Cover not available
Part of
Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching Technology and Tasks
Edited by Marta González-Lloret and Lourdes Ortega
[Task-Based Language Teaching 6] 2014
► pp. 51–78

Chapter 3. Prior knowledge and second language task production in text chat

| University of Auckland
The Cognition Hypothesis framed by Robinson (2001; 2003; 2005) has generated a large body of research on how varying task complexity may influence second language (L2) production and learning opportunities; however, most of these studies were conducted in a face-to-face setting (e.g. Gilabert 2007; Gilabert, Baron & Llanes 2009; Kim 2009; Michel, Kuiken & Vedder 2007; Nuevo 2006; Nuevo, Adams & Ross-Feldman 2011). As computer-mediated communication becomes more pervasive in educational contexts, research that extends current understandings of principles of second language learning is increasingly important to help learners and teachers understand how best to make use of this technology to promote specific learning goals (see Kern 2006). The role of task complexity in computer-mediated environments may be particularly important, as this may influence how learners commit attentional resources to language processing during communication (Robinson 2005; Skehan 1998). This study examines the role of one task complexity factor, prior knowledge, on second language production in text-based chat. Analysis of the language produced by first language Malay engineering students engaged in text-based chat group tasks in English indicated that prior knowledge of the task subject area had a limited effect on the complexity and accuracy of language production. We conclude with a critical discussion of the applicability of the Cognition Hypothesis to task-based communication via text chat. We also provide suggestions for how L2 tasks can be implemented in computer-mediated contexts in order to promote attention to form, noting that considering language production and learning in CMC tasks challenges task-based theories and requires transformation of research methods and analysis.
Published online: 24 July 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.6.03ada
References (95)
References
Akyel, A., & Erçetin, B. (2009). Hypermedia reading strategies employed by advanced learners of English. System , 37, 156–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, T., & Elloumi, F. (2004). Theory and practice of online learning . Athabasca, Canada: Athabasca University.Google Scholar
Baron, N. s. (2010). Discourse structures in instant messaging: The case of utterance breaks. Language@Internet , 7, article 4.Google Scholar
Barry, S., & Lazarte, A. (1998). Evidence for mental models: How do prior knowledge, syntactic complexity, and reading topic affect inference generation in a recall task for nonnative readers of Spanish? Modern Language Journal , 82, 176–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beatty, K., & Nunan, D. (2004). Computer-mediated collaborative learning. System , 32, 165–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belz, J. A. (2006). At the intersection of telecollaboration and learner corpus research: Considerations for language program direction. In J. A. Belz & S. L. Thorne (Eds.), Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education (pp. 207–246). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
Belz, J. A., & Müller-Hartmann, A. (2003). Teachers as intercultural learners: Negotiating German-American telecollaboration along the institutional fault line. The Modern Language Journal , 87, 71–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blake, C. (2009). Potential of text-based internet chats for improving oral fluency in a second language. The Modern Language Journal , 93, 227–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blake, R. (2005). Bimodal CMC: The glue of language learning at a distance. CALICO Journal , 22, 497–511.Google Scholar
2007). New trends in using technology in the language curriculum. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , 27, 76–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Böhlke, O. (2003). A comparison of student participation levels by group size and language stages during chat room and face-to-face discussions in German. CALICO Journal , 21, 67–87.Google Scholar
Carrell, P., & Wise, T. (1998). The relationship between prior knowledge and topic interest in second language reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 20, 285–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chang, Y. F. (1999). Discourse topics and interlanguage variation. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Representation and Process: Proceedings of the Third Pacific Second Language Research Forum (pp. 235–241), Tokyo: PacSLRF.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. 2003. English language learning and technology . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clapham, C. (1996). The development of IELTS: A study on the effect of background knowledge on reading comprehension . Cambridge, UK: CUP.Google Scholar
Cook, C., Irwin, W., & Churcher, N. (2004). Towards synchronous collaborative software engineering (Technical Report TR-03/04, June 2004). Software Engineering & Visualisation Group, Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. Retrieved from <[URL]>Google Scholar
Daller, H., Hout, R., & Treffers-Daller, J. (2003). Lexical richness in the spontaneous speech of bilinguals. Applied Linguistics , 24, 197–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Danet, B., & Herring, S. C. (2007). Introduction. In B. Danet and S. C. Herring (Eds.), The multilingual internet: Language, culture, and communication online (pp. 3–39). Oxford, UK: OUP. DOI logoGoogle 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, 59–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Emde, S., Schneider, J., & Kötter, M. (2001). Technically speaking: Transforming language learning through virtual learning environment. Modern Language Journal , 85, 210–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erçetin, G. (2010). Effects of topic interest and prior knowledge on text recall and annotation use in reading a hypermedia text in the L2. ReCALL , 22, 228–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fiori, M. L. (2005). The development of grammatical competence through synchronous computer-mediated communication. CALICO Journal , 22, 567–602.Google Scholar
Fitze, M. (2006). Discourse and participation in ESL face-to-face and written electronic conferences. Language Learning & Technology , 10(1), 67–86.Google Scholar
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 18, 299–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken discourse: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics , 21, 354–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilabert, R. (2007). The simultaneous manipulation of task complexity along planning time and ( Here-and-Now): Effects on L2 oral production. In M. P. Garcia Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 44–68). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Gilabert, R., Baron, J., & Llanes, A. (2009). Manipulating cognitive complexity across task types and its impact on learners' interaction during oral performance. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics , 47, 367–395.Google Scholar
Gonzalez, D. (2003). Teaching and learning through chat: A taxonomy of educational chat for EFL/ESL. IAIEFL Poland: Computer Special Interest Group , 3(4).Google Scholar
Good, D. A., & Butterworth, B. (1980). Hesitancy as a conversational resource: Some methodological implications. In H. Dechert & M. Rapach (Eds.), Temporal variables in speech production (pp. 145–152). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Hampel, R. (2010). Task design for a virtual learning environment in a distance language course. In M. Thomas & H. Reinders (Eds.), Task-based language learning and teaching with technology (pp. 131–153). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Hardy, I. M., & Moore, J. L. (2004). Foreign language students’ conversational negotiations in different task environments. Applied Linguistics , 25, 340–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hill, M. O. (1973). Diversity and evenness: A unifying notation and its consequences. Ecology , 54(2), 427–432. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (Eds.). (2009). Complexity, accuracy and fluency (CAF) in second language acquisition research [Special Issue]. Applied Linguistics , 30(4). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ismail, F. (2010). The role of grammar courses on teacher learners’ grammar teaching . (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia.Google Scholar
Johnson, A., & Sheehan, M. (2006). English with Shrek: A multi-media based CALL course, PacCALL Journal , 2, 108–125.Google Scholar
Kern, R. (2006). Perspectives on technology in learning and teaching languages. TESOL Quarterly , 40, 183–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y. (2009). The effects of task complexity on learner-learner interaction. System , 37, 254–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. IRAL , 45, 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
Laufer, B., & Nation, I.S.P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics , 16, 307–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, L. (2004). Learners' perspectives on networked collaborative interaction with native speakers of Spanish in the US. Language Learning & Technology , 8, 83–100.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Long, M. H., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based language teaching. TESOL Quarterly , 26, 27–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meskill, C. (2005). Triadic scaffolds: Tools for teaching English language learners with computers. Language Learning & Technology , 9, 46–59.Google Scholar
Michel, M., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). The influence of complexity in monologic versus dialogic tasks in Dutch L2. IRAL , 45, 241–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Education Malaysia (2004). The development of education: National report of Malaysia . Malaysia.Google Scholar
Mochizuki, N., & Ortega, L. (2008). Balancing communication and grammar in beginning-level foreign language classrooms: A study of guided planning and relativization. Language Teaching Research , 12, 11–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murugesan, V. (2003). Malaysia promotes excellence in English. ESL Magazines , 6(2), 26–28.Google Scholar
Nation, I.S.P. (2004). A study of the most frequent word families in the British National Corpus. In P. Bogaards & B. Laufer (Eds.), Vocabulary in a second language: Selection, acquisition, and testing (pp. 3–13). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nation, I. S. P., & Heatley, A. (2002). Range: A program for the analysis of vocabulary in texts [software]. Retrieved from <[URL]>
Naughton, D. (2006). Cooperative strategy training and oral interaction: Enhancing small group communication in the language classroom. The Modern Language Journal , 90, 169–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newlands, A., Anderson, A. H., & Mullin, J. (2003). Adapting communicative strategies to computer-mediated communication: An analysis of task performance and dialogue structure. Applied Cognitive Psychology , 17, 325–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nik, N. (2010). Examining the language learning potential of a task-based approach to synchronous computer-mediated communication. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Nik, N., & Adams, R. (2009). TBLT and SCMC: How do students use communication strategies? Asian Journal of English Language Teaching , 19, 135–158.Google Scholar
Nik, N., Adams, R., & Newton, J. (2012). Learning to write via text-SCMC: Task implementation and focus on form. Journal of Second Language Writing , 21, 23–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics , 30, 555–578. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuevo, A. M. (2006). Task complexity and interaction: L2 learning opportunities and development . (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (UMI No. 3247335)Google Scholar
Nuevo, A. M., Adams, R., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2011). Task complexity, modified output, and L2 development in learner–learner interaction In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 175 – 202). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O'Dowd, R. (Ed.). (2007). Online intercultural exchange: An introduction for foreign language teachers . Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2009). Interaction and attention to form in L2 text-based computer-mediated communication. In A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction in second language acquisition: Second language research in honor of Susan M. Gass . New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Payne, J. S., & Whitney, P. J. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal , 20, 7–32.Google Scholar
Peterson, M. (2010). Task-based language teaching in network-based CALL: An analysis of research on learner interaction in synchronous CMC. In M. Thomas & H. Reinders (Eds.), T ask-based language learning and teaching with technology (pp. 41–62). London, UK: Continuum.Google Scholar
Philp, J., Oliver, R., & Mackey, A. (2006). The impact of planning time on children’s task-based interactions. System , 34, 547–565. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pulido, D. (2007). The relationship between text comprehension and second language incidental vocabulary acquisition: A matter of topic familiarity? Language Learning , 57, 155–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quan-Haase, A., Cothrel, J., & Wellman, B. (2005). Instant messaging for collaboration: A case study of a high-tech firm. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , 10(4). Retrieved from <[URL]>Google Scholar
Révész, A. (2009). Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 31, 437–470. 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
2003). The Cognition Hypothesis of adult, task-based language learning. Second Language Studies , 21, 45–107.Google Scholar
2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a Componential Framework for second language task design. IRAL , 43, 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007a). Criteria for grading and sequencing pedagogic tasks. In M. P. Gárcia Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 7–27). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
2007b). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. IRAL , 45, 193–213.Google Scholar
Robinson, P., & Gilabert, R. (2007). Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis and second language learning and performance. IRAL , 45, 161–176.Google Scholar
Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning . London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Sanders, R. (2006). A comparison of a chat room productivity: In-class versus out-of-class. CALICO Journal , 24, 59–76.Google Scholar
Sangarun, 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. 111–141).Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sauro, S. (2011). SCMC for SLA: A research synthesis. CALICO Journal , 28, 369–391.Google Scholar
2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning & Technology , 13, 96–120.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning . Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research , 1, 185–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning , 49, 93–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. Modern Language Journal , 87, 38–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008). Methodological hurdles in captures CMC data: The case of the missing self-repair. Language Learning & Technology , 12(1), 85–103.Google Scholar
Sotillo, M. S. (2005). Corrective feedback via instant messenger learning activities in NS-NNS and NNS-NNS dyads. CALICO Journal , 22, 467–496.Google Scholar
Spencer, Jr., B., Finholt, T. A., Foster, I., Kesselman, C., Beldica, C., Futrelle, J., Yang, G. (2004, August). NEESGRID: A distributed collaboratory for advanced earthquake engineering experiment and simulation . Paper presented at the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B. C., Canada. Retrieved from [URL]Google Scholar
Stockwell, G. (2010). Effects of multimodality in computer-mediated communication tasks. In M. Thomas & H. Reinders (Eds.), Task-based language learning and teaching with technology (pp. 83–104). London, UK: Continuum.Google Scholar
Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning , 58, 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. 239–273). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toyoda, E., & Harrison, R. (2002). Categorization of text chat communication between learners and native speakers of Japanese. Language Learning & Technology , 6(1), 82–99.Google Scholar
Tudini, V. (2003). Using native speakers in chat. Language Learning & Technology , 7(3), 141–159.Google Scholar
Vermeer, A. (2000). Coming to grips with lexical richness in spontaneous speech data. Language Testing , 17, 65–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ware, P. D., & Kramsch, C. (2005). Toward an intercultural stance: Teaching German and English through telecollaboration. Modern Language Journal , 89, 190–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Warschauer, M. (1998). Researching technology in TESOL: Determinist, instrumental, and critical approaches. TESOL Quarterly , 32, 757–761. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2011). Task effects on focus on form in synchronous computer-mediated communication. The Modern Language Journal , 95, 115–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pretask planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics , 24, 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (14)

Cited by 14 other publications

Tao, Na & Ying Wang
2022. Effects of prior knowledge and reasoning demands on Chinese EFL writing performance. Language Teaching Research ► pp. 136216882210898 ff. DOI logo
Mohammad Javad Ahmadian & Michael H. Long
2021. The Cambridge Handbook of Task-Based Language Teaching, DOI logo
Cunningham, D. Joseph
2021. Adapting an Undergraduate Multiliteracies German Curriculum for Online Instruction During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Íkala 26:3 ► pp. 749 ff. DOI logo
González-Lloret, Marta & Nicole Ziegler
2021. Technology-Mediated Task-Based Language Teaching. In The Cambridge Handbook of Task-Based Language Teaching, ► pp. 326 ff. DOI logo
Huang, Xin, Xiaobin Liu, Yiya Hu & Qingsheng Liu
2021. The Effect of Online Collaborative Prewriting via DingTalk Group on EFL Learners’ Writing Anxiety and Writing Performance. In Emerging Technologies for Education [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 13089], ► pp. 48 ff. DOI logo
Smith, Bryan & Marta González-Lloret
2021. Technology-mediated task-based language teaching: A research agenda. Language Teaching 54:4 ► pp. 518 ff. DOI logo
Egbert, Joy, Seyed Abdollah Shahrokni, Xue Zhang, David Herman, Intissar Yahia, Adnan Mohamed, Faraj M. Aljarih, Chioma Ezeh, Nataliia Borysenko & Sonia Lopez-Lopez
2019. Revisiting Gaps in the CALL Literature. In Recent Developments in Technology-Enhanced and Computer-Assisted Language Learning [Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design, ], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
González-Lloret, Marta & Lourdes Ortega
2018. Chapter 8. Pragmatics, tasks, and technology. In Task-Based Approaches to Teaching and Assessing Pragmatics [Task-Based Language Teaching, 10], ► pp. 192 ff. DOI logo
Amiryousefi, Mohammad
2017. The differential effects of collaborative vs. individual prewriting planning on computer-mediated L2 writing: transferability of task-based linguistic skills in focus. Computer Assisted Language Learning 30:8 ► pp. 766 ff. DOI logo
González-Lloret, Marta
2016. Technology and Task-Based Language Teaching. In Language and Technology, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
González-Lloret, Marta
2017. Technology and Task-Based Language Teaching. In Language, Education and Technology, ► pp. 193 ff. DOI logo
González‐Lloret, Marta
2017. Technology for Task‐based Language Teaching. In The Handbook of Technology and Second Language Teaching and Learning, ► pp. 234 ff. DOI logo
Ziegler, Nicole
2016. Taking Technology to Task: Technology-Mediated TBLT, Performance, and Production. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 36 ► pp. 136 ff. DOI logo
Bowles, Melissa A. & Rebecca J. Adams
2015. An Interactionist Approach to Learner–learner Interaction in Second and Foreign Language Classrooms. In The Handbook of Classroom Discourse and Interaction, ► pp. 198 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.