In this article we explore how oral and written modes may differentially influence processes involved in second language acquisition (SLA) in the context of task-based language teaching (TBLT). We first start by reflecting on the differences between spoken and written language. In what follows, we provide a general description of tasks in relation to the SLA processes. We then establish the links between the learning processes and task phases/features in the two modes. Concluding that the role of mode has been underresearched, we call for a more integrative and mode-sensitive TBLT research agenda, in which hybridness of discourse (i.e., mingling of the two modes within one communicative event/task) is taken into account.

It is unknown whether and to what extent cognitive individual differences may play different roles in paper versus computer-based second language (L2) writing. This exploratory study is a first attempt to explore this issue, focusing on the effects of working memory and language aptitude on the quality of paper versus computer-based L2 writing performance. Forty-two Spanish learners of L2 English performed a problem-solving task either digitally or on paper, took a working memory n-back test, and completed LLAMA tests to measure language aptitude. The quality of their L2 written texts was assessed in terms of complexity, accuracy and fluency (CAF) measures. The results indicated that the role of cognitive individual differences may vary depending on the writing environment.

In this paper we make a proposal that writing modality (pen-and-paper versus computer-based writing can be conceptualized as a cognitive task complexity factor. To lay ground for this theoretical proposal, we first review previous adaptations of cognitive task-based models to second language (L2) writing. We then compare pen-and-paper and computer-based writing modalities in terms of their general characteristics, outline the main tenets of multidisciplinary theoretical models which attribute learning and performance-related importance to writing modality, and review the available empirical evidence. From this we draw theoretical and empirical justification for our conceptualization of writing modality as a task complexity dimension. After outlining our conceptual view, we proceed with the review of the methods which could be used to independently assess cognitive load in paper and computer-written L2 tasks. In the conclusion, implications and suggestions for future research are provided.

This chapter focuses on the role of individual differences in L2 writing. We first outline the theoretical, empirical, and pedagogical relevance of individual factors in L2 writing research. This is followed by a synthesis of key research findings, with a specific focus on such traits as language aptitude, working memory, motivation and L2 future selves, beliefs, self-efficacy, self-regulation and anxiety. We then draw practical implications and provide suggestions for the early-career teachers. As a suggestion for action research, we provide an example of a design of collaborative writing project which focuses on the effects of digital stories on L2 writers` writing motivation, self-efficacy, self-regulation and anxiety.

This article reports on a scoping review of the literature exploring the alignment between behavioral and linguistic units in L1 and L2 writing. Behavioral units in writing were assessed using keystroke logging measures of pauses, bursts, and revisions. Linguistic units were operationalized based on lexical and syntactic definitions from the literature. Nine empirical studies met the inclusion criteria. Most of these studies focused on L1 English writing by adult participants, although some explored other first languages, such as German, Dutch, and French. The identified L2 studies focused exclusively on English. Due to the limited number and high heterogeneity of the studies, no definitive conclusions can be drawn. However, meaningful links between behavioral and linguistic units were detected. In addition to confirming some previously known phenomena, the studies provided new evidence on online processing during pauses, revealed certain idiosyncrasies in L1 versus L2 writing cognition, and offered new insights into the nature of revision. We provide a critical interpretation of the results, propose new research directions, and recommend solutions.