the effects of increasing cognitive complexity on l2 narrative oral production roger gilabert...

The effects of increasing The effects of increasing cognitive complexity oncognitive complexity on

L2 narrative oral L2 narrative oral productionproduction

Roger GilabertRoger [email protected]@blanquerna.url.edu

Blanquerna Communication Studies Blanquerna Communication Studies DepartmentDepartment

Universitat Ramon LlullUniversitat Ramon LlullBarcelona, SpainBarcelona, Spain

Leuven 2005Leuven 2005

ContextContext

2 main research agendas into task 2 main research agendas into task features:features:

- Interactionist perspectiveInteractionist perspective: how certain : how certain conversational episodes (e.g. CR or CC), caused conversational episodes (e.g. CR or CC), caused by task design, may lead to acquisition (Long, by task design, may lead to acquisition (Long, 1985, 1989, 2000).1985, 1989, 2000).

- Information-processing approach: how Information-processing approach: how manipulating the cognitive features of tasks can manipulating the cognitive features of tasks can lead to differentials in the fluency, complexity, lead to differentials in the fluency, complexity, and accuracy of learners’ performance .and accuracy of learners’ performance .

Context: research into cognitive task Context: research into cognitive task featuresfeatures

degree of familiarity: (Bygate, 1999, 2001; Foster & Skehan, degree of familiarity: (Bygate, 1999, 2001; Foster & Skehan, 1996; Plough & Gass, 1993; Robinson, 2001)1996; Plough & Gass, 1993; Robinson, 2001)

number of elements: (Kuiken & Vedder, 2004; Robinson, 2001)number of elements: (Kuiken & Vedder, 2004; Robinson, 2001)

single and dual task performance: (Niwa, 2000)single and dual task performance: (Niwa, 2000)

pre-task and on-line planning time: (Crookes, 1989; Ellis, 1987; pre-task and on-line planning time: (Crookes, 1989; Ellis, 1987; Foster & Skehan, 1996; Foster & Skehan, 1996; Mehnert, 1998; Ortega, 1999; Mehnert, 1998; Ortega, 1999; Skehan & Foster, 1997; Skehan & Foster, 1997; Wigglesworth, 1997; Yuan & Wigglesworth, 1997; Yuan & Ellis, 2003)Ellis, 2003)

degree of complexity along displaced, degree of complexity along displaced, past time reference: (Iwashita past time reference: (Iwashita et al.et al. 2001; Robinson, 1995; 2001; Robinson, 1995; Rahimpour, 1997). Rahimpour, 1997).

Concerned with: how Task Complexity affects performance; how balanced performance may lead to better use and acquisition; and how tasks can be best sequenced according to their cognitive complexity

Context: Skehan / RobinsonContext: Skehan / RobinsonMost studies concerned with the issue of competition for Most studies concerned with the issue of competition for

attention during task performance. attention during task performance.

Predictions for performance: Predictions for performance: competition exists (Skehan, 1998; Skehan & Foster, 2001competition exists (Skehan, 1998; Skehan & Foster, 2001 )) it depends: resource-directing vs. resource-dispersingit depends: resource-directing vs. resource-dispersing (Robinson, 2001; 2003; 2005)(Robinson, 2001; 2003; 2005) + cognitively complex = - fluency+ cognitively complex = - fluency + complexity+ complexity + accuracy+ accuracy

Claims based on studies which have manipulated task Claims based on studies which have manipulated task features in isolation (e.g. planning time studies and +/- features in isolation (e.g. planning time studies and +/- here-and-now studies).here-and-now studies).

GOAL: of this study is to provide further evidence regarding the GOAL: of this study is to provide further evidence regarding the two widely researched variables of planning time and +/- Here-and-two widely researched variables of planning time and +/- Here-and-Now, and to explore the synergistic effects of manipulating them Now, and to explore the synergistic effects of manipulating them simultaneously. simultaneously.

Previous findingsPrevious findings

Planning time studies:Planning time studies:

Fluency increasesFluency increases (Foster & Skehan, 1996; Skehan & Foster, 1997; Ortega, (Foster & Skehan, 1996; Skehan & Foster, 1997; Ortega,

1999; Yuan & Ellis, 2003)1999; Yuan & Ellis, 2003)

Higher structural complexity (Foster & Skehan, 1996; Ortega, 1999; Yuan Higher structural complexity (Foster & Skehan, 1996; Ortega, 1999; Yuan & &

Ellis, 2003; only a trend in Skehan & Ellis, 2003; only a trend in Skehan & Foster, 1997)Foster, 1997)

No significant effects on lexical complexity: (Ortega, 1999; Yuan & Ellis, No significant effects on lexical complexity: (Ortega, 1999; Yuan & Ellis, 2003).2003).

Mixed results for accuracy: higher accuracy (Foster & Skehan, 1997)Mixed results for accuracy: higher accuracy (Foster & Skehan, 1997)

no differences (Foster & Skehan, 1996; Yan no differences (Foster & Skehan, 1996; Yan & Ellis,& Ellis,

2003)2003)

mixed restuls (Ortega, 1999)mixed restuls (Ortega, 1999)

Previous findingsPrevious findings

Here-and-Now/There-and-Then studies:Here-and-Now/There-and-Then studies:

Fluency decreases: (Robinson, 1995; Rahimpour, 1997)Fluency decreases: (Robinson, 1995; Rahimpour, 1997)

Increased lexical complexity: (Robinson, 1995; Rahimpour, 1997)Increased lexical complexity: (Robinson, 1995; Rahimpour, 1997)

No differences in structural complexity: (Robinson, 1995; No differences in structural complexity: (Robinson, 1995; Rahimpour, Rahimpour,

1997)1997)

Higher accuracy: (Robinson, 1995; Rahimpour, 1997; Iwashita Higher accuracy: (Robinson, 1995; Rahimpour, 1997; Iwashita et et alal.).)

Research questionResearch question

How does manipulating Task How does manipulating Task Complexity simultaneously Complexity simultaneously along planning time and the along planning time and the +/- here-and-now variables +/- here-and-now variables affect production?affect production?

I.I. Pre-task planning time will positively affect the areas of fluency Pre-task planning time will positively affect the areas of fluency and structural complexity, with no effects on lexical complexity and structural complexity, with no effects on lexical complexity or accuracy.or accuracy.

- cognitive complexity + cognitive - cognitive complexity + cognitive complexitycomplexity

+ fluency - fluency + fluency - fluency

+ structural complexity - structural + structural complexity - structural complexity complexity

= lexical complexity = lexical complexity= lexical complexity = lexical complexity

= = accuracy = accuracyaccuracy = accuracy

II.II. More complex tasks, in the there-and-then, will trigger more More complex tasks, in the there-and-then, will trigger more accurate and complex speech at the expense of fluencyaccurate and complex speech at the expense of fluency..

- cognitive complexity + cognitive complexity- cognitive complexity + cognitive complexity

+ fluency+ fluency - less fluency - less fluency

- structural complexity + structural - structural complexity + structural complexitycomplexity

- lexical complexity + lexical complexity- lexical complexity + lexical complexity

- accuracy + accuracyaccuracy + accuracy

HypothesesHypotheses

Experimental designExperimental design

Story 1 Story 2 Story 3 Story 4

Group A+ planning timeThere-and-Then

- planning timeThere-and-Then

+ planning time Here-and-Now

- planning time

Here-and-Now

Group B- planning timeThere-and-Then


- planning time

Here-and-Now

+ planning time

There-and-Then

Group C


- planning timeHere-and-Now

+ planning time

There-and-Then

- planning time

There-and-Then

Group D

- planning timeHere-and-Now

+ planning timeThere-and-Then

- planning time

There-and-Then


Condition 1: Planned Here-and-NowCondition 2: Unplanned Here-and-NowCondition 3: Planned There-and-ThenCondition 4: Unplanned There-and-Then

Simple Complex

Begin the story like this: YESTERDAY Mr. Brown was shopping at the supermarket. He was checking his shopping list and looking at prices. An employee was putting price tags on the products.

Experimental design: example of comic strip

ParticipantsParticipants

48 volunteers among lower-intermediate, first- and second- year university students.

Ages 18-22.

Similar number of years of instruction.

No significant differences in proficiency (C-Test)

MeasuresMeasuresFluency:Fluency: Rate A (syllables x minute in unpruned speech)Rate A (syllables x minute in unpruned speech)

Rate B (syllables x minute in pruned Rate B (syllables x minute in pruned speech) speech)

Structural Structural Complexity:Complexity: S-Nodes per T-unitS-Nodes per T-unit

Lexical Complexity:Lexical Complexity: Percentage of Lexical WordsPercentage of Lexical WordsRatio of Lexical / Function WordsRatio of Lexical / Function WordsGuiraud’s Index of Lexical RichnessGuiraud’s Index of Lexical Richness

Accuracy:Accuracy: Error-free T-unitsError-free T-unitsTLU of ArticlesTLU of ArticlesPercentage of Self-repairsPercentage of Self-repairsRepaired to Unrepaired ErrorsRepaired to Unrepaired Errors

Why self-repairs?Why self-repairs?

Self-repairs are the result of wrong formulation (Levelt, 1989), and Self-repairs are the result of wrong formulation (Levelt, 1989), and may be used to correct an inappropriate syntactic structure, a may be used to correct an inappropriate syntactic structure, a lexical problem, faulty morphology, or a phonetic error. Self-lexical problem, faulty morphology, or a phonetic error. Self-repairs, whether other-initiated or self-initiated Schegloff’s (1977), repairs, whether other-initiated or self-initiated Schegloff’s (1977), denote students’ denote students’ awareness of formawareness of form and can be interpreted as and can be interpreted as learners’ learners’ attempts at being accurateattempts at being accurate. Self-repairs require conscious . Self-repairs require conscious attention. Some of the attention. Some of the functionsfunctions of self-repairs are: of self-repairs are:

Learners Learners automatizeautomatize the retrieval of target language knowledge they the retrieval of target language knowledge they already have.already have.

They They revise their hypothesesrevise their hypotheses about the target language (Lyster and about the target language (Lyster and Ranta, 1997:57).Ranta, 1997:57).

They They noticing a holenoticing a hole in their own interlanguage that may direct their in their own interlanguage that may direct their attention to relevant input (Swain, 1998:66; Dörnyei & Kormos, attention to relevant input (Swain, 1998:66; Dörnyei & Kormos, 1999).1999).

They They check their speechcheck their speech, both internal and overt, , both internal and overt, againstagainst their their receptive knowledgereceptive knowledge (De Bot, 1996:551). (De Bot, 1996:551).

Statistical analysisStatistical analysis

Sphericity of data achieved by means of detecting (by means Sphericity of data achieved by means of detecting (by means of box plots) and eliminating outliers from the calculation. of box plots) and eliminating outliers from the calculation.

Repeated-measures ANOVAS for stories and conditions.Repeated-measures ANOVAS for stories and conditions.

Post hoc Post hoc Scheffe’s comparisons to identify exact location of Scheffe’s comparisons to identify exact location of differences.differences.

Transcription and codingTranscription and codingIntrarater and interrater measures used for transcription and coding

Intrarater agreement 97%

Interrater agreement on 10% of the data reached 93.7%

Hypothesis 1Hypothesis 1+/- Planning time+/- Planning time

119.4 115.4 115.7 111.8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Condition 1Planned Here-and-

Now

Condition 2UnplannedHere-and-

Now

Condition 3Planned

There-and-Then

Condition 4UnplannedThere-and-

Then

97.08 96.3389.75

107.81

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Condition 1Planned

Here-and-Now

Condition 2Unplanned

Here-and-Now

Condition 3Planned There-

and-Then

Condition 4UnplannedThere-and-

Then

Speech Rate A

Speech Rate B

119.4 115.7 115.4 111.8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Condition1Planned Here-

and-Now


and-Then


Here-and-Now


There-and-Then

Hypothesis 2Hypothesis 2Here-and-Now/There-and-Here-and-Now/There-and-

thenthen

96.33 97.0889.75

107.81

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Condition 1Planned Here-

and-Now


and-Then


Here-and-Now


There-and-Then

FluencyFluencyResultsResults

As predicted, fluency is negatively affected by increases in cognitive complexity along both variables

Hypothesis 1Hypothesis 1Planning timePlanning time


thenthen

Lexical Lexical ComplexityComplexity

ResultsResults

Against prediction, providing planning time had a significant

impact on lexical complexity

36.6433.28

35.43 33.92

0

10

20

30

40

50


and-Now

Condition 2Unplanned Here-

and-Now


and-Then


There-and-Then

58.2950.33

55.5351.81

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


and-Now


Here-and-Now


and-Then


There-and-Then

5.244.79 5.08

4.59

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


and-Now


and-Now


and-Then


There-and-Then

36.64 35.4333.28 33.92

0

10

20

30

40

50


and-Now


and-Then


Here-and-Now


There-and-Then

58.29 55.5350.33 51.81

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


and-Now


and-Then


Here-and-Now


There-and-Then

5.24 5.084.79 4.59

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


and-Now


and-Then


Here-and-Now


There-and-Then

Against prediction, increasing complexity along +/- Here-and-Now had NO

significant impact on lexical complexity

Percentage of Lexical words

Ratio of Lexical to Function

words

Guiraud’s Index

Hypothesis 1Hypothesis 1+/- Planning time+/- Planning time


thenthen

StructuralStructuralComplexityComplexity

ResultsResults

Against prediction, structural complexity was not significantly affected by planning time or by increasing along +/- Here-and-

Now

1.55 1.5 1.46 1.45

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5


and-Now


and-Now


and-Then


There-and-Then

1.451.51.551.41

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5


and-Now


and-Then


Here-and-Now


There-and-Then

S-Nodes

per

T-Units

Hypothesis 1: Hypothesis 1: Planning timePlanning time

Hypothesis 2: Here-and-Now/There-Hypothesis 2: Here-and-Now/There-and-thenand-thenAccuracyAccuracy

ResultsResults

As predicted, planning time had no impact on accuracy

Partially in line with prediction, increasing complexity along +/- Here-and-

Now triggered more attention to form

Error-free

T-Units

TLU of articles

Percentage of self-repairs

23.65 24.32 23.3621.53

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


and-Now


and-Then


Here-and-Now


There-and-Then

86.09 83.43 84.41 82.27

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


and-Now


and-Then


Here-and-Now


There-and-Then

19.84

13.9

18.84

14.21

0

5

10

15

20

25

30


and-Now


and-Then


and-Now

Condition 4Unplanned There-

and-Then

17.19

25.46

17.63

22.23

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


and-Now


and-Then


Here-and-Now


There-and-Then

17.19 17.63

25.4622.23

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


Now


and-Now


and-Then


and-Then

13.9

19.84 18.84

14.21

0

5

10

15

20

25

30


Now


and-Now


and-Then


and-Then

86.09 84.41 83.43 82.27

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


and-Now


and-Now


and-Then


There-and-Then

23.65 23.36 24.3221.53

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


and-Now


and-Now


and-Then


There-and-Then

Ratio of repaired to unrepaired

errors

Discussion: Planning time Discussion: Planning time and fluencyand fluency

Conceptualization during pre-task Conceptualization during pre-task planning allows faster retrieval planning allows faster retrieval during performanceduring performance

Instantiation of words (i.e. lemmas Instantiation of words (i.e. lemmas and forms) or chunks in WMand forms) or chunks in WM

Problem-solving mechanisms, Problem-solving mechanisms, rehearsal, and memorization (Ortega, rehearsal, and memorization (Ortega, 1999)1999)

Discussion: Discussion: +/- Here-and-Now +/- Here-and-Now

and fluencyand fluency

Lack of contextual supportLack of contextual support Efficient scheduling and attention-Efficient scheduling and attention-

allocation policiesallocation policies

Discussion: Discussion: planning time and lexical and planning time and lexical and

structural complexitystructural complexity

More elaborate conceptualizationMore elaborate conceptualization Consideration of more alternativesConsideration of more alternatives Access to less activated termsAccess to less activated terms

Discussion: Discussion: +/- Here-and-Now and lexical +/- Here-and-Now and lexical

and structural complexityand structural complexity

Interpropositional coherenceInterpropositional coherence Dependence on lexical meaningDependence on lexical meaning

Discussion: Discussion: Planning time and accuracyPlanning time and accuracy

It facilitates all dimensions of It facilitates all dimensions of productionproduction

Does not necessarily draw attention Does not necessarily draw attention to form during performanceto form during performance

Discussion: Discussion: +/- Here-and-Now and +/- Here-and-Now and

accuracyaccuracy

It draws attention to formIt draws attention to form Changes in macro and micro planningChanges in macro and micro planning Stretch interlanguage (Klein & Stretch interlanguage (Klein &

Perdue, 1992)Perdue, 1992) Comparison of how L1 and L2 Comparison of how L1 and L2

grammatize notions (Talmy, 2000)grammatize notions (Talmy, 2000)

Discussion: Discussion: Simultaneous manipulation Simultaneous manipulation

of both variablesof both variables

1)1) Attention may be allocated to Attention may be allocated to complexity and accuracy complexity and accuracy simultaneouslysimultaneously

2)2) Keeping tasks simple along resource-Keeping tasks simple along resource-dispersing dimensions and complex dispersing dimensions and complex along resource-directing one may be along resource-directing one may be beneficial for language developmentbeneficial for language development

Simultaneous Simultaneous manipulationmanipulation

5.244.79 5.08

4.59

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


and-Now


and-Now


and-Then


There-and-Then

Guiraud’s Index

Percentage of self-reapairs

13.9

19.84 18.84

14.21

0

5

10

15

20

25

30


Now


and-Now


and-Then


and-Then

ConclusionsConclusions

Task Complexity is a robust and testable construct.Task Complexity is a robust and testable construct.

Competition for attention may only happen when Task Complexity is Competition for attention may only happen when Task Complexity is increased along resource-dispersing variables.increased along resource-dispersing variables.

Attention to both complexity and accuracy may be possible if tasks Attention to both complexity and accuracy may be possible if tasks are kept simple along resource-dispersing variable and are kept simple along resource-dispersing variable and complex along resource-directing variables. complex along resource-directing variables.

More research is needed regarding the synergistic effects of More research is needed regarding the synergistic effects of combining resource-directing and resource-dispersing combining resource-directing and resource-dispersing variables.variables.

Do the results in this study apply to other task types and other Do the results in this study apply to other task types and other dimensions?dimensions?

Thank youThank you

the effects of increasing cognitive complexity on l2 narrative oral production roger gilabert...

Documents

task complexity

skehan foster

degree of complexity

increased lexical complexity

differences foster skehan

higher accuracy foster

skehan robinsonmost

dual task performance