Task conceptualization and writing development: Dynamics of change in a

task-based EAP course

Rosa M. ManchónUniversity of Murcia, Spainmanchon@um.es

TBLT 2009 Conference, Lancaster University

Learner’s engagement with pedagogic tasks

Language learning development

Task-related factors

Learner-related factors

Learner’s own perceptions of task demands, goals, and expected outcomes

Processing activity during task performance

Insider dimension of task performance

Learner factors/ Insider dimension of tasks

Task complexity/Task difficulty

(Robinson, 2001, 2005)

Dörnyei, 2002Murphy, 2003Robinson 2001, 2007Tavaloki, 2009Tavaloki & Skehan, 2005

•Speaking tasks

• Results might not apply to writing

Learners’ ability and affective factors are likey to mediate the production and learning opportunities that tasks afford, and these individual difference-task dimension interactions are in great need of further theoretical motivation and subsequent study for their effects in language production and language learning during task-based instruction (Robinson, 2007:210).

Tasks and writing

Learner/ Insider dimension of tasks

TASK CONCEPTUALIZATION: TASK CONCEPTUALIZATION: Learner’s assessment of the Learner’s assessment of the complexity and demands of the task at complexity and demands of the task at hand.hand.

When confronted with any academic writing task, a first thing a student must do is create an understanding of what skills, products, and processes the task requires and make a plan of action that will lead to a written product that apprppriately fulfills

the writing task (Wolfersberger, 2007 :: 73)

Research questions

1. Did the participants´ conceptualization of academic writing changed after completing an EAP course?

2. Did any observed changes influence the participants´ goals for academic writing?

3. Did any observed changes in task conceptualization and goals correspond to any observed changes in the participants´ writing products?

4. What factors influenced any observed changes in the participants´ conceptualization of academic writing?

Students:

18 students in the fourth year of a five-year degree in English Studies

Age: 21-24 L2 proficiency level: advanced (OPT) Previous year:

5 students: SA previous year Rest: Language course

Participation on voluntary basis. Consent form.

METHOD: PARTICIPANTS

Content modules:Content modules:

Empirical study in SLA module Text analyses (linguistics modules), literary

analysis, etc No explicit instruction in writing except for the SLA

module.

EAP courseEAP course Compulsory module Develop more advanced and integrated reading and

writing skills 3 contact hour per week x 30 weeks

METHOD: students’ writing experience and instruction

AssignmentsAssignments A personal statement to support a (fictitious) application to a

postgraduate course in the UK or USA A synthesis of a group of pre-assigned texts, mainly from

newspapers A report of a survey designed and carried out by students

themselves on a topic of interest to them

JournalsJournals45 journals over the course of the year that include:

a) free expressions of anything the student wants to write about;

b) topics set by the teacher (reflections on the course, their learning, beliefs, strategies, the textbook, teaching, classes, etc.)

METHOD: EAP course

METHOD: Tasks and procedures

T1: Oct- Nov. T2: May-June

Students

•OPT•L2 writing•Semi-structured interviews

•OPT•L2 writing•Semi-structured interviews•Journals

Teacher •Written narrative

•Semi-structured interview

Learning

Context

•Institutional information on the EAP course

•Interviews with other lecturers teaching in the 4th year.

Data analysis

• Conventions in the analysis of qualitative data (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

• Interview profile & data reduction

• Journals: recurrent patterns and summary of the main overarching themes

RESULTS: RQs 1& 2Multi-dimensional mental model of writing

More ambitious in the goals pursued (more problem solving)

Deeper processing while writing and while processing feedback

Multi-dimensional model of writing

• Levels: ideational, textual, linguistic

• Audience concerns

• Conventions of academic writing

Product dimension

Process dimension

• The prewriting stage

• Writing is rewriting

• Stages of problem-solving activity

Self-regulation strategiesDynamics in task-conceptualization

Goals

1. From accuracy to addressing a whole range of concerns

2. Improvement of writing abilities in the future

3. From fulfilling task requirement to writing for self-satisfaction (self-imposed standards of achievenent)

4. To approximate native-like standards and develop a personal voice

5. From fulfilling task requirements to writing in order to improve language competences.

L2 proficiencyL2 proficiency:

Time 1: M= 154.50, SD=9.91 Time 2: M= 159.61, SD=10.65 Z(15) =-2.87, p=0.004

L2 writingL2 writing Analytic measures Holistic assessment

RQ 3 : Written products

Analytic measuresAnalytic measures Z p

Accuracy Error-free clauses -2.59 .01

Fluency Essay length -2.50 .01

Total number of clauses -2.79 .01

Total number of sentences -2.94 .00

Lexical variety

Chaudron’s Word Variation -2.50 .01

n.s: •Accuracy: Error-free sentences, Percentage of error free sentences/clauses.• Lexical variety: D value, TTR• Syntactic complexity: No sub. CL; CL per S ratio; Sub. CL. per CL./S; Coordination index; Clause length; Sentence length.

Holistic measuresHolistic measures:

RESULTS

Time 1 Time 2 Wilcoxon Sig

M SD M SD Z p

Communicative 5.66 1.02 7.16 1.24 -2.899 .004

Organization 5.38 1.24 7.05 1.34 -3.04 .002

Argumentation 5.50 0.78 7.00 1.28 -3.347 .001

Accuracy 5.83 0.70 6.50 1.20 -1.913 .056

Appropriacy 6.11 0.67 7.11 0.96 -3.166 .002

Holistic rating 28.5 3.73 34.8 4.9 -3.484 .000

1. Task instructions and evaluation rubric 2. Teacher and peer factors:

• Extensive and challenging output practice• Cognitive conflict instructional strategies• Guided feedback- and guided formulation and revision process• Feedback for acquisition (not just for accuracy).• Guided peer review• Students´ involvement in peer review activities• Encouragement of cooperative learning

RQ 4 : Influencing factors

Conclusion:

Metacognitive knowledge + WR practice

Self-confidence

Attempt to write more complex & longer texts

Write to learn

L2 learning

Motivation to

write

L2 writing

•Motivating factor

•Goal

References:

• Murphy, J. (2003). Task-based learning. The interaction between tasks and learners. ELT Journal, 57 (4), 352-360.

• Robinson , P. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for investigating task influences on SLA. In R. Robisnon (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (pp. 287–318). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Robisnon, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 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. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45(3), 193-213.

• Tavaloki, P. (2009). Investigating task difficulty: learners’ and teachers’ perceptions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19 (1), 1-25.

• Tavaloki, P. & Skehan, P. (2005) Strategic planning, task structure and performance testing. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language (pp. 239-177). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

• Wolfersberger, M. A. (2007). Second Language Writing from Sources: An Ethnographic Study of an Argument Essay Task. Unpublished PHD Dissertation, University of Auckland.