Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T01:09:31.635Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

15 - Methodological Approaches to Investigating Task-Based Language Teaching

Advances and Challenges

from Part VIII - Research Needs and Future Prospects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2021

By
Andrea Révész
Edited by
Mohammad Javad Ahmadian  and
Michael H. Long
Mohammad Javad Ahmadian
Affiliation:
University of Leeds
Michael H. Long
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park
Get access

Summary

This chapter provides an overview of key methods that are used to examine the role of tasks in second language performance and development. For each method, I provide a short description of the area(s) of research in which it is typically used, followed by examples to demonstrate how the method can be employed to investigate task-related issues. I also highlight and discuss the advantages and limitations associated with each method, and consider how potential limitations might be mitigated through careful design and implementation. Next, I turn to a discussion of some current issues in task-based language teaching research methodology, such as the tension between internal and ecological validity, the need for more developmental and longitudinal research to complement the current focus on task-based performance, the value of investigating task-based processes besides products, the advantages and challenges of triangulating data sources, and the importance of thorough data reporting and transparency.

Keywords

L2 performanceL2 developmentTBLTTBLT research methodology

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Task-Based Language Teaching , pp. 605 - 627
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Further Reading

DeCosta, P. I., Valmori, L., and Choi, I. (2017). Qualitative research methods. In Loewen, S. and Sato, M., eds. The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition. New York: Routledge, pp. 522–40.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2019). Aptitude treatment interaction in second language learning [Special issue]. Journal of Second Language Studies, 2(2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Loewen, S. and Philp, J. (2011) Instructed second language acquisition. Mackey, A., and Gass, S, ed. Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 53–73.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (2017). Classroom-based research. In Loewen, S. and Sato, M., eds. The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition. New York: Routledge, pp. 541–61.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. and Gass, S. M. (2015). Second language research: Methodology and design 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinley, J. and Rose, H. (2020), eds. The Routledge handbook of research methods in applied linguistics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L. and Kim, Y. (2016). Task-based learner production: A substantive and methodological review. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 73–97.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, 87–92.Google Scholar
Révész, A., Michel, M., and 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, 703–37.Google Scholar

References

Adams, R. (2007). Do second language learners benefit from interacting with each other? In Mackey, A., ed. Conversational interaction in second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 29–51.Google Scholar
Albert, Á. and Kormos, J. (2004). Creativity and narrative task performance: An exploratory study. Language Learning, 54, 277–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andon, N. J. (2018). Optimal conditions for TBLT?: A case study of teachers’ orientation to TBLT in the commercial EFL for adults sector in the UK. In Samuda, V., Bygate, M. and Van den Branden, K., eds. TBLT as a researched pedagogy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 132–64.Google Scholar
Baba, K. and Nitta, R. (2014). Phase transitions in development of writing fluency from a complex dynamic systems perspective. Language Learning, 64, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 689–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryfonski, L. and McKay, T. H. (2019) TBLT implementation and evaluation: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 23, 603–32Google Scholar
Bulté, B. and Housen, A. (2012). Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. In Housen, A., Kuiken, F., and Vedder, I., eds. Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 21–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carless, D. (2004). Issues in teachers’ reinterpretation of a task-based innovation in primary schools. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 639–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charoenchaikorn, V. (2019). L2 revision and post-task anticipation during text-based synchronous computer-mediated communication (SCMC) tasks. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Lancaster University, UK.Google Scholar
Chong, S.W. and Reinders, H. (2020). Technology-mediated task-based language teaching: A qualitative research synthesis. Language Learning & Technology, 24(3), 70–86.Google Scholar
Cobb, M. (2010). Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of task-based interaction in form-focused instruction of adult learners in foreign and second language teaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
De la Fuente, M. J. (2006). Classroom L2 vocabulary acquisition: Investigating the role of pedagogical tasks and form-focused instruction. Language Teaching Research, 10, 263–95.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. and Kormos, J. (2000). The role of individual and social variables in oral task performance. Language Teaching Research, 4, 275–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2011). Macro- and micro-evaluations of task-based teaching. In Tomlinson, B. ed. Materials development in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 212–35.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2015). Teachers evaluating tasks. In Bygate, M., ed. Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of plenaries from the international conference. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 247–70.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. and Shintani, N. (2014). Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., and Lambert, C. (2020). Theory and practice of task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fu, M. and Li, S. (2019). The associations between individual differences in working memory and the effectiveness of immediate and delayed corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Studies, 2(2), 233–57.Google Scholar
Gilabert, R., Barón, J., and 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, 367–95.Google Scholar
Godfroid, A., Boers, F., and Housen, A. (2013). An Eye for Words. Gauging the role of attention in L2 vocabulary acquisition by means of eye tracking. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 483–517.Google Scholar
Granena, G. and Yilmaz, Y. Corrective Feedback and the Role of Implicit Sequence‐Learning Ability in L2 Online Performance. Language Learning, 69, 127–56.Google Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L. and Révész, A. (2012). Tasks, teacher feedback, and learner modified output in naturally occurring classroom interaction. Language Learning, 62, 851–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Housen, A. and Kuiken, F. (2009) Complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30, 461–73.Google Scholar
Jackson, D. O. and Suethanapornkul, S. (2013). The Cognition Hypothesis: A synthesis and meta-analysis of research on second language task complexity. Language Learning, 63, 330–67.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S. (2013). Defining and measuring lexical diversity. In Jarvis, S. and Daller, M., eds., Vocabulary knowledge: Human ratings and automated measures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 13–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keck, C., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy, N., and Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2006). Investigating the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition: A meta-analysis. In Norris, J. M., and Ortega, L., eds. Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 91–131.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. (2009). The effects of task complexity on learner-learner interaction. System, 37, 254–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y. (2012). Task complexity, learning opportunities, and Korean EFL learners’ question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 627–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y., Payant, C., and Pearson, P. (2015). The intersection of task-based interaction, task complexity, and working memory: L2 question development through recasts in a laboratory setting. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 549–81.Google Scholar
King, K. and Mackey, A. (2016). Research methodology in second language studies: Trends, concerns and new directions. The Modern Language Journal, 100(s), 209–27.Google Scholar
Kourtali, N. and Révész, A. (2020). The roles of recasts, task complexity, and aptitude in child second language development. Language Learning, 70, 179–218.Google Scholar
Lambert, C. P. and Engler, S. (2007). Information distribution and goal orientation in second Language task design. In Garcia-Mayo, M. P., ed. Investigating tasks in formal language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 27–43.Google Scholar
Lee, J. (2019). Task complexity, cognitive load, and L1 speech. Applied Linguistics, 40, 506–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightbown, P. and Spada, N. (2019). In it together: Teachers, researchers, and classroom SLA. Plenary presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Applied Linguistics. Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Oxford: Wiley-BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (2002). Beyond production: Learners’ perceptions about interactional processes. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 379–94.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 405–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (2012). Input, interaction, and corrective feedback in L2 learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (2017). Classroom-based research. In Loewen, S. and Sato, M., eds. The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition. New York: Routledge, pp. 541–61.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Adams, R., Stafford, C., and Winke, P. (2010). Exploring the relationship between modified output and working memory capacity. Language Learning, 60, 501–33.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., and Gass, S. (2016). Second language research: Methodology and design. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (2017). Classroom-based research. In Loewen, S. and Sato, M., eds. The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition. New York: Routledge, pp. 541–61.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. and Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In Mackey, A., ed. Conversational interaction in SLA: A collection of empirical studies. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 408–52.Google Scholar
Malicka, A. and Levkina, M. (2012). Measuring task complexity:does L2 proficiency matter? In Shehadeh, A. and Coombe, C., eds. Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts: Research and implementation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 43–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markee, N. and Kunitz, S. (2013). Doing planning and task performance in second language acquisition: An ethnomethodological respecification. Language Learning, 63, 1–36.Google Scholar
McDonough, K. and Chaikitmongkol, W. (2007). Teachers’ and learners’ reactions to a task-based EFL course in Thailand. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 107–32.Google Scholar
McDonough, K., Crawford, W., and Mackey, A. (2015). Creativity and EFL learners’ language use during a group decision‐making task. TESOL Quarterly, 49, 188–98.Google Scholar
Michel, M. (2017). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in L2 production. In Loewen, S. and Masatoshi, M., eds. The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition. New York: Routledge, pp. 66–84.Google Scholar
Michel, M., Révész, A., and Gilabert, R. (2014). Eye movement prompts in stimulated recall: tapping cognitive processes based on audio vs. visual stimuli. Paper presented at AILA, Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
Michel, M., Révész, A., Lu, X., Kourtali, N., Lee, M., and Borges, L. (2020). Investigating L2 writing processes across independent and integrated tasks: A mixed-methods study. Second Language Research, 36(3), 307–34.Google Scholar
Michel, M. and Stiefenhöfer, L. (2019). Priming Spanish subjunctives during synchronous computer-mediated communication: German peers’ classroom-based and homework interactions. In Sato, M. and Loewen, S., eds. Evidence Based Second Language Pedagogy. New York: Routledge, pp. 191–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielson, K. B. and DeKeyser, R. M. (2019). Working memory and planning time as predictors of fluency and accuracy. Journal of Second Language Studies, 2, 281–316.Google Scholar
Nitta, R. and Baba, K. (2018) Understanding benefits of repetition from a complex dynamic systems perspective: The case of a writing task. In Bygate, M., ed. Language learning through task repetition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 279–309.Google Scholar
Norris, J. and Ortega, L. (2003). Defining and measuring SLA. In Doughty, C. J. and Long, M. H., eds. The handbook of second language acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 717–61.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. and Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555–78.Google Scholar
Nuevo, A. (2006). Task complexity and interaction: L2 learning opportunities and development. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Oliver, R., Philp, J., and Duchesne, S. (2017). Children working it out together: A comparison of younger and older learners collaborating in task based interaction. System, 69, 1–14.Google Scholar
Pellicer-Sánchez, A. (2016). Incidental L2 vocabulary acquisition from and while reading: An eye-tracking study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 97–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L. and 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, 437–70.Google Scholar
Révész, A. (2011). Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions, and individual differences: A classroom-based study. Modern Language Journal, 95, 162–81.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, 87–92.Google Scholar
Révész, A. (2019). Investigating task-generated cognitive processes: Methodological advances and challenges. Plenary talk presented at the Biennial International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT), Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
Révész, A., Kourtali, N., and Mazgutova, D. (2017). Effects of task complexity on L2 writing behaviors and linguistic complexity. Language Learning, 67, 208–41.Google Scholar
Révész, A., Michel, M., and 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, 703–37.Google Scholar
Révész, A., Michel, M., and Lee, M. (2019). Exploring second language writers’ pausing and revision behaviours: A mixed methods study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 605–31.Google Scholar
Révész, A., Sachs, R., and Hama, M. (2014). The effects of task complexity and input frequency on the acquisition of the past counterfactual construction through recasts. Language Learning, 64, 615–50.CrossRefGoogle 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: Cambridge University Press, pp. 287–318.Google Scholar
Rogers, J. and Révész, A. (2020). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs. In Rose, H. and McKinley, J., eds. The Routledge handbook of research methods in applied linguistics. New York: Routledge, pp. 133–43.Google Scholar
Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P., and Swain, M., eds. Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing. London: Longman, pp. 119–40.Google Scholar
Sasayama, S. (2016). Is a ‘complex’ task really complex? Validating the assumption of cognitive task complexity. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 231–54.Google Scholar
Sasayama, S., Malicka, A., and Norris, J. (2015). Primary challenges in cognitive task complexity research: Results of a comprehensive research synthesis. Unpublished paper presented at the 6th Biennial International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT), Leuven, Belgium.Google Scholar
Sato, M. and Loewen, S. (2019). Towards evidence-based second language pedagogy: Research proposals and pedagogical recommendations. In Sato, M. and Loewen, S., eds. Evidence-based second language pedagogy: A collection of instructed second language acquisition studies. New York: Routledge, pp. 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shart, M. (2008). What matters in TBLT: Task, teacher or team? An action research perspective from a beginning German language classroom. In Eckerth, J. and Siekman, S., eds. Task-based language learning and teaching. Berlin: Peter Lang, pp. 47–66.Google Scholar
Shintani, N. (2013). The effect of focus on form and focus on forms instruction on the acquisition of productive knowledge of L2 vocabulary by young beginner learners. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 36–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shintani, N. (2015). The incidental grammar acquisition in focus on form and focus on forms instruction for young, beginner learners. TESOL Quarterly, 49, 115–40.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (2009) Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510–32.Google Scholar
Torres, J. (2018). The effects of task complexity on heritage and L2 Spanish development. Canadian Modern Language Review, 74, 128–52.Google Scholar
Wang, Q. (2019). Chinese EFL learners’ motivation and anxiety in a task context and the effects of individual difference on task performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Auckl and, Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2013). Relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback: The role of working memory capacity and language analytic ability. Applied Linguistics, 34, 344–68.Google Scholar
Zalbidea, J. (2017). One task fits all? The roles of task complexity, modality, and working memory capacity in L2 performance. The Modern Language Journal, 101, 335–52.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×