This study set out to test the theoretical premise of the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing, which postulates that tasks should be sequenced for learners from cognitively simple to complex. This experiment compared the performance of three tasks differing in cognitive complexity in a simple–complex sequence versus in the absence of any other tasks. There were two groups in the study: (1) participants who performed the three tasks in the simple–complex sequence, and (2) participants who performed either the simple, the complex, or the most complex task. The participants’ speech was analysed using fluency, accuracy, and complexity measures. The results indicate that simple–complex sequencing led to a higher speech rate, greater dysfluency, enhanced accuracy, and greater structural complexity, as compared to individual task performance. The results are discussed in terms of the SSARC model and pedagogical implications of the findings are presented.
AhmadianM. (2012). The effects of guided careful online planning on complexity, accuracy and fluency in intermediate EFL learners’ oral production: The case of English articles. Language Teaching Research, 16, 129–149.
2.
BaraltM. (2010). Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis and interaction in CMC and FTF environments. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
3.
BaraltM. (2013). The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during online versus face-to-face interactive tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 689–725.
4.
BaraltM. (2014). Task complexity and task sequencing in traditional versus online language classes. In Baralt, M., Gilabert, R., & P. Robinson (Eds.), Task sequencing and instructed second language learning (pp. 95–122). London: Bloomsbury.
5.
BaraltM.GilabertR.RobinsonP. (2014). An introduction to theory and research in task sequencing and instructed second language learning. In Baralt, M., Gilabert, R., & P. Robinson (Eds.), Task sequencing and instructed second language learning (pp. 1–37). London: Bloomsbury.
6.
BensonS.D. (2015). Task-based language teaching: An empirical study of task transfer. Language Teaching Research, 20, 341–365.
7.
BrindleyG. (1987). Factors affecting task difficulty. In Nunan, D. (Ed.), Guidelines for the development of curriculum Resources (pp. 45–56). Adelaide: Adelaide National Curriculum Resource Centre.
8.
BrownG.K.MalmkjaerK.WilliamsJ. (Eds.). (1984). Teaching talk: Strategies for production and assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9.
BygateM. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 23–48). Harlow: Pearson Longman.
10.
BygateM.SamudaV. (2005). Integrative planning through the use of task-repetition. In Ellis, R. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language: Volume 11 (pp. 37–74). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
11.
CandlinC. (1987). Towards task-based language learning. In Candlin, C., & D. Murphy (Eds.), Language learning tasks (pp. 5–22). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
12.
CohenJ.W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
CraikF.LockhartR. (1972). Level of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684.
14.
FosterP.TonkynA.WigglesworthG. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21, 354–375.
15.
GilabertR. (2007). Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 oral production. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 215–240.
16.
HsuH. (2012). Investigating the effects of planning on L2 text chat performance. CALICO Journal, 29, 619–638.
17.
HsuH.C. (2015). The effect of task planning on L2 performance and L2 development in text-based synchronous computer-mediated communication. Applied Linguistics, 38, 359–385.
18.
HulstijnJ. (2001). Intentional and incidental second language vocabulary learning: A reappraisal of rehearsal, elaboration and automaticity. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 349–381). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19.
HulstijnJ. (2003). Incidental and intentional learning. In Doughty, C., & M.H., Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 631–678). Oxford: Blackwell.
20.
IshikawaT. (2011). Examining the influence of intentional reasoning demands on learner perceptions of task difficulty and L2 monologic speech. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 307–329). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
21.
JacksonD.O.SuethanapornkulS. (2013). The Cognition Hypothesis: A synthesis and meta-analysis of research on second language task complexity. Language Learning, 63, 330–367.
22.
KimY.PayantC. (2014). A pedagogical proposal for task sequencing: An exploration of task repetition and task complexity on learning opportunities. In Baralt, M., Gilabert, R., & P.,Robinson (Eds.), Task sequencing and instructed second language learning (pp. 151–177). London: Bloomsbury.
23.
KimY.TaguchiN. (2015). Promoting task-based pragmatics instruction in EFL classroom contexts: The role of task complexity. The Modern Language Journal, 99, 656–677.
24.
KimY.Tracy-VenturaN. (2011). Task complexity, language anxiety, and the development of the simple past. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 287–306). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
25.
KimY.PayantC.PearsonP. (2015). The intersection of task-based interaction, task complexity, and working memory: L2 question development through recasts in a laboratory setting. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 549–581.
26.
KormosJ. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 148–161.
27.
KormosJ.TrebitsA. (2011). Working memory capacity and narrative task performance. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 267–287). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
28.
KuikenF.VedderI. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic performance in L2 writing and speaking: The effect of mode. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 91–104). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
29.
LambertC.RobinsonP. (2014). Learning to perform narrative tasks: A semester-long classroom study of L2 task sequencing effects. In Baralt, M., Gilabert, R., & P., Robinson (Eds.). Task sequencing and instructed second language learning (pp. 207–230). London: Bloomsbury.
30.
Larson-HallJ. (2010). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. London: Routledge.
31.
LevkinaM.GilabertR. (2014). Task sequencing in the L2 development of spatial expressions. In Baralt, M., Gilabert, R., & P., Robinson (Eds.). Task sequencing and instructed second language learning (pp. 37–70). London: Bloomsbury.
32.
LoganG.D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatisation. Psychological Review, 95, 492–527.
33.
LynchT.MacleanJ. (2000). Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling in classroom language learning. Language Teaching Research, 4, 221–250.
34.
LynchT.MacleanJ. (2001). ‘A case of exercising’: Effects of immediate task repetition on learners’ performance. In BygateM.SkehanP.SwainM. (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 141–162). Harlow: Pearson Longman.
35.
LysterR.RantaL. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.
36.
MalickaA. (2014). The role of task sequencing in L2 oral production. In BaraltM.GilabertR.RobinsonP. (Eds.), Task sequencing and instructed second language learning (pp. 71–95). Bloomsbury Academic.
37.
MalickaA.LevkinaM. (2012). Measuring task complexity: Does L2 proficiency matter? In Shehadeh, A., & C. Coombe (Eds.), Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts: Research and implementation (pp. 43–67). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
38.
MalickaA.SasayamaS. (2017). The importance of learning from accumulated knowledge: Findings from a research synthesis on task complexity. Unpublished paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT), University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
39.
MalickaA.GilabertR.NorrisJ. (2017). From needs analysis to research tasks: Insights from an English for specific purposes context. Language Teaching Research, 21, 1–29.
40.
MerajiS.R. (2011). Planning time, strategy use, and written task production in a pedagogic vs. a testing context. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2, 338–352.
41.
MichelM. (2011). Effects of task complexity and interaction on L2 performance. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 141–173). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
42.
MichelM.C.KuikenF.VedderI. (2007). The influence of complexity in monologic versus dialogic tasks in Dutch L2. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 241–259.
43.
MurphyL.Roca de LariosJ. (2010). Searching for words: One strategic use of the mother tongue by advanced Spanish EFL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 61–81.
44.
NorrisJ.M.OrtegaL. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555–578.
45.
NuevoA.-M.AdamsR.Ross-FeldmanL. (2011). Task complexity, modified output, and L2 development in learner–learner interaction. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 175–201). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
46.
NunanD. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47.
NunanD. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
48.
PrabhuN.S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
49.
ReadJ. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50.
RévészA. (2011). Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions, and individual differences: A classroom-based study. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 162–181.
51.
RévészA.MichelM.C.GilabertR. (2012). Measuring cognitive task demands: A step forward in task complexity research. Unpublished paper presented at the 22nd European Association of Applied Linguistics (EuroSLA) Conference, Poznan, Poland.
52.
RobinsonP. (2001a). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences in SLA. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287–318). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
53.
RobinsonP. (2001b). Task complexity, task difficulty and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57.
54.
RobinsonP. (2003). Attention and memory during SLA. In Doughty, C., & Long, M.H. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 631–678). Oxford: Blackwell.
55.
RobinsonP. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43, 1–32.
56.
RobinsonP. (2007). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 193–213.
57.
RobinsonP. (2010). Situating and distributing cognition across task demands: The SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In Putz, M., & Sicola, L. (Eds.), Cognitive processing in second language acquisition: Inside the learner’s mind (pp. 243–268). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
58.
SangarunJ. (2005). The effects of focusing on meaning and form in strategic planning. In Ellis, R. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 111–141). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
59.
SasayamaS.MalickaA.NorrisJ. (2015). Primary challenges in cognitive task complexity research: Results of a comprehensive research synthesis. Unpublished paper presented at the 6th Biennial International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT), Leuven, Belgium.
60.
SchankR. (1999). Dynamic memory revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.
61.
SchankR.AbelsonR. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
62.
ShiauY.S.AdamsR. (2011). The effects of increasing reasoning demands on accuracy and complexity in L2 oral production. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 6, 121–146.
63.
SkehanP. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38–63.
64.
SkehanP. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
65.
SwainM. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In Doughty, C., & J., Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). New York: Cambridge University Press.
66.
TavakoliP. (2009). Assessing L2 task performance: Understanding effects of task design. System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 37, 482–495.
67.
TavakoliP.FosterP. (2008). Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 58, 439–473.
68.
WickensC. D. (2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science, 3, 159–177.
69.
WickensC. D. (2007). Attention to the second language. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 177–191.
