1. Task-based research and language pedagogy Rod Ellis
g Brenda 張琳美
Date:2008/03/07

2. Outline of the Presentation
I Introduction
II Defining Task
III Task from a psycholinguistic perspective
1 The Interaction Hypothesis
2 A ‘cognitive approach’ to tasks
3 Communicative effectiveness.
4 Evaluating the psycholinguistic perspective.
IV Task from a social-culture perspective
V Task in language pedagogy

3. I Introduction The purpose What is “Task” ? Pica (1997)
A construct of equal importance to (SLA) researchers and teachers.
Corder, (1981), Prabhu (1987).
Both clinically eliciting for research and a device for organizing the content and methodology
Bygate, Skehan and Swain(2000b)
Viewed differently whether the perspective is.
The purpose
To examine theoretical views of language use, learning and teaching.
1.1 ‘task’ is seen as a construct of equal importance to second
language acquisition (SLA) researchers and to language teachers
(Pica, 1997).
1.2 ‘Task’ is both a means of clinically eliciting samples
of learner language for purposes of research (Corder, 1981) and a
device for organizing the content and methodology of language
teaching (Prabhu, 1987).
1.3 However, as Bygate, Skehan and Swain
(2000b) point out, ‘task’ is viewed differently depending on
whether the perspective is that of research or pedagogy. 說明:
1.4 Researchers, for example, may view a task in terms of a set of
variables that impact on performance and language acquisition
whereas teachers see it as a unit of work in an overall scheme of
work. – for example, information about significant task variables
acquired through research can assist teachers in deciding what
tasks to use and when.

4. I Introduction Ellis Lantolf (1996) Long and Crookes ( 1987) Vygotsky
The first view computational models of (L2) acquisition.
Long and Crookes ( 1987)
‘psycholinguistically motivated dimensions’ of tasks.
Vygotsky
The second view is socio-cultural in orientation.
Ellis
He is arguing that language pedagogy needs to take account of both views in order to accommodate Van Lier’s (1991) two essential teaching dimensions – ‘planning’ and ‘improvising
1.5 The purpose of this article is to examine theoretical views of
language use, learning and teaching that underlie the work on tasks
that has taken place to date.
Two broad and disparate views will
be identified and discussed.
The first view
Lantolf (1996) has referred to as computational models of second
language (L2) acquisition, which treat acquisition as the product
of processing input and output. In accordance with this model,
researchers have sought to identify ‘psycholinguistically motivated
dimensions’ of tasks (Long and Crookes, 1987) – that is, to establish
the task features that have a significant impact on the way learners process language in performance and, therefore, potentially, on
how they acquire an L2. The identification of such dimensions can
be used to select and grade tasks for teaching and learning.
The second view
is socio-cultural in orientation, drawing on the work
of Vygotsky, as this has been applied to L2 learning. This approach
views language learning as socially constructed through interaction
of one kind or another and, thus, treats ‘tasks’ as workplans that are enacted in accordance with the personal dispositions and goals
of individual learners in particular settings, making it difficult to
predict the nature of the activity that arises out of a task. In particular, it can contribute to the development of a methodology for task-based teaching and learning.
The article concludes by arguing that
language pedagogy needs to take account of both views in order
to accommodate what Van Lier (1991) has advanced as the two
essential dimensions of teaching – ‘planning’ and ‘improvising’.

5. II Defining Task Bygate, Skehan and Swain (2000b) ‘context-free’
Breen(1989) task-as-workplan
Skehan (1998a) 4 defining criteria:
1. meaning is primary;
2. there is a goal which needs to be worked towards;
3. the activity is outcome-evaluated;
4. there is a real-world relationship (p. 268).
* Bygate, Skehan & Swain (2001)
* Skehan (1998)

6. II Defining Task Ellis –see Table 1 Widdowson (1998a)
1.he is critical and arguing that the ‘criteria do not in themselves distinguish the linguistic exercise and the communicative task’ (p. 328).
2.‘exercise’ and ‘task’ differ with regard to the kind of meaning, goal, and outcome they are directed towards.
Ellis –see Table 1
It is an attempt to incorporate
Widdowson’s insight into Skehan’s definition.
Ellis (2003)
1. strategic (off-line) planning
2. on-line planning
Willis (1996, 2004)
1. Task cycle (i.e., during-task)
2. Language focus (i.e., post-task)
Task-in-process
Task-as-workplan
Seedhouse (2005)

7. Table 1 1 2 3 4 5

8. III Task from a psycholinguistic perspective
A task is a devise
Skehan, Faster and Mehnert (1998)
1. Task properties the nature of the performance.
2. The task –as- workplan and the task-as- process.
3. The design features of task.
Lantolf (1996) -‘computational metaphor’.
Chomsky (1960) as the person
Mainstream cognitive science so strongly believes in the metaphor .(1970s-1980s)
Lantolf sees
Chomsky as the person most responsible for the dominance of this
metaphor in linguistics and applied linguistics since the 1960s but
recognizes that it is evident in cognitive as well as nativist accounts
of language learning. He comments: ‘it quickly became regularized
as theory within the cognitive science of the 1970s and 1980s.
Mainstream cognitive science so strongly believes in the metaphor
– in effect, to be in mainstream cognitive science means that many
people find it difficult to conceive of neural computation as a
theory, it must surely be a fact’ (p. 724–5).

9. computational metaphor
The first, in the 1980s is Long’s Interaction Hypothesis .
The second, in the 1990s is Skehan’s ‘cognitive approach’.
Two types of processing (lexical processing and rule-based processing).
The third is Yule’s model of communicative effectiveness.
Language pedagogy is concerned.
Within this basic metaphor, it is possible to distinguish a number
of different theoretical positions. I will briefly consider three here.
The first, which was prominent in research in the 1980s and
continues to attract attention, albeit in somewhat revised form, is
Long’s Interaction Hypothesis. The second is Skehan’s ‘cognitive
approach’, based on the distinction between two types of
processing that learners can engage in (lexical processing and rulebased
processing). Skehan’s theoretical position has informed a
number of studies carried out in the 1990s. The third is Yule’s
model of communicative effectiveness, which has attracted less
attention, but is of obvious promise where language pedagogy is
concerned.

10. 1.The Interaction Hyphothesis
Theoretical Background
Long’s Interaction Hypothesis (1983)
L2 acquisition is from..
1.Comprehensible input 2.Negotiate meaning
3.Feedback from the production 4.Output
Ellis-Table 2
Swain’s Output Hypothesis (1985,1995)
Long’s Interaction Hypothesis (1996)

11. Table 2

12. Swain’s Output Hypothesis (1985,1995)
negotiation
learners’ pushed output in conversation
notice the gap between interlanguage and target language, improve/correct
L2 acquisition

13. Long’s Interaction Hypothesis (1996)
promote comprehensible input
negotiation
make linguistic forms salient
Learners modify their output

14. 2.A ‘cognitive approach’ to tasks
(1)Fluency
Fluency concerns the learner’s capacity to produce language in real time without undue pausing or hesitation.
(2)Accuracy
Accuracy concerns how well language is produced in relation to the target language
(3)Complexity
Complexity concerns the elaboration or ambition of the language which is produced.
E.g.,
Fluency : memory-based system
Accuracy and Complexity:
rule-based system and syntactic processing
Fluency
Fluency concerns the learner’s capacity to produce language in real time without undue pausing or hesitation. It is likely to rely upon more lexicalized modes of communication, as the pressure of real time speech production are met only by avoiding excessive rule-based computation
(skehan 1994)
Accuracy
Accuracy concerns how well language is produced in relation to the target language
Complexity
Complexity concerns the elaboration or ambition of the language which is produced. How far do learners rely on prefabricated phrases and established routines, and how far do they need to expand their language resources to meet the communicative challenge?

15. Table 3
B.Task implementation 3 4

16. 3.Communicative effectives
Yule (1997) distinguishes two broad dimensions of communicative effectiveness:
(1) the identification-of-referent dimension.
(2) the role-taking dimension.

17. 3. Communicative effectives
(1)the identification-of-referent dimension.
1. to encode the referents
2. to notice specific attributes of the referent
3. to distinguished from other referents
(2) the role-taking dimension.
1. to take account of their communicative partners
2. to make inferences about the other speaker’s perspective
3.to take these inferences into account when encoding a message
4. to attend to the feedback provided by the other speakers
Learners need to be
able to encode the referents they have to communicate about. They
require the perceptual ability to notice specific attributes of the
referent, the comparison ability to distinguish one referent from
another, and the linguistic ability needed to encode the referent in
such a way that it is sufficiently distinguished from other referents.
The role-taking dimension concerns the ability of the participants
to take account of their communicative partners in order to
achieve intersubjectivity. They must be able to recognize the
importance of the other speaker’s perspective, to make inferences
about the other speaker’s perspective, to take these inferences into
account when encoding a message and to attend to the feedback
provided by the other speakers in order to monitor output
accordingly.

18. Table 4

19. 4. Evaluating the psycholinguistics perspective
The approach adopted has been as follows:
1. Determine what effect task variables have on task performance.
2. Draw on a theory of L2 acquisition/communicative effectiveness
to make claims regarding the relationship between specific types
of language performance and L2 acquisition/communicative
effectiveness.
3. Infer which kinds of tasks will work best for promoting L2
acquisition/communicative effectiveness.
As Skehan (1998a) has pointed out, the inherent weakness of
this approach lies in the failure to show a direct relationship
between task-design and L2 acquisition.
The
approach adopted has been as follows:
1. Determine what effect task variables have on task performance.
2. Draw on a theory of L2 acquisition/communicative effectiveness
to make claims regarding the relationship between specific types of language performance and L2 acquisition/communicative effectiveness.
3. Infer which kinds of tasks will work best for promoting L2
acquisition/communicative effectiveness.
As Skehan (1998a) has pointed out, the inherent weakness of
this approach lies in the failure to show a direct relationship
between task-design and L2 acquisition

20. IV Task from a social-culture perspective
1. sociocultural theory has grown out of the work of Vygotsky (1986) and Leont’ev (1981), among others.
2. As Appel and Lantolf (1994) point out ‘performance depends crucially on the interaction of individual and task’
3. Coughlan and Duff (1994) distinguish between what they call ‘task’ (i.e. the workplan) and ‘activity’ (i.e. the actual language that occurs when learners perform the task).
4. According to socio-cultural theory, learning arises not through interaction but in interaction.

21. IV Task from a social-culture perspective
5. functions are ‘scaffolded’ by the participants.
Scaffolding is the dialogic process by which one speaker assists another to perform a new function.
According to Wood, Bruner and Ross (1976),
it can (1) involve recruiting interest in the task,
(2) simplifying the task as necessary,
(3) maintaining pursuit of the goal of the task,
(4) Marking critical features and the ideal solution,
(5) controlling frustration during problem solving.
They are those in which the new
functions are ‘scaffolded’ by the participants. Scaffolding7 is the
dialogic process by which one speaker assists another to perform
a new function. According to Wood, Bruner and Ross (1976), it can
involve recruiting interest in the task, simplifying the task as
necessary, maintaining pursuit of the goal of the task, marking
critical features and discrepancies between what has been
produced and the ideal solution, controlling frustration during
problem solving and demonstrating an idealized version of the act
to be performed.

22. IV Task from a social-culture perspective
6. Donato (1994),
7. Swain (e.g. Swain and Lapkin, 1998)
8. Samuda (2000)
9. Socio-cultural theory,
offers a very different perspective on tasks.
10. Swain (2000) argues that a constructionist
account of tasks is needed
11. Samuda (2000), the importance of examining the task and teacher ‘in action’ but also illustrates how a task can be designed to create a ‘semantic space’ so as to provide opportunities for learners to use a specifically

23. V Task in language pedagogy
1 Task-based language instruction whether this is ‘communicative effectiveness’ or ‘L2 acquisition’.
Van Lier (1991) 2 dimensions of teaching.
-‘planning’ and ‘improvising’
Willis(1996: 35–6) identifies 8 purposes :
To give learners …
(1). confidence & trying out
(2). experience & interaction
(3). to give the chance to benefit from others;
(4). negotiating turns to speak;
SLA

24. V Task in language pedagogy
(5). using language purposefully & cooperatively;
(6). to make a complete interaction,
not just one-off sentences;
(7). to try out communication strategies;
(8). to develop learners’ confidence.
Interestingly, seven of Willis’s purposes relate primarily to communicative effectiveness; only one, (3), relates specifically to L2 acquisition.

25. V Task in language pedagogy
2. The theoretical perspectives
3. The assumption -language performance will result from specific tasks.
4. Good reasons from Ellis
First, recognition can be given to the propensity of certain tasks to lead to particular types of language behaviour.
Second, given the strong theoretical rationale for task based courses, teachers need to be able to design such courses.

26. V Task in language pedagogy
5. Van Lier (1991; 1996) suggests that planning is one of two dimensions of teaching, the other being ‘improvisation’
6. Research in the psycholinguistic tradition of Long, Skehan and Yule has an obvious role to play in the ‘planning’ dimension of language teaching.
7. From a pedagogic perspective
(1) Van Lier argues that teachers need to develop a ‘dual vision’ –to keep long-term sense of direction and make on-line decision.
(2) Plattand Brooks (1994), and, instead, accept the need for a pluralistic research agenda capable of addressing the multi-faceted nature of ask-based instruction.

27. A few references… Rod Ellis University of Auckland, r. ellis@auckland
A few references… Rod Ellis University of Auckland,
Appel, G. and Lantolf, J. 1994: Speaking as mediation: a study of L1 and
L2 text recall tasks. The Modern Language Journal 78: 437–52.
Breen, M The evaluation cycle for language learning. In Johnson,
R.K., editor, The second language curriculum. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Brooks, F.B. and Donato, R. 1994: Vygotskyan approaches to understanding
foreign language learner discourse during communication
tasks. Hispania 77: 262–74.
Brown, G. 1995: Speaker, listeners and communication. Cambridge:
Bygate, M., Skehan, P. and Swain, M., editors, 2000a: Researching
pedagogic tasks: second language learning, teaching and testing.
Harlow, Essex: Longman.
Bygate, M., Skehan, P. and Swain, M., editors, 2000b: Introduction. In
Bygate, M. et al. (editors).
Corder, S.P. 1980: Second language acquisition research and the teaching
of grammar. BAAL Newsletter 10.
–––– 1981: Error analysis and interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Coughlan, P. and Duff, P. 1994: Same task, different activities: analysis of
SLA from an activity theory perspective. In J. Lantolf and G. Appel,
editors, 173–94.
Donato, R. 1994: Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J.
Lantolf and G. Appel, editors, 33–56.
Ellis, N. 1996: Sequencing in SLA: phonological memory, chunking, and
points of order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18: 91–126.
Ellis, R. forthcoming: Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. and He, X. 1999: The roles of modified input and output in the

28. Thank you very much
for your kind attention!