Cover not available
Part of
Widening Contexts for Processability Theory: Theories and issues
Edited by Anke Lenzing, Howard Nicholas and Jana Roos
[Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching 7] 2019
► pp. 285–300

Chapter 12
Exploiting the potential of tasks for targeted language learning in the EFL classroom

This chapter reports on a classroom study showing how communicative tasks that include a focus on the developmental readiness of the learners promote the acquisition process. The study explores the effects of the use of such tasks with young German learners of English. It is based on the idea that a positive effect on language development is possible using an approach that engages learners in the active use of grammatical features for which they are developmentally ready. The study focuses on the acquisition of ‘third person singular ‑s’. In a pretest, a number of the learners involved had shown that they were developmentally ready for this feature. After an instruction period that included work with communicative tasks focussing on this feature, oral speech production data were obtained through task-based interaction in a posttest and a delayed posttest. The data indicate that providing learners with these kinds of opportunities to use a ‘learnable’ feature repeatedly and flexibly promotes the acquisition of that feature.

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.A developmentally moderated approach to language teaching
  • 3.A classroom study
    • 3.1Research design
    • 3.2The use of third person singular ‑s
    • 3.3Illustrating the task-based interaction of learners
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 28 November 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.7.12roo
References
Basterrechea, M., & García Mayo, M P.
(2014) Dictogloss and the production of the English third person ‑s by CLIL and mainstream EFL learners: A comparative study. International Journal of English Studies 14(2), 77–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bonilla, C. L.
(2015) Instructing stages of Processability Theory in L2 Spanish: Next or next + 1? In K. Baten, A. Buyl, K. Lochtman, & M. Van Herreweghe (Eds.), Theoretical and methodological developments in Processability Theory (pp. 205–238). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Di Biase, B.
(2008) Focus-on-form and development in L2 learning. In J.-U. Keßler (Ed.), Processability approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 197–220). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Doman, E.
(2015) Implications of the developmental stages of language acquisition for classroom teaching. In K. Baten, A. Buyl, K. Lochtman, & M. Van Herreweghe (Eds.), Theoretical and methodological developments in Processability Theory (pp. 239–262). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C., & Williams, J.
(Eds.) (1998a) Focus on form in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1998b) Issues and terminology. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 1–11). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dyson, B
(1996) The debate on form-focused instruction: A teacher’s perspective. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 19(2), 59–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R.
(1989) Are classroom and naturalistic acquisition the same? A study of the classroom acquisition of German word order rules. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 11(3), 305–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003) Task-based language teaching and learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R
(2009) Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 19(3), 221–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016) Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research 20(3), 405–428. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R.
(2018)  Reflections on task-based language Teaching. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M. P., & Lázaro-Ibarrola, A.
(2015) Do children negotiate for meaning in task-based interaction? Evidence from CLIL and EFL settings. System 54, 40–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keßler, J.-U., Liebner, M., & Mansouri, F.
(2011) Teaching. In M. Pienemann & J.-U. Keßler (Eds.), Studying Processability Theory (pp. 150–156). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keßler, J.-U., & Plesser, A.
(2011) Teaching English grammar. Standard Wissen Lehramt Englisch. Paderborn: Schöningh/UTB.Google Scholar
Lenzing, A.
(2008) Teachability and learnability: An analysis of primary school textbooks. In J.-U. Keßler (Ed.), Processability approaches to second language development and second language learning (pp. 221–241). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. M.
(2003) SLA research in the classroom / SLA research for the classroom. Language Learning Journal 28(1), 4–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S.
(2005) Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27(3), 361–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H.
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. & Robinson, P.
(1998) Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. H.
(2000) Focus on form in task-based language teaching. In R. D. Lambert & E. Shohamy (Eds.), Language policy and pedagogy: Essays in honor of A. Ronald Walton (pp. 179–192). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Methodological principles for language teaching. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of language teaching (pp. 373–394). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2015) Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mackey, A.
(1999) Input, interaction and language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21(4), 557–587. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mansouri, F., & Duffy, L.
(2005) The pedagogic effectiveness of developmental readiness in ESL grammar instruction. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 28(1), 81–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M.
(1984) Psychological constraints on the teachability of language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 6(2), 186–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M
(1989) Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics 10(1), 52–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M.
(1998) Language processing and second language development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Ed.) (2005) Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) Processability Theory and teachability. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1–6). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M., & Lenzing, A.
(2015) Processability Theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition. An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 159–179). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M
(2015) An outline of Processability Theory and its relationship to other approaches to SLA. Language Learning 65(1), 123–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rohde, A
(2010) Introduction to second language acquisition. In K. Kersten, A. Rohde, C. Schelletter, & A. K. Steinlen (Eds.). Bilingual preschools, Volume II: Best practices (pp. 119–130). Trier: WVT.Google Scholar
Roos, J.
(2016) Acquisition as a gradual process: Second language development in the EFL classroom. In J.-U. Keßler, A. Lenzing, & M. Liebner (Eds.), Developing, modelling and assessing second languages (pp. 121–134). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sarandi, H
(2017) Mixed corrective feedback and the acquisition of third person ‘-s’. The Language Learning Journal, 1–12.
https://doi.org/
. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R.
(1990) The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11 (2), 129–158. . DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M.
(1999) Instruction, L1 influence and developmental readiness in second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal 83, 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008) Form-focused instruction: Isolated or integrated? Tesol Quarterly 42(2), 181–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M.
(1993) The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. The Canadian Modern Languages Review 50(1), 33–39.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Williams, J.
(2015) Early theories in SLA. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 17–33). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Keßler, Jörg‐U. & Anke Lenzing
2022. Grammar in Foreign and Second Language Classes. In The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Mayo, María del Pilar García & María Luquin
2023. Does repeated pre-task planning have an impact on form-focused LREs?. Language Teaching for Young Learners 5:2 ► pp. 149 ff. DOI logo
Nicholas, Howard, Manfred Pienemann & Anke Lenzing
2022. Teacher decision-making, dynamical systems and processability theory. Instructed Second Language Acquisition 6:2 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 april 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.