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-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:41:27.930Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - A Psycholinguistically Motivated Methodology for Task-Based Language Teaching

from Part IV - Methodology and Pedagogy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2021

By
Gisela Granena  and
Yucel Yilmaz
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

Task-based language teaching (TBLT) methodology is theoretically and empirically motivated. It is rooted in in cognitive and interactionist second language acquisition theory and based on inferences from research findings that show how learners acquire an second language. As a result, TBLT is able to create a psycholinguistically optimal environment for second language learning by taking into account the main factors that contribute to the sedond language learning process and that make seond language teaching more efficient. This chapter summarizes the theoretical underpinnings of TBLT methodology and provides a review of major research findings on variables in instructed second language learning that have been identified as having a relevant impact on second language learning: attention to form, negative feedback, and cognitive individual differences. The chapter concludes by discussing the implications of the research findings presented for a psycholinguistically defensible methodology for TBLT and the problems these findings pose for traditional options in language teaching, such as the structural syllabus.

Keywords

Focus on formfocus on formsnegative feedbackindividual differencesimplicit and explicit learningincidental and intentional learninginstructed L2 learning
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Task-Based Language Teaching , pp. 305 - 325
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braidi, S. M. (2002). Reexamining the role of recasts in native-speaker/nonnative-speaker interactions. Language Learning, 52(1), 194–211.Google 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.Google 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.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379, 259–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–41.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. and Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.Google 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.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. and Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.Google 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.Google 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.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Révész, A. and Han, Z. (2006). Task content familiarity, task type, and efficacy of recasts. Language Awareness, 15, 160–79.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google 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.Google 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.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2013). The relative effectiveness of mixed, explicit and implicit feedback. System, 41, 691–705.Google 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

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
×