Cover not available
Article published In:
Australian Review of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 39:1 (2016) ► pp.47–71

The role of L2 learner goal differences in task-generated oral production

| University of Carthage

In light of the growing interest in the cognitive approach to task in second language (L2) research, comparatively little has been done to examine such effect over time and the role of individual differences (IDs). The present study was designed to verify some longitudinal evidence for the role of tasks in L2 production and whether IDs, in the example of goal orientations, may have a bearing on that role. Thirty lower-intermediate level undergraduates performed narrative tasks during a five-month period and some were subsequently interviewed. Analysis of the data suggests that goal orientation and task conditions have a combined effect on speaking performance and development. In view of that, this paper questions the validity of findings disregarding learner variability and argues for the necessity to direct future research focus at how IDs may interact with tasks in different ways to influence L2 production.

Keywords: CAF, goal orientation, familiary, planning, task difficulty, speaking development
Published online: 2 December 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.39.1.03ben
References
Ames, C
(1992) Classrooms: Goals, structure and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ben Maad, M.R
(2010) Holistic and analytic processing modes in non-native learners’ performance of narrative tasks. System, 38(4), 591–602. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) Towards a discerning image of learners’ estimation of task difficulty and motivation: Goal orientations highlighted. Asian EFL Journal, 14(3), 40–61.Google Scholar
Bygate, M
(2001) Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In: M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 23–48). Harlow: Longman.Google 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, 4(3), 275–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P
(2003) Individual differences in second language learning. In: C. Doughty & M.H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 589–63). Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R
(2000) Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 193–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003) Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2009) The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 474–509. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, B
(2005) Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ferrari, S
(2012) A longitudinal study of complexity, accuracy, and fluency variation in second language development. In: A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 277–297). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., &Skehan, P
(1996) The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(3), 299–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G
(2000) Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 354–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., Mackey, A., Alvarez-Torres, M.J., & Fernandez-Garcia, M
(1999) The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 491, 549–581. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
He, T
(2005) Effects of mastery and performance goals on the composition strategy use of adult EFL writers. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 61(4), 407–431. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I
(2012) Dimensions of L2 Performance and Proficiency: Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iwashita, N., McNamara, T., & Elder, C
(2001) Can we predict task difficulty in an oral proficiency test? Exploring the potential of an information processes approach to task design. Language Learning, 21(3), 401–436. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kawauchi, C
(2005) The effects of strategic planning on the oral narratives of learners with low and high intermediate L2 proficiency. In: R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 143–164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y., & Tracy-Ventura, N
(2013) The role of task repetition in L2 performance development: What needs to be repeated during task-based interaction? System, 41(3), 829–840. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kormos, J
(1999) Monitoring and self-repair in L2. Language Learning, 49(2), 303–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006) Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kuiken, F., Mos, M., & Vedder, I
(2005) Cognitive task complexity and second language writing performance. In: S. Foster-Cohen & P. García-Mayo (Eds.), Eurosla Yearbook (pp. 195–222). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google 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, 27(4), 590–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levkina, M., & Gilabert, Y
(2012) The effects of cognitive task complexity on L2 oral production. In: A. Housen, F. Kiuken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency investigating complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA (pp. 171–198). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., & Gass, S
(2005) Second language research methodology and design. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B
(1990) Restructuring. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 113–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myles, F
(2012) Complexity, accuracy, and fluency: The role played by formulaic sequences in early interlanguage development. In: A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 71–93). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L
(1999) Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(1), 109–148. DOI logoGoogle 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
Raupach, M
(1984) Formulae in second language speech production. In: H. Dechert, D. Möhle, & M. Raupach (Eds.), Second language productions (pp. 114–137). Tübignen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Révész, A
(2014) Towards a fuller assessment of cognitive models of task-based learning: Investigating task-generated cognitive demands and processes. Applied Linguistics, 35(1), 87–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. 114–137). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sangarun, J
(2001) The effects of pre-task planning on foreign language performance (Unpublished doctoral thesis), OISE-University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Skehan, P
(1998) A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.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, 89(1), 71–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steele-Johnson, D., Beauregard, R., Hoover, P., & Schmidt, A
(2000) Goal orientation and task complexity effects on motivation, affect, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 724–738. 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
Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N
(1996) The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 84–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.Y
(1998) Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy and complexity. Technical report 17. Manoa: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Ben Maad, Mohamed Ridha & Ibrahim Saadi
2020. The role of group dynamics in low‐achieving EFL students’ speaking development. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 30:2 ► pp. 264 ff. DOI logo
D’Orazzi, Giuseppe
2023. A socio-psychological analysis of goal-setting when deciding to learn a second language. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics DOI logo
Mister, Bianca, Honglin Chen & Amanda Baker
2023. Putting it into context. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 46:3 ► pp. 373 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 april 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.