Interaction effect of task demands and individual differences on L2 learners' perception of task difficulty and motivation

Abstract

Task-based research has eclipsed the role of individual differences (ID) in the evaluation of task difficulty for reasons related to the pedagogical roots of this research line. This article shed light on goal orientation as a significant learner variable which may enhance our understanding of the language learning process. Results revealed two distinct goal orientation levels which reflected two significantly different response types to task difficulty. Where one goal group responded positively to unfamiliar and cognitively demanding tasks, the other goal group did not. Overall, this article points to the need to rethink the reductionist research agenda that confines task variation to design and task manipulation.

Keywords

• Task demands, Individual differences, Perception of difficulty, Goal orientation.

References

1. Bachman, L. (2002). Some reflections on task-based language performance assessment. Language Testing, 19, 453- 476.
2. Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate, Skehan:, & M., Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 23-48). Harlow: Longman.
3. Covington, M. (2000). Goal theory, motivation, and school achievement: An Integrative review. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 171-200.
4. Cumming, A. (2006). Goals for academic writing: ESL students and their instructors. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
5. Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
6. Elder, C., Iwashita, N., & McNamara, T. (2002). Estimating the difficulty of oral proficiency tasks: What does the test-taker have to offer? Language Testing, 19 347-368.
7. Elliot, A. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34, 169-189.
8. Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 4, 193-220.

9. Ellis, R. (2009). Differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30, 474-509.
10. Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299-323.
11. He, T. (2005). Effects of mastery and performance goals on the composition strategy use of adult EFL writers. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 61, 407-431.
12. Iwashita, N., McNamara, T., & Elder. C. (2001). Can we predict task difficulty in an oral proficiency test? Exploring the potential of an information processing approach to task design. Language Learning, 21, 401-436.
13. 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.
14. Lynch, T. & MacLean, J. (2000). Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for classroom language learning. Language Teaching Research, 4, 221-250.
15. Midgley, C. (2002). Goals, goal structures, and patterns of adaptive learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
16. Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., Middleton, M., Maehr, M., Urdan, T., Hicks, L., Anderman, E., & Roeser, R. (1998). The development and validation of scales assessing students’ achievement goal orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 113-131.
17. Ortega, L. (1995). The effect of planning in L2 Spanish narratives. (Research Note 15). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
18. Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 109-148.
19. Ortega, L. (2005). What do learners plan? Learner-driven attention to form during pre-task planning. In R. Ellis (ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 77-110). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
20. Pintrich, P. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 544-555.
21. Plough, I., & Gass, S. (1993). Interlocutor and task familiarity: Effect on interactional structure. In G. Crookes, & S.
22. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Skaalvik, E. (1997). Self-enhancing and self-defeating ego orientation: Relations with task and avoidance orientation, achievement, self-perceptions, and anxiety. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 71-81.
23. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24. Tercanlioglu, L. (2004). Achievement goal theory: A perspective on foreign language learners' motivation. TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL du Canada, 21, 34-49.