You are here

Home » Content

Interaction Effect of Task Demands and Goal Orientations on Language Learners' Perceptions of Task Difficulty and Motivation

Journal Name:

  • The Journal of Language Teaching and Learning

Publication Year:

  • 2012

Key Words:

Author Name
Abstract (2. Language): 
Task-based research has eclipsed the role of individual differences (IDs) in the evaluation of task difficulty and task motivation for reasons related to pedagogically-driven quests to design task impervious to variation. The present article underscores the ID variable of goal orientation which may advance our understanding of some aspects of variation related to task engagement. After implementing one goal-elicitation questionnaire and another questionnaire to measure difficulty and motivation following the performance of assigned narrative tasks, psychometric results revealed two distinct goal orientation levels echoing two significantly different response types to task difficulty and motivation. Whereas one goal group responded positively to unfamiliar and taxing tasks, the other goal group did not. Overall, this article points to the need to rethink the reductionist research agenda that confines task variation to task sequencing conditions and task design features.
Bookmark/Search this post with
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-interaction-effect-task-demands-and-goal-orientations-language-learners-perceptions-task-difficulty-and-motivation.pdf
  • 1
01-14
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

Bachman, L. (2002). Some reflections on task-based language performance assessment. Language Testing, 19, 453-476. Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate, Skehan:, & M., Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 23-48). Harlow: Longman. Covington, M. (2000). Goal theory, motivation, and school achievement: An Integrative review. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 171-200. Cumming, A. (2006). Goals for academic writing: ESL students and their instructors. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Elder, C., Iwashita, N., & McNamara, T. (2002). Estimating the difficulty of oral proficiency tasks: What does the test-taker have to offer? Language Testing, 19 347-368. Elliot, A. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34, 169-189. Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 4, 193-220. Ellis, R. (2009). Differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30, 474-509. Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299-323. He, T. (2005). Effects of mastery and performance goals on the composition strategy use of adult EFL writers. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 61, 407-431. Iwashita, N., McNamara, T., & Elder. C. (2001). Can we predict task difficulty in an oral proficiency test? Exploring the potential of an information processing approach to task design. Language Learning, 21, 401-436. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27, 590-619. Lynch, T. & MacLean, J. (2000). Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for classroom language learning. Language Teaching Research, 4, 221-250. Midgley, C. (2002). Goals, goal structures, and patterns of adaptive learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., Middleton, M., Maehr, M., Urdan, T., Hicks, L., Anderman, E., & Roeser, R. (1998). The development and validation of scales assessing students’ achievement goal orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 113-131. Ortega, L. (1995). The effect of planning in L2 Spanish narratives. (Research Note 15). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 109-148. 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. 77-110). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pintrich, P. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 544-555. Plough, I., & Gass, S. (1993). Interlocutor and task familiarity: Effect on interactional structure. In G. Crookes, & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Skaalvik, E. (1997). Self-enhancing and self-defeating ego orientation: Relations with task and avoidance orientation, achievement, self-perceptions, and anxiety. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 71-81. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tercanlioglu, L. (2004). Achievement goal theory: A perspective on foreign language learners' motivation. TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL du Canada, 21, 34-49.
13
Ben Maad, M. R., The Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 2012–(1), 01-14
Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task design and second language performance: the effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 58, 439-473.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com