Abbs, B. & Freebairn, I. (1982). Opening Strategies. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar

Ableeva, R. & Lantolf, J. (2011). Mediated dialogue and microgenesis of second language listening comprehension. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice 18, 133–49.Google Scholar

Adams, R., Nuevo, A. & Egi, T. (2011). Explicit and implicit feedback, modified output, and SLA: Does explicit and implicit feedback promote learning and learner-learner interaction? Modern Language Journal 95, 42–63.Google Scholar

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

Ahmadian, M. J. & Mayo, M. (2018). Introduction recent trends in task-based language teaching and learning. In Ahmadian, M. & Mayo, M. (eds.), Recent Perspectives on Task-Based Language Teaching (pp. 1–8). Boston/Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Ahmadian, M. J. & Tavakoli, M. (2011). The effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency in EFL learners’ oral production. Language Teaching Research 15, 35–59.Google Scholar

Aida, Y. (1994). Examination of Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope’s construct of foreign language anxiety: The case of students of Japanese. The Modern Language Journal 78(2), 155–68.Google Scholar

Al Khalil, M. (2011). Second language motivation: Its relationship to noticing, affect, and production in task-based interaction. PhD dissertation, Georgetown University.Google Scholar

Alderson, J. & Beretta, A. (eds.) (1992). Evaluating Second Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Alderson, J., Clapham, C. & Steel, D. (1997). Metalinguistic knowledge, language aptitude and language proficiency. Language Teaching Research 1, 93–121.Google Scholar

Alderson, J. & Scott, M. (1992). Insiders, outsiders and participatory evaluation. In Alderson, J. & Beretta, A. (eds.), Evaluating Second Language Education (pp. 25–58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Aljaafreh, A. & Lantolf, J. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the Zone of Proximal Development. The Modern Language Journal 78, 465–83.Google Scholar

Allwright, D. (2003). Exploratory practice: Rethinking practitioner research in language teaching. Language Teaching Research 7, 113–41.Google Scholar

Allwright, D. (2005). Developing principles for practitioner research: The case for exploratory practice. Modern Language Journal 89, 353–66.Google Scholar

Allwright, D. & Hanks, J. (2009). The Developing Learner: An Introduction to Exploratory Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Ammar, A. & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28, 543–74.Google Scholar

Aoki, M. (2016). English heads for elementary school in 2020 but hurdles abound. Japan Times, 5 September.Google Scholar

Appel, C. & Gilabert, R. (2002). Motivation and task performance in a task-based web-based tandem project. ReCALL 14, 16–31.Google Scholar

Arslanyilmaz, A. (2013). Computer‐assisted foreign language instruction: Task based vs. form focused. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 29, 303–18.Google Scholar

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

Aubrey, S. (2017b). Measuring flow in the EFL classroom: Learners’ perceptions of inter-cultural and intra-cultural task-based interactions. TESOL Quarterly 51, 661–92.Google Scholar

Avermaet, P. & Gysen, S. (2006). From needs to tasks: Language learning needs in a task-based approach. In Van den Branbden, K. (ed.), Task-Based Language Education: From Theory to Practice (pp. 17–46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bachman, L. F. (2002). Some reflections on task-based language performance assessment. Language Testing 19, 453–76.Google Scholar

Bachman, L. F. & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language Testing in Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bachman, L. F. & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language Testing in Practice, second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Baddeley, A. (2007). Working Memory, Thought, and Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bao, R. & Kirkebaek, M. (2013). Danish students’ perceptions of task-based teaching in Chinese. In Kirkebæk, M., Du, X.-Y. & Jensen, A. (eds.), Teaching and Learning Culture (pp. 61–78). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar

Baralt, M. (2014). Task complexity and task sequencing in traditional versus online language classes. In Baralt,  M., Gilabert, R. & Robinson,  P. (eds.), Task Sequencing and Instructed Second Language Learning (pp. 59–122). New York: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar

Baralt, M. & Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2011). Comparing learners’ state anxiety during task-based interaction in computer-mediated and face-to-face communication. Language Teaching Research 15(2), 201–29.Google Scholar

Baralt, M., Gurzynski-Weiss, L. & Kim, Y. (2016). Engagement with language: How examining learners’ affective and social engagement explains successful learner-generated attention to form. In Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (eds.), Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning: Pedagogical Potential and Research Agenda (pp. 209–40). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bax, S. (2003). The end of CLT: A context approach to language teaching. ELT Journal 57, 278–87.Google Scholar

Benevides, M. & Valvona, C. (2008). Widgets: A Task-Based Course in Practical English. Hong Kong: Pearson Longman Asia ELT.Google Scholar

Beretta, A. (1989). Attention to form or meaning? Error treatment in the Bangalore project. TESOL Quarterly 23, 283–303.Google Scholar

Beretta, A. (1990). Implementation of the Bangalore project. Applied Linguistics 11, 321–37.Google Scholar

Beretta, A. & Davies, A. (1985). Evaluation of the Bangalore project. ELT Journal 39, 121–7.Google Scholar

Berwick, R. (1990). Task Variation and Repair in English as a Foreign Language. Kobe: Kobe University of Commerce/Institute of Economic Research.Google Scholar

Bialystok, E. (1994). Analysis and control in the development of second language proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 157–68.Google Scholar

Blake, R. (2000). Computer-mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology 4, 120–36.Google Scholar

Block, D. (2003). The Social Turn in Second Language Acquisition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Breen, M. (1984). Processes in syllabus design. In Brumfit, C. (ed.), General English Syllabus Design (pp. 47–60). Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar

Breen, M. (1989). The evaluation cycle for language learning tasks. In Johnson, R. K. (ed.), The Second Language Curriculum (pp. 187–206). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Brindley, G. (2013). Task-based assessment. In Chapelle, C. A. (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (online). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Brooks, F. & Donato, R. (1994). Vygotskyan approaches to understanding foreign language learner discourse during communicative tasks. Hispania 77, 262–74.Google Scholar

Brooks, L. & Swain, M. (2014). Contextualizing performances: Comparing performances during TOEFL iBTTM and real-life academic speaking activities. Language Assessment Quarterly, 11, 353–73.Google Scholar

Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983). Teaching the Spoken Language: An Approach Based on the Analysis of Conversational English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Brown, G., Andersen, Shilcock & Yule, G. (1984). Teaching Talk: Strategies for Production and Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Brown, J. D., Hudson, T., Norris, J. & Bonk, W. J. (2002). An Investigation of Second Language Task-Based Performance Assessments. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar

Bruner, J. S. (1960). The Process of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Bruton, A. (2002a). From tasking purposes to purposing tasks. ELT Journal 56, 280–8.Google Scholar

Bruton, A. (2002b). When and how language development in TBI? ELT Journal 56, 296–7.Google Scholar

Burns, A. (2010). Doing Action Research for English Language Teachers: A Guide for Practitioners. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Butler, Y. (2004). What level of English proficiency do elementary school teachers need to attain to teach EFL? Case studies from Korea, Taiwan, and Japan. TESOL Quarterly 38, 245–78.Google Scholar

Butler, Y. (2011). The implementation of communicative and task-based teaching in the Asia-Pacific region. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31, 36–57.Google Scholar

Butler, Y. (2017a). Young learners’ rationales for self-assessing their performance with and without tasks. Unpublished paper in 7th International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching, Barcelona.Google Scholar

Butler, Y. (2017b). Motivational elements of digital instructional games: A study of young L2 learners game designs. Language Teaching Research 21, 735–50.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Bygate, M. (2018). Dynamic systems: Theory and the issue of predictability in task-based language: Some implications for research and practice in TBLT. In Ahmadian, M. & Mayo, M. (eds.), Recent Perspectives on Task-Based Language Teaching (pp. 146–66). Boston/Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Calvert, M. & Sheen, Y. (2015). Task-based language learning and teaching: An action-research study. Language Teaching Research 19, 226–44.Google Scholar

Cambridge English. (n.d.). Available at: www.cambridgeenglish.org.Google Scholar

Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching Languages to Young Children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Canale, M. (1983). On some dimensions of language proficiency. In Oller, J. (ed.), Issues in Language Testing Research (pp. 333–42). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar

Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1, 1–47.Google Scholar

Cancino, H., Rosansky, E. & Schumann, J. (1978). The acquisition of English negatives and interrogatives by native Spanish speakers. In Hatch, E. (ed.), Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar

Candlin, C. (1987). Towards task-based language learning. In Candlin, C. & Murphy, D. (eds.), Language Learning Tasks. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall International.Google Scholar

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

Carless, D. (2003). Student use of the mother tongue in the task-based classroom. ELT Journal 62, 331–8.Google Scholar

Carless, D. (2004). Issues in teachers’ reinterpretation of a task-based innovation in primary schools. TESOL Quarterly 38, 639–62.Google Scholar

Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge and Action Research. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar

Carroll, J. (1961). Fundamental considerations in testing for English language proficiency of foreign students. In Center for Applied Linguistics, (ed.), Testing the English Proficiency of Foreign Students (pp. 30–40). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar

Carroll, J. (1981). Twenty-five years of research on foreign language aptitude. In Diller, K. (ed.), Individual Differences and Universals in Language Learning Aptitude. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar

Carroll, J. & Sapon, S. (1959). Modern Language Aptitude Test. New York: The Psychological Corporation/Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar

Catani, M., Dell’Acqua, F. & De Schotten, M. (2013). A revised limbic system model for memory, emotion and behaviour. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 37, 1724–37.Google Scholar

Cheng, Y., Horwitz, E. K. & Schallert, D. L. (1999). Language anxiety: Differentiating writing and speaking components. Language Learning 49(3), 417–46.Google Scholar

Colpin, M. & Gysen, S. (2006). Developing and introducing task-based language tests. In Van den Branden, K. (ed.), Task-Based Language Education: From Theory to Practice (pp. 151–74). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Conway, A., Kane, M., Bunting, M., Hambrick, D. & Engle, R. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 12, 769–86.Google Scholar

Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review 57, 402–23.Google Scholar

Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics 5, 161–9.Google Scholar

Côté, S. & Gaffney, C. (2018). The effect of synchronous computer-mediated communication on beginner L2 learners’ foreign language anxiety and participation. The Language Learning Journal First view: 1–12.Google Scholar

Coughlan, P. & Duff, P. (1994). Same task, different activities: Analysis of a SLA task from an activity theory perspective. In Lantolf, J. & Appel, G. (eds.), Vygotskyan Approaches to Second Language Research (pp. 173–93). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Language Learning, Teaching, and Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press and Council of Europe.Google Scholar

Council of Europe. (2008). Relating Language Examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference for Language Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Available online at: www.coe.int/t/dg4/portfolio/documents/exampleswriting.pdg.Google Scholar

Cowan, N. (2015). Second-language use, theories of working memory, and the Vennian mind. In Wen, Z., Mota, M. B. & McNeill, A. (eds.), Working Memory in Second Language Acquisition and Processing: Theories, Research, and Commentaries (pp. 29–40). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Cox, D. (2005). Can we predict language items for open tasks? In Edwards, C. & Willis, J. (eds.), Teachers Exploring Tasks in English Language Teaching (pp. 171–86). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Crespo, M. (2011). The effects of task complexity on L2 oral production as mediated by differences in working memory capacity. MA thesis, University of Barcelona.Google Scholar

Crookes, G. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 55, 367–83.Google Scholar

Crookes, G. & Schmidt, R. (1991). Motivation: Reopening the research agenda. Language Learning 41, 469–512.Google Scholar

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond Boredom and Anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar

Cutrone, P. & Beh, S. (2014). Welcome to Kyushu: A Task-Based Approach to EFL Learning Using Authentic Dialogues. Tokyo: Shohakusha.Google Scholar

Dale, E. & Chall, J. (1948). A formula for predicting readability: Instructions. Educational Research Bulletin 27, 37–54.Google Scholar

Day, E. & Shapson, S. (1991). Integrating formal and functional approaches to language teaching in French immersion: An experimental study. Language Learning 41, 25–58.Google Scholar

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

De Bot, K. & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2011). Researching second language development from a dynamic systems theory perspective. In Verspoor, M., de Bot, K. & Lowie, W. (eds.), A Dynamic Approach to Second Language Development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

De Graaf, . (1997). Effects of Explicit Instruction on Second Language Acquisition. Netherlands: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics.Google Scholar

De Jong, N. H., Groenhout, R., Schoonen, R. & Hulstijin, J. (2013). L2 fluency: Speaking style or proficiency? Correcting measures of L2 fluency for L1 behaviour. Applied Psycholinguistics 36, 1–23.Google Scholar

De la Fuente, M. J. (2006). Classroom L2 vocabulary acquisition: Investigating the role of pedagogical tasks and form-focused instruction. Language Teaching Research 10, 263–95.Google Scholar

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). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

DeKeyser, R. (2007). Skill acquisition theory. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories of Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction (pp. 94–112). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Dembovskaya, S. (2009). Task-based instruction: The effect of motivational and cognitive pre-tasks on second language oral production. PhD thesis, University of Iowa.Google Scholar

De Ridder, I., Vangehuchten, L. & Gomez, M. (2007). Enhancing automaticity through task-based language learning. Applied Linguistics 28, 309–15.Google Scholar

Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and Effort in Education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar

Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language earning. In Lantolf, J. & Appel, G. (eds.), Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research (pp. 33–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

Donato, R. (2000). Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and second language classroom. In Lantolf, J. (ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning (pp. 27–50). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dörnyei, Z. (2002). The motivational basis of language learning tasks. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Dörnyei, Z. & Kormos, J. (2000). The role of individual and social variables in oral task performance. Language Teaching Research 4, 275–300.Google Scholar

Dörnyei, Z. & Ottó, I. (1998). Motivation in action: A process model of L2 motivation. Working Papers in Applied Linguistics (Thames Valley University, London) 4, 43–69.Google Scholar

Dörnyei, Z. & Ushioda, E. (eds.). (2009). Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Doughty, C. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. (eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 256–310). New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Douglas, D. (2000). Assessing Languages for Specific Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dulay, H. & Burt, M. (1973). Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning 23, 245–58.Google Scholar

Dunn, W. & Lantolf, J. (1998). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development and Krashen’s i +1: Incommensurable constructs; incommensurable theories. Language Learning 48, 411–42.Google Scholar

Duran, G. & Ramaut, G. (2006). Tasks for absolute beginners and beyond: Developing and sequencing tasks at basic proficiency levels. In Van den Branden, K. (ed.), Task-Based Language Education: From Theory to Practice (pp. 47–75). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

East, M. (2012). Task-Based Language Teaching from the Teachers’ Perspective: Insights from New Zealand. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

East, M. (2014). Encouraging innovation in a modern foreign language initial teacher education programme: What do beginning teachers make of task-based language teaching? The Language Learning Journal 42, 261–74.Google Scholar

East, M. (2018). ‘If it is all about tasks, will they learn anything?’ Perspectives on grammar instruction in the task-oriented classroom. In Ahmadian, M. & Mayo, M. (eds.), Recent Perspectives on Task-Based Language Teaching (pp. 217–31). Boston/Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Eckerth, J. (2008). Task-based language learning and teaching – Old wine in new bottlers? In Eckerth, J. & Siekmann, S. (eds.), Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching: Theoretical, Methodological, and Pedagogical Perspectives (pp. 13–46). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Edwards, C. & Willis, J. (eds.). (2005). Teachers Exploring Tasks in English Language Teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Egbert, J. (2003). A study of flow theory in the foreign language classroom. Modern Language Journal 87, 499–518.Google Scholar

Egi, T. (2007). Interpreting recasts as linguistic evidence: The roles of linguistic target, length, and degree of change. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 29, 511–37.Google Scholar

Ehrman, M. E. & Oxford, R. L. (1995). Cognition plus: Correlates of language learning success. The Modern Language Journal 79, 67–89.Google Scholar

Eisenstein, M. (1980). Childhood bilingualism and adult language learning aptitude. Applied Psychology 29, 159–72.Google Scholar

Ekiert, M., Lampropoulou, S., Révész, A. & Torgerson, E. (2018). The effects of task-type and L2 proficiency on discourse appropriacy in oral task performance. In Taguchi, N. & Kim, Y. (eds.), Task-Based Approaches to Teaching and Assessing Pragmatics (pp. 247–64). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Elkhafaifi, H. (2005). Listening comprehension and anxiety in the Arabic language classroom. The Modern Language Journal 89(2), 206–20.Google Scholar

Ellis, D. (2011). The role of task complexity in the linguistic complexity of native-speaker output. Qualifying paper, PhD in Second Language Acquisition Program, College, Park, MD: University of Maryland.Google Scholar

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

Ellis, N. & Robinson, P. (2008). An introduction to cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. In Robinson, P. & Ellis, N. (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 3–24). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (1984). Classroom Second Language Development. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (1987). Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style shifting in the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 9, 1–19.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (1993). Second language acquisition and the structural syllabus. TESOL Quarterly 27, 91–113.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (1994). A theory of instructed second language acquisition. In Ellis, N. (ed.), Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages (pp. 79–114). San Diego, CA: Academic PressGoogle Scholar

Ellis, R. (1997). SLA Research and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (1999). Learning a Second Language through Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research 4, 193–220.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2001). Non-reciprocal tasks, comprehension and second language acquisition. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P. & Swain, M. (eds.), Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching, and Testing (pp. 49–74). Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task-based research: Theory and research. In Ellis, R. (ed.), Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational Interaction and Second Language Acquisition: A Series of Empirical Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2008). Evaluating and researching grammar consciousness-raising tasks. In Rea-Dickens, P. & Germaine, K. (eds.), Managing Evaluation and Innovation in Language Teaching (pp. 220–52). London: Longman.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2009a). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 16, 221–46.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2009b). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics 30, 474–509.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2010). Cognitive, social, and psychological dimensions of corrective feedback. In Batstone, R. (ed.), Sociocognitive Perspectives on Language Use and Language Learning (pp. 151–65). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2011). Macro- and micro-evaluations of task-based teaching. In Tomlinson, B. (ed.), Materials Development in Language Teaching, second edition (pp. 212–35). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2012). Language Teaching Research and Language Pedagogy. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2015a). Teachers evaluating tasks. In Bygate, M. (ed.), Domains and Directions in the Development of TBLT (pp. 247–70). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2015b). Understanding Second Language Acquisition, second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2016). Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research 20, 405–28.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2017a). Moving task-based language teaching forward. Language Teaching 50, 441–82.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2017b). The case for introducing task-based language teaching in Asian primary schools. Invited talk at Kansai University, Japan (4 July).Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2018a). Reflections on Task-Based Language Teaching. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2018b). Towards a modular curriculum for using tasks. Language Teaching Research. First view: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818765315.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2019). Explicit versus implicit oral corrective feedback. In Hossein, N. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Cambridge Handbook on Corrective Feedback. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H. & Loewen, S. (2001). Pre-emptive focus on form in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly 35, 407–32.Google Scholar

Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H. & Loewen, S. (2002). Doing focus-on-form. System 30, 419–32.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21, 285–301.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. & Heimbach, R. (1997). Bugs and birds: Children’s acquisition of second language vocabulary through interaction. System 25, 247–59.Google Scholar

Ellis, R., Li, S. & Zhu, Y. (2018). The effects of pre-task explicit instruction on the performance of a focused task. System 80, 38–47.Google Scholar

Ellis, R., Loewen, S. & Erlam, R.. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28, 339–68.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. & Mifka-Provozic, N. (2013). Recasts, uptake and noticing. In Bergsleitner, J., Frota, S. & Yoshioka, J. (eds.), Noticing and Second Language Acquisition: Studies in Honor of Richard Schmidt (pp. 61–79). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i at Manoa, National Foreign Language Center.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. & Shintani, N. (2014). Exploring Language Pedagogy through Second Language Acquisition Research. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y. & Yamazaki, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension, and the acquisition of L2 word meanings. Language Learning 44, 449–91.Google Scholar

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

Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R. & Punmäki, R.-L. (eds.), Perspectives on Activity Theory (pp. 19–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Erlam, R. (2006). Elicited imitation as a measure of L2 implicit knowledge: An empirical validation study. Applied Linguistics 27, 464–91.Google Scholar

Erlam, R. (2016). I’m still not sure what a task is: Teachers designing language tasks. Language Teaching Research 20, 275–99.Google Scholar

Erlam, R. & Ellis, R. (2018). Task-based language teaching for beginner-level learners of L2 French: An exploratory study. Canadian Modern Language Review 74(1), 1–26.Google Scholar

Erlam, R., Ellis, R. & Batstone, R. (2013). Oral corrective feedback on L2 writing: Two approaches compared. System 41, 257–68.Google Scholar

Estaire, S. & Zanon, J. (1994). Planning Classwork: A Task-Based Approach. Oxford: Heinemann.Google Scholar

Ewald, J. D. (2007). Foreign language learning anxiety in upper‐level classes: Involving students as researchers. Foreign Language Annals 40(1), 122–42.Google Scholar

Feuerstein, R., Falik, L. & Rynders, J. E. (1988). Don’t Accept Me as I Am. Helping Retarded Performers Excel. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar

Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics 19, 1–23.Google Scholar

Foster, P. (2001). Rules and routines: A consideration of their role in the task-based language production of native and non-native speakers. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P. & Swain, M. (eds.), Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching, and Testing (pp. 75–93). Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar

Foster, P. & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, 299–324.Google Scholar

Foster, P. & Skehan, P. (1999). The influence of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research 3, 185–214.Google Scholar

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

Foster, P. & 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

Foster, P. & Tavakoli, P. (2009). Lexical diversity and lexical selection: A comparison of native and non-native speaker performance. Language Learning 59, 866–96.Google Scholar

Foster, P. & Wigglesworth, G. (2016). Capturing accuracy in second language performance: The case for a weighted clause ratio. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 36, 98–116.Google Scholar

Foster, P., Tonkyn, A. & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics 21, 354–75.Google Scholar

Fotos, S. & Ellis, R.. (1991). Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach. TESOL Quarterly 25, 605–28.Google Scholar

Fredricks, J., Blumenfeld, P. & Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of evidence. Review of Educational Research 74, 59–105.Google Scholar

Fried-Booth, D. (1986). Project Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Fried-Booth, D. (1989). COLLINS COBUILD English Course Tests. London: Collins.Google Scholar

Fu, M. & Li, S. (2017). The associations between the cognitive processes of task performance and working memory. Modern Foreign Languages 40, 114–24.Google Scholar

Fulcher, G. (1996). Does thick description lead to smart tests? A data-based approach to rating scale construction. Language Testing 13, 208–28.Google Scholar

Gal’perin, P. I. (1989). Mental actions as a basis for the formation of thoughts and images. Soviet Psychology 27, 45–64.Google Scholar

Galaczi, E. (2008). Peer–peer interaction in a speaking test: The case of the first certificate in English examination. Language Assessment Quarterly 5, 89–119.Google Scholar

Galaczi, E. & ffrench, A. (2010). Context validity. In Taylor, L. (ed.), Examining Speaking: Studies in Language Testing 30 (pp. 112–70). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar

Gardner, R. C. & Lambert, W. E. (1965). Language aptitude, intelligence, and second-language achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology 56, 191–9.Google Scholar

Gass, S. (1997). Input, Interaction, and the Development of Second Languages. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Gass, S. (1998). Apples and oranges: Or why apples are not oranges and don’t need to be. A response to Firth and Wagner. Modern Language Journal 82, 83–90.Google Scholar

Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated Recall Methodology in Second Language Research. Mahwah, NJ: ErlbaumGoogle Scholar

Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 175–200). London: LEA.Google Scholar

Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (2015). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 180–206). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Gass, S. & Varonis, E. (1985). Task variation and nonnative/nonnative negotiation of meaning. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar

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

Gass, S. & Varonis, M. (1984). The effect of familiarity on the comprehension of nonnative speech. Language Learning 34, 65–89.Google Scholar

Gass, S., Mackey, A., Alvarez-Torres, M. & Fernandez-Garcıa, M. (1999). The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning 49, 549–81.Google Scholar

Gilabert, R. & Barón, J. (2013). The impact of increasing task complexity on L2 pragmatic moves. In Mackey, A. & McDonough, K. (eds.), Second Language Interaction in Diverse Educational Settings (pp. 45–69). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Gilabert, R. & Munoz, C. (2010). Differences in attainment and performance in a foreign language: The role of working memory capacity. The International Journal of Engineering and Science 10, 19–42.Google Scholar

Gilabert, R., Baron, J. & Levkina, M. (2011). Manipulating task complexity across task types and modes. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Second Language Task Complexity (pp. 105–40). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Gilabert, R., Baron, J. & Llanes, A. (2009). Manipulating cognitive complexity across task types and its impact on learners’ interaction during oral performance. IRAL 47, 367–95.Google Scholar

Gilabert, R., Manchón, R. & Vasylets, O. (2016). Mode in theoretical and empirical TBLT research: Advancing research agendas. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 36, 117–35.Google Scholar

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

Gong, Y. (2014). New Notion English. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Google Scholar

Gong, Y. (2015). Reconceptualising English Education: A Multi-Goal Approach to English Curriculum Design for School-Age Learners. Beijing: CIP.Google Scholar

González-Lloret, M. & Nielson, K. (2015). Evaluating TBLT: The case of a task-based Spanish program. Language Teaching Research 19, 525–49.Google Scholar

González-Lloret, M. & Ortega, L. (eds). (2015). Technology-Mediated TBLT: Researching Technology and Tasks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31, 445–74.Google Scholar

Goo, J., Granema, G., Novella, M. & Yilmaz, Y. (2015). Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning; Norris & Ortega (2000) revisited and updated. In Rebuschat, P. (ed.), Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages (pp. 443–82). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Goo, J. & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 35, 127–65.Google Scholar

Granena, G. (2013). Individual differences in sequence learning ability and second language acquisition in early childhood and adulthood. Language Learning 63, 665–704.Google Scholar

Granena, G. (2015). Cognitive aptitudes for implicit and explicit learning and information-processing styles: An individual differences study. Applied Psycholinguistics 37(3), 577–600.Google Scholar

Granena, G. (2016). Individual versus interactive task-based performance through voice-based computer mediated interaction. Language Learning and Technology 30, 40–59.Google Scholar

Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics. 3: Speech Acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Guará Tavares, M. (2011). Pre-task planning, working memory capacity, and L2 speech performance. Organon 51, 245–266.Google Scholar

Gurzynski-Weiss, L. & Baralt, M. (2014). Exploring learner perception and use of task-based interactional feedback in FTF and CMC modes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 35, 1–28.Google Scholar

Gutierrez, G. A. G. (2014). The third dimension: A sociocultural theory approach to the design and evaluation of 3D virtual worlds tasks. In González-Lloret, M. & Ortega, L. (eds.), Technology-Mediated TBLT: Researching Technology and Tasks (pp. 213–238). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Hadley, G. (2013). Review of task-based language teaching from the teacher’s perspective. System 41, 194–6.Google Scholar

Hall, G. & Cook, G. (2012). Own-language use in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching 45, 271–308.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. (1973). Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Arnold.Google Scholar

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

Harley, B. (1989). Functional grammar in French immersion: A classroom experiment. Applied Linguistics 19, 331–59.Google Scholar

Harley, B. & Hart, D. (1997). Language aptitude and second language proficiency in classroom learners of different starting ages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19, 379–400.Google Scholar

Harley, B. & Hart, D. (2002). Age, aptitude and second language learning on a bilingual exchange. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Harley, B., Allen, J. P. B., Cummins, J. & Swain, M. (1990). The Development of Second Language Proficiency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Harris, J. & Leeming, P. (2016). On Task 2. Tokyo: Abax.Google Scholar

Harrison, A. (1982). Student-centered testing: Assessing communication in progress. Levende Talen 372, 401–10.Google Scholar

Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Henzl, V. (1979). Foreigner talk in the classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics 17, 159–67.Google Scholar

Hoey, M. (1983). On the Surface of Discourse. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar

Horwitz, E., Horwitz, M. & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern Language Journal 70(2), 125–32.Google Scholar

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

Howatt, A. P. R. (1984). A History of English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hu, R. (2013). Task-based language teaching: Responses from Chinese teachers of English. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language 16(4), n.p.Google Scholar

Hulstijn, J. (2015). Language Proficiency in Native and Non-Native Speakers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Hwu, F., Wei, P. & Sun, S. (2014). Aptitude-treatment interaction effects on explicit rule learning: A latent growth curve analysis. Language Teaching Research 18, 294–319.Google Scholar

Hyland, F. (2003). Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System 31, 217–30.Google Scholar

Hymes, D. (1971). On Communicative Competence. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

Inoue, C. (2013). Task Equivalence in Speaking Tests. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Inoue, C. (2016). A comparative study of the variables used to measure syntactic complexity and accuracy in task-based research. The Language Learning Journal 1, 1–18.Google Scholar

Ishikawa, T. (2007). The effect of manipulating task complexity along the +/- here-and-now dimension on L2 written narrative discourse. In Garcia Mayo, M. del P. (ed.), Investigating Tasks in Formal Language Learning (pp. 136–56). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Iwashita, N., McNamara, T. & Elder, C. (2001). Can we predict task difficulty in an oral proficiency test? Exploring the potential of an information-processing approach to task design. Language Learning 51, 401–36.Google Scholar

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

Jauregi, K., de Graaff, R., van den Bergh, H. & Kriz, M. (2012). Native/non-native speaker interactions through video-web communication: A clue for enhancing motivation? Computer Assisted Language Learning 25(1), 1–19.Google Scholar

Jeon, I.-J. & Hahn, J.-W. (2006). Exploring EFL teachers’ perceptions of task-based language teaching: A case study of Korean secondary school classroom practice. Asian EFL Journal 8, 123–43.Google Scholar

Jepson, K. (2005). Conversation and negotiated interactions in text and voice chat rooms. Learning & Technology 9, 79–98.Google Scholar

Jobard, G., Crivello, F. & Tzourio-Mazoyer, N. (2003). Evaluation of the dual route theory of reading: A meta-analysis of 35 neuroimaging studies. Neuroimage 20, 693–712.Google Scholar

Johnson, K. (1982). Communicative Syllabus Design and Methodology. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar

Johnson, K. (2000). What task designers do. Language Teaching Research 4, 301–21.Google Scholar

Johnson, K. (2005). Fighting fossilization: Language at different stages in the task cycle. In Edwards, C. & Willis, J. (eds.), Teachers Exploring Tasks in English Language Teaching (pp. 191–200). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Juffs, A. & Harrington, M. (2012). Aspects of working memory in L2 learning. Language Teaching 44, 137–66.Google Scholar

Kahnemann, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. London: Penguin.Google Scholar

Kahng, J. (2014). Exploring utterance and cognitive fluency of L1 and L2 English speakers: Temporal measures and stimulated recall. Language Learning 64, 809–54.Google Scholar

Keenan, J., MacWhinney, B. & Mayhew, D. (1977). Pragmatics in memory: A study of natural conversation. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 16, 549–60.Google Scholar

Kelly, C. & Kelly, E. (1996). The Snoop Detective School Conversation Book. Tokyo: Macmillan Language House.Google Scholar

Khabbazbashi, N. (2017). Topic and background knowledge effects on performance in speaking assessment. Language Testing 34, 23–48.Google Scholar

Kiele, R. & Rea-Dickens, P. (2005). Program Evaluation in Language Education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Kim, Y. (2009). The effects of task complexity on learner-learner interactions. System 37, 254–68.Google Scholar

Kim, Y. (2012). Task complexity, learning opportunities, and Korean EFL learners’ question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 34, 627–58.Google Scholar

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

Kim, J. & Lantolf, J. (2018). Developing understanding of sarcasm in L2 English through explicit instruction. Language Teaching Research 22, 209–29.Google Scholar

Kim, Y., Payant, C. & Pearson, P. (2015). The intersection of task-based interaction, task complexity, and working memory. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 37, 549–81.Google Scholar

Kim, Y. & Taguchi, N. (2015). Promoting task-based pragmatics instruction in EFL classroom context: The role of task complexity. Modern Language Journal 99, 656–77.Google Scholar

Kim, Y. & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2011). Task complexity, language anxiety, and the development of the simple past. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Second Language Task Complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of Language Learning and Performance (pp. 287–306). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Kim, Y. & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2013). The role of task repetition in L2 performance development: What needs to be repeated during task-based interaction? System 41, 829–40.Google Scholar

Klein, W. & Perdue, C. (1997). The basic variety (or: couldn’t natural languages be much simpler?). Second Language Research 13, 301–47.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.), L2 Task Complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of Language Learning and Performance (pp. 39–60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Kormos, J. & Dörnyei, Z. (2004). The interaction of linguistic and motivational variables in second language task performance. Zeitschrift für interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht 9, 1–19.Google Scholar

Kormos, J., Kiddle, T. & Csizer, K. (2011). Systems of goals, attitudes, and self-related beliefs in second-language learning motivation. Applied Linguistics 32, 495–516.Google Scholar

Kormos, J. & Trebits, A. (2011). Working memory capacity and narrative task performance. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Second Language Task Complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of Language Learning and Performance (pp. 267–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Krashen, S. (1981a). Aptitude and attitude in relation to second language acquisition and learning. In Diller, K. (ed.), Individual Differences and Universals in Language Learning Aptitude. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar

Krashen, S. (1981b). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar

Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Krashen, S. & Terrell, T. (1983). The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar

Kuiken, F. & Vedder, I. (2008). Cognitive tasks complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing 17, 48–60.Google Scholar

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001). Toward a postmethod pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly 35, 537–60.Google Scholar

Lai, C. (2015). Task-based language teaching in the Asian context: Where are we now and where are we going? In Thomas, M. & Reinders, H. (eds.), Contemporary Task-Based Teaching in Asia (pp. 12–29). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar

Lai, C. & Li, G. (2011). Technology and task–based teaching: A critical review. CALICO Journal 28, 498–521.Google Scholar

Lam, D. M. K. (2018). What counts as ‘responding’? Contingency on previous speaker contribution as a feature of interactional competence. Language Testing 35, 377–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lambert, C. (1997). Motivation and personal investment in the learning process. Journal of Nanzan Junior College 24, 55–88.Google Scholar

Lambert, C. (1998). The role of the learner in classroom task performance. Journal of Nanzan Junior College 26, 85–101.Google Scholar

Lambert, C. (2002). Task sequencing and affective performance variables. Kitakyushu University Faculty of Foreign Studies Bulletin 103, 97–175.Google Scholar

Lambert, C. (2004). Reverse-engineering communication tasks. ELT Journal 58, 18–27.Google Scholar

Lambert, C. (2010). Task-based needs analysis: Putting principles into practice. Language Teaching Research 14, 99–112.Google Scholar

Lambert, C. (2017). Tasks, affect and second language performance. Language Teaching Research 21(6), 657–64.Google Scholar

Lambert, C., Gong, Q. & Zhang, G. (in press). Learner-generated content and the lexical recall of beginning-level learners of Chinese as a Foreign Language. Available at: www.academia.edu/39149761/_2019_Learner-generated_content_and_the_lexical_recall_of_beginning-level_learners_of_Chinese_as_a_Foreign_Language.Google Scholar

Lambert, C. & Hailes, A. (2002). Simulations: A Task-Based Approach to Conversational English. Kitakyushu: The University of Kitakyushu, Faculty of Foreign Studies.Google Scholar

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

Lambert, C. & Minn, D. (2007). Personal investment in L2 task design and learning: A case study of two Japanese learners of English. ELIA: Estudios de Lingüística Inglesa Aplicada 7, 127–48.Google Scholar

Lambert, C., Philp, J. & Nakamura, S. (2017). Learner-generated content and engagement in L2 task performance. Language Teaching Research 21, 665–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lambert, C. & Robinson, P. (2014). Learning to perform narrative task: A semester long study of task sequencing effects. In Baralt, M., Gilabert, R. & Robinson, P. (eds.), Task Sequencing and Instructed Second Language Learning (pp. 207–30). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar

Lambert, C. & Zhang, G. (2019). Engagement in the use of English and Chinese as second languages: The roles of learner-generated and teacher-generated content. Modern Language Journal 103(2), 391–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lamendella, J. T. (1977). The limbic system in human communication. In Whitaker, H. & Whitaker, H. A. (eds.), Studies in Neurolinguistics, Volume 3 (pp. 154–222). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Lantolf, J. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In Lantolf, J. (ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning (pp. 1–26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lantolf, J. (2007). Conceptual knowledge and instructed second language learning: A sociocultural perspective. In Fotos, S. & Nassaji, H. (eds.), Form-Focused Instruction and Teacher Education: Studies in Honour of Rod Ellis (pp. 35–54). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lantolf, J. (2009). Dynamic assessment: The dialectic integration of instruction and assessment. Language Teaching 42, 355–68.Google Scholar

Lantolf, J., Kurtz, L. & Kisselev, O. (2016). Understanding the revolutionary character of L2 development in the ZPD: Why levels of mediation matter. Language and Social Cultural Theory 3, 153–71.Google Scholar

Lantolf, J. P. & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural Theory and the Pedagogical Imperative in L2 Education: Vygotskian Praxis and the Theory/Practice Divide. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Lantolf, J. & Thorne, S. (2006). Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lantolf, J., Thorne, S. & Poehner, M. (2015). Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 207–26). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Lantolf, J. & Zhang, X. (2017). Concept-based language instruction. In Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Language Acquisition (pp. 146–65). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching, second edition. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Laufer, B. & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics 22, 1–26.Google Scholar

Leaver, B. & Willis, J.. (2004). Task-Based Instruction in Foreign Language Education. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

Lee, A. & Lyster, R. (2016). The effects of corrective feedback on instructed L2 speech production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 38, 35–64.Google Scholar

Lee, L. (2005). Using web-based instruction to promote active learning: Learners’ perspectives. CALICO Journal 23, 139–56.Google Scholar

Lee, S. & Huang, S. (2008). Visual input enhancement and grammar learning. A meta-analytic review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 30, 307–31.Google Scholar

Leontiev, A. (1978). Activity, Consciousness, and Personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Leontiev, A. (1981). Psychology and the Language Learning Process. London: Pergamon.Google Scholar

Leow, R. (2015). Explicit and implicit learning in the L2 classroom: Processes and products. In Rebuschat, P. (ed.), Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages (pp. 47–68). Amderdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Leung, J. H. C. & Williams, J. N. (2011). The implicit learning of mappings between forms and contextually derived meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 33, 33–55.Google Scholar

Levelt, W. J. (1989). Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Levelt, W. J. (1999). Producing spoken language: A blueprint of the speaker. In Brown, C. & Hagoort, P. (eds.), Neurocognition of Language (pp. 83–122). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lewis, M. (1993). The Lexical Approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.Google Scholar

Li, D. (1998). It’s always more difficult than you planned: Teachers’ perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly 32, 677–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Li, L., Chen, J. & Sun, L.. (2015). The effects of different lengths of pre-task planning time on L2 learners’ oral test performance. TESOL Quarterly 49, 38–66.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 (pp. 129–54). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning 60, 309–65.Google Scholar

Li, S. (2013a). The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences in language analytic ability and working memory. Modern Language Journal 97, 634–54.Google Scholar

Li, S. (2013b). The differential roles of language analytic ability and working memory in mediating the effects of two types of feedback on the acquisition of an opaque linguistic structure. In Sanz, C. & Lado, B. (eds.), Individual Differences, L2 Development & Language Program Administration: From Theory to Application. Boston: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar

Li, S. (2015). The associations between language aptitude and second language grammar acquisition: A meta-analytic review of five decades of research. Applied Linguistics 36, 385–408.Google Scholar

Li, S. (2016). The construct validity of language aptitude. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 38, 801–42.Google Scholar

Li, S. (2017). Teacher and learner beliefs about corrective feedback. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 143–57). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Li, S., Ellis, R. & Zhu, Y. (2016). Task-based versus task-supported language instruction: An experimental study. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 36, 205–29.Google Scholar

Li, S., Ellis, R. & Zhu, Y. (2017). The influence of pre-task grammar instruction on task performance and L2 learning in task-supported language instruction: A process-product study.Google Scholar

Li, S. & Fu, M. (2017). Strategic and unpressured within-task planning and their associations with working memory. Language Teaching Research 22, 230–53.Google 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, 276–95.Google Scholar

Lin, T.-B. & Wu, C.-W. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions of task-based language teaching in English classrooms in Taiwanese high schools. TESOL Journal 3, 586–609.Google Scholar

Linck, J., Osthus, P., Koeth, J. & Bunting, M. (2014). Working memory and second language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 21, 861–83.Google Scholar

Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms. Language Teaching 40, 243–9.Google Scholar

Littlewood, W. (2014). Communication-oriented teaching: Where are we now? Where do we go from here? Language Teaching 47, 249–362.Google Scholar

Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27, 361–86.Google Scholar

Loewen, S., Erlam, R. & Ellis, R. (2009). The incidental acquisition of 3rd person – s as implicit and explicit knowledge. In Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Elder, C., Erlam, R., Philp, J. & Reinders, H. (eds.), Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing and Teaching (pp. 262–80). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Loewen, S. & Nabei, T. (2007). The effect of oral corrective feedback on implicit and explicit L2 knowledge. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational Interaction and Second Language Acquisition: A Series of Empirical Studies (pp. 361–78). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Long, M. (1980). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar

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

Long, M. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. In Hyltenstam, K. & Pienemann, M. (eds.), Modelling and Assessing Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Long, M. (1989). Task, group, and task-group interactions. University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL 8, 1–26.Google Scholar

Long, M. (1990). Maturation constraints on language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12, 251–85.Google Scholar

Long, M. (1991a). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. In Lambert, R. & Shohamy, E. (eds.), Language Policy and Pedagogy: Essays in Honour of A. Ronald Walton (pp. 179–92). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Long, M. (1991b). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In de Bot, K., Ginsberg, R. & Kramsch, C. (eds.), Foreign Language Research in Cross-Cultural Perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. & Bhatia, T. (eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 121–58).) San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Long, M. (1998). SLA breaking the siege. University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL 17, 79–129.Google Scholar

Long, M. (2005). Methodological issues in learner needs analysis. In Long, M. (ed.), Second Language Needs Analysis (pp. 19–76). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Long, M. (2006). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Long, M. (2015). Second Language Acquisition and Task-Based Language Teaching. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

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

Long, M. H., Adams, L., McLean, M. & Castaños, F. (1976). Doing things with words: Verbal interaction in lockstep and small group classroom situations. In Fanselow, J. & Crymes, R. (eds.), On TESOL ’76 (pp. 137–53). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar

Long, M. & Norris, J. (2000). Task-based teaching and assessment. In Byram, M. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language Teaching (pp. 597–603). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Long, M. & Porter, P. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly 19, 207–28.Google Scholar

Long, M. & Ross, S. (1993). Modifications that preserve language and content. In Tickoo, M. (ed.), Simplification: Theory and Application (pp. 29–52). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.Google Scholar

Loschky, L. (1994). Comprehensible input and second language acquisition: What is the relationship. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16, 303–23.Google Scholar

Loschky, L. & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In Crookes, G. & Gass, S. (eds.), Tasks and Language Learning: Integrating Theory and Practice (pp. 123–67). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Loumpourdi, L. (2005). Developing from PPP to TBL: A focused grammar task. In Edwards, C. & Willis, J. (eds.), Teachers Exploring Tasks in English Language Teaching (pp. 33–9). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Lovblad, K., Schaller, K. & Vargas, M. (2013). The fornix and limbic system. Seminars in Ultrasound, CT and MRI 35, 459–73.Google Scholar

Lynch, T. (2009). Responding to learners’ perceptions of feedback: The use of comparators in second language speaking courses. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 3, 191–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20, 51–81.Google Scholar

Lyster, R. (2001). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning 51, 265–301.Google Scholar

Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26, 399–432.Google Scholar

Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and Teaching Languages through Content: A Counterbalanced Approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Lyster, R. & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28, 269–300.Google Scholar

Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19, 37–66.Google Scholar

Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (2013). Counterpoint piece: The case for variety in corrective feedback research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 35, 167–84.Google Scholar

Lyster, R. & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32, 265–302.Google Scholar

Macaro, E. (2001). Analysing student teachers’ codeswitching in foreign language classrooms: Theories and decision making. The Modern Language Journal 85, 531–48.Google Scholar

MacIntyre, P. D. & Gardner, R. C. (1994). The subtle effects of language anxiety on cognitive processing in the second language. Language Learning 44(2), 283–305.Google Scholar

Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21, 557–87.Google Scholar

Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and second language learning. Applied Linguistics 27, 405–430.Google Scholar

Mackey, A. & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses and red herrings. The Modern Language Journal 82, 338–56.Google Scholar

Mackey, A., Philp, J., Egi, T., Fujii, A. & Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback, and L2 development. In Robinson., P. (ed.), Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analysing Talk: Volume 1: Transcription Format and Programs, third edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

MacWhinney, B., Keenan, J. & Reinke, P. (1982). The role of arousal in memory for conversation. Memory and Cognition 10, 308–17.Google Scholar

Maehr, M. (1984). Meaning and motivation: Toward a theory of personal investment. In Ames, R. & Ames, C. (eds.), Motivation in Education: Student Motivation, vol. 1 (pp. 115–44). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Mak, B. (2011). An exploration of speaking-in-class anxiety with Chinese ESL learners. System 39, 202–14.Google Scholar

Malicka, A. & Levkina, M. (2012). Measuring task complexity: Does L2 proficiency matter? In Shehadeh, A. & Coombe, C. (eds.), Task-Based Language Teaching in Foreign Language Contexts: Research and Implementation (pp. 43–66). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Malicka, A. & Sasayama, S. (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, April.Google Scholar

McDonough, K. (2015). Perceived benefits and challenges with the use of collaborative tasks in EFL contexts. In Bygate, M. (ed.), Domains and Direction in the Development of TBLT (pp. 225–45). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

McDonough, K. & Chaikitmongkol, W. (2007). Teachers’ and learners’ reactions to a task-based EFL course in Thailand. TESOL Quarterly 41, 107–32.Google Scholar

McNamara, T. (1996). Measuring Second Language Performance. London: Longman.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

Mercer, S., Ryan, S. & Williams, M. (2012). Introduction. In Mercer, S., Ryan, S. & Williams, M. (eds.), Psychology for Language Learning: Insights from Research, Theory, and Practice (pp. 10–25). New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar

Mesulam, M. (2000). Behavioural neuroanatomy: Large-scale networks, association cortex, frontal syndromes, the limbic system, and the hemispheric specializations. In Mesulam, M. (ed.), Principles of Behavioural and Cognitive Neurology, second edition (pp. 1–120). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Michel, M. (2011). Effects of task complexity and interaction on L2 performance. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Second Language Task Complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of Language Learning and Performance (pp. 141–74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Mifka-Profozic, N. (2013). The Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback and the Role of Individual Differences in Language Learning. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Miyake, A. & Friedman, N. (1998). Individual differences in second language proficiency: Working memory as language aptitude. In Healy, A. & Bourne, L. (eds.), Foreign Language Learning: Psycholinguistic Studies on Training and Retention. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Mochizuki, N. (2017). Contingent need analysis for task implementation: An activity systems analysis of group writing conferences. TESOL Quarterly 51, 607–31.Google Scholar

Mochizuki, N. & Ortega, L. (2008). Balancing communication and grammar in beginning-level foreign language classrooms: A study of guided planning and relativization. Language Teaching Research 12, 11–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Muller, T. (2005). Adding tasks to textbooks for beginning learners. In Edwards, C. & Willis, J. (eds.), Teachers Exploring Tasks in English Language Teaching (pp. 69–77). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Nabei, T. & Swain, M. (2001). Learner awareness of recasts in classroom interaction: A case study of an adult EFL student. Language Awareness 11, 43–63.Google Scholar

Nakatsukasa, K. (2016). Efficacy of requests and gestures on the acquisition of locative prepositions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 38, 771–99.Google Scholar

Nassaji, H. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning 59, 411–52.Google Scholar

Nassaji, H. (2016). Interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research 20, 535–62.Google Scholar

Nassaji, H. (2017). The effectiveness of extensive versus intensive recasts for L2 learning of grammar. Modern Language Review 101, 353–68.Google Scholar

Nassaji, H. & Fu, T. (2016). Corrective feedback, learner uptake, and feedback perception in a Chinese as a foreign language classroom. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 1, 159–81.Google Scholar

Nassaji, H. & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help in the learning of English articles. Language Awareness 9, 34–51.Google Scholar

Negueruela, E. J. & Lantolf, J. P. (2006). A concept-based approach to teaching Spanish grammar. In Salaberry, R. & Lafford, B. (eds.), Spanish Second Language Acquisition: State of the Art (pp. 79–102). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

Neumann, O. (1987). Beyond capacity: A functional view of attention. In Heuer, H. & Sanders, A. (eds.), Perspectives on Perception and Action (pp. 361–94). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Nielson, K. (2014). Evaluation of online, task-based Chinese course. In González-Lloret, M. & Ortega, L. (eds.), Technology-Mediated TBLT: Researching Technology and Tasks (pp. 295–321). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Nitta, R. & Nakatsuhara, F. (2014). A multifaceted approach to investigating pre-task planning effects on paired oral test performance. Language Testing 31, 147–75.Google Scholar

Niwa, Y. (2000). Reasoning demands of L2 tasks and L2 narrative production: Effects of individual differences in working memory, intelligence, and aptitude. Unpublished master’s thesis, Aoyama Gakuin University, Tokyo.Google Scholar

Norris, J. (2009a). Task-based teaching and testing. In Long, M. & Doughty, C. (eds.), The Handbook of Language Teaching (pp. 578–94). Malden: MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Norris, J. (2009b). Understanding and improving language education through program evaluation: Introduction to the special issue. Language Teaching Research 13, 7–13.Google Scholar

Norris, J. (2015). Thinking and acting programmatically in task-based language teaching. In Bygate, M. (ed.), Domains and Directions in the Development of TBLT (pp. 27–57). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Norris, J. (2016). Current uses for task-based language assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 36, 230–44.Google Scholar

Norris, J., Brown, J. D., Hudson, T. & Yoshioka, J. (1998). Designing Second Language Performance Assessments. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar

Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning 50, 417–528.Google Scholar

Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics 30, 555–78.Google Scholar

Norton, J. (2013). Performing identities in speaking tests: Co-construction revisited. Language Assessment Quarterly 10, 309–30.Google Scholar

Nunan, D. (1989). Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Nunan, D. (1990). The teacher as researcher. In Brumfit, C. & Mitchell, R. (eds.), Research in the Language Classroom. ELT Documents 133. Modern English Publications.Google Scholar

O’Grady, S. (2019). The impact of pre-task planning on speaking test performance for English-medium university admission. Language Testing.Google Scholar

Oga-Baldwin, W. & Nakata, Y. (2017). Engagement, gender, and motivation: A predictive model for Japanese young language learners. System 65, 151–63.Google Scholar

Ohta, A. (2001). Second Language Acquisition Processes in the Classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21, 109–48.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 (pp. 77–110). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Ortega, L. (2009). Interaction and attention to form in L2 text-based computer-mediated communication. In Mackey, A. & Polio, C. (eds.), Multiple Perspectives on Interaction in SLA: Research in Honor of Susan M. Gass (pp. 226–53). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Ortega, L. (2015). Researching CLIL and TBLT interfaces. System 54, 103–9.Google Scholar

Oskoz, A. & Elola, I. (2014). Promoting foreign language collaborative writing through the use of Web 2.0 tools and tasks. In González-Lloret, M. & Ortega, L. (eds.), Technology-Mediated TBLT: Researching Technology and Tasks (pp. 115–48). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

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

Paradis, M. (1994). Neurolinguistic aspects of implicit and explicit memory: Implications for bilingualism and SLA. In Ellis, N. (ed.), Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages (pp. 393–419). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Paradis, M. (2004). A Neurolinguistic Theory of Bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Park,  M. (2015). Development and validation of virtual interactive tasks for an aviation English assessment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.Google Scholar

Park, S. (2010). The influence of pre-task instructions and pre-task planning on focus on form during Korean EFL task-based interaction. Language Teaching Research 14, 9–26.Google Scholar

Patanasorn, C. (2010). Effects of procedural, content, and task repetition on accuracy and fluency in an EFL context. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Northern Arizona University.Google Scholar

Phillips, E. M. (1992). The effects of language anxiety on students’ oral test performance and attitudes. The Modern Language Journal 76(1), 14–26.Google Scholar

Philp, J. & Duchesne, S. (2016). Exploring engagement in tasks in the language classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 36, 50–72.Google Scholar

Philp, J., Oliver, R. & Mackey, A. (2006). The impact of planning time on children’s task–based interactions. System 34, 547–65.Google Scholar

Phung, L. (2017). Task preference, affective response, and engagement in L2 use in a US university context. Language Teaching Research 21, 751–66.Google Scholar

Pica, T. (1987). Second language acquisition, social interaction, and the classroom. Applied Linguistics 8, 3–21.Google Scholar

Pica, T. (1996). Second language learning through interaction: Multiple perspectives. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics 12, 1–22.Google Scholar

Pica, T. (1997). Second language teaching and research relationships: A North American view. Language Teaching Research 1, 48–72.Google Scholar

Pica, T. & Doughty, C.. (1985a). Input and interaction in the communicative language classroom: A comparison of teacher-fronted and group activities. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar

Pica, T. & Doughty, C.. (1985b). The role of group work in classroom second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7, 233–48.Google Scholar

Pica, T., Kanagy, R. & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language research and instruction. In Crookes, G. & Gass, S. (eds.), Task-Based Learning in a Second Language (pp. 9–34). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Pienemann, M. (1985). Learnability and syllabus construction. In Hyltenstam, K. & Pienemann, M. (eds.), Modelling and Assessing Second Language Acquisition (pp. 23–75). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Plonsky, L. & Gass, S. (2011). Quantitative research methods, study quality, and outcomes: The case of interaction research. Language Learning 61, 325–66.Google Scholar

Plonsky, L. & Kim, J. (2016). Task-based learner production: A substantive review. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 36, 73–97.Google Scholar

Plough, I. & Gass, S. (1993). Interlocutor and task familiarity: Effects on interactional structure. In Crookes, G. & Gass, S. (eds.), Tasks and Language Learning: Integrating Theory and Practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Poehner, M. (2008). Dynamic Assessment: A Vygostkian Approach to Understanding and Promoting L2 Development. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Poehner, M. & Infante, P. (2017). Mediated development: A Vygotskian approach to transforming second language learner abilities. TESOL Quarterly 51, 332–57.Google Scholar

Poehner, M. & Lantolf, J. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research 9, 233–65.Google Scholar