The study reported in this article investigated the use of input-based tasks with young, beginner learners of English as a second language by examining both learning outcomes (i.e. acquisition) and the interactions that resulted from implementing the tasks. The participants were 15 learners, aged six, with no experience of second language (L2) learning. The target features were 36 vocabulary items (24 nouns and 12 adjectives) and plural -s. The input-based instruction consisted of three listen-and-do tasks, which were repeated nine times over a five-week period. The analysis of the process features found that even though the tasks did not require language production, the learners contributed actively. The tasks resulted in naturalistic conversation, negotiation of meaning, and ‘focus on form’, all of which have been claimed to facilitate acquisition. The input-based group improved significantly in both their receptive and productive knowledge of the vocabulary items and in their receptive knowledge of plural -s over time. They also outperformed a control group. The study shows that listen-and-do tasks can create contexts for the incidental acquisition of both vocabulary and grammar and are effective for implementing task-based instruction for young beginner learners.
AsherJ.J. (1977). Learning another language through actions. Los Gatos, CA: Sky Oaks Productions.
2.
BerkoJ. (1958). The child’s learning of English morphology. Word, 14, 150–77.
3.
BrockC.A. (1986). The effects of referential questions on ESL classroom discourse. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 47–59.
4.
BronerM.A.TaroneE.E. (2001). Is it fun?: Language play in a fifth-grade spanish immersion classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 85, 363–79.
5.
De JongN. (2005). Can second language grammar be learned through listening?: An experimental study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 205–34.
6.
DelaFuenteM.J. (2002). Negotiation and oral acquisition of L2 vocabulary: The roles of input and output in the receptive and productive acquisition of words. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 81–112.
7.
DiCamillaF.J.AntónM. (2004). Private speech: A study of language for thought in the collaborative interaction of language learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14, 36–69.
8.
DulayH.C.BurtM.K. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 37–53.
9.
EllisR. (1999). Learning a second language through interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
10.
EllisR. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11.
EllisR. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, 221–46.
12.
EllisR.HeX. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285–301.
13.
EllisR.HeimbachR. (1997). Bugs and birds: Children’s acquisition of second language vocabulary through interaction. System, 25, 247–59.
14.
EllisR.TanakaY.YamazakiA. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension, and the acquisition of L2 word meanings. Language Learning, 44, 449–91.
15.
EllisR.HeimbachR.TanakaY.YamazakiA. (1999). Modified input and the acquisition of word meanings by children and adults. In EllisR. (Ed.), Learning a second language through interaction (pp. 63–114). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
16.
ErnstG. (1994). Talking circle: Conversation and negotiation in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 293–322.
17.
GaryJ.O.GaryN. (1981). Comprehension-based language instruction: Theory. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379, 332–42.
18.
HakutaK. (1978). A report on the development of the grammatical morphemes in a Japanese girl learning English as a second language. In HatchE. (Ed.), Second language acquisition (pp. 132–47). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
19.
JohnsonK. (1995). Understanding communication in second language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20.
KrashenS. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
21.
KrashenS. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
22.
KrashenS. (1985). The input hypothesis: issues and implications. London; New York: Longman.
23.
KrashenS. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the Input Hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 440–64.
LantolfJ.P. (2003). Interpersonal communication and internalization in the second language classroom. In KozulinA.GindisB.AgeyevV.S.MillerS.M. (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp. 349–70). New York: Cambridge University Press.
26.
LongM.H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–41.
27.
LoschkyL. (1994). Comprehensible input and second language acquisition: What is the relationship?Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 303–23.
28.
LoschkyL.Bley-VromanR. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In CrookesG.GassS. (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 123–67). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
29.
MarkeeN. (2000). Conversation analysis. Mahwah: NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
30.
McHoulA. (1978). The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language in Society, 7, 183–213.
31.
NagyW. (1997). On the role of context in firstand second-language vocabulary learning. In SchmittN.McCarthyM. (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 64–83). Cambridge: University Press.
32.
NationP. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33.
OhtaA.S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
34.
ParadisM. (2004). A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
35.
ParibakhtS.WescheM.B. (1997). Vocabulary enhancement activities and reading for meaning in second language vocabulary acquisition. In CoadyJ.HuckinT. (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy (pp. 174–200). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36.
ParibakhtS. (2005). The influence of first language lexicalization on second language lexical inferencing: A study of farsi-speaking learners of English as a foreign language. Language Learning, 55, 701–48.
37.
PienemannM. (1985). Learnability and syllabus construction. In HyltenstamK.PienemannM. (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 23–76). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
38.
PinterA. (2005). Task repetition with 10-year-old children. In EdwardsC.WillisJ. (Eds.), Teachers exploring tasks in English language teaching (pp. 113–26). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
39.
PrabhuN.S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
40.
RobinsonP. (2005). Cognitive abilities, chunk-strength, and frequency effects in implicit artificial grammar and incidental L2 learning: Replications of Reber, Walkenfeld, & Hernstadt (1991) and Knowlton & Squire (1996) and their relevance for SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 235–68.
41.
SeedhouseP. (2004). The organization of turn taking and sequence in language classrooms. Language Learning, 54, 101–40.
42.
ShintaniN. (2011a). A comparative study of the effects of input-based and production-based instruction on vocabulary acquisition by young EFL learners. Language Teaching Research, 15, 137–58.
43.
ShintaniN. (2011b). Task-based language teaching vs. traditional production-based instruction: Do they result in different classroom processes?University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 6, 1–24.
44.
ShintaniN.EllisR. (2010). The incidental acquisition of English plural -s by Japanese children in comprehension-based and production-based lessons. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 607–37.
45.
SinclairJ.M.CoulthardM. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
46.
SwainM. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In GassS.MaddenC. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–56). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
47.
SwanM. (2005). Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 26, 376–401.
48.
TinkhamT. (1993). The effect of semantic clustering on the learning of second language vocabulary. System, 21, 371–80.
49.
TonoY. (2000). A computer learner corpus based analysis of the acquisition order of English grammatical morphemes. In Lewandowska-TomaszczykB.MeliaP.J. (Eds.), Rethinking language pedagogy from a corpus perspective: The 3rd International Conference on Teaching and Language Corpora (pp. 123–32). Berlin: Peter Lang.
50.
VanPattenB. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
51.
Van den BrandenK. (1997). Effects of negotiation on language learners’ output. Language Learning, 47, 589–636.
52.
VanPattenB.CadiernoT. (1993). Input processing and second language acquisition: A role for instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 77, 45–57.
53.
VanPattenB.OikkenonS. (1996). Explanation vs. structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 495–510.
