Cognitively Complex Tasks and Individual Differences: Two Influential Factors in Iranian EFL Learners’ Written Text Quality

Document Type: Research Paper

Authors

1 Professor of EFL, University of Tabriz

2 Assistant Professor at Department of Basic Sciences, Faculty of Paramedicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences

Abstract

Robinson’s Cognition Hypothesis and Skehan’s Limited Attentional Capacity Model provide the major impetus for this study. The present article reports the findings of a between-subject factorial experimental research study which explored 1) the effects of increased cognitive task complexity, manipulated through the intentional reasoning demands and number of elements on the lexical and syntactic complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF) of EFL writers’ productions; and 2) the joint effects of cognitive task complexity factor and learners’ language learning aptitude (Low vs. High) on the written output. Firstly, we gave Carroll and Sapon’s Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT) to 226 participants and then did a random stratification of the low- and high- aptitude learners into three groups. The participants received letter writing tasks with different cognitive complexity levels (low, medium, and high). The findings indicated that increasing cognitive task complexity resulted in significantly higher lexical and syntactic complexity and lower fluency, whereas no significant effect was found on writing accuracy. Moreover, the statistical results revealed no significant interaction effect between task complexity factors and learners’ language aptitude. With regard to the first objective of the study, the findings supported the predictions of Cognition Hypothesis while it is not the case in relation to the second objective of the study.

Keywords


Article Title [Persian]

فعالیتهای معنا محور با سطح پیچیدگیهای شناختی مختلف و تفاوتهای فردی : دو عامل تاثیر گذار بر کیفیت متون نوشته شده توسط زبان آموزان ایرانی

Authors [Persian]

  • فرهمن فرخی 1
  • سیمین ستارپور 2
2 استادیار دانشکده علوم پایه، دانشکده پیراپزشکی دانشگاه علوم پزشکی تبریز
Abstract [Persian]

فرضیه شناختی  رابینسون و فرضیه توازنی اسکیهان، مبنای اصلی تحقیق حاضر می باشند. این مقاله نتایج یک تحقیق تجربی چند عاملی بین آزمودنی را گزارش میدهد.این تحقیق به بررسی تاثیرات افزایش پیچیدگی شناختی فعالیتهای معنا محور و همچنین  تاثیر مشترک این عامل و استعداد یادگیری زبان به عنوان یک تفاوت فردی روی پیچیدگی لغوی، پیچیدگی ساختاری، صحت دستوری، و روانی نوشتار زبان آموران پرداخته است. در ابتدا،  آزمون استعداد زبانی به 226 شرکت کننده داده شد و سپس بر اساس نمونه گیری لایه ای تصادفی تعداد مساوی از زبان آموزان با سطح استعداد زبانی بالا و پایین به سه گروه آزمایشی فرستاده شدند. زبان آموزان فعایت های نوشتاری متفاوتی از لحاظ پیچیدگی شنتاختی دریافت کردند.نتایج نشان دادند که 1) افزایش پیچیدگی فعالیت از لحاظ مقدار بار شناختی منجر به افزایش پیچیدگی ساختاری و لغوی و کاهش روانی کلام شد. تاثیر معنا داری روی صحت دستوری مشاهده نشد; 2) اثر تقابلی معنا داری  نیز بین پیچیدگی شناختی و استعداد زبانی وجود نداشت.  در خصوص هدف اول این تحقیق، نتایج  پیش بینی های مدل فرضیه شناختی رابینسون را که این تحقیق نیز بر روی آنها پایه گذاری شده، تایید می کنند در حالیکه در مورد هدف دوم تحقیق اینگونه نبوده است.

Keywords [Persian]

  • پیچیدگی شناختی فعالیتهای معنا محور
  • استعداد یادگیری زبان
  • پیچیدگی لغوی
  • پیچیدگی ساختاری
  • صحت دستوری
  • و روانی
Abrahamsson, N., & Hyltenstam, K. (2008). The robustness of aptitude effects in near-native second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 481-509. doi:10.1017/s027226310808073x
Byrnes, H., & Mancho´n, R. M. (Eds.). (2014). Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/tblt.7.01byr
Carless, D. (2012). TBLT in EFL settings: Looking back and moving forward. In A. Shehadeh & C. A. Coombe (Eds.), Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts: Research and implementation (pp. 345-358). Amsterdam: John Benjamin.doi: 10.1075/tblt.4.20car 
Carroll, J. (1981). Twenty-five years of research on foreign language aptitude. In Karl C. Diller (Ed.), Individual differences and univerals in language learning aptitude (pp. 119–154). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/cbo9780511571312 
Carroll, J., & Sapon, S. M. (1959). The Modern Language Aptitude Test. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Como, L., Cronback, L. J., Kupermintz, H., Lohman, D. F., Mandinach, E. B., Porteus, A. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2002). Remaking the concept of aptitude: Extending the legacy of Richard E. Snow. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
DeKeyser, R. M. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499-533.
DeKeyser, R. M. (2012). Interactions between Individual Differences, Treatments, and Structures in SLA. Language Learning, 62(2), 189-200. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00712.x
Dornyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. doi: 10.4324/9781410613349
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analyzing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication, 31, 21–32. doi: 10.2307/356630
Frear, M. W., & Bitchener, J. (2015). The effects of cognitive task complexity on writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 45-57. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.009
Hunt, K.W. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. Urbana, IL: The National Council of Teachers of English.
Ishikawa, T. (2006). The effect of manipulating task complexity along the (_Here-and_Now) dimension on L2 written narrative discourse. In C. M. Garcı´a-Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 136–156). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Johnson, M. D. (2017). Cognitive task complexity and L2 written syntactic complexity, accuracy, lexical complexity, and fluency: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. Journal of Second Language Writing, 37, 13-38. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2017.06.001
Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 57–71). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kormos, J. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 148–161. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2011.02.001
Kormos, J., & Trebits, A. (2011). Working memory capacity and narrative task performance. In P. Robinson (ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 268-85).Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tblt.2.17ch10
Kormos, J., & Trebits, A. (2012). The role of task complexity, modality and aptitude in narrative task performance. Language Learning, 62(2), 439-472. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00695.x  
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2006). Cognitive task complexity and linguistic performance in French L2 writing. In M. Garcı´a-Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 117–135). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 261–284. doi: 10.1515/iral.2007.012
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2008). Cognitive task complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 48-60. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.08.003
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). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/tblt.2.09ch4
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 A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 143–170). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/lllt.32.07kui
Mohammadzadeh M. A. R., Dabaghi, A., & Tavakoli, M. (2013). The effects of simultaneous use of pre-planning along ±here-and-now dimension on fluency, complexity, and accuracy of Iranian EFL learners’ written performance. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 2(3), 49–65. doi: 10.5861/ijrsll.2012.168
Niwa, Y. (2000). Reasoning demands of L2 tasks and L2 narrative production: Effects of individual differences in working memory, intelligence, and aptitude (Unpublished M.A. dissertation). Aoyama Gakuin University, Tokyo.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 555-578. doi:10.1093/applin/amp044
Ong, J. (2014). How do planning time and task conditions affect metacognitive processes of L2 writers? Journal of Second Language Writing, 23, 17–30. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2013.10.002
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, 19, 218–233. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.003
Ong, J., & Zhang, L. J. (2013). Effects of the manipulation of cognitive processes on EFL writers’ text quality. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 375–398. doi:10.1002/tesq.55
Parry, T. S., & Child, J. R. (1990). Preliminary investigation of the relationship between VORD, MLAT, and language proficiency. In T. Parry & C. W. Stansfield (Eds.), Language aptitude reconsidered (pp. 30–66). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Petersen, C., & Al-Haik, A. (1976). The development of the defense language aptitude battery. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 36, 369–380. doi: 10.1177/001316447603600216 
Porte, R., & Richards, K. (2012). Focus article: Replication in second language writing research. Journal of Second Language Research, 21, 284–293. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.05.002
Robinson, P. (2001a). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for investigating task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287–318). New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/cbo9781139524780.012
Robinson, P. (2001b). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 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, 45–105.
Robinson, P. (2005a). Aptitude and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 45-73. doi:10.1017/s0267190505000036
Robinson, P. (2005b). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 43, 1-32. doi: 10.1515/iral.2005.43.1.1
Robinson, P. (2007a). Aptitudes, abilities, contexts and practice. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from cognitive psychology and applied linguistics (pp. 256-   286). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/cbo9780511667275.015
Robinson, P. (2007b). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 237-257. 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). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tblt.2.05ch1
Ruiz-Funes, M. (2013, November). The interplay between task complexity in foreign language writing at the intermediate level and measures of syntactic complexity, accuracy and fluency (CAF). Paper presented at the American Council on Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL).
Ruiz-Funes, M. (2014). Task complexity and linguistic performance in advanced college-level foreign language writing. In H. Byrnes & R. M. Mancho´n (Eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 163–192). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/tblt.7.07rui
Ruiz-Funes, M. (2015). Exploring the potential of second/foreign language writing for language learning: The effects of task factors and learner variables. Journal of Second Language Writing , 28 , 1–19. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2015.02.001
Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230596429_5
Sawyer, M. & Ranta, L. (2001). Aptitude, individual differences, and instructional design. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 319-353). New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/cbo9781139524780.013 
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language learning (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9781139524780.003 
Shajeri, E., & Izadpanah, S. (2016). The impact of task complexity along single task dimension on Iranian EFL learners’ writing production. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6, 935–945. doi:10.17507/tpls.0605.04
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38–62. doi:10.1075/tblt.1.06afr
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: 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). London: Longman.
 Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36, 1–14. doi: 10.1017/s026144480200188x
Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510-532. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp047 
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49, 93–120. doi:10.1111/1467-9922.00071
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. doi: 10.1017/cbo9781139524780.009
Skehan, P., &Foster, P. (2005). Strategic and on-line planning: The influence of surprise information and task time on second language performance. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 193–218). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/lllt.11.12ske
Sparks, R. L., & Ganschow, L. (2001). Aptitude for learning a foreign language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 90–111. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1991.tb01076.x 
Stansfield, C. W., & Reed, D. J. (2004). The story behind the Modem Language Aptitude Test: An interview with John B. Carroll (1916-2003). Language Assessment Quarterly, 1(l), 43-56. doi: 10.1207/s15434311laq0101_4 
Tavakoli, P. (2014). Storyline complexity and syntactic complexity in writing and speaking tasks. In H. Byrnes, & R. M. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 217–236). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/tblt.7.09tav