EFFECTS OF COGNITIVE TASK COMPLEXITY ON L2 WRITTEN OUTPUT

Öz

The question that which type of writing tasks learners exhibit their skills and improve their language proficiency receives different answers. Whether a language task, which requires attention, memory, reasoning, with low and high levels of syntactic complexity is likely to affect text quality, accuracy, grammar and vocabulary range is debated. The view that higher syntactic complexity for a task is likely to have learners produce more errors Skehan & Foster, 2001 competes with the view that it will result in better, less flawed writing output Robinson, 2001 . To test the claims of the two views, the study reports on an experiment to investigate whether syntactic task complexity in writing performances is a predictor of text accuracy, syntactic complexity, lexical variation, text length and quality. The data were obtained from two homogenous groups, easy and complex, who were assigned easy and complex writing tasks. The findings reveal that manipulating levels of cognitive task complexity does not have overarching effects on the dependent variables investigated. Nonetheless, tasks requiring higher cognitive skills produced better results on the measures of accuracy and text quality

Anahtar Kelimeler

• cognitive task complexity,writing,accuracy,syntax,lexicon,length,quality

İKİNCİ DİLDE KOMPOZİSYON YAZIMINDA BİLİŞSEL ZORLUĞUN ETKİLERİ

Öz

İngilizce öğrenenlerin hangi görev tanımlarında yazma becerilerini daha iyi sergiler ve mevcut dil seviyelerini nasıl geliştirirler sorusuna verilen cevaplar farklıdır. Dikkat, hafıza ve mantık yürütme yükünü yani az ve çok düşünmeyi yazıda istenen unsur sayısı gerektiren bir yazma görevinin, yazı kalitesi, hedefe göre yazma, metin uzunluğu, gramerdeki hata sayısı ve kelime yelpazesi hususlarını etkileyip etkilemediği tartışılagelmektedir. Görevi zorlaştırılmasının öğrenciyi daha çok hataya yönelteceği görüşü Skehan & Foster, 2001 ile zorlaştırmanın daha iyi kompozisyon ürünü çıkarabileceğini iddia eden görüş Robinson, 2001b yarışmaktadır. Yazma becerisinin gelişiminde bu iki görüşün hangisinin daha isabetli olduğunu anlamaya çalışan bu araştırma, grameri farklı seviyelerde kompozisyon yazması istenen bir öğrenci kompozisyonunun metin tutarlılığının, gramer seviyesinin, geniş yelpazede kelime kullanımını, metin uzunluğunu ve kalitesini belirleyip belirlemeyeceğini inceler. Veri, birbirine benzer iki gruba verilen kolay ve zor kompozisyon yazma görevinden çıkan yazılardan elde edilmiştir. Bulgular, bilişsel görev zorluğunu bilişsel seviyede azaltıp artırmanın bağımlı değişkenler üzerinde ciddi etkileri olmadığını göstermektedir. Ancak, bilişsel görev zorluğu yüksek görev konuya bağımlı kalarak yazma isabet ve metin kalitesi ölçütlerinde artış gözlenmiştir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• bilişsel görev zorluğu,yazma,isabet,sözdizimi,kelime haznesi,uzunluk,kalite

Kaynakça

1. CHANG, Y. F., “Discourse Topics and Interlanguage Variation”, Representation and Process: Proceedings of the 3rd Pacific Second Language Research Forum, In P. Robinson (ed.), 1, Tokyo 1999, 235-241.
2. CROOKES, G. - S. Gass (eds.), Tasks in a Pedagogical Context, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon 1993.
3. CUMMINS, J., “Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic independence, the optimum age question and some other matters”, Working Papers in Bilingualism, 19 (1979), 197-205.
4. DEKEYSER, R.-R. Salaberry-P. Robinson-M. Harrington, “What gets processed in the processing Instruction? A commentary on Bill VanPatten’s ʻProcessing Instruction: An Update”, Language Learning, 52/4 (2002), 805-823.
5. ELLIS, R., SLA Research and Language Teaching, Oxford University Press, Oxford 1987.
6. FRY, E. B.- J. E. Kress, - D. L. Fountoukidis, The Reading Teacher’s Book of Lists, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 2000.
7. GILABERT, R., “The simultaneous manipulation of task complexity along planning time and +/-Here-and-Now: Effects on oral production”, In Investigating Tasks in Formal Language Learning, Maria del Pilar García Mayo (ed.), Multilingual Matters, Clevedon 2007, 44–68.
8. GÖKGÖZ, N. – D. Atay, “The effects of task complexity on measures of accuracy and lexical variety in EFL writing”, Paper presented at the Third Biennial on Task-Based Language Teaching: Tasks: content purpose and use. Lancaster UK, 2009.

9. GOOD, D. A - B. Butterworth, “Hesitancy as a conversational resource: Some methodological implications”, Temporal Variables in Speech Production, In H. Dechert and M. Raupach (eds.), The Hague: Mouton, 1980.
10. GRAVETTER, F. J. – L. B. Forzano, Research Methods for Behavioral Sciences, Cengage Learning Inc, US, 2009.
11. HAMP-LYONS, L.- S. P. Mathias, “Examining expert judgments of task difficulty on essay tests”, Journal of Second Language Writing, 3 (1994), 49–68.
12. KUIKEN, F.- I. Vedder, “Cognitive task complexity and linguistic performance in French L2 writing”, Investigating tasks in formal language learning, In Garcia Mayo (ed.), Multilingual Matters, Clevedon UK, 2007b.
13. ________________, “Cognitive task complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language”, Journal of Second Language Writing, 17 (2008a), 48-60.
14. ________________, “Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing”, IRAL, 45 (2007a), 261-284.
15. ________________, “The influence of task complexity on linguistic performance in L2 writing and speaking: The effect of mode”, Paper presented at the 32nd Laud Symposium March 10-13, Germany 2008b.
16. LARSEN-FREEMAN, D. Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000.
17. LONG, M. H. - G. Crookes, “Three approaches to task-based syllabus design”, TESOL Quarterly, 26 (1989), 27–56.
18. LONG, M. H., “Task, group, and task-group interactions”, University of Hawai’i Working Papers in ESL 8 (1989), 1-26.
19. MICHEL, M.- F. Kuiken, - I. Vedder, “The influence of complexity in monologic versus dialogic tasks in Dutch L2”, IRAL, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45/3 (2007), 241.
20. NUNAN, D. Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1989.
21. PAVLIK, C. – M. Segal, Interactions 1-Writing Students Book, McGraw-Hill, US 2006a.
22. PAVLIK, C. – M. Segal, Interactions 2-Writing Students Book, McGraw-Hill, US 2006b.
23. PETERS, E., “L2 vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehension: the influence of task complexity”, Investigating tasks in formal language learning, In Garcia Mayo (ed.), Multilingual Matters, Clevedon UK, 2007.
24. RAHIMPOUR, M., “Task condition, task complexity and variation in L2 discourse”, Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Queensland, 1997.
25. RÉVÉSZ, A., “Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development”, SSLA, Sydney Society of Literature and Aesthetics, 31 (2009), 437-470.
26. ROBINSON, P. - J. J. Lim, “Cognitive Load and the Route-marked Map Task Unpublished Data”, University of Hawai’I at Manoa, Department of ESL, Honolulu 1993.
27. ROBINSON, P. - R. Gilabert, “Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis and second language learning and performance”, IRAL, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45/3 (2007), 161.
28. ROBINSON, P., “Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design”, International Review of Applied Linguistics, 43 (2005), 1-32.
29. ROBINSON, P., “Criteria for classifying and sequencing pedagogic tasks” In Investigating Tasks in Formal Language Learning, Maria del Pilar García Mayo (ed.), Multilingual Matters, Clevedon 2007, 7–26.
30. ROBINSON, P., “Review Article: Attention, memory and the ʻnoticingʼ hypothesis” Language Learning 45 (1995), 285-331.
31. ROBINSON, P., “Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA”, Cognition and second language instruction, In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2001a, 287–318.
32. ROBINSON, P., “Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: exploring interactions in a componential framework”, Applied Linguistics 22/1 (2001b), 27-5.
33. ROBINSON, P., “The cognition hypothesis, task design, and adult task-based language learning”, Second Language Studies, 21/2 (2003), 45-105.
34. SCHMIDT, R., “Attention”, Cognition and second language instruction, In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2001, 3-32.
35. SKEHAN, P., “A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction”, Applied Linguistics, Oxford University Press, 17 (1996), 38-62.
36. SKEHAN, P., “Task-based instruction”, Language Teaching, 36 (2003), 1-14.
37. SKEHAN, P., “Tasks and language performance assessment”, Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing, In Bygate, M., Skehan, P. and Swain, M. (Eds), Pearson Education, Harlow UK, 2001, 167-185.
38. SKEHAN, P., A cognitive approach to language learning, Oxford University Press, Oxford 1998a
39. SKEHAN, P.-P. Foster, “Cognition and tasks”, Cognition and second language instruction, In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2001, 183-205.
40. VAN PATTEN, B., “Attending to form and content in the input”, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12 (1990), 287-301.
41. WOLFE-QUINTERO, K.- S. Inagaki - H. Kim “Second Language Development in Writing: Measures of Fluency, Accuracy and Complexity”, Hawai’i University of Hawai’I at Manoa, Honolulu 1998.
42. PALS (2004). Performance Assessment for Language Students. Foreign Language Program of Studies. Fairfax County Public Schools. Retrieved December 5, 2009 from http://www.fcps.edu/DIS/OHSICS/forlang/PALS/rubrics/