Cover not available
Article published In:
Task-Based Language Teaching
Edited by Kris Van den Branden and Machteld Verhelst
[ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics 152] 2006
► pp. 55–84

The Effect of Task Complexity and Task Conditions on Foreign Language Development and Performance. Three Empirical Studies.

 | Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
 | Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
 | Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
 | Universiteit Amsterdam
 | Universiteit Amsterdam
It has been argued that tasks constitute a valid alternative unit to sequence the language learning process, as opposed to linguistically defined syllabuses. Implementing this claim presupposes that it is possible to assess the cognitive and linguistic demands of tasks, so that they can be sequenced in such a way that they optimally support and promote the L2 learning process. Knowing what demands a task will make opens up the possibility of using task design to manipulate the learner's attention between form and meaning in ways that may help interlanguage development.
In this article, we present three empirical studies, which have tried to manipulate task complexity in order to study the effects of differing levels of task complexity on (L2) performance. We situate our studies within the Triadic Componential Framework for Task Design (TCFTD), elaborated by Robinson (1995; 2001; 2005) and interpret our findings in the light of two alternative theories, trying to explain effects on L2 performance arising from task manipulation, namely the Limited Attentional Capacity Model (Skehan & Foster 2001), and the Cognition Hypothesis (Robinson 2001; 2005). Apart from yielding evidence against or in favour of these theories, our studies demonstrate that manipulating L2 learners' attention while performing a task is anything but straightforward. The studies also illustrate how task conditions appear to interact with task complexity.
Published online: 1 January 2006
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.2143/ITL.152.0.2017863
References (40)
References
Bowerman, M. & Levinson, S. (Eds.). (2001). Language acquisition and conceptual development. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, C. (1993). Factors affecting the acquisition of vocabulary: frequency and saliency of words. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes & J. Coady (Eds.), Second language reading and vocabulary learning (pp. 263–286). Norwood: NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers in Bilingualism, 191, 197–205.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 256–310). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197–262). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Foster, P. & Skehan, P. (1999). The influence of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 3, 3,215–247.Google Scholar
Gilabert, R. (2005). Task complexity and L2 narrative oral production. PhD thesis, University of Barcelona.Google Scholar
(forthcoming). The simultaneous manipulation of task complexity along planning time and +/-Here-and-Now: effects on oral production. In M. Garda Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language settings. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Huckin, T. & Coady, J. (1999). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 211, 181–193.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J., Hollander, M. & Greidanus, T. (1996). Incidental vocabulary learning by advanced foreign language stUdents: The influence of marginal glosses, dictionary use, and reoccurence of unknown words. The Modern Language Journal, 801,327–339.Google Scholar
Kuiken, F. & Vedder, I. (forthcoming). Cognitive task complexity and linguistic performance in French L2 writing. In M. Garcia Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language settings. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
(2004a). II Bed, & Breakfast piu bello d'italia. Cognitieve taakcomplexiteit en tekstkwaliteit in Italiaans T2. [II Bed & Breakfast piu bello d'italia. Cognitive task complexity and text quality in Italian L2.]Incontri, 19,1 ,31–39.Google Scholar
(2004b). De relatie tussen cognitieve taakcomplexiteit en lingu'istische performance bij het schrijven in T1 en T2. [The relationship between cognitive task complexity and linguistic performance in L 1 and L2 writing.] Toegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen, 721, 23–32.Google Scholar
Kuiken, F., Mas, M. & Vedder, I. (2005). Cognitive task complexity and second language writing performance. In S. Foster-Cohen, M.P. Garcia-Mayo and J. Cenol (Eds.), Eurosla Yearbook. Vol. 51 (pp. 195–222). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Laufer, B. (2005). Focus on form in second language vocabulary learning. In S.H. Foster-Cohen, M. Garcia-Mayo, & J. Cenol (Eds.), Eurosla Yearbook Vol. 51 (pp. 223–250). Amsterdaml Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Ughtbown, P. (1998). The importance of timing in focus on form. In C. Doughty, & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 177–196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 1, 27–56.Google Scholar
Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom SLA (pp. 15–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mondria, J-A., & Wit-de Boer, M. (1991). The Effects of contextual richness on the guessability and the retention of words in a foreign language. Applied Linguistics, 12, 3, 249–266.Google Scholar
Nation, P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 3, 417–528.Google Scholar
Oberauer, K. et al. (2000). Working memory capacity - facets of a cognitive ability construct. Personality and Individual Differences, 291, 1017–1045.Google Scholar
Peters, E. (forthcoming). L2 vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehension. The influence of task complexity In. M. Garcia Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language settings. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
(submitted). Manipulating students' online dictionary use and its effect on L2 word retention. Language Learning & Technology.
Peters, E. & Sercu, L. (submitted). The influence of task complexity on vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehension. In Vliegen, M. ed., Variation in Sprachtheorie und Spracherwerb. Akten des 39. Linguistischen Kolloquiums in Amsterdam 2004. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory and the "noticing" hypothesis. Language Learning 451, 283–331.Google Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
(2003). Attention and memory during SLA. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 631–678). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a triadic componential framework for second language task design. IRAL. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43, 1, 1–32.Google Scholar
Sanders, A. (1998). Elements of human performance. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183–205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching Abstracts, 301, 73–87.Google Scholar
Staud, T. (2003 October). Ossis sind Türken. 13 Jahre Einheit: In Gesamt-Westdeutschland sind die Ostdeutschen Einwanderer. Die Zeit, 411. Retrieved October 2, 2003 from [URL].
Van Loo, H. & Schoenaerts, P. (2003). Niet vanzelfsprekend. Leuven: Acco.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1990).Attending to content and form in the input: an experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 121,287–301.Google Scholar
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S. & Kim, H.Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: measures of fluency, accuracy and complexity. Honolulu, HI: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawai'i at Manoa.Google Scholar
Cited by (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Abdi Tabari, Mahmoud & Julia Goetze
2024. Exploring the impacts of task complexity, anxiety, and self‐efficacy on L2 written production: Unraveling individual differences in TBLT. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 34:4 ► pp. 1533 ff. DOI logo
Abdi Tabari, Mahmoud, Sima Khezrlou & Yu Tian
2024. Verb argument construction complexity indices and L2 written production: effects of task complexity and task repetition. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 18:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Tabari, Mahmoud Abdi, Sima Khezrlou & Yu Tian
2024. Task complexity, task repetition, and L2 writing complexity: exploring interactions in the TBLT domain. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 62:2 ► pp. 871 ff. DOI logo
O'Leary, John A. & Rasmus Steinkrauss
2022. Syntactic and lexical complexity in L2 English academic writing: Development and competition. Ampersand 9 ► pp. 100096 ff. DOI logo
Dao, Phung, Noriko Iwashita & Elizabeth Gatbonton
2017. Learner attention to form in ACCESS task-based interaction. Language Teaching Research 21:4 ► pp. 454 ff. DOI logo
Frear, Mark Wain & John Bitchener
2015. The effects of cognitive task complexity on writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing 30 ► pp. 45 ff. DOI logo
Peters, Elke, Jan H. Hulstijn, Lies Sercu & Madeline Lutjeharms
2009. Learning L2 German Vocabulary Through Reading: The Effect of Three Enhancement Techniques Compared. Language Learning 59:1 ► pp. 113 ff. DOI logo
Abraham, Lee B.
2008. Computer-mediated glosses in second language reading comprehension and vocabulary learning: A meta-analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning 21:3 ► pp. 199 ff. DOI logo
Kuiken, Folkert & Ineke Vedder
2008. Cognitive task complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing 17:1 ► pp. 48 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 january 2025. 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.