Task and Syllabus Design for Morphologically Complex Languages

doi:10.1017/9781108333603.023

22 - Task and Syllabus Design for Morphologically Complex Languages

from Part V - Pedagogical Interventions and Approaches

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 June 2019

Roger Gilabert and

Joan Castellví

Edited by

John W. Schwieter and

Alessandro Benati

Show author details

John W. Schwieter: Affiliation:
Wilfrid Laurier University
Alessandro Benati: Affiliation:
American University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Like planes that after thousands of hours of careful engineering design can successfully take us to our destination, task design for second or foreign language (L2) use and learning should be able to take learners who do not know or have not mastered a language to successfully and appropriately communicating in it. In this chapter, we reflect on how task design may be carried out when second languages are morphologically complex.

The goals of task design are manifold, and most L2 task designers and researchers would agree on the following facts: firstly, task design should guarantee that the pedagogic tasks used in a classroom slowly but steadily approximate L2 learners to real-life performance (see for example the concept of “target tasks” in Long, 2005; 2015). Secondly, while maintaining a focus on meaning, task goals, and task completion, task design should facilitate the conditions for language processing and language learning to take place through focus on form (Doughty & Williams, 1998; Doughty, 2001), and hence guarantee exposure to rich and meaningful input, the provision of opportunities for interaction, production, and feedback (Gass & Mackey, 2007).

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning , pp. 527 - 549

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108333603.023[Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2019

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.)

Purchase

Buy Book

Buy print or eBook

References

Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., …, Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon.

Arteaga, D., Gess, R., & Herschensohn, J. (2003). Focusing on phonology to teach morphological form in French. The Modern Language Journal, 87(1), 58–70.

Baralt, M., Gilabert, R., & Robinson, P. (2014). Task sequencing and instructed second language learning. London: Bloomsbury.

Beljaev, B. V. (Беляев, Б. В.) (1964). Psikhologicheskie voprosy usvoenija leksiki inostrannogo jazyka. (Психологические вопросы усвоения лексики иностранного языка). Moscow: Просвещение.

Beljaev, B. V. (Беляев, Б. В.) (1965). Ocherki po psikhologii obuchenija inostrannyv jazykam (Очерки по психологии обучения иностранным языкам. Издательство «Просвещение»). Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Proizveschenie.

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

Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.

Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 357–386.

Castellví, J. & Markina, E. (2017). Designing a task-based syllabus for morphologically complex languages: The case of Russian as a foreign language. Paper given at the Task-based Language Teaching Conference, Barcelona, Spain.

Cho, M., & Reinders, R. (2013). The effects of aural input enhancement on L2 acquisition. In Bergsleithner, J. M., Frota, S. N., & Yoshioka, J. K. (eds.), Noticing and second language acquisition: Studies in honor of Richard Schmidt (pp. 133–148). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii, National Foreign Language Resource Center.

Comer, W. J. (2007). Implementing task-based language teaching from the ground up: Consideration for lesson planning and classroom practice. Russian Language Journal/Русский язык, 57, 181–203.

Comer, W.J. (2012). Communicative language teaching and Russian: The current state of the field. In Makarova, V. (ed.), Russian languages studies in North America: New perspectives from theoretical and applied linguistics. London: Anthem Press.

Council of Europe (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.

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

Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (eds.) (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 175–199). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gilabert, R., Manchón, R., & Vasylets, L. (2016). Mode in theoretical and empirical TBLT research: Advancing research agendas. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 117–135.

Han, Z., Park, E. S., & Combs, C. (2008). Textual enhancement of input: Issues and possibilities. Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 597–618.

Housen, A., & Simoens, H. (2016). Introduction: Cognitive perspectives on difficulty and complexity in L2 acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 163–175.

Lawson, B. (2005). How designers think: The design process demystified. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Lee, S. K., & Huang, H. T. (2008). Visual input enhancement and grammar learning: A meta-analytic review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(3), 307–331.

Leontjev, A. A. (Леонтьев, А. А.) (1970). Nekotorye problemy obuchenija russkomu jazyku kak inostrannomu (Некоторые проблемы обучения русскому языку как иностранному). Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo Universiteta.

Leow, R. P. (1995). Modality and intake in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17(1), 79–89.

Leow, R. P. (2000). A study of the role of awareness in foreign language behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 557–584.

Leow, R. P. (2015). Explicit learning in the L2 classroom: A student-centered approach. New York: Routledge.

Long, M. H. (2005). Second language needs analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Oxford: Wiley.

Long, M. H. (2016). In defense of tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and real issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 5–33.

Malicka, A., Gilabert, R., & Norris, J. (2017). From needs analysis to task design: Insights from an English for specific purposes context. Language Teaching Research, 1–20.

Magnani, M., & Artoni, D. (2015). Teaching learnable grammar in Russian as a second language: A syllabus proposal for case. In Quero Gervilla, E. F., Barros García, B., Kopylova, T. R. (eds.), Trends in Slavic Studies. Moscow: Editorial URSS (pp. 57–70).

Michel, M. C. (2017). Complexity, accuracy and fluency in L2 production. In Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (eds.), Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 50–68). London: Routledge.

Oh, S. Y. (2011). Two types of input modification and EFL reading comprehension: Simplification versus elaboration. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 69–96.

Palotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30, 590–601.

Palotti, G. (2014). A simple view of linguistic complexity. Second Language Research, 31(1), 117–134.

Platt, E., & Brooks, F. B. (2002). Task engagement: A turning point in foreign language development. Language Learning, 52, 365–400.

Révész, A. (2011). Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions, and individual differences: A classroom-based study. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 162–181.

Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning, 45, 283–331.

Robinson, P. (2001a). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: Atriadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In Robinson, P. (ed.). Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287–318). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Robinson, P. (2001b). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27–57.

Robinson, P. (2003). The Cognition Hypothesis, task design and adult task-based language learning. Second Language Studies, 21(2), 45–107.

Robinson, P. (2007). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 193–214.

Robinson, P., & Gilabert, R. (2007). Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis and second language learning and performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45(3), 161–176.

Sasayama, S., Malicka, A., & Norris, J. (in press). Cognitive task complexity: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Scherba, L. V. (Щерба, Л. В.) (1974a). Prepodavanie inostrannykh jazykov v srednej shkole. Obschie voprosy metodiki (Преподавание иностранных языков в средней школе. Общие вопросы методики). Moscow: Atel’stvo Vusshaja Shkola.

Scherba, L. V. (Щерба, Л. В.) (1974b). O trojakom aspekte jazykovykh javlenij i ob eksperimente v jazykoznanii (О трояком аспекте языковых явлений и об эксперименте в языкознании). In Scherba, L. V. (eds.), Jazykovaja sistema i rechevaja dejatel’nost’ (Щерба Л. В. Языковая система и речевая деятельность). Leningrad: Nauka.

Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Serafini, E. J., Lake, J. B., & Long, M. H. (2015). Needs analysis for specialized learner populations: Essential methodological improvements. English for Specific Purposes, 40, 11–26.

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

Skehan, P. (2001). Tasks and language performance. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (eds), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing. Harlow: Pearson Education.

Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185–211.

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.

Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive Load Theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295–312.

Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–295.

Tsarfaty, R., Seddah, D., Kübler, S., & Nivre, J. (2013). Parsing morphologically rich languages: Introduction to the special issue. Computational Linguistics, 39, 15–22.

Van den Branden, K. (ed.) (2006). Task-based language teaching: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1966). Мышление и речь Издательство. Моsсow: Академия педагогических наук РСФСР.

White, J. (1998). Getting learners’ attention: A typographical input enhancement study. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.), Focus-on-form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 85–113). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.