Reexamining Factors that Affect Task Difficulty in TBLA

1
Re-examining Factors that Affect Task Difficulty
in TBLA

• Shaoqian Sheila Luo
• English Department, CUHK
• English Department, BNU, China
• Supervisor Professor Peter Skehan
• sheilabj99_at_yahoo.com
• Task-Based Language Teaching 2005

2
The presentation structure

• the rationale of the research
• defining the problem
• tasks and assessment
• Previous findings weaknesses
• research questions and research methods
• studies
• findings and future plans
• implications

3
Research Rationale Defining the problem

• Identification of valid, user-friendly sequencing
  criteria for tasks and test tasks is a pressing
  but old problem
• Grading task difficulty and sequencing tasks both
  appear to be arbitrary processes not based on
  empirical evidence (Long Crookes, 1992)
• Not much of an effort been made to define task
  descriptors in operational terms (see Robinson,
  1991)

4
Research Rationale Tasks and Assessment

• Grading and sequencing issues assume great
  importance for testing and assessment of
  communicative performance
• to elucidate the potential for using
  task-based performance assessment to generalize
  about students second language abilities
  (Brown et al., 2002, p. 1).
• The Brown-Norris matrix (1998 2002 influenced
  by Skehan (1996) offers one way of characterising
  test task difficulty, but lacks obvious
  connection to a Chinese secondary context

5
Previous findings weaknesses

• previous findings (on task difficulty) were of
  only moderate support for the proposed
  relationships between the combinations of
  cognitive factors with particular task types
• (Elder et al., 2002)

6
This research

• investigates the development and use of a
  prototype task difficulty scheme based on current
  frameworks for assessing task characteristics and
  difficulty, e.g. Brown et al, and Skehan (1998).
• Hypothesis
• There is a systematic relationship between task
  difficulty and hypothesized task complexity (see
  also Elder , 2002)

7
Research questions

• How can language ability in TBLT in mainland
• Chinese middle schools best be assessed?
• Is the Brown et al. task difficulty framework
  appropriate to the mainland Chinese school
  context? If it is not, then what is an
  alternative framework?
• Is it possible to have a task difficulty
  framework that can be generalized from context to
  context?
• What are the teachers perceptions of task
  difficulty in a Chinese context?
• What are the factors that are considered to
  affect task difficulty in this context?

8
Research methods

• (1) a quantitative analysis of ratings of the
  tasks on the modified task difficulty matrix
• (2) a qualitative analysis of verbal self-report
  data(introspection) and the focus group
  interviews on the factors that affect task
  difficulty.
• Methodological triangulation was accomplished by
  using (a) an analytical task difficulty rating
  scheme (b) a holistic task difficulty vertical
  line, (c) verbal self-report (introspection), (d)
  focus group interviews and questionnaires.
  Location triangulation was achieved by collecting
  data from test writers, material developers,
  experienced teachers and (students) from
  different regions of China and abroad.

9
Participants and tasks

• in the development and refining of the task
  difficulty matrix for prototypical tasks in
  task-based testing, nine groups of 48 Chinese,
  English, Swedish test writers, experienced
  teachers and EFL material developers participated
  in the rating of 86 tasks, interviews and
  introspection (verbal self-report)
• data of six tasks from 800 students in eight
  regions (randomly chosen from about a population
  of 500,000) was collected and analysed.
• tasks were designed by Chinese and English test
  writers, EFL material developers and experienced
  teachers according to the themes in the Chinese
  English Curriculum (experimental version, 2001).

10
The research stages

• 1. First stage April and May 2004
• trial of Norris and Brown task difficulty matrix
• 2. Second stage developing and refining the
  matrix
• Oct 2004 trial on the IPO-CFS task difficulty
  matrix
• 3. Third stage refining the matrix on 24 tasks
  (Nov 2004)
• December 2004 data from 800 students on six
  tasks
• Jan 2005 refining the matrix - ratings of 24
  tasks
• 4. A comparison between Brown et al.s matrix and
  the modified matrix
• 5. Introspection from David, Olov and Prof. B
  (Feb 2005)
• 6. Finalizing matrix (Mar July 2005)

11
Research studies

• 1. First stage April and May 2004
• To Find out the factors that affect task
  difficulty among three groups of 26 mainland
  Chinese English teachers by using Norris et al.
  (1998)s task difficulty matrix (Appendix 1)
• The results of the test of the Norris
  et al. approaches to task difficulty among three
  groups of mainland Chinese English teachers show
  that there is tremendous disagreement between the
  Chinese teachers and Norris et al.s predicted
  difficulty level (Table 1). Among fourteen tasks,
  both sides agree on only three tasks, Planning
  the weekend, Shopping in supermarket and Radio
  weather information which are common general
  topics in the daily life. The other tasks
  generated disagreement, especially in relation to
  cognitive skills, because of different
  assumptions regarding relevant background and
  cultural knowledge different interpretations of
  the requirements made by different tasks and
  different interpretations of how more abstract
  tasks should be handled.

12
Modified Task Difficulty Matrix
13

• Code complexity linguistic complexity
  linguistic input
• Cognitive complexity cognitive familiarity
  cognitive processing amount of input
• Communicative stress time interaction context
• Task conditions Language proficiency language
  abilities language skills culture other

14

• 2. Second stage of research Oct. 2004
• 2-teacher trial on the IPO-CFS task difficulty
  scheme and task analysis on 48 tasks (designed by
  DL and SL) based on the 24 themes in the Chinese
  National Curriculum (Table 2)
• Findings
• Most of the ratings show agreement between the
  two teachers.
• Correlation for the means of both teachers
  .65
• There is a huge gap (above 6 considered as a big
  gap between the ratings of Task group 1 (SL) and
  Task group 2 (DL) of the two teachers) between
  the ratings of some Group 1 tasks and Group 2
  tasks. Table 3 is the analysis of the nine pairs
  of tasks from the task requirements to see how
  demanding the input, the processing and the
  output are in each task

15
24 Themes in the Chinese National English
Curriculum (2001)

• Personal information Family, friends and people
  around Personal environments Daily routines
  School life Interests and hobbies Emotions
  Interpersonal relationships Plans and
  intentions Festivals, holidays and celebrations
  Shopping Food and drink Health and fitness
  Weather Entertainment and sports Travel and
  transport Language learning Nature The world
  and the environment Popular science and modern
  technology Topical issues History and
  geography Society Literature and art

16

• Third stage refining the matrix
• Nov 2004 Refining the matrix by collecting data
  from 5 experienced teachers and test writers,
  Sunny, Peter, DL, SL and Simon on 24 tasks
  (designed by test writers and experienced
  teachers. Table 4 5)
• Results of the ratings on the refined matrix
  again show their agreement of the easy and
  difficult tasks (Appendix 2).

17

• December 2004 Six tasks (1, 4, 7, 13-easy and 6,
  12-difficult.) tested data from 800 students in
  eight different cities and provinces.
• Pj difficulty level of test items.
  difficulty range (0.30.7). above 0.7,
  difficult below 0.3, easy.

18
Six tasks
19

• Jan 2005 refining the matrix - ratings of 24
  tasks from 6 who have 1) interest 2) at least
  are with masters degrees, or even better with PhD
  degrees 3) five years of teaching experience or
  is a test developer or an EFL material writer
• SL, Dodie, Lihy, PS, David, Sunny
• Results of the ratings on the matrix (both
  holistic and analytical to validate the matrix)
  show a range of correlation from .52 to .83 with
  only one pair of exception .34.

20
(No Transcript)
21
4. A comparison between Brown et al.s matrix and
the modified matrix

• Similarities (5)
• Primary research question Similar purposes
  similar design of matrix an example of an
  assessment alternative Sources
• Differences (10)
• Test Objects Task Themes Task Focus
  (-)related to curriculum Task Selection
  Definitions/Labels Characteristics Layout
  Rating System Raters

22

• 5. Introspection from David, Olov and Prof. B
• they gave detailed verbal self-report data which
  identified a variety of strategies followed in
  rating the tasks which help refining the matrix.
• 6. Finalizing the matrix
• the finalized task difficulty matrix sequences
  tasks from three dimensions, Input, Processing
  and Output and the following components

23
Task difficulty matrix for prototypical tasks in
task-based language testing
component
Please mark in each column 0 ( very easy)
1(easy) 2 (satisfactory) 3 (very difficult)
under each category for each task.
24
(No Transcript)
25

• A.     Content
• 1. Information
• l    Immediate vs. remote
• 1) Here now vs. there then
• 2) Abstractness vs. concreteness
• 3) Familiarity vs. unfamiliarity
• 2. Amount
• l    Total amount
• l  Organization
• 3. Transformation
• (retrieval and transformation in PROCESSING
• operations in OUTPUT)

26

• B. Form
• 4. Level of syntax
• 5. Level of vocabulary
• C. Modality Visual/aural Presentation Reading
  Writing Listening Speaking Others
• D. Support Pictures Clues Situation
  Authenticity World knowledge Personal
  experience Common sense Resources Tools
  Others

27
Plans for Future Research

• 1. To define the notion of task difficulty
• 2. To validate the task difficulty matrix and
• sequence the 24 themes and prototypical
• tasks in the Chinese National English
• Curriculum by collecting more data from
• raters and students.
• 3. To define the task descriptors in
  operational
• terms

28
Implications (1)

• With such a system for estimation of task
  difficulty, learner performances on carefully
  sampled tasks can be used to predict future
  performances on tasks that are constituted by
  related difficulty components. (Norris et al.,
  199858)
• Students with greater levels of underlying
  ability will be able to successfully complete
  tasks which come higher on such a scale of
  difficulty. (Skehan, 1998184)

29
Implications (2)

• A fundamental important reason for using
  pedagogic tasks, sequenced in order of increasing
  cognitive complexity, as the basis of syllabus
  design is such a sequencing decision should
  effectively facilitate L2 development, the
  acquisition of new L2 knowledge, and
  restructuring of existing L2 representations.
  (Robinson, 200134)

30
References

• Brown, J. D., Hudson, T., Norris, J. Bonk, W.
  J. (2002). An investigation of second language
  task-based performance assessments. Second
  Language Teaching Curriculum Center, University
  of Hawaii at Manoa.
• Elder C., Iwashita N., McNamara, T. (2002).
  Estimating the difficulty of oral proficiency
  tasks What does the test-taker have to offer?
  Language Testing, 19,4, 343-368.
• Long, M., Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches
  to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly.
  26, 27-56.
• Norris, J. M., Brown, J. D., Hudson, T. D.,
  Bonk, W. (2002). Examinee abilities and task
  difficulty in task-based second language
  performance assessment. Language Testing, 19(4),
  395-418.
• Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task
  difficulty, and task production Exploring
  interactions in a componential framework. Applied
  Linguistics, 22 (1), 27 57.
• Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the
  implementation of task-based instruction. Applied
  Linguistics, 17 (1), 38-62.
• Skehan, P (1998). A Cognitive approach to
  language learning. Oxford Oxford University
  Press.