An Analysis of the Writing Skills of Learners of Turkish as a Foreign Language According to the Task Complexity

Öz

The study investigates the effect of task complexity on the writing performance of learners of Turkish as a foreign language. Simple and complex writing tasks were developed for B1 and B2 levels in alignment with the CEFR descriptors for written production and interaction. A convergent parallel mixed-methods design was employed. The findings indicate that error frequency was higher in simple tasks and increased at the B2 level, with female participants producing more errors overall. Text length was greater in simple tasks, suggesting reduced fluency under increased cognitive demands. In the YADPA assessment, complex tasks yielded higher scores in the “language and expression” dimension, whereas simple tasks resulted in higher scores across multiple dimensions, including page layout, plan and structure. The findings indicating that, as task complexity increased, error rates decreased, fluency declined with shorter textual outputs, and scores in language and expression improved are consistent with the Cognition Hypothesis.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Task complexity
• teaching Turkish to foreigners
• Cognition Hypothesis
• writing skills
• task-based language teaching

Türkçeyi Yabancı Dil Olarak Öğrenenlerin Yazma Becerilerinin Görev Karmaşıklığına Göre İncelenmesi

Öz

Çalışma, görev karmaşıklığının Türkçeyi yabancı dil olarak öğrenenlerin yazma becerilerine etkisini belirlemeyi amaçlamaktadır. CEFR yazılı üretim ve etkileşim ölçekleri dikkate alınarak B1 ve B2 düzeylerine yönelik basit ve karmaşık yazma görevleri hazırlanmıştır. Araştırma yakınsayan paralel karma desene uygun olarak yürütülmüştür. Araştırmanın sonucunda; basit görevlerde hata sayısının daha fazla olduğu, B2 düzeyinde toplam hatanın arttığı, kadın katılımcıların daha fazla hata yaptığı ve basit görevlerde metinlerin daha uzun olduğu, YADPA’nın dil ve anlatım boyutunda karmaşık görevde; sayfa düzeni, plan ve işleyiş, dil ve anlatım, yazım ve noktalama boyutlarında ise basit görevde daha yüksek puan alındığı belirlenmiştir. Görev karmaşıklığı arttığında hata sayısının azalması, akıcılığın azalarak daha kısa metinler üretilmesi, dil ve anlatım boyutundaki puanların artması Bilişsel Hipotez’le tutarlıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Görev karmaşıklığı
• yabancılara Türkçe öğretimi
• Bilişsel Hipotez
• yazma becerisi
• görev temelli dil öğretimi

Kaynakça

1. Abdelaty, Y., Alghamdi, E., & Alamer, A. (2025). The effects of self-regulation on L2 writing achievement: Examining the mediating roles of feedback quality and task complexity. System (Linköping), 132, 103715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2025.103715
2. Aktaş Smith, T. B. (2023). Exploring the role of task modality and task complexity in L2 performance in EFL classes [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Boğaziçi University.
3. Bagheri, M. (2024). The effects of task design variables and corrective feedback on EFL learners’ writing complexity and accuracy. Cogent Education, 11(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2310433
4. Büyükikiz, K. K. (2011). Türkçeyi yabancı dil olarak öğrenenlerin yazma becerileri ile öz yeterlilik algıları arasındaki ilişki üzerine bir araştırma [A research on the relationship between wiriting skills and self efficacy perception of learners of Turkish as a foreign language] [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Gazi University.
5. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş. & Demirel, F. (2016). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri [Scientific research methods]. Pegem Akademi.
6. Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press.
7. Creswell, John W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantiative, and mixed method approaches. Sage Publications.
8. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark. V. L. (2007). Choosing a mixed methods design. In J. W. Creswell (Ed.), Designing and conducting mixed methods research (pp. 58-89). Sage Publications.

9. Ellis, R. (2017). Task-based language teaching. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 108–125). Routledge.
10. Farea, R. (2023). The impact of cognitive task complexity on the CAF of L2 learners’ written performance in relation to DWC feedback [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. İstanbul Aydın University.
11. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistic using SPSS (and sex and drugs and rock ‘n’ roll) (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
12. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E. & Hyun, H. H. (2011). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
13. Frear, M. W., & Bitchener, J. (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
14. Gökgöz, N. (2009). The effects of task complexity on measures of accuracy and lexical variety in EFL writing [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Marmara University.
15. Golparvar, S. E., & Rashidi, F. (2021). The effect of task complexity on integrated writing performance: The case of multiple-text source-based writing. System (Linköping), 99, 102524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102524
16. Gomez-Laich, M. P., & Taguchi, N. (2018). Task complexity effects on interaction during a collaborative persuasive writing task A conversation analytic perspective. In N. Taguchi & Y. Kim (Eds.), Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics (pp. 83–109). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.10.04gom
17. Güvendir, E., & Uzun, K. (2023). L2 writing anxiety, working memory, and task complexity in L2 written performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 60, 101016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2023.101016
18. Hayes, J. R. (2012). Modeling and remodeling writing. Written Communication, 29(3), 369–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312451260
19. Hess-Biber, S. N. (2010). Mixed methods research: Merging theory with practice. Guilford Press.
20. Hsu, H. C. (2020). The impact of task complexity on patterns of interaction during web-based asynchronous collaborative writing tasks. System, 93, 102328. https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.system.2020.102328
21. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.06.001
22. Johnson, M. D. (2022). Task complexity studies. In R. Manchón, & C. Polio (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and writing (pp. 52–64). Routledge.
23. Kellogg, R. T. (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective. Journal of Writing Research, 1(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2008.01.01.1
24. Knudson, R. E. (1992). Effects of task complexity on narrative writing. Journal of Research & Development in Education, 26(1), 7–14.
25. Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
26. Kormos, J. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(2), 148–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.02.001
27. Kuiken, F., Mos, M., & Vedder, I. (2005). Cognitive task complexity and second language writing performance. Eurosla yearbook, 5(1), 195–222. https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.5.10kui
28. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, IRAL, 45(3), 261–284. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2007.012
29. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2008). Cognitive task complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(1), 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.08.003
30. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic performance in L2 writing and speaking: The effect of mode. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity (pp. 91–104). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.2.09ch4
31. Lee, J. (2018). The interactive effects of task complexity, task condition, and cognitive individual differences on L2 writing [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Maryland, College Park.
32. Li, C., Wei, L., & Lu, X. (2024). Task complexity and L2 writing performance of young learners: Contributions of cognitive and affective factors. The Modern Language Journal, 108(3), 741–770. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12954
33. Liu, C., Sun, L., He, Y., & Wu, N. (2023). The effects of task complexity and language aptitude on EFL learners’ writing performance. Assessing Writing, 58, 100791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100791
34. Long, M. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. In K. Hylstenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 77–99). Multilingual Matters.
35. Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
36. Ong, J. & Zhang, L. J. (2010). Effects of task complexity on the fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students’ argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 218–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.003
37. Rahimi, M. (2019). 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
38. Rahimi, M., & Zhang, L. J. (2019). Writing task complexity, students’ motivational beliefs, anxiety and their writing production in English as a second language. Reading & Writing, 32(3), 761–786. https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11145-018-9887-9
39. Rahimpour, M., & Hosseini, P. (2010). The impact of task complexity on L2 learners’ written narratives. English Language Teaching, 3(3), 198–205.
40. Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second language Instruction (pp. 287–318). Cambridge University Press.
41. Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2005.43.1.1
42. Robinson, P. (2011). Second language task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning, and performance In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 3–37). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.2
43. Robinson, P. & Gilabert, R. (2007). Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis and second language learning and performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(3), 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2007.007
44. Rong, X., & Révész, A. (2025). The effects of task complexity on second language writing processes and products in computer-assisted collaborative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2025.101216
45. Ruiz-Funes, M. (2015). Exploring the potential of second/foreign language writing for language learning: The effects of task factors and learner variables. Journal of Second Language Writing, 28(Jun), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.02.001
46. Salimi, A., & Dadashpour, S. (2012). Task complexity and language production dilemmas (Robinson’s Cognition Hypothesis vs. Skehan’s Trade-off Model). Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 643–652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.177
47. Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied linguistics, 17(1), 38–62. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.1.38
48. Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183–205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49. Sülükçü, D. (2010). A study of cognitive task complexity and written output at upper-intermediate learners of English [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Hacettepe University.
50. Teng, M. F., & Zhan, Y. (2023). Assessing self-regulated writing strategies, self-efficacy, task complexity, and performance in English academic writing. Assessing Writing, 57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100728
51. Van den Branden, K. (2006). Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge University Press.
52. Williams, J. (2012). The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 321–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.007
53. Wu, L., & Halim, H. B. A. (2024). Task complexity and foreign language writing emotions as predictors of EFL writing performance. Frontiers in Education, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1323843
54. Xu, T. S., Zhang, L. J., & Gaffney, J. S. (2023). A multidimensional approach to assessing the effects of task complexity on L2 students’ argumentative writing. Assessing Writing, 55, 100690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2022.100690
55. Yıldız, M. (2017). Effects of task complexity and rhetorical mode on writing performance of EFL learners [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Atatürk University.
56. Zarrabi, F., Fadavi Amiri, M. H., & Bozorgian, H. (2022). Effects of the longest pause, its location, and pause variance on successful EFL writing performance across writing tasks with diverse degrees of complexity. System (Linköping), 110, 102929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102929
57. Zhang, M. (2024). Collaborative writing in an EFL secondary setting: The role of task complexity. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 62(2), 325–350. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2022-0024