Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T16:45:38.849Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part IV - Methodology and Pedagogy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2021

Edited by
Mohammad Javad Ahmadian  and
Michael H. Long
Mohammad Javad Ahmadian
Affiliation:
University of Leeds
Michael H. Long
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Task-Based Language Teaching , pp. 303 - 394
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Further Reading

Doughty, C. J. and Long, M. H. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 50–80.Google Scholar
Granena, G. (2016). Individual versus interactive task-based performance through voice-based computer-mediated communication. Language Learning & Technology, 20(3), 40–59.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Long, M. H., Lee, J., and Hillman, K. K. (2019). Task-based language learning. In. Schwieter, J. W. and Benati, A., eds. The Cambridge handbook of language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 500–26.Google Scholar
Robinson, P., Mackey, A., Gass, S. M., and Schmidt, R. W. (2012). Attention and awareness in second language acquisition. In Gass, S. M. and Mackey, A., eds. The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 247–67.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2013). The relative effectiveness of mixed, explicit and implicit feedback. System, 41, 691–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

Arroyo, D. and Yilmaz, Y. (2018). An open for replication study: The role of feedback timing in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Language Learning, 68(1), 942–72.Google Scholar
Braidi, S. M. (2002). Reexamining the role of recasts in native-speaker/nonnative-speaker interactions. Language Learning, 52(1), 194–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, S. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronbach, L. J. and Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 499–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. and Larson-Hall, J. (2005). What does the critical period really mean? In Kroll, J. F. and de Groot, A. M. B., eds. Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 89–108.Google Scholar
De la Fuente, M. J. (2006). Classroom L2 vocabulary acquisition: Investigating the role of pedagogical tasks and form-focused instruction. Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 263–95.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. J. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In Robinson, P., ed. Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 206–57.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. J. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In Doughty, C. J. and Long, M. H., eds. Handbook of second language acquisition. New York: Basil Blackwell, pp. 256–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. J. and Williams, J. (1998), eds. Focus on form in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., and Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339–68.Google Scholar
Goldschneider, J. M. and DeKeyser, R. (2001). Explaining the ‘natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition’ in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51, 1–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(3), 445–74.Google Scholar
Goo, J., Granena, G., Yilmaz, Y., and Novella, M. (2015). Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning: Norris & Ortega (2000) revisited and updated. In Rebuschat, P., ed. Implicit and explicit learning of languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 443–83.Google Scholar
Goo, J., and Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 127–65.Google Scholar
Granena, G. (2013a). Individual differences in sequence learning ability and second language acquisition in early childhood and adulthood. Language Learning, 63(4), 665–703.Google Scholar
Granena, G. (2013b). Cognitive aptitudes for second language learning and the LLAMA Language Aptitude Test. In Granena, G. and Long, M. H., eds. Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 105–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granena, G. and Long, M. H. (2013). Age of onset, length of residence, aptitude and ultimate L2 attainment in three linguistic domains. Second Language Research, 29(3), 311–43.Google Scholar
Granena, G. and Yilmaz, Y. (2018). Aptitude-treatment interaction in L2 learning: A research synthesis. Studies in English Education, 4, 803–30.Google Scholar
Henderson, C. (2021). The effect of feedback timing on L2 Spanish vocabulary acquisition in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Language Teaching Research, 25(2), 185–208.Google Scholar
Hyltenstam, K. and Abrahamsson, N. (2003). Maturational constraints in SLA. In Doughty, C. J. and Long, M. H., eds. The handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 539–88.Google Scholar
Iwasaki, J. and Oliver, R. (2003). Chat-line interaction and negative feedback. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 17, 60–73.Google Scholar
Laufer, B. (2006). Comparing focus on form and focus on forms in second-language vocabulary learning. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 149–66.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–65.Google Scholar
Loewen, S. and Nabei, T. (2007). Measuring the effects of oral corrective feedback on L2 knowledge. In Mackey, A., ed. Conversational interaction in second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 361–77.Google Scholar
Loewen, S. and Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness and effectiveness. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 536–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379, 259–78.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–41.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In Gass, S. and Madden, C., eds. Input in second language acquisition. Rowley: Newbury House, pp. 377–93.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In de Bot, K., Ginsberg, R. B., and Kramsch, C., eds. Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 39–52.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. and Bhatia, T. K., eds. Handbook of second language acquisition. New York: Academic Press, pp. 413–68.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2000). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. In Lambert, R. L. and Shohamy, E., eds. Language policy and pedagogy. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 179–92.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2009). Methodological principles in language teaching. In Long, M. H. and Doughty, C. J., eds. Handbook of language teaching. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 373–94.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. and Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In Doughty, C. J. and Williams, J., eds. Focus on form in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 15–41.Google Scholar
Long, M. H., Lee, J., and Hillman, K. K. (2019). Task-based language learning. In. Schwieter, J. W. and Benati, A., eds. The Cambridge handbook of language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 500–26.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. and Izquierdo, J. (2009). Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 59, 453–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. and Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. and Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. and Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In Mackey, A., ed. Conversational interaction in SLA: A collection of empirical studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 408–52.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (2011). Bilingual language acquisition and theories of diachronic change: Bilingualism as cause and effect of grammatical change. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14, 121–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M. and Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. and Long, M. H. (1997). The effects of models and recasts on object topicalization and adverb placement in L2 Spanish. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 1, 65–86.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (2005). Classroom learning, teaching, and research: A task‐based perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 89(3), 339–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Ranta, L. and Lyster, R. (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The awareness-practice-feedback sequence. In DeKeyser, R., ed. Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 141–60.Google Scholar
Rassei, E. (2015). Oral corrective feedback, language anxiety and L2 development. System, 49, 98–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reber, A. S. and Allen, R. (2000). Individual differences in implicit learning:Implications for the evolution of consciousness. In Kunzendorf, R. G. and Wallace, B., eds, Individual differences in conscious experience. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 227–47.Google Scholar
Rebuschat, P. (2008). Implicit learning of natural language syntax. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. University of Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Rebuschat, P. and Williams, J. N. (2006). Dissociating implicit and explicit learning of natural language syntax. Paper presented at the Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Rebuschat, P. and Williams, J. (2009). Implicit learning of word order. In N. A. Taatgen and H. van Rijn, eds. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 31, 425–430Google Scholar
Révész, A. (2009). Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 437–70.Google Scholar
Révész, A. and Han, Z. (2006). Task content familiarity, task type, and efficacy of recasts. Language Awareness, 15, 160–79.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2003). Attention and memory during SLA. In Doughty, C. J. and Long, M. H., eds. Handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 630–78.Google Scholar
Russell, J. and Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar. In Norris, J. D. and Ortega, L., eds. Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 133–64.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, pp. 129–58.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y., (2004). Corrective feedback and learners’ uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8, 263–300.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10, 361–92.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In Mackey, A., ed. Conversational interaction in second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 301–22.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In Mackey, A., ed. Conversational interaction in second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 301–22.Google Scholar
Shintani, N. (2013). The effect of focus on form and focus on forms instruction on the acquisition of productive knowledge of L2 vocabulary by young beginning-level learners. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 16–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shintani, N. (2015). The incidental grammar acquisition in focus on form and focus on forms instruction for young beginner learners. TESOL Quarterly, 49, 115–40.Google Scholar
Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (1991). Additive bilingualism and French immersion education: The roles of language proficiency and literacy. In Reynolds, A. G., ed. Bilingualism, multiculturalism, and second language learning: The McGill conference in honour of Wallace E. Lambert. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 203–16.Google Scholar
Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A., and Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytical ability. In Mackey, A., ed. Conversational interaction in second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 144–71.Google Scholar
White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research, 7, 133–61.Google Scholar
Wilkins, D. A. (1976). Notional syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, J. (1999). Memory, attention, and inductive learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 1–48.Google Scholar
Williams, J. N. (2005). Learning without awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 269–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2012). The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning, 62, 1134–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2013). The relative effectiveness of mixed, explicit and implicit feedback. System, 41, 691–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2016a). The effectiveness of explicit correction under two different feedback exposure conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 65–96.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2016b). The linguistic environment, interaction and negative feedback. Brill Research Perspectives in Multilingualism and Second Language Acquisition, 1, 45–86.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. and Granena, G. (2016). The role of cognitive aptitudes for explicit language learning in the relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19, 147–61.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. and Koylu, Y. (2016). The interaction between feedback exposure condition and phonetic coding ability. In Granena, G., Jackson, D. O., and Yilmaz, Y., eds. Cognitive individual differences in second language processing and acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 303–26.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. and Sagdic, A. (2019). The interaction between inhibitory control and corrective feedback timing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 170, 204–27.Google Scholar

Further Reading

Ahmadian, M. J. and García Mayo, M. del P. (2018), eds. Recent perspectives on task-based language learning and teaching. Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. and Long, M. H. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning and Technology, 7, 50–80.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M. (2016). A practical guide to integrating technology into task-based language teaching. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L. (2014), eds. Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lai, C. and Li, G. (2011). Technology and task-based language teaching: A critical review. CALICO Journal, 28, 498–521.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2016). In defense of tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and real issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 5–33.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. 1st ed. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L. and Ziegler, N. (2016). The CALL-SLA interface: Insights from a second-order synthesis. Language Learning & Technology, 20, 17–37.Google Scholar
Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M., and Norris, J. (2009), eds. Task-based language teaching: A reader. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ziegler, N. (2016). Taking technology to task: Technology-mediated TBLT, performance, and production. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 136–63.Google Scholar

References

Adams, R. and Nik, A. N. M. A. (2014). Prior knowledge and second language task production in text chat. In González-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L., eds. Technology-mediated TBLT: researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 51–78.Google Scholar
Adams, R., Amani, S., Newton, J., and Nik Mohd Alwi, N. A. (2014). Planning and production in computer-mediated communication (CMC) writing. In Byrnes, H. and Manchón, R. M., eds. Task-based language teaching. Vol. 7. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 137–61.Google Scholar
Adams, R., Nik, A. N. A. M., and Newton, J. (2015). Task complexity effects on the complexity and accuracy of writing via chat. Second Language Writing, 29, 64–81.Google Scholar
Alley, M., Samaka, M., Impagliazzo, J., Mohamed, A., and Robinson, M. (2014). Workplace learning using mobile technology: A case study in the Oil and Gas industry. In Bayyurt, Y., Kalz, M., and Specht, M., eds. Communications in computer and information science. Vol. 479. Berlin: Springer, pp. 250–57.Google Scholar
Baralt, M. (2013). The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during online versus face-to-face interactive tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 689–725.Google Scholar
Baralt, M. (2014). Task complexity and task sequencing in traditional versus online language classes. In Baralt, M., Gilabert, R., and Robinson, P. J., eds. Task sequencing and instructed second language learning. London and New York: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 59–122.Google Scholar
Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and researching: Autonomy in language learning. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
Black, R. W. (2005). Access and affiliation: The literacy and composition practices of English-language learners in an online fanfiction community. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49, 118–28.Google Scholar
Blake, R. (2008). Brave new digital classroom: Technology and language learning. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Blyth, C. (2018). Immersive technologies and language learning. Foreign Language Annals, 51, 225–32.Google Scholar
Bonner, E. and Reinders, H. (2018). Augmented and virtual reality in the language classroom: Practical ideas. Teaching English with Technology, 18(3), 33–53.Google Scholar
Canto, S., de Graff, R., and Jauregui, K. (2014). Collaborative tasks for negotiation of intercultural meaning in virtual worlds and video-web communication. In González-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L., eds. Technology-mediated TBLT: researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 183–212.Google Scholar
Collentine, K. (2010). Measuring complexity in task-based synchronous computer-mediated communication. In Thomas, M. and Reinders, H., eds. Task-based language learning and teaching with technology. London and New York: Continuum, pp. 105–30.Google Scholar
Collentine, K. (2011). Learner autonomy in a task-based 3rd world and production. Language Learning & Technology, 15(3), 50–67.Google Scholar
Cornillie, F., Thorne, S. L., and Desmet, P. (2012). ReCALL special issue: Digital games for language learning: challenges and opportunities. ReCALL, 24, 243–56.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. and Long, M. H. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning and Technology, 7, 50–80.Google Scholar
Duff, P. A. (2012). Identity, agency, and second language acquisition. In Gass, S. M. and Mackey, A., eds. The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition. New York: Routledge, pp. 410–26.Google Scholar
Dyson, L. E. (2014). A vodcast project in the workplace: understanding students’ learning processes outside the classroom. In Bayyurt, Y., Kalz, M., and Specht, M. eds. Communications in computer and information science. Vol. 479. Berlin: Springer, pp. 258–71.Google Scholar
Elola, I. and Oskoz, A. (2010). Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing conventions development. Language Learning & Technology, 14, 30–49.Google Scholar
Gadelha, R. (2018). Revolutionizing education: The promise of virtual reality. Childhood Education, 94(1), 40–43.Google Scholar
Gee, J. P. (2005). Semiotic social spaces and affinity spaces: from the Age of Mythology to today’s schools. In Barton, D. and Tusting, K., Beyond communities of practice: language power and social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 214–32.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M. (2014). The need for needs analysis in technology-mediated TBLT. In González-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L., eds. Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 23–50.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M. (2019a). Task-Based Language Teaching and L2 Pragmatics. In Taguchi, N., ed., Routledge handbook of SLA and pragmatics. London: Routledge, pp. 338–52.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M. (2019b). Technology and L2 pragmatics learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 39, 113–27.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M. and Diez-Ortega, M. (2020). Gaming alone or together: L2 beginner-level gaming practices. Perspectiva, 38(2), 1–21.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L. (2014). Towards technology-mediated TBLT: An introduction. In González-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L., eds. Technology-mediated TBLT: researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
Granena, G. (2016). Individual versus interactive task-based performance through voice-based computer-mediated communication. Language Learning & Technology, 20, 40–59.Google Scholar
Grgurovic, M., Chapelle, C. A., and Shelley, M. (2013). A meta-analysis of effectiveness studies on computer technology-supported language learning. ReCALL, 25, 165–98.Google Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L. and Baralt, M. (2015). Does type of modified output correspond to learner noticing of feedback? A closer look in face-to-face and computer-mediated task-based interaction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 1393–420.Google Scholar
Holden, C. and Sykes, J. M. (2012). Mentira: Prototyping language-based locative gameplay. In Dikkers, S., Martin, J., and Coulter, B., eds. Mobile media learning: amazing uses of mobile devices for teaching and learning. Pittsburgh, PA: ETC Press, pp. 111–31.Google Scholar
Hsu, H. C. (2012). Investigating the effects of planning on L2 text-chat performance. CALICO Journal, 29, 619–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsu, H. C. (2015). The effect of task planning on L2 performance and L2 development in text-based synchronous computer-mediated communication. Applied Linguistics, 32, 1–28.Google Scholar
Jeong, N.-S. (2011). The effects of task type and group structure on meaning negotiation in synchronous computer-mediated communication. In Plonsky, L. and Schierloh, M., eds. Selected proceedings of the 2009 Second Language Research Forum. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 51–69.Google Scholar
Keller-Lally, A. M. (2006). Effect of task-type and group size on foreign language learner output in synchronous computer-mediated communication. PhD dissertation. University of Texas at Austin, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Kost, C. (2011). Investigating writing strategies and revision behavior in collaborative writing projects. CALICO Journal, 28, 606–20.Google Scholar
Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2013). Re-skilling language learners for a mobile world. The International Research Foundation for English Language Education (TIRF), Monterey, USA. Retrieved from: www.tirfonline.org/english-in-the-workforce/mobile-assisted-language-learning/re-skilling-language-learners-for-a-mobile-world/.Google Scholar
Kukulska-Hulme, A., Lee, H., and Norris, L. (2017). Mobile learning revolution: Implications for language pedagogy. In Chapelle, C. A. and Sauro, S., eds. The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning. Oxford: Wiley & Sons, pp. 217–33.Google Scholar
Lai, C. (2017). Autonomous language learning with technology: Beyond the classroom. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Lai, C. and Li, G. (2011). Technology and task-based language teaching: A critical review. CALICO Journal, 28, 498–521.Google Scholar
Lai, C., Fei, F., and Roots, R. (2008). The contingency of recasts and noticing. CALICO Journal, 26, 70–90.Google Scholar
Lai, C. and Zheng, D. (2018). Self-directed use of mobile devices for language learning beyond the classroom. ReCALL, 30(3), 299–318.Google Scholar
Lee, L. (2012). Exploring wiki-mediated collaborative writing: A case study in an elementary Spanish course. CALICO Journal, 27, 260–76.Google Scholar
Lin, H. (2014). Establishing an empirical link between computer-mediated communication (CMC) and SLA: A meta-analysis of the research. Language Learning & Technology, 18, 120–47.Google Scholar
Meyer, L. (2016). Students explore the earth and beyond with virtual field trips. THE Journal, 43(3), 22–25.Google Scholar
Michelson, K. and Dupuy, B. (2014). Multi‐storied lives: Global simulation as an approach to developing multiliteracies in an intermediate French course. L2 Journal, 6, 21–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielson, K. (2013). Online language learning in the workplace: Maximizing efficiency, effectiveness, and time-on-task. Proceedings from the International Conference of E-Learning in the Workplace. June 12–14, New York.Google Scholar
Nik, A. N. A. M. (2010). Examining the language learning potential of a task-based approach to synchronous computer-mediated communication. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Nik, A. N. M. A., Adams, R., and Newton, J. (2012). Writing to learn via text chat: Task implementation and focus on form. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 23–39.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2009). Interaction and attention to form in L2 text-based computer-mediated communication. In Mackey, A. and Polio, C., eds. Multiple perspectives on interaction in SLA: Research in honor of Susan M. Gass. New York: Erlbaum/Routledge/Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Oskoz, A. and Elola, I. (2014). Promoting foreign language collaborative writing through the use of Web 2.0 tools and tasks. In González-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L., eds. Technology-mediated TBLT: researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 115–48.Google Scholar
Payne, S. and Whitney, P. J. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20, 7–32.Google Scholar
Peterson, M. (2006). Learner interaction management in an avatar and chat-based virtual world. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19, 79–103.Google Scholar
Peterson, M. (2010). Massively multiplayer online role-playing games as arenas for second language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23, 429–39.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L. and Ziegler, N. (2016). The CALL-SLA interface: Insights from a second-order synthesis. Language Learning & Technology, 20, 17–37.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (2003). Computer–mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. The Modern Language Journal, 87(1), 38–57.Google Scholar
Rama, P. S., Black, R. W., van Es, E., and Warschauer, M. (2012). Affordances for second language learning in World of Warcraft. ReCALL, 24, 322–38.Google Scholar
Reinders, H. and Pegrum, M. (2017). Supporting language learning on the move: an evaluative framework for mobile language learning resources.’ In Tomlinson, B., ed. SLA research and materials development for language learning. New York: Routledge, pp. 219–31.Google Scholar
Reinders, H. and Wattana, S. (2012). Talk to me! Games and students’ willingness to communicate. In Reinders, H., ed. Digital games in language learning and teaching. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 156–88.Google Scholar
Reinders, H. and Wattana, S. (2014). Can I say something? The effects of digital game play on willingness to communicate. Language Learning & Technology, 18, 101–123.Google Scholar
Reinhardt, J. (2019). Gameful second and foreign language teaching and learning. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2011). Second language task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In Robinson, P., ed. Researching task complexity: Task demands, task-based language learning and performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3–38.Google Scholar
Satar, H. M. and Özdener, N. (2008). The effects of synchronous CMC on speaking proficiency and anxiety: Text versus voice chat. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 596–613.Google Scholar
Sauro, S. (2004). Cyberdiscursive tug-of-war: Learner repositioning in a multimodal CMC environment. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 19, 55–72.Google Scholar
Sauro, S. (2014). Lessons from the fandom: Technology-mediated tasks for language learning. In González-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L., eds. Technology-mediated TBLT: researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 239–62.Google Scholar
Scholz, K. and Schulze, M. (2017). Digital-gaming trajectories and second language development. Language Learning & Technology, 21, 99–119.Google Scholar
Schwienhorst, K. (2012). Learner autonomy and CALL environments. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Shekary, M. and Tahririan, M. H. (2006). Negotiation of Meaning and Noticing in Text-Based Online Chat. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 557–73.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (2012). Eye tracking as a measure of noticing: A study of explicit recasts in SCMC. Language Learning and Technology, 16, 53–81.Google Scholar
Smith, B. and Gorsuch, G. (2004). Synchronous computer-mediated communication captured by usability lab technologies: New interpretations. System, 32, 553–75.Google Scholar
Sydorenko, T., Hellermann, J., Thorne, S. L. and Howe, V. (2019). Mobile Augmented Reality and Language‐Related Episodes. TESOL Quarterly, 53(3), 712–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sykes, J. M. (2008). A dynamic approach to social interaction: Synthetic immersive Environments & Spanish pragmatics. PhD dissertation. University of Minnesota. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. Retrieved from: http://search.proquest.com/docview/304582040?accountid=27140.Google Scholar
Sykes, J. M. (2014). TBLT and synthetic immersive environments: What can in-game task restarts tell us about design and implementation? In González-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L., eds. Technology-mediated TBLT. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 149–82.Google Scholar
Sykes, J. M. and Reinhardt, J. (2012). Language at play: Digital games in second and foreign language teaching and learning. New York: Pearson-Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Sylvén, L. K. and Sundqvist, P. (2012). Gaming as extramural English L2 learning and L2 proficiency among young learners. ReCALL, 24, 302–21.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N., Li, Q., and Tang, X. (2017). Learning Chinese formulaic expressions in a scenario‐based interactive environment. Foreign Language Annals, 50(4), 641–60.Google Scholar
Thorne, S. L. (2008). Transcultural communication in open internet environments and massively multiplayer online games. In Magnan, S. S., ed. Mediating discourse online. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 305–27.Google Scholar
Thorne, S. L. and Black, R. (2008). Language and literacy development in computer-mediated contexts and communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 133–60.Google Scholar
Thorne, S. L., Fischer, I., and Lu, X. (2012). The semiotic ecology and linguistic complexity of an online game world. ReCALL, 24(3), 279–301.Google Scholar
Thorne, S. and Payne, J. S. (2005). Evolutionary trajectories, Internet-mediated expression, and language education. CALICO Journal, 22, 371–97.Google Scholar
Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M., and Norris, J. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Introducing the reader. In Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M., and Norris, J., eds. Task-based language teaching: A reader. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
Wang, S. and Vásquez, C. (2012). Web 2.0 and second language learning: What does the research tell us? CALICO Journal, 29, 412–30.Google Scholar
Winke, P. (2013, October). Supporting teachers’ efforts in implementing technology-mediated tasks. Presented at the Task-based Language Teaching conference, Banff, Alberta, Canada.Google Scholar
Yeh, E. and Wan, G. (2019). The use of virtual worlds in foreign language teaching and learning. In Information Resources Management Association, ed. Virtual reality in education: Breakthroughs in research and practice. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 645–92.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2011). Task effects on focus on form in synchronous computer-mediated communication. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 115–132.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. and Granena, G. (2010). The effects of task type in synchronous computer-mediated communication. ReCALL, 22, 20.Google Scholar
Yuksel, D. and Inan, B. (2014). The effects of communication mode on negotiation of meaning and its noticing. ReCALL, 26(3), 333–54.Google Scholar
Ziegler, N. (2016a). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(3), 553–86.Google Scholar
Ziegler, N. (2016b). Taking technology to task: Technology-mediated TBLT, performance, and production. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 136–63.Google Scholar
Ziegler, N. (2017). The contingency of recasts, learners’ noticing, and L2 development: Insights on saliency from multiple modalities. In Gass, S., Spinner, P., and Behney, J., eds. Salience and SLA. New York: Routledge, pp. 269–90.Google Scholar
Ziegler, N. (2018). Pre-task planning in L2 text-chat: Examining learners’ process and performance. Language Learning & Technology, 22(3), 193–213.Google Scholar
Ziegler, N. and Phung, H. (2019) Technology-mediated task-based interactions: The role of modality. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 170, 251–76.Google Scholar

Further Reading

Doughty, C. and Long, M. H. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning and Technology, 7, 50–80.Google Scholar
Faria, A. M., Bergey, R., and Lishinski, A. (2019). Using technology to support English language learners in higher education: A study of Voxy’s effect on English language proficiency. American Institutes for Research Technical Report. Retrieved from https://air.org/system/files/downloads/report/Using-Technology-to-Support-ELLs-in-Higher-Education-Voxy-January-2019.pdf.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M. and Nielson, K. (2014). Evaluating TBLT: The case of a task-based Spanish program. Language Teaching Research, 19(5), 545-49.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L. (2014). Towards technology-mediated TBLT: An introduction. In González-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L., eds. Technology-mediated TBLT: researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
Lai, C. and Li, G. (2011). Technology and task-based language teaching: A critical review, CALICO Journal, 28(2), 498–521.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2005). Second language needs analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nielson, K. (2014). Evaluation of an online, task-based Chinese course. In Gonzalez-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L., eds. Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 295–321.Google Scholar
Van den Branden, K., Van Gorp, K., and Verhelst, M. (2007), eds. Tasks in action: task-based language education from a classroom-based perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar

References

Doughty, C. and Long, M. H. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning and Technology, 7, 50–80.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L. (2014). Towards technology-mediated TBLT: An introduction. In González-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L., eds. Technology-mediated TBLT: researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
Faria, A.M., Bergey, R., and Lishinski, A. (2019). Using technology to support English language learners in higher education: A study of Voxy’s effect on English language proficiency. American Institutes for Research Technical Report. Retrieved from https://air.org/system/files/downloads/report/Using-Technology-to-Support-ELLs-in-Higher-Education-Voxy-January-2019.pdf.Google Scholar
Gonzalez-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L. (2014), eds. Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar
Nielson, K. (2018). Case Study: “English for Software Engineering” The conception and creation of an e-learning English-Language course tailored to learners’ real-world needs. International Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning, 11(2), 27–29.Google Scholar
Nielson, K., Breen, A., Tyson, N., and Kirkham, K. (2016). US Patent number 9,262,935. Washington DC: US Patent and Trademark Office.Google Scholar
Nielson, K. Breen, A., Tyson, N., and Kirkham, K. (2017). US Patent number 9,666,098. Washington DC: US Patent and Trademark Office.Google Scholar

Further Reading

Hermes, M. and King, K. (2019). Task-based language learning for Ojibwe: A case study of two intermediate adult language learners. In McCarty, T., Nicholas, S. E., and Wigglesworth, G., eds. A world of Indigenous languages: Politics, pedagogies and prospects for language reclamation. Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Multilingual Matters, pp. 134–52.Google Scholar
Henze, R. and Davis, K. (1999). Introduction to authenticity and identity: Lessons from indigenous language education. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 30(1), 3–21.Google Scholar
Hornberger, N. H. (2008), ed. Can schools save indigenous languages? Policy and practice on four continents. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Penfield, S. D. and Tucker, B. V. (2011). From documenting to revitalizing an endangered language: Where do applied linguists fit? Language and Education, 25(4), 291–305.Google Scholar
Riestenberg, K. J. and Sherris, A. (2018). Task-based teaching of indigenous languages: Investment and methodological principles in Macuiltianguis Zapotec and Salish Qlipse revitalization. Canadian Modern Language Review, 74(3), 434–59.Google Scholar
White, F. (2006). Rethinking Native American language revitalization. The American Indian Quarterly, 30(1), 91–109.Google Scholar

References

Beam de Azcona, R. (2016). Zapotecan languages. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Korne, H. (2016). Imagining convivial multilingualism: Practices, ideologies and strategies in diidxazá/Isthmus Zapotec indigenous language education. PhD dissertation. University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Dorian, N. C. (1994). Purism vs. compromise in language revitalization and language revival. Language in Society, 23, 479–94.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 221–46.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. (2003). Input and interaction. In Doughty, C. J. and Long, M. H., eds. The handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 224–55.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. and Mackey, A. (2015). Input, interaction, and output in Second Language Acquisition. In B. VanPatten and J. Williams, eds. Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction. New York: Routledge, pp. 180–206.Google Scholar
Hermes, M. and King, K. (2013). Ojibwe language revitalization, multimedia technology, and family language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 17(1), 125–44.Google Scholar
Hermes, M. and King, K. (2019). Task-Based language learning for Ojibwe: A case study of two intermediate adult language learners. In McCarty, T., Nicholas, S. E., and Wigglesworth, G., eds. A world of Indigenous languages: Politics, pedagogies and prospects for language reclamation. Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Multilingual Matters, pp. 134–52.Google Scholar
Kiyosawa, K. G. and Donna, B. (2010). Salish applicatives. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2009). Methodological principles in language teaching. In Long, M. H. and Doughty, C. J., eds. Handbook of language teaching. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 373–94.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2016). In defense of tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and real issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 5–33.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. C. and Bhatia, T. K., eds. Handbook of research on language acquisition. Vol. 2. New York: Academic Press, pp. 413–68.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (2005). Classroom learning, teaching, and research: A task-based perspective. Modern Language Journal, 89, 339–352Google Scholar
Pica, T., Kang, H., and Sauro, S. (2006). Information gap tasks: Their multiple roles and contributions to interaction research methodology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2),301–38.Google Scholar
Riestenberg, K. (2020a). Meaningful interaction and affordances for language learning at a Zapotec revitalization program. The Language Learning Journal, 48(3) 316–30Google Scholar
Riestenberg, K. (2020b). Supporting rich input and meaningful interaction in language teaching for revitalization: Lessons from Macuiltianguis Zapotec. In Silva, W. and Riestenberg, K., eds. Collaborative approaches to the challenges of language documentation and conservation: Proceedings of the 2018 Symposium on American Indian Languages. Language Documentation & Conservation Special Publication No. 20. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 73–88.Google Scholar
Riestenberg, K. J. and Grupo Cultural Tagayu’ (2019). Teaching Macuiltianguis Zapotec Collection of Kate Riestenberg and Grupo Cultural Tagayu’. The Archive of the Indigenous Languages of Latin America. ailla.utexas.org.Google Scholar
Riestenberg, K. J. and Sherris, A. (2018). Task-based teaching of indigenous languages: Investment and methodological principles in Macuiltianguis Zapotec and Salish Qlipse revitalization. Canadian Modern Language Review, 74(3), 434–59.Google Scholar
Sherris, A. (2008). Integrated content and language instruction. Cal Digest. Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved from: http://www.cal.org/siop/pdfs/digests/integrated-contentand-language-instruction.pdf.Google Scholar
Sherris, A. (2010). Coaching language teachers. Cal Digest. Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved from: http://www.cal.org/siop/pdfs/digests/coaching-language-teachers.pdf.Google Scholar
Sherris, A., Pete, T., and Haynes, E. (2015). Literacy and language instruction: Flathead Salish metaphor and a task-based pedagogy for its revitalisation. In Piirainen, E. and Sherris, A., eds. Language endangerment: Disappearing metaphors and shifting conceptualizations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sherris, A., Pete, T., Thompson, L., and Haynes, E. (2013). Task-based language teaching practices that support Salish revitalisation. In Jones, M. C. and Ogilvie, S., eds. Keeping languages alive: Documentation, pedagogy, and revitalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 155–66.Google Scholar
Spolsky, B. (1995). Conditions for language revitalisation: A comparison of the cases of Hebrew and Maori. Current Issues in Language and Society, 2(3),177–201.Google Scholar
Thomason, S. G. (2006). Salishan languages. In Brown, K., ed. Encyclopedia of language and linguistics. 2nd ed. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 732–33.Google Scholar
Van den Branden, K. (2006). Task based language education. From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wood, R. J. (2014). Language socialization, revitalisation and ideologies in the Salish-Pend d’Oreille community. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Montana, Missoula, MT.Google Scholar
Yano, Y., Long, M. H., and Ross, S. (1994). The effects of simplified and elaborated texts on foreign language reading comprehension. Language Learning, 44(2), 189–219.Google Scholar

Further Reading

Doughty, C. J. (2015). Accountability of foreign language programs. The Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 412–15.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. J. and Long, M. H. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning and Technology, 7, 50–80.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M. (2016). A practical guide to integrating technology into task-based language teaching. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M. and Ortega, L. (2014), eds. Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.Google Scholar

References

Doughty, C. J. and Williams, J. (1998), eds. Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. Foreign Language Research in Cross-cultural Perspective, 2(1), 39–52.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2005). Second language needs analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. 1st ed. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2011). Second language task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In Robinson, P., ed. Researching task complexity: Task demands, task-based language learning and performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3–38.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×