Intro: context
-
Upload
uriel-oneil -
Category
Documents
-
view
26 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Intro: context
Manipulating Task Complexity: its impact on L2 production across task types and modes
Roger GilabertMayya Levkina
Universitat de BarcelonaTBLT Conference
Lancaster September 2009
Thanks to GRAL at the University of Barcelona, Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación – HUM2007-64302) and Generalitat de Catalunya – 2009SGR137).
L2
Task –based research into performance
and acquisition
PLANNING TIMETASK COMPLEXITY
TASK FAMILIARITY
Intro: context
INTERACTIONOther
Brennan, forthcoming
L2
Task –based research into performance
and acquisition
PLANNING TIMETASK COMPLEXITY
TASK FAMILIARITY
Intro: context
INTERACTIONOther
“ task complexity is the result of the attentional, memory, reasoning, and other information processing demands imposed by the structure of the task on the language learner.”
(Robinson, 2001:28)
TASK COMPLEXITY
Pedagogic task 1
REAL-WORLD TASK
Pedagogic task 2
Pedagogic task 3
Pedagogic task n
What may be the role of task complexity in a task-based syllabus?
Long, 2005
Balanced development of L2 production and acquisition
GOAL
Simple Complex
The predictions of the Cognition Hypothesis
More complex
along resource- directing variables
More complex
along resource- dispersing variables
Less fluent
More lexically and structurally
complex
More accurate
Higher interaction
Less fluent
Less lexically and structurally
complex
Less accurate
Higher interaction
(e.g. amount of preparation time, familiarity, or multi-tasking)
(e.g. the number of elements or the amount of reasoning)
Findings of the impact of task complexity on production along resource directing dimensions
Fluency decreases (Robinson, 1995; Rahimpour, 1997: Gilabert, 2005)
Increased lexical complexity (Robinson, 1995; Rahimpour, 1997; Gilabert, 2005)
No differences in structural complexity (Robinson, 1995; Rahimpour, 1997; Gilabert, 2005)
Higher accuracy (Robinson, 1995; Rahimpour, 1997; Ishikawa, 2001; Iwashita et al.; Gilabert, 2005)
+/- here-and-now +/- elements+/- reasoning
demands
Fluency decreases (Michel, Kuiken & Vedder, 2007; Robinson, 2001)
Increased lexical complexity (Michel, Kuiken & Vedder, 2007; Révész, forthcoming)
No differences in structural complexity (Michel, Kuiken & Vedder, 2007; Kuiken & Vedder, 2007; Kuiken, Vedder, & Mos, 2005) but Révész (forthcoming)
Higher accuracy (Michel, Kuiken & Vedder, 2007; Kuiken & Vedder, 2007; Kuiken, Vedder, & Moss, 2005) but Révész (forthcoming)
Fluency decreases (Niwa, 2001 )
Increased lexical complexity (Michel, Kuiken & Vedder, 2007; Révész, forthcoming)
No differences in structural complexity (Robinson, 2007) but Révesz (forthcoming)
Higher accuracy (Robinson, 2007; Gilabert, 2007) but Révész (forthcoming)
Goals and QuestionsGoal: to explore the impact of task cognitive
complexity accross task types and modes.
Questions:
1) What’s the relationship between general proficiency and performance?
2) Can differences in task cognitive complexity explain differences in performance in both monologic and dialogic tasks?
3) Are the effects of task cognitive complexity the same across task types?
Design Participants Statistical analysis, transcription, coding
3 task types
Repeated-measures design
Latin square design
9-point Likert scale affective questionnaire
42 English-L2 volunteers in monologic study50 in dialogic (25 dyads)
2 institutions (lower-/upper- intermediate)
X-Lex / Y-Lex vocabulary size test
Descriptive statisticsRepeated-measures ANOVANon-parametric tests
CA mode of CHILDES for transcription of 252 tasks in study 1 + and 150 tasks in study 2 (302 tasks)
Intrarater (97 %//97%)Interrater (91.5 %/90%)
Experimental design
Advertising Journalism P.R.
(task-based program at Communication Studies Department at Ramon Llull University,Barcelona Spain)
Typically they deal
with storyboards
for campaign
presentations
Task selection: Needs analysis
Journaslists often have
to find their ways in
unknown cities
In crisis management, scenario planning is
an important
aspect
TV/Cinema
Begin the story like this: TODAY Mr. and Mrs. Ropper are in bed. They’re trying to get to sleep but they can hear music coming from the apartment above theirs.
Begin the story like this: YESTERDAY Mr. Festenkroud was shopping at the supermarket. He was checking his shopping list and looking at prices. An employee was putting price tags on the products.
SIMPLE here-and-now
Visual presence (here)
Present tense (now)
COMPLEX there-and-then
No visual presence (there)
Past tense (then)
Tasks and operationalization of variables
Interactive, two-way, closed, convergent, split information narrative task
SIMPLEHere-and-now
•Visual presence (here)•Present tense (now)
COMPLEXThere-and-then
•No visual presence (there)•Past tense (then)
Tasks and operationalization of variables
Results: Affective perception questionnaire
I thought this task 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I thought this task
was easy was difficult
I felt frustrated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I felt relaxed
doing this task doing this task I did not do this 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I did this
task welltask well This task was 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 This task was not interesting interesting I don’t want to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I want to do
moredo more tasks tasks like thislike this
(Based on Robinson, 2001)
Dependent Variable Narrative Map Fire chief
Difficulty ,372 ,013* ,006*
Stress ,765 ,513 ,079
Confidence ,552 ,067 ,005**
Interest ,371 ,262 ,912
Motivation ,775 ,842 ,530
Complex
Many landmarks
Similar landmarks
More axes(lateral – right, left, straight– vertical – up, down – sagittal – front, back).
Simple
•Few landmarks•Clearly distinguishable landmarks•One axis(lateral= right, left, straight)
Interactive, one-way, closed, convergent, split information map task
Tasks and operationalization of variables
Route marked Route unmarked
Complex•Many landmarks•Similar landmarks•More axes (lateral – right, left, straight– vertical – up, down – sagittal – front, back).
Interactive, one-way, closed, convergent, split information map task
Route marked Route unmarked
Tasks and operationalization of variables
Wayfinding is an important and complex task.
Landmark identification
Path selection
Direction selection
Abstract environmental overviews
Chown, E., Kaplan, S., & Kortenkamp, D. (1995)
SIMPLE
Many resources
No particular roles
Few unconnected factors
COMPLEX
Few resources
Particular roles of characters
Intricately connected factors
SIMPLE
•Many resources•No particular roles•Few unconnected factors
Interactive, two-way, open, convergent, shared information decision-making task
COMPLEX
•Few resources•Particular roles of characters•Intricately connected factors
Interactive, two-way, open, convergent, shared information decision-making task
Complex problem-solving tasks are situations that are:
(1) dynamic, because early actions determine the environment in which subsequent decisions must be made
(2) time-dependent, because decisions must be made at the correct moment in relation to environmental demands; and
(3) complex, in the sense that most variables are not related to each other in a one-to-one manner. In these situations, the problem requires not one decision, but a long series, in which early decisions condition later ones.
Quesada et al. (2005)
Experimental design: production measures
Transcriptions were coded for:
- Fluency: Unpruned speech rate A Pruned speech rate
B Pauses x minute
- Structural Complexity: Sentence Nodes x AS-Unit.
- Lexical Complexity: Guiraud Index of Lexical Density- Accuracy: No. Of errors x 100 words
Repaired to unrepaired errors
Results: Question 11) What’s the relationship between general
proficiency and performance?
Moderately strong correlation between PROFICIENCY and PERFORMANCE
Proficiency x Performance in MONOLOGIC
Simple Story
Complex Story
Simple Map
Complex Map
Simple Firechief
Complex
Firechief
Rate A ,792** ,613** ,590** ,613** ,557** ,586**
Rate B ,839** ,758** ,643** ,669** ,667** ,695**
Pauses ,271 ,085 ,336* ,261 ,372* ,197
S-Nodes x AS Unit
,208 ,035 ,479* ,336* ,130 ,269
Guiraud Index
,718** ,650** ,618** ,562** ,760** ,716**
Errors x 100
words
-,725**
-,680** -,816** -,768** -,719** -,738**
Rep to unrep
,216 ,158 ,031 -,024 -,104 ,119
Results: Question 11) What’s the relationship between general
proficiency and performance?
Moderately strong correlation between PROFICIENCY and PERFORMANCE
Proficiency x Performance in
DIALOGIC
Simple Story
Complex Story
Simple Map
Complex Map
Simple Firechief
Complex
Firechief
Rate A ,417* ,329* -,021 ,233 ,226 ,143
Rate B ,391* ,362* ,375 ,335 ,334* ,121
Pauses -,177 -,143 ,084 -,093 -,007 -,074
S-Nodes x AS Unit
,216 ,179 -,071 ,038 ,162 ,094
Guiraud Index
,346* ,478** ,415* ,404 ,269 ,356*
Errors x 100
words
-,099 -,029 ,009 -,231 -,115 -,086
Rep to unrep
-,023 ,228 -,035 ,140 -,036 ,066
Results: Question 22) Is there an impact of Task Complexity on
performance in both the monologic and dialogic tasks?
Proficiency x Performance in MONOLOGIC
Simple StoryComplex Story
Simple MapComplex Map
Simple FirechiefComplex Firechief
Rate A ,448 ,072 ,196
Rate B ,069 ,227 ,404
Pauses ,308 ,827 ,460
S-Nodes x AS Unit
,261 ,095 ,638
Guiraud Index
,286 ,002 ,087
Errors x 100
words
,001 ,000 ,777
Rep to unrep
,009 ,000 ,149
Results: Question 22) Is there an impact of Task Complexity on
performance in both the monologic and dialogic tasks?
Proficiency x Performance in
DIALOGIC
Simple StoryComplex Story
Simple MapComplex Map
Simple FirechiefComplex Firechief
Rate A ,167 ,372 ,164
Rate B ,256 ,309 ,229
Pauses ,336 ,972 ,177
S-Nodes x AS Unit
,830 ,277 ,116
Guiraud Index
,025 ,287 ,008
Errors x 100
words
,707 ,231 ,325
Rep to unrep
,162 ,353 ,468
Fluency
130,13 127,84 128,20
0,00
20,00
40,00
60,00
80,00
100,00
120,00
140,00
Complex Narrative Complex Instruction-givingtask
Complex Decision-makingtask
Structural Complexity
1,72
1,23
1,63
0,000,200,400,600,801,001,201,401,601,802,00
Complex Narrative Complex Instruction-givingtask
Complex Decision-makingtask
Lexical Complexity
5,00 4,88 5,09
0,00
1,00
2,00
3,00
4,00
5,00
6,00
Complex Narrative Complex Instruction-givingtask
Complex Decision-makingtask
Accuracy
34,05
12,07 13,14
0,005,00
10,0015,0020,0025,0030,0035,0040,00
Complex Narrative Complex Instruction-givingtask
Complex Decision-makingtask
Results: tasks compared by dimension Sig. difference
As expected, in the MONOLOGIC task, general proficiency correlated strongly with performance, and particularly with lexical complexity and accuracy.
The picture is not so clear for the DIALOGIC task, where interaction seems to mitigate the effects of proficiency on performance, especially with regard to accuracy
Discussion: Question 1
In the MONOLOGIC tasks, task complexity shows an impact on accuracy in the narrative task, while it has an impact on both lexical complexity and accuracy in the case of the map task. Higher tasks demands seem to draw attention to form.
Task complexity has no impact on the decision-making task. General measures may not be able to capture such impact.
In the DIALOGIC tasks, task complexity seems to only affect lexical complexity, and just for the narrative and the decision-making task.
Discussion: Question 2
In the MONOLOGIC tasks: the map task generated less structurally and lexically complex speech.
In the DIALOGIC tasks, task complexity seems to only affect lexical complexity, and just for the narrative and the decision-making task.
Discussion: Question 3
1)As in other task-based research areas (e.g. planning time studies, task repetition, or interaction), SPECIFIC PREDICTIONS need to be made for each TASK TYPE.
2)In the same way, predictions need to be adjusted to EACH MODE, since behavior on monologic and dialogic tasks differs considerably.
Conclusions
1)Small sample sizes
2)Use of general measures only
3)Binary operationalizations of complexity (simple/complex, not a continuum)
4)Not factoring in individual differences (e.g. differences in WM capacity)
5)Not using complementary information from native speaker performance
Limitations
1)Use of more specific measures (task-related, developmentally sound)
(Pownall, forthcoming) use of “conjoined clauses” as in Révész (forthcoming) and NPs has found that ‘specific, task-related measures capture the impact of task complexity’
Ways to go from here
and, because, so
“The car” “The little boy” “The funny little boy”
If, before, after
“The girl that was reading little boy”
1)Use of more specific measures
(Pownall, forthcoming) use of “conjoined clauses” as in Révész (forthcoming) and NPs has found that ‘specific, task-related measures capture the impact of task complexity’
2) Integration of Task Complexity into SEQUENCING studies.
Ways to go from here
Thank youGràciesGracias
Members of the GRAL group: Carme.Muñoz, M. Luz Celaya, Elsa Tragant, Teresa Navés, Joan Carles Mora, Imma
Miralpeix, Raquel Serrano, Júlia Barón, Natalia Fullana, Laura Sánchez
Interns: Mayya Levkina, Mireia, Anna Marsol Catherine Daughty
Our students
Roger Gilabert [email protected]
Universitat de BarcelonaSpain