skehan, P. (2014). Processing perspectives on task performance. John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.5
Stan Development Team. (2023). Stan modeling language users guide and reference manual. In Stan Development Team. https://mc-stan.org
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 495-508). Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410612700-38
Thompson, A. S., & Lee, J. (2014). The impact of experience abroad and language proficiency on language learning anxiety. TESOL Quarterly, 48(2), 252-274. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.125
Trebits, A. (2016). Sources of individual differences in L2 narrative produc-tion: The contribution of input, processing, and output anxiety. Applied Linguistics, 37(2), 155-174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu006
Vytal, K. E., Cornwell, B. R., Letkiewicz, A. M., Arkin, N. E., & Grillon, C. (2013). The complex interaction between anxiety and cognition: Insight from spatial and verbal working memory. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00093
Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511732997
Yang, W. (2014). Mapping the relationships among the cognitive complexity of independent writing tasks, L2 writing quality, and complexity, accuracy, and fluency of L2 writing [Unpublished PhD thesis]. Georgia State University.
Zabihi, R., Mousavi, S. H., & Salehian, A. (2020). The differential role of domain-specific anxiety in learners’ narrative and argumentative L2 written task performances. Current Psychology, 39, 1438-1444. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9850-6
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Mahmoud Abdi Tabari, Xinya Liang, Ágnes Albert
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
1.1 The Author hereby warrants that he/she is the owner of all the copyright and other intellectual property rights in the Work and that, within the scope of the present Agreement, the paper does not infringe the legal rights of another person. The owner of the copyright work also warrants that he/she is the sole and original creator thereof and that is not bound by any legal constraints in regard to the use or sale of the work.
1.2. The Publisher warrants that is the owner of the PRESSto platform for open access journals, hereinafter referred to as the PRESSto Platform.
2. The Author grants the Publisher non-exclusive and free of charge license to unlimited use worldwide over an unspecified period of time in the following areas of exploitation:
2.1. production of multiple copies of the Work produced according to the specific application of a given technology, including printing, reproduction of graphics through mechanical or electrical means (reprography) and digital technology;
2.2. marketing authorisation, loan or lease of the original or copies thereof;
2.3. public performance, public performance in the broadcast, video screening, media enhancements as well as broadcasting and rebroadcasting, made available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them;
2.4. inclusion of the Work into a collective work (i.e. with a number of contributions);
2.5. inclusion of the Work in the electronic version to be offered on an electronic platform, or any other conceivable introduction of the Work in its electronic version to the Internet;
2.6. dissemination of electronic versions of the Work in its electronic version online, in a collective work or independently;
2.7. making the Work in the electronic version available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, in particular by making it accessible via the Internet, Intranet, Extranet;
2.8. making the Work available according to appropriate license pattern Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) as well as another language version of this license or any later version published by Creative Commons.
3. The Author grants the Publisher permission to reproduce a single copy (print or download) and royalty-free use and disposal of rights to compilations of the Work and these compilations.
4. The Author grants the Publisher permission to send metadata files related to the Work, including to commercial and non-commercial journal-indexing databases.
5. The Author represents that, on the basis of the license granted in the present Agreement, the Publisher is entitled and obliged to:
5.1. allow third parties to obtain further licenses (sublicenses) to the Work and to other materials, including derivatives thereof or compilations made, based on or including the Work, whereas the provisions of such sub-licenses will be the same as with the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Creative Commons sub-license or another language version of this license, or any later version of this license published by Creative Commons;
5.2. make the Work available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, without any technological constraints;
5.3. appropriately inform members of the public to whom the Work is to be made available about sublicenses in such a way as to ensure that all parties are properly informed (appropriate informing messages).
6. Because of the royalty-free provision of services of the Author (resulting from the scope of obligations stipulated in the present Agreement), the Author shall not be entitled to any author’s fee due and payable on the part of the Publisher (no fee or royalty is payable by the Publisher to the Author).
7.1. In the case of third party claims or actions for indemnity against the Publisher owing to any infractions related to any form of infringement of intellectual property rights protection, including copyright infringements, the Author is obliged to take all possible measures necessary to protect against these claims and, when as a result of legal action, the Publisher, or any third party licensed by the Publisher to use the Work, will have to abandon using the Work in its entirety or in part or, following a court ruling in a legal challenge, to pay damages to a third party, whatever the legal basis
7.2. The Author will immediately inform the Publisher about any damage claims related to intellectual property infringements, including the author’s proprietary rights pertaining to a copyrighted work, filed against the Author. of liability, the Author is obliged to redress the damage resulting from claims made by third party, including costs and expenditures incurred in the process.
7.3. To all matters not settled herein provisions of the Polish Civil Code and the Polish Copyright and Related Rights Act shall apply.