Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T04:15:58.222Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Replication in task-based language teaching research: Kim (2012) and Shintani (2012)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 October 2017

Andrea Révész
Andrea Révész*
Affiliation:
University College [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper calls for the replication of two task-based language teaching (TBLT) studies, Kim (2012) and Shintani (2012). Kim contributes to the large body of TBLT research on output-based tasks, whereas Shintani initiates research into input-based tasks, a less well researched domain. These studies deserve to be replicated for several reasons. Unlike the bulk of existing TBLT research, they investigate task-based second language (L2) development in addition to performance, and are conducted in actual classroom rather than laboratory contexts. Also, they are well designed studies, including detailed descriptions of the instruments and methodological procedures, making replication feasible. First, this paper provides an overview of the studies. Next, approaches to approximate and conceptual replications are suggested in order to assess the internal and external validity of the original experiments.

Type
Replication Research
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 52 , Issue 3 , July 2019 , pp. 374 - 384
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baralt, M. (2013). The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during online versus face-to-face interactive tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 35.4, 689–725.Google Scholar
Berko, J. (1958). The child's learning of English morphology. Word 14.2–3, 150–177.Google Scholar
Bygate, M. (2000). Introduction to special issue: Tasks in language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research 4.3, 185−192.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. Harlow: Longman, 23–48.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1975). Interest and effort in education. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, Arcturus Books. (Original work published 1913)Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language teaching and learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 19.3, 221–246.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Heimbach, R., Tanaka, Y. & Yamazaki, A. (1999). Modified input and the acquisition of word meanings by children and adults. In Ellis, R. (ed.), Learning a second language through interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 23–48.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. & Varonis, E. (1985). Task variation and non-native/non-native negotiation of meaning. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (eds.), Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 149–161.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A. (2016). Stimulated recall methodology in applied linguistics and L2 research. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gilabert, R., Barón, J. & Llanes, A. (2009). Manipulating cognitive complexity across task types and its impact on learners’ interaction during oral performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 47.3–4, 367–395.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. (2012). Task complexity, learning opportunities and Korean EFL learners’ question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 34.4, 627–658.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: task–based language teaching. In Hyltenstam, K. & Pienemann, M. (eds.), Modelling and assessing second language development. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 149–161.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In de Bot, K., Coste, D., Ginsberg, R. & Kramsch, C. (eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspectives. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins, 39–52.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2005) (ed.). Second language needs analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 15–41.Google Scholar
Marsden, E. (2007) Can experiments both inform theory and practice? British Educational Research Journal 33.4, 565–588.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. (2010). Understanding instructed SLA: Constructs, contexts, and consequences. Plenary address delivered at the annual conference of the European Second Language Association (EUROSLA), Reggio Emilia, Italy, September.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. & Johnston, M. (1987). Factors influencing the development of language proficiency. In Nunan, D. (ed.), Applying second language acquisition research. Adelaide, Australia: National Curriculum Resource Centre, 45–141.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L. & Kim, Y. (2016). Task-based learner production: A substantive and methodological review. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 36, 73–97.Google Scholar
Révész, A. (2009). Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31.3, 437–470.Google Scholar
Révész, A. (2011). Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions, and individual differences: A classroom-based study. The Modern Language Journal 95.S1, 162–181.Google Scholar
Révész, A. (2014). Towards a fuller assessment of cognitive models of task–based learning: Investigating task-generated cognitive demands and processes. Applied Linguistics 35.1, 87–92.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 38.4, 703–737.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for investigating task influences on SLA. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 287–318.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2007). 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 45.3, 193–213.Google Scholar
Samuda, V. & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Sasayama, S. (2016). Is a ‘complex’ task really complex? Validating the assumption of cognitive task complexity. The Modern Language Journal 100.1, 231–254.Google Scholar
Shintani, N. (2012). Input-based tasks and the acquisition of vocabulary and grammar: A process–product study. Language Teaching Research 16.2, 253–279.Google Scholar
Shintani, N. (2016). Input-based tasks in foreign language instruction for young learners. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal 82.3, 320–337.Google Scholar
Swan, M. (2005). Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics 26.3, 376–401.Google Scholar
Van den Branden, K. (ed.) (2006). Task-based language teaching: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar