Keywords
second language writing
viewing
task-based assessment
integrated language assessment
How to Cite
Number of views: 7
Number of downloads: 7
Abstract
This study investigates how second language (L2) writers’ textual features vary across multimodal integrated tasks and how these features relate to raters’ evaluations of performance. Reflecting the growing emphasis on multimodality in language use, our research focused on viewing-to-write tasks that combine auditory, visual, and written input. A total of 133 intermediate to advanced L2 English learners completed two task types: (1) viewing-to-describe, where participants watched a recording explaining and visually depicting a production process before writing a description; and (2) viewing-to-compare-and-contrast, where learners viewed a videocast of two experts discussing a topic, supported by visuals, and then produced a comparative report. Performances were evaluated using a purpose-developed rating scale, and the written texts were analyzed for linguistic features, including accuracy, cohesion, lexical diversity and sophistication, and syntactic and lexical complexity. Results showed that these linguistic indices explained a substantial proportion of variance in performance scores. Although the overall use of linguistic features did not differ significantly between task types, their relative contribution to scores varied. The findings have important implications for using multimodal integrated tasks in task-based language teaching and assessment.
Funding
The work was supported by the British Council through an Assessment Re-search Grant 2022. The British Council does not discount or endorse the methodology, results, implications, or opinions presented by the researchers.
References
Abrams, Z. I. (2019). The effects of integrated writing on linguistic complexity in L2 writing and task-complexity. System, 81, 110-121.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford University Press.
Barkaoui, K. (2014). Examining the impact of L2 proficiency and keyboarding skills on scores on TOEFL-iBT writing tasks. Language Testing, 31(2), 241-259.
Berger, C. M., Crossley, S. A., & Kyle, K. (2019). Using native-speaker psycholinguistic norms to predict lexical proficiency and development in second-language production. Applied Linguistics, 40(1), 22-42.
Brodkey, D., & Young, R. (1981). Composition correctness scores. TESOL Quarterly, 15(2), 159-167.
Brunfaut, T., & Kormos, J. (2025). Assessing multimodal viewing-to-write constructs: Task design, performance, processing, and rating. Language Assessment Quarterly, 22(4-5), 429-459.
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1-48.
Chan, S., & May, L. (2023). Towards more valid scoring criteria for integrated reading-writing and listening-writing summary tasks. Language Testing, 40(2), 410-439.
Chan, S., & Yamashita, J. (2022). Integrated writing and its correlates: A meta-analysis. Assessing Writing, 54, 100662.
Council of Europe. Council for Cultural Co-operation. Education Committee. Modern Languages Division. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press.
Council of Europe. (2020). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment: Companion volume. Council of Europe Publishing.
Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2012). Predicting second language writing proficiency: The roles of cohesion and linguistic sophistica-tion. Journal of Research in Reading, 35(2), 115-135.
Cumming, A., Kantor, R., Baba, K., Erdosy, U., Eouanzoui, K., & James, M. (2005). Differences in written discourse in independent and integrated prototype tasks for next generation TOEFL. Assessing Writing, 10(1), 5-43.
Garner, J., Crossley, S., & Kyle, K. (2020). Beginning and intermediate L2 writer’s use of N-grams: An association measures study. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 58(1), 51-74.
Gebril, A., & Plakans, L. (2013). Toward a transparent construct of reading-to-write tasks: The interface between discourse features and proficiency. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10(1), 9-27.
Gebril, A., & Plakans, L. (2016). Source-based tasks in academic writing assessment: Lexical diversity, textual borrowing and proficiency. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 24, 78-88.
George, D., & Mallery, M. (2010). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference, 17.0 update (10th ed.). Pearson.
Guo, Q., Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2013). Predicting human judgments of essay quality in both integrated and independent second language writing samples: A comparison study. Assessing Writing, 18(3), 218-238.
Halliday, M., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman.
Holzknecht, F., & Harding, L. (2024). Repeating the listening text: Effects on listener performance, metacognitive strategy use, and anxiety. TESOL Quarterly, 58(1), 451-478.
Jung, Y., Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2015). Linguistic features in MELAB writing performances (Working Paper No. 2015-05). http://www.cambridgemichigan.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/CWP-2015-05.pdf.
Kim, M., & Crossley, S. A. (2018). Modelling second language writing quality: A structural equation investigation of lexical, syntactic, and cohesive features in source-based and independent writing. Assessing Writing, 37, 39-56.
Kojima, M., & Kaneta, T. (2022). L2 writing and its internal correlates: A meta-analysis. In E. H. Jeon & Y. In’nami (Eds.), Understanding L2 proficiency: Theoretical and meta-analytic investigations (pp. 109-158). John Benjamins.
Kormos, J., & Suzuki, S. (2024). Creativity and the linguistic features of argumentative and narrative written task performance. System, 127, 103531.
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1-26.
Mizumoto, A. (2025). Automated analysis of common errors in L2 learner production: Prototype web application development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 47(3), 867-884.
Mizumoto, A., Shintani, N., Sasaki, M., & Teng, M. F. (2024). Testing the viability of ChatGPT as a companion in L2 writing accuracy assessment. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 3(2), 100116.
Mizumoto, A., & Eguchi, M. (2023). Exploring the potential of using an AI language model for automated essay scoring. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 100050.
Peng, J., Wang, C., & Lu, X. (2018). Effect of the linguistic complexity of the input text on alignment, writing fluency, and writing accuracy in the continuation task. Language Teaching Research, 24(3), 364-381.
Phillips Galloway, E., Qin, W., Uccelli, P., & Barr, C. D. (2020). The role of cross disciplinary academic language skills in disciplinary, source based writing: Investigating the role of core academic language skills in science summarization for middle grade writers. Reading and Writing, 33(1), 13-44.
Plakans, L., & Gebril, A. (2012). A close investigation into source use in integrated second language writing tasks. Assessing Writing, 17(1), 18-34.
Plakans, L., & Gebril, A. (2013). Using multiple texts in an integrated writing assessment: Source text use as a predictor of score. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 217-230.
Plakans, L., & Gebril, A. (2017). Exploring the relationship of organization and connection with scores in integrated writing assessment. Assessing Writing, 31, 98-112.
Plakans, L., Gebril, A., & Bilki, Z. (2019). Shaping a score: Complexity, accu-racy, and fluency in integrated writing performances. Language Testing, 36(2), 161-179.
R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (4.0.2). R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
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.
Schoonen, R., Van Gelderen, A., Stoel, R. D., Hulstijn, J., & De Glopper, K. (2011). Modeling the development of L1 and EFL writing proficiency of secondary school students. Language Learning, 61(1), 31-79.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2012). Complexity, accuracy fluency and lexis in task-based performance: A synthesis of the research. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 199-220). John Benjamins.
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 Years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261-292.
Xu, L. (2019). Noun phrase complexity in integrated writing produced by advanced Chinese EFL learners. Papers in Language Testing and Assessment, 8(1), 31-51.
Yoon, H. J., & Polio, C. (2017). The linguistic development of students of English as a second language in two written genres. TESOL Quarterly, 51(2), 275-301.
Zenker, F., & Kyle, K. (2021). Investigating minimum text lengths for lexical diversity indices. Assessing Writing, 47, 100505.
Zhang, Y., & Ouyang, J. (2023). Linguistic complexity as the predictor of EFL independent and integrated writing quality. Assessing Writing, 56, 100727.
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Judit Kormos, Tineke Brunfaut, Borbála Bánfalvi
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.