Transcript THE EFFECTS OF TASK COMPLEXITY ON MEASURES OF ACCURACY AND LEXICAL VARIETY IN EFL WRITING Nihal Gökgöz, Marmara University, [email protected] Assoc.

THE EFFECTS OF TASK
COMPLEXITY ON MEASURES OF
ACCURACY AND LEXICAL
VARIETY IN EFL WRITING
Nihal Gökgöz, Marmara University, [email protected]
Assoc. Prof. Derin Atay, Marmara University,
[email protected]
Four main approaches
psycholinguistic,
interactional
approach
social interactive
approach
cognitive,
information
processing
approach
structure focused
approach
Tasks provide
social context
the use of meaningful language
attention to input
IL development
noticing
input processing
Attention to Input and The Cognition
Hypothesis
Task
demands
More cognitively
demanding tasks
Cognitive
resources
More attention to
input/output and
noticing/rehearsal
in memory
Learning
mechanisms
More rule and
instance
learning/stage
shifts/
proceduralization/
cue strengthening
Performance
effects
More
incorporation of
input/ more
modification of
input
The Triadic Componential
Framework
TASK COMPLEXITY
Cognitive factors
TASK CONDITION
Interactive factors
TASK DIFFICULTY
Learner factors
Resource-directing
Participation variables
Affective variables
+ / - few elements
+ / - no reasoning
demands
+ / - here & now
open / closed
convergent / divergent
one-way / two-way flow
motivation
confidence
anxiety
Resource-dispersing
Participant variables
Ability variables
+ / - planning
+ / - single task
+ / - prior knowledge
same/different gender
familar/unfamiliar
person
power/solidarity
Working memory
Aptitude
Proficiency
Predictions of the Cognition
Hypothesis
 Increase in complexity along resource-directing
variables
 Less fluent
 More accurate
 More complex
 Increase in complexity along resourcedispersing variables
 Less fluent
 Less accurate
 Less complex
Research on cognitive task features
1. Here-and-now
2. Number of
elements
3. Pre-task and
online planning
time
4. Prior
knowledge and
reasoning
demands
1. Iwashita et al.
2001
2. Rahimpour,
1997
3. Robinson,
1995
4. Gilabert, 2007
1. Kuiken &
Vedder, 2007
2. Robinson,
2001
1. Crookes,
1989;
2. Ellis,1987
3. Foster &
Skehan,
1997,1998
4. Yuan & Ellis,
2003
1. Robinson,
2001a
2. Lee, 2002
3. Kuiken &
Vedder, 2007
Previous findings
Planning time studies:
Here-and-Now / There-and-Then
1.
1. Fluency decreases: (Robinson,
1995; Rahimpour, 1997)
2. Increased lexical complexity:
(Robinson, 1995; Rahimpour,
1997)
3. No differences in structural
complexity: (Robinson, 1995;
Rahimpour,1997)
4. Higher accuracy: (Robinson,
1995; Rahimpour, 1997;
Iwashita et al.)
2.
3.
4.
Fluency increases (Foster &
Skehan, 1996; Skehan &
Foster, 1997; Ortega, 1999;
Yuan & Ellis, 2003)
Higher structural complexity
(Foster & Skehan, 1996;
Ortega, 1999; Yuan& Ellis,
2003; only a trend in Skehan &
Foster, 1997)
No significant effects on lexical
complexity: (Ortega, 1999;
Yuan & Ellis, 2003).
Mixed results for accuracy:
higher accuracy (Foster &
Skehan, 1997)
no differences (Foster &
Skehan, 1996; Yuan & Ellis,
2003)
mixed results (Ortega, 1999)
Previous findings cont.
Prior knowledge
Number of elements, reasoning
demands
1.
1.
2.
3.
Lexical richness on the complex
version
Greater fluency on the simple
version
No effects of complexity on
accuracy (Robinson, 2001)
2.
3.
No significant effects supporting
the claims of the Cognition
Hypothesis (Lee, 2002)
Complex speech production on the
complex version (specific
measures) Robinson, 2007
No effects of task complexity on
accuracy, fluency and complexity
(general measures) Robinson, 2007
Impetus for the study
 Absence of certain criteria when grading and
sequencing tasks
 Students’ not being able to reach the desired level
(in terms of accuracy, lexical and grammatical
range)
 Students’ failure in meeting the complex demands
of real life tasks
 No studies in Turkey concerning task complexity
Research questions
 Does task complexity influence accuracy, in
terms of types of errors?
 Does task complexity influence lexical variation,
in terms of word frequency?
 Does the influence of task complexity on
accuracy and lexical variation differ according to
the level of proficiency?
Experimental design
Setting:
Participants:
Procedure:
Turkish Private
125 participants
 vocabulary test
University
Preparatory school
2007-8 Academic
year
63 in lower
 Tasks (40
level:B1
62 in higher
level:B2
minutes)
Data instrument
Complex task condition
Non-complex task condition
6 requirements
3 requirements
Presence of a garden
•A quiet location
A quiet location
• Located in (the vicinity of) the center
Located in (the vicinity of) the center
•Swimming facilities
The possibility of doing exercise
Swimming facilities
Includes breakfast
Bed and Breakfast in Turkey (complex task condition)
You are planning to go on holiday with a Turkish friend, and want to
spend two weeks together in July or August. You have decided to go to
a Bed and Breakfast. Your friend has already surfed the internet and
made a first selection. S/he picked five addresses, in Bodrum, Kaş,
Çeşme, Ayvalık region and on Cunda Island, and is now asking for
advice. The guesthouse or apartment you choose, however, has to
satisfy a number of conditions. These criteria are:






Presence of a garden
A quiet location
Located in (the vicinity of) the center
The possibility of doing exercise
Swimming facilities
Includes breakfast
None of the five addresses your friend sent you meets all of the criteria. A
carefully considered choice has to be made, however. Read the five descriptions
carefully, then write a letter of at least 150 words in which you explain which
Bed and Breakfast you think is most suitable and fits the conditions best. Keep in
mind that your text does not have to reflect your personal preferences. Write a
letter in which you try to convince your friend that your choice is right and
support it with arguments. You have 40 minutes to write the text. Use of a
dictionary is permitted.
1. Karia Bodrum
Location
Description
marina.
: Located on a commercial street at the center of city.
: In the dynamic heart of Bodrum, within walking distance of
Attractive 2-story hotel, 6 rooms with private bathrooms, terrace
with view,
babysitting, fitness center, no swimming pool but easy
transportation to many
beaches around.
Breakfast
: No breakfast served
2. Barbarossa Hotel Kas
Location
: Antalya, Kas. Located in the coast of Kas which is 160
kilometres from Dalaman and 180 kilometres from Antlaya airports.
Description : The hotel is ideally situated 1 minute from the sea front
and in the lively town centre with its many shops, bars and restaurants.
Free pick-up service from bus station to our hotel. Garden, swimming
pool.
Breakfast
: No breakfast served
3. Cesme Bed and Breakfast
Location
: Cesme, Ilıca, Izmir.
Description : At a considerable distance from the city center, but
situated directly next to the coast and sea front, with a lot of activity,
even at night. Attractively priced, young and dynamic, open day and
night, free parking, fitness, beach activities, bicycles available for guests,
reduced entrance fees and shuttle bus to and from the clubs, special
discounts for young guests and groups.
Breakfast
: Comprehensive breakfast buffet, between 8.30 and
10.30.
4. Kayahan Hotel Ayvalık
Location
: Sarimsakli Beach, situated on the Aegean coast on the
beautiful Sarimsakli beach.
Description : 3-star hotel offers its own private beach and family
accommodation, ideally located for those seeking to spend a quiet
holiday on the beach, but with shops, bars and restaurants conveniently
located in close proximity.
Breakfast
: Breakfast service, between 7.00 and 8.30.
5. Hotel Cunda
Location
: Ayvalık, Cunda Island
Description : 800 metres from the center of the island, for those
looking for peace, fully restored farmhouse with garden in quiet region
which hasn’t been discovered by mass-tourism yet. We have two rooms
for our guests on the top floor, with a total of 4/5 beds the bathroom is
shared between both bedrooms.
Breakfast
: Guests can prepare their own breakfast; not included.
Data Analysis
Independent variables
Dependent Variables
Task complexity
Lexical Variety
Proficiency level
Accuracy: Appropriateness
Grammar
Lexicon
Orthography
Other
Coding for accuracy
 Errors per T-unit (E/T):E/T is an accuracy
ratio which is the calculation of the total
number of errors divided by the total number
of T-units.
 T-Unit: one main clause with all subordinate
clauses attached to it (Hunt, 1965)
Coding for lexical variety
 Lexical proficiency analysis (Laufer &Nation,1995)
 Lexical frequency profile (LFP): “the percentage of words
a learner uses at different vocabulary frequency levels in
her writing- or, put differently relative proportions of
words from different frequency levels” (p.311).
 The Compleat Lexical Tutor (Cobb, 1998)
 Lexical variation was operationalized by the way of a typetoken ratio which does not ignore the text length: the total
number of different word types divided by the square root
of two times the total number of words (Carroll, 1967).
Results
Prof.
Task
Level
complexity
N
Error Type
Appropriateness
Grammar
Lexical frequency
Lexicon
Orthography
Other
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
Frequency < 2000
SD
M
SD
B1 Complex
32
1.13
0.87
9.81
5.42
1.66
1.61
1.34
1.55
0.69
0.89
48.53
8.78
B1 Non-complex
31
1.03
0.98
10.68
6.90
1.42
1.43
1.29
1.67
0.45
0.62
47.58
10.83
B2 Complex
31
0.55
0.72
11.03
5.13
2.35
1.53
2.42
1.72
0.35
0.66
57.42
12.17
B2 Non-complex
31
1.26
0.81
11.10
6.31
2.29
1.61
3.19
2.48
0.19
0.40
52.12
11.09
Results
Appropriateness Errors Plot
Grammar Errors Plot
1,4
11,2
11,0
1,2
10,6
1,0
Means
Means
10,8
,8
10,4
10,2
Complexity
Complexity
10,0
,6
,4
B2
non complex
9,8
complex
9,6
non complex
complex
B2
B1
B1
Group
Group
Orthography Errors Plot
Lexicon Errors Plot
3,5
2,6
2,4
3,0
Means
Means
2,2
2,0
2,5
2,0
1,8
1,6
Complexity
Complexity
1,5
non complex
1,4
non complex
1,2
complex
1,0
B2
Group
complex
B2
B1
Group
B1
Results
Lexical Frequency Plot
Other Errors Plot
,8
58
,7
56
54
Means
Means
,6
,5
,4
52
50
,3
Complexity
Complexity
48
,2
non complex
,1
complex
B2
Group
B1
non complex
46
complex
B2
Group
B1
Discussion
Task complexity and accuracy
 No significant effects, except for
appropriateness errors, were found
supporting the claim that more cognitively
complex version of the task (along the
dimensions explained in the study) results in
greater accuracy.
 Appropriateness error was the only error
type influenced by increasing cognitive
complexity of the task.
Discussion
Task complexity and lexical frequency
 No significant results were found supporting the
Cognition Hypothesis or Limited Attentional
Capacity Model.
 Although general means and standard deviations
show that complex task condition in both
proficiency levels yield to more frequent words
used, the results did not indicate a significant
effect of complexity on lexical frequency.
 However, it can be discussed that there is a trend
towards Limited Attentional Capacity Model
which claims that cognitively less complex tasks
result in lexical richness.
Discussion
Task complexity and proficiency level:
 Unexpected results
 Higher proficiency level produced more
errors than lower proficieny level did.
 The effect of the syllabus at that time
 Less accurate but more complex language ???
Examples of learner errors
B2-higher proficiency group
1. You want to go to a hotel which include garden, private
beach, fitness and good breakfast service.
2. This hotel involved what we want.
3. We also go walking in Forest which Antalya has a lot.
4. So I think Barbarossa Hotel Kas is the only hotel which
include everything we want among these five hotels.
5. I don’t like the other hotels because these haven’t provide
our criteria.
6. It has number of option to eat.
Examples of learner errors cont.
B1-lower proficiency group
1. You can because there isn’t fitness center in this
hotel.
2. We can breakfast with clear weather.
3. The hotel which is in Kas.
4. I make plan holiday for us.
5. I asked to travel management, how is your prefers.
6. I know we going vacation together this summery.
Implications and suggestions for
future research
 Inconclusive results: difficulty of
operationalization of task complexity
 More studies to test writing production
 Longitudinal studies where a continuous treatment
which involves gradually increased cognitive
complexity of tasks is applied may contribute to
the understanding of causal relationships of the
variables of the research better.
References
Foster, F., & Skehan, P. (1999). The influence of source of planning and focus on taskbased performance. Language Teaching Research, 3(3), 215-247.
Gilabert, R. (2007). Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 oral production.
IRAL, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(3), 215-240.
Hunt, K. W. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three levels. Urbana, IL: The National Council of
Teachers of English.
Kuiken, V., & Vedder, I. (2007a). Cognitive task complexity and linguistic performance in French L2
writing. In Maria del Pilar Garcia Mayo (Ed.) Investigating Tasks in Formal Language learning,
(pp.117-135). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Kuiken, V., & Vedder, I. (2007b). Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2
writing. IRAL, International Review of Applied Linguistic in Language Teaching, 45(3), 261-284.
Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production.
Applied Linguistics, 16, 307-322.
Michel, M. C., Kuiken, V., & Vedder, I. (2007). The influence of complexity in monologic versus
dialogic tasks in Dutch L2. IRAL, International Review of Applied Linguistic in Language Teaching,
45(3), 241-259.
Robinson, P. (1995a). Attention, memory, and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning, 45, 99140.
Robinson, P. (1995b). Task complexity and second language narrative discourse. Language Learning,
45(1), 99-140.
References cont.
Robinson, P. (2001a). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in
a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27-57.
Robinson, P. (2001b). 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.
Robinson, P. (2003). The cognition hypothesis, task design, and adult task-based learning. Second
Language Studies, 21(2), 45-105.
Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework
for second language task design. IRAL, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language
Teaching, 43(1), 1-32.
Robinson, P. (2007a). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects of L2
speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. IRAL, International
Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(3), 193-213.
Robinson, P. (2007b). Criteria for grading and sequencing pedagogic tasks. In Maria del Pilar Garcia
Mayo (Ed.), Investigating Tasks in Formal Language Learning (pp. 7-27). Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Robinson, P., & Gilabert, R. (2007). Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis and second language
learning and performance. IRAL, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language
Teaching, 45(3), 161-176.
Skehan,P. (1996).A framework for the implementation of task based instruction. Applied Linguistics,
17(1), 38–62.
References cont.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Hong Kong: Oxford.
Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 31, 1-14.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign
language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 185-212.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative
retellings. Language Learning, 49(1), 93-120.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second
language instruction (pp. 183-205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative
type on learner output. Language Learning, 58(2), 439-473.
THANK YOU 