Hostname: page-component-669899f699-b58lm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-29T11:20:16.486Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE IMPACT OF COGNITIVE COMPLEXITY ON FEEDBACK EFFICACY DURING ONLINE VERSUS FACE-TO-FACE INTERACTIVE TASKS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2013

Melissa Baralt
Melissa Baralt*
Affiliation:
Florida International University
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Melissa Baralt, Department of Modern Languages, Florida International University, Modesto A. Maidique Campus, Deuxième Maison (DM) 499, Miami, FL 33199. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Informed by the cognition hypothesis (Robinson, 2011), recent studies indicate that more cognitively complex tasks can result in better incorporation of feedback during interaction and, as a consequence, more learning. It is not known, however, how task complexity and feedback work together in computerized environments. The present study addressed this gap by investigating how cognitive complexity in face-to-face (FTF) versus computer-mediated communication (CMC) environments mediates the efficacy of recasts in promoting second language development. Eighty-four adult learners of Spanish as a foreign language at a mid-Atlantic university were randomly assigned to a control group or one of four experimental groups. The experimental groups engaged in one-on-one interaction and received recasts on the Spanish past subjunctive but differed according to (a) whether or not they had to reflect on another person’s intentional reasons during the task and (b) whether they interacted in FTF or CMC environments. Learning was measured with two production tasks and a multiple-choice receptive test in a Pretest-Posttest 1-Posttest 2 design. Results revealed that in the FTF mode, performing the cognitively complex task while receiving recasts led to the most learning. In the CMC mode, the cognitively complex task + recasts was not effective. Instead, the cognitively simple task led to the most development in CMC. The study also found that judgments of time on task were the only independent measure of cognitive complexity that held across mode.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 35 , Issue 4 , December 2013 , pp. 689 - 725
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Ayoun, D. (2004). The effectiveness of written recasts in the second language acquisition of aspectual distinctions in French: A follow-up study. Modern Language Journal, 88, 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beauvois, M. (1992). Computer-assisted classroom discussion in the foreign language classroom: Conversation in slow motion. Foreign Language Annals, 25, 455–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4, 120–136.Google Scholar
Block, R. A., Hancock, P. A., & Zakay, D. (2010). How cognitive load affects duration judgments: A meta-analytic review. Acta Psychologica, 134, 330–343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chapelle, C. (1998). Analysis of interaction sequences in computer-assisted language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 753–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C. A. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing and research. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collentine, J. (2010). The acquisition and teaching of the Spanish subjunctive: An update on current findings. Hispania, 93, 39–51.Google Scholar
de la Fuente, M. J. (2003). Is SLA interactionist theory relevant to CALL? A study on the effects of computer-mediated interaction in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16, 47–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. J., & Long, M. H. (2003). The handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009). Constructing a second language: Analyses and computational simulations of the emergence of linguistic constructions from usage. Language Learning, 59, 90–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language teaching and learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fernández-García, M., & Martínez-Arbelaiz, A. (2002). Negotiation of meaning in nonnative speaker-nonnative speaker synchronous discussions. CALICO Journal, 19, 279–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fink, A., & Neubauer, A. C. (2001). Speed of information processing, psychometric intelligence, and time estimation as an index of cognitive load. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 1009–1021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilabert, R., Barón, J., & Llanes, À. (2009). Manipulating cognitive complexity across task types and its impact on learners’ interaction during oral performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47, 367–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ishikawa, T. (2007). The effect of manipulating task complexity along the (+/− here-and-now) dimension on L2 written narrative discourse. In García Mayo, M. (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 136–156). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. (2009). The effects of task complexity on learner-learner interaction. System, 37, 254–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y. (2012). Task complexity, learning opportunities, and Korean EFL learners’ question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 627–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y., & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2011). Task complexity, language anxiety, and the development of the simple past. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 287–306). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 261–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lai, C., Fei, F., & Roots, R. (2008). The contingency of recasts and noticing. CALICO Journal, 26, 70–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lai, C., & Zhao, Y. (2006). Noticing in text-based online chat. Language Learning & Technology, 10, 102–120.Google Scholar
Lamy, M.-N., & Hampel, R. (2007). Online communication in language teaching and learning. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 590–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, L. (2001). Online interaction: Negotiation of meaning and strategies used among learners of Spanish. ReCALL, 13, 232–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (2000). Second language acquisition theories. In Byram, M. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language teaching (pp. 527–534). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15–41). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (2007). Conversational interaction in second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2006). Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primed production, and linguistic development. Language Learning, 56, 693–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michel, M. (2011). Cognitive and interactive aspects of task-based performance in Dutch as a second language (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Amsterdam, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51, 719–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuevo, A. (2006). Task complexity and interaction: L2 learning opportunities and interaction (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38, 63–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence in the virtual foreign language classroom. In Warschauer, M. & Kern, R. (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 59–86). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Leroux, A. (2001). Subjunctive mood in Spanish child relatives: At the interface of linguistic and cognitive development. In Nelson, K., Aksu-Koç, A., & Johnson, C. (Eds.), Children’s language (pp. 69–93). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on “noticing the gap”: Nonnative speakers’ noticing of recasts in NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Révész, A. (2009). Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 437–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Révész, A. (2011). Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions, and individual differences: A classroom-based study. Modern Language Journal, 95, 168–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001a). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287–318). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001b). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2007). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects on L2 speech production, interaction, and perceptions of task difficulty. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 191–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2010). Situating and distributing cognition across task demands: The SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In Putz, M. & Sicola, L. (Eds.), Inside the learner mind: Cognitive processing in second language acquisition (pp. 239–264). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2011). Second language task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 3–38). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sachs, R., & Suh, B.-R. (2007). Textually enhanced recasts, learner awareness, and L2 outcomes in synchronous computer-mediated interaction. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 197–227). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Salaberry, R. (2000). L2 morphosyntactic development in text-based computer-mediated communication. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13, 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauro, S. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning & Technology, 13, 96–120.Google Scholar
Sauro, S., & Smith, B. (2010). Investigating L2 performance in text chat. Applied Linguistics, 31, 554–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, B. (2005). The relationship between negotiated interaction, learner uptake, and lexical acquisition in task-based computer-mediated communication. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 33–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A., & Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytic ability. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 171–195). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar