Cover not available
Part of
Processing Perspectives on Task Performance
Edited by Peter Skehan
[Task-Based Language Teaching 5] 2014
► pp. 155–186

Chapter 6. Structure, lexis, and time perspective

Influences on task performance

| University of Pittsburgh
| St. Mary’s University, Twickenham
The Cognition and Tradeoff Hypotheses account for task performance in different ways. The former sees task complexity as the driver for higher accuracy and structural complexity whereas the latter, within the constraints of limited attentional capacities, sees performance as being accounted for through the interaction of influences from task characteristics and task conditions. This chapter reports on a study which contrasts these two accounts, manipulating task structure (as an influence on primarily accuracy, but secondarily complexity), vocabulary difficulty (as a disruptor of smooth processing during performance), and time perspective (as a method of operationalising task complexity). The results do simultaneously produce raised accuracy and complexity, but this is best accounted for through the separate contribution of task structure and a there-and-then perspective (analysed differently to that within the Cognition Hypothesis), rather than through greater task complexity. Vocabulary difficulty did not have the predicted impact. The results are discussed in terms of the Tradeoff and Cognition Hypotheses.
Published online: 30 April 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.5.06wan
References (47)
References
Brown, G., Anderson, A., Shilcock, R., & Yule, G. (1984). Teaching talk: Strategies for production and assessment. Cambridge: CUP.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
Ellis R. (2003), Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: OUP.Google 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, 474–509. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1999). The influence of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 3, 185–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2013). Anticipating a post-task activity: The effects on accuracy, complexity and fluency of L2 language performance. Canadian Modern Language Review 69, 3, 249–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., & Tavakoli, P. (2009). Native speakers and task performance: Comparing effects on complexity, fluency and lexical diversity. Language Learning, 59(4), 886–896. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2011). Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 61(suppl.1), 37–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, J. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 354−75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilabert, R. (2007). Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 oral production. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 215–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinkel, E. (2004). TOEFL test strategies with Practice Tests (3rd ed.) Hauppauge, NY: Barron’s.Google Scholar
Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 461–473. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ishikawa, T. (2006). The effects of task complexity and language proficiency on task- based language performance. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 3(4), 193–225.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, 51(3), 401–436. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45(3), 261–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2008). Cognitive task complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 48–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W.J.M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Malvern, D., & Richards, B. (2002). Investigating accommodation in language proficiency interviews using a new measure of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 19, 85–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meara, P., & Bell, H. (2001). P_Lex: A simple and effective way of describing the lexical characteristics of short L2 texts. Prospect, 16, 5–19.Google Scholar
Michel, M., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). the influence of complexity in monologic versus dialogic tasks in Dutch L2. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 241–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 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. 77–109). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rahimpour, M. (1997). Task complexity, task condition, and variation in L2 oral discourse. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. University of Queensland, Australia.Google Scholar
Richards, B.J., & Malvern, D.D. (1998). A new research tool: Mathematical modelling in the measurement of vocabulary diversity (Award reference no. R000221995). Final Report to the Economic and Social Research Council, Swindon, UK.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1995). Task complexity and second language narrative discourse. Language Learning, 45, 99–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2001a). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2001b). 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. 287–318). Cambridge: CUP. 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, 193–214.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2011).Task-based language learning: A review of issues. Language Learning, 61(Suppl. 1, June 2011), 1–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P., & Gilabert, R. (2007). Task complexity, the cognition hypothesis and second language learning and performance. IRAL, 45, 161–176.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sawaki, Y., Stricker, L.J., & Oranje, A.H. (2009). Factor structure of an internet-based test. Language Testing, 26(1), 5–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (2009a). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2009b). Lexical performance by native and non-native speakers on language-learning tasks. In H. Daller, D. Malvern, P. Meara, J. Milton, B. Richards, & J. Treffers-Daller. (Eds.), Vocabulary studies in first and second language acquisition: The interface between theory and application (pp. 107–124). London: Palgrave Macmillan.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2009c). Models of speaking and the assessment of second language proficiency. In A. Benati. (Ed.), Issues in second language proficiency (pp. 202–215). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
. (2011). Researching tasks: Performance, assessment, pedagogy. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.Google Scholar
. (manuscript). Conventions for coding complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis: The use of TaskProfile. The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). The influence of planning and post-task activities on accuracy and complexity in task-based learning. Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 16–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (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. 263–284). Brussels: Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and Arts.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. 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. 239–276). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van den Branden K. (2006). Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van den Branden, K., Bygate M., & Norris, J. (2009). (Eds.), Task-based language teaching: A reader. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, Z. (2009). Modeling L2 speech production and performance: Evidence from five types of planning and two task structure. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. The Chinese University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and online planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 monologicoral production. Applied Linguistics, 24, 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (14)

Cited by 14 other publications

Skehan, Peter, Gavin Bui, Zhan Wang & Sabrina Shum
2024. Re-examining accuracy measures in second language task-based spoken performance. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics 3:1 ► pp. 100098 ff. DOI logo
Wang, Qiong, Shaofeng Li & Martin East
2024. Measuring L1 Chinese speakers’ anxiety when completing an English as L2 video narration task. Journal of Second Language Studies 7:1 ► pp. 99 ff. DOI logo
Aaj, Ali, Parviz Maftoon & Masood Siyyari
2023. Do young EFL learners benefit from task repetition?. The Language Learning Journal ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Albarqi, Ghadah & Parvaneh Tavakoli
2023. The effects of proficiency level and dual-task condition on L2 self-monitoring behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 45:1 ► pp. 212 ff. DOI logo
Awwad, Anas & Parvaneh Tavakoli
2022. Task complexity, language proficiency and working memory: Interaction effects on second language speech performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 60:2 ► pp. 169 ff. DOI logo
Farahanynia, Mahsa & Mohammad Khatib
2022. Participatory structure of planning and cognitive task complexity in L2 oral performance: a processing perspective. The Language Learning Journal 50:6 ► pp. 777 ff. DOI logo
Williams, Simon
2022. Conclusion. In Disfluency and Proficiency in Second Language Speech Production, ► pp. 247 ff. DOI logo
Michel, Marije C., Andrea Révész, Danni Shi & Yanmei Li
2019. Chapter 6. The effects of task demands on linguistic complexity and accuracy across task types and L1/L2 speakers. In Researching L2 Task Performance and Pedagogy [Task-Based Language Teaching, 13], ► pp. 133 ff. DOI logo
Wang, Qiong & Shaofeng Li
2019. Chapter 4. The relationship between task motivation and L2 motivation. In Researching L2 Task Performance and Pedagogy [Task-Based Language Teaching, 13], ► pp. 67 ff. DOI logo
Xing, Jiaxin & Shaoqian Luo
2019. Chapter 7. The effects of reasoning demands on Chinese EFL learners’ oral performance and cognitive processes. In Researching L2 Task Performance and Pedagogy [Task-Based Language Teaching, 13], ► pp. 153 ff. DOI logo
Skehan, Peter
2016. Sidesteps towards applied linguistics. In Becoming and Being an Applied Linguist, ► pp. 89 ff. DOI logo
Skehan, Peter
2016. Tasks Versus Conditions: Two Perspectives on Task Research and Their Implications for Pedagogy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 36 ► pp. 34 ff. DOI logo
Skehan, Peter
2022. Chapter 11. Performance on second language speaking tasks. In Second Language Acquisition Theory [Bilingual Processing and Acquisition, 14], ► pp. 211 ff. DOI logo
Skehan, Peter
2023. Linking second language speaking task performance and language testing. Language Teaching ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 september 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.