This study explored the potential effects of communicative tasks developed using a reformulation of a task-based language teaching called Automatization in Communicative Contexts of Essential Speech Sequences (ACCESS) that includes automatization of language elements as one of its goals on learner attention to form in task-based interaction. The interaction data collected from a class for English as a second language (ESL) over a four-week period was analysed for incidence, outcome and characteristics (i.e. focus, initiation, response, and turn length) of language-related episodes (LREs) operationalized as evidence of learner attention to form. The results showed that during ACCESS task-based interactions, learners attended to form as reflected in a large number of LREs. Despite being brief, a majority of these LREs were correctly resolved, self-initiated, self- and other-responded, and focused on the target linguistic item: past-tense verbs. These results are discussed in terms of the potential effects of ACCESS task principles, different task features (i.e. task complexity, pre-task modeling, speaker role and group size), and learners’ approach to tasks on the incidence and characteristics of LREs.
AdamsR. (2007). Do second language learners benefit from interacting with each other? In: MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 29–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2.
AljaafrehA.LantolfJ.P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 465–483.
3.
BygateM. (2001). Effect of task repetition on the structure and control of language. In: BygateM.SkehanP.SwainM. (Eds.), Task-based learning: Language teaching, learning and assessment (pp. 23–48). London: Longman.
4.
BygateM.GatbontonE., (2015). Designing and using task repetition for the classroom. Paper presented at the Task-Based Language Teaching conference, Leuven, Belgium.
5.
ColinaA.A.García-MayoM.P. (2007). Attention to form across collaborative tasks by low-proficiency learners in an EFL setting. In: García-MayoM.P. (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 91–116). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
6.
CollinsL.TrofimovichP.WhiteJ.CardosoW.HorstM. (2009). Some input on the easy/difficult grammar question: An empirical study. Modern Language Journal, 93, 336–353.
7.
CoughlanP.DuffP.A. (1994). Same task, different activities: Analysis of a SLA task from an activity theory perspective. In: LantolfJ.P.ApplesG. (Eds.), Vygotskian approach to second language research (pp. 173–194). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
8.
DobaoA.F. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 40–58.
9.
DoughtyC.WilliamsJ. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In: DoughtyC.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197–261). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
EllisN. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143–188.
11.
EllisR. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12.
EllisR. (2005). Planning and task-based performance: Theory and research. In: EllisR. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 77–100). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
13.
FosterP. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 19, 1–23.
14.
FosterP.SkehanP. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–323.
15.
García-MayoM.P. (2002). Interaction in advanced EFL pedagogy: A comparison of form-focused activities. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 323–341.
16.
GassS. (2003). Input and interaction. In: DoughtyC.LongM. (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224–255). Oxford: Blackwell.
17.
GatbontonE. (1994). The bridge to fluency: Speaking 1. Scarborough, ON: Prentice-Hall.
18.
GatbontonE.SegalowitzN. (2005). Rethinking communicative language teaching: A focus on access to fluency. Canadian Modern Language Review, 61, 325–353.
19.
GatbontonE.SegalowitzN.YanchakT. (2011). TBLT Input frequency and the acquisition of past tense morphology. Paper presented at the 4th Annual TBLT Conference, Auckland, New Zealand.
20.
GatbontonE.IwashitaN.DaoP.YangC. (2013). Utterances repetition in TBLT, the role it plays in SLA. Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics Annual Conference, Dallas, TX, USA.
21.
HarleyB.SwainM. (1984). The interlanguage of immersion students and its implications for second language teaching. In: DaviesA.CriperC.HowattA. (Eds.), Interlanguage (pp. 291–311). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
22.
HorstM. (2010). How well does teacher talk support incidental vocabulary acquisition?Reading in a Foreign Language, 22, 161–180.
23.
HorstM.CobbT.MearaP. (1998). Beyond a clockwork orange: acquiring second language vocabulary through reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 11, 207–233.
24.
IzumiS.BigelowM. (2000). Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition?TESOL Quarterly, 34, 239–278.
25.
KartchavaE.GatbontonE. (2014). ACCESS-TBLT and adult ESL learners’ noticing of corrective feedback. CONTACT-Refereed Proceedings of TESL Ontario Research Symposium, 40, 32–50.
26.
KimY. (2008). The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 114–130.
27.
KimY. (2013). Promoting attention to form through task repetition in a Korean EFL context. In: McDonoughK.MackeyA. (Eds.). Second language interaction in diverse educational context (pp. 3–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
28.
KimY.McDonoughK. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research, 12, 211–234.
29.
KimY.McDonoughK. (2011). Using pretask modelling to encourage collaborative learning opportunities. Language Teaching Research, 15, 183–199.
30.
KowalM.SwainM. (1997). From semantic to syntactic processing: How can we promote metalinguistic awareness in the French immersion classroom? In: JohnsonR.SwainM. (Eds.), Immersion education: International perspective (pp. 284–309). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31.
LeeserM.J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8, 55–81.
32.
LongM.H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–141.
33.
LongM.H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In: RitchieW.C.BahatiaT.K. (Eds.), Handbook of research on language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York: Academic Press.
34.
LongM.RobinsonP. (1998). Theory, research and practice. In: DoughtyC.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35.
LoschkyL.Bley-VromanR. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In: CrookesG.GassS.M. (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 123–167). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
LysterR. (1998a). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51–81.
38.
LysterR. (1998b). Form in immersion classroom discourse: In or out of focus?Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics/Revue Canadienne De Linguistique Appliquee, 1, 53–82.
39.
LysterR.RantaL. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.
40.
MackeyA. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of acquisition formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557–587.
41.
MackeyA. (2012). Input, interaction and corrective feedback in L2 classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
42.
MackeyA.GassS. (2006). Input, interaction and output: An overview. AILA Review, 19, 3–17.
43.
MackeyA.PhilpJ. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: recasts, response, and red herring?Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356.
44.
MearaP.LightbownP.HalterR. (1997). Classroom as lexical environments. Language Teaching Research, 1, 28–47.
45.
NassajiH. (1999). Towards integrating form-focused instruction and communicative interaction in the second language classroom: Some pedagogical possibilities. Canadian Modern Language Review, 55, 385–402.
46.
NassajiH.TianJ. (2010). Collaborative and individual output tasks and their effects on learning English phrasal verbs. Language Teaching Research, 14, 397–419.
47.
NiuR. (2009). Effect of task-inherent production modes on EFL learners’ focus on form. Language Awareness, 18, 384–402.
48.
OrtegaL. (2005). What do learners plan? Learner-driven attention to form during pre-task planning. In: EllisR. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 77–100). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
49.
OrtegaL. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder Education.
50.
PaulstonC.B. (1971). The sequencing of structural pattern drills. TESOL Quarterly, 5, 197–208.
51.
PhilpJ.WalterS.BasturkmenH. (2010). Peer interaction in the foreign language classroom: What factor foster a focus on form?Language Awareness, 19, 261–279.
52.
PicaT. (2002). Subject-matter content: How does it assist the interactional and linguistic needs of classroom language learners. Modern Language Journal, 86, 1–19.
53.
RévészA. (2009). Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 437–470.
54.
RiversW.M. (1972). Talking off the tops of their heads. TESOL Quarterly, 6, 71–81.
55.
RobinsonP. (2001a). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for investigating task influences on SLA. In: RobinsonP. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287–318). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56.
RobinsonP. (2001b). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57.
57.
RobinsonP. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 43, 1–32.
58.
RobinsonP. (2011). Task-based language learning: A review of issues. Language Learning, 61, 1–36.
59.
RobinsonP.GilabertR. (2007). Task complexity, the cognition hypothesis and second language learning and performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 161–176.
SamudaV. (2001). Guiding relationship between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher. In: BygateM.SkehanP.SwainM. (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing. Harlow: Pearson Education.
62.
SchneiderW.CheinJ.M. (2003). Controlled and automatic processing: Behavior, theory, and biological mechanisms. Cognitive Science, 27, 525–559.
63.
SegalowitzN. (2000). Automaticity and attentional skill in fluent performance. In: RiggenbachH. (Ed.), Perspectives on fluency (pp. 200–219). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
64.
SercuL.De WachterL.PetersE.KuikenF. (2006). The effect of task complexity and task conditions on foreign language development and performance. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 152, 55–84.
65.
ShehadehA. (2001). Self- and other-initiated modified output during task-based interaction. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 433–457.
66.
SpadaN.LightbownP.M. (1993). Instruction and the development of questions in L2 classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 205–224.
67.
SterlacciP. (1996). A micro-evaluation of a focused communication task for the ESL/EFL classroom. Unpublished course paper, Tokyo, Japan.
68.
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. 235–252). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
69.
SwainM. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In: CookG.SeidlhoferB. (Ed.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
70.
SwainM. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In: DoughtyC.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
71.
SwainM.LapkinS. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391.
72.
SwainM.LapkinS. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337.
73.
TomaselloM.HerronC. (1989). Feedback for language transfer errors: The garden path technique. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 385–395.
74.
TothP.D. (2008). Teacher- and learner-led discourse in task-based grammar instruction: Providing procedural assistance for L2 morphosyntactic development. Language Learning, 58, 237–283.
75.
TuzE. (1993). From controlled practice to communicative activity: Does training transfer?Temple University Japan Research Studies in TESOL, 1, 97–108.
76.
WatanabeY.SwainM. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11, 121–142.
77.
WatanabeY.SwainM. (2008). Perception of learner proficiency: Its impact on the interaction between an ESL learner and her higher and lower proficiency partners. Language Awareness, 17, 115–130.
78.
WilliamsJ. (2001). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 51, 303–346.
79.
WillisD.WillisJ. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
80.
WrayA. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
81.
YuleG.MacdonaldD. (1990). Resolving referential conflict in L2 interaction: The effect of proficiency and interactive role. Language Learning, 40, 539–556.
