Re-thinking for speaking, the Cognition Hypothesis, task classification and task sequencing presentation

About This Presentation

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Re-thinking for speaking, the Cognition Hypothesis, task classification and task sequencing

1
Re-thinking for speaking, the Cognition
Hypothesis, task classification and task
sequencing

Peter Robinson, Aoyama Gakuin University
peterr_at_cl.aoyama.ac.jp

The Cognition Hypothesis
The fundamental pedagogic claim of the Cognition
Hypothesis is that pedagogic tasks should be
sequenced for learners in an order of increasing
cognitive complexity. This promotes L2
development and improvements in the ability to
perform target tasks in the L2. Such task
sequences should form the task syllabus.
The Triadic Componential Framework houses this
claim in a taxonomy of task characteristics which
aims to meet three purposes and satisfy three
constraints.

Three purposes of and constraints on a taxonomic
system for L2 task classification
1. The characteristics a task taxonomy describes
should map on to, in conceptually coherent and
descriptively adequate ways the behaviors
involving language use identified by the needs
analysis.
2. They should also be operationally feasible for
task designers, using them to produce materials.
3. The characteristics, and taxonomic system
structure should be motivated by a theory of how
characteristics, and combinations of them, lead
to learning and development of the L2 system, and
the ability to act successfully using it.

4
(No Transcript)
5

The Triadic Componential Framework
Distinguishes three broad categories, and
subcategories, of task characteristics
1) Task Complexity concerns cognitive factors
affecting their intrinsic cognitive challenge
(e.g., doing simple addition versus calculus).
There are two subcategories of task complexity.
Resource- directing variables make cognitive
conceptual demands (e.g. intentional reasoning)
which direct learner attention and effort at
conceptualization in ways which the linguistic L2
system can help them meet (e.g., through the use
cognitive state terms and complement
constructions- she suspected, believed, realized
that, etc. to reason about mental states guiding
behavior).

In contrast Resource-dispersing variables make
performative procedural demands which increase
task complexity but without directing learner
attention and effort at conceptualization to any
particular aspects of language code (e.g. -
planning time)
2) Task Condition concerns interactive factors
divided into Participation variables making
interactional demands (e.g. /- one way flow) and
Participant variables making interactant demands
(/- familiar)
3)Task Difficulty concerns factors contributing
to between learner variation in learning and
performing any one task (as differences in
aptitude for math would likely differentiate
learning and performing calculus for two
learners) and these are divided into Ability
variables and Affective variables

7
(No Transcript)
8

Concomitant theoretical claims of the Cognition
Hypothesis
Cycles of simple to complex pedagogic task
demands will have the following effects
Claim 1 Speech production. On resource-directing
dimensions there will be increased accuracy,
complexity and less fluency on complex (e.g.,
reasoning/ there-and-then) versus simpler tasks,
as measured using general indices of production.
On complex resource-dispersing dimensions (e.g.,
- planning time, - single task) all three will
decrease.

Claim 2 Measures of production. On
resource-directing dimensions making
cognitive/conceptual demands specific measures
(motivated e.g., by cognitive linguistic,
developmental, and SLA theory) may in some cases
be more sensitive than general measures to
increasing attempts at rethinking-for-speaking,
on complex tasks, so as to match their conceptual
demands to L2 linguistic resources.
Claim 3 Interaction, uptake, memory and focus on
form. Increasing task complexity on
resource-directing, versus dispersing, dimensions
will also lead to more opportunities for
learning, and so greater amounts of interaction,
uptake and long term memory for forms made
salient in the task-input through proactive
(e.g., premodified input floods) and reactive
(e.g. recasts) focus on form techniques.

Claim 4 Individual differences task complexity
interactions. On complex versions, on either type
of dimension, individual differences in
task-relevant cognitive abilities and affective
factors will play a much greater role in
dissipating the above claimed effects than on
simpler versions.
Claim 5 Access and analysis. Staged increases in
the performative/ procedural demands of tasks
promotes access to, control of, and
automatization of existing L2 resources. Staged
increases in the cognitive/conceptual demands of
tasks promotes analysis, development and
interlanguage change.
Claim 6 Task sequencing. Procedural/performative
demands of pedagogic tasks should first be
increased in complexity, followed by increases in
their cognitive/ conceptual demands.

Focus on Claims 1 2 Predictions for effects of
task complexity on L2 production
On Resource-directing dimensions Complex tasks
will elicit more accurate, and complex, but less
fluent production when compared to simpler
versions
On Resource-dispersing dimensions Complex tasks
will elicit less accurate, complex and fluent
production when compared to simpler versions
But there will likely be synergies between the
two types of variable e.g. stronger effects for
resource-directing variables on complex tasks,
when the task is simultaneously simple with
respect to a resource-dispersing variable

A psycholinguistic rationale for effects of
resource-directing dimensions on TBLL
In Levelt et al.s (1999) terms increased
conceptual preparation for speech production that
complex resource-directing dimensions implicate
should promote paring down of lexical concepts
for L2 lexical expression in the preverbal
message leading to the increasing differentiation
of L1/L2 lexical concepts.
It should also promote checking and resetting of
diacritic parameters that have to be set for
lemmas during lexical selection, and subsequent
grammatical encoding, such as features for
person, tense etc., for English verbs.
Internal and external monitoring of self and
other production encourages these processes, in
response to communicative task demands.

Some compatible rationales (1) Functional
Language and Processing Mode (e.g. Givon)
What is it that provokes a learner to further
analysis of the input?acquisition is pushed by
the communicative tasks which the learner takes
part in (Perdue, 2003,p.53). Givon describes
this in terms of the shift from a Pragmatic mode
used in simple communicative tasks, early child
L1 and SLA (characterized by 1. Topic comment
structure 2. Loose coordination 3. Small chunks
under one intonation contour 4. Low noun/verb
ratio 5. No grammatical morphology) to a
Syntactic mode used in complex communicative
tasks, late child L1 and SLA
(characterized by 1. Subject predicate structure
2. Tight subordination 3. Large chunks under one
intonation contour 4. High noun verb 5. Extensive
grammatical morphology).Communicative tasks
making complex cognitive/ conceptual demands
should elicit syntactic mode features.

Some compatible rationales (2) Developmental
Parallels in Child and Adult Language Acquisition
(e.g.ESF Project)
Cromers Cognition Hypothesis proposed that in
many domains L1 conceptual development pushed
linguistic development, e.g., 1) from the ability
to conceptualize the Here/Now -gt There/Then
which ushers in development of (past) tense and
deictic systems 2) from the ability to
conceptualize topological relations of
neighborhood and containment (next to, in) -gt
projective notions of location viewed from a
fixed point which ushers in (in a fixed order)
reference on the vertical (above, below), lateral
(left/right) and sagital axes (front/back) 3)
from belief/desire psychology -gt having a theory
of mind which ushers in the use of cognitive
state terms and complex subordination, (think,
know, suspect, that etc.)
In naturalistic adult SLA, similar sequences of
linguistic development occur (Klein Perdue, ESF
project)

Some compatible rationales (3) Conceptual
Re-Thinking for Speaking (Slobin)
Slobin (1993), discussing these parallels,
specifically in the domain of spatial language,
comments For the child the construction of the
grammar and the construction of
semantic/pragmatic concepts go hand-in-hand. For
the adult construction of the grammar often
requires a revision of semantic/pragmatic
concepts, along with what may well be a more
difficult task of perceptual identification of
the relevant morphological elementthe parallels,
though, cannot be attributed to the same
underlying factors. In the case of L1A one
appeals to cognitive development the projective
notions simply are not available to very young
children. But in the case of ALA all of the
relevant cognitive machinery is in place. Why
then should learners have difficulty in
discovering the necessary prepositions for
spatial relations that they already command in
their first language. There are at least two
possibilities

(1) adult learners retain a scale of conceptual
complexity, based on their own cognitive
development, and at first search the target
language for the grammatical marking of those
notions which represent some primordial core of
basicness or simplicity and/or (2) these most
basic notions are also used with greater
frequency in the target language.It is likely
that speakers, generally, have less recourse to
the encoding of complex notions, and that the
learners are simply reflecting the relative
frequency of occurrence of various prepositions
in the linguistic inputOr it may be that the
complex relations are, indeed, communicated above
some threshold of frequency and that learners
gate them out due to their complexity.. (p.
243)

Measuring effects of task complexity on L2 speech
production and learning
And so, what might we expect the effects of
increasing the complexity of task demands along
resource-directing dimensions to be, following
these rationales?
Givon effects- increasing complexity of
communicative demands leads to general increases
in grammaticization/ syntacticization (TLU, S
nodes per T or C unit, etc.)
Slobin effects- increasing complexity of
conceptual demands leads to revision of
specific semantic concepts and/or noticing how
they are coded in language (based on greater
attention to input, L1-L2 mismatches, and
attention to output, in response to the effortful
demands of the task).

- this means task complexity can lead to
rethinking for speaking in the conceptual
domain the task involves- and progressing from
simple to complex along resource-directing
dimensions in some cases (e.g., here and now-gt
there and then) preserves the natural order in
which function-form, concept-language relations
are established in L1 development, recapitulating
the sequence they are established in childhood
for adults.

Summary Some points of contrast between Robinson
and Skehan
I distinguish Task complexity, task condition,
and task difficulty
I distinguish resource-dispersing and
resource-directing dimensions of cognitive
complexity, and their effects on general and
specific measures of production
I argue tasks should be graded and sequenced on
the basis of increases in cognitive complexity
I argue increasing task complexity can lead to
greater amounts of interaction, uptake of and
memory for forms made salient in the input-so
promoting learning
I argue a taxonomic system for pedagogic task
classification should be used not only in
materials design, but in task sequencing
decisions, syllabus design, and in mapping
pedagogic tasks to characteristics of target
tasks identified during needs analyses

Task classification, sequencing and program
design
The first session showed how I think the
Cognition Hypothesis motivates the taxonomic
structure of the Triadic Componential
Frameworkfulfilling the purpose that pedagogic
decisions based on the taxonomy lead to learning,
under the constraint that those decisions are
theoretically motivated.
In what follows I describe principles that follow
from the taxonomic structure described for task
design, sequencing and syllabus construction. I
also address the other two purposes of, and
constraints on, a taxonomic description of tasks,
i.e.,1) Characteristics it describes should map
on to, in conceptually coherent and descriptively
adequate ways the behaviors involving language
use identified by the needs analysis and 2) They
should also be operationally feasible for task
designers, using them to produce materials.

Three levels of program design
1) The Cognition Hypothesis assumes behavior
descriptions of needs, and target tasks for
populations of learners are the starting point
for pedagogic task development (level 1), as
illustrated in the following Figure.
2) Based on behavior descriptions the
interactional and cognitive demands of target
tasks are classified using the task
characteristics distinguishing them in terms of
participation/participant and resource-directing/d
ispersing variables. These classifications are
the operational basis for pedagogic materials and
syllabus design (level 2).
3) Preceding, or concurrently with instruction,
learners abilities in various domains relevant
to task demands are sampled and used to develop
task-aptitude profiles, and individualized
task-practice regimes (level 3).

22
Stage, domain, analyses and outcomes of task
classification and sequencing procedures
Stage Domain Analyses Outcomes
Needs identification Real-world target language use and performance Behavior and discourse descriptive Target task and performance-referenced test specifications
Syllabus design Target task descriptions Information-theoretic Pedagogic task sequences
Learner assessment Pedagogic tasks Ability requirements Task aptitude profiles
23

Principles of task sequencing
The Cognition Hypothesis claims that sequencing
tasks from simple to complex leads to learning
and development and also gains in automaticity
since it facilitates the executive processes of
scheduling, and coordinating the component
demands of complex tasks (Sarno Wickens, 1995).
In this view, simple tasks can be seen as scaled
worlds which preserve certain functional
relationships of a complex task environment while
paring away others, enabling each to be practiced
separately, before being combined in complex task
performance under real-world conditions.
There are three principles and decision points
for secquencing and syllabus design in this
approach.

Principle 1 Interactional demands are not graded
and sequenced
The task conditions, e.g., /- one way flow, /-
equal status and role, are replicated each time
pedagogic task versions are performed. A
rationale for this, offered only briefly here, is
that holding task conditions constant is
important to ensuring transfer of training to
real-world contexts. The more task conditions are
practiced in pedagogic versions, the more
elaborate and consolidated the scripts become for
real-world performance, and on which successful
transfer will draw, outside the classroom.
Cognitive demands of pedagogic tasks, however,
are graded and sequenced. Simpler versions with
respect to all relevant cognitive demand
characteristics are performed first, and then
task complexity (i.e., cognitive demands) is
gradually increased on subsequent versions to
target task levels. Task complexity is therefore
the sole basis of pedagogic task sequencing.

Principle 2. Resource-dispersing performative
dimensions are first increased in complexity
There are two stages in which task complexity is
increased, and which are decision points for task
and syllabus design. In each sequence of
pedagogic tasks, relevant resource-dispersing
variables are first increased in complexity (so
if the target task requires dual task
performance, without planning time, then planning
time is provided, and the dual task
characteristics are performed separately).
The rationale for this is to first promote access
to, and consolidate the learners current L2
interlanguage system during performatively simple
pedagogic tasks. Subsequently increasing
performative/procedural demands to target task
levels, thereby promotes increased automatic
access to, and learner control over, the
current system in responding to complex pedagogic
task versions.

Principle 3. Resource-directing developmental
dimensions are then increased in complexity
In the second stage, once the performative/proced
ural demands have reached target like levels,
then cognitive/conceptual demands are gradually
increased to target like levels. As described
above, I argue these can direct learners
attentional and memory resources to aspects of
the L2 system needed to code increasingly complex
concepts, and to meet increasingly complex
functional demands requiring their expression in
language. This promotes analysis and development
of the current interlanguage system.
Increasing these demands should lead to more
accurate and complex learner production, more
noticing of task relevant input, and heightened
memory for it, and so lead to more uptake of
forms made salient in the input. This is
basically a control then analysis and
interlanguage redescription rationale. For
example

27
Task sequencing A generic matrixFirst increase
resource-dispersing, performative demands (the
horizontal dimension from 1- 2) and then
resource-directing, developmental demands (the
vertical dimension from 3 - 4).
28
A specific exampleIncreasingly cognitively
complex versions of a direction giving map
taskLets say the target task is to give
passenger directions to a driver on how to find a
location, using a road map, while driving through
an unknown area. The first version performed is
simple on all dimensions. Then the three
resource-dispersing dimensions are each increased
in complexity, and finally the resource-directing
dimension.
29

Selected issues for research
- Do the Task Complexity characteristics
described, and combinations of them on
resource-directing and resource dispersing
dimensions, result in the predicted effects on
learning and performance across a wide variety of
carrier content. One could look at this in terms
of intentional reasoning first with, and then
without planning time for different content
domains of intentional reasoning (summarizing a
dispute during a business meeting about contract
terms versus summarizing a dispute during an
office party about who should drive who home).
- Are the task characteristics I have described
operationally feasible during decisions about
materials design and operationally reliable
across different contexts and programs?
- Are the task characteristics descriptively
adequate to the job of reducing target task
demands to pedagogic task versions?

- Is sequencing increases in performative
resource-directing dimensions of complexity
first, followed by resource-directing dimensions
the optimal option? What would be the learning
and performance effects of the reverse choice?
- How are the abilities contributing to
successful task performance on the dimensions of
cognitive complexity and interactional demands to
be identified, and used in the assessment of
task-aptitude profiles?
- Do the task characteristics and pedagogic task
sequences such as those described lead to
transfer of complex task performance outside the
task-based classroom?

Cognition Hypothesis references
Robinson, P. (1995a). Task complexity and second
language narrative discourse. Language Learning,
45, 99-140.
Robinson, P. (1995b). Attention, memory and the
'noticing' hypothesis. Language Learning, 45,
283-331.
Robinson, P. (1996). (Ed.), Connecting tasks,
cognition and syllabus design. Task complexity
and second language syllabus deign Data-based
studies and speculations. pp. 1-15.
University of Queensland Working Papers in
Language and Linguistics (Special issue).
Robinson, P. (2001a). Task complexity, task
difficulty, and task production Exploring
interactions in a componential framework.
Applied Linguistics, 22, 27-57.
Robinson, P. (2001b). Task complexity, cognitive
resources, and syllabus design A triadic
framework for investigating task influences on
SLA.
In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second
language instruction, (pp. 287-318). Cambridge
Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, P. (2001c). Individual differences,
cognitive abilities, aptitude complexes, and
learning conditions in SLA. Second Language
Research,
17, 368-392.
Robinson, P. (2003a). Attention and memory during
SLA. In C. Doughty M.H.Long (Eds.), Handbook of
second language acquisition, (pp.631-678).
Oxford Blackwell.
Robinson, P. (2003b). The Cognition Hypothesis,
task design and adult task-based language
learning. Second Language Studies, 21, (2),
45-107.
Robinson, P. (2005a). Cognitive complexity and
task sequencing A review of studies in a
Componential Framework for second language task
design. International Review of Applied
Linguistics, 43,1-32.
Robinson, P. (2005b). Aptitude and second
language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 25, 46-73.
Robinson, P. (2007a). Criteria for classifying
and sequencing pedagogic tasks. In M.P. Garcia
Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal
language
learning, (pp. 7-27). Clevedon Multilingual
Matters.

Write a Comment

User Comments (0)

About PowerShow.com

Re-thinking for speaking, the Cognition Hypothesis, task classification and task sequencing PowerPoint PPT Presentation