Session 3C

Lab-based research in L2 speech acquisition has shown that high-variability phonetic training is effective at improving the perception and production of L2 sounds; however, it is always performed individually in decontextualized non-communicative settings. In contrast, task-based language teaching encourages second language learning during real-world interaction but has rarely focused on L2 phonological aspects (Gurzynski-Weiss et al., 2017). Very little research has been conducted on the application of TBLT principles to L2 pronunciation learning (Solon et al., 2017). Accordingly, task-based pronunciation teaching manipulates tasks to generate form-focused episodes that target phonological features during meaningful interaction. The aim of the present study is to examine the effectiveness of task design (e.g. manipulating cognitive complexity) at improving the perception and production of two difficult L2 vowel contrasts (English /i:-ɪ / & /æ-ʌ /). Sixty-nine L1 Catalan-Spanish EFL learners (Mean age= 16.1) carried out 20 dyadic, problem-solving, reasoning-gap tasks (Long, 2015) over six weeks (30-min x 3 days/week). Participants were randomly assigned to either a simple (N=36) or a complex (N=33) cognitive task complexity group as a function of the number of reasoning demands along resource-directing variables the tasks involved (Robinson, 2011). Tasks were always preceded by 10-minute form-focused pre-tasks that contained 12 lexical items contrasting the target vowels (e.g., bean-bin, cat-cut) to be used during the task-phase and followed by 10-minute form- and meaning-consolidation tasks. Improvement in L2 vowel perception was assessed through ABX discrimination (accuracy and reaction time), forced lexical choice and lexical encoding tasks (accuracy), and in production though delayed-word and sentence repetition tasks (spectral distances to native speakers' productions). Additionally, we controlled for their L2 proficiency though an elicited imitation task (Ortega et al., 2002). A control group (N=29) was also tested but did not carry out any pronunciation tasks. Results suggest that, overall, the task-based intervention was effective at improving the discrimination and the lexical encoding of the two vowel contrasts, irrespective of inter-learner differences in proficiency. A significant interaction between testing times and experimental groups revealed that, despite no differences at pre-test, the group performing the more cognitive complex tasks outperformed the simple group in the ABX task and was significantly more accurate in the encoding of the L2 vowel contrast than the group trained with low task demands. The production data is currently under analysis. These results show that orienting attention to L2 phonological forms in motivating communicative lessons brings gains in their perception and encoding in the mental lexicon. Pedagogical implications on the benefits of performing cognitively complex tasks for L2 pronunciation learning will be discussed.
 References: 
-Gurzynski-Weiss, L., Long A.Y. & Solon M. (2017). TBLT and L2 Pronunciation: Do the benefits of Tasks Extend beyond Grammar and Lexis? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 213-224. 
-Long, M. H. (2015). Second Language Acquisition and Task-Based Language Teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. 
-Ortega, L., Iwashita, N., Norris, J. M., & Rabie, S. (2002). An investigation of elicited imitation tasks in crosslinguistic SLA research. In Second Language Research Forum, Toronto. 
-Robinson, P. (2011). Second Language Task Complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 
-Solon, M., Long, A.Y. & Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2017). Task Complexity, Language-Related Episodes, and Production of L2 Spanish Vowels. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 347-380.

Research on task repetition (TR) with English as a foreign language (EFL) young leaners (YLs) has shown that this practice increases these learners’ accuracy and understanding in the target language (Lázaro-Ibarrola & Hidalgo, 2017). This is so because repeating a task allows L2 learners to pay more attention to other aspects of language that they have previously overlooked (Ellis, 2003). Moreover, TR has been shown to enhance EFL YLs’ engagement in collaborative work, as represented by their patterns of interaction (García Mayo & Imaz Agirre, 2016), which refers to learners’ engagement towards interaction, and the degree of control over the task (Storch, 2002). However, the extent to which EFL YLs’ task motivation (TM) plays a significant role on TR is an underresearched area. TM refers to learners’ engagement towards a task (Dörnyei & Kormos, 2000; Julkunen, 2001), and might also affect not only learners’ patterns of interaction, but also the way in which they deal with language issues that arise during interaction and that help them develop their L2, such as language-related episodes (LREs) (Storch, 2008). This study explores the patterns of interaction, task motivation and level of engagement (LoE) in LREs on a TR condition when 31 Spanish EFL dyads (11-12 years old) performed a dictogloss task twice (Time 1 vs. Time 2). The aim of this study is to examine whether this task enhances not only their opportunities to focus on grammar (García Mayo, 2002a, b), but also their motivation towards the task (i.e. task motivation), and their engagement towards the way in which they deal with LREs, and the task performance in general. The pattern of interaction of these pairs was examined following Storch (2002) on the basis of their mutuality –engagement in the task in general, and equality –degree over the control of the task at hand. Their TM was analyzed on the basis of a 10-point scale thermometer following Al Khalil (2016) in which these learners indicated individually their motivation before and after the task, at both testing times. Their LoE in LREs was analyzed following Storch (2008), in which she distinguished between elaborate LREs, when learners were actively involved in the LRE; and limited LREs, when their contributions towards the LRE were minimal or lacking. These analyses allowed us to have a broad perspective of their engagement towards the interaction (i.e. patterns of interaction), the task (i.e. TM), and language issues that occurred while performing the task (i.e. LREs). The findings showed that the main pattern of interaction was cooperative or collaborative at T1, and T2 alike. Their TM was similarly high at both testing times, but it increased after they performed the task. There were more LREs at T1 than at T2, but they were mainly elaborate at both times, regardless of the pattern. These findings will be further explained considering the benefits of collaborative work, and more specifically collaborative writing tasks (e.g. dictogloss) in the EFL classroom. References: Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. García Mayo, M.P. (2002). The effectiveness of two form-focused tasks in advanced EFL pedagogy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 156-175. García Mayo, M.P. (2002). Interaction in advanced EFL grammar pedagogy: A comparison of form-focused activities. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 323-341. García Mayo, M. P. & Imaz Agirre, A. (2016). Task repetition and its impact on EFL children’s negotiation of meaning strategies and pair dynamics: An exploratory study. The Language Learning Journal, 44(4), 451–466. Storch, N. (2008). Metatalk in a pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for language development. Language Awareness, 17(2), 95-114.

In spite of the progress in researching the learning potential of L2 writing tasks, little is known about the role of cognitive individual differences in L2 writing (Kormos, 2012). Theoretical accounts of written language production (Kellogg, 1996; Hayes, 2012) have overwhelmingly implicated working memory (WM) as the key cognitive resource. However, this assumption is not well supported by empirical evidence from second language research, with the few available investigations showing mixed and inconclusive results (Kormos & Safar, 2008; Lu, 2015). At the same time, studies on L2 grammar processing (Dussias & Pinar, 2010) or reading comprehension (Jon & Plakans, 2017) have shown the WM effects may depend on L2 proficiency. These findings are suggestive enough to hypothesize that the role of WM in L2 written task performance may also be mediated by the level of L2 linguistic knowledge. To test this hypothesis, we performed a study in which fifty-five Spanish learners of L2 English completed a standardized L2 proficiency test, a complex verbal WM test and an L2 writing task. Quality of written performance was assessed in terms of fluency, accuracy, and lexical, syntactic and propositional complexity. Mediation analysis (Hayes, 2013) showed that WM effects depended on L2 proficiency and on the dimension of performance. Thus, for low proficient learners, facilitative effects of WM were found in the area of grammatical accuracy. However, for high proficiency writers, there was a positive relationship between WM and lexical sophistication. We interpret these findings in light of the developmental theories of L2 learning (Marsden et al., 2013) and in light of cognitive psychology models that emphasize the interaction between knowledge and WM as the main determinant of performance quality (Hambrick & Engle, 2001). Implications are drawn for the role of individual differences in L2 written task performance and learning. References Dussias, P. E., & Piñar, P. (2010). Effects of reading span and plausibility in the reanalysis of wh-gaps by Chinese-English second language speakers. Second Language Research, 26(4), 443-472. Gilabert, R., & Muñoz, C. (2010). Differences in attainment and performance in a foreign language: The role of working memory capacity. International Journal of English Studies, 10(1), 19-42. Hambrick, D. Z., & Engle, R. W. (2001). Effects of domain knowledge, working memory capacity, and age on cognitive performance: An investigation of the knowledge-is-power hypothesis. Cognitive psychology, 44(4), 339-387. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: Methodology in the Social Sciences. New York, NY: the Guilford Press. Hayes, J. R. (2012). Modeling and remodeling writing. Written communication, 29(3), 369-388. Joh, J., & Plakans, L. (2017). Working memory in L2 reading comprehension: The influence of prior knowledge. System, 70, 107-120. Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 57–71). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Kormos, J. (2012). The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 390-403. Kormos, J., & Sáfár, A. (2008). Phonological short-term memory, working memory and foreign language performance in intensive language learning. Bilingualism: Language and cognition, 11(2), 261-271. Lu, Y. (2015). Working Memory, Cognitive Resources and L2 Writing Performance. In Z. Wen, M. Borges Mota & A. McNeill (Eds.), Working Memory in Second Language Acquisition and Processing (pp. 175-189). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

The benefits of task-based interaction in Second Language Learning (SLL) have been made increasingly evident in the literature. However, unlike adult-based studies, only recently has interaction research on EFL children grown in popularity, and most of it has focussed primarily on Negotiation of Meaning, while other age-related research fields, such as different age groups’ ability to interact in tasks, remain relatively unexplored, with very few studies addressing this research gap, with the exception of the work by Pinter (2006, 2007), carried out with 10-year-old children and adults. This paper analyses the similarities and differences of 8-9-year-old children and adult EFL learners at low levels of competence interacting in pairs on a spot-the-difference referential task embedded within a picture story. In order for results to be comparable with previous work, they will be presented following the same categorisation presented in Pinter (2006), who, in turn, borrowed from Oxford’s classification of strategies (1990). Evidence is provided of clear age-related differences. Concurrent with Pinter’s work, adults were more consistent and approached the task in a more predictable and efficient way. However, findings also point to task repetition as an important factor leading to a more successful performance in both groups, as previous work on the positive effects of task repetition in children had already propounded (e.g., García Mayo & Imaz Agirre, 2016). Interestingly, the substantial improvement in negotiation and success rates in the children group seemed to reveal a change in their approach to the task, shifting from what might have been perceived as a ‘gamble’ game to seeing the need to negotiate jointly in order to experience success. Results have also suggested that a) EFL children and adults use different strategies, to different degrees, and that b) 8-9-year-old EFL learners share various common features with EFL 10-year-old children in the way they handle oral tasks. Consequently, this study also contributes to raise awareness about the risk of transferring research results regarding task-strategy use on EFL adult populations to children by default. Finally, this study points to the importance of striking the right balance in tasks which are age-and-level complex and cognitively challenging, yet also allow learners to identify and deploy the strategies they need to ultimately experience success in them, most likely through task repetition in the case of Young Learners. The use of hybrid formats such the present difference referential task within a picture story and their relation to the use of strategies might constitute an interesting field over which more research is needed. (406 words) References García Mayo, M.P., and A. Imaz Agirre. "Task Repetition and Its Impact on EFL Children’s Negotiation of Meaning Strategies and Pair Dynamics: An Exploratory Study." The Language Learning Journal 44, no. 4 (2016): 451-66. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Boston: Heinle and Heinle Publishers. Pinter, A. (2006). Verbal evidence of task related strategies: Child versus adult interactions. System, 34(4), 615-630. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2006.09.005 Pinter, A. (2007). Some benefits of peer–peer interaction: 10-year-old children practising with a communication task. Language teaching research, 11(2), 189-207.