Chapter 3. The Simultaneous Manipulation of Task Complexity Along Planning Time and (+/- Here-and-Now): Effects on L2 Oral Production

Gilabert, Roger

doi:10.21832/9781853599286-006

Cited by 47 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Gilabert probed the effects of planning time and (+/here-and-now) on learners' oral performance [26]. The participants were 48 English learners at the lowerintermediate level, and each participant performed four tasks.…”

Section: Studies On +/-Planning Time Dimensionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Cognitive Task Complexity on Learners’ Performance

Sanajoo¹

2016

IJLL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the field of task-based language teaching, sequencing tasks is of substantial importance. One of the proposals for sequencing tasks is cognitive task complexity. Robinson, as one of the proponents of sequencing tasks based on cognitive task complexity, distinguishes between three factors of: task complexity (i.e. the intrinsic cognitive demands of the task), task conditions (i.e. features of tasks which are determined by the situational setting and conditions in which they take place), and task difficulty (i.e. learners' perceptions of the demands made by the task and the resources that learners bring to the task). After presentation of Robinson's cognitive task complexity model, there has been a great deal of research which has investigated the influences of the components of this model on the three dimensions of performance including accuracy, fluency, and complexity. The present paper is a brief review of the studies that have been conducted in this respect.

show abstract

Section: Studies On +/-Planning Time Dimensionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Cognitive Task Complexity on Learners’ Performance

Sanajoo¹

2016

IJLL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Here, we comment on those that were used most often. In terms of complexity, S-nodes per T-unit was used with some frequency across studies, but even then only in six of the 24 task treatments (see Gilabert, 2007a;Ishikawa, 2007Ishikawa, , 2008Rahimpour, 1999;Robinson, 1995). For accuracy, the most popular measure was percentage of self-repairs, used in six of the treatments (found in Gilabert, 2007aGilabert, , 2007bMichel et al, 2007).…”

Section: Outcome Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In terms of complexity, S-nodes per T-unit was used with some frequency across studies, but even then only in six of the 24 task treatments (see Gilabert, 2007a;Ishikawa, 2007Ishikawa, , 2008Rahimpour, 1999;Robinson, 1995). For accuracy, the most popular measure was percentage of self-repairs, used in six of the treatments (found in Gilabert, 2007aGilabert, , 2007bMichel et al, 2007). Among lexical measures, the most diverse group, percentage of lexical words was used in five treatments across three studies (Michel et al, 2007;Rahimpour, 1999;Robinson, 1995).…”

Section: Outcome Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Cognition Hypothesis: A Synthesis and Meta‐Analysis of Research on Second Language Task Complexity

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study employed synthetic and meta‐analytic techniques to review the literature on the Cognition Hypothesis, which predicts that increasing task complexity influences the quality of second language production. Based on 8 inclusion criteria, 17 published studies were synthesized according to key features. A subset of these studies (k = 9) was also meta‐analyzed to investigate the overall effects of raising resource‐directing task demands on learner output during monologic tasks. The synthesis of 17 primary studies revealed an assortment of treatments and measures. Among the 9 comparable studies, the meta‐analysis uncovered small positive effects for accuracy and small negative effects for fluency. This lends support to the Cognition Hypothesis; however, the present study also disconfirms predictions regarding syntactic complexity. Implications for research and pedagogy are discussed.

show abstract

“…Arising in part out of early speculations about what task characteristics may be influential on interaction and SLA (e.g., Candlin, 1984, 1987; Long, 1983; Prabhu, 1987) a number of increasingly elaborate taxonomies of task characteristics have been proposed as a basis for pedagogic task design (e.g., Pica, Kanagy, & Falodun, 1993; Prabhu, 1987; Robinson, 2007b; Skehan, 1998). Moreover, an increasing number of studies have operationalized characteristics of pedagogic tasks based on one or another of these taxonomic frameworks and have studied their effects (at different levels of complexity) on the amount of interaction they promote (Kim, 2009a, 2009b; Nuevo, 2006) and on the accuracy, fluency, and complexity of task outcomes (Gilabert, 2007; Tavakoli & Foster, this issue); language development (Collentine, 2010); and uptake of corrective feedback (Baralt, 2010; Revesz, 2009).…”

Section: Recent Taxonomic Framework and Theoretical Rationales For Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Tavakoli & Foster, this issue; Tavakoli & Skehan, 2005) and Robinson (1995, 2005) have drawn on Levelt's model of speech production in their psycholinguistic rationales for how task demands should affect L2 speech performance, as have others who have been more generally concerned with identifying the mechanisms involved in producing L2 speech and responding to negative feedback on it (e.g., Bygate, 1999; Doughty, 2001; Izumi, 2003; Kormos, 2006, 2011; see also de Bot, 1996, 1998). Levelt's model of speech production identifies stages in which speech is assembled for production, beginning with a conceptualization stage, leading to preparation of the preverbal message, followed by stages of lexical and grammatical encoding, articulation , and (optionally, possibly individually initiated or coconstructed) monitoring of utterances following production (which can lead to self‐repair, see Gilabert, 2005, 2007; Kormos, 1999; Swain & Lapkin, 1995). Levelt's model is a stage model (for arguments against stage models in general, see Larson‐Freeman & Cameron, 2007; and see Dell, 1986, and Dell, Juliano, & Govindjee, 1993, for alternative spreading activation models of speech production), but preparation of speech at the stages Levelt described is proposed to be performed in parallel, and processing is incremental, so all stages of speech production are simultaneously active, with feed‐forward and feedback operations connecting these stages.…”

Section: Theoretical Rationales For Task‐based Learning Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Task‐Based Language Learning: A Review of Issues

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Theoretically motivated, empirical research into task-based language learning has been prompted by proposals for task-based language teaching. In this review I describe early and more recent proposals for how task-based learning can stimulate acquisition processes and the theoretical rationales that have guided research into them. I also describe taxonomies of task characteristics that have been proposed and claims made about the effects of task characteristics on interaction, attention to input, and speech production. I then relate the issues raised to findings described in the five empirical studies in this issue concerning the effects of pedagogic task design on the accuracy, fluency, and complexity of learner language; the influence of individual differences in cognitive and motivational variables on task performance; the extent to which tasks, and teacher interventions, promote the quantity and quality of interaction that facilitate L2 learning; and the generalizability of task-based learning research in laboratory contexts to instructed classroom settings.Over the past 30 years, proposals for task-based language teaching (TBLT) have drawn on a variety of claims about-and prompted further research intoprocesses thought to promote successful second language acquisition (SLA). Many important contributions to task-based learning research addressing these claims have appeared in Language Learning throughout this period (see, e.g.,

show abstract

Chapter 3. The Simultaneous Manipulation of Task Complexity Along Planning Time and (+/- Here-and-Now): Effects on L2 Oral Production

Cited by 47 publications

References 0 publications

The Effects of Cognitive Task Complexity on Learners’ Performance

The Effects of Cognitive Task Complexity on Learners’ Performance

The Cognition Hypothesis: A Synthesis and Meta‐Analysis of Research on Second Language Task Complexity

Task‐Based Language Learning: A Review of Issues

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About