Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T19:07:38.790Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reflecting on task-based language teaching from an Instructed SLA perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 May 2021

Nina Spada
Nina Spada*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Task-based language teaching (TBLT) and instructed second language acquisition (ISLA) have much in common in terms of theory, research, and educational relevance. The distinguishing characteristic between the two is that TBLT adopts communicative tasks as the central unit for instruction and assessment, whereas ISLA comprises a broader range of instructional activities and assessment practices. In this presentation, I focus on two of the conference themes: Instruction and Outcomes. With respect to Instruction, I draw attention to the pedagogical timing of form-focused instruction (FFI) and corrective feedback. I discuss relevant studies within ISLA and TBLT and argue that TBLT is particularly well-suited to investigating questions about the timing of FFI. In discussing Outcomes, I consider differences in how outcomes are measured in TBLT (i.e. performance) and ISLA (i.e. development) and the different aspects of language examined within each, for example, accuracy, implicit/explicit knowledge in ISLA and complexity, accuracy and fluency in TBLT. I discuss underlying similarities between fluency and implicit knowledge, how they are measured, and propose research to investigate the pedagogical timing of FFI in relation to fluency development. I conclude with a brief discussion of the need for a balance between theoretically and pedagogically motivated research within ISLA and TBLT.

Type
Plenary Speech
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , January 2022 , pp. 74 - 86
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

This is a slightly revised version of a plenary delivered at the 2019 International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching, Ottawa, Canada. I am grateful to the reviewers for their useful input and commentary.

References

Akakura, M. (2012). Evaluating the effectiveness of explicit instruction on implicit and explicit L2 knowledge. Language Teaching Research, 16, 9–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andon, N., & Eckerth, J. (2009). Chacun à son gout? Task-based pedagogy from the teacher's point of view. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, 286–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baralt, M. (2018). Becoming a task-based teacher educator: A case study. In Samuda, V., Van den Branden, K., & Bygate, M. (Eds.), TBLT as a researched pedagogy (pp. 23–50). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Barrot, J. (2014). Combining isolated and integrated form-focused instruction: Effects on productive skills. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 27, 278–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxton, T. A. (1989). Investigating dissociations among memory measures: Support for a transferappropriate processing framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning. Memory & Cognition, 15, 657–668.Google Scholar
Borg, S. (2009). English language teachers’ conceptions of research. Applied Linguistics, 30, 358–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2012). Defining and operationalizing L2 complexity. In Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 21–46). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bygate, M. (2005). Applied linguistics: A pragmatic discipline, a generic discipline? Applied Linguistics, 26, 568–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bygate, M. (2020). Some directions for the possible survival of TBLT as a real-world project. Language Teaching, 53, 275–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Jong, N. H., & Wempe, T. (2009). Praat script to detect syllable nuclei and measure speech rate automatically. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 385–390.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42–63). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2005). What makes learning second language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 55(Suppl 1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Skill acquisition theory. In Van Patten, B. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 97–114). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 256–310). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–138). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
East, M. (2012). Task-based language teaching from the teachers’ perspective: Insights from New Zealand. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
East, M. (2018). How do beginning teachers conceptualise and enact tasks in school foreign language classrooms? In Samuda, V., Van den Branden, K., & Bygate, M. (Eds.), TBLT as a researched pedagogy (pp. 23–50). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Elgün-Gündüz, Z., Akcan, S., & Bayyurt, Y. (2012). Isolated form-focused instruction and integrated form-focused instruction in primary school classrooms in Turkey. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 25, 157–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 193–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2010). Second language acquisition, teacher education and language pedagogy. Language Teaching, 43, 182–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Elder, C., Erlam, R., Philp, J., & Reinders, H. (2009). Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning: Testing and teaching. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
File, K. A., & Adams, R. (2010). Should vocabulary instruction be integrated or isolated? TESOL Quarterly, 44, 222–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., & Wigglesworth, G. (2016). Capturing accuracy in second language performance: the case for a weighted clause ratio. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 98–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M. P. (2015). The interface between task-based language teaching and content-based instruction. System, 54, 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goo, J., Granena, G., Yilmaz, Y., & Novella, M. (2015). Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning. In Rebuschat, P. (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 443–482). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2012). (Eds.). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S. (2013). Capturing the diversity in lexical diversity. Language Learning, 63, 87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, N. (2007). Selective integration of linguistic knowledge in adult second language learning. Language Learning, 57, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, E. Y., Sok, S., & Han, Z. H. (2018). Thirty-five years of ISLA on form-focused instruction: A methodological synthesis. Language Teaching Research, 23, 403–427.Google Scholar
Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Lambert, C., & Kormos, J. (2014). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in task-based l2 research: Toward more developmentally based measures of second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 35(5), 607–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leijten, M., & Van Waes, L. (2013). Keystroke logging in writing research: Using Inputlog to analyze and visualize writing processes. Written Communication, 30, 358–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S., Zhu, Y., & Ellis, R. (2016). The effects of the timing of corrective feedback on the acquisition of a new linguistic structure. Modern Language Journal, 100, 276–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightbown, P. M. (2014). Focus on content-based language teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. & Bahtia, T. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2019). Making research on instructed SLA relevant for teachers through professional development. Language Teaching Research, 23, 494–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., Collins, L., & Ballinger, S. (2009). Linking languages through a bilingual read-aloud project. Language Awareness, 18, 366–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(4), 557–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction and second language acquisition (pp. 407–452). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The childes project: Tools for analyzing talk. [Computer Program]. http://childes.psy.cmu.edu/Google Scholar
McDaniel, M., Robinson, B., & Einstein, P. (1998). Prospective remembering: Perceptually driven or conceptually driven processes? Memory & Cognition, 26, 121–134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDonough, K., & Chaikitmongkol, W. (2007). Teachers’ and learners’ reactions to a task-based EFL course in Thailand. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 107–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michel, M. (2017). Complexity, accuracy and fluency (CAF). In Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 50–68). London, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, D. D., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 519–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller-Hartmann, A., & Schocker, M. (2011). Teaching English. Task-supported language learning. Paderborn, Germany: Schöningh.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller-Hartmann, A., & Schocker, M. (2018). The challenges of integrating focus on form within tasks: Findings from a classroom research project in secondary EFL classrooms. In Samuda, V., Van den Branden, K., & Bygate, M. (Eds.), TBLT as a researched pedagogy (pp. 97–130). Amsterdam, the Netherlands : John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nguyen, B. T., Newton, J., & Crabbe, D. (2018). Teacher transformation of textbook tasks in Vietnamese EFL high school classrooms. In Samuda, V., Van den Branden, K., & Bygate, M. (Eds.), TBLT as a researched pedagogy (pp. 51–70). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nikula, T. (2015). Hands-on tasks in CLIL science classrooms as sites for subject-specific language use and learning. System, 54, 14–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, R., & Bogachenko, T. (2018). Teacher perceptions and use of tasks in school ESL classrooms. In Samuda, V., Van den Branden, K., & Bygate, M. (Eds.), TBLT as a researched pedagogy (pp. 71–96). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2012). Language acquisition research for language teaching: Choosing between application and relevance. In Hinger, B., Unterrainer, E. M., & Newby, D. (Eds.), Sprachen lernen: Kompetenzen entwickeln–Performanzen (über)prüfen, (pp. 24–38). Vienna, Austria: Präsens Verlag.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2015). Researching CLIL and TBLT interfaces. System, 54, 103–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30, 590–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Kim, Y. (2016). Task-based learner production: A substantive and methodological review. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 73–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinn, P. (2014). Delayed versus immediate corrective feedback on orally produced passive errors in English. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Toronto, Toronto.Google Scholar
Quinn, P., & Nakata, T. (2017). The timing of oral corrective feedback. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 35–47). New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Révész, A., Ekiert, M., & Torgersen, E. N. (2016). The effects of complexity, accuracy, and fluency on communicative adequacy in oral task performance. Applied Linguistics, 37, 828–848.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task productions: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). Corrective feedback makes a difference: A meta-analysis of the research. In Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 134–164). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 119–140). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Samuda, V., Van den Branden, K., & Bygate, M. (2018). TBLT as a researched pedagogy. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. (1993). On explicit and-negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 147–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scrivener, J. (2005). Learning teaching: A guidebook for English language teachers. Oxford, UK: MacMillan Education.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shiu, L. J., Yalçın, S., & Spada, N. (2018). Exploring second language learners’ grammaticality judgment performance in relation to task design features. System, 72, 215–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (2015). Limited attention capacity and cognition: Two hypotheses regarding second language performance on tasks. In Bygate, M. (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference (pp. 123–156). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spada, N. (in press). SLA research and language education: An uneasy relationship. In Bardel, C., Hedman, C., Rejman, K., & Zetterholm, E. (Eds.), Exploring language education. Global and local perspectives. Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm University Press.Google Scholar
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 30, 73–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spada, N. (2015). SLA research and L2 pedagogy: Misapplications and questions of relevance. Language Teaching, 48, 69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spada, N., Jessop, L., Suzuki, W., Tomita, Y., & Valeo, A. (2014). Isolated and integrated form-focused instruction: Effects on different types of L2 knowledge. Language Teaching Research, 18, 453–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (1999). Instruction, L1 influence and developmental “readiness” in second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 83(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Form-focused instruction: Isolated or Integrated? TESOL Quarterly, 42, 181–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (2013). Instructed SLA. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), The Routledge Encyclopedia of SLA (pp. 319–327). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis/Routledge.Google Scholar
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (2019). In it together: Teachers, researchers, and classroom SLA. Plenary presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics, Atlanta, USA.Google Scholar
Spada, N., Shiu, L. J., & Tomita, Y. (2015). Validating an elicited imitation task as a measure of implicit knowledge: Comparisons with other validation studies. Language Learning, 65, 723–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 263–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Y., & DeKeyser, R. (2015). The interface of explicit and implicit knowledge in a second language: Insights from individual differences in cognitive aptitudes. Language Learning, 67, 860–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tavakoli, P., Campbell, C., & McCormack, J. (2015). Development of speech fluency over a short period of time: Effects of pedagogic intervention. TESOL Quarterly, 50, 1–25.Google Scholar
Tedick, D. J., & Lyster, R. (2020). Scaffolding language development in immersion and dual language classrooms. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tedick, D. J., & Zilmer, C. (2018). Teacher perceptions of immersion professional development experiences emphasizing language-focused content education. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Instruction, 6, 269–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tonkyn, A. (2012). Measuring and perceiving changes in oral complexity, accuracy and fluency. In Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency (pp. 221–245). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vafaee, P., & Kachisnke, I. (2017). Validating grammaticality judgment tests: Evidence from two new psycholinguistic measures. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 59–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valeo, A., & Spada, N. (2015). Is there a better time to focus on grammar? Teacher and learner views. TESOL Quarterly, 50, 314–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van den Branden, K. (2006). Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van den Branden, K. (2009). Mediating between predetermined order and complete chaos: The role of the teacher in task-based language education. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, 264–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van den Branden, K. (2015). Task-based language education: From theory to practice … and back again. In Bygate, M. (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference (pp. 303–320). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Gorp, K., & Van den Branden, K. (2015). Teachers, pupils and tasks: The genesis of dynamic learning opportunities. System, 54, 28–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vedder, I., & Kuiken, F. (2019). From CAF to CAFFA: Measuring linguistic performance and functional adequacy in taskbased language teaching. Plenary Presented at the 2019 International Conference on Task-based Language Teaching. Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
Wienke, P. We need to align our classroom tasks with ACTFL & CEFR can-do descriptors so that our TBLT programs are chock-full of proficiency indicators. Plenary Presented at the 2019 International Conference on Task-based Language Teaching. Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
Zhang, R. (2015). Measuring university-level L2 learners’ implicit and explicit linguistic knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 457–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar