ArticlePDF Available

Task-Based Instruction

January 2003
Language Teaching 36(01):1 - 14

DOI:10.1017/S026144480200188X

Authors:

Institute of Education University College London

This article is organised in five main sections. First, the sub-area of task-based instruction is introduced and contextualised. Its origins within communicative language teaching and second language acquisition research are sketched, and the notion of a task in language learning is defined. There is also brief coverage of the different and sometimes contrasting groups who are interested in the use of tasks. The second section surveys research into tasks, covering the different perspectives (interactional, cognitive) which have been influential. Then a third section explores how performance on tasks has been measured, generally in terms of how complex the language used is, how accurate it is, and how fluent. There is also discussion of approaches to measuring interaction. A fourth section explores the pedagogic and interventionist dimension of the use of tasks. The article concludes with a survey of the various critiques of tasks that have been made in recent years.

Content uploaded by Peter Skehan

Content may be subject to copyright.

Review article

Ta s k - b a s ed instruction

Peter Skehan1King’s College, London, UK

This article is organised in ﬁve main sections. First,

the sub-area of task-based instruction is introduced and

contextualised. Its origins within communicative language

teaching and second language acquisition research are

sketched, and the notion of a task in language learning is

deﬁned. There is also brief coverage of the different and

sometimes contrasting groups who are interested in the use

of tasks. The second section surveys research into tasks,

covering the different perspectives (interactional, cognitive)

which have been inﬂuential. Then a third section explores

how performance on tasks has been measured, generally in

terms of how complex the language used is, how accurate it

is, and how ﬂuent. There is also discussion of approaches

to measuring interaction. A fourth section explores the

pedagogic and interventionist dimension of the use of tasks.

The article concludes with a survey of the various critiques

of tasks that have been made in recent years.

Introduction

During the 1970s there were considerable moves

within language teaching to embrace the com-

municative approach (Brumﬁt & Johnson 1979).

As a result, a range of teaching activities gained

prominence which emphasised the need for learners

to focus on meaning and to convey information to

one another (see Geddes & Sturtridge 1979; and

Harmer (1983, 1st Edn.) for exemplifying work,

and Harmer (2001, 3rd Edn.), Wesche & Skehan

(2002) for more recent reviews.). At this time, the

assumption seemed to be that it was not enough

in language teaching to focus only on language

structure, but that this needed to be accompanied by a

concern to develop the capacity to express meanings

(Widdowson 1978). The implications of these ped-

agogic developments were widespread, and inﬂu-

enced syllabus design (White 1988), methodology

(Nunan 1989), assessment (Morrow 1977, 1979),

and an early (and inﬂuential) proposal for the use

Peter Skehan is Professor of Applied Linguistics at King’s

College, London. He has published widely in applied

linguistics, particularly in the areas of second language ac-

quisition and task-based instruction, individual differences

in language learning, and language testing. With Pauline

Foster he is currently researching the nature of ﬂuency

in task-based performance, as well as the relationship

between quality of interaction and nature of linguistic

performance.

of task-based approaches (Prabhu 1987), an inno-

vation all the more remarkable for the setting in

which it was introduced – state secondary school

classes in Bangalore.

At the same time as these pedagogic developments,

there was also considerable growth in the relatively

new (research-based) ﬁeld of second language

acquisition, where a similar (but stronger) underlying

claim was made −that naturalistic exposure to and

use of language were prerequisites for development,

but with some slightly different emphases −that

naturalistic use has to come ﬁrst and is necessary to

drive forward interlanguage, i.e., the structural deve-

lopment of language. As Hatch (1978, p 404) put it:

One learns how to do conversations, one learns how to interact

verbally, and out of this interaction, syntactic structures are

developed

During the 1970s and 1980s, the basic ‘unit’

which was shared by communicative approaches

and second language acquisition researchers was

the communicative activity,arelatively vague term,

but easily interpretable (albeit perhaps differently)

by researchers and teachers alike (Mitchell &

Johnstone 1986). Interestingly, during the 1980s,

two major developments occurred. First, the

term ‘communicative activity’ became increasingly

replaced by that of ‘task’, even though the actual

events that were referred to were essentially the

same (Rubdy 1998). Second, what might be termed

strong and weak forms of a task-based approach to

instruction emerged. In general, proponents of the

weak position tend to assume that tasks are not

the driving force for syllabus design; that the use

of tasks is an adjunct to structure-based teaching;

and that it may be possible to ‘clothe’ structures

through tasks without compromise. This approach

tends to assume an automatisation or practice view

of learning (Bruton 2002). In contrast, those who

take the stronger view of tasks have generally seen

the engagement of acquisitional processes as central,

although views on the conditions which engage such

processing have changed. Initially, Krashen (1985)

wasvery inﬂuential in arguing for both the necessity

and sufﬁciency of input. However, evidence from

anumber of sources (e.g., the lack of sustained

production development in immersion educated

1The author would like to thank Pauline Foster, Janet Hooper

and four anonymous reviewers, who have all made very useful

contributions to the present review.

Lang. Teach. 36, 1–14. DOI: 10.1017/S026144480200188X Printed in the United Kingdom c

2003 Cambridge University Press 1

Task-based instruction ■

children (Swain & Lapkin 1982; Harley & Swain

1984)) suggested that input alone is not sufﬁcient.

Aﬁrstreaction (cf. Hatch, above, and especially

Long (1983, 1985a)) was to argue that interaction is

crucial, as are the opportunities it provides for learners

to receive personalised, well-timed feedback for areas

of interlanguage which are problematic (Pica 1994).

Hence the promotion of indices for the negotiation of

meaning, such as comprehension checks, clariﬁcation

requests, and conﬁrmation checks, all regarded by

one group of researchers as key indices of interactions

in progress which would be supportive of acquisition.

More recently the central generalisation about

negotiation of meaning has been modiﬁed somewhat,

again by Michael Long (Long & Robinson 1998),

to argue that within the use of tasks, there needs

to be a Focus-on-Form (FonF), such that, even

though learners may be participating in interactions,

with meaning as primary, there is some concern for

form (form-in-general, rather than speciﬁc forms).

As a result, the naturalness of communication is

not compromised, but form, and potential for

development, do have some priority. Long (1991)

argues that without this, outcomes such as those

from immersion education are likely to occur, with

alack of sustained development. We are currently

in a period where the Focus-on-Form generalisation

is widely accepted by almost all researchers working

on task-based research, whether from Long’s (1989)

interactionist perspective, or those taking a more

cognitive approach (Skehan 1998; Robinson 2001).

(See Sheen (2002) for a dissenting view, based on his

reading of relevant empirical work.)

The switch from a Negotiation of Meaning

justiﬁcation for the use of tasks to one linked

instead to the concept of a Focus on Form is

important since this latter term can function more

naturally as an umbrella term for a number of

contrasting approaches. Although a Negotiation of

Meaning perspective is quite consistent with this

latter construct, as is its more recent manifestation,

recasting, (Doughty & Varela 1998; Doughty &

Williams 1998a; Long, Inagaki & Ortega 1998), so

are other approaches to tasks, including a general,

cognitive, attention-driven perspective (Skehan 1998;

Robinson 2001) as well, even, as some sociocultural

approaches (Swain & Lapkin 2001). All of these

assume that (a) interaction, in itself, is not enough,

and (b) insinuation of a focus on form into

interactions is vital. Approaches differ in how they

try to achieve such a Focus on Form, as we will see

below. Broadly, they vary in the reliance they place on

feedback (cf. Doughty & Williams 1998b), attention

allocation (Skehan 1998; Doughty 2001), interaction

(Van Lier & Matsuo 2000) and output (Swain &

Lapkin 2001). They are all consistent with current

conceptualisations of the role of noticing, whether

this is through input (Schmidt 1990) or noticing the

gap in output (Swain 1995).

Another preliminary issue concerns who might

be interested in the use of tasks. Essentially three

major groups can be identiﬁed: researchers, testers,

and teachers, and each group has different concerns

when working with tasks. Researchers, other things

being equal, are likely to see tasks as convenient or

necessary means to explore theoretically-motivated

questions. (The questions may themselves have

pedagogic relevance, (or they may not), but that is

not likely to be the immediate motivation for the

stance that researchers take.) It is likely, in this case,

that the emphasis will be on some kind of empirical

study, and its level of validity, and the task that is

chosen, and the way it is used will be secondary

to the research questions which are being asked.

It is therefore probable that the task will be fairly

self-contained, and explored within a cross-sectional

research design −the task is done, possibly under

non-classroom conditions, the data are gathered, the

researcher leaves and analyses these data. (Although

see Bygate (1996, 2001) who shows that longitudinal

designs are also appropriate, and Lynch and MacLean

(2001) and Samuda (2001) for illuminating case study

approaches.) Language testers are also likely to be

interested in self-contained individual tasks. In their

case, the motivations are to obtain data (a) arising

from actual communication (b) that can be assessed

over r iding goals for testers will be to work with

tasks of known qualities, and even, perhaps, to be

able to choose tasks precisely because they do not

intrude into the sort of performance which results,

there is considerable similarity between testers’ needs

and those of researchers.

In contrast, a pedagogic approach, where tasks

are investigated by teachers, will necessarily be

classroom-based and not subject to the same degree of

manipulation characteristic of a research study. Here,

it is likely that the relevant time-span for the task will

be extended, since teaching goals will go well beyond

simply demonstrating some sort of experimental

effect, and are likely to be integrated within some

extended pedagogic sequence. Accordingly, one can

(rather programmatically) distinguish between:

•the focussed ⇒of interest to (experimental)

task researchers and testers

•apedagogic ⇒of interest to teachers and

sequence some researchers

•an entire ⇒of interest to teachers and

class period non-experimental researchers

•an extended ⇒of interest to longitudinal

sequence researchers, non-experimental

researchers, and to teachers

•asyllabus, ⇒of interest to course designers,

atextbook materials writers

There is some degree of overlap here, in this rather

idealised sequence. The purpose of the ‘sequence’ is

■Task-based instruction

to bring out the different expectations of all these

groups, and the different standards that are likely to

apply. The sequence is characterised by a move from

greater control, at the focussed task end, moving

to greater classroom practicality. Similarly, in terms

of purpose in using tasks, there is a movement

from demonstrating theoretically-valued ‘effects’ of

tasks, on the one hand, to enabling teachers and

others involved in pedagogy to work with learners

over extended periods to promote change in the

learner’s language system, on the other. Interestingly,

the possibility of longitudinal research, which would

draw researchers into exploring more extended time

periods, has not been characteristic, perhaps because

of the lack of control, expense, and also the more

protracted manner in which ﬁndings would emerge.

Given this complex background as to how tasks

have emerged as an interesting basis for acquisition,

and for instruction and assessment, it is useful to offer

adeﬁnition of the concept. The purpose in doing so

is to clarify what might qualify as a task, and what is

unlikely to, as well as provide links to theory and to

different contexts for task use. Bygate, Skehan and

Swain (2001, p. 11) offer a core deﬁnition of task, as

follows:

Ataskisanactivitywhich requires learners to use language, with

emphasis on meaning, to attain an objective.

Bygate et al. (2001) also provide extended deﬁni-

tions to relate more appropriately to research or to

pedagogy, and within each of these, to learning,

teaching, and testing. These extended deﬁnitions

need not concern us here −essentially they attempt

to be more speciﬁc in their scope, and to convey

alittle more clearly why tasks are used in slightly

different contexts.

There have, though, been difﬁculties regarding the

deﬁnitions of task. One source of difﬁculty concerns

an additional feature, often used in task deﬁnitions −

the relationship of the task to the real world. Long

(1985b) relates this to things people do in everyday

life, while others (e.g., Skehan 1998, Ellis, in press)

prefer phrases such as ‘bears a resemblance, direct or

indirect, to the way language is used’. Insodoing,

they are preferring to emphasise the nature of the

response by the learner (cf. Widdowson’s (1979)

‘genuineness’) rather than a form of authenticity,

deﬁned only in relation to the real world occurrence

of an activity. In other words, for Skehan and Ellis, it

is the reaction of the learner or the research subject

which is key, rather than the fact that a particular

task may have, at some time, been used by native

speakers (possibly in a different context). Guariento

and Morley (2001) have also recently provided a

discussion of task authenticity in broadly similar

terms.

Asecond issue which arises from deﬁnitions

concerns referential tasks. Critics of task-based

approaches (Cook 2000; Seedhouse 1999; Block

2001) attack an exclusive concern with transactional

and referential tasks, i.e., tasks which emphasise

information transmission and exchange (Yule 1997).

It should be clear from the above deﬁnition that there

is no restriction implied which requires tasks to be of

this sort. It may be that many task based studies are

of this type, but there is no requirement that they

should be so on deﬁnitional grounds, and indeed

many research studies use non-referential tasks.

Now that we have explored the contexts which

led to an interest in tasks, as well as the issue of task

deﬁnitions, we turn to exploring different approaches

to researching and using tasks in more detail.

Research oriented approaches to tasks

Given the vitality of the research into tasks, it is

not surprising that a number of different approaches

can be distinguished. We will explore four major

approaches: a psycholinguistic approach to inter-

action; a social interactive approach; a cognitive

perspective; and a concern for structure-focussed

tasks. (See Yule (1997) and Ellis (2000) for other,

complementary reviews of the task literature.) The

section will conclude by examining individual

variables in task research.

Amild warning is appropriate, though, at the

outset. Research which has been conducted tends

to be with adults (and some adolescents), generally

at intermediate proﬁciency levels, and mostly with

English as the target language. Many of the ﬁndings

may well hold up with other ages, other proﬁciency

levels, and other languages. But this cannot be

assumed, and so until wider-ranging research appears,

any claims which are made have to be limited in

nature.

Apsycholinguistic approach to interaction

This represents the ﬁrst major research area to

emerge into task-based instruction (see discussion

above), and has been heavily inﬂuenced by Michael

Long’s (1983, 1989) proposals for the role of

interaction, generally, and particularly with respect

to the negotiation of meaning. Negotiation of

meaning concerns the way learners encounter

communicational difﬁculties while completing tasks,

and how they do something about those difﬁculties.

Long proposes that the interactional adjustments

that learners make to address such difﬁculties serve

to induce their interlocutors to modify the input

they are providing. Even more signiﬁcantly, the

responses that learners receive when meaning is

negotiated in this way delivers feedback to the

learner at the most propitious moment. The feedback

arises when meaning is problematic, and when

the learner is thought to be most receptive (Pica

1994). In addition, it is likely to be personalised,

since, as interactants try to take the communication

Task-based instruction ■

forward, what will happen naturally will be

the provision of useful information on precisely the

area of language that the learner is struggling with.

In earlier work Long (1989) proposed that tasks

which lead to beneﬁcial negotiation of meaning

of this sort are indexed by greater numbers of

comprehension checks, clariﬁcation requests, and

conﬁrmation checks. These conversational moves are

then taken to reﬂect the degree of usefulness of the

interactions concerned. More recently, research in

this tradition has moved to advocate a slightly

different conversational feature, the recast,i.e., where

an interlocutor rephrases something said by a non-

native speaker, and so provides a model and feedback

to the learner when the learner may be most open

to such a contribution (Long, Inagaki & Ortega

1998). See Gass (2002) for a recent review of this

work.

Research in this tradition has shown a number

of effects of task characteristics and task conditions

upon the incidence of negotiation of meaning and

of recasts. Long (1989) proposed that convergent

tasks (i.e., where participants have to agree on an

answer) would produce more negotiation of meaning

than divergent tasks (i.e., where no agreement is

envisaged, as in a discussion). A study by Duff (1986)

explored this possibility, but provided only weakly

supportive results. Pica and Doughty (1985), though,

showed that group and pair based interaction, where

information exchange was required, provided more

conversational modiﬁcation than a teacher-fronted

situation. Results such as these, reviewed in Pica

(1994) and systematised in Pica et al. (1993) suggested

that it is possible to design interactions in order to

produce greater amounts of negotiation.

More recently, this interpretation of interaction

research has switched to focus on recasts, i.e.,

repetitions of a learner’s incorrect utterance, but

with changes made in order to make it correct.

The relevance, as with the Negotiation of Meaning

studies, is the claim that tasks provide an effective

frame for recasting to occur. It is proposed (Long,

Inagaki & Ortega 1998) that this provides negative

feedback which is helpful to the learner’s develop-

ment. Mackey, Gass and McDonough (2000) and

Lyster and Ranta (1997), for example, report signi-

ﬁcant recasting in two classroom based studies, as

do Doughty and Varela (1998), although in this case

the situation was organised speciﬁcally to produce

intensive recasting. Experimental studies, too, have

explored recasts. Long et al. (1998) reported that

recasts were more effective than correct models

in bringing about short-term change in learner

language. This recasting literature has been recently

summarised by Nicholas, Lightbown and Spada

(2001), who propose that recasting is more effective

when a learner has already begun to use a particular

language feature, and where the recasting helps the

learner to make effective discrimination between

alternatives. Nicholas et al. (2001) also propose that

recasts are not equally effective in all areas of language.

To research naturally occurring recasts is to

examine the reactive moves by learners that arise

from conversation during tasks. Some related research

has appeared recently which seems to accept a

similar general framework, but instead takes a more

interventionist approach. For example, Ellis et al.

(2001) have researched the use of precasts, i.e., teacher

or learner anticipations of trouble immediately ahead

(a form of predicting gaps which are relevant).

They argue that precasts are more likely than

recasts to be followed by uptake, i.e., evidence that

the ‘feedback’ which is provided is incorporated

into learner utterances. Shehadeh (2001) makes

similar claims for self-initiated recasting, where the

learner seems aware, spontaneously, of a problem.

Williams (2001) also argues for a stronger connection

between learner-initiated repair and the likelihood

of uptake. Finally, it is worth recalling a slightly

earlier study. Noboyushi and Ellis (1993) argue that

targetted intensive recasting is particularly effective

at producing learning, i.e., evidence that feedback

doesn’t simply occur, but is noticed, recognised for

its potential, and has an impact on the learner’s

developing interlanguage.

The Negotiation of Meaning/Recasting studies

have, though, received some criticism. Aston (1986)

has proposed that tasks which require a lot of

negotiation of meaning irritate learners, with the

result that any potential that negotiation might have

to provide relevant feedback is not realised. Foster

(1998) argues that negotiation of meaning does not

occur in actual classrooms as frequently as might

be expected from the lab-based studies. She also

suggests that such negotiation of meaning as does

occur is primarily lexical, and often accounted for

by particular students who negotiate a great deal

(sufﬁciently to generate statistical signiﬁcance in the

groups of which they are part), while most learners

do not negotiate in this way at all. Lyster (1998; Lyster

&Ranta 1997) criticises the more recent switch

in emphasis towards recasts. He suggests that such

recasts are not particularly frequent in classes; that the

feedback that they provide is not noticed by learners;

and that even when it is noticed it is not recognised

as appropriate to the intended point of language, and

even if it is so noticed, it is not incorporated in the

learner’s own speech.

Asociocultural approach to interaction

Although the negotiation of meaning literature is

centrally concerned with interaction, it is a particular

type of interaction, i.e., what happens when there

is some level of conversational breakdown, and the

impact of feedback at such points for the development

of form.Acontrasting view of interaction is that

taken within sociocultural theory, where researchers

■Task-based instruction

explore how learners co-construct meaning while

engaging in interaction. In this case, there is no

particular concern with negotiation of meaning, in

the previous sense. In contrast, it is assumed that the

interest in a task is to allow participants to shape it to

their own ends and to build meanings collaboratively

that are unpredictable and personal. An excellent

recent overview of such an approach is provided in

the chapters in Lantolf (2000).

In fact, there are different, often overlapping

approaches within this general area. One concerns the

way tasks are reinterpreted by learners, and made to

respond to their individual needs and interests. Duff

(1993), for example, (and see Coughlan & Duff

(1994)) explored three tasks (a discussion, a picture

description, and the retelling of a Cambodian

folk story). She reports considerable variability in

performance on the same task at different meetings,

and it is clear that learner interpretation of task is

amajor inﬂuence on this. In effect, this evidence

questions the feasibility of analysing task qualities

in any sort of static way, and using such analysis as

the basis for predicting consistent dimensions of task

performance. It is clear that other research strategies,

which tend to minimise such interpretations, need to

address this issue.

Adifferent approach, but still within sociocultural

theory, is represented by Swain’s work within the

context of immersion education in Canada. There

is a strong focus on structural development in this

research, but the proposed key to such develop-

ment concerns the potential of different tasks to en-

able language understanding to be scaffolded by parti-

cipants, mutually, through interaction. For example,

Swain and Lapkin (2001) compare dictogloss and

jigsaw tasks for their capacity to engage learners

in collaborative interaction. This research tradition

is less concerned with demonstrating quantitative

differences and instead tends to focus on language-

related episodes (LREs) in learner interactions to

show how each learner may contribute aspects of

language structure that the other cannot, and, as a

result, both learners in (say) pair work would beneﬁt.

Still within sociocultural approaches, another

perspective concerns the nature of interaction

itself. Van Lier and Matsuo (2000), for example,

explored whether interactions vary measurably

in how symmetrical and collaborative they are.

They examined whether interlocutors ratiﬁed one

another’s contributions, whether they responded to

them and developed them, or in contrast, whether

they failed to do these things, with one interlocutor

dominating and controlling the interaction. They

report clear differences between learners on these

indices. Developing this approach, Nakahama, Tyler

and Van Lier (2001) compared performances on a

discussion and an information-gap task. The study

points up the difference between a broader notion

of interaction that arises naturally from sociocultural

theory, and that connected with negotiation-of-

meaning studies. Nakahama et al. (2001) show that, in

contrast to claims for the superiority of information

gap tasks made by the Negotiation of Meaning

literature (Long 1989), in fact the discussion task,

too, provides many learning opportunities, with this

advantage arising from what might be termed the

greater depth of the interaction, and facilitation for

extended turns.

Cognitive perspectives

Tas k r esearchers who have taken a more cognitive

perspective have focussed on the psychological

processes typically engaged in when learners do tasks.

They have explored three main areas: analyses of how

attentional resources are used during task completion;

the inﬂuence of task characteristics on performance;

and the impact of different conditions under which

tasks are completed. There are two contrasting

approaches here, but with many similarities. Skehan

(1998) proposes that attentional resources are limited,

and that to attend to one aspect of performance

(complexity of language, accuracy, ﬂuency) may

well mean that other dimensions suffer. Skehan

and Foster (1997, 2001) argue for the existence

of tradeoffs in performance, such that, typically,

greater ﬂuency may be accompanied by greater

accuracy or greater complexity, but not both.

Robinson (2001, in press), in contrast, advocates two

propositions: (a) that attentional resources are not

limited in the way Skehan and Foster (2001) argue,

butinstead learners can access multiple and non-

competing attentional pools, and (b) that, following

Givon (1985), complexity and accuracy in a task

correlate, since they are each driven by the nature

of functional linguistic demands of the task itself. So

whereas Skehan and Foster argue for ﬂuency being

correlated with either complexity or accuracy (at

best), Robinson argues that ﬂuency contrasts with

complexity and accuracy, which correlate with one

another. The evidence is not decisive, with either of

these interpretations of attention, but tends to support

the limited capacity view. It is clear that more research

is needed.

Both cognitive approaches explore how perform-

ance can be affected by task characteristics and task

conditions. Regarding characteristics, the ﬁndings

seem to be as follows:

Task Inﬂuence upon

Characteristic performance and

research basis

•structured tasks, ⇒clearly greater ﬂuency,

i.e. clear time tendency towards greater

line or macro- accuracy (Foster & Skehan

structure 1996; Skehan & Foster

1997, 1999)

Task-based instruction ■

•familiar infor- ⇒greater ﬂuency and

mation greater accuracy (Foster &

Skehan 1996, Skehan &

Foster 1997)

•outcomes ⇒justiﬁcations lead to mar-

requiring kedly greater complexity

justiﬁcations of language (Skehan &

Foster (1997))

•interactive vs ⇒interactive tasks produce

monologic tasks markedly more accuracy

and complexity, mono-

logic tasks more ﬂuency

(Foster & Skehan 1996,

1999; Skehan & Foster

1997, 1999).

This range of ﬁndings, and the generalisations they

support, indicate that while task choice hardly

guarantees focus on particular aspects of language,

there is some predictability involved. This, in turn,

could potentially link with more effective pedagogic

decision-making.

Researchers have also explored the inﬂuence

of the conditions under which tasks are done,

or the manipulations in conditions available to

experimenters. This has been one of the most active

areas in task research. One line of investigation

concerns the phases which are relevant to using tasks,

i.e., what happens before the task, what during,

and what after. Regarding the ﬁrst of these, the

bulk of the research has been on the role of pre-

task planning. Following early research by Crookes

(1989) and Ellis (1987), which argued for connections

between planning and, respectively, complexity and

ﬂuency (Crookes) and accuracy (Ellis), a number of

studies have tried to establish how task performance

is inﬂuenced by planning. One can now offer

the powerful and robust generalisation that almost

all studies (e.g., Foster & Skehan 1996, 1999;

Mehnert 1998; Ortega 1999; Skehan & Foster 1997,

1999) support a clear inﬂuence of planning on

complexity and ﬂuency: these performance features

are almost always improved when there is planning.

The situation with accuracy is not so clear. Some

studies (e.g., Foster & Skehan 1996; Skehan & Foster

1997; Mehnert 1998) do suggest that accuracy is

raised when there is planning, but other studies

(e.g., Crookes 1989; Ortega 1999; Wigglesworth

1997, 2001) do not support this claim. It is certainly

the case that any accuracy effect is smaller than

the effects for other performance areas. Although it

has been proposed that certain conditions are more

likely to generate accuracy effects (e.g., not giving

learners instructions; planning led by a teacher), using

planning to dependably inﬂuence accuracy remains a

challenge. It may be that on-line planning (Wendel

1997; Yuan & Ellis, in press), i.e., the capacity to

regroup one’s resources and plan while a task is being

done, may be a more consistent correlate of this

performance area.

Another area which has stimulated several studies

is task repetition. An early study (Plough & Gass

1993) suggested that repetition may not be generally

useful. Plough and Gass pointed to negative reactions

on the part of learners required to re-do a task

which had already been completed, and no particular

advantages in terms of their performance. In contrast,

Bygate (1996) has argued strongly for the value

of task repetition. In a series of studies (Bygate

1996, 1999, 2001), he does not report dissatisfaction

on the part of students completing narrative re-

retellings. He also argues that task repetition has

beneﬁcial inﬂuences upon performance, with the

repeated performance producing a more syntactic

engagement as similar events in a narrative are retold,

but with more complex syntax and a greater density

of propositions. Following Levelt (1989), he suggests

that the repeated performance enables greater focus

on formulation and monitoring, as opposed to the

demands of conceptualisation and effortful accessing

of expressions during the ﬁrst completion of the task

(Bygate 1996). In addition, there is clear evidence that

learners are able to access the original formulations

that were used on the ﬁrst telling (even after an

interval of several weeks), and draw on this effectively

on the second telling. Similarly Lynch and McLean

(2001) report on a classroom activity in which

medical specialists doing an English for Academic

Purposes course had to repeat presentations on

posters they had made to different ‘visitors’ to their

poster. An issue concerned whether learners felt they

were learning from the opportunity to repeat. It

appeared to be the case that noticing useful language

in ones interlocutor’s contribution, or being able to

improve one’s own description of the poster varied

from learner to learner, with the more advanced

learners feeling more conﬁdent that they had made

some improvement. Gass et al. (1999) also report

improvement with video-based narrative retellings, as

do Nemeth and Kormos (2001) using argumentation

tasks. In their case, the repeated performance leads to

greater focus on content and more use of supportive

moves to underpin the arguments being advanced.

There has also been research into post-task effects.

Skehan and Foster (1997, 2002) have shown that with

interactive tasks, giving learners a post-task activity

(such as the need to re-do a task publicly after the

task has been done ‘privately’, or the requirement

that learners transcribe one minute of their own task

performance subsequent to the task itself ) leads to

signiﬁcantly greater accuracy. In addition, the trend

towards greater accuracy is stronger as time goes

on −by the second and third weeks of a study,

participants who have been required to engage in

some sort of post-task activity showed signiﬁcantly

greater accuracy than in the ﬁrst week of the study,

suggesting that the channelling of attention selectively

■Task-based instruction

towards accuracy is an inﬂuence which grows in

impact.

Focussed tasks

Many supporters of the use of tasks in language

instruction regard them as vehicles for learners

themselves to set the agenda during interaction,

and as a result, obtain feedback at points of

interlanguage development relevant for them. From

such a viewpoint, to design a task to predispose

the use of a particular structural feature would be

to defeat an important purpose for task use. Yet

precisely this has been advocated by various groups

of researchers. Loschky and Bley-Vroman (1993),

for example, in exploring the relationship between

tasks and particular language structures use the terms

‘natural’, ‘efﬁcient’, and ‘necessary’, reﬂecting tasks

which respectively (i) enable but do not predispose

the use of a particular structure; (ii) are more

effectively conducted if a particular structure is used;

and (iii) force the use of a particular structure. They

advocate the use of the third type of task, proposing

that it offers the advantages of a task-based approach

and also that of systematic, plannable instruction. It

should be noted that the same criteria for ‘taskhood’

should be applied in this case too, so once again,

the focus should be on meaning and outcome. Ellis

(in press) also provides a justiﬁcation for the use of

such tasks, on the grounds that they are more effective

in developing automatic processing and implicit

learning, the former because such processing leads

to a more sustained focus, and the latter because the

greater structural clarity enables learning by induction

to proceed more effectively.

Ellis (in press) distinguishes between three types

of focussed tasks: structure based production tasks;

comprehension tasks; and consciousness-raising tasks.

In the ﬁrst category, Fotos (1998) discussed work

aimed at using tasks with larger classes, while Mackey

(1999) reports on a task designed to elicit question

forms, a task which was successful, but with some

effort on the part of the learners, in leading to

greater productionofquestions. A contrasting study

of this type is that of Samuda (2001), who designed

different tasks to induce (a) the use of modality, and

(b) the ‘there is/there are’ form. She reports that

the tasks were broadly successful in quite naturally

eliciting the language forms artfully built into the

input materials. She also focusses on the role of the

teacher in such tasks, and reports that, in the case

of the more complex area, modality, a signiﬁcant

amount of teacher intervention was needed to wean

learners away from simpler expressions of modal

meaning (‘maybe’, ‘it is possible’) and towards the

use of modal verbs.

Ellis (2001; in press) also discusses comprehen-

sion-based tasks. These include input-enhancement

tasks, such as those used in Doughty (1991),

Jourdenais et al. (1995), and Trahey and White (1993).

In all these tasks, some (selective) feature of the

input is highlighted, on the assumption that implicit

learning processes are thereby triggered. These studies

do generally show positive results on performance.

There are also input processing tasks, generally

associated with the work of Van Patten (1996).

In these, learners are given instruction on how to

process input more effectively, in such a way that they

will go beyond meaning-extraction, and also notice

structural regularities in the input language. Results

of such research are generally positive in terms of

demonstrations of effects, but have received criticism

because it is alleged that the effects are accounted

for by other variables (see the exchange between

Va n P a tten (in press) and De Keyser, Robinson,

Salaberry & Harrington (in press)).

Finally, consciousness-raising tasks are those where

(a) a speciﬁc feature of language itself is part of the

task, and (b) the focus is on explicit learning. Of

this task type, Newton (2001) explored how tasks

may be used to promote vocabulary acquisition,

while Fotos and Ellis (1991) used a focussed task

to teach dative alternation, and reported that the

indirect consciousness-raising approach was broadly

as effective as conventional explicit instruction. Other

studies and reviews (e.g., Fotos 1993, 1994; Sheen

1993) have not been so unequivocally positive. Such

atask-type has also been linked with the issue of level

of conscious awareness on the part of the learner.

Leow (1998), for example, reports a correspondence

between level of awareness and amount of learning.

Individual variables

An obviously relevant set of variables which has had

relatively little attention in the literature concerns

differences between learners. Few would argue that

all learners respond to tasks in the same way −indeed

acentral factor with sociocultural theory is to enable

the individual to interpret tasks in whatever way they

think is appropriate. What is lacking is systematic

research which probes just how learner differences

may impact on tasks. Even so, there have been studies

of gender (Gass & Varonis 1986), of proﬁciency

level (Long & Porter 1985; Yule & McDonald

1990; Wigglesworth 2001) and of interlocutor

familiarity (Plough & Gass 1993), but these have

not tended to be regarded as central to the research

tradition. More recently, though, there have been

two studies in this area which indicate a deeper level

reconceptualisation. Dornyei and Kormos (2001),

in the context of researching motivation, in intact

classrooms, distinguish between what they term high

and low task attitude students. They report, from

correlational evidence, that high task attitude students

seem more affected by task manipulations than do low

task attitude students. Mackey et al.(2002) have ex-

plored the relevance of differences in working

Task-based instruction ■

memory for the capacity to respond to recasting

and feedback in tasks. They report a relationship

between working memory capacity and the noticing

of interlocutor feedback.

These two studies are important, in themselves

and programmatically, because they indicate that

group-based differences in task performance may

disguise even greater differences for some students,

and very small differences for others. In other words,

if we could establish more clearly which individual

differences are relevant for task performance, it

might then be possible to increase the sensitivity

of research designs by conducting condition-seeking

studies (McLaughlin 1980), i.e., those which explore

the consequences of combinations of conditions.

Measuring performance on tasks

One of the interesting features within task-

based research has been the different ways in

which researchers have operationalised and measured

performance (Yule 1997; Skehan 1998; Ellis, in press).

To a c onsiderable extent, the different choices that

investigators have made have reﬂected their theor-

etical positions. The following table clariﬁes this:

Cognitive approaches Fluency

Accuracy

Complexity

Lexical aspects of

performance

Interaction: Negotiation Negotiation of

of meaning meaning measures

•clariﬁcation requests

•conﬁrmation checks

•comprehension checks

•recasts

Interaction: Measures of interactive

Sociocultural theory involvement

Measures of interactive

symmetry

In addition, some investigators have explored the use

of performance ratings (using conventional methods

from language testing, e.g., Wigglesworth 1997,

2001) and other have also used participant ratings

of task difﬁculty. Further, as Robinson (2001) points

out, little use has been made of measures of outcome

fulﬁlment (although see Yule & McDonald 1990;

Yu le & Powers 1994), or of dual-task research designs,

where one might gauge degree of task interference, a

strategy which has been widely used within cognitive

psychology.

Although there are still areas of disagreement

within task research, there has been signiﬁcant

progress in developing better performance measures.

The complexity-accuracy-ﬂuency dimensions of task

performance have been justiﬁed both theoretically

and empirically. Theoretically, the sequence implies

the three stages of change in the underlying

system (i.e., greater complexity, as more complex

interlanguage systems are developed), acquisition of

greater control over the emerging system (i.e., greater

accuracy, as new interlanguage elements are used

not simply haltingly and incorrectly, but instead

with some reduction in error), and development of

performance control, as elements are routinised and

lexicalised (i.e., ﬂuency) (Skehan 1998). In addition,

Skehan and Foster (1997, 2001) provide evidence

from factor analyses indicating how these different

performance areas compete with one another for

limited attentional resources, suggesting that each

needs to be included in a study if any wide-ranging

claims about performance are to be made.

Anumber of researchers have now used measures

in each of these areas. One immediate issue is

whether to use speciﬁc measures (e.g., targetting

accuracy or complexity in a speciﬁc area, such as

the article system, or Pienemann’s developmental

scale (1998)) or to use more generalised measures.

Although earlier researchers (e.g., Crookes 1989)

used speciﬁc measures, research in recent years has

tended to take the latter option, and now a range

of general measures are available. With respect to

complexity, Foster, Tonkyn and Wigglesworth (2000)

argue strongly for the use of what they term the

AS-unit (Assessment of Speech). This, they argue,

is more appropriate for a spoken language context,

and provides a more appropriate measure than T-

units (Hunt 1965) or c-units (Brock 1986), the ﬁrst

of which is more appropriate for written language

and the second of which is not sufﬁciently clearly

deﬁned. Regarding accuracy, most researchers use

ameasure of percentage of error-free clauses, or

errors per 100 words. In both these cases, generalised

measures seem to provide more sensitive measures to

detect treatment effects, even if the value of having

speciﬁcally focussed predictions is thereby sacriﬁced.

Progress has been particularly clear with measures

of ﬂuency and lexical content. Regarding ﬂuency,

it is now increasingly accepted that ﬁner grained

analyses of ﬂuency require separate measures of

(a) silence (breakdown ﬂuency), (b) reformulation,

replacement, false starts, and repetition (repair

ﬂuency), (c) speech rate (e.g., words/syllables per

minute), and (d) automatisation, through measures of

length of run (Koponen & Riggenbach 2000). These

seem to represent different sub-dimensions of ﬂuency

and are needed to give a comprehensive picture of

performance in this area.

The measurement of lexical performance in tasks

has, until recently, been beset with problems. The

conventional measure which is available is the type-

token ratio, i.e., the number of different words in

atext(e.g.,anarrative performance) divided by the

total number of words in the text. Unfortunately, this

measure is heavily inﬂuenced by text length. Given

that most performances by second language learners

■Task-based instruction

doing tasks are necessarily fairly short, this poses

serious problems. Foster (2001) reports consistent

correlations between type-token ratio and text length

of around −.80, so it is clear that uncorrected type-

token ratios are unsafe. Fortunately, Malvern and

Richards (1997, 2002) have offered a statistic, D,

which can be calculated (without contamination

from text length) for texts of variable length. Their

measure is available within the CHILDES Clan suite

of programmes (MacWhinney 2000a, 2000b), and is

likely to enable more effectively measures of lexical

density in the language used within tasks.

Also problematic in the assessment of performance

on tasks is the general notion of interaction. As

we have seen, those persuaded of the importance

of negotiation of meaning tend to rely on indices

such as comprehension checks, recasts and the like.

But it is clear that these are not the whole story in

measuring interaction. It may be that in the future the

sorts of measures developed by Van Lier and Matsuo

(2000), which probe the extent to which interactants

respond to one another’s meanings, develop them

and engage in reasonably balanced (symmetrical)

interactions, will prove more effective at capturing

quality of interaction.

Ta sks and pedagogy

In general, task research has used cross-sectional

research designs, generally of a quantitative nature,

although increasingly with qualitative research com-

ponents. This research may be done under labora-

tory conditions, or it may be located within

intact classes. But in either case, the research

‘intervention’ has been brief, generally involving

no more than two to three weeks, with probably

less than one hour’s intervention in each week.

Researchers have attempted to use these more

controlled conditions to chart the effects of task

characteristics and the conditions under which tasks

are done. The intention with such research is either

to explore questions made signiﬁcant by theory, or to

establish claims which are generalisable to actual

teaching situations (or both). In either case, though,

the research does not reﬂect conventional extended

pedagogic involvement, as would be regarded as

typical by language teachers. In essence, this connects

with the relative paucity of longitudinal research in

second language acquisition.

Despite these qualiﬁcations, some claims can

be made about the relevance of task research

for pedagogy. Generalisations are emerging on the

effects of different task characteristics on aspects

of performance, e.g., the use of structured tasks

to promote accuracy, or tasks based on familiar

information to promote ﬂuency, as reviewed earlier.

Similarly, the research into task conditions, e.g.,

pre-task planning and post-task conditions, does

connect, in a fairly direct manner, with teacher

decision making and classroom practice, promoting

complexity and ﬂuency, in the ﬁrst case, and accuracy,

in the second. Teachers are routinely concerned

with how to organise effective pre-task (cf. pre-

reading, pre-listening) activities, and so planning,

as an example of such an activity, could easily be

incorporated within lesson planning, and can be

assumed to be likely to produce the same sorts of

effects that have been found in the research studies.

Post-task activities are similarly essentially pedagogic

in nature, and, when linked with research ﬁndings,

an interesting basis for generalisation to classrooms.

But these applications of research ﬁndings do

not really make sufﬁcient connection with most

classroom decision making. In that respect, one

can go beyond applications of focussed studies, and

identify other ‘units’ which concern teachers. These

are:

rteaching sequences for an entire class (not just ﬁve

minutes of task work)

rlinked class teaching sequences

rproject work

rextended periods (cf. coursebook series, syllabuses,

schemes of work, etc.).

Proposals in each of these areas are less likely to

be derived from research (which is not to say that

relevant research is not desirable), but grounded in

classroom experience.

The major alternatives regarding class and linked

class sequences come from work by Samuda (2001)

and Willis (1996). Samuda proposes a (long) class-

oriented sequence which follows the stages (a)

input data, (b) operations on input data, and

distinguishes between knowledge-constructing tasks,

i.e., tasks intended to induce learners to pressure their

interlanguage systems to develop new forms, and

knowledge-activating tasks, i.e., tasks which do not

push learners to develop new knowledge, but which

instead promote salience, so that learners are more

likely to mobilise language which they do know, but

otherwise not be so likely to use. Finally, in terms

of general principle, Samuda (2001) clariﬁes a role

for the teacher within task-based work such that the

teacher is present for long periods during the task.

The teacher’s role is then to ‘lead from behind’, i.e.,

to attempt to use the ways learners are engaging

with the task and expressing meanings to provide

relevant assistance with language form when learners

themselves have created a ‘need to mean’. In other

words, the classroom methodology structures the way

in which learners are induced to notice a gap in

output (Swain 1995), and then the teacher supplies

language relevant to the gap which has just been made

salient.

An example of a knowledge-constructing task is

what Samuda terms the ‘things in pockets’ task.

Task-based instruction ■

Learners are provided with some objects supposedly

found in the pocket of a coat left in a plane. Their

task is to speculate on the identity of the owner of

the coat on the basis of these possessions. They are

also provided with a matrix linking the objects with

degrees of probability, and this constitutes the input

data. The task targets modality, both at a simple level

(‘maybe’, ‘perhaps’), a slightly less elementary level (‘it

is possible’), and then the main focus for the task, the

use of modal verbs. Learners are given such a focussed

task because it creates an extended period in which a

‘need to mean’ has been contrived, and in which, as

learners work on the task, the teacher can work with

them, and introduce new forms, to attempt to induce

the learners to allow these particular new forms

to supplant the more restricted forms expressing

modality. The task is completed with learners making

areport, in the form of a poster, such that there is

opportunity for consolidation and reﬂection on the

forms which have just been introduced.

Acontrasting approach to using tasks is advocated

by Willis (1996), who proposes the following

pedagogic sequence:

Pre-task

rintroduction to the topic and task

rexposure to real language (tape recordings of native

speakers completing the same task)

ruse of texts and activities upon those texts

Tas k C y cle

rtask

rplanning

rdrafting and rehearsal

rteacher assistance with language

rreport

Language Focus

ranalysis

rpractice

There are similarities and differences here with the

approach advocated by Samuda (2001). The most

striking difference is that Willis’ methodology for

using tasks does not imply any pre-selection of form.

It is intended that although a need to mean will

be created, the language which is likely to be made

salient in this way will be whatever language learners

see as relevant. Although the pre-task may have an

impact on what language learners perceive as relevant,

essentially the role of the teacher is to react to

whatever language emerges as important, and then

help learners to address the gap which has been

noted. It is also striking that, for Willis, planning

follows rather than precedes the task. More properly,

planning precedes the report phase, i.e., the phase by

which learners should have done something about

any gaps which have been noticed, and should be

trying to mobilise resources so that the report phase

is completed in a manner signiﬁcantly better than the

original task. It is only after the report phase that the

lesson switches to an overt language focus. By this

stage, in other words, the focus on language will have

been ‘earned’ and made salient by all the preceding

activity, and so consolidation and integration of new

forms into an existing interlanguage structure can

be accomplished more effectively. The approach,

essentially, is consistent with Swain’s (1995) proposals

to encourage learners to ‘notice the gap’. What are

most important in Willis’ approach are (a) input

materials that push learners into ‘primed’ areas (cf.

Loschky and Bley-Vroman’s ‘efﬁciency’ condition),

(b) learners are given considerable support by the

teacher after they have noticed whatever gap may have

emerged, and (c) language analysis, systematisation

and consolidation take place after there has been some

interlanguage restructuring.

Willis’ (1996) proposals are for a methodology

which is repeated, i.e., the same approach is used

in different classes or short sequences of classes. But

it is possible to consider larger ‘units’ of work, e.g.,

project work, coursebook series, and syllabus design.

Unfortunately, at this level, there is no direct research

to inform pedagogic decision making, although

the approaches described here are consistent with

descriptions of project work in Fried-Booth (1986)

and Haines (1989). Little can be said save that research

into task characteristics, conditions, and linked class

teaching sequences is relevant, but would need to

be applied with caution (Lightbown 2000). Even so,

it is interesting to see that after something of a gap

following the publication of the Cobuild series in the

late 1980s (Willis & Willis 1988), one or two other

major coursebook series are now incorporating tasks

at more than a token level (see e.g., Cutting Edge

(Cunningham & Moor 1999) and Inside Out (Kay

&Jones (2001)). We will now have to wait and see

in the next few years whether such approaches are

practically and commercially successful, and make

appropriate assumptions about the level of training

on the part of the teachers who use them.

One interesting development, though, has been

more at the methodological level. We saw with

Samuda (2001) that it was important for the teacher

in her study to work with students in developing

clear form-meaning mappings that the learners would

actually use (and that progress was hard-won, with

some persistence required from the teacher). Two

other researchers have explored how teachers can

have an effective role within tasks, while they are

running in the classroom, and without compromising

the naturalness of the task. Lynch (1997) shows

how teachers can avoid a heavy-handed approach to

feedback by ‘nudging’ learners towards the correct

use of forms, i.e., by a process of semi-intervention

■Task-based instruction

(cf. Samuda’s ‘leading from behind’). Drawing on

Swain (1995), Thornbury (1997) explores how

teachers can exploit activities such as dictogloss and

text reconstruction to induce learners to notice gaps

and to restructure underlying interlanguage.

It is clear that one of the reasons why task-

based instruction is not used more widely relates

to the difﬁcult role it implies for the teacher. If

tasks and task completion are the driving force in

class, teaching preparation is nothing like as exact.

The teacher, in other words, has to be prepared for

learners to take interactions in whatever direction

they choose. Then the teacher has to be ready to

provide the unpredictable help that will be required.

This presupposes a broader type of readiness for

almost anything to occur, compared to the more

comfortable ability to prepare for the pre-ordained

structure-of-the-day. Small wonder, then, that many

teachers shy away from this approach.

Critiques of tasks

Over the last decade, there have been interesting

critiques of a task-based approach to instruction,

or of task-based research. Of course, some of the

criticism comes from task researchers and is aimed

at other task researchers! For example, cognitively

oriented researchers do not, generally, work within

anegotiation of meaning framework. Similarly,

sociocultural theorists (e.g., Van Lier & Matsuo

2000) essentially doubt that the conceptualisation of

interaction in other task-based approaches will enable

acquisition to be accounted for.

But other critiques come from outside the task-

based paradigm. Some critiques focus on just one

aspect of a task-based approach, attack it, and seem to

assume that as a result the entire task-based enterprise

is doomed. For example, Sheen (1994) attacks tasks

as if they were still input-dominated, and deriving

their credentials from Krashen’s (1985) work. He

also criticises a small number of studies supportive

of the claim that learners do not particularly learn

errors from one another during tasks. Given the

developments reported above, this critique needs

to be widened and updated if it is to have any

force. Similarly, one of the aspects of Seedhouse’s

critiques (1997, 1999) is that negotiation of meaning

is inadequate as an account of the complexity of

classroom interactional patterns −unproven and

unprovable, as he claims. To say that accounts of

interactional patterns are as yet inadequate and

unproven in not contentious. To assert that a nego-

tiation of meaning approach is unprovable,though,

when little systematic evidence is presented that is rel-

evant to this claim, is excessive, and hardly fair to the

range of studies (unreviewed in his critique) which

have been published within this approach. In any case,

there is still the point that tasks are not simply vehicles

for researchers to explore the relevance of negotia-

tion of meaning −the vitality and diversity of task

research indicates the limitations of Seedhouse’s view.

Seedhouse’s claim about the complexity of

interactional patterns does chime, though, with a

related set of critiques. A number of authors (Cook

2000; Block 2001; and see also Firth & Wagner

(1997)) all claim that task-based research is limited

by its excessive concern for referential tasks, and that

what is missing from such research is the inevitable

social dimension of language use. On occasions

(Cook 2000; Block 2001) the critique is extended

to include the quantitative approach to research that

is used by many researchers. Clearly there is little that

can be said to those who think that systematic, careful

control of variables is impossible or meaningless in

task-based research (as well, probably, as in other

areas of applied linguistics). It is more relevant to

accept that while there has been an emphasis on

referential tasks in task research, the research has not

been exclusively concerned with such task types,

as Cook (2000) himself notes. Undoubtedly the

emphasis reﬂects a belief that extraneous variables are

easier to control with such tasks. One of the reasons

for this is that researchers are aware of Seedhouse’s

point that working on tasks can be face-threatening,

and that referential tasks are less likely to provoke

problems in this regard.

But the crucial points here are ﬁrst that most

(but by no means all) task researchers are concerned

with acquisition, and this does have a cognitive

component: the assumption is that what is being

acquired is an interlanguage system (Kasper 1997).

There is no denial that there is a social reality, that

the expression of meaning and communication are

vital. But the research strategy adopted is that by

focussing on acquisition, research will be viable and

pay dividends. Second, a key issue is that a body of

research is accumulating and that this body of research

can point to generalisations, and ﬁndings, which seem

to have emerged by following conventional research

strategies. In other words, far from quantitative

research in this area being impossible, a range of

ﬁndings have been established which could not easily

have been obtained in any other way. So it would

appear that the participation of human beings in social

encounters does have some predictable outcomes,

and these could only be established through research

with groups of subjects, with conventional statistical

procedures, and through the methods researchers use

to handle threats to internal and external validity

(Porte, in press).

Conclusions

It is hoped that the present review has indicated that

research into task-based instruction and learning, not

to mention practical implementations of tasks within

language teaching, demonstrate considerable vitality.

There are a range of different approaches, often which

Task-based instruction ■

do not indicate complete agreement on all issues.

The vitality of the ﬁeld is almost certainly likely

to beneﬁt from this. In addition, researchers within

the task-based area have made very considerable

methodological progress within the last ﬁfteen years

or so. Standards of research have risen signiﬁcantly.

In particular, methods of measuring performance on

tasks have expanded enormously, while showing signs

of standardisation, where appropriate, to enable cross-

study comparisons. There are signiﬁcant new lines

of research and application emerging on a regular

basis, and it is to be hoped that over the next decade,

the initial promise that the area has shown will be

consolidated, both at a research and an application

level.

References

Aston, G. (1986). Trouble-shooting in interaction with

learners: The more the merrier? Applied Linguistics,7,

128−43.

Block, D. (2001). ‘McCommunication’: A problem in

the frame for SLA. In D. Block & D. Cameron

(Eds.), Globalisation and language teaching,Clevedon, Avon:

Multilingual Matters.

Brock, C. (1986). The effects of referential questions on ESL

classroom discourse. TESOL Quarterly,20,47−59.

Brumﬁt, C. &Johnson, K. (1979). The communicative approach

to language teaching,Oxford University Press.

Bruton, A. (2002). From tasking purposes to purposing tasks.

English Language Teaching Journal,56 (3), 280−88.

Bygate, M. (1996). Effects of task repetition: Appraising the

developing language of learners. In J. Willis & D. Willis

(Eds.).

Bygate, M. (1999). Task as context for the framing, reframing,

and unframing of language. System,27,33−48.

Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure

and control of oral language. In Bygate, Skehan & Swain

(Eds.).

Bygate, M.,Skehan, P. &Swain, M. (2001). (Eds.).

Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching,

and testing,London: Longman.

Cook, G. (2000). Language play, language learning,Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Coughlan, P. &Duff, P. (1994). Same task, different

activities: Analysis of a second language acquisition task

from an activity theory perspective. In J. Lantolf &

G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language

research,Norwood, N. J.: Ablex.

Crookes, G. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variation.

Studies in Second Language Acquisition,11,367−83.

Cunningham, S. &Moor, P. (1999). Cutting edge,London:

Longman.

DeKeyser, R.,Robin s o n, P.,Salaberry, R. &Harringon,

M. (in press). What gets processed in processing instruction?

Acommentary on Bill Van Patten’s ‘update’. Language

Learning.

Dornyei, Z. &Kormo s , J. (2001). The role of individual and

social variables in oral task performance. Language Teaching

Research,4,275−300.

Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make

adifference: Evidence from an empirical study on SL

relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,13,

431−69.

Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive aspects of focus on form. In

P. R o b i n s on (Ed.).

Doughty, C. &Va r e la , E . (1998). Communicative focus on

form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.).

Doughty, C. &Wi lliams, J. (1998a). Focus on form in

classroom second language acquisition,Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Doughty, C. &Wi lliams, J. (1998b). Pedagogic choices in

focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.).

Duff, P. (1986). Another look at interlanguage talk: Taking

task to task. In R. Day (Ed.), Ta l k i n g t o learn,Rowley,Mass.:

Newbury House.

Duff, P. (1993). Tasks and interlanguage performance: An

SLA perspective. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Ta sks and

language learning: Integrating theory and practice,Clevedon,

Avon: Multilingual Matters.

Ellis, R. (1987). Interlanguage variability in narrative

discourse: Style shifting in the use of the past tense. Studies

in Second Language Acquisition,9,12−20.

Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy.

Language Teaching Research,4(3), 193−220.

Ellis, R. (2001). Non-reciprocal tasks, comprehension, and

second language acquisition. In Bygate, Skehan & Swain

(Eds.).

Ellis, R. (in press). Ta sk-based language learning and teaching,

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R.,Basturkmen, H. &Loewen, S. (2001). Preemptive

focus on form in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly,35

(3), 407−32.

Firth, A. &Wag n e r , J . (1997). On discourse, communi-

cation, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research.

Modern Language Journal, 81 (3), 285−300.

Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation

of meaning. Applied Linguistics,19 (1), 1−23.

Foster, P. (2001). Lexical measures in task-based

performance. Paper presented at the AAAL Conference,

Va n c ouver, Canada.

Foster, P. &Skehan, P. (1996). The inﬂuence of planning

on performance in task-based learning. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition,18 (3), 299−324.

Foster, P. &Skehan, P. (1999). The effect of source of

planning and focus of planning on task-based performance.

Language Teaching Research,3(3), 185−214.

Foster, P.,Tonkyn, A. &Wi gglesworth, J. (2000).

Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied

Linguistics,21 (3), 354−75.

Fotos, S. (1993). Consciousness-raising and noticing through

focus on form: Grammar task performance versus formal

instruction. Applied Linguistics,14 (4), 385−407.

Fotos, S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction

and communicative language use through grammar

consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly,28 (2),

323−51.

Fotos, S. &Ellis, R. (1991). Communicating about

grammar: A task-based approach. TESOL Quarterly,25,

605−28.

Fotos, S. (1998). Shifting the focus from forms to form in

the EFL classroom. English Language Teaching Journal,52

(4), 301−07.

Fried-Booth, D. (1986). Project work,Oxford:Oxford

University Press.

Gass, S. (2002). Interactionist perspectives in Second

Language Acquisition. In R. Kaplan (Ed.), Handbook of

applied linguistics,Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gass, S.,Mackey, A.,Alvarez, M. &Fernandez, M. (1999).

The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language

Learning,49 (4), 549−81.

Gass, S. &Va ro n i s , E . (1986). Sex differences in NNS/NNS

interactions. InR.Day(Ed.), Ta lking to learn: Conversation in

second language acquisition,Rowley,Mass.: Newbury House.

Geddes, M. &Sturtridge, G. (1979). Listening links,London:

Heinemann.

■Task-based instruction

Givon, T. (1985). Function, structure, and language

acquisition. In D. Slobin (Ed.), The cross-linguistic study of

language acquisition,Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum,

1005−1028.

Guariento, W. &Morley, J. (2001). Text and task

authenticity in the EFL classroom. English Language Teaching

Journal,55 (4), 347−53.

Haines, S. (1989). Projects for the EFL classroom,London:

Nelson.

Harley, B. &Swain, M. (1984). The interlanguage of

immersion students and its implications for second language

teaching. In A. Davies, C. Criper & A. Howatt (Eds.),

Interlanguage,Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press,

291−311.

Harmer, J. (1983). The practice of communicative language teaching

(1st Edn.), London: Longman.

Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of communicative language teaching

(3rd Edn.), London: Longman.

Hatch, E. (1978). Second language acquisition: A book of readings,

Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

Hunt, K. (1965). Grammar structures written at three grade levels,

Champaign, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English.

Jourdenais,R.,Ota, M.,Stauffer, S.,Boyson, B. &

Doughty, C. (1995). Does textual enhancement promote

noticing? A think-aloud protocal analysis. In R. Schmidt

(Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning,

Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 183−216.

Kasper, G. (1997). ‘A’ stands for acquisition: A response to

Firth and Wagner. Modern Language Journal,81 (3), 307−12.

Kay, S. &Jones, V. (2001). Inside out,London: Heinemann.

Kop onen, M. &Riggenbach, H. (2000). Overview: Varying

perspectives on ﬂuency. In H. Riggenbach (Ed.), Perspectives

on ﬂuency,Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan

Press Robinson.

Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis,London: Longman.

Lantolf, J. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language

learning,Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Leow, R. (1998). Towards operationalising the process of

attention in SLA: Evidence for Tomlin and Villa’s (1994)

ﬁne-grained analysis. Applied Psycholinguistics,19,133−59.

Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lightbown, P. ((2000). Classroom SLA research and second

language teaching. Applied Linguistics,21 (4), 431−62.

Long, M. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker

conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input.

Applied Linguistics,4(2), 126−41.

Long, M. (1985a). Input and second language acquisition

theory. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input and second

language acquisition,Rowley,Mass.: Newbury House.

Long, M. (1985b). A role for instruction in second language

acquisition: Task-based language training. In K. Hyltenstam

&M.Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second

language acquisition,Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters,

77−100.

Long, M. (1989). Task, group, and task-group interaction.

University of Hawai’i Working Papers in English as a Second

Language,8(2), 1−26.

Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language

teaching methdology. In K. De Bot, R. Ginsbert &

C. Kramsch(Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural

perspective,Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 39−52.

Long, M.,Inagaki, S. &Ortega, L. (1998). The role of

implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in

Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal,82,357−71.

Long, M. &Porter, P. (1985). Group work, interlanguage

talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly,

19,207−28.

Long, M. &Robin s o n, P. (1998). Focus on form: theory,

research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.),

Focus on form in classroom SLA,Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Loschky, L. &Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-

based methodology. In Gass & Crookes (1993b).

Lynch , T. (1997). Nudge, nudge: Teacher interventions in

task-based learner talk. English Language Teaching Journal,

51 (4), 317−25.

Lynch , T. (2001). Seeing what they meant: Transcribing as a

route to noticing. English Language Teaching Journal,55 (2),

124−32.

Lynch , T. &McLean, J. (2001). ‘A case of exercising’: Effects

of immediate task repetition on learners’ performance. In

Bygate, Skehan & Swain (Eds.).

Lyst er, R . (1998). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2

classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,

20,51−81.

Lyst er, R . &Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and

learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative

classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,19 (1),

37−66.

Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language

development: An empirical study of question formation

in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,21 (4),

551−88.

Mackey, A.,Gass, S. &McDonough, K. (2000). Do learners

recognize implicit negative feedback as feedback? Studies in

Second Language Acquisition,22 (4), 471−97.

Mackey, A.,Philp, J.,Egi, T.,Fujii, A. &Tat su m i , T.

(in press). Individual differences in working memory,

noticing of interactional feedback, and L2 development. In

P. R o b i n s on (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed second

language acquisition,Amsterdam: Benjamins.

MacWhinney, B. (2000a). The CHILDES Project: Tools for

analysing talk: Volume 1: Transcription format and programs

(3rd Edn.). Mahway, N. J.: Erlbaum.

MacWhinney, B. (2000b). The CHILDES Project: Tools for

analysing talk: Volume 2: The Database (3rd Edn.). Mahway,

N. J.: Erlbaum.

Malvern, D. &Richards, B. J. (1997). A new measure of

lexical diversity. In A. Ryan & A. Wray (Eds.), Evolving

models of language,Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.

Malvern, D. &Richards, B. J. (2002). Investigating

accommodation in language proﬁciency interviews using a

new measure of lexical diversity. Language Testing,19 (1),

85−104.

McLaughlin, B. (1980). Theory and research in second

language learning: An emerging paradigm. Language

Learning,30,331−50.

Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time

for planning on second language performance. Studies in

Second Language Acquisition,20,83−108.

Mitchell, R. &Johnstone, R. (1986). The routinisation of

‘communicative’ methodology. In C. Brumﬁt (Ed.), The

practice of communicative teaching,Oxford: Pergamon.

Morrow, K. (1977). Te chniques of evaluation for a notional

syllabus, Centre for Applied Language Studies: University

of Reading.

Morrow, K. (1979). Communicative language testing:

Revolution or evolution. In C. J. Brumﬁt & K. Johnson

(Eds.).

Nakahama, Y.,Ty l e r , A . &Va n L i e r , L . (2001). Negotiation

of meaning in conversational and information gap activities:

Acomparative discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly,35 (3),

377−405.

Nemeth, N. &Kormo s , J. (2001). Pragmatic aspects of task

performance: The case of argumentation. Language Teaching

Research,5(3), 213−40.

Newton, J. (2001). Options for vocabulary learning through

communication tasks. English Language Teaching Journal,55

(1), 30−37.

Task-based instruction ■

Nicholas, H.,Lightbown, P. &Spada, N. (2001). Recasts

as feedback to language learners. Language Learning,51 (4),

719−58.

Nobuyushi, J. &Ellis, R. (1993). Focussed communication

tasks and second language acquisition. English Language

Te a c h i n g Journal,47 (3), 203−10.

Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative

classroom,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral

performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,21,

109−48.

Pica, T. &Doughty, C. (1985). Input and interaction in

the communicative language classroom: A comparison

of teacher-fronted and group activities. In S. Gass &

C. Madden (Eds.), Input and second language acquisition,

Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.

Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal

about second language learning, conditions, processes,

outcomes? Language Learning,44,493−527.

Pica, T.,Kanagy, R. &Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and

using communicative tasks for second language instruction.

In Gass & Crookes (1993b).

Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second

language development: Processability theory,Amsterdam: John

Benjamins.

Plough, I. &Gass, S. (1993). Interlocutor and task

familiarity: Effect on interactional structure. In Gass &

Crookes (1993b).

Porte, G. (in press). Appraising research in second language

learning,Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Prabhu,N.S.(1987). Second language pedagogy,Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Robin s o n, P. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive load, and

syllabus design. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second

language instruction,Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Robin s o n, P. (2002) Attention and memory during SLA. In

C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), Handbook of research in second

language acquisition,Oxford: Blackwell.

Rub dy, R . (1998). Key concepts in ELT: Task. English

Language Teaching Journal,52 (3), 264−65.

Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationships between form and

meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher.

In Bygate, Skehan & Swain (Eds.).

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second

language learning. Applied Linguistics,11,17−46.

Seedhouse, P. (1997). Combining form and meaning. English

Language Teaching Journal,51 (4), 336−44.

Seedhouse, P. (1999). Task-based interaction. English

Language Teaching Journal,53 (3), 149−56.

Sheen, R. (1993). Double standards in research selection

and evaluation: The case of comparison of methods,

instruction, and task work. RELC Journal,24 (2), 1−28.

Sheen, R. (1994). A critical analysis of the advocacy of the

task-based syllabus. TESOL Quarterly,28 (1), 127−51.

Sheen, R. (2002). ‘Focus on form’ and ‘focus on forms’.

English Language Teaching Journal,56 (3), 303−05.

Shehadeh, A. (2001). Self and other initiated modiﬁed output

during task-based interaction. TESOL Quarterly,35 (3),

433−57.

Skehan, P. (1998). Acognitive approach to language learning,

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Skehan, P. &Foster, P. (1997). The inﬂuence of planning

and post-task activities on accuracy and complexity

in task based learning. Language Teaching Research,1(3).

Skehan, P. &Foster, P. (1999). The inﬂuence of task structure

and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language

Learning,49 (1), 93−120.

Skehan, P. &Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In

P. R o b i n s on (Ed.).

Skehan, P. &Foster, P. (2002, ms). The effects of post-

task activities on the accuracy of language during task

performance. King’s College, London.

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second

language learning. In G. Cook & Seidlehofer (Eds.),

Principle and practice in applied linguistics,Oxford:Oxford

University Press, 245−56.

Swain, M. &Lapkin, S. (1982). Evaluating bilingual education:

ACanadian case study,Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual

Matters.

Swain, M. &Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through

collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In Bygate,

Skehan & Swain (Eds.).

Thornbury, S. (1997). Reformulation and reconstruction:

Tasks that promote ‘noticing’. English Language Teaching

Journal,51 (4), 326−35.

Trah ey, M . &Wh i t e , L . (1993). Positive evidence in the

second language classroom. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition,15 (2), 181−204.

Va n L i e r , L . &Matsuo, N. (2000). Varieties of conversational

experience: Looking for learning opportunities. Applied

Language Learning,11,(2),265−87.

Va n Pa t te n , B . (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction,

New York: Ablex.

Va n Pa t t e n, B . (in press). Processing instruction: An update.

Language Learning.

We ndel, J. (1997). Planning and second language narrative

production, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple

University, Japan.

We sc h e , M . &Skehan, P. (2002). Communicative teaching,

content-based instruction, and task-based learning. In

R. Kaplan (Ed.), Handbook of applied linguistics,Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Whi te, R. (1988). The ELT curriculum,Oxford: Blackwell.

Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Te aching language as communication,

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Widdowson, H. G. (1979). Explorations in applied linguistics,

Vol. 2 ,Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wigglesworth, J. (1997). An investigation of planning time

and proﬁciency level on oral test discourse. Language Testing,

14 (1), 85−106.

Wigglesworth, J. (2001). Inﬂuences on performance in task-

based oral assessments. In Bygate, Skehan & Swain (Eds.).

Williams, J. (2001). Learner-generated attention to form.

Language Learning,51,303−46.

Willis, J. (1996). Aframework for task-based learning,London:

Longman.

Willis, D. &Willis, J. (1988). COBUILD Book 1,London:

Collins.

Yua n, F. &Ellis, R. (in press). The effects of pre-task planning

and on-line planning on ﬂuency, accuracy, and complexity

in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics,24,1.

Yul e , G. (1997). Referential communication tasks,NewYork:

Erlbaum.

Yul e , G. &McDonald, D. (1990). Resolving referential

conﬂicts in L2 interaction: The effect of proﬁciency and

interactive role. Language Learning,40,539−56.

Yul e , G. &Powers, M. (1994). Investigating the

communicative outcomes of task-based interaction. System,

22 (1), 81−91.

Research on the Application of Task-Based Language Teaching in Integrated English Classroom Instruction

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2025

Yanhui Chen

Disfluency doesn’t happen in isolation: Exploring how individual disfluency features co-occur in L2 speaking performances

Article

Full-text available

May 2025
STUD SECOND LANG ACQ

The construct of second language (L2) utterance fluency is typically operationalized through various individual temporal features. However, in natural speech, fluency (or disfluency) is often characterized by the clustering of multiple temporal features, collectively revealing the speaker’s effort in speech production or disfluency recovery. In this study, we explore the co-occurrence patterns of disfluency features in L2 speech and their associations with speakers’ L2 oral proficiency. We initially segmented all speech samples into analysis of speech (AS)-units. Within each AS-unit, six individual fluency features were manually coded, standardized, and subsequently subjected to a hierarchical-based k -means cluster analysis to examine their co-occurrence patterns. The results revealed four distinct disfluency clusters. A subsequent qualitative analysis of disfluencies in each cluster revealed distinct distributional patterns, disfluency makeup, and communicative functions. Additionally, the proportions of different disfluency clusters were significantly influenced by speakers’ proficiency level, first language background, and their interaction. These findings carry implications for L2 speaking research in general, shedding light on the intricate nature of speech fluency and presenting an alternative approach to the operationalization of this multidimensional construct.

The Evolution of Twentieth Century ESP Syllabus Design: A Critical Review.

Article

Apr 2025

Jabbar Al Muzzamil Fareen

Applying Corpus-Based Approach to the Teaching of Grammar in an EFL Context: Effects on Students’ Grammatical Awareness, Writing Accuracy and Perceptions

Article

Mar 2025

Despite the immense interest in corpus-based instruction in English language teaching, the role of analyzing online corpus platform has not been extensively recognized, especially in Ethiopian higher education EFL contexts. Scholars believe that providing authentic contexts for language learning through a corpus-based approach is beneficial for EFL learners, particularly regarding grammatical awareness and accuracy in writing. This study examined the effect of corpus-based grammar instruction on EFL students‘ grammatical awareness and writing accuracy. It further explored the perception of students toward the instruction. A mixed-method research approach and a quasi-experimental research design were employed. A total of 86 first-year undergraduate university students in two classes were selected using a convenient sampling technique. Among them, 42 students were assigned to the experimental group, and exposed to corpus online data, and 44 to the comparison group using a random assignment. Data were gathered through tests, reflective journals, and interviews. Multivariate Analysis of Variance was used to observe the statistical differences between the control and the experimental groups in their grammatical awareness and writing accuracy, while the qualitative data was analyzed thematically. The results revealed that corpus-based grammar instruction had a significant effect on students‘ grammatical awareness (η²p = 0.422, p < .05) and writing accuracy (η²p=0.671, p <.05). Furthermore, results of the delayed post-test showed that corpus-based grammar instruction had a significant long-term effect on students‘ grammatical awareness (η²p = 0.491, p < .05) and writing accuracy (η²p = 0.378, p <.05), respectively. Overall, students in the experimental group significantly outperformed the control group (η²p = 0.739, p <.05). Finally, data obtained through reflective journals and semi-structured interviews indicated that students who received corpus-based grammar instruction felt positively about the instruction. The findings show that corpus-based approach is a valuable grammar instruction for enhancing learners‘ grammatical awareness and writing accuracy. Additionally, the positive feelings about this instructional method highlight the need for its incorporation in an EFL context. Keywords: corpus-based grammar instruction; grammatical awareness; learners‘ perceptions; writing accuracy

Enhancing EFL Oral Production through Mobile-Assisted Task-Based Language Teaching: A Study in Effectiveness

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2025

Aim/Purpose: This study examines the effects of the mobile-assisted task-based language teaching (M-TBLT) approach on EFL learners’ oral production. It evaluates three key second language acquisition measures: complexity (syntactic and lexical), accuracy (error-free clauses and correct verb forms), and fluency (unpruned and pruned speech rates). Additionally, it explores learners’ perceptions of the approach to gain deeper insights into its effectiveness. Background: Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) provides a communicative framework but often faces challenges such as insufficient oral practice, delayed feedback, and limited authenticity. Mobile-assisted language learning (MALL), with its flexibility and real-time interaction, offers potential solutions. However, empirical research integrating MALL with TBLT in oral English instruction remains scarce. This study introduces a structured six-step speaking instruction model to assess the impact of M-TBLT on learners' oral performance. Methodology: A quasi-experimental pretest-posttest control group design was employed. Participants were university students from two intact speaking classes in Hebei, China. The intervention incorporated two mobile applications—WeChat and Liulishuo—within a structured six-step speaking instruction model. Data collection combined quantitative measures (pretest-posttest assessments) with qualitative insights from interviews and a teacher journal. Contribution: This study fills a research gap by providing empirical evidence on the integration of mobile applications with TBLT in oral English instruction. Unlike existing studies that focus on spontaneous and unstructured speaking activities, this research integrates a well-sequenced instructional model. Findings contribute to both theoretical discussions and practical applications in mobile-assisted language learning. Findings: Results indicate that M-TBLT significantly improved students’ speaking complexity (dependent clauses per T-unit), accuracy (error-free clauses and correct verb forms), and fluency (unpruned and pruned speech rates). However, no significant improvement was observed in lexical complexity (mean segmental type-token ratio). Qualitative findings reveal that participants had positive perceptions of M-TBLT, appreciating mobile affordances (ease of use, synchronous/asynchronous communication, repetition, instant feedback, and authenticity) and educational benefits (increased speaking practice and learning autonomy). Students particularly valued WeChat’s voice recording and group functions, as well as Liulishuo’s automatic speech recognition and shadowing features. Recommendations for Practitioners: The structured speaking-instruction model offers educators a practical framework for implementing M-TBLT, enhancing both instructional design and students’ speaking performance. Recommendation for Researchers: This study provides empirical support for M-TBLT in EFL settings. Researchers may explore its application in diverse linguistic and cultural contexts and examine additional instructional variables. Impact on Society: These findings benefit educators, researchers, and mobile technology developers, encouraging collaboration in advancing mobile-assisted task-based learning. Future Research: Further research could investigate M-TBLT in varied learning environments, incorporate additional performance measures, and assess new mobile-assisted speaking tools to enhance task-based learning.

The Impact of Foreign Language Anxiety on the Utterance Fluency of International Students in the UK: Does the Presence of an Audience Matter?

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2025

Jasrael Stokes

Foreign language anxiety (FLA) can have a detrimental impact on language production, which can have dire consequences for students completing a degree in a language other than their mother tongue. Studies have shown speakers to cope with FLA by using time-gaining mechanisms, manifesting in utterance disfluencies. Research exploring the mechanisms in which FLA impacts oral fluency measures is limited particularly among learners completing a degree abroad immersed in the target language, where FLA can impact life both inside and outside of the classroom. The current study investigated the impact of FLA on the English utterance fluency of international students undertaking a degree in the UK and examined how the presence of native-speaker listeners affected this relationship. After the completion of questionnaires regarding FLA, the participants took part in an online Zoom call and completed a monologue-style speaking task. They were randomly allocated to either a control condition or an experimental condition, which had four native-speaker listeners in the audience. Speech samples for the speaking task were then analyzed for utterance fluency variables. The results showed that the participants scoring higher on FLA produced a significantly higher percentage of utterance disfluencies while speaking. Contrary to expectations, the participants allocated to the control condition were no less anxious than participants in the experimental condition, indicating possibly high FLA merely due to the requirement of speaking. The findings of this study provide important implications for educators in understanding how FLA may impact students’ utterance fluency when required to speak in class.

How a processability perspective frames the potential of tasks in instructed second language acquisition

Chapter

Apr 2025

Anke Lenzing

First launched in 2005, the biennial International Conferences on Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) have become an established event for a broad range of participants, and a key feature of the conferences has been the invited plenary (keynote) addresses. This edited volume brings together a selection of plenaries given at conferences between 2015 and 2023, and exemplifies the contributions being made by prominent and internationally recognised TBLT scholars on a variety of issues pertinent to TBLT theory and practice. The volume is framed around how the horizon of TBLT has broadened over the past decade, and how the plenaries presented during this past decade have helped to take our knowledge and understanding of TBLT further. This volume will be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders, including teachers, researchers and postgraduate students, who would like to gain an overview of key dimensions of the field in the last decade.

Intrinsic motivational regulation and writing performance in online second language learning classrooms: a time series analysis study

Article

May 2025
Comput Assist Lang Learn

Li Dong

The Study of EFL Learners’ Oral Language Development

Book

Apr 2025

Hanjing Yu

FOCUS ON FORM IN PEER COLLABORATIVE DIALOGUES IN AN FOCUS ON FORM IN PEER COLLABORATIVE DIALOGUES IN AN OMANI EFL CONTEXT OMANI EFL CONTEXT Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

Thesis

Full-text available

Jan 2023

It is well established that classroom interaction and peer learning are essential aspects of the learning process. Thus, it is crucial to incorporate classroom peer interaction into second language learning situations. Drawing on sociocultural theory (SCT), the present study explored students’ focus on form while collaboratively completing pair/group activities and investigated the students’ and teacher’s perceptions of and attitudes towards focusing on the formal properties of the language during peer interaction in their regular English lessons. The research data were collected quantitatively and qualitatively using the following instruments: students’ recorded audio dialogues, a students’ survey, and a teacher’s interview. One English language teacher and 22 Grade 7 learners who were studying English as a foreign language (EFL) at a basic education school in the Sultanate of Oman participated in ten pair/group collaborative tasks. The students’ collaborative dialogues (CDs) resulted in 40 audio recordings that were quantitatively analyzed for language-related episodes (LREs). The findings showed that the students generated 152 LREs in 140 minutes. These LREs were analyzed according to Shehadeh’s (2001) model. The findings revealed that the students produced more phonological LREs (76.3%) than morphosyntactic LREs (13.8%) or lexical LREs (9.9%). Other-initiated LREs (53.9%) were slightly higher than self-initiated LREs (46.1%). The students were able to correctly resolve most of the LREs with 77% of the episodes correctly resolved in comparison to 21.7% of the episodes being incorrectly resolved and only 1.3% left unresolved, while there were more comprehension signals (80.3%) in the LREs than continuation moves (19.7%). The findings concerning the students’ perceptions towards focusing their attention on the formal properties of the language while being engaged in pair and group activities showed their overall positive attitudes toward CDs. The students were able to offer help to each other and contribute to the overall language improvement, particularly in pronouncing the English words correctly. Thus, they preferred to continue working on CDs in the future and suggested arranging the groups differently and balancing the use of individual, pair, and group work. Similarly, the teacher expressed her positive attitude towards implementing CDs in her teaching because she believed that CDs teach students to cooperate and learn from one another. However, she viii was concerned about the collaborative activities’ time allocation, some students’ dominance, and silent learners. The findings of the present study emphasize that EFL learners can identify different linguistic problems, and address and resolve them while they are engaged in peer CDs. The findings further support the link between social interaction and second/foreign language (L2) learning since students’ collaboration and peer interaction result in learning the language, as well as in the co-construction of knowledge. It is recommended that EFL educators promote peer interaction in their classes by providing their learners with the necessary scaffolding and support for a metalinguistic talk in L2 via clear instructions and guided pre-task training on CDs.

Does textual enhancement promote noticing? A think-aloud protocol analysis

Chapter

Full-text available

Jan 1995

One of the theoretical rationales for focus on form is the notion that second language (L2) learning requires noticing of what is to be learned. Various techniques of input enhancement have been developed with the hope that they promote noticing of target forms. While their effectiveness has been evaluated in terms of subsequent acquisition of the target forms, few attempts have been made to investigate whether enhanced input is processed differently by learners. The purpose of this study was to determine whether one input enhancement technique — textual modification — can make L2 forms more noticeable and affect learner on-line processing of forms. In this study, native speakers of English in a second semester Spanish class at Georgetown University were assigned to enhancement and comparison groups. Participants in the enhancement group received a sample text in Spanish with all preterit and imperfect verb forms highlighted; participants in the comparison group received the same text with no typographical modification. Think-aloud protocols were collected during a subsequent task in which participants wrote a picture-based narrative similar to that presented in the sample text. Analysis of the data revealed that enhancement participants’ protocols contained more episodes related to selection and conjugation of preterit and imperfect verbs than did those of the comparison participants. Enhancement participants also produced more target features in their written production. The results indicate that textual enhancement promotes noticing of target L2 form and has an effect on learners’ subsequent output.

Communicative Language Testing

Chapter

Jan 2018

Christopher K. Morrow

Communicative language testing was a movement to enhance the validity of language tests by incorporating authentic materials and activities based on predictions of the testees' target language use. This direct, holistic style of testing encompassed far more than structural accuracy in its scope since it sought to measure various types of appropriateness relative to social, cultural, and pragmatic norms. With its frequent use of longer tasks and free production activities, this style of testing often challenged raters to make complex decisions about competing features in test data. In addition, it prompted detailed investigations about the suitability of various types of task demands and conditions relative to the future needs and goals of testees. Although communicative methods and principles departed significantly from well‐established psychometric forms of testing, they have been gradually incorporated into many major testing systems.

Language Processing and Second Language Development: Processability theory

Book

Jul 1998

Manfred Pienemann

This book marks a new development in the field of second language acquisition research. It explores the way in which language processing mechanisms shape the course of language development. Language Processing and Second Language Development thus adds one major psychological component to the search for a theory of second language acquisition. The core of the book is Pienemann’s Processability Theory which spells out which second language forms are processable at which developmental stage. The theory is based on recent research into language processing and is formalised within Lexical-Functional Grammar. The predictions of the theory are applied to the second language development of English, German, Japanese and Swedish. The theory is also tested in on-line experiments. In addition, Processability Theory has major implications for interlanguage variation (including task variation) and age-related differences in language acquisition. All of these issues are explored from a processing perspective with theoretical and empirical rigor.

HOW DO LEARNERS PERCEIVE INTERACTIONAL FEEDBACK?

Article

Dec 2000

Theoretical claims about the benefits of conversational interaction have been made by Gass (1997), Long (1996), Pica (1994), and others. The Interaction Hypothesis suggests that negotiated interaction can facilitate SLA and that one reason for this could be that, during interaction, learners may receive feedback on their utterances. An interesting issue, which has challenged interactional research, concerns how learners perceive feedback and whether their perceptions affect their subsequent L2 development. The present research addresses the first of these issues–learners' perceptions about interactional feedback. The study, involving 10 learners of English as a second language and 7 learners of Italian as a foreign language, explores learners' perceptions about feedback provided to them through task-based dyadic interaction. Learners received feedback focused on a range of morphosyntactic, lexical, and phonological forms. After completing the tasks, learners watched videotapes of their previous interactions and were asked to introspect about their thoughts at the time the original interactions were in progress. The results showed that learners were relatively accurate in their perceptions about lexical, semantic, and phonological feedback. However, morphosyntactic feedback was generally not perceived as such. Furthermore, the nature as well as the content of the feedback may have affected learners' perceptions.

On discourse, communication and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research

Article

Jan 1997

Seeing what they meant: transcribing as a route to noticing

Article

Apr 2001

T Lynch

This paper describes a reflective noticing activity in which pairs of adult learners of English for Academic Purposes transcribed their own performances of a routine classroom speaking task. Working collaboratively, they then discussed and edited the transcripts, making a large number of changes, which were overwhelmingly for the better. These edited transcripts were passed on to the teacher, who made further corrections and reformulations, and then discussed the changes with the learners. Analysis of the process and product of these cycles of work suggests that collaborative transcribing and editing can encourage learners to focus on form in their output in a relatively natural way. It also underlines the role of the teacher in this sort of post-task intervention, especially in the area of vocabulary.

Options for vocabulary learning through communication tasks

Article

Jan 2001

Jonathan Mark Newton

In a task-based approach to learning, learners will often meet new vocabulary 'in passing', as they pursue communicative goals. This paper argues that such encounters can be turned to the learners' advantage, and that rather than remove difficult words, teachers should consider a number of cooperative options for exposing learners to new words during task-based interaction. The article examines data from a number of classroom tasks where learners had to deal with new words during task performance without access to a dictionary or teacher's intervention. The results suggest not only that rich language use resulted from negotiating new words, but that the meaning of many of these words was retained in the days after the task performance. The paper concludes by considering a number of post-task options for reinforcing vocabulary learning.

Cognition and tasks

Article