Tasks Versus Conditions: Two Perspectives on Task Research and Their Implications for Pedagogy
Abstract
This chapter explores the contrast between the effects on second language performance of tasks and task characteristics, on the one hand, and the conditions under which tasks are done, on the other. The first major section explores the evidence on this issue and proposes that the impact of conditions such as pretask planning, task repetition, and posttask activities is greater and more consistent than the impact of tasks and features such as time perspective or number of elements. The second major section explores the theoretical accounts that have been proposed regarding tasks and conditions. It is suggested that deductive accounts have, so far, only had limited success regarding the use of tasks, but that psycholinguistic models of speaking do provide a looser but more useful framework to account for the effects of conditions. It is also suggested that an important difference between tasks and conditions concerns the tension between constraint and flexibility in performance and that the flexibility provided by task conditions is an important component in the more dependable results they have generated. Finally, pedagogic implications are discussed linking task conditions to the methodological choices that are available to teachers.
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?
Skehan (2016) makes a clear distinction between design and implementation options.
“Skehan (2016) makes a clear distinction between design and implementation options.”
From Position paper: Moving task-based language teaching forward (2017) · cites this paper as Skehan (2016)
Skehan concludes that design features do not generate consistency or robust generalizations and that putative manipulations of task complexity may not in reality produce different levels of complexity.
“While he does not reject the impact that design features can have on performance, he concludes that “they do not generate consistency or robust generalizations” (p.37) and that “putative manipulations of task complexity may not in reality produce different levels of complexity” (p.40)”
From Position paper: Moving task-based language teaching forward (2017) · cites this paper as Skehan (2016)
Studies investigating task conditions such as pre-task planning have produced more consistent results than studies of design features.
“and then goes on to argue that studies that have investigated the effect of task conditionssuch as pre-task planning -have produced more consistent results [2].”
From Position paper: Moving task-based language teaching forward (2017) · cites this paper as Skehan (2016)
Cites
The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning1
SCHMIDT, R. W. (1990) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/11.2.129 · Cited by 4,910 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Such a stage would capitalize on the emerging language or the language problems that had been noticed by learners in the earlier task input (Schmidt, 1990) or output (Swain, 1995) and then use such language as the starting point for further pedagogic work, which might be aimed at explicating, or…”
BackgroundToward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue.
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x04000056 · Cited by 2,678 · see citing works
The Influence of Planning and Task Type on Second Language Performance
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263100015047 · Cited by 1,147 · cited 4× · see citing works
“It was first proposed, post hoc, after Foster and Skehan (1996) and Skehan and Foster (1997), where its presence was inferred after performances on certain tasks showed greater accuracy and fluency.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationTheory Construction in Second Language Acquisition
Jordan, G. (2004) · Language Learning & Language Teaching · doi:10.1075/lllt.8 · Cited by 191 · see citing works
Wang, Z. (2014) · Task-Based Language Teaching · doi:10.1075/tblt.5.02wan · Cited by 164 · see citing works
Chapter 6. Effects of task complexity and interaction on L2 performance
Michel, M. C. (2011) · Task-Based Language Teaching · doi:10.1075/tblt.2.12ch6 · Cited by 114 · 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
- Authors
- Skehan, P.
- Affiliations
- St. Mary's University (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Skehan, Peter
- ORCID
- Skehan, Peter
- Venue
- Annual Review of Applied Linguistics
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2016-03
- Volume
- 36
- Pages
- 34-49
- ISSN
- 0267-1905 (ISSN-L)
- 1471-6356
- OpenAlex
- W2335363146
- Cited by
- 162
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 50 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 106.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (publishedVersion)
- 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
- task-based language teaching, task conditions, second language performance, task characteristics, task repetition, task-based language assessment, educational implications
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