The Power of Executing Preceding Cognitively Simple Listening Tasks in the Quality of the High-Complex Task: Synchronous Probe into ± Spatial Reasoning Demand and ± Single Task Dimensions
الموضوعات : Research in English Language Pedagogy
Malak Ziba Mehrinejad
1
,
Masood Siyyari
2
1 - Department of English Language, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2 - Department of English Language, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
الکلمات المفتاحية: Dual Task, Spatial Reasoning Task, SSARC Model, Task Difficulty, Task Executing Order,
ملخص المقالة :
The key to the success of tasks in promoting L2 is adopting a proper ordering of tasks. This research was done in pursuit of achieving two goals by utilizing Robinson’s (2010) SSARC (stabilize, simplify, automatize, reconstruct, and complexify) model. The first goal included probing the power of executing the non-complex without spatial reasoning and single listening task and the complex without spatial reasoning and dual listening task ahead of the high-complex spatial reasoning and dual listening task in executing the high-complex spatial reasoning and dual task. Probing the agreement between hypothetically defined task complexity and students’ thoughts on task difficulty was the second goal. To achieve its goals, this research adopted the relative comparison group and correlational designs. Participants of this research were thirty-two female undergraduate students from a non-profit university in Tehran. They were put into high-proficiency groups based on how they did the Oxford Placement Test. Participants of group one executed the high-complex task as the last task in non-complex, complex, and high-complex order and then gave their view of the difficulty level of tasks, while group two participants executed the same task as the first one. The results of the independent samples t-test, one sample t-test, and Spearman’s rho correlation disapproved the statistically significant power of executing preceding lower-complexity tasks in participants’ performance on the high-complex listening comprehension task and the agreement between the way participants think of task difficulty and task complexity has been defined theoretically. Accordingly, executing non-complex and complex listening tasks ahead of the high-complex listening task is not an instrumental means for forwarding how to execute the high-complex tasks and participants’ view of task difficulty cannot be a proper benchmark for determining the cognitive complexity of tasks. What was found by this research is instrumental to the selection and ordering of tasks for L2 classes and learners.
Abdi Tabari, M., & Cho, M. (2022). Task sequencing and L2 writing development: Exploring
the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. Language Teaching Research, 0(0).
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168822109022
Ahmadian, M. J. (2011). The effect of ‘massed’ task repetitions on complexity, accuracy and fluency: Does it transfer to a new task? The Language Learning Journal, 39(3), 269-280. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2010.545239
Ahmadian, M. J. (2012). The effects of guided careful online planning on complexity, accuracy and fluency in intermediate EFL learners’ oral production: The case of English articles. Language Teaching Research, 16(1),129-149. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811425433
Allaw, E., & McDonough, K. (2019). The effect of task sequencing on second language written
lexical complexity, accuracy, and fluency. System, 85(2), 1-41.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.06.008
Awwad, A. (2019). L2 learners’ and professional’s perception of cognitive task complexity:
Towards developing an index of task difficulty. The Journal of Asia TEFL,16(2),468-484.
https://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2019.16.2.2.468
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
Gilabert, R. (2007a). Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 oral
production. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45 (3),
215-240. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2007.010
Gilabert, R. (2007b). The simultaneous manipulation of task complexity along planning time and
[+/-Here-and-Now]: Effects on oral production. In MP. García Mayo (Eds.), Investigating
tasks in formal language learning (pp.44-68). Multilingual Matters, Ltd.
Gilabert, R., Baron, J., & Llanes, A. (2009). Manipulating cognitive complexity across task types
and its impact on learners’ interaction during oral performance. International Review of
Applied Linguistics,47, 367-395. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2009.016
Lee, J. (2021). Task sequencing and task complexity effects on L2 writing: Does task
order really matter? The Journal of Asia TEFL,18(4), 1088-1107.
https://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2021.18.4.2.1088
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language
teaching. Wiley-Blackwell.
Malicka, A. (2014). The role of task complexity and task sequencing in L2 monologic oral
production (Doctoral dissertation). University of Barcelona, Spain.
Malicka, A. (2018). The role of task sequencing in fluency, accuracy, and Complexity:
Investigating the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequence. Language Teaching
Research, 24(5), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818813668
Murphy, L., & de Larios, JR. (2010). Searching for words: One strategic use of the mother tongue by advanced Spanish EFL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(2), 61-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.02.001
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, P. (2001a). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27-57. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.2
Robinson, P. (2001b). Task complexity, cognitive resources and second language syllabus design: A triadic theory of task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson (Eds.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 285-317). Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, P. (2003). The cognition hypothesis, task design, and adult task-based language learning. Second language studies, 21(2), 45-105.
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),1-32. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2005.43.1.1
Robinson, P. (2007). Task Complexity, Theory of Mind, and Intentional Reasoning: Effects on L2 Speech Production, Interaction, Uptake and Perceptions of Task Difficult International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(3), 193-213. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2007.009
Robinson, P. (2008). Task complexity, intentional reasoning demands, L2 speech production, learning and syllabus design. Linguistic Agency University of Duisburg-Essen, Paper No.721,1-34.
Robinson, P. (2010). Situating and distributing cognition across task demands: The SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In M. Putz and L. Sicola (Eds.), Cognitive Processing in Second Language Acquisition: Inside the learner’s mind (pp. 243-268). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Sanajou, N., Zohali, L., & Zabihi, F. (2017). Do task complexity demands influence the learners’
perception of task difficulty. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English
Literature, 6(6), 71-77. https://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.6n.6p.71
Santos, S. (2022). Increasing the reasoning demands of a task and task sequencing on the oral
production of Chinese learners of Portuguese as a foreign language. Retrieved from
https://preprints.scielo.org. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-460x20225681
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied
Linguistics, 17(1), 38-62. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.1.38
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and Tasks. In P. Robinson (Eds.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183-205). Cambridge University Press.
Zare-ee, A. (2013). The effects of task complexity on English language learners’ listening comprehension. Issues in Language Teaching, 1(2), 225-250.
