Limited Attention Capacity and Cognition Two hypotheses regarding second language performance on tasks

Task-Based Language Teaching

Volumn 8, Issue , 2015, Pages 123-156

  Skehan, Peter ^a  

^a ST MARY'S UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85122842224     PISSN: 1877346X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1075/tblt.8.05ske     Document Type: Chapter

References (65)

1. Baddeley, A. (2015). Working memory in second language learning. In Z. Wen, M.B. Mota, & A. McNeill (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing: Theories, research, and commentaries (pp. 17–28). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
2. Baralt, M.L. (2010). Task complexity, the cognition hypothesis, and interaction in CMC and FTF environments. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Georgetown University.
3. Bialystok, E. (1994). Analysis and control in the development of second language proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 157–168. DOI: 10.1017/S0272263100012857
4. Brown, G.,Anderson, A., Shilcock, R., & Yule, G. (1984). Teaching talk: Strategies for production and assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Bui, H.Y.G. (2014). Task readiness: Theoretical framework and empirical evidence from topic familiarity, strategic planning, and proficiency levels. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 63–94). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/tblt.5.03gav
6. Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M.Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp.23–48). Harlow: Longman.
7. Bygate M. (2006). Areas of research that influence L2 speaking instruction. In E. Uso-Juan & A. Martinez-Flor (Eds.), Current trends in the development and teaching of the four language skills (pp. 159–186). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110197778.3.159
8. Bygate M., & Samuda V. (2009). Creating pressure in task pedagogy: The joint roles of field, purpose, and engagement within the interactional approach. In A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction (pp. 90–116). New York, NY: Routledge.
9. Cowan, N. (2015). Second-language use, theories of working memory, and the Vennian mind. In Z. Wen, M.B. Mota, & A. McNeill (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing: Theories, research, and commentaries (pp. 29–40). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
10. De Bot, K. (1992). A bilingual production model: Levelt’s “Speaking” model adapted. Applied Linguistics, 13, 1–24. DOI: 10.1093/applin/13.1.1
11. Ellis, D. (2011). The role of task complexity in the linguistic complexity of native speaker output. Qualifying Paper, Ph.D. in Second Language Acquisition program. College Park, MD.: University of Maryland.
12. Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task-based performance: Theory and research. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 3–36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/lllt.11.03ell
13. Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2005). The effect of careful within-task planning on oral and written task performance. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 167–192). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/lllt.11.11ell
14. Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(3), 299–324. DOI: 10.1017/S0272263100015047
15. Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (2012). Complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis in task-based performance: A synthesis of the Ealing research. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA (pp. 199–220). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/lllt.32.09fos
16. Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (2013). Anticipating a post-task activity: The effects on accuracy, complexity and fluency of L2 language performance. Canadian Modern Language Review, 69(3), 249–273. DOI: 10.3138/cmlr.69.3.249
17. Foster, P., & Tavakoli, P. (2009). Native speakers and task performance: Comparing effects on complexity, fluency, and lexical diversity. Language Learning, 59(4), 866–896. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00528.x
18. Garcia-Mayo, M.P. (2007). Investigating tasks in formal language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
19. Givón, T. (1985). Function, structure, and language acquisition. In D. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, Vol. 1 (pp. 1008–1025). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20. Hoey, M. (1983). On the surface of discourse. London: George Allen and Unwin.
21. 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.
22. Kim, Y. (2013). Investigating learners’ cognitive processes by using stimulated recall methodology in task-based research. In A. Révész & R. Gilabert (Organizers), SLA methodological advances in TBLT research: Measurement of task demands and processes. Colloquium presented at American Association for Applied Linguistics 2013 conference, Dallas, TX.
23. Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
24. Levelt, W.J.M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25. Levelt, W.J.M. (1999). Producing spoken language: A blueprint of the speaker. In C. Brown & P. Hagoort (Eds.), Neurocognition of language (pp. 83–122). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26. Li, Q. (2014). Get it right in the end: The effects of post-task transcribing on learners’ oral performance. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 129–154). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/tblt.5.05qia
27. Long, M.H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language development (pp. 77–99). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
28. Long, M.H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. New York, NY: Wiley.
29. Lynch, T. (2001). Seeing what they meant: Transcribing as a route to noticing. ELT Journal, 55, 124–132. DOI: 10.1093/elt/55.2.124
30. Lynch, T. (2007). Learning from the transcripts of an oral communication task. ELT Journal, 61, 311–320. DOI: 10.1093/elt/ccm050
31. Malicka, A., & Levkina, M. (2012). Measuring task complexity: Does L2 proficiency matter? In A. Shehadeh & C. Coombe (Eds.), Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts: Research and implementation (pp. 43–66). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/tblt.4.06mal
32. Meara, P., & Bell, H. (2001). P_Lex: A simple and effective way of describing the lexical characteristics of short L2 texts. Prospect, 16(3), 5–19.
33. Michel, M.C. (2011). Effects of task complexity and interaction on L2 performance. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 141–174). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/tblt.2.12ch6
34. Miller, G. (1956). The magical number 7, plus or minus 2: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97. DOI: 10.1037/h0043158
35. Norris, J.M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards and organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: the case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555–578
36. 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. 77–109). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/lllt.11.07ort
37. Pang, F., & Skehan, P. (2014). Self-reported planning behaviour and second language performance in narrative retelling. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 95–128). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/tblt.5.04pan
38. Plough, I., & Gass, S. (1993). Interlocutor and task familiarity: Effects on interactional structure. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning (pp. 35–56). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
39. Révész, A. (2009). Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31(3), 437–470. DOI: 10.1017/S0272263109090366
40. Révész, A. (2014). Towards a fuller assessment of cognitive models of task-based learning: Investigating task-generated cognitive demands and processes. Applied Linguistics, 35(1), 93–98. DOI: 10.1093/applin/amt039
41. Révész, A., Sachs, R., & Mackey, A. (2011). Task complexity, uptake of recasts, and L2 development. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 203–235). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/tblt.2.14ch8
42. Révész, A., Sachs, R., & Hama, M. (2013). Eye tracking as a means of investigating task-based cognitive processes. In A. Révész & R. Gilabert (Organizers), SLA methodological advances in TBLT research: Measurement of task demands and processes. Colloquium presented at American Association for Applied Linguistics 2013 conference, Dallas, TX.
43. Robinson, P. (2011). Second language task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp 3–38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/tblt.2.05ch1
44. Sanders, A. (1998). Elements of human performance. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
45. Sasayama, S. (2014). Measuring cognitive task complexity from the learners’ perspective. Presentation at TBL In Asia Conference. Osaka, Japan.
46. Schur, E. (2007). Insights into the structure of L1 and L2 vocabulary networks: Intimations of small worlds. In H. Daller & J. Treffers-Daller (Eds.), Modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge (pp. 182–204). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47. Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38–62. DOI: 10.1093/applin/17.1.38
48. Skehan, P. (2009a). Models of speaking and the assessment of second language proficiency. In A. Benati (Ed.), Issues in second language proficiency (pp. 202–215). London: Continuum.
49. Skehan, P. (2009b). Lexical performance by native and non-native speakers on language-learning tasks. In B. Richards, H. Daller, D.D. Malvern, & P. Meara (Eds.), Studies in first and second language vocabulary acquisition: The interface between theory and application (pp. 107–124). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
50. Skehan, P. (2012), Researching tasks: performance, assessment, pedagogy. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
51. Skehan, P. (2013). Nurturing noticing. In J. Bergsleithner, S.N. Frota, & J.K. Yoshioka (Eds.), Noticing and second language acquisition: Studies in honor of Richard Schmidt (pp. 169–180). Honolulu, HI: National Foreign Language Center.
52. Skehan, P. (Ed.) (2014a). Processing perspectives on task performance, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/tblt.5
53. Skehan, P. (2014b). Synthesising and applying task research. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 211–260). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/tblt.5.08ske
54. Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). The influence of planning and post-task activities on accuracy and complexity in task based learning. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185–211. DOI: 10.1177/136216889700100302
55. Skehan, P., & Shum, S. (2014). Structure and processing condition in video-based narrative retelling. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 197–210). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/tblt.5
56. Skehan, P., Bei, X.,Li, Q., & Wang, Z. (2012). The task is not enough: Processing approaches to task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 16(2), 170–187. DOI: 10.1177/1362168811428414
57. Tavakoli, P. (2009). Investigating task difficulty: Learners’ and teachers’ perceptions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 1–25. DOI: 10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00216.x
58. 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. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00446.x
59. Tavakoli, P., & Skehan, P. (2005). Planning, task structure, and performance testing. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 239–276). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/lllt.11.15tav
60. Wang, Z. (2009). Modelling speech production and performance: Evidence from five types of planning and two task structures. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Chinese University of Hong Kong.
61. Wang, Z. (2014). On-line time pressure manipulations: L2 speaking performance under five types of planning and repetition conditions. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 27–62). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/tblt.5.02wan
62. Wang, Z., & Skehan, P. (2014). Task structure, time perspective and lexical demands during video-based narrative retellings. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 155–186). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/tblt.5.06wan
63. Wickens, C.D. (2007). Attention to the second language. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 177–191. DOI: 10.1515/iral.2007.008
64. Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. London: Longman.
65. Winter, E. (1976). Fundamentals of information structure: a pilot manual for further development according to student need. Ms., Hatfield Polytechnic, English Department.