|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
Task-based research and language pedagogy
Rod Ellis
University of Auckland, r.ellis{at}auckland.ac.nz
Two very different theoretical accounts of task-based language use and learning are critiqued and their relevance for language pedagogy discussed. One account, which will be referred to as the psycholinguistic perspective, draws on a computational model of second language (L2) acquisition (Lantolf, 1996). According to this perspective, tasks are viewed as devices that provide learners with the data they need for learning; the design of a task is seen as potentially determining the kind of language use and opportunities for learning that arise.Three different psycholinguistic models are discussed: Long’s Interaction Hypothesis, Skehan’s ‘cognitive approach’ and Yule’s framework of communicative efficiency. The second theoretical account of tasks is that provided by socio-cultural theory. This is premised on the claim that participants co-construct the ‘activity’ they engage in when performing a task, in accordance with their own socio-history and locally determined goals, and that, therefore, it is difficult to make reliable predictions regarding the kinds of language use and opportunities for learning that will arise. Socio-cultural theory emphasizes the dialogic processes (such as ‘scaffolding’) that arise in a task performance and how these shape language use and learning. Both theoretical approaches afford insights that are of value to task-based language pedagogy. The psycholinguistic approach provides information that is of importance for planning task-based teaching and learning. The socio-cultural approach illuminates the kinds of improvisation that teachers and learners need to engage in during task-based activity to promote communicative efficiency and L2 acquisition.
Language Teaching Research, Vol. 4, No. 3,
193-220 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/136216880000400302
 CiteULike  Complore  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
R. Wette
Making the instructional curriculum as an interactive, contextualized process: case studies of seven ESOL teachers
Language Teaching Research,
October 1, 2009;
13(4):
337 - 365.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Hellermann and E. Cole
Practices for Social Interaction in the Language-Learning Classroom: Disengagements from Dyadic Task Interaction
Applied Linguistics,
June 1, 2009;
30(2):
186 - 215.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Reinders
Learner uptake and acquisition in three grammar-oriented production activities
Language Teaching Research,
April 1, 2009;
13(2):
201 - 222.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Lopez-Varela and A. Sanz
B-learning for Literary Studies in the European Space of Higher Education: Research at Universidad Complutense Madrid
Arts and Humanities in Higher Education,
June 1, 2007;
6(2):
209 - 218.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Crabbe
Learning opportunities: adding learning value to tasks
ELT J,
April 1, 2007;
61(2):
117 - 125.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. Li
Researching and experiencing motivation: a plea for 'balanced research'
Language Teaching Research,
October 1, 2006;
10(4):
437 - 456.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. J. de la Fuente
Classroom L2 vocabulary acquisition: investigating the role of pedagogical tasks and form-focused instruction
Language Teaching Research,
July 1, 2006;
10(3):
263 - 295.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Hulstijn
Towards a unified account of the representation, processing and acquisition of second language knowledge
Second Language Research,
July 1, 2002;
18(3):
193 - 223.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
