Similar prompts may not be similar in the performance they elicit: Examining fluency,complexity,accuracy,and lexis in narratives from five picture prompts
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online May, 2016
Similar prompts may not be similar in the performance they elicit: Examining fluency,complexity,accuracy,and lexis in narratives from five picture prompts
Only a few characteristics of picture-based narrative prompts have been studied to determine what features affect task performance. Thus, it is not easy to identify equivalent narrative prompts or identify features that are impactful. Tavakoli and Foster (2008) and Tavakoli (2009) examined the impact of prompt on the language produced by English learners during a picture-based narrative task in respect to narrative structure and storyline complexity. This study investigates if prompts within these known categories elicit similar performance. Considering the findings based on different prompts in Tavakoli and Foster, as well as in Robinson’s (2011) Triadic Componential Framework for pedagogical tasks, we added another feature, number of elements. All of the prompts in this study had a tight sequential structure (±causal reasoning), similar storyline complexity (±intentional reasoning), and similar main characters and props (±elements). Although the accuracy and complexity in the ESL narratives were similar across prompts, there were some unexpected differences in fluency and lexis. Potential explanations of the variation in these subareas of language performance are discussed. Overall, this study highlights the importance of piloting research and testing materials and of investigating features that constitute task complexity.
AhmadianM.J.AbdolrezapourP.KetabiS. (2012). Task difficulty and self-repair behavior in second language oral production. International Journal of Applied Linguisitics, 22, 310–330.
2.
AhmadianM.J.TavakoliM.DastjerdiH.V. (2015). The combined effects of online planning and task structure on complexity, accuracy, and fluency of L2 speech. Language Learning Journal, 43, 41–56.
3.
BaeJ.LeeY-S. (2010). The validation of parallel test forms: ‘Mountain’ and ‘beach’ picture seres for assessment of language skills. Language Testing, 28, 155–177.
4.
ElderC.IwashitaN.McNamaraT. (2002). Estimating the difficulty of oral proficiency tasks: What does the test-taker have to offer?Language Testing, 19, 347–368.
5.
EllisR. (2003). Task-based language learning. Oxford: Oxford Univeristy Press.
6.
EllisR.BarkhuizenG. (2005). Analysing learner language. New York: Oxford University Press.
7.
FosterP.TonkynA.WigglesworthG. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21, 354–375.
8.
García MayoM.P. (2007). Investigating tasks in formal language learning. Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
9.
GrangerS. (2003). The international corpus of learner English: A new resource for foreign language learning and teaching and second language acquisition research. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 538–546.
10.
HeatonJ.B. (1966). Composition through pictures. Essex: Longman.
11.
IshikawaT. (2007). The effect of manipulating task complexity along the (±Here-and-Now) dimension on L2 written discourse. In: García MayoM.P. (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 136–156). Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
12.
KormosJ.TrebitsA. (2012). The role of task complexity, modality, and aptitude in narrative task performance. Language Learning, 62, 439–472.
13.
KuikenF.VedderI. (2008). Cognitive task complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 48–60.
14.
LevkinaM.GilabertR. (2012). The effects of cognitive task complexity on L2 oral production. In: HousenA.KuikenF.VedderI. (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency (pp. 171–197). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
15.
MayerM. (1967). A boy, a dog, and a frog. New York: Dial Books for Young Readers.
16.
MayerM.MayerM. (1971). A boy, a dog, a frog, and a friend. New York: Puffin Pied Piper.
17.
McKeeG.MalvernD.RichardsB. (2000). Measuring vocabulary diversity using dedicated software. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 15, 323–337.
18.
MearaP.BellH. (2001). P_Lex: A simple and effective way of describing the lexical characteristics of short L2 texts. Prospect, 16, 5–19.
19.
MichelM.C.KuikenF.VedderI. (2007). The influence of complexity in monologic versus dialogic tasks in Dutch L2. IRAL, 45, 241–259.
20.
de JongN.PerfettiC.A. (2011). Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization. Language Learning, 61, 533–568.
21.
de JongN.PoelmansP. (2011). Accuracy and complexity in second language speech: Do specific measures make a difference? Unpublished paper presented at EUROLA Conference, Stockhom, Sweden.
22.
NorrisJ.M.OrtegaL. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555–578.
23.
RahimpourM.HosseiniP. (2010). The impact of task complexity on L2 learners’ written narratives. English Language Teaching, 3, 198–205.
24.
RescherN. (1998). Complexity: A philosophical overview. New Brunswick/London: Transaction Publishers.
25.
RévészA. (2014). Towards a fuller assessment of cognitive models of task-based learning: Investigating task-generated cognitive demands and processes. Applied Linguistics, 35, 87–92.
26.
RobinsonP. (1995). Task complexity and second language narrative discourse. Language Learning, 45. 99–140.
27.
RobinsonP. (2003). The cognition hypothesis, task design, and adult task-based lanaguage learning. Second Language Studes, 21, 45–105.
28.
RobinsonP. (2011). Second language task complexity, the cognition hypothesis, language learning and performance. In: RobinsonP. (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 3–37). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
29.
RossiterM.J.DerwingT.M.JonesV.M. (2008). Is a picture worth a thousand words. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 325–329.
30.
ShaferD. (2006). Revolution: Software at the speed of thought. Monterey, CA: Shafer Media.
31.
SkehanP. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 1–23.
32.
SkehanP.FosterP. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185–211.
33.
SkehanP.FosterP. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49, 93–120.
34.
SkehanP.FosterP. (2012). Complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis in task-based performance: A synthesis of the Ealing research. In: HousenA.KuikenF.VedderI. (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy, and fluency (pp. 199–220). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
TavakoliP. (2011). Pausing patterns: Differences between L2 Learners and Native Speakers. ELT Journal, 65, 71–79.
37.
TavakoliP.FosterP. (2008). Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 58, 439–473.
38.
Van HestE. (1996). Self-repair in L1 and L2 production. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
39.
VercellottiM.L.PackerJ. (in press). Shifting structural complexity: The production of clause types in Speeches given by English for academic purposes students. Manuscript submitted for publication.
