Featured Colloquium Tasks across modalities Convenors: Folkert Kuiken & Ineke Vedder University of...

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


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






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




14






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




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


No effect of mode


Kuiken & Vedder

Granfeldt (2007)

Lexical complexity

Granfeldt (2007)

Kuiken & Vedder

Accuracy Granfeldt (2007)

Kuiken & Vedder

25

Summarizing the results

Written mode


No effect of mode


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

Featured Colloquium Tasks across modalities Convenors: Folkert Kuiken & Ineke Vedder University of...

Documents

Transcript of Featured Colloquium Tasks across modalities Convenors: Folkert Kuiken & Ineke Vedder University of...