The Impacts Of Manipulating Task Complexity On EFL Learners’ Performance

Masoud Saeedi, Saeed Ketabi, Shirin Rahimi Kazerooni

Abstract


The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of manipulating the cognitive complexity of tasks on EFL learners’ narrative task performance in terms of complexity, accuracy, and fluency of their production. To this aim, by drawing upon Robinson’s (2007) Triadic Componential Framework (TCF), four levels of task complexity were operationalized. Sixty- five Iranian students studying English as a foreign language at the intermediate level participated in this research. The obtained results revealed that manipulating different dimensions of task complexity exerts differential effects on complexity, accuracy, and fluency of learners’ narrative task performance. Additionally, it was shown that keeping tasks simple along the resource-dispersing dimension, while making them more demanding along the resource-directing dimension results in a simultaneous increase in complexity and accuracy, a finding which conforms to predictions based on Robinson’s Cognition Hypothesis. These findings suggest that task complexity can be used as a robust basis for making grading and sequencing decisions in task-based syllabi.


Keywords


task complexity; structural complexity; lexical complexity; accuracy; fluency

Full Text:

PDF

References


Candlin, C. (1987). Towards task-based language learning. In C. Candlin & D. Murphy (Eds.), Language learning tasks (pp.5-22). London: Prentice-Hall.

Chalak, A., & Kassaian, Z. (2010). Motivation and attitudes of Iranian undergraduate EFL students towards learning English. GEMA Online™ Journal of Language Studies, 10(2), 37-56.

Dipper, L., Black, M., & Bryan, K. (2005). Thinking for speaking and thinking for listening: The interaction of thought and language in typical and non-fluent comprehension and production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 417-441.

Eckerth, J., & Siekmann, S. (Eds.). (2008). Task-based language learning and teaching. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 474-509.

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.

Gilabert, R. (2007). The simultaneous manipulation of task complexity along planning time and +/- Here-and-Now: Effects on L2 oral production. In M. P. Garcia Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 136-156). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Lennon, P. (1991). Error: Some problems of definition, identification and distinction. Applied Linguistics, 12, 180-195.

Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 52-83.

Rahimpour, M. (1997). Task condition, task complexity and variation in L2 discourse. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, University of Queensland.

Robinson, P. (1995). Task complexity and second language narrative discourse. Language Learning, 45, 99-140.

Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27-57.

Robinson, P. (2007). Criteria for grading and sequencing pedagogic tasks. In M. D. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 7-27). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Robinson, P. (2011). Task-Based language learning: A review of issues. Language Learning, 6, 1-36.

Robinson, P., Cadierno, T., & Shirai, Y. (2009). Mind, time, and motion: Measuring the effects of the conceptual demands of tasks on second language speech production. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 533-554.

Saeedi, M., Rahimi Kazerooni, S., & Parvaresh, V. (2010). How valid are our language test interpretations? A demonstrative example. International Journal of Human and Social Sciences, 5(9), 547-558.

Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 119-140). London: Longman.

Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(3), 299-323.

Skehan, P. (1998). Task-based instruction. In W. Grabe (Ed.), Annual review of applied linguistics, 18: Foundations of second language teaching (pp. 268-286). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Skehan, P. (2009). Modeling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510-532.

Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49, 93-120.

Tavakoli, P. (2009). Assessing L2 task performance: Understanding effects of task design. System, 37, 482-495.

Van den Branden, K. (Ed.). (2006). Task-based language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wickens, C. D. (1989). Attention and skilled performance. In D. H. Holding (Ed.), Humans skills (pp.71-105). New York: John Wiley.

Wickens, C. D. (1992). Engineering psychology and human performance. NewYork: Harper Collins.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


 

 

 

eISSN : 2550-2131

ISSN : 1675-8021