Enhancing Automaticity Through Task-based Language Learning
Abstract
In general terms automaticity could be defined as the subconscious condition wherein ‘we perform a complex series of tasks very quickly and efficiently, without having to think about the various components and subcomponents of action involved’ (DeKeyser 2001: 125). For language learning, Segalowitz (2003) characterised automaticity as a more efficient, more accurate, and more stable performance. As such, automaticity is often associated with systematicity and a merely instructional approach. However, task-based learning seems not incompatible with automaticity either, since it incorporates activities that respect ‘transfer-appropriate processing and other positive features of communicative practices’ (Segalowitz 2003: 402) and thus allows students to creatively apply previously acquired knowledge in new communicative contexts. In order to test this assumption, an experiment was conducted at Antwerp University with a group of intermediate-level students of Spanish. Two groups were evaluated: an experimental group and a control group. The control group attended a traditional communicative course, whereas the experimental group's course had a task-based component built into it. The results of the experiment indicate that the experimental group outperformed the control group for automatization (as defined by a number of criteria).
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?
There is now clear evidence that a task-based curriculum is effective in helping learners develop both the linguistic and interactional competence needed to communicate in an L2.
“There is now clear evidence that a task-based curriculum is effective in enabling learners to develop both the linguistic and interactional competence needed to communicate in an L2 (De Ridder et al, 2007;González-Lloret and Nielson, 2015;Shintani, 2016;Van den Branden, 2006).”
From Towards a modular language curriculum for using tasks (2019) · cites this paper as De Ridder et al, 2007
Cites
Hulstijn, J. (2002) · Second Language Research · doi:10.1191/0267658302sr207oa · Cited by 250 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Towards a modular language curriculum for using tasks
Ellis, R. (2019) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168818765315 · Cited by 211 · see citing works
- Authors
- De Ridder, I., Vangehuchten, L., & Gomez, M. S.
- Affiliations
- University of Antwerp (BE)
- ORCID
- Vangehuchten, L.
- Venue
- Applied Linguistics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2007-04-30
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 309-315
- ISSN
- 0142-6001 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-450X
- OpenAlex
- W2078606983
- Cited by
- 97
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 8.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- 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 › Literature and Literary Theory › Second Language Learning and Teaching
- Keywords
- automaticity, task-based language learning, Spanish as a foreign language, automation, transfer-appropriate processing, communicative language teaching, second language acquisition, intermediate learners
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