Task-Based Versus Task-Supported Language Instruction: An Experimental Study
Abstract
This study investigated the effectiveness of task-based and task-supported instruction in the acquisition of the English passive construction—a structure about which learners had limited prior knowledge. A total of 150 Chinese middle school English as a foreign language (EFL) learners were randomly assigned to five groups—one control group who only took the pretest and posttests and four experimental groups who attended a 2-hour treatment session where they performed two dictogloss tasks in groups, each including a reporting phase when the learners took turns to tell the narrative. Among the four experimental groups, one just performed the two oral tasks; a second group received explicit instruction before performing the tasks; a third group received within-task feedback but no explicit instruction; and the fourth group received both explicit instruction and within-task feedback. Treatment effects were gauged via a grammaticality judgment test (GJT) and an elicited imitation test (EIT). On the GJT, the conditions with explicit instruction and/or feedback led to significant gains with explicit instruction plus feedback showing the largest effects. On the EIT, there was no effect for any of the three treatment groups when the data were analyzed for the whole cohort. However, when the learners were subdivided into those with zero and some prior knowledge based on their pretest EIT scores, explicit instruction plus within-task feedback was more effective than the other treatment…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In Li, Zhu and Ellis (2016), gains appeared only on a grammaticality judgement test, not on an elicited oral imitation test, suggesting the feedback produced only explicit knowledge.
“However, the gains were only evident in a grammaticality judgement test, not in an elicited oral imitation test, suggesting that the feedback only resulted in explicit knowledge.”
From Position paper: Moving task-based language teaching forward (2017) · cites this paper as Li, Zhu and Ellis (2016)
In Li, Zhu and Ellis (2016), immediate feedback had some advantage over delayed feedback for learners with prior knowledge of the target structure.
“In this respect, immediate feedback showed some advantage over delayed feedback for those learners that has some prior knowledge of the target structure.”
From Position paper: Moving task-based language teaching forward (2017) · cites this paper as Li, Zhu and Ellis (2016)
In Li, Zhu and Ellis (2016), both immediate and delayed feedback groups improved in accuracy, while the no-feedback group did not.
“Both the immediate and delayed feedback groups showed gains in accuracy whereas the no-feedback group did not.”
From Position paper: Moving task-based language teaching forward (2017) · cites this paper as Li, Zhu and Ellis (2016)
Li, Zhu and Ellis (2016) conducted a classroom-based study.
“Li, Zhu and Ellis (2016) reported a classroom-based study.”
From Position paper: Moving task-based language teaching forward (2017) · cites this paper as Li, Zhu and Ellis (2016)
Cites
Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00136 · Cited by 2,414 · see citing works
Long, M. (1991) · Studies in Bilingualism · doi:10.1075/sibil.2.07lon · Cited by 1,775 · cited 2× · see citing works
“corresponds to Long and Robinson’s (1998) focus on meaning (FonM) condition.”
BackgroundThe effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis
Li, S. (2010) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x · Cited by 941 · cited 4× · see citing works
“In FonM the learners performed two dictogloss tasks without either explicit instruction or corrective feedback. In FonF, the learners performed the tasks and received corrective recasts when they committed errors in the target structure (past passive). This corresponds to what Long (2015) would consider “pure task-bas…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationAT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE
Ellis, N. C. (2005) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s027226310505014x · Cited by 893 · cited 6× · see citing works
“All target items were ungrammatical—as previous research suggests that learners’ judgments of ungrammatical items provides a clearer measure of explicit knowledge (R. Ellis, 2005; Gutiérrez, 2013).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialORAL FEEDBACK IN CLASSROOM SLA: A Meta-Analysis
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263109990520 · Cited by 838 · see citing works
INPUT, INTERACTION, AND SECOND LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT: An Empirical Study of Question Formation in ESL
Mackey, A. (1999) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263199004027 · Cited by 772 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Position paper: Moving task-based language teaching forward
Ellis, R. (2017) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s0261444817000179 · Cited by 267 · see citing works
Self-citationInstructed second language acquisition (ISLA)
Long, M. M. (2017) · Instructed Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1558/isla.33314 · Cited by 108 · see citing works
- Authors
- Li, S., Ellis, R., & Zhu, Y.
- Affiliations
- Shanghai International Studies University (CN)
- Fudan University (CN)
- Venue
- Annual Review of Applied Linguistics
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2016-03
- Volume
- 36
- Pages
- 205-229
- ISSN
- 0267-1905 (ISSN-L)
- 1471-6356
- OpenAlex
- W2313680827
- Cited by
- 151
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6
- FWCI
- 91.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (publishedVersion)
- eSpace (Curtin University) (submittedVersion)
- ResearchSpace (University of Auckland) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistics and Language Analysis
- Keywords
- English passive voice, English as a foreign language, Chinese learners of English, dictogloss, explicit grammar instruction, prior knowledge, grammaticality judgment, elicited imitation, second language grammar acquisition
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review