Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T00:39:46.174Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tasks Versus Conditions: Two Perspectives on Task Research and Their Implications for Pedagogy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 March 2016

Peter Skehan
Peter Skehan*
Affiliation:
St. Mary's University, Twickenhampeterskehan@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This chapter explores the contrast between the effects on second language performance of tasks and task characteristics, on the one hand, and the conditions under which tasks are done, on the other. The first major section explores the evidence on this issue and proposes that the impact of conditions such as pretask planning, task repetition, and posttask activities is greater and more consistent than the impact of tasks and features such as time perspective or number of elements. The second major section explores the theoretical accounts that have been proposed regarding tasks and conditions. It is suggested that deductive accounts have, so far, only had limited success regarding the use of tasks, but that psycholinguistic models of speaking do provide a looser but more useful framework to account for the effects of conditions. It is also suggested that an important difference between tasks and conditions concerns the tension between constraint and flexibility in performance and that the flexibility provided by task conditions is an important component in the more dependable results they have generated. Finally, pedagogic implications are discussed linking task conditions to the methodological choices that are available to teachers.

Type
Research Article
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 36 , March 2016 , pp. 34 - 49
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press, 2016 

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Bui, H. Y. G. (2014). Task readiness: Theoretical framework and empirical evidence from topic familiarity, strategic planning, and proficiency levels. In Skehan, P. (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 63–94). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 23–48). Harlow, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task-based performance: Theory and research. In Ellis, R. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 3–36). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral performance. Applied Linguistics, 30, 474–509.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2005). The effects of careful within-task planning on oral and written task performance. In Ellis, R. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 167–192). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Farahani, A. A. K., & Meraji, S. R. (2011). Cognitive task complexity and L2 narrative writing performance. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2, 445–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18 (3), 299–324.Google Scholar
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1999). The influence of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 3, 215–247.Google Scholar
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (2013). The effects of post-task activities on the accuracy of language during task performance. Canadian Modern Language Review, 69, 249–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilabert, R. (2007). The simultaneous manipulation of task complexity along planning time and [+/- here-and-now] effects on L2 performance. In Garcia-Mayo, M. P. (Ed.), Investigating tasks informal language settings (pp. 44–68). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Gilabert, R., Barón, J., & Llanes, À. (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
Housen, F., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2012). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Investigating complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.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, 401–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, D. O., & Suethanapornkul, S. (2013). The cognition hypothesis: A synthesis and meta-analysis of research on second language task complexity. Language Learning, 63 (2), 330–367.Google Scholar
Jordan, G. (2004). Theory construction in second language acquisition. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 261–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2008). Cognitive tasks complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 48–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic performance in L2 writing and speaking: The effect of mode. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 91–104). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. (1999). Producing spoken language: A blueprint of the speaker. In Brown, C. & Hagoort, P. (Eds.), Neurocognition of language (pp. 83–122). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levkina, M., & Gilabert, R. (2012). The effects of cognitive task complexity on L2 oral production. In Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: investigating complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA (pp. 171–198). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Q. (2014). Get it right in the end: The effects of post-task transcribing on learners’ oral performance. In Skehan, P. (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance. Amsterdam, (pp. 129–154). The Netherlands: John Benjamins Google Scholar
Lynch, T. (2001). Seeing what they meant: Transcribing as a route to noticing. English Language Teaching Journal, 55, 124–132.Google Scholar
Malicka, A., & Levkina, M. (2012). Measuring task complexity: Does EFL proficiency matter? In Shehadeh, A. & Coombe, C. (Eds.), Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts: Research and implementation (pp. 42–66). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.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
Meraji, S. R. (2011). Planning time, strategy use, and written task production in a pedagogic vs. a testing context. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2, 338–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michel, M. C. (2011). Effects of task complexity and interaction on L2 performance. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 141–174). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michel, M. C. (2013). The use of conjunctions in cognitively simple versus complex oral L2 tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 178–195.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.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.Google Scholar
Mohammadzadeh, M. A., Dabaghi, A., & Tavakoli, M. (2013). The effects of simultaneous use of pre-planning along +/-Here-and-Now dimension on fluency, complexity, and accuracy of Iranian EFL learners’ written performance. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 2, 49–65.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 109–148.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2005). What do learners plan? Learner-driven attention to form during pre-task planning. In Ellis, R. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 77–109). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pang, F., & Skehan, P. (2014). Self-reported planning behaviour and second language performance in narrative retelling. In Skehan, P. (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 95–128). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pickering, M., & Garrod, S. (2004). Towards a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27 (2), 169–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Révész, A. (2011). Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions, and individual differences: A classroom-based study. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 162–181.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2011). Second language task complexity, the cognition hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 3–38) Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P., Cadierno, T., & Shirai, Y. (2009). Time and motion: Measuring the effects of the conceptual demands of tasks on second language production. Applied Linguistics, 28, 533–554.Google Scholar
Sasayama, S. (2011). Cognition hypothesis and second language performance: Comparison of written and oral task performance. Second Language Studies, 29, 107–129.Google Scholar
Sasayama, S. (2015). Validating the assumed relationship between task design, cognitive complexity, and second language task performance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Sasayama, S. (in press). Is a “complex” task really complex? Validating the assumption of cognitive task complexity. Modern Language Journal.Google Scholar
Sasayama, S., & Izumi, S. (2012). Effects of task complexity and pre-task planning on EFL learners’ oral production . In Shehadeh, A. & Coombe, C. (Eds.), Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts: Research and implementation (pp. 23–42). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 17–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2007). Task research and language teaching: Reciprocal relationships. In Fotos, S. (Ed.), Form- meaning relationships in language pedagogy: Essays in honour of Rod Ellis. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2009a). Models of speaking and the assessment of second language proficiency. In Benati, A. G. (Ed.), Issues in Second Language Proficiency. (pp. 202–215). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2009b). Lexical performance by native and non-native speakers on language-learning tasks. In Richards, B., Daller, H., Malvern, D. D., & Meara, P. (Eds.), Vocabulary studies in first and second language acquisition: The interface between theory and application (107-124). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2013). Nurturing noticing. In Bergsleithner, J. M., Frota, S. N., & Yoshioka, J. K. (Eds.), Noticing and second language acquisition: Studies in honor of Richard Schmidt (pp. 169–180). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2014). Synthesising and applying task research. In Skehan, P. (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 211–260). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2015a). Limited attentional capacity and cognition: Two hypotheses regarding second language performance on tasks. In Bygate, M. (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference (pp. 123–155). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2015b). Working memory and second language speech performance. In Wen, Z., Borges Mota, M., & McNeill, A. (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing (pp. 189–201). Clevedon, Avon, UK: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 185–211.Google Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). Task structure and processing conditions in narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49 (1), 93–120.Google Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2005). Strategic and online planning: The influence of surprise information and task time on second language performance. In Ellis, R. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 193–216). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis in task-based performance: A meta-analysis of the Ealing research. In Van Daele, S., Housen, A., Kuiken, F., Pierrard, M., & Vedder, I. (Eds.), Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language use, learning, & teaching (pp. 207–226). Brussels, Belgium: KVAB.Google Scholar
Skehan, P., & Shum, S. (2014). Structure and processing condition in video-based narrative retelling. In Skehan, P. (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 197–210). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. & Seidlhofer, B. (Eds.), Principle and practice in the study of language (pp. 125–144). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.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.Google Scholar
Tavakoli, P., & Skehan, P. (2005). Planning, task structure, and performance testing. In Ellis, R. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 239–276). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tavares, M. G. G. (2009). The relationship among pre-task planning, working memory capacity, and L2 speech performance: A pilot study. Linguagem & Ensino, 12, 165–194.Google Scholar
Wang, Z. (2014). Online time pressure manipulations: L2 speaking performance under five types of planning and repetition conditions. In Skehan, P. (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 27–62). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Wang, Z., & Skehan, P. (2014). Task structure, time perspective and lexical demands during video-based narrative retellings. In Skehan, P. (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 155–186). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
White, R. V. (1987). The ELT Curriculum. London, UK: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. London, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task and online planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar