The cognition hypothesis: A synthesis and meta-analysis of research on second language task complexity

Language Learning

Volumn 63, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 330-367

  Jackson, Daniel O ^a   Suethanapornkul, Sakol ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII   (United States)

^b CHULALONGKORN UNIVERSITY   (Thailand)

Author keywords

Cognition hypothesis; Metaanalysis; Synthesis; Task based language teaching

Indexed keywords

EID: 84884500693     PISSN: 00238333     EISSN: 14679922     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/lang.12008     Document Type: Article

References (99)

1. Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Teaching the spoken language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
2. Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (Eds.) (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Limited.
3. Cadierno, T., & Robinson, P. (2009). Language typology, task complexity and the development of L2 lexicalization patterns for describing motion events. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 245-276.
4. Clark-Carter, D. (2003). Effect size: The missing piece in the jigsaw. The Psychologist, 16, 636-638.
5. Cooper, H. (1998). Synthesizing research: A guide for literature reviews (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
6. Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
7. Cromer, R. (1991). Language and thought in normal and handicapped children. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
8. Daller, H., Van Hout, R., & Treffers-Daller, J. (2003). Lexical richness in the spontaneous speech of bilinguals. Applied Linguistics, 24, 197-222.
9. De Knop, S., & De Rycker, T. (Eds.). (2008). Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
10. Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
11. Edwards, C., & Willis, J. (2005). Teachers exploring tasks in English language teaching. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
12. Ellis, R. (Ed.). (1999). Learning a second language through interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
13. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
14. Ellis, R. Ed.. (2005). Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
15. García Mayo, M. P. (Ed.). (2007). Investigating tasks in formal language learning. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
16. Gilabert, R. (2007a). The simultaneous manipulation of task complexity along planning time and (+/- here-and-now): Effects on L2 oral production. In M. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 44-68). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
17. Gilabert, R. (2007b). Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 oral production. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 215-240.
18. Gilabert, R., Barón, J., & Levkina, M. (2011). Manipulating task complexity across task types and modes. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 105-138). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
19. Gilabert, R., Baroń, J., & Llanes, Á . (2009). Manipulating cognitive complexity across task types and its impact on learners' interaction during oral performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47, 367-395.
20. Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5(10), 3-8.
21. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
22. Ishikawa, T. (2007). The effect of manipulating task complexity along the [+/- here-and-now] dimension on L2 written narrative discourse. In M. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 136-156). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
23. Ishikawa, T. (2008). The effect of task demands of intentional reasoning on L2 speech performance. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 5, 29-63.
24. 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, 401-436.
25. Jungheim, N. O., & Robinson, P. (Eds.). (1999). Pragmatics and pedagogy: Proceedings of the 3rd Pacific Second Language Research Forum. Tokyo, Japan: The Pacific Second Language Research Forum.
26. Keck, C. M., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-Ventura, N., & Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2006). Investigating the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition: A meta-analysis. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 91-131). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
27. Kim, Y. (2009). The effects of task complexity on learner-learner interaction. System, 37, 254-268.
28. Kim, Y. (2012). Task complexity, learning opportunities, and Korean EFL learners' question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 627-658.
29. Kormos, J. (2011). Speech production and the Cognition Hypothesis. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 39-60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
30. Kormos, J., & Trebits, A. (2012). The role of task complexity, modality, and aptitude in narrative task performance. Language Learning, 62, 439-472.
31. Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.
32. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007a). Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 261-284.
33. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007b). Cognitive task performance and linguistic performance in French L2 writing. In M. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 117-135). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
34. 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.
35. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic 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: John Benjamins. education. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
36. Light, R. J., & Pillemer, D. B. (1984). Summing up: The science of reviewing research.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
37. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
38. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press.
39. Long, M., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 27-56.
40. Loschky, L., & Bley-Vroman, R. (1990). Creating structure-based communication tasks for second language development. University of Hawai'i Working Papers in ESL, 9, 161-212.
41. Mackey, A. (Ed.). (2007). Conversational interaction in second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
42. Michel, M. C. (2011). Effects of task complexity and interaction on L2 performance. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 141-173). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
43. Michel, M. C., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). The influence of complexity in monologic versus dialogic tasks in Dutch L2. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 241-259.
44. Nakahama, Y. (2009). Tasku no fukuzatusei, bogo, nihongo nouryoku ga danwa kousei ni oyobasu eikyou-Shiji hyougen, ukemi hyougen no shiyou ni tuite [Effects of task complexity, L1 and proficiency on the use of referential and passive forms in L2 Japanese discourse]. JALT Journal, 31, 101-120.
45. Norris, J. (2009). Task-based teaching and testing. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 574-594). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
46. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.
47. Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2003). Defining and measuring SLA. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 717-761). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
48. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2006). The value and practice of research synthesis for language learning and teaching. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 3-50). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
49. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555-578.
50. Nuevo, A.-M., Adams, R., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2011). Task complexity, modified output, and L2 development in learner-learner interaction. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 176-201). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
51. Ochs, E. (1979). Planned and unplanned discourse. In T. Givón (Ed.), Syntax and semantics, Volume 12: Discourse and syntax (pp. 51-80). New York: Academic Press.
52. Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24, 492-518.
53. Oswald, F. L., & Plonsky, L. (2010). Meta-analysis in second language research: Choices and challenges. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 85-110.
54. Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30, 590-601.
55. Perdue, C. (Ed.). (1993). Adult language acquisition: Cross-linguistic perspectives. Volume II: The results. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
56. Plonsky, L., & Gass, S. (2011). Quantitative research methods, study quality, and outcomes: The case of interaction research. Language Learning, 61, 325-366.
57. Rahimpour, M. (1999). Task complexity and variation in interlanguage. In N. O. Jungheim & P. Robinson (Eds.), Pragmatics and Pedagogy: Proceedings of the 3rd Pacific Second Language Research Forum (pp. 115-134). Tokyo, Japan: The Pacific Second Language Research Forum.
58. Révész, A. (2009). Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 437-470.
59. Révész, A., Sachs, R., & Mackey, A. (2011). Task complexity, uptake of recasts, and L2 development. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 203-235). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
60. Robinson, P. (1995). Task complexity and second language narrative discourse. Language Learning, 45, 99-140.
61. 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.
62. Robinson, P. (2001b). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27-57.
63. Robinson, P. (Ed.). (2001c). Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
64. Robinson, P. (Ed.). (2002). Individual differences and instructed language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
65. Robinson, P. (2003). Attention and memory during SLA. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 631-678). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
66. Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43, 1-32.
67. Robinson, P. (2007a). Criteria for classifying and sequencing pedagogic tasks. In M. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 7-26). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
68. 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 in Language Teaching, 45, 193-213.
69. Robinson, P. (2010). Situating and distributing cognition across task demands: The SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In M. Pütz & L. Sicola (Eds.), Cognitive processing in second language acquisition (pp. 243-268). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
70. Robinson, P. (2011a). Task-based language learning: A review of issues. Language Learning, 61(Supplement 1), 1-36.
71. Robinson, P. (Ed.). (2011b). Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
72. Robinson, P. (2011c). Second language task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 3-37). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
73. Robinson, P., Cadierno, T., & Shirai, Y. (2009). Time and motion: Measuring the effects of the conceptual demands of tasks on second language speech production. Applied Linguistics, 30, 533-554.
74. Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. C. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.
75. Robinson, P., & Gilabert, R. (2007). Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, and second language learning and performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 161-176.
76. Robinson, P., Ting, S. C., & Urwin, J. J. (1995). Investigating second language task complexity. RELC Journal, 26, 62-79.
77. Rosenthal, M. C. (1994). The fugitive literature. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 85-94). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
78. Sachs, J. (1983). Talking about the there and then: The emergence of displaced reference in parent-child discourse. In K. E. Nelson (Ed.), Children's language: Volume 4 (pp. 1-28). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
79. Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
80. Shadish, W. R., & Haddock, C. K. (2009). Combining estimates of effect size. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 258-276). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
81. Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38-62.
82. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
83. Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510-532.
84. Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2005). Strategic and online planning: The influence of surprise information and task time on second language performance. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 193-216). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
85. Slobin, D. I. (1993). Adult language acquisition: A view from child language study. In C. Perdue (Ed.), Adult language acquisition: Cross-linguistic perspectives. Volume II: The results (pp. 239-252). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
86. Snow, R. E. (1994). Abilities in academic tasks. In R. J. Sternberg & R. K. Wagner (Eds.), Mind in context: Interactionist perspectives on human intelligence (pp. 3-37). New York: Cambridge University Press.
87. Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 263-308.
88. Sterne, J. A. C., Becker, B. J., & Egger, M. (2005). The funnel plot. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments (pp. 75-98). West Sussex, UK: Wiley.
89. Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 58, 439-473.
90. Thomas, M. (1994). Assessment of L2 proficiency in second language acquisition research. Language Learning, 44, 305-336.
91. Thomas, M. (2006). Research synthesis and historiography: The case of assessment of second language proficiency. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 279-298). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
92. Van den Branden, K. (Ed.). (2006). Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
93. Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M., & Norris, J. (Eds.). (2009). Task-based language teaching: A reader. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
94. Van den Branden, K., Van Gorp, K., & Verhelst, M. (Eds.). (2007). Tasks in action: Task-based language education from a classroom-based perspective. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars.
95. Vermeer, A. (2000). Coming to grips with lexical richness in spontaneous speech data. Language Testing, 17, 65-83.
96. Wade, C. A., Turner, H. M., Rothstein, H. R., & Lavenberg, J. G. (2006). Information retrieval and the role of the information specialist in producing high-quality systematic reviews in the social, behavioral and education sciences. Evidence & Policy, 2, 89-108.
97. Wilson, D. B. (2009). Systematic coding. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (pp. 159-176). New York: Russell Sage.
98. Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.-Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, & complexity. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
99. Yu, G. (2010). Lexical diversity in writing and speaking task performances. Applied Linguistics, 31, 236-259.