Cover not available
Part of
Researching L2 Task Performance and Pedagogy: In honour of Peter Skehan
Edited by Zhisheng (Edward) Wen and Mohammad Javad Ahmadian
[Task-Based Language Teaching 13] 2019
► pp. 95–132

Chapter 5
Unravelling cognitive task complexity

Learning from learners’ perspectives on task characteristics and second language performance

 | The University of Tokyo
 | Educational Testing Service
Cognitive task complexity, which refers to the complexity or difficulty of a given task, has received substantial interest from researchers in various fields, including task-based language teaching (TBLT), second language acquisition, language testing, cognitive psychology, and education. In TBLT, researchers hope to make sense of complexity in order to design tasks that promote L2 performance, interaction, and learning. In this domain of research, Peter Skehan’s contributions are seminal. His Limited Attentional Capacity approach (1998) has inspired a large number of studies on cognitive task complexity and encouraged a healthy theoretical debate. In particular, his careful observations of the relationship between task characteristics and learner performance (as seen, for example, in Skehan, 2009, 2016) have demonstrated the importance of exploring in detail the nature of particular task characteristics (a priori design features and beyond) and the associated possibilities for improvement or deterioration in learners’ task performances.
Inspired by his work, the current study explores how learners responded to four picture-based oral narration tasks with varying degrees of complexity by design. A total of 120 English-L2 speakers in Japan narrated four picture sequences, each containing one, two, four, or nine characters (hence, varying degrees of cognitive task complexity by design). To gauge their perceptions of each task, learners rated each version according to perceived difficulty and mental effort exerted, and they provided written explanatory comments for their ratings.
Participants’ comments revealed three overarching categories of factors to which they attributed difficulty/effort associated with the tasks: conceptual input, code complexity, and performance factors. Further analysis of their comments from the perspective of Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller, 1994) indicated that difficulty/effort was associated with three distinct types of cognitive complexity: (a) intrinsic complexity related to learners’ English proficiency; (b) extraneous complexity that was perceived to be deleterious or irrelevant to task performance; and (c) germane complexity that encouraged learners to focus on improved performance. Of particular interest for task designers, the task with a combination of low extraneous and high germane complexity elicited the best performances, as measured by syntactic complexity, linguistic accuracy, lexical variety, and fluency indices. The paper concludes by indicating directions to be taken in future task complexity research.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • The current study
  • Methods
  • Participants
  • Materials
  • Procedures
  • Measurement and data analysis
    • Data coding
    • Independent measures of cognitive complexity
    • Language performance measures
  • Results and discussion
    • Part 1. Learner perspectives on levels and sources of task complexity
    • Conceptual input
    • Code complexity
    • Performance factors
    • Interim summary of learner perspectives on complexity
    • Part 2. Relationship between perceived complexity and second language task performance
    • Cognitive load theory and types of cognitive load
    • Intrinsic complexity
    • Extraneous complexity
    • Germane complexity
  • Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 28 August 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.13.06sas
References (28)
References
Bloom, B., Englehart, M. Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: David McKay.Google Scholar
Brünken, R., Steinbacher, S., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2002). Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning using dual-task methodology. Experimental Psychology, 49, 109–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Candlin, C. N. (1987). Towards task-based language learning. In C. N. Candlin & D. Murphy (Eds.), Lancaster practical papers in English language education, Vol. 7: Language learning tasks (pp.5–22). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Haji, F. A., Cheung, J. J. H., Woods, N., Regehr, G., de Ribaupierre, S., & Dubrowski, A. (2016). Thrive or overload? The effect of task complexity on novices’ simulation-based learning. Medical Education, 50, 955–968. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 27–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M., Brown, J. D., Hudson, T. D., & Yoshioka, J. (1998). Designing second language performance assessments. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Prefontaine, Y., & Kormos, J. (2015). The relationship between task difficulty and second language fluency: A mixed methods approach. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 96–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Révész, A. (2014). Towards a fuller assessment of cognitive models of task-based learning: Investigating task-generated cognitive demands and processes. Applied Linguistics, 35, 87–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp.287–318). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sasayama, S. (2014). Measuring cognitive task complexity from the learners’ perspective. Paper presented at the TBLT in Asia conference, Osaka, Japan.
(2015). Validating the assumed relationship between task design, cognitive complexity, and second language task performance (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest.
(2016). Is a “complex” task really complex? Validating the assumption of cognitive task complexity. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 231–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sasayama, S., Malicka, A., Norris, J. (forthcoming). Cognitive task complexity: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Limited attentional capacity, second language performance, and task-based pedagogy. In P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp.211–260). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Limited attention capacity and cognition: Two hypotheses regarding second language performance on tasks. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference (pp.123–156). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Tasks versus conditions: Two perspectives on task research and their implications for pedagogy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 34–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 123–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tavakoli, P. (2009). Investigating task difficulty: Learners’ and teachers’ perceptions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 12, 287–301. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zakay, D., & Block, R. A. (1997). Temporal cognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 12–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Norris, John M., Shoko Sasayama & Michelle Kim
2023. Simulating Real‐World Context in an Email Writing Task: Implications for Task‐Based Language Assessment. ETS Research Report Series 2023:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Norris, John M., Shoko Sasayama & Michelle Kim
2023. The relationship between poststimulus pause, learner proficiency, and working memory in an Elicited Imitation Task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 45:5 ► pp. 1370 ff. DOI logo
Sasayama, Shoko & John M. Norris
2022. Designing speaking tasks for different assessment goals. TASK. Journal on Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning 2:2 ► pp. 184 ff. DOI logo
Xu, Ting Sophia, Lawrence Jun Zhang & Janet S. Gaffney
2022. EXAMINING THE RELATIVE EFFECTS OF TASK COMPLEXITY AND COGNITIVE DEMANDS ON STUDENTS’ WRITING IN A SECOND LANGUAGE. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 44:2 ► pp. 483 ff. DOI logo
Révész, Andrea
2021. Exploring task-based cognitive processes. TASK. Journal on Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning 1:2 ► pp. 266 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. How to Teach an Additional Language [Task-Based Language Teaching, 15], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 7 november 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.