Effects of Task Complexity on Text Easibility and Coherence of EFL Learners’ Narrative Writing

Öz

This study was carried out to examine the effects of task complexity on text easibility and coherence in narrative writing of EFL learners. Data were collected from 41 Turkish EFL learners during a writing course. Task complexity was operationalized at two levels as a complex and simple task based on the resource-dispersing variables of Robinson’s the Triadic Componential Framework, +/- task structure. Accordingly, a colorful picture was first illustrated on the board, and students were asked to examine the picture for five minutes (complex task /-TS). They were then asked to write a story based on the picture they had seen (simple task /+TS). Two weeks later, they were given a sheet involving 16 pictures designed in an order and asked to narrate a story based on these pictures. Their essays were analyzed by the researcher and another rater in terms of coherence through an analytic rubric. An automated program was used to evaluate the essays for text easibility indices involving the indices of narrativity, syntactic simplicity, word concreteness, referential cohesion, and deep cohesion. The results analyzed with a Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed that complexity of the task had a statistically significant effect on some indices of text easibility such as word concreteness, and referential cohesion, whereas other indices, narrativity, syntactic simplicity, and deep cohesion, and coherence in their writing production were not affected by the complexity of the task at a significant level. However, it can be concluded that students’ texts produced in simple tasks are easier to comprehend.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Task-based language teaching
• task complexity
• coherence
• text easibility
• Coh-Metrix

Kaynakça

1. Adams, R., Nik Mohd Alwi, N. A., & Newton, J. (2015). Task complexity effects on the complexity and accuracy of writing via text chat. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 64-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.002
2. Ahmadian, M. J., Abdolrezapour, P., & Ketabi, S. (2012). Task difficulty and self-repair behaviour in second language oral production. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 22(3), 310-330. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1473-4192.2012.00313.x
3. Arslanyilmaz, A. (2013). Computer-assisted foreign language instruction: task based vs. form focused. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(4), 303-318. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12003
4. Crossley, S. A., Kyle, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2016). The development and use of cohesive devices in L2 writing and their relations to judgments of essay quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 32, 1-16. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.003
5. Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 474-509. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp042
6. 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. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263104261034
7. Frankel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education. Mc Graw Hill.
8. Frear, M. W., & Bitchener, J. (2015). The effects of cognitive task complexity on writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 45-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.009

9. Genç, Z. S. (2012). Effects of strategic planning on the accuracy of oral and written tasks in the performance of Turkish EFL learners. In A. Shehadeh & C. A. Coombe (Eds.), Task-Based Language Teaching in Foreign Language Contexts (pp. 67-88). John Benjamins Publishing.
10. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hassan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman.
11. Jackson, D. O., & Suethanapornkul, S. (2013). The Cognition Hypothesis: A synthesis and meta-analysis of research on second language task complexity. Language Learning, 63(2), 330-367. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12008
12. Kawauchi, C. (2005). The effects of strategic planning on the oral narratives of learners with low and high intermediate L2 proficiency. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in as second langauge (pp. 143-164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
13. Kim, N. (2020a). The effects of different task sequences on novice L2 learners’ oral performance in the classroom. Language Teaching Research, https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1362168820937548
14. Kim, N. (2020b). Reconsidering task complexity through different planning and proficiency in l2 written tasks. 응용언어학, 36(1), 65-95. https://doi.org/ 10.17154/kjal.2020.3.36.1.65
15. Kırkgöz, Y. (2014). Task-based language teaching. In S. Çelik (Ed.), Approaches and principles in English as a foreign language (EFL) education. Egiten Kitap.
16. Knoch, U. (2007). ‘Little coherence, considerable strain for reader’: A comparison between two rating scales for the assessment of coherence. Assessing Writing, 12(2), 108-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2007.07.002
17. Kormos, J. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(2), 148-161. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jslw.2011.02.001
18. Kuiken, F., Mos, M., & Vedder, I. (2005). Cognitive task complexity and second language writing performance. In S. Foster-Cohen, M. d. P. Garcia Mayo, & J. Cenoz (Eds.), Eurosla Yearbook (Vol. 5, pp. 195-222). John Benjamins.
19. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(3). https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2007.012
20. 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. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.08.003
21. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques and principles in language teaching (Third Edition ed.). Oxford University Press. Lee, I. (2002). Teaching coherence to ESL students-a classroom inquiry. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 135-159. https://doi.org/160-3743/02/$
22. McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., & McCarthy, P. M. (2009). Linguistic Features of Writing Quality. Written Communication, 27(1), 57-86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088309351547
23. McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., McCarthy, P. M., & Cai, Z. (2014). Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge University Press.
24. McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., McCarthy, P. M., & Graesser, A. C. (2010). Coh-Metrix: Capturing linguistic features of cohesion. Discourse Processes, 47(4), 292-330. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902959943
25. Révész, A. (2011). Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions, and individual differences-A classroom-based study. The Modern Language Journal, 95(Supplementary Issue), 162-181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01241
26. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
27. Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27-57. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/applin/22.1.27
28. Robinson, P. (2003). The Cognition Hypothesis, task design and task-based language learning. Second Langauge Studies, 21(2), 45-107.
29. Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task squencing: A review of studies in a Componential Framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43(1), 1-33. https://doi.org/ 10.1515/iral.2005.43.1.1
30. Robinson, P. (2007). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects of L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. Iral-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 161-176. https://doi.org/ 10.1515/iral.2007.009
31. Robinson, P., & Gilabert, R. (2007). Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis and second language learning and performance. Iral-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(3), 161-176. https://doi.org/ 10.1515/iral.2007.007
32. Ruiz-Funes, M. (2015). Exploring the potential of second/foreign language writing for language learning: The effects of task factors and learner variables. Journal of Second Language Writing, 28, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.02.001
33. Salimi, A., & Dadaspour, S. (2012). Task complexity and SL development: Does task complexity matter? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 726-735. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.189
34. Salimi, A., Dadaspour, S., & Asadollahfam, H. (2011). The effect of task complexity on EFL learners’ written performance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 1390-1399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.378
35. Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1017/s026144480200188x
36. Skehan, P. (2014). Limited attentional capacity, second language performance, and task-based pedagogy. In P. Skehan (Eds.) Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 211-260). Johns Benjamin Publishing Company.
37. Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49, 93-120. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/1467-9922.00071
38. Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183-205). Cambridge University Press.
39. Tavakoli, P. (2009). Assessing L2 task performance: Understanding effects of task design. System, 37(3), 482-495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.02.013
40. Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 58(2), 439-473. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00642.x
41. Tavakoli, P., & Skehan, P. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language. John Benjamins.
42. Todd, R. W., Thienpermpool, P., & Keyuravong, S. (2004). Measuring the coherence of writing using topic-based analysis. Assessing Writing, 9(2), 85-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2004.06.002
43. Watson Todd, R., Khongput, S., & Darasawang, P. (2007). Coherence, cohesion and comments on students’ academic essays. Assessing Writing, 12(1), 10-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2007.02.002
44. Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Longman.
45. Yang, W. (2014). Mapping the relationships among the cognitive complexity of independent writing tasks, L2 writing quality, and complexity, accuracy and fluency of L2 writing. (Unpublished Dissertation Thesis). Georgia State University, Retrieved from http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/alesl_diss/29/
46. Yang, W., Lu, X., & Weigle, S. C. (2015). Different topics, different discourse: Relationships among writing topic, measures of syntactic complexity, and judgments of writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 28, 53-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.02.002
47. Yıldız, M., & Yeşilyurt, S. (2017). Effects of task planning and rhetorical mode of writing on lexical complexity, syntactic complexity, and overall writing quality of EFL writers’ task performance. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 13(2), 440-464.
48. 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.