Tradeoff and Cognition: Two hypotheses regarding attention during task-based performance

1. Tradeoff and Cognition: Two hypotheses regarding attention during task-based performance Peter SkehanChinese University of Hong Kong Second International Conference on TBLT University of Hawaii, Sept. 20th – 22nd 2007

2. Conceptualising performance on tasks • Three areas typically measured in task research studies • Complexity (C) : How advanced (often interpreted as subordinated) the language is • Accuracy (A) : The extent to which error is avoided • Fluency (F) : How fast, smooth, uninterrupted performance is • Sometimes a contrast between general and specific measures • Sometimes a tenuous acquisitional sequence

3. The Limited Attention Approachaka: The Trade-off Hypothesis 1: • Attentional capacity is limited • Attending to one performance area may take attention away from others • Under certain conditions, raised performance in one area may be at the expense of performance in other areas • Task difficulty will be associated with lowered performance in some areas, and complexity and accuracy (particularly) compete

4. The Trade-off Hypothesis 2 • Task research has explored the influence of task characteristics (e.g. task types, such as personal, narrative, decision-making, and also some specific variables, e.g. interactivity) and task conditions (e.g. pre-task planning; length of time a task is done; post-task conditions) • Some of these simply affect difficulty • e.g. more participants raise difficulty

5. Tradeoff 3 • But some task effects are directing, e.g. • Information integration raises complexity (T+S 05) • Structured tasks lead to greater accuracy (S+F 99) • Tasks based on familiar information lead to greater fluency (F+S 96) • And some task conditions also direct, e.g. • Planning raises complexity and fluency (F+S 96; O 05) • Post-task activities raise accuracy (S+F 97: S+F ms)

6. Tradeoff 4 • Task characteristics and task conditions can have selective, directing effects • Some effects influence more than one performance area, e.g. planning • Combinations of effects may therefore be possible • Research findings can show how to attentuate the impact of tradeoff

7. Trade-off 5 • Levelt and stages in speech production • Conceptualiser • Outputs the pre-verbal message • Reflects organisation of ideas and choice of stance • Main performance manifestation: Complexity • Formulator • Lexical encoding • Triggering syntactic encoding • Main performance manifestations: Accuracy/Fluency • Articulator • Conceptualiser as the driver for complexity? • Formulator as the main arena for trade-off effects?

8. Contrasts in the nature of the two accounts • Robinson is a theory-then-research account • Theory of attentional functioning • Theory of task complexity • Skehan is more research-then-theory • Assumption of pervasive limited capacity • Low level predictions of influence of different variables, and studies investigating one or two variables at a time • Modification/accumulation of findings, and extension of basic account to enable tradeoff circumvention

9. Contrasts (cont.) • Robinson’s theory is therefore more intricate, and makes complex predictions about relationships • It is also, for me, a little counter-intuitive (which isn’t at all bad!) • Skehan’s theory is more minimalist and empirically-based • It takes accumulated, basic findings and pushes them as far as possible

10. How can we test the two hypotheses? • Broadly, Robinson predicts that: • Task complexity will raise both language complexity and accuracy and reduce fluency • Therefore experimental manipulations which, e.g. use there-and-then, or greater spatial demands, etc, will push up complexity and accuracy, while lowering fluency • Robinson doesn’t predict (but should predict?) that on more difficult tasks accuracy and complexity should correlate

11. How can we test: Cont. • Skehan predicts that: • Some influences will be general, and will provoke trade-off consequences • Other influences will be selective • Understanding these will come from empirical research • Some predictions will be limited and selective • Other predictions will involve combinations of independent influences • Some of these will lead to combined influences, including jointly raised accuracy and complexity

12. Here-and-now vs. There-and-then • Robinson (95): TnT was more accurate, HnN showed fluency trend. No complexity difference • Rahinpour (97): Broadly similar results • Iwashita (01): TnT more accurate. No other differences • Ishikawa (07): Written performance: CH received support on specific and some general measures of Com. and Acc. • Gilabert (07): Planning and HnN/TnT: Planning had customary effects: TnT produced more self-repair (accuracy) and lower fluency • Conclusion: Accuracy only for TnT: Fluency and HnN

13. Perspective taking: Robinson 2000, in press • Narrative picture sequences for WAIS • Three ‘levels’ of increasing understanding of intentions to effectively sequence pictures and narrate a story • General and specific measures • Significant difference for TTR only, against predicted direction. Complexity, accuracy, fluency unaffected • Little support

14. Conclusions: Cognition • Empirically, the support from Robinson-linked research is mixed. Accuracy for TnT does appear, but not complexity or joint accuracy-complexity • Perspective also fails to be supported • Alternative analyses of HnN vs. TnT are possible • The justification of these variables as more complex and so resource-directing needs to be strengthened

15. Supporting Cognition? : Foster and Skehan (99) • Decision making task (losers in a balloon) • Planning source (teacher, group, individual) and focus (language, content) • Teacher based planning clearly most effective • Accuracy and complexity were both raised • Interpretation: effective preparation through ideas and through rehearsal/anticipation • Planning can have multiple (Conceptualiser and Formulator) functions

16. Supporting Cognition? : Skehan and Foster (ms) • Decision making and narrative tasks • Post-task condition: transcribe one minute of your own performance • Hypothesis: Foreknowledge of this task would push attention towards accuracy • Result: Both accuracy and complexity were raised • Interpretation: attention has to be focussed, but with the right conditions, it can be, but to form-in-general

17. Supporting Cognition? : Tavokali and Skehan (05) • Narrative picture series • Increasing degree of structure, (Winter-Hoey and problem solution structure) • More structured tasks produced greater accuracy and fluency • One of the structured tasks also generated greater complexity: This was because there was a need to integrate background and foreground information • Interpretation: Two task features interacted to support accuracy and complexity separately

18. The role of lexis • Lexis-as-variety (Lambda), and lexis-as-TTR (D from CLAN) • They don’t correlate • Lambda has negative correlations with accuracy and complexity • Tasks with heavy and hard-to-avoid lexical demands lead to lowered accuracy and complexity • This speaks against a task-complexity driven increase in language complexity and accuracy in the second language case

19. Assessment of evidence • Basically, the Robinson-based evidence for the Cognition Hypothesis is not strong • Accuracy and complexity are rarely jointly raised in research by Robinson or colleagues • Findings of this relationship come from others • What then, can we say about these cases?

20. The three ‘positive’ studies • Note: no correlation between accuracy and complexity in these cases (or ever reported) • Two ‘condition’ studies. • One is of effective preparation, requiring ideas and expression. (Planning is resource-dispersing) One is of attention focussing, predicted for accuracy but actually complexity also. Neither involves task complexity • The third study shows conjoint influences of task characteristics, which I assume work separately to produce the result that they do

21. The fruitfulness of using Levelt • The Conceptualiser stage influences complexity, the Formulator is more concerned with accuracy • There-and-then is easier to handle in the Formulator, since input demands are much lower • F+S 99: Teacher based planning: Effective Conceptualiser work and Formulator easing • Planning can have multiple foci, and multiple effects • T+S 05: Structure provided a task macrostructure, and eased Formulator operation: Information integration pushed Conceptualiser use, especially as indexed by subordination

22. Partial evidence for Cognition? • S+F ms: Post-task influence: Essentially, heightened attention to form • The effect on accuracy is reasonable: attention directed towards the Formulator, because of the experimental condition • Why complexity? Actually, not so strong an effect, but just there. Speakers do seem to want to achieve precision and use demanding language. • Key issue: One cannot say that this was driven by difficulty • Let’s stick with Levelt!

23. Pedagogic Implications 1 • What we know is partial and it is also fragmented • Insights about task characteristics • Insights about task conditions • Insights about combinations of characteristics and conditions • The usefulness of this information depends on: • Either having clear performance goals (CAF) • Or believing in a linked acquisitional sequence

24. Pedagogic Implications 2 • A potential sequence • Complexity > Accuracy > Fluency • Choose tasks and task conditions to promote this sequence, such that new language is used, then control is gained over this language so that error is reduced, and then fluency-lexicalised language is achieved • This is, basically, speculative

25. Pedagogic Implications 3 • We have not solved the problem of task difficulty • Therefore we cannot rely upon sequencing tasks in a difficulty order • We have made progress in rating difficulty, fairly consistently, but this connects with performance only slightly • Perhaps now we have to say that analysing the lexical demands of tasks is particularly important

26. Pedagogic Implications 4 • Develop planning • Explore different approaches to planning • Train planning • Help learners to get better at pre-task activities which • Push the Conceptualiser to greater ambition • Anticipate problems, especially lexical • Rehearse effectively to ease subsequent Formulator operations

27. Pedagogic Implications 5 • At the post-task stage, nurture, consolidate, and complexify new language which emerges through performance • Exploit the post-task phase, not simply for Machiavellian attention manipulation • Use language whose salience has just been realised and: • practise it, • build upon it • integrate it • recycle it