Examining the Effect of Task Complexity and Sequence on Speaking Ability of Iranian EFL Learners

Masoumeh Alipour Madarsara, Ramin Rahimy

Abstract


The impetus of the present study was to examine the effect of task complexity and sequence on speaking according to performance data collected from 60 intermediate Iranian EFL learners on two tasks (a map task and a car task). In order to examine the effects of task sequence and complexity in enhancing EFL learners’ speaking ability in three different areas including accuracy, fluency and complexity, descriptive statistics as well as independent samples T-tests were run to the results of each sections of the speaking test for both control and experimental groups in posttest. It was found that task sequence and complexity had significant effects on Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ speaking ability. The findings of the study also revealed that the participants in the experimental group, who practiced task sequence and complexity, far outweighed the control group in complexity and fluency than the other area of the speaking test.

 


Keywords


TBLT, Task, Task Complexity, Task Sequence, EFL

Full Text:

PDF

References


Bachman, L. F. (2002). Some reflections on task-based language performance assessment. Language Testing, 19(4),

-476.

Brown, G., Anderson, A., Shilcock, R. and Yule, G. (1984). Teaching talk: strategies for production and assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (2001). Introduction. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain (Eds.), pedagogic

tasks. Second language learning, teaching and testing. London: Longman.

Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (Eds.). (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks. Second language learning, teaching and testing. Harlow: Longman.

Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford Oxford University press.

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

Ellis, R (Ed.) (2005). Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Foster,P.andP. Skehan (1994 ). 'The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning' Paper presented at the British Association of Applied Linguistics, Leeds

Gilabert, R. (2005). Task complexity & L2 narrative oral production. PhD thesis, University of Barcelona.

Kowal, M. and Swain, M. (1997). From semantic to syntactic processing: How can we promote it in the French immersion classroom? In Johnson, K. and Swain, M. (Eds.), Immersion Education: International Perspectives (pp. 284-309). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Long, M. H. & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 26(1), 27.

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W.C.Ritchie& T.K.Bhatia (Eds.). Handbook of second language acquisition. (pp.413-463). San Diego; Academic Press.

Mehrang, F. And Rahimpour, M. (2010). The impact of task structure and Planning conditions on oral performance of EFL learners. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences.Vol.2, Issue 2, pp.3678-3686.

Nunan, D. (1993). Task-based syllabus design: Selecting, grading and sequencing tasks. In G. Crookes & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Tasks in a pedagogical context. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Rahimpour M, Maghsoudpour M (2011). Teacher-students' interactions in task-based vs. form-focused instruction. World Journal of Education, 1(1),171-178.

Rimani Nikou, F. and Z. Skandarsefat. (2012). The Simultaneous Effects of Task Complexity and Task Types on EFL Learners’ Written Performance. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 6(7): 137- 143.

Robinson, P. (1996). Connecting tasks, cognition and syllabus design. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Task complexity and second language syllabus design: Data- based studies and speculations (pp. 1-16). Brisbane: University of Queensland Working Papers in Applied Linguistics (Special Issue).

Robinson, P. (2001a). Task complexity, task difficulty and task production: Exploring Interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 21, 27–57

Robinson, P. (2001b). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (pp. 287-318). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Robinson, P., T. Cadierno, and Y. Shirai. (2009). Time and motion: Measuring the effects of the conceptual demands of tasks on second language speech production. Applied Linguistics 30, 533-544.

Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics 17(1) , 38-62.

Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford University Press.

Skehan, P. (2001). Tasks and language performance assessment. In M. Bygate, P.Skehan, and M. Swain (eds.) Researching pedagogic tasks, second language learning, teaching and testing. Harlow: Longman.

Skehan, P. and P. Foster. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research 1, 185–211.

Skehan, P. and P. Foster (2010). The influence of planning and post-task activities on accuracy and complexity in task based learning. Thames Valley University

Skehan P. (2011d), (with S. Shen), .Task structure and task complexity in narrative retellings., In Skehan (2011a)

Skehan P. and P. Foster. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning 49(1), pp. 93–120.

Willis, D. & Willis, J. (2001). Task-based language learning. In D, Nunan. & Carter, R. (Eds.), The cambridge guide to teaching English to the speakers of the other languages (pp.173-179). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.4n.1p.247

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2012-2019 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.