Convenio Internacional para Prevenir la Contaminación por Buques Marpol 73/78

Skehan (2008: 89) stresses the view that early proposal in relation to task selection and grading is based on speculative grounds. Skehan argues that in such proposals, speculative is seen in the dimensions of task difficulty. According to Skehan (2008: 99), such speculative dimensions are difficult to relate them to actual tasks, as well as in the conventions of communicative language teaching. Furthermore, Skehan emphasises the view that such proposal hardly accounts for task elements as discussed in section 3.4, on page 121, as far as task definition is concerned.

Therefore, based on the above challenges in relation to task grading criterion, Skehan (2008: 99) develops his framework for task grading and sequencing. Skehan’s (2008) framework is an extended and an advanced version of his (1992)’s study. In addition, Skehan notes that his 1992 study applies some of the task components, specifically, from Candlin’s (1987) study. Such components include code complexity and communicative stress. Skehan’s (2008) framework is premised on three-categorical distinctions in relation to task analysis. The three distinctions are reflected in, (i) code complexity, (ii) cognitive complexity, as well as, in the (iii) communicative stress, as summarised in Table 3:10 below.

Table 3:10: Showing Skehan's (2008) task dimensions and task difficulty

Code Complexity Cognitive complexity

(a) Cognitive familiarity Communicative stress - linguistic complexity and

variety

- the familiarity of atopic - time limits and time pressure

- vocabulary load and variety - the familiarity of discourse Genre

- the speed of presentation

- redundancy and density - the familiarity of the task - number of participants (b) Cognitive processes - the length of text used - information organisation - type of response

- the amount of ‘computation’ - opportunities to control interaction

- clarity and sufficient of information is given - information type Source: Modified from Skehan (2008: 99)

Basing in Table 3:10 above, Skehan (2008: 99) draws a distinction between the three categories in relation to task dimensions. On one hand, according to Skehan (2008: 99), dimensions in linguistic or code complexity involves the target language that learners need to learn. In addition, like other scholars, Skehan also emphasises a point that language is a complex notion. Drawing from structural syllabuses, as discussed in sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.2, on pages 66 and 69, respectively, Skehan (2008: 99) argues that language can be sequenced from simple to complex structures. In other words, Skehan develops further the assumptions that task can be graded from simple to complex linguistic features. Skehan however, stresses the point that the degree of simplicity is defined definitely. On the other hand, in relation to cognitive complexity, Skehan (2008: 99) contends that cognitive complexity involves the thinking in relation to the content that L2 learners need to perform a task.

Skehan draws a distinction between (i) cognitive familiarity and (ii) cognitive processing. Skehan (2008: 99) relates cognitive familiarity to the learners’ ability to access their existing knowledge in order for learners to provide a solution to the given task. In exemplifying his view above, Skehan (2008: 100) applies the family tree task, as advanced by Willis and Willis (1998). According to Skehan (2008:100), such a task requires L2 learners to make comparisons of their family trees. Skehan contends that for the learners to perform such a task, learners need to retrieve and mobilize their existing knowledge that learners have on the given task. With reference to Skehan (2008: 100), VanPatten (1994) argues that, in the family tree task, learners’ attentional resources are sparingly utilised while focusing on a language form(s) and so on. Thus, attentional resources provide room for learners to attendant the language codes of the task.

In addition, Table 3:10, on page 162, shows that cognitive complexity is further divided into, (i) topic familiarity and predictability. According to Skehan (2008: 100), cluster (i) above, involves the availability of differentiated or organised experience and knowledge across L2 learners. Similarly, in relation to (ii) familiarity of discourse genre, Skehan (2008: 100) argues that such a cluster involves the availability or not of recognizable mapping knowledge in relation to a given genre, such as microstructure. Lastly, according to Skehan, the (iii) familiarity with the task refers to a situation whether L2 learners are familiar or unfamiliar with a given task. Skehan provides tasks that are familiar to the learners, such as decision-making, as well as, jigsaw tasks as illustrated in Table 3:5, on page 144. On the other hand, according to Skehan, unfamiliar tasks are primarily unpredictable and less “susceptible to the previously developed communication”

Similarly, Skehan (2008: 99) refers cognitive processing to the need of working out a solution (s) to a given problem. In order to understand the cognitive processing category of his framework, still, Skehan (2008: 100) uses the example of the riddle task as advanced by Willis and Willis’s (1998). According to Skehan, riddle as a task has easy elements to handle. Skehan, however, maintains that such, elements are significantly uneasy to manipulate (in a positive sense). In that matter, Skehan stresses the point that learners are likely to face challenges to arrive at the solution that the task requires from them. According to Skehan, such challenges are due to the fact that much of the processing is directed towards learners’ cognitive problems involved, which in this sense, Skehan refers to the learners’ limited attention that is directed to focus on the linguistic feature(s).

In addition, Skehan (2008: 100) argues that cognitive processing involves the processing of the pressure (load) that is imposed on L2 learners while performing a given task. Skehan argues that such pressure is reflected in, (i) information organisation, (ii) amount of computation, (iii) clarity and sufficient information, and (iv) information type. According to Skehan, information organisation that he also refers to the order (naturalness) in which the task information is organised/structured. For instance, Skehan ascertains whether, for example, narratives follow the conventional sequence or not. Similarly, in relation to the amount of computation, Skehan refers, such amount to the rate (frequency) of transformations/ manipulating, a given information undergoes to complete a task. In order to understand the amount of computation, Skehan, once again, uses the riddle task from Willis and Willis (1998). Skehan argues that a riddle requires many elements to be worked upon simultaneously. Furthermore, Skehan relates clarity and sufficient information to the direct ways through which a given information is extended to the L2 learner. According to Skehan (2008: 100), clarity, and sufficient information may also mean the information that is given as reference. Finally, Skehan relates information type to all forms of information that

are given to L2 learners. He argues such information can take either an abstract – concrete form or static – dynamic form, as well as contextualized – decontextualized information.

Similarly, Skehan relates communicative stress to a number of conditions that influence L2 learners in order to perform a given task. In other words, Skehan states that communicative stress is a reflection of conditions which are not related to language code or content but are involved in imposing difficulty to the L2 learners while carrying out a task. According to Skehan, it is in the communicative stress that a task is directly implicated in processing. Such conditions include, (i) time limits and time pressure. Skehan contends that conditions to do with time are related to the need for the urgency under which the task is completed and the perception on how to complete the task under such circumstances (pressure). For instance, in reflecting the above views, Skehan stresses that;

When larger quantities of material are presented quickly, and when little time is available for processing, when more complicated responses are required, and there is little opportunity to slow down interaction to take account of processing limitations, it is assumed that it will become more difficult to give attention to form. (2008: 100)

Furthermore, while giving a final remark of this framework, Skehan (2008: 100-101) holds the view that his framework is feasible and applicable in relation to components and labels that describe a learning task. Similarly, Skehan argues that his framework focuses on language meaning, as well as, providing a link to the real-world situations of the L2 learners where language is best used. Finally, whereas tasks are subjected to the above subdivision and procedures as discussed above, Breen (1987a: 163) argues that TBSs may also be subdivided on the basis of overriding in the grading or sequential procedures as will be discussed in the subsequent sections.