1887
Volume 152, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0019-0829
  • E-ISSN: 1783-1490
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

It has been argued that tasks constitute a valid alternative unit to sequence the language learning process, as opposed to linguistically defined syllabuses. Implementing this claim presupposes that it is possible to assess the cognitive and linguistic demands of tasks, so that they can be sequenced in such a way that they optimally support and promote the L2 learning process. Knowing what demands a task will make opens up the possibility of using task design to manipulate the learner's attention between form and meaning in ways that may help interlanguage development.

In this article, we present three empirical studies, which have tried to manipulate task complexity in order to study the effects of differing levels of task complexity on (L2) performance. We situate our studies within the Triadic Componential Framework for Task Design (TCFTD), elaborated by Robinson (1995; 2001; 2005) and interpret our findings in the light of two alternative theories, trying to explain effects on L2 performance arising from task manipulation, namely the Limited Attentional Capacity Model (Skehan & Foster 2001), and the Cognition Hypothesis (Robinson 2001; 2005). Apart from yielding evidence against or in favour of these theories, our studies demonstrate that manipulating L2 learners' attention while performing a task is anything but straightforward. The studies also illustrate how task conditions appear to interact with task complexity.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.2143/ITL.152.0.2017863
2006-01-01
2019-10-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bowerman, M. & Levinson, S.
    (Eds.) (2001) Language acquisition and conceptual development. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Brown, C.
    (1993) Factors affecting the acquisition of vocabulary: frequency and saliency of words. In T. Huckin , M. Haynes & J. Coady (Eds.), Second language reading and vocabulary learning (pp.263–286). Norwood: NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Cummins, J.
    (1979) Cognitive academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers in Bilingualism, 19, 197–205.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Doughty, C.
    (2003) Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp.256–310). Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Doughty, C. & Williams, J.
    (1998) Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.197–262). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Doughty, C.
    (2001) Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp.206–257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Ellis, R.
    (2005) Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Foster, P. & Skehan, P.
    (1999) The influence of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 3, 3,215–247.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Gilabert, R.
    (2005) Task complexity and L2 narrative oral production. PhD thesis, University of Barcelona.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. (forthcoming). The simultaneous manipulation of task complexity along planning time and +/-Here-and-Now: effects on oral production. In M. Garda Mayo Ed. Investigating tasks in formal language settings. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Huckin, T. & Coady, J.
    (1999) Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 181–193.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Hulstijn, J. , Hollander, M. & Greidanus, T.
    (1996) Incidental vocabulary learning by advanced foreign language stUdents: The influence of marginal glosses, dictionary use, and reoccurence of unknown words. The Modern Language Journal, 80,327–339.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Kuiken, F. & Vedder, I.
    (forthcoming). Cognitive task complexity and linguistic performance in French L2 writing. In M. Garcia Mayo Ed. Investigating tasks in formal language settings. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (2004a) II Bed, & Breakfast piu bello d'italia. Cognitieve taakcomplexiteit en tekstkwaliteit in Italiaans T2. [II Bed & Breakfast piu bello d'italia. Cognitive task complexity and text quality in Italian L2.]Incontri, 19,1 ,31–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (2004b) De relatie tussen cognitieve taakcomplexiteit en lingu'istische performance bij het schrijven in T1 en T2. [The relationship between cognitive task complexity and linguistic performance in L 1 and L2 writing.] Toegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen, 72, 23–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Kuiken, F. , Mas, M. & Vedder, I.
    (2005) Cognitive task complexity and second language writing performance. In S. Foster-Cohen , M.P. Garcia-Mayo and J. Cenol (Eds.), Eurosla Yearbook. Vol.5 (pp.195–222). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Laufer, B.
    (2005) Focus on form in second language vocabulary learning. In S.H. Foster-Cohen , M. Garcia-Mayo , & J. Cenol (Eds.), Eurosla YearbookVol.5 (pp.223–250). Amsterdaml Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Ughtbown, P.
    (1998) The importance of timing in focus on form. In C. Doughty , & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.177–196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Long, M. & Crookes, G.
    (1992) Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 1, 27–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Long, M. , & Robinson, P.
    (1998) Focus on form: theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom SLA (pp.15–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Mondria, J-A. , & Wit-de Boer, M.
    (1991) The Effects of contextual richness on the guessability and the retention of words in a foreign language. Applied Linguistics, 12, 3, 249–266.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Nation, P.
    (2001) Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Norris, J. & Ortega, L.
    (2000) Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 3, 417–528.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Oberauer, K.
    et al. (2000) Working memory capacity - facets of a cognitive ability construct. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 1017–1045.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Peters, E.
    (forthcoming). L2 vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehension. The influence of task complexityIn. M. Garcia Mayo Ed. Investigating tasks in formal language settings. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (submitted). Manipulating students' online dictionary use and its effect on L2 word retention. Language Learning & Technology.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Peters, E. & Sercu, L.
    (submitted). The influence of task complexity on vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehension. In Vliegen, M. ed. Variation in Sprachtheorie und Spracherwerb. Akten des 39. Linguistischen Kolloquiums in Amsterdam 2004. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
  28. Read, J.
    (2000) Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Robinson, P.
    (1995) Attention, memory and the "noticing" hypothesis. Language Learning45, 283–331.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. (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: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. (2003) Attention and memory during SLA. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp.631–678). Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. (2005) Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a triadic componential framework for second language task design. IRAL. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43, 1, 1–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Sanders, A.
    (1998) Elements of human performance. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  34. Schmidt, R.
    (2001) Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp.3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  35. Skehan, P. , & Foster, P.
    (2001) Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp.183–205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Spada, N.
    (1997) Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching Abstracts, 30, 73–87.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Staud, T.
    (2003 October). Ossis sind Türken. 13 Jahre Einheit: In Gesamt-Westdeutschland sind die Ostdeutschen Einwanderer. Die Zeit, 41. Retrieved October 2, 2003fromwww.zeil.de/2003/41/Einwanderer.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Van Loo, H. & Schoenaerts, P.
    (2003) Niet vanzelfsprekend. Leuven: Acco.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. VanPatten, B.
    (1990).Attending to content and form in the input: an experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12,287–301.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Wolfe-Quintero, K. , Inagaki, S. & Kim, H.Y.
    (1998) Second language development in writing: measures of fluency, accuracy and complexity. Honolulu, HI: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawai'i at Manoa.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.2143/ITL.152.0.2017863
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
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