Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-72crv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-12T15:02:06.137Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Task-Based Instruction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 May 2010

Peter Skehan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the last twenty years or so, language teaching has changed to incorporate a higher proportion of meaning-based activities, in contrast to the era in which form was primary and a concern for meaning only followed the establishment of control over specific forms. Now, a wide range of classroom options are available for participant organization, content incorporation, and the units by which teaching is organized. In order to locate task-based work within such a range of options, it is necessary to address definitional issues at the outset, since many different contemporary options give task a central role. For the purposes of this chapter, a task is regarded as an activity which satisfies the following criteria:

Information

Type
Integrated Perspectives on Learning and Assessment
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 18 , March 1998 , pp. 268 - 286
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

UNANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beretta, A. 1989. Attention to form or meaning? Error treatment in the Bangalore project. TESOL Quarterly. 23.283–304.Google Scholar
Breen, M. 1987. Contemporary paradigms in syllabus design: (Parts 1 and 2). Language Teaching. 20.91–92 and 157–174.Google Scholar
Brinton, D. M., Snow, M. A. and Wesche, M. B.. 1989. Content-based second language instruction. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Brock, C. 1986. The effects of referential questions on ESL classroom discourse. TESOL Quarterly. 20.47–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, G., Anderson, A.Shilcock, R. and Yule, G.. 1984. Teaching talk: Strategies for production and assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, R. 1991. Group work, task difference, and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics. 11.1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brumfit, C. J. 1984. The Bangalore Project revisited. English Language Teaching Journal. 39.121–127.Google Scholar
Bygate, M. 1996. Effects of task repetition: Appraising the developing language of learners. In Willis, J. and Willis, D. (eds.) Challenge and change in language teaching. London: Heinemann. 136–146.Google Scholar
Bygate, M. 1997. The effect of task repetition on language structure and control. Paper presented at annual American Association for Applied Linguistics Conference. Orlando, FL, March 1997.Google Scholar
Candlin, C. 1987. Towards task based language learning. In Candlin, C. and Murphy, D. (eds.) Language learning tasks. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 5–22.Google Scholar
Crookes, G. 1989. Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 11.367–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duff, P. 1986. Another look at interlanguage talk: Taking task to task. In Day, R. (ed.) Talking to learn. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 147–181.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. 1987. Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style shifting in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 9.12–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, P. and Skehan, P.. 1997. Modifying the task: The effects of surprise, time and planning type on task based foreign language instruction. Thames Valley Working Papers in English Language Teaching. Vol. 4.19–45.Google Scholar
Fotos, S. and Ellis, R.. 1991. Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach. TESOL Quarterly. 25.608–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fried-Booth, D. 1986. Project work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gass, S. and Varonis, E.. 1986. Sex differences in NNS-NNS interactions. In Day, R. (ed.) Talking to learn. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 327–351.Google Scholar
Greenwood, J. 1985. Bangalore revisited—a reluctant complaint. English Language Teaching Journal. 39.268–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haines, S. 1989. Projects for the EFL classroom. London: Nelson.Google Scholar
Kumaravadivelu, B. 1993. The name of the task and the task of naming: Methodological aspects of task-based pedagogy. In Crookes, G. and Gass, S. (eds.) Tasks in a pedagogical context: Integrating theory and practice. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. 69–96.Google Scholar
Long, M. In press. Task-based language teaching. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Long, M. and Robinson, P.. In press. Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty and J. Williams (eds.) Focus on form in classroom SLA. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Loschky, L. and Bley-Vroman, R.. 1993. Grammar and task-based methodology. In Crookes, G. and Gass, S. (eds.) Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. 123–167.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. and Ranta, L.. 1997. Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 19.37–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehnert, U. In press. The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition.Google Scholar
Newton, J. and Kennedy, G.. 1996. Effects of communication tasks on the grammatical relations marked by second language learners. System. 24.309–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T., Kanagy, R. and Falodun, J.. 1993. Choosing and using communicative tasks for second language instruction. In Crookes, G. and Gass, S. (eds.) Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. 9–34.Google Scholar
—, F., Lincoln-PorterPaninos, D. and Linnell, J.. 1996. Language learners' interactions: How does it address the input, output, and feedback needs of L2 learners. TESOL Quarterly. 30.59–84.Google Scholar
Plough, I. and Gass, S.. 1993. Interlocutor and task familiarity: Effect on interactional structure. In Crookes, G. and Gass, S. (eds.) Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. 35–56.Google Scholar
Prabhu, N. S. 1987. Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. 1995. Task complexity and second language narrative discourse. Language Learning. 45.99–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prabhu, N. S. (ed.) 1996. Task complexity and second language syllabus design: Data based studies and speculations. [Special Issue of University of Queensland Working Papers in Language and Linguistics.]Google Scholar
Samuda, V., Gass, S. and Rounds, P.. 1996. Two types of task in communicative language teaching. Paper presented at the annual TESOL Convention. Chicago, IL, March 1996.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics. 11.17–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. In press a. A cognitive approach to language learning. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. In press b. Task characteristics, fluency, and oral performance testing. Thames Valley Working Papers in Applied Linguistics. Vol. 5.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. and Foster, P.. 1997a. Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Testing Research. 1.3. 185–211.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. and Foster, P.. 1997b. Task structure and processing conditions in narrative retellings. Paper presented at the annual American Association for Applied Linguistics Conference. Orlando, Florida, March 1997.Google Scholar
Spada, N. and Lightbown, P.. 1993. Instruction and the development of questions in L2 classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 15. 185–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. 1995. Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. and Seidlhofer, B. (eds.) Principle and practice in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 245–256.Google Scholar
Towell, R., Hawkins, R. and Bazergut, N.. 1996. The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. Applied Linguistics. 17.84–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ushioda, E. 1996. The role of motivation. Dublin: Authentik Language Learning Resources.Google Scholar
Van Lier, L. and Matsuo, N.. 1994. Variation in interlanguage conversation. Monterey, CA: Monterey Institute for International Studies. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Van Patten, B. 1990. Attending to content and form in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 12.287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, R. 1988. The ELT curriculum. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Yule, G. 1991. Developing communicative effectiveness through the negotiated resolution of referential conflicts. Linguistics and Education. 3.31–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yule, G., Powers, M. and Macdonald, D.. 1992. The variable effects of some task-based learning procedures on L2 communicative effectiveness. Language Learning. 42.249–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar