Cover not available
Article published In:
TASK
Vol. 1:2 (2021) ► pp.266–288

Exploring task-based cognitive processes

Methodological advances and challenges

 | University College London, United Kingdom
This paper argues that TBLT researchers should dedicate more effort to investigating the cognitive processes in which L2 learners engage during task work to facilitate theory-construction and to inform pedagogical practices. To help achieve this, a review follows of various subjective (questionnaires, interviews, think-aloud/stimulated recall protocols) and objective (dual-task methodology, keystroke-logging, eye-tracking) methods that are available to TBLT researchers to examine cognitive processes underlying task-based performance. The paper concludes that, to obtain a more valid understanding of task-generated cognitive processes, it is best to combine various methods to overcome the limitations of each. Finally, some methodological recommendations are provided for future cognitively-oriented TBLT research.
Keywords: methodology, task, triangulation, eye-tracking, dual-task methodology, keystroke logging, verbal protocols
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Rationale for investigating task-based processes
  • Methods to investigate task-based processes
    • Questionnaires
    • Subjective time estimation
    • Interviews
    • Think-aloud protocols
    • Stimulated recall protocols
    • Dual-task methodology
    • Keystroke-logging
    • Eye-tracking
    • Neuroimaging
  • Triangulation of sources
  • Recommendations for further research
  • References
Published online: 16 December 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/task.21017.rev
References (75)
References
Baralt, M. (2013). The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during online versus face-to-face interactive tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35 1, 689–725. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baralt, M., & Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2011). Comparing learners’ state anxiety during task-based interaction in computer-mediated and face-to-face communication. Language Teaching Research, 15 1, 201–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barkaoui, K. (2016). What and when second-language learners revise when responding to timed writing tasks on the computer: The roles of task type, second language proficiency, and keyboarding skills. Modern Language Journal, 100 1, 320–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Block, R. A., Hancock, P. A., & Zakay, D. (2010). How cognitive load affects duration judgments: A meta- analytic review. Acta Psychologica, 134 1, 330–343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowles, M. (2010). The think-aloud controversy in language acquisition research. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brünken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2004). Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning with dual-task methodology: Auditory load and modality effects. Instructional Science, 32 1, 115–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2012). Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder. (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 21–46). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bygate, M. (2013, October). On fetters and goals, and the development of an empirical TBLT in terms of language, learning and teaching. Plenary speech presented at the 5th Biennial International Conference on Task-based Language Teaching, Banff, AB, Canada.Google Scholar
Charoenchaikorn, V. (2019). L2 revision and post-task anticipation during text-based synchronous computer-mediated communication (SCMC) task. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Lancaster University, UK.
Cierniak, G., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2009). Explaining the split-attention effect: Is the reduction of extraneous cognitive load accompanied by an increase in germane cognitive load? Computers in Human Behavior, 25 1, 315–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Conklin, K., Pellicer-Sánchez, A., & Carrol, G. (2018). Eye-tracking: A guide for applied linguistics research. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Declerck, M., & Kormos, J. (2012). The effect of dual task demands and proficiency on second language speech production. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15 1, 782–796. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19 1, 195–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2017). Stimulated recall methodology in applied linguistics and L2 research. Routledge.Google Scholar
Gilabert, R. (2007). Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 oral production. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45 1, 215–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Godfroid, A. (2019). Eye tracking in second language acquisition and bilingualism: A research synthesis and methodological guide. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30 1, 461–473. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Housen, A., F. Kuiken, & Vedder, I. (2012). Complexity, accuracy and fluency: Definitions, measurement and research. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken and I. Vedder. (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 1–20). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iwaniec, J. (2020). Questionnaires: implications for effective implementation. In J. McKinley & H. Rose. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of research methods in applied linguistics (pp. 324–335). Routledge.Google Scholar
Jeong, H., Sugiura, M., Suzuki, W., Sassa, Y., Hashizume, H., & Kawashima, R. (2016). Neural correlates of second-language communication and the effect of language anxiety. Neuropsychologia, 84 1, 2–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kane, M. (2006). Validation. In R. L. Brennan. (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 17–64). American Council on Education.Google Scholar
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. 57–72). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Kim, Y., Payant, C., & Pearson, P. (2015). The intersection of task-based interaction, task complexity, and working memory: L2 question development through recasts in a laboratory setting. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37 1, 549–581. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
King, K., & Mackey, A. (2016). Research methodology in second language studies: Trends, concerns and new directions. The Modern Language Journal, 100(s) 1, 209–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. (2019). Task complexity, cognitive load, and L1 speech. Applied Linguistics, 40 1, 506–539. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, M., & Révész, A. (2020). Promoting grammatical development through captions and textual enhancement in multimodal input-based tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42 1, 625–651. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leow, R., Grey, S., Marijuan, S., & Moorman, C. (2014). Concurrent data elicitation procedures, processes, and the early stages of L2 learning: A critical overview. Second Language Research, 30 1, 111–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levkina, M., & Gilabert, R. (2014). Task sequencing in the L2 development of spatial expressions. In M. Baralt, R. Gilabert, & P. Robinson. (Eds.), Task sequencing and instructed second language learning (pp. 37–70). Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Lindgren, E., & Sullivan, K. (Eds.). (2019). Observing writing: Insights from keystroke logging and handwriting (Vol. 381). Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21 1, 557–587. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malicka, A. (2020). The role of task sequencing in fluency, accuracy, and complexity: Investigating the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. Language Teaching Research, 24 1, 642–665. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malicka, A. & Levkina, M. (2012). Measuring task complexity: does L2 proficiency matter? In A. Shehadeh & C. Coombe. (Eds.), Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts: Research and implementation (pp. 43–66). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., Crowther, D., Kielstra, P. & Trofimovich, P. (2015). Exploring the potential role of eye gaze in eliciting English L2 speakers’ responses to recasts. Second Language Research, 31 1, 563–575. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., Trofimovich, P., Dao, P., & Abashidze, D. (2020). Eye gaze and L2 speakers’ responses to recasts: A systematic replication study of McDonough, Crowther, Kielstra and Trofimovich (2015). Language Teaching, 53 1, 81–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50 1, 741–749. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michel, M. (2011). Effects of task complexity and interaction on L2 performance. In P. Robinson. (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 141–174). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michel, M., & O’Rourke, B. (2019). What drives alignment during text chat with a peer vs. a tutor? Insights from cued interviews and eye-tracking. System, 83 1, 50–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michel, M., Révész, A., & Gilabert, R. (2014). Eye movement prompts in stimulated recall: tapping cognitive processes based on audio vs. visual stimuli. Paper presented at AILA, Brisbane, Australia.
Michel, M., Révész, A., Lu, X., Kourtali, N. -E., & Borges, L. (2020). Investigating L2 writing processes across independent and integrated tasks: A mixed-methods study. Second Language Research, 36 1, 243–255. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michel, M., & Smith, B. (2019). Measuring lexical alignment during L2 chat interaction: An eye-tracking study. In S. Gass, P. Spinner, & J. Behney. (2019). (Eds.), Salience in second language acquisition (pp. 244–268). Routledge.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. (2010, September). Understanding instructed SLA: Constructs, contexts, and consequences. Plenary address delivered at the annual conference of the European Second Language Association (EUROSLA), Reggio Emilia, Italy.Google Scholar
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2003). Defining and measuring SLA. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 717–761). Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30 1, 555–578. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. (2005). What do learners plan? Learner-driven attention to form during pre-task planning. In R. Ellis. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 77–109). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pang, F., & Skehan, P. (2014). Self-reported planning behaviour and second language performance in narrative retelling. In P. Skehan. (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 95–128). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pliatsikas, C., Johnstone, T., & Marinis, T. (2014). fMRI evidence for the involvement of the procedural memory system in morphological processing of a second language. PLoS ONE, 9 (5), e97298. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reichle, E. D. (2006). Theories of the “eye-mind” link: Computational models of eye-movement control during reading. Cognitive Systems Research, 7 1, 2–3. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Révész, A. (2009). Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31 1, 437–470. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions, and individual differences: A classroom-based study. Modern Language Journal, 95 1, 162–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Towards a fuller assessment of cognitive models of task-based learning: Investigating task-generated cognitive demands and processes. Applied Linguistics, 35 1, 87–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Révész, A., Kourtali, N., & Mazgutova, D. (2017). Effects of task complexity on L2 writing behaviors and linguistic complexity. Language Learning, 67 1, 208–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Révész, A., Michel, M., & Gilabert, R. (2016). Measuring cognitive task demands using dual task methodology, subjective self-ratings, and expert judgments: A validation study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38 1, 703–737. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Révész, A., Michel, M., & Lee, M. (2017). Investigating IELTS Academic Writing Task 2: Relationships between cognitive writing processes, text quality, and working memory. IELTS Research Reports Online Series, 2017/3.Google Scholar
(2019). Exploring second language writers’ pausing and revision behaviours: A mixed methods study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41 1, 605–631. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Révész, A., Sachs, R., & Hama, M. (2014). The effects of task complexity and input frequency on the acquisition of the past counterfactual construction through recasts. Language Learning, 64 1, 615–650. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001a). 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 University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001b). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22 1, 27–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roca de Larios, J., Manchón, R. M., Murphy, L., & Marín, J. (2008). The foreign language writer’s strategic behaviour in the allocation of time to writing processes. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17 1, 30–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sangarun, J. (2005). The effects of focusing on meaning and form in strategic planning. In R. Ellis. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 111–141). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sasayama, S. (2016). Is a ‘complex’ task really complex? Validating the assumption of cognitive task complexity. The Modern Language Journal, 100 1, 231–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sasayama, S., & Norris, J. (2019). Unravelling cognitive task complexity: Learning from learners’ perspectives on task characteristics and second language performance. In Z. Wen, & J. A. Ahmadian. (Eds.), Researching L2 task performance and pedagogy: In honour of Peter Skehan (pp. 95–132). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sassa, Y., Sugiura, M., Jeong, H., Horie, K., Sato, S., & Kawashima, R. (2007). Cortical mechanism of communicative speech production. NeuroImage, 37 1, 985–992. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (2012). Eye tracking as a measure of noticing: A study of explicit recasts in SCMC. Language Learning & Technology, 16 1, 53–81.Google Scholar
Spelman Miller, K. (2000). Academic writers on-line: Investigating pausing in the production of text. Language Teaching Research, 4 1, 123–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stiefenhöfer, L., & Michel, M. (2020). Investigating the relationship between peer interaction and writing processes in computer-supported collaborative L2 writing: A mixed-methods study. In R. M. Manchón. (Ed.), Writing and language learning: Advancing research agendas (pp. 255–280). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16 1, 371–391. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thorson, H. (2000). Using the computer to compare foreign- and native-language writing processes: A statistical and case study approach. The Modern Language Journal, 84 1, 55–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torres, J. (2018). The effects of task complexity on heritage and L2 Spanish development. Canadian Modern Language Review, 74 1, 128–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Waes, L., Leijten, M., Lindgren, E., & Wengelin, Å. (2016). Keystroke logging in writing research: Analyzing online writing processes. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald. (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 410–426). The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Vasylets, L., & Gilabert, R. (2015). Exploring the visual-dynamic and linguistic conceptualisation traces in task-based performance. Paper presented at the 6th Biennial International Conference on Task-based Language Teaching, Leuven, Belgium.
Xu, T. S., Zhang, L. J., & Gaffney, J. S. (in press). Examining the relative effectiveness of task complexity and cognitive demands on students’ writing in a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition.
Zakay, D., & Block, R. A. (1997). Temporal cognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16 1, 12–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zalbidea, J. (2017). One task fits all? The roles of task complexity, modality, and working memory capacity in L2 performance. The Modern Language Journal, 101 1, 335–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Shi, Danni, Andrea Révész & Ana Pellicer‐Sánchez
2024. The Effects of Task Repetition on the Processing and Acquisition of Technical Vocabulary Through Video‐Lecture‐Based Tasks: A Mixed‐Methods Study. Language Learning DOI logo
Thomas, Nathan, Anna Kristina Hultgren, Beatrice Zuaro, Dogan Yuksel, Peter Wingrove, Marion Nao & Derek Beach
2024. Process Tracing for applied linguistics. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics 3:2 ► pp. 100118 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 7 november 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.