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
teaching, tasks have become an integral component of the
curriculum, ESL classrooms, and ELT coursebooks in the
Philippines. Hence, this study examines the complexity of
tasks in selected ELT coursebooks. Specifically, this study
sought to determine the complexity features of tasks per
grade level and how they progress from the simplest to the
most complex within each ELT coursebook level and
across grade levels. Based on the analysis, almost a quarter
of the language activities in these coursebooks are tasks,
most of which have complexity levels 3, 4, 5, and 6. Fur-
ther findings reveal that none of the ELT coursebooks show
a linear progression of task complexity within and across
grade levels. Implications for ELT coursebook develop-
ment and future studies are discussed.
Keywords Task complexity
ELT coursebooks

Materials development
Task-based language teaching

Task
Introduction
Since the introduction of task-based language teaching
(TBLT), tasks have become an integral component of many
ESL classrooms and curricula. In fact, many scholars (e.g.,
Bao and Du 2015; Ellis 2017; Robinson 2005; Skehan
& Jessie S. Barrot
jessiebarrot@yahoo.com
1
Lanzhou Jiaotong University, 88 Anning W Rd, Anning Qu,
Lanzhou Shi, Gansu Sheng, China
2
National University, M.F. Jhocson St., Sampaloc, Manila,
Philippines
1996) argued that tasks could be a viable alternative unit of
syllabus design. As defined by Skehan (1996, 1998), a task
is a language activity that prioritizes meaning and task
completion, relates to real world, and is assessed based on
task outcome. It is a ‘‘workplan that requires learners to
process language pragmatically in order to achieve an
outcome that can be evaluated in terms of whether the
correct or appropriate propositional content has been con-
veyed’’ (Ellis 2003, p. 16).
Recently, the Philippine government has initiated an
English curriculum reform known as the Language Arts
and Multiliteracies Curriculum (LAMC), which aims to
develop communicatively competent and multiliterate
learners who can thrive in this global economy (Depart-
ment of Education 2016). One of the language-teaching
principles that guide the curriculum is the use of tasks that
will help learners acquire language in authentic and
meaningful contexts of use. As indicated in the LAMC,
these tasks need to be sequenced at an increasing level of
difficulty and sophistication to provide sufficient scaffold-
ing to learners.
One way to realize the logical sequencing and effective
implementation of tasks is through principled and sys-
tematic development of ELT materials such as course-
books. Inarguably, well-developed ELT coursebooks are
powerful tools in facilitating learning and re-skilling both
experienced and inexperienced practitioners (Barrot 2015;
Brown 2009; Hutchinson and Torres 1994; Richards 1998;
Tomlinson 2014). However, it has been observed that local
textbooks used very limited numbers of tasks and do not
follow a principled way of sequencing tasks based on their
complexity level. The absence of matrix and guidelines for
sequencing tasks may have pushed coursebook writers to
depend on their common sense intuitions when
123

incorporating tasks into their coursebooks; consequently, it
results in poorly sequenced and graded tasks.
Hence, I find it relevant to examine the task complexity
in ELT coursebooks and how they progress within and
across coursebook levels. As noted by Robinson (2001),
any decision about sequencing tasks in the syllabus, cur-
riculum, and coursebooks should be based on the com-
plexity of tasks. While there have been many studies that
investigated the effects of task complexity on learners’
performance (e.g., Gilabert 2007; Iwashita et al. 2001;
Kuiken and Vedder 2007; Kuiken and Vedder 2008; Ong
and Zhang 2010; Robinson 2001; Robinson 2007; Skehan
and Foster 1999; Yuan and Ellis 2003), no studies have yet
examined task complexity in ELT coursebooks.
This study, therefore, was carried out to fill this gap by
examining the task complexity in ELT coursebooks in the
Philippines. Specifically, the present study sought to
address the following questions: (1) How are the tasks in
the ELT coursebooks distributed in terms of complexity
level? (2) Do tasks progress from the simplest to the most
complex within each ELT coursebook level? (3) Does task
complexity progress linearly as grade level advances?
Along this line, this paper proposed a matrix for distin-
guishing the relative complexity of tasks and for
sequencing tasks more effectively.
Literature Review
Task Complexity
Skehan (1998) and Robinson (2001, 2003) refer to task
complexity as the inherent features of a task that impose
demands on learners. However, these scholars differ as to
how task complexity can be gaged. Anchoring on Limited
Attentional Capacity Model (LACM), Skehan (1998, 2003)
and Skehan and Foster (1999) explain that increasing task
complexity lessens learners’ available memory and atten-
tion resources when performing tasks. This means that
while learners attend to other aspects of performances (e.g.,
meaning), other aspects are sacrificed (e.g., form). From
LACM perspective, task complexity is determined via
three dimensions: cognitive complexity (i.e., task content
and structuring of the task material), code complexity (i.e.,
linguistic demand), and communicative stress (i.e., per-
formance condition, such as time pressure, scale, modality,
stakes, and control).
Alternatively, Robinson (2001, 2007) introduced his
Triadic Componential Framework (TCF). TCF is anchored
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
J. S. Barrot
characteristics, namely, task complexity, task conditions,
and task difficulty. Unlike task complexity, task difficulty
relates to learner factors that contribute to complexity. The
more complex that task is, the more difficult it is for
learners (Norris et al. 2000; Slatyer et al. 2000). However,
the relationship between complexity and difficulty is not
always fixed because of some intervening factors, such as
learners’ aptitude and motivation. Unlike task complexity
and difficulty, task condition relates to participation or
interactional factors, such as the direction of information
flow, number of participants, and other participant vari-
ables. Among the three, Robinson (2001, 2007) argues that
task complexity should be the only basis for selecting tasks
because the other two cannot be anticipated. Task com-
plexity covers two indispensable dimensions: resource-di-
recting and resource-dispersing. Resource-directing
dimension relates to conceptual demands, whereas
resource-dispersing dimension poses procedural demands
on learners.
Given the merits of two frameworks, the current study
primarily draws on Robinson’s (2001, 2003, 2005, 2007)
framework because it is the most elaborate model of task
complexity (Kuiken and Vedder 2007). Nonetheless, other
communicative stress factors (similar to resource-dispers-
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-
persing variables, task scope ( ± few elements), inten-
tional, spatial, and causal reasoning as well as perspective
taking were excluded because they are difficult to opera-
tionalise (Kuiken and Vedder 2007). Instead, Skehan and
Foster’s (1999) task type was included as it can be readily
operationalised and distinguished. Given this, the task
complexity dimensions used in this study are contextual
support, task type, modality, task duality, complexity of
steps, planning time, prior knowledge, control, and time
pressure. Hence, my brief review will focus on these nine
dimensions of task complexity which either increase or
decrease cognitive demands on learners. The first two (i.e.,
contextual support and task type) relate to resource-di-
recting dimensions while the last seven dimensions (i.e.,
modality, task duality, complexity of steps, planning time,
prior knowledge, control, and time pressure) relate to
resource-dispersing dimension (communicative stress in
Skehan’s Terminology). Note that while these nine task
complexity dimensions are distinct from one another, they
are also interrelated. For instance, Skehan and Foster
(1997) reported that an interaction existed between plan-
ning and task type.
Examining the Task Complexity in ELT Coursebooks
Contextual Support
This dimension (also referred to as here-and-now versus
there-and-then dimension) predicts that when learners are
provided with contextual support (here-and-now), task
complexity decreases (Robinson 2001). Contextual support
includes verbal (words) and non-verbal (images) input that
reduce cognitive demands. Without contextual support
(there-and-then), tasks would be more complex. To illus-
trate, looking at a story board while narrating a story is not
as cognitively demanding as narrating from pure memory.
Task Type
This dimension relates to the type of task discourse, which
draws learners’ attention to specific language forms. For
instance, narrative tasks will induce the use of past tense.
Tasks can be classified into personal information, narrative,
or decision-making tasks (Skehan and Foster 1999). Per-
sonal information tasks (static) involve information known
to participants and assumed to reduce cognitive load while
narratives (dynamic) require a certain degree of organiza-
tion for storytelling. Both the personal information and
narrative tasks are considered less complex because of their
clear inherent structure (i.e., time sequence) which reduces
the cognitive load when processing the task (Foster and
Skehan 1996; Skehan and Foster 1997, 1999). Decision-
making (opinion-giving) tasks require a series of decision
that has to be made (Skehan and Foster 1999) and are most
interactive and negotiable (Skehan 2009). Of the three,
personal information and narrative tasks are the easiest
because they are familiar to the learners and are well
structured. Decision-making tasks, on the other hand, are
the hardest (Brown et al. 1984; Ellis 2009; Foster and
Skehan 1996; Skehan and Foster 2001) because they are
abstract, not familiar to learners, and do not have a clear
structure.
Modality
Modality concerns whether the task involves productive
(i.e., speaking, writing, and representing) or receptive (i.e.,
reading, listening, and viewing) language skills. All things
being equal, it is cognitively demanding to perform pro-
ductive tasks than to perform receptive tasks because
production requires articulation, expression, shaping, and
framing (Candlin 1987; Hooper 2009; Skehan 1998, 2003).
Task Duality
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
performance) or a primary task with an added secondary
task (dual-task performance). From these two, a dual-task
performance is more complex. For example, answering a
reading comprehension task that entails multiple choice
(single task) is less complex than performing a reading
comprehension task that involves the writing of answers
(dual tasks).
Complexity of Steps
As for the number of steps involved, tasks that require a
single step is less complex than tasks that require multiple
steps. Moreover, multiple steps that are independent from
one another are less cognitively demanding than those
steps that are dependent on one another (Robinson
2001, 2003, 2005, 2007).
Planning Time
Planning time refers to the time given to learners to prepare
for their task. Several empirical studies (e.g., Mehnert
1998; Skehan 1996; Yuan and Ellis 2003) have confirmed
that providing planning time leads to gains in fluency,
complexity, and accuracy. This suggests that planning
decreases task complexity as long as they are sufficient
(Mehnert 1998). One example of this is delivering an
impromptu speech versus delivering an extemporaneous
speech. Given all things equal, an impromptu speech would
be more complex than extemporaneous speech, which has
sufficient provision for planning.
Prior Knowledge
Prior knowledge (also referred to as schematic knowledge)
refers to information that learners could access in com-
pleting a task. In the context of task complexity, the
question is whether or not prior knowledge is provided in
the task. When it is provided, cognitive demand on learners
is lower, but if not, the demand would be higher leading to
a more complex task. In the context of task complexity,
prior knowledge can be further distinguished into three
(Ruiz-Funes 2015): topic, task, and text type. When a task
uses familiar topic, text type, and task (i.e., learners had
previous experience with a similar task), there is a greater
chance that learners possess prior knowledge about the task
to be performed. This then leads to a decrease in cognitive
demand and task complexity. It is further hypothesized that
depleted prior knowledge negatively affects the complex-
ity, accuracy, and fluency of L2 performances, which in
turn increases task complexity.
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
3 Essential English 3 (RE3) 2017 40
4 Essential English 4 (RE4) 2017 40
5 Essential English 5 (RE5) 2017 40
6 Essential English 6 (RE6) 2017 40
7 Essential English 7 (RE7) 2017 16
8 Essential English 8 (RE8) 2017 16
9 Essential English 9 (RE9) 2017 16
10 Essential English 10 (RE10) 2017 16
1 Rainbows in English (VE1) 2012 24 Vibal Group
2 Rainbows in English (VE2) 2013 20
3 Rainbows in English (VE3) 2014 20
4 Rainbows in English (VE4) 2014 20
5 Rainbows in English (VE5) 2015 20
6 Rainbows in English (VE6) 2014 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
4 Integrated English for Effective Communication (PE4) 2015 20
5 Integrated English for Effective Communication (PE5) 2016 20
6 Integrated English for Effective Communication (PE6) 2016 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

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

123
Examining the Task Complexity in ELT Coursebooks

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
greater interlanguage development.
Related Studies
While there have been many studies that investigated the
effects of task complexity on learners’ performance (e.g.,
Gilabert 2007; Iwashita et al. 2001; Kuiken and Vedder
2007; Kuiken and Vedder 2008; Ong and Zhang 2010;
Robinson 2001; Robinson 2007; Skehan and Foster 1999;
Yuan and Ellis 2003), no studies have yet examined task
complexity in ELT coursebooks. In fact, only a limited
number of studies have analyzed tasks in ELT course-
books. For example, Nitta and Gardner (2005) examined
the nature of form-focused tasks by developing a
framework of conscious raising and practice type tasks
applied to nine ELT coursebooks. Their analyzes revealed
that these coursebooks used very limited focused commu-
nication tasks and were essentially based on presentation–
practice approach to grammar teaching.
A more recent study was conducted by Günay and İlker
Etuş (2007) who explored the selection and organization of
tasks in selected 4th grade ELT coursebook adopted by
state primary schools in Turkey. Their findings indicated
that the coursebook employed a very limited number of
tasks, did not represent a balanced distribution among task
types, and focused on tasks that promote reading and
writing skills. Further findings showed that language
demand gradually increased from easy to complex while
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,
planning time, and contextual support. Learners are given time limit to complete it
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,
planning time, and contextual support. Learners are given time limit to complete it
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-

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

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
series from grades 1 to 10, and (3) principal English
coursebook series of the publisher.
Table 1 shows each set of ELT coursebooks is com-
posed of 10 different grade levels with each level covering
four units and lessons ranging from 12 to 40. Thus, each
unit is composed of 4 to 10 lessons and corresponds to one
academic quarter. This means that Unit 1 is for academic
quarter 1, Unit 2 for academic quarter 2, Unit 3 for aca-
demic quarter 3, and Unit 4 for academic quarter 4. These
coursebooks are clustered into two subgroups: levels 1 to 6
are those used in the elementary level while levels 7 to 10
are those used in the secondary level.
Procedure and Analysis
The selected ELT coursebooks were subjected to prelimi-
nary analysis to separate exercises from tasks. Unlike tasks,
exercises are teaching activities designed to practice
specific language form or skills without any communica-
tive purpose. They prioritize structures of language (i.e.,
form) rather than meaning and task completion and are
assessed based on accuracy of language use. Some exam-
ples of exercises include drills, cloze tests, reading com-
prehension passages, substitution activities, and awareness-
raising activities (Littlewood 2004; Richards 2005). Ellis’s
(2003, pp. 4–5) criteria for determining tasks were used to
distinguish them from exercises. These are as follows: (1)
the primary focus should be on meaning; (2) there should
be some kind of gap; (3) learners should largely have to
rely on their own resources; and (4) there is a clearly
defined outcome other than the use of language. Note that
all of these criteria should be satisfied before an activity
can be considered a task. Once the tasks were identified,
they were subjected to an in-depth analysis to determine
their complexity level.
Table 2 presents the frequency of tasks per coursebook
and their proportion to language activities. Of the 10,658
language activities employed in the selected coursebooks,
8446 (79.25%) are exercises and 2212 (20.75%) are tasks.
Per ELT coursebook series, the number of tasks ranges
from 280 to 637 for RE English Series, 241–470 for VE
English Series, and 191–275 for PE English Series. The
average number of tasks in each of the secondary level
coursebooks (x = 69.75) is relatively lower compared to
that of elementary level coursebooks (x = 76.39). On the
other hand, the percentage of tasks per total language
activities in secondary level coursebooks (x = 24.79) is
relatively higher compared to elementary level course-
books (x = 19.64).
Table 3 shows the complexity level of tasks and their
corresponding complexity index (ci). As presented, the
complexity index is in a continuum rather than a dichotomy
to allow any adjustment between levels. Since no studies
have compared yet the differential effects of all task
complexity dimensions, each dimension was assigned a
positive one ( ? 1) or a zero (0) value. The binary division
was also based on Robinson’s (2001, 2007) representation
of the task complexity dimensions, although he cautioned
that these dimensions may also appear in a continua.
Positive one value was assigned to dimensions that impose
cognitive demand while the zero value was assigned to
those that lessen cognitive demand. This makes all
dimensions weighted equally. Hence, the most complex
task (level 10; ci = 9) is a decision-making productive (i.e.,
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,
learners would not have prior knowledge, planning time,
and contextual support but are given time limit to complete
it. The simplest, on the other hand, is a personal informa-
tion receptive task (i.e., reading, listening, and viewing)
with few elements and simpler task procedure. In this task,
learners have prior knowledge, enough planning time,
contextual support, and sufficient time to complete it
(ci = 0). Below is the task complexity matrix used in this
study.
To ensure consistency of analysis, two validators ana-
lyzed all the tasks. These validators are experienced
teachers and researchers with at least five years of teaching
experience in an ESL context and have a master’s degree in
language teaching. Prior to their validation engagement,
they were oriented on the criteria for and process of anal-
ysis. The intercoder agreement was at 92%. The points of
disagreements were discussed with the validators for
proper tagging. Once the evaluation of all tasks was
completed, results were tallied and subjected to statistical
analysis.
Results
The tasks in the selected ELT coursebooks were analyzed
using the metrics given in Tables 3 and 4. The obtained
data from this analysis were entered into SPSS Version 21

123
Examining the Task Complexity in ELT Coursebooks

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

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