Research on second language (L2) grammar in task-based language learning has yielded inconsistent results regarding the effects of task-complexity, prompting calls for more nuanced analyses of L2 development and task performance. The present cross-sectional study contributes to this discussion by comparing the performance of 245 learners of German at two universities in the USA on two types of assessment tasks using multidimensional analyses of grammatical accuracy, fluency and complexity. Results show that: (1) grammatical accuracy in learner performance did not improve linearly across two years of instruction in either task condition; (2) participants tended to perform more accurately in the integrative task than on discrete-point items; (3) second-year learners wrote more fluently than first-year learners; and (4) fourth-semester learners wrote more complex sentences than other groups. The results yield important research, pedagogical and curricular insights.
BoersF.EyckmansJ.KappelJ. StengersDemecheleerH. (2006). Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: Putting a lexical approach to the test. Language Teaching Research, 10, 245–261.
2.
ChavezM. (2013). How college learners of German envision their final attainment: Between community and future self. Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 46, 75–90.
3.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR). Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Retrieved from: http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Cadre1_en.asp (January2016).
4.
CrossleyS.A.SalsburyT.McnamaraD.S. (2014). Assessing lexical proficiency using analytic ratings: A case for collocation accuracy. Applied Linguistics, 35, 1–22. DOI:10.1093/applin/amt056.
5.
Dykstra-PruimP. (2003). Speaking, writing, and explicit rule knowledge: Toward an understanding of how they interrelate. Foreign Language Annals, 36, 36–76.
6.
EllisN.Larsen-FreemanD. (Eds.). (2009). Language as a complex adaptive system. Language Learning, 59, Special issue, 1–267.
7.
EllisR. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8.
EllisR. (2005). Planning and task-based performance: Theory and research. In: EllisR. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 3–34). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
9.
EllisR.YuanF. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 59–84.
10.
GassS.BehneyJ.PlonskyL. (2013). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. New York: Routledge.
11.
HousenA.KuikenF.VedderI. (Eds). (2012). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
12.
JeanG.SimardD. (2011). Grammar learning in English and French L2: Students’ and teachers’ beliefs and perceptions. Foreign Language Annals, 44, 465–492.
13.
JohnsonM.D.MercadoL.AcevedoA. (2012). The effect of planning sub-processes on L2 writing fluency, grammatical complexity, and lexical complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 264–282.
14.
KuikenF.VedderI. (2007). Cognitive task complexity and linguistic performance in French L2 writing. In: García MayoM.P. (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 117–135). Toronto, CA: Multilingual Matters.
15.
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.
16.
LambertC.KormosJ. (2014). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in task-based L2 research: Toward more developmentally based measures of second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 35, 607–614.
17.
Larsen-FreemanD. (2003). Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring. Boston, MA: Heinle.
18.
Larsen-FreemanD. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27, 590–619.
19.
MylesF. (2012). Complexity, accuracy and fluency: The role played by formulaic sequences in early interlanguage development. In: HousenA.KuikenF.VedderI. (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 71–94). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
20.
NorrisJ.M.OrtegaL. (2009). Measurement for understanding: An organic approach to investigating complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555 –578.
21.
OngJ.ZhangL.J. (2010). Effects of task complexity on the fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students’ argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 218–233.
RobinsonP. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57.
24.
RobinsonP. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 43, 1–32.
25.
RobinsonP.CadiernoT.ShiraiY. (2009). Time and motion: Measuring the effects of the conceptual demands of tasks on second language speech production. Applied Linguistics, 30, 533–554.
26.
SerranoR.StengersH.HousenA. (2015). Acquisition of formulaic sequences in intensive and regular EFL programmes. Language Teaching Research, 19, 89–106.
27.
SkehanP. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
28.
SkehanP.FosterP. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49, 93–120.
29.
SkehanP.FosterP. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In RobinsonP. (ed.): Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183–205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30.
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 in SLA (pp. 199–220). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
31.
SwaffarJ.ArensK. (2005). Remapping the foreign language curriculum. New York: Modern Language Association.
32.
ThewissenJ. (2013). Capturing L2 accuracy developmental patterns: Insights from an error-tagged EFL learner corpus. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 77–101.
33.
VerspoorM.de BotK.LowieW. (Eds). (2011). A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
34.
VerspoorM.SchmidM.S.XuX. (2012). A dynamic based perspective on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 239–263.
35.
VyatkinaN. (2012). The development of second language writing complexity in groups and individuals: A longitudinal learner corpus study. Modern Language Journal, 96, 572–594.
36.
VyatkinaN. (2013). Specific syntactic complexity: Developmental profiling of individuals based on an annotated learner corpus. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 11–30.
