Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T01:30:22.346Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - The Cognition Hypothesis, the Triadic Componential Framework and the SSARC Model

An Instructional Design Theory of Pedagogic Task Sequencing

from Part III - The Task Syllabus and Materials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2021

By
Peter Robinson
Edited by
Mohammad Javad Ahmadian  and
Michael H. Long
Mohammad Javad Ahmadian
Affiliation:
University of Leeds
Michael H. Long
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park
Get access

Summary

Operationalizing a theory of task-based learning requires a specification of the features of task design that can be manipulated and sequenced during the time-course of instructional language learning programs to promote both performance success (measured in terms of the degree to which tasks can be accomplished in the second language), as well as progress in second language development (measured in terms of progress learners make in the increasing accuracy, complexity and fluency of their language production and comprehension). This chapter describes a theoretically motivated framework for pedagogic task design and sequencing which is currently being implemented and researched to assess the extent to which it facilitates target task success and language development for learners performing sequences of pedagogic tasks following the design criteria it proposes.

Keywords

Syllabus designtask sequencingtask complexityCognition HypothesisSSARC model
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Task-Based Language Teaching , pp. 205 - 225
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Further Reading

Baralt, M., Gilabert, R., and Robinson, P. (2014), eds. Task sequencing and instructed second language learning. London: Bloomsbury Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In Robinson, P., ed. Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 287–318.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics 43: 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2011), ed. Second language task complexity: researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2015). Second language task demands, the Cognition Hypothesis, and the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In Bygate, M., ed. Domains and directions in the development of TBLT. Amsterdam: John Benjamin, pp. 123–59.Google Scholar

References

Abrahamsson, N. (2013). Developmental sequences. In Robinson, P., ed. The Routledge encyclopedia of second language acquisition. New York: Routledge, pp. 173–77.Google Scholar
Allaw, E. and McDonough, K. (2019). The effect of task sequencing on second language written lexical complexity, accuracy and fluency. System, 85: 1–24.Google Scholar
Baralt, M. (2013). The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during online versus face-to-face interactive tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36: 1–37.Google Scholar
Baralt, M., Gilabert, R., and Robinson, P. (2014), eds. Task sequencing and instructed second language learning. London: Bloomsbury Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
Benson, S. D. (2016). Task-based language teaching: An empirical study of task transfer. Language Teaching Research, 20: 341–65.Google Scholar
Berman, R. and Slobin, D.I. (1994), eds. Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic study. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cadierno, T. and Robinson, P. (2009). Language typology, task complexity and the development of L2 lexicalization patterns for describing motion events. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6: 245–76.Google Scholar
Candlin, C. (1987). Towards task-based language learning. In Candlin, C. and Murphy, D., eds. Language learning tasks. London: Prentice Hall, pp. 5–22.Google Scholar
Charles, R. and Nixon, J. (2019). Measuring mental workload using physiological measures: A systematic review. Applied Ergonomics, 74:221–32.Google Scholar
Craik, F. and Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104: 268–94.Google Scholar
Damos, D. (1991), ed. Multiple task performance. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2005), ed. Grammatical development in language learning. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dulay, H. and Burt, M. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24: 37–54.Google Scholar
Dulay, H., Burt, M., and Krashen, S. (1982). Language two. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1993). The structural syllabus and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 27: 91–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005), ed. Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2015). Researching acquisition sequences: Idealization and de-idealization in SLA. Language Learning, 65: 181–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2019). Towards a modular curriculum for using tasks. Language Teaching Research, 23: 454–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia-Mayo, M. (2007), ed. Investigating tasks in formal language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Gilabert, R. (2007). The simultaneous manipulation of task complexity along panning time and +/− Here-and-Now dimensions: Effects on Oral L2 production. In del Garcia-Mayo, M., ed. Investigating tasks in formal language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 44–68.Google Scholar
Gilabert, R., Baron, J., and Llanes, M. (2009). Manipulating cognitive complexity across task types and its impact on learners’ interaction during task performance. International Review of Applied Linguistic, 47: 367–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heuer, H. (1996). Dual task performance. In Neumann, O. and Sanders, A., eds. Handbook of perception and action. Vol. 3. New York: Elsevier, pp. 113–43.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J., Ellis, R., and Eskildson, S. (2015), eds. Orders and Sequences in the Acquisition of L2 Morphosyntax: 40 Years On [special issue]. Language Learning, 65(1).Google Scholar
Ishikawa, T. (2007). The effects of increasing task complexity along the +/− Here-and-Now dimension on L2 written narrative discourse. In del Garcia-Mayo, M., ed. Investigating tasks in formal language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 136–56.Google Scholar
Ishikawa, T. (2008). Task complexity, intentional reasoning demands and second language speech production. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Aoyama Gakuin University, Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
Jingo, C. (2018). Cognitive task analysis in task-based syllabus design for the teaching and learning of Kiswahili as a second language in Ugandan secondary schools. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Stellenbosch University, South Africa.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. (2009). The effects of task complexity on learner-learner interaction. System, 37: 254–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y. (2012). Task complexity, learning opportunities, and Korean EFL learners’ question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34:627–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y., Payant, C., and Pearson, P. (2015). The intersection of task-based interaction, task complexity, and working memory: L2 question development through recasts in a laboratory setting. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37: 549–81.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. and Tracy-Ventura, N. (2011). Task complexity, language anxiety and the development of the simple past. In Robinson, P., ed. Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 287–306.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. and Long, M. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lee, E. and Rescorla, L. (2002). The use of psychological state terms by late talkers at age 3. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23: 623–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levkina, M. (2014). The role of task sequencing in L2 development as mediated by working memory capacity. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
Levkina, M. and Gilabert, R. (2014). Task sequencing in the development of L2 spatial expressions. In Baralt, M., Gilabert, R., and Robinson, P., eds. Task sequencing and instructed second language learning. London: Bloomsbury Academic Publishing, pp. 37–70.Google Scholar
Loewen, S. (2004). Uptake in incidental focus on form in meaning focused ESL lessons. Language Learning, 54: 153–88.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2005), ed. Second language needs analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Long, M. and Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 26: 27–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malicka, A. (2014). The Role of Task Complexity and Task Sequencing in L2 Oral Monologic Production. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
Malicka, A. (2018). The role of task sequencing in fluency, accuracy and complexity: Investigating the SSARC model of task sequencing. Language Teaching Research, 15: 1–24.Google Scholar
Malicka, A., Gilabert, R., and Norris, J. (2017). From needs analysis to research tasks: Insights from an English for specific purposes context. Language Teaching Research 21: 1–29.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. (1987). Reference to past events and actions in the development of natural second language acquisition. In Pfaff, C., ed. First and second language acquisition processes. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 206–25.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. (2013). Development in second language acquisition. In Robinson, P., ed. The Routledge encyclopedia of second language acquisition. New York: Routledge, pp. 165–73.Google Scholar
Munby, J. (1978). Communicative syllabus design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Murakami, A. and Alexopoulou, T. (2016). L1 influence on the acquisition of English grammatical morphemes: A learner corpus study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38: 365–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nixon, S. (2005). Mental state verb production and sentential complements in 4 year old children. First Language, 25: 19–39.Google Scholar
Reigeluth, C. and Carr-Chelmann, A. (2009), eds. Instructional design theories: Building a common knowledge base. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Révész, A., Michel, M., and Gilabert, R. (2016). Measuring cognitive task demands using dual-task methodology, subjective self-ratings, and expert judgments: A validation study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38: 703–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (1994). Implicit knowledge, second language learning, and syllabus construction. TESOL Quarterly, 28: 161–66.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1995a). Task complexity and second language narrative discourse. Language Learning, 45: 99–140.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1995b). Attention, memory, and the ‘noticing’ hypothesis. Language Learning, 45: 283–331.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1997). Individual differences and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit adult second language learning. Language Learning, 47: 45–99.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001a). Task complexity, task difficulty and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22: 27–57.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001b). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In Robinson, P., ed. Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 287–318.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001c). Individual differences, cognitive abilities, aptitude complexes and learning conditions in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 17: 368–92.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2003a). The Cognition Hypothesis, task design, and adult task-based language learning. Second Language Studies 21(2): 45–105.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2003b). Attention and memory during SLA. In Doughty, C. and Long, M., eds. Handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 631–78.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 43: 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2007a). Criteria for classifying and sequencing pedagogic tasks. In Pilar Garcia-Mayo, M., ed. Investigating tasks in formal language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 7–27.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2007b). 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: 191–213.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2007c). Aptitudes, abilities, contexts, and practice. In DeKeyser, R., ed. Practice in second language learning: perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 256–86.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2007d). Re-thinking -for-speaking and L2 task demands: The Cognition Hypothesis, task classification, and sequencing. Plenary address presented at the Second International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching, September, University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, Honolulu, USA.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2009). Syllabus design. In Long, M. and Doughty, C., eds. Handbook of language teaching. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 294–310.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2010). Situating and distributing cognition across task demands: The SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In Putz, M. and Sicola, L., eds. Cognitive processing in second language acquisition: Inside the learner’s mind. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 243–68.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2011a). Second language task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In Robinson, P., ed. Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3–38.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2011b), ed. Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2012a). Individual differences, aptitude complexes, SLA processes, and aptitude test development. In Pawlak, M., ed. New perspectives on individual differences in language learning and teaching. Oxford: Springer, pp. 57–75.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2012b). Abilities to learn: Cognitive abilities. In Seel, N., ed. Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning. New York: Springer, pp. 59–63.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2013a). Syllabus design. In Chapelle, C., ed. The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 5494–98.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2013b). Abilities and aptitudes for second language learning and performance. Kanto JACET Journal, 5: 1–15.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2015). Second language task demands, the Cognition Hypothesis, and the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In Bygate, M., ed. Domains and directions in the development of TBLT. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 123–59.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2017). Attention and awareness. In Cenoz, J. and Gorter, D., eds. Encyclopedia of language and education: Vol. 6. language awareness and multilingualism. New York: Springer, pp. 125–34.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2020). Aptitude in second language acquisition. In Chapelle, C., ed. The concise encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 40–44.Google Scholar
Robinson, P., Cadierno, T., and Shirai, Y. (2009). Time and motion: Measuring the effects of the conceptual demands of tasks on second language speech production. Applied Linguistics, 38: 533–54.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. and Ellis, N. (2008). Conclusions: Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and L2 instruction – Issues for research. In Robinson, P. and Ellis, N., eds. The handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. New York: Routledge, pp. 489–545.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. and Gilabert, R. (2007), eds. Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis and second language instruction [special issue]. International Review of Applied Linguistics (IRAL), 45(2).Google Scholar
Robinson, P. and Gilabert, R. (2020). Task-based learning: Cognitive underpinnings. In Chapelle, C., ed. The concise encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 1046–51.Google Scholar
Robinson, P., Mackey, A., Gass, S., and Schmidt, R. (2012). Attention and awareness in second language acquisition. In Gass, S. and Mackey, A., eds. The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition. New York: Routledge, pp. 247–67.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11: 129–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P., ed. Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–34.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2014), ed. Processing perspectives on second language task performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (1996). From ‘thought and language’ to ‘thinking for speaking’. In Gumperz, J. and Levinson, S., eds. Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 70–96.Google Scholar
Smith, N. (1969). The effect on time estimation of increasing the complexity of a cognitive task. The Journal of General Psychology, 81: 231–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snow, R., Kyllonen, P., and Marshalek, R. (1984). The topography of learning and ability correlations. In Sternberg, R., ed. Advances in the psychology of human intelligence. Vol. 2. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 47–104.Google Scholar
Solon, M., Long, A. Y., and Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2017). Task complexity, language related episodes and the production of L2 Spanish vowels. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39: 347–80.Google Scholar
Steenkamp, A. and Visser, M. (2011). Using cognitive complexity analysis for the grading and sequencing of Isixhosa tasks in the curriculum design of a communication course for education. Per Linguam, 27: 11–27.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2010). Origins of human communication. Bradford, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A., and Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts: The role of attention, memory and analytic ability. In Mackey, A., ed. Conversational interaction in second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 171–93.Google Scholar
Tsang, P. and Wilson, G. (1997). Mental workload measurement and analysis. In Salvendy, G., ed. Handbook of human factors and ergonomics. New York: Wiley, pp. 418–48.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. (1990). Aspects of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Willis, D. (1990). The lexical syllabus. London: Collins.Google Scholar
Yang, Q., Chang, S., Hwang, G., and Zou, D. (2020). Balancing cognitive complexity and gaming level: Effects of a cognitive complexity-based gaming level on EFL students English vocabulary level, anxiety, and performance. Computers in Education, 149: 1–20.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×