Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:10:40.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Task-Based Versus Task-Supported Language Instruction: An Experimental Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 March 2016

Shaofeng Li ,
Rod Ellis  and
Yan Zhu
Shaofeng Li
Affiliation:
University of Aucklands.li@auckland.ac.nz
Rod Ellis
Affiliation:
University of Auckland and Shanghai International Studies Universityr.ellis@auckland.ac.nz
Yan Zhu
Affiliation:
Fudan Universityyan_zhu@fudan.edu.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigated the effectiveness of task-based and task-supported instruction in the acquisition of the English passive construction—a structure about which learners had limited prior knowledge. A total of 150 Chinese middle school English as a foreign language (EFL) learners were randomly assigned to five groups—one control group who only took the pretest and posttests and four experimental groups who attended a 2-hour treatment session where they performed two dictogloss tasks in groups, each including a reporting phase when the learners took turns to tell the narrative. Among the four experimental groups, one just performed the two oral tasks; a second group received explicit instruction before performing the tasks; a third group received within-task feedback but no explicit instruction; and the fourth group received both explicit instruction and within-task feedback. Treatment effects were gauged via a grammaticality judgment test (GJT) and an elicited imitation test (EIT). On the GJT, the conditions with explicit instruction and/or feedback led to significant gains with explicit instruction plus feedback showing the largest effects. On the EIT, there was no effect for any of the three treatment groups when the data were analyzed for the whole cohort. However, when the learners were subdivided into those with zero and some prior knowledge based on their pretest EIT scores, explicit instruction plus within-task feedback was more effective than the other treatment types for the latter.

Type
Research Article
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 36 , March 2016 , pp. 205 - 229
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

Andringa, S., de Glopper, K., & Hacquebord, H. (2011). Effect of explicit and implicit instruction on free written response task performance. Language Learning, 61 (3), 868–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R. (2004). Teachers’ stated beliefs about incidental focus on form and their classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 25 (2), 243–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, D. C., & Dienes, Z. (1993). Implicit learning: Theoretical and empirical issues. Hove, UK: LEA.Google Scholar
Bowles, M. (2011). Measuring implicit and explicit linguistic knowledge: What can heritage language learners contribute? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33 (2), 247–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cintrón-Valentín, M., & Ellis, N. (2015). Exploring the interface: Explicit focus-on-form instruction and learned attentional biases in L2 Latin. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 37 (2), 197–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42–63). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Skill acquisition theory. In Williams, J. & VanPatten, B. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 97–113). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus-on-form. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus-on-form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–138). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in second language acquisition, 27 (2), 305–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1994). A theory of instructed second language acquisition. In Ellis, N. (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 79–114). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27 (2), 141–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2006). Researching the effects of form-focused instruction on L2 acquisition. AILA Review, 19, 18–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2007). Explicit form-focused instruction and second language acquisition. In Spolsky, B. & Hult, F. (Eds.), The handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 437–455). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Pre-emptive focus on form in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35 (3), 407–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28 (2), 339–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., & Shintani, N. (2014). Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Goo, J., & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case for recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35 (1), 127–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutiérrez, X. (2013). The construct validity of grammaticality judgment tests as measures of implicit and explicit knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35 (3), 423–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H., Ellis, R., & Eskildsen, S. W. (Eds.). (2015). Orders and sequences in the acquisition of L2 morphosyntax, 40 years on [Special issue]. Language Learning, 65 (1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: a meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60 (2), 309–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S., Zhu, Y., & Ellis, R. (in press). The effects of the timing of corrective feedback on the acquisition of a new linguistic structure. Modern Language Journal.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. (2008). Transfer appropriate processing as a model for classroom second language acquisition. In Han, Z. (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 27–44). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In de Bot, K., Ginsberg, R., & Kramsch, C. (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. & Bhatia, T. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in second language acquisition (pp. 15–41). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Loschky, L., & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In Crookes, G. & Gass, S. (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 123–167). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2001). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 51, 265–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26 (3), 399–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (2013). The case for variety in corrective feedback research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35 (1), 167–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan-Short, K., Deng, Z., Brill-Shuetz, K., Faretta-Studcenberg, M., Wong, P., & Wong, F. (2015). A view of the neural representation of second language syntax through artificial language learning under implicit and explicit contexts of exposure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37 (2), 383–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muronoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement. Language Learning, 50 (4), 617–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50 (3), 417–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (2005). An introduction to processability theory. In Pienemann, M. (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory (pp. 1–60). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64 (4), 878–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reber, A. S. (1989). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 219–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reber, P., & Squire, L. (1998). Encapsulation of implicit and explicit memory in sequence learning. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10 (2), 248–263.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanchez, D., & Reber, P. (2013). Explicit pre-training instruction does not improve implicit perceptual-motor sequence learning. Cognition, 126 (3), 341–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanz, C., & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). Positive evidence vs. explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: A computer-assisted study. Language Learning, 54 (1), 35–78 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, R. (2010). Reconsidering the suitability and effectiveness of PPP and TBLT in the Japanese EFL classroom. JALT Journal, 32 (2), 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shanks, D. R. (2005). Implicit learning. In Lamberts, K. & Goldstone, R. (Eds.), Handbook of cognition (pp. 202–220). London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
Shehadeh, A. (2005).Task-based language learning and teaching: Theories and applications. In Edwards, C. & Willis, J. (Eds.), Teachers exploring tasks in English language teaching (pp. 13–30). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17 (1), 38–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Spada, N., Jessop, L., Suzuki, W., Tomita, Y., & Valeo, (2014). Isolated and integrated form-focused instruction: Effects on different types of L2 knowledge. Language Teaching Research, 18, 453–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spada, N., & Tomita, . (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60 (2), 263–308.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Y., & DeKeyser, R. (2015). Does elicited imitation measure implicit knowledge? Evidence from the word-monitoring task. Language Learning, 65, 860–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language learning. In Byrnes, H. (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London, UK: Continuum.Google Scholar
Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, J., & Evans, J. 1998. What kind of focus and on which forms? In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus-on-form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 139–155). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Yang, Y., & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners? Acquisition or regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32 (2), 235–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Y. (2015). Measuring university-level L2 learners’ implicit and explicit linguistic knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 457–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar