The Effects of Anxiety, Cognitive-task Variability and Planning Type on Chinese Students’ Argumentative Writing in English as a Foreign Language

Abstract

This study was motivated by the lack of research that has explored the synergistic effects of cognitive-task variability and planning type on writing in a Chinese English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) context. Although an increasing number of studies have investigated the effect of cognitive task complexity, along either resource-directing or resource-dispersing dimensions, on EFL writing, the results for the two dimensions of cognitive task complexity have been far from conclusive. These may be due mainly to the manipulations of cognitive demands within the tasks not being validated, redundant language measures used, and learner factors overlooked. Based on the empirical gaps, this study: (a) Investigated whether the designed-to-be more complex task is indeed more cognitively demanding, (b) explored the isolated and synergistic impact of cognitive-task variability and planning type on EFL argumentative writing, and (c) examined the role language anxiety played in the influence of cognitive task complexity on argumentative writing in a Chinese EFL context. A mixed-methods approach, which included self-report questionnaires, writing tasks and interviews, was used. Ninety-one Chinese English major undergraduates were recruited to validate, independently, the manipulation of cognitive-task variability in Phase I of the main study using dual-task methods and self-ratings. In Phase II of the main study, another 201 English majors were recruited as volunteers and randomly assigned to three equal groups: a comparison group and two experimental groups, who experienced different planning conditions (i.e., pre-task planning and online planning). Participants in each group were required to complete the Second Language Writing Anxiety Inventory and two argumentative writing tasks at different cognitive levels. Quantitative and qualitative methods were adopted to examine the relationships among language anxiety, cognitive-task variability, planning type and students’ writing performance. The quantitative data were subjected to statistical analysis, such as t-tests and ANOVAs, and a thematic analysis was conducted on the qualitative data. Results of Phase I of the main study supported the efficacy of the cognitive-task variability manipulations; that is, the complex task version, as intended, was more cognitively demanding than the simple version. In response to the second research question, increases in cognitive-task variability enhanced accuracy, fluency, adequacy, and perhaps, syntactic complexity in the pre-task planning group, consistent with Robinson’s Cognition Hypothesis (CH). Increasing cognitive-task variability led to trade-offs between syntactic complexity and lexical complexity, and between syntactic complexity and adequacy in the online planning group, and trade-offs between lexical complexity and accuracy, and between accuracy and adequacy in the comparison group, which supports Skehan’s Limited Attentional Capacity Model (LACM). Furthermore, different planning types were found to ease the pressure on the central executive in working memory in different ways, leading to varying effects on learners’ allocation of attention and EFL production. With regard to the third research question, writing anxiety was quantitatively and qualitatively found to interfere with the effects of cognitive task complexity on EFL writing performance. Based on the findings, this study proposed a Model of Cognitive Task Complexity in EFL Writing Processes by combining the oral models of cognitive task complexity (i.e., CH and LACM) with Kellogg’s writing model to make the theories more suitable in the EFL writing field. Other theoretical, methodological and practical implications were also discussed.