1. Introduction

Task-based language teaching (TBLT), an instructional approach for promoting real world communicative language use, has gained substantial attention among researchers and educators of additional languages, traditionally referred to as second languages (L2) and foreign languages (FL). Existing research on TBLT and tasks, predominantly conducted with adult learners, has primarily examined how meaning-focused tasks enhance (or do not enhance) learners’ communicative abilities in the target language and how different task implementations yield different outcomes (Ellis, Reference Ellis, Loewen and Sato2017).

As a growing number of children learn additional language(s) in instructional settings, research on TBLT and tasks targeted at them has gradually emerged over the last three decades, first in the L2 contexts, followed by the FL contexts. The central concern of such research is how age influences children’s learning processes and outcomes when learning through tasks, as well as its implications for task design and implementation. As one can see from the research timeline below, existing studies on TBLT and tasks among children have largely applied theoretical frameworks and analytical approaches/tools adapted from adult-based research. Importantly, however, children are not merely younger versions of adult learners; specific considerations for working with children need to be more thoroughly addressed (Butler, Reference Butler2025; Timpe-Laughlin & Butler, Reference Timpe-Laughlin and Butler2026).

In this timeline, I outline major studies on TBLT and tasks among young learners – defined as children aged 5–12 (kindergarten and primary school years)Footnote ¹ who learn additional language(s) in instructional settings. This is by no means a comprehensive list. I selected major studies published in academic journals and books or book chapters in English. When multiple studies originated from a single project or involved relatively minor modifications, only representative studies were included. This decision was made to ensure the inclusion of studies conducted by diverse researchers and in different contexts. Studies that used tasks solely as a measure of students’ learning outcomes were excluded. In other words, tasks were not included if they were considered research tasks, which are primarily used to elicit learners’ language for research purposes, as opposed to pedagogical tasks, which are introduced for instructional purposes (Bygate et al., Reference Bygate, Skehan and Swain2001). Moreover, common literacy-related activities in children’s classrooms, such as storytelling and extensive reading, although they can be considered ‘tasks’, are not included, primarily due to space limitations in this review. There is substantial research on these topics, which would warrant independent reviews.

One of the critical issues in discussing the effectiveness of TBLT and tasks for children is the definition of tasks themselves. Tasks are traditionally conceptualized as meaning-focused, real life authentic language use with a clear communicative goal. Learners are expected to rely primarily on their own linguistic and non-linguistic resources to complete the task (Ellis, Reference Ellis, Loewen and Sato2017). As Timpe-Laughlin et al.’s (2024*)Footnote ² Delphi study indicated, however, experts do not necessarily agree on what constitutes tasks for young learners; they disagree on whether tasks for children should be conceptualized differently and, if so, how different they should be. Specifically, one of the key elements of tasks, authenticity, may be difficult to operationalize for children, as imagination plays a greater role in their lives (e.g. animals can talk), and they may not perceive reality in the same way as adults. On the other hand, one could also argue that the classroom itself creates ‘authenticity’, in that it is the real environment where children engage in real activities (Illés & Akcan, Reference Illés and Akcan2017). In any event, tasks for children need to be grounded in their life activities and reality (Cameron, Reference Cameron2001).

Some of the earlier studies on TBLT and tasks among young learners stemmed from French immersion programs in Canada (Harley, 1998*; Lyster, 2004*; Lyster et al., 2013*). Despite years of ample meaning-based input in the target language, young learners struggled to produce target-like forms for certain grammatical features. This observation led researchers to examine the role of form-focused instruction for children, who were often considered to acquire language primarily through implicit learning. The line of research concerning the role of focus on form (i.e. a type of form-focused instruction in which tasks are designed to draw learners’ attention to specific linguistic forms while maintaining a primary emphasis on meaning, or sometimes referred to as focused tasks) has gradually expanded into FL contexts, where children have relatively less exposure to the target language (e.g. Calzada & García Mayo, 2021b*; Chung & Révész, 2025*; Gorman & Ellis, 2019*; Shak & Gardner, 2008*; Shintani, 2013*, 2016*). Compared to adult learners, young learners – particularly in FL contexts – appear to gain rather limited benefits from form-focused instruction or focused tasks in terms of noticing and acquiring target forms. It should be noted, however, that these effects may also depend on factors such as learners’ age, proficiency level, amount of input, target forms, and feedback types during tasks, as well as potentially on the task implementation stage (e.g. pre-task, during-task, post-task, Ellis, Reference Ellis, Loewen and Sato2017) and other variables (García Mayo, Reference García Mayo2025).

One of the most productive lines of research to date has been the examination of interaction during tasks, drawing on (Long’s Reference Long1983, Reference Long, Ritchie and Bhatia1996, Reference Long2015) interaction hypothesis. This hypothesis predicts that interactional modifications occurring during the negotiation of meaning should serve as comprehensible input, which, in turn, facilitates acquisition. Numerous studies have examined learners’ interactions during paired tasks. Some compared interactions between adults and children (e.g. Lázaro-Ibarrola & Azpilicueta-Martinez, 2019*; Mackey et al., 2003*; Oliver, 1998*, 2000*), while others explored how learner factors such as age (e.g. Azkarai & Imaz-Agirre, 2016*, 2017*; García Mayo & Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2015*; Oliver, 2009*), gender (e.g. Azkarai & Imaz-Agirre, 2017*; Oliver, 2002*), and proficiency level (e.g. Lázaro-Ibarrola & Azpilicueta-Martinez, 2015*; Oliver, 2002*) influence child-child interactions. Other studies have focused on how task implementation strategies affect children’s negotiation of meaning, including task type and modality (e.g. García Mayo & Imaz-Agirre, 2019*; Martínez Adrián et al., 2021*; Oliver, 2002*; Thorburn, 2022*), task repetition or familiarity (e.g. Lázaro-Ibarrola & Hidalgo, 2017*; Mackey et al., 2007*; Pinter, 2006*), and pairing (e.g. García Mayo & Imaz-Agirre, 2016*; Mackey et al., 2003*), as well as the impact of instructional contexts, such as content and language integrated learning (CLIL) programs (e.g. Azkarai & Imaz-Agirre, 2016*; García Mayo & Lázaro-Ibarrola, 2015*). Overall, studies indicate that young learners can engage in negotiation of meaning, but its frequency is relatively low and the types of negotiation vary depending on learner, instructional, and contextual factors. Critically, how the frequency and types of negotiation contribute to young learners’ target language acquisition and how age-related factors interact with this process remain unclear.

Based on socio-cultural theory (Vygotsky, Reference Vygotsky1978), which views learning, including language learning, as fundamentally occurring through dialogic interactions, Storch (Reference Storch2002) proposed a model of dyadic international patterns, which predicts that collaborative and novice/expert patterns enhance learning. Several studies reviewed here also employed this model for their analyses to investigate the quality of interaction during tasks (e.g. Ahmadian & Tajabadi, 2017*; Butler & Zeng, 2011*; 2015*; Calzada & García Mayo, 2021a*; García Mayo & Imaz Agirre, 2016*).

Motivated by the output hypothesis (Swain, Reference Swain, Gass and Madden1985), which highlights the role of pushed output and noticing that results from it in language learning, language-related episodes (LREs) were proposed as a way to analyze such noticing moments. LREs were originally defined as ‘any part of a dialogue where the students talk about the language they are producing, question their language use, or correct themselves or others’ (Swain & Lapkin, Reference Swain and Lapkin1998, p. 326). LREs have been used as a means of investigating how the negotiation of form and meaning occurs during tasks among young learners (e.g. Cánovas Guirao et al., 2015*; Chung & Révész, 2025*; Gallardo-del-Puerto & Martínez-Adrián, 2022*; García Mayo & Imaz Agirre, 2019*; Hidalgo & García Mayo, 2019*; Luquin & García Mayo, 2020*; Martínez-Adrían & Gutiérrez-Mangado, 2022*). It should be noted that Swain and Lapkin (Reference Swain and Lapkin2002) later emphasized the role of LREs not only as evidence of cognitive noticing but also as instances of learners’ collaborative dialogues (concerning lexical, form, and discourse) that serve as scaffolding and mediation for language development, in light of Vygotskian socio-cultural theory.

Both collaborative patterns and LREs appear to be influenced by multiple factors, such as learner, instructional, and contextual factors, similar to the studies on the negotiation of meaning discussed above. The critical question is whether the analytical tools designed for adult research, which are grounded in assumptions about adult learners, can validly be applied to children. The direct link between LREs and children’s learning, however, has not been clearly established. For young learners, simply providing opportunities for collaborative tasks may not be sufficient; teacher guidance, additional support, and practice may also be necessary (Cánovas Guirao et al., 2015*; Luquin, 2025*). Moreover, due to the nature of children’s utterances and communication styles (e.g. heavier reliance on non-verbal means such as gestures and body language among children), coding communication strategies is not always straightforward and can be challenging for researchers. Reflecting on their analyses, Lázaro-Ibarrola and Azpilicueta-Martinez (2019)* state that ‘contextualised flexibility should not be overlooked by researchers in order to avoid too canonical transcription readings which could lead to inaccurate rates not reflecting the actual use of conversational adjustments displayed by participants’ (p. 19, emphasis in original). Here again, age-related specific consideration is indispensable for researchers. This raises the question of how the nature of age should be understood.

Age is a multivariate concept. It relates to children’s cognitive, sociocognitive, social, affective, and L1 development, all of which mutually influence one another in complex ways (Butler, Reference Butler2025). However, little is understood about how these developmental factors interact with children’s interactional behaviours and linguistic performance on tasks. A spot-the-difference task, a popular task for young learners, for example, requires a certain level of sociocognitive maturity (e.g. understanding the partner’s perspective) as well as social maturity for successful collaboration and task completion. Dictogloss tasks (e.g. after listening to sentences, students collaboratively reconstruct the original texts) (Wajnryb, Reference Wajnryb1990) rely on children’s memory capacity, which can also be influenced by affect and social maturity. Although there has been growing interest in affective factorsFootnote ³ in recent years (e.g. Calzada & García Mayo, 2020*; Luquin, 2025*; Pladevall-Ballester & Vraciu, 2025*), the role of affect, such as enjoyment, motivation, and boredom, remains relatively underexplored in TBLT/task studies involving children. A low frequency of interactional strategies or LREs may reflect a lack of interest in the task itself, particularly when the task is repeated. Moreover, as Pinter (2006*) suggested, children and adults (teachers and researchers) may have different understandings of task goals. Greater effort is needed to consider children’s perspectives when evaluating the effectiveness of TBLT and tasks for young learners.

Age is also situated within contexts. A review of existing studies reveals that most have been conducted in laboratory settings. While these studies have significantly contributed to understanding the effects of major variables (e.g. learner variables, instructional strategy, and program variables), they may have limitations in terms of practical implications (Bygate, Reference Bygate2020). Notably, some evidence suggests that children engage less in the negotiation of meaning in actual classrooms than in laboratory settings (Van den Branden, Reference Van den Branden, Philp, Oliver and Mackey2008). In recent years, it is encouraging to see more studies conducted in classroom settings, including ethnographic/observational studies (e.g. Dreßler, 2018*; Oliver et al., 2025*; Oliver & Sato, 2021*; Thorburn, 2022*; Van Gorp & Van den Branden, 2015*; Zhu et al., 2025*), and such classroom-based studies (in addition to pioneering work such as Carless, 2002*, 2004*) should be further encouraged.

Finally, age is diachronic; nine-year-old children today may differ from those a decade ago in terms of preferred cognitive and social strategies, neurodevelopment, and language use due to rapidly changing learning environments (e.g. Arabiat et al., Reference Arabiat, Jabery, Robinson, Whitehead and Mörelius2022). One of the most notable changes in these environments is the growing use of digital technology both inside and outside of the classroom. Accordingly, tasks can now be offered online or through digital devices. Various types of artificial intelligence (AI) are also expected to play an increasing role in children’s language classrooms, at least in some regions. Some evidence suggests that children are fond of interacting with AI agents (e.g. Andries & Robertson, Reference Andries and Robertson2023), although one can also suspect that their experience with interacting with AI may also influence their interpersonal interaction (Xu et al., Reference Xu, Prado, Severson, Lovato, Cassell, Christakis and Hale2025). Research on TBLT and tasks through digital technology, particularly AI, is an exciting avenue for future inquiry. However, researchers working with children should critically examine both the potential benefits and drawbacks of these technologies with a long-term perspective.

In the following timeline, studies are characterized according to the following themes.

A. Research orientations

A1. Theoretical

A2. Experimental

A3. Non-experimental, classroom observations

A4. Reviews and others

B. Instructional contexts

B1. Second language (L2) contexts

B2. Foreign language (FL) contexts – regular

B3. CLIL or bilingual immersion programs

B4. Others

C. Task typesFootnote ⁴

C1. Output-based tasks (dialogic; two-way interaction is required or expected)

C2. Input-based tasks (focusing on comprehension; production is not required)

C3. Others

D. Domains of investigation

D1. Vocabulary and/or grammar

D2. Comprehension

D3. Production (speaking and writing)

D4. Negotiation of meaning

D5. Quality or patterns of interaction

D6. Motivation and other affect

D7. Teacher beliefs and classroom instruction

D8. Others

E. Factors influencing the outcomes

E1. Learner factors (age, proficiency levels, gender, etc.)

E2. Instructional strategies (TBLT vs PPP; task repetition; the role of form-focused instruction; task familiarity; pairing; modality; modeling; feedback provision)

E3. Program types (including online programs)

E4. Others