تأثیر پیچیدگی شناختی تکالیف بر عملکرد نوشتاری فردی و مشارکتی زبان آموزان

Subject Areas : All areas of language and translation

Afsane Motallebi Moghaddam ¹ ( English Language Department, Malayer Branch, Islamic Azad University, Malayer, Iran )
Faramarz Azizmalayeri ² ( English Language Department, Malayer Branch, Islamic Azad University, Malayer, Iran )
Abbas Bayat ³ ( English Language Department, Malayer Branch, Islamic Azad University, Malayer, Iran )

Received: 2022-01-07 Accepted : 2022-07-23 Published : 2022-10-01

Keywords: تکلیف, دقت, روانی, پیچیدگی شناختی, پیچیدگی نوشتن مشارکتی,

Abstract :

در چند دهه اخیر، تکالیف به عنوان واحد اساسی در فرآیند طراحی برنامه درسی و پیچیدگی شناختی تکالیف به عنوان معیاری اساسی در توالی کارها، توجه محققان زبان را به خود جلب کرده است. در عین حال، به دلیل تمرکز محققان بر نظریه اجتماعی-فرهنگی پیشنهاد شده توسط ویگوتسکی (1978)، اجرای کار مشارکتی تشویق شده است. پژوهش حاضر با هدف بررسی تأثیر پیچیدگی شناختی تکلیف بر عملکرد نوشتاری فردی و مشارکتی زبان آموزان ایرانی زبان انگلیسی از نظر پیچیدگی، دقت و روانی انجام شد. برای تحقق چنین هدفی، از بین دانشجویان مقطع کارشناسی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد اراک که دو دوره گرامر عمومی انگلیسی را در دو ترم متوالی گذرانده بودند، 70 زبان آموز ایرانی مرد و زن سطح متوسط از طریق آزمون تعیین سطح آکسفورد به عنوان شرکت کننده انتخاب شدند. از آنها خواسته شد تا برخی از تکالیف نوشتاری را هم به صورت فردی و هم به صورت مشترک انجام دهند، در حالی که پیچیدگی شناختی تکالیف (یعنی نیازهای استدلال و برنامه ریزی) توسط محقق دستکاری شده بود. تجزیه و تحلیل تولیدات نوشتاری آنها نشان داد هنگام نوشتن به صورت انفرادی، بدون برنامه ریزی در دسترس، زبان آموزان متون پیچیده تری را در کارهای پیچیده خود و متن های روان تری را در کارهای ساده خود تولید می کنند و هنگام نوشتن مشترک، با مقداری زمان برنامه ریزی در دسترس، آنها را می نویسند. همچنین، در تکالیف پیچیده خود متون روان تری تولید می کنند.

References:

Abdollahzadeh, S. & Fard Kashani, A. (2011). The effect of task complexity on EFL learners’ narrative writing task performance. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 8(1), 1-28.

Bachman, L.F. (1990). Fundamental consideration in language testing. Oxford: Oxford   University Press.

Bialystok, E. (1994). Analysis and Control in the Development of Second Language Proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 16 (2), 157-168.

Bygate, M. (1999). Quality of language and purpose of task: Patterns of learners’ language on two oral communication tasks. Language Teaching Research, 3(3), 185–214.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–17.

Corder, S. P. (1981). Error analysis and interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Edwards, L. (2007). Solutions placement test elementary to intermediate: Oxford Exam Support. Oxford University Press, [Online] Available: www.ou p.com/p df/elt/cz/solutionsplacementtest,(20 Sept 2009).

Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 193-220.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2012). Language Teaching Research and Language Pedagogy. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Ellis, R. (2018). Towards a modular language curriculum for using tasks, Language Teaching Research, 23 (4).

Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(1), 59-84.

Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 12-20. 

Frear, M. W. and Bitchener, J. (2015). The effects of cognitive task complexity on writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 45-57.

Gilabert, R. (2009). The role of tasks in CLIL program development. A paper presented at the first international round table on CLIL programs. Barcelona, April, 28.

Haidet, P., Kubitz, K., & McCormack, W.T. (2014). Analysis of the team-based learning literature: TBL comes of age. Journal on excellence in college teaching, 25 (3-4), 303-333.

Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2012). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: Johns Benjamin.

Hosseini, P. & Rahimpour, M. (2010). The Impact of Task Complexity on L2 Learners' Written Narratives. CCSE. 3(3), 198-205.

Ishikawa, T. (2007). The effect of manipulating task complexity along the [+/- Here- and-Now] Dimension on L2 written narrative discourse. In M. del Pilar Garcia-Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 136-156). Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.

Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory: How many types of load does it really need?  Educational Psychology Review, 23 (1), 1 -19.

Khomeijani Farahani, A. A. & Meraji, R. (2011). Cognitive Task Complexity and L2 Narrative Writing Performance. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(2), 34-56.

Kormos J. &. (2012). The Role of Task Complexity, Modality, and Aptitude in Narrative Task Performance. Language Learning, 62 (2), 439-472.

Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45(3), 261-284.

Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2012). Syntactic complexity, lexical variation and accuracy as a function of task complexity and proficiency level in L2 writing and speaking. In Housen, A., Kuiken, F., Vedder, I. (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. (pp. 143–170). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to post -method. Routledge, London.

Lan, N. T. (2015). The Effect of Task Type on Accuracy and Complexity in IELTS Academic Writing. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies. 31(1), 45-63.

Long, M. H. & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. J. Doughty and J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition, pp. 15–41. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mukhrib, A. (2021). Investigation of the Impact of Manipulation of Task Complexity on Cognitive Processes into Both NS and Second Language Learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 12 (6),1095-1106.

Ong, J., & Zhang, L.J. (2010). Effects of task complexity on the fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students' argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(3), 123-146.

Rahimi, M. (2018). Effects of increasing the degree of reasoning and the number of elements on L2 argumentative writing. Language Teaching Research, 16(7), 115-131.

Rahimpour, M. (2007). Task Complexity and Variation in L2 Learners Oral Discourse. Working Papers in Language and Linguistics, University of Queensland, 1-9.

Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27-57.  

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. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 43(1), 1-32.

Robinson, P. (2007). Criteria for classifying and sequencing pedagogic tasks. In M. delPilar Garcia-Mayo (Ed.). Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 7-26). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Robinson, P. (2011). Second language task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Researching task complexity: Task demands, task-based language learning and performance (pp. 3-38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Sadeghi, K. & Mosalli, Z. (2013). The effect of task complexity on the quality of EFL learners’ argumentative writing. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research 1(2), 115-134.

Salimi, A., Dadashpour, S., & Asadollahfam, H. (2011). The effect of task complexity on EFL learners' written performance. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences29, 1390-99 Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.). Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  

Shehadeh, A., (2011). Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing. 20, 286–305.

Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38-62.

Skehan, P. (1998). Task-based instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 268-286. 

Skehan, P. (2014). Processing Perspectives on Task Performance. London: John Benjamins.

Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49(1), 93120.

Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.). Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183-205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: product, process, and students' reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 153-173.

Swain M. (2006). Languaging, Agency and Collaboration in Advanced Second Language Proficiency. In Byrnes H. (Ed.), Advanced Language Learning: The Contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky, 95-108. London-New York: Continuum.

Tavakoli, P. (2014). Storyline complexity and syntactic complexity in writing and speaking tasks. Task-based Language Learning- Insights from and for L2 Writing, 7, 217-236.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wickens, C. D. (2007). Attention to the second language. IRAL, 45, 177-191.  

Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects of fluency complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26, 45–466.