Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T08:49:12.964Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - The Psycholinguistics of Task-Based Performance

from Part I - The Rationale for Task-Based Language Teaching

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2021

Mohammad Javad Ahmadian
Affiliation:
University of Leeds
Michael H. Long
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park
Get access

Summary

This chapter explores how tasks connect with psycholinguistic perspectives. Two preliminary sections will explore the nature of learning (and the contrast between explicit and implicit approaches) and the general options available in task-based instruction (tasks themselves, and then task conditions). Then the two areas, learning and task-based instruction, will be related to one another, to explore whether a task-based approach is more consistent with explicit or implicit learning. The general conclusion is that a task-based approach is extremely flexible, and consistent with either. The chapter then moves on to consider second language task-based performance, and its measurement, describing and contrasting the Limited Attention Capacity Hypothesis and the Cognition Hypothesis/SSARC model.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

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.)

References

Further Reading

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.CrossRefGoogle 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. 87122.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, 3449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

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.Google 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.Google Scholar
Ahmadian, M. and Tavakoli, M. (2014). Investigating what learners do and monitor under careful online planning conditions. Canadian Modern Language Review, 70(1), 5075.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. 4760.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. 2348.Google Scholar
Bygate, M. (2018). Learning language through task repetition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Crookes, G. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 367–83.Google Scholar
De Bot, K. (1992). A bilingual production model: Levelt’s “speaking ” model adapted. Applied Linguistics, 13, 124.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. 83104.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.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google 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. 336.CrossRefGoogle 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), 5984.Google 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), 67101.Google 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. 199220.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. 4468.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.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. (2013). Effects of pre-task modelling on attention to form and question development. TESOL Quarterly, 47(1), 835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y. and McDonough, K. (2011). Using pretask modelling to encourage collaborative learning opportunities. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 183–99.CrossRefGoogle 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. 3960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, C., Kormos, J., and Minn, D. (2016). Task repetition and second language speech processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 130.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: 5283.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. 77109.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. 95128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, M. (2009). Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle 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. 338.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. 87122.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. and Ellis, N. (2008). Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. London: Routledge.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
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. 289301.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, 3449.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2018). Second language task-based performance: Theory, research, and assessment. New York: Routledge.Google 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, 185211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. and Foster, P. (1999). Task structure and processing conditions in narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49(1), 93120.Google 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. 193216.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.CrossRefGoogle 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. 2762.CrossRefGoogle 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, 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×