Общероссийский академический научный журнал
“Вопросы когнитивной лингвистики”
Автор: Сох Сиак Би, Taм Шу Сим, Л.А. Никитина
Организация : Университет Малайя
Аннотация :
Данное исследование было произведено с целью выявления влияния сложности задачи
и размера группы студентов на качество написания аргументативного эссе индивидуальными учащимися. Теоретическую основу данного исследования составила когнитивная гипотеза изучения иностранного языка. Лингвистические параметры качества включали лексическую
и синтаксическую сложность текста, его грамматическую точность и стилистическую плав-ность. Было проанализировано 216 эссе, написанных 36 студентами, изучающими английский язык в одном из университетов Малайзии. Дисперсионный анализ с повторными измерениями (RM-ANOVA) частично подтвердил постулаты когнитивной гипотезы. Было выявлено, что увеличение сложности задачи приводило к улучшению параметров, измеряющих грамматическую точность. Однако, вопреки когнитивной гипотезе, усложнение задачи не повлияло на стилистическую плавность текса и количество слов в минимальной логически целой единице текста. Результаты анализа также указали, что повышение сложности задачи приводило к увеличению длины текстов. Кроме того, полученные данные указали на то, что количество студентов
в группе оказывало влияние на такие аспекты лингвистического качества текста, как его синтаксическая сложность и грамматическая точность.
Ключевые слова :
академическое письмо, аргументативное эссе, когнитивная гипотеза,
лексическая и синтаксическая сложность текста, размер группы.
Список источников :
Ai, H. & Lu, X. (2010). A web-based system for automatic measurement of lexical complexity. Paper presented at the 27th Annual Symposium of
the Computer-Assisted Language Consortium (CALICO-10), June 8-12. Amherst, MA.
Allport, D. A. (1987). Selection for action: Some behavioral and neurophysiological considerations of attention and action. Perspectives on Perception and Action, 15, 395-419.
Caracelli, V.J., & Greene, J.C. (1997). Advances in mixed-methods evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms. 1st edition. Jossey-Bass.
Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches: SAGE Publications.
Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., Meunier, F.,
& Paquot, M. (2009). The international corpus of learner English. Version 2. Handbook and CD-ROM. Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.
Creswell, J.W., & Clark, V.L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage publications.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language teaching and learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding second language acquisition, 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G.P. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford University Press.
Fernandez Dobao, A. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21 (1), 40-58. doi: 10.1016/ j.jslw.2011.12.002
Fernandez Dobao, A. (2014a). Attention to form in collaborative writing tasks: Comparing pair and small group interaction. Canadian Modern Language Review-Revue Canadienne Des Langues Vivantes, 70 (2), 158-187. doi:10.3138/cmlr.1768
Fernandez Dobao, A. (2014b). Vocabulary learning in collaborative tasks: A comparison of pair and small group work. Language Teaching Research, 18 (4), 497-520. doi:10.1177/1362168813519730
Fernandez Dobao, A., & Blum, A. (2013). Collaborative writing in pairs and small groups: Learners' attitudes and perceptions. System, 41 (2), 365-378. doi:10.1016/j.system.2013.02.002
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18 (03), 299-323.
Frear, M. W., & Bitchener, J. (2015). The effects of cognitive task complexity on writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 45-57. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.009
Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry (Vol. 9). John Wiley & Sons.
Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30 (4), 461-473. doi: 10.1093/ applin/amp048
Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2012). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (Vol. 32). John Benjamins Publishing.
Ishikawa, T. (2007). The effect of manipulating task complexity along the [+/-Here-and-Now] dimension on L2 written narrative discourse. Investigating tasks in formal language learning, 136-156.
Kline, R.B. (2004). Beyond significance testing: Reforming data analysis methods in behavioral research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Kormos, J. (1999). Monitoring and self‐repair in L2. Language Learning, 49 (2), 303-342.
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL), 45 (3), 261-284.
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2008). Cognitive task complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 1 7(1), 48-60. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.
2007.08.003
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2009). Tasks across modalities: The influence of task complexity
on linguistic performance in L2 writing and
speaking. Paper presented at the colloquium
‘Tasks across modalities’. Paper presented at the Task based Language Teaching Conference, Lancaster, UK.
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2011). Task performance in L2 writing and speaking: The effect of mode. In P. Robinson (ed.), Second Language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 91-104). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2012). Syntactic complexity, lexical variation and accuracy as a function of task complexity and proficiency level in L2 writing and speaking. Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA, 143-170.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27 (4), 590-619.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009). Adjusting expectations: The study of complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30 (4), 579-589.
Larson-Hall, J. (2010). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. Routledge.
Larson-Hall, J. (2015). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS and R. New York: Routledge.
Long, M.H. (1981). Input, interaction, and second‐language acquisition. Annals of the New York academy of sciences, 379 (1), 259-278.
Long, M.H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. Modelling and assessing second language acquisition, 18, 77-99.
Long, M. H. (1990). Task, group, and task–group interactions. Available at https://files.eric. ed.gov/fulltext/ED366184.pdf
Long, M.H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In
W.C. Ritchie, & T.K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press.
Lu, X. (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15 (4), 474-496.
Lu, X. (2012). The relationship of lexical richness to the quality of ESL learners' oral narratives. The Modern Language Journal, 96 (2), 190-208.
Malvern, D., & Richards, B. (2002). Investigating accommodation in language proficiency interviews using a new measure of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 19 (1), 85-104.
Michel, M.C., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). The influence of complexity in monologic versus dialogic tasks in Dutch L2. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45 (3), 241-259.
Michel, M.C., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2012). Task complexity and interaction: (Combined) effects on task-based performance in Dutch as a second language. Eurosla Yearbook, 12 (1), 164-190.
Murphy, K. R., & Myors, B. (2004). Statistical power analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Neuman, W.L. (2006). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches: Pearson.
Nikitina, L., & Furuoka, F. (2018). Expanding the methodological arsenal of applied linguistics with a robust statistical procedure. Applied Linguistics, 39 (3), 422-428. doi: 10.1093/applin/amx026.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30 (4), 555-578. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp044
Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30 (4), 590-601. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp045
Rahimi, M. (2018). Effects of increasing the degree of reasoning and the number of elements on L2 argumentative writing. Language Teaching Research, 1362168818761465.
Révész, A. (2011). Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions, and individual differences:
A classroom-based study. Modern Language
Journal, 95, 162-181. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01241.x
Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning, 45 (2), 283-331.
Robinson, P. (2001a). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. Cognition and second language instruction, 287-318.
Robinson, P. (2001b). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22 (1), 27-57.
Robinson, P. (2003a). Attention and memory during SLA. In C. Doughty & M.H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 631-678). Blackwell.
Robinson, P. (2003b). The cognition hypothesis, task design, and adult task-based language learning. Second Language Studies, 21 (2), 45-105.
Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 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. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45 (3), 193-213.
Robinson, P. (2011). Second language task complexity, the cognition hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis on language learning and performance (pp. 3-37). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Robinson, P. (2015). The Cognition Hypothesis, second language task demands, and the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. Domains and directions in the development of TBLT (Vol. 8, pp. 87-121): John Benjamins Amsterdam.
Robinson, P., Cadierno, T., & Shirai, Y. (2009). Time and motion: Measuring the effects of the conceptual demands of tasks on second language speech production. Applied Linguistics, 30 (4),
533-554.
Ruiz-Funes, M. (2015). Exploring the potential of second/foreign language writing for language learning: The effects of task factors and learner variables. Journal of Second Language Writing, 28, 1-19. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2015.02.001
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (pp.3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17 (1), 38-62.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language teaching, 36 (1), 1-14.
Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30 (4), 510-532. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp047
Skehan, P. (2014). Limited attentional capacity, second language performance, and task-based pedagogy. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Task-based language teaching: Issues, research and practice
(pp. 211-260). John Benjamins.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). The influence of planning and post-task activities on accuracy and complexity in task-based learning. Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 185-211.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49 (1), 93-120.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinsom (Ed.) Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183-205). Cambridge University Press .
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students' reflections. Journal
of Second Language Writing, 14 (3), 153-173.
doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002
Storch, N. (2009). The impact of studying in a second language (L2) medium university on the development of L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18 (2), 103-118. doi: 10.1016/ j.jslw.2009.02.003
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82 (3), 320-337. doi: 10.2307/329959
Wickens, C. D. (1981). Processing resources in attention, dual task performance, and workload assessment. Technical report. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Available at https://apps. dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a102719.pdf
Wickens, C.D. (2008). Multiple resources and mental workload. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 50 (3), 449-455.
Wickens, C.D., & McCarley, J.S. (2007). Applied attention theory. CRC press.
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26 (3), 445-466. doi:10.1177/0265532209104670
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.-Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, & complexity. University of Hawaii Press.
Страницы: 22-39