Document Type : Research Paper
Authors
Alzahra University
Abstract
Recently tasks, as the basic units of syllabi, and the cognitive complexity, as the criterion for sequencing them, have caught many second language researchers’ attention. This study sought to explore the effect of utilizing the cognitively simple and complex tasks on high- and low-proficient EFL Iranian writers’ linguistic performance, i.e., fluency, accuracy, lexical complexity, and structural complexity. At first, based on their scores on the writing test of TOFEL (2003), participants were assigned to high- and low-proficient writers. Participants in both groups first accomplished the simple task which was the narration of a story based on a set of pictures. One week later, they were asked to perform the complex task which was writing about a topic requiring reasons. Then the written productions were encoded on the measures of fluency, accuracy, lexical complexity, and structural complexity. Four two-way mixed-design ANOVAs were conducted. The results revealed that the learners significantly generated less accurate, more structurally complex, and more fluent language in the complex task. No significant effect was found for the lexical complexity measure. The high-proficient group performed significantly better in the four measures. The interaction between task complexity and writing proficiency did not yield any significant results. On the whole, based on the findings, the ‘limited attentional model’ was shown to be more accurate in comparison with ‘cognition hypothesis’ and the ‘threshold level hypothesis’ was not confirmed.
Keywords
Anderson, J.R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bachman, L.F. (1990). Fundamental consideration in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bygate, M., Skehan P., & Swain, M. (Eds.). (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing. Harlow: Pearson.
Carroll, D.W. (2008). Psychology of language (5th Ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Chastain, K. (1988). Developing second language skills: Theory and practice. (3rd ed.). Florida: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd Ed.). New York: Academic Press.
Cooper, L. (1984). The assessment of writing ability: A review of research (ETS Research Rep. No. 84-12). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Cordor, S.P. (1981). Error analysis and inter-language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cummins, J. (1979a). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 19, 197-205.
Cummins, J. (1979b). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 222-251.
Cummins, J. (1983). Language proficiency and academic achievement. In J. Oller (Ed.). Issues in language teaching research (pp. 108-130). Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.
Ellis, R. (1987). Inter-language variability in narrative discourse: Style shifting in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9(1), 1-20.
Ellis, R. (2000). Task based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 193-220.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(1), 59-84.
Educational Testing Service, (2003). Practice tests: TOEFL (vol. 1). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Farahani, A. A. Kh., & Meraji S. R. (2011). Cognitive task complexity and l2 narrative writing performance. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(2), 445-456.
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(3), 299-323.
Givón, T. (1985). Function, structure, and language acquisition. In D. Slobin (Ed.). The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition (vol. 1, pp. 1008-1025). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ishikawa, T. (2007).The effect of manipulating task complexity along the [+/- Here-and-Now] dimension on L2 written narrative discourse. In M. delPilar Garcia-Mayo (Ed.). Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp.136-156). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Iwashita, N., Elder, C., & McNamara, T. (2001). Can we predict task difficulty in an oral proficiency test? Exploring the potential of an information-processing approach to task design. Language Learning, 51(3), 401-436.
Johnson, K. (1996). Language teaching and skill learning. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kawauchi, C. (2005). The effects of strategic planning on the oral narratives of learners with low and high intermediate L2 proficiency. In R. Ellis (Ed.). Planning and task performance (pp. 143-164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, R. (2008). Cognitive task complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(1), 48-60.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 590-619.
Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Long, M.H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.). Modeling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 77-99). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Long, M.H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams, Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition (pp. 15-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(1), 83-108.
Meraji, S.R. (2009). Cognitive task complexity and L2 writing performance: A case of Iranian intermediate EFL learners.(Unpublished master's thesis). University of Tehran, Iran.
Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(1), 108-148.
Pawley, A., & Synder, F. (1983).Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Native like selection and native like fluency. In J. C. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.). Language and communication (pp. 191-226). London: Longman.
Polio, C.G. (1997).Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Language Learning, 47(1), 101-143.
Prabhu, N.S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rahimpour, M. (2007). Task complexity and variation in L2 learners’ oral discourse. University of Queensland Working Papers in Linguistics, 1. Retrieved from http://www.library.uq.edu.au/ojs/index.php/uqwpl/article/view/14/15.
Robinson, P. (2001a). Task complexity, cognition 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: Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, P. (2001b). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27-57.
Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 43(1), 1-32.
Robinson, P. (2007). Criteria for classifying and sequencing pedagogic tasks. In M. delPilar Garcia-Mayo (Ed.). Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 7-26). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Salimi, A., Dadashpour, S., & Asadollahfam, H. (2011). The Effect of task complexity on EFL learners' written performance. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29. 1390 – 1399.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.). Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17(1),38-62.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language teaching, 36(1), 1-14.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999).The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49(1), 93-120.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001).Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.). Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183-205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tavakoli, P., & Skehan, P. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing. In R. Ellis (Ed.). Planning and task performance (pp. 239-213). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
VanLier, L. (1991). Inside the classroom: Learning processes and teaching procedures. Applied Language Learning, 2(1), 29-69.
VanPatten, B. (2007). Input processing in adult second language acquisition. In B. Van Patten & J. Williams (Eds.). Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 115-135). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Weigle, S.C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Widdowson, H.G. (1989). Knowledge of language and ability for use. Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 128-137.
Wickens, C. D. (2007). Attention to the second language. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(3), 177-191.
Yule, G. (1997). Referential communication tasks. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
', './data/jtls/coversheet/cover_en.jpg'))