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. 253–278

Chapter 11
Task-readiness and L2 task performance across proficiency levels

| The Hang Seng University of Hong Kong
L2 Task performance is typically measured along the dimensions of complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF, or CALF when lexis is seen as an independent area). This chapter explores the relationships among CALF when topic familiarity and proficiency levels are thrown into the mix. It examined the correlational patterns of CALF in two parallel task-readiness conditions (familiar vs. unfamiliar tasks) at two different proficiency levels (intermediate vs. high). The results, in general, showed that some trade-offs occur, but only with lower to intermediate learners. This pattern attenuates at the more advanced levels, suggesting that limited attention capacity can be compensated for, and better parallel processing abilities can be achieved, as L2 proficiency grows. The findings also indicate that, while most fluency measures and accuracy measures cluster into their respective categories, the subordination-based complexity measure, the clause length-based measure, and different lexical measures appear to be distinct indices of complexity, which sometimes compete for attentional resources. This study sheds light on the nature of task performance at more advanced proficiency levels; it also unveils how complexity results vary when the construct is measured as different syntactic or lexical indexes.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Literature review
  • Methodology
  • Participants
    • Tasks
    • Study design
    • Dependent variables
  • Results
    • Relations between CAF measures
    • Relationships between complexity and accuracy at different proficiency levels
    • Relationships between lexical measures
    • Relationships between individual CAF and lexical measures
  • Discussion
    • RQ1. What are the general relationships among CALF measures by college L2 learners under different task-readiness (familiar and unfamiliar) conditions?
    • RQ2. Will these CALF relationships be mediated by proficiency levels under each task-readiness condition?
    • RQ3. Will performance in linguistic complexity vary if it is measured differently (i.e., as different syntactic or lexical complexity measures)?
  • Conclusion
  • Acknowledgement
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 28 August 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.13.12bui
References
Baker-Smemoe, W., Dewey, D. P., Bown, J., & Martinsen, R. A.
(2014) Does measuring L2 utterance fluency equal measuring overall L2 proficiency? Evidence from five languages. Foreign Language Annals, 47(4), 707–728. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K.
(1992) A second look at T-unit analysis: Reconsidering the sentence. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 390–3955. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R.
(1973) A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bui, H. Y. G.
(2014) Task readiness: Theoretical framework and empirical evidence from topic familiarity, strategic planning, and proficiency levels. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp.63–93). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bui, G.
(2018) A lexical approach to teaching formality in freshman L2 academic writing. In L. T. Wong & W. L. Wong (Eds.), Teaching and learning English for academic purposes: Current research and practices (pp.111–124). New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
( 2019 online). Influence of learners’ prior knowledge, L2 proficiency and pre-task planning time on L2 lexical complexity. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bui, G., & Huang, Z.
(2018) L2 fluency as influenced by content familiarity and planning: Performance, methodology and pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 22(1), 94–114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bui, G., & Skehan, P.
(2018) Complexity, fluency and accuracy. In J. Liontas (Ed.), TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp.1–7). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Bui, G., Skehan, P., & Wang, Z.
(2018) Task condition effects on advanced level foreign language performance. In P. A. Malovrh & A. Benati (Eds.), The handbook of advanced proficiency in second language acquisition (pp.219–237). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bui, G, & Teng, F.
(2018) Exploring learners’ behavioral patterns in two task-readiness conditions: A qualitative study. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 42(2), 129–149. CrossrefGoogle 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 pedagogical tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 23–48). Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Cadierno, T., & Robinson, P.
(2009) Language typology, task complexity and the acquisition of L2 lexicalization patterns for reference to motion. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 246–277. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Jong, N., Steinel, M. P., Florijn, A., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. H.
(2012) Linguistic skills and speaking fluency in a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34(5), 893–916. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R.
(1987) Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style shifting in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 1–20. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G.
(2005) Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. Y.
(2005) The effects of careful within-task planning on oral and written task performance. In R. Ellis (Ed.). Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.167–192). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., & Skehan, P.
(1996) The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(3), 299–323. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., & Wigglesworth, G.
(2016) Capturing accuracy in second language performance: The case for a weighted clause ratio. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 98–116. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R.
(1993) Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
HKEAA
(2004) Benchmarking studies on international examinations. Retrieved from < http://​www​.hkeaa​.edu​.hk​/en​/recognition​/benchmarking​/ce​_al​/ielts/>Google Scholar
Kawauchi, C.
(2005) The effects of strategic planning on the oral narratives of learners with low and high intermediate proficiency. In R. Ellis. (Ed.). Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.143–164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kormos, J.
(2006) Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Lambert, C., Kormos, J., & Minn, D.
(2017) Task repetition and second language speech processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(1), 167–196. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lennon, P.
(1990) Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach. Language Learning, 3, 387–417. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M.
(1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. Boston, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1999) Models of word production. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(6), 223–232. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Loban, W.
(1976) Language development: Kindergarten through grade twelve (Research Report No. 18). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
Malvern, D., & Richards, B.
(2002) Investigating accommodation in a language proficiency interviews using a new measure of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 19(1), 85–104. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meara, P., & Bell, H.
(2001) P_Lex: A simple and effective way of describing the lexical characteristics of short L2 texts. Prospect, 16(3), 5–19.Google Scholar
Mehnert, U
(1998) The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 83–108. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L.
(2009) Towards an organic approach to investigating CAL in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555–578. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M.
(2002) Interpretations, intended uses and designs in task-based language assessment. Language Testing, 19(4), 337–346. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nunan, D.
(2004) Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L.
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pallant, J.
(2013) SPSS survival annual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IB SPSS (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Prabhu, N. S.
(1987) Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Read, J.
(2000) Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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.285–317). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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 in Language Teaching, 45, 193–213. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P., & Gilabert, G.
(2013) Task-based learning: Cognitive underpinnings. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Robinson , P. , & Gilabert , R.
( 2007 ) Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, and second language learning and performance . IRAL, 45, 161 – 176. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Samuda, V., & Bygate, M.
(2008) Tasks in second language learning. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sanguran, J.
(2005) The effects of focusing on meaning and form in strategic planning. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 111-143). Amesterdam: John Benjamins.
Scarborough, H. S.
(1990) Index of productive syntax. Applied Psycholinguistics, 11, 1–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Segalowitz, N.
(2010) Cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York, NY: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shehadeh, A.
(2012) Task-based language assessment: Components, development, and implementation. In C. Coombe, P. Davidson, B. O’Sullivan, & S. Stoynoff (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language assessment (pp.156–163). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P.
(1989) Individual differences in second language learning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Skehan P.
(1996) A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P.
(1998) A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2001) Tasks and language performance. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.). Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (167–185). London: Longman.Google Scholar
(2003) Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36, 1–14. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009a) Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510–532. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009b) Lexical performance by native and non-native speakers on language-learning tasks. In B. Richards, H. Daller, D. D. Malvern, & P. Meara. (Eds.), Vocabulary studies in first and second language acquisition: The interface between theory and application (107–124). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(Ed.) (2014) Processing perspectives on task performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2018) Second language task-Based performance: Theory, research, assessment. Abingdon: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P., Bei, X., Li, Q., & Wang, Z.
(2012) The task is not enough: Processing approaches to task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 16(2), 170–187. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P.
(2005) Strategic and online 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: Johan Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P., Foster, P., & Shum, S.
(2016) Ladders and snakes in second language fluency. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 54(2), 97–112. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P., & Shum, S.
(2017) What influences performances? Personal style or the task being done? In L. Wong & K. Hyland (Eds.), Faces of English education: Students, teachers, and pedagogy (pp.28–43). New York, NY: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Storch, N.
(1999) Are two heads better than one? Pair work and grammatical accuracy. System, 27(3), 363–374. 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
Ure, J.
(1971) Lexical density and register differentiation. In G. Perren & J. L. M. Trim (Eds.), Applications of linguistics (pp.443–452). London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wigglesworth, G.
(1997) An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test discourse. Language Testing, 14(1), 85–106. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Willis, D., & Willis, J.
(2007) Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Bui, Gavin & (Mark) Feng Teng
2019.  In The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Kong, Amy & Gavin Bui
2019. Disambiguating recasts with prosodic and extra-linguistic cues in task-based interactions among young learners. Language Teaching for Young Learners 1:2 ► pp. 187 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 01 april 2022. 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.