Learning and Teaching Grammar in a Second Language - Essay Example

Introduction Endeavoring to learn a second language can be extremely daunting and rewarding at the same time. To be able to successfully communicate in a foreign language, students must learn not only the structural formation of the language, but certain cultural nuances as well. Since so much of a language is ‘caught’ rather than ‘taught’, individuals must move beyond simple explanations of grammar and move towards critical and creative thinking skills. Grammar is, however, essential to the overall language development of the individual. Linguists have spent decades trying to determine the most effective way to enhance a person’s grammar skills, while still teaching other essential components of the language that will enable the student to comprehend and communicate with ease (Richards, 2002). The task-based method of teaching and learning grammar has long been proposed as such a language learning mechanism (Foster & Sekhan, 1999, p. 215). While not one technique is effective 100% of the time, task-based learning has shown great success in the teaching of a foreign language (Foster & Sekhan, 1999, p. 216). Taking concepts learned in class, students are expected to them perform various tasks in the language that they are learning. Long lectures and pedagogy on the finer points of grammar is not encouraged. Practice and interaction is to be the norm during task-based teaching and learning. Some may criticize this method for not taking into account grammar. Grammar may be considered more suitable to a traditional type of classroom environment, as opposed to an environment where task-based teaching is the norm. Task-based learning, however, will be shown to be a practical and useful way to get second language learners to the point of grammar mastery (Toth, 2008). This essay will begin by introducing the task-based teaching and learning method of second language acquisition, discuss its principles and relevant theory, and attempt to ascertain its effectiveness in teach grammar skills to second language students. 2. Task-Based Teaching and Learning Defined The definition of task-based learning has evolved over the course of the past three decades. There are many variations of this important teaching and learning methodology, but perhaps one should start by looking at the very meaning of the word ‘task’. A task is performed either individually or corporately, usually with some end result in mind (Lynch, 1997, p. 318). This end result could be that a reward is sought, such as a salary at the end of the month, or for self-satisfaction, as in admiring a piece of art that was just finished (Lynch, 1997, p. 318). With this definition of task, we can think of many examples. A task can be putting together a piece of furniture, picking out clothes for your children to wear to school, our cooking a family dinner. Each of these functions carries with it a goal that the individual hopes to achieve (Lynch, 1997, p. 319). Such it is with teaching and learning as well. Nunan (1989) introduces task based learning by writing, “The communicative task is a piece of classroom work which involves learners in comprehending, manipulating, or interacting in the target language while their attention is principally focused on meaning rather than form” (p. 10). In other words, for every task that an individual sets out to do, there must be an eventual finishing point or goal. The task is completed when the perceived goal is accomplished, not before. This certainly can be seen as the basis for task-based teaching and learning. An educator clearly states an objective to the class, demonstrates the task, and then the learner is expected to replicate that task. If the replication proves successful, then mastery is achieved. Early efforts at task based learning stemmed from a desire to encourage students of a foreign language to stop focusing on the language itself, and instead concern themselves with focusing their minds on a specific task related to grammar or communication. Task based learning, then, is a shift away from traditional types of language instruction, under which a teacher gives out knowledge to the student, but the student does little in return. This type of learning encourages students to become passive, which simply does not work when learning a second language. Linguists have long determined that language learners must become active and must be encouraged to use the words and the grammar that they are given in each lesson (Cook, 1995). Tasked based learning, then, is an attempt to do just this as it is a more student-focused and individually tailored method of language learning. A tasked based learning classroom is designed to be student-centered. Each individual student needs to play an active role in the classroom environment and they should be able to process the knowledge imparted to them each day by performing a series of task related activities. The initial concern when developing this system is that, while it seems to work well for conversation based activities, there seems to be little room for grammar (Nunan, 2004). Learning grammar is an essential part to effective communication, so it can be argued that the two concepts go hand in hand. In order to communicate effectively in a second language, students must not only learn vocabulary, but they must be able to internalize the actual structure of a language. Grammar must be applied to task based learning in order for the technique to truly take hold and for the learner to achieve their fluency goals. As tasked based learning has been further defined through the decades, grammar has become a critical part of this. It was decided (Ellis, 1997) that the teaching of grammar should not just be recitation of various rules, as taught in a classroom setting. If that were the case, language students would not be able to think critically through how to apply each rule of grammar to their own conversations. Tasked based learning would have the student perform various tasks in a situational environment that encourages the practical use of grammar skills studied in the classroom (Nunan, 2004). 3. The Basic Principles of Task Based Learning Task based learning begins with the teacher. Teachers of second language learners need to create lessons with clear objectives that lead towards a student mastering a particular skill or concept. This begins by encouraging them to get involved in the lesson and to perform a series of tasks on their own, or in a group (Foster & Sekhan, 1999, p. 238). It is important that any task given is readily accessible by the student and that it is designed for their particular ability level. Some would argue that herein lays another difficult with task-based learning. In a language classroom, there will likely be multiple levels represented (Ellis, 2003). It is difficult to create tasks that can be performed equally by all members of the classroom, requiring much independent practice, which limits the teacher’s ability to accurately assess every student that is present. Each task should be focused and have a clear meaning to the student. It is important to assign tasks that quickly get students communicating something effectively in another language in such a way that is useful to them. The theory behind this is to actually limit the amount of notes taken by a student in class. Instead, they should be encouraged to actually try out the language and, in a way, begin to learn subconsciously. Some, such as Schmidt, believe that grammar must be noticed before it can be mastered. He offers his noticing hypothesis (to be discussed in detail in a bit) as a deterrent to task based learning (Dekeyser, 1993). It is also possible, however, that language students learn grammar best when it is practiced and, thereby, they begin to internalize the various grammatical rules of a given language. Swain, by way of example, offers up her output hypothesis to counter this theory (Doughty, 1998, p. 65). By limiting the note taking process, and expanding the time spend on various communication related tasks, students should begin to see an improvement in their grammar skills overall. Subsequently, communication tasks should have some form of information transference taking place. It is important that the tasks are related to real life and that they can be replicated in the daily life of the student. In this manner, the tasks can continuously be performed and practiced even outside of class time. Tasked based learning also lends itself well to group work. Cooperating with other students can be a great way to accomplish language tasks and goals, particularly related to grammar. By helping one another, students can enable the transfer of knowledge to take place and to complete various activities with the help of others. A final, and perhaps most critical component of tasked based learning, is constructive feedback. Since it is not always possible for a language student to visually see their accomplishments, they must depend on the feedback and evaluation that they receive from their teacher. This is different than other types of language learning mechanisms. Until a student actually performs a task in a foreign language, and they are judged to have done so satisfactorily, they do not really have a reasonable expectation as to their level of attainment (Foster & Sekhan, 1999, p. 238). Without the important feedback stage, tasked based learning would become virtually meaningless as students . 4. Task Based Learning Procedure Task based learning does not necessarily consist of individual language items. Rather, the tasks should focus on the use of language, in increasingly complex stages (Ellis, 2003). This is best done by giving students a practical task and asking them to problem solve the solution or, for the example, the effective conclusion to a conversation. This can best be explained by considering the scaffolding approach to learning. Students gain knowledge daily. Teachers should then build upon that knowledge slowly, so that the skills learned previously can be applied to new tasks and skills that are learned today. In this way, knowledge is not forgotten, because it is continually being used and built upon. Given the principles described thus far, scholars have agreed on a three-part procedure for the incorporation of tasked based learning as it relates to the teaching of English grammar. This involves having a pre-task introduction to the topic. This is where students and teachers will listen, read, and brainstorm different ideas that will become a basis for the daily lesson (Ellis, 2003). The next procedure will then be to actually plan the task. During this stage, the teacher gives clear instructions as to what the student is to accomplish, all the while the teacher must monitor the process and provide direction as needed. The final procedure will take place post-task and will focus on the actual language that was used during the task (Ellis, 2003). This is the feedback stage where the teacher needs to reiterate the goal of the task and the expected outcome. In the end, we must remain aware that individuals generally perform tasks with some reward in mind. For language learners, that reward is the feeling of achievement they get intrinsically when they get positive feedback from their teacher and peers. This should be goal of any task-based learning activity in the language classroom (Ellis, 2003). 5. The Noticing Hypothesis and Its Impact on Task Based Language Learning In a response to linguists trying to further understand how individuals can best acquire a second language, Richard Smith proposed the noticing hypothesis in 1990. This appears to be in direct response to the tasked based learning method of teaching grammar. Schmidt argued that learners are not able to learn certain parts of grammar in a language unless they first notice them (Venkatagiri & Levis, 2009, p. 122). While Schmidt admits that noticing alone did not guarantee a student would master a language, he believes that it was a critical first step towards doing so. Many would agree with Schmidt, while other linguists argue that language learners often learn certain elements of grammar subconsciously, rather or not they actually realize (or notice) that they are doing so (Ligthbrown and Spada, 2006, p. 44). Some critics, such as John Truscott (1998), argue that the basis for the noticing hypothesis is not entirely clear. Truscott argues that Schmidt did not go far enough in developing his hypothesis to really relate exactly how noticing certain elements of a language is critical to the field of language acquisition. He solidifies this belief by writing, “The hypothesis is not based on any coherent theory of language, [so] it is very difficult to determine exactly what it means in this context, or to draw testable predictions on it” (Truscott, 1998, p. 107). This hypothesis, Truscott would argue, should be limited to certain meta cognition areas of language acquisition and knowledge, but it should not be applied to the measure of an individuals overall level of language mastery (Truscott, 1998, p. 111). The noticing hypothesis takes the spontaneity out of language acquisition. Until a learner consciously notices a specific element of the second language they aim to acquire, they will not begin to demonstrate mastery over the language. The learner, then, must be aware of the input that is taking place before they could begin to perform certain tasks . Ironically, this particular hypothesis could be perceived to be effective based on task-based learning principles. Once a student notices the skills that are being taught and modeled by the teacher, they will likely be able to replicate that task via communication in a grammatically correct way. On the other hand, Schmidt argues that if they do not notice something, they will never be able to fully master the language. This takes out the subconscious aspect of language acquisition. For example, some would beg the question of infants and how they acquire a language. Children pick up a language on mere instinct, often subconsciously (Sarkhosh, Soleimani, & Abdeli, 2012, p. 179). In deference to the noticing hypothesis, numerous studies have been conducted through the years in an effort to determine its validity, or lack thereof. Specifically, such studies typically focus on whether or not the actual output in a language it prompted by elements that are noticed by the learner. Subsequent to this, linguists have spent time examining whether or not the output demonstrated by the language learner would have been same if the input was different, such as incorporating a visual element that would negate the noticing hypothesis. Some studies, such as one performed by Izumi at the outset of this century, showed no actual support for the noticing hypothesis. It was discovered that various components of input enhancement on the part of second language learners is equal to that of the output (Izumi, 2002, p. 542). This study, and others like it, tend to indicate a need for teachers and linguists alike to consider the level and type of the learning, coupled with the processing mechanism needed, in order to best decipher how “sensory detection can lead to learning” (Izumi, 2002, p. 542). When considering the noticing hypothesis, and other theories of second language acquisition, one must consider input and output. The noticing hypothesis alone may have it critics, but is must be noted that the central premise is likely sound: Once a language learner understand and recognizes certain grammatical principles in a language, they are likely going to be able to replicate certain sentences and string together an entire conversation (Lightbrown & Spada, 2006). This, however, does not explain away that many language learners do not actually notice certain elements of grammar before they are able to speak correctly. They can do so subconsciously based on certain inputs, as indicated by the study referenced and conducted by Izumi (2002). It would be helpful, therefore, to consider the interaction hypothesis in an effort to balance another commonly held theory that relates to learners of a second language and how they can best master grammar. 6. Interaction Hypothesis Individuals usually learn best when they interact with others (Izumi, 2002, p. 542). Videos, lectures, notes, and other classroom material are great, but until they are actually put into a practice, a student can never really demonstrate mastery over the material. Grammar, while it may look great on paper, is meaningless to a language learner until they are able to practically apply it in a conversation type setting. This forms the basis for the interaction hypothesis. This idea is specifically related to second language acquisition and stipulates that fluency in a second language is helped along when we have personal interaction and communication with others in the language being taught (Johnson, 1999, p. 174). A critical component of the interaction hypothesis is that there must be an input given to the language learner that is comprehensible before fluency can hope to occur. This is best demonstrated when something is said to a second language learner that they simply do not understand. They can either simply give up; thereby negating the language learning process altogether, or they can carry on a constructive interaction with the other person until they fully understand what is being said or communicated. Absent this interaction, the language learner may never fully acquire the second language. To accomplish this understanding, the other speaker may need to slow down their speech, clarify their meaning by using synonyms, or correct the way that they speak certain words (Brown, 2000, p. 288). The issue with the interaction hypothesis is negative feedback. Occasionally, a second language learner may get the feeling that his or her interaction in a second language is accurate when, in fact, it is not. This could be due to frustration on the part of the other party, or simply an unwillingness to try and correct an error, particularly in grammar. This type of interaction can prove counterproductive to the language acquisition process (Richards, 2002, p. 264). The input mechanism of task-based learning is essential as it determines whether or not the output is accurate. The interaction hypothesis certainly explains how language learners are validated in their understanding of certain grammar points. When practicing or performing a task, their language skills can either be validated or invalidated based on the response of the individual on the receiving end of the communication. A second language learner may believe they understand a point or concept in the language, yet when they go to interact with another person they may quickly realized that they have not mastered that skill at all. This would not be realized without the interaction with another individual in that language. On the other hand, if the language learner is not entirely confident rather or not they have mastered a given skill, they can interact with another individual by performing an assigned task. If the other person understands them, then they will begin to feel validated in their comprehension and become ready to move onto another task (Ellis 1997, p. 48). 7. Meaning Negotiation The negotiation of meaning is a major part of the interaction hypothesis and provides the basis by which a second language learner is eventually able to conquer a communicative task, or by which they come to truly grasp a finer point of grammar (Doughty, 1998). To study this process, it is useful to observe the interaction between two separate language groups, each of who are trying to acquire the other’s root language. An example of this would be Japanese students trying to learn English and Australian students attempting to acquire Japanese. This is prime motivation to explore the interaction process and how different learners negotiate meaning with one another. Bower and Kawaguchi (2011) discovered that, “Explicit corrective feedback utilizing conversation logs and exchanged by email achieved high rates of correction both in English and Japanese sessions” (p. 41). No longer do second language learners have to depend on face-to-face communication in order to accomplish task-based learning skills. Technology has ushered TESOL students into a whole new era of e-learning and communicating across cultures. In fact, now individuals desiring to acquire a second language have access to more tools than students who study in a traditional classroom environment. With the use of the Internet and other interactive devices, students have the opportunity to interact with native speakers worldwide. In so doing, they must interact with other, negotiate meaning, and thereby accomplish assigned tasks (Bower and Kawaguchi, 2011, p. 42). Interestingly enough, this lends support to the interactive hypothesis, and to the task-based teaching of grammar as well. Students can acquire a second language even if they do not live near a native speaker in that language. This can be accomplished through distant interactions, the granting of positive feedback by a native speaker or teacher, and the task-based completion of grammar exercises and conversations. In the end, this study revealed that the negotiation of meaning between the two different groups was occurring is synchronous chat sessions, in both English and in Japanese. In fact, the study also indicates that communicating via chat sessions, email, or on the telephone enhanced cultural awareness, thereby increasing the learner’s opportunity to negotiate meaning with their partner (Bower and Kawaguchi, 2011, p. 60). It was also revealed, however, that corrective feedback was limited under this type of communication. This means that grammatical errors often went unnoticed or discussed. This creates a problem for believers in task-based learning because the system will break down if grammar issues are not resolved. The interaction hypothesis enables us to consider the importance of negotiating meaning with other people in order to acquire a second language, but corrective feedback needs to be an essential part of the process (Bower and Kawaguchi, 2011, p. 61). It appears that further research is needed to determine how effective task-based learning and teaching is with the second language learner, specifically as it relates to how students from different cultures negotiate meaning with one another. 8. Provision of Feedback Linguists have long advanced the idea that total immersion is the optimal way to acquire a second language (Ellis, 1997). With few exceptions, this is certainly a valid conclusion, yet leaner’s that are fortunate to thrive under such a situation must still receive proper feedback. The interaction hypothesis can be studied at length when looking at learner’s who are immersed in a foreign language, and the feedback examined can be used to analyze whether or task-based learning and teaching is effective in terms of understanding grammar. It is noted that, “Interaction plays a key role in driving second language development forward because learner rely on semantically contingent speech as a primary source of positive and negative second language data” (Long, 1996, p. 452). Lyster and Mori (2006) have further uncovered a correlation between instructional feedback and the overall communicative aspect of a second language classroom (p. 270). Such feedback in a grammar lesson, for example, should involve specific correction of the task related activity, recasting of the material, or the implementation of prompts into the communication environment (Lyster and Mori, 2006, p. 272). Explicit correction and recasting affords learners the opportunity to reformulate the grammatical structure of a task related activity based on the feedback they have just received. In the tasked-based teaching and learning classroom, the teacher would model the correct grammatical form of the task just completed, clearly inform the student of the part that they said that was incorrect, and then allow the student time to recast and get it right. Studies performed in various second language acquisition settings have shown that this is an effective mechanism for comprehension and retention (Lyster and Moi, 2006, p. 273). This lends further support to the interaction hypothesis and, more specifically, to tasked-based teaching and learner of grammar principles. As students progress in their foreign language ability, it is also important that they begin to self-correct their grammatical and structural errors. The language teacher can facilitate this by the use of prompts. Rather than explicitly correcting every error that the student has made, a prompt, by way of a signal for example, can serve to redirect the student and to catch their error before it is verbally mentioned. Some success in this area has also been demonstrated through the use of questions. If a student is having a difficult time expressing something in the second language, the teacher can ask a series of questions that are designed to lead the student to the correct answer. This is a task related activity that encourages language students to think critically through grammatical and conversational areas of the language, arriving at their own conclusion, rather than having a teacher hand out all of the answers. This could prove to be the most essential part of the interaction hypothesis (Lyster & Ranta, 1997, p. 58). 9. Production of Modified Output It is equally important to study the ability of the second language learner to reproduce a certain word or grammatical structure that they have previously spoken or heard during their interaction in certain task related activities. To study this production of modified output, one study in particular look at language student’s exposure to both prepositions and double-object dative primes. This experiment reveled that syntactic priming only occurred with prepositional datives (McDonough, 2006, p. 179). A second experiment looked only at double object dative primes and uncovered no statistically significant evident to the existence of syntactic priming (McDonough, 2006, p. 179). The production of modified output demonstrates, “That when speakers have a choice between alternative structures, they produce the structure that was previously produced or heard” (McDonough, 2006, p. 181). This shows the need for critical feedback based on the interaction hypothesis. During tasked-based teaching of grammar, it is critical that proper mechanical structure be reinforced in all tasks all of the time. In so doing, the studies performed by McDonough (2006) seem to indicate that production output will gradually improve as second language learners carry out various tasks, such as identifying picture descriptions or identifying errors in their language partner’s description of a picture (p. 183). This allows us to conclude that task-based learning and teaching of grammar can certainly take place if the essential elements are properly implemented into the classroom. 10. Output Hypothesis Having established that task-based teaching and learning is designed to get language students to move away from simple reading and writing activities, and to move towards a more engaging language acquisition environment, it is important that both teacher and students become active participants in the overall process. Linguists propose many different techniques for mastering a foreign language, but they all must involve some type of interaction and practice, either verbally or nonverbally. Swain produced some groundbreaking work in this area by proposing the output hypothesis. “The output hypothesis proposes that through producing language, either spoken or written, language acquisition/learning may occur” (Swain, 1993, p. 159). Swain clearly contends that speaking for just speaking sake is not going to enable a second language learner to achieve fluency. Activities must be meaningful and they should be replicated. Tasked-based teaching of grammar can certainly move a student towards this goal. Teachers need to give students opportunities to speak in class, but task related activities must demand more. The output must balance with the input. Students should be able to recognize grammatical errors, self-correct themselves, and be able to follow teacher-directed prompts (Swain, 1993, p. 161). 11. Problems Inherent to the Output Hypothesis Second language learners depend on accurate feedback that is geared directly at them. In a classroom setting, it is critical that teachers evaluate students individually, and not corporately. Unfortunately, in a large classroom, this becomes quite difficult. The output hypothesis fails to account for the fact that task-based teaching must be purposeful. Each task given the second language student must have a clear goal and push the student’s toward his or her own individually defined language objective. Unlike the input hypothesis, the output hypothesis depends on a metalinguistic function. This requires the second language learner to reflect upon the material covered in a lesson, thereby enabling them to gain control over their output. This also will enable the student to internalize the foreign language, allowing them to understand finer points of grammar subconsciously. Swain and Deters (2007) believe that, “The student should be able to internally reflect on what they have learned” (p. 828). This thinking contradicts the input hypothesis in that Swain theorized language students can make up for gaps in input based on their ability to process concepts previously learned and making connections to produce language that is centrally correct, particularly in so far as grammar is concerned (Swain and Lapkin, 1995, p. 384) 12. The Output Hypothesis and Task-Based Teaching and Learning The output hypothesis and noticing hypothesis are interconnected. The central premise is based on the idea that a second language learner internally understands what they do not, or only partially, know. This manifests itself in a student who knows what they want to say, understands how to say it, but they just cannot seem to speak it correctly. The output hypothesis, in conjunction with task-based learning, enables the second language learner to master these concepts through practice, while verbally communicating in a foreign language in a classroom environment (Lynch, 1997, 319). Finally, it should be noted that the output hypothesis proposed by Swain directly relates to the task-based teaching method of learning grammar. In order for this to be accomplished, it should be understood that the second language learner often realizes when their grammar is not correct. This will be reinforced by the feedback that they receive when performing various tasks, particularly those related to grammar. They will begin to internalize those comments, and through more interaction with the teacher and their peers, the learner will gradually notice an improvement in their overall grammar skills (Swain & Deters, 2007, p. 833). 13. Conclusion It has been established that there is a relationship between task-based teaching/learning and grammar. There are limitations that have been discussed, such as the formation of rules and mechanics, but these can be addressed by utilizing a mixture of teaching methodologies in the second language classroom. Finally, more research is need in the areas of retention and fluency. Once practitioners become convinced that this method of teaching works well in all areas of language instruction, it can be applied in a broader spectrum. Through a discussion of relevant theory and methodology, it has been established that the task based teaching and learning of grammar is effective. A second language, while difficult to acquire, is made easier through a process of noticing and interacting. In addition, various inputs and outputs contribute to the knowledge basis of the language learner, enabling him or her to more quickly achieve fluency than would otherwise be possible. Reference Bower, J., & Kawaguchi, S. (2011). Negotiation of meaning and corrective feedback in Japanese/English eTandem. Language, Learning, and Technology, 15(1), 41-71. Brown, H. (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. White Plains, NY: Longman. Cook, G. (1995). Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dekeyser, R. (1993). The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. The Modern Journal, 77(4). Doughty, C. (1998) Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ellis, R. (1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford Introductions to Language Study. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Foster, P., & Sekhan, P. (1999). The influence of source of planning and focus on planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 3(1), 215-247. Fotos, S., & Ellis, R. (1991). Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 25(4). Izumi, S (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(4), 541-577. Johnson, K. (1999). Interaction hypothesis. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Linguistics: A Handbook for Language Teaching. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Li, B. (2004). Introduction to the theory and practice of task-based learning. Journal of Jining Teachers College, 25(4). Lightbrown, P., & Spada, N. (2006). Explaining second language learning. How Languages Are Learned, 1(1), 29-50. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. Handbook of Second Language acquisition. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Lynch, T. (1997). Nudge, nudge, teacher interventions in task-based learner talk. ELT Journal, 51(4), 317-324. Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 269-300. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37-66. McDonough, K. (2006). Interaction and syntactic priming: English L2 speakers’ production of dative constructions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 179-207. Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J. (2002). Interaction hypothesis. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. London and New York: Longman. Sarkhosh, M., Soleimani, M., & Abdeli, J. (2012). A closer look at noticing hypothesis and focus on form: An overview. International Journal of Linguistics, 4(3), 179. Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50(1), 158-164. Swain, M., & Deters, P. (2007). New mainstream SLA theory: Expanded and enriched. Modern Language Journal, 91, 820-836. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 371-391. Toth, P. (2008). Teacher and learner-led discourse in task-based grammar instruction: Providing procedural assistance of L2 morphosyntactic development. Language Learning, 58(2). Truscott, J. (1998). Noticing in second language acquisition: A critical review. Second Language Research, 14(2), 103-135. Venkatagiri, H., & Levis, J. (2009). Phonological awareness and speech comprehensibility: An exploratory study. Language Awareness, 16(4), 122-129. Read More