The Impact of Task Complexity on Iranian EFL Learners’

Cohesive Writing across Gender

Banafsheh Vaez

Mehdi Bazyar (PhD)

Abstract

Task-based language teaching has become a dominant approach in the development of

learners’ communicative skills. A notion that has recently drawn a great deal of attention
in the research on task-based language learning and teaching is the design and
development of complex tasks intended to help learners to achieve their linguistic
objectives. For this purpose, the present study aimed at investigating the effect of task
complexity on Iranian EFL learners’ writing cohesive accuracy. Sixty male and female
participants were randomly selected and required to write six narratives based on six
chronologically ordered cartoon strips following here-and-now and there-and-then
instruction. The cohesion of their written narratives after here-and-now and there-and-
then instructions was analyzed and compared to find out whether task complexity was
effective in the participants’ writing cohesion. With regard to the second research
question, the results of the Post Hoc tests analysis show that there was no statistically
significant difference between the male and female participants of the study in writing
more cohesive narratives. In accordance with individual differences, learning preferences,
and cognitive complexity of tasks, the findings of this study indicate that language
teachers should exercise extra care in designing more appropriate tasks in task-based
contexts to help learners to perform better in learning the language.

Keywords: Task-based language teaching, Task, Cohesion, Here-and-now, There-and-

then

Introduction

Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) has recently drawn the attention of Second Language
Acquisition (SLA) researchers due to its emphasis on both communicative and linguistic aspects
of language learning (Skehan, 1998). According to Chu (2015), “The emergence of theory-based
research amplified task-oriented empirical studies, and TBLT began to attract attention of
language educators” (p. 107). Contrary to traditional teaching methods, “task-based approaches
seek to create an environment for universal acquisitional processes (implicit and incidental
learning) to take place by promoting rich exposure to the target language (comprehensible input)
and plentiful opportunities for meaningful communication (interaction and output)” (Revesz,
2008, p. 438).
With respect to classroom applications of TBLT, three prominent features have been
proposed. First, TBLT is in line with a learner-oriented language learning view (Ellis, 2003;
Nunan, 2005; Richards & Rodgers, 2001). Second, it comprises specific elements such as target,
procedure, and particular results (Murphy, 2003; Nunan, 2004; Skehan, 1998a). Finally, it
supports content-based and meaningful practices as opposed to linguistically-oriented activities
(Beglar & Hunt, 2002; Carless, 2002; Littlewood, 2004).
Tasks lie at the core of TBLT and numerous definitions of task have been proposed. Tasks
are “activities where the target language is used by the learner for a communicative purpose in
order to achieve an outcome” (Willis, 1996, p. 23); or a task is “an activity which requires
learners to use language, with an emphasis on meaning, to attain an objective” (Bygate, Skehan,
& Swain, 2001, p. 11). In general, tasks are activities which allow learners to use their target
language in order to reach a common goal.
According to Skehan (1998), a task should have the following characteristics:
● “there is some communication problem to solve;
● there is some sort of relationship to comparable real-world activities;
● task completion has some priority;
● the assessment of task in terms of outcome” (p. 95).
According to Skehan (1998) and Robinson (2001a), it is believed that using a variety of
tasks for communication purposes in the classroom will result in an increase in learners’ focus on
linguistic forms. “This is done through what Skehan and Robinson refer to as the manipulation of
task complexity, which can be matched both to the learner’s linguistic development and to the
purpose of the lesson” (Choong, 2011, p. 2).
Choong (2011, p. 2) refers to Skehan (1998) and Robinson (2001a) and states that “tasks
can be designed in such a way that learners allocate more attention to language form while still
primarily focusing on task completion. This is done through what Skehan and Robinson refer to
as the manipulation of task complexity.”
 Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005) define complexity as “the extent to which learners produce
elaborated language” (p. 139). This includes the learner’s ability to produce more complex
language structure than what is expected of them. Skekan and Foster (1999) define complexity
as:
The capacity to use more advanced language, with the possibility that such language may
not be controlled so effectively. This may also involve a greater willingness to take risks,
and use fewer controlled language subsystems. This area is also likely to correlate with a
greater likelihood of restructuring, that is, change in the interlanguage system. (p. 97)

Robinson (2001a, 2001b, 2007a) identifies various elements of task complexity which are
believed to be the primary bases in sequencing decisions in task-based syllabus design. Task
complexity is the internal feature of task that may alter learner’s task performance cognitively.
With regard to varying levels of task complexity, “the quantity and quality of language
production may increase or decrease. Robinson also argues that task complexity is a series of
options for designing the features of tasks in which the cognitive demand of those tasks is
manipulated during task performance” (Masrom, Alwi, & Daud, 2015, p. 39).
It is suggested that tasks should be sequenced in an order from simple to more complex as
such sequencing facilitates development due to the fact that “different complexity levels of tasks
have different functions. The role of simple tasks is to stabilize the current state of the
interlanguage by dealing with familiar material and to consolidate the present state of knowledge
about the L2” (Malicka, 2014, p. 73). As complexity increases, access to L2 forms is done
automatically as it becomes quicker.
Choong (2011, p. 2) cites Robinson (2001b) and states that “tasks can be graded and
sequenced according to their cognitive complexity. That given, whether the manipulation of task
complexity would affect task performance still remains an empirical question.”

Brief Review of the Related Literature

The concept of Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) has been around since Prabhu (1987)
used a task-based approach in his Communicational Teaching Project in 1979. According to
Shehadeh (2005), nowadays, TBLT is being widely used by teachers and educators throughout
the world.
 Skehan (1996) stated that learners who operate within a structure-based approach rarely
succeed to reach a practical level of fluency and proficiency in second language learning.
Recently, an increasing number of researchers and scholars have proposed a shift in
language teaching toward task-based approaches (Prabhu, 1987; Nunan, 1989; Ellis, 2003).
Since the introduction of communicative language teaching and the belief that language is
best learned when it is used to carry out communicative purposes, the communicative task has
gained increasing popularity in language learning and teaching environments. Nunan (2006), for
instance, proposed a task-based framework since it “leads to student-led holistic outcomes in the
form of written reports, spoken presentations and substantial small-group conversations that lead
to decision-making outcomes” (p.70). Pica (1997) attributes this interest in the task to the fact
that ‘task’ has become very important to second language researchers and to language teachers.
In terms of using tasks in language learning environments, two major sources of evidence
have been proposed. As cited in Murad (2009), Lynch and Maclean (2000) stated that the first
source of evidence for the use of TBLT is called “the ecologic alone: the belief that the best way
to promote effective learning is by setting up classroom tasks that reflect as far as possible the
real world tasks which the learners perform, or will perform” (p. 32).
The second source comes from the research into second language acquisition. “Those
arguing for TBL, drawing on SLA research, have tended to focus on issues such as learnability,
the order of acquisition of particular L2 structures, and the implications of the input, interaction
and output hypotheses” (Lynch & Maclean, 2000, p.222).
As stated by Shehadeh (2005), TBLT revolves around the fact that tasks are a central
feature in language learning as they provide better environments for the acquisition and
promotion of language learning. TBLT is therefore based on learning the language rather than
learning the structure. Richards and Rodgers (2001) propose that the reason for this is that “tasks
are believed to foster processes of negotiation, modification, rephrasing, and experimentation
that are at the heart of second language learning” (p. 228).
Feez (1998), as cited in Richards and Rodgers (2001, p. 224), gives a summary of the
basic assumptions of TBLT:
- The focus of instruction is on process rather than product.

- Basic elements are purposeful activities and tasks that emphasize communication and
meaning.
 - Learners learn language by interacting communicatively and purposefully while engaged
in meaningful activities and tasks.

- Activities and tasks can be either those that learners might need to achieve in real life, or
those that have a pedagogical purpose specific to the classroom.

- Activities and tasks of a task-based syllabus can be sequenced according to difficulty.

- The difficulty of a task depends on a range of factors including the previous experience
of the learner, the complexity of the tasks, and the degree of support available. (p. 17).

TBLT has recently received widespread attention in view of the central role that task types play
in language learning. As stated by Larsen-Freeman (2006), most of the developmental studies in
the field of language learning and task complexity have been concerned with complexity,
accuracy, and fluency. “The underlying assumption is that these indices develop in tandem, i.e.
as learners become more proficient, they write more fluently, more accurately and the texts they
produce are more grammatically and lexically complex” (Abdollahzadeh & Fard Kashani, 2011,
p. 6).
Kuiken, Mos and Vedder (2005) studied the effect of task complexity with different
numbers of elements on the complexity of learners’ writing task. Three categories of syntactic
difficulty, lexical variability and accuracy were examined. The results revealed that task
complexity had no significant effect on lexical and syntactic complexity. On the other hand,
increasing task complexity and higher proficiency resulted in learners’ more accurate language
production.
In the same line, Kuiken and Vedder (2007) carried out a study investigating learners’
proficiency in their writings. In this study, task complexity was controlled along two variables of
Robinson’s Triadic Componential Framework, namely the number and the reasoning demands
made by the task. Accuracy, syntactic difficulty, and lexical variability measures were utilized to
analyze learners’ linguistic performance. The results of the study showed that task complexity
was effective in reducing learners’ lexical errors.
In line with their study in 2007, Kuiken and Vedder (2008) conducted another study to
investigate the effect of cognitive complexity on learners’ writing tasks. Linguistic performance
was made operational in terms of syntactic difficulty, lexical variability, and accuracy. The study
provided support for the Cognition Hypothesis due to the fact that the written products of those
students whose assigned tasks were cognitively more demanding were more accurate.
In addition, Kawauchi (2005) studied the effect of strategic planning and language
proficiency on Japanese learners’ oral production. The participants of the study were three
different proficiency groups including Low, High, and Advanced English learners. The results of
the study showed that High English learners had significant improvement in structural
complexity and lexical variability; on the other hand, Low English learners benefited more in
terms of their accuracy.
Further, Ishikawa (2006) studied the effectiveness of task complexity and language
proficiency in Japanese learners’ written production. Two groups of low and high proficiency
learners were made to investigate the effects of task complexity. The results showed that the low-
proficiency learners improved significantly when task complexity shifted from HERE and NOW
(HN) to THERE and THEN (TT) situations.
In addition, second language researchers have studied the effect of reasoning demand on
task complexity. Liliati, Arshad, Eng, and Nooreen (2012) investigated the effects of task
complexity with and without reasoning demand, and task condition on learners’ grammar
accuracy and the complexity their writing. The findings of the study proved that tasks with high
reasoning demands resulted in more structurally complex language. The results were in line with
Cognition Hypothesis (Robinson, 2007) in which cognitively complex tasks will generate more
complex language.
Pourdana, Karimi, and Behbahani (2011) carried out a study to examine the effectiveness
of three types of tasks: topic writing, picture description, and text reconstruction in language
complexity. The results of the study revealed that learners produced more complex language
when dealing with topic writing tasks. On the other hand, Rezazadeh, Tavakoli, and Rasekh
(2011) compared the effectiveness of task types including argumentative and instructional tasks
in complexity of the language. The results showed that the group with argumentative tasks
produced more complex language.
Previous studies have also examined the effectiveness of planning condition. Several
studies have found that planning condition may not be effective in the complexity of learners’
writing production (e.g., Mehnert, 1998; Mohammadzadeh, Dabaghi & Tavakoli, 2013;
Nariman-Jahan & Rahimpour, 2011; Piri, Barati & Ketabi, 2012; Rahimpour & Safarie, 2011).
Rahimpour and Safarie (2011) carried out a study to investigate the effectiveness of pre-task
planning (PTP) and on-line planning (OLP) in EFL learners. The results revealed that there was
no statistically significant difference between the complexity of pre-task planning and on-line
planning groups.
Piri et al. (2012) carried out a study to compare the effectiveness of pre-task planning
(PTP) and on-line planning (OLP) through series of pictures in narrative tasks. Forty-five (n=45)
EFL learners were instructed to complete narrative tasks based on the pictures provided. The
results revealed that both pre-task and on-line planning did not have any significant effect the
complexity of learners’ writing production.
In the same sense, Mohammadzadeh et al. (2013) carried out a study on thirty lower-
intermediate EFL learners. Resource-directing (+/- here-and-now) and resource-dispersing (+/-
planning time) conditions were manipulated for task complexity. The reported results are the
same as Mehnert’s (1998) where he found no effect of planning on complexity.
In another study on planning condition, Nariman-Jahan and Rahimpour (2011) made a
comparison of the effectiveness of planning time in dyadic tasks. The results revealed that the
low proficiency learners produced less complex language in the planned condition. The findings
are in line with Wigglesworth’s (1997) finding that planning time was not beneficial for lower-
language- proficiency-level learners.
Nikou and Eskandarsefat (2012) used information gaps and decision making tasks to
manipulate reasoning demand of the tasks. The results showed that in decision-making tasks,
task complexity was not effective in syntactic complexity. With regard to information-gap tasks,
the results showed that task complexity was effective in the complexity of learners’ language
production.
On the other hand, Rahimpour and Hosseini (2010) studied the impact of task complexity
including +/- here-and-now and +/- contextual support on learners’ written production. The
results showed that the varying levels of the complexity of tasks were not effective in the
complexity of the language.
The studies reviewed have studied the effect of task complexity on learners’ written
production either by taking into account the complexity of the task, task type, or task conditions.
These studies have revealed that “task types, task condition or task complexity would affect
learners’ language performance regardless of the context or the participants of the studies. With
regard to the setting, most reviewed studies were conducted either in the context of ESL or EFL”
(Masrom et al., 2015, p. 89). Various complexity measures were also considered in the literature
including syntactic complexity, lexical complexity, and lexical variation. Studying the recent
literature on task complexity and language learning emphasizes the importance of awareness of
task-based instruction for both L2 learners and teachers. “Further studies are necessary to
determine the principles that are required to manipulate the complexity of tasks ... The review
would provide further insights for language learning researchers to find out the areas that were
not examined fully in the literature” (Masrom et al., 2015, p. 89).

Present Study

Frear (2013, p. 6) refers to the scarcity of research on the impact of task complexity on writing
and states that despite the fact that there is an increasing interest in cognitive task complexity and
the two modes of the Cognition Hypothesis and the Limited Attentional Model, most research in
this area has been concerned with “the oral modality, not the written modality. This imbalance
can be considered problematic considering that students also need to develop complex writing
skills and that the results from research in the oral modality may not be directly applicable to
writing.”
Consequently, the findings of different investigations into oral aspects of language
learning cannot be directly applied to writing, particularly in terms of task complexity.
According to Frear (2013, pp. 6-7), “This is because the written modality is believed to have
different processing requirements that may be more suited to the resource heavy requirements of
complex language production.” Concerning task sequencing, Robinson (2007) stated that for
sequencing pedagogic tasks, the only factor that is worth considering is task complexity as it
involves task features irrespective of learners’ differences.
By looking at the relevant literature, it was revealed that the effects of task complexity and
sequencing and their effects on “learners’ oral/written performance have rarely been explored in
the literature and there is a gap in the literature on this topic” (Salimi, Alavinia, Hosseini, 2012,
p. 2401). Therefore, the present study set out to investigate the effects of task complexity and
sequencing on Iranian EFL learners’ written performance in terms of cohesion. Accordingly the
following research question was drawn:
RQ. Is there any significant difference among the Iranian EFL male and female learners’ writing
cohesion after here-and-now and there-and-then instructions?

Method

This study is a quasi experimental research and it has the pre-test post-test, equivalent-groups
design.

Participants

The participants of this study were chosen from among adult EFL male and female intermediate
learners at Iran Language Institute in Tehran aged between 17 and 25. The homogeneity of the
participants were confirmed through Preliminary English Test (PET, 2006) developed by
Cambridge. Thirty participants (N=60) whose mean scores fell one standard deviation above and
below the total mean score were identified and randomly assigned one experimental group. The
participants received Here-and-Now (HN) and There-and-Then (TT) instructions.

Instruments

After making sure of the participants’ homogeneity through the practice test of PET (2006), they
were presented with their regular course books introduced by the decision-makers of the institute
(i.e. The ILI English Series. Intermediate. Planned, compiled, and revised by: Research and
planning Department, 2004. Tehran: Iran Language Institute). Intermediate course books at the
ILI comprise of eight units and each unit is further divided into two sections, and every section is
covered in one session lasting for an hour and 45 minutes. Session one is devoted to
conversation, grammar, and vocabulary. Session two covers reading, grammar, and listening.
Classes are held twice a week. The total of twenty-one sessions covers the whole quarter for each
of the three intermediate levels at the ILI.
Prior to the treatment, the participants were presented with a handout pointing out the
following:
(a) You are allowed to view strip cartoons for five minutes;
(b) You may take notes (only words and/or phrases) during the cartoon-viewing sessions but the
notes will be removed before writing;
(c) You are not allowed to name the characters in the strip cartoon;
(d) You will be required to write a narrative after viewing the strip cartoons.
 They were also provided with two short sample narratives: one cohesive and the other not
cohesive. Then, their attention was focused on the reason why one narrative was cohesive and
the other was not cohesive by highlighting the words and expressions used to achieve cohesion
in terms of time and sequence. In addition, during the treatment, the participants were provided
with six sets of chronologically ordered picture stories to write their narratives on in the form of
relevant and cohesive paragraphs of up to 100 words. The picture stories were chosen from
www.pinterest.com which shares images— known as pins— and other media content (e.g.,
videos) through collections known as pinboards from users all over the world. Another source
material to be used in this study was Comics and Conversation: Using Humor to Elicit
Conversation and Develop Vocabulary by J. Ashkenas.

Data Collection Procedures

In order to collect the required data, based on the triadic framework, the present study made use
of one of the proposed task complexity dimensions: Here-and-Now (HN) and There-and-Then
TT). In the HN condition, after viewing the chronologically ordered cartoon strips for about five
minutes, the participants were required to write narratives of up to 100 words for about 20
minutes based on a prompt written in the present tense. In writing narratives, they were permitted
to view the cartoon strips while writing. On the other hand, in the TT condition, the participants,
after viewing the chronologically ordered cartoon strips for five minutes, were required to write
narratives of up to 100 words without viewing the cartoon strips for about 20 minutes based on a
prompt written in the past tense.
In order to carry out the study, during the first three weeks of the study, the participants
were required to write six narratives based on the cartoon strips following HN condition. Four
weeks later, they were required to write six narratives based on the same cartoon strips following
TT condition.
The total number of correctly used cohesive devices, i.e., time and sequencing, in the
narratives was the criterion for the comparison of the participants in the study. The accurate use
of cohesive devices in HN and TT conditions was investigated to find out under which condition
the participants used cohesive devices more accurately. This experiment was conducted within
the period of 10 weeks. In fact, this is the regular length of the whole quarter at the ILI. In
addition, the total of six sets of chronologically ordered cartoon strips was used in the present
study.

Data Analysis

After the required data were collected, descriptive statistical analysis of the data was carried out.
Regarding the inferential statistics, through the calculation of the mean scores of the group using
A two-way ANOVA, PASW Statistics 18, the comparison of the participants before and after the
treatment was carried out. In addition, the alpha level of 0.05 was set for the interpretation of the
results.

Results

The summary of the descriptive statistics analyses for the participants with regard to their
accurate use of cohesive devices in their written narratives is given in the following table.

Table 4.2 Between-Subjects Factors

Value Label N
Groups Treatment 1 Male HN 30
2 Male TT 30
3 Female HN 30
4 Female TT 30

Gender 1 Male 60
2 Female 60

Figure 1 shows the mean scores of the male and female participants of the study.
 24
23.5
23
22.5
22
21.5
21
20.5
20
19.5
HN (Males) TT (Males) HN (Females) TT (Females)
Mean Scores 22.97 21.17 23.43 23.63

Figure 4.1. The two groups’ mean scores

The following table shows the results of descriptive statistics.

Table 4.3 Descriptive Statistics for the Dependent Variable

Groups Treatment Sex Mean Std. Deviation N
Male HN Male 22.97 1.974 30
Total 22.97 1.974 30

Male TT Male 21.17 1.341 30

Total 21.17 1.341 30

Female HN Female 23.43 1.654 30

Total 23.43 1.654 30

Female TT Female 23.63 1.790 30

Total 23.63 1.790 30

Total Male 22.07 1.903 60

Female 23.53 1.712 60
Total 22.80 1.947 120

The following table shows the results of Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances
Table 4.4 Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances
F df1 df2 Sig.
1.624 3 116 .188

The significance level in the Levene’s test is .188 which is greater than .05. This suggests that

the variance of the dependent variable across the groups is equal.

The following table shows the results of the tests of Between-Subjects Effects.

Table 4.5 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Source Type III Sum of Mean
Squares df Square F Sig.
a
Corrected Model 113.733 3 37.911 13.031 .000
Intercept 62380.800 1 62380.800 21442.630 .000
Groups Treatment 49.200 2 24.600 8.456 .000
Gender .000 0 . . .
Groups Treatment * Gender .000 0 . . .
Error 337.467 116 2.909
Total 62832.000 120
Corrected Total 451.200 119

By looking at the Sig. column, it becomes evident that since the alpha level of significance is

.000 which is smaller than .05, there is a significant interaction among the variables.

In order to find out exactly where there is a significant interaction among the groups, Post

Hoc tests where run to identify the differences. The following table shows the results of the Post

Hoc tests.
Table 4.6 Multiple Comparisons for the Post Hoc Tests
Groups Treatment Groups Treatment 95% Confidence Interval
Mean Std. Lower Upper
Difference Error Sig. Bound Bound
Male HN Male TT 1.80* .440 .000 .65 2.95
Female HN -.47 .440 .715 -1.61 .68
Female TT -.67 .440 .433 -1.81 .48
Male TT Male HN -1.80* .440 .000 -2.95 -.65
*
Female HN -2.27 .440 .000 -3.41 -1.12
Female TT -2.47* .440 .000 -3.61 -1.32
Female HN Male HN .47 .440 .715 -.68 1.61
Male TT 2.27* .440 .000 1.12 3.41
Female TT -.20 .440 .969 -1.35 .95
Female TT Male HN .67 .440 .433 -.48 1.81
*
Male TT 2.47 .440 .000 1.32 3.61
Female HN .20 .440 .969 -.95 1.35
With regard to the research question, the results of the Post Hoc tests analysis show that the

HN instruction (M=22.97) was statistically more effective than TT instruction (M=21.17) in

terms of producing more cohesive writing by the male participants as the alpha level of

significance was found to be 0.000<0.05.

With regard to the research question, the results of the Post Hoc tests analysis show

that there was no statistically significant difference between the male and female participants

of the study who received the HN (M=23.43) and TT (M=23.63) instructions in terms of

producing cohesive writing as the alpha level of significance was found to be 0.969>0.05.

Discussion

The findings of the study are in contrast with Robinson’s (2001a, 2001b, 2005, 2007) Cognition
Hypothesis stating that more complex tasks result in more complex language. In addition, the
statistical insignificance of the results can be interpreted through the fact that the participants’
“mental effort” (Frear, 2013, p. 234) was not high enough to retain the required information in
cognitively complex tasks to carry out the task at hand more successfully. Furthermore, studies
carried out by Ellis and Yuan (2004) and Ishikawa (2006) revealed no statistically significant
difference between less and more complex tasks in terms of producing accurate written language.
Kuiken and Vedder, (2008, 2011, 2012), Frear (2013), and Sercu et al. (2006) also did not report
any positive results in terms of the effectiveness of cognitively complex tasks on the structural
accuracy of learners’ output.
In line with Skehan’s, and Skehan and Foster’s (1999, 2001) Limited Attentional Capacity
Model, the more complex task, i.e., there-and-then, was not more effective that the simple task,
i.e., here-and-now, in terms of producing more cohesive written narratives; this could be due to
the fact that the participants’ mental effort exerted by the there-and-then condition was not strong
enough to elicit more complex structures.
According to Kellog (1996), before writing, learners are inclined to organize the process
of how and what there are going to write. Thus, they start with what information they have to
create new information. In the present study, however, the more complex task might have been
ineffective in helping the participants remember the necessary information based on which to
organize their written narratives.
Time allocation for planning the participants’ writing can be another factor influencing the
reported results. According to Robinson (2001b), “making a pedagogic task simple (e.g. by
allowing planning time) allows optimum resource allocation to satisfy the linguistic demands of
the task” (p. 31); thus, compared to the simple task, the complex task was not effective in
allocating sufficient structural resources in order for the participants to write more cohesive
narratives.

Conclusion

Following Robinson’s Cognition Hypothesis and Skehan’s Model of Task Complexity, the
present study aimed at investigating the effectiveness of task complexity in the Iranian EFL
learners’ writing cohesive accuracy. The results revealed that the participants did not show any
statistically significant improvement in the cohesive accuracy of their writing. These findings
can be considered as partial support to Skehan (1998) who claimed that trade-off effects are
likely to occur between different aspects of language production as a result of human’s limited
attentional resources (i.e. learners are not able to pay equal attention to various aspects of
language at the same time). The findings of the study are in contradiction to a large body of
studies (see Kuiken & Vedder, 2007, 2008; Kawauchi, 2005; Ishikawa, 2006; Liliati, Arshad,
Eng, & Nooreen, 2012) corroborating the positive effects of task complexity on language
performance. Therefore, using a wide variety of writing tasks with different complexity levels,
from simple to complex, is recommended to EFL teachers and also syllabus designers to make
sure that appropriate tasks are chosen based on learners’ needs and cognitive competence. In
other words, the results reported in this study make it clear that integrating task complexity into
sequencing studies and also using appropriate task types are two important issues in TBLT
environments. In addition, it is of utmost importance for the language educators in task-based
environments to identify not only the cognitive demands within the tasks, but also the tasks that
learners are required to carry out. To conclude, more research into the effects of task complexity
and sequencing, and different task-based syllabi and learning styles on the learner’s linguistic
performance is merited.

References

Abdollahzade, S., & Fard Kashani, A. (2011). The Effect of Task Complexity on EFL Learners’
Narrative Writing Task Performance. Journal of English Language Teaching and
Learning, 8, 1-28.

Beglar, D., & Hunt, A. (2002). Implementing task-based language teaching. In Richards, J. C., &
Renandya, W. A. (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (2001). Introduction. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain
(Eds.), Researching Pedagogic Tasks. Second Language Learning and Testing (pp. 1-21).
Harlow: Longman.

Carless, D. V. (2002). Implementing task-based learning with young learners. ELT Journal,
56(4), 389-396.

Choong, K. P. (2011). Task Complexity and Linguistic Complexity: An Exploratory Study.

Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics,
11(1), 1-28.

Chu, H. (2015). Effects of Task Complexity on English Argumentative Writing. English

Teaching, 70(2), 107-131.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis , R., & Yuan, F .(2004). The effects of planning time on fluency, complexity, and accuracy
in second language narrative writing. Studied in Second Language Acquisition, 26(1), 59-
84.

Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analysing Learner Language. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Feez, S. (1998). Text-Based Syllabus Design. Sydney: National Center for English Teaching and
Research.

Frear, M. W. (2013). The Effects of Cognitive Task Complexity on Writing. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Auckland University of Technology.

Ishikawa, T. (2006). The effect of task complexity and language proficiency on task-based
language performance. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 3(4), 193-225.

Kawauchi, C. (2005). The effects of strategic planning on the oral narratives of learners with low
and high intermediate L2 proficiency. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in
a second language (pp. 143-164). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Kellog, R, T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In M. C. Levy & S. Ransdell

(Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications
(pp. 57-71). Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kuiken, F., Mos, M., & Vedder, I. (2005). Cognitive task complexity and second language
writing performance. In S. Foster-Cohen, M.P. García-Mayo, & J. Cenoz (Eds.), Eurosla
Yearbook, Vol.5 (pp. 195-222). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). Task complexity and measures of linguistics performance in L2
writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 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. (2011). Task performance in L2 writing and speaking: The effect of
mode. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition
hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 91–104).
Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

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 A.
Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency:
Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 199-120). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and
written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 590-
619.

Liliati, I., Arshad, A. A., Eng, W. B., & Nooreen, N. (2012). Effects of task reasoning demand
and task condition on learner written output in ESL classrooms. International Journal of
Education, 4(4), 157-175.

Littlewood, W. (2004). The task-based approach: Some questions and suggestions. ELT Journal,
58(4), 319-326.

Lynch, T., & Maclean, J. (2000). Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for
classroom language learning. Language Teaching Research, 4, 221-250.

Malicka, A. (2014). Th e Role of Task Sequencing in Monologic Oral Production. In M. Baralt,

R. Gilabert, & P. Robinson. (Eds.), An Introduction to Theory and Research in Task
Sequencing and Instructed Second Language Learning (pp. 71-93). Bloomsbury, New
York.

Masrom, U. K., Alwi, N. A. N. M., & Daud, N. S. M. (2015). The effects of task complexity on
the complexity of the second language written production. Journal of Second Language
Teaching and Research, 4(1), 38-66.

Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language
performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 83-108.

Mohammadzadeh, M. A., Dabaghi, A., & Tavakoli, M. (2013). The effects of simultaneous use
of pre-planning along +/- here-and-now dimension on fluency, complexity and accuracy
of Iranian EFL learners’ written performance. International Journal of Research Studies
in Language Learning, 2(3), 49-65. http://dx.doi.org/10.5861/ijrsll.2012.168

Murad, T. M. (2009). The Effect of Task-Based Language Teaching on Developing Speaking

Skills among the Palestinian Secondary EFL Students in Israel and Their Attitudes
towards English. Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation, Yarmouk University,
Irbid, Jordan.

Nariman-Jahan, R., & Rahimpour, M. (2011). The effects of planning and proficiency on
language production of writing task performance. Educational Research, 2(9), 1528-1537.

Nikou, F., & Eskandarsefat, Z. (2012). The simultaneous effects of task complexity and task
types on EFL learners` written performance. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied
Sciences, 6(7), 137-143.

Nunan, D. (1989). Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. (2005). Important tasks of English education: Asia-wide and beyond. Asian EFL
Journal, 7(3).

Nunan, D. (2006). Task-based language teaching in the Asia context: Defining ‘task’. Asian EFL
Journal, 8(3), 12-18.

Pica, T. (1997). Second language teaching and research relationships: A North American
view. Language Teaching Research, 1(1), 48-72.

Piri, F., Barati, H., & Ketabi, S. (2012). The effects of pre-task, on-line, and both pre-task and
on-line planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy – The case of Iranian EFL learners’
written production. English Language Teaching, 5(6), 158-168.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n6p158

Pourdana, N., Karimi Behbahani, M., & Safdari, M. (2011). The impact of task types on aspects
of Iranian EFL learners' writing performance: Accuracy, fluency, and complexity. IPEDR,
20, 261-265.

Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford university press.

Rahimpour, M., & Hosseini, P. (2010). The impact of task complexity on L2 learners’ written
narratives. English Language Teaching, 3(3), 198-206.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v3n3p198

Revesz, A. (2008). Task Complexity, Focus on Form, and L2 Development. SSLA, 31, 437-470.

Rezazadeh, M., Tavakoli, M., & Rasekh, A. E. (2011). The role of task type in foreign language
written production: Focusin g on fluency, complexity, and accuracy. International
Education Studies, 4(2), 169-176. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ies.v4n2p169

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Robinson, P. (2001a). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic
framework for examining task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and
second language instruction (pp. 287-318). Cambridge, UK: 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. (2007a). 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.

Sercu, L., De Wachter, L., Peters, E., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2006). The effect of task
complexity and task conditions on foreign language development and performance: Three
empirical studies. ITL—International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 151, 55–84.

Shehadeh, A. (2005). Task-based language learning and teaching: Theories and applications. In
Edwards, C and J. Willis (Eds). Teachers Exploring Tasks in English Language Teaching.
Palgrave Macmillan.

Skehan, P. (1996). Second language acquisition research and task-based instruction. In Willis, J.
and D. Willis (Eds). Challenges and Change in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

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

Skehan, P. (1998a). Task-based instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 268-286.

Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on
narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49(1), 93-120.

Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). «Cognition and tasks», in P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and
second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 183-205.

Salimi, A., Alavinia, P., & Hosseini, P. (2012). The Effect of Strategic Planning Time and Task
Complexity on L2 Written Accuracy. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(11),
2398-2406.

Willis, J. (1996). A Framework for Task-Based Learning. Harlow: Longman.

Wigglesworth, G. (1997) An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test
discourse. Language Testing, 14: 85-106