The effects of task complexity and task sequencing on L2 performance: a systematic review

References

• Abdi Tabari, M. and M. Cho. 2022. Task sequencing and L2 writing development: exploring the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. Language Teaching Research 22, no. 4: 136216882210909. doi:10.1177/13621688221090922.
   Google Scholar
• Abdi Tabari, M. and M. Miller. 2021. Unraveling the effects of task sequencing on the syntactic complexity, accuracy, lexical complexity, and fluency of L2 written production. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics 24, no. 2: 1–29. doi:10.37213/cjal.2021.31306.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abrams, Z.I. 2019. The effects of integrated writing on linguistic complexity in L2 writing and task-complexity. System 81: 110–121. doi:10.1016/j.system.2019.01.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adams, R., N.A. Nik Mohd Alwi and J. Newton. 2015. Task complexity effects on the complexity and accuracy of writing via text chat. Journal of Second Language Writing 29: 64–81. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allaw, E. and K. McDonough. 2019. The effect of task sequencing on second language written lexical complexity, accuracy, and fluency. System 85: 102104. doi:10.1016/j.system.2019.06.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Awwad, A. and P. Tavakoli. 2019. Task complexity, language proficiency and working memory: interaction effects on second language speech performance. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 60, no. 2: 169–196. doi:10.1515/iral-2018-0378.
   Google Scholar
• Awwad, A., P. Tavakoli and C. Wright. 2017. “I think that’s what he’s doing”: effects of intentional reasoning on second language (L2) speech performance. System 67: 158–169. doi:10.1016/j.system.2017.05.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baddeley, A. 2015. Working memory in second language learning. In Working Memory in Second Language Acquisition and Processing, ed. Z. Wen, M.B. Mota and A. McNeill, 17–28. Bristol, Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781783093595-005.
   Google Scholar
• Cho, H. 2015. Effects of task complexity on English argumentative writing. English Teaching 70, no. 2: 107–131. doi:10.15858/engtea.70.2.201506.107.
   Google Scholar
• Cho, M. 2018. Task complexity, modality, and working memory in L2 task performance. System 72: 85–98. doi:10.1016/j.system.2017.10.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis, R. and G.P. Barkhuizen. 2005. Analysing Learner Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Frear, M.W. and J. Bitchener. 2015. The effects of cognitive task complexity on writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing 30: 45–57. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golparvar, S.E. and F. Rashidi. 2021. The effect of task complexity on integrated writing performance: the case of multiple-text source-based writing. System 99: 102524. doi:10.1016/j.system.2021.102524.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Housen, A. and F. Kuiken. 2009. Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 30, no. 4: 461–473. doi:10.1093/applin/amp048.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huh, M.-H. and J. Lee. 2018. Task complexity and writing prompts and performance in EFL high school students’ narrative writing. English Teaching 73, no. 4: 55–72. doi:10.15858/engtea.73.4.201812.55.
   Google Scholar
• Hyun, J.-E. and J.-H. Lee. 2018. The effects of task complexity and working memory on Korean adult learners’ English speaking performance. English Teaching 73, no. 1: 115–134. doi:10.15858/engtea.73.1.201803.115.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, D.O. and S. Suethanapornkul. 2013. The cognition hypothesis: a synthesis and meta-analysis of research on second language task complexity. Language Learning 63, no. 2: 330–367. doi:10.1111/lang.12008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, M.D. 2017. Cognitive task complexity and L2 written syntactic complexity, accuracy, lexical complexity, and fluency: a research synthesis and meta-analysis. Journal of Second Language Writing 37: 13–38. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2017.06.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khatib, M. and M. Farahanynia. 2020. Planning conditions (strategic planning, task repetition, and joint planning), cognitive task complexity, and task type: effects on L2 oral performance. System 93: 102297. doi:10.1016/j.system.2020.102297.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, N. 2020. The effects of different task sequences on novice L2 learners’ oral performance in the classroom. Language Teaching Research 27, no. 2: 415–440. doi:10.1177/1362168820937548.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuiken, F. and I. Vedder. 2007. Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 45, no. 3: 261–284. doi:10.1515/iral.2007.012.
   Google Scholar
• Kuiken, F. and I. Vedder. 2008. Cognitive task complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing 17, no. 1: 48–60. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.08.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, J. 2020. Task closure and task complexity effects on L2 written performance. Journal of Second Language Writing 50: 100777. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100777.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, J. 2021. Task sequencing and task complexity effects on L2 writing: does task order really matter? Journal of Asia TEFL 18, no. 4: 1088–1107. doi:10.18823/ASIATEFL.2021.18.4.2.1088.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levelt, W.J. 1983. Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition 14, no. 1: 41–104. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(83)90026-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malicka, A. 2020. The role of task sequencing in fluency, accuracy, and complexity: investigating the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. Language Teaching Research 24, no. 5: 642–665. doi:10.1177/1362168818813668.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michel, M.C., F. Kuiken and I. Vedder. 2012. Task complexity and interaction: (combined) effects on task-based performance in Dutch as a second language. EUROSLA Yearbook 12: 164–190. doi:10.1075/eurosla.12.09mic.
   Google Scholar
• Moher, D., A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, D.G. Altman, G. Antes, D. Atkins, V. Barbour, N. Barrowman, J.A. Berlin, J. Clark, et al. 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine 151, no. 4: 264–269. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pallotti, G. 2009. Caf: defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics 30, no. 4: 590–601. doi:10.1093/applin/amp045.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rahimi, M. 2019. Effects of increasing the degree of reasoning and the number of elements on L2 argumentative writing. Language Teaching Research 23, no. 5: 633–654. doi:10.1177/1362168818761465.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Révész, A., N.E. Kourtali and D. Mazgutova. 2017. Effects of task complexity on L2 writing behaviors and linguistic complexity. Language Learning 67, no. 1: 208–241. doi:10.1111/lang.12205.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson, P. 2001a. Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, P. 2001b. Task complexity, cognition, and second language fluency acquisition. In Cognition and Second Language Instruction, ed. P. Robinson, 287–318. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, P. 2003. Attention and memory during SLA. In The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, eds. C.J. Doughty and M.H. Long, 631–678. Hoboken: Blackwell Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, P. 2005. Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teachings 43, no. 1: 1–32. doi:10.1515/iral.2005.43.1.1.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, P. 2010. Situating and distributing cognition across task demands: the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In Cognitive Processing in Second Language Acquisition: Inside the Learner’s Mind, ed. M. Pütz and L. Sicola, 243–268. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, P. 2015. The cognition hypothesis, second language task demands, and the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In Domains and Directions in TBLT: Plenaries from a Decade of the International Conference, ed. M. Bygate, 87–122. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, P. 2022. The cognition hypothesis, the triadic componential framework and the SSARC model: An instructional design theory of pedagogic task sequencing. In The Cambridge Handbook of Task-based Language Teaching, ed. M. Ahmadian and M.H. Long, 205–225. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, P. and R. Gilabert. 2007. Task complexity, the cognition hypothesis and second language learning and performance. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 45, no. 3: 161–176. doi:10.1515/IRAL.2007.007.
   Google Scholar
• Rostamian, M., A.M. Fazilatfar and A.A. Jabbari. 2018. The effect of planning time on cognitive processes, monitoring behavior, and quality of L2 writing. Language Teaching Research 22, no. 4: 418–438. doi:10.1177/1362168817699239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruiz-Funes, M. 2015. Exploring the potential of second/foreign language writing for language learning: The effects of task factors and learner variables. Journal of Second Language Writing 28: 1–19. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2015.02.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salimi, A. 2015. The effect of focus on form and task complexity on L2 learners’ oral task performance. Advances in Language and Literary Studies 6, no. 6: 54–62. doi:10.7575/aiac.alls.v.6n.6p.54.
   Google Scholar
• Shajeri, E. and S. Izadpanah. 2016. The impact of task complexity along single task dimension on Iranian EFL learners’ writing production. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 6, no. 5: 935–935. doi:10.17507/tpls.0605.04.
   Google Scholar
• Skehan, P. 1996. A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics 17, no. 1: 37–62. doi:10.1093/applin/17.1.38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skehan, P. 2015. Limited attentional capacity and cognition: two hypotheses regarding second language performance on tasks. In Domains and Directions in the Development of TBLT: Adecade of Plenaries from the International Conference, ed. M. Bygate, 123–155. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Skehan, P. 2018. Second Language Task-based Performance: Theory, Research, Assessment. Oxfordshire: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Soodmand Afshar, H. and S. Tofighi. 2021. The role of task complexity and working memory capacity in L2 accuracy and fluency. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning 13, no. 27: 389–416. doi:10.22034/elt.2021.44767.2353.
   Google Scholar
• Vasylets, O., R. Gilabert and R.M. Manchón. 2017. The effects of mode and task complexity on second language production. Language Learning 67, no. 2: 394–430. doi:10.1111/lang.12228.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoon, H.J. 2021. Challenging the connection between task perceptions and language use in L2 writing: genre, cognitive task complexity, and linguistic complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing 54: 100857. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100857.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhan, J., Q. Sun and L.J. Zhang. 2021. Effects of manipulating writing task complexity on learners’ performance in completing vocabulary and syntactic tasks. Language Teaching Research. doi:10.1177/13621688211024360.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar