Hostname: page-component-76c49bb84f-qtd2s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-04T03:26:56.790Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TASK COMPLEXITY, LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES, AND KOREAN EFL LEARNERS’ QUESTION DEVELOPMENT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 November 2012

YouJin Kim
YouJin Kim*
Affiliation:
Georgia State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Building on the cognitive and interactive perspectives of task research, the cognition hypothesis states that increasing task complexity promotes greater interaction and feedback and thus facilitates second language (L2) development (Robinson, 2001b, 2007a). To date, very little research has explored this claim during learner-learner interactions in English as a foreign language (EFL) classroom contexts in which a task-based syllabus is implemented. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of task complexity on the occurrence of interaction-driven learning opportunities and question development in such a classroom context. Korean university students (N = 191) from four intact English classes were randomly assigned to one comparison group and three experimental groups with various task-complexity levels (i.e., simple, +complex, and ++complex) based on Robinson’s framework. Their interactions were audiorecorded, and occurrences of learning opportunities, operationalized as language-related episodes (LREs), were identified. Question development was identified between pretest and posttests on the basis of the learners’ stage advancement using Pienemann and Johnston’s (1987) developmental sequence. Results indicated that more complex tasks promoted a greater number of LREs and particularly led to LREs targeting developmentally advanced question structures, which result in question development.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 34 , Issue 4 , December 2012 , pp. 627 - 658
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Adams, R. (2007). Do second language learners benefit from interacting with each other? In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 29–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baralt, M. (2010). Task complexity, the cognition hypothesis and interaction in CMC and FTF environments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (Eds.) (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks, second language learning, teaching and testing. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., & Tseng, W. (2009). Motivational processing in interactional tasks. In Mackey, A. & Polio, C. (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language research in honor of Susan M. Gass (pp. 117–134). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Duff, P. (1986). Another look at interlanguage talk: Taking task to task. In Day, R. (Ed.), Talking to learn (pp. 147–181). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., Mackey, A., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 55, 575–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., & Selinker, G. (2008). Second language acquisition: An introductory course (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. (1985). Task variation and non-native/non-native negotiation of meaning. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp.149–161). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Gilabert, R. (2007). Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 oral production. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 215–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilabert, R., Barón, J., & Llanes, A. (2009). Manipulating cognitive complexity across task types and its impact on learners’ interaction during oral performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47, 367–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haberman, S. (1973). The analysis of residuals in cross-classified tables. Biometrics, 29, 205–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ishikawa, T. (2007). The effect of manipulating task complexity along the +/− dimension on L2 written narrative discourse. In Garcia Mayo, M. P. (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 157–176). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Jeon, K. S. (2007). Interaction-driven L2 learning: Characterizing linguistic development. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Interactional feedback and second language acquisition (pp. 379–403). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. (2008). The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. Modern Language Journal, 92, 114–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y. (2009a). The effects of task complexity on learner-learner interaction. System, 37, 254–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y. (2009b). The role of task complexity and pair grouping on the occurrence of learning opportunities and L2 development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.Google Scholar
Kuiken, F., Mos, M., & Vedder, I. (2005). Cognitive task complexity and second language writing performance. In Foster-Cohen, S., García-Mayo, M. P., & Cenoz, J. (Eds.), Eurosla Yearbook (Vol. 5, pp. 195–222). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2002). The effect of interaction in acquiring the grammar of a second language. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 343–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). Cognitive task complexity and linguistic performance in French L2 writing. In García-Mayo, M. P. (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language settings (pp. 117–135). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Lee, Y. (2002). Effects of task complexity on the complexity and accuracy of oral production in L2 Korean. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai‘i, Manoa.Google Scholar
Loewen, S., & Nabei, T. (2007). Measuring the effects of oral corrective feedback on L2 knowledge. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 361–378). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1981). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. In Winitz, H. (Ed.), Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences conference on native and foreign language acquisition (pp. 159–278). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bhatia, T. K. (Eds.), Handbook of research on language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and second language development: An empirical study of L2 classroom interaction. Applied Linguistics, 27, 379–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the contributions of negative feedback and learners’ responses to L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 79–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2000). Form and meaning: Designing communicative tasks to target grammar in Thai classrooms. Foreign Language Annals, 33, 82–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2006). Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primed production, and linguistic development. Language Learning, 56, 693–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., & Sunitham, W. (2009). Collaborative dialogue between Thai EFL learners during self-access computer activities. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 231–254.CrossRefGoogle 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 in Language Teaching, 45, 241–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2003). Defining and measuring SLA. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 717–761). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Nuevo, A. (2006). Task complexity and interaction: L2 learning opportunities and development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on “noticing the gap”: Nonnative speakers’ noticing of recasts in NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philp, J., Oliver, R., & Mackey, A. (2006). The impact of planning time on children’s task-based interactions. System, 34, 547–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T., & Doughty, C. (1985). The role of group work in classroom second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 233–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T., Young, R., & Doughty, C. (1987). The impact of interaction on comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 737–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., & Johnston, M. (1987). Factors influencing the development of language proficiency. In Nunan, D. (Ed.), Applying second language acquisition research (pp. 45–141). Adelaide, Australia: National Curriculum Resource Centre.Google Scholar
Révész, A. (2009). Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 437–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Révész, A. (2011). Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions, and individual differences: A classroom-based study. Modern Language Journal, 95, 162–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001a). Task complexity, cognitive resources and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287–318). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001b). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2003). The cognition hypothesis, task design, and adult task-based language learning. Second Language Studies, 21, 45–105.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (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
Robinson, P. (2007a). Criteria for classifying and sequencing pedagogic tasks. In Garcia-Mayo, M. P. (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language settings (pp. 7–26). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (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
Robinson, P. (2009). Syllabus design. In Long, M. H. & Doughty, C. J. (Eds.), Handbook of second and foreign language teaching (pp. 294–310). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2011). Task-based language learning: A review of issues. Language Learning, 61, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. (2008). Conclusion: Cognitive linguistic, second language acquisition and L2 instruction-issues for research. In Robinson, P. & Ellis, N. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 489–545). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P., & Gilabert, R. (2007). Task complexity, the cognition hypothesis and second language learning and performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoenberg, I. E. (2006). Focus on grammar: An integrated skills approach (3rd ed.). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based language teaching. Language Teaching, 36, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49, 93–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183–205). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. (1993). Instruction and the development of questions in L2 classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 205–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. & Seidlhofer, B. (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J., & Evans, J. (1998). What kind of focus and on which forms? In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 139–155). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar