Task dimensions and task difficulty

In terms of a relationship between syllabus and tasks, Candlin (1987) points out that each syllabus type (e.g. a syllabus of learning, of content, of actions) has its own demands on the design and operation of learning tasks. Learning demands are based on the assumption that learners differ from one another in terms of intelligence, language ability, motivation, and needs. These differences will impose conditions on task design that should enhance their learning. Content demands, which refer to both knowledge and procedures required for the development of communicative competence need to be specified when designing the tasks. Action demands concern arrangements of a variety of classroom activities that encourage learners to respond, explore, experiment, and to take part in purposeful communication with their classmates.

Candlin (1987) and Skehan (1998) consider task difficulty to be based on linguistic and cognitive dimensions. Candlin (1987) proposes criteria for task design and sequencing comprising six aspects: cognitive load, communicative stress,

particularity and generalisability, code complexity and interpretive density, content continuity, and process continuity. Other researchers (Robinson, 2001; Skehan, 1998; Long, 1989) hold that although the criteria proposed by Candlin (1987) are useful in some ways, they do not suggest clear guidelines to syllabus and task designers on the designing and sequencing of tasks.

In order to provide clearer guidelines, Skehan (1998) proposes criteria for an analysis of task difficulty that include some elements suggested by Candlin (1987) but groups them into higher-order categories. The new categories consist of code complexity, cognitive complexity, and communicative stress. It is claimed that the three categories reflect the language, the thinking and the performance conditions needed for a task (Skehan, 1998). Code complexity or ‘code complexity and interpretative density’ in Candlin’s definition concerns linguistic complexity and variety, vocabulary load and variety, and redundancy and density. Density refers to complexity of operations, which need to be performed on such a code. Cognitive complexity divides into cognitive familiarity and cognitive processing or cognitive load. Skehan (1998) distinguishes between these two cognition aspects. Cognitive familiarity involves a capacity to access ‘packaged’ solutions to tasks whereas cognitive processing is understood as the need to work out solutions to novel problems ‘on-line’.

Skehan (1998:100) clarifies the term cognitive familiarity by saying that ‘the task requires existing, well-organised ‘chunks’ of knowledge to be retrieved and mobilised for task performance. It is assumed that attentional resources are not particularly stretched, and there is scope for a focus on form (VanPattern, 1994 cited in Skehan, 1998). Cognitive familiarity specifically involves topic and its

predictability (availability of organised background knowledge), discourse genre (availability of macrostructures), and the task, which refers to jigsaw tasks, decision- making tasks, and riddles in which unfamiliar tasks are less predictable than familiar ones.

It is further noted that ‘[for cognitive processing] elements of tasks are easy to handle, but there is significant difficulty in manipulating them to achieve a solution that the task requires’ (ibid, 1998). The involvement of cognitive processing signifies that there is less attention left to focus on form. The first area of cognitive processing concerns information organisation, referring to naturalness with which information relevant to task is structured. On the other hand, the amount of computation relates to the degree of transformation or manipulation of information that is necessary for a task to be completed. Another aspect of cognitive processing is clarity and sufficiency of information. It concerns directness with which information is made available for learners together with the extent to which inferences need to be made. Finally, information type is based on contrasts such as concrete-abstract, static- dynamic, contextualised-decontextualised (Brown et al, 1984 cited in Skehan, 1998).

The third category that influences task difficulty is communicative stress. Candlin (1987) states that more stressful tasks are those with pressure that comes from interlocutors such as their native-like proficiency, superior knowledge or proficiency. According to Skehan (1998), communicative stress is caused by time limits and time pressure, speed of presentation, number of participants, length of text used, types of response, and opportunities to control interaction. He notes that the urgency of tasks needing completion and learner perception of pressure are factors, which lead to communicative stress.

Skehan (1996) argues that the difficulty of tasks can be analysed using two general categories, namely language factors and cognitive factors. Language factors consist of syntactic complexity and range as well as lexical complexity and range. These two elements mainly concern ranges of structures and vocabulary. The cognitive factors comprise four elements. Familiarity of material in the task is based on whether the task requires learners to produce well-organised language from memory in ready- organised chunks or whether it requires to be drawn on new or less-organised material. Nature of material refers to whether it is abstract or concrete as when real- world referents are involved or whether learners have to deal with generalizations. Reasoning operations required is based on conditions in which the task requires a number of mental operations for its completion with material involved needing to be transformed or manipulated in some way. The final factor is a degree of structuring contained. This raises the question as to whether there is inherent structure involved because of the requirements of a task e.g. a narrative in which beginning, middle and end are reasonably clear, or a description based on some clear underlying schema (Skehan, 1996:23).

As the groups of learners participating in the study have little prior knowledge about business practices, it is essential that tasks and teaching materials used for TBT in this project are designed and graded carefully according to the description of the language factors and cognitive factors delineated above. Task-based lessons should be sequenced from easy/simple structures and vocabulary to more difficult/complex ones, and from the less reasoning-demanding tasks to the higher reasoning- demanding ones. Because the content of the course is partly determined by a prescribed syllabus, some target structures and vocabulary are specified or can be

predicted. It is therefore possible that syntactic and lexical complexity as well as other cognitive elements can be analysed and sequenced according to the levels of difficulty.

Task complexity (Robinson, 2001, 2007) Classification criteria: cognitive demands

Task difficulty (Skehan, 1998)

Classification criteria: language required (demands), cognitive demands, performance conditions

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

+/- here and now (Robinson, 1995) +/- few elements (Kuiken et al,2005) -/+ spatial reasoning (Becker&Carroll,1997) -/+ casual reasoning (Robinson,2005)

-/+ intentional reasoning (Baron-Cohen,1995) -/+ perspective-taking (MacWhinney,1999)

(a) Code complexity

- linguistic complexity and variety - vocabulary load and variety - redundancy and density

(b) Resource-dispersing variables making performative / procedural demands +/- planning time (Skehan,1998) +/- single task (Robinson, et al,1995) +/- task structure (Skehan&Foster,1999) +/- few steps (Fleishman&Quaintance,1984) +/- independency of steps (Romiszowski,1988) +/- prior knowledge (Urwin,1999)

(b) Cognitive complexity • Cognitive familiarity

- familiarity of topic and its predictability - familiarity of discourse genre

- familiarity of task • Cognitive processing - information organisation - amount of ‘computation’

- clarity and sufficiency of information given - information type

(c) Communicative stress - time limits and time pressure - speed of presentation - number of participants - length of text used - type of response

- opportunity to control interaction

Table 1 Task complexity (Robinson, 2001, 2007) and task difficulty (Skehan, 1998)

Although various researchers have proposed different ways of grading and sequencing tasks (e.g. Ellis, 2003; Nunan, 2004), this research intends to combine aspects of task complexity (Robinson, 2001) and task difficulty (Skehan, 1998) as a framework for task design and sequencing. This is because selecting the two models will lead to an emphasis on both cognitive and linguistics criteria shown in Table 1 above. The table demonstrates how Robinson (2007) incorporates cognitive factors that have been proposed by other researchers into his model.