1887
Volume 152, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0019-0829
  • E-ISSN: 1783-1490
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Task-based language teaching has been advocated as a means of promoting learning through learner interactions in the classroom. However, characteristics of the design and implementation of communicative tasks have been shown to influence learner orientation to form. One task characteristic that may affect learner attention to form, modality, is examined here to determine whether it influences learners' tendency to focus on second language form. Forty-four adult ESL learners engaged in information gap tasks targeted at specific second language forms that required the learners to collaboratively achieve both an oral and a written outcome. Analysis of orientation to form in both spoken and written sections of the task indicated that task modality plays a role in influencing learner orientation to form.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.2143/ITL.152.0.2017861
2006-01-01
2019-10-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adams, R.
    (2003) L2 output, reformulation, and noticing: Implications for iI development. Language Teaching Research, 7, 347–376.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. (2004) Learner-learner ineractions: Implications for second language acquisition. Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics, Portland, OR.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. (in press). Do second language learners benefit from interacting with each other? In A. Mackey Ed. Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bardovi-Harlig, K. , & Bergstrom, A.
    (1996) Acquisition of tense and aspect in second language and foreign language learning: Learner narratives in esl and ffI. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 52(2), 308–330.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Basturkmen, H. , Loewen, S. , & Ellis, R.
    (2002) Metalanguage in focus on form in the communicative classroom. Language Awareness, 11, 1–13.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Becker, A , & Carroll, M.
    (1997) The acquisition of spatial relations in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  7. Benware, W. A.
    (1976) A perSistent problem of prepositional usage. Die Unterrichtspraxis, 9(2),65–73.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Breen, M. P.
    (1987) Contemporary paradigms in syllabus design. Language Teaching, 20, 157–174.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Brown, R.
    (1991) Group work, task difference, and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 21, 1–12.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bruton, A. , & Samuda, V.
    (1980) Learner and teacher roles in the treatment of oral error in group work. RELC Journal, 11(2),49–63.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bygate, M.
    (1996) Effects of task repetition: Appraising the developing language of learners. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp.134–146). London: Heinemann.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. (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, England: Pearson.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bygate, M. , Skehan, P. , & Swain, M.
    (2001) Introduction. In M. Bygate , P. Skehan & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp.1–20). Harlow, England: Pearson.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Carroll, M. , & Becker, A.
    (1993) Reference to space in learner varieties. In C. Perdue (Ed.), Adult language acquisition: Cross-linguistic perspectives. (Vol.2, pp.119–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. DÖrnyei, Z. , & Kormos, J.
    (2000) The role of individual and social variables in oral task performance. Language Teaching Research, 4, 275–300.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Ellis, R.
    (2001) Non-reciprocal tasks, comprehension, and second language acquisition. In M. Bygate , P. Skehan & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp.49–74). Harlow, England: Pearson.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. (2003) Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Ellis, R. , Basturkmen, H. , & Loewen, S.
    (2001a) Learner uptake in communicative esllessons. Language Learning, 51,281–318.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. (2001b) Preemptive focus on form in the esl classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 407-432.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. (2002) Doing focus on form. System, 30,419–432.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 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]
  22. Ellis, R. , Tanaka, Y. , & Yamazaki, A.
    (1994) Classroom interaction, comprehension and the acquisition of 12 word meanings. Language Learning, 44, 449–491.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Foster, P.
    (1998) A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 19, 1–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Foster, P. , & Skehan, P.
    (1996) The influence of planning and task type on second language performances. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–323.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. (1999) The influence of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 3, 215–247.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Garcia-Mayo, M. , & Pica, T.
    (2000) Interaction among proficient learners: Are input, feedback, and output needs addressed in a foreign language context? Studia-Linguistica, 54, 272–279.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Gardner, D. , & Miller, L.
    (1996) Tasks for independent learning. Washington DC: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Gass, S. M. , Mackey, A. , Fernandez, M. , & Alvarez-Torres, M.
    (1999) The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 49, 549–580.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Gass, S. M. , Mackey, A. , & Ross-Feldman, L.
    (2003) The role of setting in classroom and laboratory interaction: From claims to data. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, Tucson, AZ..
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Gass, S. M. , & Varonis, E.
    (1984) The effect of familiarity on the comprehensibility of nonnative speech. Language Learning, 34,65–89.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. (1989) Incorporated repairs in nonnative discourse. In M. Eisenstein (Ed.), The dynamic interlanguage (pp.71–86). New York: Plenum Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. (1994) Input, interaction and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16,283–302.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Goldschneider, J. M. , & DeKeyser, R. M.
    (2001) Explaining the "natural order of 12 morpheme acquisition" in english: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51, 1–50.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Iwashita, N.
    (2003) Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: Differential effects on 12 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 1–36.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Johnson, J. S. , & Newport, E. L.
    (1989) Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of english as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 217–248.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Kormos, J. , & Dbrnyei, Z.
    (2004) The interaction of linguistic and motivational variables in second language task performance. Zeitschrift fiir Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht, 9(2), 19.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Lardiere, D.
    (1998) Dissociating syntax from morphology in a divergent 12 end-state grammar. Second Language Research, 14, 359–375.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Leeman, J.
    (2003) Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37–63.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Loewen, S.
    (2003) The effectiveness of incidental focus on form in meaning-focused esl lessons. New Zealand Studies in Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 63–83.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. (2004) Uptake in incidental focus on form in meaning-focused esl lessons. Language Learning, 54, 153–188.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Long, M.
    (1990) Task, group, and task-group interactions. In S. Anivan (Ed.), Language teaching methodology for the nineties (pp.31–59). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
  42. Long, M. , & Robinson, P.
    (1998) Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In C. Doughty , & J. Williams (Ed.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.15–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Long, M. H.
    (1991) Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot , R. Ginsburg & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp.39–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Long, M. H. , Inagaki, S. , & Ortega, L.
    (1998) The role of implicit negative feedback in sla: Models and recasts in japanese and spanish. Modern Language Journal, 82,357–371.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Loschky, L.
    (1994) Comprehensible input and second language acquisition: What is the relationship? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 303–325.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Lynch, T. , & Maclean, J.
    (2000) Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for classroom language learning. Language Teaching Journal, 4,221–250.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. (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, England:Pearson.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Mackey, A.
    (1999) Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in esl.Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21,557–587.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Mackey, A. , Gass, S. M. , & McDonough, K.
    (2000) How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22,471–497.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Mackey, A. , Oliver, R. , & Leeman, J.
    (2003) Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback: An exploration of ns-nns and nns-nns adult and child dyads. Language Learning, 53, 35–66.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Mackey, A. , & Philp, J.
    (1998) Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Newton, J. , & Kennedy, G.
    (1996) Effects of communication tasks on the grammatical relationships marked by second language users. System, 24, 309–322.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Nunan, D.
    (1989) DeSigning tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Ortega, L.
    (1999) Planning and focus on form in 12 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 109–148.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. (2005) What do learners plan? Learner-driven attention to form during pre-task planning. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.77–110). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  56. Philp, J.
    (2003) Constraints on 'noticing the gap': Nonnative speakers' noticing of recasts in ns-nns interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99–126.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Pica, T.
    (1992) Communication with second language learners: What does it reveal about the social and linguistic processes of second language learning? In J. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown university round table on languages and linguistics (pp.435–464). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. (1994) Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493–527.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Pica, T. , Lincoln-Porter, F. , Paninos, D. , & Linnell, J.
    (1996) Language learners' interaction: How does it address the input, output, and feedback needs of 12 learners? TESOL Quarterly, 30, 59–84.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Pienemann, M. , & Johnston, M.
    (1987) Factors influencing the development of language proficiency. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Applying second language acquisition research (pp.45–141). Adelaiade, New Zealand: National Curriculum Resource Center, AMEP.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Plough, I. , & Gass, S. M.
    (1993) Interlocutor and task familiarity: Effects on interactional structure. In G. Crookes & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp.35–56). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Robinson, P.
    (1995) Attention, memory, and the "noticing" hypothesis. Language Learning, 45, 283–331.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. (1996) Connecting tasks, cognition and syllabus design. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Task complexity and second language syllabus design: Data-based studies and speculations (pp.1–16). Brisbane: University of Queensland Working Papers in Applied Linguistics (Special issue).
    [Google Scholar]
  64. (2001) Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22 ,27–57.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Robinson, P. , Ting, S. , & Unwin, J.
    (1995) Investigating second langauge task complexity. RELC Journal, 25, 62–79.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Skehan, P.
    (1998) A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Skehan, P. , & Foster, P.
    (1997) Task type and task procesing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1, 195–211.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. (2001) Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp.183–205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Storch, N.
    (1998) Comparing second language learners' attention to form across tasks. Language Awareness, 7, 176–191.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. (1999) Are two heads better than one? Pair work and grammatical accuracy. System, 27, 363–374.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. (2001) How collaborative is pair work? Esl tertiary students composing in pairs. Language Teaching Research, 5, 29–53.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. (2002) Patterns of interaction in esl pair work. Language Learning, 52, 119–158.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Swain, M. , & Lapkin, S.
    (1998) Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent french immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. (2001) Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In M. Bygate , P. Skehan & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp.99–118). London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. (2003) Talking it through: Two french immersion learners' response to reformuated writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Ur, P.
    (1981) Discussions that work: Task-centered fluency practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. (1988) Grammar practice activities: A practical guide for teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Varonis, E. , & Gass, S. M.
    (1985a) Miscommunication in native/nonnative conversation. Language in Society, 14, 327–343.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. (1985b) Non-native/non-native conversations: Amodel for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6, 71–90.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Weber-Olsen, M. , & Ruder, K. F.
    (1980) Acquisition and generalization of japanese locatives by english-speakers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 1, 183–198.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Williams, J.
    (2001a) The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System, 29, 325–340.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. (2001b) Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 51 (supplement 1), 303–346.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Yuan, F. , & Ellis, R.
    (2003) The effects of pre-task planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in 12 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24, 1–27.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.2143/ITL.152.0.2017861
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error