Chapter 1. Criteria for Classifying and Sequencing Pedagogic Tasks

Robinson, Peter

doi:10.21832/9781853599286-004

Cited by 81 publications

(160 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

134

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Since Robinson (2001Robinson ( , 2007Robinson ( , 2011 framework for task complexity makes hypotheses about the relationship between causal reasoning and syntactic complexity in language production, the current study is able to illuminate the proposed relationship. Robinson predicts that an increase in causal reasoning will lead to an increase in the syntactic complexity of language production.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…There are some overlaps in terms of what dimensions of topics have been examined between the TBLT literature and the L1 and L2 writing literature, such as personal versus impersonal topics and familiar versus unfamiliar topics (see the task complexity framework in Skehan, 1998Skehan, , 2014. What is perhaps more enlightening and relevant to the current study is the resource-directing dimensions in Robinson (2001Robinson ( , 2007Robinson ( , 2011 task cognitive complexity framework, which currently includes six dimensions: +/À here and now, +/À few elements, +/À spatial reasoning, +/À causal reasoning, +/À intentional reasoning, and +/À perspectives-taking, where the +/À signs denote with/without or more/less. These dimensions are seen to make cognitive/conceptual demands on learners that can direct the learners' attention to form-function mappings.…”

Section: Topic Effect On Syntactic Complexitymentioning

confidence: 97%

“…The two writing tasks do not differ in genre or discourse mode, as they are both argumentative essays, nor do they differ in the dimensions of being personal versus impersonal, or familiar versus unfamiliar. However, they do differ in one of the cognitive complexity dimensions in Robinson (2001Robinson ( , 2007Robinson ( , 2011 framework, namely, causal reasoning. Robinson (2005) defines causal reasoning as ''justify [ing] beliefs, and support[ing] interpretations of why events follow each other by giving reasons.''…”

Section: Participants and Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Different topics, different discourse: Relationships among writing topic, measures of syntactic complexity, and judgments of writing quality

Yang

Weigle

2015

Journal of Second Language Writing

231

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Topic Effect On Syntactic Complexitymentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Participants and Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Different topics, different discourse: Relationships among writing topic, measures of syntactic complexity, and judgments of writing quality

Yang

Weigle

2015

Journal of Second Language Writing

231

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…According to Robinson ( 2001aRobinson ( , 2001bRobinson ( , 2005Robinson ( , 2007a, a triadic componential framework for pedagogic task classifi cation differentiates among three sources of cognitive demands: (a) task features, (b) interactive features, and (c) learner factors. The fi rst source, task features, includes inherent features of tasks that impact the level of cognitive complexity, classifi ed as either resource-directing or resource-dispersing variables.…”

Section: Background Task Complexity and The Cognition Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

The Intersection of Task-Based Interaction, Task Complexity, and Working Memory

Kim

Payant

Pearson

2015

Stud Second Lang Acquis

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The extent to which individual differences in cognitive abilities affect the relationship among task complexity, attention to form, and second language development has been addressed only minimally in the cognition hypothesis literature. The present study explores how reasoning demands in tasks and working memory (WM) capacity predict learners' ability to notice English question structures provided in the form of recasts and how this contributes to subsequent development of English question formation. Eighty-one nonnative speakers of English completed three interactive tasks with a native speaker interlocutor, one WM task, and three oral production tests. Prior to the fi rst interactive task, participants were randomly assigned to a task group (simple or complex). During task performance, all learners were provided with recasts targeting errors in question formation. The results showed that learners' cognitive processes during tasks were in line with the cognitive demands of the tasks, at two complexity levels. The fi ndings suggest that WM was the only signifi cant predictor of the amount of noticing of recasts as well as of learners' question development. With regard to interaction effects between WM and task complexity, high WM learners who carried out a complex version of the tasks benefi tted the most from task-based interaction.Since Long's ( 1996 ) updated interaction hypothesis, there has been a surge in research conducted on the effects of conversational interaction on second language (L2) learning, to the degree that "a robust connection" between interaction and learning is now commonly accepted (Gass & Mackey, 2007 , p. 176; see also Mackey, Abbuhl, & Gass, 2012 , for a review). Learner internal and external factors mediating the positive relationship between interaction and L2 learning have been identifi ed, and the role of task design features in both L2 performance and interactiondriven language learning is being increasingly examined in the fi eld of instructed SLA. Researchers have explored the effects of task complexity on L2 development by testing the predictions of Robinson's ( 2011 ) cognition hypothesis and Skehan's ( 1998 ) trade-off hypothesis. However, very little research has looked into the ways individual learners' cognitive characteristics, such as working memory (WM) capacity, mediate the effects of task complexity on L2 learning. Moreover, from a methodological standpoint, researchers have yet to systematically document evidence of task complexity validation (e.g., Baralt, 2013 ;Gilabert & Barón, 2013 ;Norris, 2010 ;Révész, 2014 ). To address these issues and to test the predictions of the cognition hypothesis, the current study (a) assesses whether task complexity manipulations are in line with learner perceptions and cognitive processes during task completion; (b) examines the relationship between task complexity, WM, and noticing of recasts; and (c) investigates the development of English language questions by L2 learners. BACKGROUND

show abstract

“…Once target tasks (TTs) (e.g., serving breakfast, lunch, dinner and drinks) and target task types (TTTs) (e.g., serving food and beverages) are identified based on the results of the NA, course designers can proceed with the latter phases of creating the program, which involve deriving pedagogic tasks (PTs), or what learners and teachers actually do in the classroom; sequencing them based on task frequency, criticality, or complexity (see Long, 2015c;Robinson, 2005Robinson, , 2007 to form the task syllabus for the group(s) of learners concerned; and finally, assessing learners' ability to perform the set of TTs identified by the original NA using task-based, criterion-reference performance tests (Brown & Hudson, 2002;Norris, 2009). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%