Effects of task repetition on L2 oral performance

Abstract

This study departs from the assumption that speaking an L2 is a complex cognitive ability (FORTKAMP, 2000) whose execution seems to involve tradeoff effects among the different goals of speech production, mainly among fluency, accuracy and complexity (BYGATE, 1998, 1999, 2001b; FOSTER e SKEHAN, 1996; SKEHAN e FOSTER, 1995, 2001; SKEHAN, 1998). Bygate (2001b) studied the effects of task familiarity on L2 speech performance. He found that in repeating a narrative task there were gains in terms of complexity of speech and these gains were achieved at the cost of a loss especially in accuracy. The present study investigated whether the results reported in Bygate (2001b) would be similar in the case of a repetition of a picture description task. According to Robinson (2001), a description is less complex than a narrative task. Four measures of speech performance were calculated following Fortkamp (2000): fluency, accuracy, complexity and lexical density. Results indicate gains in complexity and these gains seem to have been paid, especially by gains in accuracy, thus corroborating Bygate´s (2001b) findings for this task condition.

The Effects of Cognitive Task Complexity on Learners’ Performance

“…Finardi explored the effects of task repetition on the oral production of learners [38]. The participants were 24 learners who performed a picture description task.…”

Metodologia Qualitativa E Quantitativa: Perspectivas Convergentes Na Pesquisa Empírica

“…Por outro lado, Finardi (2008) estudou os efeitos da repetição de tarefas na produção oral em L2, investigando se uma tarefa diferenciada, que não levasse em conta o enredo, a sequência das ações, assim como a descrição, apresentaria o mesmo resultado que o da narrativa. A pressuposição de que a descrição fosse menos complexa levou-o a conduzir o teste utilizando a descrição como tarefa, almejando saber se poderia chegar a resultados semelhantes aos apresentados por Bygate (2001).…”

<b>The role of working memory capacity in the development of L2 speech production</b><br>DOI:10.5007/2175-8026.2011n60p075

“…Working memory has been broadly defined as the human cognitive system responsible for the simultaneous and temporary processing and storage of information in the performance of cognitive tasks (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974;Daneman & Carpenter, 1980, 1983Miyake & Shah, 1999). Research in language acquisition to date has acknowledged that limitations in individuals' working memory capacity may be seen as a possible independent constraint on the process involved in using and acquiring both a first and a second language (Daneman & Green, 1986;Daneman, 1991;Fortkamp, 1999;2000;Fontanini, Weissheimer, Bergsleithner, Perucci & D'Ely 2005;Weissheimer & Fortkamp, 2004;Bergsleithner, 2005;Guará-Tavares, 2005;Finardi & Prebianca, 2006;Xhafaj, 2006;Finardi, 2008;Bergsleithner & Fortkamp, 2007;Finardi & Weissheimer, 2009). These studies have shown that, in general, individuals with a higher working memory capacity tend to outperform those with a lower capacity in various aspects of language performance and acquisition.…”

“…The view of working memory capacity as a source of individual differences in L1 is already indisputable (Just & Carpenter 1992;Daneman & Green, 1986, Tomitch, 2003Turner & Engle, 1989;Conway & Engle, 1996;Kane, Bleckley, Conway & Engle, 2001). There is now mounting evidence for the role of working memory capacity as a possible independent constraint on the process involved in both L2 use and acquisition (Harrington, 1992;Harrington & Sawyer, 1992;Ellis & Sinclair, 1996;Miyake & Friedman, 1998;Berquist, 1998;Fortkamp, 1999;Fortkamp, 2000;Fontanini et al, 2005;Weissheimer, 2007;Finardi, 2008;Berghsleitner & Fortkamp, 2007;Finardi & Weissheimer, 2009). Overall, these studies suggest that working memory capacity may be even more involved in the processes of using and acquiring an L2 than in those processes involved in L1.…”

“…Following the rationale above, researchers have been attempting to compile evidence on the extent to which working memory capacity is related to learners' performance and development of L2 speech (Bergsleithner & Fortkamp, 2007, Finardi, 2008Fortkamp, 1999Fortkamp, , 2000Fortkamp, , 2005Fontanini et al, 2005;Weissheimer & Fortkamp, 2004;Fortkamp & Bergsleithner, 2007;Guará-Tavares, 2005;Finardi & Prebianca, 2006;Xhafaj, 2006;Weissheimer, 2007;Berghsleitner & Fortkamp, 2007;Finardi, 2007;Finardi, 2008;Finardi & Weissheimer, 2009) .…”