Earticle

Task structure as a task characteristic is believed to have a considerable effect on task performance in terms of accuracy, fluency and complexity. Studies in the literature focused on investigating task structure impact on oral out-put; however, this study examines how written task performance is affected by task structure. Thirty two EFL learners were selected for data collection. Each participant, then, narrated two tasks which differed with regard to their inherent structure (tight vs. loose). Collected data were coded and checked for measuring their accuracy, fluency and complexity. Findings of the statistical analysis revealed that structured tasks produced more fluent and complex performances while accuracy remained unaffected. Results have practical implications for language teaching, research and syllabus design.

Although extensive task-based research has focused on how the manipulation of task complexity affects L2 performance, less attention has been paid to its combined effects with those of L2 proficiency. In this study, 41 Korean learners of English carried out a written task with two levels of task complexity, operationalized as number of elements. Participants were divided into three groups, based on their level of L2 proficiency. Performance was assessed by syntactic complexity, lexical diversity, and accuracy measures. Significant interaction effects between L2 proficiency and task complexity were found on lexical diversity and accuracy measures, especially in the high-proficiency group. Findings are discussed in relation to Robinson’s Cognition Hypothesis and attentional resources available for task performance.

“Differential Effects of Oral Metalinguistic Feedback Given during English Writing Task Performance and Written Metalinguistic Feedback Given after English Writing Task Performance.” Studies in English Language & Literature. 38.3 (2012): 165-196. This study examined whether there would be any difference between the effect of oral and written metalinguistic feedback on learners' accurate use of some English verb tenses in their written production. To help low intermediate-proficiency Korean university students improve the ability to use the simple past, present progressive, and present perfect tense correctly in their written production, oral and written metalinguistic feedback was used. The oral group was provided with oral metalinguistic feedback while the learners were performing a translation task. The written metalinguistic group was provided with written metalinguistic feedback one week after a translation task was completed. The control group received no corrective feedback. The study showed both oral and written metalinguistic feedback had a significant effect on promoting the correct use of the target verb tenses in written production and that oral metalinguistic feedback had a significantly superior effect than written metalinguistic feedback due to differences between oral and written corrective feedback. It was concluded that oral metalinguistic feedback given during writing task performance can be more effective than written metalinguistic feedback given after writing task performance in helping learners gain greater control over already partially acquired forms in their written production and therefore can improve their writing accuracy. (Seoul Christian University)

This research was conducted to examine whether the manipulation of cognitive task complexity affected the written performance of language learners. Participants were divided into two groups: Low and High. Each of them was involved in two different experimental conditions: Simple cognitive tasks and Complex cognitive tasks. The linguistic accuracy was measured as the total number of errors per T-unit. Total words and the number of words per T-unit were analyzed for the linguistic fluency. Coh-Metrix 2.0 was used for the analysis of the linguistic complexity. The result showed that when cognitive task complexity increased, language learners made more output on the complex tasks than on the easy tasks, but they did not become more accurate and use more complex linguistic structure. Also, language learners’ proficiency did not affect the linguistic accuracy and complexity; however, the fluency was increased in the low as well as in the high proficiency group.

This study aims to investigate the effects of three types of planning conditions (no planning, pretask planning, and on-line planning) on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 writing. Each of 60 Korean university students performed their assigned tasks under the three different types of planning conditions. The results show that; first, pre-task and on-line planning resulted in improving complexity, fluency, and accuracy compared to no planning. Accuracy was significantly improved only when in on-line planning; secondly, complexity had strong relationship with fluency in all types of planning conditions; finally, accuracy was negatively correlated with complexity and fluency in pre-task planning while not related to those in on-line planning. (108 words)

This study examined whether there would be any difference between the effect of oral and written metalinguistic feedback on learners' accurate use of some English verb tenses in their written production. To help low intermediate-proficiency Korean university students improve the ability to use the simple past, present progressive, and present perfect tense correctly in their written production, oral and written metalinguistic feedback was used. The oral group was provided with oral metalinguistic feedback while the learners were performing a translation task. The written metalinguistic group was provided with written metalinguistic feedback one week after a translation task was completed. The control group received no corrective feedback. The study showed both oral and written metalinguistic feedback had a significant effect on promoting the correct use of the target verb tenses in written production and that oral metalinguistic feedback had a significantly superior effect than written metalinguistic feedback due to differences between oral and written corrective feedback. It was concluded that oral metalinguistic feedback given during writing task performance can be more effective than written metalinguistic feedback given after writing task performance in helping learners gain greater control over already partially acquired forms in their written production and therefore can improve their writing accuracy.