La descarga está en progreso. Por favor, espere

La descarga está en progreso. Por favor, espere

Melissa Baralt Georgetown University

Presentaciones similares


Presentación del tema: "Melissa Baralt Georgetown University"— Transcripción de la presentación:

1 Melissa Baralt Georgetown University

2 This study examines how the combination of two task features, +/- causal reasoning and +/- convergent solution, differentially affect L2 oral production of learners of Spanish

3 Theory of language teaching Noticing Hypothesis, Interaction Hypothesis, Pushed Output Hypothesis Findings from psycholinguistic research Strand of SLA research on design of tasks Effects of different task features Bygate, 1996, 2001; Bygate & Samuda, 2005; Crookes, 1989; Ellis, 1987, 2005; Ellis & Yuan, 2004; Foster, 2001; Foster & Skehan, 1996; Gass, Mackey, Alvarez- Torres, & Fernandez-Garcia, 1999; Lynch & Maclean, 2000, 2001; Ortega, 1999; Plough & Gass, 1993; Skehan & Foster, 1997, 1999, 2005 Measures of interaction, production, IDs, perceptions TBLT

4 Proposals for taxonomies of task design Brindley, 1987; Samuda & Bygate, 2008; Swales, 1990; Candlin, 1987; Ellis, 2003; Nunan, 1989; Pica, Kanagy & Falodun, 1993; Prabhu, 1987; Robinson, 2001, 2005, 2007; Skehan, 1996, 1998; Willis, 1996 Increased interest in cognitive demands of tasks and the effects of task complexity e.g., Samuda & Bygate, 2008; Ellis, 2003; Gass & Varonis, 1985; Pica & Doughty, 1985; Pica, Kanagy & Falodun, 1993; Skehan, 1998; Robinson, 2001, 2005, 2007; Robinson & Gilabert, 2007 Cognitive complexity as a basis for the sequencing of tasks Robinson 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009; Robinson & Gilabert, 2007 currently areas of intensive research in SLA Doughty & Long, 2003, p. 57

5 Robinson 2001; 2003; 2005; 2007; 2009; Robinson & Gilabert, 2007 Increasing the cognitive complexity of tasks along certain dimensions will: ( Robinson, 2001, p. 56) push learners to greater accuracy and complexity of L2 production in order to meet the greater functional/communicative demands they place on the learner promote interaction and negotiation work, and heightened attention to, noticing of, and incorporation of forms made salient to the input accuracy complexity fluency More negotiation work and interaction

6 Task complexity (Cognitive factors)Task Condition (Interactive factors)Task Difficulty (Learner factors) (Classification criteria: cognitive demands) (Classification criteria: interactional demands) (Classification criteria: ability requirements) (Classification procedure: information- theoretic analyses) (Classification procedure: behavior- descriptive analyses) (Classification procedure: ability assessment analyses) a) Resource-directing variables making cognitive/conceptual demands a) Participation variables making interactional demands a) Ability variables and task-relevant resource differentials +/- here and now+/- open solutionh/l working memory +/- few elements+/- one-way flowh/l reasoning +/- spatial reasoning+/- convergent solutionh/l task-switching +/- causal reasoning+/- few participantsh/l aptitude +/- intentional reasoning+/- few contributions neededh/l field independence +/- perspective-taking+/- negotiation not neededh/l mind/intention - reading b) Resource-dispersing variables making performative/procedural demands b) Participant variables making interactant demands b) Affective variables and task-relevant state-trait differentials +/- planning time+/- same proficiencyh/l openness to experience +/- single task+/- same genderh/l control of emotion +/- task structure+/- familiarh/l task motivation +/- few steps+/- shared content knowledgeh/l processing anxiety +/- independency of steps+/- equal status and roleh/l willingness to communicate +/- prior knowledge+/- shared cultural knowledgeh/l self-efficacy

7 The speaker must justify their beliefs, support their interpretations of an event Ella quería que, estaba celoso que, deseaba que + complex syntactization in subordinate clauses The Cognition Hypothesis predicts increased accuracy and complexity in L2 production, but decreased measures of fluency

8 AUTHORTASK TYPEFINDINGS Gilabert, 2007Decision-making fire chief task, monologic No effects on learner self- repairs; Task was perceived as more difficult Niwa, 2000Ordering of picture sequence + narrate, monologic High aptitude less time on narration; High WM, High aptitude less fluency, more pausing Nuevo, 2006Decision-making table seating arrangement task, dialogic More hypothesis testing in +C; More comprehension checks, repetitions, uptake in -C Robinson, 2005Ordering of picture sequence + narrate, dialogic No effects for general measures of CAF Specific measures? More interaction and uptake

9 Whether or not learners must converge, or come to an agreement, as part of the task outcome Duff 1986 Model PROBLEM DEBATE Some learners may prefer convergent tasks due to social/psychological reasons Aston, 1986; Foster, 1998 (cited in Samuda & Bygate, 2008)

10 AUTHORTASK TYPEFINDINGS Duff, convergent tasks: problem solving with Desert Island and Sand Story tasks 2 divergent tasks: Debate with Television and Age & Wisdom tasks CONVERGENT tasks led to more turns and more questions DIVERGENT tasks led to more words per turn, more s-nodes per c-unit, more reformulation of output; significantly more comprehension checks, clarification requests Significantly more other completions in divergent tasks

11 Increases in task complexity (Cognition Hypothesis) along resource-directing dimensions may increase the complexity and accuracy of learners output No study has explored the combined effect of increases in task cognitive complexity (+/- causal reasoning) with the condition of +/- convergent outcome Need for more research on variables of task complexity alongside task conditions and how these mediate production, interaction

12 1. What effects do +/- causal reasoning and +/- convergent solution have on: 1. the complexity of L2 learners oral production? 2. the accuracy of L2 learners oral production? 3. the fluency of L2 learners oral production? 4. L2 learners interaction during an oral task? 1. Are any qualitative differences observed in learner language production when reasoning and/ or convergency requirements are present?

13 58 learners of 2 nd year Intensive Intermediate Spanish Four classes, three teachers (one was researcher) Total of 29 dyads 38 females, 20 males Dyads: 14 F-F, 5 M-M, 10 M-F Cover several cultural components in class One is the southern cone, to include Argentinas Dirty War during 1970s

14

15 To reflect on possible continuation of the plot

16 Con tu compañero, decidan si Gabi debe quedarse con Alicia y Roberto o si la deben devolver a su abuela materna. Uno de ustedes dice que sí, debe quedarse con su familia adoptiva, mientras el otro dice que no, Gabi debe ir a vivir con su abuela. Tengan un debate justificando sus posiciones. Ojo: Aunque tengan posiciones diferentes, al final del debate tienen que llegar a un acuerdo. ¡Sean muy convincentes! Task A (+ causal reasoning, + convergent outcome) Con tu compañero, discutan si Gabi debe quedarse con Alicia y Roberto o si la deben devolver a su abuela materna. Uno de ustedes dice que sí, debe quedarse con su familia adoptiva, mientras el otro dice que no, Gabi debe ir a vivir con su abuela. Tengan un debate justificando sus posiciones. Tasks B (+ causal reasoning, - convergent outcome) Con tu compañero, decidan si Gabi debe quedarse con Alicia y Roberto o si la deben devolver a su abuela materna. A final de la conversación, tienen que llegar a un acuerdo. Task C (- causal reasoning, + convergent outcome) Con tu compañero, discutan si Gabi debe quedarse con Alicia y Roberto o si la deben devolver a su abuela materna. Task D (- causal reasoning, - convergent outcome)

17 With your partner, decide if Gabi should stay with Alicia and Roberto or if they should give her back to her maternal grandmother. One of you must take the side that yes, she should stay with her adoptive family, while the other says no, Gabi should go to live with her grandmother. Debate with each other while justifying your positions. Note: Even though you have different viewpoints, at the end of your debate you must come to a final agreement. Be very convincing! Task A (+ causal reasoning, + convergent outcome) With your partner, discuss if Gabi should stay with Alicia and Roberto or if they should give her back to her maternal grandmother. One of you must take the side that yes, she should stay with her adoptive family, while the other says no, Gabi should go to live with her grandmother. Debate with each other while justifying your positions. Tasks B (+ causal reasoning, - convergent outcome) With your partner, decide if Gabi should stay with Alicia and Roberto or if they should give her back to her maternal grandmother. At the end of the conversation, you must come to an agreement. Task C (- causal reasoning, + convergent outcome) With your partner, discuss if Gabi should stay with Alicia and Roberto or if they should give her back to her maternal grandmother. Task D (- causal reasoning, - convergent outcome) TRANSLATIO N

18 After watching movie, in-class discussion on movie Task carried out following class day All dyads were given their task topic by teacher and recorded with imic and ipod Students were given recordings as an assessment and to be able to hear themselves produce in L2 Consent approved, researcher later transcribed all recordings

19 The extent to which learners produce elaborate language (Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005, p. 139) Interactional (contribution), functional, grammatical, lexical, propositional IC: Total # of turns (Duff, 1986) Total # turns per learner as a % of total turns in interaction IC: Total # of words, total # words per utterance (Crookes, 1989) GC: syntactic variety (Yuan & Ellis, 2003) total # different grammatical verb forms used (i.e., tense, present, past, future) Sensitive measures (Robinson, 2005) total # cognitive state verbs Use of subjunctive in dependent predicates as mediated by cognitive state terminology

20 How well the target language is produced in relation to the rule system of the target language (Skehan, 1996, p. 23) # self-corrections (Wigglesworth, 1997) # of self-corrections as a % of total # of errors committed Total # errors per 100 words (Mehnert, 1998) # of errors / total # words produced / 100 % target-like verbal morphology (Wigglesworth, 1997) # of correct finite verb phrases divided by total # of verb phrases x 100

21 Fluency The production of language in real time without undue pausing or hesitation (Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005, p. 139) False starts (a hesitation phenomenon of disfluency)(Skehan & Foster, 1999) Utterances/ sentences that are not complete (i.e., constitute fragments). They may or may not be followed by reformulation. Measures of interaction Clarification requests (Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005; Oliver, 1998) Total # of Questions (Duff, 1986) Grounded-Theory approach for observation of qualitative patterns in production and interaction

22 1. What effects do +/- causal reasoning and +/- convergent solution have on the complexity of L2 learners oral production? Total # of Turns One-way ANOVAs showed –Causal Reasoning significantly more turns

23 Total # words; # words per utterance One-way ANOVAs showed +CR had significantly more words per utterance

24 Mean # cognitive state verbs, use of subjunctive, syntactic variety

25 2. What effects do +/- causal reasoning and +/- convergent solution have on the accuracy of L2 learners oral production? Mean # self-corrections

26 Number of errors per 100 words

27 Percentage of target-like verb morphology

28 3. What effects do +/- causal reasoning and +/- convergent solution have on the fluency of L2 learners oral production? Mean # of False Starts One-way ANOVAs showed significantly more false starts in +Causal Reasoning Group

29 4. What effects do +/- causal reasoning and +/- convergent solution have on L2 learners interaction during an oral task? Mean # clarification requests, questions

30 2. Are any qualitative differences observed in learner language production when reasoning and/ or convergency requirements are present? Causal reasoning demands lent for much longer discourse utterances Convergent vs. Divergent outcome mostly apparent at end, with divergent outcomes as open-ended es un tema difícil Some solicited guidance; unsure what to discuss In divergent tasks, learners often referenced personal anecdotes and stories

31 B – Creo que Gabi um necesita ser con um su abuela um quien es Sara. Y um creo que el terror que fue un …el terrorismo a sus padres um es la razón que Ga… que Gabi um necesita ser con su abuelo porque los desaparecidos um meriten…tan… um sus padres um fueron desaparecidos y um ella necesita um ser con su familia. A- Primero, solo Roberto sé que Gabi es la hija del desaparido Alicia no sé nada es la es porque la película es porque Alicia no sé que Gabi no es um simplemente un hija que uh necesita un madre. Pero uh creo que Gabi necesita um quedarse con su familia adoptiva, Alicia y Roberto, porque es uh un solo familia que Gabi uh conoce? Uh no es um…es mal por Gabi para um ir con una familia que no sé, que no um veo, que no ve nunca, uh entonces, uh Alicia y Roberto uh se amo Gabi y es um mejor para Gabi para quedarse con su familia pero al mismo tiempo creo que Gabi puedo ver hacer y um con… cuando Gabi es um … cuando Gabi tenía más años uh puedo uh saber la verdad historia de su uh familia pero ahora necesita quedarse con su familia adoptiva y uh vive un bueno vida. A – Sí, creo que es un buen um punto pero um Alicia um ya um se siente que … se siente mal porque ella tomó Gabi uh de su familia y ella tiene emociones que…ella no es la madre real de Gabi y ella se siente mal por eso. Y ella…si creo que um Gabi puede um conocer a Sara, pero, um, en realidad, um, necesita ser con Sara. B- Um Alicia nunca está la real madre de Gabi porque es un madre uh porque adoptiva Gabi entonces… es un cosa que… [A- Si] A- Pero en una moda mala. B- Si pero, um necesita pensar qué es más bueno uh para Gabi y Sara quiere um pienso que Sara quiere lo más um información de qué um de qué pasar con Gabi y ahora sé que Gabi es con una familia que es bueno… por Gabi, no es buena familia uh por todos, por Gabi, es una familia que um creadad bien para Gabi y um es una situación um relativamente bien, y Sara puede uh tenir una relación uh con Gabi pero uh no es bueno para Gabi um tenir una nueva familia cuando es cinco años. Es muy … um Gabi, um pienso que Gabi va a tener más problemas si um ir con Sara, um entonces, um necesita quedarse con Alicia. A- Sí pero Alicia siempre será o tendré er tendrá miedo um de los padres de Gabi porque ella adoptiva… um adoptó Gabi um en un manera muy mala y ella se siente muy mal y siempre um uh se sentar..se sentará muy mal y creo que cuando ella um decirá a Gabi la verdad sobre sus padres um Gabi (3) uh habré…habrá um quer.. habrá querido um conocer y vivir con um Sara.

32 F- ¿Porqué piensas que Gabi debe quedarse con Alicia? E – Um pienso que Gabi uh que.. pienso que Gabi uh que.. quedé con um sus parientes ahora porque um Alicia y Roberto uh crían Gabi y um Gabi están muy feliz um con ellos y pienso que um pienso que uh uh (3) es um es cruel uh cruel uh separar uh Gabi uh de ellos. F- Sí verdad pero si Alicia y Roberto saben que Alicia está sus hija sus vida nunca va a ser la misma en el futuro porque um todo el tiempo van um tener la idea que su hija no es um su propio y uh entonces uh uh es posible que uh sus parientes - padres ahora no va a van a poder um criar uh su hija uh tan bien en el futuro con este um este idea. Y um también Gabi tiene un uh un madre maternal y este madre uh no uh no tenía un opción uh a dar su hija a los otros y uh también ella tiene um un derecho a tener su hija por su propio uh para saber su hija y para conocer su hija y es posible que la transición um (13 s) F - Sí, sí. E- Pero..pero Alicia y Roberto mantienen.. well puede..pueden mantener Gabi y, y Alicia quiere a Gabi y uh Gabi no conozca Sara Retallo sí Sara Retallo? y um no conozca Sara y ¿por qué Gabi um debe vivir a ella? Gabi no…Gabi no conozca Sara. F- Sí, verdad, pero pienso que um debe ser un situación en que posiblemente uh Alicia y Roberto um se quedan en la vida de su hija Gabi pero Gabi también uh sabe que ella tiene un otra madre um posible no que su madre era torturar o secuestrado hasta más hasta tiene más años pero pienso que es la … la cosa correcta para ella. E - Pero Sara uh puede uh involvar uh en de vida de Gabi uh y Alicia y Roberto están um muy joven (F- Sí) uh sí uh ellos pueden uh uh pueden cri…pueden uh criar Gabi uh por mucho…uh por uh mucho tiempo like de um de Sarah. F- Sí. Bien. Pero si tú estabas la abuela de un un chica y tú sabes que esta chica uh era la hija de su hija piensas que um yo quiere tú quieres saber tu nieta y vi- quieres vivir con su nieta? E- Sí, entiendo esto, porque um creo que el importante…el más importante uh que Gabi está feliz. (F- Sí). Y personalmente creo que ella es muy um es uh muy ella debe queda con sus parientes ahora. F- Sí. Bueno. Pero. E- Y… F- Qué más. Es un situación muy difícil. No es un respuesta fácil por eso.

33 C: Pues uh no sé que Gabi debe regresar a la abuela porque no sabemos que es actual-um verdademente la nieta de, de Sara. L: Sí, y um no es, no exista la posibilidad de um um us- usa el examen de um maternidad (C: Sí) L: o de um maternidad (C: Sí) C: Sí porque no existe en el, en este año L: Sí en este año o en este país, um DNA (C: Sí) C: y también creo que es muy difícil con los um documentos del hospital, porque parece que la documentación del, de los gobiernos, y la er oh uh el sistema de salud no es muy um amplio…bien o, completa. L: Pero en otro lado um uh el esposo de Alicia, uh Roberto? um es posible que él um sabe que um la abuela es la abuela o no es la abuela real. Um en la película um no es muy claro en el fin um si Roberto sabe. C: Sí, es posible que Roberto sepa pero … no, en mi opinión no es importante que Roberto sabe, pero Roberto es un hombre muy uh raro, y parece muy mal y no sé si debe criar un una hija y (L: risa) también no sé que Roberto y Alicia va a divoricarse. L: entonces um no piensas que Roberto va a decir el verdad? C: sí, no sé. (L: a Alicia?) L: Pero es posible que um el saquerdote um sab.. saba. (risa) C: um sí, la verdad L: o otra persona C: Sí, no entiendo um los saquerdotes, pero um um no sé L: Pero tú está, um estás correcto que nosotros no um conocemos

34 O - ¿Qué piensas? T- Es un tema difícil! Eee, Bueno, para mí es que…en mi – en mi opinión, la abuela? la abuela de Gabi quizás no puede cuidarse de ella um mejor que pueden uh O- No la conoce para nada, sí. T- sí, sí, y como nosotros dimos ayer en clase, uh dimos ayer clase… uh no sabemos exactamente si um Sara Reballo es en realidad la abuela de Gabi y por eso… (O – uh) O- No crees que es T- Sí. O – Estoy de acuerdo pero no…uh creo que Alicia y Roberto como una pareja uh no funcionan muy bien. (laugh) T - Sí. O- claramente… uh creo idealmente Gabi se quedaría con Alicia y quizás Alicia um puede, no sé, puede hacer algo, um no sé, algo horario con uh la abuela materna y Gabi puede um pasar tiempo con la madre y la abuela materna. (laugh) T – Sí, sí, pienso que sería mejor que Gabi no uh se quede con uh Roberto en particular, O - Sí por supuesto T- porque es O- un hombre T… es violente… O- Sí. T- y, y…y también- O- muy frío, muy frío como una persona, ¿no? T- Sí, no tiene un corazón. O - Con Gabi un poquito. Pero, todavía no es un hombre muy … T- Sí, a fin con Alicia no es, no era…

35 cuando fue uh joven, creo que creo que mi madraste uh mi madraste fue una mujer, una mujer en mi vida, like un amiga de mi padre, no conozco como ella estaba mi uh nueve madre, sí no es muy diferente When I was young, I think I think that my stepmom uh my stepmom was a woman, a woman in my life, like a friend of my dads, I dont know that she was my uh new mom, yes no it is very different

36 Increasing the cognitive complexity of the task affected learner production in unique ways Causal reasoning demands lent for: significantly more words per utterance significantly less fluent production Causal reasoning demands lent for: more cognitive state verbs, more uses of the subjunctive, more self-corrections, more target-like finite verbs and more syntactic variety -Causal reasoning demands lent for significantly more turns per task

37 The Interactant condition of +/- convergent outcome only seemed to affect the task outcome: learners demonstrated a sense of focus versus not knowing what to discuss. Open- versus closed-task type? Learners in the -Convergent Outcome (divergent) group referenced personal stories. +Convergent Outcome learners never did this.

38 This study provides some evidence for Robinsons Cognition Hypothesis Increasing the cognitive complexity of tasks will: Increase complexity Increase accuracy Decrease fluency Increase measures of interaction Placing greater cognitive demands on tasks can affect learners output and interaction in different ways

39 This study aims to contribute to the body of literature on task design, showing how task complexity and condition variables can modulate oral production and interaction

40 Examine measures of individual differences (i.e., aptitude, working memory) and other variables (i.e., personality, language attitude) as further external factors that might influence A, C, and F in language use Other measures of production, interaction, lexis (any differences?) Examine correlations between different measures of production Gender as a moderating variable for production Compare research measures of C, A, F to teacher ratings?

41 Noticing feedback that is provided by NNS-partner? 1. T. Quizás ella es la sola cosa que los padres tienen um similar… O. en común T. En común, sí sí. 2. C. Es posible que Roberto sepa, pero … L. … pero es posible que el sacerdote um sab … saba … 3. A. Pues, creo que Roberto necesita ser imprisionado ahora. J. ¿Impresionado? (laughs) A. Sí. ¡No! Encarcelado. J. Sí – estoy de acuerdo. Compare with CMC discourse

42 More measures of of production should be employed and compared i.e. temporal variables for fluency Measures of lexis Unequal distribution of gender pairings in dyads Interrator and Intrarator reliability

43 Thank you! Melissa Baralt Georgetown University

44 REFERENCES Brindley, G. (1987). Factors affecting task difficulty. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Guidelines for the Development of Curriculum Resources. Adelaide: National Curriculum Resource Centre. Bygate, M., (1996). Effects of task repetition: Appraising the developing language of learners. In Willis, D., and Willis, J., Challenge and change in language teaching. London: Heinemann, pp Bygate, M., (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., and Swain, M., (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing. Harlow: Pearson Education. Bygate, M., & Samuda, V. (2005). Integrative planning and the use of task repetition. In Ellis, R., (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language. John Benjamins. Candlin, C.N. (1987). Towards task-based language learning. In Candlin, C.N. and Murphy, D.F., (Eds.), Language learning tasks. Lancaster Practical Papers in English. Lancaster and London: Lancaster University. Crookes, G. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, Doughty, C., & Long, M.H. Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7, Duff, P. (1986). Another look at interlanguage talk: Taking task to task. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language development. Rowley: MA: Newbury House, pp Ellis, R. (1987). Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style-shifting in the use of of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language teaching and learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ellis, R. and Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analyzing learning language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 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, Foster, P. (2001). Rules and routines: A consideration of their role in the task-based language production of native and non-native speakers. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., and Swain, M., (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing. Harlow: Pearson Education.

45 Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, Gass, S., Mackey, A., Fernandez, M., & Alvarez-Torres, M. (1999). The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 49, Gass, S. & Varonis, M. (1985). Task variation and nonnative/nonnative negotiation of meaning. In S. Gass and C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Lynch, T., & Maclean, J. (2000). Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for classroom language learning. Language Teaching Research. Special issue, Tasks in language pedagogy, 4, 3, Lynch, T., & Maclean, J. (2001). A case of exercising: Effects of immediate task repetition on learners performance. In. Bygate, M., Skehan, P., and Swain, M., (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing. Harlow: Pearson Education. Nuevo, A. (2006). Task complexity and interaction: L2 learning opportunities and interaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, Pica, T., & Doughty, C. (1985). The role of group work in classroom second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction. In Crookes, G., and Gass, S., (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Plough, I. & Gass, S. (1993). Interlocutor and task familiarity: effects on interactional structure. In Crookes, G., and Gass, S., (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Prabhu, N.S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: a triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction. (pp ). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Robinson, P. (2002). Individual differences and instructed language learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Robinson, P. (2003). The cognition hypothesis, task design, and adult task-based language learning. Second Language Studies, 21, 2, Spring,

46 Robinson, P. (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, 1,1-32. Robinson, P. (2007). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: effects on L2 speech production, interaction, and perceptions of task difficulty. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 3, Robinson, P. (2009). Situating and distributing cognition across task demands: The SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In M. Putz & L. Sicola (Eds.), Inside the Learners mind: Cognitive processing in second language acquisition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Robinson, P. & Gilabert, R. (2007). Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis and second language learning and performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 3, Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in Second Language Learning. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 71, Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1, Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49, Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2005). Strategic and on-line planning: The influence of surprise information and task time on second language performance. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language. John Benjamins, Swales, J.M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman.


Descargar ppt "Melissa Baralt Georgetown University"

Presentaciones similares


Anuncios Google