跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(98.84.25.165) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/11/10 01:36
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:許倩燕
研究生(外文):SHI, CHEN-YAN
論文名稱:調查任務複雜度和英文程度對口語產出影響
論文名稱(外文):Investigating the Effect of Task Complexity and English Proficiency on Oral Production
指導教授:石素錦石素錦引用關係
指導教授(外文):SHIH, SU-CHIN
口試委員:林惠芬張善貿凃金堂王本瑛石素錦
口試委員(外文):LIN, HUI-FENCHANG, SHAN-MAOTU, CHIN-TANGWANG, PEN-YINGSHIH, SU-CHIN
口試日期:2019-07-22
學位類別:博士
校院名稱:國立高雄師範大學
系所名稱:英語學系
學門:人文學門
學類:外國語文學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2019
畢業學年度:107
語文別:英文
論文頁數:202
中文關鍵詞:任務複雜度能力有限假設認知假設第二語言程度口語產出複雜度正確度流暢度
外文關鍵詞:task complexityCapacity Limited HypothesisCognition HypothesisL2 proficiencyoral productioncomplexityaccuracyfluency
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:1
  • 點閱點閱:373
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:13
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
任務複雜度 (task complexity) 對學習者任務表現 (learner performance) 的影響一直是數十年來的議題。此領域兩個重要的理論是Skehan (1996, 1998) 的能力有限假設 (Limited Capacity Hypothesis) 和Robinson (2001, 2007) 的認知假設(Cognition Hypothesis)。能力有限假設主張,當第二語言學習者在從事複雜任務時,因為認知容量有限,他們不能同時注意語言上的複雜度及正確度。相反地,認知假設主張,當第二語言學習者從事複雜任務時,認知能力沒有受限,反而他們需要使用更複雜和更正確的語言來應付較高的認知需求。我們需要進一步來驗證這兩個理論。
一共有191位兩年制專科的學生參與此次的實驗。依照口試成績,分成高分組和低分組。他們兩兩配對操作簡單任務或複雜任務。任務複雜度是按Robinson所提 ± 少數要素 ( ± few elements) 來調整設計。此次的任務是一個敘述重整任務,參與者需合作排列一組圖片並說出裡面的故事。在過濾不適合的資料後,將24對的對話錄音轉譯成文字並做分析。
參與者的口語產出以三方面來檢驗 — 複雜度、正確度、流利度。結果顯示任務複雜度對產出的句法複雜度有顯著的影響。也就是簡單任務比複雜任務產出更多的附屬子句。這個結果似乎符合Skehan 和Robinson對於對話任務的預測。然而任務複雜度對口語產出的其它方面,如正確度及流利度,則沒有顯著的影響。對比之下,英文程度對口語產出的各方面都有顯著的影響。相較低分組,高分組能說出更複雜、更正確、更流利的英語。由此研究得知,單單 ± 少數要素 ( ± few elements) 可能無法顯著影響學習者的表現。建議在任務複雜度的研究方面,仍需進一步的調查。

The effect of task complexity on learner performance has been an issue in task-based language learning and teaching for decades. Two important theories in this field are Skehan’s Limited Capacity Hypothesis (1996, 1998) and Robinson’s Cognition Hypothesis (2001, 2005). The Limited Capacity Hypothesis claims that cognitive capacity is limited. When L2 learners conduct a complex task, they are not able to attend to complexity and accuracy of task performance simultaneously. On the other hand, the Cognition Hypothesis claims that cognitive capacity is not limited. When conducting a complex task, L2 learners are pushed to produce more complex and accurate language in order to cope with high cognitive demand. It is necessary to take a further step to verify these two hypotheses. An experiment was conducted in order to examine these two hypotheses.
A total of 191 students from a two-year junior college participated in this experiment. They were divided into high proficiency groups and low proficiency groups based on scores on a speaking test. They were paired randomly and performed either a simple task or a complex task. Task complexity was manipulated through ± few elements, which is a task design feature proposed by Robinson (2001, 2005). The task was a narrative reconstruction task, which required the participants to arrange the sequence of a picture set and later narrate the story reflected in the pictures. After screening out inadequate data, the recordings of 24 dyads were transcribed and analyzed.
The participants’ oral production was examined in terms of three aspects — complexity, accuracy, and fluency. The results show task complexity had a significant effect on syntactic complexity. That is, the simple task produced more subordinate clauses than the complex task. This result seems to be in agreement with Skehan’s and Robinson’s prediction about dialogic task. However, task complexity did not have a significant effect on accuracy and fluency. In contrast, proficiency had a great influence on oral production in all of the aspects. High proficiency groups used more complex, more accurate, and more fluent utterances than low proficiency groups.
The implication is that the task complexity manipulated through the factor of ± few elements alone may not guarantee a significant influence on learner performance. It is suggested that the effect of task complexity on task performance still requires further investigation.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTERⅠINTRODUCTION
1.1 Background…………………………………………………………………….. 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem ………………………………………………….…....6
1.3 Purpose of the Study ……………………………………………………….……7
1.4 Research Questions and Hypotheses ……………………………………….…...8
1.5 Significance of the Study………………………………………………………..10
1.6 Definition of Terms……………………………………………………………...11

CHAPTER Ⅱ LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Tasks of L2 Learning 14
2.1.1 Task Types 14
2.1.1.1 A pedagogic Classification 15
2.1.1.2 A Psycholinguistic Classification. 17
2.1.1.3 A Rhetorical Classification 19
2.1.1.4 The Effect of Task Types on Task Performance 21
2.1.2 Task Design Features 25
2.1.2.1 Input Variables 27
2.1.2.2 Task Conditions 27
2.1.2.3 Task Outcomes 28
2.1.2.4 The Effects of Task Features 29
2.1.3 Summary 29
2.2 Task Complexity. 30
2.2.1 Skehan’s Theory 31
2.2.1.1 Skehan’s Framework for Task Complexity 31
2.2.1.2 The Limited Capacity Hypothesis. 33
2.2.1.3 Support for the Limited Capacity Hypothesis. 34
2.2.2 Robinson’s Theory. 35
2.2.2.1 Robinson’s Framework for Task Complexity 36
2.2.2.2 The Cognition Hypothesis. 39
2.2.2.3 Support for the Cognition Hypothesis 41
2.2.3 Summary 42
2.3 Learner Performance in Tasks 43
2.3.1 Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency (CAF) 43
2.3.2 Prediction of CAF Based on the Limited Capacity Hypothesis 44
2.3.3 Prediction of CAF Based on the Cognition Hypothesis 46
2.3.4 A Comparison between the Limited Capacity Hypothesis and the Cognition
Hypothesis 47
2.3.5 Summary 48
2.4 Proficiency 49
2.4.1 The Effect of L2 Proficiency on Learner Performance 49
2.4.2 The Effect of Tasks on Different Proficiency Groups 51
2.5 Chapter summary 54

CHAPTER Ⅲ METHODOLOGY
3.1 Experimental Design 56
3.2 Participants 57
3.3 Procedure 58
3.4 The Task-based Learning Course (The TBL Course) 63
3.4.1 Tasks Used in Task-based Learning Course 65
3.4.2 An Example of Task-based Learning Course 70
3.5 The Experimental Task 71
3.6 Instruments 76
3.6.1 Picture Sets of the Experimental Tasks 76
3.6.2 Background Questionnaire 77
3.6.3 Task Questionnaire 77
3.6.4 Oral Proficiency Test 78
3.7 Measures for Oral Production of the Experiment 78
3.8 Data Analysis 80
3.8.1 Transcribing 81
3.8.2 Coding Utterances 81
3.8.2.1 AS-units 82
3.8.2.2 False starts, Repetitions, and Self-corrects 84
3.8.2.3 Mother Tongue and Fillers 85
3.8.2.4 One-word Minor Utterances and Echoic Responses 85
3.8.2.5 An Example of Coding 86
3.8.3 Marking Utterances for Deletion 86
3.8.4 Pruning Utterances 87
3.8.5 Counting and Calculating Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency 88
3.8.5.1 Complexity 88
3.8.5.2 Accuracy 92
3.8.5.3 Fluency 95
3.8.6 Statistical Analysis 96



CHAPTER Ⅳ RESULTS
4.1 Background Information and English Oral Proficiency of Participants 98
4.2 Complexity 99
4.2.1 Syntactic Complexity 100
4.2.1.1 The Effect of Task Complexity on Syntactic Complexity 102
4.2.1.2 The Effect of Proficiency on Syntactic Complexity 104
4.2.2 Lexical Complexity 104
4.3 Accuracy 106
4.4 Fluency 110
4.5 Task Questionnaire 113
4.6 Chapter Summary 116

CHAPTER Ⅴ DISCUSSION
5.1 Complexity 119
5.1.1 The Effect of Task Complexity on Complexity 119
5.1.1.1 Syntactic Complexity 120
5.1.1.2 Lexical Complexity 129
5.1.2 The Effect of Proficiency on Complexity 131
5.2 Accuracy 135
5.2.1 The Effect of Task Complexity on Accuracy 135
5.2.1.1 Syntactical Errors 136
5.2.1.2 Lexical Errors 138
5.2.2 The Effect of Proficiency on Accuracy 139
5.2.3 An Analysis of Errors Occurring in the Experimental Task 143
5.2.3.1 Syntactical Errors 143
5.2.3.2 Lexical Errors 148
5.3 Fluency 151
5.3.1 The Effect of Task Complexity on Fluency 152
5.3.2 The Effect of Proficiency on Fluency 155
5.4 Task Questionnaire 159
5.5 Chapter Summary 162

CHAPTER Ⅵ CONCLUSIONS
6.1 Summary of Major Findings 166
6.2 Implications 173
6.3 Limitations of the Study 175
6.4 Suggestions for Future Studies 176

REFERENCES 178

APPENDIX A 189
APPENDIX B 190
APPENDIX C 191
APPENDIX D 192
APPENDIX E 193
APPENDIX F 194
APPENDIX G 195
APPENDIX H 196
APPENDIX I. 197
APPENDIX J 199
APPENDIX K 201


LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 Definitions of a Task 3
Table 2.1 A Pedagogic Classification of Tasks 16
Table 2.2 A Psycholinguistic Typology of Tasks 19
Table 2.3 A Rhetorical Classification of Tasks 20
Table 2.4 The Three-dimensional Framework of Task Complexity 32
Table 2.5 The Triad Componential Framework for Pedagogic L2 Task
Classification 37
Table 2.6 A Comparison of Predictions of L2 Oral Production in Simple and
Complex Tasks 48
Table 3.1 The Experimental Design of the Study 57
Table 3.2 Explanations for the Erosion in the Number of Participants 58
Table 3.3 The Number of Dyads for Each Task Condition 63
Table 3.4 Design Features of Tasks at Stage 2 64
Table 3.5 A Teaching Plan of the TBL Course 69
Table 3.6 The Procedures of the Experimental Task 73
Table 3.7 Measures for Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency 79
Table 3.8 The Counts and Calculation of Syntactic Complexity 91
Table 3.9 Counts of Types and Tokens 93
Table 3.10 Calculation of Lexical Complexity by CTTR 93
Table 3.11 The Analysis and Coding of Errors 94
Table 3.12 The Counts and Calculation of Accuracy 95
Table 3.13 The Counts and Calculation of Fluency 96
Table 4.1 A Comparison of Oral Proficiency Test Scores between Different Tasks
and Proficiency Groups……….. 99
Table 4.2 Descriptive Statistics of MLA and TNSC for the Task and Proficiency… 101
Table 4.3 Two-way MANOVA for Syntactic Complexity as a Function of Task
and Proficiency…..……………………………………………….……..101
Table 4.4 ANOVA Table for the Effects of Task on MLA and TNSC ………………103
Table 4.5 ANOVA Table for the Effects of Proficiency on MLA and TNSC ……….103
Table 4.6 Descriptive Statistics of CTTR for Task and Proficiency………………... 105
Table 4.7 Two-way ANOVA for Lexical Complexity as a Function of Task and Proficiency……………..............................................................................106
Table 4.8 Descriptive Statistics of TNEAS, TNSAS, and TNLAS for Task and Proficiency……….....................................................................................107
Table 4.9 Two-way MANOVA for Accuracy as a Function of Task and
Proficiency……………………………………………………………… 109
Table 4.10 ANOVA Table for the Effects of Proficiency on TNEAS, TNSAS, and TNLAS……………………………………………………………… …110
Table 4.11 Descriptive Statistics of NWPM for the Task and Proficiency………… 111
Table 4.12 Two-way ANOVA for NWPM as a Function of Task and Proficiency... ..112
Table 4.13 ANOVA Table for the Relationships between the Simple Task and the Complex Task.…………………………………………………………..112
Table 4.14 A Comparison of Perceptions of the Experimental Task between the Simple and Complex Task………………………………………………114
Table 4.15 A Comparison of Perception of the Experimental Task between Low
and High Proficiency Groups…………………………………………...115
Table 5.1 The Counting and Calculating of MLA of Extract 5.1…………………...122
Table 5.2 The Counting and Calculating of MLA of Extract 5.2…………………...125
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Task design features 26
Figure 3.1 The four phases of the study 60
Figure 3.2 Three stages of TBL course 61
Figure 3.3 The setting for the experimental task 74
Figure 3.4 The process of data analysis 80
Figure 3.5 The relationship of an AS-unit, independent clause, sub-clausal unit, and subordinate clause 82
Figure 3.6 The components of the sub-clausal unit 83
Figure 5.1 Picture E and H from the complex task picture set.. 121
Figure 5.2 Pictures B, E, H, and J from the complex task 124
Figure 5.3 Picture I from the complex task 130
Figure 5.4 Picture D from the complex task 133

REFERENCES

Abe, M. (2015). Syntactic variation across proficiency levels in Japanese EFL learner speech. [electronic resource] (Doctoral dissertation, Temple University). Retrieved from http://er.lib.ncku.edu.tw:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cat01879a&AN=nck.b3310575&lang=zh-tw&site=eds-live
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.
Ahmadian, M. J., & Tavakoli, M. (2011). The effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency in EFL learners’ oral production. Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 35-59. doi: 10.1177/1362168810383329
Baddeley, A. (2007). Working memory, thought, and action. New York: Oxford University Press.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (3rd ed.). New York: Pearson Education.
Bygate, M. (2016). Sources, developments and directions of task-based language teaching. The Language Learning Journal, 44(4), 381-400. doi: 10.1080/09571736.2015.1039566
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/I.1.1
Chen, Y-H., & Qiu, J-L. (Eds.) (2010). Off we go 1(pp. 68-69). Taipei: Hebron.

Cho, M. (2018). Task complexity, modality, and working memory in L2 task performance. System, 72, 85-98. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2017.10.010
Coughlin, C. E., & Tremblay, A. (2013). Proficiency and working memory based explanations for nonnative speakers’ sensitivity to agreement in sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34(3), 615-646. doi: 10.1017/S0142716411000890
Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Craven, M. (2012). Breakthrough plus 2. Oxford: Macmillan Education.
de la Colina, A. A., & Mayo, M. d. P. G. (2009). Oral Interaction in Task-Based EFL Learning: The Use of the L1 as a Cognitive Tool. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL), 47(3-4), 325-345.
de Jong, N., & Vercellotti, M. L. (2016). Similar prompts may not be similar in the performance they elicit: Examining fluency, complexity, accuracy, and lexis in narratives from five picture prompts. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 387-404. doi: 10.1177/1362168815606161
de Jong, N. H., Groenhout, R., Schoonen, R. O. B., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2015). Second language fluency: Speaking style or proficiency? Correcting measures of second language fluency for first language behavior. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(2), 223-243. doi: 10.1017/S0142716413000210
Declerck, M., & Kormos, J. (2012). The effect of dual task demands and proficiency on second language speech production. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(4), 782-796. doi: 10.1017/S1366728911000629
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: OUP.
Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 474-509. doi:10.1093/applin/amp042
Ellis, R. (2013). Changing trends in language teaching research. Language Teaching Research, 17(2), 141-143. doi:10.1177/1362168812460807
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. doi: 10.1017/S0272263104026130
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (2013). Anticipating a post-task activity: The effects on accuracy, complexity, and fluency of second language performance. Canadian Modern Language Review, 69(3), 249-273. doi:10.3138/cmlr.69.3.249
Foster, P., & Tavakoli, P. (2009). Native speakers and task performance: Comparing effects on complexity, fluency, and lexical diversity. Language Learning, 59(4), 866-896. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00528.x
Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 354-375.
Gass, S., Mackey, A., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2011). Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 61, 189-220. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00646.x
Gilabert, R. (2007). Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 oral production. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(3), 215-240. doi: 10.1515/iral.2007.010
Gilabert, R., Barón, J., & Llanes, À. (2009). Manipulating cognitive complexity across task types and its impact on learners' interaction during oral performance. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47(3/4), 367-395. doi:10.1515/iral.2009.016
Gilabert, R., Barón, J., & Levkina, M. (2011). Manipulating task complexity across task types and modes. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 105-140). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 461-473. doi:10.1093/applin/amp048
Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2012). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hsieh, A. F.-Y. (2014). The effect of cultural background and language proficiency on the use of oral communication strategies by second language learners of Chinese. System, 45, 1-16. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.04.002
Huensch, A., & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2016). Understanding second language fluency behavior: The effects of individual differences in first language fluency, cross-linguistic differences, and proficiency over time. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38(4), 755-785. doi: 10.1017/S0142716416000424
Inoue, C. (2016). A comparative study of the variables used to measure syntactic complexity and accuracy in task-based research. The Language Learning Journal, 44(4), 487-505. doi: 10.1080/09571736.2015.1130079
Iwashita, N., McNamara, T., & Elder, C. (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.
Jackson, D. O., & Suethanapornkul, S. (2013). The Cognition Hypothesis: A synthesis and meta-analysis of research on second language task complexity. Language Learning, 63(2), 330-367. doi:10.1111/lang.12008
Kim, Y., & Taguchi, N. (2015). Promoting task-based pragmatics instruction in EFL classroom contexts: The role of task complexity. The Modern Language Journal, 99(4), 656-677. doi:10.1111/modl.12273
Kormos, J., & Trebits, A. (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. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(3), 261-284. doi:10.1515/iral.2007.012
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic performance in L2 writing and speaking: The effect of mode. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 91-104). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kurtz, J. (2013). Rhetorical modes. In A. Moser (ed.), Let’s get writing. Virginia: Virginia Western Educational Foundation. Retrieved from https://vwcceng111.pressbooks.com/chapter/chapter-5-rhetorical-modes/
Lambert, C., & Kormos, J. (2014). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in task-based L2 research: Toward more developmentally based measures of Second Language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 35(5), 607-614. doi:10.1093/applin/amu047
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons
Lu, X. (2012). The Relationship of Lexical Richness to the Quality of ESL Learners’ Oral Narratives. The Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 190-208. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01232.x
Lynch, T., & Maclean, J. (2000). Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for classroom language learning. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 221-250.
Mackey, A., Abbuhl, R., & Gass, S. M. (2012). Interactionist approach. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), Routledge handbooks in applied linguistics (pp. 7-23). New York: Routledge.
Michel, M. C. (2011). Effects of task complexity and interaction on L2 performance. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 141-184). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Michel, M. C. (2013). The use of conjunctions in cognitively simple versus complex oral L2 tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 97(1), 178-195. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.01431.x
Michel, M. C., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). The influence of complexity in monologic versus dialogic tasks in Dutch L2. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(3), 241-259. doi:10.1515/iral.2007.011
Michel, M. C., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2012). Task complexity and interaction: (Combined) effects on task-based performance in Dutch as a second language. EUROSLA Yearbook, 12, 164-190.
Nielson, K. B. (2014). Can planning time compensate for individual differences in working memory capacity? Language Teaching Research, 18(3), 272-293.
Nitta, R., & Nakatsuhara, F. (2014). A multifaceted approach to investigating pre-task planning effects on paired oral test performance. Language Testing, 31(2), 147-175. doi:10.1177/0265532213514401
Niu, R., Jiang, L. & Deng, Y. (2018). Effect of proficiency pairing on L2 learners’ language learning and scaffolding in collaborative writing. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 27(3), 187–195. doi: 10.1007/s40299-018-0377-2
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555-578. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp044
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Park, Y. (2014). The roles of third-turn repeats in two L2 classroom interactional contexts. Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 145-167. doi:10.1093/applin/amt006
Pica, T. (2005). Classroom learning, teaching, and research: A task-based perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 89(3), 339-352.
Plough, I., & Gass, S. M. (1993). Interlocutor and task familiarity: Effects on interactional structure. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
Plough, I. C., Briggs, S. L., & Van Bonn, S. (2010). A multi-method analysis of evaluation criteria used to assess the speaking proficiency of graduate student instructors. Language Testing, 27(2), 235-260.
Polat, B., & Kim, Y. (2014). Dynamics of complexity and accuracy: A longitudinal case study of advanced untutored development. Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 184-207.
Révész, A. (2011). Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions, and individual differences: A classroom-based study. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 162-181.
Révész, A. (2014). Towards a fuller assessment of cognitive models of task-based Learning: Investigating task-generated cognitive demands and processes. Applied Linguistics, 35(1), 87-92. doi:10.1093/applin/amt039
Révész, A., Sachs, R., & Hama, M. (2014). The effects of task complexity and input frequency on the acquisition of the past counterfactual construction through recasts. Language Learning, 64(3), 615-650. doi: 10.1111/lang.12061
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, P. (1995). Task complexity and second language narrative discourse. Language Learning, 45(1), 99-140.
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27-57. doi:10.1093/applin/22.1.27
Robinson, P. (2003). The Cognition Hypothesis, task-design, and adult task-based language learning. Second Language Studies, 21(2), 45-105. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228554259_The_cognition_hypothesis_task_design_and_adult_task-based_language_learning
Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43(1), 1-32.
Robinson, P. (2007). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(3), 193-213. doi:10.1515/iral.2007.009
Robinson, P. (2011). Second language task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 3-38). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Robinson, P. (2015). The Cognition Hypothesis, second language task demands, and the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of task-based language teaching (pp. 87-122). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Robinson, P., Cadierno, T., & Shirai, Y. (2009). Time and motion: Measuring the effects of the conceptual demands of tasks on second language speech production. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 533-554. doi:10.1093/applin/amp046
Robinson, P., & Gilabert, R. (2007). Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis and second language learning and performance. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(3), 161-176. doi: 10.1515/iral.2007.007
Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in language learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sasayama, S. (2016). Is a ‘complex’ task really complex? Validating the assumption of cognitive task complexity. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 231-254. doi:10.1111/modl.12313
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.
Scott, V. M., & Fuente, M. J. D. L. (2008). What's the problem? L2 learners' use of the L1 during consciousness-raising, form-focused tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 100-113. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00689.x
Shin, S.Y., Lidster, R., Sabraw, S., & Yeager, R. (2015). The effects of L2 proficiency differences in pairs on idea units in a collaborative text reconstruction task. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 366-386. doi: 10.1177/1362168814567888
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38-62.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. New York: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. (2001). Tasks and language performance assessment. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 167-185). Harlow: Pearson
Skehan, P. (2009). Modeling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510-532. doi:10.1093/applin/amp047
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 185-211.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49(1), 93.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (pp. 183-205). New York: Cambridge University Press.
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. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00446.x
Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2011). Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 61(1), 37-72.
Trebits, A. (2016). Sources of Individual Differences in L2 Narrative Production: The Contribution of Input, Processing, and Output Anxiety. Applied Linguistics, 37(2), 155-174. doi: 10.1093/applin/amu006
Van den Braden, K. (2006). Task-based language education: From theory to practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood: Ablex.
Vasylets, O., Gilabert, R., & Manchón, R. M. (2017). The effects of mode and task complexity on second language production. Language Learning, 67(2), 394-430. doi: doi:10.1111/lang.12228
Willis, D., & Willis, J. (1996). Challenge and change in language teaching. Oxford: Heinemann.
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow: Longman.
Xiao, F. (2015). Proficiency effect on L2 pragmatic competence. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 5(4), 557-581.
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. doi:10.1093/applin/24.1.1
Yoon, H.J. (2017). Investigating the interactions among genre, task complexity, and proficiency in L2 writing [electronic resource] (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University). Retrieved from https://weblis.lib.ncku.edu.tw
Zalbidea, J. (2017). "One Task Fits All"? The roles of task complexity, modality, and working memory capacity in L2 performance. Modern Language Journal, 101(2), 335-352.


QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關期刊