Robinson’s Cognition Hypothesis: A Review of Task Complexity and

Its Implication for Pedagogy

Abstract

The paper began by stating the notion of Task-Based Language

Teaching and its importance to L2 learning. The definition of task and
the characteristics of it were explained afterwards. Task complexity as
one important task characteristics which further influences and
predicts human performance and behaviour became the focus of the
paper. A model of task complexity which is well known as
Robinson’s Cognition Hypothesis was used as the framework of
analysing task complexity. The reason of the chosen model was
mainly due to the claim that pedagogic tasks have to be sequenced for
learners on the basis of increases their cognitive complexity. Studies
providing support for the model were then reviewed. At last, the
implications of task complexity for Second Language Acquisition
research and pedagogy were discussed.
Keywords: Task–Based Language Teaching, Task Complexity,
Robinson’s Cognition Hypothesis, Second Language Acquisition.

Introduction: Rationale for Task-Based Language Teaching

For years, studies regarding task, both as a construct and as a research instrument has
played a major role in the area of Second Language Teaching. The components,
characteristics, different types and implementation conditions of it have been the focus
of most studies. Liu & Li (2012) defined tasks as activities that people should conduct
to move their work and life on. It is seen as one of the most crucial components in the
study of human performance and behaviour. Samuda and Bygate (2008) tried to connect
it with educational theory by saying that for over the last century, many of the principles
underlying the design and use of ‘tasks’ in second language pedagogy owe their
genealogy to development in general education. In regard to teaching and learning,
Crabbe (2007) makes it clear by stating that tasks have become a considerable unit of
design in a communicative curriculum; that they are designed for the purpose of
engaging learners in realistic communication on the grounds that engagement in
communicating meaning is likely to lead to implicit learning.

1
 One approach in implementing task in language teaching and learning is well-
known as what researcher called as task-based language teaching (TBLT). Studies on
the implementation of the approach has started in 1987 by the work of Prabhu (1987)
which accounted the Communicational Language Teaching project which then
continued by publications of books reporting case studies of TBLT (e.g. Leaver and
Willis, 2004; Edwards and Willis, 2005; Van den Branden, 2006). Since then, the
potential benefits of using tasks in the second language classroom interested both
teachers and researchers. Language teachers agree that learners should engage in
language activities which represent real-world tasks or they may not succeed in
developing L2 proficiency which further needed to communicate fluently and
effectively. Second Language Acquisition researchers, on the other hand, recognise the
importance of tasks for documenting how learners structure and restructure their
interlanguages and how they perform when they are not attending to language form
(Kuiken & Vedder, 2005). Among all studies, mostly, publications on task-based
pedagogy tried to answer the following issues, such as: what exactly is a task and how
does L2 learning take place as a product of performing tasks? Can tasks be designed in
such a way that they predetermined language use? How can tasks be used to assess what
learners can do in the L2? Which criteria can be used to sequence tasks in a task-based
syllabus? In which ways is linguistic performance affected by cognitive task
complexity? (Ellis, 2003).

Talking about the definition of Task-Based Language Teaching, Nunan (2003)

in Yousefi, Mohammadi, & Koosha (2012) said that it is an approach to the design of
language courses in which the point of departure is not an ordered list of linguistic
items, but a collection of tasks. That statement means that task-based language teaching
focuses more on the ability to perform task without explicit teaching of grammatical
structure. Most researchers believe that this approach promotes the development of
second language ability than other approaches which focus on the explicit teaching and
learning of rules of the language alone. Task, then, is further viewed as central to
syllabus planning and methodology. It becomes a unit of analysis in syllabus designs
and facilitates ‘noticing’ of L2 linguistic forms (Schmidt, 2001 in Yousefi, et al., 2012).
Three rationales for task-based syllabuses were then proposed by Ellis (2003); (1) it is
based on the theoretical view that instruction needs to be compatible with the cognitive

2
processes involved in L2 acquisition; (2) the importance of learner ‘engagement’ is
emphasized; and (3) tasks serve as a suitable unit for specifying learners’ needs and thus
for designing specific purpose courses. In his other publication, Ellis (2009) moreover
stated four criteria of what ‘task’ should be in a language teaching activity; (1) the
primary focus should be on ‘meaning’ (means that learners should be mainly concerned
with processing the semantic and pragmatic meaning of utterances); (2) there should be
some kind of ‘gap’ to convey information, express opinion, infer meaning, and etc.; (3)
learners should largely have to rely on their own resources (linguistic and non-
linguistic) in order to complete the activity; and (4) there is a clearly defined outcome
other than the use of language which means that the language serves as the means for
achieving the outcome, not as an end in its own right.

Looking at the result of studies and publications on the implementation of Task-

Based Language Teaching (TBLT) above, it is believed that the approach provides
opportunities for L2 production and creates the conditions for acquisition and further L2
learning. Some advantages on the implementation of it were then proposed. Ellis (2009)
stated seven advantages of a task-based approach, those are; (1) Task-Based Language
Teaching (TBLT) offers the opportunity for ‘natural’ learning inside the classroom; (2)
it emphasizes meaning over form but can also cater for learning form; (3) it affords
learners a rich input of target language; (4) it is intrinsically motivating; (5) it is
compatible with a learner-centred educational philosophy but also allows for teacher
input and direction; (6) it caters to the development of communicative fluency while not
neglecting accuracy; and (7) it can be used alongside a more traditional approach.

At last, since task is seen as crucial component in the study of human performance and
behaviour; it is what so called as task complexity which has been recognised as an
important task characteristic that influences and predicts human performance and
behaviour.

Task Complexity and L2 Development

Defining task complexity is not an easy job to do. It is believed as a markedly complex
construct. Most researchers come up with different perspective in seeing complexity.

3
Robinson (2001a, 2001b) believed that task complexity is the result of the attentional,
memory, reasoning, and other information processing demands imposed by the structure
of the task to the language learner. In his more recent study, he considered task
complexity as differences in intrinsic cognitive processing demands of tasks which will
explain within learner variation in successfully completing any two tasks (simple and
complex).

In regard to the significance of task complexity in implementing task-based

pedagogy, Gilabert (2005) in Yousefi, et.al., (2012) pointed out that task complexity is
the result of the preoccupation with grading and sequencing tasks in a principled way in
a task-based syllabus. He further said that the concept of task complexity was born from
the need to establish criteria for sequencing tasks in a syllabus from easy/simple to
difficult/complex in a reasoned way that will foster interlanguage development. That
statement is supported by Robinson (2001b) who said that cognitive complexity is a
robust and manipulable influence on learner production, and is therefore feasible basis
for design and sequencing decisions which operationalize a task-based syllabus.

Information and studies regarding task complexity on language production and

interlanguage development are important since those help syllabus designers to design
tasks from simple to complex , as what has been stated above, in a way that they
gradually approximate real world task. Many studies have proven the importance of task
complexity and proposed their own model for determining task complexity. However, a
model proposed by Robinson (2001b, 2007a) which further is known as the Triadic
Componential Framework or the Cognition Hypothesis is the one which is seen as
suitable model to present in the paper since it meets the requirement of what Robinson
(2001b) calls as theoretically motivated, empirically substantiable, and pedagogically
feasible sequencing criteria to syllabus design. As Yousefi, et.al., (2012) said that the
model is also believed to be more operationalizable for studying task complexity and for
the design of language learning materials and task-based syllabuses since it draws on
some previous Second Language Acquisition studies.

4
Robinson’s Cognition Hypothesis for L2 Task Design

Fulfilling the aim of sequencing task in L2 learning, Robinson developed a model

which claims that pedagogic tasks should be designed, and sequenced for learners on
the basis of increases in learners’ cognitive complexity (Robinson 1996, 2001, 2003,
2005, 2007). As Robinson & Gilabert (2007) stated, the aim of the sequencing is to
gradually approximate, in classroom setting, the full complexity of real-world target
task demands in order to help learners to shift from program-entry levels of L2 use and
task performance to program-exit targeted levels along a manageable, but continuously
extending, developmental, performative route. Further, they proposed some requirement
of the sequencing system; (1) an operational taxonomy for classifying features of the
target tasks which can be simulated by task designers, and performed and practiced by
L2 learners in pedagogic settings, and also (2) principles for sequencing the features,
and combination of them, in an order which approximates target-task demands.

The Cognition Hypothesis as one model proposed by Robinson, then, shows a

distinction between cognitively defined task complexity, learner perceptions of task
difficulty, and the interactive conditions under which tasks are performed. In other
words, Robinson & Gilabert (2007) said that the pedagogic task features of the
framework are those features of tasks which contribute to their intrinsic cognitive
complexity, features of tasks which are determined by the situational setting and
conditions in which they take place, and learner factors which contribute to the extent of
the difficulty faced in attempting to successfully accomplish cognitively complex tasks.
Table 1 below shows the framework of what Robinson proposed under the name Triadic
Componential Framework or Robinson’s Cognition Hypothesis which covers the three
criteria; task complexity, task condition, and task difficulty.

5
 Table 1. The Triadic Componential Framework (Robinson, 2007)

Task Complexity (Cognitive Task Condition (Interactive Task Difficulty (Learner

Factors)
(classification criteria:
Cognitive demands)
Information-theoretic analyses)
Factors)
(classification criteria:
Interactional demands:
(classification procedure:
Behavior-descriptive analyses)
Factor)
(classification criteria: Ability
requirements)
(classification procedure:
Ability assessment analyses)

(a) Resource-directing
variables making
cognitive/conceptual
demands
+/- here and now
+/- few elements
+/- spatial reasoning
+/- causal reasoning
+/- intentional reasoning
+/- perspective-taking
(a) Participation variables
making interactional
demands
+/- open solution
+/- one-way flow
+/- convergent solution
+/- few participations
+/- few contributions needed
+/- negotiation not needed
(a) Ability variables and task-
relevant resource
differentials
h/1 working memory
h/1 reasoning
h/1 task-switching
h/1 aptitude
h/1 field independence
h/1 mind/intention-reading

(b) Resource-dispersing (b) Participant variables (b) Affective variables and

Variables making making interactant demands state-trait differentials
performative/procedural
demands
+/- planning time +/- same proficiency h/1 openness to experience
+/- single task +/- same gender h/1 control of emotion
+/- few steps +/- familiar h/1 task motivation
+/- independency of steps +/- shared content knowledge h/1 processing anxiety
+/- prior knowledge +/- equal status and order h/1 willingness to
+/- shared cultural knowledge communicate
h/1 self-efficacy

As what has been mentioned that the framework covers three criteria of tasks, it is
believed that it is task complexity which is seen as the most crucial feature among the
three features. Distinction, then, is made in the area of task complexity. Robinson
(2005) stated two dimensions under the term “resource directing” and “resource
dispersing” where resource directing plays a role as dimension in task complexity which
is aimed at increasing the conceptual and linguistic demands tasks make on
communication, in order to create conditions for L2 development; and resource
dispersing which becomes a dimension of task complexity which can be manipulated to
increase the demands on accessing a current interlanguage repertoire during real-time
L2 performance. The Cognition Hypothesis, then, as stated by Robinson (2005) claims

6
that increasing the cognitive demands of tasks along certain dimensions will; (a) push
learners to greater accuracy and complexity of L2 production in order to meet the
greater functional and conceptual communicative demands; (b) promote interaction and
heightened attention to and memory for input so increasing learning from the input and
incorporation of forms made salient in the input; as well as (c) longer term retention of
input; and that (d) performing simple to complex sequences will also lead to
automaticity and efficient scheduling of the components of complex L2 task
performance. Regarding the two dimensions, then, the Cognition Hypothesis claims that
increasing cognitive complexity along the two dimensions results in different outputs. It
is believed that increasing cognitive complexity along resource directing dimension will
lead L2 learners to a higher increase in conceptual and functional requirements of tasks
which facilitates the development of accuracy and complexity, but to affect fluency
negatively. On the other side, increasing task complexity through manipulation of
resource dispersing dimension will demand more attentional resources which further
affects performance negatively in the areas of complexity, fluency, and accuracy. At
last, the Cognition Hypothesis believes that increasing task complexity along resource
directing dimension will direct L2 learners towards the use of more complex language
and greater accuracy while increasing it in the area of resource dispersing will lead to
greater fluency.

Critiques emerge as there is no one size fits all, that the framework which
researchers believe as such comprehensive criteria for determining task complexity is
thought to have some inadequacies. Kuiken and Vedder (2007), take an example,
questioned the validity of the framework as being not empirically researchable and
operationally feasible. It is why, then, further studies regarding the framework are
needed to investigate the dimensions.

Conclusion: Implication for Further Research and Pedagogy

Researchers, for years, have agreed that language teaching and learning should be
sequenced by means of tasks, and the need of focusing on task in curriculum. By talking
about sequencing tasks, language teachers and even syllabus designers should

7
understand the importance of having information regarding cognitive complexity of
tasks. It is suggested further that language teachers and syllabus designers need to put
task complexity as central role in designing pedagogical tasks for students. It is the
Cognition Hypothesis proposed by Robinson which represents that kind of information.
The Cognition Hypothesis believes that tasks should be designed and sequenced for the
learners on the basis of increase in their cognitive complexity which further becomes
the basis of the task-based syllabus.

The present paper has discussed a lot about the role of task complexity in
pedagogical setting. It started with the notion of Task-Based Language Teaching which
is believed as an approach that provides opportunities for L2 production and creates
conditions for acquisition and L2 learning. L2 development in regard to task complexity
was then explained. Definitions of task complexity proposed by researchers were also
given which at last came to a belief that task complexity becomes the result of the
preoccupation with grading and sequencing tasks in a principled way in a task-based
syllabus. By talking about grading and sequencing tasks as well as the complexity of the
task itself, a theory proposed by Robinson which further is called as The Cognition
Hypothesis or The Triadic Componential Framework was chosen and explained as the
one which was thought as fit into the conditions. The paper was then ended by giving
such pedagogical implication and suggestion for further research.

Suggestions are mostly given to language teachers and syllabus designers by taking a
focus on the role of task complexity in task-based pedagogy. It is suggested that task
complexity needs to be manipulated in order to meet the learners’ developmental
sequences and proficiency levels as well as optimising interlanguage development.
Further research, then, needs to be done in the area that most studies of task complexity
have not yet explored. Since most studies have largely reported results on the effect of
task complexity on speech production, further studies on the area of written production
are suggested to be done. A need to do longitudinal studies in seeing the effects of
cycles of simple to complex task into learners’ L2 performance and production becomes
another focus of research that further studies might try to explore.

8
References
Crabbe, D. (2007). Learning opportunities: adding learning value to tasks. ELT Journal,
61/2.117-125.

Edwards, C., and J. Willis (eds.) (2005) Teachers exploring tasks in ELT. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Ellis, R. (2009). Task‐based language teaching: Sorting out the

misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 221-
246.

Kuiken, F., Mos, M., & Vedder, I. (2005). Cognitive task complexity and second
language writing performance. Eurosla yearbook, 5(1), 195-222. =>
RESOURCE DIRECTING

Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). Task complexity and measures of linguistic
performance in L2 writing. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistic in
Language Teaching, 45(3), 261-284.

Leaver, B., and Willis, J. (eds.) (2004) Task-based instruction in foreign language
education. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Liu, P., & Li, Z. (2012). Task complexity: A review and conceptualization
framework. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 42(6), 553-568.

Prabhu, N.S. (1987) Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Robinson, P. (1996). Task complexity and second language syllabus design: data-based
studies and speculations. Working papers in language and linguistics, 1(1), 1-
15.
Robinson, P. (2001a). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: exploring
interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27-57.

Robinson, P. (2001b). 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.285-316). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Robinson, P. (2003). The cognition hypothesis, task design, and adult task-based
language learning. Second Language Studies, 21(2), 45-105.

Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: A review of studies in

a componential framework for second language task design. International
Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. 43(1): 1-33.

9
Robinson, P. (2007). Criteria for grading and sequencing pedagogic tasks. In
investigating tasks in formal language learning, Maria Del Pilar Garcia Mayo
(Ed.), 2-27.Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. Basingstoke:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Van den Branden, K. (ed.) (2006) Task-based language teaching: from theory to
practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Yousefi, M. H., Mohammadi, E. G., & Koosha, M. (2012) task complexity and its
implication for pedagogy. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(7),
1436.

10