The role of task sequencing in fluency, accuracy, and complexity: Investigating the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing

Abstract

This study set out to test the theoretical premise of the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing, which postulates that tasks should be sequenced for learners from cognitively simple to complex. This experiment compared the performance of three tasks differing in cognitive complexity in a simple–complex sequence versus in the absence of any other tasks. There were two groups in the study: (1) participants who performed the three tasks in the simple–complex sequence, and (2) participants who performed either the simple, the complex, or the most complex task. The participants’ speech was analysed using fluency, accuracy, and complexity measures. The results indicate that simple–complex sequencing led to a higher speech rate, greater dysfluency, enhanced accuracy, and greater structural complexity, as compared to individual task performance. The results are discussed in terms of the SSARC model and pedagogical implications of the findings are presented.

Unraveling the Effects of Task Sequencing on the Syntactic Complexity, Accuracy, Lexical Complexity, and Fluency of L2 Written Production

“…The major thrust of this study was to explore the effects of task sequencing on multilingual learners' written production in accordance with the SSARC model. Given that past studies tested the role of the SSARC model in L2 oral production (Baralt, 2014;Malicka, 2014Malicka, , 2018, finding that the simple-to-complex order led to significant gains in L2 production over the short or long term, the current study examined the effectiveness of the SSARC model in L2 written production using a simple-complex task design. The results demonstrated that simple-complex task sequencing favoured syntactic and lexical complexity, promoted accuracy, and assisted fluency, providing empirical evidence supporting the theoretical claim of the SSARC model regarding the beneficial role of simple-complex task sequencing for L2 written production.…”

“…Following the SSARC model of task sequencing and the times set in the pilot study, the first group performed the written tasks in the simple-to-complex order with 5-minute intervals; participants performed the simple task in 17.2 minutes with 10 minutes of planning time, then the same task in 23.8 minutes without planning time, and finally the complex one in 30.2 minutes without planning time. Similar to Malicka's (2018) study, 60 participants in the individual task group were subdivided into three groups of equal size (n = 20); each subgroup completed only one task under the same task conditions as in the sequencing group. Thus, the difference between the two groups is that in the simple ̶ complex group, all participants performed the tasks successively, while in the individual task group, participants in each subgroup completed only one task at a pre-determined cognitive complexity level.…”

“…Numerous studies in the task-based language teaching (TBLT) field have shown a growing interest in the constructs of cognitive task complexity (i.e., the inherent cognitive demands of a given task) and task sequencing over the past decade (Baralt, 2014;Lambert & Robinson, 2014;Levkina & Gilabert, 2014;Malicka, 2014Malicka, , 2018. These TBLT studies relying on cognitive frameworks have examined theoretical predictions that sequencing tasks according to increasing complexity can maximize learning opportunities and provide optimal learning conditions.…”

“…Results showed that sequences with more complex tasks (CCS and CSC) generated increased learning opportunities and greater L2 development. Malicka (2014Malicka ( , 2018 tested the effects of different sequences (simple-to-complex, randomized, or individual tasks) on L2 oral production by raising complexity along ± reasoning demands and ± few elements. Both of her studies reported that simple-to-complex task sequencing led to improved speech rate, accuracy, and structural complexity.…”

“…The current study was motivated by two gaps identified in the TBLT literature: First, several studies have explored the effects of task sequencing on L2 oral production (Malicka, 2014(Malicka, , 2018, acquisition (Baralt, 2014), and interaction (Kim & Payant, 2014), but the limited number of studies investigating the impacts of task sequencing on L2 writing yielded contradictory results (Allaw & McDonough, 2019;Lambert & Robinson, 2014, Levkina & Gilabert, 2014. Second, while some TBLT studies have explored task sequencing by manipulating either resource-directing or resource-dispersing factors, only two task sequencing studies have simultaneously manipulated both of these task complexity factors as proposed in the SSARC model (Allaw & McDonough, 2019;Lambert & Robinson, 2014), producing different results.…”