TBLTconference Leuven Symposium on Task Complexity Introduction Lies
TBLT-conference Leuven Symposium on Task Complexity: Introduction Lies Sercu
Participants n Lieve De Wachter, K. U. Leuven n Folkert Kuiken, Uv. Amsterdam n Elke Peters, K. U. Leuven n Lies Sercu, K. U. Leuven n Ineke Vedder, Uv. Amsterdam
Organisation introduction: framework n 2 papers + time for informative questions n coffee break n third paper + time for informative questions n summary of findings + discussion topics n discussion time handouts n
TC and Curriculum design n starting point: two questions (1) What do we want tasks to do? How do we want tasks to be helpful to learners? Can this specific task do this? n (2) How can we sequence tasks in an optimal way? How can we vary the degree of complexity of tasks? In what order do we offer tasks to learners? n
What do we expect of tasks? n Distinction between two kinds of tasks extension of knowledge, interlanguage development, enhanced intake and retention of input (papers 1 & 2) n better, faster access to existing knowledge, enhanced performativity, automatising (paper 3) n
How can we sequence tasks? n What makes a task difficult or easy? n n How do we sequence tasks? n n n Can we design a more difficult and an easier version of a task? Developmental tasks before automatization tasks? Difficult tasks always after easy tasks? Paper 1: single/dual task Paper 3: +/- elements, +/- reasoning demands
Construct Task complexity operationalization: different proposals (Robinson, Skehan & Foster, Nunan, Candlin) n Robinson 2005 n
task complexity (cognitive factors) task conditions (interactional factors) task difficulty (learner factors) (a)resource- (a)participati (a)affective (b) resourcedispersing e. g. , +/- planning time +/- single task +/- prior knowledge (b) participant variables e. g. , same/different gender familiar/unfamili ar power/solidarity (b) ability variables e. g. , working memory intelligence aptitude Sequencing criteria Methodological influences directing e. g. , +/- few elementes +/- here-andnow +/- reasoning demands on variables e. g. , closed/open one-way/twoway convergent/dive rgent variables e. g. , motivation anxiety confidence
task complexity (cognitive factors) (a)resource- directing e. g. , +/- few elementes +/- here-andnow +/- reasoning demands (b) resourcedispersing e. g. , +/- planning time +/- single task +/- prior knowledge Sequencing criteria task conditions (interactional factors) task difficulty (learner factors)
task complexity (cognitive factors) task conditions (interactional factors) task difficulty (learner factors) (a)affective variables e. g. , motivation anxiety confidence (b) ability variables e. g. , working memory intelligence aptitude Methodological influences
task complexity (cognitive factors) task conditions (interactional factors) (a)participati on variables e. g. , closed/open one-way/twoway convergent/dive rgent (b) participant variables e. g. , same/different gender familiar/unfamili ar power/solidarity Methodological influences task difficulty (learner factors)
task complexity (cognitive factors) task conditions (interactional factors) task difficulty (learner factors) (a)resource- (a)participati (a)affective (b) resourcedispersing e. g. , +/- planning time +/- single task +/- prior knowledge (b) participant variables e. g. , same/different gender familiar/unfamili ar power/solidarity (b) ability variables e. g. , working memory intelligence aptitude Sequencing criteria Methodological influences directing e. g. , +/- few elementes +/- here-andnow +/- reasoning demands on variables e. g. , closed/open one-way/twoway convergent/dive rgent variables e. g. , motivation anxiety confidence
TC & effect on learning Different effects on learning for changing tasks with respect to n Resource-dispersing dimension n n distribute/disperse attention capacity over different things Resource-directing dimension n direct learners attention to more complex form(s) in the input
Effect on learning n Resource-dispersing n trade-off: paying attention to A = paying less attention to B • e. g. , attention to meaning = less attention to form (or vice versa) attention to fluency = less attention to accuracy n Resource-directing n no trade-off but cooperation between meaning and form; • e. g. , more complex contents = more complex language production
Sequencing of tasks Main idea: practise already acquired knowledge before offering new input Order of tasks 1. low performativity demands – low intake demands 2. high performativity demands – low intake demands 3. low performativity demands – high intake demands 4. high performativity demands – high intake demands
Explain effects: two theoretical models 1. Limited Attentional Capacity Model n resource – dispersion, trade-off between • • n 2. fluency, accuracy, complexity meaning - form increased complexity = debilitated language production Cognition Hypothesis n n resource directing cooperation between meaning – form increased complexity = improved language production
3 papers Lies Sercu & Lieve De Wachter n Elke Peters n Folkert Kuiken & Ineke Vedder n
paper 1 paper 2 paper 3 dimension task compleixty single/dual resource dispersing +/-few elements resource directing task goal development, access, intake, performance retention specific focus retention of cultural information here-andnow + vocabulary retention of cultural information there-andthen + vocabulary enhancemen t accuracy, complexity in written language production
paper 1 paper 2 paper 3 task conditions convergent one-way read divergent one-way write learner characteristics different levels of proficiency Dutch upperintermediate level of proficiency German multicultural sample monocultural sample intermediate level of proficiency French & Italian monocultural sample
Contact details Lies. Sercu@arts. kuleuven. be n Lieve. Dewachter@ilt. kuleuven. be n Elke. Peters@arts. kuleuven. be n F. Kuiken@uva. nl n I. Vedder@uva. nl n
- Slides: 20
