task assignment difference

Task vs. Assignment — What's the Difference?

Difference Between Task and Assignment

Table of contents, key differences, comparison chart, compare with definitions, common curiosities, what is the difference between a task and an assignment, how does the complexity of tasks and assignments compare, can a task be part of an assignment, is the completion of a task considered as impactful as completing an assignment, are tasks always shorter than assignments, how is success measured for tasks and assignments, can both tasks and assignments be delegated, do tasks and assignments play different roles in professional development, can the failure to complete tasks or assignments have different consequences, how do tasks and assignments contribute to team dynamics, share your discovery.

Author Spotlight

Popular Comparisons

Trending Comparisons

New Comparisons

Trending Terms

• Technology Report
• This is America
• Science in the News
• Health Report
• Education Report
• Economics Report
• Arts & Culture
• In the News
• American Stories
• Words And Their Stories
• Trending Today
• Everyday Grammar
• America's National Parks
• America's Presidents
• U.S. History
• People in America
• Agriculture Report
• Explorations

This week on Ask a Teacher, we answer a question from Ramiro, who is in Brazil.

Could you tell me the difference between a task and an assignment? And how do we use them in our daily life?

Ramiro, Brazil

Dear Ramiro,

As you may know, both task and assignment are nouns describing an activity that you must complete.

A task is something you have to do. An assignment is usually a task that someone gives you to do.

Ways to use ‘task’

A task describes an activity that can be done in your daily life. But you can give a task to yourself, or someone else can give you a task to complete.

Any activity you want to finish can become a task. Think about a day in your life and the responsibilities you have. What are the tasks you must do during your day?

You can have one task or many tasks. For example:

My task today is to feed the cats before leaving for school.

Tasks are often connected to a bigger goal. Here is an example:

Although learning a computer programming language is a difficult task, I will do my best to study it for my future career.

Ways to use ‘assignment’

An assignment means someone is giving you an activity or task to complete.

For example, imagine your teacher says:

Our test is on Friday, so your assignment tonight is to study everything we learned this past month.

Teachers give students assignments every day. But students need to know how to take a big assignment and separate it into smaller tasks. Students might understand this example:

My assignment is to read the whole book. But luckily, I only need to read 10 pages a day.

Ways to use ‘task’ and ‘assignment’ together

Both tasks and assignments are often related to time. For example, we make lists of tasks to better organize our time. For example:

By 12 p.m. today, I need to do the following tasks: take out the garbage, walk my dog and go shopping.

“Task ” and “Assignment” are often used in work situations too. If you ever worked in a job, the boss may say:

Your assignment is to finish all three tasks before the end of the day.

Well, Ramiro, we hope this helps to answer your question.

And to our listeners everywhere, what question do you have about American English? Send us an email at [email protected] .

And that’s Ask a Teacher !

I’m Armen Kassabian.

Armen Kasabian wrote this story for VOA Learning English. Hai Do was the editor. Practice using the words ‘task’ and ‘assignment’ in the comments below

12 Best Practices for Successful Task Assignment and Tracking

Build with Retainr

Sell your products and services, manage clients, orders, payments, automate your client onboarding and management with your own branded web application.

1. What are the top 12 practices for successful task assignment and tracking?

Key practices for effective task assignment.

The assignment of tasks should always be done strategically to ensure successful completion. Here are six key practices for successful task assignment:

• Clear and concise instructions: Always provide clear steps on how to accomplish the task. Vague instructions may lead to misunderstandings and poor results.
• Assign tasks based on skills and experience: Certain tasks require special skills. Assign tasks to those who have the skills and experience needed to perform them efficiently.
• Establish realistic deadlines: Set achievable deadlines to prevent unnecessary pressure and poor quality of work.
• Communicate the task's importance: Explain why the task is necessary and how it contributes to the overall project.
• Availability check: Make sure that the person assigned to the task has the capacity to do it.
• Empower them: Give them the freedom to do the work in their own way, as long as they meet the project’s quality standards.

Efficient Task Tracking Methods

Task tracking not only ensures timely completion but also guarantees that the quality of work is not compromised. Here are six efficient task tracking methods:

• Use of tracking tools: Implementing task tracking tools like Trello or Asana can automate the tracking process.
• Regular follow-ups: Frequent check-ins allow early detection of issues and timely resolution.
• Setting Milestones: Break down the tasks into manageable chunks or stages with set deadlines.
• Encourage self-reporting: Ask team members to provide status updates on assigned tasks. This makes tracking easier and instills a sense of responsibility.
• Document progress: Keep a record of task progression to easily identify bottlenecks and delays.
• Feedback session: Constructive feedback sessions aimed at learning can be helpful for future tasks.

Comparison Table for Task Assignment and Task Tracking

2. how can i effectively use these best practices in my daily work management, utilizing best practices in daily work management.

Deploying the best practices in your daily work management is all about integration and consistency. Whether you are leading a small team or managing a large project, the successful task assignment and tracking methods will boost productivity and keep everyone on the same page. Here's how you can effectively use these practices:

• Clear Communication: Always communicate task details clearly. Specify the project description, important deadlines, and the expected deliverables. Make use of tools like Slack or Microsoft Teams for smooth communication.
• Team Collaboration: Encourage teamwork, brainstorming sessions and ensure everyone contributes their ideas. Collaborative tools like Google Workspace or Monday.com can assist in shared work.
• Prioritization & Scheduling: Prioritize tasks based on their urgency and importance. Use scheduling tools, like Asana or Trello, to arrange tasks for all team members, ensuring they are aware of their responsibilities.

Implementing Task Assignment Practices

Assigning tasks effectively involves understanding each team member's strengths and weaknesses. The following steps are recommended:

Successful Task Tracking

Tracking tasks helps in maintaining the project's accuracy ensuring that everything is running smoothly. Adopting effective tracking practices can lead to a drop in missed deadlines, an increase in productivity, and a more efficient workflow. Here are some tracking methods:

• Use a Project Management System that offers real-time tracking.
• Conduct regular progress meetings.
• Encourage team members to provide progress reports.

3. Can these best practices for task assignment and tracking be applied to any industry?

Applicability of best practices across industries.

The best practices for task assignment and tracking are versatile, adaptable and can be beneficial to most, if not all industries. This includes but is not limited to the IT, healthcare, construction, education, and manufacturing industries. The principles of clarity, efficiency, and productivity that underscore these best practices are universal needs across business operations.

List of Industries

• Information Technology
• Construction
• Manufacturing

Each of these industries can make use of the best practices in their own unique way. For instance, in the IT industry, these best practices can be utilized to assign and track different coding or debugging tasks. In healthcare, these practices can be used to efficiently assign patient care tasks to different members of a healthcare team. In education, teachers can assign tasks to students and track their progress more effectively. In short, these practices foster a culture of accountability and efficiency.

Tabular Representation of Application in Different Industries

In conclusion, these best practices provide a standard system that is convenient, effective and that can be customized to any industry’s specifics. The consistent theme across all industries is to enhance productivity and optimize resources.

4. What is the first step one should take to apply these practices effectively?

Understanding the task.

The first step towards effectively applying the practices for successful task assignment and tracking is gaining a thorough understanding of the task at hand. To successfully delegate assignments and oversee their completion, you must grasp the task's specifics, objectives, and requirements. The following goals can guide you:

• Determine the nature and scope of the task: Exactly what does this task entail? What are its dimensions and boundaries?
• Identify the expected outcome: What should the ideal result look like once the task is completed?
• Analyze potential problems: What kind of issues may arise during the execution of the task? How can they be addressed proactively?

Establishing Clear Objective and Goals

Once you've comprehended the task, the next step involves establishing clear objectives and goals. These goals should ideally be SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound). A well-defined goal gives a clear direction to the entire task assignment process. Consider the following points when mapping out your goals:

Identifying the Right People for the Task

Once each task has been clearly defined and its goals set, the next step is to assign the right people to the task. This requires analyzing your team's strengths, weaknesses, preferences, and workload. Here are some factors to consider:

• Skills and capabilities: Does the person possess the necessary skills and abilities to perform the task effectively?
• Workload: Does the person have the necessary time and bandwidth to take on the task?
• Preference: Does the person show an interest in the task? Are they excited about the work they're assigned?

5. Are there specific tools that help facilitate these best practices for task assignment and tracking?

Top tools for task assignment and tracking.

There are numerous tools designed specifically to facilitate task assignment and tracking. They range from simple to-do list apps to complex project management systems. Here are a few popular options:

• Asana: This tool is designed for both individuals and teams. It allows for task assignment, due dates, priorities, comments, file attachments, and progress tracking.
• JIRA: Popular among software development teams, JIRA provides a detailed view of ongoing tasks, project timelines, and allows for personalized workflows.
• Trello: Trello operates on a board-and-card system, allowing for easy visualization of tasks and assignments. It also supports collaboration and progress tracking.
• Basecamp: This is a project management tool that integrates discussions, tasks, files, and timelines in one place. It offers a clear view of who’s working on what.

Choosing the Right Tool for Your Needs

To choose the right tool for task assignment and tracking, you need to consider the size of your team, the complexity of the tasks, and the specific features you need. Equally important is the user-friendliness and cost of the tool. Here's a simple comparison:

Consistent Use of Tools

Regardless of which tool you choose, consistent use is essential. All team members should be trained on how to use the tool effectively. Regular updates and reviews are also crucial to keep everyone aligned and ensure smooth progression of tasks. Remember, a tool is only as good as how you use it.

6. How does clear communication help in successful task assignment and tracking?

Benefits of clear communication.

Successfully assigning and tracking tasks in any business or organization often hinge on clear and effective communication. With effective communication, team members can understand their responsibilities, tasks can be properly tracked, and project deadlines can be met. There are several benefits that clear communication provides:

• Boosts Team Morale: When everyone understands their role in a project, they feel valued, which increases motivation and productivity.
• Prevents Confusion: Clear instructions prevent misunderstandings, ensuring tasks are done correctly the first time.
• Increases Efficiency: When goals and objectives are clear, teams can work more efficiently, saving time and resources.

How to Communicate Clearly

Implementing the right communication strategies can be crucial for successful task assignment and tracking. Here are a few methods to foster better communication:

Elements of Clear Communication

To ensure your communication is clear and effective, consider the following elements:

• Clarity: Ensure the message is simple, direct and that technical jargon is minimized where possible.
• Conciseness: Too much information can confuse. State only necessary details.
• Feedback: Encourage feedback - it helps affirm the message was understood correctly.

7. Why is it important to define expected outcomes when assigning tasks?

Importance of defining expected outcomes.

Defining expected outcomes is a vital step in task assignment and tracking because it sets the direction and provides a clear vision of what needs to be achieved. It helps in setting the standards, improving performance, and ensuring better accountability. The following points will further elucidate its significance:

• Clarity and direction: defining the expected outcome provides clear instructions to the task performer about what exactly needs to be achieved. It gives them a sense of direction and purpose.
• Performance measurement: With a defined outcome, it becomes easier to measure performance. The actual results can easily be compared against the expected results, simplifying performance appraisal.
• Increased Accountability: If expected outcomes are well-defined, it can help increase accountability. Task performers are more likely to take ownership and responsibility of their work, ensuring that they deliver the expected results.

Best Practices When Defining Expected Outcomes

While defining expected outcomes is important, it is equally crucial to ensure they are well drafted. Following are some best practices to consider when defining the expected outcomes:

Defining expected outcomes when assigning tasks is a fundamental step to ensure smooth progress and successful task completion. It not only provides a clear vision of what needs to be achieved but also facilitates performance measurement, leading to improved productivity and increased accountability. Employing the best practices while defining these outcomes can greatly enhance their effectiveness.

8. How can these best practices improve overall team productivity?

Enhancing team productivity through best practices.

Implementing best practices in task assignment and tracking can significantly improve overall team productivity. Effective task assignment ensures that the right tasks are allocated to the right people based on their skills, capabilities, and availability. This eliminates confusion, reduces the chances of mistakes, and improves efficiency. When tasks are tracked effectively, it's easier to identify bottlenecks, improve workload distribution, and ensure timely completion of tasks.

Key benefits include:

• Better task distribution: When tasks are assigned judiciously taking into consideration individual skills and capabilities, it ensures a better distribution of workload. This leads to improved efficiency and higher productivity.
• Proactive problem-solving: Effective task tracking allows for early detection of problems or issues that might arise during the execution of tasks. This allows for proactive problem-solving, ensuring the smooth continuation of work.
• Effective communication: These practices foster better communication within the team as tasks and responsibilities are clear. This reduces chances of misunderstanding or confusion, promoting a more harmonious and productive work environment.

Illustrating Productivity Improvement Through a Table

Here's a simple table illustrating the difference in overall team productivity before and after implementing these best practices:

9. What are some challenges one might face when implementing these best practices and how can they be overcome?

Challenges faced in implementing best practices.

When initiating the best practices for successful task assignment and tracking, several challenges might pop up which could hinder the effective execution of the process. Firstly, resistance to change is a common obstacle that organizations face. Employees might resist the new strategies brought about by these best practices, partly due to their unfamiliarity or because they feel comfortable with the old systems. Secondly, lack of adequate resources such as software and tools for task assignment and tracking can also pose a significant challenge. Lastly, the lack of appropriate training to equip the workforce with the necessary skills can impede the implementation of these practices.

Overcoming the Challenges

The good news is, these challenges aren't insurmountable. Here are a few solutions:

• Resistance to Change: This can be overcome by fostering a culture of open communication where the benefits of the new practices are clearly articulated. Regular feedback forums where employees' concerns can be addressed can also help ease the transition.
• Lack of Resources: For businesses facing this issue, it could be worth investing in project management software or tools which have proven to enhance task assignment and tracking. There are many budget-friendly options available.
• Inadequate Training: Conduct regular training sessions and workshops. Such initiatives would enhance employees' skills, thus boosting their confidence in using new systems.

Considerations for Successful Implementation

10. can these practices be adjusted for small teams or individuals, or are they only relevant for large organizations, adapting practices for different team sizes.

The beauty of best practices for task assignment and tracking is that they can be adapted to suit any team size, from large organizations to small teams and even individuals. Indeed, achieving productivity and efficiency is not merely the preserve of the big players. A small team or self-employed individual can efficiently manage their tasks by adjusting these practices to their unique needs.

• Small teams: Best practices can be refined to a simpler format for smaller teams. For instance, daily huddles could replace full-blown weekly meetings for status updates. Task tracking might also involve a more shared responsibility, with every team member being able to monitor and update their progress. Prioritization is still key, but it takes on a more immediate, flexible form.
• Individuals: For solo entrepreneurs or self-employed professionals, these practices can be tailored to personal task management. Clear objectives and deadlines are just as crucial and can be self-imposed. Tools such as personal to-do lists, digital diaries, or task management software can replace team boards and project management platforms.

Best Practices Table

To sum up, while these best practices were developed with larger organizations in mind, they are certainly not restricted to them. With some adjustments, they can offer immense benefits to the efficiency and productivity of smaller teams and individuals too. Therefore, it is important to experiment with, and adapt these practices to fit the specific dynamics and requirements of your working arrangement.

Best Practices for Successful Task Assignment and Tracking

Successful task assignment and tracking is often the difference between successful and unsuccessful projects. The following are the 12 best practices that can streamline your working process and ensure successful task tracking:

• Clarity: Make certain that instructions are clear and comprehensible.
• Define Objectives: Clearly state the purpose and outcome of each task.
• Relevant Skills: Assign tasks based on individual competencies.
• Priority Tasks: Highlight priority tasks.
• Transparent Communication: Maintain an open communication line to deal with problems quickly.
• Empowerment: Empower your team members in task management.
• Use of Technology: Utilize technology to track and manage tasks efficiently.
• Time tracking: Employ a software to track time spent on each task.
• Regular Updates: Showcase constant updates to keep the team on track.
• Project progress visualization: Represent the progression of the project visually for better understanding.
• Deadlines: Set realistic and flexible deadlines.
• Feedback: Regularly give feedback to promote constant improvement.

In light of the above-mentioned practices, the role of technology in task assignment and tracking cannot be overstressed. Several softwares are available in the market to help you streamline your task assignment and tracking processes but none are more efficient and user-friendly than Retainr.io .

Improve Your Business Operations with Retainr.io

Retainr.io is a whitelabel software that unifies all your task management needs. It enables you to sell, manage clients, orders, & payments with your own branded app, ensuring that all information is kept in one place, thus, making accessibility and tracking easier.

With its vast array of features, it empowers your team members by making task assignment and tracking seamless and efficient. It simplifies project management and enhances transparency in communication. The software's use of visual aids for project progress ensures that all team members have a clear view of where the project stands and what needs to be done.

So, harness the power of Retainr.io to ensure a well-coordinated, proficient, and successful execution of your projects. Start your journey towards efficient task management with Retainr.io today.

Fuel Your Agency's Growth with Retainr Accelerator

Uncover secrets, strategies, and exclusive blueprints to supercharge your startup's growth - from marketing insights to effective presentations and working with technology..

SOPs, Cheatsheets & Blueprints

Leverage 50+ SOPs (valued over $10K) offering practical guides, scripts, tools, hacks, templates, and cheat sheets to fast-track your startup's growth.

Connect with fellow entrepreneurs, share experiences, and get expert insights within our exclusive Facebook community.

Join a thriving community of growth hackers. Network, collaborate, and learn from like-minded entrepreneurs on a lifelong journey to success.

Gain expertise with recorded Courses, Live Bootcamps and interactive Workshops on topics like growth hacking, copywriting, no-code funnel building, performance marketing and more, taught by seasoned coaches & industry experts.

See why thousands of influencers &  entrepreneurs love Retainr.

"After fifteen years in the industry I thought the way I handled my clients was very efficient. And I did...That is until I ran into Retainr"

@retainr.io You heard that right—Retainr helps you sell your services, collect payments, manage clients in one powerful web app. Looking for more insights to help you tap into the power of Retainr? Check out our latest collab with @ari_travels #retainr #digitalnomad #travellife #freelancertips #entrepreneur #makemoneyonline2023 ♬ original sound - Retainr

@retainr.io Exciting news! 🌟 We're thrilled to announce our collaboration with @jarennsilverfox , a dedicated gym enthusiast and health coach! Thanks to Retainr, he can seamlessly offer his services online anytime, anywhere. 💪🏋️‍♂️ Say goodbye to the 9-to-5 grind in a dull office! Embark on your freelance journey with Retainr.io and unlock the secrets to transforming your business into a thriving online venture. Ready to make the leap? Click the link in our bio to start your new freelance era today! 🚀 #retainr #workremote #freelancelife #startyouragency ♬ original sound - Retainr

@retainr.io We're all about making remote work easier for people. That's why we've teamed up with @nyyahrose to show you the magic behind Retainr. ✨ #retainr #workremote #entrepreneur #freelancertips #digitalnomad #collab ♬ original sound - Retainr

Business owner

Productise your Agency with AI & Tech

Sell More with Retainr

From your own branded app to streamlined client management, Retainr.io empowers you at every step.

Join the league of agencies experiencing unparalleled growth, transparency, and efficiency.

Related Blogs

10 Reasons How Niche Targeting Can Benefit Your Small Agency

15 examples of small agencies excelling in niche targeting, top 5 industry-specific services every freelancer needs, 6 key steps to penetrate niche markets successfully, 7 inspiring examples of freelancers with exceptional industry-focused brands, how to develop a unique selling proposition for your small agency, 9 steps to choose the right industry specialization as a freelancer, how do industry-specific services impact freelancers' success, 13 must-have tools for freelancers to boost industry expertise.

• English (US)

What is the difference between task and assignment and work ?Feel free to just provide example sentences.

• Report copyright infringement

They are pretty much the same word, they just have different nuances. "assignment" is work given to you by your boss/coworker. "task" could be the same but it can also mean work that you assigned the work to yourself. I hope this makes sense!

Was this answer helpful?

• Why did you respond with "Hmm..."?
• Your feedback will not be shown to other users.

• What is the difference between task and assignment ?
• What is the difference between task and Homework ?
• What is the difference between task and assignment and homework ?
• I arranged your tasks into Todo list Does this sound natural?
• I completed three major tasks. However, the most important project I did was that I obtained a di...
• This task is very challengeable and engrossing Does this sound natural?
• What is the difference between The goods will be sold out. and The goods will have been sold out. ?
• What is the difference between I suppose it must be quite lonely. and I think it must be quite lo...
• What is the difference between It is kind of you to say so. and You are kind to say so. ?
• What is the difference between Love means never having to say you're sorry. and Love means never ...
• What is the difference between "on the verge of" and "on the brink of" ?
• What is the difference between Belly and Tummy ?
• What is the difference between neither and none ?
• What is the difference between make a fire and make up a fire ?
• What is the difference between You're standing on your tiptoes! and You're on your tiptoes! ?
• What is the difference between You don’t have to finish all the food. and You don’t have to eat a...
• What is the difference between debate and agonize ?
• What is the difference between That’s all. and That’s about it. ?
• What is the difference between Fourth and The fourth ?
• What is the difference between "It doesn't taste too sweet." and "It isn't too sweet." ?
• What is the difference between STILL and REMAIN ?
• What does ショボショボ mean?
• ​​Why does the American ppl use "I see u" "I'll see u" many time? I know normal mean. it's like "...

The Language Level symbol shows a user's proficiency in the languages they're interested in. Setting your Language Level helps other users provide you with answers that aren't too complex or too simple.

Has difficulty understanding even short answers in this language.

Can ask simple questions and can understand simple answers.

Can ask all types of general questions and can understand longer answers.

Can understand long, complex answers.

Show your appreciation in a way that likes and stamps can't.

By sending a gift to someone, they will be more likely to answer your questions again!

If you post a question after sending a gift to someone, your question will be displayed in a special section on that person’s feed.

Ask native speakers questions for free

Solve your problems more easily with the app!

• Find the answer you're looking for from 45 million answers logged!
• Enjoy the auto-translate feature when searching for answers!
• It’s FREE!!

• What is the difference ...

how to effectively assign tasks to team members to increase productivity?

Picture this: It's Monday morning, and your team is buzzing with excitement, ready to take on the week. But wait! Who's doing what? Does everyone know their roles and responsibilities? Ah, the perennial challenge of assigning tasks . If this rings a bell, worry not. We've all been there. Have you ever felt the sting of mismatched roles? Like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole? Assigned tasks play a pivotal role in the smooth functioning of any team. And guess what? There are methods and tools that make this process easier. Let’s dive in.

As a leader in the workplace, it is essential to ensure that everyone in the team gets the appropriate amount of work. Sometimes, it's tempting to give an employee more tasks than others, especially if he/she finishes the tasks faster. But keep in mind that as managers, you must be fair. You must learn how to effectively assign tasks to your team members . 

Although it may seem like a simple management function, assigning tasks to your team is actually challenging. As said by Liane Davey, cofounder of 3COze Inc. and author of  You First: Inspire Your Team to Grow Up, Get Along, and Get Stuff Done , You are “juggling multiple interests” in the pursuit of optimal team performance.

Task distribution among various departments might vary from person to person. For efficient delegation, it is vital to consider guidelines while distributing duties to team members.

Tasks that are delegated effectively move your people, projects, and the entire business forward. It increases management and staff trust and accountability, helps in refining and teaching new abilities, enables personnel to become acquainted with various groups and areas of employment, and is an excellent foundation for performance reviews, etc.

How do you assign tasks to your employees? 

Assigning tasks is typically perceived as a time-consuming activity that focuses on removing items from task lists in order to keep the project moving forward. Task assignment, nevertheless, ought to be a more employee-focused procedure that calls for extra commitment and work, which produces excellent outcomes. 

Here are some tips to effectively assign tasks to your employees:

1. Delegate Positively

Don't just throw work at someone and expect them to deliver when they might not be qualified for that particular assignment. Maintain a mindset of doubting every assignment you gave and go over your personnel roster to see whether anyone else is capable of completing it as effectively as you can. They will be more likely to believe that they can do the assignment in the manner that the leader desires if they have a positive outlook. Employees won't feel inspired to start their assignment if you adversely assign them or have doubts about their competence. A little encouragement will make their day happier and encourage them to confidently do the tasks given to them.

2. Set Clear Goals and Objectives

To understand how your team performs, you should set clear goals and objectives before entrusting them with any responsibilities. When goals and objectives are not defined, it'll be harder for your team to see the big picture and perform tasks in a particular manner. 

3. Assign the Right Task to the Right Employee

This is the key to productivity. Who has the most expertise and experience should be given priority, but don't give that individual too much work. You should also think about who needs to develop their sense of responsibility. Also, take into account the passage of time and their eagerness to seize the opportunity. To do this, the manager should create a delegation plan that considers the various skill sets of each employee and assign tasks that are properly suited to each individual. On the other hand, when a task requires an extraordinary employee and there is a talent shortage, the leaders themselves should do the assignment in an emergency or without a workforce.

4. Obtain Inputs from Your Team and Set Up Meetings if Possible

Get suggestions from your team on what should be modified, who you could include, and how outcomes should be defined. Engage with the specific managers of the sub-teams if you are in charge of a large team or organization. A meeting with the entire team is necessary before assigning tasks to team members. You may obtain a clear picture of who is responsible for what and how purposefully they can do the assignment. Getting suggestions from your team members ensures that each of them will contribute to the task's accomplishment.

5. Conduct Training and Supervision

A project's completion necessitates the blending of various delegation techniques, a high degree of team member commitment, and effective planning and execution. It is essential to teach the team members and meet with the team every day in order to produce a skilled workforce. The training includes free access to resources for developing skills, such as courses from Upskillist ,  Udemy , or  Coursera . Following the training phase, the work must be supervised by a professional to ensure that the team learned from the training provided. Before and throughout the task assignment and execution among several team members, training and supervision are equally crucial.

6. Communicate Constantly

It doesn't mean that when you're done delegating the tasks, everything's good. No, it doesn't work that way. Constant communication is also the key to unlocking productivity. You need to collaborate with your team . Professionals at work must keep a close watch on their team members to learn about any challenges or issues they may be having.  For the task to be completed and the status of each team member to be tracked, communication is essential. Following up on tasks you assign to your employees helps them manage pressure and boost job productivity since problems like stress and pressure may tangle them and slow them down. Employee burnout is a result of micromanagement, which is not a good concept. It is best to let staff go free by following up casually.

7. Know who to Handover Authorization and Control

Decentralized power relieves employers of job management. Make sure to provide your staff some authority when you delegate tasks to them using management apps such as Trello , Asana , Edworking , Slack , and the like. Employees become empowered and responsible for completing tasks as a result of the control transfer. Giving them too little authority can cause issues because they lose interest in their work while giving them too much control might overwhelm them and cause them to forget basic responsibilities. The key to the team's success is giving each member the authority they rightfully deserve while also soliciting input.

8. After the project, assess the results

Ask yourself how you as the manager could support the success of your team members more effectively. Give constructive criticism and accept it in return.

The most vital phase in job completion is assigning tasks to team members. Due to the frequent mistakes made while delegating duties, it is imperative to use management tools when giving your team responsibilities. Project management solutions provide better work allocations by incorporating features like marketing automation. Employee development and time tracking are made easier by the task assignment guidelines, which also help keep workers interested. 

Allocating Vs. Delegating Tasks 

Now that you've learned about some tips to properly assign tasks, you may also have questions like, "what's the difference between allocating and delegating tasks?" 

As stated by Abhinav in a published article on LinkedIn, "The imbalance of responsibility and accountability is the main difference between Delegation and Allocation." What does it mean? Delegation gives a real opportunity for your team to upskill, grow, and develop. Allocating tasks is merely assigning tasks without the goal of helping your team grow.

Although assigning tasks has its merits, delegating tasks offers significant advantages in terms of employee growth and engagement. Because delegation when done well delivers diversity and other intrinsic motivational incentives that make work so much more meaningful, it will be even more rewarding for the manager and team members.

Task Tips and Best Practices 

In order to accomplish our objectives and SMART goals, we define a particular number of tasks that we must do each day. We frequently take on more than we can handle in the fight to remain at the top of our game and maintain our competitive edge.

Even while everything appears to be of the utmost importance, something is off in your struggle to finish everything while maintaining your composure. Some of us have a lengthy list of things we want to get done before a given age or period. Others devote so much effort to honing a particular skill that by the time it shines, it is no longer relevant.

Time management and balancing workload are not just skills of project managers or superiors. In reality, these abilities should be embraced at every level, particularly when working in a team. Research by Cornerstone found that when workers believe they don't have enough time in the day to do their jobs, work overload reduces productivity by 68%. What tips and best practices should you do so you don't only allocate tasks but delegate them effectively?

1. Prioritize. Make a to-do list according to the order of priority

Even if to-do lists are classic, they are still more efficient and effective than ever. People used to keep handwritten notes for ideas and tasks back in the day.  There are smart to-do lists apps and software that provide notifications and reminders prior to the task's due date. 

2. Maximize productivity and minimize procrastination

To start, delegate the tasks to the right people. Don't do it tomorrow or the next day. Do it today. Having a lot to accomplish may be stressful, which is sometimes worse than the actual task. If you struggle with procrastination, it's possible that you haven't come up with a good task management strategy. You might express your lack of starting knowledge by procrastinating. It could not be laziness, but rather a matter of setting priorities.

3. Be motivated

Procrastination and a lack of motivation are closely correlated. When you lack motivation, you tend to get distracted. If you want to meet milestones and deadlines, be motivated.

4. Delegate and be involved

The reality of being overburdened can have a negative impact on productivity if it is not properly managed. At the end of the day, we're still just humans. When it comes to having patience, resilience, working under pressure, or finishing a task quickly, each one of us possesses a certain set of skills. So, delegate the right tasks to the right person in your team, and don't just stop there. Be involved. Leaving the stadium just because you're done delegating is a big no. Keep in touch with them and follow up on the progress of the tasks assigned.

Task Vs. Subtask 

Tasks and subtasks are quite similar. The only difference is that a subtask should be completed as an element of completing a larger and more complex task.

For example, the task is to increase your company's social media presence. So, what should you do to accomplish those tasks? That's when you have subtasks such as creating optimized posts and content on various social media platforms, scheduling them, interacting with your audience in the comment section, etc. 

The additional stages that make up a task are called subtasks. They are essential while working on large projects with a wide range of tasks. In some task management tools, You may create as many subtasks as you need in the task view, but you must first choose the parent task before you can create a subtask.

Why You Should Assign Tasks Effectively to Team Members

Enhance team productivity.

Efficient task assignment can work wonders for your team's productivity. When each team member knows their role and is well-suited for their tasks, they can focus on delivering high-quality results. Imagine a well-oiled machine, with each cog spinning smoothly and in harmony - that's your team at peak productivity!

Consider these points:

• Match tasks to individual skills : Ensure tasks align with your team members' unique abilities and expertise.
• Set clear expectations : Be transparent about deadlines, deliverables, and objectives.
• Foster collaboration : Encourage communication and collaboration among team members.

Nurture a Sense of Ownership

Assigning tasks effectively helps to in still a sense of ownership and responsibility within your team. When individuals understand their role in a project, they are more likely to take pride in their work and strive for excellence. It's like planting a seed - with proper care and attention, it'll grow into a strong, thriving tree.

Key elements to foster ownership:

• Encourage autonomy : Allow team members to make decisions and take charge of their tasks.
• Provide feedback : Offer constructive feedback and celebrate successes.
• Support development : Invest in your team members' growth through training and development opportunities.

Reduce Work Overload and Burnout

Nobody wants to be buried under an avalanche of tasks. By allocating work effectively, you can prevent team members from feeling overwhelmed and burned out. Just as we can't run on empty, neither can our team members - so, let's ensure they have a manageable workload.

Strategies to avoid overload:

• Balance workloads : Distribute tasks evenly and consider individual capacities.
• Encourage breaks : Promote a healthy work-life balance and remind your team to take breaks.
• Monitor progress : Regularly check in with your team members to assess their workloads and stress levels.

Boost Employee Engagement

An engaged employee is a happy and productive one. When you assign tasks effectively, you're laying the groundwork for increased engagement. Think of it as a dance - with the right choreography, everyone knows their steps and performs in harmony.

Steps to enhance engagement:

• Align tasks with goals : Ensure tasks contribute to the overall goals of your team and organization.
• Offer variety : Mix up tasks to keep things interesting and provide opportunities for growth.
• Recognize achievements : Acknowledge hard work and accomplishments.

Improve Overall Team Morale

Finally, effective task assignment can lead to a happier, more cohesive team. When everyone feels valued and supported, team morale soars. Imagine a choir, each voice blending harmoniously to create a beautiful symphony - that's a team with high morale.

Ways to uplift team morale:

• Empower decision-making : Encourage team members to contribute their ideas and be part of the decision-making process.
• Foster a positive atmosphere : Cultivate an environment of open communication, trust, and support.
• Celebrate successes : Acknowledge both individual and team achievements, and celebrate them together.

Tools to Simplify Task Assignments in Teams

Microsoft outlook: not just for emails.

Yes, you heard that right. Beyond sending emails, Outlook has task features that allow managers to assign work to team members. You can set deadlines, prioritize, and even track progress. Think of it as your digital task manager. How cool is that?

Google Docs: Collaboration Made Easy

A favorite for many, Google Docs allows real-time collaboration. Need to distribute tasks ? Create a shared document, list down the tasks, and voila! Everyone can view, edit, or comment. Ever thought of using a simple shared document as a task distribution board?

Trello: Visual Task Management

For those of us who are visual creatures, Trello is a game-changer. Create boards, list assigned duties , and move them across columns as they progress. Remember playing with building blocks as a kid? It’s pretty much that, but digital and for grown-ups!

Common Mistakes to Avoid

Assigning tasks effectively is a skill that every leader must master to ensure team productivity and employee satisfaction. While the tips provided earlier can help you get there, being aware of common mistakes in task assignment is equally crucial. Avoiding these pitfalls can save you from derailing your projects and hampering your team's morale.

1. Overburdening Skilled Employees

It's tempting to give the bulk of the work to your most skilled team members, but this can lead to burnout and decreased productivity in the long term.

2. Lack of Clarity in Instructions

Vague or unclear instructions can result in misunderstandings, leading to poor quality of work or project delays. Always be specific and clear about what is expected.

3. Micromanaging

While it’s essential to oversee the progress of tasks, hovering over your team members can undermine their confidence and create a stressful work environment.

4. Failing to Prioritize Tasks

Not all tasks are created equal. Failing to prioritize can lead to poor allocation of resources, with less important tasks taking away time and energy from critical objectives.

5. Ignoring Team Input

Ignoring suggestions or feedback from your team can result in missed opportunities for more effective delegation and stronger team cohesion.

6. One-Size-Fits-All Approach

Remember that each team member has unique skills and limitations. Assigning tasks without considering these factors can lead to ineffective results and frustrated employees.

7. Neglecting Follow-Up

Assigning a task is not the end but part of an ongoing process. Failing to follow up can result in delays and could indicate to your team that the task wasn’t that important to begin with.

8. Fear of Delegating

Sometimes managers avoid delegating tasks because they feel that no one else can do the job as well as they can. This not only increases your workload but also deprives team members of growth opportunities.

A significant aspect of a leader's duties is delegating assignments to team members effectively. The secret to a manager's team functioning like an efficient machine is wise delegation.

Because of delegation, you won't have to spend hours on work that someone else can complete more quickly. Trying to handle everything on your own can quickly wear you out, regardless of your knowledge or expertise. Effectively delegating tasks enables you to keep on top of your own work while assisting team members in acquiring new abilities and developing a sense of comfort with taking ownership of tasks. 

Proper delegation of tasks also provides managers and team members with a learning opportunity since it enables everyone to build trust and become accustomed to exchanging comments and showing each other respect and appreciation.

Less is more when attempting to boost your team's output. Your team may become burned out if you try to increase their production too rapidly. In contrast, if you're too aggressive, your team can lose interest in their work and productivity might drop. Keep in mind that everyone will be more productive if they are part of the decision-making and execution process.

If you want to delegate tasks with ease and convenience, go for Edworking . This management tool lets you assign tasks and oversee your team's progress in a specific task. You can also conduct meetings to meet your team.`

Know that productivity greatly matters. With the right knowledge of assigning tasks to your team members, you can maximize productivity. Thus, achieving the goals and objectives of your organization.

What is the best way to assign tasks to team members?

Recognizing and understanding each member's unique strengths and expertise is paramount. Instead of assigning tasks randomly, it's always better to match each job with the individual’s skill set. Consider open dialogue, seek feedback, and ensure the assigned tasks align with both team and individual goals. It's a bit like giving everyone their favorite role in a play; wouldn't they shine brighter?

How do you assign tasks to a team in Teamwork?

In Teamwork, tasks can be assigned effortlessly. Start by creating a task list, then add individual tasks. Within each task, there's an option to 'Assign To.' Simply choose the team member you wish to assign the task to. Think of it as passing the baton in a relay race – each person knows when to run and when to pass it on!

Why is it important to assign tasks to your team members?

Assigning specific tasks helps in streamlining the workflow, ensuring accountability, and reducing overlaps or gaps in responsibilities. It also empowers team members by giving them ownership of their work. Have you ever seen a football team where everyone runs after the ball? Without clear roles, it's chaos!

How do you politely assign a task?

Start by acknowledging the individual's capabilities and expressing confidence in their ability to handle the task. Then, clearly explain the job's scope, expectations, and its importance in the overall project. Think of it as offering a piece of cake, not dumping a plate on their lap!

How do short term goals differ from long term goals?

Short-term goals act as stepping stones towards achieving long-term goals. While short-term goals focus on immediate challenges and tasks (think weeks or months), long-term goals look at the bigger picture and can span years. It's like comparing a sprint to a marathon. One's quick and intense, the other's about endurance and the long haul.

Keeping now integrates directly with HubSpot's Sales Hub. Learn More

• Performance

Assigning Tasks: How to Delegate Effectively

There are certain projects that could never be completed if they weren’t broken down into individual tasks, especially those of a certain size and complexity. As soon as your team grows bigger than one or two people, you need to make use of the ability to assign tasks to achieve your goals. 

Last updated: December 21, 2022

8 mins read

There are some customer service superheroes out there who seem to be able to complete all the tasks themselves. But the reality is that most of us need to learn the skill of assigning tasks to others, especially if we are in positions of responsibility in busy customer service teams. This is to ensure that no single person is burdened with the workload, or high-performers are being unfairly assigned a larger proportion of the work available. 

Assigning tasks is essential for high-performing customer service teams that must juggle multiple priorities. 

Anyone who has any experience working in a customer service team understands task assignments, which helps you to get projects completed, customer queries solved and objectives fulfilled. It’s naturally much quicker and more efficient to have multiple employees working on different tasks that make up a project, utilizing their unique skills and experiences to come up with creative solutions. 

Without assigned tasks, projects would never get completed because teams are not working to their full capacity. Some customer problems could never be resolved because they require the contributions of different customer service representatives . Assigning tasks needs to be deliberate since it requires the coordination of multiple members of a team. 

What is task assigning?

Task assigning means allocating and delegating tasks to members of your team for effective project management. The task assigner is aware of the various strengths and weaknesses, skills and experience of individuals and can assign them tasks in pursuit of greater productivity. 

You need to be able to break down projects into component parts so that each individual may contribute to the greater whole. Usually, you will use task tracking or project management tools that can help your team manage their assigned task, and can even offer customer service automations that make assigning tasks easier. 

When assigning tasks is implemented effectively, each team member knows who is responsible for what and when tasks are due. This helps prevent conflicting priorities. Each task must come full circle, with each assignee receiving constructive feedback on how well they have completed the task. 

Even if you assign a task to another team member, they are still reporting into the task owner for approval. 

The importance of efficient task assignments

Efficient task assignment means that customer service teams can work to their full productivity, since each team member understands what they are responsible for. Your task description can break each task down so service reps fully understand the steps they need to take to complete the task, and have access to the resources they might need to be successful. Employees perform better when they are trusted with tasks that help them stretch and grow. 

The entire purpose of a team is to enable different employees to work together effectively and create outcomes that are greater than the individual contributions. Customer service teams that have a plurality of perspectives from multiple people are more creative. A diversity of perspectives contributes to more creative solutions as people with different backgrounds collaborate together. 

Projects are completed much more quickly when you have multiple team members handling all your employee tasks, instead of one person trying to do everything on their own. Task assignment means team members who have both the time and experience necessary to complete the task can all have a role to play. 

Effectively assigning tasks to individual team members gives them a chance to stretch themselves and engage in more professional development. New tasks give more junior customer service reps the opportunity to step outside of their comfort zone, and complete different types of work that may otherwise not come across their path. 

There are many benefits to task assignment, not least because it allows the entire team to share the workload. 

The difference between assignment and delegation

While they might at first glance seem to be similar, there is a big difference between task assignment and delegation. Assignment means you assign tasks to a team member and explain exactly how you want things to be done, with clear-cut instructions. Delegation means you are transferring responsibility for the task to your assignee and giving them more autonomy for how that task gets completed. 

Assigning tasks is often repetitive but it nevertheless contributes to the overall completion of the project. A delegated task is more free and gives your team members the opportunity to grow as they figure out how to produce the desired results. Task delegations are based more on outcomes than specific instructions, with the employee figuring out how to complete the task on their own. 

Although task delegation is more autonomous, it nevertheless still requires support from the manager to ensure that the employee has adequate direction. Delegating a task doesn’t mean the manager no longer has anything to do with it, but simply that they are trusting their assignee to take ownership. 

Choosing whether or not to assign or delegate a task means understanding the complexity of the task to be assigned. 

How to assign tasks to team members

Try to remove yourself from the approval process.

When a supervisor assigns tasks to employees, they themselves can become a bottleneck as service reps turn to them for approval during every stage of completing the task. When multiple team members are waiting for sign-off from the same customer service manager, you find that you haven’t actually reduced your workload and you end up micromanaging your assignees. 

When managers are too involved, projects lose momentum as the individual contributors end up waiting around for approval when they could be spending their time on more productive tasks. Customers are kept waiting as individual queries can’t progress without the authority of a manager. 

In order to avoid this problem, you can select a group of dependable people who are responsible for the approval process. Delegating responsibility means that you can be more hands-off in the task completion process, while being assured that the work is being completed to a high standard. Schedule regular team meetings to go over the progress of each task and keep your eye on the ball. 

Effective teamwork only happens when customer service supervisors feel secure enough to let the task go.  

Make your expectations explicit

Unfortunately, we can all fall into the trap of assuming that other people are mind-readers. In reality though, if you don’t give clear instructions to your team members then you’re unlikely to get the result you want. You need to look at your task titles and outlines from the perspective of an outsider in order to formulate clear instructions. 

If you want to better formulate tasks for your team members, break the task down into steps and give time estimates for each step. The more information the better, if you want to empower employees to complete tasks on their own. When employees are informed, they don’t have to waste time referring back to you for more clarity. 

There’s a fine line between clarity and micromanaging. Once you have assigned the task, don’t keep pestering your service rep to check whether they are doing it right. If you’ve given clear instructions, they should be able to complete the task to the best of their ability. 

At the same time, ensure that your employee knows they can always turn to you for help during the task, to guard against failure. 

Set an objective time frame for completion

When employees are assigned tasks, they need to be made aware of the deadline for completion or the task could run on forever. It’s not enough to vaguely say “As soon as you get to it” because some critical customer issue is bound to come along. 

It’s best to actively involve your customer service reps in their time frame for completion, since they are the ones who know best how long it will take them to finish certain tasks. When employees are involved in setting their own deadlines, they are more accountable and more likely to make an effort to meet it. 

If an employee is aware of a deadline, they can let you know if competing priorities have materialized and whether the deadline may need to be reevaluated. It’s best to flag these issues as soon as possible, before they affect the overall progress of the project. 

Without hard deadlines, projects will never get finished as every step gets continually put off until tomorrow. 

Hold your employees accountable

When assigning tasks to employees, make sure that they can account for their working hours somewhere that is publicly accessible to the team. You can use time tracking software that will help other team members understand exactly how someone is progressing with their task and hold that individual accountable. 

If employees are held responsible for their tasks, the project is much less likely to get derailed since you as the customer service manager can become aware if someone is falling behind. If your employee’s current progress looks like they might not meet their deadline, then you can ask them if they need extra help or support. 

Tracking your team’s performance can also help you identify the high-performers and who might be available for extra work. You might also see when team members are spending time on unnecessary tasks that don’t contribute to the progress of the project. Teams will be more efficient when they know exactly where time is being spent. 

If you don’t track your team’s hours, you won’t have visibility into your projects and their rate of completion. 

Assign tasks to the right person

There are several reasons why you might choose a particular person to assign a task to, starting with their relevant skills and experience. When assigning tasks to someone, you want to know that they have the right capabilities to complete the task without too much support from the manager. 

Secondly, you want to know that the person you assign the task to has enough time to complete the task. It’s no good assigning tasks to someone who is already overburdened with customer tickets and won’t be able to give your task the due care and attention. 

Thirdly, you might consider assigning tasks to someone who is in need of development opportunities. Perhaps there might be someone more skilled for the task out there, but you want to give this service rep a chance to learn new skills. In this case, you can assign the task while offering extra support for their professional development. 

Multiple factors come into play when it comes to deciding which person to assign a task to, so make sure you give each one enough consideration. 

Relate each task to a wider perspective

When an employee is assigned a task, it might seem insignificant and menial which will cause them to lose motivation. In order to keep employees excited about completing tasks, relate it to the wider perspective and explain how it helps to meet overall objectives. No task is too small or you wouldn’t be including it in your project in the first place. 

Showing employees how their work has an impact influences them to become more committed to the task. Employees are more engaged and happier at work when they understand how their contribution has a place, and that they are improving the lives of others in their team or of their customers. 

If you can’t see how each task fits into the bigger picture, then perhaps it shouldn’t be included at all. Every task should advance your goals and contribute to the progress of the project. 

If it’s not clear how a task fits into the broader picture, try to imagine what would happen if that task was left incomplete. 

Offer feedback on tasks

Every customer service rep needs to understand their performance, whether the feedback is positive or negative. If an employee has no feedback, they have no idea how their work has impacted the team or whether their task has been successful. Without feedback, employees can’t improve and become more productive members of the team. 

Providing your service reps with feedback means they can move onto progressively harder tasks that help them with their development. Even negative feedback can provide motivation to improve as the employee understands exactly what they did wrong with the task. 

While providing feedback does take some time on the part of the customer service manager, it’s the only way that your team members can become more effective, able to take on more complex tasks that would normally go to more senior members of the team. 

Be sure to phrase your feedback constructively to avoid demoralizing the team. 

Wrapping up

Customer service teams that master the art of effective task assignment are more productive, more creative, and have better solutions than their counterparts who can’t assign tasks. In an efficient customer service team, everyone should know what is expected of them and how their work contributes to the whole. 

Task assignments should be clear, detailed and accountable, with hard deadlines for completion. 

Effective teamwork means you can accomplish more than you could as individuals, and assigning tasks is a big part of working together. With transparency and accountability, managers can monitor how everyone is adding to the project. 

Catherine is a content writer and community builder for creative and ethical companies. She often writes case studies, help documentation and articles about customer support. Her writing has helped businesses to attract curious audiences and transform them into loyal advocates. You can find more of her work at https://awaywithwords.co.

Join 150+ teams that are sharing inboxes with us

The easiest way to upgrade your shared Gmail account. There’s no credit card is required.

The Missing Shared Inbox for Google Workspace

Continue reading.

This is How to Manage Email Overload (11 Tips to Follow)

Customer Response Time: The Ultimate Guide

Gmail Templates: Supercharge Your Email

• Jump to menu
• Student Home
• Accept your offer
• How to enrol
• Student ID card
• Set up your IT
• Orientation Week
• Fees & payment
• Academic calendar
• Special consideration
• Transcripts
• The Nucleus: Student Hub
• Referencing
• Essay writing
• Learning abroad & exchange
• Professional development & UNSW Advantage
• Employability
• Financial assistance
• International students
• Equitable learning
• Postgraduate research
• Health Service
• Events & activities
• Emergencies
• Volunteering
• Clubs and societies
• Accommodation
• Health services
• Sport and gym
• Arc student organisation
• Security on campus
• Maps of campus
• Careers portal
• Change password

Glossary of Task Words

Understanding the meaning of words, especially task words, helps you to know exactly what is being asked of you. It takes you halfway towards narrowing down your material and selecting your answer.

Task words direct you and tell you how to go about answering a question. Here is a list of such words and others that you are most likely to come across frequently in your course.

Maddox, H 1967, How to Study , 2nd ed, Pan Books, London.

Marshall, L., & Rowland, F 1998, A guide to learning independently , Addison Wesley Longman, Melbourne.

Northedge, A 1997, The good study guide , Open University, Milton Keynes, UK.

Essay and assignment writing guide

• Essay writing basics
• Essay and assignment planning
• Complex assignment questions
• Glossary of task words
• Editing checklist
• Writing a critical review
• Annotated bibliography
• Reflective writing
• ^ More support

Hexamester 3: Library 101 Webinar 8 May 2024

Scholarly Resources 4 Students | scite.ai 21 May 2024

• Data Analysis
• Data Visualization
• Machine Learning
• Deep Learning
• Computer Vision
• AI ML DS Interview Series
• AI ML DS Projects series
• Data Engineering
• Web Scrapping
• Distributed Systems Tutorial

Introduction to Distributed System

• What is a Distributed System?
• Features of Distributed Operating System
• Evolution of Distributed Computing Systems
• Types of Transparency in Distributed System
• What is Scalable System in Distributed System?
• Role of Middleware in Distributed System
• Difference between Hardware and Middleware
• What is Groupware in Distributed System?
• Difference between Parallel Computing and Distributed Computing
• Difference between Loosely Coupled and Tightly Coupled Multiprocessor System
• Design Issues of Distributed System
• Introduction to Distributed Computing Environment (DCE)
• Limitation of Distributed System
• Various Failures in Distributed System
• Types of Operating Systems
• Types of Distributed System
• Comparison - Centralized, Decentralized and Distributed Systems
• Three-Tier Client Server Architecture in Distributed System

Communication in Distributed Systems

• Features of Good Message Passing in Distributed System
• Issues in IPC By Message Passing in Distributed System
• What is Message Buffering?
• Multidatagram Messages in Distributed System
• Group Communication in distributed Systems

Remote Procedure Calls in Distributed System

• What is RPC Mechanism in Distributed System?
• Distributed System - Transparency of RPC
• Stub Generation in Distributed System
• Marshalling in Distributed System
• Server Management in Distributed System
• Distributed System - Parameter Passing Semantics in RPC
• Distributed System - Call Semantics in RPC
• Communication Protocols For RPCs
• Client-Server Model
• Lightweight Remote Procedure Call in Distributed System
• Difference Between RMI and DCOM
• Difference between RPC and RMI

Synchronization in Distributed System

• Synchronization in Distributed Systems
• Logical Clock in Distributed System
• Lamport's Algorithm for Mutual Exclusion in Distributed System
• Vector Clocks in Distributed Systems
• Event Ordering in Distributed System
• Mutual exclusion in distributed system
• Performance Metrics For Mutual Exclusion Algorithm
• Cristian's Algorithm
• Berkeley's Algorithm
• Difference between Token based and Non-Token based Algorithms in Distributed System
• Ricart–Agrawala Algorithm in Mutual Exclusion in Distributed System
• Suzuki–Kasami Algorithm for Mutual Exclusion in Distributed System

Source Management and Process Management

• Features of Global Scheduling Algorithm in Distributed System

What is Task Assignment Approach in Distributed System?

• Load Balancing Approach in Distributed System
• Load-Sharing Approach in Distributed System
• Difference Between Load Balancing and Load Sharing in Distributed System
• Process Migration in Distributed System

Distributed File System and Distributed shared memory

• What is DFS (Distributed File System)?
• Andrew File System
• File Service Architecture in Distributed System
• File Models in Distributed System
• File Accessing Models in Distributed System
• File Caching in Distributed File Systems
• What is Replication in Distributed System?
• Atomic Commit Protocol in Distributed System
• Design Principles of Distributed File System
• What is Distributed shared memory and its advantages
• Architecture of Distributed Shared Memory(DSM)
• Difference between Uniform Memory Access (UMA) and Non-uniform Memory Access (NUMA)
• Algorithm for implementing Distributed Shared Memory
• Consistency Model in Distributed System
• Distributed System - Thrashing in Distributed Shared Memory

Distributed Scheduling and Deadlock

• Scheduling and Load Balancing in Distributed System
• Issues Related to Load Balancing in Distributed System
• Components of Load Distributing Algorithm | Distributed Systems
• Distributed System - Types of Distributed Deadlock
• Deadlock Detection in Distributed Systems
• Conditions for Deadlock in Distributed System
• Deadlock Handling Strategies in Distributed System
• Deadlock Prevention Policies in Distributed System
• Chandy-Misra-Haas's Distributed Deadlock Detection Algorithm
• Security in Distributed System
• Types of Cyber Attacks
• Cryptography and its Types
• Implementation of Access Matrix in Distributed OS
• Digital Signatures and Certificates
• Design Principles of Security in Distributed System

Distributed Multimedia and Database System

• Distributed Database System
• Functions of Distributed Database System
• Multimedia Database

Distributed Algorithm

• Deadlock-Free Packet Switching
• Wave and Traversal Algorithm in Distributed System
• Election algorithm and distributed processing
• Introduction to Common Object Request Broker Architecture (CORBA) - Client-Server Software Development
• Difference between CORBA and DCOM
• Difference between COM and DCOM
• Life cycle of Component Object Model (COM) Object
• Distributed Component Object Model (DCOM)

Distributed Transactions

• Flat & Nested Distributed Transactions
• Transaction Recovery in Distributed System
• Mechanism for building Distributed file system
• Two Phase Commit Protocol (Distributed Transaction Management)

A Distributed System is a Network of Machines that can exchange information with each other through Message-passing. It can be very useful as it helps in resource sharing. In this article, we will see the concept of the Task Assignment Approach in Distributed systems.

Resource Management:

One of the functions of system management in distributed systems is Resource Management. When a user requests the execution of the process, the resource manager performs the allocation of resources to the process submitted by the user for execution. In addition, the resource manager routes process to appropriate nodes (processors) based on assignments. 

Multiple resources are available in the distributed system so there is a need for system transparency for the user. There can be a logical or a physical resource in the system. For example, data files in sharing mode, Central Processing Unit (CPU), etc.

As the name implies, the task assignment approach is based on the division of the process into multiple tasks. These tasks are assigned to appropriate processors to improve performance and efficiency. This approach has a major setback in that it needs prior knowledge about the features of all the participating processes. Furthermore, it does not take into account the dynamically changing state of the system. This approach’s major objective is to allocate tasks of a single process in the best possible manner as it is based on the division of tasks in a system. For that, there is a need to identify the optimal policy for its implementation.

Working of Task Assignment Approach:

In the working of the Task Assignment Approach, the following are the assumptions:

• The division of an individual process into tasks.
• Each task’s computing requirements and the performance in terms of the speed of each processor are known.
• The cost incurred in the processing of each task performed on every node of the system is known.
• The IPC (Inter-Process Communication) cost is known for every pair of tasks performed between nodes.
• Other limitations are also familiar, such as job resource requirements and available resources at each node, task priority connections, and so on.

Goals of Task Assignment Algorithms:

• Reducing Inter-Process Communication (IPC) Cost
• Quick Turnaround Time or Response Time for the whole process
• A high degree of Parallelism
• Utilization of System Resources in an effective manner

The above-mentioned goals time and again conflict. To exemplify, let us consider the goal-1 using which all the tasks of a process need to be allocated to a single node for reducing the Inter-Process Communication (IPC) Cost. If we consider goal-4 which is based on the efficient utilization of system resources that implies all the tasks of a process to be divided and processed by appropriate nodes in a system.

Note: The possible number of assignments of tasks to nodes:

But in practice, the possible number of assignments of tasks to nodes < m x n because of the constraint for allocation of tasks to the appropriate nodes in a system due to their particular requirements like memory space, etc.

Need for Task Assignment in a Distributed System:

The need for task management in distributed systems was raised for achieving the set performance goals. For that optimal assignments should be carried out concerning cost and time functions such as task assignment to minimize the total execution and communication costs, completion task time, total cost of 3 (execution, communication, and interference), total execution and communication costs with the limit imposed on the number of tasks assigned to each processor, and a weighted product of cost functions of total execution and communication costs and completion task time. All these factors are countable in task allocation and turn, resulting in the best outcome of the system.

Example of Task Assignment Approach:

Let us suppose, there are two nodes namely n1 and n2, and six tasks namely t1, t2, t3, t4, t5, and t6. The two task assignment parameters are:

• execution cost: x ab refers to the cost of executing a task an on node b.
• inter-task communication cost: c ij refers to inter-task communication cost between tasks i and j.

Note: The execution of the task (t2) on the node (n2) and the execution of the task (t6) on the node (n1) is not possible as it can be seen from the above table of Execution costs that resources are not available.

Case1: Serial Assignment

Cost of Execution in Serial Assignment:

Cost of Communication in Serial Assignment:

Case2: Optimal Assignment

Cost of Execution in Optimal Assignment:

Cost of Communication in Optimal Assignment:

Optimal Assignment using Minimal Cutset:

Cutset: The cutset of a graph refers to the set of edges that when removed makes the graph disconnected.

Minimal Cutset: The minimal cutset of a graph refers to the cut which is minimum among all the cuts of the graph.

Please Login to comment...

Similar reads.

• Distributed System

Improve your Coding Skills with Practice

What kind of Experience do you want to share?

Product Suite

Marketing Teams

CRM software to boost your marketing

From admissions to finance

Administrators

Effective student performance tracking

Make learning fun and interactive

Online financial management

CTO-focused platform

Business Leaders

Performance-optimizing tech

Organizations

Robust solution for student management

Cutting-edge school management software

Universities & Higher Education

Powerful education management system

Corporate Learining

Simplify employee training

Pre-Admission & Enrolment

Customer Relationship Management

Student Information System

Learning Management System

Fees & Invoicing

Finance & Accounting

eCommerce Module

Fund Raising

Degree Audit

White Label Module

• Free Resources

Demo & Webinars

Product updates, customer stories.

ROI Calculator

We’ve developed a one-of-its-kind calculator exclusively for educational institutions.

Digital Transformation Playbook

Developed through intense research, this framework will help you achieve 100% digital transformation at your institution

• May 8, 2024

Introduction

In today’s fast-paced world, managing administrative tasks can be a daunting challenge for any organization. From scheduling appointments to tracking expenses, there are countless responsibilities that can easily become overwhelming without the right tools in place. This is where a School Management System can make all the difference. By streamlining processes and automating routine tasks, a management system can help schools and educational institutions operate more efficiently and effectively.

Benefits of Using a School Management System

Streamlined Administrative Tasks : A School Management System automates administrative tasks such as student enrollment, attendance tracking, and scheduling. This reduces paperwork and manual record-keeping, making the administrative process more efficient.

Improved Parent-Teacher Communication : The system can provide a platform for direct communication between parents and teachers. This can help parents stay updated about their child’s academic progress, attendance, and school activities.

Data Management : It provides a centralized system for managing student data, including grades, health records, and disciplinary records. This makes it easier for the school staff to access and update information as needed.

Financial Management : The system can also handle various financial tasks such as fee collection, payroll management, and budgeting. This can help the school manage its finances more effectively.

Resource Management : It can help in managing school resources more effectively, including textbooks, equipment, and other learning materials.

Security : Many School Management Systems come with features like GPS tracking of school buses, biometric attendance systems, and CCTV integration, enhancing the security of students.

E-Learning Capabilities : Some systems also offer e-learning capabilities, allowing teachers to share assignments and tests online, and students to learn at their own pace.

Transparency : It increases transparency in the educational process, as parents can monitor their child’s progress and participate more actively in their education.

Environmentally Friendly : By reducing the need for paper and physical resources, a School Management System is also more environmentally friendly.

Key Features to Look for in a School Management System

When choosing a School Management System, it is important to look for certain key features that will make your life easier:

User-friendly interface : A user-friendly interface is crucial for any software, especially for a School Management System. This means the system should be easy to navigate and use, even for those who are not tech-savvy. It should have clear menus, simple navigation, and intuitive design. This will ensure that all users, including teachers, administrators, and parents, can easily access and use the system’s features.

Customizable workflows and task assignments : Every school has its own unique needs and workflows. Therefore, the ability to customize workflows and tasks according to your school’s needs is crucial. This could include customizing the grading system, attendance tracking, or communication methods. The system should allow you to create and assign tasks to specific users or groups, and track their progress. This level of customization can help streamline processes and increase efficiency.

Integration with other tools and platforms : In today’s digital age, schools use a variety of tools and platforms for different purposes, such as communication, collaboration, and content creation. Therefore, it’s important that the School Management System can integrate with these tools. This could include integration with email platforms for communication, learning management systems for online learning, and accounting software for financial management. This will ensure a seamless flow of data between different systems, reducing manual data entry and the risk of errors.

Remember, the best School Management System is the one that fits your school’s specific needs and workflows. It’s always a good idea to do thorough research and consider multiple options before making a decision.

How to Implement a School Management System in Your Organization

Assess your current administrative processes : Before implementing a new system, it’s important to understand your current processes and identify areas where you are spending too much time or resources. This could include tasks like student registration, attendance tracking, grading, and communication. By identifying these areas, you can better understand what features you need in a School Management System.

Compare features, pricing, and customer reviews : Once you have a clear understanding of your needs, start researching different School Management Systems. Look for a system that offers the features you need at a price that fits your budget. Don’t forget to read customer reviews to get a sense of the system’s reliability and customer service.

Choose the Right System : After comparing different systems, choose the one that best fits your needs and budget. Consider factors like ease of use, customization options, and integration with other tools you use.

Implement the System : Once you’ve chosen a system, start the implementation process. This may involve setting up the system, importing existing data, and configuring settings to match your school’s workflows.

Train employees on how to use the system effectively : It’s crucial that everyone who will be using the system is properly trained. This could involve hands-on training sessions, online tutorials, or user manuals. Make sure everyone understands how to use the system’s key features.

Monitor and evaluate the system’s performance regularly : After the system is implemented, it’s important to monitor its performance and make adjustments as needed. This could involve tracking how much time is saved, the accuracy of data, and user satisfaction. Regular evaluation will help you ensure the system is meeting your needs and optimize its efficiency and effectiveness.

Remember, implementing a new School Management System is a significant task that requires careful planning and execution. But with the right approach, it can greatly improve the efficiency and effectiveness of your school’s administration.

A School Management System is a valuable tool for any educational institution looking to simplify administrative tasks and improve overall efficiency. By streamlining processes, enhancing communication, and providing valuable insights through reporting and analytics, a management system can help schools operate more effectively and focus on what truly matters – providing quality education to students. We encourage all readers to consider implementing a School Management System in their own organizations to experience the benefits firsthand.

• Classe365 News
• Company News
• Education Articles
• Education Innovation
• Education Startup
• General EdTech

Recent Posts

• SIS: Maximizing Education Efficiency with Essential Insights
• Enhancing Learning: 5 Ways Student Information Systems Tailor Education
• Eye-Opening Advantages of Learning Management Systems
• The Transformative Role of CRM in Education Technology

Is adaptation involved in bilingual language production? A fresh look at the assumptions motivating potential bilingual-monolingual differences in adaptive control

• Brief Report
• Open access
• Published: 07 May 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Giacomo Spinelli   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3913-8109 1 &
• Simone Sulpizio 1  

One of the hottest debates in psychology—whether bilingual-monolingual differences exist in cognitive control—is at a stalemate. Here we propose that the stalemate could be broken by shifting the research focus from whether those differences emerge to why they should. We offer an example of this approach by testing the assumption of current theories of language-control associations that adaptive control is involved in bilingualism, specifically language production. Unbalanced Italian-English bilinguals living in the Milan area completed a Stroop task in their L1 and a picture-naming task in their L2. Both tasks involved a manipulation of the proportion of the type of stimuli that are assumed to require control, i.e., incongruent stimuli in the Stroop task (e.g., the word RED written in blue) and pictures with noncognate names in the picture-naming task (e.g., the picture of a horse, whose Italian name, “cavallo,” has a very different pronunciation). Both confirmatory and exploratory analyses showed a clear dissociation between the two tasks, with the Stroop task producing an interactive pattern indicative of adaptive-control involvement and the picture-naming task failing to produce a similar one. These results suggest that adaptive control may not be involved in bilingual language production and, therefore, may not produce bilingual-monolingual differences in cognitive control. It is hoped that this research will inspire a change in the study of language-control associations, pushing future research efforts towards grounding the assumptions for those associations in empirical evidence.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Every so often the bilingual-advantage saga—the debate over whether regular experience managing two languages confers bilinguals an advantage in cognitive control relative to monolinguals—features a promising new episode. The audience gasp: Will the advantage convince skeptics this time ? But in an all-too-predictable pattern, a new challenge arises, and the solution will have to wait for another episode (Bialystok, 2017 ; Paap, 2022 ; see also Antoniou, 2019 ).

Here we propose that part of the reason for the stalemate affecting current theories of language-control associations (e.g., Bialystok, 2017 ; Bialystok & Craik, 2022 ; Green & Abutalebi, 2013 ) is that while much of the debate has focused on the existence of bilingual-monolingual differences—the theories’ predictions—little attention has been paid to the motivation for potential differences—the theories’ assumptions (but see Blanco-Elorrieta & Caramazza, 2021 ). However, prioritization of the latter would be necessary: If there was little or no motivation for there being bilingual-monolingual differences in a certain control ability, there would be no good reason to even attempt to find them. If, in contrast, the motivation was solid, such attempts would have a much higher chance of success, and failures would gain informative value (Oberauer & Lewandowsky, 2019 ).

Based on these considerations, rather than conducting the umpteenth contrast between monolinguals and bilinguals, we focused on the latter to examine a core assumption of current theories of language-control associations: the idea that experience managing two languages involves adaptive (or attentional) control (e.g., Bialystok, 2017 ; Green & Abutalebi, 2013 ). Adaptive control refers to the ability to adjust processing selectivity in line with the current goal and context (Braem et al., 2019 ) and is typically studied in conflict tasks such as the Stroop task (1935), where conflict from an irrelevant but easily processed distractor in incongruent stimuli (e.g., the word RED written in blue) elicits slower and less accurate responses than the absence of such conflict in congruent stimuli (e.g., RED in red). Demonstrating adaptive control is the fact that the magnitude of this congruency effect is modulated, for example, by the congruency status of the previous trial (Gratton et al., 1992 ) or the proportion of congruent/incongruent trials in the experimental list (Logan & Zbrodoff, 1979 ).

The Proportion-Congruent (PC) manipulation, in particular, produces an interactive pattern (Fig. 1 A) involving a larger congruency effect in a list in which the stimuli are mostly congruent than in a list in which the stimuli are mostly incongruent. This PC effect is typically interpreted as reflecting better ability to proactively prepare for conflict in the mostly-incongruent than the mostly-congruent list, in which, instead, conflict would be handled reactively (i.e., when it occurs) and less efficiently (Braver, 2012 ). That the PC effect is due to conflict and not to a mere difficulty difference between congruent and incongruent stimuli is demonstrated by the fact that parallel experiments manipulating the proportion of easy and hard stimuli (e.g., high-resolution and low-resolution pictures) tend to produce an additive pattern (Fig. 1 B). This pattern involves a general slow-down but little or no difficulty effect reduction in a mostly-hard list relative to a mostly-easy list (Spinelli et al., 2019 ). While this slow-down may reflect a later criterion for response emission in contexts in which hard stimuli prevail (Lupker et al., 1997 ), it most certainly does not reflect adaptive control because it involves no processing selectivity adjustment.

Examples of interactive and additive patterns in conflict ( A ) and non-conflict ( B ) tasks based on Spinelli et al.’s ( 2019 ) Experiments 1B and 2, respectively

The assumption that adaptive control is involved in bilingualism implies that there are situations in managing two languages in which performance resembles the interactive pattern but not the additive pattern. Here, we tested that idea by attempting to create such a situation in a linguistic task inspired by the conflict-task literature. In conflict tasks, as noted, conflict from a distractor is assumed to produce the congruency effect and trigger adaptive control. In managing two languages, a similar conflict is assumed to occur when producing the name of a concept in a language—the target language—while ignoring the corresponding name in the other language—the non-target language, which, albeit irrelevant, will be active at the same time (e.g., Green, 1998 ). This conflict would be especially relevant when the non-target language is the bilingual’s dominant language (i.e., their L1, with the target language being their L2; e.g., Hermans et al., 1998 ) and the two translation equivalents have very different pronunciations (i.e., they are noncognates; e.g., an Italian-English bilingual saying “horse” while ignoring “cavallo,” its Italian equivalent). On the other hand, when the translation equivalents have similar pronunciations (i.e., they are cognates, e.g., “elephant” and “elefante”), conflict is presumably reduced, as evidenced by the fact that pictures with cognate names are named faster than pictures with noncognate names (Costa et al., 2000 ; for evidence from other tasks, see Santesteban & Schwieter, 2020 ).

Although originally named the cognate “facilitation” effect, this effect must include both facilitation and interference unless it is assumed that there is no competition between target and non-target languages (Costa et al., 2000 ). Indeed, such a competition is a basic premise of models that assume cognitive-control involvement in bilingualism (e.g., Green, 1998 ; Green & Abutalebi, 2013 ). The cognate effect thus resembles the congruency effect in conflict tasks, which also involves facilitation and interference (MacLeod, 1991 ). Further, this effect appears to reflect a structural component of bilingualism (i.e., the constant need to deal with irrelevant information from the non-target language), unlike other effects presumed to involve bilingualism-specific control which have turned out to be somewhat epiphenomenal (e.g., language-switching effects; see Blanco-Elorrieta & Pylkkänen, 2018 ).

Based on these considerations, we elected the cognate effect in L2 picture naming as a bilingual analog of the congruency effect in conflict tasks and manipulated cognate/noncognate proportion as in conflict tasks, i.e., we created a list in which the pictures were mostly cognate and another in which the pictures were mostly noncognate. Doing so allowed us to contrast two hypotheses: (1) the (alternative) hypothesis that, similar to conflict tasks, adaptive control would be regulated proactively in the mostly-noncognate list to reduce non-target-language conflict and reactively in the mostly-cognate list to deal with that conflict only when it occurs, resulting in a PC-like effect (Fig. 1 A); (2) the (null) hypothesis that, similar to non-conflict tasks, a later response criterion would be set in the mostly-noncognate than the mostly-cognate list but no adaptive control would be involved, resulting in an additive pattern (Fig. 1 B). The first hypothesis would support a core assumption of theories of language-control associations, i.e., that adaptive control is involved in bilingualism, whereas the second hypothesis would challenge it.

As a manipulation check, a Stroop task in participants’ L1 was also included with a PC manipulation parallel to that used in the L2 picture-naming task. The expectation was for a PC effect to emerge with the critical stimuli (see below), suggesting that our participants were able to engage adaptive control, as participants in this type of experiments typically are (Spinelli & Lupker, 2023 ).

Participants

The sample size needed for a power of .80 to obtain the key interaction effect between cognate status and list type was calculated with G*Power 3.1 (Faul et al., 2009 ) using the smallest of the PC effects controlled for non-conflict processes reported by Spinelli and Lupker ( 2023 ) for a series of color-word Stroop experiments, \({\eta }_{p}^{2}\) = .276. Although the minimum sample size suggested by the analysis was 24, we aimed to reach a sample size comparable to that used in Spinelli and Lupker’s ( 2023 ) experiments, i.e., 48 participants. Participants were recruited by advertising the study in social media groups associated with, and classes offered at, the University of Milano-Bicocca, through the university’s participant pool, and from the experimenters’ social circles (see recruitment tools in the Online Supplementary Materials (OSM)). Participants received course credits for their participation. To participate, volunteers were required to consider Italian to be their native (or one of their native) language(s), to have normal or corrected-to-normal vision and hearing, to be between 18 and 45 years old, and to pass an English pre-screening test (see below). 129 participants completed the pre-screening test. Of these, 71 passed it, 60 came to the lab to complete the study, and 48 remained after exclusions (see below). Of the final sample, 36 identified themselves as female, 11 as male, and one as non-binary, with 22.81 years of age on average ( SD = 3.53, range = 18–36); 40 reported knowing a third language besides Italian and English and 20 a fourth language, although their proficiency, immersion, and dominance in those languages (as calculated using the Language History Questionnaire (LHQ3); Li et al., 2019 ) was lower than those reported for Italian or English on average; all were born in Italy except two who came to live in Italy during childhood; and all resided in Italy except one who resided in Switzerland. We report additional information on Italian (L1) and English (L2), the two languages involved in the study, in Table 1 .

Materials and procedure

Pre-screening session.

Participants were pre-screened using Cambridge’s online test for adult learners of English ( https://www.cambridgeenglish.org/test-your-english/general-english/ ). The test provides an English proficiency estimate within the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFRL). To pass the test, participants were required to perform at an estimated B2 CEFRL level (see OSM for further details). To participate in the pre-screening test and the subsequent lab session, participants expressed their informed consent. The study was approved by the university’s Ethics Board (protocol RM-2021-445).

Lab session

Participants who passed the pre-screening test were invited to participate in the lab session, which comprised a language background questionnaire, an L2 picture-naming task, an L1 Stroop task, and an L1-to-L2 translation task, in this order. All instructions were given in Italian. The whole session took about 2.5 h to complete.

Language background questionnaire

To assess participants’ language background, we used the Language History Questionnaire 3.0 (LHQ3; Li et al., 2019 ), a validated tool to measure, by self-report, several aspects of the bilingual experience such as Age of Acquisition (AoA), proficiency, and patterns of language use. The English version of the LHQ3 was translated into Italian and re-created using the Jotform ( https://www.jotform.com/ ) survey services.

L2 picture-naming task

Of the colored drawings in the MultiPic dataset (Duñabeitia et al., 2018 ), 96 with cognate and 96 with noncognate English and Italian names were selected based on the results of a pilot study (described in full, along with the selection process, in the OSM; for the most relevant characteristics, see Table 2 ). Each set was split into four subsets of 24 stimuli, roughly matched on the most relevant characteristics reported in Table 2 , which were used to create the mostly-cognate and the mostly-noncognate lists. Namely, the mostly-cognate list included three subsets of the cognate set and one subset of the noncognate set (i.e., there were 72 (75%) cognate pictures and 24 (25%) noncognate pictures); the mostly-noncognate list included the fourth subset of the cognate set and the other three subsets of the noncognate set (i.e., there were 24 (25%) cognate pictures and 72 (75%) noncognate pictures; note that these percentages are typical of those used in proportion-congruent manipulations in conflict tasks, see, e.g., Braem et al., 2019 ). The assignment of subsets to list types was counterbalanced across participants, as was the order of presentation of the list types. The order of presentation of the stimuli within each block was randomized. For a representation of the composition of the two lists, see Fig. 2 A.

Representation of the composition of the lists used in the L2 picture-naming task ( A ) and the L1 Stroop task ( B ). In the particular counterbalancing represented for the L1 Stroop task ( B ), the colors red and green (and the corresponding Italian names, “rosso” and “verde”) form the inducer subset and are always congruent in the mostly-congruent list and always incongruent in the mostly-incongruent list. The colors blue and yellow (and the corresponding Italian names, “blu” and “giallo”) form the diagnostic subset and are congruent and incongruent in equal proportions in both lists. See the online version of this article for colors

Each trial began with a fixation symbol (+) presented for 250 ms followed by the picture presented for 3,000 ms or until response. All pictures were 300-pixel wide and 300-pixel high. Participants were instructed to name the picture in English, their L2, as quickly as possible with the name that they thought was the most appropriate. They were told to speak clearly, without hesitations, and not to worry excessively about their Italian accent. There was a self-paced pause between the two lists. Prior to the experiment, participants completed a practice session with six “neutral” pictures not clearly classifiable as either cognate or noncognate (see OSM). DMDX (Forster & Forster, 2003 ) was used to program the task.

L1 Stroop task  

Two subsets of colors (red and green vs. blue and yellow) and the corresponding Italian names (ROSSO and VERDE vs. BLU and GIALLO) were used to create the mostly-congruent and mostly-incongruent lists. One subset was used as the “inducer” subset and included either congruent stimuli only (in the mostly-congruent list) or incongruent stimuli only (in the mostly-incongruent list), whereas the other subset was used as the “diagnostic” subset and included congruent and incongruent stimuli in equal proportions (in both lists). Specifically, the mostly-congruent list included 96 congruent stimuli from one subset, the inducer subset (e.g., the red/green subset), and 48 congruent and 48 incongruent stimuli from the other subset, the diagnostic subset (e.g., the blue/yellow subset; i.e., in total, there were 144 (75%) congruent stimuli and 48 (25%) incongruent stimuli); the mostly-incongruent list included 96 incongruent stimuli from the subset used as the inducer subset in the mostly-congruent list (e.g., the red/green subset) and 48 congruent and 48 incongruent stimuli from the subset used as the diagnostic subset in the mostly-congruent list (e.g., the blue/yellow subset; i.e., in total, there were 48 (25%) congruent stimuli and 144 (75%) incongruent stimuli). The assignment of subsets to the inducer versus diagnostic type of subset was counterbalanced across participants, as was the order of presentation of the list types (but note that this order was always compatible with that used in the L2 picture-naming task, e.g., participants presented with the mostly-cognate list first in that task were always presented with the mostly-congruent list first in this task). This splitting of stimuli into two subsets is the recommended procedure for measuring adaptive control in Stroop-like tasks (Braem et al., 2019 ). The order of presentation of the stimuli within each block was randomized. For a representation of the composition of the two lists, see Fig. 2 B.

Each trial began with a fixation symbol (+) presented for 250 ms followed by the stimulus presented in Courier New pt. 14 font for 2,000 ms or until response. All stimuli appeared against a medium-grey background. Participants were instructed to name the color in Italian, their L1, as quickly and as accurately as possible. There was a self-paced pause between the two lists. Prior to the experiment, participants completed a practice session including eight neutral stimuli (i.e., #####). DMDX (Forster & Forster, 2003 ) was used to program the task.

L2-to-L1 translation task

To assess participants’ L2 lexical fluency, we used an L1-to-L2 translation task comprising 30 high-frequency, 30 medium-frequency, and 30 low-frequency Italian words, all of which had one (in the case of one of the words, two) acceptable English translation(s) according to Word Reference ( https://www.wordreference.com/ ) and none of which had been involved in the previous tasks or were Italian-English cognates (Sulpizio et al., 2019 ). Participants completed this task with no time limit in an Excel spreadsheet in which the words appeared one above the other in a fixed order (from high to low frequency).

Data analysis

Here we report the appropriate confirmatory analyses to test the idea that adaptive control is involved in bilingual language production as it is in conflict tasks. As such, those analyses focus on the group-level results for L2 picture naming and L1 Stroop separately. Exploratory analyses examining individual-level associations between linguistic variables and performance on L2 picture naming or L1 Stroop, and between performance across the two tasks, are reported in the OSM.

For both L2 picture naming and L1 Stroop, the waveforms of responses were manually inspected with CheckVocal (Protopapas, 2007 ) to determine the accuracy of the response and the correct placement of timing marks. For L2 picture naming, there was some leniency concerning the participant’s pronunciation, but a response was considered correct only if it matched the response that we expected based on the results of our pilot study. (We used a similar criterion when scoring responses to the L1-to-L2 translation task. That is, we were lenient with incorrect spellings (e.g., “rackoon” instead of “raccoon”), but a response was considered correct only if it matched the acceptable response for that word.) Prior to the analyses, invalid trials due to technical failures, responses faster than 300 ms, and null responses (1,209 observations for L2 picture naming and 147 for L1 Stroop) were discarded. Prior to the latency analyses, incorrect responses (1,497 observations for L2 picture naming and 246 for L1 Stroop) were also discarded. Further, in line with current recommendations (Braem et al., 2019 ), only stimuli from the diagnostic subset were used in the Stroop task analyses. After discarding invalid and incorrect responses, 12 participants contributed fewer than 70% of their original observations in the L2 picture-naming task. Those participants (whose original observations were 2,304 for L2 picture naming and 4,608 for L1 Stroop) were removed from the analyses—a criterion determined a priori in line with previous work (Spinelli et al., 2020 ; Spinelli & Lupker, 2023 )—leaving, as noted, 48 participants in the final sample. Analyses with the full sample, reported in the OSM, produced a similar pattern of results.

All analyses were conducted in R version 4.2.2 (R Core Team, 2022 ). R-default treatment contrasts were changed to sum-to-zero contrasts (i.e., contr.sum) to help interpret lower-order effects in the presence of higher-order interactions. Separate analyses were conducted for L2 picture naming and L1 Stroop. For both tasks, linear mixed-effects models were used to fit trial-level response times (RTs) and generalized linear mixed-effects models were used to fit trial-level accuracy specifying a binomial distribution with a logit link between fixed effects and the dependent variable. Also, for both tasks, the model included random intercepts for participants and target stimuli. Analyses with the maximal random structure allowed by the data (Bates et al., 2015 ), reported in the OSM, produced a similar pattern of results. For L2 picture naming, the fixed effects were Cognate Status (cognate vs. noncognate) and List Type (mostly-cognate vs. mostly-noncognate); for L1 Stroop, they were Congruency (congruent vs. incongruent) and List Type (mostly-congruent vs. mostly-incongruent). Analyses with List Type Order (i.e., the order in which the two list types in the two tasks were administered) as an additional fixed effect produced a similar pattern of results, although in the Stroop task, in addition to an overall practice effect, the order in which participants received the lists was found to modulate the PC effect in the RTs (for details, see the OSM). However, both participants who received the mostly-congruent list first and those who received the mostly-incongruent list first showed a PC effect, a testament to the robustness of this effect.

Going back to the present analyses, for RTs, i.e., the most relevant dependent measure for the key patterns emerging in conflict and non-conflict tasks (Spinelli et al., 2019 ), we also obtained the best-fitting model using backward selection. Further, to quantify the evidence for/against the key interaction between List Type and Cognate Status (for L2 picture naming)/Congruency (for L1 Stroop), we fit two Bayesian models—an RT model with that interaction, interpreted as the alternative hypothesis H 1 , and an RT model without that interaction, interpreted as the null hypothesis H 0 . The contrast between the two models yielded BF 10 , with values above 1 representing evidence for the presence of the interaction and values below 1 representing evidence for the absence of the interaction (values around 1 would represent no real evidence for either hypothesis). The functions and packages used are reported in the OSM.

The mean participant-based RTs are presented in Fig. 3 A and in Table 3 along with mean error rates. Full results from the RT and accuracy models are reported in Table 4 . As Table 4 shows, whereas no effect reached significance in the accuracy data, in the RTs there was a significant main effect of Cognate Status reflecting, as expected, faster responses to cognate than noncognate pictures, and a marginal ( p = .050) main effect of List Type reflecting a numerical tendency for faster responses in the mostly-cognate than the mostly-noncognate list. Most importantly, the two effects did not interact: The cognate effects in the mostly-cognate list (91 ms) and the mostly-noncognate list (82 ms) were equivalent. Overall, this type of pattern resembles the additive pattern typical of non-conflict tasks (compare Fig. 3 A with Fig. 1 B). Indeed, using backward selection, the best-fitting model was the additive one, a model in which the effects of Cognate Status and List Type were both significant ( p = .006 and p = .048, respectively; see the OSM for full results). The Bayes factor, BF 10 = .06 ±6.47%, also favored the additive model over the interactive one.

Mean participant-based response times (and corresponding 95% confidence intervals calculated using Cousineau’s ( 2019 ) method) in the L2 picture-naming task ( A ) and the L1 Stroop task ( B )

L1 Stroop task

The mean participant-based RTs are presented in Fig. 3 B and in Table 5 along with mean error rates. Full results from the RT and accuracy models are reported in Table 6 . As Table 6 shows, in the accuracy model, the only significant effect was that of Congruency, reflecting, as expected, more accurate responses to congruent than incongruent stimuli. In the RTs, on the other hand, there was a main effect of Congruency reflecting, as expected, faster responses to congruent than incongruent stimuli overall, a main effect of List Type reflecting slower responses in the mostly-congruent than the mostly-incongruent list overall, and an interaction between the two reflecting, as expected, a larger congruency effect in the mostly-congruent list (97 ms) than in the mostly-incongruent list (63 ms). Note that this pattern was mainly driven by the incongruent stimuli being slower in the mostly-congruent than the mostly-incongruent list, β = 28.13, SE = 4.28, z = 6.57, p < .001 (there was no simple main effect of List Type for congruent stimuli, β = -5.83, SE = 4.23, z = -1.38, p = .168). Overall, this type of pattern replicates the interactive pattern typical of conflict tasks (compare Fig. 3 B with Fig. 1 A). The backward selection procedure confirmed that the interactive model was the best-fitting model, save for the elimination of the random effect of target color (note the small amount of variance associated with it in the model reported in Table 6 ; see the OSM for full results of the best-fitting model). Indeed, the Bayes Factor, BF 10 = 290,657.5 ±10.74%, strongly favored the interactive model over the additive one.

While current theories of language-control associations (e.g., Bialystok, 2017 ; Green & Abutalebi, 2013 ) assume that experience managing two languages, particularly in language production, involves adaptive control, that assumption has thus far gone untested. Here we filled this gap by applying a typical manipulation used to demonstrate adaptive control in conflict tasks such as the Stroop task—i.e., the proportion of congruent/incongruent stimuli in a list—to a purely linguistic task involving L2 naming of cognate and noncognate pictures presented with unbalanced proportions in a list. The results of the confirmatory group-level analyses showed a clear dissociation between the two tasks: While the Stroop task produced the interactive pattern typical of conflict tasks, suggesting adaptive-control involvement (i.e., a larger congruency effect in the mostly-congruent than the mostly-incongruent list), its linguistic analog produced the additive pattern typical of non-conflict tasks, suggesting no adaptive-control involvement (i.e., a cognate effect and overall slower responses in the mostly-noncognate list, i.e., the more difficult type of list). These key patterns were robust across several analysis procedures, and exploratory analyses revealed no individual-level predictors modulating them.

There are, of course, a few potential objections to the conclusion that bilingual language production does not involve adaptive control. The first, already addressed in the Introduction , concerns whether the paradigm we used can be reasonably presumed to engage such control—wouldn’t, for example, a language-switching paradigm be more appropriate? Although such paradigms indubitably involve some form of control, that control is likely neither language-specific (Festman & Schwieter, 2015 ) nor ecologically valid (Blanco-Elorrieta & Pylkkänen, 2018 ). In contrast, the cognate effect in a simple picture-naming task such as ours seems to capture a structural component of bilingualism, i.e., the fact that every time a bilingual speaks, they must select a word from the target language and avoid selecting its translation equivalent in the non-target language.

Second, there could have been differences between the Stroop task and the picture-naming task we used (other than the purely linguistic nature of the latter) explaining the dissociation those tasks produced. One such difference is the stimulus set size, which was much smaller in the Stroop task (four colors) than in the picture-naming task (96 pictures per list). Challenging the idea that stimulus set size might matter, however, is the fact that Stroop tasks with stimulus sets even larger than in the present picture-naming task produced the typical interactive pattern (Spinelli et al., 2019 ). Another difference is that while in our Stroop task the distractor (i.e., the word) was explicitly presented, in our picture-naming task the distractor (i.e., the translation equivalent) was not. However, adaptive control has been demonstrated with internally represented distractors (Kiyonaga & Egner, 2014 ) and even without awareness of their presence (Desender et al., 2013 ). Further, that translation equivalents are activated implicitly is part of the normal bilingual experience. Therefore, if adaptive control is normally involved in bilingualism, it should have emerged in this type of situation.

Third and finally, our results could be restricted to the type of population that we sampled—i.e., bilinguals who, despite being relatively proficient in their L2, are immersed in a predominantly L1 environment (for the importance of bilinguals’ social dynamics, see Titone & Tiv, 2023 ). While we cannot rule out this possibility, note that this type of bilingual profile is likely the most common one for bilinguals, at least in Europe. Further, although bilingual profiles may vary, adaptive control has been proposed as a unifying framework for understanding those profiles (e.g., Green & Abutalebi, 2013 ). It would seem to follow that evidence for this form of control could be produced by any type of bilingual.

A relevant question that the idea that adaptive control is not involved in bilingual language production would raise, of course, is what control process would handle the competition between languages that bilinguals would seem to face when speaking? As originally proposed by Costa et al. ( 2000 ), a language-specific selection mechanism may, on one hand, prevent that competition from arising; on the other hand, it may allow for phonological overlap among cognate translation equivalents to speed up naming, thus producing the cognate effect. That is, cross-language competition, a control need inherent in bilingual language production, would be handled internally and would involve no regular exercise of domain-general processes such as adaptive control.

The crucial implication is that adaptive control would be used no more often by bilinguals than by monolinguals, and would thus not be the key ingredient producing potential bilingual-monolingual differences in cognitive control as has been assumed thus far. Footnote 1 These conclusions need, of course, corroboration from different paradigms, samples, and research groups. Nor do we intend to use these conclusions to dismiss the whole bilingual-advantage enterprise. Our intent, instead, is to invite a rethinking of theories of language-control associations and a shift in research focus from the existence of bilingual-monolingual differences to the motivation for those potential differences. Without this shift, borrowing Hartsuiker’s ( 2015 ) analogy, bilingual-advantage research would be no different than going on a treasure hunt with an unreliable map. Let’s first make sure we have the right map.

Data Availability

The datasets analyzed in the present study are available on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/chj58/ .

Note that albeit bilingual-monolingual differences in adaptive-control effects have been reported, the empirical record is, as usual, mixed (cf., e.g., Grundy et al., 2017 , and Paap et al., 2019 ).

Antoniou, M. (2019). The advantages of bilingualism debate. Annual Review of Linguistics , 5 , 395–415.

Bates, D., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., & Baayen, H. (2015). Parsimonious mixed models. ArXiv , 1506.04967. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1506.04967

Bialystok, E. (2017). The bilingual adaptation: How minds accommodate experience. Psychological Bulletin, 143 (3), 233–262. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000099

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Bialystok, E., & Craik, F. I. M. (2022). How does bilingualism modify cognitive function? Attention to the mechanism. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 29 (4), 1246–1269. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-022-02057-5

Article   Google Scholar  

Blanco-Elorrieta, E., & Caramazza, A. (2021). On the need for theoretically guided approaches to possible bilingual advantages: an evaluation of the potential loci in the language and executive control systems. Neurobiology of Language, 2 (4), 452–463. https://doi.org/10.1162/nol_a_00041

Blanco-Elorrieta, E., & Pylkkänen, L. (2018). Ecological validity in bilingualism research and the bilingual advantage. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22 (12), 1117–1126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.10.001

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Braem, S., Bugg, J. M., Schmidt, J. R., Crump, M. J. C., Weissman, D. H., Notebaert, W., & Egner, T. (2019). Measuring adaptive control in conflict tasks. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23 (9), 769–783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.07.002

Braver, T. S. (2012). The variable nature of cognitive control: a dual mechanisms framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16 (2), 106–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.12.010

Costa, A., Caramazza, A., & Sebastian-Galles, N. (2000). The cognate facilitation effect: Implications for models of lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26 (5), 1283–1296. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.26.5.1283

Cousineau, D. (2019). Correlation-adjusted standard errors and confidence intervals for within-subject designs: A simple multiplicative approach. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology , 15 (3), 226–241. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.15.3.p226

Davis, C. J. (2005). N-Watch: A program for deriving neighborhood size and other psycholinguistic statistics. Behavior Research Methods, 37 (1), 65–70. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03206399

Desender, K., Van Lierde, E., & Van den Bussche, E. (2013). Comparing conscious and unconscious conflict adaptation. PLoS ONE, 8 (2), e55976. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055976

Duñabeitia, J. A., Crepaldi, D., Meyer, A. S., New, B., Pliatsikas, C., Smolka, E., & Brysbaert, M. (2018). MultiPic: A standardized set of 750 drawings with norms for six European languages. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71 (4), 808–816. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2017.1310261

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods , 41 (4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.41.4.1149

Festman, J., & Schwieter, J. W. (2015). Behavioral measures of language control. In J. W. Schwieter (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of bilingual processing (pp. 527–547). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781107447257.023

Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35 (1), 116–124. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03195503

Gratton, G., Coles, M. G. H., & Donchin, E. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: Strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121 (4), 480–506. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.121.4.480

Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , 1 (2), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728998000133

Green, D. W., & Abutalebi, J. (2013). Language control in bilinguals: The adaptive control hypothesis. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25 (5), 515–530. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2013.796377

Grundy, J. G., Chung-Fat-Yim, A., Friesen, D. C., Mak, L., & Bialystok, E. (2017). Sequential congruency effects reveal differences in disengagement of attention for monolingual and bilingual young adults. Cognition, 163 , 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.02.010

Hartsuiker, R. J. (2015). Why it is pointless to ask under which specific circumstances the bilingual advantage occurs. Cortex, 73 , 336–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2015.07.018

Hermans, D., Bongaerts, T., De Bot, K., & Schreuder, R. (1998). Producing words in a foreign language: Can speakers prevent interference from their first language? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , 1 (3), 213–229. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728998000364

Kiyonaga, A., & Egner, T. (2014). The working memory Stroop effect: When internal representations clash with external stimuli. Psychological Science, 25 (8), 1619–1629. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614536739

Li, P., Zhang, F., Yu, A., & Zhao, X. (2019). Language History Questionnaire (LHQ3): An enhanced tool for assessing multilingual experience. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , 23 (5), 938–944. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728918001153

Logan, G. D., & Zbrodoff, N. J. (1979). When it helps to be misled: Facilitative effects of increasing the frequency of conflicting stimuli in a Stroop-like task. Memory & Cognition, 7 (3), 166–174. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03197535

Lupker, S. J., Brown, P., & Colombo, L. (1997). Strategic control in a naming task: Changing routes or changing deadlines? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23 (3), 570–590. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.23.3.570

MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109 (2), 163–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.163

Oberauer, K., & Lewandowsky, S. (2019). Addressing the theory crisis in psychology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26 (5), 1596–1618. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01645-2

Paap, K. (2022). The bilingual advantage in executive functioning hypothesis: How the debate provides insight into psychology’s replication crisis . Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003308027

Book   Google Scholar  

Paap, K., Myuz, H., Anders-Jefferson, R., Mason, L., & Zimiga, B. (2019). On the ambiguity regarding the relationship between sequential congruency effects, bilingual advantages in cognitive control, and the disengagement of attention. AIMS Neuroscience, 6 (4), 282–298. https://doi.org/10.3934/neuroscience.2019.4.282

Protopapas, A. (2007). Check Vocal: A program to facilitate checking the accuracy and response time of vocal responses from DMDX. Behavior Research Methods, 39 (4), 859–862. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03192979

R Core Team (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/

Santesteban, M., & Schwieter, J. (2020). Lexical selection and competition in bilinguals. In R. Heredia & A. Cieślicka (Eds.), Bilingual lexical ambiguity resolution (pp. 126–156). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316535967.007

Spinelli, G., Krishna, K., Perry, J. R., & Lupker, S. J. (2020). Working memory load dissociates contingency learning and item-specific proportion-congruent effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 46 (11), 2007–2033. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000934

Spinelli, G., & Lupker, S. J. (2023). Robust evidence for proactive conflict adaptation in the proportion-congruent paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 49 (5), 675–700. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001144

Spinelli, G., Perry, J. R., & Lupker, S. J. (2019). Adaptation to conflict frequency without contingency and temporal learning: Evidence from the picture–word interference task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 45 (8), 995–1014. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000656

Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18 (6), 643–662. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054651

Sulpizio, S., Toti, M., Del Maschio, N., Costa, A., Fedeli, D., Job, R., & Abutalebi, J. (2019). Are you really cursing? Neural processing of taboo words in native and foreign language. Brain and Language, 194 , 84–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2019.05.003

Titone, D. A., & Tiv, M. (2023). Rethinking multilingual experience through a Systems Framework of Bilingualism. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , 26 (1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728921001127

van Heuven, W. J. B., Mandera, P., Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M. (2014). Subtlex-UK: A new and improved word frequency database for British English. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67 (6), 1176–1190. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.850521

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Auriniya Moskal for her assistance in data collection. This research was supported by the University of Milano-Bicocca’s “assegno di ricerca” (research grant) 21A2/24 to Giacomo Spinelli.

Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Milano - Bicocca within the CRUI-CARE Agreement. Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca,"Assegno di ricerca" (research grant) 21A2/24 to Giacomo Spinelli.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Piazza dell’Ateneo Nuovo 1, 20126, Milan, Italy

Giacomo Spinelli & Simone Sulpizio

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giacomo Spinelli .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open practices statement

The data, code, and materials for this study are publicly accessible at https://osf.io/chj58/. The study was not preregistered.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 956 KB)

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Spinelli, G., Sulpizio, S. Is adaptation involved in bilingual language production? A fresh look at the assumptions motivating potential bilingual-monolingual differences in adaptive control. Psychon Bull Rev (2024). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-024-02503-6

Download citation

Accepted : 04 April 2024

Published : 07 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-024-02503-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Adaptive control
• Bilingualism
• Bilingual advantage
• Cognitive control
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research