featured colloquium tasks across modalities convenors: folkert kuiken & ineke vedder university...
TRANSCRIPT
Featured Colloquium
Tasks across modalities
Convenors: Folkert Kuiken & Ineke Vedder
University of Amsterdam
TBLT 2009, Lancaster, September 14, 2009
2
Tasks across modalities: Time schedule
4.30-4.55 Folkert Kuiken & Ineke Vedder
4.55-5.20 Stefania Ferrari & Elena Nuzzo
5.20-5.45 Bram Bulté & Alex Housen
5.45-6.10 Eva Alcón Soler
6.10-6.20 General discussion
3
Focus of the colloquium
To what extent is the influence of task characteristics on linguistic output in L2 affected by the mode (oral versus written) in which tasks are performed, particularly in relation to task complexity, the development of narrative skills, lexical competence and the effect of noticing?
4
State of the art
Very few studies in which the effect of mode on linguistic output is investigated and a comparison is made between oral an written task performance
Studies on the relationship between task characteristics and linguistic output generally concern oral tasks. Few studies on the effect of task characteristics on the written performance of L2 learners.
Contrasting results with respect to the effect of mode (Grabowski 2005, 2007; Martínez-Flor 2006; Granfeldt 2007)
5
Grabowski (2005, 2007)
Working memory No effect of mode for university students School children do better in the oral mode
Recall from long-term memory A robust and stable superiority effect for
writing for adult learners
6
Martínez-Flor (2006)
Making suggestions
Learners make more suggestions in a
written production task (e-mail) than in an
oral production task (phone message)
7
Granfeldt (2007)
Grammatical complexity No effect of mode
Vocabulary diversity In writing significantly higher than in speaking
Accuracy Fewer errors in speaking than in writing
No general effect of mode Individual differences: Learners have ‘modality
preferences’ (cf. Weissberg 2000)
8
Summarizing: Contrasting results
Written mode
superior Oral mode superior
No effect of mode
WM adults Grabowski (2005)
WM school children
Grabowski (2005)
Long-term memory
Grabowski (2007)
Making suggestions
Martínez-Flor (2006)
Grammatical complexity
Granfeldt (2007)
Lexical complexity
Granfeldt (2007)
Accuracy Granfeldt (2007)
9
Focus of the individual papers
Kuiken &
Vedder Ferrari & Nuzzo
Bulté & Housen
Alcón Soler
Grammatical complexity
Lexical complexity
Accuracy
10
Paper 1: Folkert Kuiken & Ineke Vedder
The influence of task complexity on linguistic performance in L2 writing and speaking
11
Theoretical framework
Robinson’s Cognition Hypothesis (2001, 2005) Learners can access multiple attentional pools at
the same time Complex tasks more negotiation of meaning
and more noticing more linguistic complexity Increasing task complexity on resource directing
variables will lead to a better performance
12
Robinson’s Triadic Componential Framework (2001, 2005)
Task complexity (cognitive factors)
Task conditions (interactional factors)
Task difficulty (learner factors)
a) resource-directing few elements here-and-now no reasoning demands b) resource-dispersing planning single task prior knowledge
a) participation variables e.g. open/closed one-way/two-way convergent/divergent b) participant variables e.g. same/different gender familiar/unfamiliar power/solidarity
a) affective variables e.g. motivation anxiety confidence b) ability variables e.g. working memory intelligence aptitude
Sequencing criteria Methodological influences Prospective decisions about task units
On-line decisions about pairs and groups
13
Robinson’s Triadic Componential Framework (2001, 2005)
Task complexity (cognitive factors)
Task conditions (interactional factors)
Task difficulty (learner factors)
a) resource-directing few elements here-and-now no reasoning demands b) resource-dispersing planning single task prior knowledge
a) participation variables e.g. open/closed one-way/two-way convergent/divergent b) participant variables e.g. same/different gender familiar/unfamiliar power/solidarity
a) affective variables e.g. motivation anxiety confidence b) ability variables e.g. working memory intelligence aptitude
Sequencing criteria Methodological influences Prospective decisions about task units
On-line decisions about pairs and groups
14
Robinson’s Triadic Componential Framework (2001, 2005)
Task complexity (cognitive factors)
Task conditions (interactional factors)
Task difficulty (learner factors)
a) resource-directing few elements here-and-now no reasoning demands b) resource-dispersing planning single task prior knowledge
a) participation variables e.g. open/closed one-way/two-way convergent/divergent b) participant variables e.g. same/different gender familiar/unfamiliar power/solidarity c) mode
a) affective variables e.g. motivation anxiety confidence b) ability variables e.g. working memory intelligence aptitude
Sequencing criteria Methodological influences Prospective decisions about task units
On-line decisions about pairs and groups
15
Research questions
To what extent is the influence of task complexity on linguistic performance in L2 influenced by the mode (written versus oral) in which the tasks have to be performed?
Is the output of low- and high-proficient learners differentially affected by the manipulation of task complexity in written versus oral tasks?
Does task complexity affect accuracy in terms of
types of errors in written versus oral tasks?
16
Hypotheses
Mode The influence of task complexity will not be affected by
mode(Gilabert 2007; Kuiken & Vedder 2007; Michel, Kuiken & Vedder 2007)
Task complexity Increasing task complexity will lead to a better
performance: more accurate, syntactically more complex, lexically more varied(Robinson’s Cognition Hypothesis 2005)
Proficiency level High-proficient learners perform better than low-
proficient learners, but there will be no interaction between proficiency level and task complexity(Kuiken, Vedder & Mos 2005; Kuiken & Vedder 2007, in press)
17
Design
Written mode
91 students of Italian L2
Proficiency level as determined by means of a cloze test
Writing a letter (twice): choice of a holiday destination from five options
Oral mode
44 students of Italian L2
Proficiency level as determined by means of a cloze test
Leaving a message on the phone (twice): choice of a holiday destination from five options
18
Task
You are planning to go on holiday with an Italian friend.Your friend has already made a first selection of five addresses, and asks you for your advice. The guesthouse or apartment you choose, however, has to satisfy a number of conditions. These criteria are:
- Complex task (3 cond.) + Complex task (6 conditions)1. Presence of a garden2. Space for physical exercise3. A quiet location 4. Swimming facilities5. Located in the center 6. Breakfast included
Written task Oral taskWrite a letter of at least Make a phone call to your friend150 words and leave a message on the
voice mail
19
General measuresWritten mode
Accuracy Errors / T-unit 1o, 2o, 3o degree errors / T-unit
Syntactic complexity Clauses / T-unit Dependent clauses / clause
Lexical variation Type/token ratio corrected for
text length (WT/√2W)
Oral mode
Accuracy Errors / AS-unit 1o, 2o, 3o degree errors / AS-unit
Syntactic complexity Clauses / AS-unit Dependent clauses / clause
Lexical variation Type/token ratio corrected for
text length (WT/√2W)
20
Error types
Written mode
Accuracy Errors with respect to
appropriateness / T-unit Grammatical errors / T-unit Lexical errors / T-unit Orthographic errors / T-unit Other errors / T-unit
Oral mode
Accuracy Errors with respect to
appropriateness / AS-unit Grammatical errors / AS-unit Lexical errors / AS-unit Pronunciation errors / AS-unit Other errors / AS-unit
21
Results: Similarities between the written and the oral mode
Linguistic performance• Influence of task complexity on accuracy; fewer errors in
the complex task (+ Cognition Hypothesis). • No influence on lexical variation• No interaction between task complexity and proficiency
level
Error type• Influence of task complexity on lexical errors: fewer lexical
errors in the complex task (+Cognition hypothesis)• No interaction between task complexity and proficiency
level on types of errors
22
Results: Differences between the written and the oral mode
Linguistic performance• No effect of task complexity on syntactic complexity in the
written mode. • Use of fewer dependent clauses in the complex task in the
oral mode (-Cognition Hypothesis)
23
Discussion
Inclusion of mode in Robinson’s Triadic Componential Framework? The influence of task complexity on linguistic performance is hardly constrained by mode.
Fewer dependent clauses in complex task in oral mode: major
‘pressure’ in on-line task, compared to off-line task, enforces L2 learners to simplify: grammatical complexity is reduced.
Main influence of task complexity on accuracy, in both written and oral mode: attentional resources are allocated to control of the existing L2 system.
Main effect on accuracy, in both written and oral mode, determined by decrease of lexical errors: attentional resources of the L2 learners are focused on control of lexical form.
24
Results compared with Granfeldt (2007)
Written mode
superior Oral mode superior
No effect of mode
Grammatical complexity
Kuiken & Vedder
Granfeldt (2007)
Lexical complexity
Granfeldt (2007)
Kuiken & Vedder
Accuracy Granfeldt (2007)
Kuiken & Vedder
25
Summarizing the results
Written mode
superior Oral mode superior
No effect of mode
Grammatical complexity
Kuiken& Vedder Ferrari & Nuzzo
Granfeldt (2007)
Lexical complexity
Granfeldt (2007) Bulté & Housen
Kuiken& Vedder Alcón Soler Yu (2009)
Accuracy Granfeldt (2007) Ferrari & Nuzzo
Kuiken& Vedder Alcón Soler