Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 46 (2012) 726 – 735

WCES 2012

Task complexity and SL development: Does task complexity

matter?
Asghar Salimi a *, Soghra Dadashpour b
a
Payam Nour university Shahindej Branch, Shahindej, West Azerbaijan, Iran
b
Islamic Azad University, Maragheh Branch, Maragheh,East Azerbaijan, Iran

Abstract

Over the past two decades, studying task design and performance conditions have become a burgeoning area of
research within task-based language teaching, learning, and assessment. Research on SLA concentrated on tasks and
investigated task difficulty, task complexity, task design, performance condition, and the effects they have on
language learning and language performance (Foster & Skehan, 1996; Samuda & Bygate, 2005; Tavakoli, 2009;
Gilabert, 2009; Ahmadian & Tavakoli, 2011; Salimi et al. in press). Among the factors one of the central issues in
task-based language teaching concerns the influence of cognitive load of a task on oral and written linguistic
performance in three domains of accuracy, fluency, and complexity. The main purpose of the paper is to analyze the
results of the studies done on the topic and present the implications of knowledge of task complexity and cognitive
load of a task for syllabus and task designers as well as language teachers as one of the most important factors that
should be taken into account in selection, gradation, and sequencing of the material.
© 2012
© 2012Published
PublishedbybyElsevier
Elsevier Ltd.
Ltd. Selection and/or peer review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Hüseyin Uzunboylu
Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Keywords: Task-based language teachiung, task complexity, cognitive complexity, accuracy, fluency, complexity;

1. Introduction

When second or foreign language learners speak or write, their speed of production and complexity of their
utterances will be affected in different linguistic domains by many factors such as anxiety of the L2 learners,
planning time, familiarity with the topic, genre of the tasks, learners' proficiency level, task type, task structure, task
condition, and the degree of cognitive complexity of the tasks that they are trying to perform (Rahimpour 1997,
1999, 2008). In recent years, there have been a number of theoretical arguments that are put forward in the favour of
task- based approaches to second language pedagogy (Candlin, 1987; Long & Crooks, 1992; Long, 1985; Prabhu,
1987; Rahimpour, 2009; Robinson, 1995; Ellis, 2005).

Besides, in ELT, there exists an argument that successful learning is influenced by appropriate methods of
teaching which can be considered as one of influential factors in language learning. Since 1994 on the idea of TBLT

* Asghar Salimi. Tel.: +0098-914-380-2607

E-mail address: Asgharsalimi356@gmail.com

1877-0428 © 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Hüseyin Uzunboylu
Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.189
 Asghar Salimi and Soghra Dadashpour / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 46 (2012) 726 – 735 727

has become a keen contemporary interest, the emphasis on TBLT is reflected in much current research that studies
the characteristics of different kinds of activities and tasks (Skehan& Foster, 1999; Long, 1985

A growing number of studies done in the field have investigated

task performance as a result of using different variables of tasks Furthermore, the majority of these studies
(Ishikawa, 2006; Kuiken & Vedder, 2007, 2008; Rahimpour, 1997) examined the effects of task complexity on oral
production of L2 learners across different linguistic domains of accuracy, fluency, and complexity

Reviewing all these studies reveals the gap of studies in relation to

written task performance Thus, this thesis is an attempt to help the current literature in the field

2. Literature review

2 1 Task based Language Teaching

In the last decade TBLT has become an important field in second language research Recent studies investigating
various aspects of TBLT include (Ellis, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2009; Foster & Skehan 1996, 1999; Long, 1985, 2007;
Long & Crooks 1992; Nunan, 1989; Robinson, 1995, 2001, 2007; Robinson & Gilabert, 2007; Littlewood, 2004;
Rahimpour 1997, 2002, 2008, 2010; Rahimpour & Yaghoubi Notash 2008; Skehan & Foster, 1999; Willis & Willis,
2001; Salimi & Dadashpour, 2010; Van den Branden, 2009; Yousefi 2009; Mehrang & Rahimpour 2010; Alavi
2010; Park 2010; Dadashpour, 2011; Salimi et al., 2011).

According to Rahimpour (2010 TBLT focuses on the ability to perform a task or activity without explicit
instruction of language forms It is also argued by many SLA researchers that TBLT creates more favourable
condition for the development of SL (Long & Crooks 1992; Robinson 1995, 2001; Rahimpour 1997, 2007, 2008,
2010; Alavi 2010).

This approach to language teaching has attracted the attention of both SLA researchers as well as teacher
educators such as Prabhu (1987 and Nunan (1989, 2004 Samuda and Bygate (2008) make this connection with
educational theory quite vivid by arguing that

language pedagogy owe their genealogy to development in general education over the last
century p 18

Their work and also other educationalists such as Prabhu (1987) emphasize the effectiveness of TBLT in
language development TBLT challenges the mainstream views about language teaching in that it is based on the
fact that language learning will develop most successfully and effectively if teaching aims simply to create context
and condition in which learne However, there are critics that try
to question the validity of approach (Sheen, 1994; Swan, 2005; Seedhouse, 2005 .

Ellis 2009 defines TBLT as an approach for teaching second or foreign language that seems to engage learners
in interactionally authentic language use language by getting learners to perform a series of tasks This approach
aims to enable learners to acquire a new language system as well as to proceduralize their existing knowledge In
other words, this approach tries to force L2 learners to use their own linguistic resources to learn a new language

2.2. Four major areas of task investigation can be identified according to Robinson 2007

1. A psychological, interactional approach influenced by the work of Long (1996)

2. Sociocultural approach, represented by the work of researchers like (Swain, 1998; Lantolf, 2000)
3. Cognition, information theoretic approach (Skehan, 1998, 2003; Robinson, 2001, 2005, 2007).
728 Asghar Salimi and Soghra Dadashpour / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 46 (2012) 726 – 735

4. Structure focused approaches, where tasks are designed to elicit the use of a particular structure feature (Van
Patten, 1990).

Drawing upon the cognition, information theoretic models of Skehan, 1998, and Robinson, 2007, the Cognition
Hypothesis, (Robinson 2005a) claims that tasks should be designed and sequenced on the basis of task
characteristics Besides, recent research into task based language learning and teaching and assessment argue that
e

2.3. Justification of the use of tasks in Research, Teaching and Learning

In justifying the use of task Long & Crookes (1992, p: 43) argue that:

It is claimed that (pedagogic) tasks provide a vehicle for the presentation of appropriate
target language sample to learners- input which they will inevitably reshape via
application of general cognitive processing capacities- and for the delivery of
comprehension and production opportunities of negotiable difficulty (Long & Crooks,
1992: 43).

Long & Crookes (1992) are advocating the use of analytic syllabuses. The analytic syllabuses are those which offer
the learner the target language samples that have not been controlled for structure or lexis in the traditional manner.
Ellis (2003) in support of the use of the tasks as units of teaching points out that tasks are valid devices for preparing
learners for authentic communication by helping the learners to proceduralize their pre-existing knowledge.
Nobuyashi & Ellis (1993) also argue that tasks will help to develop L2 learners' communicative skills contributing
linguistic development. Rahimpour (2010) also argues that task-based language teaching is very motivating for
language learners and it creates more favourable conditions for second or foreign language development. The great
advantage of tasks is that they allow for learner engagement in realizing the communicative potential of the encoded
semantic resource (Widdowson, 2003). Nunan (2004) and Rahimpour (2010) also pointed out that task-based
language teaching is an approach to the design of language courses in which the point of departure is not an ordered
list of linguistic items, but a collection of tasks. It draws on and reflects the experiential and humanistic traditions as
well as reflects the changing conceptions of language itself.

2.4. Models of task complexity

Different scholars have introduced various models of task complexity (Anderson & Lynch, 1988; Brindley,
1987; Brown & Yule, 1983; Candlin, 1987; Long, 1985; Prabhu, 1987; Rahimpour, 1997, 1999; Robinson 2001,
2007).

2.4 task complexity

shown in table 1.
Table 1. A triadic of task complexity, task conditions and task difficulty factors (Robinson, 2005: 5)

Task Complexity Task Conditions Task Difficulty

(cognitive factors)
(a) resource-directing
-and-Now
(interactional factors) (learners factors)
(a) participation variables (a) affective variables
e.g., open/closed e.g., motivation
one-way/two-way anxiety
convergent/divergent confidence

(b) resource-dispersing (b) participant variables (b) ability variables

e.g., same/different gender e.g., working memory
familiar/unfamiliar intelligence
power/solidarity aptitude
 Asghar Salimi and Soghra Dadashpour / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 46 (2012) 726 – 735 729

In a series of arguments advanced by Robinson, he proposed "comprehensive criteria" for determining task
complexity (Robinson 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007; Robinson et. al. 1995, 1996). It should be mentioned that his criteria,
also called Triadic Componential Framework or The cognition Hypothesis, is not free of critique; Kuiken and
Vedder (2007) have questioned the validity of the framework as being not empirically researchable and
operationally feasible. Unlike Kuiken and Vedder (2007), the present researcher assumes some authority to this
framework and believes that further research is needed to investigate some dimensions of the Cognition Hypothesis.

Robinson (2001) pointed out that the development of theoretically motivated, empirically substantiable, and
pedagogically feasible sequencing criteria has long been acknowledged as a major goal of research aimed at
operationalizing task-based approaches to syllabus design. To this end, he proposed distinctions between cognitively
defined task complexity, learner perceptions of task difficulty, and the interactive conditions under which tasks are
performed. Robinson (2001:29) strongly argued that Task Complexity is the result of the attentional, memory,
reasoning, and other information processing demands imposed by the structure of the task on the language learner.
These differences in information processing demands, resulting from design characteristics, are relatively fixed and
invariant. Task complexity will aid explain within learner variance when performing any two tasks. It is, also,
argued that the cognitively simpler tasks will involve a lower error rate, and/or be completed faster.

2.5. Task Complexity and Its Justification

Rahimpour (2002) lists three theoretical frameworks for task complexity. According to him, the theoretical
framework for the proposed task complexity is based on research into first language acquisition (e.g., Brown &
Bellugi, 1964), research findings from second language development (Meisel, 1987), and functional linguistic
theory (Givon, 1989).

It is widely accepted idea that research into complexity of second language tasks is necessary to pedagogical
decisions regarding the grading and sequencing of tasks for the purposes of syllabus design (Gilabert 2005, 2007;
Long, 2007; Mortazanejad, 2008; Rahimpour 1997, 1999, 2002, 2008; Robinson 1995, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007;
Robinson & Gilabert , 2007; Oxford et.al, 2004; Van Den Branden 2006; Mehrang & Rahimpour, 2010; Hosseini &
Rahimpour, 2010; Alavi, 2010; Salimi & Yousefi, 2009).

Robinson (2001, p: 29) defines task complexity as:

Task complexity is the result of the attentional, memory, reasoning, and other information
processing demands imposed by the structure of the task to the language learner. These
differences in information processing demands, resulting from design characteristics, are
relatively fixed and invariant.

Task complexity, differences in intrinsic cognitive processing demands of tasks, will explain within-learner
variation in successfully completing any two tasks (such as doing simple addition versus calculus, or doing the
simple versus complex intentional reasoning task (Robinson, 2007:210). Gilabert (2009) argues that research into
sequencing is of significant importance since it may contribute to L2 development by drawing attention to form. He
also argues that research into sequencing is minimal. There are many suggestions with very few findings. This
unresolved issue deserves further researching. Furthermore, research agenda are interested in how cognition may
lead to balanced development of fluency, accuracy, complexity, and acquisition. Ellis (2003:351) believes that task
complexity is the extent to which a particular task is inherently easy or difficult. Different dimensions of task
complexity are code complexity, cognitive complexity, and context dependency. Like Robinson (2001), Gilabert et.al
(2009), Ellis (2003) explains task complexity as 'within' learner variability. In other words, the variability is evident
when the same learners perform different tasks.

2.6. Task complexity studies

Robinson (1995) investigated the impact of manipulating here-and-now on three different narratives. The results
obtained proved that the most complex narrative, performed in displaced past time reference (there-and-then),
elicited more accurate speech with more lexical complexity and greater dysfluency than the narrative performed in
730 Asghar Salimi and Soghra Dadashpour / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 46 (2012) 726 – 735

the here-and-now task. The results also revealed no significant differences for structural complexity and
propositional complexity.

Ortega (1999) studied whether planning time results in an increased focus on form. She found that planning

for the claim that planning before doing an L2 task can promote an increased focus on form since learners allocate
conscious attention during pre-task planning to formal aspects of the language needed to perform a task. Ortega
believes that the Planning time before the task has two facilitative impacts. First, planning time removes some of the
cognitive load and communicative pressure of a given task. The second effect of planning is that it gives the learner

devoted to formal properties of the language.

Foster & Skehan (1999) studied the impact of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based
performance. Results of the study indicated that the teacher-led condition made significant effects on accuracy
whereas the solitary planning condition led to more complexity, fluency and turn length. Group-based planning did
not lead to performance significantly different from the control group. Finally, there was little effect on performance
as a result of the language vs. content planning condition.

Skehan & Foster (1999)

performance on a narrative retelling task. One of the chosen tasks represents a relatively structured narrative
(restaurant) and the other one represents a relatively unstructured narrative (golf). The authors believe that the
structure of the first task comes from the consensus view of the stages one follows when visiting a restaurant; the
sequence of actions is predictable. They also mention that the lack of structure for the second task derives from the
unpredictability of the sequence of events and the lack of their interconnectedness. Four conditions were used to
influence the processing load of the task. In the first condition the participants were shown the video and asked to
describe the story as they watched it. In the second condition, the participants were told the outline of the story
before watching the video. Then they were asked to describe the story as they watched it. In the third condition, the
participants watched the video first and then they were asked to describe the story as they watched it again. In the
fourth condition, the participants watched the video and then retold it in their own time. The results of the collected
data showed that the structured task generated more fluent speech in all four conditions. The complexity of language
was influenced by processing load; greater complexity was attained when a non-simultaneous condition (fourth
condition) was involved. For accuracy, neither task nor condition showed significant effects.

Iwashita, et al. (2001) tried to answer this question: Are different task characteristics and performance
conditions (involving assumed different levels of cognitive demand) associated with different levels of fluency,
complexity, or accuracy in test candidate responses? They were required to produce oral narratives from picture
strips that had been designed to differ in their cognitive demands. These four dimensions of task were considered:
adequacy (whether the set of pictures was complete or incomplete); immediacy (here-and-now task or there-and-
then task); perspective (whether the participant was speaking as if the story had happened to him / her or not) and
planning time (as either 3.5 minutes or 0.5 minute). No significant effect for any of the measures (accuracy, fluency
and complexity) was found, with the single exception of an effect for accuracy in the immediacy dimension.

Robinson (2001) found that complex tasks elicited less fluent, but more accurate and complex production than

n towards more complex

discourse to meet the linguistic and functional demands imbedded in a particular task.

Yuan & Ellis (2003) studied the effect of pre-task and on-
Planning was operationalized at three levels: no planning, pre-task planning in which the participants had 10
minutes to plan, and on-line planning in which they had unlimited time to narrate the story. The results indicated
that pre-task planning enhanced grammatical complexity, lexical variation and fluency while on-line planning
positively influenced accuracy and grammatical complexity. However, the pre-task planning led to more fluent and
lexically varied language than the on-line planning and the language produced by the two planning group (pre-task
 Asghar Salimi and Soghra Dadashpour / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 46 (2012) 726 – 735 731

planning and on-line planning) was equally grammatically complex. Additionally, the on-line planning led to more
accurate language than pre-task planning.

Ishikawa (2006) examined the effect of task complexity and language proficiency on task-based writing
performance. Task complexity was manipulated along here-and-now / there-and-then dimension. The results
showed that increasing task complexity for high-proficient learners had positive effects on accuracy, structural
complexity and fluency, though; it had negative effects on lexical complexity. The results of increasing task
complexity for low-proficient learners, however, showed the positive effects on accuracy, fluency, lexical and
structural complexity.

Gilabert (2007) studied the effects of manipulating of the cognitive complexity of L2 oral tasks on self-repair
behaviour during monologic production. He used three different types of tasks in the study. The narrative task was
manipulated along here-and-now / there-and-then, an instruction-giving task was manipulated along few elements /
many element and decision-making task was manipulated along with / without reasoning demands. The results
demonstrated the effect of task complexity on self-repairs behaviour across task types, with different behaviours
existing among the three task types. In this study similar pattern of behaviour was observed under simple and
complex performance. In performing simple tasks learners made more errors and repaired more frequently.
Furthermore, learners made a large proportion of errors in the narrative task than in instruction-giving task and
decision-making task. Therefore, the narrative task produced the highest rate and amount of self-repairs of the three
tasks.

Kuiken & Vedder (2007) investigated the effects of cognitive task complexity on written production for
accuracy and lexical variation by using specific measures of writing proficiency regarding the type of errors made
by the students and the frequency band of the words they used. task complexity was manipulated along two
The
results showed that both students of Italian and French produced fewer lexical errors in the complex task. However,
the students of French made significantly more Appropriateness and Other errors in complex tasks than in simple
tasks. In addition, the students of Italian used more high frequent words in complex task whereas the students of
French used more infrequent words in complex task.

Michel, et al. (2007) were concerned with the effects of changes in task complexity, few elements / many
elements, and task condition, monologic / dialogic, on L2 oral performance. The analysis of collected data showed
that increased task complexity promoted accuracy but affected fluency negatively and linguistic complexity was to
some extent affected. Dialogic tasks generated more accurate and fluent but less structurally complex output.
Moreover, in the monologic condition task complexity promoted accuracy.

Rahimpour (2007) The results showed

that there-and-then task (complex task) led to more accuracy while here-and-now task (simple task) led to more
complexity. In terms of fluency, here-and-now task led to more fluency than there-and-then task.

Robinson (2007) examined the effects of increasing the cognitive demands of second language tasks requiring
reasoning on both speech production in terms of accuracy, fluency and complexity and the learning opportunities in
terms of interaction and uptake. The results showed that task complexity led to more complex speech assessed using
specific measures but it did not affect accuracy, fluency, and complexity assessed using general measures. In
addition, tasks requiring complex reasoning led to significantly more interaction and uptake.

Ishikawa (2008) investigated the impacts of manipulating task demands of intentional reasoning on L2 speech
performance. Three types of tasks were used: simple reasoning task, complex reasoning task, and no reasoning task.
The results showed that intentional reasoning had positive effects on syntactic as well as lexical complexity and
accuracy, but it had a negative effect on fluency.

Kuiken & Vedder (2008) studied the effect of cognitive task complexity on written output in Italian and French
as a foreign language.. The participants transacted on two writing tasks with prompts of differing cognitive
732 Asghar Salimi and Soghra Dadashpour / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 46 (2012) 726 – 735

complexity. In their study cognitively more demanding task produced more accurate but it had no effect on the
written output in terms of syntactic complexity and lexical variations.

Gilabert. et.al (2009) studied the effects of manipulating cognitive complexity across task types and its impact
on learners'' interaction during oral performance. The result of the study concerning decision-making tasks proved
no significant differences between accuracy of the learners' performance on the two tasks. Gilabert and his
colleagues attributed the result to the open nature of the decision-making task types.

Kim (2009) investigated the effects of task complexity on learner-learner interaction of students with different
proficiency levels. Task complexity was manipulated along with / without reasoning demands and few elements /
many elements. Tasks were two-way tasks which require interaction between participants. The findings of the study
showed that task types and learner proficiency are important factors affecting the impact of task complexity on L2
learning opportunities.

Yousefi (2009) examined the effect of task complexity on L2 learners' uptake. He used two versions of simple
and complex tasks of a decision-making type. The results of the study obtained showed that the rate and success of
uptake in complex task were comparatively higher than its simpler version.

Mehrang & Rahimpour (2010) studied the effects of task structure and planning time on oral performance of
EFL learners in terms of accuracy, fluency, and complexity of 64 upper-intermediate learners of English as a foreign
language. Results indicated that planning time had no effects on the accuracy and fluency of the learner
performance. However, it led to more complex performances when participants performed the unstructured,
complex task. On the other hand task structure did not affect the accuracy and complexity of the learners while
promoting the fluency under planned conditions.

Hosseini &Rahimpour (2010) investigated the effects of task complexity on L2 learners' written performance
on narrative pictorial tasks of here-and- now and there-and- then. The results of the study demonstrated that
cognitively more demanding task (there-and- then) were more fluent, but no significant effects on written narratives
were observed on measures of accuracy and complexity.

Ong &Zhang (2010) based on Robinson's (2001, 2003) cognition hypothesis and Sheehan's (1998) Limited
Attention Capacity Model, this study explored the effects of task complexity on fluency and lexical complexity of
108 EFL students argumentative writing. Task complexity was manipulated using three factors of planning time,
provision of ideas and macro-structure, and the availability of drafts. The results of the study showed that:
1.increasing task complexity with respect to planning time continuum produced significantly greater
fluency.2.increasing task complexity through the provision of ideas & macro-structure produced significantly
greater lexical complexity but no effects on fluency.3.increasing task complexity through the availability of draft
produced no significant differences in fluency, and lexical complexity.

Ahmadian & Tavakoli (2011) studied the effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task
repetition on L2 learners' oral performance in terms of three linguistic domains of accuracy, fluency, and
complexity. It was shown that participants in careful online planning groups spent more task completion than those
in pressured online planning (control) groups did, and the differences proved to be statistically significant. The
findings of this study provides further evidence in support of the limited and selective nature of attention capacity in
that L2 learners who have used more time for task completion have produced more accurate language than those
who have performed the task under time restriction. Furthermore, it lends support to Skehan's (1988) dual-model
system proposal. Skehan argued that "rule-based system is likely to be parsimoniously and elegantly organized, with
rules being compactly structured (p: 89)". The findings of the study also indicated a high level of positive impact
upon complexity in EFL oral production. The finding of this study is in line with Yuan & Ellis's (2003) findings.

2.7. Research into Task Complexity and Second Language Development

Robinson's Cognition Hypothesis (2001, 2003, 2005, 2007) claims that increasing the cognitive demands of tasks
along certain dimensions will; (a) push learners to greater accuracy and complexity of L2 production in order to
 Asghar Salimi and Soghra Dadashpour / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 46 (2012) 726 – 735 733

meet the greater functional and conceptual communicative demands they place on the learner; (b) promote
interaction, and heightened attention to and memory for input, so increasing learning from the input; as well as (c)
longer term retention of input; and that (d) performing simple to complex sequences will also lead to automaticity
and efficient scheduling of the components of complex L2 task performance.

More importantly, the Cognition Hypothesis predicts that along resource-directing dimensions more interactive
complex tasks will result in greater amounts of interaction, and negotiation for meaning. Following Long (1996), it
claims that such negotiation provides a content for attending to problematic forms in the input and output, and
additionally that on complex versions of tasks, there will be greater attention to, and uptake of forms made salient
during provision of reactive Focus on Form techniques such a recasts. Alternatively, where proactive Focus on
Form is provided, for example in the form of pre- modified input to the task, then it similarly claims there will be
greater use of this on complex, versus simpler task versions (Robinson & Gilabert, 2007).

Many TBLT research studies have investigated oral language production and, accordingly, there is a paucity of
task-based research on written language production (Ong &Zhang, 2010). In reviewing task complexity studies on
written language production, most of the studies have examined the effects of manipulating the resource-directing
factors (Kuiken &Vedder , 2007,2008) than resource-dispersing factors(Yuan & Ellis, 2003).For resource directing
factors, studies which have provided partial empirical support to Robinson's Cognition Hypothesis, are Kuiken &
Vedder (2007,2008) ,and Ishikawa (2006).

The general findings of the studies done by Kuiken & Vedder (2007, 2008) supported the improvement of
accuracy of SL development. Ishikawa (2006) examined the effects of manipulating task complexity with respect to
here and-now & there-and- then and he found that increasing task complexity with respect to here-and- now
dimension increased the accuracy, fluency, and complexity of written language production. Kellogg (1996)
investigated the effects of outlining on L2 learners' accuracy and fluency .He found that fluency greatly increased.
With respect to L2 writing, Yuan & Ellis, (2003) studied the effects of pre-task planning, on-line planning, and no-
planning on accuracy, fluency, and complexity of Chinese Narration writings. They found that pre-task planning led
to increased fluency and syntactic variety, on-line planning led to increased accuracy. Kang (2005) reported the
results of the study done on pre-task planning on L2 learners' written performance. Pre- task planning produced
greater fluency and complexity of the learners.

3. Conclusion and pedagogical implications

The present paper has a number of pedagogical implications for Second Language Acquisition (SLA)
researchers, teachers, syllabus and task designers, and language testing specialists. The major problem in Task-based
Language Teaching and syllabus designing is to determine a valid criterion for grading and sequencing tasks. Task
complexity as argued by Robinson (2007) can be considered as a valid criterion for grading pedagogical tasks in
terms of their cognitive complexity. Therefore, the findings of the study can be used as empirical basis for selecting,
grading, and sequencing tasks. Moreover, the findings of the current study suggest that teachers should take into
account the cognitive capabilities of the learners as well as the cognitive load of the structure of the task that
imposes on the learner while teaching. As Pieneman (1985), Rahimpour (2002) argued tasks should match the
built-in syllabus. In other words, teachabilty and learnability should be taken into account while designing
and assigning tasks to the learners. Task complexity can be manipulated for the purpose of matching with learners'
developmental sequence and their proficiency level. The testers also should consider the cognitive complexity of a
task while designing a task for assessment purposes. The pedagogical implications of the present study for SLA
researcher is that research on task complexity can shed light on the nature of processes involved in second language
acquisition and interlanguage development while performing a task. As Ellis (2009) argued TBLT has attracted the
attention of a number of SLA researchers since it is a bridge between the theory of second language acquisition and
actual language teaching.

References

Alavi, S. (2010). The effect of planning time and task complexity on L2 learners' oral discourse.
Teacher Education, Iran.
734 Asghar Salimi and Soghra Dadashpour / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 46 (2012) 726 – 735

Ahamadian , M.J. & Tavakoli, M. (2011). The effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity,
and fluency in EFL learners' oral production. Language Teaching Research vol. 15. pp: 35-59.
Anderson, A. & Lynch, T. (1988). Listening. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brindley, J. (1987). Factors affecting task difficulty. In D. Nu nan, (Ed.), Guidelines for the development of curriculum resource (pp.45-
56). Adelaide: National Curriculum Resource Center.
Brown, R., & Bellugi, U. (1964). 'Three processes in the child's acquisition of syntax'. Harvard Educational Review. 34: 133-151.
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Teaching the spoken language: an approach based on the analysis of conversational English. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Candlin, C. (1987). Towards task -based language learning. In Candlin, C. & Murphy, D. (Eds.), Language Learning Tasks (pp.5-22).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Dadashpour, S. (2011). The Effects of Task Complexity on EFL Learners' Written Performance.
University, Maragheh Branch, Maragheh, Iran.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R (Ed.) (2005). Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins .
Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics Vol. 19, 3. pp:
229-246.
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 9, 12-20.
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1999). The influence of planning and focus of planning on task -based performance. Language Teaching
Research, 3, 215-247.
Gilabert, R. (2005). Task complexity and L2 narrative oral production. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Barcelona, Spain.
Gilabert, R. (2007). Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 oral production. International Review of Applied
Linguistics, 45, 215-240.
Gilabert, R. (2009). The role of tasks in CLIL program development. A paper presented at first international round table on CLIL programs.
Barcelona, April, 28.
Gilabert, R., Baron, J., and Llanes, A. (2009). Manipulating cognitive complexity across task types and its impact on learner s' interaction during
oral performance. IRAL, Vol. 47. pp: 367-395
Givon, T. (1989). Mind, code, and context. essays in pragmatics. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
Hosseini, P. & Rahimpour, M. (2010). The Impact of Task Complexity on L2 Learners' Written Narratives. CCSE. Vol.3. No.3. pp: 198-205.
Ishikawa, T. (2006). The effects of task complexity and language proficiency on task- based language performance. The Journal of Asia
TEFL, 3(4), 193-225.
Ishikawa, T. (2008). The effects of task demands of intentional reasoning on L2 speech performance. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 5(1), 29-63.
Iwashita, N., McNamara, T., & Elder, C. (2001). Can we predict task difficulty in an oral proficiency test? exploring the potential of an
information-processing approach to task design. Language Learning, 51(3), 401-436.
Kang, J. Y. (2005). Written narratives as an index of L2 competence in Korean EFL learners. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 259-279.
Kellog, R. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. Lery and S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Kim, Y. (2009). The effects of task complexity on learner-learner interaction. System, 37,254-268.
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. International Review of Applied
Linguistics, 45(3), 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.
Littlewood, W. (2004). The task-based approach: some questions and suggestions. English Language Teaching Journal, 58(4), 319-326.
Lantolf, J. P. (ed.) (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Long, M. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: task-based language teaching. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.),
Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp.77-99). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W.C.Ritchie& T.K.Bhatia (Eds.). Handbook of second
language acquisition. (pp.413-463). San Diego; Academic Press.
Long, M. (Ed.) (2007) .Problems in SLA, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Long, M., & Crooks, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 26(1), 27-56.
Mehrang, F. & Rahimpour, M. (2010). The impact of task structure and planning conditions on oral performance of EFL learners. Procedia
Social and Behavioral Sciences: World Conference on Educational Sciences 2010, Istanbul, Turkey.
Meisel, J. (1987). Reference to past events and actions in the development of natural language acquisition. In C. Pfaff (Ed.) , First and second
language acquisition processes (pp.206-224). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
Michel, M. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). the influence of complexity in monologic versus dialogic tasks in Dutch L2. IRAL, 45, 241-259.
Mortazanejad, S. (2008). d vs. unplanned tasks
Tabriz, Iran.
Nobuyoshi, J., & Ellis, R. (1993). Focused communication tasks and second language acquisition. English Language Teaching Journal, 47, 203-
210.
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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. Doi: 10.1016/J.JSLW
Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 109-148.
Oxford, R., Cho, Y., and Kim, H. (2004). Effect of the presence and difficulty of task on strategy use: An exploratory study. IRAL, 42, 1-47.
Park, S. (2010). The influence of pre-task instruction and pre-task planning on focus on form during Korean EFL task-based interaction.
Language Teaching Research Vol. 14. pp: 1-6.
 Asghar Salimi and Soghra Dadashpour / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 46 (2012) 726 – 735 735

Pieneman, M. (1985). 'Learnability and syllabus construction in K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (eds.): Modeling and Assessing Second
Language Acquisition. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford university press.
Rahimpour, M. (1997). Task complexity, task condition, and variation in L2 oral discourse. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Queensland,
Australia.
Rahimpour, M. (1999). Task complexity and variation in interlanguage. In N. O. Jungheim&P. Robinson (Eds.), Pragmatic and pedagogy:
proceeding of the3rd pacific Second Language Research Forum (pp.115-134). Tokyo, Japan: Pac LRF.
Rahimpour, M. (2002). Factors affecting task difficulty. Journal of the Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Tarbiat Moallem University, 9(33),
1-16.
Working Papers in Language and Linguistics, University of
Queensland, 1-9.
Rahimpour, M. (2008). Implementation of task-based approaches to language teaching. Pazhuhesh-e-Zabanha-ye Khareji Journal, University of
Tehran, 41,45-61.
Rahimpour, M. (2009). Theoretical and practical issues in task-based language teaching and syllabus design. Plenary speaker at the 7 th
international TELLSI conference, October, 20-22, University of Yazd, Iran.
Rahimpour, M. (2010). Current trends on syllabus design in FL instruction. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences. Vol. 2. pp: 1660-64.
Rahimpour, M. & Yaghoubi, M. (2008). Examining teacher gender and student gender influence on task -prompted L2 oral variability. Issues in
Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 133-150.
Robinson, P. (1995). Task complexity and second language narrative discourse. Language Learning, 45(1), 99-140.
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied
Linguistics, 22(1), 27-57.
Robinson, P. (2003). The cognition hypothesis, task design, and adult task-based language learning. Second Language Studies, 21(2), 45-105.
Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: studies in a componential framework for second language task design.
International Review of Applied Linguistics, 43, 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(3), 193-213.
Robinson, P. (2007). Triadic framework for TBLT: Task complexity, task difficulty, and task condition. The Journal of Asia TEFL. pp: 195-225
Robinson, P., Chi-chien Ting, S. & Urwin, J. (1995). Investigating second language task complexity. RELC 26. pp: 62-78.
Robinson, P., Chi-chien Ting, S. & Urwin, J. (1996). Three dimensions of second language task complexity. Working papers in language and
linguistics, University of Queensland, 1(1), 15-30.
Robinson, P. & Gilabert, R. (2007). Task complexity, the cognition hypothesis and second language learning and performance. International
Review of Applied Linguistics, 45(3), 161-176.
Salimi, A. & Dadashpour, S. (2010). Task complexity and L2 learners' written performance. A paper presented at WCCES 14. Bogazici
University, Istanbul, Turkey, 14-18 June.
Salimi, A., Dadashpour, S., & Asadollahfam, H. (2011). The effect of task complexity on EFL learners' written performance. Procedia- Social
and Behavioral Sciences29, 1390-99
A paper accepted for
presentation in WCES 2012, Barcelona University, Barcelona, Spain.
Salimi, A. & Yusefi, M. (2009). The effect of task complexity on L2 learners' uptake in EFL context. A paper presented at 7 th International
TELLSI Conference. University of Yazd, October, 20-22.
Samuda, V., and Bygate, M. (2005). Integrative planning through the use of taskrepetition. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a
second language (pp. 37 77). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Seedhouse, P. (2005). "Task" as research constructs. Language Learning Vol. 55 (3). pp: 533-70
Sheen, R. (1994). A critical Analysis of the advocacy of task-based syllabus. TESOL Quarterly Vol. 28. pp: 127-57.
Skehan, P. (1998a). Task-based instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 268-286.
Skehan, P. (1998b). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction, Language Teaching, 36, 1-14.
Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49(1), 93-
120.
Swan, M. (2005). Legislation by hypothesis: The case of Task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics Vol. 26(3). pp: 376-401.
Swain, M. (1998). 'Focus on form through conscious reflection' in C. Doughty & J. Williams (eds.). pp:64-81.
Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task design and second language performance: the effect of narrative type on learner output. Language
Learning.58:2, 439-473.
Van den Branden, K. (2009). Mediating between predetermined order and chaos: the role of teacher in TBL education. International of Applied
Linguistics Vol. 19, 3. pp: 264-285.
Van Patten, B. (1990). Attending to content and form in the input: an experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12,
287-301.
Widdowson,H.G.(2003). Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2001). Task-based language learning. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to
speakers of other languages (pp.173-179). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yousefi, M. H. (2009). The effect of task complexity on learner uptake
Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monolgic oral
production. AppliedLinguistics, 24 (1), 1-27.