Writing Task Complexity, Task Condition and the Efficacy of Feedback

Capa

Citar

Texto integral

Resumo

Background. Task-based language teaching (TBLT) is still attracting considerable interest from second language teachers and researchers, partly due to unresolved issues of task sequencing and task complexity. Moreover, in spite of burgeoning attention to writing at the present stage of evolution of TBLT, the interaction of task complexity and corrective feedback in writing performance of language learners has not been explored well.

Purpose. To fill in this research gap, the present study aimed to explore the role of task complexity and task condition in learners’ gain from corrective feedback in second language writing.

Methods. A pretest-immediate posttest-delayed posttest design was adopted in this study. The participants of the study were 114 English as foreign language learners, randomly assigned to one of the five groups: four experimental groups and a control group. The four experimental groups differed in (a) whether they carried out the simple or complex version of a task (b) whether they did the writing task individually or collaboratively. They received feedback on their writing in three treatment sessions.

Results. Statistical analyses revealed that task condition played a larger role than task complexity in the linguistic performance of language learners who received feedback on their writing.

Conclusion. The findings add support to the view that selecting appropriate levels of task complexity and suitable task implementation conditions alongside providing corrective feedback enhances the different dimensions of the written performance of language learners.

Sobre autores

E. Ghaderi

Department of Linguistics and Foreign Languages, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran

Email: ghaderi43@gmail.com
ORCID ID: 0000-0002-5331-5132

A. Rouhi

University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran

Email: afsar.rouhi@gmail.com
ORCID ID: 0000-0003-3485-0671

A. Nemat Tabrizi

Department of Linguistics and Foreign Languages, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran

Email: arnemati@yahoo.com
ORCID ID: 0000-0003-4331-2189

M. Jafarigohar

Department of Linguistics and Foreign Languages, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran

Email: Jafarigohar2007@yahoo.com
ORCID ID: 0000-0001-6892-3248

F. Hemmati

Department of Linguistics and Foreign Languages, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran

Autor responsável pela correspondência
Email: hematitefl@gmail.com
ORCID ID: 0000-0002-1237-5075

Bibliografia

  1. Baralt, M. (2013). The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during online versus face-to-face interactive tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 689-725. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263113000429
  2. Baralt, M., Gilabert, R., & Robinson, P. (2014). An introduction to theory and research in task sequencing and instructed second language learning. In M. Baralt, R. Gilabert, & P. Robinson (Eds.), Task sequencing and instructed second language learning (pp. 1-34). Bloomsbury. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472593665.ch-001
  3. Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102-118. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004
  4. Byrnes, H., & Manchón, R. M. (2014). Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing: An introduction. In H. Byrnes & R. M. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 1-23). John Benjamins.
  5. Cohen, J. W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  6. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
  7. Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task-based performance: Theory and research. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 1-34). John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.03ell
  8. Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2005). The effects of careful within-task planning on oral and written performance. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 167-192). John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.11ell
  9. Fernández Dobao, A. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(1), 40-58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.12.002
  10. Givón, T. (1985). Function, structure, and language acquisition. In D. Slobin (Ed.), The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition (pp. 1008-1025). Lawrence Erlbaum.
  11. Halford, G. S., Cowan, N., & Andrews, G. (2007). Separating cognitive capacity from knowledge: A new hypothesis. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 236-242. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.04.001
  12. Ishikawa, T. (2007). The effect of manipulating task complexity along the [+/-Here-and-Now] dimension on L2 written narrative discourse. In M. P. Garcia Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 157-176). Multilingual Matters. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853599286-010
  13. Johnson, M. D. (2017). Cognitive task complexity and L2 written syntactic complexity, accuracy, lexical complexity, and fluency: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. Journal of Second Language Writing, 37, 13-38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.06.001
  14. Kang, S., & Lee, J. (2019). Are two heads always better than one? The effects of collaborative planning on L2 writing in relation to task complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 61-72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.08.001
  15. Kassim, A., & Luan, N. (2014). The roles of collaborative dialogue in enhancing written corrective feedback efficacy. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 10, 16-30. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1362168819831406.
  16. Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 57-71). Lawrence Erlbaum.
  17. Kim, Y., & Emeliyanova, L. (2019). The effects of written corrective feedback on the accuracy of L2 writing: Comparing collaborative and individual revision behavior. Language Teaching Research. 1-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819831406
  18. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, R. (2008). Cognitive task complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(1), 48-60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.08.003
  19. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic performance in L2 writing and speaking: The effect of mode. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 91-104). John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.2.09ch4
  20. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. (1992). An introduction to second language acquisition research. Longman.
  21. Liu, Q., & Brown, D. (2015). Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 66-81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.011
  22. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). Academic Press.
  23. Long, M. H. (2000). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. In R. Lambert & E. Shohamy (Eds.), Language policy and pedagogy: Essays in honor of A. Ronald Walton (pp. 179-192). Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/z.96.11lon
  24. Manchón, R.M. (2014). The internal dimension of tasks: The interaction between task factors and learner factors in bringing about learning through writing. In H. Byrnes & R. M. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 27-53). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.7.02man
  25. Michel, M. (2011). Effects of task complexity and interaction on L2 performance. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 141-174). John Benjamins.
  26. Mujtaba, S. M., Reynolds, B. L., Parkash, R., & Singh, M. K. M. (2021). Individual and collaborative processing of written corrective feedback affects second language writing accuracy and revision. Assessing Writing, 50, 100566. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100566
  27. Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford University Press.
  28. Rahimi, M., & Zhang, L. J. (2018). Writing task complexity, students' motivational beliefs, anxiety and their writing production in English as a second language. Reading and Writing, 32(3), 761-786. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9887-9
  29. Révész, A. (2009). Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 437-470. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109090366
  30. Révész, A., & Han, Z. ( 2006 ). Task content familiarity, task type, and efficacy of recasts. Language Awareness, 3, 160 -179. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2167/la401.0
  31. Révész, A., Sachs, R., & Hama, M. (2014). The effects of task complexity and input frequency on the acquisition of the past counterfactual construction through recasts. Language Learning, 64(3), 615-650. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12061
  32. Robinson, P. (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. 285-316). Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.1.12tas
  33. Robinson, P. (2003). The cognition hypothesis, task design, and adult task-based language learning. Second Language Studies, 21(2), 45-105.
  34. Robinson, P. (2007). Criteria for classifying and sequencing pedagogic tasks. In M. P. Garcia-Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language settings (pp. 7-26). Multilingual Matters. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853599286-004
  35. Robinson, P. (2009). Syllabus design. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), Handbook of second and foreign language teaching (pp. 294 -310). Blackwell.
  36. Robinson, P. (2011). Task-based language learning: A review of issues. Language Learning, 61(S1), 1-36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00641.x
  37. Robinson, P., & Gilabert, R. (2007). Task complexity, the cognition hypothesis, and second language learning and performance.International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45(3), 161-176. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2007.007
  38. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.003
  39. Shehadeh, A. (2011). Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 286-305. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.05.010
  40. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.
  41. Skehan, P. (2009). Modeling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, uency and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510-532. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp047
  42. Skehan, P. (2014). The context for researching a processing perspective on task performance. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 1-26). John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.5.01ske
  43. Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49(1), 93-120. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00071
  44. Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students' reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 153-173. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002
  45. Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms: New perspectives on language and education. Multilingual Matters.
  46. Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners' processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 303-334. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990532
  47. Swain, M. (1985).Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensive output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Newbury House.
  48. Tavakoli, M., & Rezazadeh, M. (2014). Individual and collaborative planning conditions: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 argumentative writing. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 5(4), 85-110. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22099/jtls.2014.1857
  49. Vahdat, S., & Daneshkhah, N. (2019).Comparison of the effects of written corrective feedback and task-complexity manipulation on the grammatical accuracy of EFL learners' writing. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 37(4), 167-194. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22099/jtls.2019.33549.2688
  50. VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(3), 287-301. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100009177
  51. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
  52. Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge University Press.
  53. Widdowson, H. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford University Press.
  54. Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity, and accuracy. Language Testing, 26, 445-466. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0265532209104670.
  55. Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2012). What role for collaboration in writing and writing feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 364-374. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.005
  56. Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. University of Hawaii Press.
  57. Zhan, J., Sun, Q., & Zhang, L. J. (2021). Effects of manipulating writing task complexity on learners' performance in completing vocabulary and syntactic tasks. Language Teaching Research, 1-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211024360

Arquivos suplementares

Arquivos suplementares
Ação
1. JATS XML
Baixar


Creative Commons License
Este artigo é disponível sob a Licença Creative Commons Atribuição 4.0 Internacional.