Manipulation of Task Complexity And L2 Oral Production

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Published Jun 1, 2017
Download
pdf
Statistic

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...
Volume 7, Issue 1, June 2017

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

A. Rasakumaran
Senior Lecturer, English Language Teaching Centre, University of Jaffna, Jaffna

Abstract

This paper presents the findings of a study conducted to find the effects of manipulating task complexity on the Second Language (L2) oral production among the Business Administration undergraduates of the University of Jaffna during their first semester in 2016. Twenty seniors took part in the study. They accomplished two tasks of different complexity levels. The tasks were models of activities a receptionist perform at hotels. The simple task was to describe the different room options offered by the hotel to choose from. In the complex version, the participants reallocated the customers due to some unavoidable circumstance. They had to make decision based on the client and hotel profiles available regarding these. A pretest - posttest design was used to measure the performance of the participants in the study. The results of paired samples t-tests showed a significant increase in fluency while accuracy and syntactic and lexical complexity did not show any significant difference, after the performance of the simple task. With the increase in complexity of the task through number of elements involved and the addition of reasoning demands, the results revealed an increase in accuracy

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

How to Cite
Rasakumaran, A. (2017). Manipulation of Task Complexity And L2 Oral Production. SJCC Management Research Review, 27–42. Retrieved from http://www.sjccmrr.res.in/index.php/sjcc/article/view/23

References

  1. Breen, M. (1989). The evaluation cycle for language learning. In R. K. Johnson (Ed.), The Second Language Curriculum, (pp. 187-206). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  2. Bygate, M., Skehan, P. & Swain, E. (Eds.) (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing. London: Pearson Education Limited.
  3. Candlin, C. (1987). Towards task based language learning. In C. Candlin & D. Mvirphy (Eds.), Language learning tasks. Englewoods Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  4. Crespo, M. (2011) The effects of task complexity on L2 production as mediated by differences in working memory capacity Unpublished Master's Thesis. University of Barcelona. Retrieved from diposit.ub.edu/dspace/bitstream/ 2445/49369/ 1/Mary_ Recio.pdf
  5. Crookes, G. (1986). Task classification: A cross-disciplinary review. Center for Second Language Classroom Research, Technical Report # 4, University of Hawaii.
  6. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  7. Housen, A., & Kuiken, F.(2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics,30(4), 461 -473.
  8. Hunt, K. W. 1965. Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
  9. Ishikawa, T. (2008). The effects of task demands of intentional reasoning on L2 speech performance. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 5(1), 29-63.
  10. Ishikawa, T. (2011). Examining the influence of intentional reasoning demands on learner perceptions of task difficulty and L2 monologic speech. In R Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity. Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 307-347). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company
  11. Kim, Y., & Ventura, N. (2011). Task complexity, language anxiety, and the development of the simple past. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity. Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 287-306). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  12. Kuiken, R, & Vedder, S. C. (2007). Task complexity and linguistic complexity in L2 writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(3), 261 2%A. Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.
  13. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In
  14. Mochizuki, N., & Orgtega, L. (2008). Balancing communication and grammar in beginning level foreign classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 12, (11), 11-37.
  15. Navon, D. & Gopher, D. (1979). On the economy of the human processing systems, Psychological Review, 86,254-255.
  16. Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  17. Prabhu,N. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  18. Rasakumaran, A. (2016) The effects of repetition of tasks on the acquisition of 12 forms among school children. Proceedings of Third International Conference on Contemporary Management (July 28, 2016), Faculty of management Studies and Commerce, University of Jaf&ia, Sri Lanka, Vol. II.
  19. Richards, J., Piatt, J., & Weber, H. (1985). Longman dictionary of applied linguistics. Harlow, Essex, England: Longman.
  20. Robinson, P. (1995). Task complexity and second language narrative discourse. Language Learning, 45,99-140.
  21. Robinson, P. (2001a)Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22 (1), pp. 27-57.
  22. 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.
  23. Robinson, P. (2005) Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: A review of studies in a Componential Framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43 (1), pp. 1 -3 3.
  24. Robinson, P. (2007). Criteria for classifying and sequencing pedagogic tasks. In M. d. P. Garcia Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language settings . Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters
  25. Robinson, P., & Gilabert, R. (2007). Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis and second language learning and performance. IRAL-Intemational Review of Applied Linguistics, 45(3), 161-176.
  26. Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Skehan, R (1996). A framework for the implementation of task based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17,38-62.
  27. Skehan, R (1998). A Rationale for task-based instruction, A cognitive approach to language learning (pp. 93-120). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  28. Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions onnanatiyQTGteWmgs. Language Learning, 49(1), 93-120.
  29. Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. InP. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183-205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  30. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and
  31. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, i 5(3), 371 -391.
  32. Van Patten, B. (1985). Communicative value and information processing in second language acquisition. In P. Larson, E. Judd & D. Messerschmitt (Eds.), On TESOL '84: A brave new world for TESOL (pp. 89-100). Washington, DC: TESOL.
  33. Van Patten, B. (1999). Attending to form and content in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(3), 287-301.
  34. Wickens, C. D. (2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues inErgonomicScience, 3(2), 159-177.
  35. Yuan, E, & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 1-27.