Is a ‘Complex’ Task Really Complex? Validating the Assumption of Cognitive Task Complexity
Abstract
In research on task‐based learning and teaching, it has traditionally been assumed that differing degrees of cognitive task complexity can be inferred through task design and/or observations of differing qualities in linguistic production elicited by second language (L2) communication tasks. Without validating this assumption, however, it is unclear at best whether the designed or inferred difference in complexity, the key independent variable, is realized as intended. Accordingly, this study adopted diverse methods from cognitive psychology for independently measuring cognitive task complexity, including: dual‐task methodology, time estimation, and self‐rating. Fifty‐three English‐L2 speakers in Japan, representing distinct proficiency levels, narrated 4 picture sequences, each containing differing numbers of characters. While performing the primary story‐telling task, participants simultaneously completed a secondary task of reacting to a color change. After each story‐telling, they also estimated their time‐on‐task and rated their perceptions of task difficulty and mental effort. Results revealed that only large differences in the task design feature (i.e., number of elements) were detectable in terms of independent measures of cognitive complexity. This finding underscores the importance of validating the assumptions about the relationship between task design and its putative effects on cognitive complexity. Findings also indicated a potential interaction among proficienc…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
There is still no agreement on which specific features to investigate, and researchers operationalize Robinson's features inconsistently, so results cannot easily be compared across studies.
“Some progress in this direction has been made (see, for example, Sasayama, 2016) but there is still no agreement about specific features that need to be investigated, and individual researchers do not operationalize those features that figure in Robinson's theory in a consistent manner so that results cannot easily be compared across studies.”
From Towards a modular language curriculum for using tasks (2019) · cites this paper as Sasayama, 2016
Sasayama's (2016) study showed that four narrative tasks predicted to vary in complexity did differ in the cognitive load they imposed.
“Her study showed that these tasks did indeed differ in the cognitive load they imposed.”
From Position paper: Moving task-based language teaching forward (2017) · cites this paper as Sasayama (2016)
Clear differences in cognitive load were evident only between the least and the most complex task, suggesting that fine gradations do not affect actual task complexity.
“However, clear differences were only evident between the least and the most complex task, suggesting that fine gradations do not impact on the actual complexity of tasks.”
From Position paper: Moving task-based language teaching forward (2017) · cites this paper as Sasayama (2016)
The association between task complexity and task difficulty is not fixed.
“What is more, the association between task complexity, 'the cognitive load of a second language (L2) communication task', (Sasayama, 2016, p. 231), i.e., how complex the task is, and task difficulty, i.e., actual difficulties students experience based on their individual differences (Robinson, 2015), is not fixed.”
From Investigating How 'The Writing Revolution' and Task Complexity Can Enhance Secondary TESOL Students’ Expository Writing (2024) · cites this paper as Sasayama, 2016
Cites
Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning
Sweller, J. (1988) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1016/0364-0213(88)90023-7 · Cited by 11,048 · see citing works
Expertise Reversal Effect and Its Implications for Learner-Tailored Instruction
Kalyuga, S. (2007) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-007-9054-3 · Cited by 1,056 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Position paper: Moving task-based language teaching forward
Ellis, R. (2017) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s0261444817000179 · Cited by 267 · see citing works
Towards a modular language curriculum for using tasks
Ellis, R. (2019) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168818765315 · Cited by 211 · see citing works
Sophocleous, A. (2024) · European Journal of English Language Studies · doi:10.12973/ejels.4.4.193 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- SASAYAMA, S.
- Affiliations
- Georgetown University (US)
- Corresponding author
- SASAYAMA, SHOKO
- ORCID
- SASAYAMA, SHOKO
- Venue
- The Modern Language Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-03
- Volume
- 100
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 231-254
- ISSN
- 0026-7902 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-4781
- OpenAlex
- W2302983879
- Cited by
- 205
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 32 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 2 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 114.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Modern Language Journal (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
- Keywords
- cognitive task complexity, task design, task-based language teaching, second language acquisition, time estimation, cognitive effort, cognitive load, proficiency level, picture narration, English as a second language
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review