Task-based language teaching (TBLT) and instructed second language acquisition (ISLA) have much in common in terms of theory, research, and educational relevance. The distinguishing characteristic between the two is that TBLT adopts communicative tasks as the central unit for instruction and assessment, whereas ISLA comprises a broader range of instructional activities and assessment practices. In this presentation, I focus on two of the conference themes: Instruction and Outcomes. With respect to Instruction, I draw attention to the pedagogical timing of form-focused instruction (FFI) and corrective feedback. I discuss relevant studies within ISLA and TBLT and argue that TBLT is particularly well-suited to investigating questions about the timing of FFI. In discussing Outcomes, I consider differences in how outcomes are measured in TBLT (i.e. performance) and ISLA (i.e. development) and the different aspects of language examined within each, for example, accuracy, implicit/explicit knowledge in ISLA and complexity, accuracy and fluency in TBLT. I discuss underlying similarities between fluency and implicit knowledge, how they are measured, and propose research to investigate the pedagogical timing of FFI in relation to fluency development. I conclude with a brief discussion of the need for a balance between theoretically and pedagogically motivated research within ISLA and TBLT.

One of the challenges facing second and foreign language (L2) teachers and learners in primary and secondary school settings is the limited amount of time available. There is disagreement about how to meet this challenge. In this paper we argue against two ‘common sense’ recommendations for increasing instructional time – start as early as possible and use only the L2 (avoiding the use of the first language (L1)) in the classroom. We propose two better ways to increase the instructional time: provide periods of intensive instruction later in the curriculum and integrate the teaching of language and content. Studies in schools settings around the world have failed to find long-term advantages for an early start or exclusive use of the L2 in the classroom. Nevertheless, many language educators and policy makers continue to adopt these practices, basing their choice on their own intuitions and public opinion rather than on evidence from research.

This study investigates the relationship between foreign language aptitude and the learning of two English structures defined as easy or difficult to learn. Using a quasiexperimental design, 66 secondary-level learners of English as a foreign language from three intact classes were provided with four hours of instruction on the passive (a difficult structure) and the past progressive (an easy structure). Language aptitude was measured using the LLAMA Aptitude Test (Meara, 2005). Language outcomes were measured with a written grammaticality judgment and an oral production task. The results revealed that one of the aptitude components, grammatical inferencing, contributed to learners’ gains on the passive but not the past progressive on the written measure. Another component of aptitude, associative memory, contributed to learners’ gains on the past progressive on the oral measure. The results provide support for the claim that different components of aptitude contribute to the learning of difficult and easy L2 structures in different ways. There is also support for the proposal that different components of aptitude may be involved at different stages of language acquisition (Skehan, 2002).

There has been considerable debate about the relevance and applicability of SLA theory and research for L2 pedagogy. There are those who maintain that SLA must be applicable to L2 pedagogy: a view based on the argument that because SLA is a subfield of applied linguistics, it should have direct relevance to L2 teaching. Others take the view that not all areas of SLA research need to be relevant to L2 pedagogy – only the more ‘applied’ areas. While I would agree that much of the work in SLA should be applicable to L2 pedagogy, particularly research on instructed SLA, my presentation takes a different perspective on the SLA/L2 pedagogy interface. It focuses on misapplications of SLA theory and research to L2 pedagogy. I argue that the applicability of SLA research for L2 instruction requires a careful consideration of context and that specific SLA constructs – even those considered to be important within instructed SLA – may not have direct relevance to L2 pedagogy. Three areas of SLA research that I will discuss with respect to misapplication and relevance are: the role of instruction in SLA, the role of age in SLA, and the nature of and distinction between implicit and explicit L2 knowledge.

In 1997 I published a paper in Language Teaching entitled ‘Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research’. The paper reviewed the results of studies investigating the effects of form-focused instruction (FFI) on second language (L2) learning. It was organized around seven questions, including: whether FFI is beneficial to L2 learning; whether particular types of FFI are more beneficial; whether there is an optimal time to provide FFI; and whether different language features benefit more from FFI. In this paper I revisit these questions and reflect on how research on FFI and L2 learning has evolved over the past twelve years.

This quasi-experimental study investigated the potential benefits of two corrective feedback techniques (recasts and prompts) for learners of different proficiency levels. Sixty-four students in three intact grade 6 intensive English as a second language classes in the Montreal area were assigned to the two experimental conditions—one received corrective feedback in the form of recasts and the other in the form of prompts—and a control group. The instructional intervention, which was spread over a period of 4 weeks, targeted third-person possessive determiners his and her, a difficult aspect of English grammar for these Francophone learners of English. Participants' knowledge of the target structure was tested immediately before the experimental intervention, once immediately after it ended, and again 4 weeks later through written and oral tasks. All three groups benefited from the instructional intervention, with both experimental groups benefiting the most. Results also indicated that, overall, prompts were more effective than recasts and that the effectiveness of recasts depended on the learners' proficiency. In particular, high-proficiency learners benefited equally from both prompts and recasts, whereas low-proficiency learners benefited significantly more from prompts than recasts.This study is based on the first author's Ph.D. research (Ammar, 2003). We gratefully acknowledge the cooperation of the participating teachers and students. We thank Patsy Lightbown, Roy Lyster, Pavel Trofimovich, and the anonymous SSLA reviewers for their valuable input and feedback on earlier versions of this paper.

The papers in this issue were presented at a colloquium on The Role of Instruction in Second Language Acquisition held at Concordia University in Montreal, Canada, in July 1991. Participants in the Colloquium were the following:

Birgit Harley, OISE, University of Toronto

Patsy M. Lightbown, Concordia University

Michael Long, University of Hawaii

Manfred Pienemann, Sydney University

Bonnie Schwartz, University of Durham

Michael Sharwood Smith, Utrecht University

Nina Spada, McGill University

Bill VanPatten, University of Illinois

Lydia White, McGill University

The Colloquium was sponsored by Concordia University and McGill University as well as by research grants from the government of Quebec through its Fonds pour la formation de chercheurs et l'aide à la recherche and from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

This paper is a report on a quasi-experimental study designed to investigate contributions of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback to the development of interrogative constructions in the oral performance of English-as-a-second-language (ESL) learners. The subjects were young francophone learners of English (age 10–12) receiving intensive ESL instruction. Their accuracy and developmental progress in the use of interrogative structures was measured prior to a 2-week period of instructional treatment. Immediate and delayed posttests were administered after the instruction. The language produced by the instructors while teaching interrogative structures was examined in relation to the learners' oral performance. Similar analyses were carried out with a comparison group. The results support the hypothesis that form-focused instruction and corrective feedback provided within the context of communicative interaction can contribute positively to second language development in both the short and long term.

The developing oral English of approximately 100 second language learners (four intact classes) was examined in this study. The learners were native speakers of French (aged 10–12 years) who had received a 5-month intensive ESL course in either grade 5 or grade 6 in elementary schools in Quebec. A large corpus of classroom observation data was also analyzed.

Substantial between-class differences were found in the accuracy with which students used such English structures as progressive -ing and adjective–noun order in noun phrases. There was some evidence that these differences (which were not correlated with performance on listening comprehension tests) were due to differences in teachers' form-focused instruction. These findings are discussed in terms of current competing views of the role of form-focused instruction in second language learning.

This paper reports the results of a study which investigated (a) the separate effects that differences in learners' contact can have on various aspects of proficiency, and (b) the combined effects that differences in informal contact and instructional variation can have on improvement in proficiency. Forty-eight adult learners from three intermediate-level ESL classes participated in the study.

To measure differences in learners' informal contact, a language contact questionnaire was administered. The results revealed both quantitative and qualitative differences in learners' out-of-class contact with the second language. When these differences were examined in relation to learners' performance on seven proficiency measures, correlational analysis revealed that while learners' performance on some measures was related to differences in amount of contact, it was related on other measures to differences in type of contact.

To determine whether differences in contact interacted with instructional variation to produce differences in improvement in proficiency, learners' pre-and post-test scores were examined in relation to contact and class in an analysis of co-variance. The results indicated that learners' informal contact interacted with differences in instruction to produce variation in improvement on two proficiency measures.

The findings are discussed in relation to the need for more class-room-centered research to investigate both the separate and combined effects of learner and instructional variables on second language proficiency.