The effects of task complexity on Chinese learners’ language production: A synthesis and meta-analysis

Authors

1 Beijing Normal University & Lecturer, Qufu Normal University, China

2 Professor, Beijing Normal University, China

Abstract

The  present  meta-analysis  was  conducted  to  provide  a  quantitative  measure  of  the
overall effects of task complexity on Chinese EFL learners’ language  production.  Based  on  the
strict inclusion criteria, 12 primary  studies  were synthesized according to key  features.  Eleven of
them  were  meta-analyzed  to  investigate  effects  of  raising  the  resource-directing  task  complexity.
Results revealed that (a) there was an assortment of treatments and measures, (b) there was a small
to medium positive effect for syntactic complexity (d=0.64) and small effect for lexical complexity
(d=0.20),  which  lends  support  to  the  Cognition  Hypothesis;  there  was  a  small  negative  effect  for
accuracy (-0.18) and a close to negative effect (0.01) for fluency in writing, which partly confirms
Skehan’s  Trade-off  effects,  and  (c)  task  modality  (oral  or  written)  did  not  make  a  significant
difference on the overall effects on complexity and accuracy,  while  make a significant  difference
on fluency.

Keywords

Main Subjects


Introduction
Task-based  language  teaching  (TBLT)  has
gained favor over the last two decades, both
in second language pedagogy and in studies
on  second  language  acquisition.  Task-based
approaches are motivated by ideas espoused
by communicative language teaching, which
calls  for  language  teaching  to  make  use  of
real-life  situations  that  necessitate  language
use.  Under  TBLT,  learners  perform  tasks
that  focus  on  meaning  exchange  and  use
language  for  real-world,  non-linguistic
purposes.
 
It has been hypothesized that the intentional
manipulations  of  task  variables  in  the
context  of  meaningful  language  use  will
likely  result  in  learners’  focusing  on  form.
According  to  Skehan  (1998)  and  Robinson
(2001a), tasks can be designed in such a way
that  learners  allocate  more  attention  to
language form while still primarily focusing
on  task  completion.  This  is  done  through
what  Skehan  and  Robinson  refer  to  as  the
manipulation  of  task  complexity,  which  can
be  matched  both  to  learners’  linguistic
development  and  to  the  purpose  of  the
lesson.
 
To  date,  a  variety  of  predictions  about  the
effects  of  task  complexity  in  Robinson’s
(2001b)  framework  have  been  tested,
focusing  mainly  on  L2  linguistic
performance (i.e., complexity, accuracy, and
fluency)  during  either  oral  or  written  tasks
(Gilabert,  2007;  Ishikawa,  2007;  Kuiken  &
Vedder,  2007;  Michel,  Kuiken,  &  Vedder,
2007;  Robinson,  2001a).  However,  the
findings  of  these  studies  have  not  been
conclusive;  they  suggest  that  more  complex
tasks  positively  impact  linguistic
performance  in  general,  yet  more  specific
findings  related  to  both  accuracy  and
syntactic  complexity  only  partially
supported  the  cognition  hypothesis  (e.g.,
promoting either complexity or accuracy).

 
Literature review
Meta-analysis in the field of SLA in China
Since  Norris  and  Ortega’s  (2000)  seminal
study,  the  usefulness  of  meta-analysis  as  a
trustworthy  tool  for  research  synthesis  has
been  widely  recognized  in  the  area  of  SLA
studies.  In  the  field  of  SLA  research  in
China,  there  has  been  few  meta-analysis.
There  are  mainly  two  reasons  for  this:  first,
meta-analysis  is  a  comparatively  new
method  that  is  not  known  to  many  people;
second,  this  method  has  a  demand  on  both
the  quantity  and  quality  of  the  empirical
studies.  We  searched  in  the  CNKI  using
“meta-analysis” as the keyword for the topic
and  discovered  that  there  are  only  three
papers in the field of SLA research in China.
Cai  (2012)  introduced  the  method  of
meta-analysis  and  recommended  some
topics  for  study  using  this  method.  Qin  and
Yang  (2013)  introduced  the  soft  ware
RevMan  in  meta-analysis  of  second
language studies. Strictly speaking, only Liu
and  Gao’s  (2011)  can  be  taken  as  a  real
meta-analysis.  They  explored  the  impact  of
meta-cognitive  strategy  training  on  Chinese
learners’  English  writing.  However,  the
number of included primary studies is small
in  their  paper.  In  addition,  there  is
heterogeneity  of  the  participants  in  the
primary  studies,  while  the  authors  did  not
discuss  this.  It  is  hoped  that  the  present
review will offer both a comprehensive look
at past studies on task complexity as well as
a  glimpse  at  what  may  contain  for  future
research.
 
Two hypotheses about task complexity
The  two  influential  claims  regarding  the
extent  to  which  task  characteristics  can
affect the allocation of the learners’ attention

 
during task performance are Skehan’s (1998)
limited capacity hypothesis and Robinson’s
(2001b)  cognition  hypothesis.  Whereas
Skehan’s (1998) limited capacity hypothesis
argues  for  the  single-resource  model  of
attention, Robinson’s (2001a, 2001b, 2003,
2005)  cognition  hypothesis  predicts  that
learners  are  able  to  access  multiple  and
noncompetitive  pools  of  attention.
According  to  Robinson,  there  is  not  a
trade-off  between  attention  to  accuracy  and
attention  to  complexity  of  language
production. Rather, he claims that increasing
task complexity promotes more accurate and
more  complex  language.  In  his  task
complexity  framework,  Robinson  classifies
task  complexity  into  two  dimensions:
resource-directing  and  resource-dispersing.
Robinson  (2001b)  argued  that  the  two  task
complexity  categories  identify  an  important
difference  in  the  way  these  dimensions
affect  resource  allocation  during  L2  task
performance.  He  thus  claimed  that  the
effects  of  task  complexity  in  the  two  kinds
of dimensions are very different.
 
According  to  Robinson  (2001b),
resource-directing  variables  of  task
complexity  make  greater  demands  on
attention and working memory in a way that
redirects them to linguistic resources during
task performance. Therefore, increasing task
complexity  along  resource  directing
dimensions,  for  example,  by  requiring
learners  to  use  reasoning  skills  [+reasoning
demands]  to  consider  many  elements  [-few
elements]  or  to  narrate  events  that  are
displaced in time and space [-here and now],
can  direct  learners’  attention  to  specific,
task-relevant  linguistic  features.  On  the
contrary,  resource-dispersing  variables  are
those  that  make  increased
performative-procedural  demands  on
participants’  attentional  and  memory
resources  but  do  not  direct  them  to  any
element  of  the  linguistic  system  (Robinson,
2001b,  2005).  Making  tasks  more  complex
along  resource-dispersing  dimensions,  for
instance,  by  requiring  learners  to  perform
more  than  one  task  simultaneously  [-single
task]  or  by  providing  no  prior  knowledge
support [-prior knowledge] or planning time
[-planning  time],  leads  learners  to  disperse
attention  over  many  non-linguistic  areas
during task performance.
 
Whereas  Skehan’s  limited  capacity
hypothesis  (1998)  predicts  that  increasing
the  cognitive  demands  of  tasks  would
negatively  affect  both  accuracy  and
linguistic  complexity  of  learner  production,
Robinson’s cognition hypothesis claims that
making  tasks  more  complex  in  the
resource-directing  dimensions  will  increase
linguistic  accuracy  and  complexity  (e.g.,
Robinson,  2001b,  2005,  2007a,  2011).
Robinson  also  predicts  that  increasing  task
complexity  would  encourage  learners  to
look  for  more  assistance  in  the  input  and
attend  to  linguistic  codes  that  are  required
for  task  completion  (Robinson,  2001a;
Robinson  &  Gilabert,  2007).  In  task-based
learner-learner  interaction  contexts,
increasing  complexity  along  resource-
directing  dimensions  has  the  potential  to
direct  learners’  attentional  and  memory
resources  to  L2  structures,  providing
“learning opportunities” and thus ultimately
leading  to  interlanguage  development
(Robinson, 2007b, p. 23).
 
As  mentioned  above,  there  is  a  need  for
more  research  that  examines  the  effects  of
resource-directing  cognitive  factors  in  task
complexity  on  L2  language  performance.
Since  these  factors  are  the  major  source  of
contention  between  the  Trade-off
Hypothesis  and  the  Cognition  Hypothesis,

 
they warrant further scrutiny.   
 
The present study
We  undertook  a  synthesis  of  primary
research  on  the  effect  of  task  complexity,
incorporating  systematic  procedures  to
survey the research domain and quantitative
meta-analytic  techniques  to  summarize  and
interpret  study  findings.  To  the  best  of  our
knowledge,  this  is  the  first  study  to
synthesize research about task complexity in
China  using  meta-analysis.  The  research
domain was defined as all published articles
and  unpublished  dissertations  investigating
the  effects  of  task  complexity  on  Chinese
learners’  language  production.  The  study
aims to answer the following questions:
(1)  Which resource-directing variables have
been  investigated  and  what  measures  are
used  in  the  studies  on  task  complexity
according to Robinson’s TCF?
(2)  Overall, how effective is increasing task
complexity  along  resource-directing
dimensions  on  learners’  production  in
terms of measures of CALF ?
(3)  Does  modality  of  production  (oral  or
written)  make  any  difference  of  this
effect?
 
Identifying primary studies
Documents  were  accessed  electronically
through CNKI, which is usually regarded as
the  most  comprehensive  database  in  China.
The key words for the topic we used are the
following  ones:  task  complexity,  task
difficulty,  task  and  complexity,  task  and
accuracy,  task  and  fluency,  task  and  oral
production, task and written production, task
and  language  production,  task  type,  task
condition,  task  planning,  task  familiarity.
We  firstly  used  electronic  databases  to
narrow  the  scope  of  primary  studies,  and
then by manual work, which is usually taken
as  an  effective  way.  Three  steps  are  strictly
followed before the last  decision was made.
First,  we  skimmed  the  titles  of  the  papers
and  kept  those  empirical  studies.  Next,  we
read  the  abstracts  of  the  kept  papers  and
excluded  the  ones  that  do  not  meet  the
inclusion  criteria  of  this  meta-analysis.
Finally,  a  thorough  reading  of  the  whole
paper helps us to make the last decision.   
 
A  well-known  issue  that  often  arises  in
meta-analytic  studies  is  that  of  the
synthesist’s  approach  to  the  fugitive
literature.  Rosenthal  (1994)  maintains  that
the  most  comprehensive  synthesis  of  the
state of knowledge about a research question
should  include  not  only  published  sources
but  also  hard-to-find  “fugitive”  sources.
Considering  the  fact  that  there  is  not  a  long
history  for  the  empirical  studies  in  Chinese
SLA  research  field,  we  decided  to  include
the published articles and unpublished thesis
or  dissertations  in  order  to  minimize  the
problem of publication bias.       
 
In  all, 152 potentially relevant study reports
were  retrieved  from  the  initial  literature
search.  Both  researchers  reviewed  each
report  to  determine  the  actual  relevance  of
the study to the research domain and current
research  questions.  Forty-two  potential
studies  remained  after  eliminating  those
unempirical  ones.  Then,  a  strict  inclusion
and  exclusion  criteria  were  made  to  further
decide  the  literature  included  in  the  present
analysis.
 
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
(1)  Independent  variables  involved
manipulating  task  complexity  along
resource-directing  dimensions  as
specified in Robinson’s TCF.
(2)  At  least  one  or  more  dimensions  about
CALF  were  included  as  the  dependent
variables examined in the study.  
 
(3)  Participants  involved  in  the  study  were
Chinese EFL learners.
(4)  The design of the study employed either
repeated  measures  or  group
comparisons
(5)  The publication data was between 2000
and 2013.
(6)  The  study  report  contained  adequate
information  for  effect  sizes  to  be
calculated (means, SD, sample sizes).
(7)  The  studies  that  cannot  be  categorized
according to Robinson’s TCF were not
included  in  the  present  synthesis  and
meta-analysis.   
(8)  The  studies  with  total  scores  as
dependent variables were not included.   
 
Coding of the primary studies
After  identifying  the  body  of  research
literature  meeting  the  inclusion  criteria,  we
coded  and  categorized  the  resulting  12  study
reports  according  to  a  variety  of  study
features.  According  to  Lipsey  and  Wilson
(2001),  the  study  descriptors  in  a
meta-analysis fall into three types: substantive
aspects that are usually independent variables
in  primary  studies;  methodological  aspects
that  might  become  moderator  variables
accounting  fir  effect  size  variation;  and
bibliographic  aspects  such  as  dates  of
publication, publication type, and so on. Even
though  this  classification  may  help
meta-analysts  to  understand  the  coding
process,  the  distinction  among  the  three
categories may not be as clear-cut as expected
simply because a certain feature might switch
between  categories  (Li,  2010).  As  for  the
present meta-analysis, most of the features of
the  included  primary  studies  are
low-inference  ones  (e.g.  participants’
academic  statue,  sizes  of  samples,
measurements  of  language  production,  etc.).
While  the  controlling  variables  of  task
complexity  in  some  primary  studies  may  be
regarded  as  high-inferences.  For  example,
some studies (e.g. He & Wang 2003, Ma 2005)
defined task complexity according to different
types.  In  order  to  get  them  included  in  the
present  meta-analysis,  we  categorized  them
according  to  Robinsons’  taxonomic
framework.  The  following  coding  categories
were  established  finally:  publication  year,
academic  status  of  participants,  controlling
variables, modality, and outcome measures.   
 
Effect size calculation
In  selecting  from  the  different  effect  size
estimates,  Rosenthal  (1994)  recommends
employing  d-type  effect  size  estimates  when
the  original  studies  have  compared  two
groups.  Given  the  designs  adopted  by  most
primary  researchers  with  task  complexity,
Cohen’s  (1988)  d-index  was  selected  as  the
most  appropriate  effect  size  estimate.
Calculating  Cohen’s  d  produces  a
standardized  mean  difference  for  any
contrasts  made  between  two  groups  within  a
primary research study.   
 
Results
The research synthesis
A comparatively steady increase of the studies
in  the  past  decade  was  found  from  the
synthesis.  Among  the  12  studies  for  the
synthesis,  7  ones  are  carried  out  in  oral
modality  and  5  are  in  written  modality.  Eight
studies  involved  university  non-English
majors  as  participants,  3  others  involving
English  majors,  and  another  one  high  school
students. The 12 primary studies contained an
impressively  large  number  of  indices  of
dependent variable measures——CALF. Most
studies  employed  one  measure  for  each
dimension.  Table  1  illustrates  the  descriptive
information  of  the  primary  studies,  including
the  measures  employed  by  those  in  the
present meta-analysis.
Table  1  Descriptive  features  of  the  included

The meta-analysis
Eleven  primary  studies  from  the  12  included
in the synthesis were chosen for meta-analysis.
They  all  used  repeated-measures  designs.  All
the  analyses  were  performed  by  using
professional  meta-analysis  software  RevMan,
which  is  usually  employed  in  meta-analysis.
The  results  of  meta-analysis  on  the  four
dimensions of learners’ production are shown
in table 2.

Syntactic Complexity
Among  the  12  included  studies,  ten
contributes  to  the  effect  sizes  about  syntactic
complexity.  According  to  the  convention  of
meta-analysis,  we  first  conducted  test  of
heterogeneity. The p value was lower than .05,
which  indicates  that  there  is  heterogeneity;
therefore  random-effects  model  was  used  for
analysis.  The  above  table  shows  that  the
magnitude  of  effects  taken  in  10  independent
studies  was  0.64.  The  95%  CI  encompassed
only  positive  values.  This  size  is  medium
according to Cohen (1988), which means that
increased  task  complexity  along
resource-directing  dimension  results  in
increased  syntactic  complexity.  Even  though
the effect size is not big, this finding confirms
Robinson’s Cognition Hypothesis that  higher
cognitive  task  complexity  may  result  in
increased language complexity.   
 
To  further  explore  the  role  of  modality,  a
subgroup analysis was conducted (see table 3).
Results  show  that  there  is  no  significant
difference  between  the  two  groups  (p=0.17).
The effect size for oral modality is 1.10, while
for  the  written  modality  it  is  only  0.35.  It
should also be noted that, as for written tasks,
the  95%  CI  (-0.16-0.86)  includes  both
positive and negative values and includes zero,
which  amounts  to  a  statistically
non-significant  difference  for  syntactic
complexity  between  contrasted  simple  and
complex  conditions.  Whereas  for  oral  tasks,
the 95% CI (0.15-2.06) does not contain zero,
indicating  that  there  is  a  trustworthy
difference  in  terms  of  the  effects  of  complex
and simple task on syntactic complexity.   
Table 3 Effect sizes in syntactic complexity of
learners’ production

Lexical complexity
We  found  a  small  positive  effect  size  for
measures of lexical complexity (d=0.20, 95%
CI=  0.16-0.55).  While  this  positive
directionality  of  the  result  is  consistent  with
the prediction of Cognition Hypothesis, the CI
included  both  positive  and  negative  values.

Subgroup  analysis  revealed  that  there  was  no
significant  difference  between  oral  and
written  production  (p=0.68).  Both  CIs
included  zero,  which  indicates  that  the
difference  for  lexical  complexity  between
simple and complex conditions is statistically
non-significant.   
However,  despite  the  non-significant
difference  between  the  two  modalities,  it  is
worth  noticing  that  effect  size  in  the  written
modality is slightly higher than that in the oral
modality  (0.45  versus  0.13).  Table  4  shows
the result.

Accuracy
Calculations  yielded  a  small  negative  effect
size for accuracy (d=-0.18), which refutes the
Cognition  Hypothesis  and  is  consistent  with
Skehan’s Trade-off Hypothesis in that there is
a  competition  between  linguistic  complexity
and  accuracy  in  learners’  production.
Subgroup  analysis  shows  no  statistically
significance  between  oral  and  written
modalities  (p=0.93),  which  means  that
modality  does  not  significantly  influence  the
effects  of  task  complexity  on  accuracy  in
learners’  language  production.  Table  5
presents  the  detailed  information  of  the
subgroup  analysis.  Subgroup  analysis  shows
that  the  combined  effect  size  for  the  oral
studies  is  -0.10,  which  is  a  little  higher  than
that of the written studies.  This indicates that
the  effect  of  increasing  task  complexity  is
more  obvious  in  written  production  than  in
the  oral  production.  However,  even  though
the  magnitude  is  different,  the  effect  is
negative  in  both  modes  of  language
production.

Fluency
Only  7  studies  investigated  learners’
accuracy,  with  2  of  them  in  oral  modality
and 5 in written modality.  The effect size is
near to zero (0.01), 95% CI is -0.60~0.62. A
subgroup analysis was also conducted (table
6).  For  oral  production  tasks,  the  effect  size
is  -0.92,  while  the  effect  size  is  0.34  for
written tasks. This means that complex tasks
result  in  more  fluency  in  written  tasks,  but
not in oral tasks. This indicates that modality
is  likely  to  influence  the  effects  of  task
complexity  on  fluency.  However,  the  95%
CI  in  both  modalities  includes  zero,  which
means that the result is not trustworthy at all.   
Zhang (2009) can be taken as an outlier. It is
worth  noting  that  the  average  effect  size
becomes  -0.26  (-0.69~0.18)  when  Zhang
(2009)  was  eliminated  from  the  seven
studies. And when it was excluded from the
subgroup  of  written  modality  studies,  the
effect  size  changes  to  -0.01  (-0.42~0.41).
This  provides  evidence  that  there  may  be  a
negative  effect  of  task  complexity  on
learners’ fluency.
Table  6  Effect sizes in fluency of learners’ production

Discussion
The  previous  section  presented  results  for
the  research  questions  addressed  in  this
study. In this part, we will discuss the results
with reference to some related studies in the
field.
 
Resource-directing  variables  investigated
and CALF measures employed
Research  synthesis  revealed  that
manipulations  of  the  ±reasoning  variable  of
task  complexity  outweighed  all  others.  This
is  different  from  the  finding  of  Jackson  and
Suethanaporkul  (2013),  which  is  the  only
meta-analysis  investigating  Cognition
Hypothesis  in  the  field  of  task  research  to
our  knowledge.  This  indicates  that
researchers  in  China  put  emphasis  on
different variables.   
 
The  studies  involved  in  this  meta-analysis
employed  a  variety  of  measures  for  CALF.
Jackson  and  Suethanaporkul  (2013)  also
find  there  are  an  assortment  of  measures.
Actually  the  number  reaches  84  in  their
synthesis.  To  compare  our  findings  with
theirs,  we  find  that  in  the  included  primary
studies  there  are  not  many  employing
specific  measures.  Although  language
learning  requires  that  learners  increase  the
complexity,  accuracy,  and  fluency  of  their
language  production,  these  measures  do  not
capture all of the processes of L2 acquisition;
particularly,  they  miss  those  related  to
development  of  specific  linguistic  forms  in
meaning-oriented  language  production.
Some  scholars  abroad  have  pointed  out  the
only  using  general  measures  are  not
scientific.  Therefore,  they  suggest
combining  general  measures  and  specific
measures.   
 
Effects  of  increasing  task  complexity  on
CALF
Before  we  discuss  the  effects  of
task–directing  task  complexity,  it  is
important to emphasize the need to interpret
the results with caution and to consider them
tentative,  given  the  obvious  limitations  of
the  present  study:  the  small  number  of
primary  studies,  the  relatively  broad  range
of confidence intervals, etc. As mentioned in
the  above,  Cognition  Hypothesis  predicts
that  increasing  task-complexity  along
resource-directing  dimension  benefits  L2
learners’  accuracy  and  complexity,  but
hinders  the  fluency.  As  for  the  syntactic
complexity,  the  present  meta-analysis  of
limited  empirical  studies  shows  that  the
effect  size  (0.67)  is  medium  for  the  general
language production, for the oral and written
production being 1.10 and 0.35 respectively.
This  is  in  consistency  with  the  Cognition
Hypothesis,  while  different  from  Jackson
and  Suethanaporkul  (2013).  They  employed
more  measures  for  syntactic  complexity,
including  general  and  specific  ones.
However,  nearly  all  the  primary  studies  in
the  present  meta-analysis  only  employed
general measures.   
 
With  respect  to  accuracy,  the  meta-analysis
found  a  small  negative  effect  size  of  task
complexity. This result is also different from
Jackson  and  Suethanaporkul  (2013),  which
found  a  small  positive  effect  size.  The
different measures employed by the primary
 
studies  may  partly  explain  the  different
results of these two meta-analyses. It should
be noted that the primary studies in Jackson
and  Suethanaporkul  (2013)  employed  more
specific  measures.  More  importantly,  a
larger effect size was found to be associated
with  specific  measures  than  general
measures  concerning  both  complexity  and
accuracy  in  their  analysis.  Therefore,  it  is
possible that measurement practices do play
a role in the effects. The average effect sizes
may  be  larger  when  specific  measures  are
used, other things being  equal. This point is
also  consistent  to  Robinson,  Cadierno,  and
Shirai (2009), which discovered that specific
measures are more sensitive to the effects of
task complexity.
 
Robinson,  Cadierno,  and  Shirai  (2009)
suggests  that  it  should  only  be  through  the
use of general and specific measures that we
will be able to present a clearer picture than
exists  at  present  of  the  effects  of
instructional  sequences  of  simple  to
complex resource-directing task demands on
the  promotion  of  language  use  and
acquisition.  Norris  and  Ortega  (2009)  argue
that  syntactic  complexity  must  be  measured
multidimensionally,  and  also  that  general
measures of ‘phrasal elaboration’ are more
suitable  than  measures  of  subordination  for
capturing  the  means  “by  which  syntactic
complexity is achieved at the most advanced
levels  of  language  development  and
maturity”  (p.563).  Robinson  (2011:  20)
continues  to  claim  “ Such general measures
of  subordination  or  phrasal  elaboration,  or
both,  however,  will  also  need  to  be
supplemented  by  specific  measures  of  the
accuracy  and  complexity  of  production,  as
these  are  relevant  to  particular
resource-directing characteristics.”
 
With  regard  to  the  complexity-accuracy
relationship, results of the present study lend
support  to  Skehan’s  Trade-off  Hypothesis
that  complexity  and  accuracy  can  hardly  be
achieved simultaneously. Our analysis based
on  the  limited  studies  seems  to  suggest  that
there  is  a  competition  between  them.  Of
course,  this  finding  is  not  conclusive.  More
studies  are  needed  to  explore  their
relationship,  especially  those  employing
specific measures.
 
As  for  lexical  complexity,  the  positive
directionality  of  the  result  confirms  the
prediction  by  Cognition  Hypothesis.  This
finding  is  also  consistent  with  Jackson  and
Suethanapornkul’s  (2013),  though  their
result  is  even  smaller  (d=0.03).  However,  it
should  be  noted  that  the  95%  CI
encompasses  both  positive  and  negative
values  and  includes  zero,  indicating  that
there  is  not  a  trustworthy  significant
difference  in  terms  of  the  effect  of
increasing  task  complexity  on  lexical
complexity.  Besides,  the  interpretation
should  be  cautious  due  to  the  small  number
of  primary  studies  (n=7).  Another  findings
of  our  study  worth  noting  is  that  the  effect
size  in  written  modality  is  slightly  larger
than that in oral modality (0.45 versus 0.13),
though  the  difference  is  not  statistically
significant  (p=0.68).  This  suggests  that
modality  might  play  a  role  in  the  effects  of
task  complexity  on  lexis  in  learners’
production.  Learners  may  make  use  of  the
more  planning  time  to  improve  their  lexical
complexity,  whereas  in  the  oral  production
they do not have time for that.   
 
Both positive directionality of effect sizes in
syntactical  complexity  and  lexical
complexity  may  also  lend  support  to
Skehan’s  claim  that  there  is  a  lexis-syntax
connection in learners’ performance (Skehan
2009).  On  one  hand,  learners  may  take
 
including  more  difficult  words  as  a  way  of
increasing  complexity.  On  the  other,  they
may  have  more  time  to  retrieve  lexis  in
writing.
 
Robinson  (1995,  2001a)  predicts  that  when
the complexity of a language task increases,
L2 learners will make fewer errors, while at
the  same  time  the  syntactic  complexity  and
lexical  variation  of  their  performance  will
increase.  The  results  of  our  study  confirms
Robinson’s  predictions  regarding  the  effect
of  task  complexity  on  syntactic  complexity
and lexical variation, but not with respect to
the effect of task complexity on accuracy.
   
  Only  7  primary  studies  investigating  the
effects  of  task  complexity  on  fluency  are
included  in  meta-analysis.  The  small  effect
size  (0.01)  indicates  that  increasing  task
complexity  is  not  likely  to  result  in  more
fluency.  A  clearer  picture  was  shown  when
the  subgroups  were  compared.  The  small
positive  size  indicates  that  increased  task
complexity  results  in  learners’  more  fluent
writing. However, the wide CI encompassing
both  positive  and  negative  values  warns  us
that the result is not so trustworthy. Especially,
considering  the  fact  that  only  Zhang  (2009)
includes  English  majors  as  participants,  we
can  hypothesize  that  this  results  in  the
difference from the result of the other studies.
Obviously, more empirical studies are needed
in  this  issue.  We  expect  more  researchers
involve  English  majors  as  participants.  The
results of two primary studies both found that
task  complexity  negatively  affected  fluency
in  oral  production.  This  difference  between
modality  may  also  be  explained  by  the
amount  of  planning  time.  This  fact  also
implies  that  more  complex  tasks  possibly
promote the learners to express their ideas in
writing.
 
Oral versus written modality
Results from the subgroup analyses indicate
a  surprisingly  clear  picture  of  how  the
modality  influences  the  effects  of  task
complexity. Subgroup analysis indicates that
there  is  not  a  significant  difference  between
these  two  modalities.  In  other  words,
modality  does  not  play  a  significant  role  in
the  effects  of  task  complexity  along
resource-directing  dimension  on  the
syntactic  complexity  in  Chinese  learners’
production.  What  we  are  as  well  interested
in  is  why  task  complexity  affects  oral
production  even  more  greatly  than  written
production.  This  fact  may  be  accounted  for
by  at  least  the  following  two  points:  first,
these  two  types  of  tasks  may  involve
different  information  processing
mechanisms.  Especially,  writing  invites
more  online  planning  than  speech,  whereas
planning  time  is  considered  to  be  a
resource-dispersing  variable  according  to
Robinson’s TCF model. The low effect size
in  the  written  tasks  may  be  due  to  the
possible  interaction  between  two  different
dimensions.  Second,  to  further  examine  the
controlling  variables  investigated,  we  find
that  all  the  studies  about  oral  tasks  take
±reasoning  as  the  controlling  variables,
while  those  written  tasks  concern  other
variables  like  elements  and  context.  This
difference  may  also  partly  explain  the  high
effect  size  in  oral  production  while  low
effect size in written production.   
 
As  for  lexical  complexity  and  linguistic
accuracy,  subgroup  analyses  indicate  no
significant  difference  between  oral  and
written  modality  either  (p=0.68  and  0.93
respectively).  This  finding  on  accuracy  is
consistent  with  Kuiken  and  Vedder  (2011).
Their  results  demonstrate  that  both  in  the
oral  and  the  written  mode  task  complexity
mainly  seems  to  affect  accuracy.  The  only
 
possible  difference  between  two  modalities
lies  in  the  dimension  of  fluency  where  a
positive  effect  was  found  in  written  tasks,
while  a  negative  effect  was  discovered  in
two  primary  studies.  However,  this
difference  cannot  be  asserted  with  certainty
given that Zhang (2009), which can be taken
as  an  outlier  among  the  five  studies  in  the
analysis,  includes  English  majors  as
participants.  It  is  quite  possible  that  simple
tasks  are  not  challenging  enough  for  the
participants  to  write  about,  while  complex
tasks  prompt  them  to  express  more,  and
consequently  results  in  more  fluency.
Therefore, learners’ proficiency might be a
potential  variable  that  influences  the  effect
of  task  complexity  on  their  language
production as far as fluency is concerned.
 
Conclusion
Until  now,  there  has  been  a  lot  of  literature
investigating  the  effects  of  increasing  task
complexity on learners’ language production,
both  in  oral  and  written  tasks.  The  present
study  aims  to  find  the  current  situations  of
the  research  in  China  and  explore  the  effect
of  task  complexity  using  meta-analytic
technique.  To  summarize,  the  following
conclusion can be drawn from the synthesis
and quantitative analysis:
(1) There is an assortment of treatments and
measures  in  the  present  research  about
task  complexity.  Generally  speaking,
most  studies  employ  general  measures
for  syntactic  complexity,  lacking
specific  measures.  Therefore,  more
studies  with  specific  measures  are
expected  in  order  to  further  understand
the  effects  of  task  complexity  on
Chinese learners’ production.
(2)  Task  complexity  exerts  a  positive  effect
on  learners’  language  complexity  in
production  (both  syntactic  complexity
and  lexical  complexity),  and  shows  a
negative  directionality  on  accuracy  and
fluency.  Therefore,  it  can  be  claimed
that  the  results  of  the  present  study
support  Cognition  Hypothesis  on  the
relationship  between  task  complexity
and linguistic complexity. However, the
findings  disconfirm  Cognition
Hypothesis  as  far  as  accuracy  is
concerned.   
(3)  The  modality  does  not  seem  to  play  a
significant  role  in  the  effect  of  task
complexity  on  learners’  syntactic
complexity,  lexical  complexity,
accuracy, and fluency. Even though task
complexity exerts a more positive effect
on  syntactic  complexity  in  oral  tasks
than  in  written  mode,  the  difference  is
not  statistically  significant.  A  larger
effect  size  was  found  in  written  tasks
regarding  lexical  complexity,  whereas,
still  no  significant  difference  was
discovered. As for accuracy and fluency,
close effect sizes were detected between
two modalities.
 
It  has  been  emphasized  that  due  to  some
limitations  the  present  systematic  review  is
necessarily  exploratory  in  nature.  Even
though  recent  years  have  witnessed  an
increasing  number  of  studies  on  task
complexity  in  China,  the  number  is  still
quite  limited.  In  addition,  the  primary
studies  investigated  limited  variables.  Most
studies  employed  general  measures  for
CALF,  which  has  been  proved  not  so
sensitive  to  capture  the  effects  of  task
complexity  by  some  recent  studies  (e.g.
Robinson  et  al.  2009).  Therefore,  future
research  is  advised  to  attempt  to  fill  in  the
above gap.

Note:  References  marked  with  an  asterisk
indicate  studies  included  in  the

meta-analysis.
Cai,  J.  (2012).  The  application  of
meta-analysis  in  second  language
research.  Foreign  Language
Teaching and Research, 1, 105-115.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis
for the behavioral sciences (2
nd
 ed.).
Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
Gilabert,  R.  (2007).  “The  simultaneous
manipulation  of  task  complexity
along  the  +/-planning     time  and
+/-Here-and-Now  dimensions:
effects on L2 oral production” in M.
P.  Garcia-Mayo  (Ed.):  Investigating
Tasks in Formal Language Learning
(pp.  136-156).  Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
*He,  L.,  & Wang, M.  (2003). The  effect of
task  difficulty,  task  complexity  and
language  proficiency  on  language
accuracy  of  Chinese  students.
Linguistics  and  Applied  Linguistics,
2, 65-73.
Ishikawa,  T.  (2007).  “The  effects  of
increasing task complexity along the
-/+ Here-and-Now dimension” in M.
P.  Garcia-Mayo  (Ed.):  Investigating
Tasks in Formal Language Learning
(pp.  156-176).  Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
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.
Kuiken,  F.  &  Vedder,  I.  (2007).  Task
complexity  and  measures  of
linguistic performance in L2 writing.
International  Review  of  Applied
Linguistics 45(3), 261-284.     
Kuiken,  F.,  &  Vedder,  I.  (2011).  Task
complexity  and  linguistic
performance  in  L2  writing  and
speaking:  The  effect  of  mode.  In  P.
Robinson  (Ed.),  Second  language
task  complexity:  Researching  the
Cognition  Hypothesis  of  language
learning  and  performance  (pp.
91–104).  Amsterdam:  John
Benjamins.
Li,  S.  (2010).  The  effectiveness  of
corrective  feedback  in  SLA:  A
meta-analysis.  Language  Learning.
60(2), 309-365.
Lipsey, M., & Wilson, D. (2001). Practical
meta-analysis.  Thousand  Oaks,  CA:
SAGE Publications.
Liu,  W.,  &  Gao,  R.  (2011).  The  effects  of
meta-cognitive strategies training on
Chinese learners’ English writing: A
meta-analysis,  Foreign  Language
Teaching, 2, 60-63.
*Lu,  L.,  &  Sun,  Y.  (2009).  A  study  of  the
language  complexity  in  tasks  of
different  complexity,  College
English, 6(2), 112-116.
*Ma,  R.  (2005).  The  effects  of  task
complexity  and  task  difficulty  on
learners’  EFL  writing  production.
Unpublished  master’s  thesis.
Northwest  Normal  University,
Lanzhou, China.
Michel,  M.  C.,  Kuiken,  F.,  &  Vedder,  I.
(2007). The influence of complexity
in  monologic  versus  dialogic  tasks
in  Dutch  L2.  International  Review
of  Applied  Linguistics  in  Language
Teaching, 45(3), 241–259.
Norris,  J.  M.,  &  Ortega,  L.  (2000).
Effectiveness  of  L2  instruction:  A
research  synthesis  and  quantitative
meta-analysis.  Language  Learning,
50(3), 417-528.
Norris. J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards
an organic approach to investigating
CAF in instructed SLA: The case of
complexity.  Applied  Linguistics,

30(4), 558-578.
Qin, X., & Yang. D. (2013). The application
of  RevMan  in  meta-analysis  of
foreign  languages  studies,  Journal
of  Hebei  United  University,  4,
132-138.
Robinson,  P.  (1995).  Task  complexity  and
second language narrative discourse,
Language Learning, 45(2), 99-145.
Robinson,  P.  (2001a).  Task  complexity,
task  difficulty,  and  task  production:
exploring  interactions  in  a
componential  framework,  Applied
Linguistics, 22(1), 27-57.     
Robinson,  P.  (2001b).  “Task  complexity,
cognitive  resources,  and  syllabus
design:  a  triadic  framework  for
investigating  task  influences  on
SLA”  in  P.  Robinson  (Ed.):
Cognition  and  Second  Language
Instruction  (pp.  287-318).  New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Robinson,  P.  (2003).  “Attention  and
memory during SLA” in C. Doughty
and  M.  Long  (Eds.):  The  Handbook
of Second Language Acquisition (pp.
631-678). Malden: Blackwell.
Robinson,  P.  (2005).  Cognitive  complexity
and  task  sequencing:  a  review  of
studies  in  a  Componential
Framework  for  second  language
task  design.  International  Review  of
Applied  Linguistics  in  Language
Teaching, 43(1), 1-32.
Robinson,  P.  (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, 45(3), 237-57.   
Robinson,  P.  (2007b).  Criteria  for  grading
and  sequencing  pedagogic  tasks.  In
M.  P.  Garcia-Mayo  (Ed.)
Investigating  Tasks  in  Formal
Language  Learning  (pp.  7-27).
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Robinson,  P.,  Cadierno.  T.  &  Shirai,  Y.
(2009). Time and motion: measuring
the  effects  of  the  conceptual
demands  of  tasks  on  second
language  speech  production,
Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 533-554.
Robinson,  P.  (2011).  Second  language  task
complexity,  the  Cognition
Hypothesis,  language  learning,  and
performance.  In  P.  Robinson  (Ed.),
Second  language  task  complexity:
Researching  the  Cognition
Hypothesis  of  language  learning
and  performance  (pp.  3–37).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Robinson,  P.  and  R.  Gilabert  (2007).  Task
complexity,  the  Cognition
Hypothesis  and  second  language
learning  and  performance.
International  Review  of  Applied
Linguistics  in  Language  Teaching,
45(3): 161-176.
Rosenthal,  M.  C.  (1994).  The  fugitive
literature.  In  H.  Cooper  &  L.  V.
Hedges  (Eds.),  The  handbook  of
research synthesis (pp. 85–94). New
York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to
Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Skehan,  P.  (2009).  Modeling  second
language  performance:  Integrating
complexity,  accuracy,  fluency,  and
lexis.  Applied  Linguistics,  30(4),
510-532.
*Tan, L. (2006). Influence of different tasks
and  planning  conditions  on  second
language  performance.  Journal  of
Nanjing  University  of  Finance  and
Economics. 6, 101-104.
*Tian, J. (2007). The effects of task types on

English  writing  production.
Unpublished  master’s  thesis,   
Guangxi  Normal  University,
Nanning, China.
*Wang,  J.  (2013).  The  effects  of  task
complexity  along  resource-directing
dimensions  on  the  second  language
writing  performance,  Foreign
Language Teaching, 34(4), 65-68.
*Wang,  Z.  (2008).  The  effects  of  time
constraint  and  task  types  on  EFL
writing. Foreign Language Teaching
in Schools. 11, 6-11.
*Wu,  M.  (2010).  The  influence  of  task
complexity  on  writing  performance:
investigating  variation  of  discourse
markers,  syntactic  complexity  and
accuracy  in  EFL  writing.
Unpublished  Master’s  Thesis,
Southwest  Jiaotong  University,
Chengdu, China.
*Yuan, Y. (2012). Effects of task complexity
on  the  fluency,  complexity  and
accuracy  in  L2  oral  production.
Unpublished  master’s  thesis,
Chongqing  University,  Chongqing,
China.
*Zhang, P. (2009). The influence of writing
complexity  and  difficulty  on
students’ performance accuracy in
TBLA.  Unpublished master’s thesis,
Shandong Normal University, Jinan,
China.
*Zhou,  X.  (2007).  A  study  of  the  effects  of
task  complexity  on  oral  production
accuracy  and  complexity.
Unpublished master’s thesis, Suzhou
University, Suzhou, China.