Document Type: Research Paper

Authors

1 Petroleum University of Ahvaz Iran Language Institute

2 Sheikhbahaee University

Abstract

The importance of task-based instruction for developing writing as one of the most demanding tasks within SLA field is neglected in many EFL/ESL contexts. The researchers in this study intended to investigate the role of task manipulation in developing EFL learners’ grammatical accuracy and lexical complexity of argumentative writing. Furthermore, the task-manipulation effects on the frequency of three meta-cognitive sub-processes of generation, elaboration and organization of ideas were explored. To this end, 50 Iranian EFL learners from Sheikhbahaee University of Esfahan were selected based on their availability and their performance on the Oxford Placement Test. Then, they were randomly assigned to three experimental groups, and one control group. The data were collected individually through a task of writing, think-aloud protocol and retrospective interview. The results showed positive effects of task manipulation along resource-dispersing dimension on the grammatical accuracy and the positive effects of task manipulation along resource-directing dimensions on the lexical complexity. However, the results of the frequency of meta-cognitive sub-processes were indicative of the positive effects of task manipulation on the generation and elaboration of ideas but not on the organization of ideas. The study suggests that there is a trade-off effect at work which is responsible for the quality of the writing and the frequency of the metacognitive sub-processes.

Keywords

Article Title [Persian]

تاثیر افزایش پیچیدگی شناختی تکلیف بر کیفیت نوشتار در زبان دوم و توزیع زیرفرآیندهای فراشناختی زبان آموزان

Authors [Persian]

  • نیلوفر دانش خواه 1
  • احمد علی بابایی 2

Abstract [Persian]

اهمیت و تاثیر آموزش ِ تکلیف محور بر توسعه ی مهارت نوشتاری به عنوان یکی از سخت ترین تکالیف در حوزه ی فراگیری زبان دوم و در بافت آموزشی ایران چندان مورد توجه قرار نگرفته است. محققین در این پژوهش به بررسی نقش دستکاری شرایط نوشتار بر توسعه ی دقت ساختاری و پیچیدگی لغوی زبان آموزان در نوشتار مباحثه ای پرداختند. این پژوهش همچنین تاثیر عوامل فوق الذکر را بر توزیع سه زیرفرآیند فرا شناختی با عنوان های ایجاد ایده های نو در نوشتار، بسط و پرداخت ایده ها و نیز دقت در انسجام آنها، بررسی کرد.  . بدین منظور 50 دانشجوی رشته ی زبان انگلیسی از دانشگاه شیخ بهائی اصفهان بر اساس میزان دسترسی و همچنین براساس عملکرد آنها در آزمون تعیین سطح آکسفورد انتخاب شدند. سپس این 50 شرکت کننده به طور تصادفی به سه گروه تقسیم شدند تا دو گروه آزمایش و یک گروه کنترل این مطالعه را تشکلیل دهند. داده های این مطالعه به صورت فرد به فرد و از طریق یک تکلیف نوشتاری، شیوه بلند فکر کردن و بعد از آن یک مصاحبه بازنگری جمع آوری شد. نتایج تاثیر مثبت دستکاری شرایط را بر دقت نوشتار از طریق پراکندگی منابع شناختی و نیز تاثیر مثبت دستکاری شرایط از طریق هدایت منابع شناختی بر پیچیدگی لغوی نوشتار را نشان داد. اگرچه نتایج بررسی توزیع زیرفرآیند های فراشناختی بیانگر تاثیر مثبت دستکاری شرایط بر ایجاد ایده های نو و بسط و پرداخت این ایده ها بود اما بر دقت در انسجام ایده ها تاثیرگذار نبود. با توجه به آنچه از این بررسی ها حاصل شد، این مطالعه بیان میدارد که کیفیت نوشتار و نیز تناوب توزیع زیرفرآیند های فراشناختی تحت تاثیر دستکاری دشواری تکلیف وابسطه به یک رابطه جایگزینی است.

Keywords [Persian]

  • فرآیند های شناختی
  • تناوب
  • دستکاری دشواری تکلیف
  • هدایت منابع شناختی
  • پراکندگی منابع شناختی

Abdollahzadeh, S., & Fard Kashani, A. (2011). The effect of task complexity on EFL learners' narrative writing task performance. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 8(2), 1-28.

Abdollahzadeh, S., & Fard Kashani, A. (2011). The effect of task complexity on EFL learners’narrative writing taskperformance. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 8, 1-28.

Al-Jarrah, R. S., & Al-Ahmad, S. (2013). Writing instruction in Jordan: Past, present, and future trends. System, 41(1), 84-94.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Mahwah, NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Byrnes, H., & Manchon, R. M. (Eds.). (2014). Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: Joh Benjamins.

Carter, R. (1987). Vocabulary: Applied linguistic perspectives. London: Routledge.

de Smet, M. J. R., & Brand-Gruwel, S., & Broekkamp, H., & Kirschner, P. A. (2012). Write between the lines: Electronic outlining and the organization of text ideas. Computers in human behavior, 28(6),2107-2116.

Ellis, N. (2003). Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. In C. Doughty, & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 63-103). Oxford: Blackwell.

Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 193-220.

Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task-based performance: Theory and research. In N.  Spada, & J. Hulstijn (Eds.), Language learning and language teaching (pp.3-34). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based research and language pedagogy. In K. Van den Branden, M. Bygate, & J. M. Norris (Eds.), Task-based language teaching: A reader (pp.109-130). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

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, 59-84.

Flower, L. S. & Hayes, J. R. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg, & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp.31-50). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Flower, L. S. & Hayes, J. R. (1981). Plans that guide the composing process. In C. H. Frederiksen, & J. F. Dominic (Eds.), Writing: The nature, development and teaching of written communication (pp. 39 - 58). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Galbraith, D. (1999). Writing as a knowledge-constituting process. In M. Torrance, & D. Galbraith (Eds.) Knowing what to write (pp. 139-160). Amsterdam, NL: Amsterdam University Press.

Ghavamnia, M., & Tavakoli, M., & Esteki, M. (2013). The effect of pre-task and online planning conditions on complexity, accuracy and fluency on EFL learners’ written production. Porta Linguarum, 20, 31-43.

Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, and individual differences, and applications (pp. 1-27). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hosseini, P., & Rahimpour, M. (2010). The impact of task complexity on L2 learners' written narratives. CCSE, 3(3),198-205.

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.

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 application
(pp.57-72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
     Associates, Inc.

Kellogg, R., & Raulerson, B. (2007). Improving the writing skills of colleg students. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14, 237-242.

Khomeijani Farahani, A., & Meraji, R. (2011). Cognitive task complexity and L2 narrative writing performance. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(2),445-456.

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(1), 48-60.

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.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching from method to postmethod. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27, 590-619.

Leow, R. P., & Grey, S., & Marijuan, S., & Moorman, C. (2014). Concurrent data elicitation procedures, processes, and the early stages of L2 learning: A critical overview. Second Language Research, 30(2),111-127.

Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Mazdayasna, G., & Tahririan, M. H. (2008). Developing a profile of the ESP needs of Iranian students: The case of students of nursing and midwifery. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(4), 277-289.

Norris, J. M., & Manchón, R. M. (2012). Investigating L2 writing development from multiple perspectives: Issues in theory and research. In R. Manchón (Ed.), L2 writing development: Multiple perspectives (221-244). Boston/Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Ong, J. (2014). How do planning time and task conditions affect metacognitive processes of L2 writers? Journal of Second Language Writing, 23, 17-30.

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.

Ong, J., & Zhang, L. J. (2013). Effects of the manipulation of cognitive processes on EFL writers’ text quality. TESOL, 47, 375-398.

Polio, C. G., (1997). Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Language Learning, 47(1),101-143.

Rahimpour, M. (2007). Task complexity and variation in L2 learners’ oral discourse. Working Papers in Language and Linguistics, 12, 1-9.

Rahimpour, M., & Hazar, F. (2007). Topic familiarity effect on accuracy, complexity, and fluency of L2 oral output. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 4(4), 191-211.

Rahimpour, M., & Nariman-Jahan, R. (2011). The effects of planning on writing narrative task performance with low and high EFL proficiency. English Language Teaching, 4(1),120-127.

Reichelt, M. (2005). English-language writing instruction in Poland. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(4), 215-232.

Robinson, P. (2001a). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287-318). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Robinson, P. (2001b). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27-57.

Robinson, P. (2003). The cognition hypothesis, task design, and adult task-based language learning. Second Language Studies, 21, 45-105.

Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 43, 1-33.

Robinson, P. (2007). Re-thinking-for-speaking and L2 task demands: The cognition hypothesis, task classification, and sequencing. Plenary address at the Second International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching, University of Hawai’i.

Roca de Larios, J., Mancho´n, R., Murphy, L., & Marı´n, J. (2008). The foreign
     language writer’s strategic behaviour in the allocation of time to writing
     processes. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 30-47.

Sadeghi, K., & Mosalli, Z. (2013). The effect of task complexity on the quality of EFL learners’ argumentative writing. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 1(2), 115-134.

Silva, T., & Matsuda, P. K. (Eds.). (2010). Practicing theory in second language writing. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.

Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of taske-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17(1),38-62.

Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language teaching, 36, 1-14.

Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183-205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Smagorinsky, P. (1989). The reliability and validity of protocol analysis. Written Communication 6(4),463-479.

Smagorisnksy, P. (1994). Think-aloud protocol analysis: beyond the black box. In P. Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. New York: Routledge.

Styslinger, M. E., & Overstreet, J. F. (2014). Strengthening argumentative writing with speaking and listening (Socratic) Circles. Voices from the Middle, 22(1),58-62.

Torrance, M., & Galbraith, D. (2006). The processing demands of writing. In. C. MacArthur, & S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald, (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 67-80). New York: The Guilford Press.

van den Bergh, H., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2007). The dynamics of idea generation during writing: An online study. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.), M. Torrance, L. van Waes, & D. Galbraith (Vol. Eds.), Studies in writing: Vol. 20. Writing and cognition: Research and applications (pp. 125-150). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

VanPatten, B. (1994). Evaluating the role of consciousness in SLA terms, linguistic features, and research methodology. AILA Review, 11, 27-36.

VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Wong, A. T. Y. (2005). Writers’ mental representations of the intended audience and of rhetorical purpose for writing and the strategies that they employed when they composed. System, 33, 29-47.

Xin, Z. (2007). Reflective thinking on communicative teaching in writing. US- China education review, 4(5) 19-25.

You, X. (2004). The choice made from no choice: English writing instruction in a Chinese University. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 97-110.

Zen, D. (2005). The process approach to ESL/EFL writing. The Journal of Asia   TEFL, 2(1)1-205.