Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 225

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effects of Task Complexity on L2 Writing Behaviors and Linguistic Complexity

Révész, Andrea, Kourtali, Nektaria‐Efstathia, Mazgutova, Diana·2017·Language Learning

Abstract

This study investigated whether task complexity influences second language (L2) writers’ fluency, pausing, and revision behaviors and the cognitive processes underlying these behaviors; whether task complexity affects linguistic complexity of written output; and whether relationships between writing behaviors and linguistic complexity are moderated by task complexity. Participants were 73 advanced L2 writers, who completed simple or complex essay tasks. Task complexity was operationalized as the absence versus presence of content support. Participants’ writing behaviors were recorded via keystroke logging software. Four writers, drawn from groups performing simple and complex tasks, additionally engaged in stimulated recall. Content support was found to lead to less pausing, more revision, and increased linguistic complexity. When content support was absent, more frequent pauses and revisions were associated with less sophisticated lexis. These results, combined with stimulated recall comments, suggest that content support likely reduced processing burden on planning processes, facilitating attention to linguistic encoding. Open Practices: This article has been awarded an Open Materials badge. All materials are publicly accessible in the IRIS digital repository at http://www.iris-database.org. Learn more about the Open Practices badges from the Center for Open Science: https://osf.io/tvyxz/wiki.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/lang.12205

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. 10.1093/applin/ams073 · DOI
  2. Brown J. D., 2002, An investigation of second language task‐based performance assessment
  3. Brunfaut T., 2015, Looking into test‐takers’ cognitive processes whilst completing reading tasks: A mixed‐method eye‐tracking and stimulated recall study, ARAGs Research Reports Online
  4. 10.1075/lllt.32.02bul · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1075/tblt.7 · DOI
  6. 10.2307/3587951 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1017/S0142716412000069 · DOI
  8. 10.4324/9780203796580 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1017/S0272263104026130 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Ishikawa T., 2007, Investigating tasks in formal language learning, 136
  11. 10.1075/sibil.47 · DOI
  12. 10.1037/0278-7393.14.2.355 · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.14.2.355 · Paper page
  13. 10.2307/1423213 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Kellogg R. T., 1996, The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications, 57
  15. 10.1016/j.jslw.2011.02.001 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00695.x · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1515/iral.2007.012 · DOI
  18. 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.08.003 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1177/0741088313491692 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1075/ijcl.15.4.02lu · DOI · Paper page
  21. 10.1075/tblt.7 · DOI
  22. Malvern D. D., 1997, Evolving models of language, 58
  23. 10.1075/tblt.7 · DOI
  24. 10.1002/9780470756492.ch21 · DOI
  25. 10.1093/applin/amp044 · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.1016/j.jslw.2013.10.002 · DOI
  27. 10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.003 · DOI · Paper page
  28. 10.1111/lang.12079 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.1093/applin/amt039 · DOI
  30. 10.1017/CBO9781139524780.012 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 10.1075/tblt.2 · DOI · Paper page
  32. 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.08.005 · DOI · Paper page
  33. 10.1075/tblt.7 · DOI
  34. Schilperoord J., 1996, It's about time: Temporal aspects of cognitive processes in text production, 10.1163/9789004458598 · DOI
  35. 10.21832/9781847691859-007 · DOI
  36. Skehan P., 1998, A cognitive approach to language learning
  37. 10.1075/tblt.5 · DOI · Paper page
  38. 10.1177/136216880000400203 · DOI
  39. 10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00140.x · DOI
  40. 10.1016/j.jslw.2006.06.002 · DOI
  41. 10.1075/tblt.7 · DOI
  42. 10.1111/0026-7902.00059.2000 · doi:10.1111/0026-7902.00059.2000
  43. Tillema M., 2012, Writing in first and second language: Empirical studies on text quality and writing processes
  44. den Bergh H, 1994, Writing: Current trends in European research, 133
  45. 10.1016/j.compcom.2015.09.012 · DOI
  46. Wengelin A., 2006, Computer keystroke logging and writing: Methods and applications, 107, 10.1163/9780080460932_008 · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Révész, A., Kourtali, N., & Mazgutova, D.
Venue
Language Learning
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-08-28
Volume
67
Issue
1
Pages
208-241
ISSN
  • 0023-8333 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9922
OpenAlex
W2513078611
Cited by
225
References
3
FWCI
38.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Funders
Trinity College London

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.