Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- Part I Theories
- Part II Methods
- Part III Skill Development
- Part IV Individual Differences
- Part V Pedagogical Interventions and Approaches
- 20 Pedagogical Interventions to L2 Grammar Instruction
- 21 Task-Based Language Learning
- 22 Task and Syllabus Design for Morphologically Complex Languages
- 23 Proficiency Guidelines and Frameworks
- 24 Technology-Mediated Language Learning
- 25 Content-Based L2 Teaching
- 26 Conceptions of L2 Learning in Critical Language Pedagogy
- Part VI Context and Environment
- Part VII Moving Forward
- Index
- References
21 - Task-Based Language Learning
from Part V - Pedagogical Interventions and Approaches
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 June 2019
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- Part I Theories
- Part II Methods
- Part III Skill Development
- Part IV Individual Differences
- Part V Pedagogical Interventions and Approaches
- 20 Pedagogical Interventions to L2 Grammar Instruction
- 21 Task-Based Language Learning
- 22 Task and Syllabus Design for Morphologically Complex Languages
- 23 Proficiency Guidelines and Frameworks
- 24 Technology-Mediated Language Learning
- 25 Content-Based L2 Teaching
- 26 Conceptions of L2 Learning in Critical Language Pedagogy
- Part VI Context and Environment
- Part VII Moving Forward
- Index
- References
Summary
The psycholinguistic rationale proposed for TBLT varies somewhat, but is usually an amalgam of cognitive-interactionist and usage-based theories (see, e.g., Long, 2015a, pp. 30–62; Robinson, 2007, 2015; Skehan, 1998, 2015) developed with language learning as the explanandum. When students are adults, whose capacity for purely incidental learning, especially instance learning, is weaker than in young children, a variety of devices is required to enhance incidental learning and thereby speed up the process. The enhancements seek to help learners either detect or notice new items in the input by increasing their perceptual saliency and by drawing learners’ attention to needed lexis and collocations and grammatical patterns, especially when non-salient forms and form–function or form–meaning relationships are concerned. However, most of the attention-drawing procedures are deployed in response to learner performance, not in advance, as in synthetic approaches.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning , pp. 500 - 526Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. L. (2012). Statistical learning: From acquiring specific items to forming general rules. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(3), 170–176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Avrich, P. (1980). The modern school movement. Anarchism and education in the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Benson, S. (2014). Task-based language teaching: An empirical study of task transfer. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 341–365.Google Scholar
Bonilla, C. (2014). From number agreement to the subjunctive: Evidence for Processability Theory in L2 Spanish. Language Teaching Research, 31(1), 53–74.Google Scholar
Borro, I. (2017). Comparing the effectiveness of TBTL and PPP on L2 grammar learning. A self-paced-reading study with Chinese students of Italian L2. MS at the University of Portsmouth.Google Scholar
Brown, J. D., & Hudson, T. (2002). Criterion-referenced language testing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bryfonski, L., & McKay, T. (2017). TBLT implementation and evaluation: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 1–30.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. (1987). Connecting theories of language processing and (second) language acquisition. In Pfaff, C. (ed.), First and second language acquisition processes (pp. 103–116). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. D. (2015). Skill Acquisition Theory. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition. An introduction (2nd edn.) (pp. 94–113). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Dinsmore, D. (1985). Waiting for Godot in the EFL classroom. ELT Journal, 39(4), 225–234.Google Scholar
Eckerth, J. (2008). Investigating consciousness-raising tasks: Pedagogically targeted and non-targeted learning gains. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 119–145.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. (2017). Salience in usage-based SLA. In Gass, S., Spinner, P., & Behney, J. (eds.), Salience in second language acquisition (pp. 21–40). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1989). Are classroom and naturalistic acquisition the same? A study of the classroom acquisition of German word order rules. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11(3), 305–328.Google Scholar
Gilabert, R. (2005). Evaluating the use of multiple sources and multiple methods in needs analysis: A case study of journalists in the Autonomous Community of Catalonia (Spain). In Long, M. H. (ed.), Second language needs analysis (pp. 182–199). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goo, J., & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 127–165.Google Scholar
Granena, G., & Long, M. H. (2013). Age of onset, length of residence, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment in three linguistic domains. Second Language Research, 29(3), 311–343.Google Scholar
Hatch, E. M. (1978). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In Hatch, E. M. (ed.), Second language acquisition: A book of readings (pp. 402–435). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Hillman, K. K. (2017). Target tasks for US Foreign Service Officers: The challenge for TBLT of the Japanese celebration speech. Scholarly Paper produced as part of a PhD in SLA Program, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Hoetker, J., & Ahlbrand, W. P. (1969). The persistence of the recitation. American Educational Research Journal, 6(1), 145–167.CrossRefGoogle 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(2), 330–367.Google Scholar
Jasso-Aguilar, R. (2005). Sources, methods and triangulation in needs analysis: A critical perspective in a case study of Waikiki hotel maids. In Long, M. H. (ed.), Second language needs analysis (pp. 127–158). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (ed.) (2005). Second language needs analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (2009). Methodological principles for language teaching. In Long, M. H. & Doughty, C. J. (eds.), Handbook of language teaching (pp. 373–394). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2013). Needs analysis. In Chapelle, C. (ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2015a). Second language acquisition and Task-Based Language Teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2015b). Experimental perspectives on classroom interaction. In Markee, N. (ed.), Handbook of classroom discourse and interaction (pp. 60–73). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2016). In defense of tasks and TBLT: Non-issues and real issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 5–33.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2017). Instructed second language acquisition (ISLA): Geopolitics, methodological issues, and some major research questions. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 1(1), 7–44.Google Scholar
Long, M. H., Al-Thowaini, A., Al-Thowaini, B., Lee, J., & Vafaee, P. (2018). A micro process-product study of a CLIL lesson: Linguistic modifications, content dilution, and vocabulary knowledge. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 2(1), 3–38.Google Scholar
Long, M. H., & 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: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. H., & Ross, S. (1993). Modifications that preserve language and content. In Tickoo, M. (ed.), Simplification: Theory and application (pp. 29–52). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.Google Scholar
Long, M. H., & Sato, C. J. (1983). Classroom foreigner talk discourse: Forms and functions of teachers’ questions. In Seliger, H. W. & Long, M. H. (eds.), Classroom-oriented research on second language acquisition (pp. 268–285). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.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 (pp. 407–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Malicka, A., Gilabert, R., & Norris, J. M. (2017). From needs analysis to task design: Insights from an English for specific purposes context. Language Teaching Research, 1–29.Google Scholar
Malika, A., & Sasayama, S. (2017). Cognitive task complexity: A research synthesis. Paper presented at the Seventh International Conference on TBLT, University of Barcelona, 18–21 April.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M., Clahsen, H., & Pienemann, M. (1981). On determining developmental stages in natural second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3(1), 109–135.Google Scholar
Nation, I. S. P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 59–82.Google Scholar
Nielson, K. B., Masters, M. C., Rhoades, E., & Freynik, S. (2009). Prototype implementation of an online Chinese course: An analysis of course implementation and learner performance. College Park, MD: University of Maryland Center for Advanced Study of Language.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. (2009). Task-based teaching and testing. In Long, M. H. & Doughty, C. J. (eds.), Handbook of language teaching (pp. 578–594). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
O’Connell, S. (2014). A task-based language teaching approach to the police traffic stop. TESL Canada Journal, 31(8), 116–131.Google Scholar
Oh, S.-Y. (2001). Two types of input modification and EFL reading comprehension: Simplification versus elaboration. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6(2), 186–214.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development. Processability theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia,PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M., & Kessler, J.-U. (2012). Processability Theory. In Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 228–246). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Révész, A. (2014). Towards a fuller assessment of cognitive models of task-based learning: Investigating task-generated cognitive demands and processes. Applied Linguistics, 35(1), 87–92.Google Scholar
Révész, A., Michel, M., & Gilabert, R. (2015). Measuring cognitive task demands using dual task methodology, subjective self-ratings, and expert judgments: A validation study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 1–35.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2007). Criteria for classifying and sequencing pedagogic tasks. In Garcia-Mayo, M. P. (ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 7–26). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2009). Syllabus design. In Long, M. H. & Doughty, C. J. (eds.), Handbook of language teaching (pp. 294–310). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2011). Second language task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Second language task complexity. Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 3–37). 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: A decade of plenaries from the international conference (pp. 87–121). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.Google Scholar
Sato, C. J. (1986). Conversation and interlanguage development: Rethinking the connection. In Day, R. R. (ed.), “Talking to learn”: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 23–45). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Sato, C. J. (1990). The syntax of conversation in interlanguage development. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Serafini, E. J., Lake, J. B., & Long, M. H. (2015). Methodological improvements in identifying specialized learner needs. English for Specific Purposes, 40, 11–26.Google Scholar
Shintani, N. (2011). A comparative study of the effects of input-based and production-based instruction on vocabulary acquisition by young EFL learners. Language Teaching Research, 15, 137–158.Google Scholar
Shintani, N. (2013). The effect of focus on form and focus on forms instruction on the acquisition of productive knowledge of L2 vocabulary by young beginner learners. TESOL Quarterly, 47(1), 36–62.Google Scholar
Shintani, N. (2016). Input-based tasks in foreign language instruction for young learners. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2015). Limited attention 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 (pp. 123–155). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Suissa, J. (2006). Anarchism and education. A philosophical perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tomlin, R., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183–204.Google Scholar
Van den Branden, K. (ed.) (2006). Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Gorp, K., & Deygers, B. (2013). Task-based language assessment. In Kunan, A. (ed.), The companion to language assessment. Vol. 2: Approaches and development (pp. 578–593). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, J., & Lightbown, P. M. (1984). Asking and answering in foreign language classes. Canadian Modern Language Review, 40, 228–244.Google Scholar
Whong, M., Gil, H.-G., & Marsden, E. (2014). Beyond paradigm: The “what” and the “how” of classroom research. Second Language Research, 30(4), 551–568.Google Scholar
Williams, J. N. (2009). Implicit learning. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bhatia, T. K. (eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 319–353). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.Google Scholar
Yano, Y., Long, M. H., & Ross, S. (1994). The effects of simplified and elaborated texts on foreign language reading comprehension. Language Learning, 44(2), 189–219.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2016). The linguistic environment, interaction and negative feedback. Brill Research Perspectives on Multilingualism and Second Language Acquisition, 1(1), 45–86.Google Scholar
- 5
- Cited by