2013 eal cognitive underpinnings of tbl (1)

7/27/2019 2013 EAL Cognitive Underpinnings of TBL (1)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2013-eal-cognitive-underpinnings-of-tbl-1 1/6

Task-Based Learning: CognitiveUnderpinnings

PETER ROBINSON AND ROGER GILABERT

Over the past thirty years, proposals for task-based language teaching (TBLT) have drawn

on a variety of claims about, and research into, the cognitive processes thought to promote

successful second language acquisition (SLA). A brief overview of these will be given

below. They reflect a shift from a concern with how TBLT can facilitate comprehension of

input, to how it can facilitate interaction and attention to output, and the development of

increasingly target-like speech production. They also reflect the progressively sophisticated

knowledge that SLA research has provided concerning cognitive processes such as implicit,

incidental, and explicit learning, and automatization of knowledge.

Cognitive Processes in Task-Based Learning

In his account of the theoretical motivation for the task-based “procedural syllabus” Prabhu

(1987) argued that: “task-based teaching operates with the concept that, while the conscious

mind is working out some of the meaning-content, a subconscious part of the mind per-

ceives, abstracts, or acquires (or re-creates as a cognitive structure) some of the linguistic

structuring embodied in those entities, as a step in the development of an internal system

of rules” (pp. 70–1). Prabhu’s cognitive rationale for TBLT is thus compatible with Krashen’s

(1982) claim that comprehensible input is necessary for learning, and that it promotes inci-

dental learning of a tacit, implicit knowledge base. Long (1985) argued that the interaction

that task work promotes is additionally important since it provides one way in whichinput can be made comprehensible, as well as a context for attending to problematic forms

in the input and output during task work. Consequently, Pica, Kanagy and Falodun (1993)

described a taxonomy of task characteristics in order to promote further research into

which of these characteristics optimally promoted interaction work. Swain (1985) argued

that attention to output produced during task performance could additionally facilitate

SLA, since it provided a context for comparing the speaker’s performance with an inter-

locutor’s, and noticing gaps and mismatches between them, and for hypothesis testing

about the formal means for expressing meanings and communicative intentions in the

second language (L2).

Skehan (1998) provided the first detailed psycholinguistic rationale for the effects of someaspects of task demands on learning and performance, focusing in particular on the extent

to which having time to plan a task led to increases in the accuracy, fluency and complexity

of speech produced, when compared to performance on tasks where planning time was

not available. Robinson (2001) also provided a psycholinguistic rationale for how cognitive

complexity can be increased along two broad dimensions of the demands made by tasks,

and claimed that these would have distinct influences on learning and performance.

Increasing demands on “resource-directing” dimensions, he argued, directs learners’ atten-

tion to aspects of language used to structure increasingly complex concepts, facilitating

awareness of how these concepts are differentially encoded in the L2, so prompting L2

The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, Edited by Carol A. Chapelle.

© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

DOI: 10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1143



2 task-based learning: cognitive underpinnings

development. Along these dimensions, initially implicit knowledge of the L1 concept-

structuring function of language (see Talmy, 2000) becomes gradually explicit, and available

for change, following a natural developmental order reflected in the sequencing decisions.

In contrast, along “resource-dispersing” dimensions, increasing task demands has the effect

of gradually removing processing support (such as planning time) for access to currentinterlanguage, and thus practice along them requires, and should encourage, faster and

more automatic L2 access and use. Along these dimensions, therefore, improvements in

performance will involve initially explicit knowledge becoming more automatized.

Design Characteristics Affecting the CognitiveProcessing Demands of Tasks

Current research into the cognitive underpinnings of TBLT is focused on the effects that

design characteristics of tasks have on the cognitive processes that facilitate L2 production

and learning. Some of the design characteristics of tasks that have received the most atten-tion from researchers are described below.

Planning Time

There have been many studies of how tasks can be made easier for second language

learners by giving them time to plan what they will do or say in the L2 (Ellis, 2005). This

is perhaps the area that has received the most attention by SLA researchers interested in

tasks, and it has clear implications for effective pedagogic decision making. In general, the

studies that have been done seem to show that having time to plan a task increases the

accuracy, fluency and complexity of learner language.

Single/Dual Tasks

Another dimension of task complexity that is similar to this is the single–dual task dimen-

sion. It is much less complex to answer a phone call in the L2, than it is to answer a phone

call and monitor a TV screen at the same time, to check the weather, or changes in exchange

rates, for example (Robinson, Ting, & Urwin, 1995). The latter, dual task, disperses learner

attention over a number of L2 stimuli. In general, tasks made complex on this dimension

also lead to poorer accuracy, fluency, and complexity of performance.

Intentional Reasoning

In contrast to the above dimensions of task complexity, other task characteristics maydirect learners’ attention to the language needed to meet complex task demands. On these

dimensions Robinson (2001) argued that increasing task complexity should lead to more

accurate and complex learner language, over time. However, complex tasks on these

dimensions also negatively affect fluency. For example, in L2 English, tasks which require

complex reasoning about the intentional states that motivate others to perform actions

can be expected to draw heavily on the use of cognitive state terms for reference to

other minds—she suspected, realized, etc.—and in so doing orient learner attention to the

complement constructions accompanying them—suspected that, wonders whether, etc.—so

promoting awareness of, and effort at, complex L2 English syntax (Robinson, 2007; Ishikawa,

2008).

Spatial Reasoning

Another example of resource-directing task demands are those tasks which require

complex spatial reasoning, and articulation of this in describing how to move, and in what



task-based learning: cognitive underpinnings 3

manner, from point A to point E, by way of intermediary landmark points B, C, and D,

etc. These can be expected to draw heavily on the use of constructions for describing

motion events (Cadierno, 2008). Such tasks therefore have the potential to promote aware-

ness of lexicalization patterns in L2 English for describing these motion events, in which

motion and manner are typically conflated on verbs (e.g., rushed) and paths are expressedoutside the verb in satellites that conflate a number of motion events (e.g., rushed out of

the house, down the street and into the post office). English lexicalization patterns are different

from those in Japanese, where motion and path tend to be conflated on verbs, and manner

encoded separately (e.g., isoide haitta). Consequently, Japanese makes much less use of

event conflation in reference to motion than English does. So a task requiring complex

spatial reasoning (giving directions from a large map of an unknown area) may prompt

Japanese L2 learners of English to revise their preferred ways of referring to motion, in

line with English lexicalization patterns (Cadierno & Robinson, 2009).

Here-and-Now/There-and-Then

In yet a different conceptual domain, tasks requiring reference to events happening now,

in a shared context (here-and-now) orient learner attention to morphology for conveying

tense and aspect in the present, compared to events requiring much more cognitively

demanding reference to events happening elsewhere in time and space (there-and-then).

There-and-then tasks require greater effort at conceptualization (since events are not

visually available in a shared context) and greater demands on memory (Gilabert, 2007).

One effect of performing tasks on this dimension is to draw learners’ attention to the

morphological forms and phrases that can be used to refer to the present and the past

in English, and these are needed to help them perform the tasks. The morphology for

referring to the past in English is much later acquired by L2 learners than the morphology

for referring to the present, so complex tasks may promote learner attention to, and useof, this later acquired past tense morphology. That is, in this and other cases of increasing

the complexity of resource-directing demands of tasks, Robinson’s “cognition hypothesis”

(2001) predicts more “noticing” of L2 forms (Schmidt, 2001), more uptake and incorpor-

ation of them, as well as increasing accuracy and complexity of production on complex

compared to simpler task versions.

Effects of Cumulative Increases in theCognitive Demands of Tasks

To date, the effects of the design characteristics of tasks contributing to their cognitivecomplexity (as described above) have often been contrasted for their distinct effects on

learning and performance. However, for TBLT a key issue is the cumulative effect of

increasing the complexity of pedagogic task demands, so as to gradually approximate the

full complexity of real-world, target-task performance (Long & Crookes, 1993). With this

in mind, Robinson (2005) has made the following theoretical claims about the effects of

cumulative influences in the demands of tasks on cognitive processes thought to facilitate

SLA. Some of these claims are the focus of current research, while others remain issues

for future research.

OutputThe first of these claims is that increasing the cognitive demands of tasks contributing to

their relative complexity along resource-directing dimensions (e.g., from − to + intentional

reasoning demands) will push learners to greater accuracy and complexity of L2 produc-

tion in order to meet the consequently greater functional/communicative demands they




place on the learner. That is, greater effort at conceptualization will lead learners to develop

the L2 linguistic resources they have for expressing such conceptualizations. Some research

findings support this claim (Robinson, 2007; Ishikawa, 2008). Related to this first claim is

the prediction that increasing task demands will lead to a higher number of interactional

episodes (e.g., language-related episodes, clarification requests, or recasts) which are knownto push second language development. Some studies have provided evidence of such a

claim (Robinson, 2007; Gilabert, Barón, & Llanes, 2009).

Uptake

The second claim is that cognitively complex tasks promote heightened attention to and

memory for input, so increasing learning from the input, and incorporation of forms made

salient in the input. So, for example, there should be more uptake of oral recasts on com-

plex tasks, compared to simpler tasks, or more use of written input provided to help

learners perform tasks. Some research findings support this claim (Revesz, 2009; Baralt,

2010).

Memory

Related to this, the third claim is that on complex tasks there will be longer-term retention

of input provided (e.g., in the form of written prompts, or oral feedback) than on simpler

tasks. There are currently no studies that have addressed this claim.

Automaticity

Fourth, the inherent repetition involved in performing simple to complex sequences will

also lead to automaticity and efficient scheduling of the components of complex L2

target-task performance, compared to target tasks performed without the benefit of such pedagogic task sequencing. This should be revealed in estimates of the fluency with

which target tasks are performed following a sequence of increasingly complex pedagogic

tasks (as manifested by fewer incidents of self-repair, fewer hesitations, etc.), as well as in

criterion-referenced measures of the extent of successful target-task performance. There

are currently no studies that have addressed this claim.

Aptitudes

Fifth, individual differences in affective and cognitive abilities contributing to perceptions

of task difficulty will increasingly differentiate learning and performance as tasks increase

in complexity. This is likely to be an intense area of future research, since it can revealmuch about the cognitive processing prerequisites for successful task-based learning and

performance, and since it will ultimately be desirable to match individual profiles in task

aptitudes to those conditions of task performance that learners are best suited to, in order

to optimally facilitate TBLT outcomes for learners. In line with this claim, Robinson (2007)

found that greater output processing anxiety led to less complex speech production on

complex tasks (with intentional reasoning demands), compared to those with lower output

anxiety, but these differences in output processing anxiety had no effect on complexity of

speech produced on simple tasks (without intentional reasoning demands). On the other

hand, examining the same task complexity differential, Baralt (2010) found that individual

differences in working memory capacity did not predict greater accuracy, fluency or com-

plexity in performance on complex versus simpler task versions. Robinson (2010) describes

individual, task aptitude measures that could profitably be used in future studies of this

issue.



task-based learning: cognitive underpinnings 5

SEE ALSO: Attention, Noticing, and Awareness in Second Language Acquisition;

Automatization, Skill Acquisition, and Practice in Second Language Acquisition; Incidental

Learning in Second Language Acquisition; Instructed Second Language Acquisition

References

Baralt, M. (2010). Task complexity, the cognition hypothesis and interaction in CMC and FTF environ-

ments (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington DC.

Cadierno, T. (2008). Learning to talk about motion in a foreign language. In P. Robinson &

N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition, (pp. 239–75).

New York, NY: Routledge.

Cadierno, T., & Robinson, P. (2009). Language typology, task complexity and the development

of L2 lexicalization patterns for describing motion events. Annual Review of Cognitive

Linguistics, 6, 246–77.

Ellis, R. (Ed.). (2005). Planning and second language task performance. Amsterdam, Netherlands:

John Benjamins.Gilabert, R. (2007). The simultaneous manipulation along the planning time and +/− Here-and-

Now dimensions: Effects on oral L2 production. In M. Garcia Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks

in formal language learning, (pp. 44–68). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Gilabert, R., Barón, J., & Llanes, M. A. (2009). Manipulating cognitive complexity across task

types and its impact on learners’ interaction during task performance. International Review

of Applied Linguistics, 47, 367–95.

Ishikawa, T. (2008). Task complexity, reasoning demands and second language speech production

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Aoyama Gakuin University, Department of English,

Tokyo, Japan.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford, England: Pergamon

Press.Long, M. H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language

teaching. In M. Pienemann & K. Hyltenstam (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language

acquisition (pp. 77–99). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Long, M. H., & Crookes, G. (1993). Units of analysis in syllabus design: The case for task. In

G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks in a pedagogical context (pp. 9–54). Clevedon, England:

Multilingual Matters.

Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second

language teaching and research. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks in language learning:

Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9–34). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Revesz, A. (2009). Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studiesin Second Language Acquisition, 31, 437–70.

Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic frame-

work for examining task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second

language instruction (pp. 285–317). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: A review of studies in a

componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied

Linguistics, 43, 1–32.

Robinson, P. (2007). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects on

speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. International Review

of Applied Linguistics, 45, 193–214.

Robinson, P. (2010). Situating and distributing cognition across task demands: The SSARC modelof pedagogic task sequencing. In M. Putz & L. Sicola (Eds.), Cognitive processing in second

language acquisition: Inside the learner’s mind (pp. 239–65). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John

Benjamins.




Robinson, P., Ting, S., & Urwin, J. (1995). Investigating second language task complexity. RELC

Journal, 26, 62–79.

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

(pp. 3–32). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, England: Oxford University

Press.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and

comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second

language acquisition (pp. 235–53). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Talmy, L. (2000). Towards a cognitive semantics, Vol. 1: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge:

MIT Press.

Suggested Readings

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

Press.Garcia Mayo, M. P. (Ed.). (2007). Investigating tasks in formal language learning. Clevedon, England:

Multilingual Matters.

Robinson, P. (Ed.). (2011). Task-based language learning. Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell.

Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. New York, NY: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M., & Norris, J. (Eds.). (2009). Task-based language teaching: A reader.

Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

2013 eal cognitive underpinnings of tbl (1)

Documents