Cover not available
Article published In:
Australian Review of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 35:1 (2012) ► pp.28–47

Researching task difficulty from an individual differences perspective

The case of goal orientation

| University of Carthage-Tunis

This paper reports on a study which highlighted goal orientation as an approachable individual difference (ID) variable which may further our understanding of foreign/second language learning experience. The study sought to (i) gauge the extent of goal orientation in foreign language learners' profile and (ii) examine how goal orientation affects their perception of task difficulty and motivation. Analysis of the findings revealed two distinct goal orientation levels which reflected two significantly different response types to task difficulty. Where one goal group responded positively to unfamiliar and cognitively demanding tasks, the other goal group did not. In light of these results, this paper calls for the necessity to revisit the reductionist research format that confines task variation to design and sequencing factors.

Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 1 January 2012
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.35.1.02ben
References
Ames, C.
(1992) Classrooms: Goals, structure and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 841, 261–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bachman, L.
(2002) Some reflections on task-based language performance assessment. Language Testing, 191, 453–476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cumming, A.
(2006) Goals for academic writing: ESL students and their instructors. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z.
(2005) The psychology of language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., & Kormos, J.
(2000) The role of individual and social variables in task performance. Language Teaching Research, 41, 275–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elder, C., Iwashita, N. & McNamara, T.
(2002) Estimating the difficulty of oral proficiency tasks: What does the test-taker have to offer? Language Testing, 191, 347–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elliot, A.
(1999) Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 341, 169–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R.
(2000) Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 41, 193–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, M.
(1997) Picture stories please. Hythe, Kent: Brain Friendly Publications.Google Scholar
Gardner, R. & Tremblay, P.
(1994) On motivation: measurement and conceptual considerations. The Modern Language Journal, 781, 524–527.Google Scholar
Iwashita, N., McNamara, T. & Elder. C.
(2001) Can we predict task difficulty in an oral proficiency test? Exploring the potential of an information processing approach to task design. Language Learning, 211, 401–436. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D.
(2006) The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 271, 590–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lynch, T. & MacLean, J.
(2000) Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for classroom language learning. Language Teaching Research, 41, 221–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Midgley, C.
(2002) Goals, goal structures, and patterns of adaptive learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., Middleton, M., Maehr, M., Urdan, T., Hicks, L., Anderman, E., & Roeser, R.
(1998) The development and validation of scales assessing students’ achievement goal orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 231, 113–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L.
(1995) The effect of planning in L2 Spanish narratives. (Research Note 15). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.Google Scholar
(2005) What do learners plan? Learner-driven attention to form during pre-task planning. In R. Ellis (ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 77–110). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plough, I. & Gass, S.
(1993) Interlocutor and task familiarity: Effect on interactional structure. In G. Crookes & S. Gass, (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Skaalvik, E.
(1997) Self-enhancing and self-defeating ego orientation: Relations with task and avoidance orientation, achievement, self-perceptions, and anxiety. Journal of Educational Psychology, 891, 71–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P.
(1998) A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P.
(1999) The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49(1), 93–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tavakoli, P., & Skehan, P.
(2005) Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing. In R. Ellis, (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 239–273). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

CHO, MINYOUNG
2018. Task Complexity and Modality: Exploring Learners’ Experience From the Perspective of Flow. The Modern Language Journal 102:1 ► pp. 162 ff. DOI logo
Oliver, Rhonda, Honglin Chen & Stephen Moore
2016. Review of selected research in applied linguistics published in Australia (2008–2014). Language Teaching 49:4 ► pp. 513 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.