Cover not available
Article published In:
Task-Based Language Teaching
Edited by Kris Van den Branden and Machteld Verhelst
[ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics 152] 2006
► pp. 35–53

Focused Tasks, Mental Actions and Second Language Learning. Cognitive and Connectionist Accounts of Task Effectiveness

| IVLOS, Institute of Education, Utrecht University
| IVLOS, Institute of Education, Utrecht University
| IVLOS, Institute of Education, Utrecht University

This paper presents a theoretical framework to estimate the effectiveness of second language tasks in which the focus is on the acquisition of new linguistic items, such as vocabulary or grammar, the so-called focused tasks (R. Ellis, 2003). What accounts for the learning impact offocused tasks? We shall argue that the task-based approach (e.g. Skehan, 1998, Robinson, 2001) does not provide an in-depth account of how cognitive processes, elicited by a task, foster the acquisition of new linguistic elements. We shall then review the typologies of cognitive processes derived from research on learning strategies (Chamot & O'Malley, 1994), from the involvement load hypothesis (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001), from the depth of processing hypothesis (Craik & Lockhart, 1972) and from connectionism (e.g Broeder & Plunkett, 1997; N. Ellis, 2003). The combined insights of these typologies form the basis of the multi-feature hypothesis, which predicts that retention and ease of activation of new linguistic items are improved by mental actions which involve a wide variety of different features, simultaneously and frequently. A number of implications for future research shall be discussed.

Published online: 1 January 2006
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.2143/ITL.152.0.2017862
References
Anderson, J R.
(2000) Cognitive psychology and its implications (5th ed.). New York: Worth.Google Scholar
Arievitch, I. M., & Haenen, J. P. P.
(2005) Connecting sociocultural theory and educational practice: Galperin's approach. Educational Psychologist, 401(31), 155–165.Google Scholar
Aitchison, J.
(1994) Words in the mind. An introduction to the mental lexicon (2nd ed.). Oxford, Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A.
(1997) Human memory. Theory and practice: Hove: Psychology PressGoogle Scholar
(2003) Working memory and language: an overview. Journal of Communication Disorders, 361, 189–208.Google Scholar
Bechtel, W., & Abrahamsen, A.
(2002) Connectionism and the mind, parallel processing, dynamics and evolution in networks (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bereiter, C.
(1991) Implications of connectionism for thinking about rules. Educational Researcher, 201(31),10–16.Google Scholar
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R.
(Eds.) (2000) How people learn. Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington D. C: National Academic Press.Google Scholar
Breen, M.
(1987) Learner contributions to task design. In C. Candlin & D. Murphy (Eds.), Language learning tasks (pp. 23–46). London: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Broeder, P., & Plunkett, K.
(1997) Connectionism and second language acquisition. InN. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit/earning of/anguages (2nd ed., pp. 421–453). London, San Diego: Academic Press Limited.Google Scholar
Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M.
(2001) Researching pedagogic tasks. Second language learning, teaching and testing: Harlow: PearsonGoogle Scholar
Brown, S., & Craik, F.
(2000) Encoding and retrieval of information. In E. Tulving & F. Craik (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of memory (pp. 93–107). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chamot, A., & O'Malley, M.
(1994) Language learner and learning strategies. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 371–392). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cowan, N.
(2005) Working memory capacity. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Craik, F., & Lockhart, R.
(1972) Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 111 ,671–684.Google Scholar
Craik, F., & Tulving, E.
(1975) Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1041,268–294.Google Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D.
(2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Driessen, C., Haenen, J., & Westhoff, G.
(2002) A critical analYSis offoreign language learning tasks. In S. Selander & M. Tholey (Eds.), New educational media and textbooks (Vol. 91, pp. 162–180). Stockholm: Stockholm Institute of Education Press.Google Scholar
Doughty, C.
(2001) Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, N.
(2001) Memory for language. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 33–68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2003) Constructions, chunking and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of SLA (pp. 63–103). Malden, Oxford, Victoria: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ellis, R.
(2003) Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gasser, M.
(1990) Connectionism and universals of second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 121, 179–199.Google Scholar
Gazzaniga, M., Ivry, R., & Mangun, G.
(2002) Cognitive neuroscience. The biology ofthe mind. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H., & Laufer, B.
(2001) Some empirical evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 511(31),539–558.Google Scholar
Laufer, B.
(1997) What's in a word that makes it hard or easy: some intralexical factors affecting the learning of words. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary. Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 140–155). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J.
(2001) Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 221(11), 1–26.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M.
(1989) Speaking. From intention to articulation. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Uttlewoord, w.
(2004) The task-based approach: some questions and suggestions. ELT Journal, 581(41), 319–326.Google Scholar
Lockhart, R., & Craik, F.
(1990) Levels of processing: a retrospective commentary on a framework for memory research. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 441(11), 87–112.Google Scholar
Markovitsch, H.
(2000) Neuroanatomy of memory. In E. Tulving & F. Craik (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of memory (pp. 465–484). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McClelland, J.
(2000) Connectionist models of memory. In E. Tulving & F. Craik (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of memory (pp. 583–596). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McClelland, J., Rumelhart, D., & Hinton, G.
(1986) The appeal of parallel distributed processing. In D. Rumelhart & J. McClelland (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing. Explorations in the microstructure of cognition. (Vol. 11: Foundations, pp. 3–44). London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nation, I. S. P.
(1990) Teaching and learning vocabulary. Massachusetts: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
(2001) Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nunan, D.
(2004) Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M.
(1998) Language processing and second language development: processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Richards, J.
(1976) The role of vocabulary teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 101(11),77–89.Google Scholar
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S.
(2001) Approaches and methods in language teaching (6th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D.
(1989) The architecture of mind: a connectionist approach. In M. Posner (Ed.), Foundations of cognitive science (pp. 133–159). London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, P.
(2001) Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: a triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287–318). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(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, 431.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D., & Ortony, A.
(1977) The representation of knowledge in memory. In R. Anderson, R. Spiro & W. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquiSition of knowledge (pp. 99–135). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R.
(2001) Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P.
(1998) A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2003) Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 361, 1–14.Google Scholar
Swan, M.
(2005) Legislation by hypothesis: The case of Task-Based Instruction. Applied Linguistics, 261(31),376–401.Google Scholar
Westhoff, G.
(2004) The art of playing a pinball machine. Characteristics of effective SLAtasks. Babylonia(31), 58–62., [URL]
Willis, J.
(1996) A framework for task-based learning. Essex: Longman.Google Scholar