The effects of task complexity on learner–learner interaction

Kim, YouJin

doi:10.1016/j.system.2009.02.003

Cited by 161 publications

(94 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Also, we point out that Ellis and Yuan's (2004) study was the only mixed-methods study that used two independent theoretical perspectives in order to collect both quantitative and qualitative data and interpret their results. Out of approximately 40 articles, we focused on only 11 articles which were very close to the concept of cognitive task complexity and L2 written performance including Ellis and Yuan (2004), Farahani andMeraji (2011), Heidari-Shahreza et al (2011), Kim (2009), Philip et al (2006, Ong and Zhang (2010), Rahimpour and Hosseini (2010), Salimi et al (2011), Sasayama (2011), Tavakoli (2009), and Wigglesworth and Storch (2009. Other studies were not considered for further analysis because the research questions addressed in other studies were not relevant to those we designed to answer in the current study.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the next stage of exploration, we will focus on the mixed-methods studies that have been conducted in the area of cognitive task complexity and L2 textual performance. These studies include Ellis and Yuan (2004), Heidari-Shahreza et al (2011), Kim (2009), and Sasayama (2011. The research trends of these studies are different from other studies reviewed in this paper and also show new understandings of the topic within the mixed-methods approach supported by a pragmatistic worldview.…”

Section: Rahimpour and Hosseinimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the picture difference tasks, both high and low-level students showed an improvement on the number of lexical and grammatical LREs in the complex version; nevertheless, only the production of low-level learners was statistically significant. Kim (2009) investigated the effects of cognitive task complexity on the number of language-related episodes (LREs) generated by L2 students with different English proficiency in peer interaction. Pragmatism, which includes both quantitative and qualitative strands in a single study, was the theoretical perspective of the study.…”

Section: Rahimpour and Hosseinimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is a growing body of research on the effects of cognitive task complexity on linguistic performance in second language (L2) writing such as Ellis and Yuan (2004), Farahani andMeraji (2011), Heidari-Shahreza, Dabaghi, andKassaian (2011), Kim (2009), Vedder (2007, 2008), Ong and Zhang (2010), Philip, Oliver, and Mackey (2006), Rahimpour and Hosseini (2010), Salimi, Dadaspour, and Asadollahfam (2011), Wigglesworth andStorch (2009), andSasayama (2011). These studies use quantitative experimental design to interpret their findings, while very little research, giving priority to participants' perceptions and feelings, employs qualitative experimental design (Tavakoli, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These studies use quantitative experimental design to interpret their findings, while very little research, giving priority to participants' perceptions and feelings, employs qualitative experimental design (Tavakoli, 2009). The number of studies in the area of cognitive task complexity which use mixed-methods research to collect data and interpret the results are very few (Ellis & Yuan, 2004;Heidari-Shahreza et al 2011;Kim, 2009;Sasayama, 2011). The present study is a content-based analysis and it addresses the content of cognitive task complexity through evaluation practices.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Cognitive task complexity effects on L2 writing performance: An application of mixed-methods approaches

Tabari

Ivey

2015

LACLIL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESUMENThis paper provides a methodological review of previous research on cognitive task complexity, since the term emerged in 1995, and investigates why much research was more quantitative rather than qualitative. Moreover, it sheds light onto the studies which used the mixed-methods approach and determines which version of the mixed-methods designs was frequently used. The results reveal that many studies in the field of cognitive task-based research used quantitative rather than qualitative experimental design to collect and interpret their findings. These studies were more oriented to post-positivism supported by an objectivist epistemology. However, limited studies utilized mixed-methods approach to consider the effects of cognitive task complexity on linguistic performance in L2 context. The theoretical perspective behind these studies was pragmatism. The mixed-methods studies only used the explanatory sequential design to collect data and interpret their findings while other versions of the mixed-methods research designs were left undefined. To conclude, the paper identifies the current gap in methodology of the studies and offers recommendations for how to obtain more comprehensive and generalizable findings by utilizing other versions of the mixed-methods studies.Este artículo ofrece una revisión metodológica de investigaciones previas sobre la complejidad de tareas cognitivas, desde que surgió término en 1995, e investiga por qué tanta investigación era más cuantitativa que cualitativa. Por otra parte, arroja luz sobre los estudios que utilizaron el enfoque de métodos mixtos y determina cuál versión de los diseños de métodos mixtos se utilizaba con frecuencia. Los resultados revelan que muchos estudios en el campo de la investigación basada en la tarea cognitiva usaban un diseño experimental cuantitativo más que cualitativo para recoger e interpretar sus resultados. Estos estudios se orientan más al postpositivismo apoyado por una epistemología objetivista. Sin embargo, pocos estudios utilizaron el enfoque de métodos mixtos para considerar los efectos de la complejidad de la tarea cognitiva en el desempeño lingüístico en contexto de L2. La perspectiva teórica detrás de estos estudios fue el pragmatismo. Los estudios de métodos mixtos sólo utilizan el diseño secuencial explicativo para recoger datos e interpretar sus resultados, mientras que otras versiones de los diseños de investigación de métodos mixtos se quedaron sin definir. Para concluir, el documento identifica la brecha actual en la metodología de los estudios y ofrece recomendaciones sobre cómo obtener resultados más amplios y generalizables mediante la utilización de otras versiones de los estudios de métodos mixtos.

show abstract