Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-2r2wp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-15T18:26:56.390Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TASK COMPLEXITY, FOCUS ON FORM, AND SECOND LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2009

Andrea Révész
Andrea Révész*
Affiliation:
Lancaster University
*
*Address correspondence to: Andrea Révész, Department of Linguistics and English Language, Bowland College, Lancaster University, LA1 4YT, UK; e-mail: a.revesz@lancaster.ac.uk.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Tasks have received increased attention in SLA research for the past decade, as has the role of focus on form. However, few empirical studies have investigated the relationship among tasks, focus-on-form techniques, and second language (L2) learning outcomes. To help address this gap, the present study examined how the task variable +/− contextual support combined with the focus-on-form technique known as recasting affects L2 morphosyntactic development. The participants were 90 adult learners of English as a foreign language, randomly assigned to one of five groups: four comparison groups and a control group. The comparison groups differed as to (a) whether they received recasts while describing photos and (b) whether they could see the photos while describing them. The control group only participated in the testing sessions. A pretest-posttest-delayed posttest design was employed to detect any improvement in participants’ ability to use the linguistic target, which was the past progressive form. Results from multifaceted Rasch measurement yielded two main findings. First, learners who received recasts but did not view photos outperformed learners who received recasts while viewing photos. Second, the group that viewed photos but did not receive recasts achieved greater L2 gains than the group who neither viewed photos nor received recasts.

Information

Type
Research Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , September 2009 , pp. 437 - 470
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2000). Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: Form, meaning, and use. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bygate, M. (1996). Effects of task repetition: Appraising the developing language of learners. In Willis, J. & Willis, D. (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 136–146). London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (Eds.). (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks, second language learning, teaching and testing. London: Longman.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In Doughty, C. J. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42–63). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. J. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. J. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 256–310). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. J., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In Doughty, C. J. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–138). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. J., & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In Doughty, C. J. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197–261). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1995). Interpretation tasks for grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 87–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (Ed.). (2005). Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 575–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction and the development of second languages. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., Mackey, A., Fernandez, M., & Alvarez-Torres, M. (1999). The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 49, 549–580.CrossRefGoogle 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
Gilabert, R. (2007). The simultaneous manipulation of task complexity along the planning time and +/− here-and-now dimensions: Effects on L2 oral production. In del Pilar García-Mayo, M. (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 44–68). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Goldschneider, J., & DeKeyser, R. (2001). Explaining the “natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition” in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51, 1–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han, Z. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 543–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ishikawa, T. (2007). The effect of manipulating task complexity along the (+/− here-and-now) dimension on L2 written narrative discourse. In del Pilar García-Mayo, M. (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 136–156). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Iwashita, N., Elder, C., & McNamara, T. (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, 401–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeon, K. S. (2007). Interaction-driven L2 learning: Characterizing linguistic development. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 379–403). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kim, J. H., & Han, Z. (2007). Recasts in communicative EFL classes: Do teacher intent and learner interpretation overlap? In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 269–297). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kormos, J. (2000). The role of attention in monitoring second language speech production. Language Learning, 50, 343–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, Y. H., & Hedgcock, J. (1996). Negative feedback incorporation among high-proficiency and low-proficiency Chinese-speaking learners of Spanish. Language Learning, 46, 567–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linacre, J. M. (1989). Many-facet Rasch measurement. Chicago: MESA Press.Google Scholar
Linacre, J. M. (2006). Facets (Version 3.61) [Computer program]. Chicago: MESA Press.Google Scholar
Loewen, S. (2004). Uptake in incidental focus on form in meaning-focused ESL lessons. Language Learning, 54, 153–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 361–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90, 536–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (2000). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. In Lambert, R. & Shohamy, E. (Eds.), Language policy and pedagogy: Essays in honor of A. Ronald Walton (pp. 179–192). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (2007). Recasts: The story so far. In Long, M. H. (Ed.), Problems in SLA (pp. 75–116). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Long, M. H., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 27–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative evidence in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 82, 357–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In Doughty, C. J. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in second language acquisition (pp. 15–41). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 321–341.CrossRefGoogle 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., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 407–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Oliver, R., & Leeman, J. (2003). Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback: An exploration of NS-NNS and NNS-NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning, 53, 35–66.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
Mackey, A., Philp, J., Egi, T., Fujii, A., & Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 181–209). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2001). The competition model: The input, the context, and the brain. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 69–90). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 79–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2006). Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primed production, and linguistic development. Language Learning, 56, 693–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51, 719–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuevo, A. (2006). Task complexity and interaction: L2 learning opportunities and interaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on “noticing the gap”: Non-native speakers’ noticing of recasts in NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollitt, A., & Hutchinson, C. (1987). Calibrated graded assessment: Rasch partial credit analysis of performance in writing. Language Testing, 4, 72–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahimpour, M. (1997). Task condition, task complexity, and variation in oral L2 discourse. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
Révész, A., & Han, Z. (2006). Task content familiarity, task type, and efficacy of recasts. Language Awareness, 3, 160–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (1995). Task complexity and second language narrative discourse. Language Learning, 45, 99–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for investigating 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. (2003). Attention and memory during SLA. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 631–678). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 43, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2007). Criteria for grading and sequencing pedagogic tasks. In del Pilar García-Mayo, M. (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 7–27). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Robinson, P., & Gilabert, R. (2007). Task complexity, the cognition hypothesis and second language learning and performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. (1986). Comprehension versus acquisition: Two ways of processing input. Applied Linguistics, 7, 239–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8, 263–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google 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
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
Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A., & Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytical ability. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 171–195). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wickens, C. (1992). Engineering psychology and human performance (2nd ed.). New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Wickens, C. (2007). Attention to the second language. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 177–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar