Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of a focus on form. In Robinson, P., ed. Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., and Lambert, C. (2020). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Robinson, P., ed. (2011). Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Robinson, P. (2015). The Cognition Hypothesis, second language task demands, and the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In Bygate, M., ed. Domains and directions in the development of TBLT. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 87–122.Google Scholar

Skehan, P. (2015). Limited attentional capacity and cognition: Two hypotheses regarding second language performance on tasks. In Bygate, M, ed. Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the International Conference. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 123–55.Google Scholar

Skehan, P. (2016). Tasks vs. conditions: Two perspectives on task research and its implications for pedagogy. In A. Mackey, ed. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 34–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ahmadian, M. J. (2012a). The relationship between working memory capacity and L2 oral performance under task-based careful online planning condition. TESOL Quarterly, 46(1), 165–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ahmadian, M. J. (2012b). The effects of guided careful online planning on complexity, accuracy, and fluency in intermediate EFL learners’ oral production: The case of English articles. Language Teaching Research, 16, 129–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ahmadian, M. and Tavakoli, M. (2014). Investigating what learners do and monitor under careful online planning conditions. Canadian Modern Language Review, 70(1), 50–75.Google Scholar

Anderson, J. R. (1995). Learning and memory. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar

Breen, M. (1984). Process syllabus for the language classroom. In Brumfit, C. J., ed. General English syllabus design. ELT Document 118. Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 47–60.Google Scholar

Bui, G., Skehan, P., and Wang, Z. (2018). Task condition effects on advanced-level foreign language performance. In Malovrh, P. and Benati, A., eds. Handbook of advanced proficiency in second language acquisition. New York: Wiley, pp. 219–37.Google Scholar

Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., and Swain, M., eds. Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing. Harlow: Longman, pp. 23–48.Google Scholar

Bygate, M. (2018). Learning language through task repetition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crookes, G. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 367–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

De Bot, K. (1992). A bilingual production model: Levelt’s “speaking ” model adapted. Applied Linguistics, 13, 1–24.Google Scholar

DeKeyser, R. (2020). Skill acquisition theory. In VanPatten, B., Keating, G. D., and Wulff, S., eds. Theories in second language acquisition. New York: Routledge, pp. 83–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of a focus on form. In Robinson, P., ed. Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 206–57.Google Scholar

Ellis, N. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143–88.Google Scholar

Ellis, N. (2005). At the Interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 305–52.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ellis, R., ed. (2005a). Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ellis, R. (2005b). Planning and task-based performance: Theory and research. In Ellis, R., ed. Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3–36.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2006). Modelling learning difficulty and second language proficiency: The differential contributions of implicit and explicit knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 431–63.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. and Shintani, N. (2014). Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., and Lambert, C. (2020). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Ellis, R. and Yuan, F. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy on second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(1), 59–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ellis, R. and Yuan, F. (2005). The effect of careful within-task planning on oral and written task performance. In Ellis, R., ed. Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 167–92.Google Scholar

Faretta-Stuttenberg, M. and Morgan-Short, K. (2018). The interplay of individual differences and context of learning in behavioural and neurocognitive second language development. Second Language Research, 34(1), 67–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Foster, P. and Skehan, P. (2012). Complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis in task-based performance: A synthesis of the Ealing research. In Housen, A., Kuiken, F., and Vedder, I., eds. Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 199–220.Google Scholar

Foster, P. and Skehan, P. (2013) The effects of post-task activities on the accuracy of language during task performance. Canadian Modern Language Review, 69, 249–73.Google Scholar

Gilabert, R. (2007). The simultaneous manipulation of task complexity along planning time and [+/- here-and-now] effects on L2 performance. In Garcia-Mayo, M. d. P., ed. Investigating tasks in formal language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 44–68.Google Scholar

Givon, T. (1985). Function, structure, and language acquisition. In Slobin, D., ed. The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition. Vol. 1. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 1008–25.Google Scholar

Han, Z. and Finneran, R. (2013). Re-engaging the interface debate: Strong, weak, or none at all? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24(3), 370–89.Google Scholar

Housen, A. and Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 461–73.Google Scholar

Housen, F., Kuiken, F., and Vedder, I. (2012). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Investigating complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Jackson, D. O. and Suethanapornkul, S. (2013). The Cognition Hypothesis: A synthesis and meta-analysis of research on second language task complexity. Language Learning, 63(2), 330–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kim, Y. (2013). Effects of pre-task modelling on attention to form and question development. TESOL Quarterly, 47(1), 8–35.Google Scholar

Kim, Y. and McDonough, K. (2011). Using pretask modelling to encourage collaborative learning opportunities. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 183–99.Google Scholar

Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Kormos, J. (2011). Speech production and the Cognition Hypothesis. In Robinson, P., ed. Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 39–60.Google Scholar

Lambert, C., Kormos, J., and Minn, D. (2016). Task repetition and second language speech processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 1–30.Google Scholar

Levelt, W. J. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Li, Q. (2014). Get it right in the end: The effects of post-task transcribing on learners’ oral performance. In Skehan, P., ed. Processing perspectives on task performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 129–54.Google Scholar

Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Lynch, T. (2001). Seeing what they meant: Transcribing as a route to noticing. English Language Teaching Journal, 55, 124–32.Google Scholar

Lynch, T. (2007). Learning from the transcripts of an oral communication task. English Language Teaching Journal, 61, 311–20.Google Scholar

Lynch, T. and Maclean, J. (2001). A case of exercising: Effects of immediate task repetition on learners’ performance. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., and Swain, M., eds. Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 141–62.Google Scholar

Mackey, A. (2012). Input, interaction, and corrective feedback in L2 learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Malicka, A. and Sasayama, S. (April, 2017). The importance of learning from the accumulated knowledge: Findings from a research synthesis on task complexity. Paper presented at the 7th Biennial International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching, Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar

Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20: 52–83.Google Scholar

Ortega, L. (2005). What do learners plan? Learner-driven attention to form during pre-task planning. In Ellis, R., ed. Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 77–109.Google Scholar

Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar

Pang, F. and Skehan, P. (2014). Self-reported planning behaviour and second language performance in narrative retelling. In Skehan, P., ed. Processing perspectives on task performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 95–128.Google Scholar

Paradis, M. (2009). Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Révész, A. (2011). Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions, and individual differences: A classroom-based study. Modern Language Journal, 95, 162–81.Google Scholar

Robinson, P. (2008). The Cognition Hypothesis. Presentation at the Task-Based Learning and Teaching Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii.Google Scholar

Robinson, P. (2011a), ed. Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Robinson, P. (2011b). Second language task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In P. Robinson, ed. Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3–38.Google Scholar

Robinson, P. (2015). The Cognition Hypothesis, second language task demands, and the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In Bygate, M., ed. Domains and directions in the development of TBLT. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 87–122.Google Scholar

Robinson, P. and Ellis, N. (2008). Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., and Swain, M., eds. Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing. Harlow: Longman, pp. 119–40.Google Scholar

Sanders, A. (1998). Elements of human performance. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Skehan, P. (2002). A non-marginal role for tasks: A response to bruton. English Language Teaching Journal, 35(3), 289–95.Google Scholar

Skehan, P. (2007). Task research and language teaching: Reciprocal relationships. In Fotos, S, ed. Form-meaning relationships in language pedagogy: Essays in honour of Rod Ellis, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 289–301.Google Scholar

Skehan, P. (2013). Nurturing noticing. In Bergsleithner, J., Frota, S. N., and Yoshioka, J. K., eds. Noticing and second language acquisition: Studies in honor of Richard Schmidt. Honolulu: National Foreign Language Center, pp. 169–80.Google Scholar

Skehan, P. (2015). Limited attentional capacity and cognition: Two hypotheses regarding second language performance on tasks. In Bygate, M., ed. Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the International Conference. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 123–55.Google Scholar

Skehan, P. (2016). Tasks vs. conditions: Two perspectives on task research and its implications for pedagogy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 34–49.Google Scholar

Skehan, P. (2018). Second language task-based performance: Theory, research, and assessment. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Skehan, P. and Foster, P. (1997). The influence of planning and post-task activities on accuracy and complexity in task based learning. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185–211.Google Scholar

Skehan, P. and Foster, P. (1999). Task structure and processing conditions in narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49(1), 93–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Skehan, P. and Foster, P. (2005). Strategic and on-line planning: The influence of surprise information and task time on second language performance. In Ellis, N., ed. Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 193–216.Google Scholar

Tavakoli, P. and Foster, P. (2008). Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 58(2), 439–73.Google Scholar

Tavakoli, P. and Skehan, P. (2005). Planning, task structure, and performance testing. In Ellis, R., ed. Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 239–76.Google Scholar

Ullmann, M. T. (2015). The declarative/procedural model. In Van Patten, B. and Williams, J., eds. Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction. 2nd ed. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 135–58.Google Scholar

Wang, Z. (2009). Modelling speech production and performance: Evidence from five types of planning and two task structures. Unpublished PhD thesis, Chinese University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar

Wang, Z. (2014). On-line time pressure manipulations: L2 speaking performance under five types of planning and repetition conditions. In Skehan, P., ed. Processing perspectives on task performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 27–62.Google Scholar

Wang, Z. and Skehan, P. (2014). Structure, lexis, and time perspective: Influences on task performance. In Skehan, P., ed. Processing perspectives on task performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 155–86.Google Scholar

Willis, D. and Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Yuan, F. and Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task and online planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24, 1–27.Google Scholar

Bygate, M. (2018). Creating and using the space for speaking within the foreign language classroom. What, why and how? In Alonso Alonso, R., ed. Speaking in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 153–74.Google Scholar

Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., and Swain, M., eds. Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing. Harlow: Longman, pp. 119–40.Google Scholar

Shintani, N. (2015). The incidental grammar acquisition in focus on form and focus on forms instruction for young, beginner learners. TESOL Quarterly, 49(1), 115–40.Google Scholar

Toth, P. D. (2008). Teacher‐ and learner‐led discourse in task‐based grammar instruction: Providing procedural assistance for L2 morphosyntactic development. Language Learning, 58(2), 237–83.Google Scholar

Van den Branden, K. (2016). The role of teachers in task-based language education. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 164–81.Google Scholar

Alcon-Soler, E. (2018). Effects of task-supported language teaching on learners’ use and knowledge of email request mitigators. In Taguchi, N. and Kim, Y., eds. Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 55–81.Google Scholar

Andon, N., Dewey, M., and Leung, C. (2018). Tasks in the pedagogic space: Using online discussion forum tasks and formative feedback to develop academic discourse skills at Masters level. In Samuda, V., Van den Branden, K., andBygate, M., eds. TBLT as a researched pedagogy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 235–63.Google Scholar

Aubrey, S. (2017). Inter-cultural contact and flow in a task-based Japanese EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research, 21(6), 717–34.Google Scholar

Barnes, D. (1976). From Communication to Curriculum. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar

Bimmel, P. E., van den Bergh, H., and Oostdam, R. J. (2001). Effects of strategy training on reading comprehension in first and foreign language. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 16, 509–29.Google Scholar

Bitchener, J. and Ferris, D. R. (2011). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Bitchener, J. and Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language Pedagogy. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.Google Scholar

Brumfit, C. J. (1984). Communicative methodology in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Bruner, J. S. (1983). Child’s talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bryfonski, L. and McKay, T. (2019). TBLT implementation and evaluation: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 23, 603–32.Google Scholar

Bygate, M. (1988). Linguistic and strategic features of the language of learners working in oral communication exercises. Unpublished PhD thesis. Institute of Education, University of London.Google Scholar

Cameron, L. J. , Moon, J. P. and Bygate, M. (1996). Language development in the mainstream: How do teachers and pupils use language? Language and Education, 10(4), 221–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Canto, S., de Graaff, R., and Jauregi, K. (2014). Collaborative tasks for negotiation of intercultural meaning in virtual worlds and video-web communication. In Ortega, L. and González-Lloret, M., eds. Technology-mediated TBLT: researching technology and tasks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 183–212.Google Scholar

Cobb, M. (2010). Meta-analysis of the Effectiveness of Task-Based Interaction in Form-Focused Instruction of Adult Learners in Foreign and Second Language Teaching. San Francisco: University of San Francisco. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Retrieved from: https://repository.usfca.edu/diss/389.Google Scholar

Croft, W. and Cruise, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dakin, J. (1973). The language laboratory and language learning. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar

de Bot, K., Lowie, W., and Verspoor, M. (2005). Second language acquisition: An advanced resource book. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

D’Ely, R., Mota, M.B., and Bygate, M. (2019). Strategic planning and repetition as metacognitive processes in task performance: Implications for EFL learners’ speech production. In Wen, Z., and Ahmadian, M. J., eds. Researching L2 task performance and pedagogy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 199–228.Google Scholar

DeKeyser, R. (2005). What makes second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 55(S1), 1–25.Google Scholar

DeKeyser, R. (2018). Task repetition for language learning: A perspective from skill acquisition theory. In Bygate, M., ed. Learning language through task repetition Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 27–42.Google Scholar

DeKeyser, R. (2019). The future of aptitude research. In Wen, Z., Skehan, P., Biedron, A., Li, S., and Sparks, R. L., eds. Language aptitude. Advancing theory, testing, research, and practice. London: Routledge, pp. 317–29.Google Scholar

Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (1984). Classroom second language development. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 221–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ellis, R. J. (2016). Anniversary article focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 405–28.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2017). Position paper: Moving task-based language teaching forward. Language Teaching, 50(4), 507–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ellis, R. (2019). Towards a modular language curriculum for using tasks. Language Teaching Research, 23(4), 454–75.Google Scholar

Field, J. (2009). Listening in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Floud, R. (2019). An economic history of the English garden. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar

Friesen, D. C. and Haigh, C. A. (2018). How and why strategy instruction can improve second language reading comprehension: A review. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 18(1), 1–18.Google Scholar

Gass, S. and Varonis, E. M. (1994). Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 283–302.Google Scholar

Gomez-Laich, M. P. and Taguchi, N. (2018). Task complexity effects on interaction during a collaborative persuasive writing task: A conversation analytic perspective. In Taguchi, N. and Kim, Y., eds. Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 83–109.Google Scholar

Graham, S. and Perin, D. (2007) What we know, what we still need to know: Teaching adolescents to write. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 313–35.Google Scholar

Hatch, E. M. (1983). Psycholinguistics: A Second Language Perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar

Hawkes, M. (2012). Using task repetition to direct learner attention and focus on form. ELT Journal, 66(3), 327–36.Google Scholar

Johnson, K. (1996). Language teaching and skill learning. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Kasper, G., and Kellerman, E., (1997), eds. Communication strategies: Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Keck, C., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-Ventura, N. and Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2006). Investigating the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition: A meta-analysis. In Ortega, L. and Norris, J., eds. Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 91–131.Google Scholar

Kobayashi, E. and Kobayashi, M. (2018). Second language learning through repeated engagement in a poster presentation task. In Bygate, M., ed. Learning language through task repetition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 223–54.Google Scholar

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009). Teaching and testing grammar. In Long, M. and Doughty, C. eds. The handbook of language teaching. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 518–42.Google Scholar

Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Levkina, M. (2018). Developing pragmatic competence through tasks in EFL contexts: does proficiency play a role? Taguchi, N. and Kim, Y, eds. Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 137–57.Google Scholar

Lightbown, P. and Spada, N. (2013). How Languages Are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379, 259–78.Google Scholar

Long, M. H. (1983). Native-speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126–41.Google Scholar

Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Lynch, A. (2018a). Promoting learning from second language speaking tasks: Exploring learner attitudes to the use of comparators and oral feedback. In Samuda, V., Van den Branden, K., and Bygate, M., eds. TBLT as a researched pedagogy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 213–34.Google Scholar

Lynch, A. (2018b). Perform, reflect, recycle: enhancing task repetition in second language speaking classes. In Bygate, M., ed. Learning language through task repetition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 193–222.Google Scholar

Mackey, A. and Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In Mackey, A., ed. Conversational interaction in second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 407–52.Google Scholar

Maeng, U. (2014). The effectiveness of reading strategy instruction: A meta-analysis. English Teaching, 69, 105–27.Google Scholar

Park, Y. H. (2010). A relationship between reading comprehension and reading strategy use: Meta-analysis. English Teaching, 65(3), 3–22.Google Scholar

Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 439–527.Google Scholar

Plonsky, L. (2011). The effectiveness of second language strategy instruction: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 61, 993–1038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ranta, L. (2002). The role of learners’ language analytic ability in the communicative classroom. In Robinson, P., ed. Individual differences and instructed language learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamin, pp. 159–80.Google Scholar

Reagan, D. and Payant, C. (2018). Task modality effects on Spanish learners’ interlanguage pragmatic development. In Taguchi, N. and Kim, Y., eds. Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 113–36.Google Scholar

Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., and Swain, M., eds. Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing. Harlow: Longman, pp. 119–40.Google Scholar

Sarab, A. R. (2003). A study of the communication strategies of second language teachers. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Leeds.Google Scholar

Sheppard, C. and Ellis, R. (2018). The effects of awareness-raising through stimulated recall on the repeated performance of the same task and on a new task of the same type. In Bygate, M., ed. Learning language through task repetition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 171–92.Google Scholar

Shintani, N. (2016). Input-based tasks in foreign language instruction for young learners. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Shintani, N. (2018). Mediating input-based tasks for beginner learners through task repetition: A socio-cultural perspective. In Bygate, M., ed. Learning language through task repetition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 255–78.Google Scholar

Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second language learning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar

Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Skehan, P. (2014). The context for researching a processing perspective on task performance. In Skehan, P., ed. Processing perspectives on task performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar

Spada, N. (2019). Plenary address, 8th International TBLT Conference, Ottawa, August 2019.Google Scholar

Spada, N. and Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Form-focused instruction: Isolated or integrated? TESOL Quarterly, 42(2), 181–207.Google Scholar

Toth, P. D. (2008). Teacher‐ and learner‐led discourse in task‐based grammar instruction: Providing procedural assistance for L2 morphosyntactic development. Language Learning, 58(2), 237–83.Google Scholar

Van den Branden, K. (1997). Effects of negotiation on language learners’ output. Language Learning, 47(4), 589–636.Google Scholar

Van den Branden, K. (2000). Does negotiation of meaning promote reading comprehension? A study of primary school classes. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(3), 426–43.Google Scholar

Van den Branden, K. (2016). The role of teachers in task-based language education. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 164–81.Google Scholar

Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M. and Norris, J. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Introducing the reader. In Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M., and Norris, J., eds. Task-based language teaching: A reader. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar

Vandergrift, L. and Goh, C. (2009). Teaching and testing listening comprehension. In Long, M. and Doughty, C. eds. The handbook of language teaching. Sussex: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 395–411.Google Scholar

VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction. New York: Ablex.Google Scholar

Varonis, E. M. and Gass, S. M. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 71–90.Google Scholar

Verheyden, L., Van den Branden, K., Rijlaarsdam, G., van den Bergh, H., and De Maeyer, S. (2010). Written narrations by 8 to 10-year old Turkish pupils of Flemish primary education: A follow-up of seven text features. Journal of Research in Reading, 33(1), 20–38.Google Scholar

Verhelst, M., Jaspaert, K., and Van den Branden, K. (2012). The impact of input on early second language vocabulary acquisition. ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 163, 21–42.Google Scholar

Wells, G. (1981). Learning through interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Wells, G. (1985). Language development in the pre-school years. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Wen, Z., Biedron, A., and Skehan, P. (2017). Foreign language aptitude theory: yesterday, today and tomorrow. Language Teaching, 50(1), 1–31.Google Scholar

Widdowson, H. G. (1983). Learning purpose and language use. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Yule, G. and Tarone, E. (1991). The other side of the page: Integrating the study of communication strategies and negotiated input in SLA. In Phillipson, R., Kellerman, E., Selinker, L., Sharwood-Smith, M., and Swain, M., eds. Foreign/second language pedagogy research. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 162–71.Google Scholar