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-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:38:18.720Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part I - The Rationale for Task-Based Language Teaching

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. 1 - 52
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. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of a focus on form. In Robinson, P., ed. Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., and Lambert, C. (2020). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Robinson, P., ed. (2011). Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2015). The Cognition Hypothesis, second language task demands, and the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In Bygate, M., ed. Domains and directions in the development of TBLT. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 87–122.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2015). Limited attentional capacity and cognition: Two hypotheses regarding second language performance on tasks. In Bygate, M, ed. Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the International Conference. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 123–55.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2016). Tasks vs. conditions: Two perspectives on task research and its implications for pedagogy. In A. Mackey, ed. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 34–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

Ahmadian, M. J. (2012a). The relationship between working memory capacity and L2 oral performance under task-based careful online planning condition. TESOL Quarterly, 46(1), 165–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahmadian, M. J. (2012b). The effects of guided careful online planning on complexity, accuracy, and fluency in intermediate EFL learners’ oral production: The case of English articles. Language Teaching Research, 16, 129–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahmadian, M. and Tavakoli, M. (2014). Investigating what learners do and monitor under careful online planning conditions. Canadian Modern Language Review, 70(1), 50–75.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1995). Learning and memory. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Breen, M. (1984). Process syllabus for the language classroom. In Brumfit, C. J., ed. General English syllabus design. ELT Document 118. Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 47–60.Google Scholar
Bui, G., Skehan, P., and Wang, Z. (2018). Task condition effects on advanced-level foreign language performance. In Malovrh, P. and Benati, A., eds. Handbook of advanced proficiency in second language acquisition. New York: Wiley, pp. 219–37.Google Scholar
Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., and Swain, M., eds. Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing. Harlow: Longman, pp. 23–48.Google Scholar
Bygate, M. (2018). Learning language through task repetition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crookes, G. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 367–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Bot, K. (1992). A bilingual production model: Levelt’s “speaking ” model adapted. Applied Linguistics, 13, 1–24.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2020). Skill acquisition theory. In VanPatten, B., Keating, G. D., and Wulff, S., eds. Theories in second language acquisition. New York: Routledge, pp. 83–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of a focus on form. In Robinson, P., ed. Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 206–57.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143–88.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. (2005). At the Interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 305–52.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., ed. (2005a). Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005b). Planning and task-based performance: Theory and research. In Ellis, R., ed. Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3–36.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2006). Modelling learning difficulty and second language proficiency: The differential contributions of implicit and explicit knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 431–63.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. and Shintani, N. (2014). Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., and Lambert, C. (2020). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. and Yuan, F. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy on second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(1), 59–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. and Yuan, F. (2005). The effect of careful within-task planning on oral and written task performance. In Ellis, R., ed. Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 167–92.Google Scholar
Faretta-Stuttenberg, M. and Morgan-Short, K. (2018). The interplay of individual differences and context of learning in behavioural and neurocognitive second language development. Second Language Research, 34(1), 67–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, P. and Skehan, P. (2012). Complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis in task-based performance: A synthesis of the Ealing research. In Housen, A., Kuiken, F., and Vedder, I., eds. Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 199–220.Google Scholar
Foster, P. and Skehan, P. (2013) The effects of post-task activities on the accuracy of language during task performance. Canadian Modern Language Review, 69, 249–73.Google Scholar
Gilabert, R. (2007). The simultaneous manipulation of task complexity along planning time and [+/- here-and-now] effects on L2 performance. In Garcia-Mayo, M. d. P., ed. Investigating tasks in formal language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 44–68.Google Scholar
Givon, T. (1985). Function, structure, and language acquisition. In Slobin, D., ed. The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition. Vol. 1. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 1008–25.Google Scholar
Han, Z. and Finneran, R. (2013). Re-engaging the interface debate: Strong, weak, or none at all? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24(3), 370–89.Google Scholar
Housen, A. and Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 461–73.Google Scholar
Housen, F., Kuiken, F., and Vedder, I. (2012). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Investigating complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jackson, D. O. and Suethanapornkul, S. (2013). The Cognition Hypothesis: A synthesis and meta-analysis of research on second language task complexity. Language Learning, 63(2), 330–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y. (2013). Effects of pre-task modelling on attention to form and question development. TESOL Quarterly, 47(1), 8–35.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. and McDonough, K. (2011). Using pretask modelling to encourage collaborative learning opportunities. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 183–99.Google Scholar
Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kormos, J. (2011). Speech production and the Cognition Hypothesis. In Robinson, P., ed. Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 39–60.Google Scholar
Lambert, C., Kormos, J., and Minn, D. (2016). Task repetition and second language speech processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 1–30.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Li, Q. (2014). Get it right in the end: The effects of post-task transcribing on learners’ oral performance. In Skehan, P., ed. Processing perspectives on task performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 129–54.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Lynch, T. (2001). Seeing what they meant: Transcribing as a route to noticing. English Language Teaching Journal, 55, 124–32.Google Scholar
Lynch, T. (2007). Learning from the transcripts of an oral communication task. English Language Teaching Journal, 61, 311–20.Google Scholar
Lynch, T. and Maclean, J. (2001). A case of exercising: Effects of immediate task repetition on learners’ performance. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., and Swain, M., eds. Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 141–62.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (2012). Input, interaction, and corrective feedback in L2 learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Malicka, A. and Sasayama, S. (April, 2017). The importance of learning from the accumulated knowledge: Findings from a research synthesis on task complexity. Paper presented at the 7th Biennial International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching, Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20: 52–83.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2005). What do learners plan? Learner-driven attention to form during pre-task planning. In Ellis, R., ed. Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 77–109.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
Pang, F. and Skehan, P. (2014). Self-reported planning behaviour and second language performance in narrative retelling. In Skehan, P., ed. Processing perspectives on task performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 95–128.Google Scholar
Paradis, M. (2009). Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Révész, A. (2011). Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions, and individual differences: A classroom-based study. Modern Language Journal, 95, 162–81.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2008). The Cognition Hypothesis. Presentation at the Task-Based Learning and Teaching Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2011a), ed. Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2011b). Second language task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In P. Robinson, ed. Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3–38.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2015). The Cognition Hypothesis, second language task demands, and the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In Bygate, M., ed. Domains and directions in the development of TBLT. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 87–122.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. and Ellis, N. (2008). Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., and Swain, M., eds. Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing. Harlow: Longman, pp. 119–40.Google Scholar
Sanders, A. (1998). Elements of human performance. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2002). A non-marginal role for tasks: A response to bruton. English Language Teaching Journal, 35(3), 289–95.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2007). Task research and language teaching: Reciprocal relationships. In Fotos, S, ed. Form-meaning relationships in language pedagogy: Essays in honour of Rod Ellis, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 289–301.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2013). Nurturing noticing. In Bergsleithner, J., Frota, S. N., and Yoshioka, J. K., eds. Noticing and second language acquisition: Studies in honor of Richard Schmidt. Honolulu: National Foreign Language Center, pp. 169–80.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2015). Limited attentional capacity and cognition: Two hypotheses regarding second language performance on tasks. In Bygate, M., ed. Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the International Conference. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 123–55.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2016). Tasks vs. conditions: Two perspectives on task research and its implications for pedagogy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 34–49.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2018). Second language task-based performance: Theory, research, and assessment. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. and Foster, P. (1997). The influence of planning and post-task activities on accuracy and complexity in task based learning. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185–211.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. and Foster, P. (1999). Task structure and processing conditions in narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49(1), 93–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. and Foster, P. (2005). Strategic and on-line planning: The influence of surprise information and task time on second language performance. In Ellis, N., ed. Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 193–216.Google Scholar
Tavakoli, P. and Foster, P. (2008). Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 58(2), 439–73.Google Scholar
Tavakoli, P. and Skehan, P. (2005). Planning, task structure, and performance testing. In Ellis, R., ed. Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 239–76.Google Scholar
Ullmann, M. T. (2015). The declarative/procedural model. In Van Patten, B. and Williams, J., eds. Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction. 2nd ed. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 135–58.Google Scholar
Wang, Z. (2009). Modelling speech production and performance: Evidence from five types of planning and two task structures. Unpublished PhD thesis, Chinese University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Wang, Z. (2014). On-line time pressure manipulations: L2 speaking performance under five types of planning and repetition conditions. In Skehan, P., ed. Processing perspectives on task performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 27–62.Google Scholar
Wang, Z. and Skehan, P. (2014). Structure, lexis, and time perspective: Influences on task performance. In Skehan, P., ed. Processing perspectives on task performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 155–86.Google Scholar
Willis, D. and Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yuan, F. and Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task and online planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24, 1–27.Google Scholar

Further Reading

Bygate, M. (2018). Creating and using the space for speaking within the foreign language classroom. What, why and how? In Alonso Alonso, R., ed. Speaking in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 153–74.Google Scholar
Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., and Swain, M., eds. Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing. Harlow: Longman, pp. 119–40.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(1), 115–40.Google Scholar
Toth, P. D. (2008). Teacher‐ and learner‐led discourse in task‐based grammar instruction: Providing procedural assistance for L2 morphosyntactic development. Language Learning, 58(2), 237–83.Google Scholar
Van den Branden, K. (2016). The role of teachers in task-based language education. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 164–81.Google Scholar

References

Alcon-Soler, E. (2018). Effects of task-supported language teaching on learners’ use and knowledge of email request mitigators. In Taguchi, N. and Kim, Y., eds. Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 55–81.Google Scholar
Andon, N., Dewey, M., and Leung, C. (2018). Tasks in the pedagogic space: Using online discussion forum tasks and formative feedback to develop academic discourse skills at Masters level. In Samuda, V., Van den Branden, K., andBygate, M., eds. TBLT as a researched pedagogy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 235–63.Google Scholar
Aubrey, S. (2017). Inter-cultural contact and flow in a task-based Japanese EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research, 21(6), 717–34.Google Scholar
Barnes, D. (1976). From Communication to Curriculum. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Bimmel, P. E., van den Bergh, H., and Oostdam, R. J. (2001). Effects of strategy training on reading comprehension in first and foreign language. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 16, 509–29.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. and Ferris, D. R. (2011). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. and Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language Pedagogy. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Brumfit, C. J. (1984). Communicative methodology in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bruner, J. S. (1983). Child’s talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bryfonski, L. and McKay, T. (2019). TBLT implementation and evaluation: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 23, 603–32.Google Scholar
Bygate, M. (1988). Linguistic and strategic features of the language of learners working in oral communication exercises. Unpublished PhD thesis. Institute of Education, University of London.Google Scholar
Cameron, L. J. , Moon, J. P. and Bygate, M. (1996). Language development in the mainstream: How do teachers and pupils use language? Language and Education, 10(4), 221–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canto, S., de Graaff, R., and Jauregi, K. (2014). Collaborative tasks for negotiation of intercultural meaning in virtual worlds and video-web communication. In Ortega, L. and González-Lloret, M., eds. Technology-mediated TBLT: researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 183–212.Google Scholar
Cobb, M. (2010). Meta-analysis of the Effectiveness of Task-Based Interaction in Form-Focused Instruction of Adult Learners in Foreign and Second Language Teaching. San Francisco: University of San Francisco. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Retrieved from: https://repository.usfca.edu/diss/389.Google Scholar
Croft, W. and Cruise, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dakin, J. (1973). The language laboratory and language learning. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
de Bot, K., Lowie, W., and Verspoor, M. (2005). Second language acquisition: An advanced resource book. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
D’Ely, R., Mota, M.B., and Bygate, M. (2019). Strategic planning and repetition as metacognitive processes in task performance: Implications for EFL learners’ speech production. In Wen, Z., and Ahmadian, M. J., eds. Researching L2 task performance and pedagogy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 199–228.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2005). What makes second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 55(S1), 1–25.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2018). Task repetition for language learning: A perspective from skill acquisition theory. In Bygate, M., ed. Learning language through task repetition Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 27–42.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2019). The future of aptitude research. In Wen, Z., Skehan, P., Biedron, A., Li, S., and Sparks, R. L., eds. Language aptitude. Advancing theory, testing, research, and practice. London: Routledge, pp. 317–29.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1984). Classroom second language development. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 221–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. J. (2016). Anniversary article focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 405–28.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2017). Position paper: Moving task-based language teaching forward. Language Teaching, 50(4), 507–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2019). Towards a modular language curriculum for using tasks. Language Teaching Research, 23(4), 454–75.Google Scholar
Field, J. (2009). Listening in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Floud, R. (2019). An economic history of the English garden. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Friesen, D. C. and Haigh, C. A. (2018). How and why strategy instruction can improve second language reading comprehension: A review. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 18(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
Gass, S. and Varonis, E. M. (1994). Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 283–302.Google Scholar
Gomez-Laich, M. P. and Taguchi, N. (2018). Task complexity effects on interaction during a collaborative persuasive writing task: A conversation analytic perspective. In Taguchi, N. and Kim, Y., eds. Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 83–109.Google Scholar
Graham, S. and Perin, D. (2007) What we know, what we still need to know: Teaching adolescents to write. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 313–35.Google Scholar
Hatch, E. M. (1983). Psycholinguistics: A Second Language Perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Hawkes, M. (2012). Using task repetition to direct learner attention and focus on form. ELT Journal, 66(3), 327–36.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. (1996). Language teaching and skill learning. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kasper, G., and Kellerman, E., (1997), eds. Communication strategies: Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Keck, C., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-Ventura, N. and Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2006). Investigating the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition: A meta-analysis. In Ortega, L. and Norris, J., eds. Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 91–131.Google Scholar
Kobayashi, E. and Kobayashi, M. (2018). Second language learning through repeated engagement in a poster presentation task. In Bygate, M., ed. Learning language through task repetition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 223–54.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009). Teaching and testing grammar. In Long, M. and Doughty, C. eds. The handbook of language teaching. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 518–42.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levkina, M. (2018). Developing pragmatic competence through tasks in EFL contexts: does proficiency play a role? Taguchi, N. and Kim, Y, eds. Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 137–57.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. and Spada, N. (2013). How Languages Are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google 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(2), 126–41.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Lynch, A. (2018a). Promoting learning from second language speaking tasks: Exploring learner attitudes to the use of comparators and oral feedback. In Samuda, V., Van den Branden, K., and Bygate, M., eds. TBLT as a researched pedagogy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 213–34.Google Scholar
Lynch, A. (2018b). Perform, reflect, recycle: enhancing task repetition in second language speaking classes. In Bygate, M., ed. Learning language through task repetition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 193–222.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 second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 407–52.Google Scholar
Maeng, U. (2014). The effectiveness of reading strategy instruction: A meta-analysis. English Teaching, 69, 105–27.Google Scholar
Park, Y. H. (2010). A relationship between reading comprehension and reading strategy use: Meta-analysis. English Teaching, 65(3), 3–22.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 439–527.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L. (2011). The effectiveness of second language strategy instruction: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 61, 993–1038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranta, L. (2002). The role of learners’ language analytic ability in the communicative classroom. In Robinson, P., ed. Individual differences and instructed language learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamin, pp. 159–80.Google Scholar
Reagan, D. and Payant, C. (2018). Task modality effects on Spanish learners’ interlanguage pragmatic development. In Taguchi, N. and Kim, Y., eds. Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 113–36.Google Scholar
Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., and Swain, M., eds. Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing. Harlow: Longman, pp. 119–40.Google Scholar
Sarab, A. R. (2003). A study of the communication strategies of second language teachers. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Leeds.Google Scholar
Sheppard, C. and Ellis, R. (2018). The effects of awareness-raising through stimulated recall on the repeated performance of the same task and on a new task of the same type. In Bygate, M., ed. Learning language through task repetition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 171–92.Google Scholar
Shintani, N. (2016). Input-based tasks in foreign language instruction for young learners. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Shintani, N. (2018). Mediating input-based tasks for beginner learners through task repetition: A socio-cultural perspective. In Bygate, M., ed. Learning language through task repetition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 255–78.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second language learning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2014). The context for researching a processing perspective on task performance. In Skehan, P., ed. Processing perspectives on task performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
Spada, N. (2019). Plenary address, 8th International TBLT Conference, Ottawa, August 2019.Google Scholar
Spada, N. and Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Form-focused instruction: Isolated or integrated? TESOL Quarterly, 42(2), 181–207.Google Scholar
Toth, P. D. (2008). Teacher‐ and learner‐led discourse in task‐based grammar instruction: Providing procedural assistance for L2 morphosyntactic development. Language Learning, 58(2), 237–83.Google Scholar
Van den Branden, K. (1997). Effects of negotiation on language learners’ output. Language Learning, 47(4), 589–636.Google Scholar
Van den Branden, K. (2000). Does negotiation of meaning promote reading comprehension? A study of primary school classes. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(3), 426–43.Google Scholar
Van den Branden, K. (2016). The role of teachers in task-based language education. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 164–81.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
Vandergrift, L. and Goh, C. (2009). Teaching and testing listening comprehension. In Long, M. and Doughty, C. eds. The handbook of language teaching. Sussex: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 395–411.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction. New York: Ablex.Google Scholar
Varonis, E. M. and Gass, S. M. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 71–90.Google Scholar
Verheyden, L., Van den Branden, K., Rijlaarsdam, G., van den Bergh, H., and De Maeyer, S. (2010). Written narrations by 8 to 10-year old Turkish pupils of Flemish primary education: A follow-up of seven text features. Journal of Research in Reading, 33(1), 20–38.Google Scholar
Verhelst, M., Jaspaert, K., and Van den Branden, K. (2012). The impact of input on early second language vocabulary acquisition. ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 163, 21–42.Google Scholar
Wells, G. (1981). Learning through interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wells, G. (1985). Language development in the pre-school years. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wen, Z., Biedron, A., and Skehan, P. (2017). Foreign language aptitude theory: yesterday, today and tomorrow. Language Teaching, 50(1), 1–31.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. (1983). Learning purpose and language use. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yule, G. and Tarone, E. (1991). The other side of the page: Integrating the study of communication strategies and negotiated input in SLA. In Phillipson, R., Kellerman, E., Selinker, L., Sharwood-Smith, M., and Swain, M., eds. Foreign/second language pedagogy research. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 162–71.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@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
×