Cognitive task complexity effects on L2 writing performance: An application of mixed-methods approaches

Mahmoud Abdi Tabari; Toni A. Ivey

doi:10.5294/5279

Authors

Mahmoud Abdi Tabari Author Oklahoma State University
Toni A. Ivey Author Oklahoma State University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5294/5279

Keywords:

complejidad de la tarea cognitiva, actuación lingüística, enfoque de métodos mixtos.

Abstract

This paper provides a methodological review of previous research on cognitive task complexity, since the term emerged in 1995, and investigates why much research was more quantitative rather than qualitative. Moreover, it sheds light onto the studies which used the mixed-methods approach and determines which version of the mixed-methods designs was frequently used. The results reveal that many studies in the field of cognitive task-based research used quantitative rather than qualitative experimental design to collect and interpret their findings. These studies were more oriented to post-positivistim supported by an objectivist epistemology. However, limited studies utilized mixed-methods approach to consider the effects of cognitive task complexity on linguistic performance in L2 context. The theoretical perspective behind these studies was pragmatism. The mixed-methods studies only used the explanatory sequential design to collect data and interpret their findings while other versions of the mixed-methods research designs were left undefined. To conclude, the paper identifies the current gap in methodology of the studies and offers recommendations for how to obtain more comprehensive and generalizable findings by utilizing other versions of the mixed-methods studies.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Mahmoud Abdi Tabari, Oklahoma State University

A PhD student in Education with the emphasis on Literacy. My research interests include second language acquisition, content-based instruction, and L2 writing.

Toni A. Ivey, Oklahoma State University

Toni A. Ivey is an Assistant Professor of Science Education in the School of Teaching and Curriculum Leadership at Oklahoma State University. She also serves as co-director for the Center for Research on STEM Teaching and Learning as well as instructs graduate students in conducting and designing mixed methods research.

References

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. London: Sage Publications.

Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (1992). Constructivist and the technology of instruction: A conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Eagleton, T. (2003). After theory. New York: Basic Books.

Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(1), 59-84. doi:10.1017/s0272263104026130

Farahani, K. A. A., & Meraji, S. R. (2011). Cognitive task complexity and L2 narrative writing performance. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(2), 445-456. doi:10.4304/jltr.2.2.445-456

Heidari-Shahreza, M. A., Dabaghi, A., & Kassaian, Z. (2011). The effects of manipulating task complexity on the occurrence of language-related episodes during learner-learner interaction. Porta Linguarum, 17, 173-188.

Kim, Y. (2009). The effects of task complexity on learner-learner interaction. System, 37, 254-268. doi:10.1016/j.system.2009.02.003

Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45(3), 261-284. doi:10.1515/iral.2007.012

Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2008). Cognitive task complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 48-60. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.08.003

Ong, J., & Zhang, J. L. (2010). Effects of task complexity on the fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students' argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 218-233. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.003

Philp, J., Oliver, R., & Mackey, A. (2006). The impact of planning time on children’s task-based interactions. System, 34, 547-565. doi:10.1016/j.system.2006.08.004

Rahimpour, M., & Hosseini, P. (2010). The impact of task complexity on L2 learners’ written narratives. ELT Journal, 3(3), 198-205. doi:10.5539/elt.v3n3p198

Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27-57. doi:10.1093/applin/22.1.27

Robinson, P. (2003). The cognition hypothesis, task design, and adult task-based language learning. Second Language Studies, 21(2), 45-105.

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. doi:10.1515/iral.2005.43.1.1

Salimi, A., Dadaspour, S., & Asadollahfam, H. (2011). The effect of task complexity on EFL learners' written performance. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 1390-1399. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.378

Sasayama, Sh. (2011). Cognition hypothesis and second language performance: Comparison of written and oral task performance. Second Language Studies, 29(2), 107-129.

Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp.183-205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

SurveyMonkey [Online software]. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.surveymonkey.com/

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

VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(3), 287-301. doi:10.1017/s0272263100009177

Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity, and accuracy. Language Testing, 26(3), 445-466. doi:10.1177/0265532209104670