task sequencing

Over the years, much research has been done on the role of tasks in L2 learning, but little is known about how sequencing tasks affects listening comprehension. Thus, the present study evaluated the effect of sequencing repeated familiar tasks (SRFT) along three dimensions of complexity i.e. +/- visual support, +/- few elements, and +/- planning time. Sixty upper-intermediate EFL learners were randomly selected as experimental group (n=30) and control group (n=30) in this experimental research. To control the homogeneity of the participants and their topic familiarity, the Success Placement Test designed by Fricker (2007) and the listening comprehension test (developed by Richards, 2005) were administered respectively. Then the posttest of listening for IELTS which included 3 levels of task complexity was employed to analyze the results of SRFT. The participants in the experimental group were required to listen to keeping fit tasks ordered from simple to complex tasks during 10 sessions. The participants in the control group performed disordered tasks. T-test and SPSS version 20 were utilized to analyze the tests. Before employing treatment, the placement test addressed that both of the groups obtained no marked difference level of English language knowledge. They also displayed the same topic familiarity of listening comprehension on the pretest. In the end, the t-test indicates a positive influence of SRFT for the experimental group in the posttest. The findings of this study recommend sequencing tasks in English classes as a basic tool to improve the listening performance of learners.

 Task sequencing (TS) has been a focus of empirical investigations in task-based language teaching (TBLT). Previous studies on TS failed to represent classroom contexts because they did not provide learners with corrective feedback (CF). This study aimed to address this gap by examining the combined effects of TS and CF on writing complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF). To do so, 113 upper-intermediate EFL learners were selected and divided into two groups. Participants took a pretest at the beginning of the study. Each group performed two three-task sets in simple-to-complex(S-C) or complex-to-simple(C-S) order. In each group, the errors in the first set of tasks were given CF by error codes (ECs), while the errors in the second set were only underlined. Participants in both groups were asked to revise their texts based on the provided CF and take a posttest at the end of the study. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was run to analyze the pretest and posttest data. The results showed that the group performing tasks in S-C order and receiving ECs outperformed the others. Findings supported the SSARC (Stabilize, Simplify, Automatize, Reconstruct, Complexify) model. The study has implications for material development.