Article published in:Processing Perspectives on Task Performance
Edited by Peter Skehan
[Task-Based Language Teaching 5] 2014
► pp. 129–154
Chapter 5. Get it right in the end
The effects of post-task transcribing on learners’ oral performance
Given the small body of existing research concerning focus on form at the post-task stage in task-based language teaching, the present study uses a post-task transcribing condition as a focus on form activity and explores the effects of transcribing under various conditions. Eighty participants, divided into four experimental groups and one control group completed four tasks with a one-week interval between each task. Different experimental groups were assigned various post-task activities respectively. No post-task activity was adopted in the control group. Task performance was measured in terms of complexity, accuracy and lexical performance. The findings are multifaceted. First of all, the adoption of post-task transcribing, in general, was found to be efficient for different formal aspects of task performance. In the second place, pair-based transcribing led to more syntactically complex language, whereas the individual-based transcribing at the post-task stage led to an improvement in lexical sophistication. Thirdly, further revision after transcribing had mixed effects on accuracy and complexity. The findings are discussed in light of the concepts of noticing and attention, interaction theory and other related SLA theories. Based on the theoretical discussion, pedagogical implications are proposed.
Published online: 30 April 2014
(1990) Communication strategies: A psychological analysis of second Language use. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Brown, J.D. & Rodgers, T.
(2002) Doing second language research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(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.
(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.
(1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
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.
(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.
(Eds.) (1998c) Focus on form in classroom language acquisition. Cambridge: CUP.
(2003) Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: OUP.
(2008) The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: OUP.
(2003) Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Foster P., & Skehan P.
Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G.
Fotos, S., & Nassaji, H.
(Eds.) (2007) Form-focused instruction and teacher education: Studies in honor of Rod Ellis. Oxford: OUP.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F.
(1982) Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
(1985) The Input Hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N.
(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.
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.
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.
Malvern, D., & Richards, B.
Norris, J., & Ortega, L.
(1987) Second language pedagogy. Oxford: OUP.
(1988) Second language grammar: Teaching and learning. London: Longman.
(1998) A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: OUP.
(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.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P.
(1983) Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stillwell, C., Curabba, B., Alexander, K., Kidd, A., Kim, E., Stone, P., & Wyle, C.
(1993) The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158–164.
(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.
(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.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S.
Willis, D., & Willis, J.
(2007) Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: OUP.
(1996) A framework for task-based learning. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman.
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.
Cited by other publications
van de Guchte, Marrit, Martine Braaksma, Gert Rijlaarsdam & Peter Bimmel
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 june 2020. 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.