Effects of Task Sequencing in the Cognition Hypothesis on EFL Learner Perception of Task Difficulty

Article Sidebar

PDF
Published: Dec 18, 2020
Keywords:
cognition hypothesis SLA perception of task difficulty

Main Article Content

Suwitchan Un-udom
Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand
Chomraj Patanasorn
Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand

Abstract

According to Robinson’s cognition hypothesis, sequencing tasks in the Triadic Componential Framework (TCF) could drive learners to create better outputs as a result of the cognitive demand of tasks. However, there is a need to prove that task conditions in TCF demand different cognitive loads. The purpose of the current study was to investigate perceptions toward task difficulty of EFL learners performing tasks designed in the Triadic Componential Framework (TCF). The participants were 30 EFL students at Rajabhat Maha Sarakham University selected by purposive sampling. The instruments were a task sequence having a set of three tasks designed in the Triadic Componential Framework (TCF), a task difficulty assessment questionnaire, a report on time needed to complete the tasks, and a stimulated recall session. The results of the study indicated that the task sequence designed in the cognition hypothesis was proved to be in ascending order of cognitive demand by two assessments - the questionnaire and the stimulated recall. Meanwhile, learners seemed to spend the comparative amounts of time doing tasks in the sequence. It could be concluded that sequencing task conditions in TCF could lead to a task sequence that consists of tasks with different levels of cognitive demand as introduced by the principles of the cognition hypothesis.

Article Details

How to Cite
Un-udom, S., & Patanasorn, C. (2020). Effects of Task Sequencing in the Cognition Hypothesis on EFL Learner Perception of Task Difficulty. Journal of Studies in the English Language, 15(2), 1–26. Retrieved from https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/jsel/article/view/220211
Issue
Vol. 15 No. 2 (2020): July - December
Section
Research Articles
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:  Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.  Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.  Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).

References

Attarzade, S., & Farahani, E. (2014). The Effect of task complexity on Iranian EFL learners’ listening comprehension across aptitude. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 314–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.422

Baralt, M. L. (2010). Task complexity, the cognition hypothesis, andinteraction in CMC and FTF environments (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington,DC.

Baralt, M. L. (2013). The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during online versus face-to-face interactive tasks. System, 35, 689–725.

Candlin, C. N. (1984). Syllabus design as a critical process. In C. J. Brumfit (Ed.), General English syllabus design: Curriculum and syllabus design for the general English classroom (pp.29–46). London, England: The British Council and Pegamon Press.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Frear, M. W., & Bitchener, J. (2015). The effects of cognitive task complexity on writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.009

Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writing. Ann Arbor, ML: University of Michigan Press.

Ilin, G., Inozu, J., & Yumru, H. (2007). Teachers’ and learners’ perceptions of tasks: Objectives and outcomes. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 3(1), 60–68.

Ishikawa, T. (2007). The effect of manipulating task complexity along the (± here-and-now) dimension on L2 written narrative discourse. In M. del Pilar García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 136–156). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Johnson, M. D., Mercado, L., & Acevedo, A. (2012). The effect of planning sub-processes on L2 writing fluency, grammatical complexity, and lexical complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(3), 264–282.

Kim, Y. (2013). Investigating learners’ cognitive processes by using stimulated recall methodology in task-based research. Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics (AAAL) 2013 conference, Dallas, TX.

Kim, Y., & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2011). Task complexity, language anxiety and the development of the simple past. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 287–306). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Kormos, J. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(2), 148–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.02.001

Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 261–284.

Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2008). Cognitive task complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 48–60.

Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2012). Syntactic complexity, lexical variation, and accuracy as a function of task complexity and proficiency level in L2 writing and speaking. In F. Kuiken & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA (pp. 143–169). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Levkina, M., & Gilabert, R. (2012). The effects of cognitive task complexity on L2 oral production. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance 38 and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA (pp. 171–198). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Long, M. H., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 27–56.

McDonough, K., & Chaikitmongkol, K. (2007). Teachers’ and learners’ reactions to a task-based EFL course in Thailand. TESOL Quarterly, 41(1), 107–131.

Michel, M. C. (2011). Effects of task complexity and interaction on L2-performance. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 141–174). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Ong, J., & Zhang, L. J. (2010). Effects of task complexity on the fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students’ argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 218–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.003

Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Rahimpour, M., & Hosseini, P. (2010). The Impact of task complexity on L2 learners’ written narratives. English Language Teaching, 3(3), 198–205.

Révész, A. (2009). Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies Second Language Acquisition, 31, 437–470.

Révész, A. (2011). Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions, and individual differences: A classroom-based study. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 162–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01241.x

Révész, A., Sachs, R., & Hama, M. (2014). The effects of task complexity and input frequency on the acquisition of the past counterfactual construction through recasts. Language Learning, 64(3), 615–650. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12061

Robinson, P. (2001a). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for investigating task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287–318). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Robinson, P. (2001b). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57.

Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: A review of studies in a componential Framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 43(1), 1–32.

Robinson, P. (2007). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 193–213.

Robinson, P. (2008). Attention and memory during SLA. In C. J. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 631–678). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Robinson, P. (2010). Situating and distributing cognition across task demands: The SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In M. Putz & L. Sicola (Eds.), Cognitive processing in second language acquisition: Inside the learner’s mind (pp. 243–268). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Robinson, P., & Gilabert, R. (2007). Task complexity, the cognition hypothesis, and second language learning and performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 161–176.

Sanajou, N., Zohali., L., & Zabihi, F. (2017). Do task complexity demands influence the learners’ perception of task difficulty? International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 6(6), 71–76.

Sasayama, S. (2016). Is a “complex” task really complex? Validating the assumption of cognitive task complexity. Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 231–254.

Sasayama, S., Malicka, A., & Norris, J. (2015). Primary challenges in cognitive task complexity research: Results of a comprehensive research synthesis. Paper presented at the 6th Biennial International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT), Leuven, Belgium.

Shajeri, E., & Izadpanah, S. (2016). The Impact of task complexity along single task dimension on Iranian EFL learners’ writing production. Theory & Practice in Language Studies, 6(5), 935–945. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0605.04

Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17(6), 190–204.

Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Skehan, P. (2002). A non-marginal role of tasks. ELT Journal, 56, 289–295.

Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Learning, 36(1), 1–14.

Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks in cognition and second language instruction. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Snow, R. E. (1993). Construct validity and constructed-response tests. In R. E. Bennett & W. C. Ward (Eds.), Construction versus choice in cognitive measurement: Issues in constructed response, performance testing, and portfolio assessment (pp.45–60). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Tavakoli, P. (2009). Investigating task difficulty: Learners’ and teachers’ perceptions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 1–25.

Wickens, C., Gordon, S., & Lui, Y. (1997). An introduction to human factors engineering. New York, NY: Longman.