The Impact of Cognitive Task Complexity and Task Sequence on L2 Speaking Performance: A Technology-Mediated TBLT Study

Authors

  • Wanyi Zhang

    Faculty of Humanities, Srinakharinwirot University, Bangkok 10110 , Thailand
  • Justin James Bartlet

    Faculty of Humanities, Srinakharinwirot University, Bangkok 10110 , Thailand

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i7.9735
Received: 28 April 2025 | Revised: 9 June 2025 | Accepted:17 June 2025 | Published Online: 18 July 2025

Abstract

This study investigates how varying cognitive complexity levels of tasks and three predetermined task-sequence orders influence second language (L2) learners' spoken performance within a technology-mediated task-based language teaching (TMTBLT) environment. Participants completed three monologic crime-reporting tasks, systematically designed to represent Simple, Middle, and Complex cognitive demands, presented in ascending, descending, or interleaved mixed sequences. Analysis focusing on syntactic complexity, lexical diversity, accuracy, and fluency demonstrated a partial inverted-U trend. Specifically, the Middle-level task frequently produced the most balanced complexity, accuracy, lexis, and fluency (CALF) profile across several linguistic dimensions, although this pattern was not consistently observed across all measures. In contrast, the Complex task typically enhanced accuracy but simultaneously constrained lexical diversity. Task sequencing exerted a noticeable effect primarily on fluency outcomes, with ascending sequences facilitating progressive fluency improvements over time. Conversely, beginning with the most challenging task initially diminished speaking speed but ultimately triggered notable recovery in fluency performance towards task completion. These findings lend empirical support to Robinson’s Cognition Hypothesis and Skehan’s attentional trade-off model, underscoring the potential for moderately challenging tasks, coupled with thoughtfully structured sequencing, to optimize oral proficiency development in technology-enhanced classroom contexts. Future research should incorporate a neutral baseline task and functional adequacy assessments to further elucidate these observed patterns and extend their generalizability.

Keywords:

Cognitive Task Complexity; Task Sequence; Technology-mediated TBLT; L2 Oral Performance; Cognitive Hypothesis; Limited Attentional Capacity

References

[1] GonzálezLloret, M., Ortega, L., 2014. Technologymediated TBLT: Researching Technology and Tasks (Vol. 6). John Benjamins: Amsterdam, Netherlands.

[2] Thornbury, S., 2000. How to Teach Grammar, 1st ed. Longman: Harlow, UK.

[3] Nita, S.A., Syafei, A.F.R., 2012. Involving AudioLingual Method (ALM) and Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in teaching speaking skill at junior high school. Journal of English Language Teaching. 1(1), 65–73.

[4] Chang, S.C., 2011. A contrastive study of grammartranslation method and communicative approach in teaching English grammar. English Language Teaching. 4(2), 13–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v4n2p13

[5] Gattegno, C., 1977. English — The Silent Way [videotape series]. Silent Way Video Company: New York, NY, USA.

[6] Hymes, D.H., 1971. Pidginization and Creolization of Languages (Ed. D.H. Hymes). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.

[7] Spada, N., 2007. Communicative Language Teaching: Current Status and Future Prospects. In: Cummins, J., Davison, C. (eds.). International Handbook of English Language Teaching. pp. 271–288. Springer: New York, USA.

[8] Norris, J.M., Ortega, L., 2000. Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative metaanalysis. Language Learning. 50, 417–528.

[9] Nunan, D., 2003. The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and practices in the AsiaPacific region. TESOL Quarterly. 37(4), 589–613.

[10] Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M., Norris, J.M., 2009. Task-Based Language Teaching: A Reader. John Benjamins: Amsterdam, Netherlands.

[11] Richards, J.C., Rodgers, T.S., 2014. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching, 3rd ed. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.

[12] Samuda, V., Bygate, M., 2008. Task Research from a Pedagogical Perspective. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., Swain, M. (eds.). Tasks in Second Language Learning. Longman: Harlow, UK. pp. 133–191.

[13] Gilabert, R., Manchón, R., Vasylets, O., 2016. Mode in theoretical and empirical TBLT research: Advancing research agendas. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 36, 117–135.

[14] Angelini, M.L., GarcíaCarbonell, A., 2019. Developing English speaking skills through simulationbased instruction. Teaching English with Technology. 19(2), 3–20.

[15] Ganta, T.G., 2015. The strengths and weaknesses of taskbased learning (TBL) approach. Scholarly Research Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies. 3(16), 2760–2771.

[16] Eslami, Z.R., Kung, W.T., 2016. Focusonform and EFL learners’ language development in synchronous computermediated communication: Taskbased interactions. The Language Learning Journal. 44(4), 401–417.

[17] Calderon, O., Sood, C., 2020. Evaluating learning outcomes of an asynchronous online discussion assignment: A postpriori content analysis. Interactive Learning Environments. 28(1), 3–17.

[18] Smith, B., GonzálezLloret, M., 2021. Technologymediated taskbased language teaching: A research agenda. Language Teaching. 54(4), 518–534.

[19] Nik, N., 2010. Examining the Language Learning Potential of a TaskBased Approach to Synchronous ComputerMediated Communication [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Victoria University of Wellington: Wellington, New Zealand.

[20] Nik, N., Adams, R., Newton, J., 2012. Writing to learn via text chat: Task implementation and focus on form. Journal of Second Language Writing. 21, 23–39.

[21] Adams, R., Nik, N., 2014. Prior Knowledge and SecondLanguage Task Production in Text Chat. In GonzálezLloret, M., Ortega, L. (eds.). TechnologyMediated TBLT: Researching Technology and Tasks. John Benjamins: Amsterdam, Netherlands. pp. 51–78.

[22] Baralt, M., 2013. The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during online versus facetoface interactive tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 35(4), 689–725.

[23] Heift, T., Schulze, M., 2007. Errors and Intelligence in ComputerAssisted Language Learning: Parsers and Pedagogues. Routledge: London, UK.

[24] Peterson, M., 2011. Towards a research agenda for the use of threedimensional virtual worlds in language learning. CALICO Journal. 29(1), 67–80.

[25] Robinson, P., 2011. Taskbased language learning: A review of issues. Language Learning. 61, 1–36.

[26] Robinson, P., 2001. Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for investigating task influences on SLA. In Robinson, P., Ed., Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. pp. 287–318.

[27] Skehan, P., 1998. A cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.

[28] Skehan, P., 1996. A framework for the implementation of taskbased instruction. Applied Linguistics. 17(1), 38–62.

[29] 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.

[30] Robinson, P., 2007. Criteria for classifying and sequencing pedagogic tasks. In García Mayo, M.P.(ed.). Investigating Tasks in Formal Language Learning. Multilingual Matters: Clevedon, UK. pp. 7–26.

[31] Albert, A., 2011. When individual differences come into play: The effect of learner creativity on simple and complex task performance. In Robinson, P. (ed.). Second Language Task Complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of Language Learning and Performance. John Benjamins: Amsterdam, Netherlands. pp. 239–226.

[32] Sasayama, S., Izumi, S., 2012. Effects of task complexity and pretask planning on EFL learners’ oral production. In Shehadeh, A., Coombe, C.(eds.). TaskBased Language Teaching in Foreign Language Contexts. John Benjamins: Amsterdam, Netherlands. pp. 23–42.

[33] Donate, Á., 2018. Cognitive Task Complexity, Foreign Language Anxiety and L2 Performance in Spanish: A TBLT perspective [Doctoral dissertation]. Georgetown University: Washington, DC, USA.

[34] Xu, T.S., Zhang, L.J., Gaffney, J.S., 2023. A multidimensional approach to assessing the effects of task complexity on L2 students’ argumentative writing. Assessing Writing. 55, 100690.

[35] Michel, M.C., 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, Vol. 2. John Benjamins: Amsterdam, Netherlands. pp. 141–174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.2.12ch6

[36] Robinson, P., 2010. Situating and distributing cognition across task demands: The SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In Pütz, M., Sicola, L. (eds.). Cognitive Processing in Second Language Acquisition. John Benjamins: Amsterdam, Netherlands. pp. 243–268.

[37] 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 TaskBased Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. pp. 205–225.

[38] Baralt, M., 2014. Task complexity and task sequencing in traditional versus online language classes. In Baralt, M., Gilabert, R., Robinson, P. (eds.) Task Sequencing and Instructed Second Language Learning. Bloomsbury: London, UK. pp. 95–122.

[39] Levkina, M., Gilabert, R., 2014. Task Sequencing in the L2 Development of Spatial Expressions. In Task Sequencing and Instructed Second Language Learning. Bloomsbury: London, UK. pp. 37–70.

[40] Malicka, A., 2020. The role of task sequencing in fluency, accuracy, and complexity: Investigating the SSARC model. Language Teaching Research. 24(5), 642–665.

[41] Robinson, P., 2015. The Cognition Hypothesis, secondlanguage task demands, and the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In: Bygate, M. (ed.). Domains and Directions in the Development of TBLT. John Benjamins: Amsterdam, Netherlands. pp. 87–122.

[42] Pan, S.C., Rickard, T.C., 2018. Transfer of testenhanced learning: Metaanalytic review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin. 144(7), 710–737.

[43] Kormos, J., 2011. Speech Production and the Cognition Hypothesis. In Robinson, P. (ed.). Second Language Task Complexity. John Benjamins: Amsterdam, Netherlands. pp. 39–60.

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

[45] Skehan, P., 1989. Language testing part II. Language Teaching. 22(1), 1–13.

[46] Housen, A., Kuiken, F., 2009. Complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics. 30(4), 461–473.

[47] Lakens, D., 2022. Sample size justification. Collabra: Psychology. 8(1), Article 33267.

[48] Richards, J.C., Schmidt, R.W., 2013. Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics, 4th ed. Routledge: London, UK.

[49] Rahimi, M., Zhang, L.J., 2019. Writing task complexity, students’ motivational beliefs, anxiety and their writing production in English as a second language. Reading and Writing. 32(3), 761–786.

[50] Frear, M.W., Bitchener, J., 2015. The effects of cognitive task complexity on writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing. 30, 45–57.

Downloads

How to Cite

Zhang, W., & Bartlet, J. J. (2025). The Impact of Cognitive Task Complexity and Task Sequence on L2 Speaking Performance: A Technology-Mediated TBLT Study. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 7(7), 918–933. https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i7.9735

Issue

Vol. 7 , Iss. 7 (July 2025): In progress

Article Type

Article

License

Copyright © 2025 Wanyi Zhang, ustin James Bartlet

Creative Commons License

This is an open access article under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License.