Cover not available

Article published In: TASK
Vol. 5:1 (2025) ► pp.88–114

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

What makes a task difficult?

Pre-service teacher analysis of task difficulty

ORCiD logo with link | University of Reading, UK
 | Western University, Canada
Published online: 8 August 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/task.23013.tav
Abstract
Two conceptual models of Task Complexity, Cognition Hypothesis (Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, (2007). 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, IRAL, 45(3), 193–213. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) and Limited Attentional Capacity (Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36(1), 1–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, (2018). Second language task-based performance: Theory, research, assessment. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) have been proposed and widely debated in the task-based language teaching (TBLT) literature. However, little empirical evidence exists to suggest either of the models is based on teacher input or being used by teachers for classroom use. Drawing on pre-service teacher analysis of task difficulty, the study aimed to develop an in-depth understanding of task features they consider when evaluating task difficulty. Participants, 127 pre-service teachers at the end of their one-year MA TESOL program in Ontario, Canada, evaluated two sets of sample tasks, ranking them according to their degree of difficulty and identifying the features that contributed to this difficulty. 727 pieces of raw data, extracted from the task difficulty analysis, were categorized. Five main categories of task difficulty were identified, namely (1) linguistic demand, (2) cognitive operational demand, (3) design features, (4) informational demand, and (5) communicative demand. Learner related factors, external to task design, were also suggested as issues related to difficulty. We propose a set of task difficulty features that can be used in replication and validation studies to help with the development of a teacher evidence-based model of task difficulty.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Research on task difficulty
  • Teacher analysis of task difficulty
  • Aims of the study
    • Participants
  • Data collection
  • Data analysis
  • Results
    • Linguistic demand
    • Cognitive operational demand
    • Learner background
    • Design features
    • Informational demand
    • Communicative demand
  • Discussion
  • Pedagogical implications
  • Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
References (42)
References
Baralt, M., Gilabert, R., & Robinson, P. (2014a). Task sequencing and instructed second language learning. Bloomsbury. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baralt, M., Harmath-de Lemmos, S., & Werfelli, S. (2014b). Teachers’ application of Cognition Hypothesis when lesson planning: A case study. In M. Baralt, R. Gilabert & P. Robinson (Eds.) Task sequencing and instructed second language learning. Bloomsbury. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. London, England: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Candlin, C. N. (1987). Towards task-based language learning. In C. N. Candlin & D. F. Murphy (Eds.), Language learning tasks (pp. 5–22). Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chan, H. Y. (2012). Values and the advance care planning framework in New Zealand. BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care, 2(2), 203–203. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 311, 182–204. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
East, M. (2021). Foundational principles of task-based language teaching. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language teaching and learning. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Towards a modular language curriculum for using tasks. Language Teaching Research, 23(4), 454–475. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., & Lambert, C. (2019). Task-based language teaching: Theory and practice. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Erlam, R. (2016). “I’m still not sure what a task is”: Teachers designing language tasks. Language Teaching Research. 20(3), 279–299. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Faez, F., & Tavakoli, P. (2019). Task-based language teaching. TESOL Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task ype on Second Language Performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(3), 299–323. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gilabert, R. (2007). Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 oral production. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, IRAL, 45(3), 215–240. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gilabert, R., & Castellví, J. (2019). Task and syllabus design for morphologically complex languages. In J. Schwieter & A. Benati (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of language learning (pp. 527–549). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gilabert, R., & Malicka, A. (2021). From needs analysis to task selection, design, and sequencing. In M. J. Ahmadian & M. H. Long (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of task-based language teaching (pp. 226–249). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lambert, C., & Oliver, R. (2020). Using tasks in language teaching: Practice in diverse contexts. Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Little, D. (2006). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Content, purpose, origin, reception and impact. Language Teaching, 39(3), 167–190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maijala, M., Heikkola, L. M., Kuusalu, S.-R., Laine, P., Mutta, M., & Mäntylä, K. (2023). Pre-service language teachers’ perceptions of sustainability and its implementation in language teaching. Language Teaching Research. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Révész, A. (2009). Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31(3), 437–470. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Révész, A., & Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2016). Teachers’ perspectives on second language task difficulty: Insights from think-alouds and eye tracking. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 361, 182–204. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). 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, IRAL, 45(3), 193–213. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Situating and distributing cognition across task demands: The SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In M. Pütz & L. Sicola (Eds.), Cognitive processing in second language acquisition: Inside the learner’s mind (pp. 243–268). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(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. 87–121). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scarino, A. (2014). Learning as reciprocal, interpretive meaning-making: A view from collaborative research into the professional learning of teachers of languages. The Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 386–401. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36(1), 1–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Second language task-based performance: Theory, research, assessment. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tavakoli, P. (2009a). Assessing L2 task performance: Understanding effects of task design. System, 37(3), 482–495. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009b). Investigating task difficulty: Learners’ and teachers’ perceptions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 1–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tavakoli, P., & Jones, R. (2018). An overview of approaches to second language acquisition and instructional practices. Report. Welsh Government (Research & Statistics), Cardiff.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van den Branden, K. (2006). Training teachers: Task-based as well? In K. Van den Branden (Ed.), Task-based language education: From theory to practice (pp. 217–248). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Mediating between predetermined order and chaos: The role of the teacher in task-based language education. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 264–285. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue