Effect of Task Complexity Manipulation on EFL Learners’ Use of Transitional Devices in Writing Tasks
محورهای موضوعی : نشریه زبان و ترجمه
Touraj Talaee
1
,
Hossein Ahmadi
2
,
Faramarz Aziz Malayeri
3
1 - Department of English Language, Malayer Branch, Islamic Azad University, Malayer, Iran
2 - Department of English Language, Malayer Branch, Islamic Azad University, Malayer, Iran.
3 - Department of English Language, Malayer Branch, Islamic Azad University, Malayer, Iran
کلید واژه: few elements, planning time, task-based,
چکیده مقاله :
The present study was an attempt to investigate the impacts of different task complexity conditions including ± planning time and ± few elements on EFL learners’ use of transitional devices in writing tasks. To this end, 60 intermediate EFL learners from three language institutes in Iran were randomly selected and were assigned to four groups of 15 participants. Each of the groups participated in 9 treatment sessions of instruction. At the beginning of every session the researcher introduced some transitional devices with a brief explanation about their meanings and usage and after that, the participants of each group were provided with a writing task that required them to write a paragraph about a special topic using all the transitional devices that were presented to them in that session. The number of correct uses of transitional devices in each participant’s writing was calculated and reported in percentage and the average of every participant’s performance during all 9 sessions was regarded as that participant’s single score for the purpose of making comparisons between the four groups. The data was analyzed through Kruskal-Wallis test and the findings revealed statistically significant differences among the four groups in doing the tasks. At the end, a questionnaire with 20 Likert-type items was utilized to explore the participants’ perspectives of the role of task complexity in their writing. Consequently, the study revealed that using tasks with different levels of complexity can play a great role to improve the learners’ grammar in terms of transitional devices.
The present study was an attempt to investigate the impacts of different task complexity conditions including ± planning time and ± few elements on EFL learners’ use of transitional devices in writing tasks. To this end, 60 intermediate EFL learners from three language institutes in Iran were randomly selected and were assigned to four groups of 15 participants. Each of the groups participated in 9 treatment sessions of instruction. At the beginning of every session the researcher introduced some transitional devices with a brief explanation about their meanings and usage and after that, the participants of each group were provided with a writing task that required them to write a paragraph about a special topic using all the transitional devices that were presented to them in that session. The number of correct uses of transitional devices in each participant’s writing was calculated and reported in percentage and the average of every participant’s performance during all 9 sessions was regarded as that participant’s single score for the purpose of making comparisons between the four groups. The data was analyzed through Kruskal-Wallis test and the findings revealed statistically significant differences among the four groups in doing the tasks. At the end, a questionnaire with 20 Likert-type items was utilized to explore the participants’ perspectives of the role of task complexity in their writing. Consequently, the study revealed that using tasks with different levels of complexity can play a great role to improve the learners’ grammar in terms of transitional devices.
Abdi Tabari, M., & Miller, M. (2021). Unraveling the effects of task sequencing on the syntactic complexity, accuracy, lexical complexity, and fluency of L2 written production. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique appliquée, 24(2), 1-29.
Allen, H. W. (2018). Redefining writing in the foreign language curriculum: Toward a design approach. Foreign Language Annals, 51, 513-532.
Amini, B., Bayat, A., & Mahmoodi, K. (2022). The Impact of Sequencing Repeated Familiar Task on Listening Performance. Issues in Language Teaching, 10, 325-350
Ashoori Tootkaboni, A., & Pakzadian, M. (2020). Exploring the effects of pre-task planning time on EFL learners’ narrative writing. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 13, 1-19.
Birjandi, P., & Siyyari, M. (2010). Self-assessment and peer-assessment: A comparative study of their effect on writing performance and rating accuracy. IJAL, 13, 23-45.
Crooks, G. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisi-tion, 11, 367–383.
Dobao, A. F. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(1), 40-58.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fazilatfar, A., Kasiri, F., & Nowbakht, M. (2020). The comparative effects of planning time and task conditions on the complexity, accuracy and fluency of L2 writing by EFL learners. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 93-110.
Ferris, D. R. & J. Hedgcock (2004). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process,and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performances. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299 – 323.
Golparvar, S. E., & Rashidi, F. (2021). The effect of task complexity on integrated writing performance: The case of multiple-text source-based writing. System, 99, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102524.
Gunawardena, M. (2014). Developing effective pedagogies of grammar: The two-in-one approach. Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 8(3), A113-A123.
Hyland, K. (2013). Student perceptions of hidden messages in teacher written feedback. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(3), 180-187.
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 (3), 401– 436.
Kim, Y. J. (2009). The effects of task complexity on learner-learner interaction. System, 37(2). 254-268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.02.003
Kroll, B. (2003). Exploring the dynamics of second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levelt, W J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Malicka, A. (2020). The role of task sequencing in fluency, accuracy, and complexity: Investigating the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. Language Teaching Research, 24(5), 642-665.
Muller, A., & Gregoric, C., & Rowland, D. R. (2017). The impact of explicit instruction and corrective feedback on ESL postgraduate students’ grammar in academic writing. Journal of Academic Language & Learning, 11(1), A125-A144.
Murphy, J. (2003). Task-based learning: the interaction between tasks and learners. ELT Journal, 57(4), 352-360.
Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From intension to articulation. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Naghdipour, B. (2016). English writing instruction in Iran: Implications for second language writing curriculum and pedagogy. Journal of Second Language Writing, 32, 81-87.
Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS Survival Manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS (Ed. 6th). Sydney: George Allen & Unwin.
Polio, C., & Park, J. H. (2016). Language development in second language writing. In R. M. Manchón, & P. K.
Rahimi, M., & Zhang, L. J. (2019). Writing task complexity, students’ motivational beliefs, anxiety and their writing production in English as a second language. Reading and Writing, 32(3), 761-786.
Robinson, P. (1995b). Task complexity and second language narrative discourse. Language Learning, 45(1), 99-140.
Robinson, P. (2001a). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287-318). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, P. (2001b). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27-57.
Skehan, P., & Foster. P. (1977). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 185-211.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P., and Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49/1, 93 – 120.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In' Cognition and second language instruction,' P. Robinson (Ed.), 183-205. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Storch, N. (2009). The impact of studying in a second language (L2) medium university on the development of L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 103-118.
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158-164.
Tavakoli, p., and Skehan, P. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 239 – 277). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
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.
Yahyazadeh Jelodar, Z., & Farvardin, M. T. (2019). Effects of collaborative tasks on EFL learners’ writing productions. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 389-406.
Yuan, F. & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics. 24(1), 1-27.
