Robinson’s triadic componential framework

Robinson (2007) maintained that the factors of code complexity, cognitive complexity, and communicative stress, which were proposed to highlight the task features that influence “the ‘difficulty’ of task,” despite being “intuitive, [and] often insightful,” they “lack of cultural knowledge, confidence and motivation…; and the transition from easier information gap, to reasoning gap, to more difficult opinion gap activities” (p. 14). Thus, he proposed the Triadic Componential Framework (see Table 4).

114 In the framework, not only did Robinson (2007) distinguish between three broad

dimensions—task complexity, task conditions, and task difficulty—but each of the three dimensions could be further classified into subcategories “having a systematic hierarchical relation to each other;” cognitive criteria, interactional criteria, and ability-determinant criteria (p. 14). The reasons are that the impact of these dimensions on task performance and learning is different in kind (Robinson, 2001a), and researchers would be able to study them separately or all together in a manageable way, as they would have complex interactions with one another (Robinson, 2005; Robinson & Gilabert, 2007). That is, all of these dimensions could be used to complement one another because each of them has a specific purpose.

Table 4

Robinson’s (2007, pp. 15-16) Triadic Componential Framework

Task complexity Task condition Task difficulty

(Cognitive factors) (Interactive factors) (Learner factors) (Classification criteria: cognitive demands) (Classification criteria: interactional demands) (Classification criteria: ability requirements) (Classification procedure: information-theoretic analyses) (Classification procedure: behavior descriptive analyses) (Classification procedure: ability assessment analyses)

Sub-categories: (a) Resource-directing variables making cognitive / conceptual demands

+/− here and now +/− few elements −/+ spatial reasoning −/+ causal reasoning −/+ intentional reasoning −/+ perspective-taking Sub-categories:

(a) Participation variables making interactional demands +/− open solution +/− one-way flow +/− convergent solution +/− few participants +/− few contributions needed

+/− negotiation not needed

Sub-categories:

(a) Ability variables and task relevant resource differentials h/l working memory h/l reasoning h/l task-switching h/l aptitude h/l field independence h/l mind reading (b) Resource-dispersing variables making performative/procedural demands +/− planning time +/− prior knowledge +/− single task +/− task structure +/− few steps +/− independency of steps (b) Participant variables making interactant demands

+/− same proficiency +/− same gender +/− familiar +/− shared content knowledge

+/− equal status and role

+/− shared cultural knowledge

(b) Affective variables and Task relevant state-trait differentials h/l openness h/l control of emotion h/l task motivation l/h processing anxiety h/l willingness to communicate h/l self-efficacy

115 In terms of task difficulty, Robinson (2001a) contended that “it concerns learners’ perceptions of the demands of the task” (p. 295). He (2001b) stressed that learners’ factors that contribute to making a task more or less difficult (as opposed to complex) must be differentiated from cognitive factors (task complexity). In the learners’ factors, there are two types of variables: ability and affective. The ability variables include working memory, reasoning, task-switching, aptitude, filed independence, and mind-reading. Robinson (2007) maintained that these variables are strongly correlated with the learners’ perceived difficulty of performance on task manipulated along cognitive demands (task complexity). Also,

Robinson (2001b) believed that such variables can be predicted in advance of applying a task, and that over a course of instruction, they are more stable, permanent, and fixed determinants of resource pools than effective variables. The latter variables, which contain openness, control of emotion, task motivation, processing anxiety, willingness to communicate, and self- efficacy, appeared to be related to the students’ perceived difficulty of performance on a task increased along interactional task demands (task conditions [Robinson, 2007]). Robinson (2001a) stated that to diagnose task difficulty based on affective variables before learners’ actual engagement with the task is impossible, the fact that these variables “can sometimes be unpredictably influenced by participants variables” (i.e., those in task conditions [p. 295]). Robinson (2001b) described affective variables as being susceptible to change, and on a temporary basis they may impact the size of resource pool availability. Two learners

undertaking the same task may perform differently as a consequence of having different levels of ability variables (e.g., aptitude) or affective variables (e.g., processing anxiety). The learner with high aptitude and low processing anxiety would perceive the task as simple, whereas the learner with low aptitude and high processing anxiety would perceive it as difficult.

Therefore, Robinson (2001a) emphasized that the task difficulty should aid explaining the diversity in task performance between any two learners undertaking the same task. Yet, he suggested that it should not take any role in the task sequencing decisions (i.e., from simple to difficult), even though he (2001b) acknowledged that there is still no clear research evidence that substantiates the interactions between task complexity, performance, and learners factors.

Regarding task conditions, Robinson (2003) said that they “concern…the interactive demands of task performance” (p. 56). The demands can be divided dependent on

participation factors and participant factors. Robinson (2007) clarified that the participation factors include (a) whether the solution to the task is open (optional) or closed (fixed); (b) whether information exchange goes one way (from A to B) or two-way (reciprocal); (c) whether agreement is convergent (required) or divergent (opposite); (d) whether the

116 interaction has few or many participants; (e) whether one, few, or all of the participants can contribute to it; (f) whether the contribution to the interaction demands no, little, or extensive negotiation. On the other hand, the participant factors contain (a) whether learners have the same or different gender and proficiency levels; (b) whether they are familiar or unfamiliar with each other; (c) whether they share or do not share knowledge of the domain or relevant cultural knowledge about how the interactions are conducted in the L2; (d) whether they have the same role in a task regarding position in the workplace, seniority, status, and

social/institutional standing. Robinson (2001a) argued that the previous factors “are unlikely to be a useful basis for a priori sequencing decisions, since they will largely have been specified on the basis of the needs analysis, and fidelity to the target task performance the pedagogic tasks are aiming to facilitate” (pp. 295-296).

Most importantly, Robinson (2011a) defined task complexity as “the intrinsic cognitive complexity of tasks” (p. 14), while elsewhere (2001b) his explicit interpretation was “the result of the attentional, memory, reasoning, and other information processing demands imposed by the structure of the task on the language learner” (p. 29). For Robinson (2001a), task complexity should be used for sequencing tasks from simple to complex because they would help explain the performance diversity in the simple and complex tasks within a learner. Within the framework, the Multiple Attentional Resources Model emerged. In the model, Robinson developed what he called the Cognition Hypothesis, in which distinctions between the task demands that differentiate learners’ performance and those which stimulate their development were made. Robinson (2005) clearly stated that the model

Distinguishes between dimensions of task complexity which can be manipulated to increase the conceptual and linguistic demands tasks make on communication, so creating the conditions for L2 development, and the dimensions of task complexity which can be manipulated to increase the demands made on accessing a current interlanguage repertoire during real-time L2 performance. (p. 3)

In other words, Robinson (2003) provided two subcategories for task complexity— resource-directing and resource-dispersing—each of which would influence students’ production differently. Robinson (2011b) claimed that

Increasing complexity along resource-directing dimensions promotes greater analysis, and

representational redescription of L2 conceptual-linguistic knowledge, and form-function mappings, while increasing complexity along resource-dispersing dimensions promotes greater control over, and faster access to, existing interlanguage systems of knowledge. (p. 17; see Robinson, 2015).

117 In the former subcategory, task complexity can be altered along “cognitive/conceptual” demands (Robinson, 2007, p. 17). The task that asks students to (a) refer to an event occurring now (Here-and-Now); (b) take just one first-person perspective on an event; (c) address few easily distinguished elements, easily identifiable spatial locations, or simple information transmissions is easier than that which requires learners to (a) refer to events happening in the past (There-and-Then); (b) take multiple second and third person perspectives on an event; (c) address many elements or a novel location; (d) provide causal or intentional reasoning

(Robinson & Gilabert, 2007). In the latter resource-dispersing subcategory, task complexity can be increased along “performative/procedural” demands (Robinson, 2007, p. 18). Here, the simple task would either (a) allow planning time; (b) provide background knowledge about the task or a clear structure to help on deciding which steps are needed to complete it; (c) require only one thing to be done, one or few steps to complete it, or no necessary sequence of steps to be followed. The difficult task, on the contrary, would not allow planning time and not provide background knowledge about the task or a clear structure by which students can decide which steps are needed for task completion. It might also require dual or multiple things to be done simultaneously, multiple steps to be completed, or follow a chain of steps in which one step must be undertaken before another.

Robinson (2011a) stated that elevating task complexity on resource-directing

dimensions will impact the allocation of cognitive resources to particular features of L2 code. For instance, increasing task complexity in terms of intentional-reasoning demands would direct the student’s attention to linguistic references (i.e., psychological state terms such as believe, think, and wonder) that are used to describe the mental states of others. These terms may be unknown or known, but nonetheless not well controlled by students, and when they attempt to complete the task, these terms may become “salient and ‘noticeable’“ (p. 15; Baralt et al., 2014). As such, both complexity and accuracy will increase, whereas fluency will decrease. Conversely, instead of directing learners’ attention to particular features of L2 code, altering task complexity along resource-dispersing dimensions (e.g., planning) would disperse their attention and memory resources over many linguistic and non-linguistic features

(Robinson, 2011a). The lack of students’ practice on removing such a process demand (Baralt et al., 2014) would cause these dimensions to “create…problems for learners attempting to access their current repertoire of L2 knowledge,” and therefore, result in deteriorations in complexity, accuracy, and fluency (Robinson, 2005 p. 7). Finally, in spite of the fact that the predictions of Skehan and Foster and those of Robinson have been investigated in many

118 studies, there is other research that addressed text type factor, all of which are closely related and cited below.