The effects of different task sequences on novice L2 learners’ oral performance in the classroom

Abstract

This study investigated the optimum task sequence for second language (L2) novice learners of English. One set of task sequences was manipulated using a deductive and theoretical SSARC (simplify–stabilize–automatize–restructure–complexify) model, and two sets of task sequences were manipulated based on a teacher’s inductive classroom observations. A total of 76 undergraduates at a private university in Korea were divided into three groups for the task sequences: task complexity (TC), guided planning with vocabulary (GPV), and guided planning with content (GPC). While the four oral tasks were sequenced according to the resource-directing dimensions [± elements] and [± reasoning] in all three groups, the TC group received pretask planning, the GPV group received teacher-led guided planning with words, and the GPC group received teacher-led guided planning with content for the resource-dispersing dimensions. Pretest and posttest of syntactic complexity, accuracy, and fluency were used as the main data. The analysis showed that the TC group outperformed the GPV and GPC groups significantly in increasing overall syntactic complexity, and the GPV group outperformed the GPC group significantly in improving speed fluency. Both sequencing TC and GPV tasks significantly increased syntactic complexity and speed fluency. Sequencing TC tasks decreased accuracy and increased dysfluency, whereas sequencing GPV tasks increased accuracy and decreased dysfluency. Meanwhile, sequencing GPC tasks did not produce overall positive effects on oral performance compared with the two other groups.

Keywords

guided planning novice L2 learners SSARC model task complexity task design task sequence

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baralt

(2014). Task complexity and task sequencing in traditional versus online language classes. In Baralt

Gilabert

Robinson

(Eds.), Task sequencing and instructed second language learning (pp. 95–122). New York: Bloomsbury Academic.

Butler

Y.G.

(2011). The implementation of communicative and task-based language teaching in the Asia-pacific region. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 36–57.

Cao

(2018). Task-based language teaching: Affordances and challenges in TBLT implementation at the Vietnamese tertiary level. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 15, 510–515.

Carless

(2004). Issues in teachers’ reinterpretation of a task-based innovation in primary schools. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 639–662.

De Bot

(1992). A bilingual production model: Levelt’s ‘Speaking’ model adapted. Applied Linguistics, 13, 1–24.

Ellis

(2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis

(2005). Planning and task-based performance. In Ellis

(Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 3–34). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Ellis

(2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30, 474–509.

Foster

Skehan

(1999). The influence of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 3, 215–247.

10.

Foster

Tonkyn

Wigglesworth

(2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21, 354–375.

11.

Heaton

(1975). Beginning composition through pictures. London: Longman.

12.

Kawauchi

(2005). The effects of strategic planning on the oral narratives of learners with low and high intermediate proficiency. In Ellis

(Ed.), Planning and task-performance in a second language (pp. 143–166). Amsterdam / Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

13.

Kim

(2017). The effects of different planning on complexity, accuracy, and fluency in L2 written tasks. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33, 29–60.

14.

Kim

(2019). Challenges and trials: Implementing localized TBLT for novice L2 learners throughout three semesters. English Teaching, 74, 113–139.

15.

Kim

(2020). Reconsidering task complexity through different planning and proficiency in L2 written tasks. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics, 36, 65–95.

16.

Kormos

(2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

17.

Lambert

Robinson

(2014). Learning to perform narrative tasks: A semester-long classroom study of L2 task sequencing effects. In Baralt

Gilabert

Robinson

(Eds.), Task sequencing and instructed second language learning (pp. 207–230). New York: Bloomsbury.

18.

Levelt

(1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

19.

Levkina

Gilabert

(2014). Task sequencing in the L2 development of spatial expressions. In Baralt

Gilabert

Robinson

(Eds.), Task sequencing and instructed second language learning (pp. 37–70). New York: Bloomsbury Academic.

20.

Long

M.H.

(2016). In defense of tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and real issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 5–33.

21.

Malicka

(2014). The role of task sequencing in monologic oral production. In Baralt

Gilabert

Robinson

(Eds.), Task sequencing and instructed second language learning (pp. 71–93). New York: Bloomsbury.

22.

Norris

J.M.

Ortega

(2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555–578.

23.

Robinson

(2001). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In Robinson

(Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287–318). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

24.

Robinson

(2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43, 1–32.

25.

Robinson

(2010). Situating and distributing cognition across task demands: The SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In Putz

Sicola

(Eds.), Cognitive processing in second language acquisition: Inside the learner’s mind. (pp. 243–268). Amsterdam / Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

26.

Robinson

(2011). Second language task complexity, the cognition hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In Robinson

(Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 3–37). Amsterdam / Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

27.

Skehan

(1998). A Cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

28.

Skehan

(2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36, 1–14.

29.

Skehan

(2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510–532.

30.

Skehan

(2016). Tasks versus conditions: Two perspective on task research and their implications for pedagogy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 34–49.

31.

Swan

(2005). Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 26, 376–401.

32.

Tavakoli

Skehan

(2005). Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing. In Ellis

(Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam / Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

33.

Thompson

(2014). The effects of guided planning, task complexity and task sequencing on L2 oral production. In Baralt

Gilabert

Robinson

(Eds.), Task sequencing and instructed second language learning (pp. 123–148). New York: Bloomsbury Academic.

34.

Yule

(1997). Referential communication tasks. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.