In the field of task-based language teaching, sequencing tasks is of substantial importance. One of the proposals for sequencing tasks is cognitive task complexity. Robinson, as one of the proponents of sequencing tasks based on cognitive task complexity, distinguishes between three factors of: task complexity (i.e. the intrinsic cognitive demands of the task), task conditions (i.e. features of tasks which are determined by the situational setting and conditions in which they take place), and task difficulty (i.e. learners’ perceptions of the demands made by the task and the resources that learners bring to the task). After presentation of Robinson’s cognitive task complexity model, there has been a great deal of research which has investigated the influences of the components of this model on the three dimensions of performance including accuracy, fluency, and complexity. The present paper is a brief review of the studies that have been conducted in this respect.
| Published in | International Journal of Language and Linguistics (Volume 4, Issue 5) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.ijll.20160405.11 |
| Page(s) | 157-164 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2016. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Cognitive Task Complexity, Accuracy, Fluency, Lexical and Syntactic Complexity
| [1] | J. C. Richards and T. S. Rodgers, Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching, 2nd ed. Cambridge: CUP, 2001. |
| [2] | H. G. Widdowson, Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: OUP, 1987. |
| [3] | P. Robinson, Task complexit, task difficulty, and task production: exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, vol. 22 (1), pp. 27-57, 2001. |
| [4] | P. Skehan, A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: OUP, 1998. |
| [5] | P. Robinson, Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: A review of studies in a Componential Framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, vol. 43 (1), pp. 1-33, 2005. |
| [6] | P. Foster and P. Skehan, The influence of task structure and processing condition on narrative retelling. Language Learning, vol. 49 (1), pp. 93-120, 1999. |
| [7] | P. Skehan, A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, vol. 17 (1), pp. 38-62, 1996. |
| [8] | P. Robinson, Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. IRAL, 45, pp. 193-213, 2007. |
| [9] | F. Kuiken and I. Vedder, Task complexity and measures of linguistics performance in L2 writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, vol. 45, pp. 261-284, 2007. |
| [10] | G. Brown, A. Anderson, R. Shilcock, and G. Yule, Teaching Talk: Strategies for Production and Assessment, Cambridge: CUP, 1984. |
| [11] | P. Robinson, Task complexity and second language narrative discourse. Language Learning, vol. 45 (1), pp. 99-140, 1995b. |
| [12] | P. Skehan and P. Foster, The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, vol. 49 (1), pp. 93-120, 1999. |
| [13] | N. Iwashita, T. McNamara, and C. Elder, Can we predict task difficulty in an oral proficiency test? Exploring the potential of an information-processing approach to task design. Language Learning, vol. 51 (3), pp. 401-436, 2001. |
| [14] | T. Ishikawa, “The effect of manipulating task complexity along the [+/- Here-and-Now] dimension on L2 written narrative discourse,” in M. del Pilar Garcia-Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning, Clevendon, Avon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 136-156, 2007. |
| [15] | M. Rahimpour, Task complexity and variation in L2 learners’ oral discourse. Working Papers in Language and Linguistics, University of Queensland, 1-9, 2007. |
| [16] | M. Rahimpour and P. Hoseini, The impact of task complexity on L2 learners’ written narratives. English Language Teaching, vol. 3 (3), pp. 198-205, 2010. |
| [17] | S. Abdollahzade and A. Farde-Kashani, The effect of task complexity on EFL learners' narrative writing task performance. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, vol. 8, pp. 1-28, 2011. |
| [18] | R. Ellis, Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style shifting in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, vol. 9, pp. 1-20, 1987. |
| [19] | G. Crookes, Planning and inter language variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, vol. 11, pp. 367−83, 1989. |
| [20] | P. Foster and P. Skehan, The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, vol. 18 (3), pp. 299-323, 1996. |
| [21] | P. Skehan and P. Foster, Task type and task processing condition as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, vol. 1 (3), pp. 185-211, 1997. |
| [22] | U. Mehnert, The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, vol. 20 (1), pp. 83-108, 1998. |
| [23] | L. Ortega, Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, vol. 21, pp. 108-148, 1999. |
| [24] | G. Wigglesworth, “Influences on performance in task-based oral assessments,” in M. Bygate, P. Skehan, and M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 186-209). Harlow: Pearson Education, 2001. |
| [25] | F. Yuan and R. Ellis, The effects of pre-task planning and online planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, vol. 24 (1), pp. 1-27, 2003. |
| [26] | R. Gilabert, “The simultaneous manipulation of task complexity along planning time and [+/- Here-and-now]: Effects on L2 oral production,” in M. del Pilar Garcia-Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 44-68). Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters, 2007. |
| [27] | R. Ellis and F. Yuan, The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in secong language narrative writing. SSLA, vol. 26, pp. 59-84, 2004. |
| [28] | P. Tavakoli and P. Skehan, Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance (pp. 213-239). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing company, 2005. |
| [29] | Y. Shin, The effects of planning on L2 writing: A study of Korean learners of English as a foreign language (Doctoral dissertation), 2008. Retrieved from http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/44. |
| [30] | J. Ong and L. J. Zhang, Effects of task complexity on the fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students’ argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, vol, 19, pp. 219-233, 2010. |
| [31] | E. Bageridoust and F. K. Allahyari, The effects of planning on accuracy in argument/compare and contrast writing of Iranian EFL learners. International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, vol. 4 (12), pp. 3764-3773, 2013. |
| [32] | M. Ghavamnia, M. Tavakoli, and M. Esteki, The effect of pre-task and online planning conditions on complexity, accuracy, and fluency on EFL learners' written production. Porta Linguarum, vol. 20, pp. 31-43, 2013. |
| [33] | P. Robinson and J. Lim, Cognitive load and the route marked not-marked map task, Unpublished data, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of ESL, Honolulu, US, 1993. |
| [34] | M. Bygate, Quality of language and purpose of task: patterns of learners’ language on two oral communication tasks. Language Teaching Research, vol. 3 (3), pp. 185-214, 1999a. |
| [35] | P. Tavakoli and P. Foster, Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, vol. 58 (2), pp. 439-473, 2008. |
| [36] | P. Foster and P. Tavakoli, Native speakers and task performance: Comparing effects on complexity, fluency, and lexical diversity. Language Learning, vol. 59 (4), pp. 866-896, 2009. |
| [37] | J. Kormos, Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, vol. 20, pp. 148-161, 2011. |
| [38] | K. R. Finardi, Effects of task repetition on L2 oral performance. Trab. Ling. Aplic. Campinas, vol. 47 (1), pp. 31-43, 2008. |
APA Style
Nasrin Sanajoo, Nasrin Asadi. (2016). The Effects of Cognitive Task Complexity on Learners’ Performance. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 4(5), 157-164. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20160405.11
ACS Style
Nasrin Sanajoo; Nasrin Asadi. The Effects of Cognitive Task Complexity on Learners’ Performance. Int. J. Lang. Linguist. 2016, 4(5), 157-164. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20160405.11
AMA Style
Nasrin Sanajoo, Nasrin Asadi. The Effects of Cognitive Task Complexity on Learners’ Performance. Int J Lang Linguist. 2016;4(5):157-164. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20160405.11
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.ijll.20160405.11,
author = {Nasrin Sanajoo and Nasrin Asadi},
title = {The Effects of Cognitive Task Complexity on Learners’ Performance},
journal = {International Journal of Language and Linguistics},
volume = {4},
number = {5},
pages = {157-164},
doi = {10.11648/j.ijll.20160405.11},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20160405.11},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijll.20160405.11},
abstract = {In the field of task-based language teaching, sequencing tasks is of substantial importance. One of the proposals for sequencing tasks is cognitive task complexity. Robinson, as one of the proponents of sequencing tasks based on cognitive task complexity, distinguishes between three factors of: task complexity (i.e. the intrinsic cognitive demands of the task), task conditions (i.e. features of tasks which are determined by the situational setting and conditions in which they take place), and task difficulty (i.e. learners’ perceptions of the demands made by the task and the resources that learners bring to the task). After presentation of Robinson’s cognitive task complexity model, there has been a great deal of research which has investigated the influences of the components of this model on the three dimensions of performance including accuracy, fluency, and complexity. The present paper is a brief review of the studies that have been conducted in this respect.},
year = {2016}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - The Effects of Cognitive Task Complexity on Learners’ Performance AU - Nasrin Sanajoo AU - Nasrin Asadi Y1 - 2016/08/06 PY - 2016 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20160405.11 DO - 10.11648/j.ijll.20160405.11 T2 - International Journal of Language and Linguistics JF - International Journal of Language and Linguistics JO - International Journal of Language and Linguistics SP - 157 EP - 164 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2330-0221 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20160405.11 AB - In the field of task-based language teaching, sequencing tasks is of substantial importance. One of the proposals for sequencing tasks is cognitive task complexity. Robinson, as one of the proponents of sequencing tasks based on cognitive task complexity, distinguishes between three factors of: task complexity (i.e. the intrinsic cognitive demands of the task), task conditions (i.e. features of tasks which are determined by the situational setting and conditions in which they take place), and task difficulty (i.e. learners’ perceptions of the demands made by the task and the resources that learners bring to the task). After presentation of Robinson’s cognitive task complexity model, there has been a great deal of research which has investigated the influences of the components of this model on the three dimensions of performance including accuracy, fluency, and complexity. The present paper is a brief review of the studies that have been conducted in this respect. VL - 4 IS - 5 ER -
Information
Email: