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-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T17:33:01.223Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part VII - Task-Based Assessment and Program Evaluation

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. 505 - 602
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

East, M. (2015). Coming to terms with innovative high-stakes assessment practice: Teachers’ viewpoints on assessment reform. Language Testing, 31(1), 101–20.Google Scholar
Norris, J. (2009). Task-based teaching and testing. In Long, M. and Doughty, C., eds. The handbook of language teaching. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 578–94.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. (2018). Task-based language assessment: Aligning designs with intended uses and consequences. JLTA Journal, 21, 3–20.Google Scholar
Van Gorp, K. and Deygers, B. (2014). Task-based language assessment. In Kunnan, A., ed. The companion to language assessment. Cambridge: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 578–93.Google Scholar
Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve student performance. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar

References

ACTFL. (1999). American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages Proficiency Guidelines. Alexandria, VA: ACTFL.Google Scholar
Adair-Hauck, B., Glisan, E., Koda, K., Swender, E., and Sandrock, P. (2006). The Integrated Performance Assessment (IPA): Connecting assessment to instruction and learning. Foreign Language Annals, 39, 359–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adair-Hauck, B., Glisan, E., and Troyan, F. (2014). Implementing Integrated Performance Assessment. Alexandria, VA: ACTFL.Google Scholar
Alanen, R., Huhta, A., and Tarnanen, M. (2010). Designing and assessing L2 writing tasks across CEFR proficiency levels. In Bartning, I., Martin, M., and Vedder, I. eds. Communicative proficiency and linguistic development: Intersections between language testing and SLA research. EUROSLA Monograph, pp. 21–56.Google Scholar
Alderson, J. C. (2009). Air safety, language assessment policy, and policy implementation: The case of aviation English. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 29, 168–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alderson, J. C. (2010). A survey of aviation English tests. Language Testing, 27, 51–72.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F. (2002). Some reflections on task-based language performance assessment. Language Testing, 19(4), 453–76.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F. and Damböck, B. (2018). Language assessment for classroom teachers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F. and Palmer, A. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F. and Palmer, A. (2010). Language assessment in practice: Developing language assessments and justifying their use in the real world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Berben, M., Callebaut, I., Colpin, M., François, S., Geerts, M., Goethals, M., and Vanoosthuyze, S. (2008), eds. TotemTaal: Inleiding en evaluatie 5. Mechelen, Belgium: Wolters Plantyn.Google Scholar
Bond, L. A. (1996). Norm-and criterion-referenced testing. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 5(2), 120–25.Google Scholar
Brindley, G. (1994). Task-centered assessment in language learning: The promise and the challenge. ERIC Document # ED 386 045.Google Scholar
Brown, J. D., Hudson, T. D., Norris, J. M., and Bonk, W. (2002). Investigating task-based second language performance assessment. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i Press.Google Scholar
Butler, Y. G. and Zeng, W. (2014). Young foreign language learners’ interactions during task-based paired assessments. Language Assessment Quarterly, 11(1), 45–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrnes, H. (2002). The role of task and task-based assessment in a content-oriented collegiate foreign language curriculum. Language Testing, 19(4), 419–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrnes, H., Maxim, H., and Norris, J. M. (2010). Realizing advanced FL writing development in collegiate education: Curricular design, pedagogy, assessment. Cambridge: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Carless, D. (2007). The suitability of task-based approaches for secondary schools: Perspectives from Hong Kong. System, 35(4), 595–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks. (2000). CLB 2000: Theoretical framework. Ottawa: Centre for Canadian Language BenchmarksGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C. A., Enright, M. K., and Jamieson, J. M. (2008), eds. Building a validity argument for the Test of English as a Foreign Language. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Colpin, M. and Gysen, S. (2006). Developing and introducing task-based language tests. In Van den Branden, K., ed., Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 151–74.Google Scholar
Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
East, M. (2012). Task-based language teaching from the teachers’ perspective: Insights from New Zealand. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
East, M. (2016). Assessing foreign language students’ spoken proficiency: Stakeholder perspectives on assessment innovation. Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
Eckes, T. and Althaus, H. J. (2020). Language proficiency assessments in college admissions. In Oliveri, M. E. and Wendler, C., eds. Higher education admission and placement practices: An international perspective. Cambridge: University of Cambridge, pp. 256–75Google Scholar
Elder, C., Pill, J., Woodward-Kron, R., McNamara, T., Manias, E., Webb, G., and McColl, G. (2012). Health professionals’ views of communication: Implications for assessing performance on a health specific English language test. TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), 409–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, J., Chouissa, C., Dugovičová, S., and Virkkunen-Fullenwider, A. (2011). Guidelines for task-based university language testing. Graz: European Centre for Modern Languages.Google Scholar
Gysen, S. and Van Avermaet, P. (2005). Issues in functional language performance assessment:The case of the Certificate Dutch as a Foreign Language. Language Assessment Quarterly, 2(1), 51–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haertel, E. H. (1999). Performance assessment and education reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 80 (9), 662.Google Scholar
Hamp-Lyons, L. (2000). Fairnesses in language testing. In Kunnan, A. J., ed. Fairness and validation in language assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 30–34.Google Scholar
Hattie, J. (2009). The black box of tertiary assessment: An impending revolution. In Meyer, L. H., Davidson, S., Anderson, H., Fletcher, R., Johnston, P. M., and Rees, M., eds. Tertiary assessment and higher education student outcomes: Policy, practice and research. Wellington, NZ: Ako Aotearoa, pp. 259–75.Google Scholar
Herman, J. L. (1992). A practical guide to alternative assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
Khattri, N., Reeve, A., and Kane, M. (1998). Principles and practices of performance assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lewis, C. and Kingdon, B. (2016). CELBANTM: A ten-year retrospective. TESL Canada Journal, 33, 69–82.Google Scholar
Linn, R. L. and Burton, E. (1994). Performance‐based assessment: Implications of task specificity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 13(1), 5–8.Google Scholar
Lockwood, J. (2015). Language for specific purpose (LSP) performance assessment in Asian call centres: Strong and weak definitions. Language Testing in Asia, 5(3).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. and Crookes, G. (1993). Units of analysis in syllabus design: The case for task. In Crookes, G. and Gass, S., eds. Tasks in a pedagogical context: Integrating theory and practice. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 9–54.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. and Norris, J. M. (2000). Task-based teaching and assessment. In Byram, M., ed. Encyclopedia of language teaching. London: Routledge, pp. 597–603.Google Scholar
Lynch, B. K. (2001). The ethical potential of alternative language assessment. In Experimenting with uncertainty: essays in honour of Alan Davies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 228–39.Google Scholar
McNamara, T. (1996). Measuring second language performance. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
McNamara, T. (1997). ‘Interaction’ in second language performance assessment: Whose performance? Applied linguistics, 18(4), 446–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNamara, T. and Roever, C. (2006). Language testing: The social dimension. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Messick, S. (1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Educational Researcher 23, 13–23.Google Scholar
Messick, S. (1996). Validity and washback in language testing. Language Testing, 13(3), 241–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mislevy, R., Steinberg, L., and Almond, R. (2002). Design and analysis in task-based language assessment. Language Testing, 19(4), 477–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moss, P. A. (1992). Shifting conceptions of validity in educational measurement: Implications for performance assessment. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 229–58.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. (2000). Purposeful language assessment. English Teaching Forum, 38(1), 18–23.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. (2002). Interpretations, intended uses and designs in task-based language assessment. Language Testing, 19(4), 337–46.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. (2008). Validity evaluation in language assessment. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. (2009). Task-based teaching and testing. In Long, M. and Doughty, C., eds., Handbook of language teaching. Cambridge: Blackwell, pp. 578–94.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. (2016). Current uses for task-based language assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 230–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M. (2018). Task-based language assessment: Aligning designs with intended uses and consequences. JLTA Journal, 21, 3–20.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M., Brown, J. D., Hudson, T. D., and Bonk, W. (2002). Examinee abilities and task difficulty in task-based second language performance assessment. Language Testing, 19(4), 395–418.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M., Brown, J. D., Hudson, T. D., and Yoshioka, J. K. (1998). Designing second language performance assessment. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i Press.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M., Davis, J., and Timpe-Laughlin, V. (2017). Second language educational experiences for adult learners. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Popham, W. J. (1993). Educational testing in America: What’s right, what’s wrong? A criterion-referenced perspective. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12(1), 11–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purpura, J. E. and Turner, C. E. (2014). Learning-oriented assessment in language classrooms: Using assessment to gauge and promote language learning. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. and Ross, S. (1996). The development of task-based assessment in English for academic purpose programs. Applied Linguistics, 17, 455–76.Google Scholar
Ryan, D. G. and Frederiksen, N. (1951). Performance tests of educational achievement. In Lindquist, E. F., ed. Educational measurement. Washington DC: American Council on Education, pp. 455–94.Google Scholar
Shepard, L. A. (1993). Evaluating test validity. Review of research in education, 19(1), 405–50.Google Scholar
Shohamy, E. (1995). Performance assessment in language testing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 15, 188–211.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Timpe-Laughlin, V. (2018). Pragmatics in task-based language assessment: Opportunities and challenges. In Taguchi, N. and Kim, Y., eds. Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 287–304.Google Scholar
Van den Branden, K. (2006), ed. Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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, Netherlands: John Benjamins, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
Van den Branden, K., Depauw, V., and Gysen, S. (2002). A computerized task-based test of second language Dutch for vocational training purposes. Language Testing, 19(2), 438–52.Google Scholar
Van Gorp, K. and Deygers, B. (2014). Task-based language assessment. In Kunnan, A., ed. The Companion to Language Assessment. Cambridge: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 578–93.Google Scholar
Wajda, E. (2011). New perspectives in language assessment: The interpretivist revolution. In Pawlak, M., ed. Extending the boundaries of research on second language learning and teaching. Berlin: Springer, pp. 275–85.Google Scholar
Wall, D. and Horák, T. (2006). The impact of changes in the TOEFL examination on teaching and learning in Central and Eastern Europe: Phase 1, the baseline study. ETS Research Report Series, MS-34.Google Scholar
Weaver, C. (2013). Incorporating a formative assessment cycle into task-based language teaching. In Shehadeh, A. and Coombe, C., eds. Researching and implementing task-based language learning and teaching in EFL contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamin, pp. 287–312.Google Scholar
Weideman, A. (2006). Assessing academic literacy: A task-based approach. Language Matters, 37, 81–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve student performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
Wolf, M. K., Lopez, A., Oh, S., and Tsutagawa, F. S. (2017). Comparing the performance of young English language learners and native English speakers on speaking assessment tasks. English language proficiency assessments for young learners. New York: Routledge, pp. 171–190.Google Scholar

Further Reading

Beretta, A. (1992). What can be learned from the Bangalore Evaluation. In Alderson, J. C. and Beretta, A., eds. Evaluating second language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 250–71.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. (2015). Thinking and acting programmatically in task-based language teaching: Essential roles for program evaluation. In Bygate, M., ed. Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 27–57.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M., Davis, J., and Timpe-Laughlin, V. (2017). Second language educational experiences for adult learners. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Shintani, N. (2016). Input-based tasks in foreign language instruction for young learners. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van den Branden, K. (2006). Training teachers: Task-based as well? In Van den Branden, K, ed. Task-based language teaching in practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 217–73.Google Scholar

References

Beretta, A. (1990). Implementation of the Bangalore Project. Applied Linguistics, 11(4), 321–40.Google Scholar
Beretta, A. (1992). What can be learned from the Bangalore evaluation. In Alderson, J. C. and Beretta, A., eds. Evaluating second language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 250–71.Google Scholar
Beretta, A. and Davies, A. (1985). Evaluation of the Bangalore project. ELT Journal , 29, 121–27.Google Scholar
Butler, Y. G. (2011). The implementation of communicative and task-based language teaching in the Asia-Pacific region. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 36–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryfonski, L. E. (2019). Task-based teacher training: Implementation and evaluation in Central American bilingual schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University: Washington DC.Google Scholar
Bryfonski, L. and McKay, T. H. (2017). TBLT implementation and evaluation: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 23, 603–32.Google Scholar
Byrnes, H. (2019). Affirming the context of instructed SLA: The potential of curricular thinking. Language Teaching Research, 23, 514–32.Google Scholar
Byrnes, H., Maxim, H., and Norris, J. (2010). Realizing advanced L2 writing development in a collegiate curriculum: Curricular design, pedagogy, assessment [Monograph]. Modern Language Journal, 94.Google Scholar
Carless, D. (2007). The suitability of task-based approaches for secondary schools: Perspectives from Hong Kong. System, 35(4),595–608.Google Scholar
Davis, J. McE. (2015). The usefulness of accreditation-mandated outcomes assessment: Trends in university foreign language programs. In Norris, J. M and Davis, J. McE eds. Student learning outcomes assessment in college foreign language programs. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i, National Foreign Language Resource Center, pp. 1–35.Google Scholar
Davis, J. McE (2016). Toward a capacity framework for useful student learning outcomes assessment in college language programs. Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 377–99.Google Scholar
East, M. (2012). Task-based language teaching from the teachers’ perspective: Insights from New Zealand. Vol. 3. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1997). The empirical evaluation of language teaching materials. ELT Journal, 51, 36–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2015). Teachers evaluating 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. 247–70.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., and Lambert, C. (2019). Task-based language teaching: Theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frechtling, J. A. (2007). Logic modeling methods in program evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M., Nielson, K. B. (2015). Evaluating TBLT: The case of a task-based Spanish program. Language Teaching Research, 19(5), 525–49.Google Scholar
Iizuka, T. (2019). Task-based needs analysis: Identifying communicative needs for study abroad students in Japan. System, 80, 134–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keck, C.M., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-Ventura, N., and Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2006). Investigating the empirical link between interaction and acquisition: A quantitative meta-analysis. In Norris, J. and Ortega, L.. Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 91–131.Google Scholar
Kim, Y., Jung, Y., and Tracy‐Ventura, N. (2017). Implementation of a Localized Task‐Based Course in an EFL Context: A Study of Students’ Evolving Perceptions. TESOL Quarterly, 51(3), 632–60.Google Scholar
Lambert, C. (2010). A task-based needs analysis: Putting principles into practice. Language Teaching Research, 14(1), 99–112.Google Scholar
Littlewood, W. (2004). The task-based approach: Some questions and suggestions. ELT Journal, 58(4), 319–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. In Hyltenstam, K. and Pienemann, M., eds. Modelling and assessing second language acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 77–99.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2005). Second language needs analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Long, M. and Norris, J. M. (2000). Task-based teaching and assessment. In Byram, M., ed. Encyclopedia of language teaching. London: Routledge, pp. 597–603.Google Scholar
McDonough, K. and Chaikitmongkol, W. (2007). Teachers’ and learners’ reactions to a task-based EFL course in Thailand. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 107–32.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. (2006). The why (and how) of assessing student foreign language programs. Modern Language Journal, 90, 590–97.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. (2009). Task-based teaching and testing. In Doughty, C. and Long, M., eds. The handbook of language teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 578–94.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. (2015). Thinking and acting programmatically in task-based language teaching: Essential roles for program evaluation. In Bygate, M., ed. Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 27–57.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. (2016). Language program evaluation. Modern Language Journal, 100(s), 169–89.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M., Davis, J. McE., and Timpe-Laughlin, V. (2017). Second language educational experiences for adult learners. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Kanagy, R., and Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communicative tasks for second language instruction. In Crookes, G. and Gass., S. M. eds. Tasks in a pedagogical context. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 9–34.Google Scholar
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shintani, N. (2016). Input-based tasks in foreign language instruction for young learners. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Swan, M. (2005). Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 376–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Avermaet, P. and Gysen, S. (2006). From needs to tasks: Language learning needs in a task-based approach. In Van den Branden, K., ed. Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 17–46.Google Scholar
Van den Branden, K. (2006), ed., Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van den Branden, K. (2009). Diffusion and implementation of innovations. In Long, M. and Doughty, C., eds. The handbook of language teaching. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 659–72.Google Scholar
Willis, D. and Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Further Reading

Ellis, N. C. (2001). Memory for language. In Robinson, P., ed. Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 33–68.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfroid, A. and Kim, M. (2021). The contributions of statistical-implicit learning aptitude to implicit-second language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1–29.Google Scholar
Kang, E. Y., Sok, S., and Han, Z-H. (2018). Thirty-five years of ISLA on form-focused instruction: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 23(4), 428–53.Google Scholar

References

Beretta, A. and Davies, A. (1985). Evaluation of the Bangalore Project. English Language Teaching Journal, 39, 121–27.Google Scholar
Burwell, G., Gonzalez-Lloret, M., and Nielsen, K. (2009). Evaluating a TBLT Spanish immersion program. Paper presented in the colloquium: Evaluating task-based language programs. Third biannual conference on TBLT. University of Lancaster, September 13–16.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, 263–95.Google Scholar
De Ridder, I., Vangehuchten, L., and Sesena Gomez, M. (2007). Enhancing automaticity through task-based language learning. Applied Linguistics, 28(2), 263–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Elder, C., Erlam, R., Philp, J., and Reinders, H. (2009). Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Gass, S., Spinner, P., and Behney, J. (2018), eds. Salience in second language acquisition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Godfroid, A. and Kim, K.M. (2019). Not aptitude but aptitudeS: examining the relationship between implicit- explicit learning aptitudes and implicit-explicit knowledge. Paper presented at the 29th conference of the European Second Language Association. Lund University, August 28- 31.Google Scholar
Gonzalez-Lloret, M. and Nielson, K. (2014). Evaluating TBLT: The case of a task-based Spanish program. Language Teaching Research 19(5),525–49.Google Scholar
Granena, G. (2013). Individual differences in sequence learning ability and second language acquisition in early childhood and adulthood. Language Learning 63(4),665–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, N. (2012). Conducting reaction time research in second language studies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Keating, G. D. and Jegerski, J. (2015). Experimental designs in sentence processing research. A methodological review and user’s guide. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 1–32.Google Scholar
Kuiken, F., Vedder, I., and Gilabert, R. (2010). Communicative adequacy and linguistic complexity in L2 writing. In Bartning, I., Martin, M., Vedder, I., eds. Communicative proficiency and linguistic development: Intersections between SLA and language testing research. Eurosla Monographs Series, pp. 81–100.Google Scholar
Kuiken, F. and Vedder, I. (2014). Rating written performance: What do raters do and why? Language Testing, 31(3), 329–48.Google Scholar
Kuiken, F. and Vedder, I. (2016). Functional adequacy in L2 writing: towards a new rating scale. Language Testing, 34(3), 321–36.Google Scholar
Li, S., Ellis, R., and Zhu, Y. (2016). Task-based versus task-supported language instruction. An experimental study. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 205–29.Google Scholar
Loewen, S., Erlam, R., and Ellis, R. (2009). Implicit and explicit knowledge and second language learning: testing and teaching. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2017). Instructed second language acquisition (ISLA): Geopolitics, methodological issues, and some major research questions. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 1, 7–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsden, E., Thomson, S., and Plonsky, L. (2018). A methodological synthesis of self-paced reading in second language research. Applied Psycholinguistics, 39(5),861–904.Google Scholar
Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 590–601.Google Scholar
Paradis, M. (1994). Neurolinguistic aspects of implicit and explicit memory: Implications for bilingualism and SLA. In Ellis, N., ed. Implicit and explicit language learning. London: Academic Press, pp. 393–419.Google Scholar
Paradis, M. (2004). Neurolinguistic Theory of Bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rebuschat, P. (2013). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge in second language research. Language Learning 63(3),595–626.Google Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165–79.Google Scholar
Sharwood-Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness-raising and the second language learner. Applied Linguistics 2, 159–68.Google Scholar
Shintani, N. and Ellis, R. (2010). The incidental acquisition of English plural -s by Japanese children in comprehension-based and production-based lessons: A process-product study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(4),607–37.Google Scholar
Shrout, P. and Fleiss, J. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2),420–28Google Scholar
Suzuki, Y. (2017). Validity of new measures of implicit knowledge: distinguishing implicit knowledge from automatized explicit knowledge. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38, 1229–61.Google Scholar
Whong, M., Gil, H.-G., and Marsden, E. (2014). Beyond paradigm: The ‘what’ and the ‘how’ of classroom research. Second Language Research, 30(4),551–68.Google Scholar

Further Reading

Dörnyei, Z. and Ottó, I. (1998). Motivation in action: A process model of L2 motivation. Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, 4, 43–69.Google Scholar
Révész, A. and Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2016). Teachers’ perspectives on second language task difficulty: Insights from think-alouds and eye tracking. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 182–204.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
Sasayama, S. (2016). Is a ‘complex’ task really complex? Validating the assumption of cognitive task complexity. Modern Language Journal, 100, 231–54.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2009). A Framework for the implantation of task-based instruction. In Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M., and Norris, J., eds., Task-based language teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Torres, J. and Serafini, E. J. (2016). Micro-evaluating learners’ task-specific motivation in a task-based business Spanish course. Hispania, 99(2), 289–304.Google Scholar

References

Baralt, M. L. (2010). Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, and interaction in CMC and FTF environments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Georgetown University, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Baralt, M. L. (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
Candlin, C. N. (1987). Towards task-based language learning. In Candlin, C. N. and Murphy, D., eds. Language learning tasks. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 5–22Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. and Kormos, J. (2000). The role of individual and social variables in performance. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 275–300.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. and Ottó, I. (1998). Motivation in action: A process model of L2 motivation. Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, 4, 43–69.Google Scholar
Keller, J. M. (2008). First principles of motivation to learn and e3‐learning. Distance Education, 29(2), 175–85.Google Scholar
Kormos, J. and Dörnyei, Z. (2004). The Interaction of Linguistic and Motivational Variables in Second Language Task Performance. Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterrichte, 9(2), 1–21.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based teaching. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Révész, A. and Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2016). Teachers’ perspectives on second language task difficulty: Insights from think-alouds and eye tracking. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 182–204.Google Scholar
Révész, A., Michel, M., and Gilabert, R. (2016). Measuring cognitive task demands using dual-task methodology, subjective self-ratings, and expert judgements: A validation study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 703–37.Google Scholar
Révész, A., Sachs, R., and Hama, M. (2014). The effects of task complexity and input frequency on the acquisition of the past counterfactual construction through recasts. Language Learning, 64, 615–50.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001b). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57.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
Sasayama, S. (2016). Is a ‘complex’ task really complex? Validating the assumption of cognitive task complexity. Modern Language Journal, 100, 231–54.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2009). A Framework for the implantation of task-based instruction. In Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M., and Norris, J, eds. Task-based language teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 83–108.Google Scholar
Torres, J. and Serafini, E. J. (2016). Micro-evaluating learners’ task-specific motivation in a task-based business Spanish course. Hispania, 99(2), 289–304.Google Scholar
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Vol. 60. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Yanguas, I. (2011). The dynamic nature of motivation during the task: Can it be captured? Innovation in Language Learning and Technology, 5(1), 35–61.Google Scholar

Further Reading

Colpin, M. and Van Gorp, K. (2007). Task-based writing in primary education: The development and evaluation of writing skills through writing tasks, learner and teacher support. In Van den Branden, K., Van Gorp, K., and Verhelst, M., eds. Tasks in action: Task-based language education from a classroom-based perspective. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 194–234.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. (2016). Current issues for task-based language assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 230–44.Google Scholar
Rea-Dickins, P. (2006). Currents and eddies in the discourse of assessment: a learning-focused interpretation. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 163–88.Google Scholar
Van Gorp, K. (2018). Task-based language assessment for L1 and L2 speakers in primary education. Designing a useful task-specification framework. In McE, J.. Davis, J. Norris, Malone, M., McKay, T., and Son, Y. A, eds. Useful assessment and evaluation in language education. Washington DC: Georgetown University, pp. 131–48.Google Scholar
Van Gorp, K. and Deygers, B. (2014). Task-based language assessment. In Kunnan, A. J., ed. The companion to language assessment. Volume II. Approaches and development. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 578–93.Google Scholar

References

Bachman, L. F. (2002). Some reflections on task-based language performance assessment. Language Testing, 19, 454–76.Google Scholar
Berben, M., Callebaut, I., Colpin, M., François, S., Geerts, M., Goethals, M., Vander Meeren, K., Vandommele, G., and Van Gorp, K. (2007a). TotemTaal. Themahandleiding en kopieerbladen 4A. Mechelen: Wolters Plantyn.Google Scholar
Berben, M., Callebaut, I., Colpin, M., François, S., Geerts, M., Goethals, M., Vander Meeren, K., Vandommele, G., and Van Gorp, K. (2007b). TotemTaal. Inleiding en evaluatie 4. Mechelen: Wolters Plantyn.Google Scholar
Berben, M., Van den Branden, K., and Van Gorp, K. (2007). We’ll see what happens: Tasks on paper and tasks in a multilingual classroom. In Van den Branden, K., Van Gorp, K., and Verhelst, M., eds. Tasks in action: Task-based language education from a classroom-based perspective. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 32–67.Google Scholar
Carless, D. (2007).Learning-oriented assessment: Conceptual basis and practical implications.” Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44, 57–66.Google Scholar
Colby-Kelly, C. and Turner, C. E. (2007). AFL research in the L2 classroom and evidence of usefulness: Taking formative assessment to the next level. Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(1), 9–37.Google Scholar
Colpin, M. and Van Gorp, K. (2007). Task-based writing in primary education: The development and evaluation of writing skills through writing tasks, learner and teacher support. In Van den Branden, K., Van Gorp, K., and Verhelst, M., eds. Tasks in action: Task-based language education from a classroom-based perspective. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 194–234.Google Scholar
Departement Onderwijs (1998). Ontwikkelingsdoelen en eindtermen. Informatiemap voor de onderwijspraktijk: gewoon basisonderwijs. Brussels: Afdeling Informatie en Documentatie.Google Scholar
Devlieger, M. and Goossens, G. (2007). An assessment tool for the evaluation of teacher practice in powerful task-based language learning environments. In Van den Branden, K., Van Gorp, K., and Verhelst, M., eds. Tasks in action: Task-based language education from a classroom-based perspective. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 92–130.Google Scholar
Duran, G. and Ramaut, G. (2006). Tasks for absolute beginners and beyond: Developing and sequencing tasks at basic proficiency levels. In Van den Branden, K., ed. Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 47–105.Google Scholar
François, S. (2005). Naar een nieuwe taakgerichte taalmethode voor het basisonderwijs: behoeftenonderzoek. Unpublished research report. Leuven: Centre for Language and EducationGoogle Scholar
Graham, S. and Perin, D. (2007a). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 445–76.Google Scholar
Graham, S. and Perin, D. (2007b). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescent middle and high school. Washington DC: Alliance for Excellence in Education.Google Scholar
Graham, S. and Perin, D. (2007c). What we know, what we still need to know: Teaching adolescents to write. Scientific Studies in Reading, 11, 313–36.Google Scholar
Harding, L., Alderson, J. C., and Brunfaut, T. (2015). Diagnostic assessment of reading and listening in a second or foreign Language: Elaborating on diagnostic principles. Language Testing, 32, 317–36.Google Scholar
Hattie, J. and Yates, G. C. R. (2014). Visible learning and the science of how we learn. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jones, N. and Saville, N. (2016). Learning oriented assessment. A systematic Approach. Studies in Language Testing 45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lokale inburgerings- en integratiemonitor (2019). Retrieved from: www.statistiekvlaanderen.be/nl/monitor-lokale-inburgering-en-integratie.Google Scholar
National Reading Panel (2000). Reports of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. Rockville, MD: NICHD Clearinghouse.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. (2009). Task-based teaching and testing. In Long, M. H. and Doughty, C. J., eds. The handbook of language teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 578–94.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. (2016). Current uses of task-based language assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 230–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rea-Dickins, P. (2006). Currents and eddies in the discourse of assessment: a learning-focused interpretation. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 163–88.Google Scholar
Sadler, R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science 18, 119–44.Google Scholar
Samuda, V. and Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., Chambers, B., Cheung, A., and Davis, S. (2009). Effective reading programs for the elementary grades: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1391–466.Google Scholar
Slavin, R. E. (2013). Effective programmes in reading and mathematics: Lessons from the best evidence encyclopaedia. School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 24, 383–91.Google Scholar
Turner, C. E. and Purpura, J. E. (2015). Learning-oriented assessment in the classroom. In Tsagari, D. and Banerjee, J., eds. Handbook of second language assessment. Boston, MA: DeGruyter Mouton, pp. 255–73.Google Scholar
Van Avermaet, P., Colpin, C., Van Gorp, K., Bogaert, N., and Van den Branden, K. (2006). The role of the teacher in task-based language teaching. In Van den Branden, K., ed. Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 175–96.Google Scholar
Van den Branden, K. (2006a). Introduction: Task-based language teaching in a nutshell. In Van den Branden, K., ed. Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
Van den Branden, K. (2006b). Training teachers: Task-based as well? In Van den Branden, K., ed. Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 217–48.Google Scholar
Van den Branden, K. (2010). Handboek Taalbeleid Basisonderwijs. Leuven: ACCO.Google Scholar
Van Gorp, K. (2018). Task-based language assessment for L1 and L2 speakers in primary education. Designing a useful task-specification framework. In McE, J.. Davis, J. Norris, Malone, M., McKay, T., and Son, Y. A, eds. Useful assessment and evaluation in language education. Washington DC: Georgetown University, pp. 131–48.Google Scholar
Van Gorp, K. and Deygers, B. (2014). Task-based language assessment. In Kunnan, A. J., ed. The companion to language assessment. Volume II Approaches and development. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 578–93.Google Scholar
Van Gorp, K. and Versteden, P. (2020). Advising linguistically diverse schools on developing a school-wide language policy. In Beerkens, R. M., Le Pichon-Vorstman, E., ten Thije, J. D., and Supheert, R. G. J. L., eds. Enhancing intercultural communication in organizations: Insights from project advisors. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 83–92.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
×