Complementary Theoretical Perspectives

on Task-Based Classroom Realities

DANIEL O. JACKSON
Kanda University of International Studies
Chiba, Japan
ALFRED RUE BURCH
Rice University
Houston, Texas, United States

Tasks are viewed as a principled foundation for classroom teaching,

social interaction, and language development. This special issue
sheds new light on how task-based classroom practices are supported
by a diverse range of principles. This introduction describes current
trends in classroom practice and pedagogic research in relation to
task-based language teaching (TBLT), offering a rationale for revisit-
ing the TESOL profession’s understandings of the uses of tasks in
language classrooms. It then summarizes the contributions appearing
in this issue, which address topics including: interaction in task plan-
ning and completion, the use of tasks to support writing develop-
ment, learner perceptions and interpretations of tasks, and the
relationship between autonomy and TBLT. Collectively, these contri-
butions advance complementary theoretical perspectives on class-
room learning and teaching in diverse EFL and ESL settings. Overall,
they reflect the broadening scope of second language acquisition the-
ory while maintaining a tight focus on classroom realities.

doi: 10.1002/tesq.393

T asks are increasingly viewed as a principled foundation for class-

room teaching, social interaction, and language development. This
special issue sheds new light on how task-based classroom practices
are, in fact, supported by a diverse range of principles. But first, what
is a task? For the sake of simplicity, consider Bygate, Skehan, and
Swain’s (2001) all-purpose definition, based on their authoritative
review of numerous sources, beginning with Long (1985) and leading
up to Skehan (1998). Distilled from over a decade of scholarly writing,
Bygate and colleagues offered several definitions to suit different

TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 51, No. 3, September 2017 493

© 2017 TESOL International Association
purposes, the most basic of which defines a task as “an activity which
requires learners to use language, with an emphasis on meaning, to
attain an objective” (Bygate et al., 2001, p. 11). This characterization is
both extensively supported by the pedagogic literature and sufficiently
broad enough to include the wide range of classroom operationaliza-
tions of tasks encountered in real-world language teaching contexts.
For present purposes, it also allows room for expansion and refine-
ment by the contributors to this special issue, for whom tasks, at their
core, involve learners using language, making meaning, and accom-
plishing relevant goals. Note, as well, that a certain level of abstraction
is useful at the outset because tasks need to be customized (in terms
of content, design, and implementation) in order to effectively engage
a wide range of classroom users.
Although its roots have been traced to earlier advances in the phi-
losophy of education and applied linguistics, task-based language
teaching (TBLT) as a pedagogic innovation has come of age in the
21st century (Bygate, 2015; Long, 2015; Samuda & Bygate, 2008; Van
den Branden, Bygate, & Norris, 2009). To be sure, many TESOL pro-
fessionals likely first encountered principled notions of tasks as teach-
ing tools through earlier publications, such as those by Prabhu (1987),
Nunan (1989), and Willis (1996). These volumes offered lasting
impressions of what tasks may offer to language programs. In addition,
early on, there had already been an active push among researchers to
explore and expand the boundaries of second language acquisition
(SLA) within task-based interaction, resulting in a number of key arti-
cles in this domain published in TESOL Quarterly (including work by
Rod Ellis, Mike Long, and Tere Pica, along with their colleagues). Yet,
recent work in the areas of L2 teaching and learning has increasingly
continued to shape the field’s understanding of how tasks are imple-
mented in language education settings in ways described in the next
section.

CURRENT TRENDS

General trends in two areas, the first related to the use of tasks in
language teaching practice and the second, to the scope and import
of research on TBLT, are sketched below.

Task-Based Classroom Practice

Both the role of tasks in language curricula, as well as the role of

the teacher in task-based lessons, have become major focal issues. As

494 TESOL QUARTERLY

Kumaravadivelu (2006) put it, tasks are “not inextricably linked to any
one particular language teaching method” (p. 95). They are instead
perhaps best thought of as units within curriculum design, which can
either be of major or relatively minor significance. Accordingly, the
acronym TBLT can be used as a generic term for at least two versions
of language teaching: task-based and task-supported.1 In the former,
tasks define the curriculum and its development, spanning needs anal-
ysis, task selection, materials development, classroom teaching, learner
assessment, and program evaluation (Long, 2015; Norris, 2009),
whereas in the latter tasks may support non–task-related curricular
objectives such as language foci in a structural syllabus (Ellis, 2003).
Here, TBLT refers to both variants, precisely because this special issue
concerns the roles that tasks play at the classroom level, and not exclu-
sively their role as curricular components.
Turning to the teacher’s role, although tasks are already an estab-
lished part of many teachers’ repertoires (Richards & Rodgers, 2001)
one must also acknowledge possible constraints on the adoption of
task-based teaching, including its (a) feasibility, (b) perceived advan-
tages and disadvantages, and (c) compatibility with current beliefs and
practices (Markee, 1997). For several years, research has addressed
teachers’ perceptions of task-based curricula introduced by education
ministries at regional levels (e.g., Carless, 2004; East, 2012; Van den
Branden, 2006), indicating that, while tasks are often viewed as
promising, various challenges indeed remain. On the other hand,
these and other studies have begun to analyze closely what teachers
think and do when they are designing (Johnson, 2003) or implement-
ing (Samuda, 2015) tasks, in order to understand and enhance their
pedagogic value, although more work is needed in these areas. The
articles in this special issue highlight, in different ways, the complex
and dynamic interactions among teachers, learners, and tasks.

Tasks in Pedagogic Research

This special issue proposes that it is timely to look to research for

the purpose of revisiting the TESOL profession’s understandings of
the uses of tasks in language classrooms, based on several assumptions.
These are summarized as follows.

Research serves multiple roles in fostering educational practice. To

begin, there are good reasons to consult research for pedagogic

1
This usage is also reflected in the name of the biennial TBLT conference, which has fea-
tured work that is both task-based and task-supported. See www.tblt.org.

INTRODUCTION 495
insights. In defense of TQ articles containing pedagogical implications,
Chapelle (2007) noted that this journal is “defined by its relevance to
TESOL practice” (p. 404). And yet, one can ask precisely how theoreti-
cally motivated research makes itself relevant to actual classroom prac-
tices. Bearing in mind Hatch’s (1978) advice to apply with caution, at
least three views can be identified concerning the potential relation-
ship between SLA research and language teaching.
First, perhaps the most prominent view takes research to be one rel-
evant (albeit insufficient) source of knowledge about teaching that can
be formulated as either (a) principles (Doughty & Long, 2003; Ellis,
2003), (b) generalizations (Lightbown, 2000), or (c) findings to which
pedagogic claims may be compared (Ellis & Shintani, 2014). For
instance, the approach taken by Long (2015, p. 301) puts forth 10
task-based methodological principles driven by SLA research, which
can be realized by pedagogic procedures, or the range of options
teachers have available in determining how such principles may best
be enacted in the classroom.
It is worth noting that the role of theoretical principles in relation
to educational practice and classroom realities is neither fixed nor sta-
tic. As Breen, Hird, Milton, Oliver, and Thwaite (2001) have stated, “a
single principle held by the individual teacher may be realized in
action through several distinct practices. Conversely, a single practice
may be an expression of more than one principle” (p. 495). Tasks
offer an interesting vantage point from which to examine this state-
ment because their classroom use may be supported by many conver-
gent principles within contemporary SLA theory, which is expanding.
At the same time, their realization is influenced heavily by local needs,
practices, and beliefs.
Second, it has also been argued that research can serve as a site for
various, often mutually beneficial, relationships between teachers and
researchers (Pica, 1998). These may include collaboration in joint
research based on mutual interests, or the carrying out of compatible
work to foster shared goals, among other possibilities. The connection
with TBLT becomes clear when considering the full range of roles and
responsibilities involved in assessing needs, selecting tasks, developing
materials, teaching lessons, and assessing progress, among other
duties. For example, Pica, Kang, and Sauro (2006) described how a
team of teachers and researchers collaborated to design and imple-
ment a series of researchable tasks in a university English as a second
language (ESL) classroom that built directly upon established curricu-
lum content.
Third, research can be viewed as a process embedded with values,
which may (or may not) serve educational needs (Ortega, 2005). This
is a different metaphor for the research–practice connection, and one

496 TESOL QUARTERLY

which assumes that research needs to be examined in terms of its
social utility; thus, criteria for evaluating language teaching research
must include not only its methodological rigor, but its practical signifi-
cance for education. Ortega also stressed that research should seek to
embody diversity in terms of differing theoretical and methodological
approaches (a point returned to below). As part of their professional
literacy, readers of this journal no doubt consider the ethical choices
expressed (often tacitly) by research and this may influence their views
on TBLT. In these ways, research may be a source, a site, or a process
that can potentially inform—or, more optimistically, transform—
language instruction.

A researched pedagogy must focus on classroom realities. Few, if

any areas, offer a closer coupling between L2 research and teaching
practice than TBLT currently does. As Long has claimed, “TBLT is the
closest thing to a researched language pedagogy that exists” (2015,
p. 343). Tasks have become established as a central component in one
approach to developing a researched pedagogy, or teaching practices
closely examined in terms of implementation, operation, and out-
comes (Leung, 1993, cited in Bygate et al., 2001; see for discussion
Van den Branden, 2016). This definition implies a wide range of sys-
tematic studies, varying in focus. Implementation studies have shown
how task-based approaches can successfully be expanded to the regio-
nal level (Van den Branden, 2006), and have revealed how local teach-
ers’ concerns may constrain task use (Carless, 2004). Process studies
focus tightly on the task-in-process operations that teachers must carry
out to breathe life into classroom tasks, indicating that there is often
much more to effective TBLT than well-designed materials (Samuda,
2015). Increasingly, outcomes studies yield evidence to support meta-
analyses demonstrating the magnitude of the effects of task-based
learning. Such effects include the link between task-based interaction
and the acquisition of lexical and grammatical features (Keck, Iberri-
Shea, Tracy-Ventura, & Wa-Mbaleka, 2006), as well as the impact of
task complexity on learners’ narrative production in terms of complex-
ity, accuracy, and fluency (Jackson & Suethanapornkul, 2013). This
research is augmented by valuable insights from process–product stud-
ies, which examine classroom processes and learning outcomes
together, as in Shintani’s (2016) exemplary study of Japanese chil-
dren’s acquisition of English.
In order for language teaching professionals to clearly see its value,
it is crucially important that the subfield of TBLT continue to be able
to justify itself as a researched pedagogy. In doing so, it is necessary to
not lose sight of the meaning of pedagogy. In fact, Bygate (2016)
argued that TBLT must do more to engage with the real world of

INTRODUCTION 497
institutionally defined language classrooms, thus raising questions of
how task engagement is shaped by teachers and learners, as well as of
how particular tasks are chosen to support curricula. The upshot is
that TBLT research can do more to train its theoretical lens on pro-
cesses and outcomes related to the realities of classroom life, in terms
of task selection and task use. For this reason, this issue emphasizes
classroom-based (in contrast to classroom-oriented; Nunan, 1991) stud-
ies, on the grounds that these should directly address, in some way,
the realities of teaching and learning in local settings.

Tasks play a key role in the shifting landscape of SLA

theory. Finally, given this close link between research and teaching,
views on TBLT are bound to change in line with changing theoretical
perspectives on SLA. Reciprocally, SLA theories may also be affected
by developments within TBLT. It is interesting to consider how
research on tasks is conjoined to three shifts in SLA theory observed
by Ortega (2011). These include a shift (a) from psychological to
social explanations, (b) from abstract to situated views of knowledge,
and (c) from a focus on entities/objects to one on actions/processes
(pp. 167–168). Shifts of this nature were already under way during the
1990s, as seen in publications which drew on sociocultural theory
(SCT) to account for collaborative activity within tasks, including
Swain’s influential contributions (e.g., 1995). This trend has continued
into the present era, with a number of approaches to SLA shedding
light on various aspects of learning through tasks, including further
contributions based on Vygotskian perspectives (e.g., Storch, 2002), as
well as conversation analysis (e.g., Hellermann, 2007; Seedhouse &
Almutairi, 2009), complex systems theory (e.g., D€ ornyei, 2009; Pou-
pore, 2016), language socialization (e.g., Duff & Kobayashi, 2010), and
systemic functional linguistics (e.g., Byrnes, 2014). Importantly, the
new directions in which this theoretical expansion are leading can no
longer be aptly described in terms of an incommensurable cognitive
versus social divide; rather, the emerging visions for the wider SLA
field are those of complementarity, integrativeness, and transdisci-
plinarity (e.g., Atkinson, 2011; Cadierno & Eskildsen, 2015; Douglas
Fir Group, 2015; Ortega, 2005).
Following this lead, we hope that this special issue highlights the
fact that, in addition to its impressive contextual, methodological, and
theoretical diversity, learning by doing and language as usage under-
pin empirical TBLT. The matters confronting learners and teachers
engaging with these possibilities are by no means simple—Klein
(1986) compared the notion of learning a second language while
using it to tailoring ones’ raincoat in the rain—and so it will take mul-
tiple frameworks to account for the complexities involved in learning

498 TESOL QUARTERLY

through usage. These complexities are, in our opinion, ideally viewed
from insiders’ perspectives based on research situated in classroom
settings.

COMPLEMENTARY PERSPECTIVES

This special issue contains seven full-length articles, one contribu-

tion in the Research Issues section, one Forum contribution, and two
book reviews. Collectively, they advance complementary perspectives
on task-based classroom learning and teaching in various ways. They
share a common focus on applying theoretical approaches and/or
examining research constructs that, though less frequently encoun-
tered in the literature thus far, can offer a new lens on major issues in
classroom practice.
The first two contributions, by Kunitz and Skogmyr Marian and Lee
and Burch, employ conversation analysis (CA), a methodology that
allows for fine-grained analysis of participants’ interactions, including
both verbal and embodied behavior and use of materials and artifacts
in the environment. Kunitz and Skogmyr Marian, using the CA-based
learning behavior tracking (Markee, 2008) technique, examine how
small group participants in a Swedish junior high English as a foreign
language (EFL) class orient to the correctness of how they spell the
word disgusting across the planning, presentation, and written phases
of a week-long task. Relying on video recordings and the material arti-
facts produced by the students, these authors highlight the learners’
dynamically shifting epistemic positions vis- a -vis the spelling of the
word as a learning object, their orientation to the teacher’s authority,
and the degree to which they take responsibility for the final outcome.
The study thus draws attention not only to the divergence of the
task-as-workplan and task-as-activity, but also to the importance of
understanding language learning behaviors as being embedded within
learning as a socially situated activity.
Lee and Burch also employ CA to examine a small group interac-
tion during the collaborative task planning phase. However, rather
than a focus on a linguistic form, the authors follow the decision-
making process of three university-level ESL students as they decide
upon using a questionnaire, survey, or interview to conduct research
for a presentation task involving information gleaned from interac-
tions with local university students. The learners’ differing orienta-
tions to task completion, task interpretations, and concerns with
extracurricular practicality lead to lengthy negotiations, disagree-
ments, and compromises, sometimes with contentious results. The
authors argue that this complexity further complicates the well

INTRODUCTION 499
established distinction between task-as-workplan and task-in-process,
suggesting that the learners’ socially visible interpretive activities and
orientations create, for all intents and purposes, a multitude of tasks-
as-workplans that must be collaboratively negotiated through the task
completion process.
The third and fourth articles focus on writing tasks. Yasuda focuses
on a summary writing task in a university EFL course for biology
majors, informed by and analyzed using systemic functional linguistics
(SFL). Yasuda argues that SFL and TBLT can be mutually informative,
with the former providing a framework that defines the goals of writ-
ing tasks in terms of genre and ideational, interpersonal, and textual
metafunctions, and the latter providing a framework for how to teach
these. Her study relies upon students’ written summaries of authentic
materials, pre- and post-instruction questionnaires, and interviews with
focal participants, finding that a focus on genre across the 15-week
task-based course helped to increase the students’ awareness of linguis-
tic and textual features and the importance of writing for specific audi-
ences, while also helping learners to better paraphrase using reporting
verbs and condensing multiple ideas into fewer textual units.
Extending this focus on writing, Mochizuki examines a task that is
familiar in language classrooms (peer feedback) in a context that is
much less studied (PhD students writing dissertations). Using an ethno-
graphic approach relying upon audiorecordings of writing conferences,
interviews with participants, and the written drafts produced by the stu-
dents, and drawing upon activity theory, the author focuses on the con-
tradictions and tensions between the participants and task activities that
emerge in situ as they give and receive feedback on each others’ writing,
including hesitance to critique others’ work, and the dominance of the
native English speakers’ participation, which restrict opportunities for
some learners to participate fully in the task activity. These findings
comprise a contingent needs analysis based upon the task as it is imple-
mented, providing the impetus for suggestions on how to reduce contra-
dictions and tensions for the students and facilitators to more efficiently
balance participation as they work toward the goals of the task.
The next two contributions address learner perceptions of tasks. In
their article, Kim, Jung, and Tracy-Ventura apply insights from
dynamic systems theory (DST). This perspective challenges a number
of assumptions in research to date, such as the stability of learner dif-
ferences in motivation, and thus offers a suitable approach to under-
standing change. Kim and colleagues engage with the theme of
complementarity in two ways. First, they provide an account of local-
ized TBLT, in the classroom context of a one-semester course at a uni-
versity in South Korea. A task-based syllabus was designed around
learners’ future goals (e.g., traveling or working in settings where

500 TESOL QUARTERLY

English is useful), or their everyday lives (e.g., relating aspects of their
university or life experiences to English-speaking acquaintances). Sur-
vey data indicate that student interest in TBLT increased with expo-
sure over three instructional units, while participants noted both
strengths and weaknesses of using tasks. Second, to examine longitudi-
nal changes in perceptions of task difficulty, the authors build on DST
to describe the dynamic nature of responses from one learner, called
Miran, to the series of tasks employed. These analyses, based on meth-
ods which have only recently begun to be used in SLA, show variability
in terms of the subcomponents of Miran’s overall perception toward
TBLT, including emotion and self-confidence. However, over time,
these fluctuating trends ultimately yield a more positive disposition
toward her task experiences.
Subsequently, Aubrey’s study follows up on the notion of enhanc-
ing TBLT by viewing learners’ needs and interests in terms of
communication with peers. Here, this notion is put to the test in a
quasi-experimental study that examined the potential for flow experi-
ences to occur among two groups of Japanese learners. Learner diaries
are used to analyze possible flow among an intra-cultural group versus
an inter-cultural group, which differed in terms of whether they per-
formed a series of five communication tasks paired with another Japa-
nese student or with an international student. The analysis shows that
the frequency of flow-enhancing experiences is consistently higher in
the inter-cultural group, and flow-inhibiting experiences are consis-
tently more frequent in the intra-cultural group. The analysis also
identifies some changes in the strength of specific dimensions of flow,
including learners’ sense of accomplishment and their attention,
based on the series of tasks. This study has implications in terms of
establishing the value of inter-cultural contact in EFL classroom con-
texts and designing tasks with greater potential for generating flow
among learners.
Finally, the last main article, by Vieira, views TBLT through the lens
of an autonomy-oriented, inquiry-based program for initial teacher
education in Portugal. This study analyzes narratives of two beginning
teachers who experimented with tasks, including role-play and debate,
to foster students’ speaking abilities, keeping in sight the goal of lear-
ner autonomy. The projects they implemented for their practicum
show how these teachers emphasize learner choice, real-world lan-
guage use, and engagement with social issues. In the pretask phase,
for instance, both teachers use cooperative enabling tasks to support
students’ deployment of content and language knowledge during the
on-task phase. The author stresses that the use of classroom tasks can
promote autonomy, if accompanied by frameworks which view teach-
ing and learning as empowering. From this perspective, one can begin

INTRODUCTION 501
to see how teachers’ decisions can support task engagement and cur-
ricular goals, recalling concerns voiced by Bygate (2016). Connecting
in another way with the special issue focus, Vieira’s conclusion reflects
on the theory–practice gap, asserting the value of exploration within
this space: “[i]nstead of nurturing an idealised view of language educa-
tion, teacher educators and researchers, as well as teachers, can envis-
age it as an interspace between reality and ideals, where transitional
possibilities for transformation are explored” (p. 711).
The role of praxis, as a two-way interface between theory and prac-
tice, is also a central concern throughout Feryok’s contribution in the
Research Issues section. She cogently presents the case for sociocul-
tural theory in TBLT research by showing how researchers have
aligned themselves with SCT, explaining core concepts in the theory,
and recounting what it has offered in terms of understanding four key
areas of research: (a) social processes, (b) learner interpretations, (c)
collaboration, and (d) negotiation of meaning. Feryok also discusses
how work on language mediation, concept-based instruction, and
dynamic assessment might be fruitfully applied in TBLT studies. In
the Forum, Butler adds to the aforementioned considerations by focus-
ing on the role of affect in TBLT for young learners, or those from
ages 5–12. The complementary theoretical perspective she offers
emphasizes the role of intraindividual variation (i.e., how a learner var-
ies by time, place, and task), which contrasts with the typical approach
of investigating interindividual variation (i.e., how a learner differs
from other learners). This approach fits well within DST, as shown by
Kim et al.’s analyses of Miran’s data (this issue). Thus, Butler’s sugges-
tion that it be applied to understanding emotion and mood among
young learners in task-based settings is particularly timely.

CONCLUDING REMARKS
Taken as a whole, the practical matters addressed by the contribu-
tors to this issue include (a) the roles of interaction in task planning
and completion, particularly in terms of dealing with contingencies;
(b) the use of tasks to support the development of writing; (c) learner
perceptions, interpretations, and reflections upon tasks; and (d) the
interplay between teacher–learner autonomy and task-based instruc-
tion. Two prominent subthemes that emerge are (a) innovation, in
terms of theoretical and methodological approaches to learner pro-
duction and perception; and (b) localization of tasks in contexts of
English language education, representing both EFL and ESL contexts.
We feel that this application of newer theories and methods by
researchers working in various locales strengthens the argument for a

502 TESOL QUARTERLY

diversity of perspectives on classroom tasks. Furthermore, we hope that
these contributions will encourage continued lines of research
integration, ultimately offering the field a richness of views on the the-
ory–practice debate, as well as reaffirming the case for a researched
pedagogy that examines teacher and learner contributions within class-
room contexts, among other key issues.
In conclusion, we can perhaps best summarize the spirit of this spe-
cial issue by paraphrasing a maxim from Bruner (1997, p. 72): depth
demands diversity. Understanding task-based teaching and learning to
the fullest extent requires multiple perspectives. Yet, the reverse is also
true: for various theoretical perspectives to foster understanding, each
one needs to engage deeply with appropriate methods and analyses.
The strength of applying this idea to classrooms is that complementary
perspectives enable one to see things that a single perspective may not
have brought into focus, or would not have brought into focus quite
as clearly.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would first like to thank our colleagues who were involved in the AAAL 2015
panel from which this special issue developed, including John Davis, Shoko
Sasayama, Minyoung Cho, Josephine Lee, and Angela Haeusler, as well as the
many scholars who guided us along the way, including Graham Crookes, Gabriele
Kasper, Peter Robinson, John Norris, Nicole Ziegler, Numa Markee, and Tim Mur-
phey. We would also like to express our gratitude to Brian Paltridge, Ahmar Mah-
boob, and Meaghan McDonnell at TESOL Quarterly for their guidance and
support, and to Lourdes Ortega and Masaki Kobayashi for their generous com-
ments on an earlier version of this introduction. Thanks must also go to the
authors, reviewers, and all those who submitted proposals for this special issue.
Lastly, we would like to give special acknowledgment to our late mentor, Richard
Schmidt. His caring and spirit of open-minded, principled inquiry have been a
source of inspiration and guidance for us and countless others.

THE AUTHORS

Daniel O. Jackson is Associate Professor in the Department of English at Kanda

University of International Studies, where he teaches undergraduate courses and
graduate courses for the MA TESOL program. His research interests include task-
based language teaching (TBLT), individual differences, and teacher cognition.

Alfred Rue Burch is currently a postdoctoral fellow in the Center for Languages
and Intercultural Communications at Rice University. His interests include conver-
sation analysis for second language acquisition (CA-SLA) and interactional
competence, in particular focusing on how SLA topics such as motivation, commu-
nication strategies, and TBLT can be explored and re-specified using conversation
analysis.

INTRODUCTION 503
REFERENCES

Atkinson, D. (2011). Alternative approaches to second language acquisition. New York,

NY: Routledge.
Breen, M. P., Hird, B., Milton, M., Oliver, R., & Thwaite, A. (2001). Making sense
of language teaching: Teachers’ principles and classroom practices. Applied Lin-
guistics, 22, 470–501. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.4.470
Bruner, J. (1997). Celebrating divergence: Piaget and Vygotsky. Human Develop-
ment, 40, 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1159/000278705
Bygate, M. (Ed.). (2015). Domains and directions in the development of TBLT. Amster-
dam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Bygate, M. (2016). TBLT through the lens of applied linguistics: Engaging with
the real world of the classroom. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 167,
3–15. https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.167.1.01byg
Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (2001). Introduction. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan,
& M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching
and testing (pp. 1–20). Harlow, England: Pearson Education.
Byrnes, H. (2014). Linking task and writing for language development: Evidence
from a genre-based curricular approach. In H. Byrnes & R. M. Manch on
(Eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 237–
263). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Cadierno, T., & Eskildsen, S. W. (Eds.). (2015). Usage-based perspectives on second lan-
guage learning. Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.
Carless, D. (2004). Issues in teachers’ reinterpretation of a task-based innovation
in primary schools. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 639–662. https://doi.org/10.2307/
3588283
Chapelle, C. (2007). Pedagogical implications in TESOL Quarterly? Yes, please!
TESOL Quarterly, 41, 404–406. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb
00068.x
D€
ornyei, Z. (2009). Individual differences: Interplay of learner characteristics and
learning environment. Language Learning, 59, 230–248. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00542.x
Doughty, C. J., & Long, M. H. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for
distance foreign language learning. Language Learning and Technology, 7, 50–80.
Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num3/doughty/
Douglas Fir Group. (2015). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilin-
gual world. Modern Language Journal, 100, 19–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.
12301
Duff, P. A., & Kobayashi, M. (2010). The intersection of social, cognitive, and cul-
tural processes in language learning: A second language socialization approach.
In R. Batstone (Ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learn-
ing (pp. 75–93). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
East, M. (2012). Task-based language teaching from the teachers’ perspective. Amsterdam,
The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis, R., & Shintani, N. (2014). Exploring language pedagogy through second language
acquisition research. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hatch, E. (1978). Apply with caution. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2, 123–143.
Hellermann, J. (2007). The development of practices for action in classroom dya-
dic interaction: Focus on task openings. Modern Language Journal, 91, 83–96.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00503.x

504 TESOL QUARTERLY

Jackson, D. O., & Suethanapornkul, S. (2013). The cognition hypothesis: A synthe-
sis and meta-analysis of research on second language task complexity. Language
Learning, 63, 330–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12008
Johnson, K. (2003). Designing language teaching tasks. New York, NY: Palgrave.
Keck, C. M., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-Ventura, N., & Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2006). Investigat-
ing the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition: A
meta-analysis. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language
learning and teaching (pp. 91–131). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Ben-
jamins.
Klein, W. (1986). Second language acquisition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to post-
method. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lightbown, P. M. (2000). Anniversary article: Classroom SLA research and second
language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 21, 431–462. https://doi.org/10.1093/
applin/21.4.431
Long, M. H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-
based language teaching. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling
and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 77–99). Clevedon, England: Mul-
tilingual Matters.
Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Mal-
den, MA: Wiley.
Markee, N. (1997). Managing curricular innovation. Cambridge, England: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Markee, N. (2008). Toward a learning behavior tracking methodology for CA-for-
SLA. Applied Linguistics, 29, 404–427. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm052
Norris, J. (2009). Task-based teaching and testing. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty
(Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 578–594). Oxford, England: Black-
well.
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge, Eng-
land: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (1991). Methods in second language classroom-oriented research: A
critical review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 249–274. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S0272263100009967
Ortega, L. (2005). For what and for whom is our research? The ethical as a trans-
formative lens in instructed SLA. Modern Language Journal, 89, 427–443.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2005.00315.x
Ortega, L. (2011). SLA after the social turn: Where cognitivism and its alternatives
stand. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition
(pp. 167–180). Abingdon, England: Routledge.
Pica, T. (1998). The teacher–researcher relationship: Multiple perspectives and
possibilities. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 14, 1–23. Retrieved from
http://repository.upenn.edu/wpel/vol14/iss1/1/
Pica, T., Kang, H.-K., & Sauro, S. (2006). Information gap tasks: Their multiple
roles and contributions to interaction research methodology. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 28, 301–338. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310606
013X
Poupore, G. (2016). Measuring group work dynamics and its relation with L2
learners’ task motivation and language production. Language Teaching Research,
20, 710–740. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815606162
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.

INTRODUCTION 505
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching
(2nd ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Samuda, V. (2015). Tasks, design and the architecture of pedagogical spaces. In
M. Bygate (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT: A decade of ple-
naries from the international conference (pp. 271–302). Amsterdam, the Nether-
lands: John Benjamins.
Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. Basingstoke,
England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Seedhouse, P., & Almutairi, S. (2009). A holistic approach to task-based interac-
tion. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, 311–338. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00243.x
Shintani, N. (2016). Input-based tasks in foreign language instruction for young learners.
Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Benjamins.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52,
119–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00179
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In
G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies
in honor of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.
Van den Branden, K. (Ed.). (2006). Task-based language education: From theory to
practice. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Van den Branden, K. (2016). The role of teachers in task-based language educa-
tion. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 164–181. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0267190515000070
Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M., & Norris, J. (Eds.). (2009). Task-based language
teaching: A reader. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow, England: Longman.

506 TESOL QUARTERLY