Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis and second language learning and performance

Abstract

In this paper we describe a taxonomy of task demands which distinguishes between Task Complexity, Task Condition and Task Difficulty. We then describe three theoretical claims and predictions of the Cognition Hypothesis (Robinson 2001(Robinson , 2003b(Robinson , 2005a The Cognition Hypothesis: Task complexity, task design and task sequencingThis special issue consists of a theoretical overview of two models of attention that have prompted extensive research into the effects of task demands on selective attention and co-ordination of attentional resources during dual and multitask performance, followed by four empirical studies examining the effects of manipulating dimensions of task complexity on; (i) the accuracy, fluency and complexity of second language (L2) speech production; (ii) the extent of interaction and uptake of premodified input occurring during task performance, and iii) learner perceptions of task difficulty. A great number of previous studies have examined the effects of one or another aspect of L2 task demands, such as the availability of planning time (see Ellis 2005), or the nature and extent of participation on tasks (see Pica, Kanagy and Falodun 1993), individually. Drawing on this, and other previous research the studies in this special issue all address the issue of task complexity in the Triadic Componential Framework (Robinson 2001(Robinson , 2005a(Robinson , 2007a which specifies component dimensions of task complexity in terms of three superordinate cognitive, interactive and learner factors in order that each dimension can be studied separately, and also that

The Impact of Task Complexity on L2 Learners’ Written Narratives

“…This framework is based on cognition hypothesis. As Robinson & Gilabert (2007) assert, the main pedagogic claim of cognition hypothesis is that pedagogic tasks should be designed and sequenced on the basis of increases in their cognitive complexity. In other words, Robinson & Gilabert (2007) declare that the information about the effect of task complexity on language performance can be used to guide decision-making about sequencing tasks in syllabus design.…”

Past and future research agendas on writing strategies: Conceptualizations, inquiry methods, and research findings

“…For instance, argumentative tasks were found to trigger more decisions involving simultaneous thinking about gist and language than letter writing (Cumming, 1989), and backtracking behavior was found to differ in narrative and argumentative tasks (Manchón et al, 2000). More recently, several studies (Ong, 2013(Ong, , 2014Ong & Zhang, 2010) framed in second language acquisition (SLA) theories of task complexity (essentially Robinson's cognition hypothesis; see Robinson, 2011, for the latest formulation), have looked into various task complexity factors contemplated in the cognition hypothesis (such as planning time, or the availability of writing assistance in terms of ideas to be included in the text or its macro-structure) on writing processes (metacognitive processes, Ong, 2014) and ideational and linguistic characteristics of the resulting texts (quality and quantity of ideas in the text [Ong, 2013], or fluency and lexical complexity [Ong & Zhang, 2010]). Another task-related factor found to mediate strategy use is time, as reported, for instance, by Sasaki (2004) with respect to the strategies of local or global planning and use of the L1, by Porte (1995Porte ( , 1996 with respect to revision behavior, and by Tillema et al (2011) with respect to the temporal distribution of six (meta)cognitive activities (reading the assignment, planning, text production, reading own text, evaluating own text, and revising).…”

Standardized Test Results: An Opportunity for English Program Improvement

“…When analyzing the textbook and class material, it was possible to determine that the grading and sequencing of these activities were appropriate as these begin with easy-to-complete tasks, and gradually become more complex, lesson by lesson and level by level. It can be said that the complexity goes in accordance with the progression of the language skills and is related to the cognitive, interactive, and learner dimensions of the tasks (Robinson & Gilabert, 2007). According to Robinson and Gilabert, tasks should be "designed, and sequenced" (p. 162) on the basis of their cognitive complexity, which is clearly observed in the materials and classes.…”