LANGUAGE LEARNING THROUGH TASK-BASED SYNCHRONOUS COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33736/ils.5866.2024Keywords:
CMC; fluency; syntactic complexity; TBLT; task structureAbstract
A limited number of studies have been conducted on the influence of task features on language production in computer-mediated communication (CMC) environments despite the role of tasks on the language production of L2 students who are mostly non-native speakers (NNSs). Among the prominent hypotheses on the relationship between tasks and language production are the Cognition Hypothesis and the Trade-Off Hypothesis. The current study examined the effect of task structure on student language production in terms of syntactic complexity and fluency in CMC environments. A one-shot design study involved 46 NNS undergraduates in Malaysia and Japan. The respondents were divided into two groups: (1) respondents who performed the task with task structure (+TS) and (2) respondents who performed the task without task structure (-TS). The data were then analysed using a t-test. The present study supported the hypothesis positing that the utilisation of +TS contributes to an increase in syntactic complexity among NNSs, as well as the hypothesis proposing that the use of +TS results in improved fluency. The results also suggest examining additional variables related to task difficulty when designing tasks for CMC environments to assess their effects on fluency and syntactic complexity.
References
Abdi Tabari, M., & Miller, M. (2021). Unraveling the effects of task sequencing on the syntactic complexity, accuracy, lexical complexity, and fluency of L2 written production. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.37213/cjal.2021.31306
Bayuk, J. B., & Patrick, V. M. (2021). Is the uphill road the one more taken? How task complexity prompts action on non-pressing tasks. Journal of Business Research, 128, 436-449.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.02.012
Behney, J., & Gass, S. (2021). Interaction. Cambridge University Press.
Belda-Medina, J. (2021). Enhancing multimodal interaction and communicative competence through task-based language teaching (TBLT) in synchronous computer-mediated communication (SCMC). Education Sciences, 11(11), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11110723
Cheon, H. (2003). The viability of computer-mediated communication in the Korean secondary EFL classroom. Asian EFL Journal, 5(1), 1-61.
Cho, M. (2018). Task complexity, modality, and working memory in L2 task performance. System, 72, 85-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.10.010
Choo, L. P., Kaur, G., Fook, C. Y., & Yong, T. C. (2014). Patterns of interaction among ESL students during online collaboration. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 123, 307-314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1428
Choong, K. W. P. (2014). Effects of task complexity on written production in L2 English [Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University]. Semantic Scholar. https://www.tc.columbia.edu/i/a/document/33986_BROWN_BAG_LECTURES_Phil_Choong.pdf
Ellis, R. (2003). Designing a task-based syllabus. RELC Journal, 34(1), 64-81. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368820303400105
Frear, M. W., & Bitchener, J. (2015). The effects of cognitive task complexity on writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 45-57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.009
Jackson, D. O., & Suethanapornkul, S. (2013). The cognition hypothesis: A synthesis and meta‐analysis of research on second language task complexity. Language Learning, 63(2), 330-367. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12008
Johnson, M. D. (2017). Cognitive task complexity and L2 written syntactic complexity, lexical complexity, and fluency: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. Journal of Second Language Writing, 37, 13-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.06.001
Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 57-71). Erlbaum.
Kellogg, R. T., Whiteford, A. P., Turner, C. E., Cahill, M., & Mertens, A. (2013). Working memory in written composition: A progress report. Journal of Writing Research, 5(2), 159-190. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2013.05.02.1
Khatib, M., & Farahanynia, M. (2020). Planning conditions (strategic planning, task repetition, and joint planning), cognitive task complexity, and task type: Effects on L2 oral performance. System, 93, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102297
Korvesi, E., & Michel, M. (2022). Chatting with your peers across modalities: Effects of performing increasingly complex written computer-mediated tasks on oral L2 development. Languages, 7(4), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages704027
Leow, R. P. (2015). Explicit learning in the L2 classroom: A student-centered approach. Routledge.
Lin, T. J., Wang, S. Y., Grant, S., Chien, C. L., & Lan, Y. J. (2014). Task-based teaching approaches of Chinese as a foreign language in second life through teachers’ perspectives. Procedia Technology, 13, 16-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2014.02.004
Liu, P., & Li, Z. (2012). Task complexity: A review and conceptualization framework. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 42(6), 553-568.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Routledge.
Mancilla, R. L., Polat, N., & Akcay, A. O. (2017). An investigation of native and nonnative English speakers’ levels of written syntactic complexity in asynchronous online discussions. Applied Linguistics, 38(1), 112-134. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv012
Meier, J. V., Noel, J. A., & Kaspar, K. (2021). Alone together: Computer-mediated communication in leisure time during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.666655
Namaziandost, E., & Nasri, M. (2019). A meticulous look at Long’s (1981) interaction hypothesis: Does it have any effect on speaking skills. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 6(2), 218-230.
Ortega, L. (2015). Researching CLIL and TBLT interfaces. System, 54, 103-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2015.09.002
Pallotti, G. (2020). Measuring complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF). In P. Winke & T. Brunfaut (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and language testing (pp. 201-210). Routledge.
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27-57. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.27
Robinson, P. (2007). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 237-257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/iral.2007.009
Robinson, P. (2010). Situating and distributing cognition across task demands: The SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In M. Pütz & L. Sicola (Eds.), Cognitive processing in second language acquisition: Inside the student’s mind (pp. 243-268). 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), 161-176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/IRAL.2007.007
Shajeri, E., & Izadpanah, S. (2016). The impact of task complexity along single task dimension on Iranian EFL students’ writing production. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(5), 935-945. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0605.04
Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510-532. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp047
Smith, B., & González-Lloret, M. (2021). Technology-mediated task-based language teaching: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 54(4), 518-534. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444820000233
Staples, S., Egbert, J., Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2016). Academic writing development at the university level: Phrasal and clausal complexity across level of study, discipline, and genre. Written Communication, 33(2), 149-–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088316631527
Takahashi, S. (2015). The effects of student profiles on pragmalinguistic awareness and learning. System, 48, 48–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.004
Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2011). Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on student output. Language Learning, 61, 37-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00642.x
Trebits, A. (2016). Sources of individual differences in L2 narrative production: The contribution of input, processing, and output anxiety. Applied Linguistics, 37(2), 155-174. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu006
Wagner, J. (1996). Foreign language acquisition through interaction: A critical review of research on conversational adjustments. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(2), 215-235. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(96)00013-6
Yin, Q., & Satar, M. (2020). English as a foreign language learner interactions with chatbots: Negotiation for meaning. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 7(2), 390-410.
Yongping, D. E. N. G. (2022). Exploration and practice on task-based language teaching theory in college English teaching. Sino-US English Teaching, 19(3), 88-93. https://doi:10.17265/1539-8072/2022.03.002
Zhang, K., & Wu, H. (2022). Synchronous online learning during COVID-19: Chinese university EFL students’ perspectives. SAGE Open, 12(2), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221094821
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 UNIMAS Publisher
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright Transfer Statement for Journal
1) In signing this statement, the author(s) grant UNIMAS Publisher an exclusive license to publish their original research papers. The author(s) also grant UNIMAS Publisher permission to reproduce, recreate, translate, extract or summarize, and to distribute and display in any forms, formats, and media. The author(s) can reuse their papers in their future printed work without first requiring permission from UNIMAS Publisher, provided that the author(s) acknowledge and reference publication in the Journal.
2) For open access articles, the author(s) agree that their articles published under UNIMAS Publisher are distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-SA (Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, for non-commercial purposes, provided the original work of the author(s) is properly cited.
3) For subscription articles, the author(s) agree that UNIMAS Publisher holds copyright, or an exclusive license to publish. Readers or users may view, download, print, and copy the content, for academic purposes, subject to the following conditions of use: (a) any reuse of materials is subject to permission from UNIMAS Publisher; (b) archived materials may only be used for academic research; (c) archived materials may not be used for commercial purposes, which include but not limited to monetary compensation by means of sale, resale, license, transfer of copyright, loan, etc.; and (d) archived materials may not be re-published in any part, either in print or online.
4) The author(s) is/are responsible to ensure his or her or their submitted work is original and does not infringe any existing copyright, trademark, patent, statutory right, or propriety right of others. Corresponding author(s) has (have) obtained permission from all co-authors prior to submission to the journal. Upon submission of the manuscript, the author(s) agree that no similar work has been or will be submitted or published elsewhere in any language. If submitted manuscript includes materials from others, the authors have obtained the permission from the copyright owners.
5) In signing this statement, the author(s) declare(s) that the researches in which they have conducted are in compliance with the current laws of the respective country and UNIMAS Journal Publication Ethics Policy. Any experimentation or research involving human or the use of animal samples must obtain approval from Human or Animal Ethics Committee in their respective institutions. The author(s) agree and understand that UNIMAS Publisher is not responsible for any compensational claims or failure caused by the author(s) in fulfilling the above-mentioned requirements. The author(s) must accept the responsibility for releasing their materials upon request by Chief Editor or UNIMAS Publisher.
6) The author(s) should have participated sufficiently in the work and ensured the appropriateness of the content of the article. The author(s) should also agree that he or she has no commercial attachments (e.g. patent or license arrangement, equity interest, consultancies, etc.) that might pose any conflict of interest with the submitted manuscript. The author(s) also agree to make any relevant materials and data available upon request by the editor or UNIMAS Publisher.
