1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. TASK
  4. Volume 1, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 1, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2666-1748
  • E-ISSN: 2666-1756
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper argues that TBLT researchers should dedicate more effort to investigating the cognitive processes in which L2 learners engage during task work to facilitate theory-construction and to inform pedagogical practices. To help achieve this, a review follows of various subjective (questionnaires, interviews, think-aloud/stimulated recall protocols) and objective (dual-task methodology, keystroke-logging, eye-tracking) methods that are available to TBLT researchers to examine cognitive processes underlying task-based performance. The paper concludes that, to obtain a more valid understanding of task-generated cognitive processes, it is best to combine various methods to overcome the limitations of each. Finally, some methodological recommendations are provided for future cognitively-oriented TBLT research.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/task.21017.rev
2021-12-16
2025-06-18

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/task.21017.rev
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Baralt, M.
    (2013) The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during online versus face-to-face interactive tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 689–725. 10.1017/S0272263113000429
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263113000429 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baralt, M., & Gurzynski-Weiss, L.
    (2011) Comparing learners’ state anxiety during task-based interaction in computer-mediated and face-to-face communication. Language Teaching Research, 15, 201–229. 10.1177/0265532210388717
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532210388717 [Google Scholar]
  3. Barkaoui, K.
    (2016) What and when second-language learners revise when responding to timed writing tasks on the computer: The roles of task type, second language proficiency, and keyboarding skills. Modern Language Journal, 100, 320–340. 10.1111/modl.12316
     https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12316 [Google Scholar]
  4. Block, R. A., Hancock, P. A., & Zakay, D.
    (2010) How cognitive load affects duration judgments: A meta- analytic review. Acta Psychologica, 134, 330–343. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.03.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.03.006 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bowles, M.
    (2010) The think-aloud controversy in language acquisition research. Routledge. 10.4324/9780203856338
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203856338 [Google Scholar]
  6. Brünken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D.
    (2004) Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning with dual-task methodology: Auditory load and modality effects. Instructional Science, 32, 115–132. 10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021812.96911.c5
     https://doi.org/10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021812.96911.c5 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bulté, B., & Housen, A.
    (2012) Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. InA. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder. (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp.21–46). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.32.02bul
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.02bul [Google Scholar]
  8. Bygate, M.
    (2013, October). On fetters and goals, and the development of an empirical TBLT in terms of language, learning and teaching. Plenary speech presented at the5th Biennial International Conference on Task-based Language Teaching, Banff, AB, Canada.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Charoenchaikorn, V.
    (2019) L2 revision and post-task anticipation during text-based synchronous computer-mediated communication (SCMC) task. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Lancaster University, UK.
  10. Cierniak, G., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P.
    (2009) Explaining the split-attention effect: Is the reduction of extraneous cognitive load accompanied by an increase in germane cognitive load?Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 315–324. 10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.020
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.020 [Google Scholar]
  11. Conklin, K., Pellicer-Sánchez, A., & Carrol, G.
    (2018) Eye-tracking: A guide for applied linguistics research. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108233279
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108233279 [Google Scholar]
  12. Declerck, M., & Kormos, J.
    (2012) The effect of dual task demands and proficiency on second language speech production. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 782–796. 10.1017/S1366728911000629
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728911000629 [Google Scholar]
  13. DeKeyser, R.
    (1997) Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 195–221. 10.1017/S0272263197002040
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197002040 [Google Scholar]
  14. Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A.
    (2017) Stimulated recall methodology in applied linguistics and L2 research. Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Gilabert, R.
    (2007) Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 oral production. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 215–240. 10.1515/iral.2007.010
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2007.010 [Google Scholar]
  16. Godfroid, A.
    (2019) Eye tracking in second language acquisition and bilingualism: A research synthesis and methodological guide. Routledge. 10.4324/9781315775616
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315775616 [Google Scholar]
  17. Housen, A., & Kuiken, F.
    (2009) Complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30, 461–473. 10.1093/applin/amp048
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp048 [Google Scholar]
  18. Housen, A., F. Kuiken, & Vedder, I.
    (2012) Complexity, accuracy and fluency: Definitions, measurement and research. InA. Housen, F. Kuiken and I. Vedder. (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp.1–20). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.32.01hou
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.01hou [Google Scholar]
  19. Iwaniec, J.
    (2020) Questionnaires: implications for effective implementation. InJ. McKinley & H. Rose. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of research methods in applied linguistics (pp.324–335). Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Jeong, H., Sugiura, M., Suzuki, W., Sassa, Y., Hashizume, H., & Kawashima, R.
    (2016) Neural correlates of second-language communication and the effect of language anxiety. Neuropsychologia, 84, 2–12. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.02.012
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.02.012 [Google Scholar]
  21. Kane, M.
    (2006) Validation. InR. L. Brennan. (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp.17–64). American Council on Education.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Kellogg, R. T.
    (1996) A model of working memory in writing. InC. M. Levy, & S. Ransdell. (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp.57–72). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Kim, Y., Payant, C., & Pearson, P.
    (2015) The intersection of task-based interaction, task complexity, and working memory: L2 question development through recasts in a laboratory setting. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 549–581. 10.1017/S0272263114000618
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263114000618 [Google Scholar]
  24. King, K., & Mackey, A.
    (2016) Research methodology in second language studies: Trends, concerns and new directions. The Modern Language Journal, 100(s), 209–227. 10.1111/modl.12309
     https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12309 [Google Scholar]
  25. Lee, J.
    (2019) Task complexity, cognitive load, and L1 speech. Applied Linguistics, 40, 506–539. 10.1093/applin/amx054
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx054 [Google Scholar]
  26. Lee, M., & Révész, A.
    (2020) Promoting grammatical development through captions and textual enhancement in multimodal input-based tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42, 625–651. 10.1017/S0272263120000108
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263120000108 [Google Scholar]
  27. Leow, R., Grey, S., Marijuan, S., & Moorman, C.
    (2014) Concurrent data elicitation procedures, processes, and the early stages of L2 learning: A critical overview. Second Language Research, 30, 111–127. 10.1177/0267658313511979
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658313511979 [Google Scholar]
  28. Levelt, W. J. M.
    (1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Levkina, M., & Gilabert, R.
    (2014) Task sequencing in the L2 development of spatial expressions. InM. Baralt, R. Gilabert, & P. Robinson. (Eds.), Task sequencing and instructed second language learning (pp.37–70). Bloomsbury.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Lindgren, E., & Sullivan, K.
    (Eds.) (2019) Observing writing: Insights from keystroke logging and handwriting (Vol.38). Brill. 10.1163/9789004392526
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004392526 [Google Scholar]
  31. Mackey, A.
    (1999) Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557–587. 10.1017/S0272263199004027
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263199004027 [Google Scholar]
  32. Malicka, A.
    (2020) The role of task sequencing in fluency, accuracy, and complexity: Investigating the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. Language Teaching Research, 24, 642–665. 10.1177/1362168818813668
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818813668 [Google Scholar]
  33. Malicka, A. & Levkina, M.
    (2012) Measuring task complexity: does L2 proficiency matter?InA. Shehadeh & C. Coombe. (Eds.), Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts: Research and implementation (pp.43–66). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.4.06mal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.4.06mal [Google Scholar]
  34. McDonough, K., Crowther, D., Kielstra, P. & Trofimovich, P.
    (2015) Exploring the potential role of eye gaze in eliciting English L2 speakers’ responses to recasts. Second Language Research, 31, 563–575. 10.1177/0267658315589656
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658315589656 [Google Scholar]
  35. McDonough, K., Trofimovich, P., Dao, P., & Abashidze, D.
    (2020) Eye gaze and L2 speakers’ responses to recasts: A systematic replication study of McDonough, Crowther, Kielstra and Trofimovich (2015) Language Teaching, 53, 81–95. 10.1017/S0261444818000368
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000368 [Google Scholar]
  36. Messick, S.
    (1995) Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741–749. 10.1037/0003‑066X.50.9.741
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.741 [Google Scholar]
  37. Michel, M.
    (2011) Effects of task complexity and interaction on L2 performance. InP. Robinson. (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp.141–174). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.2.12ch6
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.2.12ch6 [Google Scholar]
  38. Michel, M., & O’Rourke, B.
    (2019) What drives alignment during text chat with a peer vs. a tutor? Insights from cued interviews and eye-tracking. System, 83, 50–63. 10.1016/j.system.2019.02.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.02.009 [Google Scholar]
  39. Michel, M., Révész, A., & Gilabert, R.
    (2014) Eye movement prompts in stimulated recall: tapping cognitive processes based on audio vs. visual stimuli. Paper presented atAILA, Brisbane, Australia.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Michel, M., Révész, A., Lu, X., Kourtali, N. -E., & Borges, L.
    (2020) Investigating L2 writing processes across independent and integrated tasks: A mixed-methods study. Second Language Research, 36, 243–255. 10.1177/0267658320915501
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658320915501 [Google Scholar]
  41. Michel, M., & Smith, B.
    (2019) Measuring lexical alignment during L2 chat interaction: An eye-tracking study. InS. Gass, P. Spinner, & J. Behney (2019) (Eds.), Salience in second language acquisition (pp.244–268). Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Norris, J. M.
    (2010, September). Understanding instructed SLA: Constructs, contexts, and consequences. Plenary address delivered at theannual conference of the European Second Language Association (EUROSLA), Reggio Emilia, Italy.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Norris, J., & Ortega, L.
    (2003) Defining and measuring SLA. InC. J. Doughty & M. H. Long. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp.717–761). Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756492.ch21
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756492.ch21 [Google Scholar]
  44. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L.
    (2009) Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555–578. 10.1093/applin/amp044
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp044 [Google Scholar]
  45. Ortega, L.
    (2005) What do learners plan? Learner-driven attention to form during pre-task planning. InR. Ellis. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.77–109). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.11.07ort
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.07ort [Google Scholar]
  46. Pang, F., & Skehan, P.
    (2014) Self-reported planning behaviour and second language performance in narrative retelling. InP. Skehan. (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp.95–128). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.5.04pan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.5.04pan [Google Scholar]
  47. Pliatsikas, C., Johnstone, T., & Marinis, T.
    (2014) fMRI evidence for the involvement of the procedural memory system in morphological processing of a second language. PLoS ONE, 9(5), e97298. 10.1371/journal.pone.0097298
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0097298 [Google Scholar]
  48. Reichle, E. D.
    (2006) Theories of the “eye-mind” link: Computational models of eye-movement control during reading. Cognitive Systems Research, 7, 2–3. 10.1016/j.cogsys.2005.07.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2005.07.001 [Google Scholar]
  49. Révész, A.
    (2009) Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 437–470. 10.1017/S0272263109090366
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109090366 [Google Scholar]
  50. (2011) Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions, and individual differences: A classroom-based study. Modern Language Journal, 95, 162–181. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2011.01241.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01241.x [Google Scholar]
  51. (2014) Towards a fuller assessment of cognitive models of task-based learning: Investigating task-generated cognitive demands and processes. Applied Linguistics, 35, 87–92. 10.1093/applin/amt039
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt039 [Google Scholar]
  52. Révész, A., Kourtali, N., & Mazgutova, D.
    (2017) Effects of task complexity on L2 writing behaviors and linguistic complexity. Language Learning, 67, 208–241. 10.1111/lang.12205
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12205 [Google Scholar]
  53. Révész, A., Michel, M., & Gilabert, R.
    (2016) Measuring cognitive task demands using dual task methodology, subjective self-ratings, and expert judgments: A validation study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 703–737. 10.1017/S0272263115000339
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263115000339 [Google Scholar]
  54. Révész, A., Michel, M., & Lee, M.
    (2017) Investigating IELTS Academic Writing Task 2: Relationships between cognitive writing processes, text quality, and working memory. IELTS Research Reports Online Series 2017/3.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. (2019) Exploring second language writers’ pausing and revision behaviours: A mixed methods study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 605–631. 10.1017/S027226311900024X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311900024X [Google Scholar]
  56. Révész, A., Sachs, R., & Hama, M.
    (2014) The effects of task complexity and input frequency on the acquisition of the past counterfactual construction through recasts. Language Learning, 64, 615–650. 10.1111/lang.12061
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12061 [Google Scholar]
  57. Robinson, P.
    (2001a) Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for investigating task influences on SLA. InP. Robinson. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp.287–318). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524780.012
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.012 [Google Scholar]
  58. (2001b) Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57. 10.1093/applin/22.1.27
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.27 [Google Scholar]
  59. Roca de Larios, J., Manchón, R. M., Murphy, L., & Marín, J.
    (2008) The foreign language writer’s strategic behaviour in the allocation of time to writing processes. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 30–47. 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.08.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.08.005 [Google Scholar]
  60. Sangarun, J.
    (2005) The effects of focusing on meaning and form in strategic planning. InR. Ellis. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.111–141). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.11.08san
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.08san [Google Scholar]
  61. Sasayama, S.
    (2016) Is a ‘complex’ task really complex? Validating the assumption of cognitive task complexity. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 231–254. 10.1111/modl.12313
     https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12313 [Google Scholar]
  62. Sasayama, S., & Norris, J.
    (2019) Unravelling cognitive task complexity: Learning from learners’ perspectives on task characteristics and second language performance. InZ. Wen, & J. A. Ahmadian. (Eds.), Researching L2 task performance and pedagogy: In honour of Peter Skehan (pp.95–132). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.13.06sas
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.13.06sas [Google Scholar]
  63. Sassa, Y., Sugiura, M., Jeong, H., Horie, K., Sato, S., & Kawashima, R.
    (2007) Cortical mechanism of communicative speech production. NeuroImage, 37, 985–992. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.05.059
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.05.059 [Google Scholar]
  64. Skehan, P.
    (1998) A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Smith, B.
    (2012) Eye tracking as a measure of noticing: A study of explicit recasts in SCMC. Language Learning & Technology, 16, 53–81.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Spelman Miller, K.
    (2000) Academic writers on-line: Investigating pausing in the production of text. Language Teaching Research, 4, 123–148. 10.1191/136216800675510135
     https://doi.org/10.1191/136216800675510135 [Google Scholar]
  67. Stiefenhöfer, L., & Michel, M.
    (2020) Investigating the relationship between peer interaction and writing processes in computer-supported collaborative L2 writing: A mixed-methods study. InR. M. Manchón. (Ed.), Writing and language learning: Advancing research agendas (pp.255–280). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.56.11ste
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.56.11ste [Google Scholar]
  68. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S.
    (1995) Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391. 10.1093/applin/16.3.371
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.3.371 [Google Scholar]
  69. Thorson, H.
    (2000) Using the computer to compare foreign- and native-language writing processes: A statistical and case study approach. The Modern Language Journal, 84, 55–70. 10.1111/0026‑7902.00059
     https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00059 [Google Scholar]
  70. Torres, J.
    (2018) The effects of task complexity on heritage and L2 Spanish development. Canadian Modern Language Review, 74, 128–152. 10.3138/cmlr.3770
     https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.3770 [Google Scholar]
  71. Van Waes, L., Leijten, M., Lindgren, E., & Wengelin, Å.
    (2016) Keystroke logging in writing research: Analyzing online writing processes. InC. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald. (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp.410–426). The Guilford Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Vasylets, L., & Gilabert, R.
    (2015) Exploring the visual-dynamic and linguistic conceptualisation traces in task-based performance. Paper presented at the6th Biennial International Conference on Task-based Language Teaching, Leuven, Belgium.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Xu, T. S., Zhang, L. J., & Gaffney, J. S.
    (in press). Examining the relative effectiveness of task complexity and cognitive demands on students’ writing in a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Zakay, D., & Block, R. A.
    (1997) Temporal cognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 12–16. 10.1111/1467‑8721.ep11512604
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep11512604 [Google Scholar]
  75. Zalbidea, J.
    (2017) One task fits all? The roles of task complexity, modality, and working memory capacity in L2 performance. The Modern Language Journal, 101, 335–352. 10.1111/modl.12389
     https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12389 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/task.21017.rev
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): dual-task methodology; eye-tracking; keystroke logging; methodology; task; triangulation; verbal protocols

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error