Book contents
- Task-Based Language Teaching
- The Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series
- Task-Based Language Teaching
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Series Editors’ Preface
- Authors’ Preface
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Theoretical Perspectives
- Part III Pedagogical Perspectives
- Part IV Investigating Task-Based Programmes
- Part V Moving Forward
- Endnotes
- References
- Index
- References
References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 October 2019
Book contents
- Task-Based Language Teaching
- The Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series
- Task-Based Language Teaching
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Series Editors’ Preface
- Authors’ Preface
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Theoretical Perspectives
- Part III Pedagogical Perspectives
- Part IV Investigating Task-Based Programmes
- Part V Moving Forward
- Endnotes
- References
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Task-Based Language TeachingTheory and Practice, pp. 374 - 411Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Ableeva, R. & Lantolf, J. (2011). Mediated dialogue and microgenesis of second language listening comprehension. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice 18, 133–49.Google Scholar
Adams, R., Nuevo, A. & Egi, T. (2011). Explicit and implicit feedback, modified output, and SLA: Does explicit and implicit feedback promote learning and learner-learner interaction? Modern Language Journal 95, 42–63.Google Scholar
Ahmadian, M. J. (2012). The relationship between working memory capacity and L2 oral performance under task-based careful online planning condition. TESOL Quarterly 46, 165–75.Google Scholar
Ahmadian, M. J. & Mayo, M. (2018). Introduction recent trends in task-based language teaching and learning. In Ahmadian, M. & Mayo, M. (eds.), Recent Perspectives on Task-Based Language Teaching (pp. 1–8). Boston/Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ahmadian, M. J. & Tavakoli, M. (2011). The effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency in EFL learners’ oral production. Language Teaching Research 15, 35–59.Google Scholar
Aida, Y. (1994). Examination of Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope’s construct of foreign language anxiety: The case of students of Japanese. The Modern Language Journal 78(2), 155–68.Google Scholar
Al Khalil, M. (2011). Second language motivation: Its relationship to noticing, affect, and production in task-based interaction. PhD dissertation, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Alderson, J. & Beretta, A. (eds.) (1992). Evaluating Second Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Alderson, J., Clapham, C. & Steel, D. (1997). Metalinguistic knowledge, language aptitude and language proficiency. Language Teaching Research 1, 93–121.Google Scholar
Alderson, J. & Scott, M. (1992). Insiders, outsiders and participatory evaluation. In Alderson, J. & Beretta, A. (eds.), Evaluating Second Language Education (pp. 25–58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aljaafreh, A. & Lantolf, J. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the Zone of Proximal Development. The Modern Language Journal 78, 465–83.Google Scholar
Allwright, D. (2003). Exploratory practice: Rethinking practitioner research in language teaching. Language Teaching Research 7, 113–41.Google Scholar
Allwright, D. (2005). Developing principles for practitioner research: The case for exploratory practice. Modern Language Journal 89, 353–66.Google Scholar
Allwright, D. & Hanks, J. (2009). The Developing Learner: An Introduction to Exploratory Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Ammar, A. & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28, 543–74.Google Scholar
Aoki, M. (2016). English heads for elementary school in 2020 but hurdles abound. Japan Times, 5 September.Google Scholar
Appel, C. & Gilabert, R. (2002). Motivation and task performance in a task-based web-based tandem project. ReCALL 14, 16–31.Google Scholar
Arslanyilmaz, A. (2013). Computer‐assisted foreign language instruction: Task based vs. form focused. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 29, 303–18.Google Scholar
Aubrey, S. (2017a). Inter-cultural contact and flow in a task-based Japanese EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research 21, 717–34.Google Scholar
Aubrey, S. (2017b). Measuring flow in the EFL classroom: Learners’ perceptions of inter-cultural and intra-cultural task-based interactions. TESOL Quarterly 51, 661–92.Google Scholar
Avermaet, P. & Gysen, S. (2006). From needs to tasks: Language learning needs in a task-based approach. In Van den Branbden, K. (ed.), Task-Based Language Education: From Theory to Practice (pp. 17–46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F. (2002). Some reflections on task-based language performance assessment. Language Testing 19, 453–76.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F. & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language Testing in Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F. & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language Testing in Practice, second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. (2007). Working Memory, Thought, and Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bao, R. & Kirkebaek, M. (2013). Danish students’ perceptions of task-based teaching in Chinese. In Kirkebæk, M., Du, X.-Y. & Jensen, A. (eds.), Teaching and Learning Culture (pp. 61–78). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
Baralt, M. (2014). Task complexity and task sequencing in traditional versus online language classes. In Baralt, M., Gilabert, R. & Robinson, P. (eds.), Task Sequencing and Instructed Second Language Learning (pp. 59–122). New York: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Baralt, M. & Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2011). Comparing learners’ state anxiety during task-based interaction in computer-mediated and face-to-face communication. Language Teaching Research 15(2), 201–29.Google Scholar
Baralt, M., Gurzynski-Weiss, L. & Kim, Y. (2016). Engagement with language: How examining learners’ affective and social engagement explains successful learner-generated attention to form. In Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (eds.), Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning: Pedagogical Potential and Research Agenda (pp. 209–40). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bax, S. (2003). The end of CLT: A context approach to language teaching. ELT Journal 57, 278–87.Google Scholar
Benevides, M. & Valvona, C. (2008). Widgets: A Task-Based Course in Practical English. Hong Kong: Pearson Longman Asia ELT.Google Scholar
Beretta, A. (1989). Attention to form or meaning? Error treatment in the Bangalore project. TESOL Quarterly 23, 283–303.Google Scholar
Beretta, A. (1990). Implementation of the Bangalore project. Applied Linguistics 11, 321–37.Google Scholar
Beretta, A. & Davies, A. (1985). Evaluation of the Bangalore project. ELT Journal 39, 121–7.Google Scholar
Berwick, R. (1990). Task Variation and Repair in English as a Foreign Language. Kobe: Kobe University of Commerce/Institute of Economic Research.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. (1994). Analysis and control in the development of second language proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 157–68.Google Scholar
Blake, R. (2000). Computer-mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology 4, 120–36.Google Scholar
Block, D. (2003). The Social Turn in Second Language Acquisition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Breen, M. (1984). Processes in syllabus design. In Brumfit, C. (ed.), General English Syllabus Design (pp. 47–60). Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Breen, M. (1989). The evaluation cycle for language learning tasks. In Johnson, R. K. (ed.), The Second Language Curriculum (pp. 187–206). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brindley, G. (2013). Task-based assessment. In Chapelle, C. A. (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (online). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Brooks, F. & Donato, R. (1994). Vygotskyan approaches to understanding foreign language learner discourse during communicative tasks. Hispania 77, 262–74.Google Scholar
Brooks, L. & Swain, M. (2014). Contextualizing performances: Comparing performances during TOEFL iBTTM and real-life academic speaking activities. Language Assessment Quarterly, 11, 353–73.Google Scholar
Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983). Teaching the Spoken Language: An Approach Based on the Analysis of Conversational English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, G., Andersen, Shilcock & Yule, G. (1984). Teaching Talk: Strategies for Production and Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, J. D., Hudson, T., Norris, J. & Bonk, W. J. (2002). An Investigation of Second Language Task-Based Performance Assessments. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
Bruner, J. S. (1960). The Process of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Burns, A. (2010). Doing Action Research for English Language Teachers: A Guide for Practitioners. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Butler, Y. (2004). What level of English proficiency do elementary school teachers need to attain to teach EFL? Case studies from Korea, Taiwan, and Japan. TESOL Quarterly 38, 245–78.Google Scholar
Butler, Y. (2011). The implementation of communicative and task-based teaching in the Asia-Pacific region. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31, 36–57.Google Scholar
Butler, Y. (2017a). Young learners’ rationales for self-assessing their performance with and without tasks. Unpublished paper in 7th International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching, Barcelona.Google Scholar
Butler, Y. (2017b). Motivational elements of digital instructional games: A study of young L2 learners game designs. Language Teaching Research 21, 735–50.Google Scholar
Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P. & Swain, M. (eds.), Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing (pp. 23–48). Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Bygate, M. (2018). Dynamic systems: Theory and the issue of predictability in task-based language: Some implications for research and practice in TBLT. In Ahmadian, M. & Mayo, M. (eds.), Recent Perspectives on Task-Based Language Teaching (pp. 146–66). Boston/Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Calvert, M. & Sheen, Y. (2015). Task-based language learning and teaching: An action-research study. Language Teaching Research 19, 226–44.Google Scholar
Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching Languages to Young Children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Canale, M. (1983). On some dimensions of language proficiency. In Oller, J. (ed.), Issues in Language Testing Research (pp. 333–42). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1, 1–47.Google Scholar
Cancino, H., Rosansky, E. & Schumann, J. (1978). The acquisition of English negatives and interrogatives by native Spanish speakers. In Hatch, E. (ed.), Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Candlin, C. (1987). Towards task-based language learning. In Candlin, C. & Murphy, D. (eds.), Language Learning Tasks. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall International.Google Scholar
Canto, S., De Graaf, R. & Jauregi, K. (2014). Collaborative tasks for negotiation of intercultural meaning in virtual worlds and video-web communication. In González-Lloret, M. & Ortega, L. (eds.), Technology-Mediated TBLT: Researching Technology and Tasks (pp. 183–212). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Carless, D. (2003). Student use of the mother tongue in the task-based classroom. ELT Journal 62, 331–8.Google Scholar
Carless, D. (2004). Issues in teachers’ reinterpretation of a task-based innovation in primary schools. TESOL Quarterly 38, 639–62.Google Scholar
Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge and Action Research. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. (1961). Fundamental considerations in testing for English language proficiency of foreign students. In Center for Applied Linguistics, (ed.), Testing the English Proficiency of Foreign Students (pp. 30–40). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. (1981). Twenty-five years of research on foreign language aptitude. In Diller, K. (ed.), Individual Differences and Universals in Language Learning Aptitude. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. & Sapon, S. (1959). Modern Language Aptitude Test. New York: The Psychological Corporation/Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Catani, M., Dell’Acqua, F. & De Schotten, M. (2013). A revised limbic system model for memory, emotion and behaviour. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 37, 1724–37.Google Scholar
Cheng, Y., Horwitz, E. K. & Schallert, D. L. (1999). Language anxiety: Differentiating writing and speaking components. Language Learning 49(3), 417–46.Google Scholar
Colpin, M. & Gysen, S. (2006). Developing and introducing task-based language tests. In Van den Branden, K. (ed.), Task-Based Language Education: From Theory to Practice (pp. 151–74). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Conway, A., Kane, M., Bunting, M., Hambrick, D. & Engle, R. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 12, 769–86.Google Scholar
Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review 57, 402–23.Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics 5, 161–9.Google Scholar
Côté, S. & Gaffney, C. (2018). The effect of synchronous computer-mediated communication on beginner L2 learners’ foreign language anxiety and participation. The Language Learning Journal First view: 1–12.Google Scholar
Coughlan, P. & Duff, P. (1994). Same task, different activities: Analysis of a SLA task from an activity theory perspective. In Lantolf, J. & Appel, G. (eds.), Vygotskyan Approaches to Second Language Research (pp. 173–93). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Language Learning, Teaching, and Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press and Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Council of Europe. (2008). Relating Language Examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference for Language Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Available online at: www.coe.int/t/dg4/portfolio/documents/exampleswriting.pdg.Google Scholar
Cowan, N. (2015). Second-language use, theories of working memory, and the Vennian mind. In Wen, Z., Mota, M. B. & McNeill, A. (eds.), Working Memory in Second Language Acquisition and Processing: Theories, Research, and Commentaries (pp. 29–40). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Cox, D. (2005). Can we predict language items for open tasks? In Edwards, C. & Willis, J. (eds.), Teachers Exploring Tasks in English Language Teaching (pp. 171–86). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Crespo, M. (2011). The effects of task complexity on L2 oral production as mediated by differences in working memory capacity. MA thesis, University of Barcelona.Google Scholar
Crookes, G. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 55, 367–83.Google Scholar
Crookes, G. & Schmidt, R. (1991). Motivation: Reopening the research agenda. Language Learning 41, 469–512.Google Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
Cutrone, P. & Beh, S. (2014). Welcome to Kyushu: A Task-Based Approach to EFL Learning Using Authentic Dialogues. Tokyo: Shohakusha.Google Scholar
Dale, E. & Chall, J. (1948). A formula for predicting readability: Instructions. Educational Research Bulletin 27, 37–54.Google Scholar
Day, E. & Shapson, S. (1991). Integrating formal and functional approaches to language teaching in French immersion: An experimental study. Language Learning 41, 25–58.Google Scholar
De Bot, K. (1992). A bilingual production model: Levelt’s ‘Speaking’ model adapted. Applied Linguistics 13, 1–24.Google Scholar
De Bot, K. & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2011). Researching second language development from a dynamic systems theory perspective. In Verspoor, M., de Bot, K. & Lowie, W. (eds.), A Dynamic Approach to Second Language Development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
De Graaf, . (1997). Effects of Explicit Instruction on Second Language Acquisition. Netherlands: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics.Google Scholar
De Jong, N. H., Groenhout, R., Schoonen, R. & Hulstijin, J. (2013). L2 fluency: Speaking style or proficiency? Correcting measures of L2 fluency for L1 behaviour. Applied Psycholinguistics 36, 1–23.Google Scholar
De la Fuente, M. J. (2006). Classroom L2 vocabulary acquisition: Investigating the role of pedagogical tasks and form-focused instruction. Language Teaching Research 10, 263–95.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition (pp. 42–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Skill acquisition theory. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories of Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction (pp. 94–112). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dembovskaya, S. (2009). Task-based instruction: The effect of motivational and cognitive pre-tasks on second language oral production. PhD thesis, University of Iowa.Google Scholar
De Ridder, I., Vangehuchten, L. & Gomez, M. (2007). Enhancing automaticity through task-based language learning. Applied Linguistics 28, 309–15.Google Scholar
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language earning. In Lantolf, J. & Appel, G. (eds.), Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research (pp. 33–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Donato, R. (2000). Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and second language classroom. In Lantolf, J. (ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning (pp. 27–50). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2002). The motivational basis of language learning tasks. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. & Kormos, J. (2000). The role of individual and social variables in oral task performance. Language Teaching Research 4, 275–300.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. & Ottó, I. (1998). Motivation in action: A process model of L2 motivation. Working Papers in Applied Linguistics (Thames Valley University, London) 4, 43–69.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. & Ushioda, E. (eds.). (2009). Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. (eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 256–310). New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Douglas, D. (2000). Assessing Languages for Specific Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dulay, H. & Burt, M. (1973). Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning 23, 245–58.Google Scholar
Dunn, W. & Lantolf, J. (1998). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development and Krashen’s i +1: Incommensurable constructs; incommensurable theories. Language Learning 48, 411–42.Google Scholar
Duran, G. & Ramaut, G. (2006). Tasks for absolute beginners and beyond: Developing and sequencing tasks at basic proficiency levels. In Van den Branden, K. (ed.), Task-Based Language Education: From Theory to Practice (pp. 47–75). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
East, M. (2012). Task-Based Language Teaching from the Teachers’ Perspective: Insights from New Zealand. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
East, M. (2014). Encouraging innovation in a modern foreign language initial teacher education programme: What do beginning teachers make of task-based language teaching? The Language Learning Journal 42, 261–74.Google Scholar
East, M. (2018). ‘If it is all about tasks, will they learn anything?’ Perspectives on grammar instruction in the task-oriented classroom. In Ahmadian, M. & Mayo, M. (eds.), Recent Perspectives on Task-Based Language Teaching (pp. 217–31). Boston/Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Eckerth, J. (2008). Task-based language learning and teaching – Old wine in new bottlers? In Eckerth, J. & Siekmann, S. (eds.), Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching: Theoretical, Methodological, and Pedagogical Perspectives (pp. 13–46). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Edwards, C. & Willis, J. (eds.). (2005). Teachers Exploring Tasks in English Language Teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Egbert, J. (2003). A study of flow theory in the foreign language classroom. Modern Language Journal 87, 499–518.Google Scholar
Egi, T. (2007). Interpreting recasts as linguistic evidence: The roles of linguistic target, length, and degree of change. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 29, 511–37.Google Scholar
Ehrman, M. E. & Oxford, R. L. (1995). Cognition plus: Correlates of language learning success. The Modern Language Journal 79, 67–89.Google Scholar
Eisenstein, M. (1980). Childhood bilingualism and adult language learning aptitude. Applied Psychology 29, 159–72.Google Scholar
Ekiert, M., Lampropoulou, S., Révész, A. & Torgerson, E. (2018). The effects of task-type and L2 proficiency on discourse appropriacy in oral task performance. In Taguchi, N. & Kim, Y. (eds.), Task-Based Approaches to Teaching and Assessing Pragmatics (pp. 247–64). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Elkhafaifi, H. (2005). Listening comprehension and anxiety in the Arabic language classroom. The Modern Language Journal 89(2), 206–20.Google Scholar
Ellis, D. (2011). The role of task complexity in the linguistic complexity of native-speaker output. Qualifying paper, PhD in Second Language Acquisition Program, College, Park, MD: University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27, 305–52.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. & Robinson, P. (2008). An introduction to cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. In Robinson, P. & Ellis, N. (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 3–24). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1987). Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style shifting in the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 9, 1–19.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1993). Second language acquisition and the structural syllabus. TESOL Quarterly 27, 91–113.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1994). A theory of instructed second language acquisition. In Ellis, N. (ed.), Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages (pp. 79–114). San Diego, CA: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1997). SLA Research and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1999). Learning a Second Language through Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research 4, 193–220.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2001). Non-reciprocal tasks, comprehension and second language acquisition. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P. & Swain, M. (eds.), Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching, and Testing (pp. 49–74). Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task-based research: Theory and research. In Ellis, R. (ed.), Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational Interaction and Second Language Acquisition: A Series of Empirical Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2008). Evaluating and researching grammar consciousness-raising tasks. In Rea-Dickens, P. & Germaine, K. (eds.), Managing Evaluation and Innovation in Language Teaching (pp. 220–52). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009a). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 16, 221–46.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009b). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics 30, 474–509.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2010). Cognitive, social, and psychological dimensions of corrective feedback. In Batstone, R. (ed.), Sociocognitive Perspectives on Language Use and Language Learning (pp. 151–65). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2011). Macro- and micro-evaluations of task-based teaching. In Tomlinson, B. (ed.), Materials Development in Language Teaching, second edition (pp. 212–35). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2012). Language Teaching Research and Language Pedagogy. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2015a). Teachers evaluating tasks. In Bygate, M. (ed.), Domains and Directions in the Development of TBLT (pp. 247–70). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2015b). Understanding Second Language Acquisition, second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2016). Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research 20, 405–28.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2017a). Moving task-based language teaching forward. Language Teaching 50, 441–82.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2017b). The case for introducing task-based language teaching in Asian primary schools. Invited talk at Kansai University, Japan (4 July).Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2018a). Reflections on Task-Based Language Teaching. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2018b). Towards a modular curriculum for using tasks. Language Teaching Research. First view: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818765315.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2019). Explicit versus implicit oral corrective feedback. In Hossein, N. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Cambridge Handbook on Corrective Feedback. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H. & Loewen, S. (2001). Pre-emptive focus on form in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly 35, 407–32.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H. & Loewen, S. (2002). Doing focus-on-form. System 30, 419–32.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 21, 285–301.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. & Heimbach, R. (1997). Bugs and birds: Children’s acquisition of second language vocabulary through interaction. System 25, 247–59.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Li, S. & Zhu, Y. (2018). The effects of pre-task explicit instruction on the performance of a focused task. System 80, 38–47.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Loewen, S. & Erlam, R.. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28, 339–68.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. & Mifka-Provozic, N. (2013). Recasts, uptake and noticing. In Bergsleitner, J., Frota, S. & Yoshioka, J. (eds.), Noticing and Second Language Acquisition: Studies in Honor of Richard Schmidt (pp. 61–79). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i at Manoa, National Foreign Language Center.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. & Shintani, N. (2014). Exploring Language Pedagogy through Second Language Acquisition Research. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y. & Yamazaki, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension, and the acquisition of L2 word meanings. Language Learning 44, 449–91.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. & Yuan, Y. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26, 59–84.Google Scholar
Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R. & Punmäki, R.-L. (eds.), Perspectives on Activity Theory (pp. 19–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Erlam, R. (2006). Elicited imitation as a measure of L2 implicit knowledge: An empirical validation study. Applied Linguistics 27, 464–91.Google Scholar
Erlam, R. (2016). I’m still not sure what a task is: Teachers designing language tasks. Language Teaching Research 20, 275–99.Google Scholar
Erlam, R. & Ellis, R. (2018). Task-based language teaching for beginner-level learners of L2 French: An exploratory study. Canadian Modern Language Review 74(1), 1–26.Google Scholar
Erlam, R., Ellis, R. & Batstone, R. (2013). Oral corrective feedback on L2 writing: Two approaches compared. System 41, 257–68.Google Scholar
Estaire, S. & Zanon, J. (1994). Planning Classwork: A Task-Based Approach. Oxford: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Ewald, J. D. (2007). Foreign language learning anxiety in upper‐level classes: Involving students as researchers. Foreign Language Annals 40(1), 122–42.Google Scholar
Feuerstein, R., Falik, L. & Rynders, J. E. (1988). Don’t Accept Me as I Am. Helping Retarded Performers Excel. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics 19, 1–23.Google Scholar
Foster, P. (2001). Rules and routines: A consideration of their role in the task-based language production of native and non-native speakers. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P. & Swain, M. (eds.), Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching, and Testing (pp. 75–93). Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Foster, P. & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, 299–324.Google Scholar
Foster, P. & Skehan, P. (1999). The influence of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research 3, 185–214.Google Scholar
Foster, P. & Skehan, P. (2012). Complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis in task-based performance: A synthesis of the Ealing research. In Housen, A., Kuiken, F. & Vedder, I. (eds.), Dimensions of L2 Performance and Proficiency: Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency in SLA (pp. 199–220). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Foster, P. & Skehan, P. (2013). The effects of post-task activities on the accuracy of language during task performance. Canadian Modern Language Review 69, 249–73.Google Scholar
Foster, P. & Tavakoli, P. (2009). Lexical diversity and lexical selection: A comparison of native and non-native speaker performance. Language Learning 59, 866–96.Google Scholar
Foster, P. & Wigglesworth, G. (2016). Capturing accuracy in second language performance: The case for a weighted clause ratio. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 36, 98–116.Google Scholar
Foster, P., Tonkyn, A. & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics 21, 354–75.Google Scholar
Fotos, S. & Ellis, R.. (1991). Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach. TESOL Quarterly 25, 605–28.Google Scholar
Fredricks, J., Blumenfeld, P. & Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of evidence. Review of Educational Research 74, 59–105.Google Scholar
Fu, M. & Li, S. (2017). The associations between the cognitive processes of task performance and working memory. Modern Foreign Languages 40, 114–24.Google Scholar
Fulcher, G. (1996). Does thick description lead to smart tests? A data-based approach to rating scale construction. Language Testing 13, 208–28.Google Scholar
Gal’perin, P. I. (1989). Mental actions as a basis for the formation of thoughts and images. Soviet Psychology 27, 45–64.Google Scholar
Galaczi, E. (2008). Peer–peer interaction in a speaking test: The case of the first certificate in English examination. Language Assessment Quarterly 5, 89–119.Google Scholar
Galaczi, E. & ffrench, A. (2010). Context validity. In Taylor, L. (ed.), Examining Speaking: Studies in Language Testing 30 (pp. 112–70). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Gardner, R. C. & Lambert, W. E. (1965). Language aptitude, intelligence, and second-language achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology 56, 191–9.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (1997). Input, Interaction, and the Development of Second Languages. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (1998). Apples and oranges: Or why apples are not oranges and don’t need to be. A response to Firth and Wagner. Modern Language Journal 82, 83–90.Google Scholar
Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated Recall Methodology in Second Language Research. Mahwah, NJ: ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 175–200). London: LEA.Google Scholar
Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (2015). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 180–206). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gass, S. & Varonis, E. (1985). Task variation and nonnative/nonnative negotiation of meaning. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Gass, S. & Varonis, E. (1994). Input, interaction and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16, 283–302.Google Scholar
Gass, S. & Varonis, M. (1984). The effect of familiarity on the comprehension of nonnative speech. Language Learning 34, 65–89.Google Scholar
Gass, S., Mackey, A., Alvarez-Torres, M. & Fernandez-Garcıa, M. (1999). The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning 49, 549–81.Google Scholar
Gilabert, R. & Barón, J. (2013). The impact of increasing task complexity on L2 pragmatic moves. In Mackey, A. & McDonough, K. (eds.), Second Language Interaction in Diverse Educational Settings (pp. 45–69). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gilabert, R. & Munoz, C. (2010). Differences in attainment and performance in a foreign language: The role of working memory capacity. The International Journal of Engineering and Science 10, 19–42.Google Scholar
Gilabert, R., Baron, J. & Levkina, M. (2011). Manipulating task complexity across task types and modes. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Second Language Task Complexity (pp. 105–40). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gilabert, R., Baron, J. & Llanes, A. (2009). Manipulating cognitive complexity across task types and its impact on learners’ interaction during oral performance. IRAL 47, 367–95.Google Scholar
Gilabert, R., Manchón, R. & Vasylets, O. (2016). Mode in theoretical and empirical TBLT research: Advancing research agendas. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 36, 117–35.Google Scholar
Givon, T. (1985). Function, structure, and language acquisition. In Slobin, D. (ed.), The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition, Vol. 1 (pp. 1008–25). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gong, Y. (2014). New Notion English. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Google Scholar
Gong, Y. (2015). Reconceptualising English Education: A Multi-Goal Approach to English Curriculum Design for School-Age Learners. Beijing: CIP.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M. & Nielson, K. (2015). Evaluating TBLT: The case of a task-based Spanish program. Language Teaching Research 19, 525–49.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M. & Ortega, L. (eds). (2015). Technology-Mediated TBLT: Researching Technology and Tasks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31, 445–74.Google Scholar
Goo, J., Granema, G., Novella, M. & Yilmaz, Y. (2015). Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning; Norris & Ortega (2000) revisited and updated. In Rebuschat, P. (ed.), Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages (pp. 443–82). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goo, J. & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 35, 127–65.Google Scholar
Granena, G. (2013). Individual differences in sequence learning ability and second language acquisition in early childhood and adulthood. Language Learning 63, 665–704.Google Scholar
Granena, G. (2015). Cognitive aptitudes for implicit and explicit learning and information-processing styles: An individual differences study. Applied Psycholinguistics 37(3), 577–600.Google Scholar
Granena, G. (2016). Individual versus interactive task-based performance through voice-based computer mediated interaction. Language Learning and Technology 30, 40–59.Google Scholar
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics. 3: Speech Acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Guará Tavares, M. (2011). Pre-task planning, working memory capacity, and L2 speech performance. Organon 51, 245–266.Google Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L. & Baralt, M. (2014). Exploring learner perception and use of task-based interactional feedback in FTF and CMC modes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 35, 1–28.Google Scholar
Gutierrez, G. A. G. (2014). The third dimension: A sociocultural theory approach to the design and evaluation of 3D virtual worlds tasks. In González-Lloret, M. & Ortega, L. (eds.), Technology-Mediated TBLT: Researching Technology and Tasks (pp. 213–238). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hadley, G. (2013). Review of task-based language teaching from the teacher’s perspective. System 41, 194–6.Google Scholar
Hall, G. & Cook, G. (2012). Own-language use in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching 45, 271–308.Google Scholar
Han, Z.-H., Park, E. & Combs, C. (2008). Textual enhancement of input: Issues and possibilities. Applied Linguistics 29, 597–618.Google Scholar
Harley, B. (1989). Functional grammar in French immersion: A classroom experiment. Applied Linguistics 19, 331–59.Google Scholar
Harley, B. & Hart, D. (1997). Language aptitude and second language proficiency in classroom learners of different starting ages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19, 379–400.Google Scholar
Harley, B. & Hart, D. (2002). Age, aptitude and second language learning on a bilingual exchange. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Harley, B., Allen, J. P. B., Cummins, J. & Swain, M. (1990). The Development of Second Language Proficiency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harrison, A. (1982). Student-centered testing: Assessing communication in progress. Levende Talen 372, 401–10.Google Scholar
Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Henzl, V. (1979). Foreigner talk in the classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics 17, 159–67.Google Scholar
Horwitz, E., Horwitz, M. & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern Language Journal 70(2), 125–32.Google Scholar
Housen, A. & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 30(4), 461–73.Google Scholar
Howatt, A. P. R. (1984). A History of English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hu, R. (2013). Task-based language teaching: Responses from Chinese teachers of English. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language 16(4), n.p.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. (2015). Language Proficiency in Native and Non-Native Speakers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hwu, F., Wei, P. & Sun, S. (2014). Aptitude-treatment interaction effects on explicit rule learning: A latent growth curve analysis. Language Teaching Research 18, 294–319.Google Scholar
Hyland, F. (2003). Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System 31, 217–30.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1971). On Communicative Competence. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Inoue, C. (2016). A comparative study of the variables used to measure syntactic complexity and accuracy in task-based research. The Language Learning Journal 1, 1–18.Google Scholar
Ishikawa, T. (2007). The effect of manipulating task complexity along the +/- here-and-now dimension on L2 written narrative discourse. In Garcia Mayo, M. del P. (ed.), Investigating Tasks in Formal Language Learning (pp. 136–56). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Iwashita, N., McNamara, T. & Elder, C. (2001). Can we predict task difficulty in an oral proficiency test? Exploring the potential of an information-processing approach to task design. Language Learning 51, 401–36.Google Scholar
Jackson, D. O. & Suethanapornkul, S. (2013). The cognition hypothesis: A synthesis and meta-analysis of research on second language task complexity. Language Learning 63, 330–67.Google Scholar
Jauregi, K., de Graaff, R., van den Bergh, H. & Kriz, M. (2012). Native/non-native speaker interactions through video-web communication: A clue for enhancing motivation? Computer Assisted Language Learning 25(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
Jeon, I.-J. & Hahn, J.-W. (2006). Exploring EFL teachers’ perceptions of task-based language teaching: A case study of Korean secondary school classroom practice. Asian EFL Journal 8, 123–43.Google Scholar
Jepson, K. (2005). Conversation and negotiated interactions in text and voice chat rooms. Learning & Technology 9, 79–98.Google Scholar
Jobard, G., Crivello, F. & Tzourio-Mazoyer, N. (2003). Evaluation of the dual route theory of reading: A meta-analysis of 35 neuroimaging studies. Neuroimage 20, 693–712.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. (2005). Fighting fossilization: Language at different stages in the task cycle. In Edwards, C. & Willis, J. (eds.), Teachers Exploring Tasks in English Language Teaching (pp. 191–200). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Juffs, A. & Harrington, M. (2012). Aspects of working memory in L2 learning. Language Teaching 44, 137–66.Google Scholar
Kahng, J. (2014). Exploring utterance and cognitive fluency of L1 and L2 English speakers: Temporal measures and stimulated recall. Language Learning 64, 809–54.Google Scholar
Keenan, J., MacWhinney, B. & Mayhew, D. (1977). Pragmatics in memory: A study of natural conversation. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 16, 549–60.Google Scholar
Kelly, C. & Kelly, E. (1996). The Snoop Detective School Conversation Book. Tokyo: Macmillan Language House.Google Scholar
Khabbazbashi, N. (2017). Topic and background knowledge effects on performance in speaking assessment. Language Testing 34, 23–48.Google Scholar
Kiele, R. & Rea-Dickens, P. (2005). Program Evaluation in Language Education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. (2009). The effects of task complexity on learner-learner interactions. System 37, 254–68.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. (2012). Task complexity, learning opportunities, and Korean EFL learners’ question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 34, 627–58.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. (2013). Effects of pre-task modelling on attention to form and question development. TESOL Quarterly 47, 8–35.Google Scholar
Kim, J. & Lantolf, J. (2018). Developing understanding of sarcasm in L2 English through explicit instruction. Language Teaching Research 22, 209–29.Google Scholar
Kim, Y., Payant, C. & Pearson, P. (2015). The intersection of task-based interaction, task complexity, and working memory. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 37, 549–81.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. & Taguchi, N. (2015). Promoting task-based pragmatics instruction in EFL classroom context: The role of task complexity. Modern Language Journal 99, 656–77.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2011). Task complexity, language anxiety, and the development of the simple past. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Second Language Task Complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of Language Learning and Performance (pp. 287–306). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2013). The role of task repetition in L2 performance development: What needs to be repeated during task-based interaction? System 41, 829–40.Google Scholar
Klein, W. & Perdue, C. (1997). The basic variety (or: couldn’t natural languages be much simpler?). Second Language Research 13, 301–47.Google Scholar
Kormos, J. (2006). Speech Production and Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kormos, J. (2011). Speech production and the cognition hypothesis. In Robinson, P. (ed.), L2 Task Complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of Language Learning and Performance (pp. 39–60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kormos, J. & Dörnyei, Z. (2004). The interaction of linguistic and motivational variables in second language task performance. Zeitschrift für interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht 9, 1–19.Google Scholar
Kormos, J., Kiddle, T. & Csizer, K. (2011). Systems of goals, attitudes, and self-related beliefs in second-language learning motivation. Applied Linguistics 32, 495–516.Google Scholar
Kormos, J. & Trebits, A. (2011). Working memory capacity and narrative task performance. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Second Language Task Complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of Language Learning and Performance (pp. 267–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1981a). Aptitude and attitude in relation to second language acquisition and learning. In Diller, K. (ed.), Individual Differences and Universals in Language Learning Aptitude. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1981b). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. & Terrell, T. (1983). The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Kuiken, F. & Vedder, I. (2008). Cognitive tasks complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing 17, 48–60.Google Scholar
Lai, C. (2015). Task-based language teaching in the Asian context: Where are we now and where are we going? In Thomas, M. & Reinders, H. (eds.), Contemporary Task-Based Teaching in Asia (pp. 12–29). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Lai, C. & Li, G. (2011). Technology and task–based teaching: A critical review. CALICO Journal 28, 498–521.Google Scholar
Lam, D. M. K. (2018). What counts as ‘responding’? Contingency on previous speaker contribution as a feature of interactional competence. Language Testing 35, 377–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, C. (1997). Motivation and personal investment in the learning process. Journal of Nanzan Junior College 24, 55–88.Google Scholar
Lambert, C. (1998). The role of the learner in classroom task performance. Journal of Nanzan Junior College 26, 85–101.Google Scholar
Lambert, C. (2002). Task sequencing and affective performance variables. Kitakyushu University Faculty of Foreign Studies Bulletin 103, 97–175.Google Scholar
Lambert, C. (2010). Task-based needs analysis: Putting principles into practice. Language Teaching Research 14, 99–112.Google Scholar
Lambert, C. (2017). Tasks, affect and second language performance. Language Teaching Research 21(6), 657–64.Google Scholar
Lambert, C., Gong, Q. & Zhang, G. (in press). Learner-generated content and the lexical recall of beginning-level learners of Chinese as a Foreign Language. Available at: www.academia.edu/39149761/_2019_Learner-generated_content_and_the_lexical_recall_of_beginning-level_learners_of_Chinese_as_a_Foreign_Language.Google Scholar
Lambert, C. & Hailes, A. (2002). Simulations: A Task-Based Approach to Conversational English. Kitakyushu: The University of Kitakyushu, Faculty of Foreign Studies.Google Scholar
Lambert, C., Kormos, J. & Minn, D. (2016). Task repetition and second language speech processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 38, 1–30.Google Scholar
Lambert, C. & Minn, D. (2007). Personal investment in L2 task design and learning: A case study of two Japanese learners of English. ELIA: Estudios de Lingüística Inglesa Aplicada 7, 127–48.Google Scholar
Lambert, C., Philp, J. & Nakamura, S. (2017). Learner-generated content and engagement in L2 task performance. Language Teaching Research 21, 665–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, C. & Robinson, P. (2014). Learning to perform narrative task: A semester long study of task sequencing effects. In Baralt, M., Gilabert, R. & Robinson, P. (eds.), Task Sequencing and Instructed Second Language Learning (pp. 207–30). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Lambert, C. & Zhang, G. (2019). Engagement in the use of English and Chinese as second languages: The roles of learner-generated and teacher-generated content. Modern Language Journal 103(2), 391–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamendella, J. T. (1977). The limbic system in human communication. In Whitaker, H. & Whitaker, H. A. (eds.), Studies in Neurolinguistics, Volume 3 (pp. 154–222). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In Lantolf, J. (ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning (pp. 1–26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. (2007). Conceptual knowledge and instructed second language learning: A sociocultural perspective. In Fotos, S. & Nassaji, H. (eds.), Form-Focused Instruction and Teacher Education: Studies in Honour of Rod Ellis (pp. 35–54). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. (2009). Dynamic assessment: The dialectic integration of instruction and assessment. Language Teaching 42, 355–68.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J., Kurtz, L. & Kisselev, O. (2016). Understanding the revolutionary character of L2 development in the ZPD: Why levels of mediation matter. Language and Social Cultural Theory 3, 153–71.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P. & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural Theory and the Pedagogical Imperative in L2 Education: Vygotskian Praxis and the Theory/Practice Divide. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. & Thorne, S. (2006). Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J., Thorne, S. & Poehner, M. (2015). Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 207–26). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. & Zhang, X. (2017). Concept-based language instruction. In Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Language Acquisition (pp. 146–65). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching, second edition. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Laufer, B. & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics 22, 1–26.Google Scholar
Leaver, B. & Willis, J.. (2004). Task-Based Instruction in Foreign Language Education. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, A. & Lyster, R. (2016). The effects of corrective feedback on instructed L2 speech production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 38, 35–64.Google Scholar
Lee, L. (2005). Using web-based instruction to promote active learning: Learners’ perspectives. CALICO Journal 23, 139–56.Google Scholar
Lee, S. & Huang, S. (2008). Visual input enhancement and grammar learning. A meta-analytic review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 30, 307–31.Google Scholar
Leontiev, A. (1978). Activity, Consciousness, and Personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Leow, R. (2015). Explicit and implicit learning in the L2 classroom: Processes and products. In Rebuschat, P. (ed.), Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages (pp. 47–68). Amderdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Leung, J. H. C. & Williams, J. N. (2011). The implicit learning of mappings between forms and contextually derived meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 33, 33–55.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. (1989). Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. (1999). Producing spoken language: A blueprint of the speaker. In Brown, C. & Hagoort, P. (eds.), Neurocognition of Language (pp. 83–122). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Li, D. (1998). It’s always more difficult than you planned: Teachers’ perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly 32, 677–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, L., Chen, J. & Sun, L.. (2015). The effects of different lengths of pre-task planning time on L2 learners’ oral test performance. TESOL Quarterly 49, 38–66.Google Scholar
Li, Q. (2014). Get it right in the end: The effects of post-task transcribing on learners’ oral performance. In Skehan, P. (ed.), Processing Perspectives on Task Performance (pp. 129–54). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning 60, 309–65.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2013a). The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences in language analytic ability and working memory. Modern Language Journal 97, 634–54.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2013b). The differential roles of language analytic ability and working memory in mediating the effects of two types of feedback on the acquisition of an opaque linguistic structure. In Sanz, C. & Lado, B. (eds.), Individual Differences, L2 Development & Language Program Administration: From Theory to Application. Boston: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2015). The associations between language aptitude and second language grammar acquisition: A meta-analytic review of five decades of research. Applied Linguistics 36, 385–408.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2016). The construct validity of language aptitude. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 38, 801–42.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2017). Teacher and learner beliefs about corrective feedback. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.), Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 143–57). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Li, S., Ellis, R. & Zhu, Y. (2016). Task-based versus task-supported language instruction: An experimental study. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 36, 205–29.Google Scholar
Li, S., Ellis, R. & Zhu, Y. (2017). The influence of pre-task grammar instruction on task performance and L2 learning in task-supported language instruction: A process-product study.Google Scholar
Li, S. & Fu, M. (2017). Strategic and unpressured within-task planning and their associations with working memory. Language Teaching Research 22, 230–53.Google Scholar
Li, S., Zhu, Y. & Ellis, R. (2016). The effects of the timing of corrective feedback on the acquisition of a new linguistic structure. Modern Language Journal 100, 276–95.Google Scholar
Lin, T.-B. & Wu, C.-W. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions of task-based language teaching in English classrooms in Taiwanese high schools. TESOL Journal 3, 586–609.Google Scholar
Linck, J., Osthus, P., Koeth, J. & Bunting, M. (2014). Working memory and second language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 21, 861–83.Google Scholar
Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms. Language Teaching 40, 243–9.Google Scholar
Littlewood, W. (2014). Communication-oriented teaching: Where are we now? Where do we go from here? Language Teaching 47, 249–362.Google Scholar
Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27, 361–86.Google Scholar
Loewen, S., Erlam, R. & Ellis, R. (2009). The incidental acquisition of 3rd person – s as implicit and explicit knowledge. In Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Elder, C., Erlam, R., Philp, J. & Reinders, H. (eds.), Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing and Teaching (pp. 262–80). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Loewen, S. & Nabei, T. (2007). The effect of oral corrective feedback on implicit and explicit L2 knowledge. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational Interaction and Second Language Acquisition: A Series of Empirical Studies (pp. 361–78). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1980). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1983). Native-speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics 4, 126–41.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. In Hyltenstam, K. & Pienemann, M. (eds.), Modelling and Assessing Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1989). Task, group, and task-group interactions. University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL 8, 1–26.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1990). Maturation constraints on language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12, 251–85.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1991a). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. In Lambert, R. & Shohamy, E. (eds.), Language Policy and Pedagogy: Essays in Honour of A. Ronald Walton (pp. 179–92). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1991b). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In de Bot, K., Ginsberg, R. & Kramsch, C. (eds.), Foreign Language Research in Cross-Cultural Perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. & Bhatia, T. (eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 121–58).) San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1998). SLA breaking the siege. University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL 17, 79–129.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2005). Methodological issues in learner needs analysis. In Long, M. (ed.), Second Language Needs Analysis (pp. 19–76). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2015). Second Language Acquisition and Task-Based Language Teaching. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2016). In defence of tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and real issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 36, 5–33.Google Scholar
Long, M. H., Adams, L., McLean, M. & Castaños, F. (1976). Doing things with words: Verbal interaction in lockstep and small group classroom situations. In Fanselow, J. & Crymes, R. (eds.), On TESOL ’76 (pp. 137–53). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Long, M. & Norris, J. (2000). Task-based teaching and assessment. In Byram, M. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language Teaching (pp. 597–603). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Long, M. & Porter, P. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly 19, 207–28.Google Scholar
Long, M. & Ross, S. (1993). Modifications that preserve language and content. In Tickoo, M. (ed.), Simplification: Theory and Application (pp. 29–52). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.Google Scholar
Loschky, L. (1994). Comprehensible input and second language acquisition: What is the relationship. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16, 303–23.Google Scholar
Loschky, L. & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In Crookes, G. & Gass, S. (eds.), Tasks and Language Learning: Integrating Theory and Practice (pp. 123–67). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Loumpourdi, L. (2005). Developing from PPP to TBL: A focused grammar task. In Edwards, C. & Willis, J. (eds.), Teachers Exploring Tasks in English Language Teaching (pp. 33–9). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Lovblad, K., Schaller, K. & Vargas, M. (2013). The fornix and limbic system. Seminars in Ultrasound, CT and MRI 35, 459–73.Google Scholar
Lynch, T. (2009). Responding to learners’ perceptions of feedback: The use of comparators in second language speaking courses. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 3, 191–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20, 51–81.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2001). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning 51, 265–301.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26, 399–432.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and Teaching Languages through Content: A Counterbalanced Approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28, 269–300.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19, 37–66.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (2013). Counterpoint piece: The case for variety in corrective feedback research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 35, 167–84.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32, 265–302.Google Scholar
Macaro, E. (2001). Analysing student teachers’ codeswitching in foreign language classrooms: Theories and decision making. The Modern Language Journal 85, 531–48.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, P. D. & Gardner, R. C. (1994). The subtle effects of language anxiety on cognitive processing in the second language. Language Learning 44(2), 283–305.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21, 557–87.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and second language learning. Applied Linguistics 27, 405–430.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses and red herrings. The Modern Language Journal 82, 338–56.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Philp, J., Egi, T., Fujii, A. & Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback, and L2 development. In Robinson., P. (ed.), Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analysing Talk: Volume 1: Transcription Format and Programs, third edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., Keenan, J. & Reinke, P. (1982). The role of arousal in memory for conversation. Memory and Cognition 10, 308–17.Google Scholar
Maehr, M. (1984). Meaning and motivation: Toward a theory of personal investment. In Ames, R. & Ames, C. (eds.), Motivation in Education: Student Motivation, vol. 1 (pp. 115–44). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mak, B. (2011). An exploration of speaking-in-class anxiety with Chinese ESL learners. System 39, 202–14.Google Scholar
Malicka, A. & Levkina, M. (2012). Measuring task complexity: Does L2 proficiency matter? In Shehadeh, A. & Coombe, C. (eds.), Task-Based Language Teaching in Foreign Language Contexts: Research and Implementation (pp. 43–66). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Malicka, A. & Sasayama, S. (2017). The importance of learning from the accumulated knowledge: Findings from a research synthesis on task complexity. Paper presented at the 7th Biennial International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching, Barcelona, Spain, April.Google Scholar
McDonough, K. (2015). Perceived benefits and challenges with the use of collaborative tasks in EFL contexts. In Bygate, M. (ed.), Domains and Direction in the Development of TBLT (pp. 225–45). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
McDonough, K. & Chaikitmongkol, W. (2007). Teachers’ and learners’ reactions to a task-based EFL course in Thailand. TESOL Quarterly 41, 107–32.Google Scholar
Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20, 52–83.Google Scholar
Mercer, S., Ryan, S. & Williams, M. (2012). Introduction. In Mercer, S., Ryan, S. & Williams, M. (eds.), Psychology for Language Learning: Insights from Research, Theory, and Practice (pp. 10–25). New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Mesulam, M. (2000). Behavioural neuroanatomy: Large-scale networks, association cortex, frontal syndromes, the limbic system, and the hemispheric specializations. In Mesulam, M. (ed.), Principles of Behavioural and Cognitive Neurology, second edition (pp. 1–120). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Michel, M. (2011). Effects of task complexity and interaction on L2 performance. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Second Language Task Complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of Language Learning and Performance (pp. 141–74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mifka-Profozic, N. (2013). The Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback and the Role of Individual Differences in Language Learning. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Miyake, A. & Friedman, N. (1998). Individual differences in second language proficiency: Working memory as language aptitude. In Healy, A. & Bourne, L. (eds.), Foreign Language Learning: Psycholinguistic Studies on Training and Retention. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Mochizuki, N. (2017). Contingent need analysis for task implementation: An activity systems analysis of group writing conferences. TESOL Quarterly 51, 607–31.Google Scholar
Mochizuki, N. & Ortega, L. (2008). Balancing communication and grammar in beginning-level foreign language classrooms: A study of guided planning and relativization. Language Teaching Research 12, 11–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller, T. (2005). Adding tasks to textbooks for beginning learners. In Edwards, C. & Willis, J. (eds.), Teachers Exploring Tasks in English Language Teaching (pp. 69–77). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Nabei, T. & Swain, M. (2001). Learner awareness of recasts in classroom interaction: A case study of an adult EFL student. Language Awareness 11, 43–63.Google Scholar
Nakatsukasa, K. (2016). Efficacy of requests and gestures on the acquisition of locative prepositions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 38, 771–99.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning 59, 411–52.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2016). Interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research 20, 535–62.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2017). The effectiveness of extensive versus intensive recasts for L2 learning of grammar. Modern Language Review 101, 353–68.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. & Fu, T. (2016). Corrective feedback, learner uptake, and feedback perception in a Chinese as a foreign language classroom. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 1, 159–81.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help in the learning of English articles. Language Awareness 9, 34–51.Google Scholar
Negueruela, E. J. & Lantolf, J. P. (2006). A concept-based approach to teaching Spanish grammar. In Salaberry, R. & Lafford, B. (eds.), Spanish Second Language Acquisition: State of the Art (pp. 79–102). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Neumann, O. (1987). Beyond capacity: A functional view of attention. In Heuer, H. & Sanders, A. (eds.), Perspectives on Perception and Action (pp. 361–94). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Nielson, K. (2014). Evaluation of online, task-based Chinese course. In González-Lloret, M. & Ortega, L. (eds.), Technology-Mediated TBLT: Researching Technology and Tasks (pp. 295–321). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nitta, R. & Nakatsuhara, F. (2014). A multifaceted approach to investigating pre-task planning effects on paired oral test performance. Language Testing 31, 147–75.Google Scholar
Niwa, Y. (2000). Reasoning demands of L2 tasks and L2 narrative production: Effects of individual differences in working memory, intelligence, and aptitude. Unpublished master’s thesis, Aoyama Gakuin University, Tokyo.Google Scholar
Norris, J. (2009a). Task-based teaching and testing. In Long, M. & Doughty, C. (eds.), The Handbook of Language Teaching (pp. 578–94). Malden: MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Norris, J. (2009b). Understanding and improving language education through program evaluation: Introduction to the special issue. Language Teaching Research 13, 7–13.Google Scholar
Norris, J. (2015). Thinking and acting programmatically in task-based language teaching. In Bygate, M. (ed.), Domains and Directions in the Development of TBLT (pp. 27–57). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Norris, J. (2016). Current uses for task-based language assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 36, 230–44.Google Scholar
Norris, J., Brown, J. D., Hudson, T. & Yoshioka, J. (1998). Designing Second Language Performance Assessments. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning 50, 417–528.Google Scholar
Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics 30, 555–78.Google Scholar
Norton, J. (2013). Performing identities in speaking tests: Co-construction revisited. Language Assessment Quarterly 10, 309–30.Google Scholar
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nunan, D. (1990). The teacher as researcher. In Brumfit, C. & Mitchell, R. (eds.), Research in the Language Classroom. ELT Documents 133. Modern English Publications.Google Scholar
O’Grady, S. (2019). The impact of pre-task planning on speaking test performance for English-medium university admission. Language Testing.Google Scholar
Oga-Baldwin, W. & Nakata, Y. (2017). Engagement, gender, and motivation: A predictive model for Japanese young language learners. System 65, 151–63.Google Scholar
Ohta, A. (2001). Second Language Acquisition Processes in the Classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21, 109–48.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2005). What do learners plan? Learner-driven attention to form during pre-task planning. In Ellis, R. (ed.), Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language (pp. 77–110). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2009). Interaction and attention to form in L2 text-based computer-mediated communication. In Mackey, A. & Polio, C. (eds.), Multiple Perspectives on Interaction in SLA: Research in Honor of Susan M. Gass (pp. 226–53). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Oskoz, A. & Elola, I. (2014). Promoting foreign language collaborative writing through the use of Web 2.0 tools and tasks. In González-Lloret, M. & Ortega, L. (eds.), Technology-Mediated TBLT: Researching Technology and Tasks (pp. 115–48). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pang, F. & Skehan, P. (2014). Self-reported planning behaviour and second language performance in narrative retelling. In Skehan, P. (ed.), Processing Perspectives on Task Performance (pp. 95–128). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Paradis, M. (1994). Neurolinguistic aspects of implicit and explicit memory: Implications for bilingualism and SLA. In Ellis, N. (ed.), Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages (pp. 393–419). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Paradis, M. (2004). A Neurolinguistic Theory of Bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Park, M. (2015). Development and validation of virtual interactive tasks for an aviation English assessment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
Park, S. (2010). The influence of pre-task instructions and pre-task planning on focus on form during Korean EFL task-based interaction. Language Teaching Research 14, 9–26.Google Scholar
Patanasorn, C. (2010). Effects of procedural, content, and task repetition on accuracy and fluency in an EFL context. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Northern Arizona University.Google Scholar
Phillips, E. M. (1992). The effects of language anxiety on students’ oral test performance and attitudes. The Modern Language Journal 76(1), 14–26.Google Scholar
Philp, J. & Duchesne, S. (2016). Exploring engagement in tasks in the language classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 36, 50–72.Google Scholar
Philp, J., Oliver, R. & Mackey, A. (2006). The impact of planning time on children’s task–based interactions. System 34, 547–65.Google Scholar
Phung, L. (2017). Task preference, affective response, and engagement in L2 use in a US university context. Language Teaching Research 21, 751–66.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1987). Second language acquisition, social interaction, and the classroom. Applied Linguistics 8, 3–21.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1996). Second language learning through interaction: Multiple perspectives. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics 12, 1–22.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1997). Second language teaching and research relationships: A North American view. Language Teaching Research 1, 48–72.Google Scholar
Pica, T. & Doughty, C.. (1985a). Input and interaction in the communicative language classroom: A comparison of teacher-fronted and group activities. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Pica, T. & Doughty, C.. (1985b). The role of group work in classroom second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7, 233–48.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Kanagy, R. & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language research and instruction. In Crookes, G. & Gass, S. (eds.), Task-Based Learning in a Second Language (pp. 9–34). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1985). Learnability and syllabus construction. In Hyltenstam, K. & Pienemann, M. (eds.), Modelling and Assessing Second Language Acquisition (pp. 23–75). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L. & Gass, S. (2011). Quantitative research methods, study quality, and outcomes: The case of interaction research. Language Learning 61, 325–66.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L. & Kim, J. (2016). Task-based learner production: A substantive review. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 36, 73–97.Google Scholar
Plough, I. & Gass, S. (1993). Interlocutor and task familiarity: Effects on interactional structure. In Crookes, G. & Gass, S. (eds.), Tasks and Language Learning: Integrating Theory and Practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Poehner, M. (2008). Dynamic Assessment: A Vygostkian Approach to Understanding and Promoting L2 Development. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Poehner, M. & Infante, P. (2017). Mediated development: A Vygotskian approach to transforming second language learner abilities. TESOL Quarterly 51, 332–57.Google Scholar
Poehner, M. & Lantolf, J. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research 9, 233–65.Google Scholar
Pollitt, A. (1991). Giving students a sporting chance: Assessment by counting and judging. In Alderson, J. C. & North, B. (eds.), Language Testing in the 1990s (pp. 46–59). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Prabhu, V. (1990). Comments on Alan Beretta’s ‘Attention to form or meaning? Error treatment in the Bangalore project’. TESOL Quarterly 24, 112–15.Google Scholar
Pulido, D. (2007). The effects of topic familiarity and passage sight vocabulary on L2 lexical inferencing and retention through reading. Applied Linguistics 28, 66–86.Google Scholar
Qin, T. & van Compernolle, R. (forthcoming). Computerized dynamic assessment of implicature comprehension in L2 Chinese. Language Learning and Technology.Google Scholar
Quinn, P. (2014). Delayed versus immediate corrective feedback on orally produced past passive errors in English. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
Rainey, S. (2000). Action research and the English as a foreign language practitioner: Time to take stock. Educational Action Research 8, 165–91.Google Scholar
Ranta, L. (2002). The role of learners’ language analytic ability in the communicative classroom. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rassaei, E. (2015). Oral corrective feedback, foreign language anxiety and L2 development. System 49, 98–109.Google Scholar
Rebuschat, P. & Williams, J. N. (2009). Implicit learning of word order. In Taatgen, N. & van Rijn, H. (eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 425–30). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Reese, C. & Wells, T. (2007). Teaching academic discussion skills with a card game. Simulation and Gaming 38, 546–55.Google Scholar
Reeve, J. & Lee, W. (2014). Students’ classroom engagement produces longitudinal changes in classroom motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology 106, 527–40.Google Scholar
Révész, A. (2009). Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31, 437–70.Google Scholar
Révész, A. (2011). Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions, and individual differences: A classroom-based study. Modern Language Journal 95, 162–81.Google Scholar
Révész, A. (2012). Working memory and the observed effectiveness of recasts on different L2 outcome measures. Language Learning 62, 93–132.Google Scholar
Révész, A. (2017). Replication in task-based language teaching research: Kim (2012) and Shintani (2012). First view: Language Teaching, 1–11.Google Scholar
Révész, A., Ekiert, M. & Torgersen, E. N. (2016). The effects of complexity, accuracy, and fluency on communicative adequacy in oral task performance. Applied Linguistics 37(6), 828–48.Google Scholar
Révész, A., Michel, M. & Gilabert, R. (2016). Measuring cognitive task demands using dual-task methodology, subjective self-ratings, and expert judgments: A validation study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 38, 703–37.Google Scholar
Richards, J. & Rodgers, T. (1986). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching, second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Richards, J. & Rodgers, T. (2014). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching, third edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (pp. 287–318). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2002). Learning conditions, aptitude complexes and SLA: A framework for research and pedagogy. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2007a). Aptitudes, abilities, contexts, and practice. In DeKeyser, R. M. (ed.), Practice in Second Language: Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology (pp. 256–86). New York/Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2007b). Re-thinking-for-speaking and L2 task demands: The Cognition Hypothesis, task classification, and sequencing. Plenary address at the Second International Conference on Task-based Language Teaching, Hawaii, 20–22 September.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2007c). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task Difficulty. International Review of Applied Linguistics 45, 193–214.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2010). Situating and distributing cognition across task demands: The SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In Putz, M. & Sicola, L. (eds.), Cognitive Processing in Second Language Acquisition: Inside the Learner’s Mind (pp. 243–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2011). Second language task complexity, the cognition hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Second Language Task Complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of Language Learning and Performance (pp. 3–38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2015). The cognition hypothesis, second language task demands, and the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In Bygate, M. (ed.), Domains and Directions in the Development of TBLT (pp. 87–122). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Roever, C. (2011). Testing of second language pragmatics: Past and future. Language Testing 28, 463–81.Google Scholar
Roever, C. & Kasper, G. (2018). Speaking in turns and sequences: Interactional competence as a target construct in testing speaking. Language Testing 35, 331–55.Google Scholar
Rolin-Ianziti, J. (2010). The organization of delayed second language correction. Language Teaching Research 14, 183–206.Google Scholar
Romanova, N. (2010). Planning, recasts, and learning of L2 morphology. The Canadian Modern Language Review 66, 843–75.Google Scholar
Rulon, K. & McCreary, J. (1986). Negotiation of content: Teacher-fronted and small-group interaction. In Day, R. R. (ed.), Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 182–99). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Sabet, P. & Zhang, G. (2015). Communicating through Vague Language: A Comparative Study of L1 and L2 Speakers. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Sachs, R. (2010). Individual differences and the effectiveness of visual feedback of reflexive binding in L2 Japanese. PhD dissertation, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Saito, K. & Akiyama, Y. (2017). Video-based interaction, negotiation for comprehensibility, and second language learning: A longitudinal study. Language Learning 67, 43–74.Google Scholar
Saito, Y., Horwitz, E. K. & Garza, T. J. (1999). Foreign language reading anxiety. The Modern Language Journal 83(2), 202–18.Google Scholar
Samimy, K. & Kobayashi, C. (2004). Toward the development of intercultural competence: Theoretical and pedagogical implications for Japanese English teachers. JALT Journal 26, 245–61.Google Scholar
Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P. & Swain, M. (eds.), Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing (pp. 119–40). Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Samuda, V. (2015). Tasks, design, and the architecture of pedagogical spaces. In Bygate, M. (ed.), Domains and Directions in the Development of TBLT (pp. 271–301). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Samuda, V. & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in Second Language Learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Sangarun, J. (2005). The effects of focusing on meaning and form in strategic planning. In Ellis, R. (ed.), Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sasayama, S. (2015). Validating the assumed relationship between task design, cognitive complexity, and second language task performance. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Sasayama, S. (2016). Is a ‘complex’ task really complex? Validating the assumption of task complexity. Modern Language Journal 100, 231–54.Google Scholar
Satar, H. & Ozdener, N. (2008). The effects of synchronous CMC on speaking proficiency and anxiety: Text versus voice chat. The Modern Language Journal 92, 595–613.Google Scholar
Sato, M. (2017). Interaction mindsets, interactional behaviors, and L2 development: An affective-social-cognitive model. Language Learning 67, 249–83.Google Scholar
Sato, M. & Loewen, S. (2018). Metacognitive instruction enhances the effectiveness of corrective feedback: Variable effects of feedback types and linguistic targets. Language Learning 68, 507–45.Google Scholar
Sato, M. & Lyster, R. (2012). Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency development: Monitoring, practice, and proceduralization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 34, 591–626.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11, 129–58.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness: In search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA Review 11, 11–26.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversation ability in a second language: A case-study of an adult learner. In Day, R. (ed.), Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Schumann, J. (2001). Appraisal psychology, neurobiology, and language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 21, 23–42.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15, 147–63.Google Scholar
Seedhouse, P. (2005b). Conversation analysis and language learning. Language Teaching 38, 165–87.Google Scholar
Seedhouse, P. (ed.). (2017). Task-Based Language Learning in a Real-World Digital Environment: The European Digital Kitchen. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Seipp, B. (1991). Anxiety and academic performance: A meta-analysis of findings. Anxiety Research 4(1), 27–41.Google Scholar
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher 27, 4–13.Google Scholar
Sheen, R. (1994). A critical analysis of the advocacy of the task‐based syllabus. TESOL Quarterly 28, 127–51.Google Scholar
Sheen, R. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research 8, 263–300.Google Scholar
Sheen, R. (2005). Focus on forms as a means of improving accurate oral production. In Housen, A. & Pierrard, M. (eds.), Investigations in Instructed Language Acquisition (pp. 270–310). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sheen, R. (2006). Focus on forms as a means of improving accurate oral production. In Housen, A. & Pierrard, M. (eds.), Investigations in Instructed Second Language Acquisition (pp. 271–310). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sheen, R. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research 10, 361–92.Google Scholar
Sheen, R. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sheen, R. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning 58(4), 835–74.Google Scholar
Sheen, R. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32, 203–34.Google Scholar
Shehadeh, A. (2005). Task-based learning and teaching: Theories and applications. In Edwards, C. & Willis, L. (eds.), Teachers Exploring Tasks (pp. 13–30). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Shehadeh, A. (2012). Broadening the perspective of task-based language teaching scholarship: The contribution of research in foreign language contexts. In Shehadeh, A. & Coombe, C. A. (eds.), Task-Based Language Teaching in Foreign Language Contexts: Research and Implementation (pp. 1–20). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Shintani, N. (2011). A comparison of the effects of comprehension-based and production-based instruction on the acquisition of vocabulary and grammar by young Japanese learners of English. Unpublished PhD thesis, the University of Auckland.Google Scholar
Shintani, N. (2012). Repeating input-based tasks with young beginner learners. RELC Journal 43, 39–51.Google Scholar
Shintani, N. (2013). The effect of focus on form and focus on forms instruction on the acquisition of productive knowledge of L2 vocabulary by young beginning-level learners. TESOL Quarterly 47, 36–62.Google Scholar
Shintani, N. (2015). The incidental grammar acquisition in focus on form and focus on forms instruction for young beginner Learners. TESOL Quarterly 49, 115–40.Google Scholar
Shintani, N. (2016). Input-Based Tasks in Foreign Language Instruction for Young Learners. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Shintani, N. & Ellis, R. (2010). The incidental acquisition of English plural –s by Japanese children in comprehension-based lessons: A process–product study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32, 607–37.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1984). Issues in the testing of English for specific purposes. Language Testing 1/2, 202–20.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based learning. Applied Linguistics 17, 38–62.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2001). Tasks and language performance assessment. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P. & Swain, M. (eds.), Researching Pedagogic Tasks, Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing (pp. 167–85). Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2002). Theorizing and updating aptitude. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning (pp. 69–94). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2007). Task research and language teaching: Reciprocal relationships. In Fotos, S. (ed.), Form-Meaning Relationships in Language Pedagogy: Essays in Honour of Rod Ellis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2009a). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis. Applied Linguistics 30, 510–32.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2009b). Lexical performance by native and non-native speakers on language-learning tasks. In Richards, B., Daller, H., Malvern, D. D. & Meara, P. (eds.), Vocabulary Studies in First and Second Language Acquisition: The Interface Between Theory and Application (pp. 107–24). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2009c). Models of speaking and the assessment of second language proficiency. In Benati, A. G. (ed.), Issues in Second Language Proficiency (pp. 202–15). London: Continuum International Pub Group.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2012). Researching Tasks: Performance, Assessment, Pedagogy. Shanghai/Amsterdam: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press/De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2013). Nurturing noticing. In Bergsleithner, J. M., Frota, S. N. & Yoshioka, J. K. (eds.), Noticing and Second Language Acquisition: Studies in Honor of Richard Schmidt (pp. 169–80). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2014a). Processing Perspectives on Task Performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2014b). Introduction: Coordinated research into task-based performance. In Skehan, P. (ed.), Processing Perspectives on Task Performance (pp. 1–26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2014c). Synthesising and applying task research. In Skehan, P. (ed.), Processing Perspectives on Task Performance (pp. 211–60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2015). Limited attentional capacity and cognition: Two hypotheses regarding second language performance on tasks. In Bygate, M. (ed.), Domains and Directions in the Development of TBLT: A Decade of Plenaries from the International Conference (pp. 123–55). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2016). Tasks vs. conditions: Two perspectives on task research and its implications for pedagogy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 36, 34–49.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2018). Second Language Task-Based Performance: Theory, Research, and Assessment. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (1997). The influence of planning and post-task activities on accuracy and complexity in task-based learning. Language Teaching Research 1, 185–211.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (1999). Task structure and processing conditions in narrative retellings. Language Learning 49(1), 93–120.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and Second Language Learning (pp. 183–205). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (2005). Strategic and on-line planning: The influence of surprise information and task time on second language performance. In Ellis, R. (ed.), Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language (pp. 193–216). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing CompanyGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (2007). Complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis in task-based performance: A meta-analysis of the Ealing research. In Van Daele, S., Housen, A., Kuiken, F., Pierrard, M. & Vedder, I. (eds.), Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency in Second Language Use, Learning, and Teaching (pp. 207–26). Brussels: University of Brussels Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. & Shum, S. (2017). What influences performance? Personal style or the task being done? In Wong, L. L. C. & Hyland, K. (eds.), Faces of English Education: Students, Teachers, and Pedagogy (pp. 28–43). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Skehan, P., Xiaoyue, B., Qian, L. & Wang, Z. (2012). The task is not enough: Processing approaches to task-based performance. Language Teaching Research 16, 170–87.Google Scholar
Slimani-Rolls, A. (2005). Rethinking task-based language learning: What we can learn from the learners. Language Teaching Research 9, 195–218.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. Modern Language Journal 26, 365–98.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (2012). Eye-tracking as a measure of noticing: A study of explicit recasts in SCMC. Language Learning and Technology 16, 53–18.Google Scholar
Snow, R. E. (1991). Aptitude-treatment interaction as a framework for research on individual differences in psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 59, 205–16.Google Scholar
Solon, M., Long, A. & Gurzynska-Weiss, L. (2017). Task complexity, language related episodes, and production of L2 Spanish vowels. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 39, 347–80.Google Scholar
Spada, N., Jessop, L., Tomita, Y., Suzuki, W. & Valeo, A. (2014). Isolated and integrated form-focused instruction: Effects on different types of L2 knowledge. Language Teaching Research 18, 453–73.Google Scholar
Spada, N. & Lightbown, P. (1999). Instruction, first language influence, and developmental readiness in second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal 83, 1–22.Google Scholar
Sparks, R. L. & Patton, J. (2013). Relationship of L1 skills and L2 aptitude to L2 anxiety on the foreign language classroom anxiety scale. Language Learning 63(4), 870–95.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning 52, 119–58.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2007). Investigating the merits of pair work on a text-editing task in ESL classes. Language Teaching Research 11, 143–59.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2008). Metatalk in a pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for language development. Language Awareness 17, 95–114.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2017). Sociocultural theory in the L2 classroom. In Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acquisition (pp. 69–84). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Storch, N. & Wigglesworth, G. (2003). Is there a role for the use of the L1 in an L2 setting? TESOL Quarterly 37, 760–70.Google Scholar
Stroud, R. (2017). The impact of task performance scoring and tracking on second language engagement. System 69, 121–32.Google Scholar
Svalberg, A. (2009). Engagement with language: Developing a construct. Language Awareness 18, 242–58.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language Learning. In Cook, G. & Seidhofer, B. (eds.), Principles and Practice in the Study of Language: Studies in Honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–44). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In Lantolf, J. (ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language learning. In Byrnes, H. (ed.), Advanced Language Learning: The Contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2013). The inseparability of cognition and emotion in second language learning. Language Teaching 46, 195–207.Google Scholar
Swain, M., Kinnear, P. & Steinman, L. (2011). Sociocultural Theory in Second Language Education: An Introduction through Narratives. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal 82, 320–37.Google Scholar
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P. & Swain, M. (eds.), Researching Pedagogic Tasks, Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing (pp. 99–118). Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research 37, 285–304.Google Scholar
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (2007). The distributed nature of second language learning: A case study. In Fotos, S. & Nassaji, H. (eds.), Focus on Form and Teacher Education: Studies in Honour of Rod Ellis (pp. 73–86). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M., Lapkin, S., Knouzi, I., Suzuki, W. & Brooks, L. (2009). Languaging: University students learn the grammatical concept of voice in French. Modern Language Journal 93, 5–29.Google Scholar
Swan, M. (2005a). Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics 26, 376–401.Google Scholar
Swan, M. (2005b). Review of Rod Ellis’ task-based language learning and teaching. IJAL 15, 251–9.Google Scholar
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science 12, 257–85.Google Scholar
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction 4, 295–312.Google Scholar
Sykes, J. M. (2014). TBLT and synthetic immersive environments: What can in-game task restarts tell us about design and implementation? In González-Lloret, M. & Ortega, L. (eds.), Technology-Mediated TBLT: Researching Technology and Tasks (pp. 149–82). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tavakoli, P. (2018). A detailed analysis of oral fluency at different levels of proficiency. Paper presented at the L-SLARF Annual Conference. Birkbeck College, London, 2 June.Google Scholar
Tavakoli, P. & Foster, P. (2008). Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning 58(2), 439–73.Google Scholar
Tavakoli, P. & Skehan, P. (2005). Planning, task structure, and performance testing. In Ellis, R. (ed.), Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language (pp. 239–76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Thai, C. & Boers, F. (2015). Repeating a monologue under increasing time pressure: Effects on fluency, complexity, and accuracy. TESOL Quarterly 50, 369–93.Google Scholar
Thomas, M. & Reinders, H. (eds.). (2010). Task-Based Learning and Teaching with Technology. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Thomas, M. & Reinders, H. (eds.). (2015). Contemporary Task-Based Teaching in Asia. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Timpe-Laughlin, V. (2018). Pragmatics in task-based language assessment: Opportunities and challenges. In Taguchi, N. & Kim, Y. (eds.), Task-Based Approaches to Teaching and Assessing Pragmatics (pp. 287–304). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tobias, S. (1985). Test anxiety: Interference, defective skills, and cognitive capacity. Educational Psychologist 20(3), 135–42.Google Scholar
Tomlin, R. & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16, 183–203.Google Scholar
Tomlinson, B. (2015). TBLT and materials and curricula: From theory to practice. In Thomas, M. & Reinders, H. (eds.), Contemporary Task-Based Teaching in Asia (pp. 328–339). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Toth, P. (2008). Teacher- and learner-led discourse in task-based grammar instruction: Providing procedural assistance for L2 morphosyntactic development. Language Learning 58, 237–83.Google Scholar
Trebits, A. (2014). Sources of individual differences in L2 narrative production: The contribution of input, processing, and output anxiety. Applied Linguistics 37(2), 155–74.Google Scholar
Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A. & Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytical ability. In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van Avermmaat, P. & Gysen, S. (2006). From needs to tasks: Language learning needs in a task-based approach. In Van den Branden, K. (ed.), Task-Based Language Education: From Theory to Practice (pp. 17–46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Compernolle, R. & Zhang, H. (2014). Dynamic assessment of elicited imitation: A case analysis of an advanced L2 English speaker. Language Testing 31, 395–412.Google Scholar
Van Compernolle, R., Weber, A. & Gomez-Laich, M. (2016). Teaching L2 Spanish sociopragmatics through concepts: A classroom-based study. Modern Language Journal 100, 341–61.Google Scholar
Van de Guchte, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., Braaksma, M. & Bimmel, P. (2015). Learning new grammatical structures in task-based language learning: The effects of recasts and prompts. The Modern Language Journal 99, 246–62.Google Scholar
Van de Guchte, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., Braaksma, M. & Bimmel, P. (2017). Focus on language versus content in the pre-task: Effects of guided peer-video model observations on task performance. Language Teaching Research 23(3), 310–329.Google Scholar
Van den Branden, K. (2009). Diffusion and implementation of innovations. In Long, M. & Doughty, C. (eds.), The Handbook of Language Teaching (pp. 659–72). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Van den Branden, K. (ed.). (2006). Task-Based Language Education: From Theory to Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M. & Norris, J. M. (2009). Task-Based Language Teaching: A Reader. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van den Branden, K., Van Gorp, K. & Verhelst, M. (2007). Introduction. In Van den Branden, K. et al. (eds.), Tasks in Action: Task-Based Language Education from a Classroom-Based Perspective (pp. 1–6). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Van Gorp, K. & Deygers, B. (2014). Task-based language assessment. In Kunnan, A. (ed.), The Companion to Language Assessment, vol. 2 (pp. 271–87). Malden, MA: John Wiley & Son.Google Scholar
Van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the Language Curriculum: Awareness, Autonomy and Authenticity. London: Longman.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2015). Input processing in adult SLA. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Varnosfadrani, A. & Basturkmen, H. (2009). The effectiveness of implicit and explicit error correction on learners’ performance. System 37, 82–98.Google Scholar
Varonis, E. & Gass, S. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics 6, 71–90.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S. & Souberman, E. (eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. (1987). The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky, Volume 1: The Problems of General Psychology. Rieber, R. W. & Carton, A. S. (eds.). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Wang, Q. (2007). The national curriculum changes and their effects on english language teaching in the People’s Republic of China. In Cummins, J. & Davison, C. (eds.), International Handbook of English Language Teaching. Springer International Handbooks of Education, vol. 15 (pp. 87–105). Boston: Springer.Google Scholar
Wang, Z. (2009). Modelling speech production and performance: Evidence from five types of planning and two task structures. Unpublished PhD thesis, Chinese University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Wang, Z. (2014). On-line time pressure manipulations: L2 speaking performance under five types of planning and repetition conditions. In Skehan, P. (ed.), Processing Perspectives on Task Performance (pp. 27–62). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Wang, Z. & Skehan, P. (2014). Task structure, time perspective and lexical demands during video-based narrative retellings. In Skehan, P. (ed.), Processing Perspectives on Task Performance (pp. 155–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Y. & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research 11, 121–42.Google Scholar
Weaver, C. (2012). Incorporating a formative assessment cycle into task-based language teaching in a university setting in Japan. In Shehadeh, A. & Coombe, C. (eds.), Task-Based Language Teaching in Foreign Language Contexts (pp. 287–312). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Weir, C. (2005). Language Testing and Validation: An Evidence-Based Approach. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Weir, C., Vidakovic, I. & Galaczi, E. (2014). Measured Constructs: A History of Cambridge English Language Examinations, 1913–2012: Studies in Language Testing 37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wen, Z. (2016). Working Memory and Second Language Learning: Towards an Integrated Approach. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Wen, Z., Skehan, P., Biedroń, A., Li, S. & Sparks, R. (eds.) (in press). Rethinking Language Aptitude: Multiple Perspectives and Emerging Trends. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the Social Formation of Mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
Wertsch, J. V., Minick, N. & Arns, F. J. (1984). The creation of context in joint problem-solving. In Rogoff, B. & Lave, J. (eds.), Everyday Cognition: Its Development in Social Context (pp. 151–71). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
White, L. (1987). Against comprehensible input: The input hypothesis and the development of L2 competence. Applied Linguistics 8, 95–110.Google Scholar
Wickens, C. D. (2007). Attention to the second language. International Review of Applied Linguistics 45, 177–91.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. (2003). Defining Issues in English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wigglesworth, G. & Elder, C. (2010). An investigation of the effectiveness and validity of planning time in speaking test tasks. Language Assessment Quarterly 7(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
Wigglesworth, G. & Frost, K. (2017). Task and performance-based assessment. In Shohamy, E., Or, I. & May, S. (eds.), Language Testing and Assessment: Encyclopedia of Language and Education, third edition. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning 49, 583–625.Google Scholar
Williams, J. (2013). Attention, awareness, and noticing in language processing and learning. In Bergsleithner, J., Frota, M., Nagem, S. & Jim Kei, Yoshioka (eds.), Noticing and Second Language Acquisition: Studies in Honor of Richard Schmidt (pp. 39–57). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i, National Foreign Language Resource CenterGoogle Scholar
Williams, L. (2018). Task-based teaching and concept-based instruction. In Ahmadian, M. & Mayo, M. (eds.), Recent Perspectives on Task-Based Language Teaching (pp. 121–41). Boston/Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Willis, D. & Willis, J. (2007). Doing Task-Based Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Willis, J. & Willis, D. (1988). Collins COBUILD English Course: Book 1. London: Collins.Google Scholar
Winke, P. (2014). Formative, task-based oral assessments in an advanced Chinese language class. In González-Lloret, M. & Ortega, L. (eds.), Technology-Mediated TBLT: Researching Technology and Tasks (pp. 264–93). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Winter, E. (1976). Fundamentals of Information Structure: A Pilot Manual for Further Development According to Student Need. Hatfield: Hatfield Polytechnic, English Department.Google Scholar
Xi, X. (2005). Do visual chunks and planning impact the overall quality of oral descriptions of graphs? Language Testing 22(4), 463–508.Google Scholar
Yang, Y. & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past-tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32, 235–63.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2013a). Relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback: The role of working memory capacity and language analytic ability. Applied Linguistics 34, 344–68.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2013b). The relative effectiveness of mixed, explicit and implicit feedback in the acquisition of English articles. System 41, 691–705.Google Scholar
Youn, S. J. (2018). Task design and validity evidence for assessment of L2 pragmatics in interaction. In Taguchi, N. & Kim, Y. (eds.), Task-Based Approaches to Teaching and Assessing Pragmatics (pp. 217–46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Yuan, F. & Ellis, R.. (2003). The effects of pre-task and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics 24, 1–27.Google Scholar
Yuksal, D. & Inan, B. (2014). The effects of communication mode on negotiation and its noticing. ReCALL 26, 333–54.Google Scholar
Yule, G. & McDonald, D. (1990). Resolving referential conflicts in L2 interaction: The effect of proficiency and interactive role. Language Learning 40, 539–56.Google Scholar
Zhang, J. & Rahimi, M. (2014). EFL learners’ anxiety level and their beliefs about corrective feedback in oral communication classes. System 42, 429–39.Google Scholar
Zhang, X. & Lantolf, J. (2015). Natural or artificial: Is the route of L2 development teachable? Language Learning 65, 152–80.Google Scholar
Zhao, Y. (2015). The effects of explicit and implicit recasts on the acquisition of two grammatical structures and the mediating role of working memory. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Auckland.Google Scholar
Ziegler, N. (2016). Taking technology to task: Technology-mediated TBLT, performance and production. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 36, 136–63.Google Scholar
Zuengler, J. & Miller, E. (2006). Cognitive and social perspectives: Two parallel SLA worlds. TESOL Quarterly 40, 35–58.Google Scholar