Cover not available
Part of
Researching L2 Task Performance and Pedagogy: In honour of Peter Skehan
Edited by Zhisheng (Edward) Wen and Mohammad Javad Ahmadian
[Task-Based Language Teaching 13] 2019
► pp. 153–182

Chapter 7
The effects of reasoning demands on Chinese EFL learners’ oral performance and cognitive processes

 | Qufu Normal University
 | Beijing Normal University
Despite their difference in approaches to explaining the accuracy-complexity relationship, the Limited Attention Capacity Hypothesis (Skehan, 1998, 2001, 2009a, 2014) and the Cognition Hypothesis (Robinson, 2001, 2007, 2011) share the assumption that increased cognitive complexity will affect learners’ task performance. Although there has been much research related to the above hypotheses, the findings have not been consistent. In addition, most studies fail to provide empirical evidence of the effects of cognitive complexity on learners’ cognitive processes (Révész, 2014; Skehan, 2014). This chapter aims to explore the effects of reasoning demands on Chinese EFL learners’ oral performance and cognitive processes. Thirty-four participants were asked to complete two narrative tasks with different reasoning demands – one simple and one more complex, under the same planning conditions. Their performance was measured in terms of complexity, accuracy, lexis, and fluency (CALF). Ten participants also engaged in stimulated recall as a means of eliciting reports of their cognitive processes. Results reveal that: (a) reasoning demand does not have a significant effect on learners’ oral performance in terms of CALF; (b) learners show a slightly lower percentage of cognitive processes at the stage of conceptualization and formulation and a higher percentage linked to comprehension/monitoring in the complex task, which might indicate they allocate attention differently in the more demanding task; (c) learners’ fluency in oral performance is likely to be jointly affected by the cognitive processes at all the stages of speech production. Accuracy seems to be most enhanced by learners’ form monitoring at the comprehension stage.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Literature review
  • Research methodology
    • Participants and setting
    • Oral tasks
    • Stimulated recall
    • Measures of task performance
    • Research design and procedures
    • Data collection and analysis
    • Transcription and coding of participants’ speech
    • Transcription and coding of participants’ SR
    • Data analysis
  • Results
    • Results for question 1
    • Results for question 2
    • Results for question 3
      • Pre-articulation content processing and monitoring
      • Pre-articulation form processing
      • Pre-articulation form monitoring
      • Post-articulation content monitoring
      • Post-articulation form monitoring
  • Discussion
    • Effects of task complexity on performance
    • Effects of task complexity on cognitive processes
  • The association between cognitive processes and task performance
  • Conclusions
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 28 August 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.13.08xin
References (59)
References
Ahmadian, M. J., Abdolrezapour, P., & Ketabi, S. (2012). Task difficulty and self-repair behavior in second language oral production. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 22(3), 310–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. D., & Rodgers, T. (2002). Doing second language research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bygate, M. (1996). Effects of task repetition: Appraising the developing language of learners. In D. Willis & J. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp.134–146). London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
(1999). Task as context for the framing, reframing and unframing of language. System, 27(1), 33–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogical tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp.23–48). Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Choong, K. P. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic complexity: An exploratory study. Working papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 11, 1–28.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009). Task‐based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International journal of applied linguistics, 19(3), 221–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, 215–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hinofotis, F. B. (1980). Cloze as an alternative method of ESL placement and proficiency testing. In J. W. Oller & K. Perkins (Eds.), Research in language testing (pp.121–128). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Ishikawa, T. (2008). The effect of task demands of intentional reasoning on L2 speech performance. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 5(1), 29–63.Google Scholar
Jackson, D. O., & Suethanapornkul, S. (2013). The cognition hypothesis: A synthesis and meta-analysis of research on second language task complexity. Language Learning, 63(2), 330–367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. (2009). The role of task complexity and pair grouping on the occurrence of learning opportunities and L2 development (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.Google Scholar
Kormos, J., & Trebits, A. (2011). Working memory capacity and narrative task performance. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance, (pp.267–285). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(3), 261–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, Y. G. (2002). Effects of task complexity on the complexity and accuracy of oral production in L2 Korean (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Manoa: University of Hawaii.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Li, Q. (2014). Get it right in the end: The effects of post-task transcribing on learners’ oral performance. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Long, M. H., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 26(1), 27–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Ma, D. M. (2013), Examining the linguistic and cognitive features of Chinese EFL learners’ oral production. Suzhou: Suzhou University Press.Google Scholar
Michel, M. C., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). The influence of complexity in monologic versus dialogic tasks in Dutch L2. International Review of Applied Linguistic, 45(3), 241–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Niwa, Y. (2000). Reasoning demands of L2 tasks and L2 narrative production: Effects of individual differences in working memory, intelligence, and aptitude (Unpublished MA thesis). Tokyo: Aoyama Gakuin University.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M., Bygate, M., & Van den Branden, K. (2014). Series editors’ preface to volume 5. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp.ix–ix). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nuevo, A. M. (2006). Task complexity and interaction: L2 learning opportunities and development (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Georgetown University.
Ortega, L. (1995). The effect of planning in L2 Spanish oral narratives. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 108–148.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.77–109). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pang, F., & Skehan, P. (2014). Self-reported planning behavior and second language performance in narrative retelling. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp.95–127). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Révész, A. (2009). Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31(3), 437. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions, and individual differences: A classroom-based study. The Modern Language Journal, 95(s1), 162–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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
Révész, A., & Han, Z. (2006). Task content familiarity, task type and efficacy of recasts. Language Awareness, 15(3), 160–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Révész, A., Kourtali, N. E., & Mazgutova, D. (2017). Effects of task complexity on L2 writing behaviors and linguistic complexity. Language Learning, 67(1), 208–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 43(1), 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake, and perceptions of task difficulty. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45(3), 193–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P., Cadierno. T. & Shirai, Y. (2009). Time and motion: measuring the effects of the conceptual demands of tasks on second language speech production, Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 533–554. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
(2001). Tasks and language performance assessment. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain, (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp.167–185). Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
(2003). Task-based instruction. Language teaching, 36(01), 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009a). Models of speaking and the assessment of second language proficiency. In A. Benati (Ed.), Issues in second language proficiency (pp.203–215). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
(2009b). Modeling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Limited attentional capacity, second language performance, and task-based pedagogy. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp.211–260). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Limited attention capacity and cognition: Two hypotheses regarding second language performance on tasks. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference (pp.123–156). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Tasks versus conditions: Two perspectives on task research and their implications for pedagogy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 34–49. DOI logoGoogle 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
(2001). Cognition and tasks. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp.183–205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Strategic and on-line planning: The influence of surprise information and task time on second language performance. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.193–216). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P., & Shum, S. (2014). Structure and processing condition in video-based narrative retelling. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp.197–210). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tavakoli, P., & Skehan, P. (2005). Planning, task structure, and performance testing. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.239–276). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M., & Norris, J. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Issues, research, and practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Wang, Z. (2014). On-line pressure manipulations: L2 speaking performance under five types of planning and repetition conditions. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp.27–62). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, Z., & Skehan, P. (2014). Task structure, time perspective, and lexical demands during video-based narrative retellings. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp.155–186). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar