Trudność zadania komunikacyjnego a bogactwo leksykalne wypowiedzi uczniów

Main Article Content

Tomasz Róg

Abstrakt

Task-based language teaching has recently become a mainstream research area in second language acquisition studies. One of the underexplored areas is task design and its influence on the measures of complexity, accuracy, and fluency. While most previous research into task design focused on manipulating planning time, note-taking, or task familiarity, one of the promising lines of investigation is how task difficulty may also be conducive to L2 acquisition. Task difficulty is understood as the cognitive burden placed on a learner performing a task. In the current study learners of English as a foreign language (n=28) performed three differently designed oral communicative tasks of increasing difficulty: (1) a brainstorming task, (2) a sorting and ordering task, and (3) a problem-solving argumentative task. Task difficulty, i.e. having to employ higher-order thinking skills improved learners’ L2 lexical complexity as measured by lexical diversity, lexical density, and word-frequency counts.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Jak cytować
Róg, T. (2021). Trudność zadania komunikacyjnego a bogactwo leksykalne wypowiedzi uczniów. Neofilolog, (56/2), 337-356. https://doi.org/10.14746/n.2021.56.2.11
Dział
Artykuły

Bibliografia

  1. Adams R., Nik N. (2014), Prior knowledge and second language task produc-tion in text chat, (w:) Gonzalez Lloret M., Ortega L. (red.), Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, s. 51–78.
  2. Breen M. (1989), The evaluation cycle for language learning tasks, (w:) Johnson R.K. (red.), The second language curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, s. 187–206.
  3. Bygate, M. (2018), Learning language through task repetition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  4. Cho M. (2018), Task complexity, modality, and working memory in L2 task performance. „System”, nr 72, s. 85–98.
  5. Cobb T. (2012), Compleat lexical tutor, http://www.lextutor.ca/
  6. Ellis R. (2003), Task-based language learning and teaching, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  7. Ellis R., Li S., Zhu Y. (2018), The effects of pre-task explicit instruction on the performance of a focused task. „System”, nr 80, s. 38–47.
  8. Ellis R., Shintani N. (2014), Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition research. London & New York: Routledge.
  9. Ellis R., Skehan P., Li S., Shintani N., Lambert C. (2020), Task-based language teaching. Theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  10. Foster P., Skehan P. (2012), Complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis in task-based performance: A meta-analysis of the Ealing research, (w:) Housen A., Kuiken F., Vedder I. (red.) Dimensions of L2 Performance and Proficiency. Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, s. 199–220.
  11. Fu M., Li S. (2017), The associations between the cognitive process of task perform-ance and working memory. „Modern Foreign Languages” nr 40, s. 114–124.
  12. Gębal P. (2019), Dydaktyka języków obcych. Wprowadzenie. Warszawa: PWN.
  13. Grabowski J. (2007), The writing superiority effect in the verbal recall of knowledge: Sources and determinants (w:) Rijlaarsdam G., Torrance M., VanWaes L., Galbraith D. (red.), Writing and cognition: Research and applications. Amsterdam: Elsevier, s. 165–179.
  14. Jackson D.O., Suethanapornkul S. (2013), The cognition hypothesis: A synthesis and meta-analysis of research on second language task complexity. „Language Learning”, nr 63(2), s. 330–367.
  15. Janowska I. (2019), Wypowiedź ustna w dydaktyce językowej na przykładzie języka polskiego jako obcego. Kraków: Księgarnia Akademicka.
  16. Kim Y. (2015), The role of tasks as vehicles for learning in classroom interac-tion, N. Markee
  17. N. (red.), Handbook of classroom discourse and interaction. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, s. 163–181.
  18. Kim Y., Tracy-Ventura N. (2013), The role of task repetition in L2 performance de-velopment: What needs to be repeated during task-based interaction? „Sys-tem”, nr 41, s. 829–840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.08.005
  19. Kormos J. (2014), Differences across modalities of performance: An investi-gation of linguistic and discourse complexity in narrative tasks, (w:) Byrnes H., Manch R.M. (red.), Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, s. 193–216.
  20. Kuiken F., Vedder I. (2011), Task complexity and linguistic performance in L2 writing and speaking: The effect of modelling, (w:) Robinson P. (red.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, s. 91–104.
  21. Levelt W.J.M. (1989), Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  22. Li L., Chen J., Sun L. (2015), The effects of different lengths of pre-task planning time on L2 learners’ oral test performance. „TESOL Quarterly”, nr 49, s. 38–66.
  23. Li S., Fu M. (2016), Strategic and unpressured within-task planning and their associations with working memory. „Language Teaching Research”, nr 22, s. 230–253.
  24. Long M. (2015), Second Language Acquisition and Task-Based Language Teaching. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
  25. Mehnert U. (1998), The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language Performance. „ Studies in Second Language Acquisi-tion”, nr 20, s. 52–83.
  26. Nunan D. (2004), Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  27. Ortega L. (1999), Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. „Stud-ies in second language acquisition”, nr 21, s. 109–148.
  28. Park S. (2010), The effect of pre-task instructions and pre-task planning on focus on form during Korean EFL task-based interaction. „Language Teaching Research”, nr 14, s. 9–26.
  29. Patanasorn, C. (2010), Effects of procedural, content, and task repetition on accuracy and fluency in an EFL context (niepublikowana rozprawa doktorska). Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ.
  30. Philp J., Oliver R., Mackey A. (2006), The impact of planning time on chil-dren’s task-based Interactions. „System”, nr 34(4), s. 547–565.
  31. Préfontaine Y., Kormos J. (2015), The relationship between task difficulty and second language fluency in French: a mixed methods approach. „The Modern Language Journal”, nr 99 (1), s. 96–112.
  32. Rada Europy. (2003). Europejski system opisu kształcenia językowego. War-szawa: CODN.
  33. Révész A., Gurzynski-Weiss L. (2016), Teachers’ perspectives on second lan-guage task difficulty: insights from think-aloud and eye tracking. „An-nual Review of Applied Linguistics”, nr 36, s. 182–204.
  34. Robinson P. (2001), Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA, (w:) Robinson P. (red.), Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, s. 287–318.
  35. Róg T. (2018), Kreatywność a skuteczne nauczanie języków obcych. „Języki Obce w Szkole”, nr 3, s. 93–98.
  36. Róg T. (2020), Nauczanie języków obcych. Teoria, badania, praktyka. Lublin: Werset.
  37. Skehan P. (1998), A cognitive approach to language learning, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  38. Skehan P. (2009), Modelling second language performance. Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis. „Applied Linguistics”, nr 30, s. 510–532.
  39. Taguchi N. (2007), Task difficulty in oral speech act production. „Applied Lin-guistics”, nr 28/1, s. 113–135.
  40. Thai C., Boers F. (2016), Repeating a monologue under increasing time pres-sure: Effects on fluency, accuracy, and complexity. „TESOL Quarterly”, nr 50, s. 369–393.
  41. Wang Z., Skehan P. (2014), Structure, lexis, and time perspectives: Influences on task performance, (w:) Skehan, P. (red.), Processing perspectives on task performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, s. 155–185.
  42. Wigglesworth G., Elder C. (2010), An Investigation of the Effectiveness and Validity of Planning Time in Speaking Test Tasks. „Language Assess-ment Quarterly”, nr 7(1), s. 1–24.
  43. Wigglesworth G. (1997), An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test discourse. „Language Testing”, nr 14, s. 85–106.
  44. Willis D., Willis J. (2008), Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford Univer-sity Press.