The Effect of Task Complexity and Recast on Iranian Intermediate Learners' Speaking Accuracy and Fluency

Document Type: Research Paper


1 Kish International Campus of Tehran University

2 University of Tehran


This study attempted to look into the effect of increasing task complexity and the provision of recast in separate experiments on the EFL learners’ oral language production and their fluency and accuracy. For both experiments, oral narrative tasks were used (Heaton, 1975), adjusted in terms of complexity according to Robinson’s Triadic Framework along the +/- reasoning and the +/- few elements dimensions. For the effect of recasts, learners were provided with recasts when performing their oral narrative tasks. The obtained data were subject to repeated measures ANOVA and one-way ANOVA to provide answers to the research questions. Increasing the complexity of the oral narrative tasks led to high accuracy but low fluency, supporting Robinson’s (2011) prediction of the opposite resulting effects of raising task complexity on fluency in L2 production. The provision of recasts, on the other hand, influenced learners’ accuracy and fluency in their oral productions positively by implicitly focusing their attention on the form of their communication. And, comparatively, recasts and task complexity did not differ in terms of their contribution to oral accuracy and fluency, approving their special benefits for each dimension of oral production in isolation. Results are discussed in light of Robinson’s Cognition Hypothesis.

Keywords: task complexity; corrective feedback; recast; oral production; accuracy; fluency


Article Title [Persian]

بررسی تاثیر پیچیدگی فعالیت کلاسی و بازخورد اصلاحی بر دقت و تسلط بیان شفاهی داستان زبان آموزان سطح متوسطه ایرانی

Author [Persian]

  • علی اکبر فراهانی خمیجانی 2
1 پردیس بین الملل کیش دانشگاه تهران
2 دانشگاه تهران
Abstract [Persian]

در پژوهش حاضر تلاش بر این بوده است که به اثر افزایش پیچیدگی فعالیت کلاسی و ارائه ریکست (recast) در گروه های آزمایشی جداگانه بر تسلط (fluency)و دقت (accuracy)تولید زبان شفاهی زبان آموزان پرداخته شود. برای هر دو گروه آزمایش، فعالیت بیان شفاهی داستان مورد استفاده قرار گرفت (هیتون، 1975(. و چارچوب سه گانه رابینسون در امتداد استدلال +/- و +/- تعداد کمی از عناصر معیار جهت پیچیدگی فعالیت ها بود. برای بررسی اثر recasts، زبان آموزان با recasts هنگام انجام فعالیت بیان شفاهی داستان خود ارائه شدند. داده های به دست آمده توسط اندازه گیری های مکرر ANOVA و نمونه آزمون انووا یک طرفه انالیز شدند تا به به سوالات پژوهش پاسخ ارائه شود. افزایش پیچیدگی فعالیت بیان شفاهی منجر به دقت بالا اما تسلط پایین شد که این نتیجه بر طبق پیش بینی رابینسون از نتیجه منفی افزایش پیچیدگی کار بر روانی تولید L2شفاهی است. ارائه recasts، از سوی دیگر، دقت و تسلط یادگیرندگان در بیان شفاهی خود را به طور مثبت تحت تاثیر قرار داد. و، بررسی موفقیت نسبی recasts و پیچیدگی فعالیت از نظر دقت و تسلط بیان شفاهی هیچ تفاوتی را نشان نداد که خود بیانگر مزایای خاص هر کدام برای هر یک از ابعاد بیان شفاهی است. نتایج بر اساس فرضیه شناختی رابینسون بحث شده است.

کلمات کلیدی: پیچیدگی فعالیت، بازخورد اصلاحی، ریکست، بیان شفاهی، دقت، تسلط

Keywords [Persian]

  • پیچیدگی فعالیت
  • بازخورد اصلاحی
  • بیان شفاهی
  • دقت
  • تسلط
Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543-574.

Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., &Ellis, R. (2004). Teachers' stated beliefs about incidental focus on form and their classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 243-272.

Breen, M. (1989). The evaluation cycle for language learning tasks. In R. K. Johnson (Ed.), The second language curriculum (pp. 187-206). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Bygate, M. (1998). Theoretical perspectives on speaking. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 20-42.

Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing. London: Longman.

Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 357-386.

Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners' errors. Language Learning, 27(1), 29–46.

Crookes, G. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 367-383.

de Jong, N., Steinel, M. Florijn, A. Schoonen, R. & Hulstijn, J. (2012). Facets of speaking proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 34(1), 5–34.

Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty, & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114-138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S. (1982). Language two. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis,  R.  (2003).  Task-based  language  learning  and  teaching.  Oxford:  Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. Oxford: Wily-BlackWell.

Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299-324.

Gilabert, R. (2007). The simultaneous manipulation of task complexity along planning time and [Here-and-Now]: Effects on L2 oral production. In M. D. P. G. Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 44-68). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Halford G. S., Cowan, N., & Andrews, G. (2007). Separating cognitive capacity from knowledge: A new hypothesis. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 236–242.

Heaton, J. B. (1975). Beginning composition through pictures. London: Longman Group Limited. 

Hyland,  K.  (2003).  Second  language  writing.  New York:  Cambridge  University Press.

Jamshidnejad, A. (2010). The construction of oral problems in an EFL context. Studies in Literature and Language, 1(6), 8-22.

Khezrlou, S. (2012). The relationship between cognitive and metacognitive strategies, age and level of education. The Reading Matrix, 12(1), 50-61.

Khezrlou, S., & Ellis, R. (2017). Effects of computer-assisted glosses on EFL learners’ vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehension in three learning conditions. System, 65, 104-116.

Kormos, J. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(2), 148-161.

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. (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). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA.

Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. M. (1999). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Loewen, S. (2011). Focusonform. In E. Hinkel(Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 576592). New York: Routledge.

Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in second language acquisition (pp. 15-41). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Lyster, R. & Izquierdo, J. (2009). Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 59, 453–498

Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies of Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269-300.

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learners’ uptake: negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37 – 61.

Nassaji, H. (2009). Interactional feedback and L2 learners’ development. Paper presented at the International Conference, University of Yazd, Yazd, Iran.

Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Occhipinti, A. (2009). Foreign language anxiety in in-class sSpeaking activities: Two learning contexts in comparison. Unpublished MA thesis, The University of Oslo.

Oliver, R. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS-NNS conversation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 17, 459-81.

Panova, I., & R. Lyster (2002).Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 573-595.

Révész, A. (2007). Working memory and the observed effectiveness of recasts on different L2 outcome measures. Language Learning, 62(1), 93–132.

Richards, J. C., & W. A. Renandya. (eds.). (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Rivers, W. M. (1981). Teaching foreign-language skills. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27-57.

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.

Robinson, P. (2010). Situating and distributing cognition. Across task demands: The SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In M. Putz & L. Sicola (Eds.), Cognitive processing in second language acquisition: Inside the learner's mind, (pp. 243-268). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Robinson, P. (2011). Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Saito, K., & Lyster, R. (2012). Effects of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation development of /ɹ/ by Japanese learners of English. Language Learning, 62(2), 595-633.

Seedhouse, P. (1997). The case of the missing “no”: The relationship between pedagogy and interaction. Language Learning, 47(3), 547-583.

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. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Skehan, P. (2001). Tasks and language performance.InM. Bygate, M. Swain, & P. Skehan (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 167-185). New York, NY: Routledge. 

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

Skehan, P. (2014). Limited attentional capacity, second language performance, and task-based pedagogy. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (task-based language teaching) (pp. 211–260).Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

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.

Spada, N., & Frohlich, M. (1995). COLT: Communicative orientation of language teaching observation scheme. Sydney : Macquarie University. National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research

VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

VanPatten, B. (2000). Processing instruction as form-meaning connections: Issues in theory and research. In J. Lee & A. Valdman (Eds.), Form and meaning: Multiple perspectives (43-68). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Wendel, J. (1997). Planning and second language narrative production. Ph.D. dissertation, Temple University.

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.