Cover not available
Article published In:
Task-Based Language Teaching
Edited by Kris Van den Branden and Machteld Verhelst
[ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics 152] 2006
► pp. 7–33

L2 Tasks and Orientation to Form

A Role for Modality?

| School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, Victoria University of Wellington
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.
Published online: 1 January 2006
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.2143/ITL.152.0.2017861
References (83)
References
Adams, R. (2003). L2 output, reformulation, and noticing: Implications for iI development. Language Teaching Research, 71, 347–376.Google Scholar
(2004). Learner-learner ineractions: Implications for second language acquisition. Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics, Portland, OR.
(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.
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, 521(21), 308–330.Google Scholar
Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R. (2002). Metalanguage in focus on form in the communicative classroom. Language Awareness, 111, 1–13.Google Scholar
Becker, A, & Carroll, M. (1997). The acquisition of spatial relations in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Benware, W. A. (1976). A perSistent problem of prepositional usage. Die Unterrichtspraxis, 91(21),65–73.Google Scholar
Breen, M. P. (1987). Contemporary paradigms in syllabus design. Language Teaching, 201, 157–174.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1991). Group work, task difference, and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 211, 1–12.Google Scholar
Bruton, A., & Samuda, V. (1980). Learner and teacher roles in the treatment of oral error in group work. RELC Journal, 111(21),49–63.Google Scholar
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
(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
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
Carroll, M., & Becker, A. (1993). Reference to space in learner varieties. In C. Perdue (Ed.), Adult language acquisition: Cross-linguistic perspectives. (Vol. 21, pp. 119–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DÖrnyei, Z., & Kormos, J. (2000). The role of individual and social variables in oral task performance. Language Teaching Research, 41, 275–300.Google Scholar
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
(2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001a). Learner uptake in communicative esllessons. Language Learning, 511,281–318.Google Scholar
(2001b). Preemptive focus on form in the esl classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 351, 407-432.Google Scholar
(2002). Doing focus on form. System, 301,419–432.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, 211, 285–301.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., & Yamazaki, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension and the acquisition of 12 word meanings. Language Learning, 441, 449–491.Google Scholar
Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 191, 1–23.Google Scholar
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performances. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 181, 299–323.Google Scholar
(1999). The influence of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 31, 215–247.Google Scholar
Garcia-Mayo, M., & Pica, T. (2000). Interaction among proficient learners: Are input, feedback, and output needs addressed in a foreign language context? Studia-Linguistica, 541, 272–279.Google Scholar
Gardner, D., & Miller, L. (1996). Tasks for independent learning. Washington DC: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., Mackey, A., Fernandez, M., & Alvarez-Torres, M. (1999). The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 491, 549–580.Google Scholar
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..
Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. (1984). The effect of familiarity on the comprehensibility of nonnative speech. Language Learning, 341,65–89.Google Scholar
(1989). Incorporated repairs in nonnative discourse. In M. Eisenstein (Ed.), The dynamic interlanguage (pp. 71–86). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
(1994). Input, interaction and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 161,283–302.Google Scholar
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, 511, 1–50.Google Scholar
Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: Differential effects on 12 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 251, 1–36.Google Scholar
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, 421, 217–248.Google Scholar
Kormos, J., & Dbrnyei, Z. (2004). The interaction of linguistic and motivational variables in second language task performance. Zeitschrift fiir Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht, 91(21), 19.Google Scholar
Lardiere, D. (1998). Dissociating syntax from morphology in a divergent 12 end-state grammar. Second Language Research, 141, 359–375.Google Scholar
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 251, 37–63.Google Scholar
Loewen, S. (2003). The effectiveness of incidental focus on form in meaning-focused esl lessons. New Zealand Studies in Applied Linguistics, 91(11), 63–83.Google Scholar
(2004). Uptake in incidental focus on form in meaning-focused esl lessons. Language Learning, 541, 153–188.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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
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
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, 821,357–371.Google Scholar
Loschky, L. (1994). Comprehensible input and second language acquisition: What is the relationship? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 161, 303–325.Google Scholar
Lynch, T., & Maclean, J. (2000). Exploring the benefits of task repetition and recycling for classroom language learning. Language Teaching Journal, 41,221–250.Google Scholar
(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
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in esl. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 211,557–587.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Gass, S. M., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 221,471–497.Google Scholar
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, 531, 35–66.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 821, 338–356.Google Scholar
Newton, J., & Kennedy, G. (1996). Effects of communication tasks on the grammatical relationships marked by second language users. System, 241, 309–322.Google Scholar
Nunan, D. (1989). DeSigning tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in 12 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 211, 109–148.Google Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on 'noticing the gap': Nonnative speakers' noticing of recasts in ns-nns interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 251, 99–126.Google Scholar
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
(1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 441, 493–527.Google Scholar
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, 301, 59–84.Google Scholar
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
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
Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the "noticing" hypothesis. Language Learning, 451, 283–331.Google Scholar
(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
(2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 221 ,27–57.Google Scholar
Robinson, P., Ting, S., & Unwin, J. (1995). Investigating second langauge task complexity. RELC Journal, 251, 62–79.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task procesing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 11, 195–211.Google Scholar
(2001). Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183–205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (1998). Comparing second language learners' attention to form across tasks. Language Awareness, 71, 176–191.Google Scholar
(1999). Are two heads better than one? Pair work and grammatical accuracy. System, 271, 363–374.Google Scholar
(2001). How collaborative is pair work? Esl tertiary students composing in pairs. Language Teaching Research, 51, 29–53.Google Scholar
(2002). Patterns of interaction in esl pair work. Language Learning, 521, 119–158.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent french immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 821, 320–337.Google Scholar
(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
(2003). Talking it through: Two french immersion learners' response to reformuated writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Ur, P. (1981). Discussions that work: Task-centered fluency practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1988). Grammar practice activities: A practical guide for teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Varonis, E., & Gass, S. M. (1985a). Miscommunication in native/nonnative conversation. Language in Society, 141, 327–343.Google Scholar
(1985b). Non-native/non-native conversations: Amodel for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 61, 71–90.Google Scholar
Weber-Olsen, M., & Ruder, K. F. (1980). Acquisition and generalization of japanese locatives by english-speakers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 11, 183–198.Google Scholar
Williams, J. (2001a). The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System, 291, 325–340.Google Scholar
(2001b). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 511 (supplement 1), 303–346.Google Scholar
Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in 12 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 241, 1–27.Google Scholar
Cited by (25)

Cited by 25 other publications

Gallardo del Puerto, Francisco & María Basterrechea
2024. The role of proficiency and pair formation method in language-related episodes: A study of young CLIL learners’ interaction. Language Teaching Research 28:3 ► pp. 1087 ff. DOI logo
Nguyen, Huu Thanh Minh, Hang Le Thanh Nguyen, Ngoc Mai Vo & Nguyen Khanh Huynh
2023. The combined effects of task repetition and post-task teacher-corrected transcribing on complexity, accuracy and fluency of L2 oral performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching DOI logo
Sletova, Natalia
2023. L2 writing as a scaffold for L2 speaking accuracy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 33:2 ► pp. 207 ff. DOI logo
Gallardo-del-Puerto, Francisco & María Martínez-Adrián
2022. Task-modality effects on young learners’ language-related episodes in collaborative dialogue. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics 35:2 ► pp. 480 ff. DOI logo
Gallardo-del-Puerto, Francisco & María Martínez-Adrián
2022. Task Modality Effects on the Production and Elaboration of Language-Related Episodes: A Study on Schoolchildren’s Interactions in a Foreign Language. Languages 7:4 ► pp. 306 ff. DOI logo
Martínez-Adrián, María, M. Juncal Gutiérrez-Mangado, Francisco Gallardo-del-Puerto & María Basterrechea
2021. Language-related episodes by young CLIL learners. Language Teaching for Young Learners 3:2 ► pp. 214 ff. DOI logo
HWANG, HAERIM, HYEYOUNG JUNG & HYUNWOO KIM
2020. Effects of Written Versus Spoken Production Modalities on Syntactic Complexity Measures in Beginning‐Level Child EFL Learners. The Modern Language Journal 104:1 ► pp. 267 ff. DOI logo
Moradi, Arezoo & Mohammad Taghi Farvardin
2020. Negotiation of meaning by mixed‐proficiency dyads in face‐to‐face and synchronous computer‐mediated communication. TESOL Journal 11:1 DOI logo
Zalbidea, Janire
2020. Chapter 9. A mixed-methods approach to exploring the L2 learning potential of writing versus speaking. In Writing and Language Learning [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 56], ► pp. 207 ff. DOI logo
Azkarai, Agurtzane & Rhonda Oliver
2019. Negative feedback on task repetition: ESL vs. EFL child settings. The Language Learning Journal 47:3 ► pp. 269 ff. DOI logo
García Mayo, María del Pilar & Ainara Imaz Agirre
2019. Task modality and pair formation method: Their impact on patterns of interaction and LREs among EFL primary school children. System 80 ► pp. 165 ff. DOI logo
Hsu, Hsiu-Chen
2019. The combined effect of task repetition and post-task transcribing on L2 speaking complexity, accuracy, and fluency. The Language Learning Journal 47:2 ► pp. 172 ff. DOI logo
Manchón, Rosa M. & Olena Vasylets
2019. Language Learning Through Writing: Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Evidence. In The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning, ► pp. 341 ff. DOI logo
Oliver, Rhonda & Agurtzane Azkarai
2019. Patterns of interaction and young ESL learners. Language Teaching for Young Learners 1:1 ► pp. 82 ff. DOI logo
García Mayo, María del Pilar & Agurtzane Azkarai
2016. 9. EFL task-based interaction. In Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 45], ► pp. 241 ff. DOI logo
Azkarai, Agurtzane & María del Pilar García Mayo
2015. Task-modality and L1 use in EFL oral interaction. Language Teaching Research 19:5 ► pp. 550 ff. DOI logo
Bowles, Melissa A. & Rebecca J. Adams
2015. An Interactionist Approach to Learner–learner Interaction in Second and Foreign Language Classrooms. In The Handbook of Classroom Discourse and Interaction, ► pp. 198 ff. DOI logo
Ruiz-Funes, Marcela
2015. Exploring the potential of second/foreign language writing for language learning: The effects of task factors and learner variables. Journal of Second Language Writing 28 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Bowles, Melissa A., Rebecca J. Adams & Paul D. Toth
2014. A Comparison of L2-L2 and L2-Heritage Learner Interactions in Spanish Language Classrooms. The Modern Language Journal 98:2 ► pp. 497 ff. DOI logo
Bowles, Melissa A., Rebecca J. Adams & Paul D. Toth
2014. A Comparison of L2–L2 and L2–Heritage Learner Interactions in Spanish Language Classrooms. The Modern Language Journal 98:2 ► pp. 497 ff. DOI logo
Byrnes, Heidi & Rosa M. Manchón
2014. Task-based language learning. In Task-Based Language Learning – Insights from and for L2 Writing [Task-Based Language Teaching, 7], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Kormos, Judit
2014. Differences across modalities of performance. In Task-Based Language Learning – Insights from and for L2 Writing [Task-Based Language Teaching, 7], ► pp. 193 ff. DOI logo
Alwi, Nik Aloesnita Nik Mohd, Rebecca Adams & Jonathan Newton
2012. Writing to learn via text chat: Task implementation and focus on form. Journal of Second Language Writing 21:1 ► pp. 23 ff. DOI logo
Williams, Jessica
2012. The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing 21:4 ► pp. 321 ff. DOI logo
ADAMS, REBECCA, ANA MARÍA NUEVO & TAKAKO EGI
2011. Explicit and Implicit Feedback, Modified Output, and SLA: Does Explicit and Implicit Feedback Promote Learning and Learner–Learner Interactions?. The Modern Language Journal 95:s1 ► pp. 42 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.