Chapter published in:
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. 183–195

Peter Skehan’s influence in research on task difficulty

A bibliometric analysis using CiteSpace

| Nanchang University
| University of Auckland
This paper presents results of a bibliometric analysis of studies on task difficulty over a period of nearly 40 years from 1990 to 2018 using CiteSpace V. The research data, consisting of 164 research articles and their 1706 citing references, were retrieved from the core collection of the Web of Science-SSCI database. The top 20 most often cited references were visualized and highlighted through a 406-node network of cited references. The results demonstrate that Skehan’s (2009) article was ranked as the most influential reference in studies on task difficulty or task complexity, which is clear evidence of Skehan’s far-reaching impacts on key areas in TBLT and SLA research.
Published online: 28 August 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.13.09wan
References

References

Adams, R., Alwi, N., & Newton, J.
(2015) Task complexity effects on the complexity and accuracy of writing via text chat. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 64–81. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baddock, N., Bishop, D., Hardiman, M., Barry, J., & Watkins, K.
(2012) Co-localisation of abnormal brain structure and function in specific language impairment. Brain and Language, 120(3), 310–320 [11] 11. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bulté, B., & Housen, A.
(2012) Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency (pp.21–46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chen, C.
(2004) Searching for intellectual turning points: Progressive knowledge domain visualization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 101(Suppl.), 5303–5310. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 359–377. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Predictive effects of structural variation on citation counts. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(3), 431–449. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chen, C., Ibekwe-Sanhuan, F., & Hou, J.
(2010) The structure and dynamics of co citation clusters: A multiple perspective co-citation analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(7), 1386–1409. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cho, M.
(2018) Task complexity, modality, and working memory in L2 task performance. System, 72, 85–98. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
de Jong, N., & Vercellotti, M. (2016) Similar prompts may not be similar in the performance they elicit: Examining fluency, complexity, accuracy, and lexis in narratives from five picture prompts. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 387–404. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., & Yuan, F.
(2004) The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(1), 59–84. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R.
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, N., Hartshorn, K., Cox, T., & de Jel, T.
(2014) Measuring written linguistic accuracy with weighted clause ratio: A question of validity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 24, 33–50. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., & Skehan, P.
(1999) The influence of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 3(3), 215–247. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frear, M., & Bitchener, J.
(2015) The effects of cognitive task complexity on writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 45–57. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gilabert, R.
(2007) Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 oral production. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 215–240. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Housen, A., & Kuiken, F.
(2009) Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 461–473. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, D. & Suethanapornkul, S.
(2013) The cognition hypothesis: A synthesis and meta-analysis of research on second language task complexity. Language Learning, 63(2), 330–367. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y.
(2009) The effects of task complexity on learner-learner interaction. System, 37(2), 254–268. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kormos, J.
(2011) Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 148–161. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kormos, J. & Trebits, A.
(2012) The role of task complexity, modality, and aptitude in narrative task performance. Language Learning, 62(2), 439–472. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I.
(2008) Cognitive task complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(1), 48–60. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W.
(1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Norris, J., & Ortega, L.
(2000) Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417–528.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L.
(2006) The value and practice of research synthesis for language learning and teaching. In J. M. Norris, & L. Ortega (Eds), Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching (pp.1–50). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J., & Ortega, L.
(2009) Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555–578. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ong, J., & Zhang, L. J.
(2010) Effects of task complexity on the fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students’ argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 218–233. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Effects of the manipulation of cognitive processes on EFL writers’ text quality. TESOL Quarterly, 47(2), 375–398. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pallotti, G. (2009) CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 590–601. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) A simple view of linguistic complexity. Second Language Research, 31(1), 117–134. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rahimi, M., & Zhang, L. J.
(2018a) Effects of task complexity and planning conditions on L2 argumentative writing production. Discourse Processes, 55(8), 726–742. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2018b) Writing task complexity, students’ motivational beliefs, anxiety and their writing production in English as a second language. Reading and Writing, 1–23. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Révész, A.
(2009) Task complexity focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31(3), 437–470. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Révész, A., Ekiert, M., & Torgersen, E.
(2016) The effects of complexity, accuracy, and fluency on communicative adequacy in oral task performance. Applied Linguistics, 37(6), 828–848.Google Scholar
Robinson, P.
(2003) The Cognition Hypothesis, task design and adult task-based language learning. Studies in Second Language Learning, 21(2), 45–105.Google Scholar
(2005) Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43, 1–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007a) Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis and second language learning and performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 161–176. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007b) 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 in Language Teaching, 45, 193–213. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011a) Task-based language learning: A review of issues. Language Learning, Suppl. 1, 1–36.Google Scholar
(2011b) Second language task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp.1–36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Segalowitz, N.
(2010) Cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York, NY: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P.
(2009) Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510–532. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Researching tasks: Performance, assessing and pedagogy. Shanghai: Foreign Language Education Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P.
(1997) Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1(1), 185–211. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp.183–205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2008) Complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis in task-based performance: A meta-analysis of the Ealing research. In S. Van Daele, A. Housen, F. Kuiken, M. Pierrard, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language use, learning and teaching (pp.207–226). Brussels: University of Brussels Press.Google Scholar
Tavakoli, P. & Foster, P.
(2008) Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 58(2), 439–473. CrossrefGoogle 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.239–276). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thai, C., & Boers, F.
(2015) Repeating a monologue under increasing time pressure: Effects on fluency, complexity, and accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 50(2), 110–115.Google Scholar
Wang, L., Wu, H., & Zhang, L. J.
(2017) International academic English writing research (1990–2015): A scientometric analysis with CiteSpace. Foreign Language Teaching and Learning Theory and Practice, 38(4), 57–63.Google Scholar
(2019) The effects of task complexity on linguistic complexity in EFL writing. Modern Foreign Languages, 42(6), 46–54.Google Scholar
Wickens, C.
(2002) Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3(2), 159–177. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Xing, J.
(2016) The effects of task complexity on non-English majors’ oral production (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Beijing Normal University.
Yuan, F., & 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, L. J.
(2013) Second language writing as and for second language learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(4), 446–447. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, L. J., Wang, L., & Wu, H.
(2017) A meta-analysis of linguistic complexity research (1990–2015) conducted within cognitive linguistics frameworks. Fudan Forum on Foreign Languages and Literature, 10(1), 53–60.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Li, Hui Helen, Lawrence Jun Zhang & Judy M. Parr
2020. Small-Group Student Talk Before Individual Writing in Tertiary English Writing Classrooms in China: Nature and Insights. Frontiers in Psychology 11 Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 06 january 2021. 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.