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.