Task-based language learning Insights from and for L2 writing. An introduction

Task-Based Language Teaching

Volumn 7, Issue , 2014, Pages 1-23

  Byrnes, Heidi ^a   Manchón, Rosa M ^b  

^a GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MURCIA   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85150018254     PISSN: 1877346X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1075/tblt.7.01byr     Document Type: Chapter

References (110)

1. Adams, R. (2006). L2 tasks and orientation to form: A role for modality? ITL: International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 152, 7–34.
2. Adams, R., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2008). Does writing influence learner attention to form? In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), The oral-literate connection (pp. 243–266). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
3. Alegría de la Colina, A., & García Mayo, M.P. (2007). Attention to form across collaborative tasks by low-proficiency learners in an EFL setting. In M.P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in foreign language learning (pp. 91–116). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
4. Benati, A. (2005). The effects of processing instruction, traditional instruction and meaning-output instruction on the acquisition of the English past simple tense. Language Teaching Research, 9, 67–93. DOI: 10.1191/1362168805lr154oa
5. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. DOI: 10.4324/9780203812310
6. Biber, D., Gray, B., & Kornwipa Poonpon, K. (2011). Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly, 45, 5–35. DOI: 10.5054/tq.2011.244483
7. Bitchener, J. (2012). A reflection on ‘the language learning potential’ of written CF. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 348–363. DOI: 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.006
8. Breen, M. (1987/2009). Learner contributions to task design. In K. Van den Branden, M. Bygate, & J.M. Norris (Eds.), Task-based language teaching: A reader (pp. 333–356). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
9. Byrnes, H. (2011). Beyond writing as language learning or content learning: Construing foreign language writing as meaning-making. In R.M. Manchón (Ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 133–157). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/ lllt.31.11byr
10. Byrnes, H. (2012). Conceptualizing FL writing development in collegiate settings: A systemic functional linguistic approach. In R.M. Manchón (Ed.), L2 writing development: Multiple perspectives (pp. 191–219). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9781934078303.191
11. Byrnes, H. (2013a). Positioning writing as meaning-making in writing research: An introduction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 95–106. DOI: 10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.004
12. Byrnes, H. (Guest Ed.) (2013b). Writing as meaning-making—Teaching to mean. Special issue of the Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(2).
13. Byrnes, H., Maxim, H.H., & Norris, J.M. (2010). Realizing advanced foreign language writing development in collegiate education: Curricular design, pedagogy, assessment. Modern Language Journal, 94(Supplement s-1).
14. Carless, D. (2012). TBLT in EFL settings: Looking back and moving forward. In A. Shehadeh & C.A. Coombe (Eds.), Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts (pp. 345–358). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/tblt.4.20car
15. Cook, V. (2009). Developing links between second language acquisition research and language teaching. In K. Knapp & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), The handbook of foreign language communication and learning (pp. 139–161). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9783110214246.1.139
16. Cumming, A. (1990). Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language composing. Written Communication, 7, 482–511. DOI: 10.1177/0741088390007004003
17. Cumming, A. (2013). Writing development in second language acquisition. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), Encyclopediaofappliedlinguistics.Malden,MA:Wiley-Blackwell.DOI:10.1002/9781405198431. wbeal1299
18. Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9–42). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
19. Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/lllt.11
20. Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9781118271643
21. Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 59–84. DOI: 10.1017/ s0272263104026130
22. Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2005). The effects of careful within-task planning on oral and written task performance. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 167–193). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/lllt.11.11ell
23. Fortune, A., & Thorp, D. (2001). Knotted and entangled: New light on the identification, classification and value of language related episodes in collaborative output tasks. Language Awareness, 10, 143–160. DOI: 10.1080/09658410108667031
24. García Mayo, M.P. (2002a). The effectiveness of two form-focused tasks in advanced EFL pedagogy. InJAL, 12, 156–175. DOI: 10.1111/1473-4192.t01-1-00029
25. García Mayo, M.P. (2002b). Interaction in advanced EFL pedagogy: A comparison of form-focused activities. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 323–341. DOI: 10.1016/ s0883-0355(03)00008-9
26. Genc, Z.S. (2012). Effects of strategic planning on the accuracy of oral and written tasks in the performance of Turkish EFL learners. In A. Shehadeh & C.A. Coombe (Eds.), Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts. Research and implementation (pp. 67–88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/tblt.4.07gen
27. Gilabert, R., Baron, J., & Llanes, A. (2009). Manipulating cognitive complexity across task types and its impact on learners' interaction during oral performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Teaching, 47, 367–395. DOI: 10.1515/iral.2009.016
28. Gunnarsson, C. (2012). The development of complexity, accuracy and fluency in the written production of L2 French. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency. Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 247–276). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/lllt.32.11gun
29. Heath, S.B. (1991). The sense of being literate: Historical and cross-cultural features. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II) (pp. 3–25). New York: Longman.
30. Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (Eds.) (2012). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency. Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/lllt.32
31. Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study of ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541–577.
32. Izumi, S., & Bigelow, M. (2000). Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 34, 239–278. DOI: 10.2307/3587952
33. Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M., & Fearnow, S. (1999). Testing the output hypothesis: Effects of output on noticing and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 421–452.
34. Kormos, J. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 215–240. DOI: 10.1016/j.jslw.2011.02.001
35. Kormos, J., & Trebits, A. (2012). The role of task complexity, modality and aptitude in narrative task performance. Language Learning, 62, 439–472. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00695.x
36. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2002a). The effect of interaction in acquiring the grammar of a second language. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 343–358. DOI: 10.1016/ s0883-0355(03)00009-0
37. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2002b). Collaborative writing in L2: The effect of group interaction on text quality. In S. Ransdell & M. Barbier (Eds.), New directions for research in L2 writing (pp. 169–188). Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-010-0363-6_9
38. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 261–284. DOI: 10.1515/iral.2007.012
39. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2011). Task performance in L2 writing and speaking: The effect of mode. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 91–104). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/ tblt.2.09ch4
40. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2012a). Speaking and writing tasks and their effects on second language performance. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 364–377). London: Routledge.
41. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2012b). Syntactic complexity, lexical variation and accuracy as a function of task complexity and proficiency level in L2 writing and speaking. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency. Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 143–169). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/lllt.32.07kui
42. Lynch, T., & McLean, J. (2000). Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for classroom language learning. Language Teaching Research, 4, 221–250. DOI: 10.1177/136216880000400303
43. Lynch, T., & McLean, J. (2001). ‘“A case of exercising”: effects of immediate task repetition on learners’ performance’. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 141–162). London: Longman
44. Manchón, R.M. (2011). Writing to learn the language: Issues in theory and research. In R.M. Manchón (Ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 61–82). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/lllt.31.07man
45. Manchón, R.M. (2012). L2 writing development: Multiple perspectivesL2 writing development: Multiple perspectives. In R.M. Manchón (Ed.), L2 writing development: Multiple perspectivesL2 writing development: Multiple perspectives (pp. 1–6). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
46. Manchón, R.M. (2013). Writing. In F. Grosjean & Li Ping (Eds.), The psycholinguistics of bilingualism (pp. 100–115). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI: 10.1057/9781137330086.0004
47. Manchón, R.M. (2014). Learning and teaching writing in the FL classroom: Fostering writing-to-learn approaches. In P. Driscoll, E. Macaro, & A. Swarbrick (Eds.), Debates in modern language education (pp. 96–107). London: Routledge.
48. Manchón, R.M., & Roca de Larios, J. (2007). Writing-to-learn in instructed language learning contexts. In E.A. Soler & M.P.S. Jordá (Eds.), Intercultural language use and language learning (pp. 101–121). Berlin: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-5639-0_6
49. Manchón, R.M., Roca de Larios, J., & Murphy, L. (2009). The temporal dimension and problem-solving nature of foreign language composing processes. Implications for theory. In R.M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 102–124). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
50. McCaffery, J., Merrifield, J., & Millican, J. (2007). Developing adult literacy: Approaches to planning, implementing, and delivering literacy initiatives. Oxford, UK: Oxfam GB.
51. Mohan, B.A. (2001). The second language as a medium of learning. In B.A. Mohan, C. Leung, & C. Davison (Eds.), English as a second language in the mainstream: Teaching, learning and identity (pp. 107–126). New York: Longman.
52. National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL). Accessed 10 November 2013 at 〈http://nces.ed.gov/ naal/〉
53. National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS). Accessed 10 November 2013 at 〈http://www.ets.org/literacy/ research/surveys〉
54. Niu, R. (2009). Effect of task-inherent production modes on EFL learners’ focus on form. Language Awareness, 18, 384–402.
55. Norris, J.M. (2002). Interpretations, intended uses, and designs in task-based assessment: Introduction to the special issue. Language Testing, 19, 337–346.
56. Norris, J.M., & Manchón, R.M. (2012). Investigating L2 writing development from multiple perspectives: Issues in theory and research. In R.M. Manchón (Ed.), L2 writing development: Multiple perspectives (pp. 221–244). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9781934078303.221
57. Norris, J.M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555–578. DOI: 10.1093/applin/amp044
58. Norris, J.M., & Pfeiffer, P.C. (2003). Exploring the use and usefulness of ACTFL oral proficiency ratings and standards in college foreign language departments. Foreign Language Annals, 36, 572–581. DOI: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.2003.tb02147.x
59. Ong, J., & Zhang, L.J. (2010). Effects of task complexity on the fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students’ argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 219–233. DOI: 10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.003
60. Ontario Adult Literacy Curriculum Framework. Accessed 10 November 2013 at 〈http://www.essentialskillsontario.ca/essential-skills/skills-delivery/OALCF〉
61. Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 109–148. DOI: 10.1017/s0272263199001047
62. Ortega, L. (2012a). Epilogue: Exploring L2 writing–SLA interfaces. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 404–415. DOI: 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.002
63. Ortega, L. (2012b). Interlanguage complexity: A construct in search of theoretical renewal. In B. Szmrecsanyi&B.Kortmann(Eds.),Linguisticcomplexity:Secondlanguageacquisition,indigenization, contact (pp. 127–155). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9783110229226.127
64. Polio, C. (2012). The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 375–389. DOI: 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.004
65. Qin, J. (2008). The effects of processing instruction and dictogloss tasks on the acquisition of the English passive voice. Language Teaching Research, 12, 61–82.
66. Revesz, A. (2011). Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions, and individual differences: A classroom-based study. Modern Language Journal, 95(s1), 162–181. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01241.x
67. Rijlaarsdam, G., Janssen, T., Braaksma, M., Van Steendam, E., Van den Branden, K., Couzijn, M., & Verheyden, L. (2013). Learning and instruction in writing. In C.A. Stone, E.R. Silliman, B.J. Ehren, & G.P. Wallach (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy (pp. 545–566). New York: Guilford Press.
68. Robinson, P. (2001a). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287–318). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/ cbo9781139524780.012
69. Robinson, P. (2001b). Task complexity, task difficult, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57. DOI: 10.1093/applin/22.1.27
70. Robinson, P. (2003). The Cognition Hypothesis of adult, task-based language learning. Second Language Studies, 21, 45–107.
71. Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 43, 1–32. DOI: 10.1515/iral.2005.43.1.1
72. Robinson, P. (2011a). 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 (pp. 3–37). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/tblt.2.05ch1
73. Robinson, P. (Ed.) (2011b). Second language task complexity. Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/tblt.2.05ch1
74. Robinson, P. (2011c). Task-based learning: A review of issues. Language Learning, 61 (Supplement 1), 1–36. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00641.x
75. Robinson, P., & Gilabert, R. (2013). Task-based learning: Cognitive underpinnings. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9781405198431. wbeal1143
76. Roca de Larios, J., Murphy, L., & Marín, J. (2002) Critical examination of L2 writing process research. In S. Ransdell & M.-L. Barbier (Eds.), New directions for research in L2 writing (pp. 11–47). Boston: Kluwer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-010-0363-6_2
77. Ryshina-Pankova, M., & Byrnes, H. (2013). Writing as learning to know: Tracing knowledge construction in L2 German compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 179–197. DOI: 10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.009
78. Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: 10.1093/elt/ccp007
79. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1986) Research on written composition. In C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 778–803). New York: Macmillan.
80. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1987). Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming in written composition. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics (pp. 143–175). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
81. Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209–231. DOI: 10.4324/9781315845685
82. Slimani-Rolls, A. (2005). Rethinking task-based language learning: What we can learn from the learners. Language Teaching Research, 9, 195–218. DOI: 10.1191/1362168805lr163oa
83. Shintani, N. (2012). Input-based tasks and the acquisition of vocabulary and grammar: A process–product study. Language Teaching Research, 16, 253–279.
84. Skehan, P. (1998a). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1177/003368829802900209
85. Skehan, P. (1998b). Task-based instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 268–286. DOI: 10.1017/s0267190500003585
86. Skehan, P. (2001). Tasks and language performance. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 167–185). London: Longman.
87. Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36, 1–14. DOI: 10.1017/ s026144480200188x
88. Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Leaning, 49, 93–120. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9922.00071
89. Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183–205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/ cbo9781139524780.009
90. Storch, N. (1998a). Comparing second language learners’ attention to form across tasks. Language Awareness, 7, 176–191.
91. Storch, N. (1998b). A classroom-based study: Insights from a collaborative test reconstruction task. ELT Journal, 52, 291–300.
92. Storch, N. (2001). Comparing ESL learners’ attention to grammar on three different collaborative tasks. RELC Journal, 32, 104–124.
93. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research, 4, 251–274. DOI: 10.1177/136216880000400304
94. Swales, J.M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
95. Swales, J.M., & Feak, C.B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills: A course for nonnative speakers of English. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
96. Suzuki, W., & Itagaki, N. (2007). Learner metalinguistic reflections following output-oriented and reflective activities. Language Awareness, 16, 131–146. DOI: 10.2167/la392.0
97. Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 58, 439–473. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00446.x
98. Towell, R., & Tomlinson, P. (1999). Language curriculum development research at university level. Language Teaching Research, 3, 1–32. DOI: 10.1177/136216889900300102
99. Uggen, M.S. (2012). Reinvestigating the noticing function of output. Language Learning, 62, 506–540. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00693.x
100. VandenBranden,K.(Ed.)(2006).Task-basedlanguageeducation:Fromtheorytopractice.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
101. Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M., & Norris, J. (2009). Task-based language teaching. Introducing the reader. In K. Van den Branden, M. Bygate, & J.M. Norris (Eds.), Task-based language teaching: A reader (pp. 2–13). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1002/9781444315783.ch30
102. Verheyden, L.,van den Branden, K., Rijlaarsdam, G., van den Bergh, H., & De Maeyer, S. (2010). Written narrations by 8- to 10-year-old Turkish pupils in Flemish primary education: A follow-up of seven text features. Journal of Research in Reading, 33, 20–38. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01430.x
103. Verspoor, M., Schmid, M.S., & Xu, X. (2012). A dynamic usage based perspective on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 239–263. DOI: 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.007
104. Verspoor, M., & Smiskova, H. (2012). Foreign language writing development from a dynamic usage based perspective. In R.M. Manchón (Ed.), L2 writing development: Multiple perspectives (pp. 17–46). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9781934078303.17
105. White, S. (2011). Understanding adult functional literacy: Connecting text feautures, task demands, and respondent skills. New York: Routledge.
106. Williams, J. (2012). The potential role (s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 321–331. DOI: 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.007
107. Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based language teaching. New York: Longman.
108. Yasuda, S. (2011). Genre-based tasks in foreign language writing: Developing writers' genre awareness, linguistic knowledge, and writing competence. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 111–133. DOI: 10.1016/j.jslw.2011.03.001
109. Yu, G. (2010). Lexical diversity in writing and speaking task performances. Applied Linguistics, 31, 236–259. DOI: 10.1093/applin/amp024
110. Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and online planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24, 1–27.