Manipulating task complexity across task types and modes

Task-Based Language Teaching

Volumn 2, Issue , 2011, Pages 105-138

  Gilabert, Roger ^a   Barón, Julia ^a   Levkina, Mayya ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BARCELONA   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84873684567     PISSN: 1877346X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1075/tblt.2.10ch5     Document Type: Chapter

References (38)

1. Brennan, (2009). Research synthesis of “tasks as target” of second language research. Unpublished M.A. dissertation. University of Barcelona, Spain.
2. Bygate, M. (1999). Quality of language and purpose of task: patterns of learners’ language on two oral communication tasks. Language Teaching Research, 3, 185–214.
3. Ellis, R. (Ed.) (2005). Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
4. Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1999). The influence of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 3, 215–247.
5. Gass, S., Mackey A., & Ross-Feldman L. (2005). Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 55, 575–611.
6. Gilabert, R. (2005). Task complexity and L2 narrative oral production. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Barcelona, Spain.
7. Gilabert, R. (2006). The simultaneous manipulation of task complexity along planning time and ± Here-and-Now: effects on oral production. In M. P. García-Mayo (Ed.) Investigating tasks in formal language settings.Clevedon: Multilingual Matters
8. Gilabert, R. (2007). Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 oral production. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 215–240.
9. Gilabert, R., Barón, J., & Llanes, M.A. (2009). Manipulating cognitive complexity across task types and its impact on learners’ interaction during task performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 47, 367–395.
10. Ishikawa, T. (2007). The effect of increasing task complexity along the [±Here-and-Now] dimension on L2 written narrative discourse. In M. P. Garcia Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 136–156). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
11. 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, 51, 401–436.
12. Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13. Kuiken, F., Mos, M., & Vedder, I. (2005). Cognitive task complexity and second language writing performance. In S. Foster-Cohen, M.P. García-Mayo, & J. Cenoz (Eds.), Eurosla Yearbook, Volume 5 (pp. 195–222). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
14. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). Cognitive task complexity and linguistic performance in French L2 writing. In M. P. García-Mayo (Ed.) Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 117–135). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
15. Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
16. Levelt, W. J. M. (1993). Language use in normal speakers and its disorders. In G. Blanken, J. Dittmann, H. Grimm, J. C. Marshall, & C. W. Wallesch (Eds.), Linguistic disorders and pathologies (pp. 1–15). Berlin: de Gruyter.
17. Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: a meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 407–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18. McDonough, K. (2006). Interaction and syntactic priming: English L2 speakers’ production of dative constructions. Studies in Second Language Acqusition, 28, 179–207.
19. Meara, P., & G. Jones (1988). Vocabulary size as a placement indicator. In P. Grunwell (Ed.) Applied linguistics in society, (pp. 80–87). London: CILT.
20. Meara, P., & Milton, J. (2003). X_Lex: The Swansea vocabulary levels test. Newbury: Express.
21. Miralpeix, I. (2009). Measuring vocabulary size: New tools for assessment. Paper presented at the CRAL Conference, Logroño, Spain.
22. Michel, M., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). The influence of complexity in monologic versus dialogic tasks in Dutch L2. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 241–259.
23. Niwa, Y. (2000). Reasoning demands of L2 tasks and L2 narrative production: Effects of individual differences in working memory, intelligence, and aptitude. Unpublished M.A. dissertation, Aoyama Gakuin University, Tokyo, Japan.
24. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555–578.
25. Pica, T., Kang, H., & Sauro, S. (2006). Information gap tasks: their multiple roles and contributions to interaction research methodology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 301–338.
26. Pownall, J. (2009). The effects of ± reasoning demands on L2 oral production during a decision making task. Unpublished M.A. dissertation. University of Barcelona, Spain.
27. Rahimpour, M. (1997). Task condition, task complexity and variation in L2 discourse. Unpublished PhD. dissertation, University of Queensland, Australia.
28. Révész, A. (2008). Task complexity, focus on form-meaning connections, and individual differences: A classroom-based study. Paper given at the AILA 2008 conference.
29. Robinson, P. (1995). Task complexity and second language narrative discourse. Language Learning, 45, 99–140.
30. Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22 (1), 27–57.
31. Robinson, P. (2002). The Cognition Hypothesis of task-based L2 development: Theory and research. Journal of the Korean English Education Society, 2, 1–26.
32. Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 43, 1–32.
33. Robinson, P. (2007). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects on speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 195–215.
34. Robinson, P., & Gilabert, R. (2007). Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis and second language learning and performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 161–176.
35. Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510–532.
36. Svennevig, J. (2003). Echo answers in native/non-native interaction. Pragmatics: A quarterly journal of the international pragmatic association, 13, 285–310.
37. Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task design and second language performance: the effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 58, 439–473.
38. Trebits, A., & Kormos, J. (2008). Working memory capacity and narrative task performance. Proceedings from the 33th International LAUD Symposium, Landau/Pfalz, Germany.