Task Complexity

Asia-Pacific Edu Res
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-019-00448-2
REGULAR ARTICLE
Examining the Task Complexity in ELT Coursebooks

Jessie S. Barrot1,2
Ó De La Salle University 2019
Abstract Since the introduction of task-based language 1996) argued that tasks could be a viable alternative unit of
teaching, tasks have become an integral component of the syllabus design. As defined by Skehan (1996, 1998), a task
curriculum, ESL classrooms, and ELT coursebooks in the is a language activity that prioritizes meaning and task
Philippines. Hence, this study examines the complexity of completion, relates to real world, and is assessed based on
tasks in selected ELT coursebooks. Specifically, this study task outcome. It is a ‘‘workplan that requires learners to
sought to determine the complexity features of tasks per process language pragmatically in order to achieve an
grade level and how they progress from the simplest to the outcome that can be evaluated in terms of whether the
most complex within each ELT coursebook level and correct or appropriate propositional content has been con-
across grade levels. Based on the analysis, almost a quarter veyed’’ (Ellis 2003, p. 16).
of the language activities in these coursebooks are tasks, Recently, the Philippine government has initiated an
most of which have complexity levels 3, 4, 5, and 6. Fur- English curriculum reform known as the Language Arts
ther findings reveal that none of the ELT coursebooks show and Multiliteracies Curriculum (LAMC), which aims to
a linear progression of task complexity within and across develop communicatively competent and multiliterate
grade levels. Implications for ELT coursebook develop- learners who can thrive in this global economy (Depart-
ment and future studies are discussed. ment of Education 2016). One of the language-teaching
principles that guide the curriculum is the use of tasks that
Keywords Task complexity ELT coursebooks will help learners acquire language in authentic and
Materials development Task-based language teaching meaningful contexts of use. As indicated in the LAMC,
Task these tasks need to be sequenced at an increasing level of
difficulty and sophistication to provide sufficient scaffold-
ing to learners.
Introduction One way to realize the logical sequencing and effective
implementation of tasks is through principled and sys-
Since the introduction of task-based language teaching tematic development of ELT materials such as course-
(TBLT), tasks have become an integral component of many books. Inarguably, well-developed ELT coursebooks are
ESL classrooms and curricula. In fact, many scholars (e.g., powerful tools in facilitating learning and re-skilling both
Bao and Du 2015; Ellis 2017; Robinson 2005; Skehan experienced and inexperienced practitioners (Barrot 2015;
Brown 2009; Hutchinson and Torres 1994; Richards 1998;
Tomlinson 2014). However, it has been observed that local
& Jessie S. Barrot textbooks used very limited numbers of tasks and do not
[email protected]
follow a principled way of sequencing tasks based on their
1
Lanzhou Jiaotong University, 88 Anning W Rd, Anning Qu, complexity level. The absence of matrix and guidelines for
Lanzhou Shi, Gansu Sheng, China sequencing tasks may have pushed coursebook writers to
2
National University, M.F. Jhocson St., Sampaloc, Manila, depend on their common sense intuitions when
Philippines
123
J. S. Barrot
incorporating tasks into their coursebooks; consequently, it characteristics, namely, task complexity, task conditions,
results in poorly sequenced and graded tasks. and task difficulty. Unlike task complexity, task difficulty
Hence, I find it relevant to examine the task complexity relates to learner factors that contribute to complexity. The
in ELT coursebooks and how they progress within and more complex that task is, the more difficult it is for
across coursebook levels. As noted by Robinson (2001), learners (Norris et al. 2000; Slatyer et al. 2000). However,
any decision about sequencing tasks in the syllabus, cur- the relationship between complexity and difficulty is not
riculum, and coursebooks should be based on the com- always fixed because of some intervening factors, such as
plexity of tasks. While there have been many studies that learners’ aptitude and motivation. Unlike task complexity
investigated the effects of task complexity on learners’ and difficulty, task condition relates to participation or
performance (e.g., Gilabert 2007; Iwashita et al. 2001; interactional factors, such as the direction of information
Kuiken and Vedder 2007; Kuiken and Vedder 2008; Ong flow, number of participants, and other participant vari-
and Zhang 2010; Robinson 2001; Robinson 2007; Skehan ables. Among the three, Robinson (2001, 2007) argues that
and Foster 1999; Yuan and Ellis 2003), no studies have yet task complexity should be the only basis for selecting tasks
examined task complexity in ELT coursebooks. because the other two cannot be anticipated. Task com-
This study, therefore, was carried out to fill this gap by plexity covers two indispensable dimensions: resource-di-
examining the task complexity in ELT coursebooks in the recting and resource-dispersing. Resource-directing
Philippines. Specifically, the present study sought to dimension relates to conceptual demands, whereas
address the following questions: (1) How are the tasks in resource-dispersing dimension poses procedural demands
the ELT coursebooks distributed in terms of complexity on learners.
level? (2) Do tasks progress from the simplest to the most Given the merits of two frameworks, the current study
complex within each ELT coursebook level? (3) Does task primarily draws on Robinson’s (2001, 2003, 2005, 2007)
complexity progress linearly as grade level advances? framework because it is the most elaborate model of task
Along this line, this paper proposed a matrix for distin- complexity (Kuiken and Vedder 2007). Nonetheless, other
guishing the relative complexity of tasks and for communicative stress factors (similar to resource-dispers-
sequencing tasks more effectively. ing variables of Robinson) proposed by Skehan
(1998, 2003) were also incorporated since they do not
contradict the principles of TCF. As regards resource-dis-
Literature Review persing variables, task scope ( ± few elements), inten-
tional, spatial, and causal reasoning as well as perspective
Task Complexity taking were excluded because they are difficult to opera-
tionalise (Kuiken and Vedder 2007). Instead, Skehan and
Skehan (1998) and Robinson (2001, 2003) refer to task Foster’s (1999) task type was included as it can be readily
complexity as the inherent features of a task that impose operationalised and distinguished. Given this, the task
demands on learners. However, these scholars differ as to complexity dimensions used in this study are contextual
how task complexity can be gaged. Anchoring on Limited support, task type, modality, task duality, complexity of
Attentional Capacity Model (LACM), Skehan (1998, 2003) steps, planning time, prior knowledge, control, and time
and Skehan and Foster (1999) explain that increasing task pressure. Hence, my brief review will focus on these nine
complexity lessens learners’ available memory and atten- dimensions of task complexity which either increase or
tion resources when performing tasks. This means that decrease cognitive demands on learners. The first two (i.e.,
while learners attend to other aspects of performances (e.g., contextual support and task type) relate to resource-di-
meaning), other aspects are sacrificed (e.g., form). From recting dimensions while the last seven dimensions (i.e.,
LACM perspective, task complexity is determined via modality, task duality, complexity of steps, planning time,
three dimensions: cognitive complexity (i.e., task content prior knowledge, control, and time pressure) relate to
and structuring of the task material), code complexity (i.e., resource-dispersing dimension (communicative stress in
linguistic demand), and communicative stress (i.e., per- Skehan’s Terminology). Note that while these nine task
formance condition, such as time pressure, scale, modality, complexity dimensions are distinct from one another, they
stakes, and control). are also interrelated. For instance, Skehan and Foster
Alternatively, Robinson (2001, 2007) introduced his (1997) reported that an interaction existed between plan-
Triadic Componential Framework (TCF). TCF is anchored ning and task type.
on Cognition Hypothesis, which states that learners pro-
duce more complex and more accurate language when
faced with cognitively and functionally demanding or dif-
ficult task. TCF distinguishes three broad categories of task
123
Contextual Support performance) or a primary task with an added secondary

task (dual-task performance). From these two, a dual-task
This dimension (also referred to as here-and-now versus performance is more complex. For example, answering a
there-and-then dimension) predicts that when learners are reading comprehension task that entails multiple choice
provided with contextual support (here-and-now), task (single task) is less complex than performing a reading
complexity decreases (Robinson 2001). Contextual support comprehension task that involves the writing of answers
includes verbal (words) and non-verbal (images) input that (dual tasks).
reduce cognitive demands. Without contextual support
(there-and-then), tasks would be more complex. To illus- Complexity of Steps
trate, looking at a story board while narrating a story is not
as cognitively demanding as narrating from pure memory. As for the number of steps involved, tasks that require a
single step is less complex than tasks that require multiple
Task Type steps. Moreover, multiple steps that are independent from
one another are less cognitively demanding than those
This dimension relates to the type of task discourse, which steps that are dependent on one another (Robinson
draws learners’ attention to specific language forms. For 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007).
instance, narrative tasks will induce the use of past tense.
Tasks can be classified into personal information, narrative, Planning Time
or decision-making tasks (Skehan and Foster 1999). Per-
sonal information tasks (static) involve information known Planning time refers to the time given to learners to prepare
to participants and assumed to reduce cognitive load while for their task. Several empirical studies (e.g., Mehnert
narratives (dynamic) require a certain degree of organiza- 1998; Skehan 1996; Yuan and Ellis 2003) have confirmed
tion for storytelling. Both the personal information and that providing planning time leads to gains in fluency,
narrative tasks are considered less complex because of their complexity, and accuracy. This suggests that planning
clear inherent structure (i.e., time sequence) which reduces decreases task complexity as long as they are sufficient
the cognitive load when processing the task (Foster and (Mehnert 1998). One example of this is delivering an
Skehan 1996; Skehan and Foster 1997, 1999). Decision- impromptu speech versus delivering an extemporaneous
making (opinion-giving) tasks require a series of decision speech. Given all things equal, an impromptu speech would
that has to be made (Skehan and Foster 1999) and are most be more complex than extemporaneous speech, which has
interactive and negotiable (Skehan 2009). Of the three, sufficient provision for planning.
personal information and narrative tasks are the easiest
because they are familiar to the learners and are well Prior Knowledge
structured. Decision-making tasks, on the other hand, are
the hardest (Brown et al. 1984; Ellis 2009; Foster and Prior knowledge (also referred to as schematic knowledge)
Skehan 1996; Skehan and Foster 2001) because they are refers to information that learners could access in com-
abstract, not familiar to learners, and do not have a clear pleting a task. In the context of task complexity, the
structure. question is whether or not prior knowledge is provided in
the task. When it is provided, cognitive demand on learners
Modality is lower, but if not, the demand would be higher leading to
a more complex task. In the context of task complexity,
Modality concerns whether the task involves productive prior knowledge can be further distinguished into three
(i.e., speaking, writing, and representing) or receptive (i.e., (Ruiz-Funes 2015): topic, task, and text type. When a task
reading, listening, and viewing) language skills. All things uses familiar topic, text type, and task (i.e., learners had
being equal, it is cognitively demanding to perform pro- previous experience with a similar task), there is a greater
ductive tasks than to perform receptive tasks because chance that learners possess prior knowledge about the task
production requires articulation, expression, shaping, and to be performed. This then leads to a decrease in cognitive
framing (Candlin 1987; Hooper 2009; Skehan 1998, 2003). demand and task complexity. It is further hypothesized that
depleted prior knowledge negatively affects the complex-
Task Duality ity, accuracy, and fluency of L2 performances, which in
turn increases task complexity.
According to Robinson (2001), task duality refers to the
number of tasks that learners need to perform simultane-
ously. It may either be a single primary task (single-task
123
J. S. Barrot
Table 1 ELT coursebooks

Grade Coursebook titles Year No. of Publisher
level lessons
1 Essential English 1 (RE1) 2017 40 Rex Book Store

2 Essential English 2 (RE2) 2017 40
1 Rainbows in English (VE1) 2012 24 Vibal Group
2 Rainbows in English (VE2) 2013 20
7 Language in Literature: Philippine Literature (VE7) 2016 16
8 Language in Literature: Afro-Asian Literature (VE8) 2016 16
9 Language in Literature: Anglo-American Literature (VE9) 2014 16
10 Language in Literature: World Literature (VE10) 2016 16
1 Integrated English for Effective Communication (PE1) 2015 20 Phoenix Publishing
2 Integrated English for Effective Communication (PE2) 2015 20 House
3 Integrated English for Effective Communication (PE3) 2015 20
7 English Communication Arts and Skills through Philippine Literature (PE7) 2015 23
8 English Communication Arts and Skills through Afro-Asian Literature (PE8) 2015 18
9 English Communication Arts and Skills through Anglo-American and Philippine 2015 16
Literatures (PE9)
10 English Communication Arts and Skills through World Literature (PE10) 2015 12
Control has been already established that giving learners reasonable

time to finish a task lessens cognitive demand and com-
Control concerns the extent of learners’ influence on how municative stress. On the other hand, giving them very
the task should be performed (Skehan 1998, 2003). For limited time would lead to elevated task complexity
example, learners have control if they can negotiate on task (Skehan 1998; Yuan and Ellis 2003).
objectives, ask clarifications, or control the speed of input. Several scholars (Ellis 2005; Robinson 2001, 2007) con-
Hence, they have more options and maximum autonomy in tended that manipulating task complexity may have direct
performing tasks. Note also that the higher the control of effects on language learning. According to Robinson (2007),
learners, the lower the ‘difficulty’ level of tasks (Pica et al. increasing the overall task complexity would push learners to
1993). interaction, negotiation, noticing, and incorporation of input
to L2 production. He further posited that increasing task
Time Pressure complexity in the resource-directing dimensions would
decrease fluency but increase accuracy and complexity and
Time pressure refers to the time available to complete a that sequencing tasks from simple to complex helps learners
task (Skehan 1998, 2003). While some tasks have a time to perform successfully in real-world tasks. Ellis (2005) also
limit, others are done at a speed desired by the learners. It shared the same position that task complexity dimensions
123
Table 2 Number of tasks per coursebook

Coursebooks Activities Total activities % tasks/activities
Exercises Tasks
RE1 454 73 527 13.85

RE2 418 79 497 15.90
RE3 432 84 516 16.28
RE4 543 64 607 10.54
RE5 551 86 637 13.50
RE6 418 142 560 25.36
RE7 219 69 288 23.96
RE8 203 77 280 27.50
RE9 289 79 368 21.47
RE10 258 81 339 23.89
VE1 289 57 346 16.47
VE2 271 48 319 15.05
VE3 351 94 445 21.12
VE4 334 90 424 21.23
VE5 361 109 470 23.19
VE6 358 102 460 22.17
VE7 273 84 357 23.53
VE8 209 84 293 28.67
VE9 205 85 290 29.31
VE10 162 79 241 32.78
PE1 209 34 243 13.99
PE2 201 48 249 19.28
PE3 198 50 248 20.16
PE4 188 54 242 22.31
PE5 157 82 239 34.31
PE6 196 79 275 28.73
PE7 188 30 218 13.76
PE8 163 28 191 14.66
PE9 190 66 256 25.78
PE10 158 75 233 32.19
8446 2212 10658 20.75
that induce focus on language form are likely to facilitate framework of conscious raising and practice type tasks
greater interlanguage development. applied to nine ELT coursebooks. Their analyzes revealed
that these coursebooks used very limited focused commu-
Related Studies nication tasks and were essentially based on presentation–
practice approach to grammar teaching.
While there have been many studies that investigated the A more recent study was conducted by Günay and İlker
effects of task complexity on learners’ performance (e.g., Etuş (2007) who explored the selection and organization of
Gilabert 2007; Iwashita et al. 2001; Kuiken and Vedder tasks in selected 4th grade ELT coursebook adopted by
2007; Kuiken and Vedder 2008; Ong and Zhang 2010; state primary schools in Turkey. Their findings indicated
Robinson 2001; Robinson 2007; Skehan and Foster 1999; that the coursebook employed a very limited number of
Yuan and Ellis 2003), no studies have yet examined task tasks, did not represent a balanced distribution among task
complexity in ELT coursebooks. In fact, only a limited types, and focused on tasks that promote reading and
number of studies have analyzed tasks in ELT course- writing skills. Further findings showed that language
books. For example, Nitta and Gardner (2005) examined demand gradually increased from easy to complex while
the nature of form-focused tasks by developing a cognitive demand did not show similar pattern.
123
J. S. Barrot
Table 3 Task complexity levels

Complexity Complexity Description Sample complexity features
level index (ci)
1 0 Extremely It can be a personal information receptive task that requires a single step and involves a single-task
simple performance. In this task, learners have prior knowledge, enough planning time, contextual support,
and sufficient time to complete it
2 1 Very simple It can be a personal information receptive task that requires a single step and involves a single-task
performance. In this task, learners have two of the following dimensions: prior knowledge, enough
planning time, contextual support. Learners are not given time limit to complete it
3 2 Moderately It can be a personal information receptive task that requires a single step and involves a single-task
simple performance. In this task, learners have one of the following dimensions: prior knowledge, enough
planning time, contextual support. Learners are not given time limit to complete it
4 3 Fairly It can be a personal information receptive task that requires a single step and involves a single-task
simple performance. In this task, learners do not have any of the following dimensions: prior knowledge,
enough planning time, contextual support. Learners are not given time limit to complete it
5 4 Slightly It can be a personal information receptive task that requires a single step and involves a single-task
simple performance. In this task, learners do not have any of the following dimensions: prior knowledge,
enough planning time, contextual support. Learners are given time limit to complete it
6 5 Slightly It can be a decision-making productive task that requires multiple steps and involves a dual-task
complex performance. In this task, learners would have all of the following dimensions: prior knowledge,
planning time, and contextual support. Learners are not given time limit to complete it
7 6 Fairly It can be a decision-making productive task that requires multiple steps and involves a dual-task
complex performance. In this task, learners would have all of the following dimensions: prior knowledge,
planning time, and contextual support. Learners are given time limit to complete it
8 7 Moderately It can be a decision-making productive task that requires multiple steps and involves a dual-task
complex performance. In this task, learners would have two of the following dimensions: prior knowledge,
9 8 Very It can be a decision-making productive task that requires multiple steps and involves a dual-task
complex performance. In this task, learners would have one of the following dimensions: prior knowledge,
10 9 Extremely It can be a decision-making productive task that requires multiple steps and involves a dual-task
complex performance. In this task, learners would not have prior knowledge, planning time, and contextual
support but are given time limit to complete it
Methodology coursebooks were published by the three leading educa-

tional publishers (i.e., Phoenix Publishing House, Vibal
Selection of ELT Coursebooks Group, and Rex Book Store) in the Philippines and are
widely used by private schools in the Philippines (Book
To address the posted research questions, I selected and Development Association of the Philippines 2015). The
analyzed 30 ELT coursebooks for basic education. These coursebooks were selected using the following inclusion
Table 4 Task complexity matrix

Task complexity dimensions Performance conditions
Less complex (0) More complex (? 1)
Contextual support (CX) Here-and-now There-and-then

Task type (TT) Personal information/description; narrative Decision-making
Modality (M) Receptive Productive
Task duality (TD) Single-task performance Dual-task performance
Complexity of steps (CS) Few steps that are independent from one another Many steps that are dependent on one another
Planning time (PT) With planning time No planning time
Prior knowledge (PK) Familiar topic, text type, and task Unfamiliar topic, text type, and task
Control (C) Learner has high control Learner has limited control
Time pressure (TP) No time limit With time limit
123
Table 5 Number of tasks per complexity level

Coursebook Complexity level Total
levels
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f %
1 9 0.41 10 0.45 41 1.85 55 2.49 33 1.49 14 0.63 2 0.09 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 164
2 1 0.05 6 0.17 49 2.22 63 2.85 30 1.36 13 0.59 9 0.41 4 0.18 0 0.00 0 0.00 175
3 1 0.05 23 1.04 45 2.03 62 2.80 58 2.62 26 1.18 12 0.54 1 0.05 0 0.00 0 0.00 228
4 1 0.05 9 0.41 32 1.45 52 2.35 80 3.62 23 1.04 8 0.36 3 0.14 0 0.00 0 0.00 208
5 1 0.05 25 1.13 28 1.27 81 3.66 90 4.07 35 1.58 14 0.63 3 0.14 0 0.00 0 0.00 277
6 3 0.14 15 0.68 30 1.36 102 4.61 105 4.75 47 2.12 21 0.95 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 323
7 1 0.05 2 0.09 16 0.72 43 1.94 64 2.89 37 1.67 17 0.77 3 0.14 0 0.00 0 0.00 183
8 3 0.14 7 0.32 52 2.35 39 1.76 48 2.17 28 1.27 9 0.41 2 0.09 1 0.05 0 0.00 189
9 2 0.09 1 0.05 39 1.76 78 3.53 77 3.48 24 1.08 8 0.36 1 0.05 0 0.00 0 0.00 230
10 0 0.00 9 0.41 37 1.67 83 3.75 67 3.03 27 1.22 10 0.45 2 0.09 0 0.00 0 0.00 235
Total 22 0.99 107 4.84 369 16.68 658 29.75 652 29.48 274 12.39 110 4.97 19 0.86 1 0.05 0 0.00 2212
criteria: (1) aligned to the LAMC (2) complete English can be considered a task. Once the tasks were identified,
series from grades 1 to 10, and (3) principal English they were subjected to an in-depth analysis to determine
coursebook series of the publisher. their complexity level.
Table 1 shows each set of ELT coursebooks is com- Table 2 presents the frequency of tasks per coursebook
posed of 10 different grade levels with each level covering and their proportion to language activities. Of the 10,658
four units and lessons ranging from 12 to 40. Thus, each language activities employed in the selected coursebooks,
unit is composed of 4 to 10 lessons and corresponds to one 8446 (79.25%) are exercises and 2212 (20.75%) are tasks.
academic quarter. This means that Unit 1 is for academic Per ELT coursebook series, the number of tasks ranges
quarter 1, Unit 2 for academic quarter 2, Unit 3 for aca- from 280 to 637 for RE English Series, 241–470 for VE
demic quarter 3, and Unit 4 for academic quarter 4. These English Series, and 191–275 for PE English Series. The
coursebooks are clustered into two subgroups: levels 1 to 6 average number of tasks in each of the secondary level
are those used in the elementary level while levels 7 to 10 coursebooks (x = 69.75) is relatively lower compared to
are those used in the secondary level. that of elementary level coursebooks (x = 76.39). On the
other hand, the percentage of tasks per total language
Procedure and Analysis activities in secondary level coursebooks (x = 24.79) is
relatively higher compared to elementary level course-
The selected ELT coursebooks were subjected to prelimi- books (x = 19.64).
nary analysis to separate exercises from tasks. Unlike tasks, Table 3 shows the complexity level of tasks and their
exercises are teaching activities designed to practice corresponding complexity index (ci). As presented, the
specific language form or skills without any communica- complexity index is in a continuum rather than a dichotomy
tive purpose. They prioritize structures of language (i.e., to allow any adjustment between levels. Since no studies
form) rather than meaning and task completion and are have compared yet the differential effects of all task
assessed based on accuracy of language use. Some exam- complexity dimensions, each dimension was assigned a
ples of exercises include drills, cloze tests, reading com- positive one ( ? 1) or a zero (0) value. The binary division
prehension passages, substitution activities, and awareness- was also based on Robinson’s (2001, 2007) representation
raising activities (Littlewood 2004; Richards 2005). Ellis’s of the task complexity dimensions, although he cautioned
(2003, pp. 4–5) criteria for determining tasks were used to that these dimensions may also appear in a continua.
distinguish them from exercises. These are as follows: (1) Positive one value was assigned to dimensions that impose
the primary focus should be on meaning; (2) there should cognitive demand while the zero value was assigned to
be some kind of gap; (3) learners should largely have to those that lessen cognitive demand. This makes all
rely on their own resources; and (4) there is a clearly dimensions weighted equally. Hence, the most complex
defined outcome other than the use of language. Note that task (level 10; ci = 9) is a decision-making productive (i.e.,
all of these criteria should be satisfied before an activity speaking, writing, and representing) task that involves
123
J. S. Barrot
Table 6 Task complexity within each ELT coursebook level

Coursebooks Complexity index p
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4
x SD x SD x SD x SD
RE1 3.36 0.89 3.74 1.19 3.43 0.95 2.93 0.85 0.124
RE2 3.38 1.09 2.88 1.02 3.25 1.23 3.52 1.21 0.362
RE3 3.63 1.18 3.13 0.99 3.64 1.49 2.82 1.10 0.062
RE4 3.33 0.67 3.88 0.90 3.67 1.39 4.18 1.20 0.278
RE5 3.80 1.40 3.79 1.00 3.32 1.10 3.55 1.16 0.476
RE6 3.81 1.21 3.28 0.74 4.26 1.23 4.00 0.82 0.001
RE7 3.81 0.88 4.56 1.26 3.83 0.69 3.53 0.98 0.018
RE8 3.25 1.20 4.00 1.41 4.44 1.27 3.50 1.12 0.020
RE9 3.89 1.17 3.28 0.65 3.53 1.09 3.40 0.88 0.201
RE10 2.80 0.83 3.52 0.73 4.14 0.97 3.96 0.86 \ 0.001
VE1 2.35 0.97 0.93 1.06 2.88 1.22 3.00 0.47 \ 0.001
VE2 2.17 1.46 2.36 1.07 2.60 1.20 2.89 1.05 0.461
VE3 3.09 1.54 3.58 1.76 3.26 1.54 3.05 1.28 0.678
VE4 3.38 0.86 3.23 1.63 2.95 1.05 3.80 1.28 0.259
VE5 3.08 1.59 3.28 1.48 3.15 1.54 3.14 1.41 0.966
VE6 3.12 1.34 3.67 1.31 3.43 1.31 3.53 1.45 0.534
VE7 4.09 1.02 4.00 0.91 3.52 1.53 4.30 1.23 0.190
VE8 3.64 0.81 3.60 1.14 3.88 1.28 3.70 1.54 0.902
VE9 3.89 0.81 3.32 1.12 3.68 0.92 3.65 1.24 0.359
VE10 3.00 0.94 3.78 0.97 3.76 1.44 3.17 1.11 0.085
PE1 2.86 1.36 3.22 1.31 2.33 0.67 2.78 1.03 0.104
PE2 3.46 1.34 3.73 1.42 3.62 1.64 3.73 1.29 0.962
PE3 3.00 1.13 3.25 0.92 3.31 0.91 3.82 1.47 0.346
PE4 3.22 0.92 3.50 0.91 3.75 0.83 3.93 1.39 0.281
PE5 3.56 0.98 3.58 0.99 4.21 1.20 3.74 0.91 0.165
PE6 3.48 1.01 3.00 1.15 3.67 1.07 3.09 1.24 0.232
PE7 3.88 1.96 3.80 1.08 4.63 1.22 3.50 1.50 0.535
PE8 4.43 1.29 3.73 0.96 3.33 1.89 4.14 0.64 0.417
PE9 2.90 1.22 3.73 0.94 2.70 1.00 2.70 0.90 0.003
PE10 3.52 1.37 3.18 0.98 2.73 1.14 3.00 1.46 0.352
many elements and complex task procedures. In this task, language teaching. Prior to their validation engagement,
learners would not have prior knowledge, planning time, they were oriented on the criteria for and process of anal-
and contextual support but are given time limit to complete ysis. The intercoder agreement was at 92%. The points of
it. The simplest, on the other hand, is a personal informa- disagreements were discussed with the validators for
tion receptive task (i.e., reading, listening, and viewing) proper tagging. Once the evaluation of all tasks was
with few elements and simpler task procedure. In this task, completed, results were tallied and subjected to statistical
learners have prior knowledge, enough planning time, analysis.
contextual support, and sufficient time to complete it
(ci = 0). Below is the task complexity matrix used in this
study. Results
To ensure consistency of analysis, two validators ana-
lyzed all the tasks. These validators are experienced The tasks in the selected ELT coursebooks were analyzed
teachers and researchers with at least five years of teaching using the metrics given in Tables 3 and 4. The obtained
experience in an ESL context and have a master’s degree in data from this analysis were entered into SPSS Version 21
123
Table 7 Task complexity across grade levels

Coursebook Course level p
series
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
X SD X SD X SD X SD X SD X SD X SD X SD X SD X SD
RE English 3.41 1.04 3.32 1.18 3.23 1.22 3.81 1.17 3.62 1.18 3.89 1.07 3.94 1.05 3.88 1.35 3.57 1.03 3.68 0.98 \ 0.001
Series
VE English 2.23 1.30 2.58 1.17 3.22 1.55 3.30 1.29 3.17 1.51 3.44 1.38 3.99 1.24 3.69 1.25 3.61 1.07 3.43 1.20 \ 0.001
Series
PE English 2.79 1.16 3.63 1.44 3.32 1.16 3.56 1.08 3.76 1.05 3.28 1.16 4.00 1.51 3.96 1.18 3.14 1.11 3.20 1.29 \ 0.001
Series
the tasks in each of these six coursebooks do not progress

Table 8 Sample task complexity range for ELT coursebooks from simplest to the most complex. Of all the coursebooks,
Coursebook Level Task complexity range VE2, PE3, and PE4 show linear progression in task com-
plexity across units; however, such a progression was not
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4
significant.
1 1–3 2–4 3–5 4–6 Table 7 shows the task complexity of ELT coursebooks
2 1–3 2–4 3–5 4–6 across grade levels. The data reveal a significant difference
3 2–4 3–5 4–6 5–7 in the task complexity of all coursebooks in each of the
4 2–4 3–5 4–6 5–7 series. However, such a difference does not indicate a
5 3–5 4–6 5–7 6–8 linear progression because of the erratic pattern of com-
6 3–5 4–6 5–7 6–8 plexity across grade levels. Looking at the task complexity
7 4–6 5–7 6–8 7–9 per subgroup, results show that the average task complexity
8 4–6 5–7 6–8 7–9 in secondary level coursebooks (x = 3.77 for RE English
9 5–7 6–8 7–9 8–10 Series; x = 3.68 for VE English Series; x = 3.58 for PE
10 5–7 6–8 7–9 8–10 English Series) is relatively higher compared to that of
elementary level coursebooks (x = 3.55 for RE English
Series; x = 2.99 for VE English Series; x = 3.39 for PE
to quantitatively address the research questions. Specifi- English Series). Interestingly, grade 7 coursebooks con-
cally, mean scores and standard deviations of task com- sistently posted the highest average task complexity index.
plexity scores per unit and per book were computed. These
scores were then subjected to ANOVA to determine if task
complexity progressed within each ELT coursebook level Discussion
and across grade levels.
Table 5 shows the number of tasks per complexity level The present study set out to examine the task complexity in
in each of the coursebook level. As shown, most of the ELT coursebooks in the Philippines. Specifically, this study
tasks are concentrated on complexity levels 4 (29.75%), 5 sought to determine the complexity features of tasks per
(29.48%), 3 (16.68%), and 6 (12.39%) across coursebook grade level and whether these tasks progress from the
levels. In fact, these four levels constitute 88.29 percent of simplest to the most complex within each ELT coursebook
all the tasks in the selected ELT coursebooks. Meanwhile, level and across grade levels. Results indicate that the
very few tasks have a complexity level of 1 (0.99%), 2 language activities in the analyzed coursebooks are pre-
(4.84%), 7 (4.97%), 8 (0.86%), and 9 (0.05%). Only dominantly exercises. In fact, only about one-fifth of these
coursebook level 8 employed a level 9 complexity while activities are considered tasks. These results support and
the rest did not. Meanwhile, no task has posted a level 10 extend earlier findings (e.g., Günay and İlker Etuş 2007;
complexity in any of the coursebook levels. Harmer, 2001; Masuhara and Tomlinson, 2008; Nitta and
Table 6 reveals the mean complexity index of tasks per Gardner, 2005; Tomlinson 1995; Tomlinson, 2008; Waters,
unit in each of the selected ELT coursebooks. The findings 2006) that ELT materials remain to focus on controlled
reveal that only 6 (i.e., RE6, RE7, RE8, RE10, VE1, and practices and exercises rather than task-oriented and real-
PE9) of the 30 coursebooks display a significant difference life activities. One possible reason for the dominance of
in task complexity within each coursebook level. However, exercises in ELT coursebooks in the Philippines roots from
the learning competencies specified in the LAMC. Majority
123
J. S. Barrot
of the learning competencies in the new English curriculum curriculum and the target complexity level. (3) Adjust the
in the Philippines relate to exercises particularly in listen- task based on the set task complexity range. The adjust-
ing comprehension, vocabulary development, reading ment can be done by manipulating each of the task
comprehension, and grammar domains. And although the dimensions. (4) Categorize the tasks into types (e.g.,
LAMC specifies various competencies that learners need to enabling or culminating tasks, pedagogic, or authentic
master, the curriculum fails to clarify how these compe- tasks).
tencies can be used in real-life contexts (Barrot 2018). It should be noted that resource-directing and resource-
Based on the findings, there is an unbalanced distribu- dispersing dimensions interact with each other, which
tion of tasks across complexity levels. Also, none of the consequently affects learners’ task performance (Robinson
ELT coursebooks show a linear progression of task com- 2001, 2007). Thus, the manipulation of these two dimen-
plexity within and across grade levels. The data concur sions depends on the task purpose. For instance, if the aim
with Günay and İlker Etuş’s (2007) findings that cognitive of the task is for learners to satisfy linguistic demand of the
demand in an ELT coursebook did not show a linear task at the optimum level, teachers can make the resource-
increase. Several reasons can be attributed to these find- dispersing dimensions (e.g., task type) complex and the
ings. The first possible cause is the absence of guidelines in resource-dispersing dimensions relatively simple (e.g.,
the LAMC regarding the development, selection, classifi- through sufficient planning time). Conversely, if the pri-
cation, and sequencing of tasks. Coursebook writers may mary aim is to complete the task without much attention to
have relied on their common sense intuition when the features of language code, teachers may decrease the
sequencing tasks instead of using well-founded principles complexity in the resource-directing dimensions and
in developing and sequencing tasks. Future research may increase complexity in the resource-dispersing dimensions
confirm this hypothesis. Although intuitions are significant of the task. Although there is no specific sequencing of
in ELT materials development, decisions solely based on dimensions that can be followed, it is logical to prioritize
them may have some serious drawbacks (Derwing and task type (resource-directing dimension) and modality
Munro, 2005). Hence, it is imperative to improve the (resource-dispersing dimension) when developing tasks.
specificity of the new English curriculum by providing The reason is that tasks in English coursebooks are based
teachers and coursebook writers with guidelines that will on the learning competencies indicated in the English
help them to carefully plan the sequencing of tasks to curriculum and that these learning competencies may
maximize learning potentials. These guidelines may require coursebook developers to focus first on task type
include the nature and characteristics of tasks, sequencing and modality. All remaining dimensions can be manipu-
criteria, task complexity dimensions, and complexity levels lated simultaneously after specifying these two dimensions
with their corresponding sample tasks. Along with these to achieve the target task complexity. To facilitate learning,
guidelines, training on task development, selection, and tasks may begin with simpler pedagogic tasks followed by
sequencing can also be provided to both teachers and progressively more complex real-world tasks.
coursebook writers to avoid misinterpretation and misap- Finally, it should be noted that the authors across ELT
plication of the said guidelines. coursebooks series vary from one level to another. This
The next possible reason for lack of systematic pro- might be one of the reasons for the lack of systematic
gression of task complexity is the absence of framework on progression in the task complexity of selected ELT
integrating progressive task complexity into ELT course- coursebooks since authors may have different sets of
books. Such an absence may have contributed to the beliefs (Phipps and Borg 2009) that may have influenced
struggle of coursebook writers in establishing rank order of their interpretations of a task and its complexity. Future
complexity for various tasks. To somehow address this studies may need to confirm this claim. One way to ensure
issue, both teachers and coursebook writers may adopt the sufficient integration of tasks in ELT coursebooks is for
following matrix to help them identify and adjust the publishers to develop or adopt an instructional materials
complexity level of their developed tasks and sequence design model that reflects the current principles of lan-
them following linear progression (see Table 4). In using guage pedagogy (Barrot 2015). This design must be tar-
this proposed matrix, coursebook writers may follow the geted to a particular group of students and in a particular
given steps: (1) Decide the range of complexity level to be type of teaching situation (Bell and Gower 1998; Breen
used in each unit or grade level. Make sure that a linear et al. 2001).
progression in task complexity is observed when setting a Authors’ lack of exposure to and/or engagement in
range for each unit or grade level as shown in Table 8. The second language acquisition and language teaching
table is not fixed and can be adjusted based on the teach- research may have also led to their misinterpretation of
ing–learning contexts in which tasks are used. (2) Develop what a task is and how they should be graded. In fact, it has
tasks that match the learning competencies in the been observed that the ELT coursebook writers misuse the
123
term ‘task’ in several occasions. For instance, an exercise overall complexity level. Hence, future studies may focus
was labeled as an integrating task in RE1, pages 313 and on a more sophisticated approach to developing a task
367. As Richards (2005) pointed out, practitioners such as complexity matrix. Further studies may also explore the
coursebook writers need to be familiar with the current development of an automated system that will help
principles and theories of language teaching and second teachers and coursebook writers develop tasks that incor-
language acquisition so that they can come up with a set of porate the various dimensions of task complexity and
sound instructional framework. However, this does not identify task complexity level for proper sequencing.
mean that they should be applied linguists, they just need to Another limitation of this study is that it is limited to
be confident and possess basic competence to make sound content analysis of the selected coursebooks. Future studies
decisions when selecting activities and developing mate- may want to explore the beliefs of coursebooks writers and
rials (McGrath 2016). To address this issue, a clearer and how these beliefs influence their practices in developing
more specific checklist that will guide coursebook writers ELT coursebooks. In this way, we can better understand
in developing and sequencing tasks might be needed. A the underlying reasons behind the data. The coursebooks
series of intensive trainings on task development and also were limited to the three local publishers. Future
sequencing may also be provided to writers to re-skill them studies may expand the analysis to other local coursebooks
in this area. particularly those used in public schools and teacher-made
materials for more conclusive findings. Finally, this study
did not attempt to examine the alignment of the course-
Conclusion books with the LAMC. Thus, future studies may embark on
this study to determine if ELT coursebooks in the Philip-
The present study examined the task complexity in ELT pines were instrumental in the successful implementation
coursebooks in the Philippines. Based on the quantitative of the new English curriculum.
analysis, very few of the language activities in these As correctly pointed out by Mackey et al. (2016), sys-
coursebooks are tasks, most of which have a task com- tematic integration of the notion of task complexity into the
plexity level of 3 to 6. Also, none of the ELT coursebooks teaching–learning process can influence the success of any
show a linear progression in task complexity within and task-based approach. Though not all publishers would
across grade levels. These findings were attributed to the immediately embrace the idea of using task complexity
learning competencies and level of specificity of the matrix, it is our call to move forward as coursebook writers
LAMC as well as the absence of task complexity frame- and language educators by linking research findings to our
work that will guide coursebook writers in selecting and teaching practices.
sequencing tasks. The results of this study, however,
should not be taken to suggest that the selected course- Acknowledgements This paper has been funded by the Southeast
Asian Ministry of Education Organization Regional Language Centre
books are ineffective in promoting language learning. (SEAMEO-RELC) as part of the researcher’s research fellowship
Instead, they should be taken as one of the groundwork for award.
advancing coursebook development in the Philippines.
The findings of the current study may be useful in
several ways. First, publishers can use them in adopting a References
sound instructional design model that reflects the funda-
mental principles in substantially integrating and Bao, R., & Du, X. (2015). Implementation of task-based language
teaching in Chinese as a foreign language: Benefits and
sequencing tasks. Second, both the coursebook writers and challenges. Language, Culture and Curriculum,28(3), 291–310.
teachers can use the findings in reflecting on their current Barrot, J. S. (2015). A sociocognitive-transformative instructional
practices and developing principle-based ELT materials materials design model for second language (L2) pedagogy in
that facilitate language learning and contribute to the suc- the Asia Pacific: Development and validation. The Asia-Pacific
Education Researcher, 24(2), 283–297.
cess of the English curriculum. They can also use the Barrot, J. S. (2018). English curriculum reform in the Philippines:
proposed task complexity matrix in selecting and Issues and challenges from a 21st century learning perspective.
sequencing tasks more effectively. Finally, curriculum Journal of Language, Identity & Education. https://doi.org/
developers can use the findings in enhancing the current 10.1080/15348458.2018.1528547.
Bell, J., & Gower, R. (1998). Writing course materials for the world:
English curriculum in terms of specificity and quality of A great compromise. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials devel-
learning competencies. opment in language teaching (pp. 117–129). Cambridge: Cam-
Although the present study provided some interesting bridge University Press.
insights, there are some limitations that should be consid- Book Development Association of the Philippines. (2015). Charting
the future of books in the Philippines: A roadmap of the book
ered. First, this study did not attempt to determine the
differential effects of each task complexity dimension on
123
J. S. Barrot
industry of the Philippines. Mandaluyong: Book Development McGrath, I. (2016). Materials evaluation and design for language
Association of the Philippines. teaching (2nd ed.). Edinburg: Edinburg University Press.
Breen, M., Hird, B., Milton, M., Oliver, R., & Thwaite, A. (2001). Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for
Making sense of language teaching: Teachers’ principles and planning on second language performance. Studies in Second
classroom practices. Applied Linguistics,22(4), 470–501. Language Acquisition,20, 52–83.
Brown, G., Anderson, A., Shilcock, R., & Yule, G. (1984). Teaching Nitta, R., & Gardner, S. (2005). Consciousness-raising and practice in
talk: Strategies for production and assessment. Cambridge: ELT coursebooks. ELT Journal,59(1), 3–13.
Cambridge University Press. Norris, J. M., Brown, J. D., Hudson, T. D., & Bonk, W. (2000).
Brown, H. D. (2009). Why and how textbooks should encourage Assessing performance on complex L2 tasks: Investigating
extensive reading. ELT Journal,63(3), 238–244. raters, examinees and tasks. Paper presented at the 22nd
Candlin, C. (1987). Towards task-based language learning. In C. Language Testing Research Colloquium, Vancouver, British
Candlin & D. Murphy (Eds.), Language learning tasks (pp. Columbia, Canada.
5–22). London: Prentice Hall. Ong, J., & Zhang, L. J. (2010). Effects of task complexity on the
Department of Education. (2016). K to 12 curriculum guide for fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students’ argumentative
English. Retrieved June 6, 2016, from writing. Journal of Second Language Writing,19(4), 218–233.
https://www.deped.gov.ph/sites/default/files/page/2016/ Phipps, S., & Borg, S. (2009). Exploring tensions between teachers’
English%20CG_0.pdf grammar teaching beliefs and practices. System,37(3), 380–390.
Derwing, T., & Munro, M. (2005). Second language accent and Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using
pronunciation teaching: A research-based approach. TESOL communication tasks for second language instruction. In G.
Quarterly,39(3), 379–395. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning:
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. New Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9–34). Clevedon, England:
York: Oxford University Press. Multilingual Matters.
Ellis, R. (2005). Instructed language learning and task-based teaching. Richards, J. (1998). Beyond training: Perspectives on language
In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teacher education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
teaching and learning (pp. 713–728). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Richards, J. (2005). Materials development and research – Making
Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task connections. A paper presented at a colloquium on research and
planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral materials development at TESOL Convention. March 2005.
production. Applied Linguistics,30(4), 474–509. Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task
Ellis, R. (2017). Position paper: Moving task-based language teaching production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework.
forward. Language Teaching,50(4), 507–526. Applied Linguistics,22(1), 27–57.
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task Robinson, P. (2003). The cognition hypothesis, task design, and adult
type on second language performance. Studies in Second task-based language learning. Second Language Studies,21(2),
Language Acquisition,18(3), 299–323. 45–105.
Gilabert, R. (2007). Effects of manipulating task complexity on self- Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing:
repairs during L2 oral production. IRAL-International Review of Studies in a componential framework for second language task
Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching,45, 215–240. design. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in
Günay, D., & lker Etuş, Ö. (2007). The exploration of tasks in the 4th Language Teaching,43(1), 1–32.
grade ELT coursebook used in state primary schools in Turkey. Robinson, P. (2007). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional
Istanbul, Turkey: Unpublished course paper. Istanbul University. reasoning: Effects on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake
Harmer, J. (2001). Coursebooks: A human, cultural and linguistic and perceptions of task difficulty. IRAL-International Review of
disaster? MET,8(4), 5–10. Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching,45(3), 193–213.
Hooper, S. (2009). Biological processes underlying written language Ruiz-Funes, M. (2015). Exploring the potential of second/foreign
acquisition. Encyclopedia of language and literacy development language writing for language learning: The effects of task
(pp. 1–9). London, ON: Canadian Language and Literacy factors and learner variables. Journal of Second Language
Research Network. Writing,28, 1–19.
Hutchinson, T., & Torres, E. (1994). The textbook as agent of change. Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based
ELT Journal,48(4), 315–328. instruction. Applied Linguistics,17(1), 38–62.
Iwashita, N., McNamara, T., & Elder, C. (2001). Can we predict task Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning.
difficulty in an oral proficiency test? Exploring the potential of Oxford: Oxford University Press.
an information-processing approach to task design. Language Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching,36(1),
Learning,51(3), 401–436. 1–14.
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). Task complexity and measures of Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Inte-
linguistic performance in L2 writing. IRAL-International Review grating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied
of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching,45(3), 261–284. Linguistics,30(4), 510–532.
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2008). Cognitive task complexity and Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing
written output in Italian and French as a foreign language. conditions as influences on foreign language performance.
Journal of Second Language Writing,17, 48–60. Language Teaching Research,1(3), 185–211.
Littlewood, W. (2004). The task-based approach: Some questions and Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and
suggestions. ELT Journal,58(4), 319–326. processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learn-
Mackey, A., Ziegler, N., & Bryfonski, L. (2016). From SLA research ing,49(1), 93–120.
on interaction to TBLT materials. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), SLA Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson
research and materials development for language learning (pp. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183–205).
103–118). New York: Routledge. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
Masuhara, H., & Tomlinson, B. (2008). Materials for general English. Slatyer, H., Brindley, G., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Task difficulty
In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), English language learning materials (pp. in ESL listening assessment. Paper presented at the 22nd
17–37). London: Continuum International Publishing.
123
Language Testing Research Colloquium, Vancouver, British Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-
Columbia, Canada. line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2
Tomlinson, B. (1995). What dialogues can do. FOLIO,1(2), 8–10. monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics,24(1), 1–27.
Tomlinson, B. (2008). English language learning materials. New
York: Continuum International Publishing Group. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
Tomlinson, B. (2014). Developing materials for language teaching jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
(2nd. ed.). London: Bloombury.
Waters, A. (2006). Thinking and language learning. ELT Jour-
nal,60(4), 319–327.
123

Task Complexity

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Task Complexity

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Task Complexity

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asia-Pacific Edu Res

Examining the Task Complexity in ELT Coursebooks

Ó De La Salle University 2019

Contextual Support performance) or a primary task with an added secondary

Table 1 ELT coursebooks

1 Essential English 1 (RE1) 2017 40 Rex Book Store

Control has been already established that giving learners reasonable

Table 2 Number of tasks per coursebook

RE1 454 73 527 13.85

Table 3 Task complexity levels

Methodology coursebooks were published by the three leading educa-

Table 4 Task complexity matrix

Contextual support (CX) Here-and-now There-and-then

Table 5 Number of tasks per complexity level

Table 6 Task complexity within each ELT coursebook level

Table 7 Task complexity across grade levels

the tasks in each of these six coursebooks do not progress

You might also like