Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:24:20.110Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Task-Based Learner Production: A Substantive and Methodological Review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 March 2016

Luke Plonsky  and
YouJin Kim
Luke Plonsky
Affiliation:
Institute of Education, University College Londonl.plonsky@ucl.ac.uk
YouJin Kim
Affiliation:
Georgia State Universityykim39@gsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Tasks are frequently used to elicit learner language in second language (L2) research. The purposes for doing so, however, vary widely, covering a range of theoretical models, designs, and analyses. For example, task-based researchers have examined a range of linguistic and interactional features (e.g., accuracy, language-related episodes) that are found in learner production and that vary as a function of task conditions (e.g., +/− complex), modes (oral, written, computer-mediated), and settings (second vs. foreign language). This article presents a synthesis of substantive interests and methodological practices in this area. We first collected a sample of 85 primary studies of task-based language production published from 2006 to 2015. Each study was then coded for the target features it analyzed as well as other contextual and demographic variables. We also coded for methodological features related to study designs, sampling, analyses, and reporting practices. The results indicate a strong preference toward analyses of grammar, vocabulary, accuracy, and different features of L2 interaction, and very little interest in task-induced pronunciation, pragmatics, and the quality of task performance. More fundamentally, this domain may be hindered by a lack of theoretical and operational consistency. The data also point to a number of concerns related to research and reporting practices (e.g., low statistical power; missing data). Based on our findings, we outline a number of pointed recommendations for future research in this domain.

Type
Research Article
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 36 , March 2016 , pp. 73 - 97
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press, 2016 

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

REFERENCES

Alwi, N. A. N. M., Adams, R., & Newton, J. (2012). Writing to learn via text chat: Task implementation and focus on form. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 23–39.Google Scholar
Baralt, M. (2013). The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during online versus face-to-face interactive tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 689–725.Google Scholar
Brown, D. (in press). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research.Google Scholar
Brown, J. D. (2015). Why bother learning advanced quantitative methods in L2 research. In Plonsky, L. (Ed.), Advancing quantitative methods in second language research (pp. 9–20). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2012). Defining and operationalizing L2 complexity. In Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 21–46). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Y. G., & Zeng, W. (2014). Young foreign language learners’ interactions during task-based paired assessments. Language Assessment Quarterly, 11, 45–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (2001). Introduction. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 1–20). Essex, UK: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Byrnes, H. (2013). Notes from the editor. Modern Language Journal, 97, 825–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, J. C. C., & Brown, K. L. (2012). The effects of authentic audience on English as a second language (ESL) writers: A task-based, computer-mediated approach. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25, 435–454.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 (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of San Francisco, California.Google Scholar
Collentine, K. (2009). Learner use of holistic language units in multimodal, task-based synchronous computer-mediated communication. Language Learning & Technology, 13, 68–87 Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 161–170.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J., Taguchi, N., & Mackey, A. (in preparation). Methods in second language pragmatics. New York, NY: NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
De Jong, N. H., Steinel, M. P., Florijn, A., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2012). The effect of task complexity on functional adequacy, fluency and lexical diversity in speaking performances of native and nonnative speakers. In Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency. Investigating complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 121–142). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.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, 263–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derrick, D. J. (2015). Instrument reporting practices in second language research. TESOL Quarterly, 50, 132–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (Ed). (2005). Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30, 474–509.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fujii, A., & Mackey, A. (2009). Interactional feedback in learner-learner interactions in a task-based EFL classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 47, 267–301.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. M. (1985). Task variation and nonnative/nonnative negotiation of meaning. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. G. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 149–161). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Godfroid, A., & Spino, L. (2015). Reconceptualizing reactivity of think-alouds and eye tracking: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Language Learning, 65, 896–928.Google Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Baralt, M. (2014). Exploring learner perception and use of task-based interactional feedback in FTF and CMC modes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L., Long, A. Y., & Solon, M. (Eds.). (in preparation). TBLT and L2 pronunciation: Do the benefits of tasks extend beyond grammar and lexis? [Special issue]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition.Google Scholar
Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009a). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30, 461–473.Google Scholar
Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (Eds.). (2009b). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF) in second language acquisition research [Special issue]. Applied Linguistics, 30.Google Scholar
Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (Eds.). (2012). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (Vol. 32). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hudson, T. (2015). Presenting quantitative data visually. In Plonsky, L. (Ed.), Advancing quantitative methods in second research (pp. 78–105). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ioannidis, J. P. A., Fanelli, D., Dunne, D. D., & Goodman, S. N. (2015). Meta-research: Evaluation and improvement of research methods and practices. PLoS Biology, 13, e1002264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ishikawa, T. (2008). The effect of task demands of intentional reasoning on L2 speech performance. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 5, 29–63.Google Scholar
Jackson, D. O., & Suethanapornkul, S. (2013). The cognition hypothesis: A synthesis and meta-analysis of research on second language task complexity. Language Learning, 63, 330–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keck, C., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-Ventura, N., & Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2006). Investigating the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition: A meta-analysis. In Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 91–131). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khamis, H. (2010). Communication strategies in computer-mediated communication: An Egyptian EFL context. CALICO Journal, 28, 35–48.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. (2009). The effects of task complexity on learner–learner interaction. System, 37, 254–268.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. (2012). Task complexity, learning opportunities, and Korean EFL learners’ question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y., & Taguchi, N. (2015). Promoting task-based pragmatics instruction in EFL classroom contexts: The role of task complexity. Modern Language Journal, 99, 656–677.Google Scholar
Kim, Y., & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2013). The role of task repetition in L2 performance development: What needs to be repeated during task-based interaction? System, 41, 829–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyle, K., & Crossley, S. A. (2015). Automatically assessing lexical sophistication: Indices, tools, findings, and application. TESOL Quarterly, 49, 757–786.Google Scholar
Lee, J., Jang, J., & Plonsky, L. (2015). The effectiveness of second language pronunciation instruction: A meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 36, 345–366.Google Scholar
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Liu, Q., & Brown, D. (2015). Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 66–81.Google Scholar
Larson-Hall, J., & Plonsky, L. (2015). Reporting and interpreting quantitative research findings: What gets reported and recommendations for the field. Language Learning, 65 (Supp. 1), 127–159.Google Scholar
Lipsey, M. W. (2009). Identifying interesting variables and analysis opportunities. In Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (2nd ed., pp. 147–158). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task based language teaching. In Hyltenstam, K. & Pienemann, M. (Eds.), Modeling and assessing second language development (pp. 77–99). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (2007). Introduction. The role of conversational interaction in second language acquisition. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 1–26). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 407–449). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Marsden, E., Mackey, A., & Plonsky, L. (2016). Breadth and depth: The IRIS repository. In Mackey, A. & Marsden, E. (Eds.), Advancing methodology and practice: The IRIS repository of instruments for research into second languages (pp. 1–21). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Michel, M. C. (2013). The use of conjunctions in cognitively simple versus complex oral L2 tasks. Modern Language Journal, 97, 178–195.Google Scholar
Michel, M. C., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). The influence of complexity in monologic versus dialogic tasks in Dutch L2. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 241–259.Google Scholar
Michel, M. C., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2012). Task complexity and interaction: (Combined) effects on task-based performance in Dutch as a second language. EUROSLA Yearbook, 12, 164–190.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. (2015). Statistical significance testing in second language research: Basic problems and suggestions for reform. Language Learning, 65 (Supp. 1), 97–126.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555–578.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M., Plonsky, L., Ross, S. J., & Schoonen, R. (2015). Guidelines for reporting quantitative methods and results in primary research. Language Learning, 65, 470–476.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 (pp. 77–109). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. New York, NY: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
Oswald, F. L., & Plonsky, L. (2010). Meta-analysis in second language research: Choices and challenges. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 85–110.Google Scholar
Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiation constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30, 590–601.Google Scholar
Payant, C., & Kim, Y. (2015). Language mediation in an L3 classroom: The role of task modalities and task types. Foreign Language Annals, 48, 706–729.Google Scholar
Philp, J., Adams, R., & Iwashita, N. (2014). Peer interaction and second language learning. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L. (2013). Study quality in SLA: An assessment of designs, analyses, and reporting practices in quantitative L2 research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 655–687.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L. (2014). Study quality in quantitative L2 research (1990–2010): A methodological synthesis and call for reform. Modern Language Journal, 98, 450–470.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L. (2015a). Quantitative considerations for improving replicability in CALL and applied linguistics. CALICO Journal, 32, 232–244.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L. (2015b). Statistical power, p values, descriptive statistics, and effect sizes: A “back-to-basics” approach to advancing quantitative methods in L2 research. In Plonsky, L. (Ed.), Advancing quantitative methods in second language research (pp. 23–45). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Brown, D. (2015). Domain definition and search techniques in meta-analyses of L2 research (or why 18 meta-analyses of feedback have different results). Second Language Research, 31, 267–278.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Derrick, D. J. (in press). A meta-analysis of reliability coefficients in second language research. Modern Language Journal.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Gass, S. (2011). Quantitative research methods, study quality, and outcomes: The case of interaction research. Language Learning, 61, 325–366.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Gonulal, T. (2015). Methodological synthesis in quantitative L2 research: A review of reviews and a case study of exploratory factor analysis. Language Learning, 65 (Suppl. 1), 9–36.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2015). Meta-analyzing second language research. In Plonsky, L. (Ed.), Advancing quantitative methods in second language research (pp. 106–128). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (under review). Multiple regression as a flexible alternative to ANOVA in L2 research.Google Scholar
Révész, A. (2009). Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 437–470.Google Scholar
Révész, A. (2011). Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions, and individual differences: A classroom based study. Modern Language Journal, 95, 162–181.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57.Google Scholar
Robinson, P., & Gilabert, R. (Eds.) (2007). Task complexity, the cognition hypothesis and second language instruction [Special issue]. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL), 45.Google Scholar
Sample, E., & Michel, M. (2014). An exploratory study into trade-off effects of complexity, accuracy, and fluency on young learners’ oral task repetition. TESL Canada Journal, 31, 23–46.Google Scholar
Sasayama, S., Malicka, A., & Norris, J. M. (forthcoming). Cognitive task complexity: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. Routledge: New York Google Scholar
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209–31.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30 (4), 510–532.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N., & Kim, Y. (Eds.). (under contract). Task-based approaches to pragmatics teaching and assessment. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Thomas, M. (2013). History of the study of second language acquisition. In Herschensohn, J. & Young-Scholten, M. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 26–45). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zheng, X., & Borg, S. (2014). Task-based learning and teaching in China: Secondary school teachers’ beliefs and practices. Language Teaching Research, 18, 205–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziegler, N. (2016). Methodological practices in interaction in synchronous computer mediated communication: A synthetic approach. In Mackey, A. & Marsden, E. (Eds.), Instruments for research into second languages: Empirical studies advancing methodology (pp. 197–223). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ziegler, N. (in press). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Plonsky and Kim supplementary material

Appendix

Download Plonsky and Kim supplementary material(File)
File 23.6 KB