Get it right in the end The effects of post-task transcribing on learners’ oral performance

Task-Based Language Teaching

Volumn 5, Issue , 2014, Pages 129-154

  Qian, Li ^a  

^a GUANGDONG UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN STUDIES   (China)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85150162490     PISSN: 1877346X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1075/tblt.5.05qia     Document Type: Chapter

References (64)

1. Bialystok, E. (1990). Communication strategies: A psychological analysis of second Language use. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
2. Brown, J.D. & Rodgers, T. (2002). Doing second language research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3. Bygate, M. (1996). Effects of task repetition: Appraising the developing languages of learners. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 136–145). Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann.
4. Bygate, M. (2000). Introduction. Language Teaching Research, 4, 185–192.
5. Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M.Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 23–48). Harlow: Longman.
6. Clennell, C. (1999). Promoting pragmatic awareness and spoken discourse skills with EAP classes. ELT Journal, 53, 83–91.
7. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8. Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). Cambridge: CUP.
9. Doughty, C. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 256–310). New York, NY: Blackwell.
10. Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998a). Issues and terminology. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom language acquisition (pp.1–11). Cambridge: CUP.
11. Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998b). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom language acquisition (pp.197–261). Cambridge: CUP.
12. Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998c). Focus on form in classroom language acquisition. Cambridge: CUP.
13. Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51, 1–46.
14. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: OUP.
15. Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: OUP.
16. Ferris, D.R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
17. Foster P., & Skehan P. (2013), Anticipating a post-task activity: The effects on accuracy, complexity and fluency of L2 language performance. Canadian Modern Language Journal 69, 3, 249–273.
18. Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21, 354–375.
19. Fotos, S., & Nassaji, H. (Eds.). (2007). Form-focused instruction and teacher education: Studies in honor of Rod Ellis. Oxford: OUP.
20. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and Issues. Cambridge: CUP.
21. Kepner, C.G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. Modern Language Journal, 75, 305–313.
22. Kormos, J. (1999). Monitoring and self-repair. Language Learning, 49, 303–342.
23. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
24. Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.
25. Leeman, J. (2007). Feedback in L2 learning: Responding to errors during practice. In R. Dekeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp.111–137). Cambridge: CUP.
26. Leeser, M. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8, 55–81.
27. Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429–448.
28. Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 361–386.
29. Long, M. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–141.
30. Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
31. Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of research on second language acquisition (pp.413–468). New York: Academic Press.
32. Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom language acquisition (pp. 15–41). Cambridge: CUP.
33. Lynch, T. (2001). Seeing what they meant: Transcribing as a route to noticing. ELT Journal, 55, 124–132.
34. Lynch, T. (2007). Learning from the transcripts of an oral communication task. ELT Journal, 61, 311–320.
35. Lynch, T., & Maclean, 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). Harlow: Longman.
36. Malvern, D., & Richards, B. (2002). Investigating accommodation in language proficiency interviews using a new measure of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 19, 85–104.
37. McLaughlin, B. (1990). Restructuring. Applied Linguistics, 11, 113–128.
38. Mennim, P. (2003). Rehearsed oral L2 output and reactive focus on form. ELT Journal, 57, 130–138.
39. Mennim, P. (2011). Learner negotiation of L2 form in transcription exercises. ELT Journal, 66(1), 52–61.
40. Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.
41. Pica, T. (2002). Subject-matter content: How does it assist the interactional and linguistic needs of classroom language learners? Modern Language Journal, 86, 1–19.
42. Prabhu, N.S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: OUP.
43. Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: CUP.
44. Rutherford, W. (1988). Second language grammar: Teaching and learning. London: Longman.
45. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–28). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46. Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23, 103–110.
47. Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 37, 38–62.
48. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: OUP.
49. Skehan, P. (2007). Task research and language teaching: Reciprocal relationships. In S. Fotos & H. Nassaji (Eds.), Form-focused instruction and teacher education: Studies in honor of Rod Ellis (pp. 55–69). Oxford: OUP.
50. Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185–211.
51. Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183–205). Cambridge: CUP.
52. Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 30, 73–87.
53. Stern, H.H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
54. Stillwell, C., Curabba, B., Alexander, K., Kidd, A., Kim, E., Stone, P., & Wyle, C. (2010). Students transcribing tasks: Noticing fluency, accuracy and complexity. ELT Journal, 64, 445–455.
55. Storch, N. (2007). Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ELS classes. Language Teaching Research, 11, 143–159.
56. Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158–164.
57. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144).Oxford: OUP.
58. Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook on research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
59. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391.
60. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337.
61. Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255–272.
62. Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: OUP.
63. Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman.
64. Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy and complexity (Technical Report #17). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.