1887
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Second Language Cognitive Task Complexity

Second Language Cognitive Task Complexity

A research synthesis

image of Second Language Cognitive Task Complexity
USD
Buy:$163.00 + Taxes

This book addresses the topic of cognitive task complexity as it has been investigated in second language (L2) task-based research. This interest is premised on the notion that communication tasks may differ systematically in the types and amounts of cognitive complexity they present to L2 learners, and these differences may have predictable effects on L2 performance, learning, and other outcomes. Adopting a research synthetic approach, the authors pursued the first ever comprehensive review of experimental and quasi-experimental studies, published over the first 30 years of relevant research, that drew comparisons between tasks designed to differ in levels and types of cognitive complexity. Findings from included studies (N = 296) illuminated critical patterns and gaps in the tasks, cognitive complexity operationalizations, outcome measures, and moderating variables investigated. Meta-analytic comparisons of the most replicated variables identified substantial beneficial as well as detrimental effects between a few task designs and certain measures of performance, uncovering heretofore unknown patterns of cause and effect. The book concludes with a detailed consideration of what is now known about L2 cognitive task complexity as well as the ways in which research should be improved, providing an essential interpretive benchmark and a foundation for future investigations.

References

  1. Abdi Tabari, M.
    (2016) The effects of planning time on complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexical variety in L2 descriptive writing. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 1 (10), 1–15. 10.1186/s40862‑016‑0015‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-016-0015-6 [Google Scholar]
  2. (2017) Investigating the effects of planning time on the complexity of L2 argumentative writing. TESL-EJ, 21 (1), 1–24.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Abdi Tabari, M. , Eslami, H. , & Zahedi, Y.
    (2012) The impact of pre-task planning on the fluency and accuracy of Iranian EFL learners’ oral performance. Procedia, 69 , 2281–2288. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.12.199
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.12.199 [Google Scholar]
  4. Abdi Tabari, M. , Khezrlou, S. , & Tian, Y.
    (2024) Verb argument construction complexity indices and L2 written production: Effects of task complexity and task repetition. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 18 (1), 1–16. 10.1080/17501229.2023.2211955
     https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2023.2211955 [Google Scholar]
  5. Abrams, Z. I. , & Byrd, D. R.
    (2016) The effects of pre-task planning on L2 writing: Mind-mapping and chronological sequencing in a 1st-year German class. System, 63 , 1–12. 10.1016/j.system.2016.08.011
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.08.011 [Google Scholar]
  6. Adams, R. , & Alwi, N.
    (2014) Prior knowledge and second language task production in text chat. In  M. González-Lloret & L. Ortega (Eds.), Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks (pp. 51–78). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.6.03ada
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.6.03ada [Google Scholar]
  7. Adams, R. , Alwi, N. , & Newton, J.
    (2015) Task complexity effects on the complexity and accuracy of writing via text chat. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29 , 64–81. 10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.002 [Google Scholar]
  8. Ahmadian, M. J. , & Long, M.
    (Eds.) (2021) The Cambridge handbook of task-based language teaching. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108868327
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108868327 [Google Scholar]
  9. Ahangari, S. , & Abdi Tabari, M.
    (2011) The effect of pre-task planning on the accuracy and complexity of Iranian EFL learners’ oral performance. Procedia, 29 , 1950–1959. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.445
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.445 [Google Scholar]
  10. Ahmadian, M. J.
    (2012) The effects of guided careful online planning on complexity, accuracy and fluency in intermediate EFL learners’ oral production: The case of English articles. Language Teaching Research, 16 (1), 129–149. 10.1177/1362168811425433
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811425433 [Google Scholar]
  11. (2013) Working memory and task repetition in second language oral production. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 23 , 37–55.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Ahmadian, M. J.
    (2011) The effect of “massed” task repetitions on complexity, accuracy and fluency: Does it transfer to a new task? The Language Learning Journal, 39 (3), 269–280. 10.1080/09571736.2010.545239
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2010.545239 [Google Scholar]
  13. Ahmadian, M. J. , Abdolrezapour, P. , & Ketabi, S.
    (2012) Task difficulty and self-repair behavior in second language oral production. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 22 (3), 310–330. 10.1111/j.1473‑4192.2012.00313.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2012.00313.x [Google Scholar]
  14. Ahmadian, M. J. , & Tavakoli, M.
    (2011) The effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency in EFL learners’ oral production. Language Teaching Research, 15 (1), 35–59. 10.1177/1362168810383329
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810383329 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2014) Investigating what second language learners do and monitor under careful online planning conditions. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 70 (1), 50–75. 10.3138/cmlr.1769
     https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.1769 [Google Scholar]
  16. Ahmadian, M. J. , Tavakoli, M. , & Vahid Dastjerdi, H.
    (2015) The combined effects of online planning and task structure on complexity, accuracy and fluency of L2 speech. The Language Learning Journal, 43 (1), 41–56. 10.1080/09571736.2012.681795
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2012.681795 [Google Scholar]
  17. Aiken, L. R.
    (1982) Writing multiple-choice items to measure higher-order educational objectives. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 42 , 803–806. 10.1177/001316448204200312
     https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448204200312 [Google Scholar]
  18. Akbulut, Y.
    (2008) Predictors of foreign language reading comprehension in a hypermedia reading environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39 (1), 37–50. 10.2190/EC.39.1.c
     https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.39.1.c [Google Scholar]
  19. Al-Shehri, S. , & Gitsaki, C.
    (2010) Online reading: A preliminary study of the impact of integrated and split-attention formats on L2 students’ cognitive load. ReCALL, 22 (3), 356–375. 10.1017/S0958344010000212
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344010000212 [Google Scholar]
  20. Albert, A.
    (2011) When individual differences come into play: The effect of learner creativity on simple and complex task performance. In  P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 239–266). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.2.16ch9
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.2.16ch9 [Google Scholar]
  21. Alidoost, Y. , Tabatabaei, S. , & Bakhtiarvand, M.
    (2014) The effect of picture story in creating textual coherence in narrative genre. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4 (2), 359–365. 10.4304/tpls.4.2.359‑365
     https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.4.2.359-365 [Google Scholar]
  22. Alptekin, C.
    (2006) Cultural familiarity in inferential and literal comprehension in L2 reading. System, 34 (4), 494–508. 10.1016/j.system.2006.05.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2006.05.003 [Google Scholar]
  23. Alptekin, C. , & Erçetin, G.
    (2009) Assessing the relationship of working memory to L2 reading: Does the nature of comprehension process and reading span task make a difference? System, 37 (4), 627–639. 10.1016/j.system.2009.09.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.09.007 [Google Scholar]
  24. Alwi, N. , Adams, R. , & Newton, J.
    (2012) Writing to learn via text chat: Task implementation and focus on form. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21 (1), 23–39. 10.1016/j.jslw.2011.12.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.12.001 [Google Scholar]
  25. Amiryousefi, M.
    (2016) The differential effects of two types of task repetition on the complexity, accuracy, and fluency in computer-mediated L2 written production: A focus on computer anxiety. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29 (5), 1050–1066. 10.1080/09588221.2016.1170040
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2016.1170040 [Google Scholar]
  26. (2017) Effects of task complexity increase on computer-mediated L2 writing and temporal distribution of cognitive and metacognitive processes. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 8 (2), 187–210. 10.22055/RALS.2017.13097
     https://doi.org/10.22055/RALS.2017.13097 [Google Scholar]
  27. Anderson, L. W. , Krathwohl, D. R. , Airasian, P. W. , Cruikshank, K. A. , Mayer, R. E. , Pintrich, P. R. , Raths, J. , & Wittrock, M. C.
    (2001) A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Andringa, S. , & Godfroid, A.
    (2020) Sampling bias and the problem of generalizability in applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 40 , 134–142. 10.1017/S0267190520000033
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190520000033 [Google Scholar]
  29. Aubrey, S.
    (2018) The impact of intra-cultural and inter-cultural task repetition on interaction. In  M. Bygate (Ed.), Learning language through task repetition (pp. 117–142). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.11.05aub
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.11.05aub [Google Scholar]
  30. Ausubel, D. P.
    (1977) The facilitation of meaningful verbal learning in the classroom. Educational Psychologist, 12 (2), 162–178. 10.1080/00461527709529171
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00461527709529171 [Google Scholar]
  31. Awwad, A. , & Tavakoli, P.
    (2019) Task complexity, language proficiency and working memory: Interaction effects on second language speech performance. IRAL, 60 (2), 169–196. 10.1515/iral‑2018‑0378
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2018-0378 [Google Scholar]
  32. Awwad, A. , Tavakoli, P. , & Wright, C.
    (2017) “I think that’s what he’s doing”: Effects of intentional reasoning on second language (L2) speech performance. System, 67 , 158–169. 10.1016/j.system.2017.05.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  33. Aydin, Z. , & Yildiz, S.
    (2014) Using wikis to promote collaborative EFL writing. Language Learning & Technology, 18 (1), 160–180. 10125/44359
     https://doi.org/10125/44359 [Google Scholar]
  34. Ayres, P. , & Sweller, J.
    (2012) The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. In  R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 135–146). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139547369.011
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.011 [Google Scholar]
  35. Azkarai, A. , & Oliver, R.
    (2019) Negative feedback on task repetition: ESL vs. EFL child settings. The Language Learning Journal, 47 (3), 269–280. 10.1080/09571736.2016.1196385
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2016.1196385 [Google Scholar]
  36. Babaii, E. , & Moghaddam, M. J.
    (2006) On the interplay between test task difficulty and macro-level processing in the C-test. System, 34 (4), 586–600. 10.1016/j.system.2006.09.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2006.09.002 [Google Scholar]
  37. Baddeley, A. D.
    (2000) The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4 , 417–23. 10.1016/S1364‑6613(00)01538‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01538-2 [Google Scholar]
  38. (2003) Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of Communication Disorders, 36 , 189–208. 10.1016/S0021‑9924(03)00019‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9924(03)00019-4 [Google Scholar]
  39. (2007) Working memory, thought and action. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198528012.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198528012.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  40. (2012) Working memory: Theories, models, and controversies. Annual Review of Psychology, 63 , 1–29. 10.1146/annurev‑psych‑120710‑100422
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100422 [Google Scholar]
  41. Bagheri, M. , & Hamrang, A.
    (2013) The impact of planning on accuracy and complexity in oral production of male and female English as a foreign language (EFL) learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 2 (2), 25–32. 10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.2n.2p.25
     https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.2n.2p.25 [Google Scholar]
  42. Baleghizadeh, S. , & Shahri, M. N. N.
    (2013) The effect of online planning, strategic planning and rehearsal across two proficiency levels. The Language Learning Journal, 45 (2), 171–184. 10.1080/09571736.2013.808258
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2013.808258 [Google Scholar]
  43. Baralt, M.
    (2013) The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during online versus face-to-face interactive tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35 (4), 689–725. 10.1017/S0272263113000429
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263113000429 [Google Scholar]
  44. (2014) Task complexity and task sequencing in traditional versus online language classes. In  M. Baralt , R. Gilabert , & P. Robinson (Eds.), Task sequencing and instructed second language learning (pp. 95–122). Bloomsbury.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. (2015) Working memory capacity, cognitive complexity and L2 recasts in online language teaching. In  Z. Wen , M. B. Mota , A. McNeill , M. Bunting & R. Engle (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing (pp. 248–269). Multilingual Matters. 10.2307/jj.26931951.20
     https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.26931951.20 [Google Scholar]
  46. Baralt, M. , Gilabert, R. , & Robinson, P.
    (2014) Task sequencing and instructed second language learning. Bloomsbury.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Baralt, M. , & Gurzynski-Weiss, L.
    (2011) Comparing learners’ state anxiety during task-based interaction in computer-mediated and face-to-face communication. Language Teaching Research, 15 (2), 201–229. 10.1177/0265532210388717
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532210388717 [Google Scholar]
  48. Baralt, M. , Gurzynski-Weiss, L. , & Kim, Y.
    (2016) Engagement with the language: How examining learners’ affective and social engagement explains successful learner-generated attention to form. In  M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 209–239). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.45.09bar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.45.09bar [Google Scholar]
  49. Baralt, M. & Leow, R.
    (2015) Uptake, task complexity, and L2 development in SLA: An online perspective. In  R. Leow , L. Cerezo , & M. Baralt (Eds.), A psycholinguistic approach to technology and language learning (pp. 199–218). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9781614513674‑013
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614513674-013 [Google Scholar]
  50. Barry, S. , & Lazarte, A. A.
    (1995) Embedded clause effects on recall: Does high prior knowledge of content domain overcome syntactic complexity in students’ Spanish? The Modern Language Journal, 79 (4), 491–504. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1995.tb05449.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1995.tb05449.x [Google Scholar]
  51. (1998) Evidence for mental models: How do prior knowledge, syntactic complexity and reading topic affect inference generation in a recall task for nonnative readers of Spanish? The Modern Language Journal, 82 (2), 176–193. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1998.tb01191.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01191.x [Google Scholar]
  52. Beauvais, C. , Olive, T. , & Passerault, J.-M.
    (2011) Why are some texts good and others not? Relationship between text quality and management of the writing processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103 (2), 415–428. 10.1037/a0022545
     https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022545 [Google Scholar]
  53. Benevides, M. , & Valvona, C.
    (2018) Widgets inc.: A task-based course in practical English (2nd ed.). Atama-ii Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Ben Maad, M. R.
    (2012) Researching task difficulty from an individual differences perspective: The case of goal orientation. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 35 (1), 28–47. 10.1075/aral.35.1.02ben
     https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.35.1.02ben [Google Scholar]
  55. (2016) The role of L2 learner goal differences in task-generated oral production. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 39 (1), 47–71. 10.1075/aral.39.1.03ben
     https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.39.1.03ben [Google Scholar]
  56. Biber, D. , Larsson, T. , & Hancock, G. R.
    (2024) The linguistic organization of grammatical text complexity: Comparing the empirical adequacy of theory-based models. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 20 (2), 347–373. 10.1515/cllt‑2023‑0016
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2023-0016 [Google Scholar]
  57. Biber, D. , Gray, B. , & Poonpon, K.
    (2011) Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly, 45 (1), 5–35. 10.5054/tq.2011.244483
     https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.244483 [Google Scholar]
  58. Biber, D. , Gray, B. , & Staples, S.
    (2016) Predicting patterns of grammatical complexity across language exam task types and proficiency levels. Applied Linguistics, 37 (5), 639–668. 10.1093/applin/amu059
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu059 [Google Scholar]
  59. Birdjandi, P. , & Ahangari, S.
    (2008) Effects of task repetition on the fluency, complexity and accuracy of Iranian EFL learners’ oral discourse. Asian EFL Journal, 10 (3), 28–52.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Biria, R. , & Karimi, Z.
    (2015) The effects of pre-task planning on the writing fluency of Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6 (2), 357–365. 10.17507/jltr.0602.16
     https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0602.16 [Google Scholar]
  61. Bloom, B. , Englehart, M. , Furst, E. , Hill, W. , & Krathwohl, D.
    (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The classification of educational goals, Handbook I: Cognitive domain. David McKay.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Borenstein, M. , Hedges, L. , Higgins, J. , & Rothstein, H.
    (2022) Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Version 4. Biostat.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Borrás, I. , & Lafayette, R. C.
    (1994) Effects of multimedia courseware subtitling on the speaking performance of college students of French. The Modern Language Journal, 78 (1), 61–75. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1994.tb02015.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02015.x [Google Scholar]
  64. Brumfit, C.
    (1984) The Bangalore procedural syllabus. ELT Journal, 38 , 233–241. 10.1093/elt/38.4.233
     https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/38.4.233 [Google Scholar]
  65. Brünken, R. , Plaas, J. L. , & Leutner, D.
    (2003) Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38 , 53–61. 10.1207/S15326985EP3801_7
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_7 [Google Scholar]
  66. Brünken, R. , Steinbacher, S. , Plass, J. L. , & Leutner, D.
    (2002) Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning using dual-task methodology. Experimental Psychology, 49 , 109–119. 10.1027//1618‑3169.49.2.109
     https://doi.org/10.1027//1618-3169.49.2.109 [Google Scholar]
  67. Bryfonski, L. , Ku, Y. , & Mackey, A.
    (2024) Research methods for IDs and TBLT: A substantive and methodological review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 46 , 617–643. 10.1017/S0272263124000135
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263124000135 [Google Scholar]
  68. Bryfonski, L. , & McKay, T. H.
    (2019) TBLT implementation and evaluation: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 23 (5), 603–632. 10.1177/1362168817744389
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168817744389 [Google Scholar]
  69. Bui, G. H. Y.
    (2014) Task readiness: Theoretical framework and empirical evidence from topic familiarity, strategic planning, and proficiency levels. In  P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 63–94). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.5.03gav
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.5.03gav [Google Scholar]
  70. Bui, G.
    (2021[2019]) Influence of learners’ prior knowledge, L2 proficiency and pre-task planning on L2 lexical complexity. IRAL, 59 (4), 543–567. 10.1515/iral‑2018‑0244
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2018-0244 [Google Scholar]
  71. Bui, G. , & Huang, Z.
    (2018) L2 fluency as influenced by content familiarity and planning: Performance, measurement, and pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 22 (1), 94–114. 10.1177/1362168816656650
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816656650 [Google Scholar]
  72. Bui, G. , Ahmadian, M. J. , & Hunter, A.-M.
    (2019) Spacing effects on repeated L2 task performance. System, 81 , 1–13. 10.1016/j.system.2018.12.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.12.006 [Google Scholar]
  73. Bulté, B. , & Housen, A.
    (2012) Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. In  A. Housen , F. Kuiken , & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA (pp. 21–46). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.32.02bul
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.02bul [Google Scholar]
  74. Bulté, B. , Housen, A. , & Pallotti, G.
    (2024) Complexity and difficulty in second language acquisition: A theoretical and methodological overview. Language Learning. 10.1111/lang.12669
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12669 [Google Scholar]
  75. Butler, R. J. , Pray, T. F. , & Strang, D. R.
    (1979) An extension of Wolfe’s study of simulation game complexity. Decision Sciences, 10 (3), 480–486. 10.1111/j.1540‑5915.1979.tb00038.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1979.tb00038.x [Google Scholar]
  76. Bygate, M.
    (1999) Quality of language and purpose of task: Patterns of learners’ language on two oral communication tasks. Language Teaching Research, 3 , 185–214. 10.1177/136216889900300302
     https://doi.org/10.1177/136216889900300302 [Google Scholar]
  77. (2001) Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of language. In  M. Bygate , P. Skehan , & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning and testing (pp. 23–48). Longman. 10.4324/9781315838267
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315838267 [Google Scholar]
  78. (2018) Learning language through task repetition. John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.11
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.11 [Google Scholar]
  79. Bygate, M. , & Samuda, V.
    (2005) Integrative planning through the use of task repetition. In  R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 37–74). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.11.05byg
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.05byg [Google Scholar]
  80. Byrnes, H. , Maxim, H. H. , & Norris, J. M.
    (2010) Realizing advanced foreign language writing development in collegiate education: Curricular design, pedagogy, assessment. The Modern Language Journal, 94(supplement), i–235. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2010.01136.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01136.x [Google Scholar]
  81. Campbell, D. I. , & Gingrich, K.
    (1986) The interactive effects of task complexity and participation on task performance: A field experiment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38 , 162–180. 10.1016/0749‑5978(86)90014‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(86)90014-2 [Google Scholar]
  82. Candlin, C. N.
    (1987) Towards task-based language learning. In  C. N. Candlin & D. Murphy (Eds.), Lancaster practical papers in English language education: Vol. 7. Language learning tasks (pp. 5–22). Prentice Hall. 10.1075/tblt.1.03tow
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.1.03tow [Google Scholar]
  83. Carver, J. , & Kim, Y.
    (2020) French learners’ past-tense development through collaborative writing tasks: The role of procedural and content repetition. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 76 (2), 114–138. 10.3138/cmlr‑2018‑0231
     https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr-2018-0231 [Google Scholar]
  84. Causer, J.
    (2014) Professional expertise in medicine. In  P. Lanzer (Ed.), PanVascular medicine (2nd ed., pp. 4763–4776). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑37393‑0_211‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37393-0_211-1 [Google Scholar]
  85. Chang, C. C. , Lei, H. , & Tseng, J-S.
    (2011) Media presentation mode, English listening comprehension and cognitive load in ubiquitous learning environments: Modality effect or redundancy effect? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27 (4), 633–654. 10.14742/ajet.942
     https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.942 [Google Scholar]
  86. Chen, C. , & Huang, K.
    (2014) The effects of response modes and cues on language learning, cognitive load and self-efficacy beliefs in web-based learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 23 (2), 117–134.
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Chen, I. J. , & Chang, C. C.
    (2009) Cognitive Load Theory: An empirical study of anxiety and task performance in language learning. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 7 (2), 729–746. 10.25115/ejrep.v7i18.1369
     https://doi.org/10.25115/ejrep.v7i18.1369 [Google Scholar]
  88. (2011) Content presentation modes in mobile language listening tasks: English proficiency as a moderator. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24 (5), 451–470. 10.1080/09588221.2011.577749
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2011.577749 [Google Scholar]
  89. Chen, N. S. , Hsieh, S. W. , & Kinshuk
    (2008) Effects of short-term memory and content representation type on mobile language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 12 , 93–113. 10125/44157
     https://doi.org/10125/44157 [Google Scholar]
  90. Chen, Q. , & Donin, J.
    (1997) Discourse processing of first and second language biology texts: Effects of language proficiency and domain-specific knowledge. The Modern Language Journal, 81 (2), 209–227. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1997.tb01176.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb01176.x [Google Scholar]
  91. Cheung, M. W. L.
    (2019) A guide to conducting a meta-analysis with non-independent effect sizes. Neuropsychology Review, 29 (4), 387–396. 10.1007/s11065‑019‑09415‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-019-09415-6 [Google Scholar]
  92. Cho, H.
    (2015) Effects of task complexity on English argumentative writing. English Teaching, 70 (2), 107–131. 10.15858/engtea.70.2.201506.107
     https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.70.2.201506.107 [Google Scholar]
  93. Cho, M.
    (2018) Task complexity, modality, and working memory in L2 task performance. System, 72 , 85–98. 10.1016/j.system.2017.10.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.10.010 [Google Scholar]
  94. Chong, S. W. , & Plonsky, L.
    (2024) A typology of secondary research in applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review, 15 (4), 1569–1594. 10.1515/applirev‑2022‑0189
     https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2022-0189 [Google Scholar]
  95. Choong, P. K.
    (2011) Task complexity and linguistic complexity: An exploratory study. Studies in Applied Linguistics & TESOL, 11 (1), 1–28. 10.7916/salt.v11i1.1413
     https://doi.org/10.7916/salt.v11i1.1413 [Google Scholar]
  96. Cochrane Collaboration
    Cochrane Collaboration (n. d.). About Cochrane reviews. Web page. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/about/about-cochrane-reviews
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Cohen, J.
    (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 10.4324/9780203771587
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587 [Google Scholar]
  98. Cohen, K. J. , & Rhenman, E.
    (1961) The role of management games in education and research. Management Science, 7 (2), 153–158. 10.1287/mnsc.7.2.131
     https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.7.2.131 [Google Scholar]
  99. Cooper, L. V. , Hedges, L. V. , & Valentine, J. C.
    (Eds.) (2009) The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed.). Russell Sage Foundation. 10.7758/9781610448864
     https://doi.org/10.7758/9781610448864 [Google Scholar]
  100. Coughlan, P. , & Duff, P.
    (1994) Same task, different activities: Analysis of a SLA task from an Activity Theory perspective. In  J. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on second language research (pp. 173–193). Ablex.
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Coxhead, A.
    (2000) A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34 (2), 213–238. 10.2307/3587951
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3587951 [Google Scholar]
  102. Cromer, R.
    (1973) The development of language and cognition: The cognition hypothesis. In  B. Foss (Ed.), New perspectives in child development (pp. 184–252). Penguin.
     [Google Scholar]
  103. (1991) Language and thought in normal and handicapped children. Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Crookes, G.
    (1989) Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11 (4), 367–383. 10.1017/S0272263100008391
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100008391 [Google Scholar]
  105. Crossley, S. , Salsbury, T. , & McNamara, D.
    (2009) Measuring L2 lexical growth using hypernymic relationships. Language Learning, 59 (2), 307–234. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2009.00508.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00508.x [Google Scholar]
  106. Cumming, A. , Kantor, R. , Baba, K. , Erdosy, U. , Eouanzoui, K.  
    (2005) Differences in written discourse in independent and integrated prototype tasks for next generation TOEFL. Assessing Writing, 10 (1), 5–43. 10.1016/j.asw.2005.02.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2005.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  107. Dawadi, S.
    (2019a) Effects of task repetition on EFL oral performance. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 170 (1), 3–23. 10.1075/itl.16025.daw
     https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.16025.daw [Google Scholar]
  108. (2019b) Roles of planning and tasks in EFL performance. TESL-EJ, 24 (2).
     [Google Scholar]
  109. D’Ely, R. , Borges Mota, M. , & Bygate, M.
    (2019) Strategic planning and repetition as metacognitive processes in task performance: Implications for EFL learners’ speech production. In  Z. Wen & M. J. Ahmadian (Eds.), Researching L2 task performance and pedagogy: In honour of Peter Skehan (pp. 199–228). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.13.10del
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.13.10del [Google Scholar]
  110. Dewey, J.
    (1938) Experience and education. Macmillan. 10.1080/00131728609335764
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00131728609335764 [Google Scholar]
  111. Diao, Y. , Chandler, P. , & Sweller, J.
    (2007) The effect of written text on comprehension of spoken English as a foreign language. The American Journal of Psychology, 120 (2), 237–261. 10.2307/20445397
     https://doi.org/10.2307/20445397 [Google Scholar]
  112. Diao, Y. , & Sweller, J.
    (2007) Redundancy in foreign language reading comprehension instruction: Concurrent written and spoken presentations. Learning and Instruction, 17 (1), 78–88. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.11.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.11.007 [Google Scholar]
  113. Djiwandono, P. I.
    (2011) Applying consciousness-raising method to a writing class. Sino-US English Teaching, 8 (10), 659–664.
     [Google Scholar]
  114. Djapoura, A.
    (2005) The effect of pre-task planning time on task-based performance. In  C. Edwards & J. Willis (Eds.), Teachers exploring tasks in English language teaching (pp. 214–227). Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230522961_18
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230522961_18 [Google Scholar]
  115. Earley, P. C.
    (1985) Influence of information, choice and task complexity upon goal acceptance, performance, and personal goals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70 , 481–491. 10.1037/0021‑9010.70.3.481
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.70.3.481 [Google Scholar]
  116. Ekiert, M. , Révész, A. , Torgersen, E. , Moss, E.
    (2022) The role of pausing in L2 oral task performance: Toward a complete construct of functional adequacy. TASK, 2 (1), 33–59. 10.1075/task.21013.eki
     https://doi.org/10.1075/task.21013.eki [Google Scholar]
  117. Elder, C. & Iwashita, N.
    (2005) Planning for test performance: Does it make a difference? In  R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 219–238). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.11.14eld
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.14eld [Google Scholar]
  118. Elder, C. , Iwashita, N. , & McNamara, T.
    (2002) Estimating the difficulty of oral proficiency tasks: What does the test-taker have to offer? Language Testing, 19 (4), 347–368. 10.1191/0265532202lt235oa
     https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532202lt235oa [Google Scholar]
  119. Ellis, R.
    (1987) Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style shifting in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9 , 1–20. 10.1017/S0272263100006483
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100006483 [Google Scholar]
  120. (2003) Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  121. (2005) Planning and task performance in a second language. John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.11
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11 [Google Scholar]
  122. Ellis, R.
    (2009) The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30 (4), 474–509. 10.1093/applin/amp042
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp042 [Google Scholar]
  123. Ellis, R.
    (2013, March). Meta-analysis or mega-silliness? Re-visiting Eysenck’s critique for SLA. Paper presented at the conference of the American Association for Applied Linguistics (AAAL), Dallas, TX.
     [Google Scholar]
  124. (2018) Meta-analysis in second language acquisition research: A critical appraisal. Journal of Second Language Studies, 1 , 231–253. 10.1075/jsls.00002.ell
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.00002.ell [Google Scholar]
  125. Ellis, R. , & Yuan, F.
    (2004) The effects of planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26 (1), 59–84. 10.1017/S0272263104261034
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263104261034 [Google Scholar]
  126. (2005) The effects of careful within-task planning on oral and written task performance. In  R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 167–192). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.11.11ell
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.11ell [Google Scholar]
  127. Farahani, A. A. K. , & Meraji, S. R.
    (2011) Cognitive task complexity and L2 narrative writing performance. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2 (2), 445–456. 10.4304/jltr.2.2.445‑456
     https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.2.2.445-456 [Google Scholar]
  128. Fazilatfar, A. M. , Kasiri, F. , & Nowbakht, M.
    (2020) The comparative effects of planning time and task conditions on the complexity, accuracy and fluency of L2 writing by EFL learners. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 8 (1), 93–110. 10.30466/IJLTR.2020.120809
     https://doi.org/10.30466/IJLTR.2020.120809 [Google Scholar]
  129. Finardi, K.
    (2008a) Effects of task repetition on L2 oral performance. Trabalhos em Linguística Aplicada, 47 (1), 31–43. 10.1590/S0103‑18132008000100003
     https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-18132008000100003 [Google Scholar]
  130. (2008b) Working memory and speech performance in a picture description task with repetition. Cadernos de Estudos Linguísticos, 50 (2), 135–147. 10.20396/cel.v50i2.8637227
     https://doi.org/10.20396/cel.v50i2.8637227 [Google Scholar]
  131. Foster, P.
    (1996) Doing the task better: How planning time influences students’ performance. In  J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 126–135). MacMillan Heinemann.
     [Google Scholar]
  132. (1998) A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 19 (1), 1–23. 10.1093/applin/19.1.1
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  133. Foster, P. , & Skehan, P.
    (1996) The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18 (3), 299–323. 10.1017/S0272263100015047
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100015047 [Google Scholar]
  134. (1999) The influence of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 3 (3), 215–247. 10.1177/136216889900300303
     https://doi.org/10.1177/136216889900300303 [Google Scholar]
  135. (2013) Anticipating a post-task activity: The effects on accuracy, complexity, and fluency of second language performance. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 69 (3), 249–273. 10.3138/cmlr.69.3.249
     https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.69.3.249 [Google Scholar]
  136. Foster, P. , & Tavakoli, P.
    (2009) Native speakers and task performance: Comparing effects on complexity, fluency, and lexical diversity. Language Learning, 59 (4), 866–896. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2009.00528.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00528.x [Google Scholar]
  137. Fraser, C. A.
    (2007) Reading rate in L1 Mandarin Chinese and L2 English across five reading tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 91 , 372–394. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2007.00587.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00587.x [Google Scholar]
  138. Frear, M. W. , & Bitchener, J.
    (2015) The effects of cognitive task complexity on writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30 (4), 45–57. 10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.009 [Google Scholar]
  139. Fukuta, J.
    (2016) Effects of task repetition on learners’ attention orientation in L2 oral production. Language Teaching Research, 20 (3), 321–340. 10.1177/1362168815570142
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815570142 [Google Scholar]
  140. Fukuta, J. , & Yamashita, J.
    (2015) Effects of cognitive demands on attention in L2 oral production. System, 53 , 1–12. 10.1016/j.system.2015.06.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.06.010 [Google Scholar]
  141. Fullana, N. , Mora-Plaza, I. , Mora, J. C. , Adrian, M. , & Sosa-López, G.
    (2024) Task complexity effects on L2 speech rhythm in spontaneous speech production. Second Language Research. 10.1177/02676583241281676
     https://doi.org/10.1177/02676583241281676 [Google Scholar]
  142. García Mayo, M. P. , & Imaz Agirre, A.
    (2016) Task repetition and its impact on EFL children’s negotiation of meaning strategies and pair dynamics: An exploratory study. The Language Learning Journal, 44 (4), 451–466. 10.1080/09571736.2016.1185799
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2016.1185799 [Google Scholar]
  143. García Mayo, M. P. , Imaz Agirre, A. , & Azkarai, A.
    (2018) Task repetition effects on CAF in EFL child task-based oral interaction. In  M. Ahmadian & M. García Mayo (Eds.), Recent perspectives on task-based language learning and teaching (pp. 11–28). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9781501503399‑002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501503399-002 [Google Scholar]
  144. Gashan, A. K. , & Almohaisen, F. M.
    (2014) The effect of task repetition on fluency and accuracy of EFL Saudi female learners’ oral performance. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 5 (3), 36–41. 10.7575/aiac.alls.v.5n.3p.36
     https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.5n.3p.36 [Google Scholar]
  145. Gass, S. , Mackey, A. , Alvarez-Torres, M. J. , Fernández-García, M.
    (1999) The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 49 (4), 549–581. 10.1111/0023‑8333.00102
     https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00102 [Google Scholar]
  146. Gee, J. P.
    (2003) What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Palgrave/Macmillan.
     [Google Scholar]
  147. (2005) Learning by design: Good video games as learning machines. E-Learning, 2 , 5–16. 10.2304/elea.2005.2.1.5
     https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2005.2.1.5 [Google Scholar]
  148. Genç, H. , & Gülözer, K.
    (2013) The effect of cognitive load associated with instructional formats and types of presentation on second language reading comprehension performance. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12 (4), 171–182.
     [Google Scholar]
  149. Genç, Z.
    (2012) Effects of strategic planning on the accuracy of oral and written tasks in the performance of Turkish EFL learners. In  A. Shehadeh & C. Coombe (Eds.), Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts: Research and implementation (pp. 67–88). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.4.07gen
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.4.07gen [Google Scholar]
  150. Geng, X. , & Ferguson, G.
    (2013) Strategic planning in task-based language teaching: The effects of participatory structure and task type. System, 41 (4), 982–993. 10.1016/j.system.2013.09.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.09.005 [Google Scholar]
  151. Ghanbarzadeh, S. , & Gholami, J.
    (2014) The effects of task complexity on the complexity and accuracy of foreign language learners’ essays. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 4 (2), 25–38.
     [Google Scholar]
  152. Gilabert, R.
    (2007a) Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 oral production. IRAL, 45 (3), 215–240. 10.1515/iral.2007.010
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2007.010 [Google Scholar]
  153. (2007b) 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). Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781853599286‑006
     https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853599286-006 [Google Scholar]
  154. Gilabert, R. , & Barón, J.
    (2013) The impact of increasing task complexity on L2 pragmatic moves. In  K. McDonough & A. Mackey (Eds.), Second language interaction in diverse educational contexts (pp. 45–70). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.34.06ch3
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.34.06ch3 [Google Scholar]
  155. Gilabert, R. , Barón, J. , & Llanes, À.
    (2009) Manipulating cognitive complexity across task types and its impact on learners’ interaction during oral performance. IRAL, 47 (3–4), 367–395. 10.1515/iral.2009.016
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2009.016 [Google Scholar]
  156. Gilabert, R. , & Malicka, A.
    (2021) From needs analysis to task selection, design, and sequencing. In  M. J. Ahmadian & M. Long (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of task-based language teaching (pp. 226–249). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108868327.014
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108868327.014 [Google Scholar]
  157. Gilabert, R. , & Malicka, A.
    (2022) From needs analysis to task-based design: Methodology, assessment and programme evaluation. In  N. P. Sudharshana & L. Mukhopadhyay (Eds.), Task-base language teaching and assessment: Contemporary reflections from across the world (pp. 93–118). Springer. 10.1007/978‑981‑16‑4226‑5_6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-4226-5_6 [Google Scholar]
  158. Gilabert, R. , & Malicka, A.
    Eds. (forthcoming). From task-based needs analysis to task and syllabus design. John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  159. Givon, T.
    (1985) Function, structure, and language acquisition. In  D. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (Vol. 1) (pp. 1008–1025). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  160. Gomez-Laich, M. P. , & Taguchi, N.
    (2018) Task complexity effects on interaction during a collaborative persuasive writing task: A conversation analytic perspective. In  N. Taguchi & Y. Kim (Eds.), Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics (pp. 84–109). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.10.04gom
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.10.04gom [Google Scholar]
  161. González-Lloret, M. , & Ortega, L.
    (Eds.) (2014) Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks. John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.6
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.6 [Google Scholar]
  162. Guará-Tavares, M.
    (2009) The relationship among pre-task planning, working memory capacity, and L2 speech performance: a pilot study. Linguagem & Ensino, 12 (1), 165–194. 10.15210/rle.v12i1.15704
     https://doi.org/10.15210/rle.v12i1.15704 [Google Scholar]
  163. (2011) Pre-task planning, working memory capacity and L2 speech performance. Organon, 51 , 255–266. 10.22456/2238‑8915.28842
     https://doi.org/10.22456/2238-8915.28842 [Google Scholar]
  164. (2013) Working memory capacity and L2 speech performance in planned and spontaneous conditions: A correlational analysis. Trabalhos Em Linguística Aplicada, 52 (1), 9–29. 10.1590/S0103‑18132013000100002
     https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-18132013000100002 [Google Scholar]
  165. Gurunandan, K. , Carreiras, M. , & Paz-Alonso, P. M.
    (2019) Functional plasticity associated with language learning in adults. NeuroImage, 201 . 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116040
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116040 [Google Scholar]
  166. Haghverdi, H. R. , Biria, R. , & Khalaji, H. R.
    (2013) The impact of task-planning and gender on the accuracy of narrations composed by Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4 (1), 74–83. 10.4304/jltr.4.1.74‑83
     https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.4.1.74-83 [Google Scholar]
  167. Haji, F. A. , Cheung, J. J. , Woods, N. , Regehr, G. , de Ribaupierre, S. , & Dubrowski, A.
    (2016) Thrive or overload? The effect of task complexity on novices’ simulation-based learning. Medical Education, 50 (9), 955–968. 10.1111/medu.13086
     https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13086 [Google Scholar]
  168. Haji, F. A. , Khan, R. , Regehr, G. , Ng, G. , de Ribaupierre, S. , & Dubrowski, A.
    (2015) Operationalising elaboration theory for simulation instruction design: A Delphi study. Medical Education, 49 , 576–588. 10.1111/medu.12726
     https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12726 [Google Scholar]
  169. Hale, G. A.
    (1988) Student major field and text content: Interactive effects on reading comprehension in the Test of English as a Foreign Language. Language Testing, 5 (1), 49–61. 10.1177/026553228800500104
     https://doi.org/10.1177/026553228800500104 [Google Scholar]
  170. Hattie, J.
    (2008) Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge. 10.4324/9780203887332
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203887332 [Google Scholar]
  171. Hedges, L. V. , & Olkin, I.
    (2014) Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Academic Press. 10.1016/C2009‑0‑03396‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/C2009-0-03396-0 [Google Scholar]
  172. Heidari-Shahreza, M. A. , Dabaghi, A. , & Kassaian, Z.
    (2012) The effects of manipulating task complexity on the occurrence of language-related episodes during learner-learner interaction. Porta Linguarum, 17 , 173–188. 10.30827/Digibug.31975
     https://doi.org/10.30827/Digibug.31975 [Google Scholar]
  173. Hidalgo, M. Á. , & Lázaro-Ibarrola, A.
    (2020) Task repetition and collaborative writing by EFL children: Beyond CAF measures. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 10 (3), 501–522. 10.14746/ssllt.2020.10.3.5
     https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2020.10.3.5 [Google Scholar]
  174. Higa, M.
    (1965) The psycholinguistic concept of “difficulty” and the teaching of foreign language vocabulary. Language Learning, 15 , 167–179. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1965.tb00799.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1965.tb00799.x [Google Scholar]
  175. Horiba, Y.
    (2000) Reader control in reading: Effects of language competence, text type, and task. Discourse Processes, 29 (3), 223–267. 10.1207/S15326950dp2903_3
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950dp2903_3 [Google Scholar]
  176. Horrey, W. J. , Wickens, C. D. , & Consalus, K. P.
    (2006) Modeling drivers’ visual attention allocation while interacting with in-vehicle technologies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12 (2), 67–78. 10.1037/1076‑898X.12.2.67
     https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.12.2.67 [Google Scholar]
  177. Housen, A. , Kuiken, F. , & Vedder, I.
    (Eds.) (2012) Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA. John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.32
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32 [Google Scholar]
  178. Hsu, H.-C.
    (2012) Investigating the effects of planning on L2 text chat performance. CALICO Journal, 29 (4), 619–638. 10.11139/cj.29.4.619‑638
     https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.29.4.619-638 [Google Scholar]
  179. (2017) The effect of task planning on L2 performance and L2 development in text-based synchronous computer-mediated communication. Applied Linguistics, 38 (3), 359–385. 10.1093/applin/amv032
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv032 [Google Scholar]
  180. (2020) The impact of task complexity on patterns of interaction during web-based asynchronous collaborative writing tasks. System, 93 . 10.1016/j.system.2020.102328
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102328 [Google Scholar]
  181. Hu, X.
    (2018) Effects of task type, task-type repetition, and performance criteria on L2 oral production. In  M. Bygate (Ed.), Learning language through task repetition (pp. 143–169). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.11.06hu
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.11.06hu [Google Scholar]
  182. Huh, M. H. , & Lee, J.
    (2018) Task complexity and writing prompts and performance in EFL high school students’ narrative writing. English Teaching, 73 (4), 55–72. 10.15858/engtea.73.4.201812.55
     https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.73.4.201812.55 [Google Scholar]
  183. Hulstijn, J. H. , & Laufer, B.
    (2001) Some empirical evidence for involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51 , 539–558. 10.1111/0023‑8333.00164
     https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00164 [Google Scholar]
  184. Hunter, J. E. , & Schmidt, F. L.
    (2004) Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Sage. 10.4135/9781412985031
     https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985031 [Google Scholar]
  185. Hyland, K.
    (2019) Second language writing. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108635547
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108635547 [Google Scholar]
  186. Hyun, J.-E. , & Lee, J.-H.
    (2018) The effects of task complexity and working memory on Korean adult learners’ English speaking performance. English Teaching, 73 (1), 115–134. 10.15858/engtea.73.1.201803.115
     https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.73.1.201803.115 [Google Scholar]
  187. In’nami, Y. , & Koizumi, R.
    (2010) Database selection guidelines for meta-analysis in applied linguistics. TESOL Quarterly, 44 (1), 169–184. 10.5054/tq.2010.215253
     https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2010.215253 [Google Scholar]
  188. Inoue, C.
    (2016) A comparative study of the variables used to measure syntactic complexity and accuracy in task-based research. The Language Learning Journal, 44 (4), 487–505. 10.1080/09571736.2015.1130079
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2015.1130079 [Google Scholar]
  189. 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.
     [Google Scholar]
  190. (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). Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781853599286‑010
     https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853599286-010 [Google Scholar]
  191. (2008) The effects of task demands of intentional reasoning on L2 speech performance. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 5 (1), 29–63
     [Google Scholar]
  192. (2011) Examining the influence of intentional reasoning demands on learner perceptions of task difficulty and L2 monologic speech. In  P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 307–330). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.2.19ch12
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.2.19ch12 [Google Scholar]
  193. Ishikawa, T.
    (2014) The influence of intentional reasoning on EFL fluency using tasks. In  T. Muller , J. Adamson , P. S. Brown , & S. Herder (Eds.), Exploring EFL fluency in Asia (pp. 143–160). Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137449405_9
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137449405_9 [Google Scholar]
  194. Issenberg, S. B. , McGaghie, W. C. , Hart, I. R. , Mayer, J. W. , Felner, J. M. , Petrusa, E. R. , … & Ewy, G. A.
    (1999) Simulation technology for health care professional skills training and assessment. JAMA, 282 (9), 861–866. 10.1001/jama.282.9.861
     https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.282.9.861 [Google Scholar]
  195. Issenberg, S. B. , Mcgaghie, W. C. , Petrusa, E. R. , Lee Gordon, D. , & Scalese, R. J.
    (2005) Features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: A BEME systematic review. Medical Teacher, 27 (1), 10–28. 10.1080/01421590500046924
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590500046924 [Google Scholar]
  196. 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 (3), 401–436. 10.1111/0023‑8333.00160
     https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00160 [Google Scholar]
  197. Jackson, D. O. , & Suethanapornkul, S.
    (2013) The Cognition Hypothesis: A synthesis and meta-analysis of research on second language task complexity. Language Learning, 63 (2), 330–367. 10.1111/lang.12008
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12008 [Google Scholar]
  198. Jarvis, S.
    (2013) Capturing the diversity in lexical diversity. Language Learning, 63 , 87–106. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00739.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00739.x [Google Scholar]
  199. Johnson, M. D.
    (2017) Cognitive task complexity and L2 written syntactic complexity, accuracy, lexical complexity, and fluency: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. Journal of Second Language Acquisition, 37 , 13–38. 10.1016/j.jslw.2017.06.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.06.001 [Google Scholar]
  200. Johnson, M. D. , & Abdi Tabari, M.
    (2022) Task planning and oral L2 production: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 43 (6), 1143–1164. 10.1093/applin/amac026
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amac026 [Google Scholar]
  201. (2023) Planning in L2 writing: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. System, 118 . 10.1016/j.system.2023.103152
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.103152 [Google Scholar]
  202. Johnson, M. D. , Mercado, L. , & Acevedo, A.
    (2012) The effect of planning sub-processes on L2 writing fluency, grammatical complexity, and lexical complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21 (3), 264–282. 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.05.011
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.05.011 [Google Scholar]
  203. Jung, J.
    (2016) Effects of task complexity on L2 reading and L2 learning. English Teaching, 71 (4), 141–166. 10.15858/engtea.71.4.201612.141
     https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.71.4.201612.141 [Google Scholar]
  204. (2017) Effects of task complexity on L2 writing processes and linguistic complexity: A keystroke logging study. English Teaching, 72 (4), 179–200. 10.15858/engtea.72.4.201712.179
     https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.72.4.201712.179 [Google Scholar]
  205. (2018) Effects of task complexity and working memory capacity on L2 reading comprehension. System, 74 , 21–37. 10.1016/j.system.2018.02.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.02.005 [Google Scholar]
  206. (2020) Effects of content support on integrated reading-writing task performance and incidental vocabulary learning. System, 93 , 21–37. 10.1016/j.system.2020.102288
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102288 [Google Scholar]
  207. Kahneman, D.
    (1973) Attention and effort. Prentice-Hall. 10.2307/1421603
     https://doi.org/10.2307/1421603 [Google Scholar]
  208. Kaivanpanah, S. , & Alavi, S. M.
    (2008) The role of linguistic knowledge in word-meaning inferencing. System, 36 (2), 172–195. 10.1016/j.system.2007.10.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2007.10.006 [Google Scholar]
  209. Kalyuga, S. , Ayres, P. , Chandler, P. , & Sweller, J.
    (2003) The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38 (1), 23–31. 10.1207/S15326985EP3801_4
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_4 [Google Scholar]
  210. Kang, S. , & Lee, J. H.
    (2019) Are two heads always better than one? The effects of collaborative planning on L2 writing in relation to task complexity. The Journal of Second Language Writing, 45 , 61–72. 10.1016/j.jslw.2019.08.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.08.001 [Google Scholar]
  211. Kasanga, L. A.
    (1996) Peer interaction and L2 learning. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 52 (4), 611–639. 10.3138/cmlr.52.4.611
     https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.52.4.611 [Google Scholar]
  212. Kellogg, R. T.
    (1996) A model of working memory in writing. In  C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (p. 57–71). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  213. Keys, B. , & Wolfe, J.
    (1990) The role of management games and simulations in education and research. Journal of Management, 16 (2), 307–336. 10.1177/014920639001600205
     https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639001600205 [Google Scholar]
  214. Khabbazbashi, N.
    (2015) Topic and background knowledge effects on performance in speaking assessment. Language Testing, 34 (1), 23–48. 10.1177/0265532215595666
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532215595666 [Google Scholar]
  215. (2017) Topic and background knowledge effects on performance in speaking assessment. Language Testing, 34 (1), 23–48. 10.1177/0265532215595666
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532215595666 [Google Scholar]
  216. Khatib, M. , & Farahanynia, M.
    (2020) Planning conditions (strategic planning, task repetition, and joint planning), cognitive task complexity, and task type: Effects on L2 oral performance. System, 93 , 1–12. 10.1016/j.system.2020.102297
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102297 [Google Scholar]
  217. Khezrlou, S.
    (2019) Effects of timing and availability of isolated FFI on learners’ written accuracy and fluency through task repetition. The Language Learning Journal, 49 (5), 568–580. 10.1080/09571736.2019.1656765
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2019.1656765 [Google Scholar]
  218. (2020) The role of task repetition with direct written corrective feedback in L2 writing complexity, accuracy and fluency. Journal of Second Language Studies, 3 (1), 31–54. 10.1075/jsls.19025.khe
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.19025.khe [Google Scholar]
  219. Khorasani, R. , Pandian, A. , Ismail, S. A. M. M. , & Alavi, S.
    (2014) Looking into accuracy, complexity and fluency of EFL learners’ written task production and the potency of unguided planning. In  A. Pandian , C. L. C. Ling , D. T. A. Lin , J. Muniandy , L. B. Choo , & T. C. Hiang (Eds.), Language teaching and learning: New dimensions and interventions (pp. 346–359). Cambridge Scholars.
     [Google Scholar]
  220. Kim, N.
    (2018) The effects of online planning on CAF in L2 spoken and written performance. English Teaching, 73 (3), 3–28. 10.15858/engtea.73.3.201809.3
     https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.73.3.201809.3 [Google Scholar]
  221. (2020) Conditions and tasks: The effects of planning and task complexity on L2 speaking. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 17 (1), 34–52. 10.18823/asiatefl.2020.17.1.3.34
     https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2020.17.1.3.34 [Google Scholar]
  222. (2023[2020]) The effects of different task sequences on novice L2 learners’ oral performance in the classroom. Language Teaching Research, 27 (2), 415–440. 10.1177/1362168820937548
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820937548 [Google Scholar]
  223. Kim, Y.
    (2009) The effects of task complexity on learner-learner interaction. System, 37 (2), 254–268. 10.1016/j.system.2009.02.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.02.003 [Google Scholar]
  224. (2012) Task complexity, learning opportunities, and Korean EFL learners’ question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34 (4), 627–658. 10.1017/S0272263112000368
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000368 [Google Scholar]
  225. Kim, Y. , Choi, B. , Yun, H. , Kim, B. , & Choi, S.
    (2022[2020]) Task repetition, synchronous written corrective feedback and the learning of Korean grammar: A classroom-based study. Language Teaching Research, 26 (6), 1106–1132. 10.1177/1362168820912354
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820912354 [Google Scholar]
  226. Kim, Y. , Crossley, S. , Jung, Y. , Kyle, K. , & Kang, S.
    (2018) The effects of task repetition and task complexity on L2 lexicon use. In  M. Bygate (Ed.), Language learning through task repetition (pp. 75–96). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.11.03kim
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.11.03kim [Google Scholar]
  227. Kim, Y. , Kang, S. , Yun, H. , Kim, B. , & Choi, B.
    (2020) The role of task repetition in a Korean as a foreign language classroom: Writing quality, attention to form, and learning of Korean grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 53 (4), 827–849. 10.1111/flan.12501
     https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12501 [Google Scholar]
  228. Kim, Y. , & McDonough, K.
    (2011) Using pretask modelling to encourage collaborative learning opportunities. Language Teaching Research, 15 (2), 183–199. 10.1177/1362168810388711
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810388711 [Google Scholar]
  229. Kim, Y. , & Payant, C.
    (2014) A pedagogical proposal for task sequencing: An exploration of task repetition and task complexity on learning opportunities. In  M. Baralt , R. Gilabert , & P. Robinson (Eds.), Task sequencing and instructed second language learning (pp. 151–178). Bloomsbury.
     [Google Scholar]
  230. Kim, Y. , & Payant, C.
    (2017) Impacts of task complexity on the development of L2 oral performance over time. IRAL, 55 (2), 197–220. 10.1515/iral‑2017‑0066
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2017-0066 [Google Scholar]
  231. Kim, Y. , Payant, C. , & 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 (3), 549–581. 10.1017/S0272263114000618
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263114000618 [Google Scholar]
  232. Kim, Y. , & Taguchi, N.
    (2015) Promoting task-based pragmatics instruction in EFL classroom contexts: the role of task complexity. The Modern Language Journal, 99 (4), 656–677. 10.1111/modl.12273
     https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12273 [Google Scholar]
  233. (2016) Learner-learner interaction during collaborative pragmatic tasks: The role of cognitive and pragmatic task demands. Foreign Language Annals, 49 (1), 42–57. 10.1111/flan.12180
     https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12180 [Google Scholar]
  234. Kim, Y. , & Tracy-Ventura, N.
    (2011) Task complexity, language anxiety, and the development of the simple past. In  P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 287–306). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.2.18ch11
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.2.18ch11 [Google Scholar]
  235. Knoch, U. , & Elder, C.
    (2010) Validity and fairness implications of varying time conditions on a diagnostic test of academic English writing proficiency. System, 38 (1), 63–74. 10.1016/j.system.2009.12.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.12.006 [Google Scholar]
  236. Kobayashi, M. , & Kobayashi, E.
    (1999) Does familiarity breed improvement? Task familiarity in story-retelling by Japanese ESL learners. In  N. Jungheim & P. Robinson (Eds.), Pragmatics and pedagogy: Proceedings of the third Pacific Second Research Forum (Vol. 2, pp.143–154). The Pacific Second Language Research Forum.
     [Google Scholar]
  237. Kobayashi, E. , & Kobayashi, M.
    (2018) Second language learning through repeated engagement in a poster presentation task. In  M. Bygate (Ed.), Language learning through task repetition (pp. 223–254). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.11.09kob
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.11.09kob [Google Scholar]
  238. Kobeleva, P.
    (2012) Second language listening and unfamiliar proper names: Comprehension barrier? RELC Journal, 43 (1), 83–98. 10.1177/0033688212440637
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688212440637 [Google Scholar]
  239. Koizumi, R. , & In’nami, Y.
    (2024) Predicting functional adequacy from complexity, accuracy, and fluency of second-language picture-prompted speaking. System, 120 . 10.1016/j.system.2023.103208
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.103208 [Google Scholar]
  240. Kolb, D. A.
    (1984) Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall.
     [Google Scholar]
  241. Kormos, J.
    (2011) Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20 (2), 148–161. 10.1016/j.jslw.2011.02.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  242. Kormos, J. , & Préfontaine, Y.
    (2017) Affective factors influencing fluent performance: French learners’ appraisals of second language speech tasks. Language Teaching Research, 21 (6), 699–716. 10.1177/1362168816683562
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816683562 [Google Scholar]
  243. Kormos, J. , & Trebits, A.
    (2011) Working memory capacity and narrative task performance. In  P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 267–286). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.2.17ch10
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.2.17ch10 [Google Scholar]
  244. (2012) The role of task complexity, modality, and aptitude in narrative task performance. Language Learning, 62 (2), 439–472. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00695.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00695.x [Google Scholar]
  245. Korvesi, E. , Michel, M.
    (2022) Chatting with your peers across modalities: Effects of performing increasingly complex written computer-mediated tasks on Oral L2 development. Languages, 7 (4), 276. 10.3390/languages7040276
     https://doi.org/10.3390/languages7040276 [Google Scholar]
  246. Kourtali, N. E. , & Révész, A.
    (2020) The roles of recasts, task complexity, and aptitude in child second language development. Language Learning, 70 (1), 179–218. 10.1111/lang.12374
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12374 [Google Scholar]
  247. Kovač, M. M. , & Vickov, G.
    (2018) The impact of immediate task repetition on breakdown fluency. Govor, 35 (2), 139–160. 10.22210/govor.2018.35.09
     https://doi.org/10.22210/govor.2018.35.09 [Google Scholar]
  248. Kozan, K. , Erçetin, G. , & Richardson, J. C.
    (2015) Input modality and working memory: Effects on second language text comprehension in a multimedia learning environment. System, 55 , 63–73. 10.1016/j.system.2015.09.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.09.001 [Google Scholar]
  249. Krathwohl, D. R.
    (2002) A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41 , 212–218. 10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2 [Google Scholar]
  250. Krekeler, C.
    (2006) Language for special academic purposes (LSAP) testing: The effect of background knowledge revisited. Language Testing, 23 (1), 99–130. 10.1191/0265532206lt323oa
     https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532206lt323oa [Google Scholar]
  251. Kuiken, F. , & Vedder, I.
    (2007a) Cognitive task complexity and linguistic performance in French L2 writing. In  M. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 117–135). Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781853599286‑009
     https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853599286-009 [Google Scholar]
  252. (2007b) Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. IRAL, 45 (3), 261–284. 10.1515/iral.2007.012
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2007.012 [Google Scholar]
  253. (2008) Cognitive task complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17 (1), 48–60. 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.08.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.08.003 [Google Scholar]
  254. (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). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.2.09ch4
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.2.09ch4 [Google Scholar]
  255. (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. 143–170). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.32.07kui
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.07kui [Google Scholar]
  256. (2017) Functional adequacy in L2 writing: Towards a new rating scale. Language Testing, 34 (3), 321–336. 10.1177/0265532216663991
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532216663991 [Google Scholar]
  257. Kuiken, F. & Vedder, I.
    (2022) Measurement of functional adequacy in different learning contexts: Rationale, key issues, and future perspectives. TASK, 2 (2), 8–32. 10.1075/task.00013.kui
     https://doi.org/10.1075/task.00013.kui [Google Scholar]
  258. Kuiken, F. , & Vedder, I.
    (2025) From CAF to CAFFA: Measuring linguistic performance and functional adequacy in task-based language teaching. In  M. East (Ed.), Broadening the horizon of TBLT: Plenary addresses from the second decade of the International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching. John Benjamins.10.1075/tblt.17.08kui
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.17.08kui [Google Scholar]
  259. 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). John Benjamins. 10.1075/eurosla.5.10kui
     https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.5.10kui [Google Scholar]
  260. Kyle, K. , & Crossley, S. A.
    (2018) Measuring syntactic complexity in L2 writing using fine-grained clausal and phrasal indices. The Modern Language Journal, 102 (2), 333–349. 10.1111/modl.12468
     https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12468 [Google Scholar]
  261. Lambert, C. , Kormos, J. , & Minn, D.
    (2017) Task repetition and second language speech processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39 (1), 167–196. 10.1017/S0272263116000085
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263116000085 [Google Scholar]
  262. Lane, L. W. , & Ferreira, V. S.
    (2008) Speaker-external versus speaker-internal forces on utterance form: Do cognitive demands override threats to referential success? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 34 , 1466–1481. 10.1037/a0013353
     https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013353 [Google Scholar]
  263. Laufer, B. , & Hulstijn, J.
    (2001) Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22 , 1–26. 10.1093/applin/22.1.1
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  264. Laufer, B. , & Nation, P.
    (1995) Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16 (3), 307–322. 10.1093/applin/16.3.307
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.3.307 [Google Scholar]
  265. Lázaro-Ibarrola, A. , & Villarreal, I.
    (2019) Questioning the effectiveness of procedural repetition: The case of spanish EFL primary school learners’ L2 behavior in college language learners. Porta Linguarum, 31 , 7–20.
     [Google Scholar]
  266. Lee, C. H. , & Kalyuga, S.
    (2011) Effectiveness of on-screen pinyin in learning Chinese: An expertise reversal for multimedia redundancy effect. Computer in Human Behavior, 27 (1), 11–15. 10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.005 [Google Scholar]
  267. Lee, H.
    (2013) The influence of social situations on fluency difficulty in Korean EFL learners’ oral refusals. Journal of Pragmatics, 50 (1), 168–186. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.01.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.01.002 [Google Scholar]
  268. Lee, H. , Oh, M. , & Shin, Y.
    (2007) The Effects of planning time on the second language performance in a narrative task. English Teaching, 62 (1), 105–120. 10.15858/engtea.62.1.200703.105
     https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.62.1.200703.105 [Google Scholar]
  269. Lee, J.
    (2020) Task closure and task complexity effects on L2 written performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 50 . 10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100777
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100777 [Google Scholar]
  270. Lee, S.-K.
    (2007) Effects of textual enhancement and topic familiarity on Korean EFL students’ reading comprehension and learning of passive form. Language Learning, 57 (1), 87–118. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2007.00400.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00400.x [Google Scholar]
  271. Leeser, M. J.
    (2004) The effects of topic familiarity, mode, and pausing on second language learners’ comprehension and focus on form. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26 (4), 587–615. 10.1017/S0272263104040033
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263104040033 [Google Scholar]
  272. (2007) Learner-based factors in L2 reading comprehension and processing grammatical form: Topic familiarity and working memory. Language Learning, 57 (2), 229–270. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2007.00408.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00408.x [Google Scholar]
  273. Levelt, W. J.
    (1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/6393.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6393.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  274. (1999) Producing spoken language: A blueprint for the speaker. In  C. Brown & P. Hagoort (Eds.), Neurocognition of language (pp. 83–122). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198507932.003.0004
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198507932.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  275. Levkina, M. , & Gilabert, R.
    (2012) The effects of cognitive task complexity on L2 oral production. In  A. Housen , F. Kuiken , & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 171–198). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.32.08lev
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.08lev [Google Scholar]
  276. Li, J.
    (2014) Examining genre effects on test takers’ summary writing performance. Assessing Writing, 22 , 75–90. 10.1016/j.asw.2014.08.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2014.08.003 [Google Scholar]
  277. Li, L. , Chen, J. , & Sun, L.
    (2015) The effects of different lengths of pretask planning time on L2 learners’ oral test performance. TESOL Quarterly, 49 (1), 38–66. 10.1002/tesq.159
     https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.159 [Google Scholar]
  278. Li, S.
    (Ed.) (2024) Individual differences and task-based language teaching. John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.16
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.16 [Google Scholar]
  279. Liaghat, F. , & Biria, R.
    (2018) A comparative study on mentor text modelling and common approaches to teaching writing in Iranian EFL context. International Journal of Instruction, 11 (3), 701–720. 10.12973/iji.2018.11347a
     https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11347a [Google Scholar]
  280. Light, R. , & Pillemer, D. B.
    (1984) Summing up. Harvard University Press. 10.4159/9780674040243
     https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674040243 [Google Scholar]
  281. Lin, H. , & Chen, T.
    (2006) Decreasing cognitive load for novice EFL learners: Effects of question and descriptive advance organizers in facilitating EFL learners’ comprehension of an animation-based content lesson. System, 34 (3), 416–431. 10.1016/j.system.2006.04.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2006.04.008 [Google Scholar]
  282. Lin, J. J. H. , Lee, Y.-H. , Wang, D.-Y. , & Lin, S. S. J.
    (2016) Reading subtitles and taking enotes while learning scientific materials in a multimedia environment: Cognitive load perspectives on EFL students. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19 (4), 47–58.
     [Google Scholar]
  283. Lipsey, M. , & Wilson, D.
    (1993) The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment: Confirmation from meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 48 , 1181–1209. 10.1037/0003‑066X.48.12.1181
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.12.1181 [Google Scholar]
  284. Lipsey, M. W. , & Wilson, D. B.
    (2001) Practical meta-analysis. Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  285. Litvinenko, E. V. , Sirazova, L. S. , & Toptsi, J. E.
    (2019) Influence of planning in oral teaching methods. International Journal of Higher Education, 8 (7), 56–61. 10.5430/ijhe.v8n7p56
     https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v8n7p56 [Google Scholar]
  286. Long, M. H.
    (2014) Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Wiley-Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  287. Long, M. H. , & Crooks, G.
    (1992) Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 26 , 27–56. 10.2307/3587368
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3587368 [Google Scholar]
  288. Ma, F. F. , & Zainal, A. Z.
    (2018) The effects of planning conditions on primary school ESL pupils’ narrative writing. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7 (3), 559–574. 10.17509/ijal.v7i3.9803
     https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v7i3.9803 [Google Scholar]
  289. Machado, C. , & Luchini, P. L.
    (2018) Cognitive Load Theory, redundancy effect and language learning. In  R. Ponniah & S. Venkatesan (Eds.), The idea and practice of reading (pp. 177–190). Springer. 10.1007/978‑981‑10‑8572‑7_11
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8572-7_11 [Google Scholar]
  290. Mackey, A. , Kanganas, A. P. , & Oliver, R.
    (2007) Task familiarity and interactional feedback in child ESL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 41 , 285–312. 10.1002/j.1545‑7249.2007.tb00060.x
     https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00060.x [Google Scholar]
  291. Mahpul, M. , & Oliver, R.
    (2018) The effect of task complexity in dialogic oral production by Indonesian EFL learners. Asian EFL Journal, 20 (6), 33–65.
     [Google Scholar]
  292. Malicka, A.
    (2014a) The role of task complexity and task sequencing in L2 monologic oral production (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Barcelona.
  293. (2014b) The role of task sequencing in monologic oral production. In  M. Baralt , R. Gilabert , & P. Robinson (Eds.), Task sequencing and instructed second language learning (pp. 71–93). Bloomsbury.
     [Google Scholar]
  294. (2020) The role of task sequencing in fluency, accuracy, and complexity: Investigating the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. Language Teaching Research, 24 (5), 642–665. 10.1177/1362168818813668
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818813668 [Google Scholar]
  295. Malicka, A. , Gilabert, R. , & Norris, J. M.
    (2019) From needs analysis to task design: Insights from an English for Academic Purposes context. Language Teaching Research, 23 (1), 78–106. 10.1177/1362168817714278
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168817714278 [Google Scholar]
  296. Malicka, A. , & Levkina, M.
    (2012) Measuring task complexity: Does L2 proficiency matter? In  A. Shehadeh & C. Coombe (Eds.), Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts: Research and implementation (pp. 43–66). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.4.06mal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.4.06mal [Google Scholar]
  297. Manchón, R. M.
    (Ed.) (2020) Writing and language learning: Advancing research. John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.56
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.56 [Google Scholar]
  298. Marefat, H. , Rezaee, A. A. , & Naserieh, F.
    (2016) Effect of computerized gloss presentation format on reading comprehension: A cognitive load perspective. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 15 , 479–501. 10.28945/3568
     https://doi.org/10.28945/3568 [Google Scholar]
  299. Marín-Martínez, F. , & Sánchez-Meca, J.
    (1999) Averaging dependent effect sizes in meta-analysis: A cautionary note about procedures. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 2 , 32–38. 10.1017/S1138741600005436
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1138741600005436 [Google Scholar]
  300. Mayer, R. E.
    (2020) Multimedia learning (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316941355
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316941355 [Google Scholar]
  301. (2024) The past, present, and future of the Cognitive Load Theory of multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review, 36 (6). 10.1007/s10648‑023‑09842‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09842-1 [Google Scholar]
  302. Mayer, R. E. , Lee, H. , & Peebles, A.
    (2014) Multimedia learning in a second language: A cognitive load perspective. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28 (5), 653–660. 10.1002/acp.3050
     https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3050 [Google Scholar]
  303. Mayer, R. E. , & Moreno, R.
    (2003) Nice ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38 , 43–52. 10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6 [Google Scholar]
  304. Mehnert, U.
    (1998) The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20 , 83–108. 10.1017/S0272263198001041
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263198001041 [Google Scholar]
  305. Meraji, S. R.
    (2011) Planning time, strategy use, and written task production in a pedagogic vs. a testing context. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2 (2), 338–352. 10.4304/jltr.2.2.338‑352
     https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.2.2.338-352 [Google Scholar]
  306. Mercado, E. III
    (2008) Neural and cognitive plasticity: From maps to minds. Psychological Bulletin, 134 (1), 109–137. 10.1037/0033‑2909.134.1.109
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.1.109 [Google Scholar]
  307. 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). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.2.12ch6
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.2.12ch6 [Google Scholar]
  308. (2013) The use of conjunctions in cognitively simple versus complex oral L2 tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 97 (1), 178–195. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2013.01431.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.01431.x [Google Scholar]
  309. Michel, M.
    (2017) Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in L2 production. In  S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 50–68). Routledge. 10.4324/9781315676968‑4
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315676968-4 [Google Scholar]
  310. Michel, M. C. , Kuiken, F. , & Vedder, I.
    (2007) The influence of complexity in monologic versus dialogic tasks in Dutch L2. IRAL, 45 (3), 241–259. 10.1515/iral.2007.011
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2007.011 [Google Scholar]
  311. Mochizuki, N. , & Ortega, L.
    (2008) Balancing communication and grammar in beginning-level foreign language classrooms: A study of guided planning and relativization. Language Teaching Research, 12 (1), 11–37. 10.1177/1362168807084492
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807084492 [Google Scholar]
  312. Mohammad, M. K. M. , & Alwi, N. A.
    (2019) The impact of task complexity on EFL learners’ writing production across gender. International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology, 8 (5), 1218–1220. 10.35940/ijeat.E1172.0585C19
     https://doi.org/10.35940/ijeat.E1172.0585C19 [Google Scholar]
  313. Mohammadzadeh Mohammadabadi, 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. 10.5861/ijrsll.2012.168
     https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrsll.2012.168 [Google Scholar]
  314. Mora, J. C. , Mora-Plaza, I. , & Bermejo Miranda, G.
    (2024) Speaking anxiety and task complexity effects on second language speech. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 34 (1), 292–315. 10.1111/ijal.12494
     https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12494 [Google Scholar]
  315. Moussa-Inaty, J. , Atallah, F. , & Causapin, M.
    (2019) Instructional mode: A better predictor of performance than student preferred learning styles. International Journal of Instruction, 12 (3), 17–34. 10.29333/iji.2019.1232a
     https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.1232a [Google Scholar]
  316. Moussa-Inaty, J. , Ayres, P. , & Sweller, J.
    (2012) Improving listening skills in English as a foreign language by reading rather than listening: A cognitive load perspective. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26 (3), 391–402. 10.1002/acp.1840
     https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1840 [Google Scholar]
  317. Munn, Z. , Peters, M. D. , Stern, C. , Tufanaru, C. , McArthur, A. , & Aromataris, E.
    (2018) Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18 (1), 1–7. 10.1186/s12874‑018‑0611‑x
     https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x [Google Scholar]
  318. Murphy, L. , & Roca de Larios, J.
    (2010) Searching for words: One strategic use of the mother tongue by advanced Spanish EFL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19 (2), 61–81. 10.1016/j.jslw.2010.02.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  319. Nakahama, Y.
    (2009) Tasuku no fukuzatsusei, bogo, nihongo nouryoku ga danwa kousei ni oyobosu eikyou: Shiji hyougen, ukemi hyougen no shiyou ni tsuite [Effects of task complexity, L1 and proficiency on the use of referential and passive forms in L2 Japanese discourse]. JALT Journal, 31 (1), 101–120.
     [Google Scholar]
  320. (2013) Tasuku no fukuzatsusa to gengo unyou (seikakusa, fukuzatsusa, danwa no shiten settei) to no kanrensei [The effect of task complexity on language performance (accuracy, complexity and discourse perspective setting)]. Daini gengo to shite no nihongo no shuutoku kenkyuu [Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language], 16 , 38–55.
     [Google Scholar]
  321. Nawal, A. F.
    (2018) Cognitive load theory in the context of second language academic writing. Higher Education Pedagogies, 3 (1), 385–402. 10.1080/23752696.2018.1513812
     https://doi.org/10.1080/23752696.2018.1513812 [Google Scholar]
  322. Nielson, K. B.
    (2014) Can planning time compensate for individual differences in working memory capacity? Language Teaching Research, 18 (3), 272–293. 10.1177/1362168813510377
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168813510377 [Google Scholar]
  323. Nielson, K. B. , & DeKeyser, R.
    (2019) Working memory and planning time as predictors of fluency and accuracy. Journal of Second Language Studies, 2 (2), 281–316. 10.1075/jsls.19004.bro
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.19004.bro [Google Scholar]
  324. Nitta, R. , & Baba, K.
    (2018) Understanding benefits of repetition from a complex dynamic system perspective: The case of a writing task. In  M. Bygate (Ed.), Language learning through task repetition (pp. 279–310). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.11.11nit
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.11.11nit [Google Scholar]
  325. Nitta, R. , & Nakatsuhara, F.
    (2014) A multifaceted approach to investigating pre-task planning effects on paired oral test performance. Language Testing, 31 (2), 147–175. 10.1177/0265532213514401
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532213514401 [Google Scholar]
  326. Norris, J. M.
    (2001) Identifying rating criteria for task-based EAP assessment. In  T. D. Hudson , & J. D. Brown (Eds.), A focus on language test development: Expanding the language proficiency construct across a variety of tests (pp. 163–204). University of Hawai‘i Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  327. (2009) Task-based teaching and testing. In  M. Long & C. Doughty (Eds.), Handbook of language teaching (pp. 578–594). Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444315783.ch30
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444315783.ch30 [Google Scholar]
  328. (2010) Understanding instructed SLA: Constructs, contexts, and consequences. Plenary address delivered at the annual conference of the European Second Language Association (EUROSLA), Reggio Emilia, Italy.
     [Google Scholar]
  329. (2012) Meta-analysis. In  C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. 10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0761
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0761 [Google Scholar]
  330. (2014, August). Committing to a synthetic ethic in applied linguistics research. Presentation at the 50th International Association of Applied Linguistics (AILA) conference, Brisbane, Australia.
     [Google Scholar]
  331. (2015) Thinking and acting programmatically in task-based language teaching: Essential roles for program evaluation. In  M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference (pp. 27–57). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.8.02nor
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.8.02nor [Google Scholar]
  332. (2016) Current uses for task-based language assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36 , 230–244. 10.1017/S0267190516000027
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190516000027 [Google Scholar]
  333. Norris, J. M.
    (2018) Task-based language assessment: Aligning designs with intended uses and consequences. JLTA Journal, 21 , 3–20. 10.20622/jltajournal.21.0_3
     https://doi.org/10.20622/jltajournal.21.0_3 [Google Scholar]
  334. Norris, J. M. , & Ortega, L.
    (2000) Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50 , 417–528. 10.1111/0023‑8333.00136
     https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00136 [Google Scholar]
  335. (2003) Defining and measuring SLA. In  C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 716–761). Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756492.ch21
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756492.ch21 [Google Scholar]
  336. (Eds.) (2006) Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching. John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.13
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.13 [Google Scholar]
  337. (2007) The future of research synthesis in applied linguistics: Beyond art or science? TESOL Quarterly, 41 (4), 805–815. 10.1002/j.1545‑7249.2007.tb00105.x
     https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00105.x [Google Scholar]
  338. (2009) Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30 (4), 555–578. 10.1093/applin/amp044
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp044 [Google Scholar]
  339. (2010) Timeline: Research synthesis. Language Teaching, 43 (4), 461–479. 10.1017/S0261444810000200
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444810000200 [Google Scholar]
  340. Norris, J. M. , Plonsky, L. , Ross, S. J. , & Schoonen, R.
    (2015) Guidelines for reporting quantitative methods and results in primary research. Language Learning, 65 (2), 470–476. 10.1111/lang.12104
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12104 [Google Scholar]
  341. Norris, J. M. , Sasayama, S. , & Kim, M.
    (2023) Simulating real-world context in an e-mail writing task: Implications for task-based language assessment (TOEFL Research Report RR-23-05). ETS. 10.1002/ets2.12366
     https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12366 [Google Scholar]
  342. Norouzian, R. , & Bui, G.
    (2024) Meta-analysis of second language research with complex research designs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 46 , 251–276. 10.1017/S0272263123000311
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263123000311 [Google Scholar]
  343. 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. 175–201). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.2.13ch7
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.2.13ch7 [Google Scholar]
  344. O’Grady, S.
    (2019) The impact of pre-task planning on speaking test performance for English-medium university admission. Language Testing, 36 (4), 505–526. 10.1177/0265532219826604
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532219826604 [Google Scholar]
  345. Oliver, R.
    (1998) Negotiation of meaning in child interactions. The Modern Language Journal, 82 , 372–356. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1998.tb01215.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01215.x [Google Scholar]
  346. Ong, J.
    (2013) Discovery of ideas in second language writing task environment. System, 41 (3), 529–542. 10.1016/j.system.2013.05.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  347. Ong, J. , & Zhang, L. J.
    (2010) Effects of task complexity on the fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students’ argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19 (4), 218–233. 10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.003 [Google Scholar]
  348. (2013) Effects of the manipulation of cognitive processes on EFL writers’ text quality. TESOL Quarterly, 47 (2), 375–398. 10.1002/tesq.55
     https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.55 [Google Scholar]
  349. Ortega, L.
    (1999) Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21 (1), 109–148. 10.1017/S0272263199001047
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263199001047 [Google Scholar]
  350. (2003) Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24 (4), 492–518. 10.1093/applin/24.4.492
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.4.492 [Google Scholar]
  351. (2010) Research synthesis. In  B. Paltridge & A. Phakiti (Eds.), Companion to research methods in applied linguistics (pp. 111–126). Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  352. Ortega, L.
    (2015) Research synthesis. In  B. Paltridge & A. Phakiti (Eds.), Research methods in applied linguistics: A practical resource (pp. 225–244). Bloomsbury.
     [Google Scholar]
  353. Oswald, F. L. , & Plonsky, L.
    (2010) Meta-analysis in second language research: Choices and challenges. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30 , 85–110. 10.1017/S0267190510000115
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190510000115 [Google Scholar]
  354. Paas, F. , Tuovinen, J. E. , Tabbers, H. , & Van Gerven, P. W.
    (2003) Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38 (1), 63–71. 10.1207/S15326985EP3801_8
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_8 [Google Scholar]
  355. Pallotti, G.
    (2009) CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30 (4), 590–601. 10.1093/applin/amp045
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp045 [Google Scholar]
  356. Panahzadeh, V. , & Asadi, B.
    (2019) On the impacts of pressured vs. unpressured online task planning on EFL students’ oral production in classroom and testing contexts. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5 (3), 341–352. 10.32601/ejal.651267
     https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.651267 [Google Scholar]
  357. Pang, F. , & Skehan, P.
    (2014) Self-reported planning behavior and second language performance in narrative retelling. In  P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 95–128). John Benjmains. 10.1075/tblt.5.04pan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.5.04pan [Google Scholar]
  358. Paradis, J.
    (2010) Bilingual children’s acquisition of English verb morphology: Effects of language exposure, structure complexity, and task type. Language Learning, 60 (3), 651–680. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2010.00567.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00567.x [Google Scholar]
  359. Park, S.
    (2010) The influence of pretask instructions and pretask planning on focus on form during Korean EFL task-based interaction. Language Teaching Research, 14 (1), 9–26. 10.1177/1362168809346491
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168809346491 [Google Scholar]
  360. Payant, C. , & Reagan, D.
    (2018) Manipulating task implementation variables with incipient Spanish language learners: A classroom-based study. Language Teaching Research, 22 (2), 169–188. 10.1177/1362168816669742
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816669742 [Google Scholar]
  361. Peebles, D. , Cheng, P. C.-H. , & Shadbolt, N.
    (1999) Multiple processes in graph-based reasoning. In  M. Hahn & S. S. Stoness (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty first annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 531–536). Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  362. Peters, E.
    (2007) L2 vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehension: The influence of task complexity. In  M. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 178–198). Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781853599286‑012
     https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853599286-012 [Google Scholar]
  363. Phakiti, A. , De Costa, P. , Plonsky, L. , & Starfield, S.
    (2018) Applied linguistics research: Current issues, methods, and trends. In  A. Phakiti , P. De Costa , L. Plonsky , and S. Starfield (eds.), The Palgrave handbook of applied linguistics research methodology. Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑59900‑1_1
     https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59900-1_1 [Google Scholar]
  364. Pham, M. T. , Rajić, A. , Greig, J. D. , Sargeant, J. M. , Papadopoulos, A. , & McEwen, S. A.
    (2014) A scoping review of scoping reviews: Advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Research Synthesis Methods, 5 (4), 371–385. 10.1002/jrsm.1123
     https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1123 [Google Scholar]
  365. Philp, J. , Oliver, R. , & Mackey, A.
    (2006) The impact of planning time on children’s task-based interactions. System, 34 (4), 547–565. 10.1016/j.system.2006.08.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2006.08.004 [Google Scholar]
  366. Piaget, J.
    (1952) Origins of intelligence in the child. Routledge & Kegan Paul. 10.1037/11494‑000
     https://doi.org/10.1037/11494-000 [Google Scholar]
  367. Pica, T. , Kang, H-S. , & Sauro, S.
    (2006) Information gap tasks: Their multiple roles and contributions to interaction research methodology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28 (2), 301–338. 10.1017/S027226310606013X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310606013X [Google Scholar]
  368. Pigott, T. D.
    (2012) Advances in meta-analysis. Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4614‑2278‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2278-5 [Google Scholar]
  369. Pigott, T. D. , & Polanin, J. R.
    (2020) Methodological guidance paper: High-quality meta-analysis in a systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 90 (1), 24–46. 10.3102/0034654319877153
     https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319877153 [Google Scholar]
  370. Pinker, S.
    (1990) A theory of graph comprehension. In  R. Freedle (Ed.), Artificial intelligence and the future of testing (p. 73–126). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  371. Pinter, A.
    (2007) Some benefits of peer-peer interaction: 10-year-old children practising with a communication task. Language Teaching Research, 11 (2), 189–207. 10.1177/1362168807074604
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807074604 [Google Scholar]
  372. Plonsky, L.
    (2023) Sampling and generalizability in Lx research: A second order synthesis. Languages, 8 ( 1 ), 75. 10.3390/languages8010075
     https://doi.org/10.3390/languages8010075 [Google Scholar]
  373. Plonsky, L. , & Kim, Y.
    (2016) Task-based learner production: A substantive and methodological review. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36 , 73–97. 10.1017/S0267190516000015
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190516000015 [Google Scholar]
  374. Plonsky, L. , & Gönülal, T.
    (2015) Methodological synthesis in quantitative L2 research: A review of reviews and a case study of exploratory factor analysis. Language Learning, 65 (s1), 9–36. 10.1111/lang.12111
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12111 [Google Scholar]
  375. Plonsky, L. , & Oswald, F. L.
    (2014) How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64 (4), 878–912. 10.1111/lang.12079
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12079 [Google Scholar]
  376. (2015) Meta-analyzing second language research. In  L. Plonsky (Ed.), Advancing quantitative methods in second language research (pp. 106–128). Routledge. 10.4324/9781315870908‑6
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315870908-6 [Google Scholar]
  377. Plough, I. , & Gass, S.
    (1993) Interlocutor and task familiarity: Effects on interactional structure. In  G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning. Integrating theory and practice (pp. 35–56). Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  378. Polio, C. , & Yoon, H. J.
    (2024) Complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CALF) measures. In  M. Kessler & C. Polio (Eds.), Conducting genre-based research in Applied Linguistics: A methodological guide (pp. 149–171). Routledge. 10.4324/9781003300847
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003300847 [Google Scholar]
  379. Prabhu, N. S.
    (1982) The communicational teaching project, South India. The British Council.
     [Google Scholar]
  380. (1984) Procedural syllabuses. In  T. E. Read (Ed.), Trends in language syllabus design (pp. 272–280). Singapore University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  381. (1987) Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  382. Préfontaine, Y. , & Kormos, J.
    (2015) The relationship between task difficulty and second language fluency in French: A mixed methods approach. The Modern Language Journal, 99 (1), 96–112. 10.1111/modl.12186
     https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12186 [Google Scholar]
  383. Pulido, D.
    (2004) The relationship between text comprehension and second language incidental vocabulary acquisition: A matter of topic familiarity? Language Learning, 54 ( 3 ), 469–523. 10.1111/j.0023‑8333.2004.00263.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-8333.2004.00263.x [Google Scholar]
  384. (2007) The effects of topic familiarity and passage sight vocabulary on L2 lexical inferencing and retention through reading. Applied Linguistics, 28 (1), 66–86. 10.1093/applin/aml049
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml049 [Google Scholar]
  385. (2009) How involved are American L2 learners of Spanish in lexical input processing tasks during reading? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31 (1), 31–58. 10.1017/S0272263109090020
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109090020 [Google Scholar]
  386. Qin, J. , & Zhang, Y.
    (2022[2019]) Pre-task planning and discourse cohesion: Analysis of Chinese EFL learners’ referential use in oral narratives. Language Teaching Research, 26 (1), 1–19. 10.1177/1362168819883896
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819883896 [Google Scholar]
  387. Qiu, X.
    (2020) Functions of oral monologic tasks: Effects of topic familiarity on L2 speaking performance. Language Teaching Research, 24 (6), 745–764. 10.1177/1362168819829021
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819829021 [Google Scholar]
  388. Qiu, X. , & Lo, Y. Y.
    (2017) Content familiarity, task repetition and Chinese EFL learners’ engagement in second language use. Language Teaching Research, 21 (6), 681–698. 10.1177/1362168816684368
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816684368 [Google Scholar]
  389. Rafie, Z. F. , Rahmany, R. , & Sadeqi, B.
    (2015) The differential effects of three types of task planning on the accuracy of L2 oral production. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6 (6), 1297–1304. 10.17507/jltr.0606.17
     https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0606.17 [Google Scholar]
  390. Rahimi, M.
    (2019) Effects of increasing the degree of reasoning and the number of elements on L2 argumentative writing. Language Teaching Research, 23 (5), 633–654. 10.1177/1362168818761465
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818761465 [Google Scholar]
  391. Rahimi, M. , & Zhang, L. J.
    (2018) Effects of task complexity and planning conditions on L2 argumentative writing production. Discourse Processes, 55 (8), 726–742. 10.1080/0163853X.2017.1336042
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1336042 [Google Scholar]
  392. (2019) Writing task complexity, students’ motivational beliefs, anxiety and their writing production in English as a second language. Reading and Writing, 32 (3), 761–786. 10.1007/s11145‑018‑9887‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9887-9 [Google Scholar]
  393. Rahimpour, M.
    (1999) Task complexity and variation in interlanguage. In  N. Jungheim & P. Robinson (Eds.), Pragmatics and pedagogy: Proceedings of the third Pacific Second Research Forum (Vol. 2, pp.115–134). The Pacific Second Language Research Forum.
     [Google Scholar]
  394. Rahimpour, M. , & Mehrang, F.
    (2010) Investigating effects of task structure on EFL learner’s oral performance. English Language Teaching, 3 (4), 10–17. 10.5539/elt.v3n4p10
     https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v3n4p10 [Google Scholar]
  395. Rahimpour, M. , & Hosseini, P.
    (2010) The impact of task complexity on L2 learners’ written narratives. English Language Teaching, 3 (3), 198–205. 10.5539/elt.v3n3p198
     https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v3n3p198 [Google Scholar]
  396. Rai, M. K. , Loschky, L. C. , & Harris, R. J.
    (2015) The effects of stress on reading: A comparison of first-language versus intermediate second-language reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107 (2), 348–363. 10.1037/a0037591
     https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037591 [Google Scholar]
  397. Raia, A. P.
    (1966) A study of the educational value of management games. The Journal of Business, 39 (3), 339–352. 10.1086/294863
     https://doi.org/10.1086/294863 [Google Scholar]
  398. Ravid, D. , & Tolchinsky, M.
    (2002) Developing linguistic literacy: A comprehensive model. Journal of Child Language, 29 (2), 419–448. 10.1017/S0305000902005111
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000902005111 [Google Scholar]
  399. Reid, W. J. , & Epstein, L.
    (1972) Task-centered casework. Columbia University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  400. Reigeluth, C. M.
    (1979) In search of a better way to organize instruction: The elaboration theory. Journal of Instructional Development, 2 , 8–15. 10.1007/BF02984374
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02984374 [Google Scholar]
  401. Révész, A.
    (2009) Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31 (3), 437–470. 10.1017/S0272263109090366
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109090366 [Google Scholar]
  402. (2011) Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions, and individual differences: A classroom-based study. The Modern Language Journal, 95 (1), 162–181. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2011.01241.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01241.x [Google Scholar]
  403. Révész, A.
    (2014) Towards a fuller assessment of cognitive models of task-based learning: Investigating task-generated cognitive demands and processes. Applied Linguistics, 35 , 87–92. 10.1093/applin/amt039
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt039 [Google Scholar]
  404. Révész, A. , & Brunfaut, T.
    (2013) Text characteristics of task input and difficulty in second language listening comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35 , 31–65. 10.1017/S0272263112000678
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000678 [Google Scholar]
  405. Révész, A. , Ekiert, M. , & Torgersen, E.
    (2016) The effects of complexity, accuracy and fluency on communicative adequacy in oral task performance. Applied Linguistics, 37 (6), 828–848. 10.1093/applin/amu069
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu069 [Google Scholar]
  406. Révész, A. , & Han, Z.
    (2006) Task content familiarity, task type and efficacy of recasts. Language Awareness, 15 (3), 160–179. 10.2167/la401.0
     https://doi.org/10.2167/la401.0 [Google Scholar]
  407. Révész, A. , Jeong, H. , Suzuki, S. , Cui, H. , Matsuura, S. , Saito, K. , & Sugiura, M.
    (2024) Task-generated processes in second language speech production: Exploring the neural correlates of task complexity during silent pauses. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 10.1017/S0272263124000421
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263124000421 [Google Scholar]
  408. Révész, A. , Kourtali, N. E. , & Mazgutova, D.
    (2017) Effects of task complexity on L2 writing behaviors and linguistic complexity. Language Learning, 67 (1), 208–241. 10.1111/lang.12205
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12205 [Google Scholar]
  409. Révész, A. , Michel, M. , & 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 (4), 703–737. 10.1017/S0272263115000339
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263115000339 [Google Scholar]
  410. Révész, A. , Sachs, R. , & Hama, M.
    (2014) The effects of task complexity and input frequency on the acquisition of the past counterfactual construction through recasts. Language Learning, 64 , 615–650. 10.1111/lang.12061
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12061 [Google Scholar]
  411. 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). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.2.14ch8
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.2.14ch8 [Google Scholar]
  412. Robinson, P.
    (1995a) Attention, memory and the ‘noticing’ hypothesis. Language Learning, 45 , 283–331. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1995.tb00441.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00441.x [Google Scholar]
  413. (1995b) Task complexity and second language narrative discourse. Language Learning, 45 (1), 99–141. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1995.tb00964.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00964.x [Google Scholar]
  414. (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 University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524780.012
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.012 [Google Scholar]
  415. (2001b) Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22 , 27–57. 10.1093/applin/22.1.27
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.27 [Google Scholar]
  416. (2003a) Attention and memory during SLA. In  C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 631–678). Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756492.ch19
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756492.ch19 [Google Scholar]
  417. (2003b) The cognitive hypothesis of adult, task-based language learning. Second Language Studies, 21 , 45–105.
     [Google Scholar]
  418. (2005) Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43 (1), 1–32. 10.1515/iral.2005.43.1.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2005.43.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  419. (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 in Language Teaching, 45 , 193–213. 10.1515/iral.2007.009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2007.009 [Google Scholar]
  420. (2007b) Criteria for grading and sequencing pedagogic tasks. In  M. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 7–27). Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781853599286‑004
     https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853599286-004 [Google Scholar]
  421. (2010) Situating and distributing cognition across task demands: The SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In  M. Putz & L. Sicola (Eds.), Cognitive processing in second language acquisition: Inside the learner’s mind (pp. 239–264). John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.13.17rob
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.13.17rob [Google Scholar]
  422. (2011a) Task-based language learning: A review of issues. Language Learning, 61 , 1–36. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2011.00641.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00641.x [Google Scholar]
  423. (Ed.) (2011b) Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance. John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.2
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.2 [Google Scholar]
  424. (2015) The Cognition Hypothesis, second language task demands, and the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In  M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference (pp. 78–122). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.8.04rob
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.8.04rob [Google Scholar]
  425. Robinson, P.
    (2021) The Cognition Hypothesis, the Triadic Componential Framework and the SSARC model: An instructional design theory of pedagogic task sequencing. In  M. J. Ahmadian & M. Long (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of task-based language teaching (pp. 205–225). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108868327.013
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108868327.013 [Google Scholar]
  426. Robinson, P. , Cadierno, P. , & Shirai, Y.
    (2009) Time and motion: Measuring the effects of the conceptual demands of tasks on second language speech production. Applied Linguistics, 30 (4), 533–554. 10.1093/applin/amp046
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp046 [Google Scholar]
  427. Robinson, P. , & Gilabert, R.
    (2007) Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis and second language learning and performance. IRAL-Interview Review of Applied Linguistics, 45 (3), 161–176. 10.1515/iral.2007.007
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2007.007 [Google Scholar]
  428. Rosenthal, R.
    (1979) The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86 (3), 638–641. 10.1037/0033‑2909.86.3.638
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 [Google Scholar]
  429. Rosenthal, R. , & Rubin, D. B.
    (1986) Meta-analytic procedures for combining studies with multiple effect sizes. Psychological Bulletin, 99 (3), 400–406. 10.1037/0033‑2909.99.3.400
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.99.3.400 [Google Scholar]
  430. Rostamian, M. , Fazilatfar, A. M. , & Jabbari, A. A.
    (2018) The effect of planning time on cognitive processes, monitoring behavior, and quality of L2 writing. Language Teaching Research, 22 (4), 418–438. 10.1177/1362168817699239
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168817699239 [Google Scholar]
  431. Roussel, S. , & Galan, J.-P.
    (2018) Can clicker use support learning in a dual-focused second language German course? Language Learning & Technology, 22 (3), 45–64. 10125/44656
     https://doi.org/10125/44656 [Google Scholar]
  432. Russell, J. , & Spada, N.
    (2006) The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In  J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–164). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.13.09val
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.13.09val [Google Scholar]
  433. Sadeghi, K. , & Mosalli, Z.
    (2012) The effect of task complexity on fluency and lexical complexity of EFL learners’ argumentative writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 1 (4), 53–65. 10.7575/ijalel.v.1n.4p.53
     https://doi.org/10.7575/ijalel.v.1n.4p.53 [Google Scholar]
  434. Saeedi, M. , & Kazerooni, S. R.
    (2014) The influence of task repetition and task structure on EFL learners’ oral narrative retellings. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 8 (2), 116–131. 10.1080/17501229.2013.770860
     https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2013.770860 [Google Scholar]
  435. Salimi, A.
    (2015) The effect of focus on form and task complexity on L2 learners’ oral task performance. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 6 (6), 54–62. 10.7575/aiac.alls.v.6n.6p.54
     https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.6n.6p.54 [Google Scholar]
  436. Salmani-Nodoushan, M. A.
    (2007) Are task type and familiarity predictors of performance on tests of language for specific purposes? Asian ESP Journal, 3 (1), 67–96.
     [Google Scholar]
  437. Sample, E. , & Michel, M.
    (2014) An exploratory study into trade-off effects of complexity, accuracy, and fluency on young learners’ oral task repetition. TESL Canada Journal, 31 (8), 3123–3146. 10.18806/tesl.v31i0.1185
     https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v31i0.1185 [Google Scholar]
  438. Samuda, V. , Van den Branden, K. , & Bygate, M.
    (Eds.) (2018) TBLT as a researched pedagogy. John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.12
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.12 [Google Scholar]
  439. Sánchez, A. J. , Manchón, R. M. , & Gilabert, R.
    (2020) The effects of task repetition across modalities and proficiency levels. In  M. Bygate (Ed.), Learning language through task repetition (pp. 121–143). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.56.06san
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.56.06san [Google Scholar]
  440. Sanguran, J.
    (2005) The effects of focusing on meaning and form in strategic planning. In  R. Ellis (Ed.) Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 111–141). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.11.08san
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.08san [Google Scholar]
  441. Santos, S.
    (2018) Effects of task complexity on the oral production of Chinese learners of Portuguese as a foreign language. Journal of the European Second Language Association, 2 (1), 49–62. 10.22599/jesla.40
     https://doi.org/10.22599/jesla.40 [Google Scholar]
  442. Sasaki, M.
    (2000) Effects of cultural schemata on students’ test-taking processes for cloze tests: A multiple data source approach. Language Testing, 17 (1), 85–114. 10.1177/026553220001700104
     https://doi.org/10.1177/026553220001700104 [Google Scholar]
  443. Sasayama, S.
    (2011) Cognition Hypothesis and second language performance: Comparison of written and oral task performance. Second Language Studies, 29 (2), 107–129.
     [Google Scholar]
  444. (2015) Validating the assumed relationship between task design, cognitive complexity, and second language task performance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Georgetown University.
  445. (2016) Is a ‘complex’ task really complex? Validating the assumption of cognitive task complexity. The Modern Language Journal, 100 (1), 231–254. 10.1111/modl.12313
     https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12313 [Google Scholar]
  446. (2018) An evidence-based approach to L2 task design. Taking it to Task, 3 (1), 3–15.
     [Google Scholar]
  447. (2021) Why task? Task as a unit of analysis for language education. In  M. Long & M. J. Ahmadian (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Task-Based Language Teaching (pp. 55–72). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108868327.004
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108868327.004 [Google Scholar]
  448. Sasayama, S. , & Izumi, S.
    (2012) Effects of task complexity and pre-task planning on EFL learners’ oral production. In  A. Shehadeh & C. Coombe (Eds.), Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts: Research and implementation (pp. 23–42). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.4.05sas
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.4.05sas [Google Scholar]
  449. Sasayama, S. , & Norris, J.
    (2019) Unravelling cognitive task complexity. In  Z. Wen & M. J. Ahmadian (Eds.), Researching L2 task performance and pedagogy: In honour of Peter Skehan (pp. 95–132). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.13.06sas
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.13.06sas [Google Scholar]
  450. Sasayama, S. , & Norris, J. M.
    (2022) Designing speaking tasks for different assessment goals: The complex relationship between cognitive task complexity, language performance, and task accomplishment. TASK: Journal on Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning, 2 (2), 184–217. 10.1075/task.21020.sas
     https://doi.org/10.1075/task.21020.sas [Google Scholar]
  451. Sattarpour, S. , & Farrokhi, F.
    (2017) Exploring the interplay of planning time, reasoning demands, and language learning aptitude in Iranian EFL learners’ written production. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 14 (4), 736–754. 10.18823/asiatefl.2017.14.4.10.736
     https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2017.14.4.10.736 [Google Scholar]
  452. Seyyedi, K. , Ismail, S. M. , Orang, M. , & Nejad, M. S.
    (2013) The effect of pre-task planning time on L2 learners’ narrative writing performance. English Language Teaching, 6 (12), 1–10. 10.5539/elt.v6n12p1
     https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n12p1 [Google Scholar]
  453. Shadiev, R. , Hwang, W. , Huang, Y. , & Liu, T.
    (2015) The impact of supported and annotated mobile learning on achievement and cognitive load. Educational Technology & Society, 18 (4), 53–69.
     [Google Scholar]
  454. Shafaei, A. , Salimi, A. , & Talebi, Z.
    (2013) The impact of gender and strategic pre-task planning time on EFL learners’ oral performance in terms of accuracy. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4 (4), 746–753. 10.4304/jltr.4.4.746‑753
     https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.4.4.746-753 [Google Scholar]
  455. Shajeri, E. , & Izadpanah, S.
    (2016) The impact of task complexity along single task dimension on Iranian EFL learners’ writing production. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6 (5), 935–945. 10.17507/tpls.0605.04
     https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0605.04 [Google Scholar]
  456. Shehadeh, A.
    (1999) Non-native speakers’ production of modified comprehensible output and second language learning. Language Learning, 49 (4), 627–675. 10.1111/0023‑8333.00104
     https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00104 [Google Scholar]
  457. Sheppard, C. , & Ellis, R.
    (2018) The effects of awareness-raising through stimulated recall on the repeated performance of the same task and on a new task of the same type. In  M. Bygate (Ed.), Learning language through task repetition (pp. 171–192). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.11.07she
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.11.07she [Google Scholar]
  458. Shiau, Y. S. , & Adams, R.
    (2011) The effects of increasing reasoning demands on accuracy and complexity in L2 oral production. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 6 , 121–146.
     [Google Scholar]
  459. Shintani, N.
    (2018) Mediating input-based tasks for beginner learners through task repetition: A sociocultural perspective. In  M. Bygate (Ed.), Learning language through task repetition (pp. 255–278). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.11.10shi
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.11.10shi [Google Scholar]
  460. Skehan, P.
    (1996) A Framework for the Implementation of Task-based Instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17 (1), 38–62. 10.1093/applin/17.1.38
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.1.38 [Google Scholar]
  461. (1998) A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  462. (2003) Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36 (1), 1–14. 10.1017/S026144480200188X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144480200188X [Google Scholar]
  463. (2009a) Models of speaking and the assessment of second language proficiency. In  A. Benati (Ed.), Issues in second language proficiency (pp. 202–215). Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  464. (2009b) Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30 , 510–532. 10.1093/applin/amp047
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp047 [Google Scholar]
  465. (Ed.) (2014) Processing perspectives on task performance. John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.5
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.5 [Google Scholar]
  466. (2015) Limited attention capacity and cognition: Two hypotheses regarding second language performance on tasks. In  M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference (pp. 123–156). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.8.05ske
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.8.05ske [Google Scholar]
  467. (2016) Tasks versus conditions: Two perspectives on task research and their implications for pedagogy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36 , 34–49. 10.1017/S0267190515000100
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190515000100 [Google Scholar]
  468. (2018) Second language task-based performance: Theory, research, assessment. Routledge. 10.4324/9781315629766
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315629766 [Google Scholar]
  469. Skehan, P. , & Foster, P.
    (1997) Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1 (3), 185–211. 10.1177/136216889700100302
     https://doi.org/10.1177/136216889700100302 [Google Scholar]
  470. (1999) The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49 (1), 93–120. 10.1111/1467‑9922.00071
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00071 [Google Scholar]
  471. (2005) Strategic and on-line 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). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.11.12ske
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.12ske [Google Scholar]
  472. Skehan, P. , & Shum, S.
    (2014) Structure and processing condition in video-based narrative retelling. In  P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 187–210). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.5.07ske
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.5.07ske [Google Scholar]
  473. Slavin, R. E.
    (1986) Best-evidence synthesis: An alternative to meta-analytic and traditional reviews. Educational Researcher, 15 (9), 5–11. 10.3102/0013189X015009005
     https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015009005 [Google Scholar]
  474. Slavin, R. E.
    (1995) Best evidence synthesis: An intelligent alternative to meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 48 (1), 9–18. 10.1016/0895‑4356(94)00097‑A
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(94)00097-A [Google Scholar]
  475. Solon, M. , Long, A. Y. , & Gurzynski-Weiss, L.
    (2016) Task complexity, language-related episodes, and production of L2 Spanish vowels. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39 (2), 347–380. 10.1017/S0272263116000425
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263116000425 [Google Scholar]
  476. Soltanpour, F. , Valizadeh, M. , & Gfhafarianzirak, F.
    (2018) Feedback-mediated individual and collaborative planning: Effects on structural organization and clarity of argumentative essays. Journal on English Language Teaching, 8 (2), 14–26. 10.26634/jelt.8.2.14586
     https://doi.org/10.26634/jelt.8.2.14586 [Google Scholar]
  477. Song, B.
    (2017) Effects of task repetition and self-reflection on EFL learners’ attentional allocation and speaking. English Teaching, 72 (4), 81–103. 10.15858/engtea.72.4.201712.81
     https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.72.4.201712.81 [Google Scholar]
  478. Specht, A. L. , & D’Ely, R. C. S. F.
    (2017) Planning oral narrative tasks: Optimizing strategic planning condition through strategy instruction. Acta Scientiarum Language and Culture, 39 (2), 203–212. 10.4025/actascilangcult.v39i2.31386
     https://doi.org/10.4025/actascilangcult.v39i2.31386 [Google Scholar]
  479. Spinner, P. , & Gass, S. M.
    (2019) Using judgments in second language acquisition research. Routledge. 10.4324/9781315463377
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315463377 [Google Scholar]
  480. Storch, N. , & Aldosari, A.
    (2010) Learners’ use of first language (Arabic) in pair work in an EFL class. Language Teaching Research, 14 (4), 355–375. 10.1177/1362168810375362
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810375362 [Google Scholar]
  481. Suzuki, Y.
    (2021) Optimizing fluency training for speaking skills transfer: Comparing the effects of blocked and interleaved task repetition. Language Learning, 71 (2), 285–325. 10.1111/lang.12433 [First published online in 2020]
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12433 [Google Scholar]
  482. Swain, M.
    (1998) Focus on form through conscious reflection. In  C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–82). Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  483. Sweller, J.
    (1988) Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12 , 257–285. 10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4 [Google Scholar]
  484. (1994) Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4 , 295–312. 10.1016/0959‑4752(94)90003‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5 [Google Scholar]
  485. (2010) Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22 , 123–138. 10.1007/s10648‑010‑9128‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9128-5 [Google Scholar]
  486. (2023) The development of Cognitive Load Theory: Replication crises and incorporation of other theories lead to theory expansion. Educational Psychology Review, 35 (95). 10.1007/s10648‑023‑09817‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09817-2 [Google Scholar]
  487. (2024) Cognitive load theory and individual differences. Learning and Individual Differences, 110 . 10.1016/j.lindif.2024.102423
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2024.102423 [Google Scholar]
  488. Sweller, J. , van Merriënboer, J. , & Paas, F.
    (1998) Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10 , 251–296. 10.1023/A:1022193728205
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022193728205 [Google Scholar]
  489. Taguchi, N.
    (2007) Task difficulty in oral speech act production. Applied Linguistics, 28 (1), 113–135. 10.1093/applin/aml051
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml051 [Google Scholar]
  490. Tajima, M.
    (2003) The effects of planning on oral performance of Japanese as a foreign language (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Purdue University.
  491. Tavakoli, P.
    (2009) Assessing L2 task performance: Understanding effects of task design. System, 37 (3), 482–495. 10.1016/j.system.2009.02.013
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.02.013 [Google Scholar]
  492. Tavakoli, P. , & Foster, P.
    (2008) Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 58 (2), 439–473. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2008.00446.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00446.x [Google Scholar]
  493. Tavakoli, P. , & Skehan, P.
    (2005) Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing. In  R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 239–273). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.11.15tav
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.15tav [Google Scholar]
  494. Taylor, A. , Stevens, J. , & Asher, J.
    (2006) The effects of explicit reading strategy training on L2 reading comprehension: A meta-analysis. In  J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 213–244). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.13.11tay
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.13.11tay [Google Scholar]
  495. Ting, S.
    (1996) Planning time, modality and second language task performance: Accuracy and fluency in the acquisition of Chinese as a second language. University of Queensland Working Papers in Language and Linguistics, 1 (1), 31–64.
     [Google Scholar]
  496. Tomlin, R.
    (1984) The treatment of foreground-background information in the on-line descriptive discourse of second language learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6 , 115–142. 10.1017/S0272263100004988
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100004988 [Google Scholar]
  497. Trebits, A.
    (2016) Sources of individual differences in L2 narrative production: The contribution of input, processing, and output anxiety. Applied Linguistics, 37 (2), 155–174. 10.1093/applin/amu006
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu006 [Google Scholar]
  498. Trites, L. , & McGroarty, M.
    (2005) Reading to learn and reading to integrate: New tasks for reading comprehension tests? Language Testing, 22 (2), 174–210. 10.1191/0265532205lt299oa
     https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532205lt299oa [Google Scholar]
  499. Türk, E. , & Erçetin, G.
    (2014) Effects of interactive versus simultaneous display of multimedia glosses on L2 reading comprehension and incidental vocabulary learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27 (1), 1–25. 10.1080/09588221.2012.692384
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2012.692384 [Google Scholar]
  500. Urwin, J.
    (1996) Prior knowledge, pretasks and second language listening comprehension. University of Queensland Working Papers in Language and Linguistics, 1 (1), 65–94.
     [Google Scholar]
  501. Urwin, J. , & Robinson, P.
    (1999) The effects of pre-listening task complexity on reception and processing. In  N. Jungheim & P. Robinson (Eds.), Pragmatics and pedagogy: Proceedings of the third Pacific Second Research Forum (Vol. 2, pp. 135–142). The Pacific Second Language Research Forum.
     [Google Scholar]
  502. Van den Branden, K.
    (2016) The role of teachers in task-based language education. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36 , 164–181. 10.1017/S0267190515000070
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190515000070 [Google Scholar]
  503. Van den Noortgate, W. , López-López, J. A. , Marín-Martínez, F. , & Sánchez-Meca, J.
    (2015) Meta-analysis of multiple outcomes: A multilevel approach. Behavior Research Methods, 47 , 1274–1294. 10.3758/s13428‑014‑0527‑2
     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0527-2 [Google Scholar]
  504. Van Gog, T. , & Paas, F.
    (2008) Instructional efficiency: Revisiting the original construct in educational research. Educational Psychologist, 43 , 16–26. 10.1080/00461520701756248
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701756248 [Google Scholar]
  505. Van Merriënboer, J. J. , Kirschner, P. A. , & Kester, L.
    (2003) Taking the load off a learner’s mind: Instructional design for complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 38 (1), 5–13. 10.1207/S15326985EP3801_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_2 [Google Scholar]
  506. Van Merriënboer, J. , & Sweller, J.
    (2005) Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17 , 147–177. 10.1007/s10648‑005‑3951‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-005-3951-0 [Google Scholar]
  507. Van Merriënboer, J. J. , & Sweller, J.
    (2010) Cognitive load theory in health professional education: Design principles and strategies. Medical Education, 44 (1), 85–93. 10.1111/j.1365‑2923.2009.03498.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03498.x [Google Scholar]
  508. VanPatten, B.
    (1990) Attending to form and content in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12 , 287–301. 10.1017/S0272263100009177
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100009177 [Google Scholar]
  509. (1993) Grammar instruction for the acquisition rich classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 26 , 433–450. 10.1111/j.1944‑9720.1993.tb01179.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1993.tb01179.x [Google Scholar]
  510. (1996) Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Ablex.
     [Google Scholar]
  511. Van Waes, L. , Leijten, M. , & Quinlan, T.
    (2010) Reading during sentence composing and error correction: A multilevel analysis of the influences of task complexity. Reading and Writing, 23 (7), 803–834. 10.1007/s11145‑009‑9190‑x
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9190-x [Google Scholar]
  512. Vasylets, O. , & Gilabert, R.
    (2021) Task effects across modalities. In  R. Manchón & C. Polio (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and writing (pp. 39–51). Routledge. 10.4324/9780429199691‑7
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429199691-7 [Google Scholar]
  513. Vasylets, O. , Gilabert, R. , & Manchón, R. M.
    (2017) The effects of mode and task complexity on second language production. Language Learning, 67 (2), 394–430. 10.1111/lang.12228
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12228 [Google Scholar]
  514. (2020) Task modality, communicative adequacy and CAF measures: The moderating role of task complexity. In  R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing and language learning: Advancing research agendas (pp. 183–206). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.56.08vas
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.56.08vas [Google Scholar]
  515. Vasylets, O. , Mellado, M. D. , Plonsky, L.
    (2022) The role of cognitive individual differences in digital versus pen-and-paper writing. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 12 (4), 721–743. 10.14746/ssllt.2022.12.4.9
     https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2022.12.4.9 [Google Scholar]
  516. 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, behavioural and education sciences. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 2 (1), 89–108. 10.1332/174426406775249705
     https://doi.org/10.1332/174426406775249705 [Google Scholar]
  517. Wang, S. Y.
    (2018) Task complexity and media of L2 reading affecting Chinese intermediate EFL learners. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 21 (4), 211–230.
     [Google Scholar]
  518. Wang, Z.
    (2014) On-line time pressure manipulations: L2 speaking performance under five types of planning and repetition conditions. In  P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 27–62). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.5.02wan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.5.02wan [Google Scholar]
  519. Wang, Z. , & Chen, G.
    (2018) Discourse performance in L2 task repetition. In  M. Bygate (Ed.), Learning language through task repetition (pp. 97–116). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.11.04wan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.11.04wan [Google Scholar]
  520. Wang, C. , & Pape, E. J.
    (2007) A probe into three Chinese boys’ self-efficacy beliefs learning English as a second language. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 21 (4), 364–377. 10.1080/02568540709594601
     https://doi.org/10.1080/02568540709594601 [Google Scholar]
  521. Wang, Z. , & Skehan, P.
    (2014) Structure, lexis, and time perspective: Influences on task performance. In  P. Skehan (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 155–186). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.5.06wan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.5.06wan [Google Scholar]
  522. Wang, Z. , Skehan, P. , & Chen, G.
    (2020) The effects of hybrid online planning and L2 proficiency on video-based speaking task performance. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 3 (1), 53–80. 10.1558/isla.37398
     https://doi.org/10.1558/isla.37398 [Google Scholar]
  523. Wen, Z.
    (2016) Phonological and executive working memory in L2 task-based speech planning and performance. The Language Learning Journal, 44 (4), 418–435. 10.1080/09571736.2016.1227220
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2016.1227220 [Google Scholar]
  524. Wendel, J. N.
    (1997) Planning and second language narrative production (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Temple University.
  525. Wickens, C. D.
    (1976) The effects of divided attention on information processing in manual tracking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2 (1), 1–13. 10.1037//0096‑1523.2.1.1
     https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.2.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  526. (1980) The structure of attentional resources. Attention and Performance VIII, 8 , 239–257.
     [Google Scholar]
  527. (1984) Processing resources in attention. In  R. Parasuraman & D. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 63–102). Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  528. (2002) Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3 , 159–177. 10.1080/14639220210123806
     https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220210123806 [Google Scholar]
  529. Wickens, C. D.
    (2007) Attention to the second language. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45 , 177–191. 10.1515/iral.2007.008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2007.008 [Google Scholar]
  530. Wigglesworth, G.
    (1997) An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test discourse. Language Testing, 14 (1), 85–106. 10.1177/026553229701400105
     https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229701400105 [Google Scholar]
  531. (1998) The effect of planning time on second language test discourse. In  A. J. Kunnan (Ed.), Validation in language assessment (pp. 91–110). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  532. (2000) Issues in the development of oral tasks for competency-based assessments of second language performance. In  G. Brindley (Ed.), Studies in immigrant English language assessment (Vol. 1, pp. 81–125). National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research.
     [Google Scholar]
  533. Wigglesworth, G. , & Elder, C.
    (2010) An investigation of the effectiveness and validity of planning time in speaking test tasks. Language Assessment Quarterly, 7 (1), 1–24. 10.1080/15434300903031779
     https://doi.org/10.1080/15434300903031779 [Google Scholar]
  534. Wolfe, J.
    (1978) The effects of game complexity on the acquisition of business policy knowledge. Decision Sciences, 9 (1), 143–155. 10.1111/j.1540‑5915.1978.tb01373.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1978.tb01373.x [Google Scholar]
  535. Wolfe, J. , & Box, T. M.
    (1988) Team cohesion effects on business game performance. Simulation & Games, 19 (1), 82–98. 10.1177/003755008801900105
     https://doi.org/10.1177/003755008801900105 [Google Scholar]
  536. Wolfe-Quintero, K. , Inagaki, S. , & Kim, H.-Y.
    (1998) Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. University of Hawaii Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  537. Wood, R. E.
    (1986) Task complexity: Definition of the construct. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37 (1), 60–82. 10.1016/0749‑5978(86)90044‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(86)90044-0 [Google Scholar]
  538. Wood, R. E. , Mento, A. J. , & Locke, E. A.
    (1987) Task complexity as a moderator of goal effects: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72 (3), 416–425. 10.1037/0021‑9010.72.3.416
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.72.3.416 [Google Scholar]
  539. Woodall, B.
    (2002) Language-switching: Using the first language while writing in a second language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11 (1), 7–28. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(01)00051‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00051-0 [Google Scholar]
  540. Wu, X. , Lowyck, J. , Sercu, L. , & Elen, J.
    (2013) Task complexity, student perceptions of vocabulary learning in EFL, and task performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83 (1), 160–181. 10.1111/j.2044‑8279.2011.02061.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02061.x [Google Scholar]
  541. Xi, X.
    (2005) Do visual chunks and planning impact performance on the graph description task in the SPEAK exam? Language Testing, 22 (4), 463–508. 10.1191/0265532205lt305oa
     https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532205lt305oa [Google Scholar]
  542. (2010) Aspects of performance on line graph description tasks: Influenced by graph familiarity and different task features. Language Testing, 27 (1), 73–100. 10.1177/0265532209346454
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209346454 [Google Scholar]
  543. Xing, J. , & Luo, S.
    (2015) The effects of task complexity on Chinese learners’ language production: A synthesis and meta-analysis. Applied Research on English Language  4 (2), 96–109. 10.22108/are.2015.15505
     https://doi.org/10.22108/are.2015.15505 [Google Scholar]
  544. (2019) The effects of reasoning demands on Chinese EFL learners’ oral performance and cognitive processes. In  Z. Wen & M. J. Ahmadian (Eds.), Researching L2 task performance and pedagogy: In honour of Peter Skehan (pp. 153–182). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.13.08xin
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.13.08xin [Google Scholar]
  545. Yaghoubi-Notash, M. , & Yousefi, M. H.
    (2011) Uptake in task-elicited L2 performance: Can task complexity matter? Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2 (3), 508–516. 10.4304/jltr.2.3.508‑516
     https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.2.3.508-516 [Google Scholar]
  546. Yang, H.
    (2014) Does multimedia support individual differences? EFL learners’ listening comprehension and cognitive load. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30 (6), 699–713. 10.14742/ajet.639
     https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.639 [Google Scholar]
  547. Yang, H.
    (2018) The effects of attention cueing on English reading on mobile phones. Frontiers of Education in China, 13 (3), 315–345. 10.1007/s11516‑018‑0016‑y
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11516-018-0016-y [Google Scholar]
  548. Yang, W. , Lu, X. , & Weigle, S. C.
    (2015) Different topics, different discourse: Relationships among writing topic, measures of syntactic complexity, and judgments of writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 28 , 53–67. 10.1016/j.jslw.2015.02.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  549. Yousefi, M. H. , & Afghari, A.
    (2012) Task-generated interaction, cognitive complexity and self-repair. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 7 (2), 75–81.
     [Google Scholar]
  550. Yu, Q.
    (2021) An organic syntactic complexity measure for the Chinese language: The TC-unit. Applied Linguistics, 42 (1), 60–92. 10.1093/applin/amz064
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amz064 [Google Scholar]
  551. Yuan, F. , & Ellis, R.
    (2003) The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24 (1), 1–27. 10.1093/applin/24.1.1
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  552. Zalbidea, J.
    (2017) ‘One task fits all’? The roles of task complexity, modality, and working memory capacity in L2 performance. The Modern Language Journal, 101 (2), 335–352. 10.1111/modl.12389
     https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12389 [Google Scholar]
  553. Zheng, Y. , Lu, Y. , Wang, Z. , Huang, D. , & Fu, S.
    (2015) Developing a measurement for task complexity in flight. Aerospace Medicine and Human Performance, 86 (8), 698–704. 10.3357/AMHP.4189.2015
     https://doi.org/10.3357/AMHP.4189.2015 [Google Scholar]
  554. Zhigang, M. , & Xudong, W.
    (2008) Interpreting performance under different task-planning conditions. Babel, 54 (3), 201–233. 10.1075/babel.54.3.01ma
     https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.54.3.01ma [Google Scholar]
  555. Ziegler, N.
    (2018) Pre-task planning in L2 text-chat: Examining learners’ process and performance. Language Learning & Technology, 22 (3), 193–213. 10125/44664
     https://doi.org/10125/44664 [Google Scholar]
  556. Zolghadri, M. , Jafari, S. , & Izadpanah, S.
    (2020) The effect of self/pair vs. teacher correction and task repetition on individual and pair written performance. Taiwan Journal of TESOL, 17 (1), 1–33. 10.30397/TJTESOL.202004_17(1).0001
     https://doi.org/10.30397/TJTESOL.202004_17(1).0001 [Google Scholar]
/content/books/9789027244710
Loading

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9789027244710
    dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Chapter
    10
    5
/content/books/9789027244710
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal -contentType:Chapter
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027244710
Book
false
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error