Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byCuthbert Walton Modified over 9 years ago
1
Task conceptualization and writing development: Dynamics of change in a task-based EAP course Rosa M. Manchón University of Murcia, Spain manchon@um.es TBLT 2009 Conference, Lancaster University
2
Learner’s engagement with pedagogic tasks Language learning development Task-related factors Learner-related factors Learner’s own perceptions of task demands, goals, and expected outcomes Processing activity during task performance Insider dimension of task performance
3
Learner factors/ Insider dimension of tasks Task complexity/ Task difficulty (Robinson, 2001, 2005) Dörnyei, 2002 Murphy, 2003 Robinson 2001, 2007 Tavaloki, 2009 Tavaloki & Skehan, 2005 Speaking tasks Results might not apply to writing Learners’ ability and affective factors are likey to mediate the production and learning opportunities that tasks afford, and these individual difference-task dimension interactions are in great need of further theoretical motivation and subsequent study for their effects in language production and language learning during task-based instruction (Robinson, 2007:210).
4
Tasks and writing Learner/ Insider dimension of tasks TASK CONCEPTUALIZATION: Learner’s assessment of the complexity and demands of the task at hand. : When confronted with any academic writing task, a first thing a student must do is create an understanding of what skills, products, and processes the task requires and make a plan of action that will lead to a written product that apprppriately fulfills the writing task (Wolfersberger, 2007 : 73)
5
Research questions 1.Did the participants´ conceptualization of academic writing changed after completing an EAP course? 2.Did any observed changes influence the participants´ goals for academic writing? 3.Did any observed changes in task conceptualization and goals correspond to any observed changes in the participants´ writing products? 4.What factors influenced any observed changes in the participants´ conceptualization of academic writing?
6
Students: 18 students in the fourth year of a five-year degree in English Studies Age: 21-24 L2 proficiency level: advanced (OPT) Previous year: 5 students: SA previous year Rest: Language course Participation on voluntary basis. Consent form. METHOD: PARTICIPANTS
7
Content modules: Empirical study in SLA module Text analyses (linguistics modules), literary analysis, etc No explicit instruction in writing except for the SLA module. EAP course Compulsory module Develop more advanced and integrated reading and writing skills 3 contact hour per week x 30 weeks METHOD: students’ writing experience and instruction
8
Assignments A personal statement to support a (fictitious) application to a postgraduate course in the UK or USA A synthesis of a group of pre-assigned texts, mainly from newspapers A report of a survey designed and carried out by students themselves on a topic of interest to them Journals 45 journals over the course of the year that include: a)free expressions of anything the student wants to write about; b)topics set by the teacher (reflections on the course, their learning, beliefs, strategies, the textbook, teaching, classes, etc.) METHOD: EAP course
9
METHOD: Tasks and procedures T1: Oct- Nov.T2: May-June Students OPT L2 writing Semi-structured interviews OPT L2 writing Semi-structured interviews Journals Teacher Written narrative Semi-structured interview Learning Context Institutional information on the EAP course Interviews with other lecturers teaching in the 4th year.
10
Data analysis Conventions in the analysis of qualitative data (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Interview profile & data reduction Journals: recurrent patterns and summary of the main overarching themes
11
RESULTS: RQs 1& 2 Multi-dimensional mental model of writing More ambitious in the goals pursued (more problem solving) Deeper processing while writing and while processing feedback
12
Multi-dimensional model of writing Levels: ideational, textual, linguistic Audience concerns Conventions of academic writing Product dimension Process dimension The prewriting stage Writing is rewriting Stages of problem- solving activity Self-regulation strategies Dynamics in task- conceptualization
13
Goals 1.From accuracy to addressing a whole range of concerns 2.Improvement of writing abilities in the future 3.From fulfilling task requirement to writing for self- satisfaction (self-imposed standards of achievenent) 4.To approximate native-like standards and develop a personal voice 5.From fulfilling task requirements to writing in order to improve language competences.
14
L2 proficiency L2 proficiency: Time 1: M= 154.50, SD=9.91 Time 2: M= 159.61, SD=10.65 Z(15) =-2.87, p=0.004 L2 writing L2 writing Analytic measures Holistic assessment RQ 3 : Written products
15
Analytic measures Zp Accuracy Error-free clauses-2.59.01 Fluency Essay length-2.50.01 Total number of clauses-2.79.01 Total number of sentences-2.94.00 Lexical variety Chaudron’s Word Variation-2.50.01 n.s: Accuracy: Error-free sentences, Percentage of error free sentences/clauses. Lexical variety: D value, TTR Syntactic complexity: No sub. CL; CL per S ratio; Sub. CL. per CL./S; Coordination index; Clause length; Sentence length.
16
Holistic measures Holistic measures: RESULTS Time 1Time 2WilcoxonSig MSDM Zp Communicative5.661.027.161.24-2.899.004 Organization5.381.247.051.34-3.04.002 Argumentation5.500.787.001.28-3.347.001 Accuracy5.830.706.501.20-1.913.056 Appropriacy6.110.677.110.96-3.166.002 Holistic rating28.53.7334.84.9-3.484.000
17
1. Task instructions and evaluation rubric 2. Teacher and peer factors: Extensive and challenging output practice Cognitive conflict instructional strategies Guided feedback- and guided formulation and revision process Feedback for acquisition (not just for accuracy). Guided peer review Students´ involvement in peer review activities Encouragement of cooperative learning RQ 4 : Influencing factors
18
Conclusion: Metacognitive knowledge + WR practice Self-confidence Attempt to write more complex & longer texts Write to learn
19
L2 learning Motivation to write L2 writing Motivating factor Goal
20
References: Murphy, J. (2003). Task-based learning. The interaction between tasks and learners. ELT Journal, 57 (4), 352-360. Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for investigating task influences on SLA. In R. Robisnon (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (pp. 287–318). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Robisnon, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 43 (1), 1- 32. 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, 45(3), 193-213. Tavaloki, P. (2009). Investigating task difficulty: learners’ and teachers’ perceptions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19 (1), 1-25. Tavaloki, P. & Skehan, P. (2005) Strategic planning, task structure and performance testing. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language (pp. 239-177). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wolfersberger, M. A. (2007). Second Language Writing from Sources: An Ethnographic Study of an Argument Essay Task. Unpublished PHD Dissertation, University of Auckland.
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.