Task Characteristics as Predictors of Procrastination in an Applied Setting

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurie Wasko ◽  
Michael Horvath
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Koen Luwel ◽  
Lieven Verschaffel ◽  
Patrick Onghena ◽  
Erik De Corte

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 295-315 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grace S. Hayes ◽  
Skye N. McLennan ◽  
Julie D. Henry ◽  
Louise H. Phillips ◽  
Gill Terrett ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 174702182110184
Author(s):  
Lynn Huestegge ◽  
Mareike A Hoffmann ◽  
Tilo Strobach

In situations requiring the execution of two tasks at around the same time, we need to decide which of the tasks should be executed first. Previous research has revealed several factors that affect the outcome of such response order control processes, including bottom-up factors (e.g., the temporal order of the stimuli associated with the two tasks) and top-down factors (e.g., instructions). In addition, it has been shown that tasks associated with certain response modalities are preferably executed first (e.g., temporal prioritisation of tasks involving oculomotor responses). In this study, we focused on a situation in which task order has to be unpredictably switched from trial to trial and asked whether task-order representations are coded separately or integrated with the component task sets (i.e., in a task-specific manner). Across three experiments, we combined two tasks known to differ in prioritisation, namely an oculomotor and a manual (or pedal) task. The results indicated robust task-order switch costs (i.e., longer RTs when task order was switched vs. repeated). Importantly, the data demonstrate that it is possible to show an asymmetry of task-order switch costs: While these costs were of similar size for both task orders in one particular experimental setting with specific spatial task characteristics, two experiments consistently indicated that it was easier for participants to switch to their prioritised task order (i.e., to execute the dominant oculomotor task first). This suggests that in a situation requiring frequent task-order switches (indicated by unpredictable changes in stimulus order), task order is represented in an integrated, task-specific manner, bound to characteristics (here, associated effector systems) of the component tasks.


2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-121
Author(s):  
Bárbara Eizaga-Rebollar ◽  
Cristina Heras-Ramírez

AbstractThe study of pragmatic competence has gained increasing importance within second language assessment over the last three decades. However, its study in L2 language testing is still scarce. The aim of this paper is to research the extent to which pragmatic competence as defined by the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) has been accommodated in the task descriptions and rating scales of two of the most popular Oral Proficiency Interviews (OPIs) at a C1 level: Cambridge’s Certificate in Advanced English (CAE) and Trinity’s Integrated Skills in English (ISE) III. To carry out this research, OPI tests are first defined, highlighting their differences from L2 pragmatic tests. After pragmatic competence in the CEFR is examined, focusing on the updates in the new descriptors, CAE and ISE III formats, structure and task characteristics are compared, showing that, while the formats and some characteristics are found to differ, the structures and task types are comparable. Finally, we systematically analyse CEFR pragmatic competence in the task skills and rating scale descriptors of both OPIs. The findings show that the task descriptions incorporate mostly aspects of discourse and design competence. Additionally, we find that each OPI is seen to prioritise different aspects of pragmatic competence within their rating scale, with CAE focusing mostly on discourse competence and fluency, and ISE III on functional competence. Our study shows that the tests fail to fully accommodate all aspects of pragmatic competence in the task skills and rating scales, although the aspects they do incorporate follow the CEFR descriptors on pragmatic competence. It also reveals a mismatch between the task competences being tested and the rating scale. To conclude, some research lines are proposed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document